HomeMy Public PortalAbout02.21.2017 Special City Council Meeting PacketMEDINA
WORK SESSION AGENDA
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
6:00 P.M.
Medina City Hall
2052 County Road 24
I. Call to Order
II. Long Lake Subwatershed Carp Study Grant
III. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Best Practices Information
IV. Adjourn
Posted 2.17.17
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Jim Stremel, City Engineer
DATE: February 15, 2017
MEETING: February 21, 2017
SUBJECT: Hennepin County Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program 2.0
TMDL Summary:
In 2014, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was established by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) for Long Lake Creek and Tanager Lake. This TMDL was a result of a
study of the Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed completed by the watershed district, which
portions of the City of Medina discharge to. Impaired waterbodies located in the subwatershed
include: Tanager Lake (Orono), Long Lake (Long Lake/Orono), Dickey Lake (Medina), Holy
Name Lake (Medina), Wolsfeld Lake (Medina), and School Lake (Medina).
The TMDL lists these water bodies as impaired from excessive nutrients, with internal and
external loading issues identified. Common carp, a known driver of internal loading and other
ecological impacts, are listed in the TMDL as a possible contributor to internal loading, but at an
unknown level. Other typical drivers of internal loading include phosphorus release from the
sediment under anoxic conditions. External sources typically include agricultural runoff, urban
runoff, and wetlands.
The TMDL includes a nutrient load reduction allocation that the City of Medina is required to
show progress toward meeting by 2018. For the City of Medina, the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) has set a load reduction goal of 2371bs/year. The City of Long Lake, City of
Orono, Hennepin County, and MnDOT have also been assigned nutrient load reduction goals.
Partnership & Project History:
On April 5, 2016, the City Council passed a resolution to partner with other intergovernmental
agencies to pursue and show support in the pursuit of grants to improve water quality in the Long
Lake Creek Subwatershed. The City of Orono and City of Long Lake passed similar resolutions
at that time; additional partners for grant opportunities include the Long Lake Waters
Association and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD).
Over the past year, the partnership has been working on identifying potential grant opportunities
including the Hennepin County Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program. This specific
program provides funds of up to $100,000 to potential partners to implement projects that
address an identified natural resource management problem or need and/or to undertake
assessments that directly lead to the identification of projects that meet common natural resource
management goals. The TMDL for the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed meets these criteria.
At the November 15, 2016 City Council meeting, this grant opportunity was brought forth for
consideration. At that time, the proposed project for the grant involved a two year water quality
evaluation and carp management strategy with a total cost estimated to be $115,000.
After City Council authorized staff to proceed with submitting the grant application, City
engineering staff further engaged the MCWD to work out the details of the proposed project.
The result of these discussions, including a joint meeting with the partnership cities and the
MCWD in January, prompted a modification of the scope and cost. Due to these changes, this
item has been brought forth for City Council consideration a second time. A detailed summary
of the amended project has been included with this packet (grant application) along with
additional supporting information.
Current Project Overview & Grant Objectives:
The Long Lake Subwatershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that was allocated by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) makes this grant a good potential funding source
to tag, track, and harvest carp in the network. Following a completed project, the primary
objective will be for participating cities to receive credit from the MPCA towards their TMDL
reduction goals.
The project is proposed to be completed over a 3-year period and cost $204,978 including
administration, tracking, and harvesting. Funding is proposed through the Hennepin County
grant and partnership contributions. The maximum grant monies available are $100,000; the
proposed funding scenario assumes a full award. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has
indicated they will administer the carp netting and assist with administration for an in -kind
contribution of $45,958. The remaining $59,020 is proposed to be split between the three
partnership cities over the 3-year period. The financial contribution for the City of Medina would
be approximately 10% of the total project cost ($19,673) over three years or $6,558/year.
The City of Medina is proposed to be the lead agency on the application. If the City proceeds
with a project, the grant proceeds would be administered through the City along with invoices
from consultants and contractors during the project. The City would be required to request
reimbursement from the partnership cities for completed project costs. Time related to actual
project task completion and general project management has been included with the project
scoping and cost structure; this would not require additional City Staff time. The City of Orono
and Long Lake plan to provide this information for council consideration on February 27th and
March 7th respectively.
It is important to note that authorizing participation in this grant application does not necessarily
commit the City to participate in the project, rather if a grant is received, staff would bring
forward a joint powers agreement for Council consideration. Staff will still continue to pursue
other grant opportunities, including additional funds for offsetting the costs of the participating
partners for this project in subsequent years.
2
Future Projects & Load Reduction Strategy
The proposed project with the current Hennepin County grant opportunity represents a portion of
a larger, more comprehensive, nutrient load reduction and common carp management strategy
within the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed. A detailed summary of a 10-year management
strategy has been included as an attachment to this memorandum. The current project proposal
will be a critical first step in developing a baseline understanding of the level of impact carp have
throughout the watershed which can be used to base future management decisions on.
Completing this current project as proposed will create opportunities to leverage upcoming grant
funding prospects and provide ways to fund future management efforts.
City Council Action Requested:
Motion to authorize participation by the City of Medina in the application for the Hennepin
County Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program through the Long Lake Creek
Subwatershed Partnership as the lead municipal partner.
3
Hennepin County Natural Resources Opportunity Grant — Pre Application Summary
Project Title: Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Restoration — Phase 1
Partners: City of Medina, Long Lake & Orono, Long Lake Waters Association, Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District and WSB & Associates.
Long Lake Creek Subwatershed - Water Resource Issues Overview
The Long Lake Creek Subwatershed is located in Hennepin County, within the cities of Medina, Orono
and Long Lake, and within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It's composed of eight named lakes
and six unnamed lakes, and outlets to Lake Minnetonka. Water resource issues in the subwatershed can
be broken down into three broad categories:
Water Quality
A 2014 TMDL identifies six of the lakes in the subwatershed as impaired for excessive nutrients,
with internal and external loading issues identified. Common carp, a known driver of internal
loading and other ecological impacts, are listed in the TMDL as possibly contributing to internal
loading, but at an unknown level. Other typical drivers of internal loading include phosphorus
release from the sediment under anoxic conditions. External sources typically include urban
runoff and wetlands.
