2001-08-23_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

NIDA The MDA did not provide comments on the GLWMO Plan. MDH Ina 45-day final review letter dated April 12, 2001 the MDH asked for corrections on language describing MDH's responsibility in management administering various groundwater protection programs. The MDH also commented on the need of the WMO to be cognizant of sensitive groundwater recharge areas in implementation of the Plan. - In response, the GLWMO made corrections to Section 3.8 regarding groundwater management and protection and revised its goals to be more consistent with the goals and policies presented in goals section. Language was added to relevant policies regarding sensitive groundwater recharge areas. Also, new policies were added and revisions made to goals section regarding sensitive groundwater areas, abandoned wells and the GLWMO support of the Ramsey County groundwater plan. BWSR In a letter dated December 15, 2000 the BWSR commented on possible additional municipal evaluation standards that could be incorporated into the evaluation "report card" such as existence of detailed stormwater infrastructure maintenance schedule, ordinance structure for variable street widths linked to traffic counts, clear avenues for public involvement with WMO and. Cities, and shoreland grades related. to quality of shoreline using % of total length. The BWSR stated that they are hopeful that. the GLRWMO will maintain an ongoing CAC/TAC as a way to foster community awareness and support. Finally, the BWSR stated that the Plan should go further to provide a better land planning/water planning link with integration with surface water systems, critical area and land use sections of local plans. In response, the GLWMO stated that the management standards table in the Plan is not the evaluation checklist; rather, it is a listing of all the "official controls" that cities will need to develop and/or revise to comply with the GLWMO plan. Items in the above mentioned table would likely become part of the report card/checklist. The GLWMO will be developing the evaluation checklist as one of its first implementation task. The GLWMO went on to state that city implementation tasks have deadlines, either direct or through the preparation of local plans. The GLWMO Board is counting on the continued cooperation of the member cities, coupled with the proposed evaluation process to provide enough oversight such that a GLWMO permit or review program will be unnecessary. F:\Projects\Phil\GRASSLA\Subcominittee packet.doc 3