Minutes from 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes April 21, 1994 Page 4 In response to Haas' question, Beduhn reviewed the regulatory agencies that would be contacted such as SWCD, BWSR, Met Council, DNR, MPCA, National Pazk Service, etc. He explained that more than wetland issues would be addressed in the Plan. Weaver questioned whether the LRRWMO goals are the same or different than other WMOs. He asked if data to be collected can be used for all watersheds represented by the engineering firm. Beduhn explained that the goals and policies identify specific water bodies, DNR protected waters, wetland areas, plant communities, animals, etc. which may be particular to the WMO and need to be specifically addressed. He added an example would be the Rum River which is an excellent fishery and may need to be specifically addressed. Beduhn explained that he envisions the letter requesting data of regulatory agencies to indicate that the LRRWMO is required by law to contact them and request goals and policies and basic information on watershed issues. In this way, the agency can respond by indicating issues they aze concerned about. He explained that if no data is submitted from regulatory agencies, Phase 2 data assessment will probably not take as long. Beduhn then provided a more detailed explanation of work involved in each of the phases 5-10 and explained that goals and policies vary for each watershed and the goals need to measurable. He reviewed other watershed organizations that have begun revising their plan and estimated costs. Schultz commented that phases 1-41ook reasonable and he felt doing a better job with them will result in a lower cost to complete Phases 5-10. Beduhn agreed. Beduhn explained that other watersheds have become involved in controversial issues which required many one-on-one and public meetings, which drives up their cost. He recommended each regulatory agency be asked what, exactly, they want to see included in the Plan as a way of narrowing down the issues to be included. He pointed out that getting the scope defined at the beginning of the process will avoid a change in direction of the Plan at a later date and increase in costs. Jankowski agreed the cost depends somewhat on community reaction and involvement. He asked if the cost estimate of $33,000 assumes little public comment and is more related to the cost to review agency data. Beduhn explained that other watersheds have advertised for people who are interested in serving on committees to review wetland issues, and less public comment may lower the cost. Ferguson asked if the issues within the LRRWMO boundaries are less controversial than being experienced by other WMOs. Beduhn answered affirmatively and stated he does not think the LRRWMO will end up with a major issue that could change the scope of the Plan. Also, the LRRWMO has decided to just adopt the Wetland Plan where other WMOs are