My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-10-26_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Grass Lake WMO
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2006
>
2006-10-26_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2010 11:59:14 AM
Creation date
4/16/2010 11:37:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/26/2006
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
GLWMO Meeting <br />July 27, 2006 <br />Page 2 <br />The Board discussed lake quality, including loading and in-lake issues. They questioned the <br />previous study's (1991) outcome, problem areas, and what the new lake quality study should <br />include. It was noted that the 1991 report may have been compromised somewhat due to drought <br />conditions that existed in the late 80s. There eventually were capital improvements put in place <br />because of the outcome of the earlier study. <br />Aichinger alerted the Board to the possibility of the recommendation for further studies as a <br />result of the Lake Owasso study, more specific in nature, including carp influence, aquatic <br />plants, weed harvest, etc. <br />The Board discussed necessary monitoring/sampling equipment, and the feasibility of rental vs. <br />purchase. If the Board were to consider similar efforts for Wabasso, Snail, etc., purchasing may <br />be more cost-effective for the cities. <br />Mogg asked Aichinger if he could bring in a representative lake study model that the Ramsey <br />Washington Metro Watershed District has conducted for the Board to review and study. <br />Aichinger agreed to do so. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the Board's course of action; and the need to state the specific goals <br />for the Lake Owasso study, not a study in general. Stark agreed to generate a justification <br />statement, to be forwarded to Aichinger for inclusion in Barr's Scope of Services proposal. In <br />addition, Soderbeck requested that Barr report on the outcome of the previous study of 1991; <br />identifying any specific inflow or in-lake problems, etc. <br />Soderbeck moved to purchase the necessary equipment for the Lake Owasso study so that <br />sampling/monitoring can begin on October 1, 2006. Stark seconded. Ayes 3 Nays 1 (Mogg) <br />He felt the study should be spelled out in more specific detail, and would not vote to begin the <br />study before the objectives were clearly spelled out. <br />Maloney distributed the current financial report budget for the GLWMO; and a Direct Discharge <br />Report created by the Environment Quality Committee in 1998. A short discussion followed, <br />identifying city projects that had been completed or pending, addressing most issues noted in the <br />1998 report. <br />Nito Quitevis, Lake Owasso resident and Lake Owasso Association member, stated concerns <br />about direct discharge into the lake, and asked that both cities identify their culverts that enter <br />Lake Owasso. There was discussion regarding the 2004 & 2005 NPDES reports that were made <br />available to the public. <br />DeZellar thanked both Bester and Quitevis for attending the GLWMO meeting, and asked that <br />they continue to work with the cities of Roseville and Shoreview, and the GLWMO Board to <br />help determine the best way to determine the lake quality of Lake Owasso, and to take steps <br />necessary to assure the quality of the lake is stabilized. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.