Laserfiche WebLink
458 <br />459 <br />460 <br />461 <br />462 <br />463 <br />464 <br />465 <br />466 <br />467 <br />468 <br />469 <br />470 <br />471 <br />472 <br />473 <br />474 <br />475 <br />476 <br />477 <br />478 <br />479 <br />480 <br />481 <br />482 <br />483 <br />484 <br />485 <br />486 <br />487 <br />488 <br />489 <br />490 <br />491 <br />492 <br />493 <br />494 <br />495 <br />496 <br />497 <br />498 <br />499 <br />Ms. Correll noted that, implications of such a determination would be that both member cities would take <br />on an equitable responsibility. <br />Member Barrett clarified that monitoring would then shift to the GLWMO as previously discussed. <br />Audience member, Mr. Roberts, interrupted Board Member discussion, seeking additional clarification. <br />Chair Eckman continued Board discussion, opining that the GLWMO served as a guardian for the water <br />bodies, and funds were necessary to accomplish the goals in meeting their responsibility; but further <br />opined that all funding was not the GLWMO's responsibility, but for all DNR- protected bodies in the <br />WMO. <br />Mr. Roberts again interrupted from the audience, opining that responsibility and management were two <br />very different terms; and his understanding was that monitoring was a good concept for the WMO to be <br />responsible for; opining that otherwise, he was confused by the intent. <br />At the direction of Chair Eckman, Ms. Correll responded to Mr. Roberts that under the most recent <br />discussion scenario, the GLWMO would assume management of WMO- managed water resources, and <br />would assume monitoring and tracking trends for those water bodies. <br />Further discussion among Ms. Correll, Mr. Schwartz and Board members included how other watershed <br />district plans use their terminology for jointly - managed water bodies, Mr. Schwartz clarifying that this <br />suggested language was going beyond what the practice of those other watersheds, and that those other <br />Watershed plans still managed a good share of their respective water bodies, with the member cities <br />responsible for sediment and other maintenance issues; with Ms. Correll noting the complications in this <br />watershed with some storm water management facilities being used in an urban recreation water body <br />setting, and clarifying that when Mr. Schwartz referenced a shift, it was not a shift from the 2001 Plan, <br />but moving water bodies from cooperatively - managed to WMO- managed would be a shift, and suggested <br />that language remain as cooperatively- managed, but clarifying what those management responsibilities <br />are for all parties. <br />After further discussion, the discussion centered on page 94 (Section 5.0 Management Standards) of the <br />managed resource descriptive, and assignment of the various responsibilities for cooperatively- managed <br />water bodies: <br />Activity <br />Responsible Party <br />Monitoring <br />GLWMO <br />Trends <br />GLWMO <br />Studies <br />GLWMO (TMDL) <br />Projects (external load or upland in WSD) <br />GLWMO (Lead) <br />Internal water quality projects (e.g. maintenance, carp <br />eradication, other items not under anyone's control) <br />Jointly by GLWMO and City(ies) <br />Maintenance <br />Ci (ies) <br />Mr. Roberts interrupted discussion again to question if the GLWMO would be responsible for the review <br />process for a particular project and its implementation. <br />At the direction of Chair Eckman, Ms. Correll responded that the GLWMO would take the lead in paying <br />for design, a feasibility study, construction, inspections and related costs. <br />10 <br />