My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-09-1993 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1993
>
08-09-1993 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2024 9:59:42 AM
Creation date
1/9/2024 9:56:29 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
315
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• adoption of iriinimnm standards for storm sewer design that; <br />* address target nutrient loads <br />* establish permissible runoff rates <br />* provide for the removal of floatable pollutants <br />* set pond design standards for nutrient removal <br />• adoption of enforcement procedures and responsibilities for enforcing the <br />standards <br />These requirements apply to revisions of first generation ”509" plans and any first <br />generation plans that are submitted to the BWSR after August 1, 1992. Many first <br />generation plans are due for revision during 1995. Many are not, however. <br />New requirements relating to water management can render a certain aspects of a "509" <br />plan out of date. Each of the 46 WMOs have to monitor these requirements and decide <br />whether they are significant enough to warrant revising their plan before its planned <br />revision date. In some cases, cities will be adopting more restrictive storm water design <br />requirements before the WMOs affecting them adopt a more comprehensive second <br />generation ”509" plan. This type of situation may well lead to local debates and possible <br />dilemmas. <br />Some cities have already found themselves in this situation. They’ve started to develop <br />their local surface water management plan in compliance with the WMO plans that <br />afiect them only to find that they now have to consider such things as the Wetlands <br />Conservation Act, water quality rule revisions, and the Met Council’s interim nonpoint <br />program. They are rightfully concerned about the potential of gaining the WMO’s <br />approval of their local plan and then finding that this is not enough to satisfy the <br />interests of state, regional and federal agencies. <br />III. Minnesota Statutes Section 103B3365 (The Reding Bill) <br />The BWSR also is responsible for the adoption of guidelines for implementation of MS <br />103B.3365, also referred to as the Reding Bill after the biUs primary author. Chapter 160 <br />of the Laws of 1990. This law requires local government units (LGUs) to require storm <br />water retention devices or areas for the runoff generated firom new developments that <br />create more than one acre of new impervious surface. (See Attachment A) The law <br />mandates that: <br />9 <br />• local governments require water retention devices or areas be installed when <br />more than one acre of new impervious surface is created. <br />• local water management plans (both metro and non-metro) specify the controls <br />best available technology to:
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.