1.5 Chain of Lake Project 1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 MEMORANDUM =
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager • •_____Y/2-.//CS' _
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planne
DATE: April 21, 1988
SUBJ: Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project
1 Bob Obermeyer and Conrad Fiskness from the Riley Purgatory Bluff
Creek Watershed District will be present Monday evening to present
an overview of the above referenced project. Attached is a flow
1 chart of major tasks to be accomplished for this project. Also
attached is a memorandum from the Park and Recreation Coordinator
summarizing the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation on
this item. Background reports and summaries have also been
enclosed.
Mr. Obermeyer and Mr. Fiskness will review the project and
1 request Council input as to whether or not certain aspects of the
program are consistent with Council' s policies . Specifically,
the watershed district would like to determine whether or not the
1 Council agrees with the effort to provide public access to Lake
Lucy and Lake Susan. If public access cannot be achieved, the
DNR has stated that they cannot restock the lakes nor will they
participate in this cooperative effort.
1 Implementation of the proposed project will entail expenditure of
approximately $8, 300 to the City, however, no specific action is
1 needed on authorization of this money this evening. This will be
scheduled on a future agenda. Again, the purpose of the presen-
tation on Monday evening is to receive Council input on the pro-
f posed project and specifically pertaining to the public access
issues on Lake Lucy and Lake Susan.
1
1
1
r
C I TY 0 F
1
\ I 1/41v CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner 1
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: April 14 , 1988
� 1
SUBJ: Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project 1
The Park and Recreation Commission discussed this item at their
April 12, 1988 meeting and are in full support of the project.
The Commission understands the need for public accesses on Lake
Lucy and Lake Susan and have prioritized those items on their
capital improvement program. It is anticipated that the City
will be submitting LAWCON grant applications for both sights .
There was concern expressed by the Commission that public access
should not be accomplished if it jeopardizes the water quality of
another lake. This concern was noted when the possibility of
gaining access via Lake Ann was discussed. As the water quality
of Lake Ann is much higher than Lake Lucy, we would have to be
assured that dredging a channel between the two would not adver-
sely affect Lake Ann. If we could not be assured of this, an
alternate access should be pursued. 1
A motion was unanimously passed to recommend support of the Lake
Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project and to contribute the
$8, 303 toward the local share of the project.
cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1
i
1
1
r
11 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 28
II
I Sietsema: Basically you' re saying , you want me to go back to the
residents and tell them that technically it' s not a park deficient area,
although we see the need arising and we will look at the next. . .
I Mady: We will constantly be looking for a way of doing it but it' s not
the way we do it. We don' t just go out and buy parkland .
I Boyt: We' re not going to purchase two lots. They can do that through
their Association .
ii(C.........
LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Sietsema: Do you want me to go through this again or you read it and you
Ijust want to ask questions or comments or whatever?
Mady: I guess I 'm familiar with it. What it looks like here is we need
to spend $8 ,300. 00 to get the ball moving on this thing and staff
recommendation is that this is very important to the City and we should
do it . It looks good . I know we definitely need it . Lake Lucy needs to
be cleaned up. Lake Riley needs to be cleaned up badly. Lake Ann I
Ithink is in good shape . I 'm not sure what Susan is like.
Hoffman: Susan has rough fish.
1 Schroers : When they say clean up, I guess I 'd like that defined a little
better .
ISietsema: It means fish kills , getting rid of all the rough fish .
Hoffman: Fish barriers and shoals .
1 Sietsema : Aeration systems.
Hoffman: Stocking programs .
I
Schroers : Anything about aquatic growths , weed harvesting , weed
treatment or chemical treatment?
IHoffman : If it would become necessary.
IISietsema: And it is necessary.
Mady: One of the things that the rough fish take care of, the lake
bottom, over time takes and naturally fixes itself.
IISietsema: It also involves upland draining . Chemicals from farmland
draining, fertilizer and working on not only the drainage problems but
I educating the people that live around the lake that fertilizing their
lawn every week is not good for your lake and that kind of thing. It
involves the whole spectrum. They' re looking at all facets of cleaning
II up these lakes including not just the fish but also the weeds and the
whole thing .
II
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 12, 1988 - Page 29
11
Schroers : I would like to somehow be able to discuss it and point out
that at least in appearance, Lake Ann seems to be neat and clean and a
great place to swim and people don' t come out of there very often with
swimmer ' s itch and these kinds of problems. I would not be in favor of
anything that could contaminate or in anyway lessen the water quality of II
Lake Ann.
Sietsema : That' s a point very well taken and staff , myself, will take it '
into consideration when we' re going through this process. Especially
with the boat access on Lake Lucy. If it is absolutely impossible for us
to get access on Lake Lucy, I don' t know that DNR is going to hold up a
million dollar project because of that one access on a 90 acre lake.
They may swap on that but right now, I don ' t know them to be willing to
do that.
Schroers : Have you gone to that little creek there? '
Sietsema: Yes .
Schroers : Would you personally like to see that dug out big enough to
accomodate boat traffic?
Sietsema: I don' t think it' s the optimal thing .
