2011-03-17_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

321 Old Business 322 323 Third Generation Water Plan Update 324 a) General Discussion 325 Ms. Correll provided an update on issues /goals comments from individual Board 326 members and thanked them for their feedback. Mr. Petersen advised that he would submit 327 additional comments to Ms. Correll. 328 329 b) Water Resources Classification System Policy 330 Ms. Correll requested additional discussion by the Board on a policy for Water Body 331 Classification System as was previously initiated by Member Westerberg; requesting if 332 the Board preferred to formally approve that Classification System now or address 333 questions on that classification and approve it as part of the Third Generation Plan. Ms. 334 Correll advised that she had changed Lake Emily to a shallow lake classification and 335 Lake Judy from a shallow lake to wetland classification, using the PCA's definition of a 336 shallow lake. Discussion ensued related to changes in classification and referencing 337 Board action at their February 17, 2011 meeting (Motion 11 -02 -06 Page 5, Lines 204- 338 211). Ms. Correll advised that the Plan would need revision based on the February Board 339 action, noting that if the former plan was more restrictive for water quality standards, it 340 would be used; otherwise numbers would need to be changed depending on the Board's 341 intent to lakes and shallow lake classifications. Mr. Petersen clarified that there are not 342 water quality standards for wetlands, as there are with lakes, and suggested caution 343 should be used to ensure quantitative standards were not lost for Lake Judy, as was the 344 case with previous standards. Wetland standards typically measure "function and value 345 standards" not numerical standards. Additional discussion included how to address the 346 TMDL study request to the PCA and how to integrate quantitative water quality 347 standards into all water resource classification systems. As an example, Ms. Correll 348 reviewed Lake Judy as an example, based on MPCA designation as a wetland, and since 349 it didn't meet a shallow lake definition, no TMDL would be done, so it became a non- 350 issue at this point in time. Ms. Correll noted that lakes and shallow lakes have water 351 quality standards, and the 2001 Plan separated them into two (2) water quality tables, one 352 with State standards and another with GLWMO standards as a "hybrid standard Ms. 353 Correll used Lake Owasso as another example, using BWSR water quality management 354 tables, as per the BARR Study and their stipulations. Ms. Correll advised that, in internal 355 discussions of FOR staff related to water quality standards, in some cases the current 356 classification was found to not make sense, with the standard being less than was 357 intended. Ms. Correll advised that, therefore, she had included one standard applied to 358 the entire range of quality and type of water body as an implementation activity for the 359 Board to review each wetland for development of a case by case standard based on its 360 function and values, and how it was being used. Further discussion included the ability to 361 amend the Third Generation Plan, if necessary, after its initial adoption with Ms. Correll 362 concurring, noting that, given the Board's priorities and budgets, that amendment could 363 occur five (5) years or more into the future. Additional discussion ensued regarding 364 whether the February Board action (Motion 11 -02 -06 dated February 17, 2011) needed to 365 be amended. Len Ferrington opined that the motion, as adopted to adopt the State of 366 Minnesota Water Resource Classification System was accurate, but that an additional 8