HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/09
MINUTES OF THE LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
April 21, 2009
The Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) Meeting was called to order at 4:30 P.M.
Members present: Harry Alcorn (Chair), Donna Mankowski (Vice Chair), Dan
O’Keefe, Char Jasan, Liz Weninger.
Others present: Ross Bintner (Water Resources Engineer) Steve Millar (City
Council – LAC liaison), Mike Kinney (Watershed District Administrator), Gary
Montz (MN DNR), Jane Kansier (Building and Transportation Services Director),
Members of the public.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Jasan, O’Keefe 5:0)
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Invasive Species UPDATE: Zebra Mussel found in Prior Lake –
DNR: Alcorn introduced Gary Montz, Biologist from the Minnesota
DNR. Montz stated that the DNR recently did a survey of Prior
lakes and had confirmed the presence of zebra mussels. Montz
and his research assistant went by boat to many corners of the lake
and found specimens that show a self sustaining population of the
invasive species is now infesting Upper and Lower Prior Lake. The
Mussles were attached to rocks and wood on the bottom of the
lake. Montz thought the mussel reproduced in the summer of 2008
and spread through the lake. The zebra mussel was show and
described as having zebra stripes, and being small, no more than
1.5inches in length, in the shape of a “D”. Montz described the
biology of the mussels larval stage, called a veliger. Montz asked
for questions. Mankowski asked how to avoid the spread of the
mussels, and what boat users must do, how much water can harbor
zebra mussels, how long they live outside the water. Montz said
boat cleaning is important, saying no plants should be attached to
the boat because the mussel attaches to plants. Water should be
drained from bilge water, live wells and bait buckets. The
microscopic veliger “baby” phase are very fragile, and small
amounts of water on the outside of the boat should not be an issue.
Weninger asked what the chances are of the mussel moving up to
spring lake. Montz explained that the adults are not mobile without
human interaction, they don’t flow upstream. A boat is the most
common vector of spread. Weninger asked if they attached to fish,
Montz said no. Alcorn asked what to do to prevent spread. Montz
1
said the DNR uses watercraft inspectors and they work with lake
associations on major events to help educate people. Alcorn asked
what can be done proactively. Montz said there is no control for the
zebra mussels, there is no way to kill them. Montz said dealing
with nuisances that can be caused might be helpful – lifting the
boat, or boat motor out of the water, so coolant system intakes are
not clogged. O’Keefe asked if the DNR sees anyway to prevent the
mussel from moving. Montz explained that since their arrival in
north America no evidence of natural movement has been
documented. They are very preventable, if boats, watercraft,
docks, and large amounts of water are all addressed by the boating
public and lake users. Since its arrival in 1991, only 10 inland lakes
are infested. It all depends on boat users. Wisconsin has over
100, and Michigan has over 300 lakes infested. Jasan asked what
the mussel will do to the quality of the water, and if there is any
problem with pumping out of the lake for lawn irrigation. Montz can’t
predict what happens to the water. There might be an increase in
water clarity, because they are filter feeders and they strain out
water clouding particles. More aquatic plants may grow. If large
amounts take hold, fish populations could crash. Montz showed a
photo of a clogged sprinkler intake full of mussels. Hot water is the
best way to kill them. Winter ice will kill them as well.
Questions were taken from the public. Lisa Rizzo - 1725 Shoreline
Blvd Shakopee, asked if the mussels can be toxic or disease
vectors for pets or children. Montz said that he knew of none.
Rizzo asked if a boat rinse station installed at spring lake would
work. Montz recommended against, saying the boat should be
washed when it is take out of the infested water, and perhaps again
at a car wash. Rizzo asked is there is any research on treatment
for zebra mussels. Montz said there has been research done, but
so far none are found. Chemicals can kill them, but they also kill
fish. Rizzo asked what brochures can be given to the lake
association to help distribute and educate people. Montz said the
DNR has and education section and they plan to make them
available. Mike Thibault – 16013 Northwood asked about the
outlet, asking if there is any plans to limit the outlet, and if the pipe
can be blocked by the mussel. Montz said the issue is under
review but he expects because it is a natural outflow for flood
protection it will not be shut down. Bintner asked that if the outlet
flowed as late as July of last year, if downstream bodies might
already be infested. Montz said there is a good chance.
