Loading...
03/19/1996 - 00003802CITY OF FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 19, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Sielaff called the March 19, 1996, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Brad Sielaff, Bruce Bondow, Dean Saba, Richard Svanda, Jack Velin Members Absent: None Others Present: Lisa Campbell, Planning Associate Siah St. Clair, City Naturalist Cassey Osborne, Volunteer, Springbrook Nature Center APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 20, 1996, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Bondow, to approve the February 20, 1996, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Comment on the Six Cities Watershed Manaqement Plan Draft: Ms. Campbell stated that she had received comments on the plan from both Siah St. Clair and Brad Sielaff. She had planned to compile them into one draft letter for the Commission's review, but was unable to get it done in time for the meeting. She suggested that the Commission work from the copies of Siah's and Brad's comments. She distributed those copies for the Commission's review. Mr. Saba stated that he had several areas of the plan he would like to see addressed. He said would wait and to see if his concerns were already addressed in the comments of the others. Mr. St. Clair stated that Cassey Osborne is a volunteer at Springbrook. He stated he and Ms. Osborne had reviewed the plan page by page. Overall, they found two things. The first was how the plan approached wetlands. The second thing was how the ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1996 PAGE 2 Springbrook Creek subwatershed area was specifically addressed in the plan. He stated that he had two concerns in those two areas. One was that he could not find an active wetland management aspect to the plan. The action plan for wetlands on pages 113-114 does not include anything for restoration or management as part of the purpose. The primary focus appears to be on inventory of wetlands. There is no real plan for management of the wetlands. He stated that nowhere in the plan is there a definition for "significant", yet the action plan goals state that they will monitor "significant wetlands". He thought that maybe there should be a definition of a significant wetland. So, overall, there should be some kind of an appropriate management aspect to identify significant wetlands and manage them to maximize healthy wetland biotic communities. Mr. St. Clair stated he noted that there was quite alot of material about Springbrook Nature Center wetland and the Springbrook creek subwatershed and that alot of it deals with stormwater runoff and the use of the Nature Center wetland as a facility for stormwater runoff. It also discusses the wetland as it exists today, rather than a couple of years ago prior to the impacts that we are having, such as the large bounces in water table and the large fluctuations in water levels and the siltation. The plan should give higher priority to restoration and management of the wetland habitat at Springbrook Nature Center, rather than to facilitating stormwater runoff needs. Mr. Sielaff asked if they could just talk about the wetland; then they could focus on the wetland aspect and talk about that together. Mr. Saba stated he had the same concerns as Mr. St. Clair regarding the wetland. Mr. Svanda agreed that the plan seems to be focusing on stormwater runoff rather than wetland restoration or preservation. The plan seems to be talking about the Springbrook area as a sedimentation basin. Mr. Saba agreed and directed the Commission's attention to page 105, the action plan, and read directly from the plan: "Purpose, to protect the existing natural features while maintaining storm water runoff capability," and then under "Issues: 1. Conflict between the need for increased storage at Springbrook Nature Center and the concern to limit water level fluctuation." and then to "Comments: 1. Define cost effective alternatives in the contributing watershed and in the drainage system to facilitate positive changes to the Nature Center without diminishing hydraulic capacity of the storm waste system." He stated there is a conflict between storing storm water runoff and restoring the wetland, and it appears to him that the concern is the hydraulic capacity. Mr. Svanda stated it was not clear to him what issues the financial plan within in the action plan on page 106 is addressing. From reading the Action Plan on the same page, he also wondered how firm the action plan is. What compels the Watershed Management Organization to implement this action plan? Is this really a firm action ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1996 PAGE 3 plan? If it is, what problem is it meant to solve? Overall, the plan doesn't seem to address the Nature Center as a wetland area. Mr. Sielaff stated that one of the issues he brought up in his comments was that the Nature Center wetland ought to be protected as a wetland and in the condition that it was in when the Nature Center was established in 1974. This does not seem to be the vision of the Six Cities Watershed Management Organization (SCWMO) at all. Mr. Svanda agreed that the SCWMO seems to be concerned about stormwater runoff. Mr. Saba stated that he thought the plan got off on the wrong foot, on page 64, reading from that plan: "A. Specific lakes and streams with water quality problems; The following waterbodies were identified as having water quality problems: Spring Brook (by Coon Rapids), Laddie Lake (by Blaine), Stony Brook (by Spring Lake and Fridley) and the Springbrook Nature Center Wetland (by Fridley). In all cases the problems were based on perception and not qualified data." Mr. St. Clair stated that they also commented on that on page 59. He requested that the plan identify a recommended survey process and specific data to be collected, so that trends over time can be identified as qualified data rather than perception. The plan goes on to talk about records management, but then nothing is recommended. A process for documenting the changes to the wetland is not identified. Mr. Saba stated they have qualified data, they got the water bumps that the wetland experiences and the changes in the wetland over a period of years. Mr. Sielaff stated that he thinks the problems have to be separated out into quantity and quality issues. Quantity clearly impacts the wetland, but they do not know about the quality impact. They do not know if those changes are related to quantity and/or quality, and that is what the grant application will answer for us. Clearly, the quantity has impacted the wetland, but they cannot state that the quality of the water moving through Spring Brook is causing the degradation of the wetland. Mr. St. Clair stated that on page 95, under numbers 2 and 3, it says that SCWMO wants to make a model of the current projected quantity and quality with emphasis on flows entering Springbrook Nature Center and water level fluctuations, but then in number three it says identify the primary sources of non-point source pollution that are causing the degradation and impaired use of Springbrook Nature Center. That seems to infer that all the problems that are occurring at the Nature Center are being caused by the non-point source pollution, not by the quantity of water that is coming into the Nature Center and the siltation that results from it. The plan seems to really emphasize the need to manage stormwater runoff rather than address some of the wetland preservation issues the plan itself identifies. