Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8E - Watershed Goverance Report DATE: SE LANOL LEICHTY, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REPORT REGARDING DESIRED FORM OF WATERSHED GOVERNANCE FOR THE CREDIT RIVER WMO AND SHAKO PEE BASIN WMO APRIL 7, 1997 AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The Credit River Watershed Management Organization (CRWMO) and the Shako pee Basin Watershed Management Organization (SBWMO) are considering a proposal for the County to administer the watershed management for these organizations and other WMO's in Scott County. Staff is requesting Council direction as to the desired form of watershed governance before the Credit River WMO and Shakopee Basin WMO board members vote on this issue. The Shakopee Basin WMO board is scheduled to vote on this issue April 10, 1997. The Credit River WMO board will vote on the issue at their next meeting, which has not been scheduled to date. BACKGROUND: The seven counties in the metro area were required to form watershed management organizations to meet the Surface Water Management Act. The Shakopee Basin WMO was organized in 1986 and is comprised of portions of Jackson and Louisville Townships and portions of the cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake. The size of the Shakopee Basin WMO is 12,785 acres with Prior Lake's portion being 1,200 acres. The Credit River WMO was organized in 1986 and is comprised of portions of Credit River, New Market and Spring Lake Townships and portions of the cities of Burnsville, Lakeville, Prior Lake and Savage. The size of the Credit River WMO is 29,941 acres with Prior Lake's portion being 700 acres. The SBWMO and CRWMO have been operating over the years under a Joint Powers Agreement between the Townships and Cities. Each Township and City is represented by one commissioner for each local unit of government. For Prior Lake, the representative is the Water Resources Coordinator. 1620~'gJQ<ereek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 553'il2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FINANCIAL IMP ACT: ALTERNATIVES: WMODEC.DOC SBWMO being out of compliance with the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and discussing options for watershed administration. One option is for the County to take over the watershed management and administration of these organizations. Also attached is a BWSR Implementation Guideline document on how the County would administer the WMO. A list often potential advantages is included in this document. The main issue facing the WMO's is the development of a 2nd generation watershed plan for the area as required by BWSR. The plan requirements will be more extensive and will cost more than the I st generation plan. By having the County assume the duties of the WMO's in Scott County there would be cost savings from a reduction of duplication efforts. It is proposed to retain the existing WMO board as an advisory board to help ensure local needs and concerns are being addressed. The other option is to continue to exist as in the past with local members administering the watershed planning for the WMO's. The City of Prior Lake has prepared a local water management plan which is more detailed than the WMO's plan. Whether the WMO's are County administered or administered through a Joint Power Agreement with local units of government, the City of Prior Lake's watershed planning will not be significantly impacted. County administration of the WMO may provide better watershed management and planning for the township acres which drain into Prior Lake and ultimately may be annexed into the City. For those reasons, it is staffs recommendation to vote for the WMO's termination and allow the County to take on the WMO's responsibilities for these areas. At this time of writing this agenda, the County has not officially responded on its desires on assuming the duties of watershed planning for WMO's in Scott County. However, if the WMO's are terminated, the responsibility for watershed planning and implementation of the watershed management plan by statute goes to the county. With more stringent goals and policies required in the 2nd generation WMO plans, there should be a cost savings realized by having the County administer watershed planning on a county wide basis, thus eliminating duplication of individual plans. The alternatives are as follows: 2 1. Terminate the SBWMO and the CRWMO and have the County take over the responsibilities and authorities of watershed planning for the WMO's. 2. Continue to have the SBWMO and CRWMO to operate as in the past with local members administering the watershed planning for the WMO's. 3. Table this item for a specific reason. 4. Deny this agenda item for specific reasons. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative #1: Staff recommends terminating the SBWMO and the CRWMO and have the County take over the responsibilities and authorities of watershed planning for the Shakopee Basin and Credit River Basin areas. Staff would also recommend that the existing local SBWMO and CRWMO board be retained as an advisory board to the County. Also, staff would recommend to the County that watershed planning and implementation be delegated as much as possible to the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second to approve Resolution 97-XX. ~~ /1;, at 4/1;~ WMODEC.DOC 3 RESOLUTION 97-XX RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TERMINATION OF THE CREDIT RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND THE SHAKOPEE BASIN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND AUTHORIZING SCOTT COUNTY TO ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ADMINISTERING THESE ORGANIZATIONS. MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: WHEREAS, The City of Prior Lake agrees that the best method of managing WMO's in Scott County is through the County's existing organization. WHEREAS, The City of Prior Lake recommends that the County delegate as much as possible to the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District the watershed planning and implementation of the plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that 1. The Council will approve the termination of the Credit River WMO and the Shakopee Basin WMO authorizing Scott County to assume the administrative responsibilities for these watershed management organizations. Passed and adopted this 7th day of April, 1997. YES NO Andren Greenfield Kedrowski Mader Schenck Andren Greenfield Kedrowski Mader Schenck Frank Boyles City Manager City of Prior Lake WMODEC.DOC 4 - -= 6' ~ IV 'v, ~ One West Water Street Suite 200 St Paul, MN 55107 (612) 296-3767 Fax (612) 297-5615 Field Offices Northern Region: 394 S. Lake Avenue Room 403 Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 723-4752 Fax (218) 723-4794 3217 Bemidji Avenue N. Bemidji, MN 56601 (218) 755-4235 Fax (218) 755-4201 217 S. 7th Street Suite 202 Brainerd, MN 56401-3660 (218) 828-2383 Fax (218) 828-6036 Southern Region: Highway 15 S. Box 756 New Ulm, MN 56073 (507) 359-6074 Fax (507) 359-6018 4O-16th Street SE Suite A Rochester, MN 55904 (507) 285-7458 Fax (507) 280-2875 Box 267 1400 E. Lyon Street Marshall, MN 56258 (507) 537-6060 Fax (507) 537-6368 Metro Region: One West Water Street Suite 250 St. Paul, MN 55107 (612) 282-9969 Fax (612) 297-5615 January 30, 1997 ~,..., ,t:'. :.~~ ~9.. ~.., / "9.9~ Mr. Bruce Loney, Chair Shakopee Basin WMO 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Status of Shakopee Basin WMO; Options for Management Alternatives Dear Mr. Loney: In a meeting on January.23, 1997, representatives from Scott County, the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District and myself met with yourself and the other members of the Shakopee Basin Watershed Management Organization (SBWMO) board to discuss the current status of the organization. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a work plan which would enable the geographic area covered by the SBWMO to regain compliance with the metropolitan surface water management act. In the course of our discussion of the various options for watershed administration, the SBWMO board members requested that BWSR develop a fact sheet which details the process for county administration of a watershed management plan. Attached is a guidance document, developed by BWSR metro staff, which details administration of the watershed plan by a county. As was agreed upon at our meeting, it is our understanding that each SBWMO board member will take this document, as well as the other guidance materials that were provided, back to their member community for discussion and a local decision as to the desired form of watershed governance. As we agreed, the SBWMO board will then meet within 90 days from receipt of this letter for the purpose of forwarding a recommendation from the SBWMO to the Scott County Board with the desired form of watershed governance. Again, we encourage the affected cities and townships to look at this as an opportunity to re-examine your commitment to future watershed management activities. The BWSR advocates WMOs that are active and ready to respond to issues. The level of activity the WMO elects to follow is a matter that must be determined locally based on the existing and future potential issues and the level of development and redevelopment that is occurring. Many factors should be considered in making that decision. As you realize, the rules that guide the content of second generation plans provide more specificity as to what is acceptable and An equal opportunity employer C:wDdocLlcottwml.JD2.dcj.30jan97 Printed on recyCled paper BWSR Metro Region Implementation Guidance: County Administration Purpose The BWSR advocates WMOS that are active and ready to respond to issues. The level of activity the WMO elects to follow is a matter that must be determined locally based on existing and future issues; the level of development and redevelopment that is occurring and the attention necessary to meet the needs of citizens. Many factors should be considered in making that decision. The current law and rule specify the minimum activity level a WMO must maintain to remain compliant. The adopted watershed management plan may also specify a level of activity that is above the minimum provided by law. The BWSR expects all WMOs to provide for continued oversight over local member plan implementation to maintain compliance with the law. If the WMO becomes inactive or is unresponsive to or unable to respond to complaints offailure to implement local plans, the BWSR would, after due process, advise the county of such failure. As provided by law, the county shall then be responsible for preparing, adopting and implementing the watershed management plan. If this in not a desirable option, then the WMO should, at a minimum, plan and be prepared for an effective means of oversight. The