Schroers: I really think by digging that down, all the loose sediment
and things that are in there , the flow is from Lucy to Ann and it' s
running north to south there, and if you dredge it out deep enough that
you' re going to be able to get a boat through there and open it up,
you' re asking for a lot of that sediment from Lucy coming right down into II
Ann . Nothing ' s going to stop it and it ' s got to deteriorate the quality
of the water . I don' t see how it couldn ' t. If you look at the two
lakes , they are two totally different lakes . Lake Ann is generally a '
hard bottom. Not particularly weedy or fertile lake and if you go into
Lake Lucy, it is just a mudhole . Full of weeds. I just wouldn' t want to
see anything happen.
Sietsema: I hear what you ' re saying.
Mady moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City of Chanhassen participate in the Riley-Purgatory-
Bluff Creek Watershed District clean-up project and spend the $8, 333 . 00 II that ' s considered our share with the caution that the City of Chanhassen
will participate fully in it. However, if we feel that there will be
anything that will hurt Lake Ann in any way, shape or form, that the City
will do everything in it' s power to pull out of the project and stop the
project . All voted in favor and motion carried .
MONTHLY PARK DEDICATION FEE RECEIPTS.
Sietsema: This is just for your information . If there are any
questions?
I
•. I — — — • I IN I — EN I = — 1,� am am am
RILEY-314-86—II—BALANCE J
PROJECT PROGRAM ELEMENTS TOTAL ELIGIBLE
Riley Chain of Lakes PROJECT COSTS
PROGRAM 1 5j Ident. NPS Control Areas
Fed Section 314 I 6 BMP Construction 209.260.00
7. Alum Treatment $209,260.00
FEDERAL PROJ. NUMBER 8 Biomanipuiation $40,000.00
5005893-01 9 Hypolimnetic Aeration $180,000.00
10 Winter Aeration $75,000.00
STATE PROJECT NUMBER 111 Fish Barrier Const. 2 .000.00
121 Monitoring $1 1 0 0,000.00
13. Engineering $130,000.00
PHASE II 14' Public Education $21
,000.00
15 TOTAL 911 5,260.00
AWARD DATE 16 $935,260.00 ,.+���
June 13,DATE 1986 17
18' EPA PROJECT SUPPORT $467,630.00
19• NON—FEDERAL SUPPORT E o sw Piev +e1,
20' DNR SUPPORT $447,630.00 " �f"�
BUDGET PERIOD
21' WATERSHED DISTRICT 470,260.00 �I�, �21'aM +A'" 4
June 1, 1986 • 22 SUBTOTAL $470,260.00 ` P Ifs ��'
23 . , ,
May 31 , 1990 �t '
24' TOTAL $937,890.00 1, t '; ��:_. ;�` x.. ?,
APID
25
26
Extra 27
28'
AID NAME 20•
30'
31'
AID AMOUNT(S) , 32
33'
34
3▪ 5.
351
37
•
38
TOTAL
$0.00 • 39
• 40,
411
42
43
44
45
• 46''
• 471 48
CITY • 49
5
Eden Prairie, Chanhassen
• 51
COUNTY • 52
Hennepin. Carver ,
53'
54'
WATERSHED DISTRICT , 56'
Riley — Purgatory Bluff • 57'
5• 8'
• 59'
88P
•
1
RP,IB-CWD )
1 ... 1
Enter into substate
agreement to prepare -
a project work plan
I
Eden Prairie and
Chanhassen City staff `4
Coordinate project
efforts with local '
municipalities
I
I Presentations to I
Eden Prairie and
Chanhassen City
Councils
MDNR >
I
v
Determine public
access requirements _
I
- and OM&R requirements
of fish barriers and
aerators
Eden Prairie and
Chanhassen City I
Councils
Negotiate agreements
regarding OM&R of fish
barriers and aerators
•
1
Agreement between No Terminate
Cities and RPBCWD Project
I
MDNR ). Yes
stablish required I
public access on No Revise or
Lakes Susan, Ann, terminate
and Lucy project
Yes
Feasibility study
I
of fish barrier
between Lake Riley
and Rice Marsh Lake
I
'No Revise project
plans i
Yes
Identify water
I
quality objectives for
runoff and for lakes
and streams
•
I
page 2
- Ill-
I y
Review RPBCWD and Eden
Prairie & Chanhassen
regulations regarding
NPS pollution and
' assess their effectiveness
(comparison to other
standards, e.g., NURP
guidelines)
II •
Identify all critical
non-point sources of
' pollution and assess their _
impacts on the quality
of receiving water bodies
1
' Develop list of NPS
pollution control measures
to be installed as part
of demonstration projects
1
Establish cost-sharing
funding mechanism for
demonstration projects
Issue project work
plan
' RPBCWD reviews project
411141 work plan
' No Revise or
terminate
® project
' Yes
Enter into new sub-state
agreement to complete — — — — —
project
1 I
Re-evaluate
' biomanipulation of
® Lake Riley
' Meetings with Lakeshore
property owners to discuss
biomanipulation
' Biomaniputate No Revise scale
Lake Riley of project
' Yes
Design and construct/ •
•
—J
install fish barriers
and aerators
.f.»
