Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/94 MINUTES OF THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITI'EE October 19, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Lake Advisory Committee meeting was called to order on Wednesday, October 19, 1994 at 6:40 p.m. Members present were: Bill Packer, Peter Patchin, Jody Stroh, Tom Watkins, and John Wingard. City staff members present were: Director of Public Works Larry Anderson and Water Resources Coordinator Lani Leichty. Also present was Jerry Meysembourg representing the PL/SL Watershed District. II. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: The first item on the Agenda was to approve the minutes of the meeting on September 21, 1994. It was mentioned by Packer that the minutes should reflect that he was the member who abstained from voting on the recommendation for the Lords Street Access. MOTION BY WATKINS, SECONDED BY WINGARD, TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 21, 1994, MINUTES AS AMENDED WITH LANGUAGE TO REFLECT THAT PACKER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON THE LORDS STREET ACCESS RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. III. PRIOR LAKE PUBLIC ACCESSES: The next item of discussion was the Lake Access Study. Wingard notified the Committee about the Council's comments to the Study which were made during the Council meeting on Monday, October 17, 1994. Council wanted the LAC to look at the possibility of having a summer/winter public access at the Scott County Regional Park at the southwest end of Upper Prior Lake, and to look further into the snowmobile access regulations at the winter accesses. There was discussion about delineating the winter accesses to define their boundaries and restricting snowmobiles from using these accesses. The Committee did not want to eliminate snowmobiling from all winter accesses but felt that it would be appropriate to restrict those sites which are very close to residential homes. The Terrace Circle - South winter access already has a "No Snowmobiling" sign posted where homes are close to the access. The Sportsman's winter access at Shady Beach Trail also is very close to residential homes. Neither of these two accesses leads directly to interconnecting snowmobile trails. MOTION BY PACKER, SECONDED BY WATKINS, THE LAC RECOMMEND THAT DUE TO THE CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HOMES, THE SHADY BEACH SPORTSMAN'S AND THE TERRACE CIRCLE - SOUTH WINTER ACCESSES BE RESTRICTED FROM SNOWMOBILE USE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 0- '~'"_""_"_".'_"" _ 0,... ~._. '. '_'_'~_'__W"__'~"_"~.___"~_'_"'___"~"_"__'._ .'.___..""--__. ~ Discussion followed on the Scott County Park issue of whether a winter access, DNR public access or snowmobile access should be recommended at this site. It was the consensus of the committee not to move the DNR access from Dewitte Avenue over to the County Park site. The following concerns were raised that discouraged this site for further investigation: - There is not much ice-fishing at that end of the lake. - The bay is shallow and would be susceptible to adequate depths for boats in dry periods. - Parking would need to be on the west side of N orthwood Road. The additional traffic generated from boaters crossing the road could be a real nuisance for people traveling on Northwood Road. - There is a DNR public access very close to the site already. - The grades for a winter access are not as favorable as the Dewitte access. MOTION BY WINGARD, SECONDED BY WATKINS, TO RECOMMEND THAT THE SNOWMOBILE ACCESS REMAIN AT THE SCOTT COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND THAT THE LAC NO LONGER INVESTIGATE THE PARKAS A SITE FOR A WINTER/SUMMER PUBLIC ACCESS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Anderson stated that a public hearing should be scheduled for the Lords Street Access and Shady Beach Sportsman's Access on November 21, 1994. It was agreed upon by the LAC that it would be appropriate to send a notification to neighbors within 500 ft. of the two accesses, also notification to the Sportsman's Club and other associations concerned with the lake. IV. EURASIAN MILFOIL ACTION PLAN: The next item on the agenda was a discussion of the best way to proceed with future treatment of Eurasian milfoil. Jerry Meysembourg of the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District shared with the committee the following points about treatment of milfoil: 1) DNR will only allow 15% of the littoral area of the lake to be treated, 