02-09-2010 Council Work Session Packet

Home Browse Search

� • James Wisker Planner/Program Coordinator Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 Mr. Wisker, Thank you for the opportunity to revfew the MCWD Rule F draft. We offer the following comments for your consideratian; Section 2. a). Regulations - The last sentence of this sectfon is confusing. It � includes a doubie negative, and the intent is unclear. The language should be clarified to state what types of aquatfc piantings are regulated under this rule. In addition, the DNR regulatfons regarding movement of plants into waters- of-the-state may need to be referenced. Sectlon Z, f} Regulations - Mafntenance af existing shoreline or streambank stabilization practices should not require a new permlt if only minor amounts of new material wfll be added to the structure. We recommend that the rule be revised to allow malntenance of existing structures, but limit the amount of new material that could be added before a permit. Something fn the range of 25 to 50 cubic yards seems reasonable. Conversely, the rule could be revised to include a maintenance provision In the initial permit to allow minor additions of new material nver time. Section 3, b) Shoreline/Streambank Erosfon Intensity Calculation -The rule should allow stream velocity to be determined with the use of monitoring data collected by standard protocol, as well as by engineering calculations. Section 5. (a) (1) Crlterfa for Stabilization Techniques - Three Rivers Park District supports the cancept of aflowing structural stabflization techniques only where there is a demanstrated need. However, this section needs to provide some guidance regarding the criterla that will be used to determine if a need is demonstrated. As wrftten, an applicant could expend significant time and money designing a practice believing that the need has been met, only to have the permit denied because of a different interpretation by MCWD. Section 5. (c) (2) Criteria for structural stabilization - This section need to c4arify where hard armoring such as rlprap will be considered floodplain flll. As currently written, the sectian indicates that all material installed below the 100 year flood elevation fs considered floodplain fill. The rule should state that fill placed between the normal water elevation and the 100-year Ffood elevation is considered floodplain fill. As written, the rule implies that excavation of material below the normal water e{evation could be considered floodplain mitigation since it is considered floodptafn fill. Section 8. (c) Three Rivers Park District recommends that the number of allowable sand blanket applications for permitted public swimming beaches be increased to a maximum of four without the need for a new permit. Areas designated as public swfmming beaches are typically maintained for that