® 1
Rotenone treatment and
restocking of fish
into project lakes
Conduct NPS pollution
control demonstration
projects
Conduct water quality
monitoring as part of
demonstration projects
(experimental vs. "control"
during storm events)
Investigate alternative
sediment treatment measures
to reduce internal P loading
from Rice Marsh Lake .
sediments (if needed after
biomanipulation and fish
barrier construction)
1
Feasible to treat Rice No Revise project
Marsh Lake sediment plans
Yes
Treat Rice Marsh Lake I '
sediments
1
Analysis of water quality
data from demonstration
projects and comparison of F
efficacy of currently
required NPS pollution
control measures to that of
"state-of-the-art"
techniques
Final project report
including observed water
quality improvements and
recommendations concerning
NPS control. measures in
• developing areas to preserve/
improve water quality '
RPBCWD and municipalities
to act on recommendations
contained in final project
report
STOP '
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
1 FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: April 1, 1988
SUBJ: Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project
1 The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD)
jointly funded a Diagnostic-Feasibility Study of the Riley Creek
Chain of Lakes with the cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie
1 during 1985 . The study report was used as part of a Clean Lakes
Program grant application to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) . The grant award for the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes
1 Improvement Project was made in mid-1986.
To date, little has been done on the project due, in part, to
1 potential financial liabilities associated with the project that
may obligate the RPBCWD to supply the local share of project
funds if the DNR could not complete its portion of the project.
The DNR fisheries work forms the majority of the local matching
1 funds for the project. Their inability to fully participate
in the project could result from the lack of public access on some
of the lakes involved, i .e. Lake Lucy, Lake Ann, Lake Susan, and
1 Lake Riley.
The Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project is potentially
a $940, 000 project which will improve lake and stream water
1 quality at minimal cost to either the RPBCWD or the cities of
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. The project budget is as follows :
1 EPA Project Support: $467, 630
Non-Federal Support:
MN DNR Support 447 ,630
' Watershed Districts & Cities 22 ,630
TOTAL $937 ,890
As stated earlier, the DNR is expected to provide the majority
1 of the local funds required ( 50% ) for this project through its
involvement in the renovation of fisheries in project lakes. To
do so, however, they must be assured public access to the lakes,
1
i
II
Park and Recreation Commission
April 1, 1988 1
Page 2
and agreements to operate, maintain and repair aerators and fish I
barriers.
The first phase of the project is to develop a Work Plan which is
II
expected to cost $50,000 over the period of April through Sep-
tember, 1988. The costs of the work plan are grant-eligible and
will be shared 50:50 by the US-EPA and the "local" project spon- '
sors. The RPBCWD is requesting that the cities of Chanhassen and
Eden Prairie consider joining the RPBCWD as "local" project co-
sponsors for the purpose of preparing the Work Plan for the Lake II Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project. Equally divided be-
tween Cities and the District, this will amount to $8333 per
agency.
IIAttached please find a description of Lake Riley Chain of Lakes
Improvement Project. Staff sees this as an important project for
the City of Chanhassen and a tremendous opportunity to improve II the water and fishing quality on our lakes . For this project to
be implemented, it is imperative to obtain public access on Lakes
Lucy and Susan, as access exists on Lakes Ann and Riley. It is II the recommendation of this office to approve the expenditure of
$8333 for the preparation of the Work Plan and to pursue public
access on Lake Lucy and Lake Susan,
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
II
II
4
r
I JAN 1 _T v
PE1O ' v
FISHERIES
vsood.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
January 12, 1987
' TO: Mr. Bob Obermeyer Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District)
Mr. Fred Richards, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
' Ms. Jo Ann Olsen, City of Chanhassen
Mr. Bob Lambert, City of Eden Prairie
Mr. Stan Wendland, Soil Conservation Service, Carver County
Mr. Patrick Kennedy, Hennepin Co. Soil & Water Conservation District
' Mr. Duane Shodeen, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Marcel Joseau, Metropolitan Council
Mr. Mark Nelson, Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Board
' Mr. Jon DeGroot, Soil Conservation Service
Mr. Harvey Sundmacker, Soil Conservation Service
Mr. Don Roberts, U. Environmental Protection Agency
' FROM: Patrick J. Mulloy,_,
Program Development ection, Division of Water Quality
' SUBJECT: DESCRIPTION OF THE RILEY CREEK CHAIN OF LAKES PROJECT
A draft of the Riley Creek Chain of Lakes Project Description is enclosed for
' your review. The draft describes the project history and funding; nonpoint
source pollution; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) expectations; perceived roles and
responsibilities of the watershed district, cities, soil and water
' conservation districts (SWCDs) , and other agencies; and possible means of
completing the project. A draft substate agreement and a copy of EPA
regulations regarding the Clean Lake Program (CLP) and the CLP Grant
Application have been included with the description to provide additional
information regarding the project. The project description will be formally
presented to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Board of
' Managers, city councils of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, and the supervisors
of the Carver and Hennepin SWCDs following review by the local, state, and
federal agency staff who will be involved in the project.
Please review this draft and provide comments by January 23, 1987.
Suggestions regarding the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved
are especially requested. The list presented in the project description is
intended to be preliminary and may not include all roles and responsibilities
of each organization. Input from each unit of government is necessary to
make the list complete. If you have any questions, please contact Greg
Johnson at 296-7237.
