Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 <br />4APPROVED MINUTES <br />Donlin expressed concern about road salt in a big development and its <br />effect on invertebrates in wetlands. Mr. Jacques answered that MNDOT <br />was looking at the effects of road salt. There was salt naturally occurring <br />in peat, so background levels were necessary as well. Salt is abundant, <br />cheap and effective, while the other options were more expensive and had <br />other negative impacts. <br />Chair Kukonen noted that there were three lakes the City was requesting <br />to be removed from the TMDL program. Mr. Jacques responded that the <br />lakes would still be covered by the Plan. <br />Asleson added the swimability requirements for the Plan on the lakes <br />could not be measured. Donlin stated the criteria should be changed. <br />Mr. Jacques indicated there were two phases in the program, The <br />diagnostic phase and the control phase. The EPA hired contractors for <br />this purpose. The data gathered would qualify the lake for the program, <br />followed by the implementation plan. He noted the EPA began in sewage <br />treatment, then grew into handling superfund sites, and along the way <br />standards had been developed for chemicals in lakes and streams. <br />O’Dea stated that on page 94 in the document it should read monitoring <br />should be Anoka County instead of Hennepin County. Mr. Jacques <br />indicated that all comments were considered valuable. <br />O’Dea inquired about 20 years being a requirement upfront. Mr. Jacques <br />referred to section 5.218, Maintenance and Inspection, and asked who was <br />responsible. <br />O’Dea gave the example of needing access for maintenance. Grochala <br />responded the ponds with many users were public responsibility, while for <br />ponds with one user, the owner had the responsibility. The City could do <br />the maintenance and charge it to the owner. <br />Halen inquired about how a resident could respond. Grochala stated they <br />could call the City, and gave an example of drainage issues. <br />Mr. Jacques indicated the Plan gave the map, but not the details of <br />implementation. Grochala added the City was addressing fixed <br />agreements and reviews or inspections. Much was being done toward this <br />goal, but they were not tracked or documented in the past. <br />Asleson stated that Public Education was a big part. Some created ponds <br />were merely collectors for runoff. Mr. Jacques indicated there needed for <br />feedback in the process. The process was now more formalized, so the