Water Quantity
Two significant areas in the subwatershed are landlocked, Mooney Lake and Lydiard Lake. Long
Lake is generally the primary receiver of water within the subwatershed, with three lakes
upstream listed as impaired for excessive nutrients. Long Lake Creek is the primary stream in
the subwatershed and outlets from Long Lake, flows through a series of wetlands and then
drains into Tanager Lake and Lake Minnetonka. Wetlands and streams in the subwatershed all
rely on surficial groundwater.
Ecological Integrity
Water quality issues in Long Lake are likely impacting the fish community, as well as habitat
diversity and biodiversity within the lake. There are several interconnected wetland corridors
providing excellent connectivity between wetlands of different types. Many of these have
exceptional vegetative diversity, including School Lake and wooded swamps in the Wolsfeld
Woods Scientific and Natural Area. There are also numerous upland areas in the subwatershed
that Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council have identified as important conservation
corridors.
Subwatershed-wide Partnership
Three cities in the subwatershed, Medina, Long Lake and Orono, have all passed resolutions agreeing to
this larger system wide partnership to begin pursuing and showing support of the pursuit of water
quality improvement grant funding in the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed. Recently, a citizen group has
formed called the Long Lake Waters Association, and is composed of residents scattered across all three
cities and across the subwatershed. With MCWD in the midst of developing its next comprehensive
plan, a major focus has been put on coordinating with the cities and newly formed association group to
ensure all of our short term plans and long range goals are in sync.
The partnership among the cities outlined potential projects to pursue, which include regional
infiltration projects, wetland/stream restoration, and carp management. A carp assessment and
management project has emerged and is providing all partners an opportunity to leverage resources
and skills to improve water quality and ecological integrity in the subwatershed. The Hennepin County
Natural Resource Opportunity Grant has been identified as a potential fund source.
Hennepin County Natural Resources Opportunity Grant Proposal
This grant request would allow this multi -agency and resident partnership to begin their work towards
improving water quality and ecological integrity in the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed. Carp are known
to degrade water quality by stirring up bottom sediment and uprooting aquatic vegetation, which
exacerbates internal loading issues and causes ecological damage. Anecdotal information suggests carp
are abundant and an issue in this subwatershed, but their exact level of impact is unknown.
Understanding the impact carp are having, coupled with years of water quality data the MCWD has been
collecting, can lead to a very informed implementation strategy to improve water quality in this
subwatershed. The University of Minnesota has led the science on how to manage carp, and what to
expect once carp are managed. Several key pieces of data are needed to sustainably manage carp, and
the focus of this proposal is to gather this data which includes: 1.) determining the abundance of adults
in each lake, 2.) understanding their movement patterns across the subwatershed and 3.) Identifying
areas where they spawn, which is most critical as it is the source of new carp in the system. A number
of monitoring activities are performed to develop a solid understanding of carp in the system that can
properly inform a sustainable carp management strategy. Once this data is collected as outlined above,
the partnership can begin implementation through pilot removals of carp biomass. We anticipate
implementation of additional projects as a result of the initial data collection described above which
may include barrier installation, carp nursery habitat modification, predator stocking, additional biomass
reduction, and education and outreach.
The timeline for the proposed project is 3 years. Hennepin County grant funding will get this
partnership moving forward, provide the data to develop a carp management plan, and allow the
partnership to implement pilot biomass removals. We can then leverage other grant sources to fund
the restoration activities described in the management plan which will be guided by the initial data
collection and biomass removal activities. These additional activities will be implemented to improve
water quality and habitat.
Current Proposed Project Budget
$204,978
Requested Grant Funding from Hennepin County
$100,000
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
This Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Application Form is available at:
http://www.hennepin.us/residents/environment/natural-resources-funding
Page 1
Guidelines for Submitting Natural Resource "Opportunity" Grants
Please email your application to Randy Anhom at randy.anhorn@hennepin.us or send to :
U.S. Postal Mailing Address:
Hennepin County
Environment and Energy
Attn: Randy Anhorn
701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55415-1842
Find out more at http://www.hennepin.us/residents/environment/natural-resources-funding
About the Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
In an effort to work with partners to preserve, establish and restore our natural resources, reduce erosion and
protect and improve water quality, Hennepin County Environment and Energy Department has initiated the
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant program. Through the Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant
program, Hennepin County provides funds to potential partners to implement projects that address an identified
natural resource management problem or need and/or undertake assessments that directly lead to the
identification siting of projects that meet common natural resource management goals.
Questions & technical assistance
Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact the project managers for assistance, including feedback on
ideas, suggestions for activities, help with the application or any general questions and concerns.
Hennepin County Project Managers:
Randy Anhorn 612-348-2027 randy.anhorn@hennepin.us
James Kujawa 612-348-7338 james.kujawa@hennepin.us
Tony Brough 612-348-4378 tony.brough@hennepin.us
Selection criteria
The Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant review committee will evaluate the application based on the
following criteria to determine if the project sufficiently meets the threshold for partial funding of the project,
assessment and/or project grant application:
• The primary purpose of the proposed must address a natural resource problem or need including:
o Improving water quality
o Preserve, establish or restore the County's natural resources (including critical habitats,
natural resource corridors and greenways, and designated open spaces.
o Reduce erosion and sedimentation
• Special consideration is given to applications that are able to leverage resources (e.g., Clean Water
Land and Legacy Amendment funds (CWL&L) or other funding sources)
• The proposed meets the goals, objectives and strategies of the Hennepin County Environment and
Energy Department Strategic Plan
• Severity of the natural resource problem or need:
Page 2
o Relates directly to a TMDL impairment load reduction.
o Addresses loading to a water resource on the States 303d list of impaired waters
o Is identified as a priority in the potential partners plan(s) (i.e., watershed management plan,
comprehensive plan CIPs, etc...).
• Demonstration projects/assessment that following completion may lead to future leverage of funds
(identifies future projects that likely would leverage funds).
• Long-term sustainability
• Environmental importance and scientific feasibility:
o For natural areas: lack of fragmentation, connectivity of important systems such as to
regional parks, high quality natural systems.
o Addresses a identified high quality natural resource (e.g., not -yet -impaired waters)
o Aligns with priorities of county and local agencies (e.g., County's natural resources
strategic plan, municipal open space and natural resource plans).
• Need for county role
o Project that include multiple jurisdictions and would benefit from higher level coordination.
o Project unlikely to happen without county resources.
o Project is on County property
All contracts recommended by the Hennepin County Environment and Energy Department are subject to
approval by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
Program guidelines and requirements
ELIGIBILITY
• The project must be located in Hennepin County
• Eligible organizations include:
— Local, State or regional governmental units.
