Laserfiche WebLink
<br />POLICY BOARD BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: <br /> <br />Review Goals & Policies for Lower Rum River Water Management <br />Organization's 3rd Generation Plan <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson presented the staff report. <br /> <br />Chairperson Max stated that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are referred to in the document <br />but are not identified or defined anywhere within the document. Maybe there should be at least a <br />reference to where BMPs can be found, such as the Pollution Control Agency or MN Department <br />of Transportation. <br /> <br />Board Member Enstrom stated that he sees some conflict in the draft goals and policies where <br />water conservation is a goal but vegetation around a wetland is a policy, which would have the <br />effect of wicking away water from wetlands. <br /> <br />Assistant City Engineer Jankowski stated that the goal is to return storm water run-off rates back <br />to 1988 levels. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson asked how we would determine what the 1988 run-off <br />rates were in the city. <br /> <br />Assistant City Engineer Jankowski stated that it would likely be determined through some sort of <br />modeling and that the surface water management plan recently completed may have some <br />models that could be used. <br /> <br />Board Member Enstrom stated that he thinks more information is needed before he can make any <br />type of recommendation regarding the LRRWMO's 3rd Generation Plan. <br /> <br />Board Member Hassett inquired about whether there was anything that maybe should be <br />included in this plan even if it is known that nothing would be done with it in the next 10 years, <br />to sort of plant the seed of a future goal and/or project. <br /> <br />Chairperson Max stated that he has some concern with policies 3.4 and 3.5, which he agrees with <br />but believes that they should just refer to any invasive species identified by the MN DNR rather <br />than singling out two specific invasive species. <br /> <br />Chairperson Max stated that he also has some concern with specifically requiring buffers <br />considering that City Council recently repealed the buffer standards that were in city code. <br /> <br />Board Member Enstrom stated that you have to look at each member city and their development <br />potential. He stated that while Coon Rapids does have a buffer requirement, that city is almost <br />completely built out and thus, that requirement doesn't mean a whole lot. Furthermore, the <br />enactment of the new topsoil requirements in Ramsey would serve in a similar capacity to a <br />vegetated buffer. <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / July 20, 2009 <br />Page 2 of3 <br />