Community Advisory Committee Meeting #2 Hiawatha Golf Course - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Community Advisory Committee Meeting #2

Hiawatha Golf Course Property Master Plan

Welcome!

CAC Introductions The meeting is split into two parts: Part One: Presentation of Findings Part Two: Discussion and Process Moving forward PLEASE HOLD ALL COMMENTS UNTIL PART TWO

Info Binders

The info binders are meant to ensure you have all the project information at your fingertips. The binder will be added to as we move through the project. If you feel you are still missing information, please let MPRB staff know and we’ll try to incorporate it into the binder.

Added Materials:

• 6/21/2017 Q/A from June 21

Meeting

• 2/26/2017 Q/A Regarding

Groundwater Modeling

• 2/28/2017 Phase 1 Water Analysis

Summary The Virtual Binder will be on the Project Webpage.

Two teams under consideration:

• 1. Barr Engineering/Berger Partnership
• 2. PORT/SEH/4RM+ULA

Consultant Team Update

Review of the CAC Charge

The Hiawatha Golf Course Master Plan CAC shall:

• Become knowledgeable.
• Contribute to broad community engagement.
• Communicate elements to the general public.
• Report back to appointers or appointing bodies.
• Make recommendations to the MPRB

Commissioners on the future use or evolution of Hiawatha Golf Course, based on agreed upon vision, goals, and principles.

• Make recommendations to the MPRB

Commissioners in support of any changes to the golf course property or perpetuation of current uses, with attention to priority, sequencing, timing, and funding.

Hiawatha Golf Course’s Project Breakdown

The master planning process was put on hold to further study water at Hiawatha Golf Course. We’ve now restarted the Master Planning Process.

Why did we put the 2015 Master Planning process on hold?

• We discovered we were pumping stormwater and groundwater at

rates which exceed our permit. We are out of compliance.

• We needed the Master plan for the golf course to be based on facts

so we do not adversely affect neighborhood homes.

• We needed to know if various pumping scenarios were feasible prior

to master planning the site.

Are there feasible pumping scenarios?

YES!

• There are many, including the five that were

presented last year and the two that were recommended to the Board.

• The two recommended scenarios are Alternative A

and Alternative B.

• Both Alternatives change the landscape and may

modify uses within the site from what is currently there.

Can the Course Remain?

• Need to address permitting with DNR.
• Pumping to keep the golf course dry may be

considered ecologically inappropriate.

• Course improvements are necessary and clubhouse

should be modernized.

• Need to continue to address local stormwater and

water-borne trash issues.

• The course will likely flood again.
• Significant reinvestment in the earthen berm may

be required.

Is a Water Management Alternative a Master Plan?

• No. Significant effort was directed to

understanding the nature and extent of the property.

• The development of the Water Management

Alternative was an exercise to determine the feasibility to pump less water while still protecting homes.

• The use and activity workshops we conducted

were to help determine the feasibility, within the water management alternatives, to explore, at some level, a sustainable model which may drive master plan alternatives.

What does Water Management Alternative A get us?

• An 18 hole golf course, which may still flood but has some resiliency built

in.

• Daylighted stormwater channel and improved stormwater management

performance related to City pipes.

• Solutions to trash mitigation.
• A new clubhouse, parking lot, and banquet and restaurant facilities.
• An introduction of some natural landscapes in out-of-play areas.
• Increased access from neighborhood in safe locations and times,

particularly related to trails.

• No reduction in pumping, but homes protected to the same degree they

are today.

What does Water Management Alternative B get us?

• Consideration of traditional golf in some form.
• Re-meandered Minnehaha Creek with ecological benefit, particularly related to

habitat.

• Daylighted stormwater channel and improved stormwater management

performance related to City pipes.

• Solutions to trash mitigation.
• A new park building/clubhouse, parking lot, banquet facilities, and restaurant

facilities.

• Improved wetland and lowland landscapes, plus an increase in open water area.
• Full access from the neighborhood during all seasons.
• Reduction of pumping, neighborhood homes protected to the same degree they

are today.

• A significantly enhanced ability to remove phosphorus, a major contributor to

poor water quality.

Moving from a Water Management Alternative to a Master Plan

• We use the water management alternatives as a starting point, to see

what’s feasible.

• Switch from a water management lens to a master planning lens.

The lens switch changes our focus from only water to the BIG PICTURE.

Water Resources

Overall Framework Site/Location Context Community Engagement Needs/Demands Natural Resources Water Resources History and Culture Park/Site Recommendations Visitor Services and Accessibility Public Service Needs Operations and Stewardship Public Awareness Implementation and Costs

narrow focus on… wide focus on… H2O Mgmt Master Plan

The Master Plan

• A Context and Conditions Assessment is developed using the master

planning lens.

• A Vision is drafted along with supporting principles that guide every

decision we make. This is proprietary to this project and this CAC.

• Funding, programming, and implementation strategies are

developed.

• A set of distinct concept plans for the site are created and assessed.
• A preferred concept plan, with CAC recommendations, is selected for

further elaboration into a draft master plan.

• The draft master plan is considered by the Board of Commissioners.

Community Engagement Throughout

What is the DNR’s Role?

• The DNR is in a regulatory/permitting role for this project, regardless
• f the uses within the site.
• They will be considering a permanent general permit application by

the MPRB, but only when the MPRB has an approved master plan.

• We’re in the process of applying for the temporary permit now.

Who else is pumping water in Minnesota?

• There are over 16,000 active permits. Any “users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per

day or 1 million gallons per year” need a water use permit from the DNR.*

• MPRB estimates 242 MGY are pumped at Lake Hiawatha.
• The highest active permit is for 235,000 MGY (nuclear power plant).
• The highest golf courses permitted to pump for irrigation over 150 MGY are:
• Lutsen**, Bunker Hills, and Pebble Creek Golf Courses
• Generally, the use types that pump between 200 MGY and 300 MGY are:
• Construction dewatering
• Mining
• Municipal water supply
• Pollution containment
• Petroleum, chemical, and metal processing
• Agriculture
• Power generation

*www.dnr.state.mn.us **One permit for golf irrigation, snow making, and rural water supply is limited to 220 MGY from Lake Superior.

Fundamental Findings

• The MPRB is pumping a volume of groundwater in significant excess
• f its permit from the DNR.
• If pumping stops or is reduced portions of the golf course property

will be inundated.

Resolution 2017-243, Moving Forward

• What is a resolution?
• Simply put, it is a decision made by the Board of Commissioners related to the statutory

authority of the MPRB.

• A Board Resolution is made up of a few different parts, including a Title, Whereas

Statements (basics facts and reasons), and Resolved Statements (specific course of action).

• A Background Memo is included for information purposes.
• As Resolution 2017-243 currently sits, it directs the MPRB to pursue a plan

that reduces pumping at the Hiawatha Golf Course property.

• Generally, resolutions may be amended, but take time to frame and approve.
• A request was made to the Board of Commissioners to reconsider the

parameters of Resolution 2017-243, allowing the CAC to consider uses for a water management solution including perpetuating the current volume of pumping.

CAC Discussion of Findings

15 Minutes

Public Comment Period

15 Minutes Please limit comment duration as directed by Chair.

CAC Discussion to Develop a Process to Move Forward

20 Minutes

Thank you!