Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-02 CC Packet AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North April 2, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M. RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M. 4:30 P.M. AGENDA I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL III.OTHER BUSINESS 1.Aquatic Lake Management Presentation - Wenck 2.Downtown Revitalization Committee – Todd Streeter IV.STAFF REPORTS 3.Police Chief 4.Fire Chief 5.City Clerk 6.Community Development Dir. – Update on Mastel Races 7.Public Works Dir. 8.Finance Director 9.City Attorney – CVB audit update 10.City Administrator 7:00 P.M. AGENDA V.CALL TO ORDER VI.ROLL CALL VII.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE VIII.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 11.Possible approval of minutes of March 19, 2013 special and regular meeting minutes IX.PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS 12.Presentation of Annual Fire Department Report X.OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting to address Council on subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Council may take action or reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. XI.CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) ** 13.Resolution 2013-042, directing payment of bills 14.Resolution 2013-043, approval of contract with All Season Outdoor Services for Mowing, Cleanup and Snow Removal Services 15.Possible approval of temporary liquor license – Stillwater Public Library Foundation – July 4, 2013 16.Resolution 2013-044, approval of Special Event & Contract – Cruisin on the St. Croix 17.Resolution 2013-045, approval of Special Event & Contract – Nature Valley Grand Prix 18.Resolution 2013-046, approval of Special Event & Contract – Rivertown Art Fair 19.Resolution 2013-047, approving issuance of an On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses to Commander Project LLC, dba: Tin Bins 20.Resolution 2013-048, approval of amendment to Orderly Annexation 21.Resolution 2013-049, approval 2013 North Hill Community Garden License Agreement 22.Possible approval to purchase digital cameras – Police Department XII.PUBLIC HEARINGS - OUT OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO 10 MINUTES OR LESS. 23.Case No. 2012-15. This is the date and time to consider a request from Paul Larson for a variance to the impervious surface requirements for an addition to a garage and 2nd floor and adding a 2nd floor to main house located at 106 Lakeside Drive in the RB, Two Family Residential District and any variances related thereto. Notices were mailed to affected property owners and published in the Stillwater Gazette on March 22, 2013. (Resolution – Roll Call) XIII.UNFINISHED BUSINESS 24.Continued discussion on Special Event options XIV.NEW BUSINESS 25.The Grand Request for Parking Vouchers 26.Possible adoption of a resolution supporting legislation authorizing the establishment of Municipal Street Improvement Districts (Resolution – Roll Call) XV.PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) XVI.COMMUNICATIONS/REQUESTS XVII.COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS XVIII.STAFF REPORTS (CONTINUED) XIX.ADJOURNMENT ** All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans Long, McKusick and Lily Lakes Wenck Associates, Inc. Issue Summary Over abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation: limits access/navigability limits swimming opportunities including the beach areas reduces the aesthetic value of the lake creates nuisance levels of dead plant biomass and odor issues Lakes Studied Project Objective Develop an aquatic plant control program that: defines the problems identifies quantifiable management goals prescribes specific management actions to improve lake conditions Plan Process Gather stakeholder input August 2012 November 2012 Develop feasible alternatives for long-term management Present to alternatives to Public (February 2013) Incorporate stakeholder input into alternatives Present recommendations to City Council DNR Regulations DNR does not allow aquatic plant control for aesthetic purposes Allowed for recreational access Mechanical control May not exceed more than 50% of the littoral area of the lake Can create open water areas for recreational use Needs to be same location from year to year Herbicide use is limited to 15% of the littoral area Accounts for drift of the herbicide Long Lake Current Vegetation Coverage Dense coverage across majority of lake throughout the season – limits usability of lake Vegetation dominated by Coontail, White and Yellow Waterlily Eurasian Water Milfoil and Curly-leaf pondweed present Long Lake Proposed Alternatives Targeted Alternatives Harvesting - Harvest designated areas two times per year Contractor provided City-run Herbicide treatment – two times per year Harvesting and Herbicide treatment – two times per year Supplemental Whole-Lake Alternatives Alum treatment – one time application Long Lake – Alternative Summary * Net Present Value (NPV) annual cost - Assumed over a 15-yr life-cycle TARGETED ALTERNATIVES Alternative Description Acres Present Worth Net Present Value Annual Cost* Cost/Acre/ Year 1 Contract Harvesting 20 $165,109 $11,008 $551 2** City-Run Harvesting 20 $198,798 $13,254 $663 3 Contract Herbicide 15 $168,166 $11,212 $748 4 Contract Harvesting and Herbicide 21 $195,684 $13,046 $622 SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVES Alternative Description Acres Present Worth Net Present Value Annual Cost* Cost/Acre/ Year 1 Alum Dosing 22 $30,000 $1,866 $85 **Assumes cost for harvesting is a portion of the City harvesting Lily, Long, and McKusick Lakes. Cost allocated based on portion of total area to be harvested. Long Lake Recommendation Targeted Alternative #4 - Harvesting and Herbicide treatment Supplemental Alternative – Alum Dosing Costs: Harvesting and Herbicide treatment = $18,000 annually Alum treatment = $30,000 one time cost McKusick Lake Current Vegetation Coverage Dense coverage across entire lake throughout the season Vegetation dominated by Coontail, Yellow Waterlily and Canada Waterweed Curly-leaf pondweed present McKusick Lake Proposed Alternatives Targeted Alternatives Harvesting - Harvest designated areas three times per year Contractor provided City-run Herbicide treatment Harvesting and herbicide treatment Supplemental Whole-Lake Alternatives Alum treatment Algaecide treatment Algae skimming McKusick Lake – Alternative Summary * Net Present Value (NPV) annual cost - Assumed over a 15-yr life-cycle TARGETED ALTERNATIVES Alternative Description Acres Present Worth Net Present Value Annual Cost* Cost/Acre/ Year 1 Contract Harvesting 22 $260,504 $17,367 $790 2** City-Run Harvesting 22 $328,016 $21,868 $994 3 Contract Herbicide 7.5 $103,957 $6,931 $925 4 Contract Harvesting and Herbicide 22 $257,391 $17,160 $780 SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVES Alternative Description Acres Present Worth Net Present Value Annual Cost* Cost/Acre/ Year 1 Alum dosing 52 $63,000 $3,933 $77 2 Algaecide 52 $122,303 $8,153 $160 3 Algae skimming 26 $95,396 $6,360 $245 **Assumes cost for harvesting is a portion of the City harvesting Lily, Long, and McKusick Lakes. Cost allocated based on portion of total area to be harvested. McKusick Lake Recommendation Targeted Alternative #4 - Harvesting and Herbicide treatment Supplemental Whole Lake Alternative – Algae skimming Costs: Harvesting, Herbicide treatment and algae skimming = $42,000 annually Lily Lake Current Vegetation Coverage Dense coverage in northwest portion of lake and along south shoreline Vegetation dominated by Large-leaf pondweed and Robbins pondweed Curly-leaf pondweed is present in the lake Lily Lake - Proposed Alternatives Based on stakeholder input no further aquatic plant management by the City is recommended For benefit of residents alternatives were developed Two focus areas: Access Paths Navigation channel – ability to permit up to the discretion of the Minnesota DNR Harvesting - Harvest designated areas two times per year Contractor provided City-run Herbicide treatment – two times per year Lily Lake – Alternative Summary * Net Present Value (NPV) annual cost - Assumed over a 15-yr life-cycle TARGETED ALTERNATIVES Alternative Description Acres Present Worth Net Present Value Annual Cost* Cost/Acre/ Year 1 Contract Harvesting 1.5 $26,300 $1,753 $1,169 2** City-Run Harvesting 1.5 $32,575 $2,172 $1,448 3 Contract Herbicide 1.5 $52,590 $3,506 $2,338 **Assumes cost for harvesting is a portion of the City harvesting Lily, Long, and McKusick Lakes. Cost allocated based on portion of total area to be harvested. Lily Lake Recommendation No additional activity recommended by City Create opportunities for lake-shore owners to leverage operations on Long and McKusick Potential for residents includes - herbicide access paths and navigation channel (if permitted by DNR) No cost to the City Plan – Next Steps Council to review alternatives for each lake and associated costs Gather any further input at Council meeting Council to then determine: Preferred alternative Do nothing is an alternative Funding mechanism Timeline for implementation Board of Commissioners Fran Miron, District 1 Ted Bearth, District 2 Gary Kriesel, District 3 Autumn Lehrke, District 4 BOARD AGENDA Lisa Weik, Chair, District 5 APRIL 2, 2013 – 9:00 A.M. 1. 9:00 Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Public 2. 9:05 Visitors may share their comments or concerns on any issue that is a responsibility or function of Washington County Government, whether or not the issue is listed on this agenda. Persons who wish to address the Board must fill out a comment card before the meeting begins and give it to the County Board secretary or the County Administrator. The County Board Chair will ask you to come to the podium, state your name and address, and present your comments. Your comments must be addressed exclusively to the Board Chair and the full Board of Commissioners. Comments addressed to individual Board members will not be allowed. You are encouraged to limit your presentation to no more than five minutes. The Board Chair reserves the right to limit an individual's presentation if it becomes redundant, repetitive, overly argumentative, or if it is not relevant to an issue that is part of Washington County's Responsibilities 3. 9:10 Consent Calendar – Roll Call Vote General Administration 4. 9:10 – Molly O’Rourke, County Administrator A. Piccadilly Site Infrastructure Grant B. Resolution - National County Government Month C. Legislative Update Commissioner Reports – Comments – Questions 5. 9:20 This period of time shall be used by the Commissioners to report to the full Board on committee activities, make comments on matters of interest and information, or raise questions to the staff. This action is not intended to result in substantive board action during this time. Any action necessary because of discussion will be scheduled for a future board meeting. Community Services 6. 9:35 – A. Resolution – Application for Minnesota Housing Family Homelessness Prevention and Assistance Program Funds – Diane Elias, Associate Planner B. Needs Determination for Midwest Special Services, Adult Day Training and Habilitation Program Site – Lisa Glasspoole, Supervisor Public Works 7. 9:50 - A. County State Aid Highway 16 Project Work Orders with C.S. McCrossan Construction - Cory Slagle, Transportation Manager B. Budget and Capital Improvement Plan Amendments – Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer 8. Board Correspondence Adjourn 9. 10:10 Washington County Regional Railroad Authority (RRA) Convenes 10. 10:15 – Andy Gitzlaff, Sr. Planner A. Roll Call B. RRA Meeting Minutes from March 12 and 19, 2013 C. Use of Real Property to the Cities of Newport and St. Paul Park to conduct Search & Rescue Drills at the Old Knox Lumber Site D. Selection of Cost, Planning & Management International, Inc. (CPMI) for Construction Management Services at the Newport Transit Station E. Amendment No. 2 with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Newport Transit Station F. Adjourn Board Workshop with Public Works 11. 10:30 to 12:30 – A. Update on the Lake Elmo Park Reserve Visioning Study B. Public Works Facilities Report C. Review Transit Tax and Transportation Funding Proposals 12. 12:30 Lunch Board Workshop with Property Records and Taxpayer Services 13. 1:00 to 1:30 – Assessment Year 2013/Pay 2014 Property Valuations Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSENT CALENDAR * APRIL 2, 2013 The following items are presented for Board approval/adoption: DEPARTMENT/AGENCY ITEM Administration A. Approval of the March 19 and 26, 2013 County Board meeting minutes. B. Approval to reappoint Dennis Hanna, Grey Cloud Island Township, and Brian Johnson, Woodbury, to the South Washington Watershed District Board of Managers to three-year terms expiring May 1, 2016. Community Services C. Approval of application to the Minnesota Department of Human Services Office of Economic Opportunity Request for Proposals for homeless programs. Public Works D. Approval of license for the use of real property to the University of Minnesota (Minnesota Geological Survey) allowing them to drill a test hole in the Lake Elmo Park Reserve for collection of rock and sediment samples in order to produce a new Geologic Atlas of the county. E. Approval of resolution to enter into Agreement No. 02756 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, for bridge bonding funds in the amount of $247,859.40 for Bridge No. 82534 on County State Aid Highway 21 over Valley Creek. F. Approval of resolution awarding the bid to Minnowa Construction, Inc. for the County State Aid Highway 21 (Stagecoach Trail South) bridge replacement project. *Consent Calendar items are generally defined as items of routine business, not requiring discussion, and approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect to pull a Consent Calendar item(s) for discussion and/or separate action. Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North April 2, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M. RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M. 4:30 P.M. AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. OTHER BUSINESS 1.Aquatic Lake Management Presentation - Wenck 2.Downtown Revitalization Committee Todd Streeter IV. STAFF REPORTS 3.Police Chief 4.Fire Chief 5.City Clerk 6.Community Development Dir. Update on Mastel Races 7.Public Works Dir. 8.Finance Director 9.City Attorney CVB audit update 10.City Administrator 7:00 P.M. AGENDA V. CALL TO ORDER VI. ROLL CALL VII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 11.Possible approval of minutes of March 19, 2013 special and regular meeting minutes IX. PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS 12.Presentation of Annual Fire Department Report X. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting to address Council on subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Council may take action or reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. XI. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) ** 13.Resolution 2013-042, directing payment of bills 14.Resolution 2013-043, approval of contract with All Season Outdoor Services for Mowing, Cleanup and Snow Removal Services 15.Possible approval of temporary liquor license Stillwater Public Library Foundation July 4, 2013 16.Resolution 2013-044, approval of Special Event & Contract Cruisin on the St. Croix 17.Resolution 2013-045, approval of Special Event & Contract Nature Valley Grand Prix 18.Resolution 2013-046, approval of Special Event & Contract Rivertown Art Fair 19.Resolution 2013-047, approving issuance of an On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses to Commander Project LLC, dba: Tin Bins 20.Resolution 2013-048, approval of amendment to Orderly Annexation 21.Resolution 2013-049, approval 2013 North Hill Community Garden License Agreement XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - OUT OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO 10 MINUTES OR LESS. 22.Case No. 2012-15. This is the date and time to consider a request from Paul Larson for a variance to the impervious surface requirements for an addition to a garage and 2nd floor and adding a 2nd floor to main house located at 106 Lakeside Drive in the RB, Two Family Residential District and any variances related thereto. Notices were mailed to affected property owners and published in the Stillwater Gazette on March 22, 2013. (Resolution Roll Call) XIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 23.Continued discussion on Special Event options (available Tuesday) XIV. NEW BUSINESS 24.The Grand Request for Parking Vouchers 25.Possible adoption of a resolution supporting legislation authorizing the establishment of Municipal Street Improvement Districts (Resolution Roll Call) XV. PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) XVI. COMMUNICATIONS/REQUESTS XVII. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS XVIII. STAFF REPORTS (CONTINUED) XIX. ADJOURNMENT ** All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. CONiMUNITY SYMPOSIUM Your ideas. Youx Future. Ambiance Committee Rich Cummings Chair Sam Leon Laura Hoefler Stillwater City Council City of Stillwater 216 4th Street N Stillwater, MN 55082 Stillwater City Council: April 2, 2013 Aimee Pelletier We appreciate the opportunity to update council members and staff Lisa McKasy regarding exciting ideas our Downtown Revitalization subcommittee has identified that will ... "create a feeling that draws you into a place you want to be." Our research included several local communities that have taken proactive steps to ensure the success of their downtowns. Their comments are shared in this preliminary project proposal. GREATER STLLImut Regards, CHAMBER�� ar COMMERCE .'��..•� ich Cummings Chair Due to the major changes coming to downtown Stillwater over the next Cities Researched several years, we have a rare opportunity to create a wide variety of Committee Mission improvements to our aging infrastructure that will return our historic Red Wing downtown to the iconic image and reputation that Stillwater has earned over `Identify a wide variety the last 150 years. of opportunities that elements and suggest solutions so we may offer the best experience will enhance the Throughout the subcommittee's research, several major themes emerged ambiance, aesthetics, that offer excellent examples of many enhancements that will raise the physical landscape — ambiance and historical feel of downtown to new levels never before the overall look and experienced by residents and out -of -town visitors. These opportunities feel or visual vibe that include: would be consistent . Lighting throughout downtown." . Streetscaping 0 Park Amenities • Signage 0 Maintenance Our research included several local communities that have taken proactive steps to ensure the success of their downtowns. Their comments are shared in this preliminary project proposal. GREATER STLLImut Regards, CHAMBER�� ar COMMERCE .'��..•� ich Cummings Chair Our PowerPoint presentation illustrates desired ambiance features and Cities Researched amenities that other cities have adopted to enhance their historical downtowns. We have also identified several examples of some unflattering Red Wing issues that cast a negative impression and experience to those visiting White Bear Lake downtown. It is goal not to find blame, but rather identify detracting Osceola elements and suggest solutions so we may offer the best experience Hudson possible. Our research included several local communities that have taken proactive steps to ensure the success of their downtowns. Their comments are shared in this preliminary project proposal. GREATER STLLImut Regards, CHAMBER�� ar COMMERCE .'��..•� ich Cummings Chair Project Proposal Ambiance Committee "Our brand is everything, and everything is our brand" Dr. Karen Gulliver Argosy University INTRODUCTION As we consider all the opportunities that may be available to revitalize downtown, bringing life to the district after 5 pm. is the most compelling opportunity we have to generate more visitor traffic and accommodate the increased biking market who will visit downtown after hours throughout the biking season. As new visitors take advantage of the newly completed Brown's Creek Trail and Lowell Park improvements, downtown will see a dramatic rise in shoppers and diners walking about the district's streets and sidewalks. Unfortunately, downtown goes dark after 5 pm. with stores closing and lights going dim throughout the district. What does this say to our residents and out -of -town visitors? Last fall, a tourism study conducted by Argosy University showed Stillwater's attractions as the number one reason why people visit downtown. The study also showed the experience visitors have downtown as the number one reason why they will, or won't, come back. The committee's research shows that enhancing the ambiance of historic downtowns result in a vibrant commercial district that continues long after the day's events and attractions have concluded. Through thoughtful use of lighting, streetscaping, park amenities, signage and routine maintenance, downtown will ensure each visitor experiences not just the history, glory and grandeur of our 150 - year -old downtown, but see it alive, vibrant and welcoming each day of the year. LIGHTING The greatest opportunity to increase downtown's ambiance and re- establish a revitalized commercial district is through the lighting of downtown streets, store fronts, restaurant patios, unique natural features, and iconic landmarks. Because historic downtowns throughout Minnesota are dying a slow death due to big box retail developments, convenient parking, and endless selection of goods and services, downtown commercial districts must promote every possible attribute that is unique to their historic buildings, landmarks and public spaces. Downtown Stillwater can celebrate its one -of -a -kind setting not just during the day but at night by letting visitors actually see its historical glory in the evening hours twelve months of the year. Our PowerPoint examples show the possibilities of modern LED lighting and how they can accentuate the beautiful attributes of our downtown with a warm glow in the evening. Project Proposal Ambiance Committee Landmark Lighting Perhaps the most obvious and endeared landmark of not just downtown, but our entire region, is the historic Lift Bridge. Unfortunately, the icon of our city is only visible by few during the weekday and by those visiting during daylight hours on Saturday or Sunday. Why would we leave this historical icon in the dark when we should celebrate its history both day and night? Lighting the Lift Bridge not only celebrations its place in history, but also serves to create a safe, welcoming place for pedestrian and bicycle traffic once the bridge conversion is completed. We must also be mindful of light pollution, maintenance, installation investment, and any other issues that will be important to a crossing of a National Scenic River way. Funding for the bridge lighting may be available through the State, in conjunction with the new bridge, according to our conversations with MnDOT's John Chiglo, St. Croix Crossing's project manager. Patio Lighting Facade Lighting Currently our beautiful historic buildings fade from view at sunset. However, lighting them with well - placed up- lighting and unique signage lighting that evokes the character of downtown's history will showoff the building's fagade and brighten the sidewalks, making them inviting and safe to walk. Through the use of ambient lighting of patio elements such as potted plants or shrubs, or over - hanging pergolas, restaurant patios come alive with engaging diners enjoying the patio's warm glow on a cool summer evening. Those walking along the sidewalks will see the twinkling of patio lights off in the distance, beckoning them to linger towards the restaurant and join in on the relaxing atmosphere. Tree Lighting It's not just the buildings, but trees (which we feel are in short supply in downtown) that also offer a canopy of light when lit from underneath. The city of Hudson lights up their trees all year long, creating an upbeat magical feeling for those strolling down the warmly lit sidewalk. Project Proposal Ambiance Committee Street Lighting Today, much of downtown Stillwater is dark. One of our committee's observations is that safer and better lighting will encourage visitors and employees to park farther away from a business when they feel comfortable walking further distances in the evening hours. Lighting of side streets also creates more continuity and consistency for those shopping or walking off Main Street. Recommendations Attribute Lighting The lighting of our hillside stairs and sandstone bluffs at either end of Main Street would provide both a safe and welcoming feeling for those using the stairs or entering downtown for north or south. Our research shows even our national parks use lighting to accentuate the park's natural features and paths in the evening hours. There are many experts, businesses, organizations, and individuals, who are willing to work together to understand how we can use these lighting opportunities to create a great after hours experience for both area residents and out -of -town visitors. Stillwater's SEH consulting engineer has an experienced group of lighting experts that can be a great resource to us. Downtown lighting ordinances relating to restaurant patios, store fronts and business signage need to be revisited to ensure that we are not putting our downtown at a competitive disadvantage with other locations. We have other resources available who have expressed a desire to help with our lighting opportunities, including: GE LED Lighting, Phillips Lighting, 3M LED Lighting, and Excel Energy STREETSCAPING With less bridge traffic in Downtown, there will be an opportunity to potentially widen our sidewalks for better pedestrian flow and other amenities like benches and trees. It might also give our restaurants an opportunity to do some outdoor dining, as is so popular in other cities. We would also like to see hanging baskets of summer flowers replace the clay pots which impede the flow of pedestrian on our current narrow sidewalks. Project Proposal Ambiance Committee Our conversations with Red Wing officials have provided interesting ideas regarding how they manage their downtown and parks in the summer They hire 50 -60 college students to do their summer downtown and park maintenance. Two full -time park employees manage this small army of students. In addition, the County has a work release group that they employee year - round to do the "ugly" work of snow shoveling and buckthorn removal ... they say it is very cost effective. They are also in the process of hiring a full -time volunteer coordinator as this part of their City's beautification has been growing steadily. Are we taking advantage of the volunteer army available in Stillwater? We also feel strongly that Hwy 95's ownership should be transferred from the State to either the County or the City. It will be very difficult for downtown Stillwater to control its own destiny when its Main Street is out of local control. Efforts need to be made to bring downtown's Main Street under local jurisdiction so we may continue moving downtown's economic opportunities forward. PARK AMENITIES The Ambiance Committee feels that our parks could be greatly enhanced by trees, statues, historic plaques, and park identifying signage. Photos of Lowell Park in 1940 show a beautiful landscape in sharp comparison to the open, barren landscape of Lowell Park today. We realize that the levy wall project will be a disruptor in the near future, but the heavy inflow of thousands of bikers into downtown will be greeted by a less than positive first impression of Stillwater. The potential addition of the Aiple property and our current Shoddy Mill site give us an opportunity to enhance our city's trail entrances. SIGNAGE Historic Stillwater is the birthplace of Minnesota, but unfortunately there are few ambiance features that reflect this important designation. The Ambiance Committee suggests that a solution to this identity crisis could lie in historic street signage, as well as plaques and perhaps sidewalk medallions, all of which would reinforce Stillwater's place in history. City entrance signs should be refreshed and new park markers identifying aspects of the location's history should be installed. We would like to investigate opportunities with the Historic Preservation Commission, Minnesota and Washington County Historical Societies, and other groups to suggest and implement a program to promote our heritage. We also believe revisiting the downtown district's sign ordinance should be part of this discussion. Project Proposal Ambiance Committee MAINTENANCE Stillwater's downtown is the city's identity, the epicenter where commerce and community interact. Because the vitality and prosperity of aging downtowns directly reflect the health and well -being of every community, it is essential that downtown be maintained at the highest level. If we take an honest look at downtown with an objective outsider's eye, we see a variety of opportunities to improve the physical condition and visitor interaction (functionality) that currently offers a negative experience to downtown visitors. As noted in Dr. Gulliver's study, everything impacts our brand, including aspects of downtown that impart a negative impression. We can't afford to have Stillwater's brand be diminished by negative attributes sprinkled about our historical district. The condition of downtown and how well it is maintained reflects our pride of ownership. Our discussions with Redwing, Hudson and White Bear Lake revealed a common attitude - that their downtowns were the heart of their communities, and its health reflected the health of the whole community. One result of this attitude was reflected in their prompt removal of snow from downtown. Currently, Stillwater's downtown snow removal policy is counter - productive at a number of levels, including safety issues, inconsistent clearing of sidewalks, clear access to crosswalk activators and water puddles at crosswalk locations. The totality of these issues results in a very negative experience for downtown visitors. Building and property maintenance, as well as trash cans and dumpster usage, are also areas of opportunity. SUMMARY Through the activities of the Downtown Revitalization Committee, civic leaders, city officials, and downtown business and property owners, will remain engaged in a pro- active collaboration to define what downtown Stillwater wants to be and start the implementation process before trail, park and bridge improvements come online. The challenge before all of us is not just to discover exciting opportunities that other cities have successfully implemented, or correct issues that detract from the downtown experience and Stillwater's brand, but to be open to new ideas, concepts or methods that may not have been embraced in the past. Stillwater's future potential is limitless when we all work together, make the right decisions for the right reasons, and commit ourselves to create the best downtown Stillwater humanly possible. Let us begin to create that feeling that draws you into a place you want to be. Project Proposal Ambiance Committee INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS The Ambiance Committee proposes working with the City on the following recommendations so we may gain a greater understanding of the opportunities before us. • Engage the City's SEH engineer to work with the committee to learn more about LED lighting options, configurations and investment potential. The committee will continue to seek information from the fore - mentioned lighting and power providers. • Initiate a community discussion regarding downtown lighting opportunities with interested city commissions, community organizations, and area residents. • Review existing lighting, street sign and business signage requirements within the historical district with the appropriate commissions. • Support efforts to return Main Street to local control. • Create a park beautification and historical location recognition plan. • Examine ways to increase the level of routine maintenance of downtown including securing snow removal bids from outside contractors now so we may understand the potential costs to resolve the snow removal issues for next winter. 2200 Oak Glen Circle Stillwater, MN 55082 April 1, 2013 Mr. Rich Cummings Downtown Revitalization Committee Mr. Todd Streeter Chamber Executive Director Dear Mr. Cummings and Mr. Streeter, It is good to see that there is a strong plan right now to enhance the downtown area of Stillwater. I would like to add some suggestions which I hope you will put right at the top of your list. 1. Snow Removal. All of the snow in the shopping area should be removed completely from the sidewalks and the streets after each snowfall. I have surveyed and taken photos of the downtowns of White Bear Lake, Hudson and Stillwater. Stillwater is the only downtown that remains a total mess throughout the entire winter. In Stillwater I have photographed and watched pedestrians trying to cross intersections which are flooded with slush —they opted to climb over snow banks further along the sidewalk rather than get their feet soaked or fall on the ice at the crossing. Passengers from cars are supposed to climb over snowbanks to get to the sidewalk. Or they have to walk in traffic, in the slush, to the clogged crossing. One day I watched a bride - -silk dress dragging in the snow, both feet stuck in a snowbank- -try to get to her automobile. Was she upset? I stopped in at city hall in White Bear and was told that the city crews begin clearing sidewalks at 2 a.m. and the trucks and heavy equipment start clearing the streets at 4 a.m. In Hudson, I asked a restaurant owner how they clear their downtown. She said that the shop owners shovel all snow into the street; then a plow pushes all the snow into the center of the street where trucks and a blower load it up and take. it away. She said that sometimes there is a delay, depending on the rest of the workload that the plows have. After my husband, George, sent a couple of photos of the Stillwater downtown situation to Doug Menikheim a couple of weeks ago, I noticed that the snow was removed from the Stillwater downtown. Will this removal be a permanent routine in the future? It must be. I am surprised that the shop owners have put up with this sidewalk mess for years —it has to be hurting their businesses. 