My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/28/2003 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2003
>
05/28/2003 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2022 10:40:25 AM
Creation date
6/6/2014 9:34:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
05/28/2003
Env Bd Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 <br />3APPROVED MINUTES <br />Donlin inquired if the Stormwater Plan included shoreland management <br />practices. Mr. Jacques answered the City had a Shoreland Ordinance that <br />covered those issues. <br />Asleson noted the City’s Shoreland Ordinance was more restrictive than <br />the State requirements. <br />Mr. Jacques stated the document put all the water resource issues in one <br />place. An annual report was required to Minnesota Pollution Control <br />Agency. <br />Donlin expressed concern that the City would be responsible for <br />administering the Plan, and suggested an outside entity should review the <br />document. Mr. Jacques indicated that Mr. Grochala had been signing off <br />on the items, and Metropolitan Council would make the City responsible. <br />He noted many plans sit on the shelf. <br />Asleson added that Mr. Jacques expertise would remain throughout the <br />Plan. He stated the Board had made changes, in addition, there were some <br />bureaucratic factors that were impossible to implement in the Plan. Mr. <br />Jacques and staff discussed an example of Marshan Lake being classified <br />as a TMDL where there were three factors based on swimability. <br />Furthermore, George Watch Lake had low clarity, Centerville Lake had <br />lake quality that would not change drastically because the water came <br />from rain directly into the lake. Another issue was that the lake was <br />connected to the groundwater. <br />O’Dea inquired if the City could be fined each year. Mr. Jacques stated <br />there was that potential. <br />O’Connell asked for clarification of the reason for Centerville Lake to <br />support swimming. Mr. Jacques answered there could be support for the <br />usability, even though the quality would not change. He asked for <br />feedback. <br />Mr. Jacques referred to the example of Lake Vadnais. The Saint Paul <br />Water Quality had attempted to inhibit turnover, by precipitating out <br />phosphorus in the tributaries and improved the lake. <br />Donlin inquired about the danger of alum. Mr. Jacques responded he was <br />unsure if it was harmful, but it tended to lose effectiveness. The capital <br />improvement was the first thing to be implemented. He asked for the <br />Board’s comments on the stated goals and policies. He noted there was <br />flexibility in the Plan because the policies were a road map, and its <br />implementation would be reviewed every five years.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.