HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/04
.-
".-.
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MINUTES OF THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
April 20, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) Meeting was called to order at 5:00
P.M. Members present: Dan O'Keefe, Harry Alcorn, Marv Mirsch, and Brad
Beneke. Members absent: Donna Mankowski
Others present: Larry Poppler; Assistant City Engineer
II. CONSIDER APPROVAL MEETING MINUTES
Harry Alcorn made a motion to approve the January minutes. The minutes
were approved as written.
III. NEW BUSINESS
a. Capital Improvement Program
Poppler gave an outline of the Water Resources portion of the Capital
Improvement Program. In many cases the items are the same from year
to year, but in 2005 the City is planning a drainage improvement project
on Pleasant Street. In 2007 the City is planning a Woodside Road Pond.
In 2008 the City is planning on the Prior Lake Alum Treatment. The City
is looking for Feedback from the LAC on the Capital Improvement
Program.
Mirsch stated that the Capital Improvement Program ties well with the
Watershed District's Sustainable Lakes Management Plan.
Poppler explained that Storm Water Pond Dredging is a maintenance
item for existing ponds. The Storm Drainage Improvements is set up to
provide water quality treatment for the reconstruction project or other
storm drainage improvements. The Undesirable Fish Containment
Program was used last year, but because of the low output of harvested
fish the $5,000 allotment was not utilized. The Lake Bank Stabilization
item for 2005 and 2006 specific projects are identified, however the
allotment may not be fully utilized. These are the last two public areas for
the Lake Bank Stabilization. Future projects will need to be identified.
The LAC could help develop this program.
www.cityoflfriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
O'Keefe asked about the Pleasant Street Drainage Project.
Poppler answered the purpose of the project is the installation of a catch
basin and storm sewer pipe to correct a neighborhood drainage problem.
O'Keefe stated that if money was left over from the Undesirable Fish
Containment Program maybe some of the remaining money could be
used for a carp contest.
Alcorn asked how the funding of the milfoil was being done. The milfoil
fund is set up by the Watershed District and administered in cooperation
with the City.
Alcorn asked if the City is participating in the cost of the outlet structure
as part of the Capital Improvement Program. The outlet repairs is in the
Capital Improvement Program under Public Works not water resources.
O'Keefe asked about whether the Watzl's dock for boat slips is included
in the Capital Improvement Program.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
a. Review of the 2000 Comprehensive Lake Management Plan I
Sustainable Lakes Management Plan
Poppler stated that the objective to looking at the Comprehensive Lake
Management Plan and the Sustainable Lakes Management Plan is to
review the tasks associated with the plans and formulate a schedule for
the LAC. The goal is the make sure the tasks in both plans are being
completed.
Mirsch stated that the Wavelength has not had articles pertaining to the
lake water quality.
Poppler responded that the last Wavelength had numerous recreational
items which took precedence over the water quality articles which were
submitted.
Mirsch added that the LAC should work to make sure information is
passed on to the residents of Prior Lake.
O'Keefe stated that the action items from the implementation schedule be
gone through to determine the approach taken with each.
Poppler stated that the communication items from the implementation
schedule be separated and possibly using Nathan Oster to communicate
the information to residents.
2
,---
O'Keefe added that the implementation can be broken down into the
following topics: Information, Summer Lake Tour, Education Boat
Program, Contact with the Watershed District and the LAC, milfoil
program, and water quality monitoring.
Alcorn added that discussion of docks and lifts be added to the to the
yearly agenda. Additional items should be added as necessary to the
LAC discussion.
Pop pier stated that issues will be added to the agendas as the City
Council directs.
O'Keefe asked if Poppler could summarize the City related topics of the
Sustainable Lakes Management Plan.
Poppler stated that Sustainable Lakes Management Plan details the tasks
in which the City participates. The items which the City is participating
have been highlighted and today the LAC can review those items which
the City is participating.
O'Keefe stated that if the Watershed District and the City have a schedule
for the completion of a task then the LAC should not be involved.
Alcorn suggested that the LAC discuss the dock issue.
O'Keefe stated that the Sustainable Lakes Management Plan tasks are
set with the City and Watershed District and the task of the LAC should
be to support the actions of the City and Watershed District.
b. Dock Issues
Poppler distributed an "Issues Outline" regarding the docks, trailers and
boats by Don Rye.
Alcorn stated that some great templates for dealing with docks have been
created by White Bear Lake and other cities that should be used to create
dock regulations.
Mirsch added that dock issues are out there and no guidelines are in
place.
O'Keefe stated that the some common sense minimal guidelines should
be established that addresses 98% of complaints.
Alcorn stated that people are not going to be concerned with what your
neighbor is doing with their dock unless it is encroaching on other
people's property.
O'Keefe said that the associations should be separate from the private
residents.
3
r-
Mirsch suggested that the LAC circulate a plan and highlight standards
which would be used in Prior Lake. Alcorn will start the process and
highlight standards and circulate the plan to others in the LAC.
c. DNR access changes
Poppler stated that the DNR is planning a couple of different projects for
the DNR accesses at DeWitte and at Sand Point. Preliminary plans were
distributed. A public informational meeting will be held in the future by the
DNR. The meeting will be held at the Prior Lake Maintenance Center on
Wednesday May 1Zh from 6:30 to 8:00.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Poppler distributed a letter from the Watershed District regarding the
Aquatic Plant Management Plan. The letter identifies the need for an
Aquatic Plant Management Plan and suggested the funding of the plan
come from the Milfoil Control Fund. The LAC did not see an issue with
this.
b. The Next meeting will be held on Monday May 10th at 5:00.
"..-
VI.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY ALCORN, SECONDED BY OKEEFE TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING AT 7:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Larry Poppler
Assistant City Engineer
4
PRIORITIZED IMPLEMENT A TION SCHEDULE
(Budgetary Estimate)
TARGET ACTION STAFF"" PROJECT
DATE" ISSUE ITEM DESCRIPTION STAFF TIME (HOURS) COST COST STATUS
J..~ 6--7,ooQ3 - 2000 Adopt a no-phosphorous ordinance CAJo~ B - 7- 00) comPlEtE e 7-00
Water Quality 4-4a 72 $2,268.00
Q3 - 2000 Water Quality 4-4b Research salt filled sand mixtures and water quality impact 48 $1,512.00 GOUIllc./<... !tfJrfaNEO JIl.1.f
I)C/l~ B-3-0003 - 2000 Public Educ. 6-1c Placement of 2 copies of "Lakescaping" book into library 2 $63.00 $40 00 "'<""r. '''''''''' ,"tfvJ
. -- Q\)'~6 8 - J -00
03 - 2000 Implementation 7-1a Assign position to implement the CLMP 2080... fJfA
Q4 - 2000 Implementation 7-1c Research ways to fund position to implement the CLMP 96 $3,024.00 AJ/A
:70'7,", /Z-loe>o 04 - 2000 Shoreland 1-2a Complete Shoreline Inventory 96 $3,024.00 $4.000.00 (ji% COMPLETE) I z./ Zool
04 - 2000 Water Quality 4-1a Require water quality systems in the Public Works Design Manual 48 $1,512.00
Q4 - 2000 Public Educ. 6-1a Insertion of the CLMP into the City's web page 10 $315.00
Q1 - 2001 Land Use 5-1b Evaluate existing roadway width design criteria 48 $1,512.00
01 - 2001 Land Use 5-2a Adopt a buffer setback requirement 72 $2,268.00
Q1 - 2001 Shoreland 1-3f Notify property owners of shoreline Inventory results 72 $2,268.00
Q2 - 2001 Water Level 3-1c Consider Expanding March/April discharge window 38 $1,197.00
02 - 2001 Water Quality 4-1b Establish a thorough erosion control inspection program with the 96 $3,024.00
Watershed District
03 - 2001 Water Use 2-1b Review data on other lake regulations within the state 48 $1,512.00
03 - 2001 Water Use 2-4b Research erosion impact from recreational watercraft waves 72 $2,268.00
Q3 - 2001 Land Use 5-2b Review variance criteria for items within the shoreland district 48 $1,512.00 <':.ornl't../S'$ 4/I7/fJi
Q2 - 2002 Water Use 2-1a Analyze data for need of additional regulation or enforcement 72 $2,268.00
03 - 2002 Water Use 2-2a Analyze data to evaluate need for additional education and 72 $2,268.00
enforcement
Q2 - 2003 Shoreland 1-3a Distribute DNR pamphlet to lakeshore residents 24 $756.00 $250.00
03 - 2003 Water Level 3-1b Analyze impact of lowering the normal water level of the lake 48 $1,512.00
03 - 2003 Water Level 3-2b Identify outlet structure and channel options and cost benefits 48 $1,512.00
02 - Yearly Shoreland 1-1a Provide firm/agency names to residents who can assist in 48 $1,512.00
Yearly Shoreland 1-1 b Provide a list of grants available for lakeshore owners 96 $3,024.00
Q2 - Yearly Shoreland 1-2b Annual summer lake tour by the LAC 6 ~11i9~;\ $350.00 Co,nPLi:;-rt;
Yearly Shoreland 1-3b Publish articles about lake & water quality information 28 882.00 f\
04 - Yearly Shoreland 1-3c Provide citizens lake rules & regulation information 28 $882.00 V~ r\\
.,
Q1 - Yearly Shoreland 1-3d Provide lakeshore owners shoreline erosion control information 28 $882.00 \
Q2 - Yearly Shoreland 1-3e Publish articles on successfullakescaping projects 28 .$1l82.00./)
02 - Yearly Water Use 2-3a Provide citizens information on boat education programs 20 $630.00
Yearly Water Use 2-3b Maintain literature at Information kiosks 20 $630.00
Q3 - Every 4 years Water Use 2-4a Conduct lake use surveys 48 $1,512.00 $500.00
04 - Yearly Water Level 3-1a Assess runoff management options with the Watershed 20 $630.00
Bi-Annual Water Level 3-2a Regular contact between City and Watershed staff 20 $630.00
-
-
TARGET
DATE'
Yearly
Q2 - Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Annual
Q2 - Yearly
..
.
.
ACTION
ITEM
.
II
II
.
.
ISSUE
Water Quality
Water Quality
Water Quality
Land Use
Public Educ.
Public Educ.
Implementation
,..
.
PRIORITIZED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
(Budgetary Estimate)
DESCRIPTION
4-2a
4-2b
4-3a
5-1a
6-1b
6-2a
7-1b
Maintain spread of milfoil at existing levels
Submit annual milfoil budgets to the Watershed
Perform water quality monitoring on a regular basis
Annual meetings with the Watershed to review City standards
Publish lake related education articles
Locate and demonstrate lakescaping projects
Hire summer Interns to help implement the program
. .
STAFF TIME (HOURS)
28
76
48
10
20
28
84
Total estimated cost to complete Action Items
. The target dates have been determined assuming City Council approval of the plan no later than July 3, 2000.
.. Costs have been determined assuming staff wage and benefits at $31.50 per hour.
... Full time employee with a $50,OOO/yr salary would cost the City approximately $65,000/yr.
. . . w. .
STAFF"" PROJECT
COST COST STATUS
$882.00
$2,394.00 $1,000.00
$1,512.00
$315.00
$630.00
$882.00 $7,000.00
$2,646.00 $5,500.00
$57,141.00 $18,640.00
$75,781.00
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A number of people and organizations participated in the development of this plan.
Onzanizations involved included:
Prior Lake Advisory Committee
Prior Lake Association
Spring Lake Homeowners Association
City of Prior Lake
Spring Lake Township
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Scott County
Metropolitan Council
Three Rivers Park District
Individuals involved included:
Bob Palmby Dale Braddy, Lake Advisory Committee
Rich Beuch, Fish Lake Sportsmen Club Gordon Meger
Bob Olsen Craig Gontarek, PLSL WD
Paul Nelson, PLSLWD Bill Kallberg, PLSLWD.