2. Cleanliness. While most—but not all—of the pigeon poop has been eliminated, there is still an appearance of just plain dirt in the downtown area. The sidewalks appear dirty and in some areas (notably in front of the candy store) there is an unsightly sprinkling of black smudges that may be gum. Some stores leave dirty carpets in front of their doors. While the business owner is busy dusting and sweeping inside, outside the shopper hesitates, wondering if this place is worth going into. Can the streets be steam cleaned (or other method) once in a while? And small trash cans might help near the doors for gum chewers and smokers. The other area of cleanliness that makes a difference is clean windows. Even from my car as I drive on main street, I can see which stores have polished their windows and which proprietors think that it is not important. Window washing is an art, and they need to put someone on the task that cares that their business is in top shape. I noticed that the Perkins restaurant has a professional window washer come in every Thursday to put a sparkle on the business. 3. Comfort. Would an abundance of (clean) benches on the main street be too much hospitality for shoppers? I, for one, get tired and will stop shopping because I am too tired. I know the idea is that I should rest in someone's cafe, both to rest and to use the bathroom. But what if I don't want to get tied up for 40 to 50 minutes in a restaurant? Some nice place in the shade for 10 minutes might be just enough. _ I have not yet used the new bathroom facilities provided by the city. I'll let you know later how that works out! They are distant from the main shopping area. Water fountains closer to the shops also come to mind. 4. Signs. All the sandwich boards in Hudson seem to be placed tight against the buildings, i.e. their edges are against the wall. I don't know if this is regulation or not. But it appeared to be a way to keep them out of the pedestrian traffic lanes. I am not much in favor of the dresses and other merchandise which some businesses are hanging outside their facades -- something one might find on a boardwalk at the beach or at the state fair. 5. Flowers and Decorations. While the flower committee has tried its best to keep the flower urns fresh and inspired each spring, by the time the summer heat moves in, the urns look a bit tired. Sometimes they look just plain dead. Unless someone can be hired to keep them flourishing all season, they should be discontinued. It would be better to have none than to have shabby ones. This is not to criticize whoever is trying to keep them going. I think that the only ones that thrive have a continuous drip system. Also, some of the businesses put out lovely window boxes or flower pots next to their doors, and then forget about them while they turn brown and dried out. It looks like trash at their front door. What are they thinking? 6. Good repair. It is good to see that some of the businesses have applied some paint to their storefronts, and that Marx did something to polish the copper sheeting on its storefront. 7. Trees. As was reported in the paper, someone is thinking about trees in Lowell Park. Most of what's left of trees in the park should be cut down to the ground and a new planting of shade trees put in. This will require some consideration of where the shade should fall and where the view should be kept open for fireworks displays. Surprisingly, this can be a rather difficult task. I would consult with, perhaps, Abrahamson's Nursery, to see if a honey locust variety (seedless and thornless) might work in Lowell Park. They are fast growing, tolerate dry sites, have an airy, open crown that still provides some shade, and best of all, the leaves are small and don't need to be raked up. Crabapple trees, while briefly delightful, are too short, sometimes messy, and block the view. Some of the shrubs (rugosa roses) along the parking lots should be removed and replaced (if at all) with, possibly, spirea shrubs, which don't need much care. Without a fulltime gardener, it just isn't practical to plant some of the more `interesting' species. Even tough prairie species look straggly without help in an urban environment. I hope that my comments are helpful. Some of what I have proposed costs little, and some costs (snow removal and sidewalk steam cleaning) should be permanent items in the city budget. The items that might call for a special fund are the tree planting and more benches. Yours truly, 4JOphine Vania ater resident MAGNUSON LAW FIRM LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN THE GRAND GARAGE 324 MAIN STREET SOUTH • SUITE #260 • STILLWATER, MN 55082 -5165 TELEPHONE: (651) 439 -9464 • FACSIMILE: (651) 439 -5641 W W W. MACNUSONLAWF— -- David T. Magnuson DTMagnuson @MagnusonLaH-Firm.Com March 27, 2013 Ms. Barb Trueman Executive Director Stillwater /Oak Park Heights Visitors and Convention Bureau 511 Hemlock St. South Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Ms. Trueman: John D. Magnuson JDMagnuson @MagnusonLawFirm. com I am the attorney for the City of Stillwater and I have been asked to contact you regarding the need for the Bureau to have an audit of its funds. The Bureau is what is known as a "Special District," within the meaning of Minnesota Statues § 6.756. The requirements reference the amount of revenue raised in each year. According to Minnesota Statues § 412.591 subd. 3, if annual revenue from all sources exceeds $150,000 in 2004 dollars adjusted for inflation, the law requires an annual audit by a Certified Public Account. If the annual revenue from all sources is less than $150,000, an audit must be done every 5 years. It appears that your revenues exceeded $150,000 in at least several years. If we assume that revenues did not reach $150,000, it would appear that 2012 was the Sd` full year of operation of the Bureau and an audit would be required for the year 2012 at a minimum. Please keep the City informed of your plans. That can be done be directing correspondence to Larry D. Hansen, City Administrator, City Hall, 216 North Fourth St., Stillwater, MN 55082. , Yours very truly, David T. gn son Stillwater Ci Attorney DTM/jp cc: Larry Hansen Eighteen months ago, the Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce initiated the Community Symposium, a collaborative partnership with local governments including Washington County and the cities of Bayport, Lake Elmo, Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. The four communities have joined together to identify opportunities and resources that will make the St. Croix Valley an even better place to live, work and play. The purpose of the Symposium is to engage residents and businesses to determine sustainable methods to attract growth, protect the environment, facilitate job creation and economic opportunity, and improve our overall quality of life. The Symposium’s panel of city, business and organizational leaders reviewed the results from nine Town Hall sessions and identified the following six economic opportunity categories: Increased Communication – Establishes continued collaboration among cities to further discover new partnership opportunities that increase cooperation and interaction among our communities. Celebration of the Culture and Arts – Enhances the unique character of our River Valley communities by embracing the arts and culture as a means to celebrate community. Community Transportation – Creating a circular trolley connecting serving all four cities would provide safe, reliable, eco-friendly, and economical transportation for area residents and visitors. Economic Redevelopment – Improves the economic vitality of the region’s historic downtowns through community stakeholder involvement, strategic planning and coordinated funding. Increased Access – Removes barriers that impede economic growth and ADA constraints, in turn providing increased mobility and opportunities for equitable enjoyment of the region. Community Amenities –Focuses on enhancing the quality of life through sustainable regional amenities involving multi-government, organization and business partnerships. Downtown Revitalization Preparing Downtown for the next 150 years Downtown Stillwater plays an important role in the overall economic and social fabric of the Valley region. Stillwater’s downtown is the city’s identity, the epicenter where commerce and community interact. Because the vitality and prosperity of downtowns directly reflect the health and well-being of every community, it is essential that the proper tenant mix, physical appearance, and human experience be strategically planned, executed and maintained at the highest level possible. Stillwater’s historic downtown dates back 150 years when it was an expanding logging town on the edge of the St. Croix River, earning the designation as the “Birthplace of Minnesota.” Time and economic challenges have taken their toll on turn-of-the-century structures and local businesses. Community leaders want to strategically redevelop downtown to regain its iconic image and reputation it earned so many years ago. The Symposium chose Stillwater for its downtown revitalization opportunity because of the seismic changes that will occur once the Brown’s Creek Trail, Lowell Park improvements, and Lift Bridge renovations have all been completed. These major projects will forever alter downtown in every conceivable way. From automobile traffic patterns to increased pedestrian, biking and auto interaction to the very products and services offered by downtown businesses. These changes are coming and we need to be ready for them. Downtown Revitalization Committee Formed In September 2012, the Downtown Revitalization Committee was formed consisting of state, county and city officials who have been working directly with downtown property and business owners to determine the future of downtown. The committee of approximately 40 members have joined together to identify all possible opportunities that will address the changing needs and demographics of those shopping and dining along downtown Stillwater. Downtown property and business owners are direct stakeholders in the future of downtown, and therefore, the best source, motivation, ideas and inspiration. It is in their collective best interest that downtown is thriving and as successful as humanly possible, and they are working together to make that happen. The future of downtown is really in the hands of downtown businesses and building owners, right where it should be. Downtown Revitalization Challenges and Opportunities Downtown must define what it wants to be and to start the implementation process before trail, park and bridge improvements come online. The challenge before the committee is not just to discover new opportunities or correct things that detract from one’s downtown experience, but to also be open to new ideas, concepts or methods that may not have been embraced in the past. Historic downtowns throughout Minnesota are dying a slow death because of big box retail and the convenience they provide in both direct parking and endless selection of goods and services. How do historic downtowns with infrastructure 100 plus years old compete? To not just survive, but to thrive, downtowns must reinvent themselves and compete on their strengths. For example, property owners must reinvest in their buildings to bring them back to life with fresh paint and signage that captures the character of a historic downtown. Contemporary big box developments can’t come close to the unique ambiance and charm offered by downtown Stillwater. Business owners must also reinvest in their business. As human nature has its way, complacency and acceptance can become the norm over long periods of time. Remodeling the interior, re-merchandising the offerings, and revising the business model in anticipation of new consumers coming to downtown are all necessary steps that enable businesses to not just compete, but to thrive. Property and business owners have to work together and all at the same time to produce a revitalized downtown. This can’t be accomplished by doing it one building or store at a time over 15 years. It must be done in unison. “This is really a partnership between the city and the downtown community. We all want downtown to be a thriving area for both the businesses and for those who come to downtown. Stillwater has a 150-year-old historic downtown as its city’s centerpiece and we need to get it in shape and ready for the future,” Ken Harycki, mayor, City of Stillwater. Downtown Revitalization The Downtown Revitalization Committee has formed six subcommittees to address opportunities specific to each topic or theme. 1. Ambiance – Identify a wide variety of opportunities that will enhance the ambiance, aesthetics, physical landscape - the overall look and feel or visual vibe that would be consistent throughout downtown. 2. Biking – Identify biking needs, desires and related amenities that create a bike-friendly culture for downtown. 3. Branding – Identifying and developing a consistent vision, mission, and theme that is used to create a new downtown brand and messaging that supports the changes the future will bring. 4. Business Mix – Identify the proper desired combination of business offerings that collectively support the economic vitality of downtown as a whole. 5. River Front – Identify opportunities to enhance the asset of the river, Lowell Park and other river front amenities for the betterment of commerce and those visiting public river front spaces. 6. Traffic & Parking – Identify opportunities that will enhance the experience of those visiting downtown short-term and post Lift Bridge renovation. Committee Process These subcommittees are charged with the task of conducting research to identify opportunities specific to their theme. The research should highlight ideas that have been successfully implemented in other downtowns anywhere in the country or in other parts of the world. The subcommittees will provide examples of what other cities have done, what challenges they encountered, and how they helped create a thriving commercial district, and then present them to the other subcommittees during the larger monthly committee meetings. Downtown Stillwater is much like a Rubik’s Cube, it’s multi-faceted with every aspect intertwined with one another. New opportunities need to be addressed simultaneously because they are all connected in some way. As the subcommittees complete their research, they will articulate the opportunities in the form of project proposals, providing more data that supports their recommendation. The subcommittees will present their proposals to the appropriate government officials and to those who may be interested in financially supporting their recommendations. Downtown Revitalization Community Investment The purpose of the Symposium is to identify organizations, businesses and individuals who are willing to offer financial support to a project of their choosing. The economic world we live in today will not permit our government(s) to fund every improvement we desire for our community. If the community wants new opportunities it must also help create them and support them financially. We have had several organizations and individuals raise their hands saying they want to help. As these committees complete their work, there will be funding champions who will sign-up to support projects that match their own interest or philanthropic goals. It’s really the community, through public and private collaboration and partnerships, that in the end create the community they want. As project benefactors become involved in the committee’s work, it will provide an additional incentive for the city, county or state to partner and contribute to the collective effort of others. Improving our community is not automatically a city and taxpayer proposition, but rather, an opportunity for the community to pick a project they like and support it the old fashion way – through collaborative ownership by the downtown businesses, community supporters and the city. The resulting community ownership and pride is the true gift the process offers. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Shawn Sanders, Director of Public Works DATE: March 28, 2013 RE: Aquatic Plant Management Plan DISCUSSION Wenck Associates has completed the reports for the Aquatic Plant Management Plan for Lily, Long and Mckusick Lake and will be at the April 2, 2013 4:30 meeting to give a presentation. The next steps would be to approve the plan and direct staff to explore options for funding the work. Wenck File #1848-04 MARCH 2013 [zŒä [‰; !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· tŒ“ Prepared for: CITY OF STILLWATER 216 Fourth Street North {¼ŒŒÞ·;©r ab   Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Management Goals ............................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Curren· /š“7z¼š“ ............................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· t;©’z· w;¨Òz©;’;“·­ ............................................. 1-7 2.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 5;­-©z¦¼š“ šE !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 !­­;­­’;“· šE !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ................................................................................. 2-5 2.2.1 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô /š“·©-· I©Ý;­¼“m ›1.5 acres) ................. 2-6 2.2.2 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô /z·ä wғ I©Ý;­¼“m ›1.5 acres). ................ 2-6 2.2.3 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô - Herbicide Treatment (1.5 acres) ................ 2-7 2.3 Assessment of Impacts ....................................................................................... 2-8 2.3.1 Environmental Impacts on Fisheries and Fish Habitat ........................ 2-8 2.3.2 Impacts on Water Quality ................................................................... 2-9 2.4 h·w;© /š“­z7;©¼š“­ ........................................................................................ 2-10 2.4.1 Disposal ............................................................................................. 2-11 2.4.2 Stang .............................................................................................. 2-11 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 3-1 4.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Herbicide Treatment ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 t©š†;-· C-zŒz·¼š“ .............................................................................................. 4-2 4.3 Project Budget .................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................. 4-2 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 5-1 i March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx Table of Contents (Cont.) TABLES Table 1u /š­· 9­¼’·;­ ,ä ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u ......................................................................... 3-1 FIGURES Figure 1. Lily Lake Watershed. ...................................................................................................... 1-5 CzmÒ©; u ;m;·¼š“ 5;“­z·ä a¦ May 2012. ........................................................................... 1-6 CzmÒ©; u ;m;·¼š“ Survey - {¦;-z;­ vÒ“¼K-¼š“. .................................................................. 1-7 Figure 4. Harvest and Herbicide !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u ................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 5. {Ò¦¦Œ;’;“·Œ I©Ý;­· š© I;©,z-z7; !Œ·;©“¼Ý;. ........................................................... 2-4 ATTACHMENTS 1Lily Lake Management Plan 2Detailed Cost Breakdown ii March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 1.0 L“·©š7Ò-¼š“ w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© ›/z·äœ 7;­z©;­ “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· that addresses ;H;-¼Ý; Œš“m-·;©’ ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­u The City has sporadically ’“m;7 ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ š“ the lake through the use of herbicides with the City cost-sharing with residents on the cost of ¦¦Œz-¼š“u However, the City believes a plan which focuses on long-term management will ,;Æ;© address improving water quality, u­; šE ·w; Œ‰; Eš© “Ýzm¼š“r “7 z“-©;­z“m ·w; ;­·w;¼-­ šE [z Lake. These goals are addressed by this plan through: L7;“¼Eäz“m ·w; -Ò©©;“· ­z·Ò¼š“ z“ ·w; Œ‰; z“ ©;m©7 ·š ¨Ò¼- {¦;-zEäz“m ¨Ò“¼K,Œ; ’“m;’;“· mšŒ­. Recommending sp;-zK- ’“m;’;“· -¼š“ z·;’­ ·š z’¦©šÝ; Œ‰; -š“7z¼š“­. 5;Ý;Œš¦z“m “ ““ÒŒ ,Ò7m;· Eš© ¦©šm©’ z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“u w; 7;Ý;Œš¦’;“· šE “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ ÞzŒŒ Œ­š ¦©š lakeshore property owners and the ­Ò©©šÒ“7z“m ©; šE ©šÒ“7 [zŒä [‰;u ä¦z-Œ ,;“;K·­ šE “ ¨Ò plant management plan include but are not limited to: 1. Improved lake access for lakeshore property owners or other prop lake access. 2. L’¦©šÝ;7 š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ Eš© ©;-©;¼š“ š“ ·w; Œ‰; Eš© ¦©š¦;©·ä šÞ“;©­ “7 ·w; ­Ò©©šÒ“7z“ “;zmw,š©wšš7­ ,ä -©;¼“m š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ Eš© ,š¼“mr ­Þz’’z“m “7 K 3. tŒ“· m©šÞ·w z“-š©¦š©·;­ “Ò·©z;“·­ E©š’ Œ‰; ,šÆš’ ­;7z’;“·­u . remove nutrients in plants and lower plant growth. 4. t©šÝz7z“m  ŒšÞ -š­· ­;©Ýz-; Eš© ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­s 7 lake. 1-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx Therefore, the purpose of this plan z­ ·š ;㦌z“ -Ò©©;“· -š“7z¼š“­r 7z­-Ò­­ Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ “7 ·š ’‰; ©;-š’’;“7¼š“ Eš© ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· -¼Ýz¼;­ š“ [zŒä [‰;u 1.1 MANAGEMENT GOALS As part of the plan development the City hosted a public meeting with lake residents (August 2012) to discuss the lake issues and the goals that should be establishedng are the results šE ·w; ’;;¼“m: Issues 1.{Ò,’;©m;7 ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ z­ šÝ;©,ғ7“· z“ ·w; Œ‰; Œ;7z“m · non-powered boats to open water areas, nuisance levels of dead plant and water fowl habitat. 2.Submerm;7 ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ z­ šÝ;©,ғ7“· z“ ·w; Œ‰; Œ;7z“m ·š Œz’z š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ z“-ŒÒ7z“m ·w; ,;-w ©;­u 3.w; šÝ;©,ғ7“· ¦Œ“· -š’’Ò“z·ä ©;7Ò-;­ ·w; ;­·w;¼- ÝŒÒ; šE · levels of dead plant biomass and odor issues. Goals 1.L’¦©šÝ; “7 ’z“·z“ ·w; ;­·w;¼- -š“7z¼š“­ šE ·w; Œ‰; z“-ŒÒ7z“ ,Œšš’­r KŒ’;“·šÒ­ Œm; ’·­r EšÒŒ š7š©­r ·©­wr “7 “Òz­“-;  a.Reduce nutrient loading to the lake to minimize nutrient build up in the sediments 2.L’¦©šÝ; “7 ’z“·z“ ·w; ©;-©;¼š“Œ Ò­;­ šE ·w; Œ‰; z“-ŒÒ7z“m -powered ,š¼“mœr K­wz“m “7 Þz“·;© ©;-©;¼š“u a.Operate mechanical plant control to create access to open water Eš© ,š¼“m. 3.Improve and maintain a healthy and balanced shery that supports reaso š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ “7 Œš-Œ ,z©7 ¦š¦ÒŒ¼š“­u a.Work with DNR to manage appropriate shery in the lake. 4.Maintain the wildlife habitat of the lakes including birds and m diversity. a.Reduce nutrient loading to the lake to minimize nutrient build u. 1-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 5.Protect the lake from invasive species including, but not limite to, curly-leaf pondweed, eurasian watermilfoil, purple loosestrife, and zebra mussels. a.t©šÝz7; ;7Ò-¼š“ “7 šÒ·©;-w š“ z“Ý­zÝ; ­¦;-z;­ ·w©;·­ ·š ·w;. b.Monitor plants every 5 years or if invasives are determined to b. c.Provide signag; · Œ‰; --;­­ ·š ¦©;Ý;“· z“·©š7Ò-¼š“ šE z“Ý­zÝ; ­¦;-z;­. L“ 77z¼š“ ·š ·wz­ ’;;¼“m, a lake management plan was developed by the City (Wenck Associates, Inc., 2007 - !Æ-w’;“· ). Included in the plan are strategies for the following: w;-©;¼š“l Use 1.Reduce nuisance algal blooms and improve water clarity. 2. agents. 3.w;7Ò-; ·w; ¦š·;“¼Œ Eš© ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ ·š z’¦;7; ­Þz’’z“m “7 areas. 4.t©š’š·; w;Œ·wä “7 7zÝ;©­; K­w -š’’Ò“z¼;­. 9“Ýz©š“’;“·Œ t©;­;©Ý¼š“ 1.t©;Ý;“· ·w; z“·©š7Ò-¼š“ šE ;㚼- ¦Œ“·­ “7 ;Œz’z“·; -Ò©©;“· ;ã. 2.t©;­;©Ý; ¨Ò¼- ÞzŒ7ŒzE; w,z·· z“-ŒÒ7z“m K­w ­¦ޓz“m ©;­. 3.Achieve a healthy and div;©­; -š’’Ò“z·ä šE “¼Ý; ¦Œ“·­ “7 “z’Œ­. 4.t©šÝz7;  “·Ò©Œ Œ“7‰Þ·;© z“·;©E-; ·w· ©;7Ò-;­ ©Ò“šH “7 ;“ ÞwzŒ; ¦©šÝz7z“m --;­­ Eš© ©;-©;¼š“Œ Ò­; šE ·w; Œ‰;­u 5.Manage watershed runotransport to the lakes. [‰; a“m;’;“· 97Ò-¼š“ 1.Assure that decision makers have an understanding of lake ecolog informed decisions about lake management. 2.L7;“¼Eä ·©m;· Ò7z;“-;­. 3.Raise awareness of boundaries of McKusick and Lily Lake watershed. 4.wz­; Þ©;“;­­ šE “š“¦šz“· ­šÒ©-; ¦šŒŒÒ¼š“ “7 z·­ ;H;-·­ š“ Œ. 1-3 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 5.t©šÝz7; m;“;©Œ “7 ·©m;·;7 z“Eš©’¼š“ z“ Ý©zšÒ­ Eš©’·­. 6. t©šÝz7; š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ Eš© -¼Ý; ©;z“Eš©-;’;“· šE ,;wÝzš©Œ -w“m. The development of “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ ÞzŒŒ w;Œ¦ 77©;­­ components of each of these goals. 1.2 CURRENT CONDITION w; [zŒä [‰; Þ·;©­w;7 z­ ;“¼©;Œä Þz·wz“ ‘­wz“m·š“ /šÒ“·ä ,šÒ“587 acres (Figure 1). The watershed is fully developed and 7š’z“·;7 ,ä ©;­z7;“¼Œ “7 commercial/industrial land use. CzmÒ©;­ “7 ­wšÞ ·w; ’š­· ©;-;“· Ý;m;·¼š“ ­Ò©Ý;ä “7 ­¦;-z;, the ŒÆ;© ,©š‰;“ Ò¦ ,;·Þ;;“ dš¼“m Œ;E “7 ­Ò,’;©m;7 Ý;m;·¼š“u Curly-leaf pondweed (tš·’šm;·š“ -©z­¦Ò­œ was ·w; š“Œä z“Ý­zÝ; ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ pres;“· · ·w; ¼’; šE ·w; ­Ò©Ý;ä “7 Þ­ “š·;7 ­ occurrence Robbins pondweed, Coontail and Largeleaf pondweed. Waterlilies are also known occurrence later in the growing season. t­· ’“m;’;“· -¼Ýz¼;­ š“ ·w; Œ‰; wÝ; z“-ŒÒ7;7 w;©,z-z7; ¦¦s paths which was cost shared by the City with lakeshore owners. These -¼Ýz·ies were not formalized into a long-term ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“. 1-4 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 1. Lily Lake Watershed. 1-5 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 2 u ;m;·¼š“ 5;“­z·ä a¦ May 2012. 1-6 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 3 u ;m;·¼š“ Survey - {¦;-z;­ vÒ“¼K-¼š“. 1.3 AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS L“·©š7Ò-¼š“ w; ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“ az““;­š· z­ ©;mҌ·;7 ,ä az“ Chapter 6280 and is enforced by the Minnesota Department of NatuŒ w;­šÒ©-;­ ›5bwœu !¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· -¼Ýz¼;­ ’ä š© ’ä “š· ©;¨Òz©; “ !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m ·w; “·Ò©; šE ·w; -¼Ýz·ä. !ta ¦;©’z·­ ’ä ,; z­­Ò;7 ·š ¦©šÝz7; ©z¦©z“ --;­­r ;“w“-; ©; ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­r ’“m; Þ·;© Œ;Ý;Œ­r “7 ¦©š·;-· š© z’¦©šÝ; w,z·. A specic list of criteria is considered to determine if a permit should be granted. A permit will not be issued to improve the appearance of undeveloped shoreline or Eš© ;­·w;¼- ©;­ons alone. A permit also cannot be issued in 1-7 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx ©;­ mzÝ;“ ­¦;-zŒ 7;­zm“¼š“­r ­Ò-w ­ {-z;“¼K- “7 b·Ò©Œ !© spawning areas. !-¼Ýz¼;­ “š· w;¨Òz©z“m  t;©’z· /w¦·;©   u  ŒŒšÞ­ -;©·z“ -¼Ýz¼;­ Þz·wšÒ· an APM permit. Specically, mechanical control of ­Ò,’;©­;7 ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z­ ŒŒšÞ;7 ,ä z“7zÝz7ÒŒ ¦©š¦;©·ä šÞ“;©­ than 50 feet or one-ed 2,500 sq. iu plus the area needed to extend a channel no wider than 15 feet t. w;­; ©ÒŒ;­ Œ­š ŒŒšÞ Eš© ·w; ’;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE dš¼“m-Œ;E ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ·š š,·z“  -w““;Œ extending to open water with the provisions that the channel is no more than 15 feet wide and follows ·w; ’š­· 7z©;-· ©šÒ·; ·š š¦;“ Þ·;©r ·w; -w““;Œ z­ ’z“·z“;7 , ©;’z“­ z“ ·w; ­’; Œš-¼š“ E©š’ ä;© ·š ä;©. The skimming of duckweed or lamentous algae orface of a water body is also allowed without a permit. !-¼Ýz¼;­ w;¨Òz©z“m  t;©’z· !“ !ta ¦;©’z· z­ ©;¨Òz©;7 Eš© ŒŒ š·w;© -¼Ýz¼;­ ,;ŒšÞ ·w; h©7z“ ’;“¼š“;7 ,šÝ;r z“-ŒÒ7z“m ŒŒ herbicide -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­r ©;Œš-¼“m š© ©;’šÝz“m ,šm­r “7 z“­·ŒŒz“m š© š¦;©¼“m “ Ò·š’·;7 ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· -š“·©šŒ 7;Ýz-; ä¦;­ šE !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· /š“·©šŒ Mechanical Control a;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ ·ä¦z-ŒŒä z“ÝšŒÝ;­ ·w; -Òpulling, raking or otherwise ©;’šÝz“m š© Œ·;©z“m ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ,ä ¦wä­z-Œ ’;“­. {š’; šE ·w; -š“7z¼š“­ šE ¦;©’zÆ;7 ’;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“-ŒÒ7;t ·w; Ý;m;·¼š“ ’Ò­· ,; z’’;7z·;Œä “7 ¦;©’“;“·Œä ©;’šÝ;7 E©š’ · the mechanical control may not exceed 50% šE ·w; ·š·Œ Œzƚ©Œ ©; šE ·w; Œ‰; (9.8 acres on Lily Lake); control methods must not change the course of the water; and 1-8 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx ·w; ’;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ ’Ò­· ,; -š“7Ò-·;7 z“ ·w; ­’; Œš-¼š“ ä;. Herbicide Control A ¦;©’z· z­ ©;¨Òz©;7 Eš© ŒŒ -w;’z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­u I; limited to an area that does not exceed 15% šE ·w; Œzƚ©Œ ©; šE  Œ‰; (3.0 acres on Lily Lake). Only specic herbicides that are labeled for use in ¨Ò¼- ­z·;­ -“ ,; Ò­;7r “7 ·w;ä ’Ò­· ,; ¦¦Œz;7 --š©7z“m ·š ·w; Œ,;Œ z“­·©Ò-¼š“­u Permit Requirements ! ©z¦©z“ Œ‰; ­wš©; šÞ“;©r Œ‰; ­­š-z¼š“r š© mšÝ;©“’;“· m;“. Before the permit is issued, it is necessary to obtain the permission and signature of all landowners whose shorelines will be treated. !¦¦Œz-¼š“­ Eš© ¦;©’z·­ ’Ò­· ,; ­Ò,’zÆ;7 ,ä !ÒmÒ­· . An APM permit is valid for one growing season and expires on December 31 of the year that it isissued. 1-9 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.0 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ wz­ ­·Ò7ä K“7­ ·w· “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ ޚҌ7 ,; ,;“;K-zŒ ·š [zŒä [‰;u š z7;“¼Eä ·w; š¦¼’Ò’ ’šÒ“· šE ’“m;’;“·, the following assessment was completed. 5;­-©z¦¼š“­ “7 ­­;­­’;“·­ šE Œ·;©“¼Ý;s for ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· management ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ›w©Ý;­¼“m “7 w;©,z-z7;œ. o SuppŒ;’;“·Œ !Œ·;©“¼Ý; ›--;­­ ¦·w z“-ŒÒ­zš“ - w©Ý;­¼“m š© w;©,z-z7;œu o An assessment of management impacts to sheries, sh habitat, an. ! 7;­-©z¦¼š“ šE š·w;© -š“­z7;©¼š“­. 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES !­ ’;“¼š“;7 ¦©;ÝzšÒ­Œä, herbicid; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ Eš© ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ has occurred in the past on Lily Lake. The focus šE ·w;­; ¦­· -¼Ýz¼;­ was to E-zŒz··; m©;·;© ©;-©;¼š“Œ “7 “Ýzm¼š“Œ use on the lake and contain -¼Ýz¼;­ within permit limits. Proposed Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ were developed to be z“ Œz“; Þz·w mšŒ­ z7;“¼K;7 z“ {;-¼š“ Three di ·©m;·;7 Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Þ;©; ­­;­­;7 that are within state permit guidelines as part of this plan: Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Contract H©Ý;­¼“m ›1.5 acres). The City would make available a Contractor to create access paths throughout the lake (Figure 4). Access paths would be harvested ·Þš ¼’;­ 7Ò©z“m ·w; m©šÞz“m ­;­š“ ›Œ·; aä to early August). Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô City Run I©Ý;­¼“m (1.5 acres). This Œ·;©“¼Ý; consists of the City ¦Ò©-w­z“m w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· ·š -š“7Ò-· w©Ý;­¼“m š¦;©¼š“­ ›CzmÒ©; œ. w; w©Ý;­¼“m equipment is assumed ·š ,; ­w©;7 Eš© š¦;©¼š“­ · š·w;© Œ‰;­ z“ ·w; /z·äu I©Ý;­¼“m ,; 7š“; ·Þš ¼’;­ 7Ò©z“m ·w; m©šÞz“m season (late May to early August). 2-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô 3 - Herbicide Treatment (1.5 acres). The City would make available a contractor to have a acess paths treated with herbicide twice a year between late May and early August (Figure 4). A ­Ò¦¦Œ;’;“·Œ Œ·;©“¼Ý; Þwz-w -šÒŒ7 ,; 7š“; z“ -š“†Ò“-¼š“ Þz·w · assessed as part of this plan: {Ò¦¦Œ;’;“·Œ !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô bÝzm¼š“ /w““;Œ (1.2 acres). wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý; -š“­z­·­ šE ­Ò¦¦Œ;’;“¼“m ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ,ä Œ;Ý;©mz“m  -š“·©-·š© ·š -©;·;  “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ ·w©šÒmw ;z·w;© w©Ý;­¼“m š© w;©,z-z7; Œš“m ·w; “š©·w “7 Þ;­· ¦ w; “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ ޚҌ7 ,; ¦©ŒŒ;Œ ·š ­wš©; “7 ,;  ’z“z’um of 150 feet from shore. w; -w““;Œ ޚҌ7 w©Ý;­·;7 š© ·©;·;7 Þz·w w;©,z-z7; ·Þz-;  ä; ¦©;E;©©;7 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u 2-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 4. Targeted Harvest or Herbicide !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u 2-3 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 4. Supplemental Harvest or Herbicide !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u 2-4 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.2 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES w; EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ Þ;©; ’7; Eš© ­­;­­z“m ·w; Œ·;©“¼Ý;­were developed ·w©šÒmw -š“Ý;©­¼š“s Þz·w Ý;“7š©­r -š“·©-·š©­ “7 ·w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;©, and are believed to be reasonable. !­­Ò’¦¼š“­t Each scenario assumes the project begins in 2013. 9-w ­-;“©zš Þ­ ;݌ҷ;7 ·š 7;·;©’z“; ;¨Òz¦’;“· ›-¦z·Œœ -š­ on a 15-ä;© š¦;©¼š“­ ¦;©zš7 ·š mzÝ;  ·š·Œ ¦©;­;“· ޚ©·w -š­· Eš© ;-ario. ! V 7z­-šÒ“· ©·; Þ­ Ò­;7 z“ ·w; ¦©;­;“· ޚ©·w -Œ-Ҍ¼š“­u All scenarios were considered feasible. I©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ ­­Ò’;7 ·w; Œ‰; ޚҌ7 ,; w©Ý;­·;7 ·Þz-; “ 9-w Œ·;©“¼Ý; ­­Ò’;­ ;z·w;© ·w; /z·ä š© Œ‰;­wš©; šÞ“;©­ would obtain a Minnesota DNR !