— Non-profit organization
• Landowners
FUNDING
Funding is available to share the costs with eligible applicants to implement water
quality projects, to preserve, establish and restore urban, suburban and rural natural
resources and to meet common natural resource management goals. Special
consideration is given to applications that are able to leverage resources (e.g., Clean
Water Land and Legacy Amendment funds (CWL&L))
AWARD AMOUNT
Up to $100,000, per the discretion of the Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant
review committee and Hennepin County Administration.
TIMELINES
• Natural Resources "Opportunity Grant requests are non-competitive and
applications can be submitted year round, with funds being allocated on a first
PP Y g
come -first -serve basis.
• Each application is ranked against a set of criteria and must meet a minimal
score in order to be funded.
• Funding reimbursement cannot occur before contract approval by Hennepin
County.
• Semi-annual project progress/summary reports as determined through contract
agreement
Page 3
" F i n a l r e p o r t w i t h i n 2 m o n t h s a f t e r p r o j e c t c o m p l e t i o n .
R E P O R T I N G
R E Q U I R E M E N T S
F O R A W A R D E D
P R O J E C T S
" W o r k p l a n a n d b u d g e t .
" P r o j e c t d e s i g n a n d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s
" A l l i n v o i c e s f o r c o n s u l t a n t a n d / o r c o n t r a c t o r w o r k .
" A p p r o v a l o f i n - k i n d c o n t r i b u t i o n s p r i o r t o w o r k .
" C e r t i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p r o j e c t w a s i n s t a l l e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a p p r o v e d p l a n s a n d
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s
" O p e r a t i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e p l a n s c o v e r i n g t h e l i f e o f t h e p r a c t i c e .
A C C E P T A B L E
E X P E N S E S
G r a n t f u n d s m a y b e u s e d f o r m a t e r i a l s , s u p p l i e s , a n d l a b o r .
"
P R O J E C T
A G R E E M E N T
E a c h p r o j e c t r e c i p i e n t m u s t f o r m a l l y e n t e r i n t o a p r o j e c t a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e c o u n t y .
T h e a g r e e m e n t w i l l a d d r e s s t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e a w a r d , i n c l u d i n g i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
o f t h e p r o j e c t a n d a f i n a l r e p o r t . T h e a g r e e m e n t i s a l e g a l , b i n d i n g d o c u m e n t . P r o j e c t
r e c i p i e n t s a r e e x p e c t e d t o k e e p a c c u r a t e f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s o f t h e p r o j e c t w h i c h
i n c l u d e s d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f a l l e x p e n s e s .
P A Y M E N T S
F i n a l p a y m e n t w i l l b e p r o v i d e d a f t e r t h e f i n a l r e p o r t i s a p p r o v e d b y t h e c o u n t y
p r o j e c t m a n a g e r . I n t e r i m p a y m e n t s c a n b e m a d e o n a p r o j e c t b y p r o j e c t b a s i s a s
d o c u m e n t e d i n t h e p r o j e c t a g r e e m e n t . I n t e r i m p a y m e n t s w i l l b e b a s e d o n
d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f e x p e n d i t u r e s a n d p r o j e c t s t a g e o f c o m p l e t i o n .
A p p l i c a t i o n I n s t r u c t i o n s
A P P L I C A T I O N I N S T R U C T I O N S
T h e A p p l i c a t i o n
T h e N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s " O p p o r t u n i t y " G r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n i s t o b e u s e d b y l o c a l , s t a t e o r r e g i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t a l
u n i t s , l a n d o w n e r s , a n d o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o s e e k N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s " O p p o r t u n i t y " G r a n t p r o g r a m f u n d s f r o m
t h e C o u n t y . P l e a s e c o m p l e t e a l l r e q u i r e d s e c t i o n s o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . I n c o m p l e t e a p p l i c a t i o n s w i l l n o t b e
c o n s i d e r e d f o r f u n d i n g .
P a r t 1 o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e a p p l i c a n t , t h e p r o j e c t a r e a , p r o j e c t t y p e , a n d
f u n d i n g r e q u e s t . P a r t 2 o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e p r o j e c t , n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s
p r o b l e m o r n e e d b e i n g a d d r e s s e d , s c o p e o f w o r k , a n d p r o j e c t b u d g e t .
A p p l i c a t i o n R e s o u r c e s
A n o v e r v i e w o f a l l H e n n e p i n C o u n t y N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e f u n d i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s , p r o g r a m s , g u i d e l i n e s , a n d
a p p l i c a t i o n s c a n b e f o u n d a t h t t p : / / w w w . h e n n e p i n . u s / r e s i d e n t s / e n v i r o n m e n t / n a t u r a l - r e s o u r c e s - f u n d i n g
H e n n e p i n C o u n t y E n v i r o n m e n t a n d E n e r g y D e p a r t m e n t s t a f f a r e a v a i l a b l e t o p r o v i d e c l a r i f i c a t i o n a n d a n s w e r
q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e f u n d i n g p r o g r a m , p r o c e s s , a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s .
P a g e 4
Part 1
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Application
Application No.
Place the cursor in the gray box at question 1, fill in the answer, and then use the F11 function
key to navigate through the remaining questions in the application.
1. PROJECT TITLE:
ILong Lake Creek Subwatershed Restoration -Phase 1
2. APPLICANT NAME:
1 City of Medina
3. APPLICANT SIGNATORY: (The person whose name is listed here must sign Part 1 -Box 14 of this
application)
Name: Jim Stremel
Title: City Engineer
Telephone Number:(763)287-8532
Fax Number: (763)541-1700
E-Mail Address:
JStremel@wsbeng.com
Mailing Address
24
Zip Code: 55340
Agency: City of Medina
Address: 2052 County Road
City: Medina State: MN
4. PROJECT DURATION:
Estimated Start Date: 4/1/17
Estimated Completion Date: 12/31/19
PROJECT Length: 33 months
Page 5
Part 1
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Application
5. PROJECT TYPE:
® 1. Water quality project
❑ 2. Wetland Restoration
® 3. Habitat Restoration/Protection
® 4. Assessment Identifying Future Projects
❑ 5. Other:
6. FUNDING REQUEST: (Provide the amount of funding requested to complete your project.)
Check for consistency with costs provided in Part 2, Question 2.
