My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-05-26_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Grass Lake WMO
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-05-26_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2011 1:56:10 PM
Creation date
8/1/2011 10:43:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/26/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
256 <br />257 Additional discussion included possibly showing two (2) Implementation Plans: the current funding and <br />258 organizational structure, and a potential option, if and when determined by the GLWMO Board in 2012, <br />259 for a different form of governance and/or finance structure and how the Implementation Plan may look <br />260 under that vision. <br />261 <br />262 Discussion ensued on the intent of the WMO in their jurisdiction ideally, and recognizing that as things <br />263 continued to deteriorate, costs escalated to correct or eliminate the problems; whether it was appropriate <br />264 to determine the goals, then how to fund them; timeframe of the TMDL study on how to identify the <br />265 pounds of loading from each sub - watershed and demonstration of how quickly the loading can be <br />266 reduced, still dependent on available resources of the GLWMO and member cities and their individual <br />267 and corporate responsibilities in partnership with the WMO. <br />268 <br />269 From a city perspective, Mr. Schwartz advised that the expectations for the cities coming from this <br />270 discussion are greater than those being requested by other watershed districts, noting that other <br />271 watersheds were not at the point of a TMDL study. Mr. Schwartz advised that this would be a concern <br />272 for cities since those watersheds had identified areas, some things they've done or are doing, but not <br />273 having gotten to the full TMDL study stage yet. Mr. Schwartz noted that the City of Roseville dealt with <br />274 regulations of Rice Creek Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, as well as the <br />275 GLWMO, and those items discussed is a bigger concern for both Shoreview and Roseville than those of <br />276 the other two (2) watersheds. <br />277 <br />278 Ms. Correll clarified that Bennett Lake and Lake Emily were the main issues representing a section of the <br />279 watershed and a specific goal, requiring a target goal, current status, and how to reasonably meet that <br />280 target in a very developed watershed. <br />281 <br />282 Chair Eckman asked Mr. Schwartz if the GLWMO was ahead of the other two watershed districts <br />283 because of the GLWMO's involvement in the TMDL study. <br />284 <br />285 Mr. Schwartz advised that the other watersheds had impaired waters, but they do not have TMDL studies <br />286 developed, and as opportunities arose during the permitting processes, such as road projects or <br />287 redevelopment efforts, mitigation and projects were accomplished as part of those projects. Mr. Schwartz <br />288 noted that rules were in place for both watershed districts and the WMO to address any new development <br />289 or redevelopments, at which time mitigation efforts were reviewed for storm water getting into various <br />290 resources, and BMP's such as buffers, rain gardens, storm sewer retrofits, outlet modifications on storm <br />291 water outlets are all considered as part of the project. By the WMO proscribing a specific dollar amount <br />292 for member cities, if the GLWMO Budget was approved at a 50% cost - share, he anticipated that the cities <br />293 will come to the table with the same dollar amounts as currently approved. <br />294 <br />295 Ms. Correll noted that, since the cities were MS4 permitted, they would be required to meet a portion of <br />296 that goal; and advised that the MPCA liked to see when an implementation plan was completed, and cities <br />297 estimating what reduction could be achieved to reach a prescriptive target goal. <br />298 <br />299 Chair Eckman noted that the WMO's intent was not to dictate a date specific for accomplishment, but to <br />300 provide some flexibility. <br />301 <br />302 Chair Eckman recognized audience member Edward Roberts for public comment, with Mr. Roberts <br />303 questioning the main concerns of Mr. Schwartz from a city perspective with the WMO rather than the <br />304 other two watershed districts. <br />305 <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.