06/25/2003 Environmental Board Minutes

Home Search

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGJUNE 25, 2003 4APPROVED MINUTES O’Connell inquired about the claim on the chart that significant improvement was possible for Centerville Lake. Asleson responded that Chuck Johnson the Biologist with Rice Creek Watershed District stated all had been done. Mr. Jacques stated that it was a summary of the opinions. Asleson stated that Chuck Johnson suggested the implementation of fish traps for carp could greatly improve the City’s lakes. Mr. Jacques indicated that there would be commonalities and differences, but it was good to have it on paper in one location when it is reviewed. Chair Kukonen inquired if it would be appropriate to state the implementation in the technical gaps on page 188. Mr. Jacques answered that it was indirectly, but inquired if something more formal was desired. Chair Kukonen requested for implementation be more formally addressed. Mr. Jacques assured the Board that he would reword the section, and indicated he assumed it would be in the minutes. Chair Kukonen inquired if the DNR should be consulted in section 3B on page 89. He noted that the phrase “technical gaps” appeared again on page 90 under the Wetlands section. Mr. Jacques answered the first was a good addition, and the latter would be deleted. Chair Kukonen asked for clarification for Objective 1B, “enforce the restoration sites.” Mr. Jacques indicated he might rework the section to be more specific on the wetland planning. He noted that Rice Creek Watershed District was working with Blaine in protecting the fen areas. It was meant to integrate resource planning with development planning. Chair Kukonen inquired about the meaning of Public Education on page 92. Mr. Jacques responded it was a reference to the MPES annual report on the program. O’Connell cited on page 93, section 2A, “establish stormwater advisory committee,” and inquired the identity of the committee. Mr. Jacques answered that the Environmental Board could fill that role. Chair Kukonen requested that the DNR should be consulted with for information, and the County should be Anoka instead of Hennepin on page 94. He also inquired about where the City was at in relation to the 20 % level on page 95, Objective 1A. Mr. Jacques indicated that the 20% was a requirement of the MPES. Asleson stated the City exceeded 20%.