1995-04-27_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

American Legion Park Pond . °! ~nvironrnental Assessment Worksheet (LAVY) ar .Keel: e Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the F_AW for the American Legion Park Pond pproect. a appreciate efforts taken by the Grass Lake Watershed Management Or lion . O} to coordinate the project design with appropriate ANR staff, Such efforts facilitate both the environmental review and associated permit processes. The DNR recommends pretreatment of stormwater runoff prior to discharge to wetlands whether or not these wetlands are DNI~ protected waters. Furthermore, basrn retro~rtting such as that offered in this proposal is not a preferred approach for stormwater management purposes. We recognize site specific constraints exist in any situatton, particularly in urban areas. However, watershed stormwater management includes education measures In the form of best management ppractices (BNiPs} as well as hysical modification of the environment. 'This is particularly trot far the Orass Lakc WMO in the c also watershed. Proportionally greater water qq~u, silty benefits are attainable by educating residents, businesses. and other stakeholders of how their individual actions can axnpact water uality in the watershed, especially to wetlands and Lake Ciwasso. We encourage Grass ]Lake O to vigorously pursue such education efforts and to provide meaningful solutions to the problems produced by everyday activities which lead to water quality problems in the watershed. egarding this.proposat, the project will reduce phosphorus loading into Lake Owasso by 6% and should result in some tmprovement in lake water qquality. Efforts should be taken. to improve water quality prior to discharge to DNR protected water #62-?A8 because these benefits will be transmitted to Lake assn. Additionally, the results of.this proposal should be regularly monitored and assessed to ensure that modelled water quaht; benefits actually accrue. ~ offer the following comments for your consideration regarding specific portions of the EAW offered for review. Item 11a states "the SitC is a 11.9 BCfc 1'ypc 2J6 wetland.. ° This is incorrect. Staff review of the site during the environmental review comment period indicates the wetland is 3. The EAW should be amended to reflect this assessment. Item 21 indicates dredge spoils will be used for other County projects. We recommend that the dredge spans be tested for contaminants to c~uie that tcucic agents are not exported offsite to other areas. Figure 3 shows two small "ponds" being located in the southwest corner of the project area. How are these ponds related to the project, >f at all? AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER