Review and Respond to the Anoka Conservation District's Draft 2015-2019 Comprehensive Plan

Soil and Water Conservation Districts are required to prepare Comprehensive Plans in accordance with the requirements of the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). The Anoka Conservation District (ACD), whose primary purpose is to address natural resource management challenges within the county, is a non-regulatory agency.  The ACD has prepared a draft 2015-2019 Comprehensive Plan for comment/feedback. The ACD also compiles annual work plans geared toward addressing the priorities outlined in their Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this case is to draft a response to the ACD's Draft 2015-2019 Comprehensive Plan.

Notification is not required.

The purpose of the document is to provide the ACD with an overall framework for natural resource management priorities within the county. It does not appear that this draft document establishes any new mandates for Ramsey. Rather, it reviews the existing condition of resources, existing management efforts, measures that have been effective and areas where improvement is needed, and identifies project priorities, strategies, and future programs to manage and/or enhance the natural resources within the county.

The draft 2015-2019 Comprehensive Plan also identifies emerging issues that will likely create greater challenges in managing natural resources within the county. Groundwater supply (and quality), invasive species, declining pollinator populations, and habitat loss and fragmentation are key issues that likely will be exacerbated as development begins to rise. The draft Comprehensive Plan acknowledges these (and others) emerging issues and stipulates that the ACD will continue to consider these concerns throughout the natural resource management process.

The draft response is attached for review and can be generally summarized as follows:

1. Supports the notion of incorporating or considering the emerging issues throughout the natural resource management process.
2. Recommends designating a water quality monitoring site along the Ford Brook, which is a tributary of the Rum River, the ACD's highest priority watershed.
3. Notes concern with the potential drawdown effect on our lakes/wetlands and the desire to be regularly updated regarding potential strategies being considered and/or developed by the Metropolitan Water Supply Advisory Committee (and potentially be a participant in those discussions).
4. Recommends further exploration of utilizing grey water and rain water for both indoor and outdoor uses.
5. Recommends that the riverbank inventory completed in 2012 along the Mississippi River be extended west beyond the Coon Rapids Dam pool to the western boundary of the county if/when funding permits.
6. Recognizes and supports their focus on education while encouraging the ACD to promote these educational opportunities and services more so that Ramsey (and other municipalities) can take advantage of them.

City Staff reviewed the draft response with the Environmental Policy Board (EPB) at their December 1 meeting.  The EPB requested stronger language be used regarding the concern about the potential drawdown of groundwater to reiterate the seriousness of this issue.  Additionally, the EPB recommended that an additional comment be added suggesting that the ACD consider reviewing alternative water treatment options that would encourage maximizing groundwater infiltration before the remainder of the waste water enters into the regional waste water system. Currently, a majority of the region's waste water is treated at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Service's treatment plant in Saint Paul. Both of their suggestions have been incorporated into the draft response. For clarity, this is not to suggest that the City have a separate, local waste water treatment plant, but encourage groundwater infiltration.

City Staff also presented the draft response to the Planning Commission at their December 4 meeting.  Staff will provide a verbal update to the City Council with any pertinent comments or recommendations from the Planning Commission.

This case is being prepared as part of normal Staff duties.

The Environmental Policy Board and the Planning Commission have reviewed or will review the draft response at their regular December meetings.  The EPB has recommended approval of the draft response with their suggestions incorporated, as noted previously.  This case was prepared prior to the Planning Commission meeting and thus, the topic had not yet been specifically reviewed by the Planning Commission.  Their recommendation will be provided at the meeting this evening.

Motion to approve the draft response to the ACD's 2015-2019 Comprehensive Plan.