Madison Groves Shirley Gengler, Lake Advisory Committee
Frank Fourre Camille Robin
Dawn Tracy, Scott County Loren Jones, Prior Lake Association
Larry Mueller, PLSL WD Steve Pierson, Spring Lake, Township
Sue McDermott, City of Prior Lake Randy Anhorn, Metropolitan Council
Glenn Kelly Jim Weninger
Dave Moran, PLSL WD John Barten, Three Rivers Park District
Roger Wahl, PLSL WD Jim Conroy
Larry Poppler, City of Prior Lake Marv Mirsch, Prior Lake Association
Daryl Ellison, MnDNR Fisheries Linda Menter
Bill Tisdell Walt Burris
Bill Schmokel, PLSL WD Greg Wilson, Barr Engineering
Dennis Odoms, Spring Lake Association Jim Eggen, PLSL WD
Dean Koch Shannon Lotthammer, PLSL WD
Dean Sutliff, Prior Lake Association Rob Mattila
Brad Beneke, Lake Advisory Committee Dan Okeefe, Lake Advisory Committee
Harry Alcorn, Jr., Lake Advisory Committee
..--------.
~
\
r
\
2
./
A Sustainable Water Quality Management Plan for Spring and Prior Lakes,
Scott County, Minnesota
February 2004
FORWARD
This plan focuses on managing the water quality of Spring and Prior Lakes. For information on
lake level management see the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District (pLSL WD) Water
Resources Management Plan (as amended in 2003), and the Prior Lake Outlet Channel and Lake
Volume Management Study recently completed by the PLSL WD in cooperation with numerous
local and state partners. For recreational use management see the City of Prior Lake/Lake
Advisory Committee Comprehensive Lake Management Plan dated June 2000. A separate
planning effort is being completed for Fish Lake, and thus, Fish Lake management is not covered
in this document.
Tbis is a plan, not a technical document. Brief summaries of technical issues are included and
Technical Memoranda are attached that develop phosphorus source budgets and assess
alternatives. However, most of the technical analysis and diagnosis of water quality issues is
completed in other documents. These documents are available at the PLSL WD office or the Prior
Lake Public Library and include;
· The 1993 Clean Lakes DiagnosticlF easibility Study
· PLSL WD Annual Report which include annual monitoring information
· Aquatic Plant Surveys for Spring and Upper Prior Lake for 2000, and Lower Prior Lake
for 2002
· A draft Watershed Restoration Action Strategy developed by the PLSL WD in 2002.
INTRODUCTION ~1) PURPOSE
Minnesotans in general, and the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District residents in particular,
love lakes. However, Spring and Upper Prior Lakes are impaired due to excess nutrients. These
excessive nutrients lead to problems with nuisance algae blooms (i.e., microscopic plants) that
turn the water green and scummy, limiting clarity of the water and detracting from recreational
uses. A number of efforts. have been made over the past decade to address these problems.
However, additional work is needed, and management of lake water quality is fragmented between
numerous organizations with limited resources. The primary purpose of this effort was to develop
a plan that:
1) Sets common goals and objectives,
2) Blends the skills of all the groups involved (or having a stake) in lake management,
3) Identifies roles and responsibilities, and
4) Develops support networks and integrates/leverages the various types of community
resources.
The plan is intended serve as a vehicle for a more organized approach to water quality
management where, as shown in the following figure, the strengths and resources of various
organizations are put to work toward common objectives.
Figure 1. Purpose of the Plan
The Plan Organizes and Focuses Management Efforts and Resources
/CK=~
3
~------,
BACKGROUND ABOUT THE LAKES
Before discussing the planning process, it is important to understand a bit about the history and
status of Spring and Prior Lakes and the challenges they are currently facing.
Spring and Prior Lakes comprise a chain of recreational lakes located in Scott County, Minnesota,
in the North Ce.ntral Hardwood Forest Ecoregion. The lakes have the following characteristics:
Lake Size (acres) Average depth Maximum Watershed size (acres)
(feet) depth (feet)
I Spring 630 18 37 13,500
Upper Prior 340 8.0 43 3,430 direct
(16,930 including Spring Lake)
Lower Prior 827 13.0 56 2,090 direct
(19,020 including Spring Lake)
All three lakes are important recreational resources for the region, with amenities that include
public boat launches and fishing piers. In addition, the community identity of the City of Prior
Lake is tied closely to this chain of lakes.
The watershed for Spring Lake is primarily agricultural, while the direct watershed for Prior Lakes
is urban/suburban. Spring Lake is the uppermost lake in the chain; its waters flow to Upper Prior
Lake via a short channel through a residential neighborhood. The water quality challenges faced
by Prior and Spring Lakes involve excess nutrients (primarily phosphorus) and the presence of
exotic species. The following paragraphs provide a snapshot of the water quality status of the
lakes. '
,~
.Sorinl! Lake
Spring Lake is a highly nutrient rich lake. Like most lakes in this part of Minnesota, the growth of
plants and algae in the lake are limited by the availability of phosphorus. Additions of phosphorus
will therefore enhance the growth of plants and algae. Spring Lake's relatively large watershed
has historically been a source of excess phosphorus and sediment, and there is enough phosphorus
available in the lake to support excessive growth of aquatic plants and algae. This excessive algal
growth affects the swimmability of the lake. In some years, toxic algae blooms pose a threat to the
health of small animals, such as dogs. Finally, infestations of curlyleaf pondweed - an exotic
aquatic plant - affect recreational boating. All of this means that the lake has been listed on the
State of Minnesota's Impaired Waters List due to excess nutrients.
Significant efforts have been made over the last decade to requce the amount of phosphorus
flowing into Spring Lake. This work has included restoring wetlands, installing a ferric chloride
treatment system, installing sanitary sewer and planting filter strips. Appendix A documents the
effectiveness of one effort, the ferric chloride treatment system. However, due to the many years
of watershed loading, the lake bottom is rich in phosphorus and is a large source of phosphorus to
the lake (see Appendix B, which provides a lake phosphorus budget that illustrates the significant
contribution from the lake's bottom sediments).
4
Spring Lake also exhibits an infestation of curlyleaf pondweed each spring, which affects water
quality and recreation. In addition, a large population of carp creates problems by stirring up the
bottom of this relatively shallow lake, sending even more phosphorus into the water and disturbing
native plants. Recent lake management efforts have focused on carp removal and
treatmentJb.arvesting of curlyleaf pondweed.
Unner Prior Lake
Prior Lake is divided into two distinct basins, with very different water quality characteristics.
Upper Prior Lake is a nutrient-rich lake that is also listed on the state's Impaired Waters List.
Much of the phosphorus in the lake comes from Spring Lake, and also from the lake's sediments
(see Appendix B). Curlyleafpondweed is also found in this lake, and is becoming more of a
problem each year. In addition, both Upper and Lower Prior Lakes are infested with Eurasian
Water Milfoil, another exotic aquatic plant that crowds out native plants and forms surface mats
that impede recreational boating.
Lower Prior Lake
Lower Prior Lake has the best water quality of the three lake basins. This is because the lake has a
relatively small direct watershed, and the upper lakes in the chain (i.e. Upper Prior and Spring
Lakes) act as "settling" basins, removing sediment and associated nutrients from the water before
it enters Lower Prior Lake. As a result, Lower Prior Lake has moderate nutrient levels, and good
conditions for recreational activities such as s'\Vimming. Like Upper Prior Lake, this basin also
has Eurasian Water Milfoil.
Recent Mana2:ement Historv
As indicated above, a number of actions have been taken over the last decade to improve the
quality of Spring and Prior Lakes. A number of wetland acres have been restored in the Spring
Lake watershed, and nearly 40 acres of filter strips have been installed on agricultural land. The
ferric chloride treatment system was also completed in 1998, and is successfully removing a
portion of the phosphorus from the main inflow to Spring Lake (see Appendix A). Efforts
surrounding Prior Lakes have included the addition of storm water ponds and sediment-settling
devices during street reconstruction, and shoreland restoration efforts on public and private lands.
Efforts to control exotic species have focused on the following:
· Controlling the carp in Spring Lake through winter seining (various dates since 1933, most
recently in 2002)
· Early spring treatment of curlyleaf pondweed on Spring Lake to control infestation levels,
encourage growth of native aquatic plants, and reduce the seedbed available for future
growth (2002, 2003)
· Annual summer Eurasion water milfoil (EWM) treatment on Prior Lake to maintain
boating lanes in infested areas (annually since 1990's)
It is important to note that with respect to aquatic plants, the goal has not been to eliminate aquatic
plants from the lake - these plants are important to the overall health of the lake and they help
maintain clear water - but rather to reduce and eliminate the extent of nuisance conditions of
exotic aquatic plants. Curlyleaf Pondweed has received special attention over the past few years
because it is especially harmful to lake water quality. This is because curlyleaf plants naturally die
5
./~
back in early July, releasing a "pulse" of phosphorus that is quickly used by algae for growth and
reproduction. In this way curlyleaf can contribute to late summer algae blooms or "green scums."
All of these efforts have resulted in a decrease in the amount of phosphorus reaching the lakes.
However, increased development, continued release of phosphorus from the lake sediments, and
the continued presence of exotic species still contribute to lake water quality concerns. Additional
efforts are neeqed by the community - including citizens, businesses and local and state
government - to further improve the quality of these important lakes. But fIrst a plan is needed, to
specify the management goals for the lakes and effectively coordinate the many groups working to
improve these resources. The following sections outline just such a plan for moving forward with
the sustainable water quality management of Spring and Prior Lakes.
,""'--,
.~
6
. .-y
ABOUT THE PLM'NING PROCESS
The planning process was completed using three phases of small-group workshops as indicated
below. Following each workshop, summaries were compiled and distributed to participants and
interested parties. Copies of the workshop summaries and materials are available for review at the
Watershed District office.
· Phase 1: What do we have? During this phase participants reviewed information about the
lake resources, without much management discussion, to develop an understanding of current
conditions and the factors affecting lake quality. This phase involved:
o A ~-day visioning session where participants were invited to develop and express their
understanding of the current and desired future conditions of the lakes.
o Workshop 1: Physical Setting and Economics. Reviewed the physical
characteristics of the lakes and watershed and discuss how these factors influence water
quality. Explored the economic value of the lakes in terms of business income and
jobs.
o Workshop 2: Lake Biology. Reviewed available information on the aquatic plant and
fisheries communities of the lakes and the influence of these communities (including
exotic species) on water quality and vice versa.
o Workshop 3: Water Quality Dynamics. Reviewed information from the previous
workshops along with additional data to develop an overall picture of the lakes' water
quality.
· Phase 2: What do we want? This phase was designed to develop common goals and
objectives. This phase involved two workshops as follows:
o Workshop 4: Goals and Objectives. Reviewed and discussed the goals and
objectives, and the rationale, established by previous studies and plans.
o Workshop 5: Goals and Objectives. Discussed goals and objectives for the current
plan, and developed an overall management philosophy.
· Phase 3: How do we get there? This phase was designed to assess how to achieve the goals
and objectives established in Phase 2, as well as review and modify draft plans.
o Workshop 6: Management Options. Finalized specific numericaI/measurable goals,
reviewed current on-going management options, reviewed options for controlling
internal phosphorus loads, and developed an overall management strategy.
o Workshop 7: Roles and Responsibilities. Reviewed the management actions/
strategies developed at previous workshop, and presented a framework for organizing
roles and responsibilities of the various organizations, and stakeholders.
o Workshop 8: Roles and Responsibilities Continued. Filled in the matrix of roles
and responsibilities of community organizations for each action in the plan.
o Workshop 9: Finalizing the Plan. Following the release of the draft Sustainable
Water Quality Management Plan, participants convened to review the draft, fill in gaps,
and sort through remaining questions regarding roles and responsibilities.
The fmal steps in this process involved sharing and discussing the plan with various entities and
community organizations interested and involved in the planning process.
7
STRATEGIES A..1\ffi GOALS
An important purpose of this planning process was the development of updated strategies, goals
and objectives for Spring and Prior Lakes. While a number of documents exist that identify water
quality goals for the lakes, there was a need to revisit those goals to see if they still apply, and to
integrate them into one plan for the future.
