Laserfiche WebLink
September 6, 2011 <br />Camillla Correll, Project Manager <br />Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. <br />651 Hale Ave North <br />Oakdale, MN 55128 <br />RE: 60 -day review of Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization 2011 Plan <br />Dear Ms. Correll, <br />Board of Water and Soil Resources staff have completed the 60 -day review of the Grass Lake Watershed <br />Management Organization Watershed Management Plan and have the following comments. <br />1.0 Executive Summary <br />• Page 4: include a reference to the GLWMO website. <br />• Page 9, Stormwater Management; and page 128, 6.3.3 Stormwater Management: for <br />consistency with 5.2.4, revise the last sentence to be definitive that the permitting authority will <br />remain (rather than 'would like') with member communities and the WMO has provided <br />standards within the plan. <br />• Page 10, GLWMO Standards and Criteria: clarify if this plan addresses the need for more <br />protective standards or if it simply identifies the need. <br />• Page 11, Financing: VLAWMO does not have taxing authority. <br />3.0 Land and Water Resource Inventory <br />• Page 13, 4 t paragraph and Regulatory and Non - regulatory Framework pages 86 and page 89: <br />the Ramsey County Groundwater Protection Plan referenced was drafted in 2009, but has not <br />been approved by BWSR or adopted by Ramsey County. Suggest labeling it as a draft. <br />4.0 Regulatory and Non - regulatory Framework <br />• Pages 77 -79: while inclusion of purposes and general goals from earlier plans provides context, <br />it also creates confusion with what the current purposes of are. We suggest revising the text to <br />include only current priorities. <br />• Page 82: suggest removing the summary of 2009 WCA changes; additional changes have been <br />put in to place since 2009 and it is likely more changes will be made over the life of this plan. <br />5.0 Management Standards <br />• Page 91, first paragraph: this section suggests the previous plan was not effective, but does not <br />provide an assessment of what was achieved or analysis of why the plan was not effective nor <br />