Project Amount:
Total PROJECT Cost
This amount represents the full cost of the PROJECT.
$
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Request
$100,000
Other Match Funds in PROJECT
Identify secured source(s) of funds:
Funding Source City of Medina
$
Funding Source City of Long Lake
$
Funding Source City of Orono
$
Funding Source Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
$
Describe the status of the matching funds:
7. APPLICATION CERTIFICATION:
I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND
CORRECT AND THAT I AM THE LEGALLY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OR DESIGNEE FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF
THIS INFORMATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
Printed Name
Signature
Title
Date
Page 6
Part 1
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Application
THIS CONCLUDES PART 1
Page 7
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
This is the rated portion of the application with a total of 200 possible points.
Each question identifies the proportion of available points. Applicants should provide clear and concise
information and answers. The Scoring Guide (below each scored question) provides information on what
reviewers will look for in a successful application.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (0 points)
Summarize the overall project and associated water quality problem and how the project will address
or solve the problem. (limit your answer to 250 words or less).
The Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Restoration -Phase 1 project, referred to as the LLCSR-Phasel for the remainder of
the document, provides an opportunity for a collaborative approach to improve the water quality and aquatic habitat of
multiple waterbodies within the subwatershed by collecting data on the carp population(s) to develop a management
strategy to sustainably control common carp in the system to levels below where they can provide ecological damage,
which is the first step in effectively addressing internal loading issues identified in the Upper Minnehaha Creek TMDL.
This assessment follows methods developed by the U of M to sustainably control common carp in subwatersheds, and
has been utilized in other systems. Without addressing internal loading within the subwatershed, water quality
improvement goals will not be met. This project will provide the baseline data necessary to provide recommendations
for future carp management to sustainably manage the common carp population within the subwatershed.
/. SCOPE OF WORK (up to 50 points)
Scoring Guide Total 50 points
Clear and concise project description
Up to 10 points
Clear description of project tasks
Up to 10 points
Project deliverables are clearly defined
Up to 10 points
Clearly defined timeline for the project
Up to 10 points
The purpose meets defined shared goals
Up to 10 points
Reviewers award points for a clear, complete, and well thought-out scope that directly address the natural
resource management problem/need. The scope demonstrates an understanding of the work required to fully
implement and complete the project.
Using the area below, please provide:
• A detailed scope of work for the project that includes clearly defined tasks, deliverables, timelines, and
purpose.
o Describe the intended results (what is the benefit?).
■ Be specific, clear and concise.
o Describe the project area and provide supporting map(s) and relevant diagrams and or/pictures.
Page 8
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
nj MOW kraal Bgrn WrY
®HYk.k.Wv Baunamy
1_ 1GRy Bowdon
Ribfic Nan:,
R.riewaar,Watm arw.
Source olall tune evdPIM
art. k the I Matural1.304.11.5
aP morn
_� n�.�rws 3z%asaA
_ ..; ,,,
..L. named
tea,
n
Long Lake --�.
1 9.5 6
Nnles
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
Lang Lake Creek Suhwatemhed Public Waters
DEC 2005
Figure 19
Figure 10 from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Plan shows the extent of the Long
Lake Creek Subwatershed and associated waterbodies within its
boundaries.
Eight named lakes and six unnamed waterbodies are present within
the subwatershed. The named lakes are Holy Name, Mooney,
Lydiard, Dickey's, Wolsfeld, Long, Tanager and School.
Anecdotal information suggests that Mooney and Lydiard are not
connected to the remaining waterbodies via surface flow and
therefore are not planned to be a part of this Phase 1 project.
The entire project area falls within the MCWD and includes the
cities of Orono, Medina, and Long Lake.
The 2014 Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed TMDL identifies six
of the eight lakes listed as impaired for nutrients -excessive
phosphorous, with internal and external loading issues both
identified. These lakes are Holy Name, Long, Mooney, Tanager,
Wolsfeld, and School.
Within the TMDL, internal loading is attributed to a combination
of rough fish, historical impacts, aquatic vegetation, and upstream
lakes, but none of these are quantified and are described as having
an "unknown level of impact". This project plans to address
ecological impacts from rough fish through the implementation of an integrated pest management (IPM) approach as
demonstrated in other systems.
To determine the level of impact from rough fish and provide data that can be used to make future management decisions
as part of an adaptive management approach, this project must collect data to quantify the carp population within the
system, identify patterns of spatial use and population recruitment within the system, and conclude with pilot removal. To
support this process, we have identified five (5) major objectives and associated tasks that will lead to long term success
in the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed. These objectives (1-5) are identified below and described in detail with associated
tasks.
1.) Quantify adult carp population
2.) Determine movement patterns and seasonal distribution of a subsample of carp within the watershed
3.) Determine carp recruitment patterns
4.) Pilot winter seining as potential future management strategy
5.) Report and interpret findings to provide recommendations for future sustainable carp management within the
subwatershed
The intended results of completing these objectives are to implement a targeted and lasting management strategy for carp
within the subwatershed in order to address internal phosphorous loading and improve in -lake habitat. This approach is in
contrast to simply removing an unknown percentage of carp biomass without first addressing carp recruitment areas, and
not implementing integrated pest management (IPM) strategies.
These results can be quantified as explained later in this proposal (section 5) and meets defined shared goals as outlined in
section 5 of this document.
Page 9
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
Objective 1.) Quantify the carp population within the system
As in any other resource management planning process, the severity or scope of the problem must be defined in order to
set achievable and effective goals. The LLCSR-Phase 1 project will start with completing the necessary steps to generate
a population estimate of the carp within the system. To do this, we propose using the following methodology.
Electrofishing carp catch per unit effort model (CPUE) developed by the University of Minnesota Aquatic Invasive
Species Research Center will be utilized. This is a relatively simple model that can provide a population estimate within a
short period of time. To complete the model, we will complete two electrofishing surveys in fall 2017, 2018, and 2019 on
Long, Holy Name, Tanager, and Wolsfeld (if accessible). The model requires the surveys to be completed in the fall when
carp are spread throughout the littoral area and density is not influenced by spawning activity. The input for the model is
the number of adult carp captured/hour using standard boat electrofishing techniques, which allows us to calculate the
amount of carp biomass in kg/ha. Using weight subsamples we can then calculate the number of carp in addition to the
biomass estimate to complete Objective 2.
Estimates that are generated for each lake and the entire watershed can then be used for comparison to thresholds
identified in published literature (Effects of a rapidly increasing population of common carp on vegetative cover and
waterfowl in a recently restored Midwestern shallow lake Bajer, et al, 2009) and previous projects to determine the
amount of carp biomass removal that will be required to prevent additional ecological damage and improve water quality.
Objective 2.) Determine movement patterns and seasonal distribution of a subsample of carp within the watershed
Of similar importance to quantifying the population, is understanding the carp population's movement patterns with
regards to winter aggregation areas and migration routes or the hydrologic pathways that carp are using to access
connected waterbodies to spawn, forage, or escape anoxic conditions.
We plan to complete objective 2 simultaneously with objective 1 using high frequency radio telemetry.
We will begin by capturing adult carp in early spring 2017. Captured carp will be anesthetized and surgically implanted
with high frequency radio transmitters. Transmitters will use a frequency between 148-151 mHz and be programmed
with a twelve hour duty cycle to conserve battery life that will last throughout the project period. The duty cycle will
begin at 6 a.m. and last until 6 p.m. to provide data during daytime hours when we would be completing netting
operations and telemetry surveys. After implanting the transmitters, carp will be released. We plan to implant up to 15
carp in Long, five (5) carp in Holy Name, and 10 carp in Tanager. If we can access and capture carp in Wolsfeld, we will
implant three (5) adult carp with radio tags.
Roughly two weeks after radio tagged carp are released, we will begin telemetry surveys using a 3 element yagi antennae
and R410 high frequency receiver manufactured by Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc (Isanti, MN). Previous project
experience shows that high frequency radio signals may be picked up from as far away as 1 mile in shallow water
systems. Based on this, we will complete both land and water based telemetry surveys to locate radio tagged carp
throughout the system and should not have issues identifying their relative locations even without access to some
waterbodies. Since no barriers exist to keep carp from leaving the system and entering Lake Minnetonka, the possibility
exists that some radio tagged fish could leave the Long Lake Creek system for a period of time or for the duration of the
project. We do not plan to complete radio telemetry surveys to find radio tagged carp that may have accessed Lake
Minnetonka.
We will plan to track radio tagged carp throughout the watershed at least twice per month December- June and once per
month the remainder of the year. Tracking frequency may increase in preparation for carp biomass removal operations.
Page 10
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
To document and track individual radio tagged carp we will create a geodatabase. The geodatabase will record locations
for each of the radio tagged carp during each survey period individually. Attribute data recorded during the survey period
includes radio tag frequency, date, time, water temp, absence/presence of ice cover, and notes. This allows the database
to be queried using the attribute data and create location maps based on survey date or water temperature. These maps
and geodatabase will be included as deliverables of the LLCSR-Phase 1 project.
Documenting if, where, and when carp migration happens allows managers to determine where barriers may be placed as
part of the integrated management approach. Rather than construct barriers where they may not be effective, project
partners can use the telemetry data to determine critical locations that will effectively block carp from accessing important
waterbodies and potentially disrupt their life cycle. Timing will also be important as to place barriers that won't impede
gamefish from using hydrologic connections during spawning. By recording the periods when carp are using the
waterways we can place temporary barriers that are potentially selective for carp.
Identification of coldwater/winter aggregations will be of primary importance as we implement an IPM strategy for
controlling carp within the system. Previous project experience and peer reviewed literature shows that carp populations
tend to aggregate in winter or during late fall and early spring. By monitoring the radio tagged carp we can observe when
these aggregations form and use the radio tagged carp to lead us the larger populations (Judas fish technique). This allows
us to remove a large proportion of the carp population during a single event and release non -target fish species back into
the lake. This is an advantage over using chemical applications to control carp.
Objective 3.) Determine carp recruitment patterns
Determining if consistent carp recruitment exists within the watershed and intervals between those recruitment events will
be key to suppressing the carp population within the entire watershed. To answer these questions we propose to complete
trap netting and age determination as part of this project.
We will conduct annual trap nets surveys (2017, 2018, and 2019) on each of the accessible lakes throughout the
watershed, every effort will be made to access all lakes. These surveys will target juvenile carp and tell us if and where
recruitment may be occurring. When used in combination with telemetry data, we can then determine which connected
waterbodies may be acting as carp nurseries. These nurseries may then be mitigated by either barricading or modifying
them to reduce the potential that they can contribute to the overall carp population as part of a sustainable IPM approach.
Carp recruitment is influenced by the absence/presence or density of carp predators (mainly bluegill). Carp may select
areas for nurseries based on these parameters. Low or very low winter dissolved oxygen levels typically result in a
winterkill event which removes or greatly diminishes the carp predator population and may lead to carp nursery
development.
To better understand where this may be occurring, we plan to complete winter dissolved oxygen monitoring on a number
of lakes within the watershed. Lakes that are found to have low dissolved oxygen levels (<5 ppm) may be surveyed
shortly after ice out in early spring 2018 and 2019 to determine if winterkill did occur and by trap net in late summer early
fall to identify potential nursery sites. This data will be used in combination with summer trap netting and telemetry data
to further document suspected carp nurseries.
Lastly, aging structures will be removed from a subset of carp (-50 individuals from each lake) from Long Lake and
Tanager to determine the age structure of the population. A small number of carp (-25) may be sampled from Holy Name
Lake if radio telemetry data shows that this population is isolated from the rest of the watershed. This data will allow us
to determine how consistent recruitment is and the interval (years) between recruitment events.
Objective 4.) Pilot winter seining for adult carp removal
Removal of carp biomass will be a necessary component of an IPM approach to carp management within the watershed.
Page 11
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
We propose to complete pilot removal of carp within the subwatershed using commercial fishing operations during the
winter of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. We will use radio tagged carp to identify aggregations within the watershed and
direct commercial netting operations to these locations. Waterbodies differ in the ability to effectively net carp. Because
there are some known obstruction within Long Lake and it is unknown whether Tanager and Holy Name have
obstructions that would prevent or limit netting operations, and we cannot guarantee the amount of carp that will be netted
and removed, we consider these pilot removals. Recruitment of young carp will also not have been addressed at this
point, so these pilot removals may not impact the overall population until an overall carp IPM strategy is implemented
from this assessment. However, this pilot will test the effectiveness of winter seining and identify potential obstacles to
removal efforts that may need to be addressed once management begins. If recruitment is found to be infrequent,
potential reductions in the population could occur.