Michelle Gordenstroh 15331 Red Oaks Road SE asked if the DNR
has a proactive monitoring program. Montz said the state has a
volunteer network for monitoring and that it was a resident that
2
brought this infestation to the attention of the DNR. Gordenstroh
asked about potassium being used in a Virginia lake to eradicate
the mussels. Montz responded that the situation at that lake was
very different, and that it was in fact an abandoned quarry, not a
lake. With a small area, and no natural life a one time application
could be applied with success. The practice is not applicable to
Minnesota lakes.
Mankowski asked about the inspection program. Montz said that
boat inspectors work 40 hours a week, mostly on weekends during
the busy period, so they can reach the most amount of boaters.
The DNR plans to have greatly increased coverage of the Upper
and Lower Prior Lakes. Partnership with lake associations is
possible, as well as cost share. Jasan asked how they can grow so
fast. Montz said they spawn above 55 degrees and can go from
larval stage to one-half inch attached in short order. The mussels
can live 2-4 years, and produce 500,000 eggs in a season,
although many die of natural causes. Populations fluctuate as they
find equilibrium with natural predators. Mankowski asked if any
limitations will be placed on lake access. Montz said that is not
likely and has not been done in the past with other infestations.
O’Keefe said that zebra mussels were liked in lake Erie for clearing
the water up. O’Keefe asked how native mussels are effected.
Montz said that populations of native mussels crash with a zebra
mussel infestation. Alcorn asked how many access the lake has
and if the DNR would monitor all. Montz said only the public are
monitored, unless the lake association partnership is used, and
permission is granted to the DNR. Jim Weninger asked if mussels
can travel upstream to Spring. Montz said no. Jim Weninger asked
if birds can transport. Montz said highly unlikely.
Alcorn asked if there have been any property value changes on
other infected lakes. Montz said he didn’t know of any. Rizzo
stated as a real estate agent, she’s see no lack of interest. Jasan
asked if infested water is tracked. Montz said the DNR website has
a list of infestations. John Brimski 5229 Candy Cover Trail asked
if there has been any change in fisheries from other infested lakes,
if freshwater drum can control. Montz said he’s not seen any
crashes in Minnesota yet and there is no evidence that they
dramatically lower the levels. Alcorn asked what percent of eggs
survive. Montz estimated 90% mortality in the veliger stage.
B. Watershed District (WD) Issues:
i. WD Administrators Report - Mike Kinney: Kinney updated
the LAC on WD issues. Kinney stated progress is being
made at bringing the TMDL study to conclusion and get it
3
approved. Stakeholders have made basic agreements on
process. The TMDL is at the MPCA being reviewed
currently prior to stakeholder and public comment. The Prior
Lake Outlet structure is planned for construction late this fall
or winter. Easement acquisitions are underway currently.
The current design does not require any gates to be opened.
Mankowski asked if the CR 21 extension will effect the outlet
channel. Kinney said the CR 21 project won’t effect the flow.
Kinney said the outlet channel project should be nearly
complete at the end of this year, major projects complete this
year. Interfluve is working on the revised design. Kinney
stated that the WD is updating its Water Plan and hopes to
have its final draft for review soon. Bintner added that both
the TMDL and WD Plan will both be routed through the LAC
for review, adding that there are a lot of opportunities for
partnership in the implementation of both documents.
Mankowski asked if the outlet channel is regulated by the
DNR. Kinney said the JPA requires that the WD inform
everyone of the channel opening, but not the permission of
the parties. Jasan asked difference of outlet box and
channel in design and contracts. Kinney said the box is the
sole responsibility of the WD, but the channel is owned by
the WD and paid for under a Joint Powers Agreement.
ii. Virtual tour of the watershed: Bintner suggested postponing
this item for another day due to the meeting length.