2) private homeowners can treat their own shorelines, 3) approximately $8,000 was spent this year on treatment of 18 to 22 acres, 4) approximately two years worth of money, $30,000, is leftover from the District's earlier assessment for treatment, 5) we will not be able to eradicate milfoil from the lake, but that we are in the control stage, 6) the District would like to take the role of secondary LGU and the City as lead LGU in the management function of treating milfoil, 7) it would be a good idea to inform the public what the LAC knows about milfoil, the current status of it in Prior Lake and our future plan to manage milfoil. There was discussion that next year at this time funding needs to be started for future treatment to be done the following Spring. Meysembourg stated that the District would also like to see the City be responsible for future funding mechanisms, since the public as a whole benefits from the lake, and also that only bays and channels be treated in the future with public money. He felt that the City could use money from the general fund along with the District and DNR to supply funding for treatment. Discussion also centered around hiring someone that could do delineation, treatment and follow-up identification of milfoil and that person be on City staff. A problem this year was that it was windy on the day the contractor was to treat, so treatment didn't occur until a later date after the peak opportunity for treatment had passed. Anderson commented that before the LAC could assume any of the roles as requested by the District that Council approval would be needed, especially in matters relating to turning over the taxing authority and fund raising to the City. "- The City staff members are very busy and it will be difficult for them take on any additional responsibilities. It was agreed upon that a strategy plan should be developed first to manage treatment of milfoil and then the public made aware of this plan. Stroh and Leichty agreed to write up a draft plan for the next meeting as a guideline for discussion. Meysembourg agreed to attend the November 16,1994, LAC meeting to continue the discussion on formulating a plan of action. V. OTHER BUSINESS: Packer mentioned that he recently talked to Deputy Sheriff John Grover. Grover said that the DNR is thinking about changing the verb age in the Surface Water Ordinance regarding residents placing their own buoys on the lake marking the 150 ft. no-wake zone. Packer would like to see better delineation of those areas on the lake that are dangerous to those who don't know the lake topography, Le., Candy Cove dam area and between Reeds Island and Breezy Point channel. MOTION BY WATKINS, SECONDED BY PATCHIN, TO HAVE PACKER CONTACT COUNTY COMMISSIONER DICK UNDERFERTH REGARDING PURCHASING AND PLACEMENT OF ADDITIONAL BUOYS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: VI. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY WATKINS, SECONDED BY PACKER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, ~;?' Recording Secre ary The next Lake Advisory Committee meeting LS scheduled for Wednesday, November 16, 1994 at 6:30 p.m. ,-, EURASIAN MILFOIL MANAGEMENT ISSUES LACEMM Questions to be Addressed 1. Is this a City issue or a Watershed issue? 2. Where should the funding come from? A. City 1. Assessment 2. General Fund 3. Ad Valorem B. Watershed 1. Assessment C. Lake Association 1. Raise Funds 3. Who will oversee the decision making? A. City (LAC or City employee) B. Watershed District C. Consultant (Contract Out) D. Volunteers 4. Who will do the field work? A. City employee B. Watershed employee C. Contract out D. Volunteer 5. How much of the lake should be mapped? A. The entire lake B. Areas to be treated only 6. What are we going to do on a long-term basis? A. Control measures B. Nothing 7. What needs to be done now in cooperation between the Watershed and the LAC? A. Management plan - guidelines B. Education 1. Wave Length articles 2. Newspaper articles 3. Brochures EURASIAN WATERKILFOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PRIOR LAKE Plan Development and Implementation Proposed by Dick Osgood, ECOSYSTEM STRATEGIES Following several years of treatments for Eurasian watermilfoil control in Prior Lake, the Lake Advisory Committee has directed that a Strategic Plan be developed and implemented for future management and control of milfoil. In response, I have been asked to: 1. Prepare this proposal for the development and implementation of a Eurasian watermilfoil management plan, and 2. Provide