The budget, as proposed, would allow us one seining attempt in open water and one attempt under the ice. However, the
funds directed towards under ice removal may be directed to open water netting as it may be more valuable as less
logistically complicated to net in open water if obstructions exist in the areas identified as carp aggregation sites.
Once carp are removed we will record and document the number of individual carp captured and the total weight of the
carp removed. This data will be entered into an internal spreadsheet to track population metrics (population/biomass
estimates, biomass removed, individual weights, etc.) This internal spreadsheet will be a deliverable of this project and
used to inform future management actions/projects as part of an adaptive management process and provide the
opportunity to track reductions in the overall population(s).
Objective 5.) Report and interpret findings to provide recommendations for future sustainable carp management
within the watershed
The last objective of the LLCSR-Phase 1 project will culminate with the summarization and assessment of data collected
during the project period.
This report will include the population and biomass estimates for the carp population(s) within the watershed, maps that
show migration routes, movement patterns, and areas of aggregation, length -age frequency distribution graphs and age
structure summary, juvenile carp netting assessment results, and removal statistics.
This report can be used to develop future management and implementation activities to sustainably manage carp within
the watershed using an IPM approach. These activities may include additional carp biomass removals, manipulation of
nursery sites, barriers, and habitat restoration to favor predator species. This report can also guide future data collection
activities and include an operation and maintenance section for sustaining load reduction from carp biomass removals.
Table 1 below shows the specific tasks and timeline for each objective/task.
Page 12
Part 2
Natural Resources "0 ortunity" Grant Program
Table 1. LLCSR-Phase 1 Timeline and Activity Table
Objective/Task
2017
2018
2019
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Objective 1. Quantif Car r Po r ulation
Task 1. Acquire necessary permits
Task 2. Complete Electrofishing Catch Per Unit Effort
Model
Task 3. Mark Carp in Holy Name, Tanager, and Long
Lake for MMR Estimate
Task 4. Length/Weight Subsample to calculate biomass
and density
Task 5. Recap run to com.lete MMR estimate
Objective 2. Determine Movement Patterns and
seasonal distribution of ca •
Task 1. Capture and surgically implant up to 28 adult
carp with high frequency radio tags
-
Task 2. Complete land and water based telemetry surveys_
Task 3. Create database and ma s for radio to . . ed ca
Objective 3. Determine Car • Recruitment Patterns
Task 1. Use telemetry survey data to identify waters
where radio tagged carp are present during spawning
period
Task 2. Complete summer trap netting for juvenile carp
Task 3. Monitor winter dissolved oxygen levels
Task 4. Survey for winterkills
Task 5. Develo 1 a. e structure for ca e • o @ ulation
Objective 4. Reduce carp biomass through pilot
removals
II
Task 1. Identify carp aggregations
Task 2. Coordinate with commercial fishing operations
Task 3. Record removal amounts and track reduction in
population
Objective 5. Report and interpret findings to provide
recommendations and develop operation and
maintenance for sustainable mana 1 ement
Task 1. Draft and submit annual activity report and
discussion of findings addressing project objectives
Task 2. Draft final report that summarizes data that has
been collected during the project period and provide
recommendations for future management
The deliverables for the LLCSR-Phase 1 include:
• Two annual project reports and one final project report
• Digital geodatabase documenting radio tagged carp locations and associated attributes
• Maps showing radio tagged carp locations, migration routes, potential nursery sites, and aggregation areas
Internal spreadsheet documenting population and biomass estimates, average weights, removal amounts, number of carp
captured, and the number of marked carp
Page 13
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
Page 14
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
2. PROPOSED BUDGET (up to 30 points)
Scoring Guide
Total 30 points
Complete project budget is consistent with the
scope of work and estimates are clear and
reasonable.
Up to 5 points
Project attempts to leverage other resources.
Up to 15 points
The project budget represents a good value for
the work and natural resource benefit achieved.
Up to 10 points
Reviewers award points to the cost-effective projects with accurate cost estimates. Points are awarded for a
complete, reasonable budget that is consistent with the tasks described in the scope of work.
Using the areas below, please provide:
• A budget for the project including total cost for the project broken down into tasks.
• Identify the match sources.
Proposed Project Budget
Task elements
Total Project
Cost
1. Project administration/management
$ 9,955
2. Objective 1, Task 1-Permitting
$ 4,572
3. Objective 1, Task 2, 3, and 4-Electrofishing, CPUE
model, marking length weight subsampling, and Objective 2,
$ 56,805
Task 1
4. Objective 2, Task 2- Telemetry surveys
$ 20,950
5. Objective 2, Task 3- Database development and map
creation and objective 3, Task 1
$ 5,775
6. Objective 3, Task 5- Develop age structure
$ 16,960
7. Objective 4, Task 1, 2, and 3- Coordinate removals
$ 9,328
8. Objective 5, Tasks 1 and 2- Reporting
$ 17,375
9. Supplies (radio tags, surgical supplies)
$ 9,800
10. Commercial Fishing operations
$7,500
Total costs needed to complete: $ 159,020
Objective 3, Tasks 2, 3, and 4 are not included in the budget as these are proposed
to be in kind services completed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, but
are not included as match per the policy outlined below.
In addition to the proposed budget above, Please provide the following information:
Total Project Cost $ 159,020
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant request $ 100,000
Match sources:
List other funding sources and amounts, including local cash matching funds. In -kind contributions are
Page 15
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
not eligible.
Funding Source:
Funding Source:
Funding Source:
Describe the status of matching funds:
3. SEVERITY OF PROBLEM/NEED (up to 55 points)
Scoring Guide Total 55 points
Severity of the problem/need is well
documented.
Up to 15 points
Project will achieve substantial natural
resources benefits.
Up to 20 points
Project success can be measured, and proposed
methods to measure success are reasonable.
Up to 10 points
The project/assessment provides long-term
sustainability of natural resources benefits
(e.g., operation and maintenance, long-term
follow-up, natural resources management),
and/or identifies additional projects to address
specific problems area(s).
Up to 10 points
Reviewers award points for addressing severe natural resource problems and needs, documentation of those
problems and needs, and expected protection and/or improvements achieved by the proposed. Projects with
measurable improvements receive more points than those with unclear or vague benefits. Reviewers will
consider the actual benefit, the level of implementation, and the severity of the problem. Reviewers will
consider only changes that can be achieved by the proposed scope of work.