PJM:njm
Enclosure
' Phone:
520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
•
•
RILEY CREEK CHAIN OF LAKES PROJECT
The Riley reek Chain of Lakes Project will implement a new lake protection and
y Project P P
restoration strategy developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) '
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to improve and protect the
water quality of the lakes in the Riley Creek watershed. The new strategy
recognizes that it makes little sense to spend public funds to address water
quality problems within a lake without taking steps to correct the problems at
their sources through watershed management. In the past, the success of EPA
Clean Lakes Program (CLP) projects was sometimes limited, because the projects
often dealt only with the in-lake symptoms rather than the sources of the ,
problems. MPCA and EPA experience with the CLP projects spanning ten years has
demonstrated that watershed management must be combined with in-lake restoration
measures to ensure extended lake restoration and protection.
Several questions and answers are presented below to help describe the project.
Hopefully, the answers to the questions will help explain the scope of the
project.
1) Why was the project established?
The project has been established to address the water quality problems
identified by Chapter 208 planning efforts and diagnostic-feasibility
studies of Lake Riley completed by the Metropolitan Council and Barr
Engineering Company. Water quality problems in the area lakes include
algal blooms, excessive growth of aquatic vegetation, fish kills, rough '
1
' -2-
fish, and sedimentation. One of the primary goals of the project is to
' provide increased fishing and swimming opportunities in the lakes through
improvements in the lakes' water quality.
2) How was project funding obtained?
1
' The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) authorized Barr
Engineering Company to prepare an application for Phase II CLP funding to
' be used in addressing the water quality problems in the Riley Creek Chain
of Lakes. The application built on the results of a Phase I
' Diagnostic-Feasibility study completed by the Metropolitan Council in 1983
' and data collected by the RPBCWD between 1974 and 1984. The final report
for the Metropolitan Council study was titled a "Diagnostic-Feasibility
Study of Seven Metropolitan Area Lakes". A second report titled, "Lake
Riley Diagnostic Study Prepared for City of Chanhassen, City of Eden
' Prairie, and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District," was
' prepared by Barr Engineering Company in 1985. This report combined the
results of the Metropolitan Council study and data collected by the
' watershed district. The CLP grant was awarded to the MPCA for use in the
Riley Creek watershed contingent upon the inclusion of nonpoint source
' (NPS) pollution controls in addition to in-lake restoration techniques in
' the project. In addition to dealing with specific water quality problems
in the watershed, the project will be used as a demonstration project in
' the development of a state program for controlling NPS pollution in
urbanizing areas.
t
1
-3-
3) What is nonpoint source pollution?
1
Nonpoint sources of pollution are defined as land management or land use
activities that contribute to pollution as a result of runoff, seepage, or
percolation, but Fre not discharged from specific sites such as municipal
and industrial wastewater outlets (point source pollution) . Nonpoint
sources of pollution are the major reason that a number of Minnesota
•surface and ground waters are not clean enough to support desired uses
ranging from drinking water to fishing. Nationally, estimates of damages '
caused by NPS pollution range from $3 to $12 billion annually. Major
sources of NPS pollution include: agricultural runoff; pesticide and
fertilizer use; feedlot runoff; urban runoff from streets, yards, and '
construction sites; leachate from septic systems; highway de-icing •
chemicals; dredging and drainage activities; and impacts from the loss of
wetlands. The MPCA and EPA are especially concerned about the potential
impacts of development and resulting changes in runoff to the water quality
of the Riley Creek Chain of Lakes.
4) What is a demonstration project? '
A demonstration project is a project designed to develop and demonstrate
administrative and technical solutions to water quality/land use management
problems. The MPCA is currently coordinating two projects in areas which
are primarily agricultural land. The Riley Creek project will provide '
experience in an urbanizing area. The experience gained in these projects
will be used as a guide in the development of a state NPS program. The '
' -4-
' MPCA recognizes that this is a new program, so there are no hard and fast
rules regulating how projects must be implemented. New, innovative ideas
for dealing with water quality problems will be encouraged in each of the
projects.
5) What are the components of a successful project?
Although this project is part of a new program direction, the project can
' draw on the experience gained by the EPA and MPCA over the past ten years
in addressing water quality problems through the construction grants and
' lake restoration programs. Keys to the success of a water quality project
' include local government interest and support, development of specific
goals and objectives, comprehensive watershed management, an information
' and education program, public input and support, and good interagency
coordination.
I
6) What do the EPA and MPCA expect?
' The EPA and MPCA expect that the watershed district and other local units
of government will take steps to ensure that development in the watershed
is undertaken in a manner that does not contribute to the degradation of
' the Riley Creek Chain of Lakes. Alternatives which may be used to address
this issue include voluntary and mandatory controls, cost-share programs
for the installation of best management practices, land use planning and
zoning, and local ordinances. Local needs and resources will play a role
in determining which strategies are most effective.
1
-5-
7) What other agencies or organizations are involved?
Several local, state, and federal agencies have responsibilities for the
management of Minnesota's water resources. In addition to the watershed
district, EPA, and MPCA, other agencies which will be involved in this
project include the City of Chanhassen, City of Eden Prairie, Carver and
Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) , Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) , Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Board
(SWCB) , Metropolitan Council, and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) .
