Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/08MINUTES OF THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 20, 2008 The Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) Meeting was called to order at 4:35 P.M. Members present: Donna Mankowski (Chair), Harry Alcorn (Vice Chair), Dan O'Keefe, Char Jasan, Jim Marchessault. Others present: Ross Bintner, Water Resources Engineer. Mike Kinney, PLSLWD. Bret Krick, Scott Co. Sheriffs office. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (O'keefe, Jasan 4:0) III. OLD BUSINESS A. Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District Update: Mike Kinney summarized some of the recent efforts of the Watershed District (WD). Curlyleaf treatments and studies have continued on Fish and Spring Lake. A contract for study and investigation has been underway with assistance from the City of Prior Lake and DNR. Areas beyond 150 feet from shore were treated by the district and after a few years of treatment the Curlyleaf was starting to thin. Kinney showed a graph of steadily declining nuisance plant densities. Carp Control - Kinney said that the WD met with Dr. Peter Sorensen on the Carp issue in the District. The WD learned a lot about Carp control and is reviewing its policy on control. There is currently no plans to continue netting carp in the winters. TMDL - The WD now f~as a draft report out to the EPA and MPCA and hope to have the report finalized in June. Outlet Structure - The WD continues to work on getting easements and rights to access and construct the new planned outlet is ongoing. The new structure will be more efficient, allowing the water to flow at full capacity at a lower water elevation. Alcorn asked what the main issue is that is holding up the process. Kinney said that arriving at a value has taken time. Alcorn asked about timeline. Kinney stated that they hope to be under construction by this fall, but will start when ever they get the easements. Mankowski asked if all of the downstream channel has been completed. Kinney said that only segment 1 has been completed. Outlet Channel JPA - Kinney said the WD is reviewing their strategy and inviting a national stream restoration contractor to present to the WD board. Kinney stated that if a change is made to the strategy there is the potential to save up to two million dollars on the cost of construction. Interfluve is doing the reassessment work. Future Issues - New Water Resources Management Plan: District is just starting the process to reassess their plan. The timing is good because the TMDL work is wrapping up and Carp initiative can be put in the new plan. Volume Control - Planning needs to be done for volume control in the upper reaches of the Watershed. Shoreline Restoration - The WD is hoping to do 5-10 shoreline projects and is doing educational workshops. Bintner asked if the "Lake Friendly" program would come back? Kinney said no, but there are grant dollars available for shoreline stabilization. Alcorn asked how the LAC could assist? Kinney said there would be opportunity for participation when the Water Plan is updated and education on aquatic plants and a Carp study. Marchessault asked for clarification on the outlet structure. Kinney said an easement was granted but rights on the lake bed were unclear, so the WD did not feel confident proceeding without a new easement. B. Surface Water Enforcement and Safety Update: Bret Krick detailed enforcement plans for the summer. All buoys are placed. Bret and three police offices will be teaming up for surFace water enforcement this year. Bret works Thursday through Sunday and Holidays on the water. Alcorn asked how access point enforcement works to prevent invasive species on boats. Krick said he is working on education for local police departments and the sheriffs so deputies and offices know when they can make stops. Mankowski asked for a recap on total tickets last year. Bret guessed there were about 18-21 Boating while intoxicated arrests and around 200 citations for violations such as under age consumption, noise violations, speed, and many others. Alcorn asked about the winter shoreline parking ordinance or if enforcement was done. Krick said this winter was cold enough that people felt comfortable to drive out on the ice, so this winter was not a problem. IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. STAFF UPDATE VI. NEW BUSINESS 2 A. 30% Impervious Limit: Bintner explained that the City Council directed staff to review the 1000' shoreland zone 30% impervious limit, and the possibility to offer credits. Hedberg added that this issue came up as part of a variance request denial. Hedberg stated that he would like to be proactive in promoting water quality BMPs and shore land aesthetics. What are the issues behind going to 33% or 35% impervious and could BMPs mitigate for that increase in impervious? Alcorn asked if we are proposing a credit to go over the 30% limit? Hedberg said we are looking into it as part of this process. Alcom asked what risks there are in the long-term? O'keefe asked if the current 30% limit was driven by watershed rules? Bintner said that in the late 80's the DNR went through a statewide planning process to create a statewide rule. Three things were meant to be protected by the rule: A natural shoreline aesthetic, wildlife habitat and water quality. Bintner said his discussion would just deal with a credit system for the water quality concern and that increasing impervious may caused detriment to the other two values the DNR sought to protect. The City of Prior Lake already takes advantage of "implementation flexibility, as the statewide standard is 25% impervious limit. If the City proposes to change its standard to allow a credit system, the ordinance revision would have to be approved by the DNR. Bintner introduced the hydrology of the near-shore area. From a undeveloped condition to a developed cond~tion, runoff can increase 2-3 times while groundwater recharge can fall. These changes in hydrology have an effect on water quality because it can cause unstable slopes and shorelines. In greater development large scale public BMPs such as ponds, wetlands and infiltration basins are created. These BMPs are designed to meet a level of service and are required to be maintained indefinitely. Bintner listed and explained detriments to adding additional impervious as: 1. Increased runoff volume - this can cause slopes to degrade and increases downstream flood potential 2. Increased runoff rate - this can cause downstream soil stability and sedimentation 3. Increased pollutant loads - various examples hurt water quality 3 4. Increased soil saturation and decreased soil stability - these cause nutrients to enter lakes. 