Current Status and Future Vision
The first step in this goal-setting process involved discussing the current status of the lakes. At the
Visioning Workshop, participants shared their view of the current condition of the lakes. The
individual comments on the lake conditions were summarized as follows:
· Spring Lake: Spring Lake is a productive recreational lake with complex water quality
issues that affect downstream water resources. These issues can be addressed by increased
awareness, funding, and citizen involvement.
· Prior Lakes: Prior Lake is fully developed with suffering water quality and heavy
weekend use. It needs increased agency cooperation including city, water management
and law enforcement, as well as more landowner and boater education.
Following that discussion, participants also shared their visions for the future of the lakes. The
common themes from that discussion included the following:
· Spring Lake: keeping and using the "natural" environment, shorelines and wetlands;
controlling exotic species.
· Prior Lakes: keeping and using the "natural" environment, shorelines and wetlands;
recognizing the multiple benefits of practices that help with lake level management and
water quality.
~
~
\
Water Quality, Exotic Species and Education Strategies and Goals
After sharing perceptions of the current conditions of the lake and their vision for the future, the
participants in the planning process then learned about the current status of the lakes through the
workshops described previously under the planning process. This included reviewing past goals
and objectives developed for the lake, to determine if they still applied. This led to the
development of the goals presented in Table 1.
~
8
Goals
\
Table 1. Sustainable Lake Goals
Spring Lake
Control infestation of Curlyleaf Pondweed
Exotic Species
Try to reduce carp population to 100
pounds/acre or less
Water quality
· Reduce curlyleaf-dominated lake area
from 180 acres to 90 acres or less.
· Enhance native plant dominated
coveraqe to 30 to 40%
· Plan for (and continue efforts to avoid)
potential future introduction of Eurasian
Water Milfoil
· Continue carp removal efforts and
evaluate effectiveness
. Reduce the number of days that the
physical condition is "severe algal bloom"
and increase the frequency of "some algae
present" conditions.
Improve the recreational suitability to a
"minor aesthetic problem" rating for most of
the summer.
· Achieve average summer clarity of 0.5
to 0.7 meters or better (1.6 to 2.3 feet)
· Reduce average total phosphorus
concentration to 70-90 IJg/L ..
· Reduce frequency of TP > 90 IJg/L
conditions and related algae blooms
· Reduce soluble reactive phosphorus
from 58% to 15%
· Control internal recycling of phosphorus
.
Reduce watershed total phosphorus by
900 kg/year
Upper Prior Lake
Control infestation of Curlyleaf Pondweed,
manage infestation of Eurasian Water Milfoil
Try to reduce carp population to 100
pounds/acre or less
· Reduce curlyleaf-dominated lake area
· Manage milfoil to allow continued
recreation
· Increase native plant diversity from one
species to four or more
· Explore the potential for carp removal
Reduce the number of days that the
physical condition is "high algal color" and
increase the frequency of "some algae
present" conditions.
Improve the recreational suitability to a
"minor aesthetic problem" rating for most of
the summer.
· Achieve average summer clarity of 1.5
meters or better (long term goal) = 4.9
feet
· Work towards long-term goal of 40 IJg/L
or less of total phosphorus (summer
average )*
I
I ·
Reduce Spring Lake loading to Upper
Prior Lake
Control internal recycling of phosphorus
.
· Reduce direct watershed contributions
of total phosphorus
Lower Prior Lake
Manage infestation of Eurasian Water
Milfoil
Maintain diverse fishery
I
I~
Manage milfoil to allow continued
recreation
Increase native plant diversity
.
I
I
I Maintain current physical condition of
"some algae present" and increase
frequency of "crystal clear" conditions.
Improve recreational suitability from
"minor aesthetic problem" to "beautiful."
.-
· Maintain existing long-term summer
average clarity of 2.2 meters or
better (7.2 feet)
· Maintain summer average total
phosphorus concentration of 30
IJg/L or less
· Reduce Spring and Upper Prior
Lake loading to Lower Prior Lake
· Reduce direct watershed
contributions of total phosphorus
9
Goals
Education &
Awareness
*TP:
Spring Lake I Upper Prior Lake
· Increase resident and business awareness of water quality issues
· Increase community understanding of the roles of exotic species (e.g. Curlyleaf Pondweed, Eurasian Water Milfoil, and carp) in
lake water quality, fisheries and recreation
· Inform community about the dangers posed by exotic species, and how to prevent the introduction of exotic species in area fakes
and streams
· Increase participation in water quality improvement efforts such as Curly/eaf control, Lake Friendly project, public meetings
· Improve resident's knowledge of and use of shoreline and lawn maintenance best management practices (BMPs)
· Increase business Use of BMPs for lower-impact development and storm water management before, during and after construction
· Promote environmentally sustainable land management
--- --. Enable and demonstrate the efficacy of storm water runoff management on existing residential, shoreline and business property
< 90 J.1g/L = partial support of primary contact recreation and aesthetics (Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion); <40 J.1g/L = full support
<40 J.19/L = full support of primary contact recreation and aesthetics (North Central Hardwood Forests Ecoregion
I Lower Prior Lake
)
ACTION PLAN
Following the establishment of general and specific goals for the lakes, the discussions turned to
how to reach those goals. A number of alternatives were discussed. Particular emphasis was
given to options for controlling internal phosphorus cycling (i.e. reducing phosphorus inputs from
the lake sediments), as this is a significant source of the phosphorus in Spring Lake and therefore
of the phosphorus entering Prior Lakes from Spring Lake. Spring Lake became the focus of much
of the discussion because it is the main source of phosphorus flowing into the Prior Lakes.
However, actions to reduce phosphorus and sediment loading from the direct watershed of Prior
Lakes were also identified and evaluated.
A key element of the discussion involved understanding the relationship between Curlyleaf
Pondweed and internal phosphorus loading in Spring Lake, and the associated implications for
controlling the internal phosphorus cycling. PLSL WD staff explained that the District had been
planning to treat Spring Lake with alum, a chemical compound, to tie up the phosphorus in the
sediment and make it unavailable to algae and plants. However, the introduction of Curlyleaf
Pondweed threw a VvTench in those plans, as researchers have found that the presence of Curlyleaf
Pondweed decreases the long-term successfulness of an alum treatment. Because such a treatment
is expensive, the PLSL WD put the alum treatment on hold, and has been concentrating on
controlling the CurlyleafPondweed first.
Overall Sustainable Management Strategy
Based on this understanding of the lake's management history, efforts at other lakes, and the
identified goals for Spring and Prior Lakes, much of the group's discussions focused on options
for controlling curlyleaf and the internal phosphorus cycling and the appropriate timeline or
sequence for these actions. The group also acknowledged the need to continue to address
phosphorus and sediment loading from the lakes' watersheds.
This led to the development of an overall management strategy that identified the primary
management needs for each lake that must be met if the goals in Table 1 are to be achieved, and
recognized the influence of the "upstream" lakes on "downstream" lake quality. Figure 2 below
presents the sustainable lake strategy for each lake, and for the lake chain as a whole.
11
I
Figure 2. Sustainable Lakes Strategy
Serino Lake
1) Continue aggressive Curlyleat Pondweed control, continue carp removal
2) Continue to reduce nutrient inflows from the watershed (Work with
residents and businesses to employ water quality best management
practices (B,MPs) in development and ongoing operation! maintenance ot
businesses, shoreline, yards, farmland, etc.)
3) Complete an alum treatment or equivalent internal loading control effort
once the Curlyleat Pondweed is under control
I ~nefits
'-
UDDer Prior lake
1) Continue milfoif control efforts and evaluate potential tor curlyJeat
control and carp removal effort similar to Spring Lake
2) Support Spring Lake curlyleaf control and water quality improvement
efforts
3) Continue to reduce nutrient inflows from the watershed
4) Evaluate the potential for an alum treatment (or equivalent) effort once
the Curlyleaf Pondweed and Spring Lake loading are under control
/~,
\
I Benefits'
'-
lower Prior Lake
1) Continue milfoil efforts
2) Support Spring Lake and Upper Prior Lake efforts
3) Continue to reduce nutrient inflows from the watershed
Implementation Actions
Following the development of the overall strategy, specific implementation actions were identified
and evaluated based on their feasibility and effectiveness in achieving the sustainable lake goals.
Numerous activities were considered, ranging from carp removal, to alum treatment, to continued
education efforts. Although some of the actions overlap somewhat, since they are important
HMPs to consider they were included as separate items.
Particular attention was paid to options for controlling the internal phosphorus cycling in Spring
Lake; these options were identified and evaluated in a Technical Memorandum completed during .~.
the planning process (see Appendix C). Table 2 below provides summary information about the
actions considered. For each category, the overall purpose of the actions is also listed.
12
'.
Table 2. Implementation Actions Considered.
MonitorinQllnformation-gatherirg - Purpose is to measurelJ[og[ess towards goals
Volunteer lake monitoring
Detailed water quality monitoring
Watershed inflow/outflow
monitoring
Citizens provide water quality
information through the CAMPs
and Citizen Lake Monitoring
programs.
Detailed monitoring of surface
and bottom conditions of lake.
Measure inflow and outflow of
water, phosphorus, sediment.
Better understanding of lake
quality, more involved and
informed ctizens
Info. needed to track overall water
quality and internal loading.
Information needed to develop
water, sediment and P budgets,
and track changes in watershed
loading.
Info. needed to manage aquatic
plants, evaluate control
measures, plan for future actions.
Aquatic plant monitoring
Survey of composition of plant
community and abundance of
various species.
Controls - Pur, ose is to reduce hos
Add aluminum sulfate to lake
water to precipitate P and bind
P in lake sediments.
--.---.---..,....._ U'."'__
Alum + lime Add spent lime slurry to
precipitate P and bind P in lake
sediments.
horus loadin to achieve water
Decreased sediment P loading,
decreased algae growth,
increased clarity.
CAMPs: $5501
lake
$1,500-$2,0001
lake +staff time
-$1,000 per
station, plus
staff time &
equipment
$1,800-$2,400
per survey
"';fli'm~nt$/Nbt~$m.m:
May not need every year.
. Required at main inflow to
Spring Lake as part of FeCI
treatment system permit.
May be possible for
volunteers to conduct some
monitoring; would require
training.
I
Decreased sediment P loading,
decreased algae growth,
increased clarity.
. Exotic SpeCies Management & (;ontro/- Purpose is to manaqe exotic species, prevent new Introductions and achieve water quality goals
. Aquatic plant management plan Develop a management plan More stable plant community, -$6,700 This has already been
(including goals) for addressing fewer nuisance species and (includes plant completed for Spring Lake.
nuisance growth, controlling impacts on recreation. Provides survey)
exotics & enhancing natives. foundation for plant mgmt.
Targeted treatment of some or Annual curlyleaf/milfoil control. If
all of Curlyleaf or milfoil done in successive years, can
infestation. deplete seedbed for curlyleaf and
encourage native plants.
Chemical treatment
usUty goals
$522,000
(Spring Lake)
$662,000
. $70,000
($390/acre),
plus staff
coord. time
Increased clarity may
stimulate aquatic plants,
Curlyleaf can decr~ase long-
term effectiveness.
May have added benefit of
impacting Curly/eaf; may
also impact other aquatic
plants. Stl!<:Jies in progress.
Treatment limited to 15% of
littoral area unless DNR
allows a variance. Effective-
ness studies are onqoinq.
13
]~I~t(:,,:_,
Mechanical Harvesting
Watershed Management -- Purp?se Is to reduce phosphorus loading to achieve water quality goals
Wetland restoration Restoration of drained or Decrease in water, P and Variable based
impacted wetlands to increase sediment loading to lakes. on land &
storage and water quality construction
treatment. costs
Planting native grasses along Decreased transport of P and $200/acre/yr.
waterways to provide a buffer. sediment from fields to ditches/ incentive
streams and lakes; increased
water storage.
Decreased P loading to Spring
Lake.