C. Surface Water Regulation - No wake and towing zones: Bintner
introduced the topic saying this item was tabled at the March
meeting and staff made changes as recommended by the LAC at
the previous meeting. Two major issues remained; the
establishment of the 6 no-wake navigational channels (navigational
zones), and whether and to what extent to allow towing in either
150’ from shore no wake zones (shore zones), or the 6 navigational
channel no-wake zones. Alcorn clarified that the first question
under consideration was the 6 navigational zones. Alcorn noted
that the 6 zones have traditionally been marked by the sheriff.
O’Keefe asked what process might be used to add to this list,
saying that breezy point/red oaks bay might qualify. Bintner said
the process would be an ordinance revision, to include a new
location explicitly as the proposed 6 locations. Mankowski said the
lake association purchases the buoys for the sheriff. Upon further
review, it looked like the 150’ zone covers that bay. Alcorn asked
what criteria was used to choose the six. Bintner said the six
chosen were traditionally marked by the sheriff. Alcorn asked what
criteria to use, stating he didn’t want an arbitrary standard. Bintner
4
suggested a criteria for marking might be if a constriction is in
question, and does clearly qualify for no-wake under the 150’ from
shore provision. Alcorn suggested that a clear definition be made,
not wanting to be arbitrary. Mankowski suggested that past
experience placed these navigational zones where they are. The
criteria is based on the sheriff deputies best judgment. Bintner
stated that state statute allows the City to describe these zones, not
defining criteria. Alcorn stated that criteria like risk, traffic, and
safety be chosen as guidelines to choose what zones are chosen
and navigational zones. Bintner stated that the intent section of the
ordinance spells out the purpose, and safety is a criteria, the
standards are in the ordinance already. Weninger said 4 of the 6
areas are strictly navigational channels. Jasan said from her
experience, the Lords Street channel buoys were very well
received, saying it slowed boat traffic and is safer. Jasan said
since the level of the lake, and width of channels fluctuates, the
zones provide clarity over the 150’ rule. Mankowski stated that
prior to no-wake buoys the issue caused controversy, some bays
the sheriff doesn’t need buoys because it is clearly less than 300
feet. O’Keefe said due to water level changes he supported the six
Motion to recommend six
zones as logical. Alcorn agreed.
zones to City Council - O’Keefe/Weninger Passed (5:0)
Bintner introduced the second question stating there was a lot of
confusion at the prior meeting about what is currently allowed,
whether towing is allowed through a channel right now. 703.500
“Towing Restrictions” currently reads “No watercraft towing a
person on waterskis, innertube, aquaplane or similar device shall
be operated at any time within 150’ of shore; provided, however,
that any watercraft launching or landing a person on waterskis,
innertube, aquaplane or similar device by the most direct and safe
route to open water or shore shall be exempt from this provision.”
Bintner said he concluded that a transit of the zone would be illegal
under the current ordinance, but launching out of, or landing into a
zone is allowed. The LAC had discussed some of these items via
email and some topics of concern were potential safety hazards of
the logistics of towing through navigational zones, and potential
boat capacity issues. Mankowski said she was surprised the DNR
didn’t regulate the people on a towable against the capacity of the
boat. Mankowski said the safety issue is paramount in the
navigational channels. Alcorn asked if the prohibition on towing
through channels is new. Bintner said the ordinance currently
restricts a transit through a zone, but the exception allows
launching or landing in the no-wake zone. O’Keefe asked if you
can tow through a channel now. Bintner said you can be towing in
a channel zone, provided you are launching or landing. This grey
5
area was part of the sheriff deputies concern. Alcorn asked why his
version of the change document shows 703.500 highlighted, if it
hadn’t changed. Kansier said the formatting that moved the section
caused the highlight, that 703.502 is the new language, and that
703.501 was only changed to simplify “towables.” O’Keefe said the
way it is reworded changes the intent, saying towing through a no-
wake was allowed. O’Keefe said he supports an ordinance revision
that allowed towing through navigational channels. Alcorn asked
about a personal watercraft towing through a channel. Mankowski
said she preferred to allow towing in the 150’ zone if it were towing
at slow no-wake speed, but not through navigational channels.