8) What are the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved in the
project?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - The EPA is the primary funding '
source for the project. It also has final approval of the work
products in the project.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - The MPCA is the Clean Lakes Program
grant recipient. The agency is responsible for grant administration
and management, project review and approval, and interagency
coordination. MPCA will provide technical, planning, and regulatory '
assistance as needed.
1
I -6-
IIRiley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - The RPBCWD is
th e
IIsubgrantee for the CLP grant. The watershed district will be
responsible for project administration, management, implementation,
Iand local coordination. The RPBCWD has watershed planning and
Iregulatory authority. It is also responsible for providing some of
the local and state share of the project budget.
I
Cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie - The two cities have local planning,
IIzoning, and regulatory authority. They may be responsible for some
local share of the project budget.
II
IMinnesota Department of Natural Resources - The DNR will be responsible for
fisheries management and rehabilitation in the watershed's lakes.
IIThey will also provide state matching funds for the CLP grant and
technical assistance.
II
IU.S. Soil Conservation Service - The SCS will provide technical assistance
in developing and implementing best management practices in the
II watershed.
IMinnesota Soil and Water Conservation Board - The SWCB will provide
Itechnical assistance and state matching funds for the CLP grant. The
state matching funds will be available through the SWCB state
Icost-share program.
II
II
11
-7-
Hennepin and Carver Soil and Water Conservation Districts - The SWCDs will
be responsible for NPS planning, critical area identification, best
management practices implementation. They will also provide technical
assistance and local match to the CLP grant, primarily through the ,
• contribution of in-kind services.
r
Metropolitan Council - The Metropolitan Council has regional planning
authority. They may provide technical and monitoring assistance.
r
9) What lake restoration/protection measures are available for use in this
project?
To effectively address the water quality problems in the watershed, a
number of restoration/protection measures will probably need to be
implemented. These measures are composed of two types of activities. The
first type includes in-lake restoration techniques such as fish barriers, r
biomanipulation, hypolimnetic aeration, and chemical treatment of bottom
sediments. The second type includes watershed management measures such as
use of best management practices on agricultural and construction sites,
sedimentation basins, land use planning and zoning, and local ordinances
regulating stormwater runoff. In addition to in-lake restoration r
techniques and watershed management, information/education, monitoring, and
project evaluation programs will be needed in the project.
r
r
r
I
-8-
1
10) What does the local and state share of the project costs involve?
The CLP grant was awarded to the MPCA in the amount of $563,886. EPA
regulations require that this grant be matched by local and state funds, so
' that the total allowable project cost is $1,127,772. The MPCA has budgeted
$80,326 for the development of an urban best management practices handbook
and a computer model to help identify critical areas in urban areas. An
additional $112,186 is required for NPS program administration and MPCA
' administrative costs. The remaining $935,260 will be used directly in the
Riley Creek project. Of this amount, $467,630 must be provided by local or
state sources. A large amount of this share may be contributed by the DNR
if they can budget money for the fisheries management and rehabilitation
programs in the project. The local and state share of the project funds
may be in the form of hard cash or in-kind services provided by the RPBCWD,
the two cities, the two SWCDs, and the SWCB.
11) How might the project work?
' As stated above, the local units of government in the project area will be
' important in making the project successful. Ideally, one or more local
unit(s) of government would have been involved in the project right from
the beginning; however, restrictions for CLP funding did not allow the time
to generate the local interest and support for developing a water quality
management project in the watershed. A number of options exist for
incorporating the involvement of the local units of government into the
project_. To be successful, a local government unit must be willing to lead
the project and coordinate the activities of the other agencies involved in
-9-
• the project. Agencies which could lead the project include the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Cities of Chanhassen and
Eden Prairie, Carver and Hennepin SWCDs, or a combination of the above.
The RPBCWD seems to be the most appropriate lead agency; however, the '
participation of the other groups is no less important. Experience in two
other demonstration projects has indicated that one person should be
responsible for the daily coordination and management of the project. A
number of alternatives for providing this leadership were discussed by
technical staff who will be involved in the project. The alternatives '
include the hiring of a project coordinator by the RPBCWD or a joint powers
group formed by the local units of government; use of a staff person from
the cities or SWCDs; and use of Barr Engineering Company personnel.
To ensure good cooperation and coordination between the various units of
government, a steering or technical advisory committee may be desirable.
The structure of such a committee could include representatives of the 1
RPBCWD board of managers, city councils, and SWCD supervisors, or staff of
each. A technical committee may also include representatives of the state
and federal agencies involved in the project. It is important that the '
authority of such a committee be carefully outlined to minimize
organizational problems. ,
12) What must be done?
I
The MPCA is open to suggestions from the watershed district and other local
units of government regarding an immediate strategy for getting the project 1
off the ground; however, MPCA staff feel that the following steps are
important in starting the project:
-10-
1
1) The RPBCWD should direct Barr Engineering to take actions for
' initiating the project.
2) A Substate Agreement outlining fiscal, planning, and implementation
responsibilities should be drafted between the MPCA and the RPBCWD.
3) The RPBCWD or other local unit of government should develop and
implement a plan for project coordination as soon as possible.
' 4) The organizational structure needed to implement the project should be
outlined. Appropriate work agreements between the project
participants should be drafted.