Lime treatment
Lake drawdown
Carp removal
Filter strip installation
Continued operation of ferric
chloride system
Rules for new development
Sanitary Sewer
--",
)
Mechanical harvesting of
Curlyleaf or milfoil.
Annual curlyleaf/milfoil control. If
done in successive years, can
deplete seedbed for curlyleaf and
encourape native plants.
Control of Curlyleaf, subsequent
re-establishment of native plants.
Addition of lime slurry to control
Curlyleaf.
Draw down lake level to expose
littoral area sediments to
freezing.
Remove carp through seining
or other methods.
Control of Curlyleaf through
destruction of seedbed.
Decreased carp population,
corresponding decrease in
sediment and native plant
disturbance; decrease in internal
P cycling
Treat flow from CD13 with ferric
chloride to remove phosphorus
prior to entering Spring Lake.
Implement PLSLWD and City of . Runoff maintained at pre:..
Prior Lake rules that require development rates, volume
water quality treatment, rate increases mitigated somewhat,
and volume control on new and sediment runoff and associated P
re-development. captured/minimized.
Extension of the sanitary sewer Decreased loading of nutrients
to areas currently served by and bacteria to lake from any
individual septic systems. non-conforminQ septic systems.
/.~',
\
I
~!llll]~!rnjl!mi~f!,\1i,l!ij~m~i "Qm'm~ij't$lNQl~~.,.!:i""'!;;'i""""""""
-$76,000 - Not limited to 15%, but -
($420/acre), harvester can't cut in < 5 feet
plus staff time of water, so immediate
shoreline is not cleared.
Effectiveness studies are
ongoing, may impact other
~uatic plants.
Concerns about downstream
impacts, potential for a fish
kill.
Success is not assured;
ongoing removal likely
needed unless reintroduction
can be stopped with fish
barriers, etc.
$166,000 for
Spring Lake
$298,000 for
Spring Lake
$1,000
mobilization +
$0. 12/pound
Currently supported by
PLSLWD.
Currently supported by
PLSLWD and Scott SWCO.
\ Operating costs Currently supported by
of -$7,500/year PLSLWO.
Staff and
outreach costs
to CitytwO
Depends on
size of project.
Most costs of treatment!
meeting the rules and
ordinances are borne by
developers.
Costs assessed to property
owners.
J~I~~.tn~n!;!ijfljll~f~~'I!~!~ljll~ffll~!il1~1~~~Jfi~4~i~11Jl~~f~1rij~~lliIH~~~~~~~[~
Retrofit ponds and sediment
traps (catch basins)
Rain gardens, buffers
Homeowner 8. bU-5in-ess--ri.in~
management
Soil management on new lots
Manure management on hobby
farms
Shoreline restoration and
erosion control
Non-degradation and
sustainable development
Retrofit existing neighborhoods
and business areas to include
water quality ponds and/or
sediment-capturing devices in
storm sewer catch basins.
Incorporate rain gardens and
buffer areas into new and re-
development (and lawn
management).
Various efforts to increase
awareness and foster BMP
adoption by homeowners and
businesses.
Education effort to change
practices leading to soil
compaction during home
building and raise new
homeowners' awareness of soil
management options &
benefits.
Education of hobby farm
owners on options for manure
management and disposal.
Return of native plants to
shoreline areas.
Encourage land management
practices (including
development, shoreline mgmt.,
agriculture) that maintain or
improve existing quality and
preserve resources for the
future.
:W;(!)u ..
Decreased nutrient and sediment
loading to the lakes.
Increased infiltration; decreased
runoff of water, sediment and
nutrients; increased wildlife
habitat
Increased awareness, changes in
behavior, decreased runoff and
associated P and sediment
loading from homes & businesses
Increased infiltration and turf
establishment on new lots due to
less compaction. Decreased
erosion and fertilizer runoff.
Decreased nutrient and bacteria
runoff from manure piles, better
awareness of water quality
concerns associated with manure
management.
Decreased erosion; decrease
impacts to lakes from lawn
maintenance, storm water runoff.
Increased infiltration and storage;
decreased runoff of water,
sediment & nutrients; greater
understanding of connections
between surface water, ground
water, recreation, quality of life.
'~.~:~~~~:~j~~]ii~~ili1l~mjilii~m::~i~(j!!ftn;HU~IN9l~s'";:',;:'.....:';
Variable The City of Prior Lake is
currently retrofitting areas
adjacent to the lake as
streets are re-done and their
J?,udget allows.
N'ew development is required
to meet PLSLWD infiltration
and buffer rules. There is
much opportunity to enhance
existing neighborhoods,
agricultural lands and
business areas.
Note that this overlaps with
several other actions,
including soil management,
rain gardens/buffers, and
shoreline restoration.
Costs would depend on
"delivery" option for
information - Workshops?
Web info.? New
homeowners' packets?
Rules?
Depends on
scale, purpose,
etc.
Variable
depending on
project
Variable
depending on
effort
- - --- ---
-$500-$1,000
to develop
materials and
host workshop
(plus staff time)
Variable
depending on
project
Variable
Generally includes
landowner cost-share
~mponent.
Should be included in some
way in all the implementation
actions.
15
I
Educationll:Jf!!h~I(!~r-Purpose Is to change behaviors to reduce nutrient loading and help reach water quality goals .. _ _
Continue the Lake Friendly Continue project to conduct Decreased runoff of water,. -$5,000 per Currently supported by a
Project one-on-one visits with home sediment, nutrients and year for grant through August 2004.
and business owners to discuss hazardous materials to storm materials,
runoff management practices. sewers and lakes. incentives
Topics include: economic Increased awareness of lake Staff time
benefits of clean water, keeping water quality issues, changes in
trash from lakes behavior that reduce runoff of
sediment & nutrients to the lakes.
Increased use of P-free fertilizer,
decreased accidental and
purposeful dumping in lake
(leaves, fertilizer, trash from ice
houses), increased awareness of
homeowners' impacts on lake
water quality.
Increased awareness of lake
water quality issues and the
efforts of various groups and
individuals to improve water
quality.
Increased awareness of lake
water quality issues, changes in
behavior that reduce runoff of
sediment & nutrients to the lakes.
Increased awareness of what has
been accomplished;
understanding of what is possible;
greater enthusiasm and support
for improvement projects.
Column in Prior Lake American,
City of Prior Lake Wavelength
newsletter
Homeowner BMPs (P-free
fertilizer, etc.)
Encourage homeowners to
adopt practices that protect
water quality.
Increase visibility of water quality Include information on web
protection efforts sites, City Council open forum,
newsletters, etc.
Student projects and community
meetings
Share water quality protection
messages and BMPs through
supporting student projects and
attending community meetings.
Share success stories in
protecting and improving water
quality.
Communicate successes
)
\
)
Incorporated in
other actions.
. Staff time, cost
of web
programming
Staff time,
material costs
for displays or
brochures
Staff time
''''.'''''ijnt$lNQt~$:;!im~:::i.: ......
Could be a joint effort of
PLSLWD, City of Prior Lake,
Lake Associations and Lake
.Advisory Committee
Lake Friendly, Prior Lake
American articles,
community meetings, etc.
are all avenues for
conveying this message.
Should become a
component of all the
implementation actions - Le.
the final step of each effort is
to communicate the
successes.
')
Selection of Alternatives
During the development of Table 2, discussions surrounded the effectiveness, feasibility and
desirability of each option. As noted in Table 2, some potential actions have greater uncertainty
associated with them (for example, alum-lime treatment), and others are undesirable due to cost,
potential adverse impacts, or stakeholder/citizen concerns. Still others, such as "nondegraciation
and sustainable development," are concepts and approaches that should be incorporated into all of
the actions that move forward. The most feasible options - those with the greatest likelihood of
implementation and the greatest expected progress towards the sustainable lake goals - were
carried forward to the next phase of the process. While these ideas received the most support and
interest, many of them will require additional discussion and exploration prior to implementation.
Roles and Responsibilities
Once implementation actions were identified and selected, the next step was to determine which
organization (or individuals) would undertake each action and what their role(s) would be. The
following roles were identified for each implementation action:
· Leader: Initiates the action and coordinates the overall effort.
· Builder: Constructs the facility (note: this only applies to actions that require a facility,
such as a treatment system, wetland restoration, etc.).
· Funder: Provides some or all of the funding for the action.
· Enactor/ Approver: Provides the approval necessary for the action to move forward.
· Operator/Maintainor: Operates or maintains the project or facility.
· Staffer: Provides the staff or volunteer time necessary to implement the action.
· Educator/Promoter: Explains and supports the action in the broader community. Obtains
the support necessary for the action to be accepted and implemented.
· Monitor: Measures the success of the action through direct measurement of the activity,
and/or measuring the response of the lake(s).
Participants were asked to consider the roles of themselves and their organization(s) in
implementing the actions that were identified for each lake. Ibis led to the development of a
"roles and responsibilities" matrix that is reproduced in Table 3. The table is grouped by "Spring
Lake" actions, "Prior Lakes" actions, and actions that apply to "All Lakes." The following
abbreviations are used in the table:
I Organization Abbreviation
City of Prior Lake City
Cities of Prior Lake and Savage Cities
I Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR
I Minnesota Pollution Control Agency I MPCA
, Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District WD
I Prior Lake Advisory Committee LAC
I Prior and Spring Lake Associations I LA or LAs
I Scott Soil & Water Conservation District SWCD
, Spring Lake Township SL T
I Three Rivers Park District 3 Rivers
I Not applicable or desirable N/A
17
The information in Table 3 focuses primarily on the roles and responsibilities of local government,
volunteer groups and individuals. It is important to note that there are also many resources
available from non-local sources, particularly state and federal agencies. These include the
Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources,
Metropolitan Council, and federal Environmental Protection Agency. Local governments,
volunteer organizations and citizens in the watershed rely on these federal and (especially) state
sources for technical assistance, educational materials, and financial support.
18
~
4'
t
\
~',
~,
-""-rr
Table 3. Roles & Responsibilities.
$ still Timeframe Lead Fund' Enact! Operatel Staff Educatel Monitor
needed (see details Approve Maintain Promote
in Table 4)
mp'ri
Monito!!nq/lnformation-gatherinr
Volunteer lake $5501 lake Annually WD WD, Met. WD, Met. WD Volunteers Volunteers, Volunteers
monitoring Council Council maintains LAs, WD,
equip. Qty. SL T
Detailed water $1,500- Annually (?) 3 Rivers, (3 Rivers, (3 Rivers, N/A 3 Rivers, 3 Rivers, 3 Rivers,
quality monitoring $2,000/Iake X WD WD, City) WD) wI WD help WD, GUy, WD
+staff time SLT.LAs
Watershed -$1,0001 Annually WD WD WD N/A WD WD. City, WD
inflowl outflow station, +staff SLT,3
monitoring & equip. Rivers, LAs
Aquatic plant -$1,800 per Annually WD Spring (WD, City) N/A WD (coord) WD, City, 3 3 Rivers
monitoring survey (2/yr) X LA,WD, consultant, Rivers, SL T,
City volunteers? LAs
-- .- --, ,,- .. ....- I
-.......-.'..-,.-.-
In-Lake f'lJ.qsphorus (P) Inactivation
Alum treatment $522,000 X (addi- 2006 WD WD (City, DNR, N/A WD WD, City, 3 Rivers
tional $?) grants) MPCA, WD SLT,3
Rivers. LAs
Exotic Species Control/Management
Aquatic plant Comoleted in 2001,
mgmt. plan
Chemical $70,000 X Annually for WD& WD, DNR N/A WD I Residents, 3 Rivers
treatment of ($39o/acre), to treat 3-6 years Spring residents (coord.), City, WD,
curlyleaf plus staff all 180 (depends on LA , (Spring consultant SL T, LAs
coord. time acres success) LA, City)
Watch for Minimal (plus Ongoing Spring N/A N/A N/A Spring LA, LA, lake Spring LA,
Eurasian Water education LA. lake lake users users. WD, lake users
Milfoil efforts) users City. DNR
..---.'.'--
I Where funding source is not yet determined or additional funding is needed, potential funding sources are indicated in parentheses.
