Loading...
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