O’Keefe said no-wake should not be no-towing too. Bintner said
the ordinance is not structured that was at the current time, but the
LAC could recommend to make the distinction. Millar asked about
people who live in the channel, asking can they leave from their
property with a towable. Jasan said that is true, saying some
properties there have an issue with that. O’Keefe said 703.501
shouldn’t restrict a slow transit towing out of one of the bays.
Alcorn said there was no reports of injury last year. Bintner
suggested the committee has issue with the blanket 150’ zones,
and might consider splitting them into navigational areas, and 150’
near shore areas and then deciding the towing in each. Bintner
summarized potential recommendations under the current
ordinance from most permissive to least permissive. 1) A
recommendation from the LAC to allow towing near shore and/or
navigational zones. 2) A recommendation allowing launching or
landing into navigational areas. 3) A recommendation disallowing
all towing in channels. Bintner said the proposal in front of the LAC
seems to take the status quo (option 2), and make it more
restrictive (option 3). Bintner suggested the LAC has been asked
for a recommendation and should weigh in on the potential
recommendations.
O’Keefe said he is not in favor or making it more restrictive and
would prefer a less restrictive towing restriction. He would only
support a restriction on towing at wagon bridge. Alcorn said the
majority of time towing in channels is not an issue, only on some
nights and weekends of peak use is it a problem. Good boat safety
practice should suffice. Alcorn stated that more details should be
considered before a recommendation is made. Jasan asked if
703.502 was the proposed addition. She said she was in favor if
promoting safety and appreciated the sheriff working proactively.
Alcorn stated that the towing at nowake speeds should be allowed
in the 150’ zone. Weninger suggested a speed restriction could be
added to the near shore zone to allow towing in that zone. Jasan
said she found150’ towing from shore is acceptable. Bintner stated
6
the slow-no-wake speed is already defined as 5 miles or less in
ordinance. Mankowski said the sheriff brought this to the lake
association ahead of the LAC, and she didn’t sense that he wanted
to prohibit near shore slow tubing, but instead the problems he saw
at Reeds Island with all the wake and overturning of towables, and
the long path at wagon bridge. Safety should be a priority, but the
most restrictive option goes too far. Alcorn said careless boating
should be used as a tool by the deputy rather than increasing
towables standards. Mankowski said it is similar to the seatbelt
Motion to recommend allowing
law, ramping enforcement.
towables within 150 at a no wake speed, and remove
restrictions on towing through channels. – O’Keefe/Alcorn
Failed (2:3).
Jasan suggested we table the motion, Mankowski
asked for clarification on DNR approval. Bintner said in any case
DNR must approve. Mankowski and Weninger clarified that votes
would be the LAC recommendation to City Council.
Motion to recommend disallowing towables with passenger
within 150’ zone, and restrict any towing through channels. –
Weninger/ Failed no second.
Millar asked why the deadline by the next council meeting. Kansier
stated the goal was to get the ordinance to the DNR by early may
to meet the boating season. The City Council chose to have the
public hearing at the LAC level and that has been done.
Mankowski stated that she was surprised that 703.500 restricted
towables in the no wake zone and said she would favor tabling any
towable recommendation.
Motion to table and recommend that City Council direct LAC to
further study towables and potential restrictions. –
Mankowski/Weninger Passed (5:0).
Millar stated he saw no problem with continuing the motion since
current ordinance covers the issue. Jasan and Alcorn suggested
that information be collected from neighboring lakes. Alcorn asked
Millar to represent the towable issue to his fellow councilors, saying
further study is needed because of the relationship between the
zones as it relates towables restrictions.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
V. STAFF UPDATE
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
7
ADJOURNMENT
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ross Bintner
Water Resources Engineer
8