following guidelines are intended to help local WMO board members understand the opportunities for watershed management if the county is put into the position of being responsible for watershed management. Responsible Governmental Unit 1. If a WMO tenninates, the county containing the WMO shall prepare, adopt and implement a watershed plan and for this purpose, the county takes on all of the WMO authorities in statute. A. The county may delegate the preparation of all or part of a plan to the soil and water conservation district. B. Upon request of a statutory or home rule charter city or town, a county may delegate the preparation of all or part of a plan to the city or town. The county, acting as a WMO, would still establish the minimum criteria for the plan. County Authorities With Adoption of Watershed Planning Responsibility 1. The authority to prepare, adopt and implement the watershed plan. 2. The authority to review and approve local water management plans. The local plan must be at least as restrictive as the county(WMO) plan. C:\wpdocs\wmoauth.doc.28jan97 BWSR Metro Region Implementation Guidance: County Administration 3. A statement of goals and policies including management principles, alternatives and modifications, water quality and protection of natural characteristics. 4. The hydrologic and water quality conditions that will be sought and significant opportunities for improvement. 5. A description of the effects of the plan on existing drainage systems. 6. Identification of high priority areas for wetland preservation, enhancement, restoration and establishment and a description of any conflicts with wetlands and land use in these areas. 7. A description of any conflicts between the watershed plan and existing plans ofLGUs. 8. An implementation program consistent with the management plan, which includes a capital improvement program and standards and schedules for amending the comprehensive plans and official controls of local governmental units in the watershed to bring about conformance with the watershed plan. 9. The plan must extend at least five years but no more than ten years. 10. The plan must be reviewed for consistency with the county ground water plan and if necessary, revised to be compliant with the ground water plan. 11. Planning activities must be coordinated with neighboring WMOs and counties. Capital Improvement Projects 1. Each plan that documents existing water management problems that can not be addressed by preventative actions shall investigate the feasibility of implementing structural solutions. 2. A plan must include a capital improvement program that identifies specific improvements necessary to implement the water resource goals and policies. 3. The plan must include an analysis of the regulatory and financial impact on LGUs, including any concerns expressed by local units of government. 4. Under statutes 103B, a capital project is forwarded to the county board for hearing. If certified, all or parts of the cost may be distributed either county-wide or within subwatershed areas. Special taxing districts also may be established for projects within a specific geographic area. 5. A county may also sell bonds to pay for a project. C:\wpdocs\wmoauth.doc.28jan97 BWSR Metro Region Implementation Guidance: County Administration 6. Allows the LGUs to establish the connection between land use and water quality/quantity issues. Better coordination of parks, corridor and green space programs. 7. Recent revisions in the law have allowed the watershed planning entity the opportunity to have taxing authority, pennitting authority and the ability to establish subwatershed tax districts. These changes provide the opportunity to be more proactive in water management issues and better able to equitably distribute costs for disparate levels of activity . 8. The ability to react to short-term needs in a faster manner. 9. Citizen participation is required by law. The county better may be able to allow for the more active involvement of citizens. Watershed management benefits when the policies and goals are set through citizen involvement. This can be accomplished through active citizen advisory committees, regular focus groups, and an active information and education outreach program. 10. The ability to expand the focus beyond the traditional stormwater ponding and erosion control roles into such areas as natural resource corridor management and development, park and recreation opportunities and redevelopment opportunities. C:\wpdoc:s\wmoauth.doc.28jan97 ~ . i rJ'l ~ ,... ~ -< Q Z o o == o ~ ~ >- ~ >- ~ ~ =: ~ ~ ""- 55 >- Ck: <l: c::: ~ is -- f- L: = f- W f- ;- <l: L: Q:; C2 L- a.. '- 4= Q:; V1 L: - ) I Ck: f- Vl L: W c.:: ): ~ 1 c::: Vl lit j -~. ~ ,{~~ "~~-~) ~ '~' ~~~;:o.:o ' ~ r~~,,~.,l_ "1 : ','[~'-~5i:: \ , C-: '\ '...J .&;,"'-~~~~~ 9-, ~ ---=- ':I.>1=~~ -.. - \Y -;:.1~_ ....:-', 0- aE':=- '- --~ - :-"'~,' - "'~.~,~ ?~ - . ~~ ~~.'~ ., \ ~ .C ...... :.~. . ~~- ., ~ :.> -'-"0", ~ ~'7. ~;~~ '~~ ,--, ~ -,. ........ ,.. '..>!' . I .. '~~-'.Y' ',~~~ ,--;- l- 1 .- -=~" F->., ;.,.- .~~ ' ~ i. .- - - . ;i.,'.... ,~~....::: -'I -;":..:, .;,.;': _~/' _" :~~;:::: -Yol. "~~~'s=.;~1 :'. . c~ ~,':'_.~L._'_~:',_",___,_-=---=- '''., ~ :::..-~~,! - -4 _/ '--~~~~0. . . - . r - c-. -'C- ,"- _ , ..,:. _.~ ~ ~ ,) -.--.. ~"-"<'.~ ;:'-,,- /' "~' '- "~J>. """. ~ ~ ;:- "",,-: , '. " -....J ~-:' '1 "'- ' ---. ....--....\ '--- . \ ...., 1 _:.0-...; -::: -----. ---'--- : I j ~- ~