Using the area below, please provide:
• A detailed description of the severity of the problem or need to be addressed by the project.
o Include how the problem has been documented in a plan or assessment (e.g., TMDL, Capital
Implementation Plan, presence on 303 (d) impairment list).
o Describe how the problem will be addressed by the project and how success will be measured.
The proposed lakes that are part of this project have been listed as impaired (303d list) as part of the Upper Minnehaha
Creek TMDL study. The impairment for the lakes is identified as nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators. The
numeric target that is used to describe the impairment is a growing season total phosphorus concentration of 40 µg/1 or
less.
The table below shows the average total phosphorous (TP) concentration for each lake using data collected between
June -September for the years 2005-2012 as identified in tables 3.3 and 3.4 of the Upper Minnehaha Creek TMDL.
Page 16
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
Lake Name
Avera . e TP ( . /1
Long
61.4
Tanager
92
Wolsfeld
80.1
Holy Name
149.5
School
157.7
As shown in the table, all of the lakes exceed the numeric water quality threshold of 40 µg/1 TP for deep lakes and 60
µg/1 TP for shallow lakes.
Furthermore, table 3.8 in the Upper Minnehaha Creek TMDL identifies internal loading from rough fish as a potential
source with an unknown level of impact. The internal load reduction for Holy Name, Long, Tanager, Wolsfeld, and
School, is calculated at 287, 61, 167, 20, and 90 pounds respectively in order to meet water quality goals. In some
instances the internal load reduction represents the majority of the total load reduction; showing that water quality goals
will not be met without addressing the internal loading that is caused by the existing carp population.
Aquatic vegetation, important to sequestering nutrients and sediments, providing habitat for fish, and relied on as a food
source for waterfowl. Aquatic vegetation may be severely degraded by the carp population within the watershed. The
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has also completed point -intercept aquatic vegetation surveys to assess the
vegetative integrity of Long and Wolsfeld lakes.
The May 30, 2014 survey for Long Lake showed that only 10.5% of the total lake area and 17.2% of the littoral are
were vegetated. The vegetation that was surveyed was very low in diversity; consisting of only five individual species
of which two were invasive.
The August 17, 2016 Wolsfeld survey showed that only 3.4% of the total lake area was vegetated and 5.3% of the
littoral area points supported vegetation. Diversity in Wolsfeld consisted of only two individual species, with only one
(yellow water lily) being rooted.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Plan for the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed also identifies poor water quality
in Long Lake and states that "...Long Lake has consistently been scored in the C-D grade range on the District's annual
lake report cards."
This proposal begins to address the contribution of common carp to the problem of excessive internal loading as
identified in the TMDL by quantifying the population to determine the level of effect the carp population may be having
on water quality, collecting data to inform integrated pest management efforts, and devlop a management plan to begin
implementing removal of carp biomass.
Success of the project will be measured by completing each of the objectives identified in the previous section.
Long term sustainability of the initial carp biomass removal can be maintained by using the data collected during the
project period to develop an IPM approach, which will be identified in the final report. These would specifically
include additional carp removals to reduce the biomass to a level below 100 kg/ha in each of the waterbodies, follow up
electrofishing surveys using a frequency dictated by aging data that identifies recruitment event intervals, addition of
barriers to restrict mature carp movement to nursery sites, and potentially the modification of carp nurseries to prevent
future recruitment.
Page 17
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
4. PROJECT TEAM (up to 10 points) 1
Scoring Guide Total 10 points
Team members' roles and responsibilities are
well defined and expected contributions to the
project are adequate for the scope of work.
Up to 5 points
Team members' qualifications and past
experiences are relevant.
Up to 5 points
Reviewers will award points based on skills, qualifications, and experience of the project team members.
Using the area below, please provide:
• List contact information for the partners, staff and volunteers who will implement the project
• Briefly describe their relevant skills, qualifications and past experiences, and expected contributions in the
project (do NOT submit resumes).
Linda Lane, Public Works Adminsitrative Assistant -City of Medina linda.lane@ci.medina.mn.us (763)473-4643
Eric Fieldseth, Aquatic Invasive Species Program Manager- Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (952)471-7873
Mary Headrick, Environmental Scientist- WSB & Associates
Mary is a trained biologist who comes to WSB with 6 years of related fisheries experience. In years spent at the
University of Minnesota, she worked with researchers to develop management strategies to control aquatic invasive
species, namely the common carp. Projects Mary has been involved with have been successful in suppressing carp
populations to a point where improvements in water quality and aquatic habitat have been documented. Her contribution
to the project will include field data collection, data maintenance, and assistance with formulating a management
strategy to be outlined in the final report to the project partners.
Tony Havranek, Sr. Environmental Scientist- WSB & Associates tavranek@wsbeng.com (612)246-9346
Tony holds a B.S. in Conservation -Natural Resource Management from UW-River Falls. He has been working on
fisheries and natural resource related projects for 17 years since 1999. Since 2009, he has been involved with
development of carp management projects. His first project was the restoration of Clam Lake Wild Rice through
common carp mitigation and research which successfully restored over 100 acres of wild rice and resulted in multiple
other documented ecological benefits. Since that time, Tony has implemented eight (8) additional carp
management/research projects all in various stages of progress. Tony has experience in radio telemetry, fish population
assessments, fish aging, and has trained clients on electrofishing operation. Tony will be responsible for field surveys,
data assessment, fish aging, and reporting.
5. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS/ LOCAL COMMITMENT (up to 30 points)
Scoring Guide
Total 30 Points
Page 18
Part 2
Natural Resources "O>a>aortunity" Grant Program
A comprehensive decision making process was used to
arrive at the proposed project.
Up to 10 pts.
The level of local support and commitments from project
partners is documented.
Up to 10 pts.
A collaborative process will be implemented to execute
the project.
Up to 10 pts.
Reviewers award points based on project development and implementation efforts and commitments from
project partners. Provide documentation as appropriate.
Using the area below, please provide:
• Describe the decision making process used to select project (why was this project chosen over other
solutions)
• List where the proposed project is identified as a priority by a local, State, or Federal unit of government
that manages natural resources (e.g., state approved watershed management plan).
• Describe how you have involved and fostered local, regional, and statewide partnerships for the success
of the project.