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· t;©’z· ““ÒŒŒäu I©Ý;­¼“m Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ­­Ò’;  ’z“z’Ò’ -Òȓm 7;¦·w šE E;;· “7 7 feet. City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ Þ;©; ;݌ҷ;7 š“  -hour workweek. City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m scenarios assumed the purchase of a new harvester, shore conveyor and trailer in 2013. w; ·ä¦z-Œ ŒzE; ­¦“ šE w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· z­ City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ ­­Ò’; ·w; /z·ä ޚҌ7 wz©; ·;’¦š©©ä ­Ò’ w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òzpment. City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ ssume a harves¼“m ©·; šE u -©;­ ¦;© wšÒ©, which accounts for V 7šÞ“¼’;u City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m -š­·­ ©; ­­Ò’;7 ·š ,; ­¦Œz· ,;·Þ;;“ [zŒär [š“m  on the total area harvested in a growing season. Herbicide treatments were assumed to be carried out twice annual I;©,z-z7; ­-;“©zš­ ­­Ò’; ·w;©; ÞzŒŒ ,; ’š“z·š©z“m “7 ©;¦š©¼“m ©;­z7;“·­ i;© ;-w ä;© šE ·©;·’;“·u 2-5 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.2.1 Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Contract H©Ý;­¼“m h“Œä (1.5 acres) I©Ý;­¼“m ޚҌ7 ,; -š“7Ò-·;7 ,ä  -š“·©-· w©Ý;­·;© ·Þš ¼’;­ ¦; designated in Figure 4. The area to ¦š·;“¼ŒŒä be harvested totals 1.5 acres and is focused š“ -©;¼“m access paths to open water from residences. The City would make available a contractor who is -š’¦Œ;¼“m ­z’zŒ© ޚ©‰ z“ ·w; Eš© ©;­z7;“·­ ·š wz©;u w; w©Ý;­would have been The City would then make the contractor available to residents to create acce w; -Òȓm ©; ­­š-z·;7 Þz·w ’ãz’Ò’ ¦©¼-z¦·ion from residents comprises 1.5-acres which ޚҌ7 “š· ;ã-;;7 ·w; 5bw ¦;©’z· Œz’z· šE  V šE ·w; Œzƚ©Œ 隓;u -©;­œu w; mšŒ šE ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý; is to improve usability of the lake and not to control an invasi. CšŒŒšÞz“m ©; ·w; ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ Ò­;7 ·š ;­¼’·;  -š­· Eš© ·wz­ ;Hš /Òȓm ޚҌ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·Þz-; ¦;© ä;© between late May and early August. Access could be gained through the public access located in the southeast corner of the 2.2.2 Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô 2 /z·ä wғ I©Ý;­¼“m h“Œä ›1.5 acres). This scenario consists of ·w; /z·ä ¦Ò©-w­z“m w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· to harvest the same area and at the ­’; E©;¨Ò;“-ä ­ Þw· z­ 7;­zm“·;7 z“ !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô 4). The City would need to purchase a harvester, shore conveyor and harvester trailer to provide this . Vendor quotes for equipment were obtained to determine the overall equipment costs Eš© ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý;. The City provided input on the availability of labor. w; EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ wÝ; ,;;“ ’7; ·š ­­;­­ ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý !““ÒŒ š¦;©¼š“­ “7 ’z“·;““-; -š­·­ šE approximately $1,600 per year were assumed for ·w; š¦;©¼š“ ›­;; !Æ-w’;“· Eš©  7;·zŒ;7 cost breakdown). w; /z·ä ޚҌ7 ­·š©; “7 ’z“·z“ ·w; w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· ·  /. I©Ý;­¼“m ­¦šzŒ­ ޚҌ7 ,; ­·š©;7 · /z·ä E-zŒz¼;­ “7 Ò­;7 Eš© -š’¦š­¼“m. The City would hire two temporary ­Ò’’;© ;’¦Œšä;;­ ·š -š“7Ò-· ·w; w©Ý;­¼“m š¦;©¼š“u 2-6 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.2.3 Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô - Herbicide Treatment (1.5 acres) I;©,z-z7; ·©;·’;“·­ ›5z¨Ò·œ ޚҌ7 ,; -š“7Ò-·;7 ,ä  -š“·©-·š© areas designated in Figure 4. The area to ¦š·;“¼ŒŒä be treated with herbicide totals 1.5 acres and is focused š“ -©;¼“m --;­­ ¦·w­ ·š š¦;“ Þ·;© E©š’ ©;­z7;“-;­u w; /z·ä -š“·©-·š© Þwš z­ -š’¦Œ;¼“m ­z’zŒ© ޚ©‰ z“ ·w; Eš© ©;­z7;“·­ ·še contractor would list. The City would then make the contractor available to res docks. Diquat is a contact herbicid; “7 z­ “ z“7Ò­·©ä ­·“7©7 Eš© -š“·©šŒŒz“m ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“u area in Figure 4 z“ 77z¼š“ ·š ­¦š·-·©;¼“m Eš© z“Ý­zÝ;­ ›-Ò©Œä-leaf pondweed) composes the total 1.5 -©;­ ·š ,; ·©;·;7u w; ¦©;7š’z““· ­¦;-z;­ z“ ·w; Œ‰; ©; “¼ch have a longer growing season in the summer requiring the lake to receive two treatments between late May and early August. w; Ò­; šE ·w; w;©,z-z7; ÞzŒŒ “š· ­zm“zK-“·Œä ©;7Ò-; ­;;7 ,“‰­ ,-‰ ©;¨Òz©z“m ·w; ·©;·’;“·­ ·š š--Ò© ““ÒŒŒäu !­ Þz·w ŒŒ -w; require a permit from the DNR. The followi“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ wÝ; ,;;“ ’7; Eš© ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý;t A Minnesota licensed herbicide applicator would be hired by residents to provide the treatment service at a cost of approximately $350/ac. in 2013 dollars. Monitoring would be completed by by volunteer r;­z7;“·­ ;Ý;©ä ä;© ·š -š“K©’ ;H;-¼Ý;“;­­ šE ·©;·’;“· š¦¼š“­u 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVE t­· -¼Ýz¼;­ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· -¼Ýz¼;­ ©;-ŒŒ;7 ,ä ©;­z7 “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ ¦©ŒŒ;Œ ·š ­wš©; ·w©šÒmw w;©,z-z7; ¦¦Œz-¼š“u !­ ¦©· šE ·wz­ ¦Œ“ z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“ and stakeholder input a similar feature was assessed. w; 77z¼š“ šE  “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ ¦©©ŒŒ;Œ ·š shore is not ·©7z¼š“ŒŒä a ¦;©’zÆ;7 -¼Ýz·ä ,ä ·w; az““;­š· 5bwu w; 5bw ޚҌ7 “;;7 ·š conduct an on-­z·; z“Ý;­¼m¼š“ ·š 7;·;©’z“; ·w; “;;7 Eš© ·w; “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œu wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý; ޚҌ7 ­;©Ý; 2-7 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx ­  ­Ò¦¦Œ;’;“· ·š ·w; ©;-š’’;“7;7 ·©m;·;7 Œ·;©“¼Ý; “7 ޚҌ7 ’“m;’;“· ·;-w“z¨Ò; ›w©Ý;­¼“m š© w;©,z-z7;). As Þz·w ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Ô µ Ô ·w; /z·ä ޚҌ7 ’‰; ÝzŒ,Œ;  /š“·©-·š© Eš© ©;­z7;“·­ ·š wz©; ·š -©;·; ·w; w; “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ ޚҌ7 ,; Eš-Ò­;7 Œš“m ·w; “š©·w “7 Þ;­· 30-feet wide and set a minimum of a 150-feet from shore (Figure 5). The channel would be either harvested or ·©;·;7 Þz·w w;©,z-z7; ·Þz-;  ä;© z“ -š“†Ò“-¼š“ Þz·w ·w; ¦©;E; The ;­¼’·;7 -š­· Eš© ·©;·’;“· šE ·w; “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ z­ ¦¦©šãz’. This assumes a rate of Å  ‰-©; ›wzmw;© ©·; ,;·Þ;;“ w©Ý;­¼“m “7 w;©,z-z7; ·©;·’;“· w; EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ wÝ; ,;;“ ’7; Eš© ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý;t The Minnesota DNR would consider the channel needed and would being to permit the treatment of this area. 2.4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ! ,©z;E 7;­-©z¦¼š“ šE z’¦-·­ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ›,š·w ¦for proposed Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Þ;©; completed to address environment impacts on sheries, sh habitand water quality and is presented below. 2.4.1 Environmental Impacts on Fisheries and Fish Habitat !¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ©; “ z’¦š©·“· ¦©· šE Œ‰; ;-š­ä­·;’­r “7 ·w; Eš­·;©z“m 7zÝ;©­; ¨Ò¼- ;-š­ä­·;’­ w­ ,;;“ Þ;ŒŒ documented. !¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ©; “ z’¦š©·“· component of sh and wildlife habitat. w; !¨Ò¼- 9-š­ä­·;’ w;­·š©¼š“ CšÒ“7¼š“ › œ ­··;­ ·w· ¨Ò¼- “7 Œzƚ©Œ Ý;m;·¼š“ ¦©šÝz7;­ K­wr Þ·;©EšÞŒ “7 ­š Oxygen Habitat Food sources Breeding areas Refuge for predators and prey {·,zŒzé;7 ,šÆš’ ­;7z’;“·­ “7 “Ò·©z;“·­. 2-8 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx w;­; ©;­šÒ©-;­ ©; “š· š“Œä z’¦š©·“· Eš© mšš7 ­¦š©· K­w;©z;­r ;­·w;¼- ;“†šä’;“· šE Þ·;© ©;­šÒ©-;­r “7 ’z“·;““-; šE w;Œ·wä ¨Ò¼- “7 Œzƚ©Œ ;-š­ä­·;’­u [zŒä [‰; w­ ­zm“zK-“· -šÝ;©m; šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­. IšÞ;Ý;©r ’Ò-w šE ·wz­ -šÝ;©m; -š“·z“­ “¼Ý; “š“- invasive species. a“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ·w©šÒmw ·w; š¦;©¼š“ šE w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· ’ä z’¦-· lake fauna. twä­z-Œ 7z­·Ò©,“-; šE ,šÆš’ ­;7z’;“·­ -“ š--Ò© z“ ­wŒŒšÞ ©;s -“ ­Ò­¦;“7 ­;7z’;“·­r “7 w©Ý;­¼“m z­ “š· ­;Œ;-¼Ý; Eš© ­¦;-zK- area. In other words benecial plants as well as nuisance plants may be harvested. These impacts can a. IšÞ;Ý;©r ·w; “;m¼Ý; z’¦-·­ šE w©Ý;­¼“m -šÒŒ7 ,; Œ©m;Œä Œz’z· doing the following: [z’z· w©Ý;­¼“m z“ Þ·;© 7;¦·w­ Œ;­­ ·w“ -4 feet, where sh spawning typically occurs in shallow areas. wz­ Œz’z·¼š“ ޚҌ7 Œ­š Œz’z· ·w; ¦š·;“¼Œ Eš© ©;­Ò­¦;“­zš“ šE sediments. [z’z· w©Ý;­¼“m z“ ©;­ Þz·wz“  E;;· šE ·w; ­wš©; ·š -Òȓm ¦ docks and boat turn-around areas. Along Þz·w w©Ý;­¼“mr w;©,z-z7; ·©;·’;“· Þz·w Diquat Þ­ z“Ý;­¼m·;7 Eš© ·wz­ ¦©š†;-·u w; Ò­; šE ŒšÞ- 7š­; ¦¦Œz-¼š“­ šE Diquat ·š -š“·©šŒ ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ z­ ;ã¦;-·;7 ·š wÝ; Ýz©·ÒŒŒä “š “;m impact on sheries and sh habitat. The compound is a s;Œ;-¼Ý; -š“·-· w;©,z-z7; ·w· 7z­©Ò¦·­ ,zšŒšmz-Œ ¦©š-;­­;­ ғz¨Ò; ·š ¦Œ“·­r ­Ò-w ­ z“·;©E;©z“m Þz·w 7z­©Ò¦¼“m ¦Œ“· -;ŒŒ membranes. Finally, Diquat compounds do not bioaccumulate in sh or hydrosoil. 2.4.2 Impacts on Water Quality Water qÒŒz·ä z’¦-·­ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· -š“·©šŒ ’;·wš7­ ’ä ,; ,š·w ¦š­z¼Ý; “7 “;m¼Ý;. For w©Ý;­¼“mr ·w; ,zmm;­· “;m¼Ý; z’¦-·­ ©; ©;Œ·;7 ·š ·w; ¦š·;“¼. The z’¦-·­ ­­š-z·;7 Þz·w ·w; w©Ý;­¼“m ¦©š†;-· z“ [zŒä [‰; ­hould be minor because of the limited ’šÒ“· šE -Òȓm z“ ­wŒŒšw areas (i.e., areas less than 3-4 feet deep). tš­z¼Ý; Þ·;© ¨ÒŒz·ä z’¦-·­ šE w©Ý;­¼“m š--Ò© ,;-Ò­; “Ò·©z;“ along with the harvested plant materials. bš· ŒŒ šE ·w; ¦Œ“· ’·;©zŒ z­ ©;’šÝ;7 Þz·w w©Ý;­¼“m ­z“-; 2-9 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx plants may be cut o captured. .­;7 š“ ;­¼’·;­ Eš© ¼­­Ò; ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ -š“·;“·r ·w;©; z­ ¦;©w¦­-1.2 lbs. of phosphorus /ac for heavy growths. LE ŒŒ ·w; ¼­­Ò;-bound phosphorus were removed in the harvested ©; › Œz,;©Œ ­­Ò’¦¼š“r ­z“-; š“Œä ¦©· šE ·w; ¦Œ“· z­ m;“;©’šÝ;7 ,ä w©Ý;­¼“mœr Ò¦ ·š 6 pounds of phosphorus could be removed from the system as a result of a w©Ý;­¼“m š¦;©¼š“. This compares with a total load (internal and external) of over ¦šÒ“7­ ;­¼’·;7 z“ ·w; [ke Management Plan (Wenck, 2007). Thus, phosphorus removal associated with w©Ý;­¼“m and removal is likely no more than 2-3V šE ·w; ·š·Œ ““ÒŒ ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ Œš7 H;-¼“m ·w; Œ‰;. Though long-term ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ÞzŒŒ “š· wÝ;  ­zm“zK-“· z’¦-· š“, it will contribute ·š ’;;¼“m Œš“m-term water quality goals for the lake. Controlling the abundance of nutrients -“ Œ­š ¦©;Ý;“· “;m¼Ý; Þ·;© ¨ÒŒz·ä z’¦-·­ ­­š-z·;7 Þz·w ·w; ŒzE; -ä-Œ; šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­u !--š©7z“m ·š W’;­r ;· Œu › phosphorus from the sediments through root uptake, i“-š©¦š©¼š“ z“·š ¦Œ“· ¼­­Ò;r “7 ­Ò,­;¨Ò;“· senescence (i.e., 7;-š’¦š­z¼š“œ. They can also indirectly recycle phosphorus from the sediments b z“-©;­z“m ¦I z“ ·w; Þ·;© -šŒÒ’“ ·w©šÒmw ¦wš·š­ä“·w;¼- -¼Ýz¼;­. Phosphorus release from sediments can be enhanced at high pH as a result of ligand exchange on iron oxide sediment. L“ 77z¼š“r ­;“;­-;“-;‰7;-š’¦š­z¼š“ šE ·w; ¦Œ“· ’·;©zŒ -“ -š šãäm;“ -š“7z¼š“­ · ·w; ­;7z’;“· Þ·;© z“·;©E-;. [šÞ šãäm;“ -š“7z¼š“s contribute to weakening of the iron-phosphate bond leading to phosphorus release from sediments. Phosphorus loads from plant ­;“;­-;“-; “7 ­;7z’;“· ;H;-·­ -““š· ,; ;­¼’·;7 Þz·wšÒ· 7;·zŒ. However, it can be signicant especially if the subsequent release of phosphorus from senescence can then be used by algae leading to nuisance algae blooms and decreased water clari. wÒ­r ;H;-¼Ý; -š“·©šŒ š¦¼š“­ Þw;·w;© ,­;7 š“ ’;-w“z-Œ w©Ý;­¼“m ŒšÞ-dose Diquat treatments š©  -š’,z“¼š“ šE ·hese ­wšÒŒ7 wÝ; “ šÝ;©ŒŒ ¦š­z¼Ý; ;H;-· š“ Þ·;© ¨ÒŒz·ä ›z’¦©šÝ;7 -Œ©z·ä “7 ŒšÞ;© ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ Œš7z“mœ “7 ·w; “¼Ý; ¦Œ“· “7 “. 2.5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS h·w;© -š“­z7;©¼š“­ ©; 7z­-Ò­­;7 ,;ŒšÞ Þz·w ©;­¦;-· ·š disposal and stang. 2-10 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.5.1 Disposal w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© could allow the disposal of harvested material at the City -š’¦š­¼“m E-zŒz·ä. a·;©zŒ w©Ý;­·;7 z­ ši;“ ©z-w z“ “Ò·©z;“·­ “7 ޚҌ7 ’‰; mšš7 2.5.2 Stang !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Ô 77z¼š“Œ ­·H ޚҌ7 ,; wz©;7 ,ä ·w; /z·ä. /š“·©-¼“m Þz·w Ý;“7š©­ would be completed by the Public Works department. !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô ÞšÒŒ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·w©šÒmw ·w; Public Works Department by hiring two temporary employees for the summer. Cš© ;-w Œ·;©“¼Ý; z· z­ ­­Ò’;7 ·w· /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© staҌ7 -š’¦Œ;·; ·w; ¦;©’zȓm. Annual ’š“z·š©z“m šE w;©,z-z7; ·©;·’;“· ;H;-¼Ý;“;­­ ޚҌ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 residents. 2-11 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 3.0 w;-š’’;“7¼š“­ Recommen7¼š“­ Eš© ·wz­ ¦©š†;-· Þ;©; ,­;7 š“ project acceptance, managed area, equipment costs, ““ÒŒ š¦;©¼š“­ “7  -year life cycle to create present worth values. Present worth values are evaluated based on a cost per acre per year expense as can be se in Table 2. Detailed cost breakdown per scenario are provided in !Æ-w’;“· . As shown on the table below the least expensive cost per acre per year is Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô1 /š“·©-· I©Ý;­¼“m (1.5 acres). Table 1 u /š­· 9­¼’·;­ ,ä ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u Net Present Value !Œ·;©“¼Ý; 5;­-©z¦¼š“ Acres Present Worth Annual Cost Cost/Acre/Year 1 /š“·©-· I©Ý;­¼“m 1.5 $26,300 $1,753 $1,169 2* /z·ä wғ I©Ý;­¼“m« 1.5 $32,575 $2,172 $1,448 3 Herbicide Treatment 1.5 $52,590 $3,506 $2,338 «!­­Ò’;­ -š­· Eš© w©Ý;­¼“m z­  ¦š©¼š“ šE ·w; /z·ä w©Ý;­¼“m [zŒär [š“m “7 a-YÒ­z-‰ [‰;­. /š­· ŒŒš-·;7 ,­;7 š“ ¦š©¼š“ of total area to be harvested. Based on cost and project acceptance, it is recommended that the City šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© proceed with Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #3 Eš© ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“ Lily Lake. wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý; ޚҌ7 “š· š,Œzm·; ·w; /z·ä ·š ­¦;“7 ,Ò7m;· Eš© z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“ ­ ·w; -š­·­ provided by residents. Thi­ Œ·;©“¼Ý; ޚҌ7 š,Œzm· ·w; /z·ä ’‰; ÝzŒ,Œ; -š“·©-·š©­ 7 work in the City to the lake residents to cut access paths. LE ¦;©’zÆ,Œ; ,ä ·w; az““;­š· 5bw ·w; residents may want to pursue inclusion of the supplemental Œ·;©“¼Ý; ›“Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œœ ©; z“ ·w; ’“m;7 ©;u .­;7 š“ ·wz­ ©;-š’’;“7¼š“ z· z­ ;­¼’·;7 ·w; ““ÒŒ š¦;©¼š“ ,for lake shore residents would be $5,000 without the ­Ò¦¦Œ;’;“·Œ Œ·;©“¼Ý; “7 Å,0 Þz·w ·w; ­Ò¦¦Œ;’;“·Œ Œ·;©“¼Ý; included. 3-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 4.0 Management Plan report incorporates, by reference, Lily Lake Lakeshore Owners Public a;;¼“m ›!ÒmÒ­· and February 2013) and the Lily Lake Management Plan, 2007. The Lily Lake Lakeshore Owners Public a;;¼“m Þ­ wš­·;7 ,ä ·w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© Þz·w z“¦Ò· Eš© E©š’ [ Lakeshore owners. The Lily Lake Management Plan was prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc. with input E©š’ ·w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© “7 Œ‰; ©;­z7;“·­. A copy of the plan is included as !Æ-w’;“· . Specic management plan elements as part of this report include only herbicide treatment which is to be funded by lake shore residents: 4.1 HERBICIDE TREATMENT The targeted amount for herbicide treatment. An annual goal of 2.7 acres ›zE “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ z­ ¦;©’zÆ;7œ. t©zš©z·ä -©;­ Eš© w©Ý;­¼“m. The priority areas were established through input from residents “7 -šš©7z“¼š“ Þz·w ·w; /z·ä. w; wzmw;­· ¦©zš©z·ä z7;“¼K;7 ,ä ·w; m©šÒ¦ Þ­t š ;“,Œ; ©;-©;¼š“ “7 “Ýzm¼š“ ·w©oughout the lake, and - Spot treat invasive species in the lake - These priority areas are shown on Figure 5. w; mšŒ z­ ·š z’¦©šÝ; ©;-©;¼š“Œ Ò­; “7 “Ýzm¼š“ š“ the lake as well as provide private access as desired by lake re. Herbicide ·©;·’;“·­ ÞzŒŒ ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·Þš ¼’;­ ¦;© ä;© ,;·Þ;;“ Œ·; aä . If invasive species are introduced to the lake special provisions c ¦;©’zȓm ¦©š-;­­ Þz·w az““;­š· 5bw Eš© w©Ý;­¼“m šE ·w;­; ­¦;-z 4-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 4.2 PROJECT FACILITATION The lakeshore residents ÞzŒŒ ­;©Ý; ­ ·w; Œ;7 Eš© ·w; z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“ šE ·w; ¦©š†;-·r ,Ò· closely with the City “7 5bw ©;m©7z“m š¦;©¼š“. The lakeshore residents will work with the DNR to conrm h;©,z-z7; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ areas annually. /šš©7z“¼š“ ’š“m ·w; m©šÒ¦­ ÞzŒŒ ;“­Ò©; ·w; ¦¦Œz-¼š“s ©; ;H;-¼Ý; z“ ’;;¼“m ·w; mšŒ­ šE ·wz­ plan. 4.3 PROJECT BUDGET w; ;­¼’·;7 cost for lakeshore residents to implement this plan is $6,000 4.4 SUMMARY Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô3 Œš“m Þz·w ·w; {Ò¦¦Œ;’;“·Œ !Œ·;©“¼Ý; ›zE ¦;©’zÆ;7œ is the recommended Œ·;©“¼Ý;. The targeted and supplemental area shown in Figure 5 z“ 77z¼š“ ·š ­¦š·-·©;¼“m Eš© invasives (curly-leaf pondweed) composes the total 2.7 acres to be treated. H;©,z-z7; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ ޚҌ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·Þš ¼’;­ ““ÒŒŒä ,;·Þ;;“ late May and early August. 4-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx 5.0 References !¨Ò¼- 9-š­ä­·;’ w;­·š©¼š“ CšÒ“7¼š“r . 5©i .;­· a“m;’;“· t©-¼-;­ I“7,šš‰ Eš© !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· z“ {Ò¦¦š©· šE Cz­w “7 ‘zŒ7ŒzE; I,z·· James, William F., J.W. Banks, and H.L. Eazin, 2001. 5z©;-· š© L“7z©;-· L’¦-·­ šE {Ò,’;©­;7 !¨Ò¼- ;m;·¼š“ š© ·w; bÒ·©zent Budget of an Oxbow Lake. ERDC TN-APCRP-EA-02. Wenck Associates, Inc., December, 2007. /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© [‰; a“m;’;“· tŒ“­ - Lily Lake/McKusick. 5-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Lily Lake Report Final v4.docx AÆ-w’;“· Lily Lake Management Plan AÆ-w’;“· Detailed Cost Breakdown City of Stillwater Aquatic Plant Management Analysis Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract Harvesting Only Detailed Cost Breakdown Lily Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative 1 Area Treated = 1.5acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes 1$0.00$0.00 No capital costs Annual Costs Years 1-15$2,365.00$26,294.99Harvesting Annual Cost Total Cost =$26,294.99 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $1,753.00 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$1,168.67 City of Stillwater 3/21/2013 Aquatic Plant Management Analysis CJM Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract Harvesting Only Lily Lake Detailed Cost Breakdown Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract Harvesting OnlyQuantityUnitUnit CostTotal Cost Annual TreatmentContract Harvester Treatment (1)3AC$300$900 Permiting1Per Year$750$750 Contract Administration1LS$500$500 Total Annual Cost$2,150 Contingency (10%) =$215 Total Annual Cost =$2,365 (1) Based on average of vendor quotes assumes cutting two times per year City of Stillwater Aquatic Plant Management Analysis Targeted Alternative #2 City-Run Harvesting Only Detailed Cost Breakdown Lily Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative #2 City-Run Harvesting Only Area Treated = 1.5acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes Portion of New Harvester, 1$9,971.10$9,971.10Conveyor, Trailer Annual Costs Years 1-15$1,516.99$16,866.51Harvesting Annual Cost Total Cost =$26,837.61 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $1,789.17 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$1,192.78 City of Stillwater 1/30/2013 Aquatic Plant Management Analysis CJM Harvesting Only Targeted Alternative #2 - City-Run Harvesting Detailed Cost Breakdown Targeted Alternative #2 - City-Run Harvesting QuantityUnitUnit CostTotal Cost Capital Costs Equipment New Harvester (1)1LS$130,000$130,000 New Conveyor (1)1LS$22,000$22,000 New Trailer (1)1LS$35,000$35,000 Total Capital Cost =$187,000 Contingency (10%) =$18,700 Total Cost = $205,700 O&M OperationsFuel/Insurance (2)1Per year$5,000$5,000 Maintenance (2)1Per year$2,000$2,000 Permit (3)1Per year$2,250$2,250 Administration1Per year$4,000$4,000 LaborCrew (4)1Per year$13,200$13,200 DisposalAquatic Plant Disposal (3)1Per year$2,000$2,000 Total Annual Cost$28,450 Contingency (10%) =$2,845 Total Cost =$31,295 (1) Based on average of vendor quotes (2) Based on vendor estimates of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Lily and Long are cut twice and McKusick is cut three time annually) (3) Assumes permitting and disposal for all three lakes (4) Assumes 2 crew members at $15/hr working 360 hours combined to harvest all lakes and 80 hours total to winterize, store and perform general maintenance City of Stillwater Aquatic Plant Management Analysis Targeted Alternative #3 - Contract Herbicide Treatment Detailed Cost Breakdown Lily Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative #3 - Contract Herbicide Treatment Area Treated = 1.5acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes 1$0.00$0.00 No capital costs Annual Costs Years 1-15$4,730.00$52,589.97Herbicide Annual Cost Total Cost =$52,589.97 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $3,506.00 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$2,337.33 Wenck File #1848-04 MARCH 2013 Long [‰; !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· tŒ“ Prepared for: CITY OF STILLWATER 216 Fourth Street North {¼ŒŒÞ·;©r ab   Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Management Goals ............................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Curren· /š“7z¼š“ ............................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· t;©’z· w;¨Òz©;’;“·­ ............................................. 1-8 2.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 5;­-©z¦¼š“ šE !Œ·;©“·¼Ý;­ ................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 !­­;­­’;“· šE ·©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ .................................................................. 2-6 2.2.1 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #1 /š“·©-· I©Ý;­¼“m › acres) .................. 2-7 2.2.2 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô2 /z·ä wғ I©Ý;­¼“m › acres). ................. 2-7 2.2.3 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô - Herbicide Treatment (15 acres) ................. 2-8 2.2.4 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô I©Ý;­¼“m µ I;©,z-z7; ©;·’;“· ›21 acres) .......... 2-8 2.3 Assessment of SupplementŒ !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ......................................................... 2-9 2.3.1 Supplemental !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Alum Dosing ...................................... 2-9 2.4 Assessment of Impacts ..................................................................................... 2-10 2.4.1 Environmental Impacts on Fisheries and Fish Habitat ...................... 2-10 2.4.2 Impacts on Water Quality ................................................................. 2-11 2.5 h·w;© /š“­z7;©¼š“­ ........................................................................................ 2-12 2.5.1 Disposal ............................................................................................. 2-13 2.5.2 Stang .............................................................................................. 2-13 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 3-1 4.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 {Ò¦¦Œ;’;“·Œ !Œ·;©“¼Ý; ................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Project C-zŒz·¼š“ ............................................................................................ 4-32 4.4 Project Budget .................................................................................................. 4-23 4.5 Summary ............................................................................................................. 4-3 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 5-1 i March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓgs\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Table of Contents (Cont.) TABLES ,Œ; ................................................................................ 2-9 ,Œ; u /š­· 9­¼’·;­ ,ä Scenario. ............................................................................................ 3-1 FIGURES Figure 1. Long Lake Watershed. .................................................................................................... 1-5 CzmÒ©; u ;m;·¼š“ 5;“­z·ä a¦ - May 2012. ............................................................................ 1-6 CzmÒ©; u;m;·¼š“ 5;“­z·ä a¦ September 2012. .................................................................. 1-7 CzmÒ©; u [š“m [‰; Iz­·š©z- ;m;·¼š“ {Ò©Ý;ä­u ......................................................................... 1-8 CzmÒ©; u I©Ý;­· !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u ....................................................................................................... 2-3 CzmÒ©; u I;©,z-z7; !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u .................................................................................................... 2-4 CzmÒ©; u I©Ý;­¼“m “7 I;©,z-z7; !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u ........................................................................... 2-5 ATTACHMENTS 1Long Lake Management Plan 2Detailed Cost Breakdown ii March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx 1.0 L“·©š7Ò-¼š“ w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© ›/z·äœ 7;­z©;­ “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ;H;-¼Ý; Œš“m-·;©’ ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­u The City h­ ­¦š©7z-ŒŒä ’“m;7 ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ š“ ·w; Œ‰; ·w©šÒmw ·w; Ò­; šE w©Ý;­·;©­ z“ 77z¼š“ ·š ©;­z7;“·­ Œ However, the City believes a plan which focuses on long-·;©’ ’“m;’;“· ÞzŒŒ ,;Æ;© 77©;­­ improving water qualz·är Ò­; šE ·w; Œ‰; Eš© “Ýzm¼š“r “7 z“-©;­z“m ·w; ;­·w;¼-­. These goals are addressed by this plan through: L7;“¼Eäz“m ·w; -Ò©©;“· ­z·Ò¼š“ z“ ·w; Œ‰; z“ ©;m©7­ ·š ¨Ò¼- {¦;-zEäz“m ¨Ò“¼K,Œ; ’“m;’;“· mšŒ­. Recommen7z“m ­¦;-zK- ’“m;’;“· -¼š“ z·;’­ ·š z’¦©šÝ; Œ‰; -š“7z¼š“­. 5;Ý;Œš¦z“m “ ““ÒŒ ,Ò7m;· Eš© ¦©šm©’ z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“u w; 7;Ý;Œš¦’;“· šE “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ ÞzŒŒ Œ­š ¦©š lakeshore property owners and th; ­Ò©©šÒ“7z“m ©; šE ©šÒ“7 [š“m [‰;u ä¦z-Œ ,;“;K·­ šE “ ¨ plant management plan include but are not limited to: 1.Improved lake access for lakeshore property owners or other prop lake access. 2.L’¦©šÝ;7 š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ Eš© ©;-©;¼š“ š“ ·w; Œ‰; Eš© ¦©š¦;©·ä šÞ“;©­ “7 ·w; ­Ò©©šÒ“7z“ “;zmw,š©wšš7­ ,ä -©;¼“m š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ Eš© ,š¼“mr ­Þz’’z“m “7 K 3.tŒ“· m©šÞ·w z“-š©¦š©·;­ “Ò·©z;“·­ E©š’ Œ‰; ,šÆš’ ­;7z’;“·­u . remove nutrients in plants and lower plant growth. 4.t©šÝz7z“m  ŒšÞ -š­· ­;©Ýz-; Eš© ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­s 7 lake. 1-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx w;©;Eš©;r ·w; ¦Ò©¦š­; šE ·wz­ ©;¦š©· z­ ·š ;㦌z“ -Ò©©;“· -š“7 ©;-š’’;“7¼š“ Eš© ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· -¼Ýz¼;­ š“ [š“m [‰;u 1.1 MANAGEMENT GOALS As part of the plan development, ·w; /z·ä wš­·;7  ¦Ò,Œz- ’;;¼“m Þz·w Œ‰; ©;­z7;“·­ ›!ÒmÒ­· 2012) to discuss the lake issues and the goals that should be established. The following are the ©;­ÒŒ·­ šE ·w; ’;;¼“mt Issues 1.{Ò,’;©m;7 ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ z­ šÝ;©,ғ7“· z“ ·w; Œ‰; Œ;7z“m · open water areas, nuisance levels of dead plant biomass, and lim habitat. 2.w; šÝ;©,ғ7“· ¦Œ“· -š’’Ò“z·ä ©;7Ò-;­ ·w; ;­·w;¼- ÝŒÒ; šE · levels of dead plant biomass and odor issues. 3.The lake contains two invasive species including Curly-leaf pondweed and Eurasian water milfoil. Goals 1.Improve and ’z“·z“ ·w; ;­·w;¼- -š“7z¼š“­ šE ·w; Œ‰; z“-ŒÒ7z“m ’z“z’zéz“m ,Œšš’­r KŒ’;“·šÒ­ Œm; ’·­r EšÒŒ š7š©­r ·©­wr “7 “Òz­“-;  a.Reduce nutrient loading to the lake to minimize nutrient build u. b.Evaluate drawdown of the lake. 2.L’¦©šÝ; “7 ’z“·z“ ·w; ©;-©;¼š“Œ Ò­;­ šE ·w; Œ‰; z“-ŒÒ7z“m It š·w;©œr K­wz“m “7 Þz“·;© ©;-©;¼š“u a.Operate mechanical plant control to create access to open water Eš© ,š¼“m. b.Create open water area in southern end of the lake. 3.Improve and maintain a healthy and balanced shery that supports š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ “7 Œš-Œ ,z©7 ¦š¦ÒŒ¼š“­u a.Work with DNR to manage appropriate shery in the lake. 1-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx 4.Improve and maintain the wildlife habitat of the lakes including birds increased plant diversity. a.Reduce nutrient loading to the lake to minimize nutrient build u. b.Evaluate drawdown of the lake. 5.Protect the lake from invasive species including, but not limited to, Curly-leaf pondweed, Eurasian water milfoil, purple loosestrife, and zebra mussels. a.t©šÝz7; ;7Ò-¼š“ “7 šÒ·©;-w š“ z“Ý­zÝ; ­¦;-z;­ ·w©;·­ ·š ·w;. b.Monitor plants every 5 years or if invasives are determined to become a nuisance. c.t©šÝz7; ­zm“m; · Œ‰; --;­­ ·š ¦©;Ý;“· z“·©š7Ò-¼š“ šE z“Ý­zÝ. L“ 77z¼š“ ·š ·wz­ ’;;¼“m, a lake management plan was developed by the District (Emmons & Olivier Resources, 2006). This plan is included as !Æ-w’;“· . Included in the plan are strategies for the following: Subwatershed Loading Plan ©;7Ò-¼š“ šE ­Ò,Þ·;©­w;7 Œš7z“m ,ä V ·w©šÒmwt {;7z’;“· w;7Ò-¼š“ µ w;’šÝŒ. o Improved Street & Parking Lot Sweeping. Sediment delta survey -to 7;·;©’z“; ·w; ­zé;r ݚŒÒ’; “7 -w©-·;©z­¼-s of the sediment ·š ,; ©;’šÝ;7 E©š’ ·w; ­šÒ·w;­· ¦š©¼š“ šE ·w; Œ‰;. [‰; w;­·š©¼š“ Lake w;­·š©¼š“ C;­z,zŒz·ä {·Ò7ä ·š ;݌ҷ; ¦š·;“¼Œ ;H;-¼Ý;“;­­ of a lake drawdown. [‰; w;­·š©¼š“ t©š†;-· I’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“ šE a major lake drawdown in late fall. Goals would be to: /š“­šŒz7·; ­ši ­Ò,­·©·; šE ·w; Œ‰;u o Expose and kill ғ7;­z©,Œ; ­Ò,’;©m;“· Ý;m;·¼š“ ,;7­ and their seedbed. o {¼’ÒŒ·; ·w; ’š©; 7;­z©,Œ; ;’;©m;“· Ý;m;·¼š“ “;© Œ‰; ­wš©;u o !Æ;’¦· ·š Þz“·;©‰zŒŒ ‰šz “7 ,Œ-‰ ,ҌŒw;7 ¦š¦ÒŒ¼š“­ in the lake. o Fisheries Management Restock the Œ‰; “7 z“­·ŒŒ “ ;©¼š“ ­ä­·;’. 1-3 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Monitoring Monitor in-lake water quality and watershed Best Management t©-¼-;s. 97Ò-¼š“ ‰ hÒ·©;-w Provide an annual n;Þ­Œ;Æ;©. o Long Lake Management Plan e7Ò-¼š“Œ ;Hš©·: 5;Ý;Œš¦ ;7Ò-¼š“Œ ’·;©zŒ­ o ,­;7 š“ ·w; -wš­;“ mšŒ Eš© ·w; Œ‰; “7 ·w; z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“ plan to achieve the goal. 97Ò-¼š“Œ ­zm“m; Eš© .at ¦©š†;-·­ /š“­·©Ò-¼š“ and z“­·ŒŒ¼š“ šE ­zm“­ · o selected, visible BMP sites. w; 7;Ý;Œš¦’;“· šE “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ ÞzŒŒ w;Œ¦ 77 goals. 1.2 CURRENT CONDITION The Long [‰; Þ·;©­w;7 z­ ;“¼©;Œä Þz·wz“ ‘­wz“m·š“ /šÒ“·ä ,šÒ“7©z;­ “ 2,034 acres (Figure 1). The watershed is fully developed and 7š’z“·;7 ,ä ©;­z7;“¼Œ “7 commercial/industrial land use. Figure 2 4 ­wšÞ ·w; ’š­· ©;-;“· Ý;m;·¼š“ ­Ò©Ýeys Eš© ·w; Œ‰; Þwz-w z­ ,©š‰;“ Ò¦ ,;·Þ;;“ dš¼“m Œ;E “7 ­Ò,’;©m;7 Ý;m;·¼š“u CzmÒ©; 4 breaks down the occurrence of each of the species. Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed were the only z“Ý­zÝ; ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ ¦©;­;“· · ·w; ¼’; šE the surveys. Eurasian watermilfoil was present in the northern bay of the lake and curly-leaf pondweed was noted as present in the lake but was not present at any of t. Species with a waterlily and Coontail. t­· ’“m;’;“· -¼Ýz¼;­ š“ ·w; Œ‰; wÝ; z“-ŒÒ7;7 w©Ý;­¼“m ,ä w©Ý;­¼“m ·w©šÒmw ·w;z© m;“;©Œ Eғ7; hšÞ;Ý;©r ·w;­; -¼Ýz·ies were not formalized into a long-term ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· plan. 1-4 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 1. Long Lake Watershed. 1-5 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 2 u ;m;·¼š“ 5;“­z·ä a¦ May 2012. 1-6 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 3 u ;m;·¼š“ 5;“­z·ä a¦ September 2012. 1-7 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 4. Long Lake Historic Veget¼š“ Surveys. w; z“·;“· šE ·wz­ ¦©š†;-· z­ ·š ŒŒšÞ ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“ble permit requirements for Long Lake. 1.3 AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS L“·©š7Ò-¼š“ w; ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“ az““;­š· z­ ©;mҌ·;7 ,ä az“ Chapter 6280 and is enforced by the Minnesota Department of Natu. !¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· -¼Ýz¼;­ ’ä š© ’ä “š· ©;¨Òz©; “ !¨Ò¼- tlant Management (APM) permit, based on ·w; “·Ò©; šE ·w; -¼Ýz·ä. !ta ¦;©’z·­ ’ä ,; z­­Ò;7 ·š ¦©šÝz7; ©z¦©z“ --;­­r ;“w“-; ©; ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­r ’“m; Þ·;© Œ;Ý;Œ­r “7 ¦©š·;-· š© z’¦©šÝ; w,z·. A specic list of criteria is 1-8 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx considered to determine if a permit should be granted. A permit will not be issued to improve the ¦¦;©“-; šE ғ7;Ý;Œš¦;7 ­wš©;Œz“; š© Eš© ;­·w;¼- ©;­š“­ Œš. A permit also cannot be issued in ©;­ mzÝ;“ ­¦;-zŒ 7;­zm“¼š“­r ­Ò-w ­ {-z;“¼K- “7 b·Ò©Œ !©;­ š© z“ ©;­ ¦š­·;7 ­ ¦©š·;-·;7 K­w spawning areas. !-¼Ýz¼;­ “š· w;¨Òz©z“m  t;©’z· /w¦·;©   u  ŒŒšÞ­ -;©·z“ -¼Ýz¼;­ Þz·wšÒ· “ !ta ¦;©’z·. Specically, mechanical control of ­Ò,’;©­;7 ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z­ ŒŒšÞ;7 ,ä individual property owners in an area not to extend along more than 50 feet or one- 2,500 sq. iu plus the area needed to extend a channel no wider than 15 feet tter. w;­; ©ÒŒ;­ Œ­š ŒŒšÞ Eš© ·w; ’;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE dš¼“m-Œ;E ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ·š š,·z“  -w““;Œ extending to open water with the provisions that the channel is the most direct route to open water, the chan“;Œ z­ ’z“·z“;7 ,ä -Òȓm š© ¦ÒŒŒz“mr “7 ·w; -w““;Œ ©;’z“­ z“ ·w; ­’; Œš-¼š“ E©š’ ä;© ·š ä;©. The skimming of duckweed or lamentous algae o without a permit. !-¼Ýz¼;­ w;¨Òz©z“m  t;©’z· An !ta ¦;©’z· z­ ©;¨Òz©;7 Eš© ŒŒ š·w;© -¼Ýz¼;­ ,;ŒšÞ ·w; h©7z“©ä ’;“¼š“;7 ,šÝ;r z“-ŒÒ7z“m ŒŒ w;©,z-z7; -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“­·ŒŒz“m š© š¦;©¼“m “ Ò·š’·;7 ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· -š“·©šŒ 7evice (weed harvester). ä¦;­ šE !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· /š“·©šŒ Mechanical Control a;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ ·ä¦z-ŒŒä z“ÝšŒÝ;­ ·w; -Ò ©;’šÝz“m š© Œ·;©z“m ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ,ä ¦wä­z-Œ ’;“­. Some of the -š“7z¼š“­ šE ¦;©’zÆ;7 ’;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“-ŒÒ7;t ·w; Ý;m;·¼š“ ’Ò­· ,; z’’;7z·;Œä “7 ¦;©’“;“·Œä ©;’šÝ;7 E©š’ · 1-9 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx the mechanical control may not exceed 50% šE ·w; ·š·Œ Œzƚ©Œ ©; šE ·w; Œ‰; › -©;­ š“ Long Lake); control methods must not change the course of the water; and ·w; ’;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ ’Ò­· ,; -š“7Ò-·;7 z“ ·w; ­’; Œš-¼š“ ä;. Herbicide Control ! ¦;©’z· z­ ©;¨Òz©;7 Eš© ŒŒ -w;’z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­u is limited to an area that does not exceed 15% šE ·w; Œzƚ©Œ ©; šE  Œ‰; › . Only ­¦;-zK- w;©,z-z7;­ ·w· ©; Œ,;Œ;7 Eš© Ò­; z“ ¨Ò¼- ­z·;­ -“ --š©7z“m ·š ·w; Œ,;Œ z“­·©Ò-¼š“­u Permit Requirements ! ©z¦©z“ Œ‰; ­wš©; šÞ“;©r Œ‰; ­­š-z¼š“r š© mšÝ;©“’;“· m;“. Before the permit is issued, it is necessary to obtain the permi whose shorelines will be treated. Applicatzš“­ Eš© ¦;©’z·­ ’Ò­· ,; ­Ò,’zÆ;7 ,ä !