2011-05-26_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

408 Chair Eckman opined that, if it was truly a burden, she was unsure; and noted that, if the city(ies) said to 409 forget the WMO, it would need to be dissolved and BWSR would step in, with Ramsey Washington 410 Metro Area Watershed District not having a choice but to absorb the GLWMO water bodies. 411 412 Mr. Schwartz opined that, while potentially a correct statement, that would be the worst-case scenario. 413 Mr. Schwartz asked the Board, noting that they had yet to meet with the member cities, if they were to 414 receive a positive response from those cities in terms of trying to work with the GLWMO Board to fund 415 its needs, how they might respond to the items currently being discussed. 416 417 Mr. Petersen strongly urged the WMO to have only one (1) implementation plan to show goals, not a dual 418 system. 419 420 Ms. Correll asked if the GLWMO Board would be willing to accept monitoring responsibilities and shift 421 those resources accordingly; with the impacts being that for cooperatively- managed resources, and project 422 implementation would move to the responsibility of the city(ies), and monitoring and tracking trends 423 (page 94) would move to the responsibility of the GLWMO Board. 424 425 To focus on Lake Owasso, Mr. Petersen advised that the Board had no choice, since there were currently 426 cooperatively- managed sources impacting those resources; with others somewhat unknown at this point. 427 For further clarification and using Ms. Correll's example, currently cooperatively- managed and affected 428 water bodies were separate from cooperatively- managed resources; but what about other resources in the 429 rest of the watershed that are not connected, such as Snail Lake, and the need to differentiate between 430 cooperatively- managed and what is the Lake Owasso watershed. 431 432 Ms. Correll advised that, if the GLWMO Board were to provide an indication to move forward, she could 433 prepare a revised Implementation Plan for discussion at the June 7, 2011 meeting. Ms. Correll suggested 434 that such a revised Plan would provide for all southern water bodies would be cooperatively- managed, not 435 GLWMO- managed; with the implementation plan and budget for projects identified in the TMDL, 436 resulting in 100% cost -share for the GLWMO, identifying partners and articulating what additional 437 funding the WMO would seek from those partners if multiple benefits and/or excessive costs were 438 determined, but with the GLWMO ultimately responsible to find that funding. 439 440 Mr. Schwartz noted that changing those water bodies referenced by Ms. Correll to WMO- managed water 441 bodies went further than he had contemplated. 442 443 Ms. Correll questioned who would be responsible for implementing the projects. 444 445 Member Von De Linde noted that Bennett Lake and Lake Emily both are impaired requiring TMDL's 446 and the rest would be GLWMO responsibility using the key provided (W = wetland and P = ponds). 447 448 Ms. Correll noted the DNR- protected water bodies. 449 450 Chair Eckman opined that it would make more sense for nutrient ponds to remain a city responsibility. 451 452 Mr. Petersen opined that any current cooperatively- managed water body impacting a GLWMO water 453 body should become a GLWMO water body for management purpose. 454 455 Chair Eckman opined that DNR - regulated and protected water bodies would be the responsibility of the 456 WMO, and others would be the responsibility of the city(ies). 457 9