01-27-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Nr. Hovey of the Department of Natural Resources appeared. He provided Nr. Quanbeck with :$everal exhibits for the record. Nr. Hovey indicated that the salvage yard in question is 400 yards from the Lake. He further indicated thac the Pollution Control Agency is unaware of any pollution problems created bv the salvage yard* and that no such problems have been brought to he Agency’s attention. Nr. Hovey noted that there are currently 8,^00 water craft on the Lake and that the increase of traffic created by the dredging of this channel would have no discernible impact on the water quality of the Lake. As to the mandatory EAW issue, Mr. Hovey indicated that the only issue from his perspective was whether the area being dredged exceeds one acre. Based upon his calculation, it does not. Manager Erickson asked Nr. Hovey if he believed that the dredging would substantially affect movement of pollution, if any exists, from the wetland to the Lake. Nr. Hovey indicated that since a culvert currently exists, such pollution will move to the Lake, totally irrespective of the dredging process, and, as such, whether the permit is issued or not does not impact the problems associated with potential pollution caused by the salvage yard. Manager Miller indicated that he was concerned that dredging up silt that could be contaminated with pollution from the salvage yard, might have adverse consequences. Nr. Hovey indicat ^ that there is no evidence at this point to suggest the contamination and, if something turned up as a part of the dredging, it would be appropriate for the Pollution Control Agency to get involved. Manager Maple noted that much of the problem seems to stem from the fact that so many of these issues are multi-jurisdictional. He noted that both the Cities of Shorewood and Greenwood have had involvement in this matter and seemingly had a different interest. Manager Ericksor asked whether the dredging would likely impact the groundwater. Mr. Hovey indicated that the DNR was not particularly concerned about this matter since the silt being reaioved is coming from Lake Minnetonka and since there has been no indication of pollution from the salvage yard in the wetland near the salvage yard, let alone the Lake. A discussion ensued about what should happen next. The question was raised as to whether additional hearings could be scheduled. Mr. Jones indicated that he would check with the Environmental Quality Board on this issue, but indicated that the Board should proceed as if this will be the final public hearing. He further indicated that additional written testimony would be permitted, and those interested in submitting such testimony should do so within ten (10) days from the close of the meeting. MmIm -8-(11/21/tf)