2010-12-15_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

550 GLWMO adopted something different for the Third Generation Plan, the Plan and that of the 551 City of Shoreview would need to be reconciled. 552 553 Ms. Bloom concurred, noting from a city perspective, the City of Roseville needed to ensure that 554 the Third Generation Plan complied with the Plans of the three (3) Watershed Districts 555 encompassed within the City. 556 557 Mr. Maloney noted the differences between a WMO- managed water body versus locally 558 managed; and how the City of Shoreview defined those differences; and offered that model to 559 the GLWMO as they revisit that division of responsibility for habitat or water quality; noting that 560 depending on the action of the GLWMO, it may require the respective cities to revisit their 561 model as well. 562 563 Ms. Bloom again concurred. 564 565 Chair Ferrington observed that future plans and /or initiatives needed to be strategic, operational 566 and realistic. 567 568 Member Eckman noted in the past that the GLWMO's goals and policies reflected that the 569 organization would not fund killing vegetation. 570 571 Chair Ferrington opined that the intent was historically to protect native plant species; and now 572 noted more awareness or invasive species that may necessitate refining those goals and policies 573 to include control of nuisance weeds, while protecting native vegetation. 574 575 Further discussion included references in the Second Generation Plan (page 13,) and the intent 576 for "common weeds versus management;" present -day context compared with when the Second 577 Generation Plan was developed; concerns with participating in cost -share programs for 578 structured lake associations to fund eradication of weeds in order to provide a sandy beach for 579 residents for recreational purposes versus partnering with associations and residents for 580 management and/or eradication of invasives to facilitate sustainability of natural whole lake 581 water quality. 582 583 Ms. Bloom noted that the majority of the lakes in the City of Roseville were surrounded by 584 public land; with some partnerships between the City and Homeowner Associations (e.g. 585 Westwood Village III) for shoreland restoration, but not necessarily specific to invasive 586 vegetation. 587 588 Additional discussion included verbiage to be continued in the Third Generation Plan or 589 revisited; unrealistic expectations for pristine bodies of water in the metropolitan area versus 590 reality in an urban environment; water quality versus resident specific use; management 591 techniques providing positive effects on water quality; and consensus to carefully consider 592 revisions to phrasing of GLWMO concerns related to exotics and invasives and respective 593 removals from water bodies, ensuring that the language provided clear distinction and was 594 sufficiently descriptive for the public between native and invasive vegetation. 595 13