19
Cost $ still Timeframe Lead Fund1 Enact! Operatel Staff Educatel Monitor
(see details needed (see details Approve Maintain Promote
in Table 2) ? in Table 4)
Carp Removal $13,000 for X Annually WD City, WD, DNR N/A Commerc'l LAs, WD, 3 Rivers
100,0001bs (beyond (Spring fishermen City, .SL T, 3
2004) LA, fish. Rivers
clubs)
I I
Watershed ManaQement
Rules for new Staff and Ongoing WD, City, WD, City; WD, City, WD, City, WD, City, WD, City, WD, City,
development outreach SLT, SLT, SLT, SLT, SLT, SL T, County, SLT
costs County County, County County County LAs
Develop.
Wetland Varies I Ongoing, as WD WD WD,SLT WD, WD WD, City, WD
restoration depending on opportunities landowner SL T, LAs,
proiect are available landowners
Filter strip $200/acre/yr. Ongoing, as WD& WD& WD& Landowner Landowner Landowner, Landowner
installation incentive opportunities SWCD SWCD SWCD ,WD, WD, SL T, ,WD,
(WD) are available SWCD SWCD SWCD
Rain gardens, Depends on X (add'l Ongoing WD, City, WD, City, WD, City, WD, City, WD, City, WD, City, WO, City,
buffers scale, needed SLT, SLT, SLT, SLT, SLT, SL T, County, SLT
purpose, etc. for County County County County County LAs
retrofits ) (private)
Soil management Varies based Develop in City, SL T City, City, SL T Home- City, SL T, City, SL T, City, SL T
on new lots on effort X 2004/2005 SL T, WD owners WD WD, LAs
Shoreline Depends on City has City, City, City, Landowner City, City, SWCD, City,
restoration & scale, $20,000 for SWCD SWCD, SWCD SWCD, SLT, SWCD,
erosion control projects projects on agencies, Landowner Landowner, WD
lakeshore land- LAs, WD
owners
---" .---- SL T, City
Retrofit ponds Variable Ongoing SL T, City SL T, City, SL T, City SL T, City SL T, City, SL T, City
and sed. traps WO WD
Sanitary Sewer Variable As areas are City, City, SL T City, SL T City, SL T City, SL T City, SL T City, SL T
annexed and SLT, (via
opportunities Met. assess-
are avail. Council ments)
___ n__.__..__
Continued -$7,500/year Ongoing WD .WD WD, DNR, WD WD WD, LAs, WD
operation of ferric , plus MPCA City, SL T
chloride system maintenance
:;-......" k>
- )
Cost $ still Timeframe Lead Fund1 EnacU Operatel Staff Educatel Monitor
(see details needed (see details Approve Maintain Promote
in Table 2) ? in Table 4)
Manure $500-$1,000 Develop in ? (City, N/A SL T (NPDES
management on for materials X 2005? ? WD, ? ? Phase II), ?
hobby farms & workshop County, City, WD,
~.,-,_...._- .."'- (+ staff time) grants) LAs
I
JliierlormI1illIR!Sii!i[!!!~ffi:~~ir~iili
MofJitC?ringllnformation-gatherlng
Volunteer lake $5501 lake Annually WD WD, Met. WD, Met. WO Volunteers Volunteers, Volunteers
monitoring Council Council maintains LAs, WD,
equip. _f!t't~~AC
Detailed water $1,500- Annually (?) WD-WQ WD, City WD N/A WO WO, City, WD
quality monitoring $2,000Ilake City- LAs, lAC
+staff time bacteria,
chloride
Watershed -$1,000/ Annually WD WD WD N/A WO WD, City, WD
inflow/ outflow station, +staff LAs, LAC
monitoring & equip.
Aquatic plant -$2,400 per Annually WD (Prior LA, WD, City N/A WO (coord) WO, City, 3 Consultant,
monitoring survey (2/yr) X WD, Cityl consultant, Rivers, LAs, volunteers?
LAC) volunteers? LAC
Zebra mussel Minimal Annually Prior LA Prior LA, N/A N/A .- .- -
Prior LA Prior LA
monitorinQ (volunteer) state volunteers
... _u.. '_.. I I C_
In-Lake Pho~phorus (P) Inactivation (Upper Prior)
Evaluate need 2005 or 2006 WD (WD, WD, City, N/A WD, City WD, City, WD
? X City) DNR, peA, LAs, LAC
--. community
Alum treatment, 2008 WD (WD, WD, City, N/A WO WD, City, WD
or Alum + lime ? X City) DNR, LAs, LAC
MPCA
I I I
Exotic Species Control/Management
Aquatic plant -$8,000- 2004 WD, City (WD, DNR, WD, WO, City WO, City City, WO, WD
management $10,000 X . City/LAC) City/LAC, LAC, LAs, 3
plan residents & Rivers, DNR,
users sports clubs
--. -.". ..-
21
Cost $ still Timeframe Lead Fund' Enact! Operatel Staff Educate/ Monitor
(see details needed (see details Approve Maintain Promote
in Table 2) ? in Table 4)
Chemical 2003: $1.59/ 2005-2008 WD {Prior LA, DNR ' N/A 'WD Residents, WO,
treatment linear foot {depends on residents (coord.), City, WO, potential
(Curlyleaf shoreline, X plant mgmt , City/ consultant LAs, LAC, for
pondweed) $298/acre plan) LAC WD) sports clubs volunteers?
I open areas
Chemical - $1,500/yr Ongoing, City/LAC City/LAC DNR N/A City/LAC City, LAC, Prior LA
treatment annual {milfoil (coord.), WD, Prior LA,
(Eurasian Water fund), consultant residents
Milfoil) DNR
Lime treatment Evaluate further if this becomes a vi~~re2[)~i9-"U~~e~__01'l~ludiesJJ~~urlderwav)
Carp Removal $1,000 mobil. Evaluate WD (CitY/LAC DNR N/A Commercia LAs, WO, Volunteers
Plus $0. 12/lb feasibility in (coord.), WD, I fishermen City, fishing ?
X 2004 LA Prior LA, clubs
fishing
clubs)
I I
Watershed Management
Rules for new Staff and Ongoing WD, WD, WD, Cities WD, Cities WD, Cities WD, Cities, I WD, Cities
development outreach Cities Cities, LAs
costs Develope
rs
Wetland Varies Ongoing, as WD WD, City WD, City WD, WD WD, City, WD
restoration depending on opportunities landowner LAs,
oroiect are available landowners
Rain gardens; Depends on X (add' I Ongoing WO, City, WD, City, WD, Cities WD, Cities WO, Cities WO, Cities, WO, Cities
buffers scale, needed SLT, SLT, LAC, LAs
purpose, etc. for County County
retrofits ) (private)
Soil management Variable Develop in Cities Cities Cities Home- Cities Cities, WD, Cities
on new lots depending on X 2004/2005 owners LAC, LAs
effort
Shoreline Depends on City has City, City, WD, City, WO, Landowner City, WO, City, WO, City, WO
restoration & scale, $20,000 for LAC, state LAC input LAC, LAs
erosion control projects projects on SWCD agencies,
lakeshore land-
owners
. ._._,,---, .--
""~,
"
\
~2
Cost $ still Timeframe Lead Fund' Enact! Operatel Staff Educatel Monitor
(see details needed (see details Approve Maintain Promote
in Table 2) ? in Table 4)
Retrofit ponds Variable Ongoing Cities Cities, Cities, Cities ' Cities Cities, WO, Cities
and sediment County County, County, LAs,
traps WO LAC
I I I I
All Lakes - Education/Behavior
Homeowner Incorporated Ongoing Cities, Cities, Cities, WO, N/A Cities, WO All Cities, WO,
BMPs (no-P in other WO, WO, Scott Co. LAs
fertilizer, etc.) actions Scott Co. Scott Co.
Water quality Staff time Begin in WO, City WO, City WO, City, N/A WO, City WO, City, N/A
column in Prior 2004, editors Prior LA LAC, LAs
Lake American, ongoing (help)
City of Prior Lake
Wavelength
Continue Lake -$5,000 per Ongoing WD WD WD N/A WO, LAs, WD, Cities, WO,
Friendly Project year for participants LAC, LAs, participants
materials, Scott Co., , LAs
incentives SWCO
Increase visibility Staff time, Ongoing WD Variable N/A N/A Variable All
of water quality web costs
protection issues
Student projects Staff time, Ongoing Variable Variable Depends Variable All
and community displays or on funding
meetings brochures
Communicate Staff time Ongoing WD All N/A N/A I All All
successes
It is important to note that each of the actions identified above will require additional discussion and refinement, and the development of a
detailed plan for implementation. For example, to implement the "shoreline restoration" action the lead organizations must first determine
how to fund the action, who to work with (homeowners? businesses?), and how many restorations to target each year. Then a plan must be
developed for identifying interested landowners and facilitating the restoration work. Finally, the project must be implemented and
tracked. To ensure that the details around each action item are explored and developed, an Implementation Team made up of volunteers
from the original planning group will meet at least annually to develop a work plan for the upcoming year (see "Implementation Process"
below). This will help ensure the ongoing implementation of this plan, and, therefore, the ultimate success ofthese efforts.
23
DJpLEMENTATIONSCHEDULE
The actions listed in Table 3 present a detailed approach for moving forward to improve and
protect the water quality of Spring and Prior Lakes. However, not all of the actions can be
accomplished at once. As discussed earlier, some will need to be sequenced to enhance the
potential for success, while the timing for others will reflect budgeting and staff time needs and
constraints. Table 4 presents a five-year schedule for implementing each of the action items.
It is difficult to predict the expected response of the lakes over the five-year implementation
timeline. A successful alum treatment on Spring Lake will result in a dramatic, and immediate,
improvement in water quality, but it is hard to know how long the improvement will last, or how
quickly a response will be seen in Prior Lakes. Controlling CurlyleafPondweed will help ensure
the long-term effectiveness of an alum treatment; that is why it is important to address this
problem before an alum treatment. The completion of studies currently in progress on other
metro-area lakes will also provide more information to help predict future responses in Spring and
Prior Lakes.
Annual Reoortinf? and Plannin~
It is important that this Sustainable Water Quality Management Plan be a "living" plan that can be
refined and updated as we learn more about the responses of Spring and Prior Lakes to
management actions, and as new tools and new information about existing management tools
becomes available. To ensure that implementation of the Plan is continuing and that progress is
being made towards the sustainable lake goals, an annual report will be completed each year that
includes the following:
I. A discussion of the actions initiated and completed during the past year, including what
worked well and what didn't work as well.
2. Analysis of progress made towards the sustainable lake goals.
3. A discussion of any changes needed to the plan to ensure continued implementation and
success.
4. A description of the actions planned for the next year, including lead organizations/
individuals, funding source(s), and a more detailed timeline (i.e. an annual work plan).
Note that as indicated in the previous section, for each action item a number of steps will be
needed for implementation. This will require the ongoing involvement of the various individual
groups that participated in developing this Sustainable Water Quality Management Plan. To
ensure continued coordination in implementing this plan, itis anticipated that the "Sustainable
Lakes" group will re-convene at least once each year to review the annual report, take stock of the
progress made to date and the efforts planned for the upcoming year, and to make any necessary
adjustments to the plan. The outcome of this meeting will be an annual Work Plan that reflects the
Management Plan, and that details the efforts of the participating individuals and groups over the
next year.
This annual work plan process will help to ensure that the Sustainable Water Quality Management
Plan is translated into action. In addition, it will provide a means for updating the Plan to reflect
new information and opportunities. The five-year revision schedule provides a mechanism for
revising the plan to reflect new goals or strategies for the lakes. This all helps to achieve the
24
ultimate goal of coordinating the various local and regional water quality management efforts
focused on SPring and Prior Lakes to achieve the community's water quality goals.
