7.a Shoreline Scandia Planning Commission 12_5_2023CMSCWD Shoreline
Survey Results
Mike Isensee, CMSCWD Administrator
Mike.Isensee@cmscwd.org
Tom Langer, CMSCWD Riparian Permit
Specialist
Tom.langer@cmscwd.org
December 5, 2023
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix WD
2022 CMSCWD Watershed Management Plan
Engagement by the Numbers
•146 Shoreland Landowner Survey Respondents
•169 Landowner (Non-Shoreland) Survey Respondents
•55 Farmer/Ag Landowner Surveys
•2 Listening Sessions
•8 Citizen Advisory Committee Meetings
•13 Community Meetings
•4 Technical Advisory Committee Meetings
•16 Board Meetings, Workshops and Subcommittees
•2 Shoreland Compliance and Enforcement Advisory Team
Meetings
•2 Local Natural Resource Professional Input Workshops
Lakeshore Owner Engagement 2021
Large Loss of Native Shoreline Over the Last 15 Years
DNR and
MPCA Findings
Big Carnelian and Big Marine Lakes are
at high risk of becoming impaired for
lack of biodiversity
Shoreline and shoreland alteration is
the primary stressor
Restoration of shoreline and shoreland
areas are needed on developed
parcels.
All Lots Residential Lots
2023 Report: Minnesota’s Vanishing Natural Shorelines: A Loss that Contributes to Degraded Lake Quality
County
CMSCWD Management Plan:
Shoreline Objectives
Engage
▪Targeted outreach.
▪Contact landowners prior to violations.
Improve
▪Increase natural shoreline on 6 priority lakes.
▪Complete 2 shoreline restorations/yr.
▪Progress toward 75% of lakeshores (parcels) having 50%
natural veg.
Monitor
▪Baseline and quantify conditions.
▪Track progress.
Enforce
▪Communication coordination.
▪Stop modifications without a permit.
2023 Shoreline Landowner Survey Results
Little Carnelian = 17 responses
(65% response rate)
Big Carnelian = 41 responses
(20% response rate)
Fish= 1 response
(13% response rate)
Goose = 14 responses
(48% response rate)
Sand = 13 responses
(46% response rate)
Hay = 8 responses
(40% response rate)
Long = 2 responses
(13% response rate)
North Twin = 7 responses
(35% response rate)
Big Marine= 41 responses
(20% response rate)
Square = 9 responses
(21% response rate)
➔ February 2023 mailed survey of 565 lakeshore
landowners on ten priority lakes in the watershed
district.
•144 people completed the survey
(25% response rate)
➔The survey asked people to
•Self-report characteristics of their
property
•Share values and concerns related to
shoreline living
•Indicate knowledge and understanding of
the watershed, best management
practices, and programs offered by
CMSCWD.
➔In-person focus group sessions with
landowners from Big Carnelian and Big Marine
•Discussed experiences, ideas, and
opinions related to shoreline landscaping
and management.
CMSCWD Lakeshore Landowner Research
How did you feel when you learned your lake is nearly impaired
for aquatic life?
Not surprised.
I’ve seen it
happening over
the years.
When I first moved
here there were so
many fish you could
almost walk across the
lake on their backs.
There used to be tons of
otters. I used to be able to
go out on my property and
see them all over lying on
their backs.
I’ve noticed the fish.
There aren’t as
many and they are
smaller. They don’t
look healthy.
Is Big Marine
still good
compared to
other lakes?
What initially drew you to Big Carnelian /
Big Marine Lake?
We were looking for
a deep clear lake
with good fishing.
We looked for a lake here
that would be deep and
spring-fed to have clearer
water. We like the nature. You
can see deer and foxes yet
are close to the cities, near
good schools, and churches.
We looked for
something that felt
like a cabin up
north.
Feels like
being up north
without having
to drive so far.
