My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-09-22_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Grass Lake WMO
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-09-22_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2011 2:11:13 PM
Creation date
9/20/2011 2:05:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/22/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
• Activity 1.8a: the value statement that ditch abandonment would provide a better mechanism <br />for future protection is inconsistent with the implication in the goal that the WMO doesn't have <br />an understanding of the ditch system and it conflicts with the county perspective on page 23 to <br />not abandon these public ditches. Provide further information for the basis of this activity. <br />• Activity 1.9a: further information on the proposed reserve fund is needed, including how much <br />the WMO is intending to build into the fund, the process and procedures the WMO will use to <br />consider spending the fund, and what happens to the fund if monitoring data indicates <br />additional management is not needed. <br />• Activity 1.9d -h: evaluating options, monitoring, and creating plans will not intrinsically address <br />phosphorus internal or external loading without associated implementation. <br />• Activity 1.9g: correlate this activity with activity 2.1c and explain why this activity identifies 5 <br />years of monitoring while the implementation plan identifies only 1 year of funding. <br />• Activities 1.9h and a number of similar activities within the individual lakes goals: creation of <br />subwatershed plans as identified in these activities need a specific line item(s) in the budget <br />with a clear schedule for the order in which these studies will be completed. Additionally, <br />development of these plans may identify potential areas of phosphorus loading but will not <br />inherently prevent or reduce phosphorus loads without associated implementation. <br />• Activity 1.9j: provide the criteria for determining and clarify who will determine the cost <br />effectiveness and benefits. <br />• Activities 1.12d, 1.12f, 1.19h, 1.22c, 1.22d, 1.25c, & 1.30c: in consideration that the WMO does <br />not want to regulate, clarify if the recommendations for stormwater management identified <br />through these activities would be above and beyond the WMO's stormwater standards. <br />Additionally, describe the process, procedure, or means by which the WMO will ensure any of <br />the options discussed will be considered or implemented. <br />• Goal 1.18: clarify what this goal is intending to accomplish. <br />• Activity 1.20c: according to the implementation plan table, the proposed barley straw treatment <br />is scheduled for the same period as the treatment on Bennett Lake, in conflict with this activity <br />identifying implementation after Bennett Lake. <br />• 6.3.2 Monitoring and Data Assessment: the plan identifies an issue of multiple entities <br />monitoring as well as identifies a plan for both expanded and more consistent monitoring; <br />however, the plan does not clearly identify who will implement the ongoing monitoring <br />program. <br />• Activity 2.1d: identify the location(s) and parameters to be monitored, and what type of analysis <br />will be completed. <br />• Activity 2.1f and 6.1a: Clarify the purpose, intent, and extent of this database to better <br />determine if the funding allocated is sufficient to achieve the described activity and clarify how <br />such a database will not be redundant with existing databases. <br />• Activity 3.1c: while these are admirable goals, the funding identified is insufficient. <br />• Goal 3.3: Based on the Land and Water Resource Inventory, flooding does not seem to be an <br />issue in the WMO; and in consideration of the capacity of the WMO, we recommend the WMO <br />reconsider implementation activity 3.3a. We also suggest activity 3.3b be moved to the <br />standards in Table 32. <br />• Activity 3.4.a: guidelines for pretreatment and management techniques for stormwater hot <br />spots already exist. In consideration of the existing land use, identifying infiltration potential is <br />likely to require more site specific information than an 'infiltration potential map' with the <br />funding identified would provide. <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.