Future Revisions to the Sustainable Lakes ManalZement Plan
It is important that this Sustainable Water Quality Management Plan be a "living" plan that can be
refined and updated as we learn more about the responses of Spring and Prior Lakes to
management actions, and as new tools and new information about existing management tools
becomes available. At a minimum, the Plan should be updated annually during the annual
reporting and planning process to reflect the previous year's progress and information, and the
entire Plan, including the goals and strategy, should be re-visited every five years.
25
Year
Quarter
Table 4: General Implementation Schedule (details to be added via annual Work Plan).
Watersheci 1IA~n..i!CJement
RUles for ne"\'\l_ d~v~lgpment
Wetland restoratian
Filter strip installatian
Rain Qard~ns, buffers
Soil manaaemflnt on new lots
Shoreline restoratian & erosion
cantrol
-- ---. ---...-"-'..'.-
Retrofit ponds and sediment traps
I Sanitary Sewer
Cantlnued operatian of ferric
chloride system
I Manuremqmt. an hobby farms
I
I
I
I
I
,
Monltorinqllnformatlon-gathering
I Volunte~~-'~k.~manitoring _~ I ==__-=+==-~ I
Detailed~~terqualitymanitaring _I ,- -__r--- ~--= -t=.---=_'_I__ -j
Watershed inflaw! outflaw I I I
monitori!1Q(level af detail varies) ---~ ___ __ -I .=--__ --__L
Aquatic plant mOni~ri~~ _ "~I--~=~~I__ .. .. =--.J ~
In-Lake Pho!i)p!)g!",!!! Controls
AlumtreatmenJ_._~_~ -==:=EE ===E =:E f
Exotic Spec/~s c;.o.ntrollManagement
Chemical treatment of curlyleaf _ __1_ ~_,
Watch for Eurasian Water Milfoil , r=-
and educate to avoidni~troductian _ _ _ -I- _ I I
Carp Remo"aliaeDeeds on $) === ==r:=::l:= "
~
I
2007 , 2008
2 [~~~~I*~~~!m~,I~llijii[,~ilm]ii!!J'[~[i;~j~i[!,[im: _. -3 I 4
-'-
..
I
--?
I . I I
I r _.
..- -
I I I
I I
i Dev~!QL:, ___T r- '-". J I I ;--r---;
Implement ,
I I I
I I nlflmp. I
==t=
Develop . ..JD1 W ~ i ; :
proaram I I ~ ~--r--r--r-;
'~~ - ~. l;;; I
I - _ f!.s annexation maves farward and oppartunitiesa~e available.
I l
-+--!
=== Develo) -.-Ilmplement- . I I .=t---I
'_ I 1----__-'._
------- --------__ I
------ I
~-========== ====- --1)'
J _n
============ -- I I
.~
:->1
)
...;~
\
I
Year
Quarter
m:~'tiKS~,i,[Jlil
Monitorina/lnformation-gatherinr- _
Volunteer lake monitoring - ~----,- - :~ ==c=r=:::r=- ==+:-----:=---r
Delailed water qualitx monil - -r----t;:-- ---"" _ ._ , _ _j ~ _ ,_
Watershed inflow/outflow monit. - ! '- - I - I " I, ---.::t I ,_
Aqualicplanimonitoling_A. A. ===---'----.L '-----.!...__~'__. I=~'_~ A. i
--------'==----=:t=__ I I
In-Lake Ph()sphorus Controls
Evaluate nee.~ (Lower Prior)
Alum treatment, or Alum + lime
_. (depen~ing on studies)
Carp R~~~val (depends on $)
----
----
-.-I--===---_I__~ I I I I
A (or 2008, depending
------------___ onfunding)
: ------t----==== "
----~._-----
I ----- I ' I --__
---., "--------+--;----,r---------
L-_ _ I __ I __
---
Exotic SpeC}~e.~:.~ontrol/Management-
Aquatic ~Iant~anagement plan _',-
Chemical tre'3.tment of Curlyleaf _
Chemical treatment of EWM
- - -"'-.
Lime treatment
Watershed N/~nagement
Rules for.~ew development
I Wetland restoration
I Rain Qarde.ns, buffers
Soil manaqement on new lots
Shoreline restoration & erosion
control
I Retrofit pon~~. .~.n_~sed. traps
~~lrj[U'a
Homeowner BMPs
I Column in Prior Lake American
I Contin~~ "Lake Friendly Project
Increase visibility of water quality
_protection" is.s.~es
Student ~e~!s.. commun. mtgs.
Communicate successes
I
, AnnuaiR.epOrling & Planning
'-t--l
j--"
j
I
..
..
27
Appendices
Appendix A: County Ditch 13 Wetland and Ferric Chloride System Sediment and Phosphorus
Removal Performance Assessment
Appendix B: Spring and Upper Prior Lakes External and Internal Phosphorus Load Modeling
-.
Appendix C: Feasibility Analysis for Controlling Internal Phosphorus Loads in Spring Lake
,{~-
,..
~.,
28
-....-
PRIOR LAKE - SPRING LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT
Phone (952) 447-4166
Fax (952) 447-4167
www.plslwd.or9
April 14,2004
Mr. Bud Osmundson
Director of Public Works
City of Prior Lake
17073. Adelmann, Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
One of the 2004 Work Plan elements from the Sustainable Water Quality Planfor Spring and Prior'
Lakes involves completing an aquatic plant management (APM) plan for Upper Prior Lake to characterize
the plant community, refine the phmt management goals, and develop a plan for attaining those goals. An
APM plan. would also help guide. and facilitate exotic species management and control.
During the sustainable lakes planning process the group discussed funding sources for the APM plan and
identified the Prior Lake Milfoil Control Fund, which was established by aWatershed District special
'. assessment, as a likely source. The Milfoil Control Fund is administered by the Watershed District based
on th~ requests of the City of Prior Lake through itsLake AdvisoryCommittee (LAC). On March 3,
2004, Sue McDermott sent a letter to the Watershed District asking that a request for proposals (RFP) for
an Upper Prior LakeAPM plan be developed, with the understanding that all or part ofthe plan could be
funded from the Milfoil Control Fund (see attached).
pear Bud:
In March the District solicited proposals from its ecological services pool of consultants and received four
proposals in response to the RFP.. A subcommittee of District staff and Managers reviewed the proposals
and presented their review to the full Board at its regular meeting on April 13, 2004. At that meeting the
B.oardawarded l/1eUppe' Prior APM contract to Blue Water Science at a total cost not to exceed $5,1 SO,
subject to CitylLAC concurrence on the funding source.
The current balance in the MilfoilConlrol Fund is just over $16,500. Ther.fore, the entire plan could be
funded through the Milfoil Control Fund, leaving a balance of approximately $ 1 1,300. If the City of Prior
Lake/LAC concur with the use of this funding source, the project could begin shortly. Throughout the
project the District will work closely with the City and LAC to review and comment on the project
deliverables, including the APM goals and implementation plan.
Please let me know if the CitylLACconcur with the proposed funding source for the Upper Prior APM
. plan. If you have any questions, please contact me at (952) 447-4166 or slotthammer@,plslwd.org.
Sincerely,
~
~ "Av~~ 'r()
~ If i4" N/lJ<J ~
Q~
.a-let=-
Shannon Lotthammer
District Administrator
+- c 0 fJG~1U.EA v..J /
F<-1~ ~
LISt..
o?
15815 FRANKLIN TRAIL S.E., SUITE 100 · PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
Enclosure
)
J
i
I
/
/
I
/
r\
I.: -\,....,...,.."", :) .' .P
:,.., :-:'.'J
\
\
;
,
I
,.
l
\
\
\
\
'"
-.....,._,~,~
SEDIMENT SKIMMER
STORM WATER INFIL TRA TION BASIN
~/
~,,,~,....,...",,,,...~
( MH
E~D
....>>>-.'\. B 0 ",,-
/'" "" "",.
SETBACK ,/ ~
./ /
. //
;/
\'. "'. <'j (~, . I
, ., /
(/./i,:;s;z:----,~l~--~~~~7;;;::: ~.,.,
_...... l > ...'~ .....,r'
, "';:_,' - 1 - - :_.,.,..C} '" ... - ... . '.. .. - .. - \ "" _ '.,.,.. -' .. ._ ~
.11' AYV-l .,/ ----- .~
I i l .I;
i i i (',/ \
II .' (jf /C)''''
I I . ,"
I ! i\ ",/:"
Ii I .,.Ir:'<. /5.' -r-' R25'
'It ~ <.
I ~ -.. ~~
I. \.......
II
!I/
IIl/
I
j
~
20'
\
"
\,
\.
""...
,... ,~,
./
l
i
l
l
/
R 25>/'/
//
I
i
~
i
\
\
"-
"',
,
\
~
-\
"
~-
~,-._-=--=--.._...,._.~o-:"-
I
;'
l
i
R25'
92' 9 .....................
~.-..~,..".....".:::::::::-.:;.~.::~=;:.;.-.::.::=:::.fi.~...,._....,_,~..~_,~:.:.~,.._.....,,"_._.....~..._,.._...~. _._.~._,.~,,,.~.,,_fi
,
11 '
---~
-- --
.
.........,.._-,-
..........., x
! >
f
-~"- -"-. /:<
--..,-j I
'( ...-....-.............--.-- ,
----
~-
SETBACK '
18'
--R:25'
-4
SCALE 1"
20'
rACll.ITI[$ " oPERATIONS SUPPORT BuREAU' MINNESOTA OEPARTM. E. NT Of' NATURAL RESOURCES:
_ ."" - - TRAILS AND .A1'EItWA'!t
-I:fJIIP'... ." ~ - ..C,OIIlCE, PT PLAN - OUn..OT 4.1I.o[OP I STALL, Ie
_ :.t..1UM _ PRIOR LAKE- UPPER
...._ ~ DEWI'ITE WATER ACCESS
SCOTT ~TY IilEAR ""'OR LAKE
I i.Oft.o.- -.. - i... J . 11.1" .... ..II. 22" .
- 1'--1'" ,--
I .... _ A-()4-07 WAS00137
'~
..,;;A
tH
-f;;' ;",..
2.....L"-
~
II
5 -~~j /
~~
.. ~~.
'o.
ilN
WllH
RiNG
~.SEE .
laN'E. .
,
,
I
EKD CkG -c' .
\' ..
I
-'111111 I I II IIIIII IIII .!1I1111111 11,"1 ""
.,".. '""',',k.._,,,:_~__M I
EXiSTING
GRA VEL
ROAD
1-.
\
\
",
"
'<f"1
.t'>tl, ..4; SHE[T-&
".,
i
i
I
~-l~ ..~..-AbL
. .. .J}tt;11 I m,.NGN--
.fl:lUtJ1.. ~ I
'1""^dD.AA~S. \
l ..,'"
JI \
I
I
./
i
l.
" ^ r,
,1\ i\
~~A l f~
!\l JS
~.. GRADE AS NEl..t.-~-!C
/ PRO\f1OE SNOV~l GftJJ)E TRANSIT
/ Al. (NOS Of 8SlUMlNOU$. .>>ID-Al
,// NfW.ACcrSS.ROAD........
I
i ~
I
I
/~,./'
i1
t
.~
/
r
,
J
LL
..-t _
/
I
SIGN .c. /
//
/
!
J
I
I
"
,.~<::~ /
'r. ,,//
'\ ,./
V~
-"
I
/,'1
It / I
. . J....--'f, ./ 1.,!
/ \ I I
. / . ; _.....-!
..- . ,~/~ ~ I'
n ) \ 'I
/'; ,y
./. i . \/~. 11
l./~ _. ~. 1
_/-- !
I /11
i . 'j
'/,~
.1
,.....1
.:....~ 2- '11:UO( '~
WUL TI(A1 t ttl A.R.' .
~- .
-pftysr.
~. '. S.~rrAR,Y. -" \
z,.. BE't.{W Re,td}-
stJR!:' ACE.__ .
J!L~-E
F:~~ ~ D~~i?\ ~.~:
5T~ :~ :::O~ ~
r DOUBLE GA T[
40' WIDE
(NJ.C.)
~
O\J'lR c. CL. 5
4- ell.
..
"'"
/
II
/
.,4
=-- .+
I
! I
. / I'
/
I
/
:.0
J
~..