5) Development of a work plan should be begun to identify a plan of
' action for completing the project. A work plan should include a
description of the project's history and background, goals and
' objectives; data needs; project management; project organization and
agency responsibilities; implementation strategies; interagency work
' agreements; budget; and project schedule. If the information is not
' available at this time, the work plan should identify how and when it
will be developed.
Enclosures: Draft Substate Agreement
' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations
Clean Lakes Program Grant Application
DNR8
,. STATE OF
' i�,;,. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO REGION HEADQUARTERS
I
PHONE: _(612_1_22_6=2959 . File No.
I
April 25, 1983 I•.
I-
Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District
8950 County Road 4 ..
' Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 '.
•
De'ar Sir: .
I would like to take time to present a cooperative proposal I
for the intensive fisheries management of several lakes in
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. _
Riley Creek watershed offers a unique opportunity for e o ortunit I-
The
intensive fisheries management in the Metro Region. There
are five major water bodies involved in this watershed:
I
Lucy Lake, Ann Lake, Suzan Lake, Rice Marsh Lake and Riley
Lake. Riley is- the only lake that does not winterkill
periodically.
II
Generally, periodic winterkills tend to favor the development
of large populations of rough fish such as carp and bullheads .
I
These species are enhanced due to their ability to survive
lower winter oxygen levels than most of our game species: _
Carp and bullheads are also extremely prolific spawners , and -
are able to develope large populations in these relatively
I
shallow fertile lakes in a short period of time. This
usually creates situations of poor angling due to low game-
fish populations and other related problems such as poor . I
• water clarity, little rooted plant growth, and often an in-
creased tendency for futher winterkill problems .
Until development of systems capable of preventing winterkill, II
the fisheries management of such lakes was hampered. Since
the early 1970 's there have been great strides in the develope-
ment of aeration systems to prevent winterkill. In 1974 only I
one lake in the Metro Region was protected with an aeration
device. In the winter of 1982-83 twenty six ' (26) lakes had
• aeration devices. Currently there are a number of marketed I
systems which have proven effective.
•
-
• - _ 1
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I
ILApril 25, 1983
Page Two
Lucy, Ann and Suzan Lakes have significant potential for
intensive fisheries management including the use of aeration
systems. Intensive fisheries management of these three
lakes would require the following activities:
1 . Isolation of the lakes to prevent migration of
undesirable fish species. This would be done
' through installation of proven fish barriers of
the type known as high velocity culverts.
' 2. Adequate free public access. Guidelines call
for boat accesses with a ramp, and parking
places for 1 car/trailer combination for each
' 20 surface acres of water.
3. Installation of winter aeration devices. For
the three lakes involved, it may be possible
' to use only 2 devices ; one on Suzan Lake and
one on Ann Lake with a deepening of the channel
connection between Lucy and Ann Lakes to allow
' fish movement from Lucy to Ann in the winter.
4. Chemical rehabilitation of the lakes utilizing
' a fish toxicant followed by restocking of game-
fish species.
Rice Marsh Lake does not offer the opportunity for intensive
' fisheries management that the other lakes do. It' s best
potential is as a waterfowl lake. However, it must be con-
sidered in the whole watershed plan since it may harbor, at
' least seasonally, undesirable fish populations . To conduct
the whole watershed project it would be necessary to chemically
treat the lake and isolate it from Riley Lake as well.
' Riley Lake is a permanent fish lake (i.e. no winterkill)
currently being managed as such at this time. An adequate
access is present. Management plans currently include the
I purchase and developement of a fish barrier on Riley Creek
between Riley Lake and the Minnesota River. Carp populations
in Riley Lake are probably strongly influenced by Rice Marsh
' Lake which acts as a spawning and nursery area. In the intensive
management plan for Riley Lake, isolation by fish barriers on
Riley Creek downstream of the lake and on the creek between
Rice Marsh Lake and Riley Lake are contemplated. With chemical
' rehabilitation, the entire watershed could be rid of carp.
•
' April 25 , 1983 II
Page Three
1
The intensive fisheries management of the Riley Creek water-
shed is both complicated and relatively expensive. The total
project would involve:
1 . A maximum of three fish barriers : '
a. downstream of Riley Lake.
b. between Riley Lake and Rice Marsh Lake.
c. between Suzan and Ann Lakes.
2. Provision for adequate public access on three lakes:
a. Lucy Lake I
b. Ann Lake
c. Suzan Lake
3. Installation of two (or possibly three) aeration devices :
a. Suzan Lake
b. Ann Lake with deepening of the creek from Lucy
Lake to allow winter fish movement under low
oxygen conditions.
4. Chemical rehabilitation with fish toxicants of four
(or possibly five) lakes:
a. Lucy Lake - 125 acres.
b. Ann Lake - 119 acres.
c. Suzan Lake - 93 acres.
d. Rice Marsh Lake - 310 acres.
e. Riley Lake - 300 acres.
The costs for such a project would not be the responsibility
of the individual cities alone, but could be a cooperative
venture with the State of Minnesota under various agreements.
1 . Fish barriers : the acquisition, developement and '
maintenance of the fish barriers would be the
responsibility of the Section of Fisheries. Where
a suitable site may exist on property already owned
by either city, an agreement may be reached to develope
the barrier there if not at cross purposes to other
park use.
