2011-10-06_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

In total, there are approximately 434 individual comments. Of these comments approximately 199 were made by the agencies, Ramsey County and the member communities while the remaining 135 were made by the Lake Owasso Homeowners Association and residents in the watershed. Given that this amount of comments equates to 59 pages of documentation, all other comments received to date are not included as an attachment to this document. Approach for Responding to Comments This is by far the most comments FOR has seen in response to a draft Watershed Management Plan. In talking to Melissa Lewis, BWSR, and MNDNR Staff, the reason the GLWMO Plan has received so many comments is: Due to over - riding issues the agencies have with the GLWMO's previous accomplishments, funding required to accomplish what it needs to accomplish over the next ten years and lack of decision - making with respect to future governance (as stated in Memorandum submitted to the GLWMO on September 12, 2011). As a result of these concerns, the BWSR has acknowledged that it is requesting more of the GLWMO than it would another watershed district or watershed management organization with a better track record of getting things done. New project management and new rules and regulations within the state agencies that are requiring that more detail be included in watershed management plans. At the time we were developing the draft Plan for the 60 -daye review process we were not aware that the state agencies had the concerns expressed above, that they would be holding this plan to a higher standard and that there were new guidelines for plan content (given that this information is not published on the state agencies web -site nor was it brought up during the public input meetings). As a result, we propose responding to these comments in the following manner: Hold a meeting with both the MPCA and the MNDNR to discuss their comments in more detail and to determine which it any are required versus suggested. Come away from this meeting with a clear understanding of what FOR will revise in the plan to meet the agency's needs. Note: As the September 12, 2011 Memorandum indicates, this same type of meeting was held with BWSR and the Metropolitan Council and all parties came away from the meeting feeling like the proposed revisions discussed at the meeting would address the issues presented in the comments. 2. Identify those comments that the GLWMO is responsible for addressing. These comments typically fall under the category of finance, governance, water resource management (see items in September 12, 2011 Memorandum), how individual Implementation Activities will be funded, and clarification of the GLWMO's history. 3. Address the comments from the state agencies, Ramsey County, and member communities that are germane to Plan approval (e.g. the "musts" versus the "suggestions "). These "musts' versus "suggestions" will be teased out in the meeting with the MPCA and MNDNR. This should address approximately ha t of all of the other comments received on the Plan. 4. Note where the LOA'S and/or the residents comments have been addressed by addressing comments received from the state agencies, Ramsey County, and member communities. 5. In the case where an individuals comment adds background information to the Plan but is not necessary for Plan approval, the Board has two options: (1) write "Comment noted but the Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 651 Hale Ave N, Oakdale, NiN 55128 p: 651.770.8448 f: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com