"" .:.
-.
'-
'" --"'.,
.~
tASntENT R[QUIW)
H~ GRADING .
COH~L It. SWAU:
~AU..A~ .""
^ VOOllfA TER SiER...c€ ",-/
S1U8S IN THIS AREA
~ l/'lST AlliNG F"E.JIiCf
..,.-, 1<,.....<_.
; :',~'~"J" ',:
II "C;~,t.'" ;~":~K N::.
LOWfh: PRfUf! ! AKF
AND !'UINT Met;S:"
'" Pi;;T,II~
^'; It
---~
/o/~;. PRIO~'\
./ ""r ~\_
'i..~,,"', ' '7" ,",
It, . ~\
,;, ' t'rl J
\ . ;/
\ ' j
. ~
. .,
. "~lVNESO~/'
--
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Trailers and Boats and Docks, Oh My!
An Issues Outline
Docks
1. DNR modified rules in fall 2002 with the result they no longer regulate non-
commercial private docks unless they are greater than 8 feet wide. As a result, if a
City wants docks regulated, it will have to do so under color of City ordinances.
Marinas and all docks greater than 8 feet wide will continue to be regulated by
DNR. The City needs to decide whether there is a problem now of such
magnitude or there is the likelihood of such a problem developing that City
involvement is necessary.
2. If the City decides to regulate docks, several things will need to be done. This
could include:
. Requiring individual dock permits. If permits were not required, enforcement
would be based on complaints.
. Adopting an ordinance setting out standards including dock locations, length,
width, number of boat per dock, number of docks per each property and so on.
. Increased enforcement activities. This could be a substantial item.
3. If the City does not regulate docks:
. Anything goes in terms of numbers, location, etc.
. The City will still receive complaints but would have no basis to act on
them.
. Present situation would continue, DNR does not now require permits for
individual private docks. They did regulate marinas and large docks such
as those for homeowners associations, but hereafter will only permit
marinas. Association docks would not be regulated.
4. Facts: There are approximately 1,000 riparian lots on Prior Lake. Each lot typically
has at least one dock. Associations have mooring for 380 boats. Marinas have
room for 151 boats.
Trailer parking
Current parking available on Prior Lake for trailers: Sand Point- 28 DNR stalls and 15
City stalls(fee). DeWitt access-10 stalls Total of 38stalls (no fee).
DNR rule of thumb is one free stall for 20 acres of water surface. Need 57 stalls to meet
DNR standard. Shortage of 19 stalls from DNR perspective.
Effect on lake use. If we assume one dock per riparian lot and an average of 2 watercraft
per dock, this is a total of 2,000 watercraft at individual docks. Adding 380 association
slips and 151 marina slips, there are 2,531 watercraft based on the lake. Compare to a
total of 53 legal parking stalls on the lake. There is also off-site parking of trailers beyond
H:\Trailers and Boats and Docks."ot' 'ty f . I k
"W\\Iw.C1 0 pnor a e.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
the 2,500 foot zone restricting parking near accesses but this number is not known.
Addition of 19 new parking stalls on the lake would constitute an increase in the potential
number of boats on the lake ofless than 1/1Oth of I per cent.
Direction- Where will this lead? DNR suggests that one boat per 10 acres of water
surface area will create feelings of crowding among boaters. Obviously, every boat that
can use the lake is not out there at the same time but continued pressure may increase the
feeling that so~ething needs to be done.
Options- Do nothing, that is, provide no additional parking. Increase the parking supply
to meet the rule of thumb of 57 free stalls on the lake. Increase the amount of available
parking beyond the 57 stalls. Consider increased surface use regulations, including time
zoning, more speed restrictions, areas of the lake limited to specific uses at particular
times and so on.
PLEASE REVIEW THIS AND BE PREPARED TO MAKE COMMENTS AT THE NEXT
DRC MEETING.
H:\Trailers and Boats and Docks.doc
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
3/11/04
2005 CIP PROJECTS
Project Description
Project Amount
Financing
City Cost
Tax Impact
Doll",. P"rr.A~
Transit
1. Park & Ride Lot Acquisition
250.000.00
250,000.00
I.g.
Park Department
(Deve/ODmentl
2. Park Entrance Signs 5.000.00 5,000.00 c.p.
3. Sand Point Beach Curb 5,000.00 5,000.00 c.p.
4. Pleasure Rink Lights 10.000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
5. Tree Planting Program 10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
6. Softball Backstops 10,000.00 10.000.00 c.p.
7. Park Appurtenant Equipment 15,000.00 15,000.00 c.p.
8. Basketball Courts - Sand Point. Wilds North, Hawk Ridge 20,000.00 20,000.00 c.p.
9. Ponds Concession Stand Addition/Bathroom Upgrade 35,000.00 35,000.00 c.p.
10. Gazebo - Woods at the Wilds, Meadow View 40,000.00 40,000.00 c.p.
11. Picnic Shelters (4) - Cardinal/NorthwoodlPonds/Hawk Rdg 80.000.00 80,000.00 c.p.
12. Playground Equipment - Sand Point Beach, Hawk Ridge 115,000.00 115,000.00 C.p.
tI.&.i1sl
13. Hawk Ridge & Jeffers Pond 95,000.00 95.000.00 c.p.
Public Works
(Bui/dinos & Plant)
14. Lift Station Telemetry 25,000.00 25.000.00 u.f.
15. Lift Station Renovation 345.000.00 345.000.00 u.f.
16. Lift Station - Stemmer Development 200,000.00 200.000.00 t.r.
17. Lift Station - Meadow View Development 200,000.00 200,000.00 t.r.
18. Municipal Well 500,000.00 500,000.00 t.r.
(ImDrovementsl
19. Centennial Street Reconstruction 75,000.00 75.000.00 s.a.
20. Sanitary Sewer Replacement (Franklin Trail) 95.000.00 95,000.00 u.f.
21. Street Overlay (Northwood area) 100,000.00 100,000.00 o.b.
22. Trunk Watennain (CSAH 42 from CSAH 83 to W. Limit) 125.000.00 125.000.00 t.r.
23. Fountain Hills Drive to McKenna thru Jeffers Develop. 200,000.00 200,000.00 c.S.
24. Trunk Watermain (CSAH 18) 200,000.00 200,000.00 t.r.
25. Prior Lake Outlet Channel Repairs 300,000.00 300,000.00 t.r.
26. Trunk Sanitary Sewer Replacement (Duluth area N. of TH1 400,000.00 400.000.00 u.f.
27. CSAH 82 Reconstruction 3,625,000.00 50,000.00 s.w.
1,000,000.00 m.s.
2,575,000.00 t.r.
28. Fish Point Rd/Fairlawn West Reconstruction 3,535,000.00 1,300,000.00 21.40 2.92%
800,000.00 s.a
1,435,000.00 u.f.
Water Resources
(ImDrovementsl
29. Undesirable Fish Containment Program 5,000.00 5,000.00 S.w.
30. Pondweed Removal Program 5,000.00 5.000.00 S.w.
31. Pleasant Street Drainage Improvements 20,000.00 20,000.00 s.w.
32. Lake Bank Stabilization 20,000.00 20.000.00 S.w.
33. Storm Water Pond Dredging 20,000.00 20.000.00 S.w.
34. Storm Drainage Improvements 8000000 8000000 s.w.
Totals 'n 10,765,000.00 10,765.000.00
Financing Source Summary Project Amount Tax Impact
QQl!a[ Perc-.entaoe
$ Project Tax Levy 1,300,000.00 $21.40 2.92%
o.b. Operating Budget 100.000.00
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund 2,300,000.00
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 200,000.00
c,p. Capital Park Fund 440,000.00
t.t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund 4,100,000.00
. :.S. Collector Street Fund 200.000.00
m.S. Municipal State Aid 1,000,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 875,000.00
Lg. Intergovernmental Z2P 000 OQ
Totals n. 10,765,000.00
8
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
3/11/04
2006 CIP PROJECTS
City Cost
Project Description Project Amount Financing Tax Impact
QQ!J.aL Percentanp.
General Government
1. City Hall/Police Station/Community Use Center 13,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 gJ.
10.000,000.00 b.b.
Park Department
(DeveloDmenV
2. Park Entrance Signs 5,000.00 5,000.00 c.p.
3. Pleasure Rink Lights 10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
4. Tree Planting Program 10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
5. Park Appurtenant Equipment 15,000.00 15,000.00 c.p.
6. Basketball Courts - Cardinal Ridge & Jeffers Pond 10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
7. Picnic Shelters (3) - Westbury/Jeffers/Busacker 60,000.00 60,000.00 c.p.
8. Playground Equipment - Jeffers Pond & Busacker 70,000.00 70,000.00 c.p.
~
9. Fremont Avenue & Busacker Development 180,000.00 180,000.00 c.p.
Public Works
(Buildings & Plant.!
10. Lift Station Telemetry 20,000.00 20,000.00 uJ.
11. Lift Station Renovation 400,000.00 400,000.00 uJ.
12. Municipal Well 500,000.00 500,000.00 t.r.
13. Water Filtration Plant 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 w.r.
(/mDrovements)
14. Street Overlay (Brooksville Hills area) 100,000.00 100,000.00 o.b.
15. Carriage Hills Parkway (east of Knob Hill) 200.000.00 200,000.00 c.s.
16. Trunk Sanitary Sewer (annexation area) 200,000.00 200,000.00 t.r.
17. McKenna Road Realignment 250,000.00 50,000.00 t.r.
200,000.00 c.s.
18. Collector Street (Stemmer Development) 250,000.00 250,000.00 C.s.
19. Shady Beach Street Phase I Reconstruction 1,900,000.00 900,000.00 14.40 1.91%
600,000.00 s.a
400,000.00 uJ.
20. CSAH 12 Reconstruction 3,090,000.00 90,000.00 gJ.
200,000.00 c.s.
300,000.00 s.a.
1,000,000.00 t.r.
1,500,000.00 m.s.
Water Resources
(Improvements)
21. Undesirable Fish Containment Program 5,000.00 5,000.00 S.w.
22. Pondweed Removal Program 5,000.00 5,000.00 S.w.
23. Lake Bank Stabilization 20,000.00 20,000.00 S.w.
24. Storm Water Pond Dredging 20,000.00 20,000.00 S.w.
25. Storm Drainage Improvements ~O OOOOQ 80.00000 s.w.
Totals ... 26,400,000.00 26,400,000.00
Financing Source Summary Project Amount Tax Impact
QQJJar Percenta~
$ Project Tax Levy 900,000.00 $14.40 1.91%
o.b. Operating Budget 100,000.00
9.1. General Fund 3,090,000.00
u.1. Sewer & Water Utility Fund 820,000.00
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 130,000.00
c.p. Capital Park Fund 360,000.00
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund 1,750,000.00
".5. Collector Street Fund 850,000.00
m.s. Municipal State Aid 1,500,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 900,000.00
w.r. Water Revenue Bonds 6,000,000.00
b.b. G.O. Building Bonds 1.Q..OOO.OOO 00
Totals ... 26,400,000.00
9
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
3/11/04
2007 CIP PROJECTS
City Cost
Project Description Project Amount Financing Tax Impact
QQJ\.aL pprr:pnt~
Fire Department
(Buildings & Plant)
1. Satellite Fire Station/11 0' Ladder Platform Fire 2,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 rJ.
500,000.00 g.r.
Park Department
(Deve/cDment!