2. Public access : the provision for public access develope-
ment
pe-
may possibly include cooperation with the Metro
Region Trails and Waterways Unit and the cities involved. '
• 3. Installation of aeration devices : a bill currently
before the .State Legislature provides for a surcharge
on fishing licenses for various fish management purposes .
Among these purposes is the provision to monetarily
assist locally interested parties in the installation
of winter aeration devices. As of this writing this
bill has not yet become law but is moving through
both House and Senate.
April 25, 1983
Page Four
I
I4. Chemical rehabilitation: the cost of chemical re-
habilitation and restocking would be borne by the
Section of Fisheries with some local assistance
with fish clean-up, if necessary.
A project of this scale could obviously not be done all at
I once. No doubt the project would have to be "staged" based
on the availability of funds. The first stage would be
determining the location of the barrier sites, and their
developement. The accesses could be done as soon in the
I plan as possible, but should be done before the installation
of aeration devices, and must be done before chemical rehab-
ilitation.
IIFor several years the DNR has been looking into the barrier
site developement on Riley Creek downstream of Riley Lake.
Various problems have arisen prohibiting its ' installation,
but a new effort has been initiated this spring to obtain and
develope a suitable site. Aisde from this, and our normal
' management activities on these lakes , the only project con-
templated in the near future will be the determination of
other suitable barrier sites.
A comprehensive, intensive fish management program can provide
significant angling opportunities on lakes not now realizing
their full productive potential. Recently water surface use
I studies (1979 & 1980) have included all but Rice Marsh Lake.
Due to winterkills and limited access , fishing pressure has
been lower than the Metro Region average for Lucy, Ann and
ISuzan Lakes . Riley Lake was above average.
Potential .
Lake Size Census Angler Angler
ILake (Acres) Year Hours/Acre Hours/Acre
Ann 119 1979 11 .7 100
ILucy 125 1979 4 .3 100
Suzan 93 1980 4 .3 100
IRiley 300 1980 44 . 3 50
Metro Ave. (149 lakes) 1974-1982 36.4 (Mean)
Lakes managed intensively with aeration devices are capable
p le
of producing 100 man-hours per acre of fishing pressure.
I Since the three upstream most lakes presently have very light
fishing use, it is apparent that a significantly improved
angling situation can result from the management plan proposed.
•
April 25, 1983
Page Five
Intensive fish management could double fishing opportunities '
in the Riley Creek watershed. Over 33,000 hours of fishing
could be provided between May 1 and September 30 of each
year where less than 16 , 000 hours is being provided currently. '
The Department of Natural Resources wishes to work closely
with the Cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and the Riley-
Purgatory Creek Watershed District in the implementation of
this proposal. We would welcome all considerations and
comments regarding the proposal. With the support of the
area' s citizens we can make this intensive management proposal
into a reality to the benefit of all who are involved.
Thank you for your time and interest.
Sincerely,
u
Edward L. Feiler
Area Fisheries Supervisor
Sent- nL F'i chant
7()(1- ln7�rr,cr Rnar=1
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106
cc: Duane M Shodeen, Regional Fisheries Supervisor
Del Barber, Trails and Waterways Coordinator
Jim Groebner, Fish Habitat and Developement Coordinator
ELF/lb 1
•
1
1
1
1
1
° .*******+**g*+-°**°~*,^°+****°4.**°,... P**��****+
' ' *
N�
I * DEPARThc *NT OF NATURAL RESOURCES *
* DIVISION OF FI3H AND WILDLIFE *
* SECTION OF FISHERIE::.:. *
N� *
* LAKE INFOK>�ATION RFPOPT *
I
*
�� ,
*********************+*********°*************
IILAKE NAME:RILEY NEAR: SHAKOPE[ » COUNTY:CARVER
!
DIV OF WATERS INVENTORY NO 10-0002 TOW HIP: 116-O00 RANGE: 22-23
LAKE CLASSIFICATIONS - ECOLOGICAL: CENTRARCHID ' '
I
MANAGEMENT: CENTRARCHID � ^''
`
LAKE AREA-ACRES 300 MAXIMUM DEPTH: ��� ' `
45 FT MEDIAN DEPTH: 25 FT
I ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
'.
YEAR MAPPED: 54
��� MAP ID1C0956 .
I LAKE MAPS ARE AVAILABLE FROM: MINNESOTA 8 `�^
. ^ , _ [ATE DOCU#ENTS CENTER
' � '` 117 UNIVERSITY , AVE ' ^ ,
PHONE: (612) 297-3000 � ST PAUL 'MN 55155
� '
. ` ���
I -- - SHOAL WAT[R SOIL PERCENTAGES----------
LDG RC!: 3OLDR RUBL GRAVL SANDISILf CLAY MUCK
0 0 0 0 90 1,1 10 O O
ACCESSIBILITY:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ON EAST SIDE OF LAKE.
