2011-12-15_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

202 Public hearing on November 17, 2011, it was the recommendation of Ms. Lewis that those response - 203 to- comments go out as soon as possible; with a draft transmittal letter submitted to Mr. Petersen for 204 the GLWMO Board to consider at tonight's meeting; Another Public Hearing for the draft 3`a 205 Generation Plan is now required after the state review agencies have received the written responses to 206 comments. 207 208 Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan ( WRAPP) 209 Ms. Correll further reviewed the FOR December 14, 2011 memo regarding the next steps concerning 210 the WRAPP work plan with the MPCA; and recommendations by the MPCA that the GLWMO 211 solicit feedback from the three (3) MS4 members (Cities of Roseville, Shoreview and Ramsey 212 County); the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District ( RWMWD) and the Vadnais Lake Area 213 Watershed Management Organization ( VLAWMO) at a joint meeting of those groups. Ms. Correll 214 suggested that this meeting be scheduled as soon as possible; after which an additional meeting for 215 the public / stakholders is recommended for additional review and comment by GLWMO stakeholders. 216 217 Chair Eckman noted that given current uncertainties and without the MPCA commitment for WRAPP 218 work -plan approval at this point in time, it remained uncertian what the Third Generation Plan would 219 actually entail. 220 221 Motion 11 -1211-3 222 Member Miller moved, and Member Von De Linde seconded approval of directing Mr. Petersen to 223 schedule a meeting as soon as possible, preferably before year -end, for the GLWMO Board to solicit 224 feedback on the WRAPP and draft work plan, as well as future governance and the pending JPA, 225 from the three (3) MS4 members (Cities of Roseville, Shoreview and Ramsey County); the 226 Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District ( RWMWD) and the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed 227 Management Organization ( VLAWMO) at a joint meeting of those groups; including an invitation to 228 the MPCA to have a presence at that meeting as well. 229 230 Discussion included rationale in including both the RWMWD and VLAWMO as they are both 231 hydrologically connected to the GLWMO and potential merger with one or the other agency; 232 problematic timing in scheduling a meeting with the holidays, while still preferable to accomplish 233 before year -end; intent of the MPCA to determine interest and commitment from member 234 communities as it relates to the TMDL/WRAPP study and compliance with the Third Generation 235 Plan's Implementation Goals; and who will participate in that work plan and potential ramifications 236 in addressing tasks, subtasks and time and information commitments to feed into the study and 237 implementation plan. 238 239 Mr. Conrad noted that this request of MPCA is somewhat unusual as typically MS4's are regulated 240 by the individual communities, and expressed his perception of this attempt during development of a 241 TMDL study to tell MS4 communities what they need to do. However, Mr. Conrad noted that since 242 the MCPA was the benefactor and paying for the WRAPP, this may explain their rationale for this 243 unusual request. 244 245 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 246 247 Ms. Correll noted that it had been the recommendation of the MPCA that the GLWMO solicit 248 feedback from key stakeholders in the GLWMO throughout the planning process, specifically naming 249 lake associations; and was unsure of the MPCA's intent or rationale in that recommendation. Ms. 250 Correll advised that it was her intent to seek further clarification from the MPCA on that issue and 251 their suggested notification requirements that would provide assurances to them that the proposed 252 WRAPP work- plan was the right plan for this watershed. Once that clarification was available, Ms.