ÒmÒ­· . An APM permit is valid for one growing season and expires on December 31 of the year that it is. 1-10 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.0 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ wz­ ­·Ò7ä K“7­ ·w· “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· plan would be benecial to Long [‰;u š z7;“¼Eä ·w; š¦¼’Ò’ ’šÒ“· šE ’“m;’;“· ·w; EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­;­­’;“· Þ­ -š’¦Œ;·. 5;­-©z¦¼š“­ “7 ­­;­­’;“·­ šE Œ·;©“¼Ý;s for ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· management: ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ›I©Ý;­¼“m “7 I;©,z-z7; ©;·’;“·œ o Supplemental !Œ·;©“¼Ý; (Alum dosing) o An assessment of management impacts to sheries, sh habitat, an. ! 7;­-©z¦¼š“ šE š·w;© -š“­z7;©¼š“­. 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNTATIVES !­ ’;“¼š“;7 ¦©;ÝzšÒ­Œä, w©Ý;­¼“m Eš© ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ w­ š--Ò©©;7 z“ ·w; ¦ast on Long [‰;u w; Eš-Ò­ šE w©Ý;­¼“m -¼Ýz¼;­ Þ­ ·š E-zŒz··; m©;·;© -¼Ýz¼es within permit limits. t©š¦š­;7 Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Þ;©; 7;Ý;Œš¦;7 ·š ,; z“ Œz“; Þz·w mšŒ­ z7;z“ {;-¼š“ Four di ·©m;·;7 Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Þ;©; ­­;­­;7 ·w· ©; Þz·wz“ ­··; ¦;©’z· : Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Contract H©Ý;­¼“m h“Œä ›20 acres). The City would hire a Contractor to harvest a targeted area in the north and central ¦š©¼š“s of the lake (Figure 5). The designated area was assumed to be harvested ·Þš ¼’;­ 7Ò©z“m ·w; m©šÞz“m ­;­š“ ›Œ·; aä to early August). Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô City Run I©Ý;­¼“m h“Œä ›20 acres). This Œ·;©“¼Ý; consists of the City purchasing harvesting equipment ·š -š“7Ò-· w©Ý;­¼“m š¦;©¼š“­ z7;“¼K;7 z“ ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô (Figure 5). w; w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· ޚҌ7 ,; ¦Œ““;7 ·š ,; ­w©;7 Eš© š¦;©¼š“­ · š·w;© Œ‰;­ z“ ·w; /z·äu I©Ý;­¼“m ޚҌ7 ,; 7š“; ·wo ¼’;­ 7Ò©z“g the growing season (late May to early August). 2-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô - Herbicide Treatment (15 acres). The City would contract to have the ·©m;·;7 ©; ·©;·;7 Þz·w w;©,z-z7;­ ·Þš ¼’;­  ä;©u !““ÒŒŒä between late May and early August (Figure 6). ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô 4 I©Ý;­¼“m “7 I;©,z-z7; ©;·’;“· ›21 acres). wz­ z­  -š’,z“¼š“ šE !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Ô . I©Ý;­¼“m ޚҌ7 ,; Eš-Ò­;7 š“ -©;¼“m “Ýzm¼š“ channels and ޚҌ7 z’¦©šÝ; ©;-©;¼š“Œ Ò­; Þz·wz“ northern two thirds of the lake. H;©,z-z7; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ would be focused on -©;¼“m “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ “7 š¦;“ ©; š“ ·w; ­šÒ·w;©“ ·wz©7 šE lake along with ¦©šÝz7z“m ­¦š· ·©;·’;“·­ Eš© z7;“¼K;7 ¨Ò¼- z“Ý­zÝ;­. !““ÒŒ w©Ý;­¼“m “7 herbicide treatments would occur between late May and early August (Figure 7). A supplemental Œ·;©“¼Ý; which could ,; 7š“; z“ -š“†Ò“-¼š“ Þz·w ·w; ·©m;·;7 Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ was assessed as part of this plan: Supplemental !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #1 Alum Dosing. This Œ·;©“¼Ý; consists of using a Contractor to conduct an alum z“†;-¼š“ š“ ·w; Œ‰; ­  Þä ·š Œz’z· ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ,zŒz·ä ·š nutrients from the lake sediments along with lowering the possibility of phosphorus release from the sediments. It is assumed that the treatment of alum would occur in the Œ·; EŒŒ i;© Ý;m;·¼š“ had died o and be focused in the northern bay of the lake. 2-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 5. Harvest !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u 2-3 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 6 u I;©,z-z7; !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u 2-4 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 7 u I©Ý;­¼“m “7 I;©,z-z7; !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u 2-5 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.2 ASSESSMENT OF TARGETED ALTERNATIVES w; EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ Þ;©; ’7; Eš© ­­;­­z“m ·w; Œ·;©“¼Ý;­. w;­; ­­Ò’¦¼š“­, developed ·w©šÒmw -š“Ý;©­¼š“s with vendors, contractors, the /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;©, are believed to be reasonable. !­­Ò’¦¼š“­: Each scenario assumes the project begins in 2013. 9-w ­-;“©zš Þ­ ;݌ҷ;7 ·š 7;·;©’z“; ;¨Òz¦’;“· ›-¦z·Œœ -š­ on a 15-ä;© š¦;©¼š“­ ¦;©zš7 ·š mzÝ;  ·š·Œ present worth cost for each scenario. ! V 7z­-šÒ“· ©·; Þ­ Ò­;7 z“ ·w; ¦©;­;“· ޚ©·w -Œ-Ҍ¼š“­u All scenarios were considered feasible. I©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ ­­Ò’ed the lake would be harvested two ¼’;­ annually. 9-w Œ·;©“¼Ý; ­­Ò’;­ ·w; City wouŒ7 š,·z“  az““;­š· 5bw !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· Permit annually. I©Ý;­¼“m Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ­­Ò’;  ’z“z’Ò’ -Òȓm 7;¦·w šE E;;· “7 7 feet. City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ Þ;©; ;݌ҷ;7 š“  -hour workweek. City-run harv;­¼“m ­-;narios assumed the purchase of a new harvester, shore conveyor and trailer in 2013. w; ·ä¦z-Œ ŒzE; ­¦“ šE w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· z­ City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ ­­Ò’; ·w; /z·ä ޚҌ7 wz©; ·;’¦š©©ä ­Ò’ w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“t. City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ ssume a harves¼“m ©·; šE u -©;­ ¦;© wšÒ©, which accounts for V 7šÞ“¼’;u City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m -š­·­ ©; ­­Ò’;7 ·š ,; ­¦Œz· ,;·Þ;;“ [zŒär [š“m  based on the total area harvested in a growing season. Herbicide treatments were assumed to be carried out twice annual I;©,z-z7; ­-;“©zš­ ­­Ò’; ·w;©; ÞzŒŒ ,; ’š“z·š©z“m “7 ©;¦š©¼“m or lake shore residents i;© ;-w ä;© šE ·©;·’;“·u 2-6 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.2.1 Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Contract Harves¼“m h“Œä › acres) I©Ý;­¼“m ޚҌ7 ,; -š“7Ò-·;7 ,ä  -š“·©-· w©Ý;­·;© ·wo ¼’;­ ¦;© ä;© Eš-Ò­;7 š“ -©;¼“m “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ­ ,;·Þ;;“ ·w; “š©·w ,ä “7 ­šÒ·w ,ä (Figure 5). The area to be harvested totals approximately 20 acres and includes an es¼’·;7 -©;­ ·š ,; w©Ý;­·;7 Eš© --;­­ ¦·w­ ·š ©;­z7;“¼Œ docks. ·š -š’¦Œ;·; ·w; w©Ý;­¼“m. Contractors would be selected early in the year and -šÒŒ7 ,; ­;Œ;-·;7 Eš© ’ÒŒ¼-ä;© -š“·©-·­ “7 ’ÒŒ¼¦Œ; Œ‰;­. Lakeshore residents could hire the contractor ·š -Ò· --;­­ ¦·w­ ·š ·w;z© 7š-‰­ zE 7;­z©;7u w; -Òȓm area associated with these access paths was not incorporated in ,Ò· ·w; 77z¼š“ šE ·w;­; ¦·w­ ޚҌ7 “š· ;ã-;;7 ·w; 5bw ¦;©’z· Œz’z· šE  V šE ·w; Œzƚ©52 acres). The goal of this Œ·;©“¼Ý; z­ ·š z’¦©šÝ; Ò­,zŒz·ä šE ·w; Œ‰; “7 “š· ·š -š“·©š. CšŒŒšÞz“m ©; ·w; ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ Ò­;7 ·š ;­¼’·;  -š­· Eš© ·wz­ ;Hš©·t /Òȓm ޚҌ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 two ¼’;­ per year between (late May and early August). Access could be gained through the public access located in the northeast corner of the lake or ·w©šÒmw -šš©7z“¼š“ Þz·w ¦©zÝ·; landowners. 2.2.2 Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô 2 /z·ä wғ I©Ý;­¼“m h“Œä › acres). This scenario consists of ·w; /z·ä ¦Ò©-w­z“m w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· to harvest the same area and at the same frequency as what is designated in Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô 5). The City would need to purchase a harvester, shore conveyor and harvester trailer to provide this service. Vendor quotes for this equipment were obtained to determine the ove©ŒŒ -š­· Eš© ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý;. The City provided input on the availability of labor. 2-7 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx Tw; EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ wÝ; ,;;“ ’7; ·š ­­;­­ ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý;t !““ÒŒ š¦;©¼š“­ “7 ’z“·;““-; -š­·­ šE approximately $11,500 per year were assumed for ·w; š¦;©¼š“ ›see AÆ-w’;“· for a detailed cost breakdown). The City would store “7 ’z“·z“ ·w; w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· ·  /z·ä E-zŒz·ä. I©Ý;­¼“m ­¦šzŒ­ ޚҌ7 ,; ­·š©;7 · /z·ä E-zŒz¼;­ “7 Ò­;7 Eš© -š’¦š­¼“m. The City would hire two temporary ­Ò’’;© ;’¦Œšä;;­ ·š -š“7Ò-· ·w; w©Ý;­¼“m š¦;©¼š“u 2.2.3 Targeted Altern¼Ý; Ô - Herbicide Treatment (15 acres) The City would contract to have 15 acres treated with herbicide (Diquat) two ¼’;­ a year, which is the ’ãz’Ò’ ¦;©’zÆ;7 ©; (Figure 6). Diquat is a contact herbicide and is an industry standard for -š“·©šŒŒz“m ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“. The treatment would be used to create “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ­ ,;·Þ;;“ ·w; “š©·w “7 ­šÒ·w ,ä­ Œš“m Þz·w -©;¼“m “ š¦;“ ©; z“ ·w; ­šÒ· The predominate species in the Œ‰; ©; “¼Ý; Þwz-w have a longer growing season in the summer requiring treatments occur between late May and early August. The use of the herbicide will not signicantly reduce seed banks š© ·w; ,zŒz·ä šE ·w; Ý;m;·¼š“ ·š m©šÞ back requiring the treatments to occur annually. As with all chemical treatments, thz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý; ޚҌ7 require a permit from the Minnesota DNR. w; EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ wÝ; ,;;“ ’7; Eš© ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý;t A Minnesota licensed herbicide applicator would be hired to provervice at a cost of approximately $350/ac. in 2013 dollars. Monitoring would be completed by either the City or volunteer residents every year to conrm ;H;-¼Ý;“;­­ šE ·©;·’;“· š¦¼š“­u 2.2.4!Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Harv;­¼“m µ I;©,z-z7; ©;·’;“· › acres) This Œ·;©“¼Ý; z­  -š’,z“¼š“ šE !Œ·;©“¼Ý;s #1 and #3 (Figure 7). The City would contract to have ,š·w w;©,z-z7; “7 w©Ý;­¼“m 7š“; š“ ·w; Œ‰;. w; w;©,z-z7; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ ޚҌ7 ,; Eš-Ò­;7 š“ -©;¼“m an open area in the south bay, “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ to the south bay from the central bay along with spot treatment of invasive ­¦;-z;­ z“ ·w; Œ‰; ›;­¼’·;7 · approximately 1 acre). H©Ý;­¼“m ޚҌ7 Eš-Ò­ š“ 2-8 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx -©;¼“m  ¦·w ,;·Þ;;“ ·he north and central bays of the lake. [‰;­wš©; ©;­z7;“·­ -šÒŒ7 ­¼Œl hire the Contractor to create (harvest or or herbicide) access paths to their docks if desired. Each treatment would be completed two ¼’;­ ¦;© ä;©. Table 1 shows a comparison of each of the scenario and areas tre Table 1. Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ /š’¦©z­š“u #1#2#3#4 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Treated Area 20 20 15 21 20 Harvested Area 200 11 Herbicide Treated Area 0 0 15 10 I©Ý;­¼“m t;©­š““;Œ 0 2 0 0 Equipment Storage Sites 0 1 0 0 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVES The EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ Þ;©; ’7; Eš© ­­;­­z“m ·wis supplemental Œ·;©“¼Ý;. A­­Ò’¦¼š“­ were, 7;Ý;Œš¦;7 ·w©šÒmw -š“Ý;©­¼š“ Þz·w Ý;“7š©­r -š“·©ctors, ·w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;©r and are believed to be reasonable. !­­Ò’¦¼š“­ Alum treatment would occur in 2013. The City ޚҌ7 š,·z“  az““;­š· 5bw !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· t;©’z·u 2.3.1 Supplemental !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #1 Alum Dosing w; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ šE ŒÒ’ z“ Long Lake would be an e sediments. .ä ·©;¼“m ·w; Œ‰; Þz·w ŒÒ’ ·w; mšŒ ޚҌ7 ,; ·š ;“-¦­ÒŒ·; · sediment such that they would not be available ·š ¨Ò¼- plants or to lamentous algae. Alum ¦¦Œz-¼š“ ޚҌ7 ,; Eš-Ò­;7 š“ ·w; “š©·w ,ä Þw;©; ·w; ¦š·;“¼Œ nt nutrient release is greatest (approximately 22 acres). !ŒÒ’ ޚҌ7 ,; ¦¦Œz;7 ·w©šÒmw  Œz¨Òz7 z“†;-¼š“ ¦©š-;­­ Þwz-w ;“­Ò©;­ “ ;Ý;“ 7z­·©z,Ò¼š“ šE ·w; ¦©š7Ò-·. w; -š“-;“·©¼š“ šE ·w; 7š­m; is dependent on the -šŒŒ;-¼š“ of further sediment chemistry data. 2-9 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx The Cz·ä ޚҌ7 wz©;  -š“·©-·š© ·š -š’¦Œ;·; ·w; ¦¦Œz-¼š“r Þwz-w ޚ the ability to contact the lake sediment with alum is greatest. w; ;­¼’·;7 -š­· Eš© ·©;·’;“· of the lake is approximately $30,000. This assumes are rate of $1,000/ac, $5,000 for -šŒŒ;-¼š“ šE sediment data ·š 7;·;©’z“; ¦¦©š¦©z·; ŒÒ’ 7š­; Œš“m Þz·w  2.4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ! ,©z;E 7;­-©z¦¼š“ šE z’¦-·­ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ›,š·w ¦ed Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Þ;©; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·š 77©;­­ ;“Ýz©š“’;“· z’¦-·­ š“ K­w quality and is presented below. 2.4.1 Environmental Impacts on Fisheries and Fish Habitat !¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ©; “ z’¦š©·“· ¦©· šE Œ‰; ;-š­ä­·;’­r “7 ·w; šE ’z“·z“z“m ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“ Eš­·;©z“m 7zÝ;©­; ¨Ò¼- ;-š­ä­·;’­ w­ ,;;“ Þ;ŒŒ 7š-Ғ;“·;7. !¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ©; “ z’¦š©·“· component of sh and wildlife habitat. w; !¨Ò¼- 9-š­ä­·;’ w;­·š©¼š“ CšÒ“7¼š“ › œ ­··;­ ·w· ¨Ò¼- “7 Œzƚ©Œ Ý;m;·¼š“ ¦©šÝz7;­ K­wr Þ·;©EšÞŒ “7 ­š’; ’’’Œ­ Þz·wt Oxygen Habitat Food sources Breeding areas Refuge for predators and prey {·,zŒzé;7 ,šÆš’ ­;7z’;“·­ “7 “Ò·©z;“·­. These resources are not only important for good sport sheries, w;© ©;-©;¼š“Œ -¼Ýz¼;­r ;­·w;¼- ;“†šä’;“· šE Þ·;© ©;­šÒ©-;­r “7 ’z“·;““-; šE w;Œ·w Long [‰; w­ ­zm“zK-“· -šÝ;©m; šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­. IšÞ;Ý;©r ’Ò-w šE ·wz­ -šÝ;©m; -š“·z“­ “¼Ý; non-invasive species. 2-10 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx a“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ·w©šÒmw ·w; š¦;©¼š“ šE w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨. twä­z-Œ 7z­·Ò©,“-; šE ,šÆš’ ­;7z’;“·­ -“ š--Ò© z“ ­wŒŒšÞ ©; -“ ­Ò­¦;“7 ­;7z’;“·­r “7 w©Ý;­¼“m z­ “š· ­;Œ;-¼Ý; for specic plant species within the targeted area. In other words benecial plants as well as nuisance plants may b. These impacts can a; hšÞ;Ý;©r ·w; “;m¼Ý; z’¦-·­ šE w©Ý;­¼“m -šÒŒ7 ,; Œ©m;Œä Œz’z·; doing the following: [z’z· w©Ý;­¼“m z“ Þ·;© 7;¦·w­ Œ;­­ ·w“ -4 feet, where sh spawning typically occurs in shallow areas. wz­ Œz’z·¼š“ ޚҌ7 Œ­š Œz’z· ·w; ¦š·;“¼Œ Eš© ©;­Ò­¦;“­zš“ šE sediments. [z’z· w©Ý;­¼“m z“ ©;­ Þz·wz“ ·w; ­wš©; ·š -Òȓm ¦·wÞä­ Eš© --;­­ E©š’ docks and boat turn-around areas. Along with harves¼“mr w;©,z-z7; ·©;·’;“· Þz·w 5z¨Ò· Þ­ z“Ý;­¼m·;7 Eš© ·wz­ ¦©š†;-·u w; Òse of low- 7š­; ¦¦Œz-¼š“­ šE 5z¨Ò· ·š -š“·©šŒ ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ z­ ;ã¦;-·;7 ·š wÝ; Ýz©·ÒŒŒä “š “;m¼Ý; impact on sheries and sh habitat. w; -š’¦šÒ“7 z­  ­;Œ;-¼Ý; -š“·-· w;©,z-z7; ·w· 7z­©Ò¦·­ ,zšŒšmz-Œ ¦©š-;­­;­ ғz¨Ò; ·š ¦Œ“·­r ­Ò-w ­ z“·;©E;©z“m Þz·w membranes. Finally, Diquat compounds do not bioaccumulate in sh or hydrosoil. Alum ¦¦Œz-¼š“ z“ ·w; Œ‰; ÞzŒŒ Œz’z· ·w; ÝzŒ,zŒz·ä šE ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ nutrients to become available ·š ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ š© Œm; z“ ·w; Þ·;© -šŒÒ’“. Alum has virtually no “;m¼Ý; z’¦-· š“ K­w;©z;­ “7 K­w w,z··. 2.4.2 Impacts on Water Quality ‘·;© ¨ÒŒz·ä z’¦-·­ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· -š“·©šŒ ’;·wš7­ ’ä ,; ,š·. For w©Ý;­¼“mr ·w; ,zmm;­· “;m¼Ý; z’¦-·­ ©; ©;Œ·;7 ·š ·w; ¦š·;“¼for suspending sediments. The impacts associated with ·w; w©Ý;­¼“m ¦©š†;-· z“ [š“m Lake should be minor because of the limited ’šÒ“· šE -Òȓm z“ ­wŒŒšÞ ©;­ ›zu;ur ©;­ Œ;­­ ·w“ -4 feet deep). tš­z¼Ý; Þ·;© ¨ÒŒz·ä z’¦-·­ šE w©Ý;­¼“m š--Ò© ,;-Ò­; “Ò·©z;“·­ z“ ·w; ¦Œ“· ¼­­Ò; ©; ©;’šÝ;7 along with the harvested plant materials. bš· ŒŒ šE ·w; ¦Œ“· ’·;©zŒ z­ ©;’šÝ;7 Þz·w w©Ý;­¼“m ­z“-; 2-11 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx plants may be cut o captured. .­;7 š“ ;­¼’·;­ Eš© ¼­­Ò; ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ -š“·;“·r ·w;©; z­ ¦;©waps 0.95-1.2 lbs. of phosphorus/ac for heavy growths. LE ŒŒ ·w; ¼­­Ò;-bound phosphorus were removed in the harvested ©; › Œz,;©Œ ­­Ò’¦¼š“r ­z“-; š“Œä ¦©· šE ·w; ¦Œ“· z­ m;“;©36 pounds of phosphorus could be ©;’šÝ;7 E©š’ ·w; ­ä­·;’ ­  ©;­ÒŒ· šE  w©Ý;­¼“m š¦;©·ion. This compares with a total load (internal and external) of over 450 pounds ;­¼’·;7 z“ ·w; [‰; Management Plan (Emmons & Oliver Resources, 2006). Thus, phosphorus removal associated with w©Ý;­¼“m “7 ©;’šÝŒ z­ Œz‰;Œä “š ’š©; ·w“ 7-9% of the totaŒ ““ÒŒ ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ Œš7 H;-¼“m ·w; lake. Though long-·;©’ ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ÞzŒŒ “š· wÝ;  ­zm“zK-“· z’¦ the lake, it will contribut; ·š ’;;¼“m Œš“m-term water quality goals for the lake. Controlling the abundance of nutrients -“ Œ­š ¦©;Ý;“· “;m¼Ý; Þ·;© ¨ÒŒz·ä z’¦-·­ ­­š-z·;7 Þz·w ·w; ŒzE; -ä-Œ; šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­u !--š©7z“m ·š W’;­r ;· Œu › ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ E©š’ ·w; ­;7z’;“·­ ·w©šÒmw ©šš· Ò¦·‰;r z“-š©¦š©¼š“ , and subsequent senescence (i.e., 7;-š’¦š­z¼š“œ. They can also indirectly recycle phosphorus from the sediments b z“-©;­z“m ¦I z“ ·w; Þ·;© -šŒÒ’“ ·w©šÒmw ¦wš·š­ä“·w;¼- -¼Ýz¼;­. Phosphorus release from sediments can be enhanced at high pH as a result of ligand exchange on iron oxide contained in the sediment. L“ 77z¼š“r ­;“;­-;“-;‰7;-š’¦š­z¼š“ šE ·w; ¦Œ“· ’·;©zŒ -“ -š šãäm;“ -š“7z¼š“­ · ·w; ­;7z’;“· Þ·;© z“·;©E-;. [šÞ šãäm;“ -š“7z¼š“­ -š“·©z,Ò·; ·š Þ;‰;“z“m šE the iron-phosphate bond leading to phosphorus release from sediments. twš­¦wš©Ò­ Œš7­ E©š’ ¦Œ“· ­;“;­-;“-; “7 ­;7z’;“· ;H;-·­ -““š study; however, it can be signicant especially if the subsequent releas from senescence can then be used by algae leading to nuisance algae blooms and d. ThÒ­r ;H;-¼Ý; -š“·©šŒ š¦¼š“­ ­wšÒŒ7 wÝ; “ šÝ;©ŒŒ ¦š­z¼Ý; ;H;-· š“ Þ·;© ¨ÒŒz·ä ›z’¦©šÝ;7 phosphorus loading) and the n¼Ý; ¦Œ“· “7 “z’Œ -š’’Ò“z·ä z“ Long Lake. 2.5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS h·w;© -š“­z7;©¼š“­ ©; 7z­-Ò­­;7 ,;ŒšÞ Þz·w ©;­¦;-· ·š disposal and stang. 2-12 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.5.1 Disposal w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© -ould allow the disposal of harvested material at the Cz·ä -š’¦š­¼“m facility. a·;©zŒ w©Ý;­·;7 z­ ši;“ ©z-w z“ “Ò·©z;“·­ “7 ޚҌ7 ’‰; mšš7 2.5.2 Stang !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Ô1, #3, and #4 assume “š 77z¼š“Œ ­·H ޚҌ7 ,; wz©;7 ,ä ·w; /z·ä. /š“·©-¼“m Þz·w vendors would be completed by the Public Works department. !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô ÞšÒŒ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·w©šÒmw ·w; Public Works Department by hiring two temporary employees for the summer. Cš© ;-w Œ·;©“¼Ý; z· z­ ­­Ò’;7 ·w· /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© staҌ7 -š’¦Œ;·; ·w; ¦;©’zȓm. Annual monitorinm šE w;©,z-z7; ·©;·’;“· ;H;-¼Ý;“;­­ ޚҌ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ,ä /z·ä residents. 2-13 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx 3.0 w;-š’’;“7¼š“­ w;-š’’;“7¼š“­ Eš© ·wz­ ¦©š†;-· Þ;©; ,­;7 š“ project acceptance, managed area, equipment costs, ““ÒŒ š¦;©¼š“­ “7  -year life cycle to create present worth values. Present worth values are evaluated based on a cost per acre per year expense as can be se. Detailed cost breakdown per Œ·;©“¼Ý; are provided in !Æachment 2. As shown on the table below, the least expensive cost per -©; ¦;© ä;© z­ !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô1 /š“·©-· I©Ý;­¼“m (20 acres). Table 2 u /š­· 9­¼’·;­ ,ä ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;. Net Present Value !Œ·;©“¼Ý; 5;­-©z¦¼š“ Acres Present Worth Annual Cost Cost/Acre/Year 1 Contract I©Ý;­¼“m 20 $165,109 $11,008 $551 2* City-wғ I©Ý;­¼“m 20 $198,798 $13,254 $663 3 Contract Herbicide 15 $168,166 $11,212 $748 /š“·©-· I©Ý;­¼“m “7 4 21 $195,684 $13,046 $622 Herbicide «!­­Ò’;­ -š­· Eš© w©Ý;­¼“m z­  ¦š©¼š“ šE ·w; /z·ä w©Ý;­¼“m [zŒär Long, and McKusick Lakes. /š­· ŒŒš-·;7 ,­;7 š“ ¦š©¼š“ of total area to be harvested. Based on the results of the cost analysis and project acceptance and alignment with the lake management plan, it is recommended that the /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© proceed Þz·w !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #4 for ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“ Long Lake. In regard to the supplemental Œ·;©“¼Ý;, it is recommended the City perform an alum treatment in the north bay of the lake. Addressing internal loads from th; ­;7z’;“·­ ÞzŒŒ ;“­Ò©; ©;-©;¼š“Œ “7 Þ·;© quality goals desired by the lake shore owners and the City are 3-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx .­;7 š“ ·wz­ ©;-š’’;“7¼š“ z· z­ ;­¼’·;7 ·w; ““ÒŒ š¦;©¼š“ ,18,000 for z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“ šE ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô u The cost to complete the ­Ò¦¦Œ;’;“·Œ Œ·;©“¼Ý; ›ŒÒ’ dosing) would be a one-¼’; -š­· šE Å r u 3-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx 4.0 Management Plan report incorporates, by reference, Long Lake Lakeshore Owners Public a;;¼“m ›!ÒmÒ­t 2012 and February 2013) and the Long Lake Management Plan, 2006. The Long Lake Lakeshore Owners tÒ,Œz- a;;¼“m Þ­ wš­·;7 ,ä ·w; /z·ä šE {¼llwater with input for from Long Lake Lakeshore owners. The Long Lake Management Plan was prepared by Emmons & Olivier Resources. with z“¦Ò· E©š’ ·w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© “7 Œ‰; ©;­z7;“·­. A copy of the plan is included as !Æ-w’;“· . Specic management plan elements as part of this r;¦š©· z“-ŒÒ7; ,š·w -š’¦š“;“·­ Eš© w©Ý;­¼“m “7 herbicide treatment: 4.1 TARGETED ALTERNATIVES HARVESTING w; ·©m;·;7 ’šÒ“· šE w©Ý;­¼“m. The annual goal of 11 acres. t©zš©z·ä -©;­ Eš© w©Ý;­¼“m. The priority areas were established through input from residents “7 -šš©7z“¼š“ Þz·w ·w; /z·ä. w; wzmw;­· ¦©zš©z·ä z7;“¼K;7 ,ä ·w; group was: To enable ©;-©;¼š“ “7 “Ýzm¼š“ ·w©šÒmwšÒ· ·w; Œ‰;r “7 - The second highest priority was: š ;“,Œ; ¦©zÝ·; --;­­ Þw;©; ¦š­­z,Œ; 7;¦;“7z“m š“ ¦wä­z-Œr ¦ - ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ Œz’z·¼š“­u HERBICIDE The targeted amount for herbicide treatment. The annual goal of 10 acre. t©zš©z·ä -©;­ Eš© w©Ý;­¼“m. The priority areas were established through input from residents “7 -šš©7z“¼š“ Þz·w ·w; /z·ä. w; wzmw;­· ¦©zš©z·ä z7;“¼K;7 ,ä ·w; m©šÒ¦ Þ­t 4-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx To 77©;­­ ¨Ò¼- z“Ý­zÝ; ­pecies in the lake. - These priority areas along with other lz’z·¼š“­ ©; ­wšÞ“ š“ CzmÒ©; 7. The goal is to improve ©;-©;¼š“Œ Ò­; “7 “Ýzm¼š“ on the lake as well as provide private access as desired by lake residents. L“ 77z¼š“ ·wz­ ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ z­ ’;“· ·š Œz’z· ·w; ­¦©;7 šE ¨Ò¼- z“Ý­zÝ; ­¦;-z;­. The plan assumes the contractor will be responsible for disposal of the h along with herbicide treatments. I©Ý;­¼“m and herbicide treatment will be completed twice annually between late May and early !ÒmÒ­· ,­;7 š“ ·w; m©šÞ·w šE Ý;m;·¼š“ z“ “ä mzÝ;“ ä;©. If invasive species are introduced to the lake s¦;-zŒ ¦©šÝz­zš“­ -“ ,; ’7; ““ÒŒŒä ·w©šÒmw ·w; ¦;©’zȓm ¦©š- management of these species. 4.2 SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVE w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© ÞzŒŒ -š’¦Œ;·; “ ŒÒ’ ¦¦Œz-¼š“ š“ ·w; “š©·w ,ä šE ·w; Œ‰; › -©. Alum ޚҌ7 ,; ¦¦Œz;7 ·w©šÒmw  Œz¨Òz7 z“†;-¼š“ ¦©š-;­­ Þwz-w ;“­Ò©;­. w; -š“-;“·©¼š“ šE the dosage is dependent on the results of further sediment chemi. The ¦¦Œz-¼š“ ޚҌ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 z“ ·w; EŒŒ ·š ;“­Ò©; ·w; m©;·;­· sediments. 4.3 PROJECT FACILITATION w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒÞ·;© will serve as the Œ;7 m;“-ä Eš© ·w; z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“ šE ·w; ¦©š†;-·r ,Ò· ÞzŒŒ ޚ©‰ closely with lakeshore residents “7 5bw ©;m©7z“m z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“. The City will work with the 5bw ·š -š“K©’ w©Ý;­¼“m and herbicide areas annually. /šš©7z“¼š“ ’š“m the groups will en­Ò©; ·w; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ “7 w©Ý;­¼“m ©; ;H;-¼Ý; z“ ’;;¼“m ·w; mšŒ. 4-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx 4.4 PROJECT BUDGET w; ;­¼’·;7 nnual budget for this plan is $18,000. The cost to complete the alum treatment would be a one-¼’; -š­· šE Å r u 4.5 SUMMARY !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #4 z­ ·w; ©;-š’’;“7;7 Œ·;©“¼Ý;. wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý; ÞzŒŒ ©;¨Òz©; ·w; City to contract with a commercial harvester and herbicide applicator . I©Ý;­¼“m “7 w;©,z-z7; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ will be completed two ¼’;­ annually between late May and early August. !ŒÒ’ ·©;·’;“· ­wšÒŒ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 z“ ·w; EŒŒ ­  ­Ò¦¦Œ;’;“·Œ nutrient release from the sediments. {;7z’;“· “Œä­z­ ­wšÒŒ7 ,; 7š“; ¦©zš© ·š ¦¦Œz-¼š“ ·š ;“­Ò©; proper alum dosage rates for the lake. 4-3 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx 5.0 References !¨Ò¼- 9-š­ä­·;’ w;­·š©¼š“ CšÒ“7¼š“. 2003. 5©i .;­· a“m;’;“· t©-¼-;­ I“7,šš‰ Eš© !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· z“ {Ò¦¦š©· šE Cz­w “7 Wildlife Habitat (ÞÞÞu¨Ò¼-­uš©m). Emmons & Oliver Resources. May, 2006. - Long Lake Management Plan. James, William F., J.W. Banks, and H.L. Eazin. 2001. Direct or Indirect Impa-·­ šE {Ò,’;©­;7 !¨Ò¼- ;m;·¼š“ š© ·w; bÒ·©z;“· .Ò7m;· šE “ hã,šÞ [‰;. ERDC TN-APCRP-EA-02. 5-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\Long Lake Report Final v4.docx AÆ-w’;“· Long Lake Management Plan AÆ-w’;“· Detailed Cost Breakdown City of Stillwater Aquatic Plant Management Analysis Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract Harvesting Detailed Cost Breakdown Long Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract Harvesting Area Treated = 20acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes 1$0.00$0.00 No capital costs Annual Costs Years 1-15$14,850.00$165,108.05Harvesting Annual Cost Total Cost =$165,108.05 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $11,007.20 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$550.36 City of Stillwater 1/30/2013 Aquatic Plant Management Analysis CJM Long Lake Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract Harvesting Detailed Cost Breakdown QuantityUnitUnit CostTotal Cost Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract Harvesting Annual TreatmentContract Harvester Treatment (1)40AC$300$12,000 Permiting1Per Year$1,000$1,000 Contract Administration1LS$500$500 Total Annual Cost$13,500 Contingency (10%) =$1,350 Total Annual Cost =$14,850 (1) Based on average of vendor quotes assumes cutting two times per year City of Stillwater Aquatic Plant Management Analysis Targeted Alternative #2 - City-Run Harvesting Detailed Cost Breakdown Long Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative #2 - City-Run Harvesting Area Treated = 20acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes Portion of New Harvester, 1$73,859.96$73,859.96Conveyor, Trailer Annual Costs Years 1-15$11,236.98$124,937.14Harvesting Annual Cost Total Cost =$198,797.10 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $13,253.14 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$662.66 City of Stillwater 1/30/2013 Aquatic Plant Management Analysis CJM Harvesting Only Targeted Alternative #2 - City-Run Harvesting Detailed Cost Breakdown Targeted Alternative #2 - City-Run Harvesting QuantityUnitUnit CostTotal Cost Capital Costs Equipment New Harvester (1)1LS$130,000$130,000 New Conveyor (1)1LS$22,000$22,000 New Trailer (1)1LS$35,000$35,000 Total Capital Cost =$187,000 Contingency (10%) =$18,700 Total Cost = $205,700 O&M OperationsFuel/Insurance (2)1Per year$5,000$5,000 Maintenance (2)1Per year$2,000$2,000 Permit (3)1Per year$2,250$2,250 Administration1Per year$4,000$4,000 LaborCrew (4)1Per year$13,200$13,200 DisposalAquatic Plant Disposal (3)1Per year$2,000$2,000 Total Annual Cost$28,450 Contingency (10%) =$2,845 Total Cost =$31,295 (1) Based on average of vendor quotes (2) Based on vendor estimates of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Lily and Long are cut twice and McKusick is cut three time annually) (3) Assumes permitting and disposal for all three lakes (4) Assumes 2 crew members at $15/hr working 360 hours combined to harvest all lakes and 80 hours total to winterize, store and perform general maintenance City of Stillwater Aquatic Plant Management Analysis Targeted Alternative #3 - Contract Herbicide Treatment Detailed Cost Breakdown Long Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative #3 - Contract Herbicide Treatment Area Treated = 15acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes 1$0.00$0.00 No capital costs Annual Costs Years 1-15$15,125.00$168,165.61Herbicide Annual Cost Total Cost =$168,165.61 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $11,211.04 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$747.40 City of Stillwater 1/30/2013 Aquatic Plant Management Analysis CJM Long Lake Targeted Alternative #3 - Contract Herbicide Treatment Detailed Cost Breakdown Targeted Alternative #3 - Contract Herbicide Treatment QuantityUnitUnit CostTotal Cost Annual TreatmentHerbicide Treatment (1)30AC$350$10,500 Permiting1Per Year$750$750 Monitoring (2)1LS$2,000$2,000 Contract Management1LS$500$500 Total Annual Cost$13,750 Contingency (10%) =$1,375 Total Annual Cost =$15,125 (1) Based on average of vendor quotes assumes treatment two times per year (2) Monitoring assumed 2 staff at $35/hr would be required to complete 56 hrs of monitoring including vegetation sampling, water quality, and sediment sampling. City of Stillwater Aquatic Plant Management Analysis Targeted Alternative #4 - Contract Harvesting & Herbicide Treatment Detailed Cost Breakdown Long Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative #4 - Contract Harvesting & Herbicide Treatment Area Treated = 21acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes 1$0.00$0.00 No capital costs Annual Costs Years 1-15 (Harvesting + Herbicide)$17,600.00$195,683.62Harvesting Annual Cost Total Cost =$195,683.62 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $13,045.57 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$621.22 Wenck File #1848-04 MARCH 2013 McKusick [‰; !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· tŒ“ Prepared for: CITY OF STILLWATER 216 Fourth Street North {¼ŒŒÞ·;©r ab   Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Management Goals ............................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Curren· /š“7z¼š“ ............................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· t;©’z· w;¨Òz©;’;“·­ ............................................. 1-8 2.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 5;­-©z¦¼š“ šE !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 !­­;­­’;“· šE ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ................................................................. 2-6 2.2.1 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô /š“·©-· I©Ý;­¼“m › 2 acres) .................. 2-7 2.2.2 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼ve #2 /z·ä wғ I©Ý;­¼“m (22 acres). ................. 2-7 2.2.3 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô - Herbicide Treatment (7.5 acres) ................ 2-8 2.2.4 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô I©Ý;­¼“m µ I;©,z-z7; ©;·’;“· › 2 acres) .......... 2-8 2.3 Assessment of Whole Lake !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ............................................................. 2-9 2.3.1 ‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Alum Dosing .......................................... 2-9 2.3.2 ‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Algaecide Treatment .......................... 2-10 2.3.3 ‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Algae Skimming .................................. 2-10 2.4 Assessment of Impacts ..................................................................................... 2-11 2.4.1 Environmental Impacts on Fisheries and Fish Habitat ...................... 2-11 2.4.2 Impacts on Water Quality ................................................................. 2-12 2.5 h·w;© /š“­z7;©¼š“­ ........................................................................................ 2-13 2.5.1 Disposal ............................................................................................. 2-13 2.5.2 Stang .............................................................................................. 2-14 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 3-1 4.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 ‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý; ....................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 t©š†;-· C-zŒz·¼š“ .............................................................................................. 4-2 4.4 Project Budget .................................................................................................... 4-2 4.5 Summary ............................................................................................................. 4-2 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 5-1 i March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx Table of Contents (Cont.) TABLES ,Œ; ................................................................................ 2-9 ,Œ; u /š­· 9­¼’·;­ ,ä {-;“©zšu ............................................................................................ 3-1 FIGURES Figure 1. McKusick Lake Watershed. ............................................................................................ 1-5 CzmÒ©; u ;m;·¼š“ 5;“­z·ä a¦ May 2012. ........................................................................... 1-6 CzmÒ©; u ;m;·¼š“ 5;“­z·ä a¦ September 2012. ................................................................. 1-7 CzmÒ©; u I©Ý;­· !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u ....................................................................................................... 2-3 CzmÒ©; u I;©,z-z7; !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u .................................................................................................... 2-4 CzmÒ©; u I©Ý;­¼“m, Herbicide and Algae Skimming !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u ............................................... 