Shoreland Landowners Want
•Fishable Waters
•Swimmable Waters
•Natural Appearance
•For Their Lake
•Lake Views
•Patios, Decks, Sheds
•Lawn
•For their Property
CMSCWD Programs Communications and Engagement
Mailed newsletters, direct mailings to shoreland owners,
welcome letter to new landowners, shoreland workshops
Technical Assistance and Cost Share
Free shoreline design plans, 50% cost share for native
shoreline restoration, installation technical assistance
Inspections and Permit Program
Permit requirements for shoreline modifications (since 2010),
permitting coordination (with LGU, DNR, Washington County),
complaint investigation, enforcement
Analysis and Prioritization
Shoreline and shoreland vegetation monitoring
Capital Improvements
District projects in collaboration with other LGUs to improve
water quality and shoreland health
Drifted-in Logs
& Snags
(wildlife habitat,
erosion control &
water quality)
Emergent Vegetation
(water quality, erosion-
control & wildlife habitat)Tree Stumps
(wildlife habitat &
water quality)
Shoreland Vegetation
(erosion-control, water
quality, wildlife habitat, high
plant diversity = high
wildlife diversity)
Value / Function of
Natural Shoreland Zone
Evaluating Shoreline Habitats
Native Buffers & Natural Ground Cover
Emergent Vegetation Trees & Shrubs Screening
Downed Woody Debris
Overhanging Woody Structure
Loafing Logs
10 Priority Lakes
75% of shoreline properties have 50% or great
native shoreline vegetation
1.Big Carnelian
2.Big Marine
3.Little Carnelian
4.Sand
5.Square
6.North Twin
7.Goose
8.Hay
9.Fish
10.Long (May Twp)
Scandia: Lakeshore Condition Summary
What 50% Natural Shorelines Look Like
Ranking Parcel Coverage
Excellent 75-100%
Good 50-74%
Fair 25-49%
Poor 1-24%
Absent 0%
Ranking Parcel Coverage
Excellent 75-100%
Good 50-74%
Fair 25-49%
Poor 1-24%
Absent 0%
Shoreland Zone
Shoreline Zone
Aquatic Zone
Big Marine: Score the Shore
#Shoreland Shoreline Aquatic Total Score
High Density Residential 93 12.1 11.2 12.2 35.6
Low Density Residential 39 18.3 18.9 11.9 49.1
Natural NonWetland 11 30.3 32.1 27.0 89.4
Natural Wetland 9 24.4 26.7 22.2 73.3
Average Score (max 33.3/zone)
High LowModerate Very Low
High LowModerate Very Low
High LowModerate Very Low
Total Lakeshore Parcels = 230
High LowModerate Very Low
Undeveloped Non-Wetland
Undeveloped Wetland
CMSCWD Lakeshore Programs
Technical Assistance and Cost Share
Free shoreline design plans, 50% cost share for native
shoreline restoration, installation technical assistance
Inspections and Permit Program
Permit requirements for shoreline modifications (since 2010),
permitting coordination (with LGU, DNR, Washington County),
complaint investigation, enforcement
Tons of Engagement
Mailed newsletters, direct mailings to shoreland owners,
welcome letter to new landowners, shoreland workshops, lake
association meetings, and more
Coordinated Communications
Coordinated Permitting
Watershed District Rules
Focus:
1.Stormwater rate, volume, and quality
management from impervious surface runoff.
2.Erosion and sediment controls.
3.Setbacks and buffers from water resources.
Watershed District Shoreline Alteration Rules:
1.Limit alteration of a shoreline to instances where erosion of the shoreline is occurring or likely to occur.
2.Assure that alterations of shoreline comply with accepted engineering principles to prevent erosion; and
3.Preserve and, wherever feasible, enhance the ecological integrity and natural appearance of shoreline.