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1996 PAGE 4 Mr. Sielaff stated he thought the timeline for doing the actual study of the Nature Center wetland at 1999 is much too far out. The quantity issue has to be dealt with now. Mr. Saba stated that he believed that along with the quantity, that somewhat affects the quality with regard to the siltation that is occurring in the ponds themselves, which is just dramatic. In that respect, it is what the increased quantity is bringing into the Nature Center in terms of siltation. Mr. Sielaff stated that he would like to see that timeline moved forward to 1997. Mr. St. Clair stated that on page 67, under " impacts of stormwater discharges on water quality and fish and wildlife resources," there were no problems identified at this time by communities or agencies. And yet going back to page 66, under C., SCWMO spends a lot of time talking about the fact that there were substantial problems, which contradicts everything they say on page 67. They have placed these impacts under "C." which is recreational opportunities, but under the water quality and fish and wildlife resources, they said that there no problems were identified. Mr. Saba, stated that another thing that bothered him was that SCWMO states throughout the plan that the use and function of the facility are in conflict. Mr. St. Clair stated that one of his comments does ask the Six Cities to identify what they mean by the terms "use" and "function". Ms. Campbell asked if "use" means the way the Nature Center is used by the residents and the staff and "function" means the storing of stormwater runoff. Mr. St. Clair stated they use they use these terms in exactly the opposite way later in the plan. He stated that his real concern, however, is with the notion that the two uses, the Nature Center and storing stormwater runoff, are in conflict. One of the things that happened when the plan was established to have the permanent dams set up at the Nature Center was that the strategy was not going to have an impact on the wetland. He stated they asked about the impacts. They asked what the bounce was going to be. They found those notes from 1987, and there was a list of items including making sure the waterfowl habitat was protected and making sure that the vegetation was protected. So there was going to be minimal impact. Today the bounces are different than what SCWMO said they were going to be. So to say that the use and function are in conflict, that may be true, but that is not what the original plan was. Mr. Bondow stated that it sounds like their definition today of the function is different than what it started out to be, so now it is in conflict. Mr. St. Clair stated, yes, and there was another place in the plan that alarmed him to read in paragraph six on page 68 of the plan that there was a modification plan, in the middle of that paragraph: "Without the proposed modification of the Springbrook ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1996 PAGE 5 Nature Center Pond, local flooding will probably occur upstream of Ironton Avenue, and erosion at the steep sections of the creek would be accelerated." He stated that he does not know what the proposed modification plan is and that he had never heard of any modification plan for the Nature Center pond. He wondered if there was some plan to increase the storage capacity of the Nature Center pond that we are not aware of or have not been a part. This is his concern that these things are happening so independently. Mr. St. Clair stated his last concern is that he is quoted in a number of places, but he has never talked to these people. He stated that he has never been contacted by SCWMO. Mr. Saba stated the he was unaware of any modification plan. Mr. Svanda asked that as the result of the water going through there, is the area still a wetland? Mr. Sielaff stated that the Department of Natural Resources classifies Spring Brook as a "protected water." Mr. St. Clair stated that as a protected water, you cannot do any filling or dredging without getting a permit. Mr. Svanda stated that he thought that this pointed to the need to restore and protect to the 1974 condition and the designation as a protected water. He thought the Commission agreed that the wetland issue is one of the themes for their comments. Mr. St. Clair asked if anyone other than the SCWMO considered the public or a citizen. He wondered if the public is anybody other than them. Mr. Sielaff stated that this was one of his largest concerns. Was there any effort to secure public input? There should be a section in the plan that states how they went about securing public input. There is no indication in the plan as to how they are going to go about getting public input on the local water plans that are required as part of the plan. How much is the public going to be involved in the process? Mr. Saba suggested that the Commissioner ask the SCWMO to move their April meeting from 1:30 p. m. to 7:00 p. m. Mr. Sielaff stated that the Commission may want to summarize their main comments. After some discussion, the Commission agreed that the following five comments summarized their concerns: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1996 PAGE 6 The plan does not place a priority on wetland restoration and preservation. 2. The plan does not give an accurate representation of the deterioration that has occurred at the Springbrook Nature Center wetland, due to stormwater runoff. 3. The timeline for investigating problems at the Springbrook Nature Center wetland and implementing improvements is too long. 4. The plan does not outline a process for public input. 5. The plan overstates the involvement of the Coordinator of the Nature Center in the drafting of the plan. Mr. Sielaff directed staff to draft a letter to the SCWMO for his signature and to carbon copy the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and the City Manager. Mr. Saba asked staff to include the Springbrook Nature Center Board as authors of the letter. Mr. St. Clair asked that he be included as an author of the letter also. OLD BUSINESS: 1996 Workplan Approval_ Ms. Campbell reviewed the complete workplan with the Commission. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Bondow, to approve the 1996 workplan. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Spring Beautification Ms. Campbell stated that Barbara Dacy Community Development Director has been working with Siah St. Clair on Butterfly Gardens. Ms. Dacy has directed her to bring the Commission an update on this activity at the April meeting. Ms. Dacy has also asked her to be more involved in this project, rather than developing additional spring beautification programming for this spring. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1996 PAGE 7 2. Upcoming meeting items Ms. Campbell stated that Michele McPherson will be attending the next meeting to update the Commission on Wetland Conservation Act amendments and her involvement in the State Wetland Conservation Planning Activity. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Svanda, seconded by Mr. Bondow, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Sielaff declared the motion carried and the March 19, 1996, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Campbell Staff Liaison to the Commission