2-5 ATTACHMENTS 1McKusick Lake Management Plan 2Detailed Cost Breakdown ii March 2013 C:\Documents and Set¼“m­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 1.0 L“·©š7Ò-¼š“ w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© ›/z·äœ 7;­z©;­ “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· McKusick Lake which 77©;­­;­ ;H;-¼Ý; Œš“m-·;©’ ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­u The City has sporadically ’“m;7 ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ š“ ·w; Œ‰; ·w©šÒmw ·w; Ò­; šE w©Ý;­·;©­ z“ 77z¼š“ ·š ©leveraging herbicides and w©Ý;­¼“mu IšÞ;Ý;©r ·w; /z·ä ,elieves a plan which focuses on long-term management will ,;Æ;© address improving wa·;© ¨ÒŒz·är Ò­; šE ·w; Œ‰; Eš© “Ýzm¼š“r “7 z“-©;­z“m ·w;  McKusick Lake. These goals are addressed by this plan through: L7;“¼Eäz“m ·w; -Ò©©;“· ­z·Ò¼š“ z“ ·w; Œ‰; z“ ©;m©7 ·š ¨Ò¼- {¦;-zEäz“m ¨Ò“¼K,Œ; ’“m;’;“· mšŒs. w;-š’’;“7z“m ­¦;-zK- ’“m;’;“· -¼š“ z·;’­ ·š z’¦©šÝ; Œ‰; -š“7. 5;Ý;Œš¦z“m “ ““ÒŒ ,Ò7m;· Eš© ¦©šm©’ z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“u w; 7;Ý;Œš¦’;“· šE “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ ÞzŒŒ Œ­š ¦©š lakeshore property owners and the surrounding area of around McKusick Lake. Typical ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ z“-ŒÒ7; ,Ò· ©; “š· Œz’z·;7 ·št 1.Improved lake access for lakeshore property owners or other prop lake access. 2.Improv;7 š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ Eš© ©;-©;¼š“ š“ ·w; Œ‰; Eš© ¦©š¦;©·ä šÞ“;©­ “ “;zmw,š©wšš7­ ,ä -©;¼“m š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ Eš© ,š¼“mr ­Þz’’z“m “7 K 3.tŒ“· m©šÞ·w z“-š©¦š©·;­ “Ò·©z;“·­ E©š’ Œ‰; ,šÆš’ ­;7z’;“·­u . remove nutrients in plants and lower plant growth. 4.t©šÝz7z“m  ŒšÞ -š­· ­;©Ýz-; Eš© ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­s 7 lake. 1-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx w;©;Eš©;r ·w; ¦Ò©¦š­; šE ·wz­ ©;¦š©· z­ ·š ;㦌z“ -Ò©©;“· -š“7 recš’’;“7¼š“ Eš© ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· -¼Ýz¼;­ š“ McKusick Lake. 1.1 MANAGEMENT GOALS As part of the plan development the City hosted a public meeting with lake residents (August 2012) to discuss the lake issues and the goals that should be establishedor the lake the following are the results šE ·w; ’;;¼“m: Issues 1.w; Œ‰; ©šÒ¼“;Œä ;ã¦;©z;“-;­ “Òz­“-; Œ;Ý;Œ KŒ’;“·šÒ­ Œm; ,Œ ­Ò©E-;u w; ,ғ7“-; šE KŒ’;“·šÒ­ Œm; ši;“ Œ;7­ ·š EšÒŒ š7 the lake. 2.{Ò,’;©m;7 ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ z­ šÝ;©-abundant in the lake leading to minimal open water ©;-©;¼š“Œ ©;­r “Òz­“-; Œ;Ý;Œ­ šE 7;7 ¦Œ“· ,zš’­­r “7 Œz habitat. 3.Species diversity in McKusick Lake is dominated by coontail and water lily. 4.The lake experiences a high level of trash inow from the surrou Goals 1.L’¦©šÝ; “7 ’z“·z“ ·w; ;­·w;¼- -š“7z¼š“­ šE ·w; Œ‰; z“-ŒÒ7z“ blooms, lamentous algae mats, foul odors, trash, and “Òz­“-; ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ,ғ7“-;u a.Reduce lamentous algae mats to less than 10% coverage of lake. 2.L’¦©šÝ; “7 ’z“·z“ ·w; ©;-©;¼š“Œ Ò­;­ šE ·w; Œ‰; z“-ŒÒ7z“m -¦šÞ;©;7 ,š¼“mr K­wz“m “7 Þz“·;© ©;-©;¼š“u a.Operate mechanical plant control to create two open water areas less than 50% of the lake area for canoeing and kayaking; Access will also be provide and between the areas. 3.Improve and maintain a healthy and balanced shery that supports š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ “7 Œš-Œ ,z©7 ¦š¦ÒŒ¼š“­u a.Work with DNR to manage appropriate shery in the lake. 1-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 4.Improve and maintain the wildlife habitat of the lakes including increased plant diversity. a.Reduce nutrient loading to the lake to minimize nutrient build up in the sediments. b.Evaluate drawdown of the lake. 5.Protect the lake from invasive species including, but not limite-leaf pondweed, Eurasian water milfoil, purple loosestrife, and zebra mussels. a.t©šÝz7; ;7Ò-¼š“ “7 šÒ·©;-w š“ znvasive species threats to the lake. b.Monitor plants every 5 years or if invasives are determined to b. c.t©šÝz7; ­zm“m; · Œ‰; --;­­ ·š ¦©;Ý;“· z“·©š7Ò-¼š“ šE z“Ý­zÝ. L“ 77z¼š“ ·š ·wz­ ’;;¼“m, a lake management plan was developed by the City (Wenck Associates, Inc., 2007). This plan is included as !Æ-w’;“· . Included in the plan are strategies for the following: w;-©;¼š“Œ …­; 1.Reduce nuisance algal blooms and improve water clarity. 2.Protect public health from fecal agents. 3.w;7Ò-; ·w; ¦š·;“¼Œ Eš© ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ ·š z’¦;7; ­Þz’’z“m “7 areas. 4.t©š’š·; w;Œ·wä “7 7zÝ;©­; K­w -š’’Ò“z¼;­. 9“Ýz©š“’;“·Œ t©;­;©Ý¼š“ 1.Prevent the z“·©š7Ò-¼š“ šE ;㚼- ¦Œ“·­ “7 ;Œz’z“·; -Ò©©;“· ;㚼- ¦š¦ÒŒ¼š. 2.t©;­;©Ý; ¨Ò¼- ÞzŒ7ŒzE; w,z·· z“-ŒÒ7z“m K­w ­¦ޓz“m ©;­. 3.!-wz;Ý;  w;Œ·wä “7 7zÝ;©­; -š’’Ò“z·ä šE “¼Ý; ¦Œ“·­ “7 “z’. 4.Provide a natural land/water interface that reduc;­ ©Ò“šH “7 ;“w“-;­ ¦šŒŒÒ·“· KŒ·©¼š“ ÞwzŒ; ¦©šÝz7z“m --;­­ Eš© ©;-©;¼š“Œ Ò­; šE ·w; Œ‰;­u 1-3 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 5.Manage watershed runo. [‰; a“m;’;“· 97Ò-¼š“ 1.Assure that decision makers have an understanding of lake ecology basics so they can make informed decisions about lake management. 2.L7;“¼Eä ·©m;· Ò7z;“-;­. 3.Raise awareness of boundaries of McKusick and Lily Lake watershe. 4.wz­; Þ©;“;­­ šE “š“¦šz“· ­šÒ©-; ¦šŒŒÒ¼š“ “7 z·­ ;H;-·­ š“ Œuality. 5.t©šÝz7; m;“;©Œ “7 ·©m;·;7 z“Eš©’¼š“ z“ Ý©zšÒ­ Eš©’·s. 6. t©šÝz7; š¦¦š©·Ò“z¼;­ Eš© -¼Ý; ©;z“Eš©-;’;“· šE ,;wÝzš©Œ -w“m. w; 7;Ý;Œš¦’;“· šE “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ ÞzŒŒ w;Œ¦ 77 goals. 1.2 CURRENT CONDITION The McKusick [‰; Þ·;©­w;7 z­ ;“¼©;Œä Þz·wz“ ‘­wz“m·š“ /šÒ“·ä ,šÒ“7©z;­ “ 2,200 acres (Figure 1). The watershed is fully developed and 7š’z“·;7 ,ä ©;­z7;“¼Œ “7 commercial/industrial land use. Figures 2 4 show the mos· ©;-;“· Ý;m;·¼š“ ­Ò©Ý;äs “7 ­¦;-z;­ ¨Ò“¼K-¼š“ Eš© ·w; Œ‰; Þwz-w z­ ,©š‰;“ Ò¦ ,;·Þ;;“ dš¼“m Œ;E “7 ­Ò,’;©m;7 Ý;m;·¼š“. Curly-leaf pondweed (tš·’šm;·š“ -©z­¦Ò­œ Þ­ ·w; š“Œä z“Ý­zÝ; ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ ¦©;­;“· · ·w; ¼’; šE ·w; ­Ò©Ý;ä “7 was noted as having a occurrence in the lake. Species with currence included Yellow waterlily, Canada waterweed, and Coontail. t­· ’“m;’;“· -¼Ýz¼;­ š“ ·w; Œ‰; wÝ; z“-ŒÒ7;7 w©Ý;­¼“m ,ä provided funds for w©Ý;­¼“m ·w©šÒmw ·w;z© m;“;©Œ Eғ7; however, these -¼Ýz¼;­ were not formalized into a long-term ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“. 1-4 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 1. McKusick Lake Watershed. 1-5 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 2. Vem;·¼š“ 5;“­z·ä a¦ May 2012. 1-6 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 3. ;m;·¼š“ 5;“­z·ä a¦ September 2012. 1-7 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 4. McKusick [‰; Iz­·š©z- ;m;·¼š“ {Ò©Ý;ä­. 1.3 AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS L“·©š7Ò-¼š“ w; ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“ az““;­š· z­ ©;mҌ·;7 ,ä az““;­š· {··Ò·;r {;-¼š“ /w¦·;©   “7 z­ ;“Eš©-;7 ,ä ·w; az““;­š· 5;¦©·’;“· šE b·Ò ’“m;’;“· -¼Ýz¼;­ ’ä š© ’ä “š· ©;¨Òz©; “ !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“mt, based on ·w; “·Ò©; šE ·w; -¼Ýz·ä. !ta ¦;©’z·­ ’ä ,; z­­Ò;7 ·š ¦©šÝz7; ©z¦©z“ --;­­r ;“w“-; ©; ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­r ’“m; Þ·;© Œ;Ý;Œ­r “7 ¦©š·;-· š© z’¦©šÝ; w,z· considered to determine if a permit should be granted. A permit will not be issued to improve the appearance of undeveloped shoreline or Eš© ;­·w;¼- ©;­š“­ Œš“;u ! ¦;©’z· Œ­š cannot be issued in 1-8 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx ©;­ mzÝ;“ ­¦;-zŒ 7;­zm“¼š“­r ­Ò-w ­ {-z;“¼K- “7 b·Ò©Œ !© in areas posted as protected sh spawning areas. !-¼Ýz¼;­ “š· w;¨Òz©z“m  t;©’z· /w¦·;©   u  ŒŒšÞ­ -;©·z“ -¼Ýz¼;­ Þz·wšÒ· “ !ta ¦;©’z·u ­Ò,’;©­;7 ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z­ ŒŒšÞ;7 ,ä z“7zÝz7ÒŒ ¦©š¦;©·ä šÞ“;©­in an area not to extend along more than 50 feet or one- 2,500 sq. iu plus the area needed to extend a channel no wider than 15 feet t. These rules also alloÞ Eš© ·w; ’;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE dš¼“m-Œ;E ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ·š š,·z“  -w““;Œ extending to open water with the provisions that the channel is ·w; ’š­· 7z©;-· ©šÒ·; ·š š¦;“ Þ·;©r ·w; -w““;Œ z­ ’z“·z“;7 , or pulling, and the channel ©;’z“­ z“ ·w; ­’; Œš-¼š“ E©š’ ä;© ·š ä;©. The skimming of duckweed or lamentous algae o without a permit. !-¼Ýz¼;­ w;¨Òz©z“m  t;©’z· An APM permit is required for ŒŒ š·w;© -¼Ýz¼;­ ,;ŒšÞ ·w; h©7z“©ä Izmw ‘·;© ›hI‘œ Œ;Ý;Œ “š· ’;“¼š“;7 ,šÝ;r z“-ŒÒ7z“m ŒŒ w;©,z-z7; -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“­·ŒŒz“m š© š¦;©¼“m “ Ò·š’·;7 ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· -š“·©šŒ 7;Ýz-; Typ;­ šE !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· /š“·©šŒ Mechanical Control a;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ ·ä¦z-ŒŒä z“ÝšŒÝ;­ ·w; -Ò ©;’šÝz“m š© Œ·;©z“m ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ,ä ¦wä­z-Œ ’;“­. {š’; šE ·w; -š“7z¼š“­ šE ¦;©’zÆ;7 ’;-hanical -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“-ŒÒ7;t ·w; Ý;m;·¼š“ ’Ò­· ,; z’’;7z·;Œä “7 ¦;©’“;“·Œä ©;’šÝ;7 E©š’ · the mechanical control may not exceed 50% šE ·w; ·š·Œ Œzƚ©Œ ©; šE ·w; Œ‰; ›  -©;­ š“ McKusick Lake); control methods must not change the course of the water; and 1-9 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx ·w; ’;-w“z-Œ -š“·©šŒ ’Ò­· ,; -š“7Ò-·;7 z“ ·w; ­’; Œš-¼š“ ä;. Herbicide Control ! ¦;©’z· z­ ©;¨Òz©;7 Eš© ŒŒ -w;’z-Œ -š“·©šŒ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­u limited to an area that does not exceed 15% šE ·w; Œzƚ©Œ ©; šE  Œ‰; ›u -©;­ š“ a-YÒ­z-‰ [‰;œu h“Œä ­¦;-zK- ¦;­¼-z7;­ ·w· ©; Œ,;Œ;7 Eš© Ò­; z“ ¨Ò¼- ­z·;­ --š©7z“m ·š ·w; Œ,;Œ z“­·©Ò-¼š“­u Permit Requirements A ©z¦©z“ Œ‰;­wš©; šÞ“;©r Œ‰; ­­š-z¼š“r š© mšÝ;©“’;“· m;“-ä . Before the permit is issued, it is necessary to obtain the permi whose shorelines will be treated. !¦¦Œz-¼š“­ Eš© ¦;©’z·­ ’Ò­· ,; ­Ò,’zÆ;7 ,ä !ÒmÒ­· . An APM permit is valid for one growing season and expires on December 31 of the year that it is. 1-10 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.0 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ wz­ ­·Ò7ä K“7­ ·w· “ ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ ޚҌ7 ,; ,; z7;“¼Eä ·w; š¦¼’Ò’ ’šÒ“· šE ’“m;’;“·r ·w; EšŒŒšÞz“m assessment was completed. 5;­-©z¦¼š“­ “7 ­­;­­’;“·­ šE Œ·;©“¼Ý;s for ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· management: Targeted AlternatiÝ;­ ›w©Ý;­¼“m “7 werbicide treatment) o ‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ›!ŒÒ’ 7š­z“m, algaecide treatment and algae skimming) o An assessment of management impacts to sheries, sh habitat, and water quality. ! 7;­-©z¦¼š“ šE š·w;© -š“­z7;©¼š“­. 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES !­ ’;“¼š“;7 ¦©;ÝzšÒ­Œä, w©Ý;­¼“m Eš© ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ w­ š--Ò©©;7 z“ ·w; ¦ McKusick Lake. The focus šE w©Ý;­¼“m -¼Ýz¼;­ Þ­ ·š E-zŒz··; m©;·;© ©;-©;¼š“Œ Ò­; and contain -¼Ýz¼;­ within permit limits. t©š¦š­;7 Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Þ;©; 7;Ý;Œš¦;7 ·š ,; z“ Œz“; Þz·w mšŒ­ z7;z“ {;-¼š“ Four di ·©m;·;7 Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Þ;©; assessed that are within state permit guidelines as part of this: Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Contract H©Ý;­¼“m h“Œä ›20 acres). The City would hire a Contractor to -©;·; ·Þš š¦;“ ©;­ z“ ·w; Œ‰; Œš“m Þz·w  “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ (Figure 5). The designated area was assumed to be harvested ·w©;; ¼’;­ 7Ò©z“g the growing season (late May to early August). Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô City Run I©Ý;­¼ng Only (20 acres). This Œ·;©“¼Ý; consists of the /z·ä ¦Ò©-w­z“m w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· ·š -š“7Ò-· w©Ý;­¼“m š¦;©¼š“­ z7;“¼K;7 z“ ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô (Figure 5). w; w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· ޚҌ7 ,; ¦Œ““;7 ·š ,; ­w©;7 Eš© š¦;©¼š“­ · š·w;© Œ‰;­ z“ ·w; /z·äu I©Ý;­¼“m ޚҌ7 ,; 7š“; ·w©;; ¼’;­ 7Ò©z“m ·w; m©š season (late May and early August). 2-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô - Herbicide Treatment (7.5 acres). The City would contract to have the targeted area treated with herbicides two ¼’;­ a year. Annually the treatments would occur between late May and early August (Figure 6). ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô 4 I©Ý;­¼“m “7 I;©,z-z7; ©;·’;“· › . wz­ z­  -š’,z“¼š“ of Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Ô “7 Ô u I©Ý;­¼“m ޚҌ7 ,; Eš-Ò­;7 š“ ·w; ;­·;©“ “7 w;©,z-z7; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ ޚҌ7 ,; focused on the western half of the lake. Annual w©Ý;­¼“m and herbicide treatments would occur between May and early August (Figure 7). Three whole lake Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Þ;©; ­­;­­;7 ­ ¦©· šE ·wz­ ¦Œ“ Þwz-w -“ ,; 7š“; z“ -š“†Ò“-¼ ·w; ·©m;·;7 ’“m;’;“· Œ·;©“¼Ý;­t ‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #1 Alum Dosing. This Œ·;©“¼Ý; consists of using a contractor to conduct an alum inje-¼š“ šÝ;© ·w; ÞwšŒ; Œ‰;u !ŒÒ’ z“†;-¼š“ ÞzŒŒ lower the possibility of phosphorus release from the sediments increasing the internal nutrient load. It is assumed that the treatment of Alum would occur in late EŒŒ i;© Ý;m;·¼š“ w7 died oyear. ‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #2 Algaecide !¦¦Œz-¼š“. This Œ·;©“¼Ý; consists of the City hiring a -š“·©-·š© ·š ¦¦Œä Œm;-z7; ·š ·w; Œ‰; ·š Œz’z· Œm; ,Œšš’­ of this ¦¦Œz-¼š“ ޚҌ7 ,; ;©Œä z“ ·w; ä;© ·š Œz’z· ·w; ¦š·;“¼Œ šE Œm; ,Œšš’­ later in the season. ‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô 3 Algae Skimming. This Œ·;©“¼Ý; consists of the City leveraging a w©Ý;­¼“m contractor to skim algae from areas not designated Eš© w©Ý;­¼“m. Skimming of algae ޚҌ7 ,; ¼’;7 ·š -šincide with two of the w©Ý;­¼“m ;Hš©·­ š“ ·w; Œ‰; for cost-eciency purposes. 2-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 5 u I©Ý;­· !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u 2-3 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 6. Herbicide !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u 2-4 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx Figure 7 u I©Ý;­¼“m, Herbicide and Algae Skimming !Œ·;©“¼Ý;u 2-5 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.2 ASSESSMENT OF TARGETED ALTERNATIVES w; EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ Þ;©; ’7; Eš© ­­;­­z“m ·w; Œ·;©“¼Ý;­. w;­; ­­Ò’¦¼š“­, developed ·w©šÒmw -š“Ý;©­¼š“s with vendors, contractors, and ·w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;©, are believed to be reasonable. !­­Ò’¦¼š“­: Each scenario assumes the project begins in 2013. 9-w ­-;“©zš Þ­ ;݌ҷ;7 ·š 7;·;©’z“; ;¨Òz¦’;“· ›-¦z·Œœ -š­ on a 15-ä;© š¦;©¼š“­ ¦;©zš7 ·š mzÝ;  ·š·Œ ¦©;­;“· ޚ©·w -š­· Eš© ;-. A 4% discount rate was used in the present worth -Œ-Ҍ¼š“­u All scenarios were considered feasible. I©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ ­­Ò’;7 ·w; Œ‰; ޚҌ7 ,; w©Ý;­·;7 ·w©;; ¼’;­ annually. 9-w Œ·;©“¼Ý; ­­Ò’;­ ·w; City ޚҌ7 š,·z“  az““;­š· 5bw !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· Permit annually. I©Ý;­¼“m Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ­­Ò’;  ’z“z’Ò’ -Òȓm 7;¦·w šE E;;· “7  ’ãz’Ò’ 7 feet. City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ Þ;©; ;݌ҷ;7 š“  -hour workweek. City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ ­­Ò’;7 ·w; ¦Ò©-w­; šE  new harvester, shore conveyor and trailer in 2013. w; ·ä¦z-Œ ŒzE; ­¦“ šE w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· z­ City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ ­­Ò’; ·w; /z·ä ޚҌ7 wz©; ·;’¦š©©ä ­Ò’ w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“·. City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m ­-;“©zš­ ssume a w©Ý;­¼“m ©·; šE 0.5 acres per hour, which accounts for V 7šÞ“¼’;u City-©Ò“ w©Ý;­¼“m -š­·­ ©; ­­Ò’;7 ·š ,; ­¦Œz· ,;·Þ;;“ [zŒär [š“m lakes based on the total area harvested in a growing season. Herbicide treatments were assumed to be carried out two ¼’;­ annually. Herbz-z7; ­-;“©zš­ ­­Ò’; ·w;©; ÞzŒŒ ,; ’š“z·š©z“m “7 ©;¦š©¼“m -š’or lakeshore residents i;© ;-w ä;© šE ·©;·’;“·u 2-6 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.2.1 Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô Contract H©Ý;­¼“m h“Œä › 2 acres) I©Ý;­¼“m ޚҌ7 ,; -š“7Ò-·;7 ,ä a contract harvester three ¼’;­ ¦;© ä;© Eš-Ò­;7 š“ -©;¼“m š¦;“ ©;­ š“ ·w; ;­· “7 Þ;­· ;“7 šE ·w; Œ‰;r  “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ “Ýzm¼š“ -w““;Œ E©š’ ·w; -“š; Œ“7z“m z“ ·w; ­šÒ·w;­· -š©“;© (Figure 5). The area to be harvested totals approximately 22 acres and z“-ŒÒ7;­ -©;­ Eš© -Òȓm --;­­ ¦·w­ ·š ©;­z7;“¼Œ docks. A contractor would be selected to by the City ·š -š’¦Œ;·; ·w; w©Ý;­¼“m. Contractors would be selected early in the year and -šÒŒ7 ,; ­;Œ;-·;7 Eš© ’ÒŒ¼-year contracts “7 ’ÒŒ¼¦Œ; Œ‰;­. Lakeshore residents could hire the Contractor ·š -Ò· --;­­ ¦·w­ ·š ·w;z© 7š-‰­ zE 7;­z©;7u w; -Òȓm area associated with these access paths was “š· z“-š©¦š©·;7 z“ ·wz­ ¦Œ“r ,Ò· ·w; 77z¼š“ šE ·w;­; ¦·w­ ޚҌ7 “š· ;ã-;;7 ·w; 5bw ¦;©’z· Œz’z· šE  V šE ·w; Œzƚ© Œ·;©“¼Ý; z­ ·š z’¦©šÝ; Ò­,zŒz·ä šE ·w; Œ‰; “7 “š· ·š -š“·©š. Followi“m ©; ·w; ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ Ò­;7 ·š ;­¼’·;  -š­· Eš© ·wz­ ;Hš©·t /Òȓm ޚҌ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·w©;; ¼’;­ per year between (late May and early August). Access could be gained through the canoe access located in the southeast corner of the lake. 2.2.2 Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô /z·ä wғ I©Ý;­¼“m h“Œä (22 acres). This scenario consists of ·w; /z·ä ¦Ò©-w­z“m w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· to harvest the same area and at the same frequency as what is designated in Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô ). The City would need to purchase a harvester, shore conveyor and harvester trailer to provide this service. Vendor quotes for equipment were obtained to determine the overall equipment -š­·­ Eš© ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý;u w; /z·ä provided input on the on availability of labor. 2-7 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx The foŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ wÝ; ,;;“ ’7; ·š ­­;­­ ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý;t !““ÒŒ š¦;©¼š“­ “7 ’z“·;““-; -š­·­ šE approximately $19,000 per year were assumed for ·w; š¦;©¼š“ ›­;; !Æ-w’;“· Eš©  7;·zŒ;7 cost breakdown). The City would store and maintain the w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· ·  /z·ä E-zŒz·äu I©Ý;­¼“m ­¦šzŒ­ ޚҌ7 ,; ­·š©;7 · /z·ä E-zŒz¼;­ “7 Ò­;7 Eš© -š’¦š­¼“m. The City would hire two temporary ­Ò’’;© ;’¦Œšä;;­ ·š -š“7Ò-· ·w; w©Ý;­¼“m š¦;©¼š“u 2.2.3 Targeted Altern¼Ý; Ô - Herbicide Treatment (7.5 acres) I;©,z-z7; ޚҌ7 ,; Ò­;7 ·š -©;·; š¦;“ ©; Eš© ©;-©;¼š“Œ ‰äThe City would contract to have 7.5 acres treated with herbicide (Diquat) twice a year (Figure 6). Diquat is a contact herbicide and is an industry standard for -š“·©šŒŒz“m ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“u w; ·©m;·;7 area in Figure 7 in 77z¼š“ ·š ­¦š·-·©;¼“m Eš© z“Ý­zÝ;­ ›-Ò©Œä-leaf pondweed) composes the total 7.5 acres to be treated. w; ¦©;7š’z““· ­¦;-z;­ z“ ·w; Œ‰; ©; “¼Ý;r Þwz-w wÝ;  Œš“m the summer requiring the lake to receive two treatments between late May and early August. w; Ò­; šE ·w; w;©,z-z7; ÞzŒŒ “š· ­zm“zK-“·Œä ©;7Ò-; ­;;7 ,“‰­ back requiring the treatments to occur annually. As witw ŒŒ -w;’z-Œ ·©;·’;“·­r ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý; ޚҌ7 require a permit from the DNR. w; EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ wÝ; ,;;“ ’7; Eš© ·wz­ Œ·;©“¼Ý;t A Minnesota licensed herbicide applicator would be hired to provide the trea cost of approximately $350/ac. in 2013 dollars. Monitoring would be completed by the City or by volunteer residents every year to conrm ;H;-¼Ý;“;­­ šE ·©;·’;“· š¦¼š“­u 2.2.4 Altern¼Ý; Ô I©Ý;­¼“m µ I;©,z-z7; ©;·’;“· › 1 acres) This Œ·;©“¼Ý; z­  -š’,z“¼š“ šE !Œ·;©“¼Ý;s #1 and #3 (Figure 7). The City would contract to have ,š·w w;©,z-z7; “7 w©Ý;­¼“m 7š“; š“ ·w; Œ‰;. w; w;©,z-z7; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ ޚҌ7 ,e focused on the “š©·wÞ;­· ¦š©¼š“ šE ·w; Œ‰; ·š -©;·; “7 š¦;“ ©;u w; ­wŒŒš ·©m;·;7 Eš© w;©,z-z7; ·©;·’;“· ­ z· ’ä ޚ©‰ ,;Æ;© ·w“ w©Ý;“¼Œ ·š disturb sedimentsu I©Ý;­¼“m ޚҌ7 ,; Eš-Ò­;7 š“ ·w; 7;;¦;© ¦š©¼š“ šE ·w; Œ‰; Þw;©; z· ÞzŒŒ ,; Œ;­­ 2-8 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx likely to disturb the sediments. Lakeshore residents could ­¼ŒŒ hire the Contractor to cut access paths to their docks if desired. I©Ý;­¼“m ޚҌ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·w©;; ¼’;­ ¦;© ä;© “7 w;©,z-z7; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ would be completed twice per year. Table 1 shows a comparison of each of the scenario and areas tre Table 1. Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ /š’¦©z­š“u #1#2#3#4 !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Treated Area 22 22 7.5 22 22 Harvested Area 220 14.5 Herbicide Treated Area 0 0 7.5 7.5 I©Ý;­¼“m t;©­š““;Œ 0 2 0 0 Equipment Storage Sites 0 1 0 0 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF WHOLE LAKE ALTERNATIVES w; EšŒŒšÞz“m ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ Þ;©; ’7; Eš© ­­;­­z“m these ÞwšŒ; Œ‰; Œ·;©“¼Ý;­. These ­­Ò’¦¼š“­ were 7;Ý;Œš¦;7 ·w©šÒmw -š“Ý;©­¼š“ Þz·w Ý;“7š©­r -š“·©-·š©­, ·w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;©, and are believed to be reasonable. !­­Ò’¦¼š“­ Each scenario assumes the Œ·;©“¼Ý; would be implemented in 2013. It is assumed the algaecide treatment would be completed annually. 9-w Œ·;©“¼Ý; ­­Ò’;­ ·w; City would obtain necessary Minnesota DNR A¨Ò¼- tŒ“· Management Permits. 2.3.1‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #1 Alum Dosing w; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ šE ŒÒ’ z“ [‰; a-YÒ­z-‰ ޚҌ7 ,; “ ;Hš©· ·š 77release of phosphorus from the sediments. .ä ·©;¼“m ·w; Œ‰; Þz·w ŒÒ’ ·w; mšŒ ޚҌ7 ,; ·š ;“-¦­ÒŒ·; · sediment such that they would not be available ·š ¨Ò¼- plants or to lamentous algae. Alum would be applied through a liquid z“†;-¼š“ ¦©š-;­­ Þwz-w ;“­Ò©;­ “ ;Ý;“ 7z­·©z,Ò¼š“ šE ·w; ¦©š7Ò-. The 2-9 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx -š“-;“·©¼š“ šE ·w; 7š­m; will be determined based on the results of further sediment chemistry “Œä­z­r Þwz-w ­¼ŒŒ “;;7­ ·š ,; -šŒŒ;-·;7u The City would hire a contractor to complet; ·w; ¦¦Œz-¼š“r Þwz-w ޚҌ7 take place in the fall when the success rate would be the greatest to ensure alum contact with the sediment. w; ;­¼’·;7 -š­· for treatment of the lake is approximately $63,000. This assumes a rate of $1,000/ac Eš© ¦¦Œz-¼š“r $5,000 for sediment analysis to determine appropriate alum dose Þz·w  2.3.2‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #2 Algaecide Treatment As was noted in the August 2012 ci¼é;“ z“¦Ò· ’;;¼“m, excessive algae blooms were an issue on McKusick Lake. w; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ šE algaecide is proposed to address this issue. Algaecide (copper sulfate) would be applied throughout the lake to prevent excessive blooms. Algaecides are able to quickly interfere with algae photosynthesis a“7 Œz’z· ·w; ¦š·;“¼Œ Eš© ;ã-;­­zÝ; Œm; ,Œšš’­. Algaecides would be applied annually early in the year to prevent algae growth later in the year. L’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“ šE Œm;-z7; ޚҌ7 ,; ¦¦©šãz’·;Œä $12,000. This assumes a rate of $200/ac with a ngency. 2.3.3‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #3 Algae Skimming Algae blooms on McKusick Lake are a considerable nuisance in mid algae blooms by leveraging ¦š·;“¼Œ w©Ý;­¼“m š¦;©¼š“­ š“ ·w; Œ‰; ޚҌ7 ,; E;­z,Œ; z“ ©;­ “š· designated to be harvested according to the Minnesota DNR ¦;©’zȓm ©;¨Òz©;’;“·­. The algae could then be hauled oappropriate o-­z·; Œš-¼š“u w; ­‰z’’z“m šE Œm; ,ä w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· z­ “š· -š“­z7;©;7 ¦©· šE ·w; ¦;©’z·ted area on a lake as long as the harvester is simply skimming the the algae osurface. S‰z’’z“m ޚҌ7 ,; ¼’;7 ·š -šz“-z7; Þz·w two w©Ý;­¼“m events on the lake. L· z­ ;­¼’·;7 ·wz­ ޚҌ7 ,; “ 77z¼š“Œ Å17,500/yr. assuming an 77z¼š“Œ  -©;­ are skimmed at $300/acre Þz·w  . 2-10 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ! ,©z;E 7;­-©z¦¼š“ šE z’¦-·­ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· ’“m;’;“· ›,š·w ¦ Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Þ;©; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·š 77©;­­ ;“Ýz©š“’;“· impacts on sheries, sh habitat, and water quality and is presented below. 2.4.1 Environmental Impacts on Fisheries and Fish Habitat !¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ©; “ z’¦š©·“· ¦©· šE Œ‰; ;-š­ä­·;’­r “7 ·w; fostering diverse a¨Ò¼- ;-š­ä­·;’­ w­ ,;;“ Þ;ŒŒ 7š-Ғ;“·;7. !¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ©; “ z’¦š©·“· component of sh and wildlife habitat. w; !¨Ò¼- 9-š­ä­·;’ w;­·š©¼š“ CšÒ“7¼š“ (2003) states ·w· ¨Ò¼- “7 Œzƚ©Œ Ý;m;·¼š“ ¦©šÝz7;­ K­wr Þ·;©EšÞŒ “7 ­šth: Oxygen Habitat Food sources Breeding areas Refuge for predators and prey {·,zŒzé;7 ,šÆš’ ­;7z’;“·­ “7 “Ò·©z;“·­. w;­; ©;­šÒ©-;­ ©; “š· š“Œä z’¦š©·“· Eš© mšš7 ­¦š©· K­w;©z;­r ;­·w;¼- ;“†šä’;“· šE Þ·;© ©;­šÒ©-;­r “7 ’z“·;““-; šE w;Œ·wä ¨Ò¼- “7 Œzƚ©Œ ; McKusick [‰; w­ ­zm“zK-“· -šÝ;©m; šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­; however, much of this coverage contains “¼Ý; “š“-invasive species. a“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ·w©šÒmw ·w; š¦;©¼š“ šE w©Ý;­¼“m ;¨Òz¦’;“· ’ä z’¦-· Œ‰; Eғ. twä­z-Œ 7z­·Ò©,“-; šE ,šÆš’ ­;7z’;“·­ -“ š--Ò© z“ ­wŒŒšÞ ©; -“ ­Ò­¦;“7 ­;7z’;“·­r “7 w©Ý;­¼“m z­ “š· ­;Œ;-¼Ý; Eš© ­¦;-zK- area. In other words benecial plants as well as nuisance plants may b a; hšÞ;Ý;©r ·w; “;m¼Ý; z’¦-·­ šE w©Ý;­¼“m -šÒŒ7 ,; Œ©m;Œä Œz’z·; doing the following: [z’z· w©Ý;­¼“m z“ Þ·;© 7;¦·w­ Œess than 3-4 feet, where sh spawning typically occurs in shallow areas. wz­ Œz’z·¼š“ ޚҌ7 Œ­š Œz’z· ·w; ¦š·;“¼Œ Eš© ©;­Ò­¦;“­zš“ šE sediments. 2-11 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx [z’z· w©Ý;­¼“m z“ ©;­ Þz·wz“  E;;· šE ·w; ­wš©; ·š -Òȓm ¦ docks and boat turn-around areas. !Œš“m Þz·w w©Ý;­¼“mr w;©,z-z7; ·©;·’;“· Þz·w Diquat Þ­ z“Ý;­¼m·;7 Eš© ·wz­ ¦©š†;-·u w; Ò­; šE ŒšÞ- 7š­; ¦¦Œz-¼š“­ šE Diquat ·š -š“·©šŒ ¨Ò¼- Ý;m;·¼š“ z­ ;ã¦;-·;7 ·š wÝ; Ýz©·ÒŒŒä “š “;m impact on sheries and sh habitat. w; -š’¦šÒ“7 z­  ­;Œ;-¼Ý; -š“·-· w;©,z-z7; ·w· 7z­©Ò¦·­ ,zšŒšmz-Œ ¦©š-;­­;­ ғz¨Ò; ·š ¦Œ“·­r ­Ò-w ­ z“·;©E;©z“m Þz·w 7z­©Ò¦¼“m ¦Œ“· -;ŒŒ membranes. Finally, Diquat compounds do not bioaccumulate in sh or hydrosoil. Alum ¦¦Œz-¼š“ z“ ·w; Œ‰; ÞzŒŒ Œz’z· ·w; ÝzŒ,zŒz·ä šE ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ nutrients to become available ·š ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ š© Œm; z“ ·w; Þ·;© -šŒÒ’“. Alum has virtually no “;m¼Ý; z’¦-· š“ K­w;©z;­ “7 Eish habitat. Algaecide (copper sulfate) applic¼š“ z­  ·©m;·;7 · ©;’šÝz“m Œm; E©š’ ·w; Þ·;© -šŒÒ’“. The algaecide interrupts the ¦wš·š­ä“·w;¼- process of the algae. It also has limited e on the sheries and habitat. The main impact it has z­ Œz’z¼“m  Ešš7 ­šÒ©-; Eš© 隚¦Œ“‰·š“ Þwz-w ©; ¦©;ä;7 Ò¦š“ , sh. The fact these water bodies are abundant with nutrients indicates it should not be a signicant impact on the availability of food for zooplankton. 2.4.2 Impacts on Water Quality Water qÒŒz·ä z’¦-·­ šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“· -š“·©šŒ ’;·wš7­ ’ä ,; ,š·w ¦š­z¼ w©Ý;­¼“mr ·w; ,zmm;­· “;m¼Ý; z’¦-·­ ©; ©;Œ·;7 ·š ·w; ¦š·;“¼ z’¦-·­ ­­š-z·;7 Þz·w ·w; w©Ý;­¼“m ¦©š†;-· z“ McKusick Lake should be minor because of the limited ’šÒ“· šE -Òȓm z“ ­wŒŒšÞ ©;­ ›zu;ur ©;­ Œ;­­ ·w“ -4 feet deep). tš­z¼Ý; Þ·;© ¨ÒŒz·ä z’¦-·­ šE w©Ý;­¼“m š--Ò© ,;-Ò­; “Ò·©z;“ along with the harvested plant materials. Not ŒŒ šE ·w; ¦Œ“· ’·;©zŒ z­ ©;’šÝ;7 Þz·w w©Ý;­¼“m ­z“-; plants may be cut o captured. .­;7 š“ ;­¼’·;­ Eš© ¼­­Ò; ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ -š“·;“·r ·w;©; z­ ¦;©w¦­-1.2 lbs. of pho­¦wš©Ò­‰- Eš© w;Ýä m©šÞ·w­u LE ŒŒ ·w; ¼­­Ò;-bound phosphorus were removed in the harvested ©; › Œz,;©Œ ­­Ò’¦¼š“r ­z“-; š“Œä ¦©· šE ·w; ¦Œ“· z­ m;“;© 2-12 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 60 pounds of phosphorus could be removed from the system as a ©;­ÒŒ· šE  w©Ý;­¼“m š¦;©¼š“. This compares with a total load (internal and external) of over 1,100 pounds e­¼’·;7 z“ ·w; [ke Management Plan (Wenck, 2007). wÒ­r ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ ©;’šÝŒ ­­š-z·;7 Þz·w w©Ý;­¼“m “7 ©;’šÝŒ z likely no more than 5-6% šE ·w; ·š·Œ ““ÒŒ ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ Œš7 H;-¼“m ·w; Œ‰;u wšÒmw long-term ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ ÞzŒŒ “š· wÝ;  ­zm“zK-“· z’¦-· š“, it will contribute ·š ’;;¼“m Œš“m-term water quality goals for the lake. Controlling the abundance of nutrients -“ Œ­š ¦©;Ý;“· “;m¼Ý; Þ·;© ¨ÒŒz·ä z’¦-·­ ­­š-z·;7 Þz·w ·w; ŒzE; -ä-Œ; šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­u !--š©7z“m ·š W’;­r ;· Œu › ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ E©š’ ·w; ­;7z’;“·­ ·w©šÒmw ©šš· Ò¦·‰;r z“-š©¦š©¼š“ ¦Œ“· ¼­­Ò;r “7 ­Ò,­;¨Ò;“· senescence (i.e., 7;-š’¦š­z¼š“œu w;ä -“ Œ­š z“7z©;-·Œä ©;-ä-Œ; ¦wš­¦wš©Ò­ E©š’ z“-©;­z“m ¦I z“ ·w; Þ·;© -šŒÒ’“ ·w©šÒmw ¦wš·š­ä“·w;¼- -¼Ýz¼;­ sediments can be enhanced at high pH as a result of ligand exchange on iron oxide contained in the ­;7z’;“·u L“ 77z¼š“r ­;“;­-;“-;‰7;-š’¦š­z¼š“ šE ·w; ¦Œ“· ’·;© šãäm;“ -š“7z¼š“­ · ·w; ­;7z’;“· Þ·;© z“·;©E-;u [šÞ šãäm;“ -š“akening of the iron-phosphate bond leading to phosphorus release from sediments. twš­¦wš©Ò­ Œš7­ E©š’ ¦Œ“· ­;“;­-;“-; “7 ­;7z’;“· ;H;-·­ -““š study; however, it can be signicant especially if the subsequent releasof phosphorus from senescence can then be used by algae leading to nuisance algae blooms and dÒ­r ;H;-¼Ý; -š“·©šŒ š¦¼š“­ ­wšÒŒ7 wÝ; “ šÝ;©ŒŒ ¦š­z¼Ý; ;H;-· š“ Þ·;© ¨ÒŒz·ä ›z’¦©šÝ;7 phosphorus loadi“mœ “7 ·w; “¼Ý; ¦Œ“· “7 “z’Œ -š’’Ò“z·ä z“ McKusick Lake. 2.5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS h·w;© -š“­z7;©¼š“­ ©; 7z­-Ò­­;7 ,;ŒšÞ Þz·w ©;­¦;-· ·š disposal and stang. 2.5.1 Disposal The City šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© could allow the disposal of harvested material at the City -š’¦š­¼“m E-zŒz·ä. a·;©zŒ w©Ý;­·;7 z­ ši;“ ©z-w z“ “Ò·©z;“·­ “7 ޚҌ7 ’‰; Eš© 2-13 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 2.5.2 Stang !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ Ô “7 Ô ­­Ò’; “š 77z¼š“Œ ­·H ޚҌ7 ,; wz©;7 ,ä would be completed by the Public Works department. !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô ÞšÒŒ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·w©šÒmw ·w; Public Works Department by hiring two temporary employees for the summer. Cš© ;-w Œ·;©“¼Ý; z· z­ ­­Ò’;7 ·w· /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© staҌ7 -š’¦Œ;·; ·w; ¦;©’zȓm. Annual ’š“z·š©z“m šE w;©,z-z7; ·©;·’;“· ;H;-¼Ý;“;­­ ޚҌ7 ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 residents. 2-14 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 3.0 w;-š’’;“7¼š“­ w;-š’’;“7¼š“­ Eš© ·wz­ ¦©š†;-· Þ;©; ,­;7 š“ project acceptance, managed area, equipment costs, ““ÒŒ š¦;©¼š“­ “7  -year life cycle to create present worth values. Present worth values evaluated based on a cost per acre per year expense as can be se. Detailed cost breakdown per Œ·;©“¼Ý; are provided in !Æ-w’;“· . As shown on the table below, the least expensive cost per -©; ¦;© ä;© z­ !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô4 /š“·©-· I©Ý;­¼“m “7 I;©,z-z7; (22 acres). Table 2 u /š­· 9­¼’·;­ ,ä ©m;·;7 !Œ·;©“¼Ý;. Net Present Value !Œ·;©“¼Ý; 5;­-©z¦¼š“ Acres Present Worth Annual Cost Cost/Acre/Year Contract 1 22 $260,504 $17,367 $790 I©Ý;­¼“m City-Run 2* 22 $328,016 $21,868 $994 I©Ý;­¼“m 3 Contract Herbicide 7.5 $103,957 $6,931 $925 Contract 4 I©Ý;­¼“m “7 22 $257,391 $17,160 $780 Herbicide «!­­Ò’;­ -š­· Eš© w©Ý;­¼“m z­  ¦š©¼š“ šE ·w; /z·ä w©Ý;­¼“m [zŒär [š“m “7 a-YÒ­z-‰ [‰;­. /š­· ŒŒš-·;7 ,­;7 š“ ¦š©¼š“ of total area to be harvested. Based on the results of the cost analysis and project acceptance, it is recommended that the City of {¼ŒŒÞ·;© proceed with Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; #4 for ’“m;’;“· šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ z“ McKusick Lake. In regard to ‘wšŒ; [‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­ ,­;7 š“ cost and project acceptance, it is recommended that only the skimming algae with a harvester be completed. Alum treatment could be completed for the lake, but may have marginal benets. If at later point in ¼’; z· z­ 7;·;©’z“;7 ŒÒ’ 7š­z“m z­ 7;­z©;7 77z¼š“Œ ­;7z’;“·  ·w; ¦¦©š¦©z·; 7š­z“m ¦¦Œz-¼š“ ¦©zš© ·š ¦¦Œz-¼š“. 3-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx .­;7 š“ ·wz­ ©;-š’’;“7¼š“ z· z­ ;­¼’·;7 ·w; ““ÒŒ š¦;©¼š“ ,42,000. 3-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 4.0 Management Plan report incorporates, by reference, McKusick Lake Lakeshore Owners tÒ,Œz- a;;¼“m ›!Òmust 2012 and February 2013) and the McKusick Lake Management Plan, 2007. The McKusick Lake Lakeshore Owners tÒ,Œz- a;;¼“ms were wš­·;7 ,ä ·w; /z·ä šE {¼llwater with input for from McKusick Lake Lakeshore owners. The McKusick Lake Management Plan was prepared by Wenck !­­š-z·;­r L“-u Þz·w z“¦Ò· E©š’ ·w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© “7 Œ‰; . A copy of the plan is included as !Æ-w’;“· . Specic management plan elements as part of this report include both components for Targeted and Whole-[‰; !Œ·;©“¼Ý;­: 4.1 TARGETED ALTERNATIVES HARVESTING w; ·©m;·;7 ’šÒ“· šE w©Ý;­¼“m. The annual goal of 14.5 acres. t©zš©z·ä -©;­ Eš© w©Ý;­¼“mu The priority areas were established through input from residents “7 -šš©7z“¼š“ Þz·w ·w; /z·ä. w; wzmw;­· ¦©zš©z·ä z7;“¼K;7 ,ä ·w; m©šÒ¦ Þ­t To enable ©;-©;¼š“ “7 “Ýzm¼š“ ·w©šÒmwšÒ· ·w; Œ‰;r “7 - The second highest priority was: š ;“,Œ; ¦©zÝ·; --;­­ Þw;©; ¦š­­z,Œ; 7;¦;“7z“m š“ ¦wä­z-Œr ¦ - ’“m;’;“· ¦Œ“ Œz’z·¼šns. HERBICIDE The targeted amount for herbicide treatment. The annual goal of 7.5 acres. t©zš©z·ä -©;­ Eš© w©Ý;­¼“mu The priority areas were established through input from residents “7 -šš©7z“¼š“ Þz·w ·w; /z·ä. w; wzmw;­· ¦©zš©z·ä z7;“¼K;7 ,ä ·w; group was: š ;“,Œ; ©;-©;¼š“ “7 “Ýzm¼š“ ·w©šÒmwšÒ· ·w; Œ‰;r “7 - Spot treat invasive species in the lake. - 4-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx These priority areas are shown on Figure 7. The goal is to z’¦©šÝ; ©;-©;¼š“Œ Ò­; “7 “Ýzm¼š“ on the lake as well as provide private access as desired by lake residents. The plan assumes the contractor will be responsible for disposal of the harvested materials. I©Ý;­¼“m ÞzŒŒ ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·w©;; ¼’;­ ¦;© ä;© ,;·Þ;;“ late May and early August based on the m©šÞ·w šE Ý;m;·¼š“ z“ “ä mzÝ;n year. I;©,z-z7; ·©;·’;“·­ ÞzŒŒ ,; -š’¦Œ;·;7 ·Þš ¼’;­ ¦;© ä;© between late May and early August. If invasive species are introduced to the lake special provisions can ,; ’7; ““ÒŒŒä ·w©šÒmw ·w; ¦;©’zȓm ¦©š-;­­ Þz·w az““;­š· 5bwthese species. 