oversight for planning and implementation activities. As I understand, the objective of Eurasian watermilfoil management in Prior Lake will be to protect its high recreational and ecological values by: Controlling the nuisance growth of Eurasian water.milfoil in areas of high public use, minimizing its impact on the lake's ecosystem, and preventing its spread to Upper Prior Lake and Spring Lake. I propose to help the Lake Advisory Committee accomplish this objective by assisting them with the following tasks: 1. Situation Analysis (December 1994) Outcome: Evaluate the nature of the milfoil infestation in Prior Lake as well as the impacts of control work to-date to characterize the environmental situation and identify appropriate future actions. 2. Develop Protection and Management Strategies (Jan. - Mar. 1995) Outcome: Develop a strategic approach to controlling milfoil in Prior Lake and formalize this in a management plan. 3. Management Oversight (Apr. - Oct. 1995) Outcome: I will manage contractors, interns and volunteers enlisted to implement the management plan. I will assure timely performance, effective prevention and control measures, accurate survey methods, and effective communications. 4. Liaison to Lake Advisory Committee (Apr. - Nov. 1995) Outcome: I will keep the Lake Advisory Committee apprised of the status of all activities related to milfoil management in Prior Lake. I will prepare an annual report summarizing activities relating to the implementation of the Strategic Plan. LACEMP EURASION MILFOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN GOAL: CONTAIN MILFOIL IN LOWER PRIOR LAKE AND SLOW/PREVENT ITS SPREAD INTO UPPER PRIOR LAKE AND SPRING LAKE. GUIDELINES 1. MAINTAIN A MAPPING RECORD OF INFESTED LOCATIONS. A. Show location, size and treatment history for infested areas which will be updated yearly. 2. IDENTIFY AREAS TO BE TREATED EACH YEAR. A. If state funds are to be used treatment must benefit the public as a whole. Areas that can be treated are public accesses and channels providing access to open water, etc. B. Only 15% of the littoral area of the lake can treated. State Statute. C. Create a map for the area to be treated ough ties so that the area can easily be relocated for future inspections. D. Inspect the area prior to treatme ite as to the percent of weed infestation, plant size, etc. 1. Use volunteer divers to I free air. E. Identify test plots which results of various treatments rmine ideal application rates and overall 00# per acre should be tried on the test 2. Try Ga .... effectivene and others on the market to measure their ntrol. F. Use vollJl"I!E!E!rdi'!~~..tofoJI9'N. up with a post-treatment data inventory to determine the effectiveness of the treatment 1. PerCent contr()lyersus concentration of application. 2. Rate ofrE!inf~station versus recolonization by native vegetation. 3. IDENTIFY THE BEST SUITABLE TIME PERIOD FOR HERBICIDE APPLICATION. A. Spring treatment to be allowed during the months of April and May. Water temperature must reach at least 10 degrees Celsius (50 deg. F.) before application could be started. Application after June 15 will not be allowed, except under adverse circumstances. B. Treatment should be done during a fairly calm day when wind speeds are 5 mph or less. 4. KEEP THE PUBLIC INFORMED ABOUT THE ONGOINGS OF THE TREATMENT PROGRAM. A. Provide brochures that explain the milfoil management plan, past years treatment and what to expect in the future. B. Place articles in the newspaper providing updates on the current practices and treatments of milfoil. c. Place articles in "Wave Length" about the milfoil plan. EURASIAN MILFOIL MANAGEMENT ISSUES LACEMM Questions to be Addressed 1. Is this a City issue or a Watershed issue? 2. Where should the funding come from? A. City 1 . Assessment 2. General Fund r Fi....t Pa4....u ..., fie... ... 'Pt!';-e1J~ 3. Ad Valorem_J .s/,",,,~ y -(..y. LN( B. Watershed 1 . Assessment C. Lake Association 1. Raise Funds D. DAJe. "- 12,000 3. Who will oversee the decision making? " ,~ A. City (LAC or City empl~ ~:5"~ "'.{' );TfKal... GU~ B. Watershed District ,- · C. Consultant (Contract Out) D. Volunteers 8P ~u~ 64c. ~ fr1a.~ of C? h/'/J1. OVe.rke 4. Who will do the field work? -s-~ 'tI-.~ks ~ sJ..o.JJ be, 5~ o1r\e. ....1.., l<.,..",J ~ Jr.J.a.., f,-$J...~ It: J e-Cc=. A. City employee t-\~ 07 g.e!= <L sl!)(t t:e.ri'\ v)OTke.r "'''7 6e- a. frob/em. B. Watershed employee c.f 10 II-Ip- .~ z - .3 L.luk.s . C. Contract out D. Volunteer 5. How much of the lake should be mapped? A. The entire lake -+ B. Areas to be treated only 6. What are we going to do on a long-term basis? -> Of>jC/A..?