2001-08-23_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AGENCY REVIEW AND C®MMENT Metropolitan Council In a letter dated November 22, 2000, the Council suggests that the GLWMO consider starting a permit or review program, to help ensure that the GLWMO has some oversight or input into local programs. The Met Council also believes awatershed-wide wetland functions and values assessment and wetland management plan needs to be completed. Moreover, the Council believes that the "GLWMO should work with both member cities to help them to develop stormwater management ordinances consistent with the Met Council's Interim Strategy.". The Council also commented that the GLWMO should either provide water quality treatment at the facility or should requi~-~ the city to provide treatment and encourages the WMO to consider expanding the TAC to include regional and state technical staff to advise the GLWMO Board of issues. Comments also indicate that the GLWMO plan has the opportunity and responsibility to address the need to retrofit and re-design the stormwater systems in the fully developed areas and identify areas where retrofitting can occur. Lastly, the GLWMO should consider joining the work group that is developing a best management practices manual for small site construction projects. In a letter dated April 2, 2001 the Council stated, "The GLWMO has put together a watershed management plan that has the potential to be an excellent tool for local units of government to use in writing their local water management plans". DNR Ina 45-day final comment letter dated May 7, 2001 the DNR provided general comments concerning that the executive summary doesn't seem to capture the essence of the Plan in meaningful detail. The DNR also commented that the WMO should make it a policy to encourage the use of best management practices to reduce the amount of impervious surface and runoff in the watershed. The DNR also noted that Snail Lake has recently been found to contain a large population of Eurasian water milfoil. The GLWMO did not respond to the DNR comments. MPCA In a letter dated December 1 S, 2000 the MPCA questions specifically what the GLWMO requires the cities to do versus what the GLWMO will do, the MPCA also requests an explanation for why the water quality guidelines in Table S.l appear to allow for quite a bit of degradation in the Category I lakes. The MPCA also asked when and how the cities will set goals for Category III and N water bodies. In response the GLWMO stated that it has defined a successful cooperative approach and the GLWMO has provided effective guidelines and will continue to review cities stormwater management plan. The MPCA had did not provide a 45-day comment letter. F:\Projects\Phil\GRASSLA\Subconunittee packet.doc 2