4.2 WHOLE LAKE ALTERNATIVE w; /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© ÞzŒŒ Œ;Ý;©m; w©Ý;­¼“m -¼Ýz¼;­ š“ ·w; Œ‰; ·š ­‰z’ Œm; ,Œšš’­ E©štwo ¼’;­ ““ÒŒŒä in -š“†Ò“-¼š“ Þz·w w©Ý;­¼“m šE ¨Ò¼- ¦Œ“·­ in the designated areas shown in Figure 7. 4.3 PROJECT FACILITATION The City of {¼ŒŒÞ·;© ÞzŒŒ ­;©Ý; ­ ·w; Œ;7 m;“-ä Eš© ·w; z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“ šE ·w; ¦©š†; closely with lakeshore residents “7 5bw ©;m©7z“m z’¦Œ;’;“·¼š“. The City will work with the 5bw ·š -š“K©’ w©Ý;­¼“m and herbicide areas annually. /šš©7z“¼š“ ’š“m ·w; m©šÒ¦­ ÞzŒŒ ;“­Ò©; ·w; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ “7 w©Ý;­¼“m ©; ;H;-¼Ý; . 4.4 PROJECT BUDGET w; ;­¼’·;7 ““ÒŒ ,Ò7m;· Eš© this plan is $42,000. 4.5 SUMMARY Targeted !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô4 along with Whole Lake !Œ·;©“¼Ý; Ô is the recommended management plan for McKusick Lake. This plan will require the City to contract with a commercial harvester and herbicide applicator . I©Ý;­¼“m will be completed ·w©;; ¼’;­ annually “7 w;©,z-z7; ¦¦Œz-¼š“ ·Þš ¼’;­ ““ÒŒŒä ,;·Þ;;“ late May 4-2 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx and early August. Skimming of algae on the lake will be completed twice annually in -š“†Ò“-¼š“ Þz·w w©Ý;­¼“m of designated areas. 4-3 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx 5.0 References !¨Ò¼- 9-š­ä­·;’ w;­·š©¼š“ CšÒ“7¼š“. 2003. 5©i .;­· a“m;’;“· t©-¼-;­ I“7,šš‰ Eš© !¨Ò¼- tŒ“· a“m;’;“· z“ {Ò¦¦š©· šE Cz­w “7 ‘zŒ7ŒzE; I,z·· James, William F., J.W. Banks, and H.L. Eazin. 2001. 5z©;-· š© L“7z©;-· L’¦-·­ šE {Ò,’;©­;7 !¨Ò¼- ;m;·¼š“ š© ·w; bÒ·©z;“· .Ò7m;· šE “ hã,šÞ [‰;. ERDC TN-APCRP-EA-02. Wenck Associates, Inc., December, 2007. /z·ä šE {¼ŒŒÞ·;© [‰; a“m;’;“· tŒ“­ - Lily Lake/McKusick. 5-1 March 2013 C:\5š-Ғ;“·­ “7 {;ȓm­\ssanders\[š-Œ {;ȓm­\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QMKUSCRT\McKusick Lake Report Final v4.docx AÆ-w’;“· McKusick Lake Management Plan AÆ-w’;“· Detail Cost Breakdown City of Stillwater Aquatic Plant Management Analysis Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract Harvesting Detailed Cost Breakdown McKusick Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract Harvesting Area Treated = 22acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes 1$0.00$0.00 No capital costs Annual Costs Years 1-15$23,430.00$260,503.82Harvesting Annual Cost Total Cost =$260,503.82 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $17,366.92 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$789.41 City of Stillwater 1/30/2013 Aquatic Plant Management Analysis CJM Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract Harvesting McKusick Lake Detailed Cost Breakdown Targeted Alternative #1 - Contract HarvestingQuantityUnitUnit CostTotal Cost Annual TreatmentContract Harvester Treatment (1)66AC$300$19,800 Permiting1Per Year$1,000$1,000 Contract Administration1LS$500$500 Total Annual Cost$21,300 Contingency (10%) =$2,130 Total Annual Cost =$23,430 (1) Based on average of vendor quotes assumes cutting two times per year Targeted Alternative #2 - City-Run Harvesting Detailed Cost Breakdown McKusick Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative #2 - City-Run Harvesting Area Treated = 22acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes Portion of New Harvester, 1$121,868.94$121,868.94Conveyor, Trailer Annual Costs Years 1-15$18,541.02$206,146.28Harvesting Annual Cost Total Cost =$328,015.22 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $21,867.68 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$993.99 City of Stillwater 1/30/2013 Aquatic Plant Management Analysis CJM Harvesting Only Targeted Alternative #2 - City-Run Harvesting Detailed Cost Breakdown Targeted Alternative #2 - City-Run Harvesting Capital Costs QuantityUnitUnit CostTotal Cost Equipment New Harvester (1)1LS$130,000$130,000 New Conveyor (1)1LS$22,000$22,000 New Trailer (1)1LS$35,000$35,000 Total Capital Cost =$187,000 Contingency (10%) =$18,700 Total Cost = $205,700 O&M OperationsFuel/Insurance (2)1Per year$5,000$5,000 Maintenance (2)1Per year$2,000$2,000 Permit (3)1Per year$2,250$2,250 Administration1Per year$4,000$4,000 LaborCrew (4)1Per year$13,200$13,200 DisposalAquatic Plant Disposal (3)1Per year$2,000$2,000 Total Annual Cost$28,450 Contingency (10%) =$2,845 Total Cost =$31,295 (1) Based on average of vendor quotes (2) Based on vendor estimates of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Lily and Long are cut twice and McKusick is cut three time annually) (3) Assumes permitting and disposal for all three lakes (4) Assumes 2 crew members at $15/hr working 360 hours combined to harvest all lakes and 80 hours total to winterize, store and perform general maintenance City of Stillwater Aquatic Plant Management Analysis Targeted Alternative #3 - Contract Herbicide Detailed Cost Breakdown McKusick Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative #3 - Contract Herbicide Area Treated = 7.5acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes 1$0.00$0.00 No capital costs Annual Costs Years 1-15$9,350.00$103,956.92Herbicide Annual Cost Total Cost =$103,956.92 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $6,930.46 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$924.06 City of Stillwater 1/30/2013 Aquatic Plant Management Analysis CJM McKusick Lake Targeted Alternative #3 - Contract Herbicide Detailed Cost Breakdown QuantityUnitUnit CostTotal Cost Targeted Alternative #3 - Contract Herbicide Annual TreatmentHerbicide Treatment (1)15AC$350$5,250 Permiting1Per Year$750$750 Monitoring (2)1LS$2,000$2,000 Contract Management1LS$500$500 Total Annual Cost$8,500 Contingency (10%) =$850 Total Annual Cost =$9,350 (1) Based on average of vendor quotes assumes treatment two times per year (2) Monitoring assumed 2 staff at $35/hr would be required to complete 56 hrs of monitoring including vegetation sampling, water quality, and sediment sampling. City of Stillwater Aquatic Plant Management Analysis Targeted Alternative #4 -Contractor Harvesting & Herbicide Detailed Cost Breakdown McKusick Lake Note: All costs are assumed due at the beginning of each year. Updated1/30/2013 Discount Rate =4% Targeted Alternative #4 -Contractor Harvesting & Herbicide Area Treated = 22acres Capital Costs Year CostNet Present ValueNotes 1$0.00$0.00 No capital costs Annual Costs Years 1-15 (Harvesting + Harvesting and Herbicide Annual Herbicide)$23,150.00$257,390.67Cost Total Cost =$257,390.67 Net Present Value Annual Cost = $17,159.38 Cost Per Ac/Yr =$779.97 CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 19, 2013 SPECIAL MEETING 4:30 P.M. Mayor Harycki called the meeting to order at 4:31 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Menikheim, Kozlowski, Weidner, Polehna, and Mayor Harycki Staff present: City Administrator Hansen City Attorney Magnuson Fire Chief Glaser Police Chief Gannaway Public Works Director Sanders Community Development Director Turnblad City Clerk Ward OTHER BUSINESS Discussion on Special Event Options Community Development Director Turnblad reminded the Council tha of the event survey, there are a number of options to consider f event to replace Lumberjack Days. The City could: do nothing except lift the moratorium on Special Event Permit applications; create a committee to formula based on the event survey; or continue the status quo on events group to be charged with creating an RFP for a replacement event. Mayor Harycki noted the survey showed that people generally supp- Councilmember Weidner commented that the Council should ask is the goal of a community event to build a sense of community, or to provide economic beneThe survey appears to indicate that community events are good, but the Council has to determine the goal of a community event, and then task a committee to meet the goal that Council establishes. Councilmember Menikheim stated he believes the City needs to est what will happen, what City resources may be used, and provide guidelines for reviewing event applications to ensure they fit what the survey indicates citizens wo City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 Councilmember Polehna asked how the policy should be set and if the City has a community celebration, he hoped it would be one that keeps going. Council should look at the big picture first and make sure it is done right. Mayor Harycki reiterated that the survey shows that residents li The City could task a committee with looking at whether to outso-house. Councilmember Polehna remarked that what happened with Lumberjack Days is happenin with events all over the country, as there are high costs associated with community festivals. Councilmember Menikheim stated that the Council should consider a winter festival that would bring people into the City 12 months a year, not just in the summer. Councilmember Polehna said the first policy might be that Stillw- round community. Councilmember Kozlowski asked that if the survey shows people want a community festival, what is the Council trying to mitigate with a policy. It seems that the Council is trying to figure out what residents want, when they have already said what they want they want what has happened in the past, but without the problems that were associated with it. Councilmember Polehna commented that one issue is the proliferat races. Where does Council draw the line? Councilmember Menikheim pointed out that Council has been respon requests. Councilmember Kozlowski asked if . Councilmember Weidner commented that the Council needs to define, whether it is it to bring as many people as possible into downtown Stillwater, build a sense of community, or to highlight our downtown area. He stated that the City should keep the moratorium in place, create a committee, and as a Council look at establishing event. He likes the idea of an event for the community, by the community, to bring people together and get a sense of the greater community. He understands that exposing the City to people outside Stillwater benefits the community economically and that the City is a yet 70 some event permits a year seems excessive and there should be a balance. Mayor Harycki added that community feedback needs to be part of defining the ultimate goal. Different factions of the businesses will see different economic benefits. Councilmember Kozlowski questioned whether it is the event planning business. He felt that the City should make sure that event organizers have great references and experience, to protect citizens from any negative is not the Page 2 of 12 City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 events should look like in the future. He questioned the need for a committee. Mayor Harycki stated he believed that the community should be involved in the process of crafting what a future event might be like, to determine whether we go th process, ask for performance bonds, and so on. Getting some busi involved would help with this process. hoops for people to jump through, because he wants people to come here in January. Councilmember Polehna said we should start by setting policy, fi to go as a community. Councilmember Kozlowski noted that he likes the idea of developi-looking policy that loosely defines what the event schedule should look like for d but he is trying to figure out what problems the City is trying Councilmember Weidner commented that Lumberjack Days was a commuhat grew into a summer festival and does the City want a summer festival as a venue available for an event organizer, or should it be a community event for thmunity, about the community. Councilmember Kozlowski felt that if someone approaches the Citywould be up to the Council to decide at the time, based on resident community wants. broken; make it better. Events are not held in a vacuum; they should fit in with what the City is going to look like in one, two or five years. Councilmember Kozlowski expressed concern about the impacts of H construction on downtown businesses, creating challenges for people from the metro to come downtown. He wants to make downtown as accessible and inviting a in processes and committees while Stillwater becomes a much less desirable place to be. Mayor Harycki said he believes the Council wants a summer festival and should set that as their first priority. The Council should get feedback on how to bring it about, and whether or not to do it in-if there is anyone on staff who could organize it. Councilmember Weidner said that bringing people downtown and sup w if having a committee go off for eight months and come back with a recommendation is good either. It needs more discussion f Page 3 of 12 City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 Councilmember Menikheim remarked that a timeline should be estab Mayor Harycki stated that if Council wants a replacement event for the summer of 2014, Council has to be ready to go by November. He felt that the big question is, does the City do it in-house or put it out for an RFP and if it is decided that it is an RFP it would have to be ready by June of 2013 for the festival in 2014. Community Development Director Turnblad commented that the most have clear tasks set for them. The Council as a group needs to committee to end up. It will take more time and Council discussion before deciding what committee needs to do. He indicated that the next step is to summarize the Council discussion and review it as Old Business at the next Council meeHe suggested that each Councilmember send him what they would like to see this committee accomplish, the he will assemble and distribute it so that Council can decide what it wants this committee to do. . It was the consensus of Council to pass along to Community Development Director Turnblad their five major concerns and items they want a committee to acc assemble a list for further Council discussion. Discussion regarding the Mastel Races and the Moratorium Community Development Director Turnblad noted that Run Stillwate application for three race events this year, to be handled by Ma of the three events were held last year, though another race is proposed to be added to the fall event. The third event is proposed for Memorial Day. Mayor Harycki commented that the City hosted similar races last and approved the Ironman Race. Councilmember Weidner pointed out the Ironman Race recently approved is going through Stillwater, not ending or beginning here, and felt it was not similar to the Ironman Race. Brian Mastel, race director for the two events, informed the Cou application, for the Memorial Day event, has been pulled. The ev are for the July 20 Stillwater Log Run, and the October 19 Lift . He noted that in the first year of both events, numbers were below expect of first-year events. These types of events tend to grow. Councilmember Polehna asked if Lowell Park is torn up this summe, where will the finish line be. City Engineer Sanders confirmed that the Corps of Engineers will Mulberry, Myrtle and Nelson parking lots this summer. Page 4 of 12 City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 Community Development Director Turnblad explained that the moratorium was enacted for the community to decide whether it wanted to define a policy on City Administrator Hansen said the Council meeting minutes indic was a one-year agreement, so organizers were advised of the moratorium. Councilmember Menikheim stated that he leans toward honoring the Councilmember Kozlowski felt that if Council approved Summer Tuesdays and Harvest Fest, the Council should not pick winners and losers. He stated that there has been a race in Stillwater for several years and that this is a race that has changed ownership but was held last year with no problems. Mayor Harycki noted he has no problem approving an event t The moratorium is still in effect but the Council needs to deter these two races. Councilmember Polehna remarked that the Ironman Race runs throug, whereas this race is based in Stillwater, not a pass- but feels it should be in the fall due to summer construction. Mr. Mastel said he could come up with alternative routes to not downtown. Councilmember Weidner suggested organizers could probably find a different venue for t summer race which would not begin and end in downtown Stillwater Mr. Mastel said the fall race was approved last year basically b cancelled. Councilmember Polehna noted if it were made a pass-through event, it would be better because downtown will be torn up. Motion by Mayor Harycki, seconded by Councilmember Kozlowski, to temporarily lift the moratorium to allow the July and October races and to have the aant work with staff to find an alternative finish line outside of downtown Stillwater, avoiding possible construction problems. Councilmember Polehna pointed out the Council is actually denyinrequest because the request is to have the races end in Lowell Park. The next motion with condition it ends in an area other than Lowell Park. Page 5 of 12 City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 Councilmember Weidner said he believes the moratorium applies to He would rather have Mr. Mastel take the information discussed t request that complies with the moratorium so there is no need to Councilmember Polehna said he prefers to have something firm in o vote on. Mayor Harycki and Councilmember Kozlowski rescinded the motion and directed the organizer to work with staff for an alternate ending point and come back t STAFF REPORT Fire Chief Glaser gave his staff report early due to a mandatory training exercise. He informed the Council that the fire department has been busy with a barn fire in May Township, a mutual aid house fire in Houlton and a house fire on Myrtle Street. He reminded Council that last fall the Insurance Service Office evaluated our ISO rating, and he will present findings to the Council at a future meeting. The Annual Fire Department Relief Association meeting will be held Monday, April, at 5:30 p.m. in the Margaret Rivers Room at the Stillwater Public Library. ADJOURNMENT The special meeting ended at 5:46 p.m. REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Mayor Harycki called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Menikheim, Kozlowski, Weidner, Polehna, and Mayor Staff present: City Administrator Hansen City Attorney Magnuson Police Chief Gannaway Public Works Director Sanders Community Development Director Turnblad Finance Director Harrison City Clerk Ward PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Harycki led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Koz, to approve the March 5, 2013 regular and recessed meeting minutes. All in favor. Page 6 of 12 City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 OPEN FORUM Adam Frederick, participant in the North Hill Garden, thanked Councilmember Polehna, Parks Commission, Council and City staff for working with garden Plot assignments will take place March 26, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at Church. Councilmember Polehna thanked the North Hill Garden members for their efforts. City Administrator Hansen noted that there have been no negative issues with the North Hill Garden whatsoever. Dewey Miller, 810 West Pine Street, addressed the Council about ranch on the south side of Pine Street that appears to be hazardous an commented that Pine Street is a racetrack and asked the Council to curtail excessive speeds and accidents. City Administrator Hansen said the City will send someone out tomorrow to look at the tree. Mayor Harycki said mobile speed display signs may be placed on P temperature warms. STAFF REPORTS Police Chief Gannaway informed the Council that Hunter Julian, t Resource Officer, has replaced Leo Miller, including duties such as code enforcement and problem properties. Residents and Council may call him at 351-4944 with complaints or comments. City Engineer Sanders informed the Council that last Wednesday t Engineers had the bid opening for the levee project. The low bid for $782,894. The Corps will take 30 days to review and approve id, and award the contract around April 8. The contractor will be notified to proc of the project has dropped significantly from $10 million initia be removed from downtown Wednesday and Thursday nights. Councilmember Polehna noted he has received a number of complain shoveling their sidewalks. Finance Director Harrison stated the auditors will be here for a preliminary audit work. The sales tax audit was just finished. The City again received a Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting for 2011 and that award was the 22nd or 23rd consecutive award. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution 2013-033, directing payment of bills Approval to purchase new vehicle Building Inspections Resolution 2013-034, approval of Special Event & Contract Page 7 of 12 City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 Resolution 2013-035, approving 2013 salary schedule for temporary seasonal parking ramp attendant Possible approval of Service Award for Jane Taves (Human Rights Commission) Possible approval of bids for mowing and snow blowing of problem Resolution 2013-036, approval of contract with Braun Intertech relating to Lowell Park restrooms and riverfront parking lots Motion by Councilmember Kozlowski, seconded by Councilmember Weidner to adopt the Consent Agenda. Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Kozlowski, Weidner, Polehna, and Mayor Nays: None PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2013-05. A public hearing to consider a request from Aspire Development, representing The Freight House, for an amendment to an existing addition of an exterior bar with a roof structure at the caboose located at 305 in the CBD, Central Business District, and any variances related thereto. Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed the request. Th like its special use permit amended to allow for a small expansi proposal calls for adding a new roof and bar area on the south side of the caboose. The new roof would have a pitch similar to the existing Freight House bu addition is proposed over an expanded food ordering counter. Lig minimal. The sound system currently in place will remain. Seating capacity will be reduced by ten, so no parking impacts are anticipated. The Heritage Pres recommended approval with conditions. The Planning Commission re The site is within the 100-year floodplain, so any construction must be above the 693 regulated elevation and the request meets that requirement. Mayor Harycki opened and closed the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Menik to adopt Resolution 2013-037 approving a special use permit amendment for the expansion of the Caboose Bar at the Freight House Restaurant, Case No. 2013-05. Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Kozlowski, Weidner, Polehna, and Mayor Nays: None This is the date and time for a public hearing for the 2013 Street Improvement. Notices were mailed to affected property owners and published in the Stillwater Gazette on March 1 and March 8, 2013 City Engineer Sanders informed the Council that streets to be improved are chosen via a pavement analysis which is done every three years. This project Page 8 of 12 City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 Pine Street from Greeley to Holcomb, Pine Street from Broadway tand Martha and William Streets between Pine and Willard. Streets scheduled for mill and overlay are Pine from Third Street South to Holcomb, Churchill from Thir and Myrtle from Main to Third Street South. This equals roughly estimated cost of the project is $1,263,400.92 including design, surveying, inspection, administration, and contingencies. The preliminary assessment fo $10,050 per unit. Commercial properties would be assessed $100.0 Replacement of galvanized water services would be assessed 100% to the benefitting property owner. The property owners with the galvanized services $1,645 per service. For the mill and overlay streets, the prelim residential properties would be $1734.11 per unit and the commercial propertie receive a preliminary front footage assessment rate of $28.77 pe meetings were held in January and March. The proposed schedule i award bid May 7; construction May through August; assessment hearing Septe Larry R______ who owns the Wolf Building on Myrtle and Main Strefor clarification on the cost to him and how to pay for it. City Engineer Sanders provided Mr. R_____ an assessment roll and informed the audience that assessments may be paid in full or in part; whatever remains aft real estate taxes over a ten-year period at four percent interest. Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Weidner to adopt Resolution 2013-038 , ordering plans and specifications for the 2013 Street Improvem (Project 2013-02). Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Kozlowski, Weidner, Polehna, and Mayor Nays: None This is the date and time for a public hearing for the County Orleans Street Improvement project. Notices were mailed to affected property owners and published in the Stillwater Gazette on March 1 and March 8, 2013 Orleans Street Improvement Project which involves County Highway 23 from 4th Avenue South to 4th Street S are estimated at $315,800, primarily funded by Washington County by the City. Fifty percent of the C via unit assessment. The assessment rate for residential lots wo for the athletic field property would be $8,721. A neighborhood The preliminary schedule is: approve plans April 2; award bid May 7; constr through August; assessment hearing September 17. Mayor Harycki opened and closed the hearing. There were no comments. Page 9 of 12 City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Weidner, to adopt Resolution 2013-39 ordering improvements and plans and specifications for the Count Improvement Project (Project 2013-04). Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Kozlowski, Weidner, Polehna, and Mayor Nays: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Possible second reading of Ordinance 1059, an ordinance extendin Stillwater into certain unincorporated territory that is less th 60% surrounded by the City of Stillwater. City Attorney Magnuson explained that this was approved at the l involves the intersection of Greeley Street and Highway 36. It w line along the south edge of the City. Ordinance Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Weidner, to adopt No. 1059, an ordinance extending the corporate limits of Stillwater into c territory that is less than 40 acres in area and more than 60% s Stillwater. Ayes: Councilmembers Polehna, Weidner, Kozlowski, Menikheim, and Mayor Nays: None NEW BUSINESS Possible approval of Veterans Memorial Board request to install a sign on City fence and request to waive prohibition on installing signs on fences. Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed the request. The V Board would like to install a sign on City fence at the Memorial This would require waiving the prohibition of signage on fences.oposed to be attached to two aluminum channel rails matching the existing be bolted to the fence. The proposed sign is 8 feet long and the high for a total of 4 square feet in area. The sign will not be illuminated. Staff recommends approval. The Heritage Preservation Commission will do the desig Motion by Councilmember Menikheim, seconded by Councilmember Koz request to install a sign on City fence and to waive the prohibition on installing signs on fences. Ayes: Councilmembers Polehna, Weidner, Kozlowski, Menikheim, and Mayor Nays: None Councilmember Polehna thanked the Veterans Memorial Board for al veterans. Page 10 of 12 City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 Possible Approval to Institute Police Reserve Fund Police Chief Gannaway explained that the Police Department would hour per Reserve Officer. The funds collected would go into a newly established Reserve Officer Fund to offset equipment, uniforms and training costs. R volunteers who play a significant role in Police Operations. He explained that Reserve Officers assist by focusing on parks, trails, downtown, residences of vacationing residents, providing an extra set of eyes and ears for the Police Departmengo through a training program and are provided with uniforms, equipment belt (minus the firearm), and one marked police vehicle to patrol the City a minimum of two shifts per montwork various City-affiliated special events such as the 4th of July, (formerly) Lu Art Fairs, and other special events that occur in the City. Charging an hourly rate for their services would help offset City costs for this program. Motion by Councilmember Kozlowski, seconded by Councilmember Wei to adopt Resolution 2013-040, establishing a Police Reserve Fund. Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Kozlowski, Weidner, Polehna, and Mayor Harycki Nays: None Possible Approval of No Parking Resolution Pine and North Broadway City Engineer Sanders reviewed the request to extend the prohibi side of Pine Street between Second and Broadway to include the north side of Pine Street between Third and Broadway, due to street reconstruction planned Councilmember Polehna suggested touching base with the affected Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Menikheim, to adopt Resolution 2013-041 , approving parking restrictions on S.A.P. 169-102-006 (Pine Street) from South Broadway Street to South Third Street. Ayes: Councilmembers Menikheim, Kozlowski, Weidner, Polehna, and Mayor Nays: None COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS Councilmember Menikheim expressed interest in having an audit do no concerns about the CVB, but noted that it has not been audite would like to protect the critical work that the CVB does for thhe City could share in the cost of an audit. Councilmember Kozlowski commented an audit is an expensive proce Page 11 of 12 City Council Meeting March 19, 2013 Mayor Harycki said a review could be done, at a lower cost, inst City Attorney Magnuson said any public entity has to have an audit every five years and the CVB is coming up on its fifth year. He offered to give the Counc meeting. STAFF REPORTS (CONTINUED) City Engineer Sanders informed the Council that he talked to Cur at Lakeview Hospital regarding the sidewalk on Everett. Mr. Geisler would not object to a sidewalk and would prefer it be located on the east side of Everett. Mayor Harycki wanted to know what the school thought of this and suggested checking with the Junior High. Mr. Sanders will follow up with both parties. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Weidner, seconded by Councilmember Kozlo meeting at 7:58 p.m. All in favor. _________________________________ Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Resolution 2013-033, directing payment of bills Resolution 2013-034, approval of Special Event & Contract Resolution 2013-035, approving 2013 salary schedule for temporary seasonal parking ramp attendant Resolution 2013-036, approval of contract with Braun Intertech relating to Lowell Park restrooms and riverfront parking lots Resolution 2013-037, approving a special use permit amendment for the expansion of the Caboose Bar at the Freight House Restaurant Case No. 2013-05 Resolution 2013-038 , ordering plans and specifications for the 2013 Street Improvem Project (Project 2013-02) Resolution 2013-39, ordering improvements and plans and specifications for the Count Road Improvement Project (Project 2013-04) Resolution 2013-040, resolution establishing a Police Reserve Fund Resolution 2013-041 , approving parking restrictions on S.A.P. 169-102-006 (Pine Street) from South Broadway Street to South Third Street Ordinance No. 1059, an ordinance extending the corporate limits of Stillwater into certain unincorporated territory that is less than 40 acres in a 60% surrounded by the City of Stillwater Page 12 of 12 FIRE DEPARTMENT March 28, 2013 Mayor Harycki Stillwater City Council Citizens of Stillwater I am pleased to present the 2012 Stillwater Fire Department Annual Report. The Annual Report documents future generations. The Fire Department responded to a total of 1,754 calls for service in 2012. Along with emergency response, the Department provided hundreds of general fire safety inspections, new construction plan reviews, investigated hundreds of potential fire code violations, performed hydrant maintenance activities, equipment and station maintenance, and completed thousands of hours of mandatory staff training. The Department completed an Insurance Services Organization (ISO) review in 2012 and is looking forward to the final report. ISO reviews fire departments to evaluate response capabilities and potential insurance savings. In addition the Department spent a considerable amount of time preparing concept plans for the proposed new fire station being co-located with the new National Guard Armory Readiness Center. This is an extremely exciting opportunity and the City should be pleased with the results of the work to date. After many hours of work and effort the Department placed Fire Boat 1 into service last year. The project was several years in the making but all came to fruition in 2012. The boat is a 24 foot Boston Whaler Justice obtained from the Minnesota DNR Federal Excess Property Program. The boat was provided at no possible. To date the boat has been used in several rescue responses on the St. Croix River and provides a much needed resource to respond to and protect the thousands of visitors who recreate on the river annually. I would like to personally thank the City Council for your support of the Fire Department. In addition, I thank the men and women of the Stillwater Fire Department who provide unselfish and committed 24 hour service, seven days per week, 365 days per year to the citizens SFD has sworn to protect. Their dedication and commitment provide a safer place for all who live, visit and invest in the City of Stillwater and our surrounding communities. Sincerely, Stuart W. Glaser Stuart W. Glaser Fire Chief 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 PHONE: (651) 351-4963 FAX: (651) 351-4967 STILLWATER FIRE DEPARTMENT Est. 1872 ANNUAL REPORT 2012 MISSION STATEMENT Our commitment is to protect life and property through dedicated service to the community. Stillwater Fire Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater Minnesota 55082 651.351.4963 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us TABLE OF CONTENTS Communities Served ........................................................................................................................... 