5. Decreased groundwater recharge. Some examples of small scale and private BMPs include infiltration trenches, rain gardens, pervious pavements, green roofs, shoreland buffer zones, and boulevard trees. Bintner detailed each of the potential BMPs and explained how they each effect a different detriment. Each BMP had a useful life and a maintenance cycle as welL Bintner explained that in a credit system with privately installed BMPs there must be some protocols to ensure that BMPs maintain a level of service indefinitely. Bintner recommended a 3 part program: 1 a legally enforceable agreement that would transfer with the property, 2- design and construction verification by the City, and 3- a program manager to track and ensure inspections and maintenance of the level of service is sustained. Alcorn stated that it seemed the BMPs would require high maintenance and could be financially burdensome. Alcorn asked if it was possible to either trade with nearby homes or construct BMPs on other property. Bintner stated that it is possible to increase your total impervious allotment by buying land you're your neighbor and a pollutant trading scheme is not advisable because of the very localized nature of the possible water quality detriments. Marchessault said he owns a building im Burnsville and expanded as a Planed Unit Development. He asked could we exchange letter of credit to ensure the BMPs function. O'keefe said paying 6 to 10 thousand a year in taxes should allow you the right, if technology exists to increase your impervious and staff shouldn't unduly put expense on a homeowner. Bintner asked for clarification. O'keefe expanded by saying there is the possibility to capture and control over and above the standard by using BMPs and the credit system seems to make it burdensome to put BMPs in. Bintner agreed that water quality can greatly benefit from installing these practices and said currently there is nothing stopping a homeowner from putting these water quality BMPs in place - that they don't need to prove they function or are not bound to maintain them forever, if they are not used as a credit. However when they are used to go above the limit, their level of service must be verifiably sustained. O'keefe restated that he thinks the ability to go above the 30% limit should be allowed if the proper technology is used - if a homeowner puts an investment into their property to 4 treat water, they will want to maintain in. Bintner asked if O'keefe disagreed with the goal of providing a verifiab(e and sustainable water quality benefit. O'keefe said he did not disagree but also did not want to price someone out of the option by making the verification and legal agreements too onerous. Hedberg said a concern that has to be addressed is providing verification at a reasonable cost. Mankowski asked do people check impervious after a home is built? Bintner said a system is in place to confirm a home is built to plan, which is only approved under the limit. Mankowski added that her main concern is sustainability, that one owner to the next to the next will know about the system and be able to maintain it. Mankowski wondered how many people would take advantage of a system like this. Hedberg said any change to the ordinance would require the DNR approval and the 30% limit may be on the table again, saying a stricter standard may result. Alcorn asked if all land is treated equally? What about steeps slopes and clay soils? Bintner explained that the rule is statewide and does not take sitewide variation into account because treatment is not required. O'Keefe asked, aside from the 30% if we went up to 35% or 40% what is the Staff opinion of the other 2 values other than water quality, habitat and aesthetics? Bintner stated that he only covered water quality. Bintner wondered, if the DNR had set, 40-50 or 100% impervious as the limit, how different the shoreline would look today. Guessing that some properties would go right to the limit, whatever it was, a tree lined shore disappears the closer the limit gets to 100% impervious. With some difficulty, we can mitigate for water quality the other values are harder. We have to ask ourselves, what are we willing to give up? Jasan asked if there was a large demand for this? Hedberg said there have been a few situations asking for this and he wants incentives to putting these BMPs in place. That this idea was one way to possibly promote this. Bintner said if we could rollback the clock and start over at 1900 knowing what we know today about water quality, the lake water quality would be much better. We could build a graduated scale that perhaps gave all lots 10% impervious free - and then required more and more BMPs as the site impervious reached a set limit of, perhaps 40%. But that is not possible now - 30% is the limit already agreed and we have given up some habitat and aesthetic already. Bintner suggested that if incentives are the goal, a grant program is a much more effective method of promoting BMPs. 5 Mankowski asked if the DNR would have too approve this, what chance would we have to get a system like this in place if we already have water quality issues on our lake? Hedberg said on the other 2 values, an incentive approach is better rather than requirements. VII. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ross Bintner Water Resources Engineer 6