2. Park Entrance Signs 5,000.00 5,000.00 C.p.
3. Softball Backstops 5,000.00 5,000.00 c.p.
4. Basketball Courts - Stemmer Development 5,000.00 5,000.00 C.p.
5. Pleasure Rink Lights 10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
6. Tree Planting Program 10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
7. Park Appurtenant Equipment 15.000.00 15,000.00 C.p.
8. Gazebo - Markely Lake 20,000.00 20,000.00 c.p.
9. Picnic Shelters (3) - JefferslWatzl's/Stemmer 60,000.00 60,000.00 c.p,
10. Hockey Rink w/Lights 65.000.00 65,000.00 C.p.
11. Playground Equipment - Watzl's & Stemmer 55,000.00 55,000.00 c.p.
tmiW
12. Markley Lake & Stemmer Development 60,000.00 60,000.00 c.p.
Public Works
{Buildings & PIanO
13. Lift Station Telemetry 20,000.00 20,000.00 uJ.
14. Lift Station Renovation 385,000.00 385,000.00 uJ.
(/mDrovementsJ
15. Street Overlay (Willows area) 100,000.00 100,000.00 o.b.
16. Collector Street (Stemmer N. to CSAH 82) 250,000.00 250,000.00 c.S.
17. Fish Point Road extension to CSAH 21 250,000.00 50,000.00 t.r.
200,000.00 c.S.
18. Industrial Park Sewer & Water Extension 2,200,000.00 200,000.00 t.r.
2,000,000.00 s.a.
19. CSAH 21 N. Coop Share 790,000.00 90,000.00 gJ.
300,000.00 c.S.
400,000.00 t.r.
20. Shady Beach Street Phase II Reconstruction 1,700,000.00 800,000.00 12.60 1.64%
500,000.00 s.a
400,000.00 uJ.
Water Resources
{lmCJrove~
21. Undesirable Fish Containment Program 5,000.00 5,000.00 S.w.
22. Pondweed Removal Program 5,000.00 5,000.00 S.w.
23. Lake Bank Stabilization 20,000.00 20,000.00 S.w.
24. Storm Water Pond Dredging 20,000.00 20,000.00 S.w.
25. Woodside Road Pond 60,000.00 60,000.00 S.w.
26. Storm Drainage Improvements 80.000.00 80.000.00 s.w.
Totals .n 8,195,000.00 8,195,000,00
Financing Source Summary Project Amount Tax Impact
QQl!gr Pf!rr.p'nt~
$ Project Tax Levy 800,000.00 $12.60 1.64%
o.b. Operating Budget 100,000.00
g.f. General Fund 90,000.00
uJ. Sewer & Water Utility Fund 805,000.00
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 190,000.00
c.p. Capital Park Fund 310,000.00
'.r. Trunk Reserve Fund 650,000.00
;.s. Collector Street Fund 750,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 2,500,000.00
g.r. Grant Contribution 500,000.00
r.b. G.O. Referendum Bonds 1.500.000.00
Totals ... 8,195,000.00
10
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
3/11/04
2008 CIP PROJECTS
City Cost
Project Description Project Amount Financing Tax Impact
Dollar. Percent8a~
Park Department
lDeveloDment!
1. Park Entrance Signs 5,000.00 5,000.00 C.p.
2. Softball Backstops 5,000.00 5,000.00 c.p.
3. Basketball Courts 5,000.00 5,000.00 c.p.
4. Pleasure Rink Lights 10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
5. Tree Planting Program 10,000.00 10,000.00 c.p.
6. Park Appurtenant Equipment 15,000.00 15,000.00 c.p.
7. Picnic Shelters 20,000.00 20,000.00 c.p.
8. Sand Point Beach Boat Slips 30,000.00 30,000.00 c.p.
9. Playground Equipment 35,000.00 35,000.00 c.p.
{Irni1.s).
10. Annexation Area 30,000.00 30,000.00 C.p.
Public Works
{1mDrove~
11. Traffic/Feasibility Study (TH 13 & 150th Street) 90,000.00 30,000.00 c.S.
60,000.00 I.g.
12. Street Overlay (Sand Point area I) 100,000.00 100,000.00 o.b.
13. Collector Street (Stemmer N. to CSAH 82) 250,000.00 250,000.00 c.S.
14. CSAH 42 W. Coop Share 340,000.00 90,000.00 gJ.
250,000.00 c.S.
15. Trunk Sanitary Sewer Extension N. of CSAH 42 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 t.r.
16. Credit River/Grainwood Reconstruction 2,500,000.00 1,000,000.00 15.40 1.98%
700,000.00 s.a
800,000.00 uJ.
Water Resources
ampmve~
17. Undesirable Fish Containment Program 5,000.00 5,000.00 S.w.
18. Pondweed Removal Program 5,000.00 5,000.00 S.w.
19. Lake Bank Stabilization 20,000.00 20,000.00 S.w.
20. Storm Water Pond Dredging 20,000.00 20,000.00 S.w.
21. Prior Lake Alum Treatment 50,000.00 50,000.00 S.w.
22. Storm Drainage Improvements ~OOOO.OQ 80.000.00 s.w.
Totals n. 4,625,000.00 4,625,000.00
Financing Source Summary Project Amount Tax Impact
Dolla( PArcAnt;:!oe.
$ Project Tax Levy 1,000,000.00 $15.40 1.98%
o.b. Operating Budget 100,000.00
g.f. General Fund 90,000.00
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund 800,000.00
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 180,000.00
c.p. Capital Park Fund 165,000.00
tr. Trunk Reserve Fund 1,000,000.00
.:.s. Collector Street Fund 530,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 700,000.00
Lg. Intergovernmental 60.000.00
Totals ... 4,625,000.00
11
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
3/11/04
2009 CIP PROJECTS
City Cost
Project Description Project Amount Financing Tax Impact
Dollar Percentagfl
Economic Development Authority
1. Downtown Redevelopment 1,400,000.00 200,000.00 uJ.
400,000.00 s.a.
800,000.00 c.s.
Park Department
(Development)
2. Park Entrance Signs 5,000.00 5,000.00 c.p.
3. Basketball Courts 5,000.00 5,000.00 c.p.
4. Tree Planting Program 15,000.00 15,000.00 c.p.
5. Park Appurtenant Equipment 20,000.00 20,000.00 c.p.
6. Picnic Shelters - Spring Lake parks 40,000.00 40,000.00 c.p.
7. Playground Equipment - Spring Lake parks 50,000.00 50,000.00 C.p.
8. Athletic Field Complex 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 rJ.
(IJ:gjlsJ.
9. Annexation Area 30,000.00 30,000.00 c.p.
Public Works
(Buildinas & Plant)
10. Municipal Well 500,000.00 500,000.00 t.r.
f.l..mJJ.rovemJmW
11. Lord's Street Bridge Rehabilitation 75,000.00 75,000.00 s.a.
12. Street Overlay (Sand Point II area) 100,000.00 100,000.00 o.b.
13. Martinson Island Street Reconstruction 2,500,000.00 1,200,000.00 18.20 2.30%
800,000.00 s.a
500,000.00 uJ.
Water Resources
(Improvements)
14. Undesirable Fish Containment Program 5,000.00 5,000.00 S.w.
15. Pondweed Removal Program 5,000.00 5,000.00 S.w.
16. Lake Bank Stabilization 20,000.00 20,000.00 S.w.
17. Storm Water Pond Dredging 20,000.00 20,000.00 S.w.
18. Storm Drainage Improvements BO.OOO.OO 80.000.00 s.w.
Totals ... 7,870,000.00 7,870,000.00
Financing Source Summary Project Amount Tax Impact
Dollar Percentao,f!
$ Project Tax Levy 1,200,000.00 $18.20 2.30%
o.b. Operating Budget 100,000.00
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund 700,000.00
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 130,000.00
c.p. Capital Park Fund 165,000.00
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund 500,000.00
c.s. Collector Street Fund 800,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 1,275,000.00
r.b. G.O. Referendum Bonds .3.000.000.00
Totals ... 7,870,000.00
12
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY
3/11/04
2005-09 CIP PROJECT FINANCING SOURCE TOTALS
.Financing Source Amount
$ Project Tax Levy 5,200,000.00
o.b. General Fund Operating Budget 500,000.00
g.f. General Fund Balance 3,270,000.00
u.f. Sewer & Water Utility Fund 5,425,000.00
s.w. Storm Water Utility Fund 830,000.00
c.p. Capital Park Fund 1,440,000.00
t.r. Trunk Reserve Fund 8,000,000.00
c.s. Collector Street Fund 3,130,000.00
m.s. Municipal State Aid Fund 2,500,000.00
s.a. Special Assessments 6,250,000.00
g.r. Grant/Contributions 500,000.00
i.g. Intergovernmental 310,000.00
g.o. G.O. Referendum Bonds 4,500,000.00
W.r. Water Revenue Bonds 6,000,000.00
g.o. G.O. Building Bonds 10.000.000.00
Totals ... 57,855,000.00
13
FINANCING FUNDS PROJECTIONS
3/11104
(Needs vs. Available Dollars)
2004-2009
3/1/04 Fund Six-Year Revenue CIP Construction 1/1/09 Projected
Financina Source Reauest Balances Proiection Demands* Cash Balances
General Fund $ 3,410,000.00 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 3,875,000.00 $ 1,035,000.00
Sewer/Water Utility Fund $ 3,858,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 7,333,000.00 -$ 475,000.00
Storm Water Utility Fund $ 83,000.00 $ 1,953,000.00 $ 2,035,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Capital Park Fund $ 1,480,000.00 $ 2,306,000.00 $ 2,715,000.00 $ 1,071,000.00
Trunk Reserve Fund $ 2,699,000.00 $ 8,204,000.00 $ 8,155,000.00 $ 2,748,000.00
Collector Street Fund $ 1,005,000.00 $ 5,298,000.00 $ 7,249,000.00 -$ 946,000.00
Municipal State Aid Fund -$ 2,650,000.00 $ 2,600,000.00 $ 2,500,000.00 -$ 2,550,000.00
Project Tax Levy $ 6,618,000.00 $ 6,618,000.00
Special Assessments $ 7,663,000.00 $ 7,663,000.00
Grants/Contributions $ 515,000.00 $ 515,000.00
Intergovernmental $ 310,000.00 $ 310,000.00
G. O. Referendum Bonds $ 4,500,000.00 $ 4,500,000.00
Water Revenue Bonds $ 6,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00
G.O. Building Bonds $ 10,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00
TOTALS.. . $ 9,885,000.00 $ 60,467,000.00 $ 69,468,000.00 $ 884,000.00
FOOTNOTES:
,cr? Exnenditures,'
*Construction demands.. . includes Yr. 2004 CIP plus encumbered water tower, lift station & Ring Road projects
includes operating 2004-09 budget estimate of $990,000 for Water Quality
Revenue {1rowth Assulllptions ~ix vearsl
General Fund... 3/1/04 fund balance plus $1,500,000
S/W Utility Fund... 3/1/04 fund balance plus $3,000,000
Stormwater Utility Fund.,. 3/1/04 fund balance plus $300,000/yr. + $10,800 annual increment increases (300 permits)
Capital Park... 3/1/04 fund balance + 200 permits @ $850.00 and 800 new lots (adj. for land dedication) @ $2,670.00
Trunk Reserve Fund... 3/1/04 fund balance plus 600 ac. @ $7130/ac. & $2943/ac. + 1800 permits @ $1200.00
Collector Street Fund... 3/1/04 fund balance plus 600 ac. @ $1500/ac.
plus $270,000 tifbond & $900,000 MSA [Downtown)
plus $378,000 MNDOT, $700,000 County & $2,150,000 MSA [Ring Road]
MSA Fund... 3/1/04 Construction balance of -$2,650,000 + $350,000 advance borrowing + $450,000 annual
14
Year
2005
2006
MSA Projects
3/11/04
(Funded)
Proiect Description
Proiect Amount
CSAH 82 Reconstruction
$ 3,000,000.00 $
1,000,000.00
CSAH 12 Reconstruction
$ 3,000,000.00 $
1,500,000.00
MSA Portion
Total MSA Needs... $ 2,500,000.00
Total MSA Dollars... $ 2,600,000.00
BALANCE... $ 100,000.00
MSA Projects
3/11/04
(Unfunded)
Proiect Description
Proiect Amount
TH 13: Oakland Beach
not incl. in CIP $
TH 13: 150th Street
not incl. in CIP $
CSAH 21 Corridor
not incl. in CIP $
1,750,000.00
Total unfunded MSA Needs... $
15
MSA Portion
500,000.00
750,000.00
3,000,000.00