3 Jurisdiction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Services Provided ................................................................................................................................ 5 Stillwater Fire Department Staff Roster ............................................................................................... 6 Response Summary ............................................................................................................................. 7 Response Totals ............................................................................................................................... 8 EMS Response Detail ...................................................................................................................... 9 Property and Content Loss/Save..................................................................................................... 10 City of Stillwater............................................................................................................................ 11 Contract Services .............................................................................................................................. 12 City of Grant .................................................................................................................................. 12 May Township ............................................................................................................................... 13 Stillwater Township ....................................................................................................................... 14 Personnel Updates ............................................................................................................................. 15 Budget ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Code Enforcement ............................................................................................................................. 19 Fire Prevention and Life Safety Education Activities ......................................................................... 19 Staff Training .................................................................................................................................... 20 Apparatus Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 21 Community Events and Volunteering ................................................................................................ 23 Stillwater Fire Department 2012 ........................................................................................................ 24 2 CS OMMUNITIES ERVED CITY OF STILLWATER Mayor Ken Harycki City Council Doug Menikheim Jim Roush Micky Cook Mike Polehna City Administrator Larry Hansen City Clerk Diane Ward CITY OF GRANT Mayor Tom Carr City Council Scott Fogelson Dan Potter Steve Bohnen Jeff Huber City Clerk Kim Points STILLWATER TOWNSHIP Township Supervisors Linda Countryman Matthew Beane David Johnson Sheila-Marie Untiedt Jim Hiniker Township Clerk Kathy Schmoeckel MAY TOWNSHIP Township Supervisors Bill Voedisch John Pazlar John Adams Township Clerk Linda Klein 3 J URISDICTION The Stillwater Fire Department (SFD) provides emergency services to a sixty-one (61) square mile response area. Our borders extend as follows: Highway 36, Southern Border th 150 Street, Northern Border St. Croix River, Eastern Border Keats Avenue North, Western Border The Still demographic aspects. Demographics include: Historic Downtown Stillwater, single and multi-family residential, high- rise, commercial, industrial, schools, clinics, hospital campus, government facilities, senior assisted living facilities and nursing homes. Geographic logistics include: highways, various transportation routes, railways, cliffs, bluffs, ravines, rivers, lakes, swamps, agricultural and forested areas, recreational trails and park lands. SFD responds to the following communities: City of Stillwater; Stillwater Township; a portion of May Township and a portion of the City of Grant. In addition, SFD provides mutual aid when requested to multiple surrounding communities. 4 SP ERVICES ROVIDED Fire Suppression Structure Residential/Commercial Wildland/Grass Marine Auto Basic Life Support (BLS) Non-Transport Emergency Medical Services Medical Emergencies CPR & AED Certified Advanced Airway Placement Assist Lakeview EMS Blood Pressure Checks Code Enforcement/Inspections New Construction Stillwater Firefighters extinguish a house fire in May Township. Commercial Multi-Family Residential Day Care Special Event Heavy Rescue Auto Extrication High Level Rope Water/Ice Rescue Surface Dive Boat Captain Steve Zoller and Firefighter/Engineer Ken Olson demonstrate Maintenance the capabilities of Fire Boat 1. City Fire Hydrants Fire Station Trucks/Equipment Fire Prevention School Visits Open House Senior Center Fire Education In-service Training for Business Drills and Exercises Civic Support Community Events Captain Chad Jansen extinguishes a fully involved vehicle fire. Station Tours 5 SFD2012SR TILLWATER IRE EPARTMENT TAFF OSTER NAME POSITION YEARS st Mike Aspengren Part-time Firefighter/Engineer/1 Responder 9 Tom Ballis Full-time Deputy Chief/EMT 11 Jacob Bell Part-time Lieutenant/EMT 6 st Jon Bell Full-time Firefighter/Engineer/1 Responder 26 st Tim Bell Part-time Firefighter/Engineer/1 Responder 43 st *John Buckley Part-time Assistant Chief/1 Responder 31 st Joe Buckley Part-time Captain/1 Responder 27 st Jeff Conley Part-time Firefighter/1 Responder 9 Steve Despiegelaere Part-time Firefighter/EMT 1 Stuart Glaser Full-time Chief/EMT 26 st Phil Gresafe Part-time Firefighter/Engineer/1 Responder 6 *Joe Halaska Part-time Firefighter/EMT 3 Steve Hamond Part-time Firefighter/EMT 3 Chad Jansen Full-time Captain/EMT 8 Tim Jozefow Part-time Firefighter/Engineer/EMT 6 st Brad Junker Part-time Firefighter/1 Responder 5 John Kellogg Part-time Firefighter/EMT 1 st Bob Kroening Part-time Lieutenant/1 Responder 22 *Joel Kruse Part-time Firefighter/EMT 3 st Tom Linhoff Part-time Assistant Chief/1 Responder 38 Joe Marchetti Full-time Firefighter/Engineer/EMT 6 st Dakota Mechelke Part-time Firefighter/1 Responder 3 months st Derek Nelson Part-time Firefighter/1 Responder 5 months st John Nobles Part-time Captain/1 Responder 17 Ken Olson Full-time Firefighter/Engineer/EMT 10 st Mike Peltier Part-time Firefighter/1 Responder 22 st Rob Peltier Part-time Captain/1 Responder 12 st Tim Peltier Part-time Firefighter/1 Responder 18 st Bill Peltier Full-time Firefighter/Engineer/1 Responder 33 st Chris Rigney Part-time Firefighter/1 Responder 2 st Jeff Roettger Part-time Lieutenant/1 Responder 13 Jim Roush Part-time Firefighter/EMT 1 st Ken Schmitz Part-time Firefighter/Engineer/1 Responder 25 Ryan Smith Part-time Firefighter 1 st Ken Stanley Part-time Firefighter/1 Responder 12 Linda Thompson Part-time Secretary/Dispatcher 13 Jonas Werpy Part-time Firefighter/Engineer/EMT 7 Chris Zeuli Full-time Captain/EMT 21 st *Rob Zoller Part-time Assistant Chief/1 Responder 30 Steve Zoller Full-time Captain/EMT 18 *Retired/Resigned TOTAL COMBINED YEARS OF SERVICE +545 Engineer Drive and Operate all Fire Apparatus and Equipment st 1 Responder First Aid Certification st EMT Emergency Medical Technician (Advanced Level 1 Aid Certification) 6 RS ESPONSE UMMARY The Stillwater Fire Department prides itself on providing rapid, professional service to the communities we protect. The following charts and data depict run response trends for the SFD over the past several years. 2000 Annual Run Response Trend 1,754 1800 1,587 1600 1,498 1,383 1,413 1,395 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 200720082009201020112012 The pie chart below indicates 2012 calls by district. As indicated by the data, the majority of calls (80%) occur within the City of Stillwater where the largest population base resides. The remaining 20% occur within our contract areas and responding to mutual aid requests. 1% 4% 5% CITY OF STILLWATER - 1,395 10% STILLWATER TOWNSHIP - 166 CITY OF GRANT - 94 MAY TOWNSHIP - 78 MUTUAL AID - 21 80% 2012 CALLS BY DISTRICT 7 Response Totals The chart below depicts a breakdown by types of calls over the last three years. 1200 1000 2012 - Total calls - 1,754 2011 - Total calls - 1,383 800 2010 - Total calls - 1,587 600 400 200 0 FIRERESCUESERVICEALARMSMISC. EMS SFD Fire District 2012 2011 2010 Fire Structure 20 20 26 Fire Vehicle 10 14 14 Fire Grass/Brush 12 14 10 Fire Other 18 26 26 EMS 969 664 692 MVA/Extrication 68 74 89 Rescue Other 15 11 7 Public Assist 128 93 78 Controlled Burn 94 85 128 Service Call Other 83 42 60 Alarm Malfunction 35 43 47 Alarm Fire/Smoke 88 90 109 Alarm Malicious 2 3 1 Smoke Scare 26 22 39 Arching/Shorts 16 19 15 Spills/Leaks 50 48 42 Carbon Monoxide 40 25 31 Power Line 24 9 42 Misc. Other 35 81 116 Mutual Aid Response 21 Grand Total 1,754 1,383 1,572 2011 and 2010 Mutual Aid Responses are included in total run response and not as a separate category. 8 EMS Response Detail The Stillwater Fire Department provides non-transport Basic Life Support (BLS) Emergency Medical Services (EMS) e district. This service was implemented in 1992 through an agreement between the City of Stillwater and Lakeview Hospital Emergency Medical Services. This arrangement provides an outstanding standard of care for all patients. SFD personnel, under the direction of the Regions Hospital EMS Medical Director and Lakeview EMS, are highly trained and have the capability of providing lifesaving medical interventions to patients upon arrival on scene. Lifesaving actions such as providing automatic external defibrillation (AED) for cardiac arrest patients, inserting advanced level airways, and utilizing rescue-pod intertidal CO2 monitoring on respiratory arrest patients are a few examples of the care Stillwater Fire provides for its citizens. response capability in coordination with the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Paramedic level care provided by Lakeview Hospital EMS saves lives and improves patient outcomes. The outstanding working relationship between Lakeview Hospital and the City of Stillwater continues to ensure a high quality of life for our residents. 911 EMS Calls for Stillwater Fire District 2000 1,803 1800 1,573 1,483 1600 1400 969 1200 1000 692 664 800 600 400 200 0 201020112012 Lakeview EMS ResponseSFD EMS Response The chart above indicates the total number of 911 EMS calls occurring within the Stillwater Fire Department Response District over the last three years. The green bars indicate the total number of 911 emergency calls Lakeview EMS responded to and the yellow bars indicate the number of calls Stillwater Fire was requested to assist. As you can see, SFD does not respond to all EMS situations within its district. SFD is requested when a life threatening medical emergency occurs and additional emergency medical treatment and support is required. 9 Property and Content Loss/Save The Stillwater Fire Department protects a wide variety of properties which have substantial dollar value but also buildings which have great historical significance to our City and the State of Minnesota. The personnel of the SFD are proud of our heritage and are extremely honored to be chosen to protect and provide service to the City of Stillwater, the Birthplace of Minnesota. The chart below indicates the total property and content damage which occurred by fire in Stillwater Fires Response District in 2012. As the data indicates the Fire Department provides a tremendous economic value based on cost versus benefit to the City and communities it protects. Property and Content Loss/Save $10.80 2010 $0.51 $5.57 2011 $1.18 $15.13 2012 $0.93 $- $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 Millions Property and content savedProperty and content loss Cost estimates are derived from property value records from the Washington County Property Records and Taxpayer Services. 10 City of Stillwater Stillwater Fire responded to 1,395 calls within the City limits of Stillwater in 2012. This accounts for 80% of the total call volume for the Department. As the City continues to develop and complete the orderly annexation currently in progress this call volume is expected to increase. 1000 2012 - Total calls - 1,395 900 800 2011 - Total calls - 1,125 700 600 2010 - Total calls - 1,272 500 400 300 200 100 0 FIRERESCUESERVICEALARMSMISC. EMS City of Stillwater 2012 2011 2010 Fire Structure 12 12 19 Fire Vehicle 6 9 12 Fire Grass/Brush 5 9 5 Fire Other 12 17 22 EMS 846 597 627 MVA/Extrication 46 49 56 Rescue Other 14 7 5 Public Assist 111 91 89 Controlled Burn 10 25 21 Service Call Other 71 23 55 Alarm Malfunction 25 36 42 Alarm Fire/Smoke 77 78 99 Alarm Malicious 2 3 1 Smoke Scare 23 20 33 Arching/Shorts 13 17 16 Spills/Leaks 44 43 36 Carbon Monoxide 34 20 24 Power Line 13 8 27 Misc. Other 31 61 83 Grand Total 1,395 1,125 1,272 11 CS ONTRACT ERVICES City of Grant SFD currently protects 43% of Grant and a population of approximately 1,614 residents. The chart below depicts the breakout of emergency calls for the City of Grant for 2012. 35 2012 - Total calls - 94 30 2011 - Total calls - 57 2010 - Total calls - 62 25 20 15 10 5 0 FIRERESCUESERVICEALARMSMISC. EMS City of Grant 2012 2011 2010 Fire Structure 2 2 2 Fire Vehicle 1 2 1 Fire Grass/Brush 2 1 0 Fire Other 1 0 1 EMS 44 11 18 MVA/Extrication 9 5 7 Public Assist 13 0 0 Controlled Burn 11 0 0 Service Call Other 0 16 15 Alarm Malfunction 2 2 2 Alarm Fire/Smoke 1 1 1 Alarm Malicious 0 0 0 Smoke Scare 0 0 1 Arching/Shorts 1 0 0 Spills/Leaks 3 2 2 Carbon Monoxide 0 1 2 Power Line 4 1 1 Misc. Other 0 13 9 Grand Total 94 57 62 12 May Township Stillwater Fire protects 47% of May Township and a population of approximately 1,885 emergency calls for May Township over the last three years. 40 35 2012 - Total Calls - 78 30 2011 - Total Calls - 53 25 2010 - Total Calls - 59 20 15 10 5 0 FIRERESCUESERVICEALARMSMISC. EMS May Township 2012 2011 2010 Fire Structure 5 0 3 Fire Vehicle 1 1 0 Fire Grass/Brush 1 1 3 Fire Other 0 1 0 EMS 31 28 19 MVA/Extrication 6 4 8 Rescue Ice/Water 1 0 0 Public Assist 3 0 0 Controlled Burn 5 0 0 Service Call Other 4 3 7 Alarm Malfunction 5 2 2 Alarm Fire/Smoke 3 6 4 Alarm Malicious 0 0 0 Smoke Scare 3 2 1 Arching/Shorts 1 0 0 Spills/Leaks 3 0 0 Carbon Monoxide 1 1 2 Power Line 4 0 8 Misc. Other 1 4 2 Grand Total 78 53 59 13 Stillwater Township Stillwater Fire protects 100% of Stillwater Township and a population of approximately 2,553 residents. The chart below depicts the breakout of emergency calls for Stillwater Township over the last three years. 100 90 2012 - Total calls - 166 80 2011 - Total calls - 127 70 2010 - Total calls - 175 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FIRERESCUESERVICEALARMSMISC. EMS Stillwater Township 2012 2011 2010 Fire Structure 1 2 1 Fire Vehicle 2 2 1 Fire Grass/Brush 4 3 2 Fire Other 5 1 2 EMS 48 28 26 MVA/Extrication 7 12 16 Rescue Other 0 1 0 Public Assist 1 1 5 Controlled Burn 68 60 89 Service Call Other 8 0 0 Alarm Malfunction 3 3 2 Alarm Fire/Smoke 7 5 4 Alarm Malicious 0 0 0 Smoke Scare 0 0 4 Arching/Shorts 1 2 0 Spills/Leaks 0 3 4 Carbon Monoxide 5 2 3 Power Line 3 0 6 Misc. Other 3 2 10 Grand Total 166 127 175 14 PU ERSONNEL PDATES Promotions/Assignments Leadership is vital for the smooth operation of the Department. In 2012 three individuals were selected to take on the role of the rank of Lieutenant. The Lieutenant assignment is a two year appointment. Lieutenants are line officer positions and are responsible for managing and directing fire crews under their direction. Congratulations to the following individuals and thank you for taking on a leadership role in the Department. I`jd Adkk Ana Jqndmhmf Idee Qndssfdq New Employees Stillwater Fire welcomed six new Paid-on-Call Firefighters in 2012. The Department is excited to have . these individuals on board and look forward to their contributions for many years to come Steve Despiegelaere Derek Nelson John Kellogg Jim Roush Dakota Mechelke Ryan Smith SFD was pleased to be able to replace a vacant Full-time Firefighter/Engineer position in 2012. This position plays an important role in working towards a proper level of on duty staffing for the Department. SFD welcomes our newest full-time employee. Joe Marchetti Retirements Stillwater Fire honored two long time employees in 2012. Assistant Chiefs John Buckley and Rob Zoller retired after serving their community for over 61 years collectively. The many contributions made by these two individuals had a significant impact on the community and lives of numerous Stillwater residents. Congratulations John and Rob. Assistant Chief John Buckley served the Assistant Chief Rob Zoller served the Department for Department for 31 years. John contributed his 30 years. Rob was instrumental in developing and knowledge and expertise in vehicle maintenance and assisting in design and purchase of new Safety Program. Rob brought the fire prevention message to thousands of residents throughout his apparatus for the Department. career. 15 PU ERSONNEL PDATES Employee Recognition In April of 2012 the Department was proud and honored to award years of service pins and recognition to the following individuals for their dedication and commitment to the Stillwater Fire Department. The awards given in 2013 recognize completed milestones of service achieved through 2012. 5 Years of Service - Brad Junker 10 Years of Service - Ken Olson 25 Years of Service - Ken Schmitz Certificate of Excellence Paid-on-Call personnel are required to meet minimum quarterly run response requirements. Firefighter/Engineer Tim Bell responded to 185 calls for service and went above and beyond and averaged over 75% call response for the year. Tim was awarded a Certificate of Excellence for the Highest Run Percentage made in 2012. Congratulations and thank you Tim for your dedication to the Stillwater Fire Department and the citizens we serve. Distinguished Service Award The Distinguished Service Award is awarded to persons who have distinguished themselves to the Department or community. This recognition may be a special project or community involvement, or representing the Stillwater Fire Department with Professionalism, Respect, Integrity, Dedication and Excellence P.R.I.D.E. Captain Steve Zoller and Firefighter/Engineer Ken Olson earned the Distinguished Service Award in 2012 for their tireless work in fabricating and placing Fire Boat 1 in service for SFD. Both Steve and Ken put in countless hours working on completing this project. The result of their work has provided an outstanding resource for water operations for the SFD and the citizens served. Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Association Public Safety Fire Education Award Assistant Chief of Fire and Life Safety, Rob Zoller, was honored at the annual Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Association (MSFCA) Conference in Duluth. Annually the MSFCA recognizes individuals for their work in fire prevention and life safety activities. Assistant Chief Zoller was recognized for his efforts of developing and leading the fire and life safety program for the City of Stillwater for over thirty years. Rob developed numerous fire prevention presentations and fabricated many of his own teaching props. Over the course of his career Rob touched the lives of thirty thousand plus individuals and made safety are truly worthy of such an award. Congratulations Rob! Left Assistant Chief of Fire & Life Safety, Rob Zoller receives the Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Association Public Safety Fire Education Award from Chief James Van Eyll, Chair of the Public Safety Education Committee. 16 B UDGET The dollar bill graphic below represents t$12,152,715 operating budget for 2012. The dollar is divided according to the funding allocated for each area along with the corresponding percentage of the total City budget dedicated to each department. Police 24% Culture and Recreation 27% Fire 11% $2,908,854 $3,271,518 $1,352,010 Bldg. Dept 2% General Government 25% Public Works 11% $ $251,540 $2,993,330 $1,375,463 Costs Recovered While the Stillwater Fire Department is 11% of the total City budget it should be noted that several systems are in place to offset this percentage. These costs, while not directly applied to the Fire Fire Department costs recovered and applied to the City of Stillwater General Fund: Contract for services City of Grant, Stillwater and May Townships $ 301,269.00 Permit and Code Enforcement Revenue $ 3,006.89 Total: $ 304,275.89 17 2012 FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET 12% CAPITAL OUTLAY - $ 164,600 14% PERSONNEL - $ 994,295 OPERATIONS BUDGET - $ 193,115 74% The graph above indicates the total Department budget which includes the $1,187,410 Operations Budget in addition to the $164,600 Capital Outlay expenditures. This brings the total 2012 Department budget allocation to $1,352,010. The budget has three basic areas: Personnel - Costs associated with staffing the Department Salaries Insurance Benefits Operations - Costs associated with daily Department operations Training and Education Safety Equipment Maintenance Contracts Capital Outlay - Costs associated with large purchase items Vehicle Replacement - $125,000 allocated toward replacement of apparatus Station Maintenance Technology 18 CE ODE NFORCEMENT Stillwater Fire Department conducted over 500 business inspections and plan reviews during 2012. Inspections consisted of new construction, commercial business, multi-family residential, daycare providers, special event/plan reviews and general company fire inspections of existing structures. 200 188 180 160 140 120 101 99 100 80 80 60 45 40 20 9 3 6 0 FP&LSEA IRE REVENTION IFE AFETY DUCATION CTIVITIES The Stillwater Fire Department spends hundreds of hours and takes part in a multitude of events to make fires and educating the public on personal injury safety is the most pro-active and cost effective activity the Fire Department can provide. Fire Prevention/Education Statistics 2012 Activity/Event Contacts Staff Hours Awareness/Tours 1,949 72 Extinguisher Training 254 12 School Visits 812 87 Employee Recognition Breakfast 38 15 Open House 900 142 Big Truck Extravaganza 200 6 Nite to Unite 1,200 50 Total 5,353 384 19 ST TAFF RAINING 3,800 In 2012 staff devoted over hours in training activities. Crews train for structure fires, water rescue, dive rescue, high level rescue, cardiac arrest, emergency medical calls, hazardous material incidents and numerous other activities throughout the year. Personnel train several times a month and attend training courses and professional development programs throughout the year. Personnel Training Hours 4000 3,806 3500 3,000 2,900 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 201020112012 The modern fire service is required to respond to the most diverse and dangerous situations encountered in the public realm. No longer do firefighters only tackle fires, they are responsible for a host of technical incidents, such as, high angle, water, dive, confined space, collapse, hazardous materials, emergency medical incidents, terrorism and the list goes on. The fire service has been the one agency which has continued to change and evolve over the years to be the premier public safety response agency and is expected to handle whatever emergency arises. When the public calls 911 the fire service responds. to maintain a level of professionalism and proficiency. This list continues to grow as new and more dangerous incidents continue to develop, such as active shooter situations and individuals purposely targeting first responders when they arrive on scene. Core Firefighter Competencies: Firefighter I Technical Rescue Firefighter II - Vehicle Extrication Advanced EMS Certification - Confined Space Hazardous Materials Operational Level - Water Rescue Ice, dive, surface Terrorism Awareness Training - Collapse Rescue Fire Apparatus Operator - High Angle Rope All of these training areas require annual on-going continuing education hours. Minnesota requires all Full-time firefighters to be licensed by the state. 20 AI PPARATUS NVENTORY The Stillwater Fire Department maintains an inventory of high quality apparatus ready to respond to an emergency on a notice. All the apparatus is maintained and checked daily by the on-duty crew. Any major repairs or required maintenance is coordinated through the maintenance captain who schedules, documents and ensures the equipment is in sound working condition. 6105 Heavy Rescue Truck 1989 Ford L8000 Chassis Heavy Rescue Vehicle. 6105 carries a compliment of rescue tools for extrication, high angle, ice/water rescue, cribbing stabilization, EMS/first aid equipment and is a support vehicle used for dive/water rescue and air cascade system for on scene breathing apparatus filling, as well as a rehabilitation station for firefighters at emergency incidents. 6106 Water Tanker 1989 Ford L9000 Chassis Water Tanker. 6106 carries 1,800 gallons of water for rural firefighting applications and water shuttling operations. 6106 is capable of pumping 300 gallons per minute from a power take off driven pump. 6107Quick Attack Pumper 2004 Ford F550 crew cab, 4x4 chassis w/ 6.0L V-8 diesel engine. 6107 carries 250 gallons of water, 30 gallons of class A foam, portable front and rear winch, portable rescue tool, air reel, on- Air Foam) system. 6107 also carries EMS/first aid equipment, AED and technical rescue equipment. 6108 Rescue/Engine Company 1996 Pierce Lance Chassis Rescue/Engine Company. 6108 is a Rescue/Engine carrying 500 gallons of water, hoses, ladders, ventilation equipment, 1,750 gallon per minute single stage pump, water rescue, high-level rescue, EMS/first aid equipment including an automatic external defibrillator (AED) and an electric powered Hurst extrication tool along with attachments. 6109 Engine Company 2011 Freightliner M2 Rescue/Engine Company. 6109 is a Rescue/Engine carrying 750 gallons of water, hoses, ladders ventilation equipment, 1,250 gallon per minute rear mounted pump; EMS/first aid equipment and Holmatro extrication equipment. This engine is equipped with Green Star technology that is capable of running all scene lights and components of the truck utilizing a small generator to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. 6110/ 4x4 Grass Rigs 6111 2007 Ford F350 4x4 Grass Trucks. 6110/6111 both carry 150 gallons of water and has 8 gallon foam tanks, wildland firefighting equipment and a 150 gallon per minute pump with a booster hose and hand lines for wildland/grass firefighting applications. 6112 2002 Pierce Dash Chassis Heavy Duty Aerial Ladder with a pre-piped waterway, 500 gallons of water, 1,750 gallon per minute single stage pump, hoses, ground ladders, ventilation equipment and the capability of all wheel steering. 21 6113 Zodiac Boat Zodiac Boat. SFD maintains one Zodiac rescue boat for water rescue situations on small ponds or lakes with no access. The Zodiac boat is light and maneuverable for access to hard to reach ponds and ice rescue situations. 6114scue One Boat 2007 Rescue ONE Boat. rescue boat, 40 H.P. Mercury engine, command console with steering, seat and engine controls, dive platform and light bar mount. This vehicle will be used on lakes and the river for dive operations, fire suppression and rescue. 6115 Suburban Utility Vehicle 1993 Chevrolet Suburban. 6115 is used for transporting crews and equipment to emergency scenes and emergency medical calls. 6116 Special Operations Trailer 6116 is used for fire prevention and life safety activities as well as support operations during incidents. The trailer contains fire investigation tools and equipment and can be used for many different purposes as necessary. 6118 2009 4x4 Chevrolet Tahoe. 6118 is equipped as a command vehicle for fire officers to manage emergency incidents. An incident command board, Computer preplans and accountability matrix, accountability board, EMS first aid kit, hazardous materials reference procedures, maps and contact information are readily available for use by the incident commander. 6119 2002 4x4 Chevrolet Tahoe. 6119 is equipped as a command vehicle for fire officers to manage emergency incidents. An incident command board, accountability board, EMS first aid kit, hazardous materials reference procedures, maps and contact information is readily available for use by the incident commander. 6122 Boston Whaler Fire Boat 1996 Boston Whaler . Fire Boat 1 has twin Mercury 225 H.P. outboards, a Waterous E511B fire pump, mounted deck gun, and 1 1/2-connected hose line. Fire Boat 1 responds to emergency calls on the St. Croix River and is capable of transporting the fire department dive team, responding to EMS calls, and fire suppression operations. 22 CE&V OMMUNITY VENTS OLUNTEERING The Stillwater Fire Department devotes hundreds of hours each year to community events, volunteer opportunities and fundraising. Personnel live and work in the community they serve and proudly represent the City and Department at numerous venues. Here are some of the highlights for 2012. Night to Unite Harvest Fest Summer Tuesdays School Patrol Picnic Cub Foods Community Day Stillwater Criterium Bike Race Fight The Fire 5K Santa Escort after Thanksgiving SFD staff was on hand to provide a safety boat for the annual Regions Hospital Car Seat Clinic Stillwater Elks Christmas Tree Sale City of Grant Community Parade Stillwater Township Community Picnic American Cancer Society Relay for Life Liberty on the Lake Fourth of July Community Parade Annual Stillwater Chamber of Commerce Twinkle Parade Stillwater Fire Department and Regions Hospital teamed up to provide a car seat clinic to local Department Relief Association and assists the residents. Department in purchasing equipment and tools for the City. 23 SFD2012 TILLWATER IRE EPARTMENT Professionalism, Respect, Integrity, Dedication, Excellence P.R.I.D.E.! 24 STANDARD CONTRACT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this _______ day of _______________, 2013 by and between the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota (hereinafter called the "City") and All Seasons Outdoor Services Inc. (hereinafter called "Contractor"). 1. The Work. The Contractor agrees to perform all parts of the 2013 Annual Contract for Mowing, Clean Up and Snow Removal Services. All work will be done in a workman-like manner and materials will be fit for the purpose. The Contractor must perform and furnish all work as indicated in the attached Quote Form and General Conditions and Specifications. 2. Payment. This work, including all labor, materials and equipment needed to accomplish the 2013 Annual Contract for Mowing, Clean Up and Snow Removal Services, shall be completed by the Contractor for the unit prices shown on the attached Quote Form to be paid to the contractor upon satisfactory completion and acceptance. 3. Waiver of Liability. It is further agreed that this work is undertaken at the sole risk of the Contractor. The Contractor does expressly forever release the City of Stillwater from any claims, demands, injuries, damage actions or caused of action whatsoever, arising out of or connected with the work according to the General Conditions, and Specifications for the project. 4. Indemnification. Any and all claims that arise or may arise against the Contractor, its agents, servants or employees, as a consequence of any action or omission on the part of the Contractor while engaged in the performance of this work shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. The Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the city, its officers and employees, against any and all liability, loss cost damages, expenses, claims or actions, including attorneys fee which the City, its officers or employees may hereinafter sustain, incur or be required to pay, arising out of or by any reason of any act or omission of the Contractor, its agents, servants or employees in the execution, performance or failure to adequately perform their obligations under this contract. 5.Insurance. Contractor agrees that in order to protect itself and the City under indemnity provisions set forth above, it will at all times during the term of this contract, keep in force policies of insurance as indicated in this contract. The Contractor shall not commence work until a Certificate of Insurance covering all of the insurance required by these specifications is approved. The insurance protection will have at least $1,500,000 combined single limits for any claim of any kind arising out of a single occurrence. 6.Completion Date. Completion of work related to the 2013 Annual Contract for Mowing, Clean Up and Snow Removal Services must be done according to the terms of the General Conditions and Specifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties have set their hands this ___ day of ___________, 2013. CITY OF STILLWATER By:____________________________________ Ken Harycki, Mayor By:____________________________________ Diane F. Ward, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ of _______________, 2013 by Ken Harycki, Mayor, and Diane F. Ward, City Clerk, for the City of Stillwater. __________________________________________ Notary Public Commission Expires: ___/___/_____ Commissioned At: ________________________ CONTRACTOR ___________________________________________ By: Zachary Schultz Title: CEO STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF _____________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ of _______________, 2013 by ______________________________, its ____________________________________, for___________________________________. __________________________________________ Notary Public Commission Expires: ___/___/_____ Commissioned At: ________________________ RESOLUTION 2013 043 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH ALL SEASON OUTDOOR SERVICES BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Stillwater, MN that agreement between All Season Outdoor Services and the City of Stillwater for Mowing, Cleanup and Snow Removal Services is hereby approved and authorizes the Mayor to sign the agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 4th day of April 2, 2013. Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: Diane F. Ward, City Clerk 4- Road Closed Ahead 19- T3 Barricades 3- Detour Right/ Strut Detour Route 2- Detour Left/ Strut Race Route 1- Double Arrow 1- Detour Right /T3 1- Detour Left /T3 Bringing 80 sandbags 18- Road Closed from Mankato which were 1- Road Closed TTT from Mpls 6- Portable Delineators Pick up 120 sandbags 40- Sandbags 2- TRWBC / in place Friday THIS ROAD Deliver to lot across from US Bank on Deliver all equipment in WILL BE 2nd between Chestnut and Olive: place on Friday. CLOSED Pick up on Monday. XX/XX 6- Portable Delineators 9AM-3PM Customer and Police to 40- Sandbags set 12th Annual Nature Valley Grand Prix Stillwater Criterium 1/00 Racing Schedule th June 16, 2013 9:00am - Beginning of Street Closures 10:00am – Full Course Closure 10:45am – Amateur race 11:45pm - Women's elite race 12:45pm – Kids Race 1:30pm - Men's elite race 3:00pm - Streets open Nature Valley Grand Prix Stillwater Criterium h Sunday, June 16, 2013 Proposal for the City of Stillwater, Minnesota The Nature Valley Grand Prix is a five-day cycling event. The Festival includes activities ranging from professional bicycle racing to lots of options for kids and their families. This will be the Festival’s 12th year in Stillwater. The Grand Prix is part of the National Racing Calendar (NRC), USA Cycling's listing of the top professional races in the country. The event is the number one ranked national event in the United States for the last three years running. Professional / Elite Bicycle Races in Stillwater The Nature Valley Grand Prix concludes with a race in Stillwater and that is regarded as “the most difficult bicycle criterium in the United States!” For 2013, the Stillwater Criterium will be held much the same as before with some minor improvements to attract more spectators and racers and again will be the closing race to the weekend’s events. The 2013 Stillwater Criterium will include just three divisions: pro/elite men, pro/elite women and advanced amateurs. In addition to the racing, a kids race that is two blocks long is planned as usual to bring the families out to enjoy the day and give the kids an added bonus for bringing their bikes. Schedule 9:00am – Street closure begins 10:00 - Streets closed around entire course 10:45 – Amateur race 11:45 - Women's elite race 12:45 – Kids Fun Race 1:30 - Men's elite race 3:00 – Racing Concludes - Streets begin to open Associated Activities The audience for the bike race is Minnesota and Wisconsin families. In addition to bicycle racing, the Festival organizers provide stunt riders, DJ music, an expo area with food vendors and kids' activities. Stillwater area groups are encouraged to add their own family activities to the Festival as the south neighborhood hosts a picnic in Triangle Park in conjunction with the race. Street/Road Closures A complete closure of the race course is needed to ensure safety for racers, spectators and residents. This circuit must be closed to traffic and free of obstructions (e.g. parked cars, dumpsters). Complete course closure will last from 10:00am to 3:00 pm. Resident Notification A key to a successful event is to minimize inconveniences for the residents. Pre-Event Late Winter / Early Spring - Letters, schedules and course maps will be sent to all affected residents and businesses. The letters will include contact information for people wishing to discuss their concerns with the organizer. Two weeks advance – A reminder will be delivered to the residents and businesses affected by impending street closures. Two Days Prior to event – Street closure signs will be posted per Police Department guidelines. Other - Press releases and maps will be sent to the Stillwater Gazette (among other media outlets). Posters and brochures will be distributed throughout the community. Event Day Pedestrian crossings - Pedestrians can cross the course at many locations. Detours – will be designated per Stillwater and Washington County guidelines. Maps - Course marshals will provide course maps and schedules to motorists who ask for information. Vehicle crossings - vehicles can cross the course under police or race director supervision (driving on the course during a race is prohibited for safety reasons.) Vehicles on the course - If it is essential that a vehicle use the course during the event, they can do so before, between or after the completion of the races. Route Security Route security will be provided by a combination of police and volunteers. Every intersection will be staffed and police will be stationed at key intersections. Many of the corner marshals will be equipped with radios. Four police officers will be on duty. One each will be stationed at Chestnut/2, Pine/3and 3/Chesnut. The fourth officer will “float”. ndrd rd Construction Schedule Event setup will begin Sunday morning at 7 am and will be completed by 10am. Road barricades needed to close the race circuit will be pre-placed on Friday or Saturday They will be pulled into place when needed (see above) and then pulled back when the roads open. Tear down will begin at 3:00 pm and should be completed by 4:00 pm. Most materials will be loaded into trucks immediately. Materials requiring pickup by vendors (e.g. road barricades) will be removed on Monday. Expo Area / Food Vendors In addition to the bicycle racing action, the Festival will have an expo area located in the parking lot located at the northwest corner of Olive and Second Street. The expo area is an addition that helps to attract more spectators by having bicycle industry and fitness related vendors, festival sponsors and food vendors. The expo should not affect parking as it is located inside the race course. The parking lot will be posted for no parking on race day. Typical setup of the expo area allows a vendor a 10’x10’ space with pop-up tent. Food vendors will typically sell sandwiches, cold beverages, coffee and ice cream. Any cooking with open flames or any significant power source will be coordinated with the fire department for any safety concerns. Parking To minimize congestion in downtown Stillwater, we will use the event web site and printed materials to encourage racers, volunteers, officials, organizers and anyone who is traveling to Stillwater specifically for the race to park in lots that are either inside the course or are up the hill (e.g. Lots 12, 13 & 14, as designated on ilovestillwater.com). We will also encourage people to travel to the event by bicycle and will provide a secure bike corral for their convenience. Requested City Support: Police: 4 officers onsite - coordinated by Bill Lenz, our Security Director Medical Personnel: 2 EMT’s onsite – coordinated by Heather Edwards, our Medical Director Street Support: patching/cleaning prior to race day–coordinated by Lee Stylos, Operations Insurance The Nature Valley Grand Prix is permitted under USA Cycling, the national governing body of the sport of bicycle racing. Insurance is provided by USA Cycling's carrier, American Specialty Insurance Services of Roanoake, IN. The policy includes $1 million in liability coverage per incident and $4 million in excess liability in addition to other coverage. The City of Stillwater, sponsors and other participating parties will be named as "other insured" and will be issued certificates of insurance. Benefiting Charity All proceeds made from the Nature Valley Grand Prix will be benefiting our charity, Children’s Lighthouse. Organizing Body The bike race is organized by Minnesota Bicycle Festivals, Inc. MBF is a non-profit corporation that was established specifically to create and manage bicycle racing events. The MBF officers, Board of Directors and the managers of all of the component events donate their services to support the Festival and Children’s Hospitals. Other MBF races have taken place in downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis, the Minnesota State Capitol, the University of Minnesota campus, Redwing, Winona, Virginia, Mankato, Cannon Falls and Plainview. Memorandum To: Mayor & City Council From: Diane Ward, City Clerk Date: 3/27/2013 Re: Issuance of On-sale and Sunday liquor license Tin Bins A liquor license application from Commander Project LLC, dba: Tin Bins has been received for the issuance of an On-sale liquor and Sunday license at 413 Nelson Street. Approval for the licenses should be contingent upon approval by Police, Finance, Fire, Building Departments, Washington County Department of Health and Minnesota Liquor Control. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to issue a new On-Sale liquor license they should pass a motion to adopt Resolution APPROVING ISSUANCE OF AN ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES TO COMMANDER PROJECT LLC, dba: TIN BINS. RESOLUTION 2013-047 APPROVING ISSUANCE OF AN ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES TO COMMANDER PROJECT LLC, dba: TIN BINS WHEREAS, an application has been received the issuance of an On-sale and Sunday liquor license for Commander Project LLC, dba: Tin Bins; and WHEREAS, all required forms have been submitted and fees paid. NOW THEREFORE, BE IF RESOLVED that the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota, hereby approves the issuance of a new On-Sale and Sunday liquor license conditioned upon approval by Police, Fire, Building Inspection and Finance Departments, Washington County Department of Health and Minnesota Liquor Control. nd Adopted by Stillwater City Council this 2 day of April, 2013. ____________________________ Ken Harycki, Mayor Attest: ____________________________ Diane F. Ward, City Clerk RESOLUTION 2013-049 APPROVING OF 2013 LICENSE TO USE REAL PROPERTY WITH NORTH HILL COMMUNITY GARDEN BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Stillwater, MN that License to Use Real Property between the North Hill Community Garden and the City of Stillwater for the use of Garden Plots at Staples Field Park, 403 West Aspen Street is hereby approved and authorizes the Mayor to sign the license. nd Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 2 day of April, 2013. Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Mayor & Councilmembers TO: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director FROM: March 28, 2013 DATE : April 2, 2013 COUNCIL DATE: RE: Paul Larson Variance 106 Lakeside Drive Case No. 2012-15 BACKGROUND Paul Larson is planning a major remodeling project for his home at 106 Lakeside Drive. The project would include: 1) an addition to the north side of the house (see plot plan in the attached Planning Report) that would be garage on the lower level and a master bedroom on the upper level; and 2) a second story over the remainder of the home. The proposed remodeling project complies with all setback and height standards. It also falls well below the maximum allowed impervious coverage for the neighborhoodÔs base RB Zoning District. However, since the property also lies within the St. Croix River Overlay District, only 20% of the lot may be covered with impervious surface. Currently the property has 28.6% impervious cover. The additional footprint of the proposed project would bring the total to 30%. A variance has been requested to allow the proposed 30% impervious cover. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the request on May 14, 2012 and recommended approval. One of the conditions of approval was that a stormwater mitigation plan must be submitted by the landowner and approved by the City Engineer and the DNR before the City Council hears the request. The mitigation plan was on March 13, 2013. The City Engineer has reviewed and approved it. The DNR has reviewed it as well, and though the mitigation plan is satisfactory, they do not support the impervious surface variance. Larson Variance 2 Page SPECIFIC REQUESTS Paul Larson is asking the City Council for a 1,147 square foot variance from impervious coverage allowed in St. Croix River Overlay District. DISCUSSION The current home has a split level design with a look-out lower level. The proposed improvements include adding another story across the entire house. The result would essentially be a 2 ½ story house: a look-out lower level and two The property has a base zoning of RB, Two-Family Residential. T height of 35 feet (number of stories is not specified in the ord would be 27 feet tall. The plan to mitigate the extra 1,147 square feet of impervious surface (161 square feet of new footprint, the remainder of the excess already exists) is to build a rain garden just north of the driveway. Gutters and downspouts will be connected via buried pipe to the rain garden. An open grate trench drain will also be installed the full width of the driveway. This will collect the rain from the driveway and divert it into the rain garden. impervious surface drainage will be diverted into the rain garden As mentioned above, the Department of Natural Resources is opposed to increasing the amount of impervious surface in the St. Croix River Overlay District. Their position is that a lot in the river district is allowed 20% coverage and anything beyond that negatively impacts aesthetic and environmental aspects of the Wild & Scenic River. And, since the larger footprint is a convenience, the tradeoff in impact to the river is not merited. From the DNRÔs point of view, since a major improvement project is proposed for the property anyway, this is the time to reduce the current overage in impervious cover, not increase it. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION The City Council has at least the following possible courses of action. A.Find that the requested variance meets the necessary review criteria and approve the attached Resolution. 1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval. 2. An erosion control plan must be submitted to the City Enginee before any earth work begins, or a building permit is issued. Furthermore, an erosion control installation inspection must be scheduled with the City Engineering Department and found satisfactory prior to beginning any earth w Larson Variance 3 Page 3. The exterior colors of the entire home shall be limited to earth tones. The earth tone colors must be specified by the property owner and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the mitigation plan must be recorded in the propertyÔs chain of title by the landowner and proof of recording must be provided to the City. 5. A mitigation plan maintenance agreement must be proposed by approved by the City and recorded in the propertyÔs chain of title by the landowner. Proof of recording must be provided to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. B. Find that the requested variance does not meet the necess staff to prepare a Resolution of denial for the next Council mee C. Table the requested variance for more information. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Commission The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with these conditions: 1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval. 2. A surface water runoff mitigation plan must be submitted to the City Engineer and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and found satisfactory consideration of the variance request by the City Council. 3. An erosion control plan must be submitted to the City Enginee before any earth work begins, or a building permit is issued. Furthermore, an erosion control installation inspection must be scheduled with the City Engineering Department and found satisfactory prior to beginning any earth w 4. The exterior colors of the entire home shall be limited to earth tones. The earth tone colors must be specified by the property owner and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. City Staff City staff does not support the proposed increase in the impervious surface on this property. attachments: PC minutes Stormwater plan Planning Report Bill Turnblad From:Paul Larson <paul@alchemysoundandvision.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:01 PM To:Bill Turnblad Subject:Water Mitigation Plan for 106 Lakeside Dr Attachments:expansion0001.pdf; rain garden.jpg Hello Bill, thanks for your time on the phone today. I would like to keep the ball rolling on the approval process so we can get our project underway this spring. The water mitigation plan for 106 Lakeside Dr Stillwater, MN 55082 that Mike Pogge and I had come up with before he left is as follows. We plan to add a 161 square foot (7x23) addition to the North side of our house which will slide the garage over to our setback limits and allow for a new larger entry area that makes room for the necessary stair cases to go to the new upper levels of the home. The new square footage of the home, garage, deck, covered entry, and driveway will be 3,529 square feet total. Our square footage of the lot is a total of 11,412 so the impervious surfaces will go from the existing 29.5% to 30.9% after the addition. To mitigate the 10.9% (1247 sq ft) overage we plan to build a 48 cubic foot rain garden just north of our driveway between the street and our garage. The 12"-18" of fill in the rain garden will be comprised of washed sharp sand (50% by volume), double shredded hardwood mulch (20% by volume) and topsoil (30% by volume). Attached you will find a planting schedule that we plan to follow closely for the top of the rain garden. To route rain water into the rain garden we will be taking the gutters and downspouts from the 851sq ft roof that covers the garage and entry area and berrying pipe to connect the downspout and rain garden. The house design has a flat roof with a slight pitch towards the front so it will be able to be connected with only one short pipe. We will also be cutting in a drain into the full width of the driveway 1/3 of the distance from the street to the garage which will collect the rain from the top 2/3 (640 sq ft) and divert it into the rain garden. In total we will be diverting waterfall from 1,491 square feet of impervious surface into our rain garden which will bring us to 17.8% total impervious surface. Please see attached drawings and feel free to contact me with any questions. Paul Larson Owner Alchemy Sound & Vision 2112 NE Broadway St Minneapolis MN 55413 612.723.2790 Cell 612.333.3703 Office 480.247.5882 Fax www.alchemysoundandvision.com 1 Planning Commission Report May 10, 2012 2012-15 DATECASE NO.: : Paul Larson APPLICANT: Paul Larson PROPERTY OWNER: Impervious coverage variance REQUEST: 106 Lakeside Drive LOCATION: RB Ï Two-family District BASE ZONING: St. Croix River Overlay District OVERLAY ZONING: May 14, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: June 5, 2012 CITY COUNCIL HEARING: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director PREPARED BY : REQUEST 1,147 square foot variance from impervious coverage allowed in St. Croix River Overlay District BACKGROUND Paul Larson is planning a major remodeling project for his home at 106 Lakeside Drive. The project would include: 1.A 7 foot by 23 foot addition to the north side of the house (see a.On the ground level this addition would be garage space b.On the upper level this space would be part of the master bedroo 2.A second story over the garage and a second story over the main portion of the existing split level home. As seen in the table below, the proposed remodeling project complies with all massing standards. It also falls well below the maximum allowed impervious coverage for the 106 Lakeside Dr Page 2 neighborhoodÔs base zoning district. However, since the property lies within the St. Croix River Overlay District, only 20% of the lot may be covered with impervious surface. Currently the property has 28.6% impervious cover. The additional footprint of the proposed project would bring the total to 30%. Standard Existing Proposed Lot size 20,000 sf 11,412 sf 11,412 sf 1 Garage size 1,000 sf max 483 sf 552 sf Front setback (home) 20Ô 29.65Ô 29.65Ô Front setback (garage) 39.65Ô +/- 46Ô +/- 46Ô North Side setback 5Ô 12.67Ô 5.67Ô South side setback (deck) 10Ô +/- 10Ô +/- 10Ô Rear setback 25Ô +/- 45Ô +/- 45Ô Height 35Ô max [split entry one story] 27Ô Impervious cover 20% max 28.6% 30.0% 2,282 sf 3,268 sf 3,429 sf REQUEST DETAILS The maximum permitted impervious surface coverage in the St. Croix River Overlay District is 20%. Since the lot has a size of 11,412 square feet, impervious surface for the property is 2 limited to 2,282 square feet. Currently the property has a cov (28.6%). The proposed remodeling would add 161 square feet of f total coverage after the project is completed would be 3,429 square feet (30.0%). This is 1,147 square feet more than permitted. EVALUATION OF REQUEST When considering a variance in the St. Croix River Overlay District, the City must review it against the thirteen standards found below. 3 1.Preserving the scenic and recreational resources of the St. Croi especially in regard to the view from and use of the river. The home is not a riparian lot. Two tiers of homes and two stre paralleling the river lie between the St. Croix and the Larson home. Therefore, the single story addition will not be easily viewed from the river. 2.The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. The home is currently connected to public water and sanitary sew accessed from public roads. The addition will be built in accordance with Minnesota building standards. 1 Substandard lots are considered buildable without a lot size variance. 2 City Code Ch. 31, Section 31-401, Subd. 6 (b)(1) 3 City Code Ch. 31, Section 31-401, Subd 16 (g) and Ch. 31, Section 31-208 (d) 106 Lakeside Dr Page 3 3.The prevention and control of water pollution, including sedimen A primary reason that river district lots are required to be at in area is to allow rainwater and snow melt to percolate into the lotÔs yard rather than runoff into the river. Consequently, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources rigorously advocates its 20% impervious cover rule, which has been incorporated into City ordinances. In this case, the undersized lot (11,412 square feet instead of 20,000) together with the proposed expansion of the homeÔs footprint results in 30% impervious cover. To consider granting a variance to allow an increase in stormwater runoff, the 1,147 square feet of surface that exceeds the maximum allowance needs to be mitigated. A surface water treatment plan will need to be submitted to, and approved by the City Engineer and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) consideration by the City Council. This mitigation could be accomplished through the use of engineered raingardens, roof run-off collection, subsurface on-site stormwater holing areas, pervious hard surfaces with engineered subsurfaces, etc. Moreover, the DNR and city staffs believe that there should be no increase allowed in the total amount of impervious, especially since there is already 8.6% more on the property than allowed along the St. Croix River. The 166 square foot increase created by the addition could be removed from the 854 square feet of driveway surface. This may be possible through a ÑhoneycombÒ grid that is 30-50% grass, The size of the lot may not be sufficient to make on-site treatm excess stormwater economically feasible. If this turns out to be the case, an option would be to eliminate the 166 square foot expansion to the footprint. If this were to occur, City staff would have the authority to issue a building permit for the rest of the project. 4.The location of the site with respect to floodways, slopes and b The home is outside the Floodway as identified by FEMA. There are no blufflines on the property or within 100 feet of the property lines. 5.The erosion potential of the site based on degree and direction and vegetative cover. The lot is relatively flat with only a 4% slope across the prope storm sewers in the street lead directly to the river. So erosion control will have to be installed prior to beginning any earth work on the lot. 6.Potential impact on game and fish habitat. The neighborhood and this lot are already developed. So the imp fish habitat would be negligible. 106 Lakeside Dr Page 4 7.Location of the site with respect to existing or future access r The home has access on a paved public street (Lakeside Drive). No changes are proposed with this addition. 8.The amount of wastes to be generated and the adequacy of the pro system. The home is connected to public sanitary sewer. 9.The anticipated demand for police, fire, medical and school services and facilities. The home is currently a single-family home and no change of use is proposed with the addition. Adequate public support services are available for this property. 10.The compatibility of the proposed development with uses on adjac The home is a single-family home in a single-family neighborhood. The use is compatible and comparable to the developed land use pattern of t 11.A practical difficulty peculiar to the property exists, which wa act of the owner. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. The home was constructed in 1972, according to the Washington County Tax Services department. The CityÔs river overlay regulations were developed in May of 1974. The conditions on the lot existed prior to the adoption of the o created by the current home owner. The amount of existing impervious surface on the lot was inherited by the current owners. However, it may be hard to argue that it is reasonable to increa impervious coverage on the property, particularly since it is already substantially more than currently allowed. 12.A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. The additional 7 foot by 23 foot addition would surely be a convenience, as it would allow additional garage space, a more inviting front entryway, and additional floor area in the master bedroom. But, the property already supports a single family home with an attached two car garage. Therefore a variance is not necessary to preserve substantial property rights, they already exist. 13.The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detri property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The proposed remodeling would result in a home that is only 27 f maintain all minimum setback requirements. Therefore surrounding properties would not be negatively impacted. 106 Lakeside Dr Page 5 However, holding properties along the St. Croix River to 20% impervious coverage is important to the integrity of the river. No net increase is important as is a solid surface water runoff plan and conscientious installation of those water treatment improvements according to current best practices. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1.Recommend that the City Council approve the requested variance. 2.Recommend that the City Council deny the variance. 3.Table the variance request until additional stormwater treatment information has been submitted to the City Engineer and DNR for review. In most instances, the Planning Commission is authorized to make a decision on variance requests. However, since this property is located within the St. Croix River Overlay District, the Planning CommissionÔs role in this case is to forward a reco Council. RECOMMENDATION If the surface water runoff from all impervious surfaces in excess of 20% can be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Department of Natural Resources, and there is no net increase of impervious coverage on the property, then staff would recommend approval of the variance with the following conditions: 1.The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval. 2.A surface water runoff mitigation plan must be submitted to the City Engineer and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and found satisfactory consideration of the variance request by the City Council. 3.An erosion control plan must be submitted to the City Engineer and found satisfactory before any earth work begins, or a building permit is issued. Furthermore, an erosion control installation inspection must be scheduled with the City Engineering Department and found satisfactory prior to beginning any earth work on the 4.The exterior colors of the entire home shall be limited to earth tones. The specific earth tone colors must be specified by the property owner and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. cc: Paul Larson Molly Shodeen, DNR Attachments: Zoning and Location Map Plot Plan ApplicantÔs Narrative Exterior Elevations 2012 2007 309 307 301 206 RESOLUTION NO. 2013- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AT 106 LAKESIDE DRIVE CASE NO. 2012-15 WHEREAS , Paul Larson, owner of the subject property, made application for approval of a variance from the maximum permitted impervious surface on his property located at 106 Lakeside Drive; and WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is: Lot 8, Lakeview Terrace, Washington County, MN; and WHEREAS , on May 14, 2012 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the variance, no comments were submitted by the public, and unanimously recommended approval with four conditions; one of which required the submittal of a stormwater mitigation plan prior to consideration of the case by the City Council; and WHEREAS , on March 13, 2013 the landowner submitted the required stormwater mitigation plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the requested variance with the following conditions: 1.The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval. 2.An erosion control plan must be submitted to the City Engineer and found satisfactory before any earth work begins, or a building permit is issued. Furthermore, an erosion control installation inspection must be scheduled with the City Engineering Department and found satisfactory prior to beginning any earth work on the property. 3.The exterior colors of the entire home shall be limited to earth tones. The earth tone colors must be specified by the property owner and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 4.Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the mitigation plan must be recorded in the property’s chain of title by the landowner and proof of recording must be provided to the City. 5.A mitigation plan maintenance agreement must be proposed by the landowner, approved by the City and recorded in the property’s chain of title by the landowner. Proof of recording must be provided to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. nd Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this 2 day of April, 2013. CITY OF STILLWATER Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: Diane Ward, Clerk Mayor & City Council TO: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director FROM: March 29, 2013 DATE: RE: Grand Request for Parking Ramp Vouchers BACKGROUND Mr. Dick Anderson, owner of the Grand in downtown Stillwater, has requested consideration for issuance of discount parking ramp vouchers. Frequently when the Grand hosts large wedding receptions or other events, the parking lots in the area are filled. Consequently, Mr. Anderson would like to be able to validate parking vouchers for use in the parking ramp during these events. The City currently provides any downtown business that is interested with a validator at cost. However, the business would normally be charged full rate for the validated ramp vouchers. The proposed discount would be $1 off of the $3 off-season rate and $2 off of the peak- season rate. In other words, the Grand would be billed $2 for each validated off- season voucher and $3 for each validated peak-season voucher. COMMENTS Except during the July 4 fireworks event and Lumberjack Days (when the event was still th being held), the parking ramp can always accommodate more vehicles. So, perhaps the proposed discount can be beneficial to both the Grand and the City. PARKING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Parking Commission recommended approval of the requested voucher discounts. bt A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MUNICIPAL STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS WHEREAS, Minnesota contains over 135,000 miles of roadway, and over 19,000 milesor 14 percent-- are owned and maintained by Mi WHEREAS, 84 percent of municipal streets are ineligible for dedicated Highway User Tax Distribution Fund dollars; and WHEREAS, the more than 700 Minnesota cities with populations below 5,000 are ineligible for dedicated Highway User Tax Distribution Fund dollars; and WHEREAS, city streets are a separate but integral piece of the network of roads supporting movement of people and goods; and existing funding mechanisms, such as Municipal State Aid (MSA), property taxes and WHEREAS, special assessments, have limited applications, leaving cities under-equipped to address growing needs; and maintenance costs increase as road systems age, and no city--large or smallis spending WHEREAS, enough on roadway capital improvements to maintain a 50-year lifecycle; and WHEREAS, for every one dollar spent on maintenance, a road authority saves seven dollars in repairs; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Stillwater finds it is difficult to develop adequate funding systems to support the City's needed street improvement and maintenance programs while complying with existing State statutes; and WHEREAS, cities need flexible policies and greater resources in order to meet growing demands for municipal street improvements and maintenance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER supports enabling legislation that would authorize cities to establish street improvement districts to fund municipal street maintenance, construction and reconstruction. ADOPTED by the Stillwater City Council this 2nd day of April, 2013. ____________________________________ Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Diane F. Ward, City Clerk ASSESSMENT NOTICE Important Information Regarding Assessment and Classification of Property This may affect your 2014 property taxes. Notice is hereby given that the Open Book Meetings for the CITY OF STILLWATER shall meet on the following dates and locations: th Cottage Grove City Hall Thursday, April 4 , 2013 5:00pm 7:00pm th Oakdale City Hall Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:00pm 7:00pm th Woodbury City Hall Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:00pm 7:00pm th Washington County Government Center Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:00pm 7:00pm Property owners may attend any one of the four regional Open Book meetings. The purpose of these meetings is to determine whether taxable property in the jurisdiction has been properly valued and classified by the assessor, and to determine whether corrections need to be made. to discuss your concerns. If you are still not satisfied with the valuation or classification after discussing it with your assessor, you may appear before the county board of appeal and equalization. The board shall review the valuation, classification, or both if necessary, and shall correct it as needed. BY ORDER OF THE STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL Given under my hand this 21st day of March, 2013 /s/Diane F. Ward Diane F. Ward, City Clerk