2010-11-30_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

subcommittee or contact provide their (EOR's) reports to, with that person tasked to represent the full GLWMO Board. Ms. Correll noted that the budget for EOR in their proposal did not include attendance at every meeting of the GLWMO. Mr. Schwartz referenced comments by EOR representatives related to a desire for the most stringent standards for the GLWMO Third Generation Plan, and his concerns related to that technical decision making and impacts to representative cities for goals, standards and rules; and sought clarification of comments made at a previous meeting. Mr. Schwartz advised that it was not his intent that the GLWMO have regulatory standards at or above the most stringent, but to ensure that local plans accommodate consistency throughout the city between various Watersheds and Water Management Organizations. Mr. Schwartz questioned how the representative cites would be able to comment during development of the plan as goals and standards come forward, through their advisory input or as a reaction at GLWMO Board meetings. Ms. Correll noted in the EOR work plan, they had one (1) meeting planned with municipal representatives anticipated at the end of January to talk about their specific goals and policies; and suggested that those concerns be added to that meeting agenda, even though there was already a lot to accomplish at that one meeting. Ms. Correll reiterated EOR's intent to create a comparison table of standards for RCWD, CPWD, and GLWMO, along with those of the Cities of Roseville and Shoreview, to determine which standard is higher and more protective of resources, and then present those comparisons to the GLWMO Board for their reaction and a allow group discussion of implications. Chair Ferrington advised Ms. Correll that one of the action items at tonight's meeting had been for the Board to increase their meeting frequency from quarterly to monthly, with the actual dates still to be determined following review of individual schedules. Chair Ferrington opined that this would improve the communication flow and, while the subcommittee would be charged with some empowerment to make decisions, it would also allow for more frequent Board -level involvement. Ms. Correll noted another purpose in their request for availability of a subcommittee contact was to funnel comments on the quality of the Plan as they were received to allow any conflicting comments to be prioritized by the subcommittee and determine which comments should receive the most EOR effort and priority, and which comments didn't have consensus and receive a low priority. Member Westerberg reiterated the concerns he'd expressed earlier to the Board regarding depth sampling and phosphorus numbers; and his research for sampling over the last three (3) months indicating that phosphorus concentrations in the surface layer are of a magnitude less than in the bottom level Member Westerberg advised that this confirmed for him that the real problem was internal loading with the lakes being self fertilizing, and confirmed the BARR report showing internal loading was the primary source of phosphorus, and that alum treatments were indicated; and that curing the cause rather than the symptom was vital. 14