2011-05-26_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

651 Hale Avenue North Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 telephone: 651.710.8448 facsimile: 651.710.2552 www.eorinc.com Date I May 17, 2011 To l Brooke Asleson, MPCA cc I GLWMO Board of Commissioners, Tom Petersen, GLWMO Administrator From I Andrea Pleven and Camilla Correll Regarding I Revised GLWMO Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan Background On May 9, 2011 FOR submitted a scope to the MPCA to conduct a Grass Lake WMO Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan. This scope was submitted by FOR on behalf of the Grass Lake WMO as requested at the April 21, 2011 Board Meeting. Since submitting the original scope to the MPCA, FOR and the GLWMO have been contacted by the MPCA with a request to scale back the level of effort proposed to develop protection strategies for those portions of the watershed draining to waterbodies that are not impaired. FOR has revised the scope on behalf of the GLWMO and has summarized the differences between the two scopes in this memorandum. Changes from Previous Scope The following bulleted list summarizes the difference between the original scope (dated May 5, 20 11) and the revised scope (dated May 17, 2011). Task I • Eliminated second series of meetings since GLWMO will develop one comprehensive report: the Restoration and Protection Plan (which includes the TMDL Report) will be together with the Implementation Plan). Task II Eliminated the task of reviewing classification for Lake Judy and Shoreview Lake. After discussing this issue with John Erdmann at MPCA (as it related to another client) and re- evaluating the available data it appears that these waterbodies will not be considered lakes or shallow lakes due to their shallow depth and/or small size. Reduced the cost of the Watershed Assessment significantly. Eliminated the development of a model for the northern portion of the watershed since existing land -use information will provide a protection -level analysis of the watershed to be used in the development of additional protection strategies. This cost reflects the level of effort anticipated in using and modifying the existing P8 model for the southern portion of the watershed in evaluating and prioritizing nutrient reduction strategies. Reduced the cost of conducting the Lake Assessment (Bathtub model) to reflect that this model will only need to be developed for Bennett Lake and Lake Emily (and not Lake Judy, Shoreview Lake and Lake Owasso). Reduced the amount of time determining allocations based on the anticipated number of impairments (Bennett Lake and Lake Emily). Task III • Eliminated one round of review and edits since GLWMO developing one comprehensive report (Restoration and Protection Plan together with the Implementation Plan). An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. water I ecology I community