~ j), tJ.e- (t\\~aqU>le~ 'f~ A. Control measures (/ B. Nothing 7. What needs to be done now in cooperation between the Watershed and the LAC? A. Management plan - guidelines B. Education 1. Wave Length articles 2. Newspaper articles 3. Brochures M€t-f<tS w~d y~ ~ a.wl \) ~e '1f ~I 9~ A '2) IJI /~ i~ flt~ 3) ~U~12- ;.;vJ -.-.,'.--.... ...-...._______________________..__L__,_..___...__..---------_._~."~_ ACCESS HEARING SCHEDULE November 21, 1994 - Public Meeting for Lords Street/Shady Beach "Trail accesses. January 16, 1994 - Public Meeting for Terrace Circle-South, West Avenue and Sand Point Beach accesses. March 6, 1995 - Vacation hearing for Lords Street/Shady Beach Trail accesses, if necessary. April 17, 1995 - Public meeting for Lot 3-Sunset Shore, Lime Road-South, Eighth Street, Seventh Street, Terrace Circle-North, Lime Road-North, Monroe Avenue and Kent Street accesses. June 5, 1995 - Public meeting for Quaker Trail, Pine Road, Shady Beach 2nd, Watersedge Trail, Cove Avenue, Flint Road and Lot 34 of Red Oaks. July 17,1995 - Public meeting on the DNR public access issues. If Council agrees to vacate the accesses as recommended in the Lake Access Study the affected residents should then be notified that they can formally acquire the property through the vacation process. Otherwise the right-of-way will remain deeded to the public until someone picks it up. If there is no need for a vacation hearing for the Lords Street/Shady Beach Trail accesses then the following public meetings will be moved up in date. lacmtg PRIOR LAKE-SPRING LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT OUTLET CHANNEL VISION STATEMENT PREAl\IlBLE The purpose of the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed Dsitrict, under Minnesota Statute 103D.201 is to conserve the natural resources of the state by land use planning, flood control and other conservation methods by using sound scientific principles for the protection of the public health and welfare and the provident use of natural resources. Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District was formed in part to reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water and to improve water quality. Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District reduces the impact of high water on Prior Lake by operation of an outlet. The Watershed District monitors and maintains the outlet channel in accordance with a lake operating plan and the Joint Powers Agreement. Land alteration affects the rate, volume and quality of surface water runoff which ultimately must be accommodated by the existing surface water systems within the Watershed District. This vision statement provides a framework for sound management of the outlet channel and participation by contributing municipalities and watersheds. FLOW OUANTITY The outlet channel was constructed to accommodate excess water discharge from Prior Lake whenever necessary in accordance with the lake operating plan and the Joint Powers Agreement with the ability of the District to control future flow rates and levels within legal flowageways and easements. An important goal of the District is to develop an overall plan for operation of the outlet channel that is acceptable to the Cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District to assure there is adequate capacity to handle present and future flow rates. WATEROUALITY The outlet channel is to receive and convey discharge of sufficient quality to protect and improve in-line lakes, the channel and the Minnesota River. The District's goal is to improve and upgrade the channel to reduce streambank erosion and sedimentation and to have stormwater pretreated before discharge into the outlet channel. MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING The Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District will strive to reduce overall public expenditures for operation and maintenance of the outlet channel by watershed(s) taking the lead role as outlet caretaker, developing long-term strategies and implementing projects. The Watershed District will identify problem areas and implement comprehensive remedies. The Watershed District will coordinate an outlet master plan with communities and the Lower Minnesota Watershed District. The District will upgrade and maintain the outlet channel. Any improvements generated by additional discharge should be funded by communities and watersheds that create these increased discharges.