Shoreland Rule Intent Overlap
Scandia Code Citation City Intent and Purpose
Ordinance 198, Chapter 5, Section 1.2 “…preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters”
Ordinance 198, Chapter 5, Section 1.2
"…conserve the economic and natural environmental values of
shorelands"
Ordinance 198, Chapter 5, Section 1.2 Sub (4)"Regulate the alteration of shorelands of public waters"
Ordinance 198, Chapter 5, Section 1.2 Sub (5)
"Regulate the alterations of natural vegetation and topography along
shorelands"
Ordinance 198, Chapter 5, Section 1.2 Sub (6)
"Conserve natural resources and maintain a high standard of
environmental quality"
Ordinance 198, Chapter 5, Section 1.2 Sub (7)"Preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters"
Ordinance 198, Chapter 5, Section 1.2 Sub (10)
"Maintain water quality, reduce flooding and erosion, and provide
sources of food and habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife"
CMSCWD Variance
Comment Letters
1. Recommendation not to approve
2. Recommendations of conditions
to add to the variance to mitigate
for the impacts caused by the
variance.
1
2
Ranking Parcel Coverage
Excellent 75-100%
Good 50-74%
Fair 25-49%
Poor 1-24%
Absent 0%
Shoreland Zone
▪View Corridor:
▪People want to see the lake.
▪Access Corridor:
▪People want to access and recreate
between the home and lake.
▪Structure Safety:
▪People want to limit tree damage to
homes.
▪Natural Habitat Corridors:
▪People want to see the biology and the
‘Up North feel’
▪Structure Screening:
▪People don’t want to see other people's
stuff.
Connecting Rule Intent with Landowner Values
Recent
Example
Tree Survey
•Proposed to remove
40 trees greater than 6”
in diameter
Variance
Conditions
View Corridor
=view corridor
▪View Corridor:
▪People want to see the lake.
▪Access Corridor:
▪People want to access and recreate
between the home and lake.
▪Structure Safety:
▪People want to limit tree damage to
homes.
▪Natural Habitat Corridors:
▪People want to see the biology and the
‘Up North feel’
▪Structure Screening:
▪People don’t want to see other
people's stuff.
Access Corridor
=view corridor
=access corridors (turf grass optional)
▪View Corridor:
▪People want to see the lake.
▪Access Corridor:
▪People want to access and recreate
between the home and lake.
▪Structure Safety:
▪People want to limit tree damage to
homes.
▪Natural Habitat Corridors:
▪People want to see the biology and the
‘Up North feel’
▪Structure Screening:
▪People don’t want to see other
people's stuff.
Structure safety considerations
=view corridor
=access corridors & structure safety
area (turf grass optional)
▪View Corridor:
▪People want to see the lake.
▪Access Corridor:
▪People want to access and recreate
between the home and lake.
▪Structure Safety:
▪People want to limit tree damage to
homes.
▪Natural Habitat Corridors:
▪People want to see the biology and the
‘Up North feel’
▪Structure Screening:
▪People don’t want to see other
people's stuff.
Natural Habitat Areas
=view corridor
=access corridors (turf grass optional)
=native ground cover
▪View Corridor:
▪People want to see the lake.
▪Access Corridor:
▪People want to access and recreate
between the home and lake.
▪Structure Safety:
▪People want to limit tree damage to
homes.
▪Natural Habitat Corridors:
▪People want to see the biology and the
‘Up North feel’
▪Structure Screening:
▪People don’t want to see other
people's stuff.
Tree and Tall Shrub Screening
=view corridor
=access corridors (turf grass optional)
=native ground cover
=MN native tree or tall shrub
▪View Corridor:
▪People want to see the lake.
▪Access Corridor:
▪People want to access and recreate
between the home and lake.
▪Structure Safety:
▪People want to limit tree damage to
homes.
▪Natural Habitat Corridors:
▪People want to see the biology and the
‘Up North feel’
▪Structure Screening:
▪People don’t want to see other
people's stuff.
Approved Plan Meeting Variance Conditions
Future Actions By CMSCWD
•Continue issuing variance comment letters
•Update CMSCWD rules for shoreline and
shoreland
•Provide funding opportunity to the City of
Scandia to better align rules
•Continue to provide technical design services
and cost share to improve shoreland vegetation
•Continue working with City staff to coordinate
permitting
Questions?
Mike Isensee, CMSCWD Administrator
Mike.Isensee@cmscwd.org
Tom Langer, CMSCWD Riparian Permit
Specialist
Tom.langer@cmscwd.org
December 5, 2023