I�� '
----------'--- WATER QUALITY -~------------
SECCHI DISC: 6.�}0F7 <WATER CL��RI EASU E;l.1 1-4=P01..IR' /5=&GOD)
I WATER COLOR:G eeo ��U�E pF COLOR aigad- uch s1 n/ i EROSION AND/OR POLLUTIO><� �,iALL A6OUi4TS OF �Py.l0N ,. [ STELP ....,LOPE ON PT
';1;:',N1FICNI AMNY: J1: i-cPl ILl:LLk KUhGF1: FRd LWN
I--- ;: 3 ------------ ' GILL �E.T INFdRMATIuN ------------------ DA7E 6/12/85
SPECIES TOTAL ,UiEER '�TATE REGIUN TOTAL POUNDS STA-i [ REGION
NUMBER PER �.LT MEDIAN MEDIAN i`OUNDC PEK SET MEDIAN MEDIAN
BULLHEAD 1O6 :::25,7:3 1 ^3O 6^58 24^6o J ^, 0 ^9O 1^95
FLACK
�E.i'LOW BULLHEAD 16 5 . �,:. 1 , 19 ,71 6^o0 I4�0 ^70 45
NORTHERN PIKE 10 � .��3 Z.67 ��.40 ��..O0 15^:0 ��^62 6^ 14
ELLOW PERCH �2 1 �. �� 0,00 5. 1O 5."O 1 ^76 1 ^51 ^67
IBLUEGILi_ SUNFISH 39 13.00 1 .61 1 ,8� - 8O 2 bO 35 ^
BLACK CRAPPIE 9 3.00 ~ o� 4 �O ^40 ^ � ^ ~2O
, �, ' _ 1 .40 . � ,50 ^65
I-- 0 NETS: 6 ------------- TRAF NET el:NF0RMATIUN ------------------ bATE 6/12/85
SPECIES ' TOTAL NUM{.ER STATE REGION TO[HL POUNDS STATE REGION
NUMV.:[P PEK .::E.T iiEDIAN MEDIoN 1:.01.3 NDS is ER C[l. HEDIAN MEDIAN
��ARP .�� 1 .6� 2.''0 20,40 �^ O 4^52 5.2Z
��LACK BULLHEAD 1 ,5�1 ��:. 1 �' 2-�O 5^ 1O �70,4� �3^�7 2 18 1 ^62
YELLOW BULLHEAD � ^ � ' 2^6�� 1 ^23 2^a0 .�u 1 ^8G 1 ^U0
KINSEED SUNFISH 3 ^5/> `^83 2400 3O �5 `55 ^
LU[GILL SUNFISH 11Y 19.o , �^ 67 1.:).60 2q^2O � ^ ^ ~26
~~ ` ^ ^ � ^ ,d� 2 48 3 16
BLACK CRAPPIE 139 26.50 - 67 6 "� • ' -' ' ^ ^
^ �^ ^�� 39,5O b^I.:58 497 2^ 10
� - — �oTE INF0 RMTION --------3PECIAL PROBLEMS AND CON0I FIONS| -
•
,
II
.
I ' .eu��-`-'s��-^� ^, � - ' .- �
-
-
.' . '`
•
•
II
II
•
•
II
II
I
II6G6Z-•96Z • T 9 lNOHd
9i?'G1:g NW 4.4', "'II)Vd Is
• NOs1.Mr(1:1:0 ::1;)n':Ia;?_•1OSIn'•I:].:JnS S3I`:I31••ISIJ VA IV
s:?3••i3N.I. O'O 3. 01 o'c wcIa.:: )N.0 L' '.;v i °3••1.:..1.A I..t.L J.I 1
I - Or i')3C1 : .Pc I1V1 IIt NVI 1 : : X1Wi I HAIYA` £ i4V
`:330"dV11 I V #3III.::i::IVH3 NOV1f3 43ZIS 11C)00 01 ,:I:I:V._i aNtl
OAV lk)3(Y 1 ::33'•3.1. (:)"1.. ::.If:'(:) 13 AW 51"'13:!:)311'"WX °1•15:I.:J a:zis
I j. F: 3.l..t;1?:I:::1�:.1'f!::! A...INCI :: :J�,' .ri sT1 .',V`.1:"3(tv DI VI �:XNV ."3':J::0 1
_:!I••IJ.. WAN , ?:1::Ic' ,. I i'-1.C)71V1!l.:J .d .EIN : ::I N;.:1 :ii••1.1.=`.JC)N °:31.1.1. • ,
S11.i.k .LS Iii?IJ..V"lfl::1CJd I"ISI.:1 .LNASAW
II
'tx-l11:: "-.:l. .::.t i'ty?.J.::1d 3NV ON
cgT 0.1. <:E'i: ....r'.
•r. 01 e ).l: -Z ,
c 4`3. 01 eTT -T 3.1.:1 ; .L::•f•.t...l"1:I.to
I 's 1_tC)�; iS I: I:I: J "34 N(:)T.1.:i:�1�xV
°�;,::f11C)l1 (:)A!:t:'..:::!r'.:i:3 i:ti.)+..,, Fa(1C)I�!`:I:c:f.). :1�: ::J11.1. E)I,�:C ::1fl�:C :x iI-l:al:.:a
:=.1.7 1`•J'•J':.) IV 11. "1?It..'1 -.1I-1l. JO l'-!::IW :: .t '1 WI"•I f)i'T 3•N'•Z-1:::1_l.l'M
11.: _ _.._....._......_..._._.._......_.__......".......................... !i:)1:1.Ml:!2JC) :lil:I. .::f.1.(:)i. `,.1::1:1: .1 ................_....................... __________