Rough fish management was first identified in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 2007 Long Lake Creek
Subwatershed Plan as part of the capital improvement program (5.8.3 Long Lake Internal Load Management Project,
page 71).
The project is further identified in the Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed Nutrient and Bacteria TMDL Study (2014)
in Section 7.2 Potential Nutrient Reduction Implementation Strategies, Table 7.2 as an internal load reduction BMP.
Realizing the importance of this project, The City of Medina included this project in their draft Surface Water
Management Plan that is expected to be finalized this spring (2017).
In spring 2016, the cities of Medina and Long Lake expressed their desire to pursue implementation of projects that
would improve the water quality and ecological integrity of the watershed. To address this the Long Lake Creek
Restoration Partnership was created. While not a formal organization, it can be considered a guide that defines goals,
partnerships, and projects, while not committing any one entity to a project. The cities of Orono, Medina, and Long
Lake passed formal resolutions to support the partnership in 2016. This project is identified in the partnership as a
potential project.
One reason this project was chosen is that is identified in the above referenced plans and could be implemented rather
quickly. Also, the project spans the entire watershed emphasizing the collaborative nature of the project rather than a
project that may be confined to a small area within one municipality. Each of the project partners will realize benefits
throughout the watershed. Also, the availability and expense of purchasing land for external BMPs was considered,
especially for the City of Long Lake which is nearly fully developed and has little space for additional external BMPs.
One of the objectives of the partnership is to identify funding sources that will aid the partnership in implementing
projects for the benefit of the watershed. After the release of the Hennepin County Opportunity Grant RFP, the
partnership identified it as a funding source that would be ideally suited for implementing this project.
The partnership began collaboration with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to identify objectives for the
project and determine a methodology and timeline for project completion. This process was initiated in late October
2016 and completed in January 2017. Two meetings were held as well as a presentation to Long Lake City Council.
In December 2016, the Long Lake Association, a citizen led group, was informed of the project and showed support.
Page 19
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
A representative of the Association was also present at the January 2017 planning meeting.
6. READINESS TO PROCEED (up to 25 points)
Scoring Guide Total 25 Points
Project elements are in place for the project to proceed
and documentation is provided (e.g. planning, design,
permits).
Up to 25 pts.
Reviewers will award points based on how soon a project can begin construction.
Using the area below, please provide:
• Describe the steps you have taken to proceed immediately with the project. Provide information and
documentation on project elements such as status of designs, permits, inter -local agreements, landowner
agreements, easements, other secured funding, staff, or agency approvals.
The intergovernmental agreement between the Cities of Orono, Medina, and Long Lake has been adopted by formal
resolution in the Spring of 2016. These entities as well as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed district have agreed in
principal to a monetary match towards the project of $59,020.
The design and methodology was developed and finalized between November 2016 and January 2017. This same design
and approach has been used successfully by project participants in previous projects and is expected to yield the
outcomes proposed in previous sections of the project.
The project partners and contractors have equipment in place to complete project objectives (electrofishing boat, seine
nets, high frequency radio receiver, etc). High frequency radio tags would need to be ordered once the grant agreement
is finalized. The lead time on this order is typically four weeks.
The last component of the project would be to acquire a MN DNR Fisheries Research permit. WSB staff have held these
types of permit for multiple projects around MN since 2013. Previous experience shows that the amount of time
necessary for permit application review and issuance is typically 3-4 weeks. This would coincide with the radio tag
order and would allow us to commence with the project after receiving both the permit and the radio tags. WSB staff
currently hold three (3) similar permits for projects such as this and do not anticipate denial of a permit application.
Project partners would be prepared to begin work immediately after a grant agreement is executed. We anticipate
submittal of the grant proposal in January 2017 which may allow us to begin implantation of radio tags and collection of
aging structures in April 2017.
THIS CONCLUDES PART 2
Page 20
Part 2
Natural Resources "Opportunity" Grant Program
Page 21
Comprehensive Nutrient Load Reduction & Common Carp Management
Existing Issues
The aquatic environment within the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed suffers from impaired water quality
and reduced ecological integrity due to excess phosphorous contributed from a variety of sources.
Anecdotal information suggests that rough fish may be impacting ecological integrity (direct and indirect
impact on vegetation and indirect on fisheries). These sources are identified in the Upper Minnehaha
Creek Watershed Nutrient and Bacteria TMDL Study (2014), the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Plan
(2007) and individual city Surface Water Management Plans. Eight (8) named public water lakes exist
within the subwatershed. These include Dickey's, Holy Name, Long, Lydiard, Mooney, Wolsfeld,
Tanager, and School. Three additional unidentified lakes are included in the Long Lake Plan. All of these
lakes, with the exception of Dickey's and Lydiard are listed as impaired for nutrients. Table 1 below
identifies the external and internal loads attributed to all lakes in aggregate.
Table 1. Nutrient Load Reduction Costs
Load
Mitigation
Potential Cost Estimates
External
Min
Max
MS4
• Street Sweeping Program
Review/Implementation
• Stormwater Pond
Retrofits/Installation
• Raingarden/Bio-filtration
Basins
$3,400,000
$11,400,000
Watershed Export
• Agricultural BMP
Implementation
• Shoreline Restoration
• Education Programs
$672,000
$1,102,500
Agricultural
Wetlands
Impervious
Upstream Lakes
Atmospheric
None
Groundwater
None
SSTS
• Inspect systems and
upgrade. Prioritize those
that are close to surface
waters.
$50,000
$60,000
Internal
Anoxic release
• Alum Treatments
• Hypolimnetic Withdrawal
or Aeration
$4,000,000
$13,000,000
Senescence of
Vegetation
• Herbicide Application
• Mechanical Harvesting
$130,000
$195,000
Rough Fish (carp)
• Biomass Removal
• Barriers
• Nursery Aeration
$505,000
The costs identified above are taken from the Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed Nutrient and Bacteria TMDL Report. These are estimates.
The vegetation management costs do not include herbicide application or mechanical removal. Costs associated with carp management are
broken down in another section of this document.
In addition to the nutrient impairments identified above, lakes within the subwatershed have shown
decreased ecological integrity based on fisheries and vegetation assemblage.
Aquatic vegetation data is available for Dickey's, Long, Lydiard, and Wolsfeld Lakes. The Long Lake data
was collected in 2014, while the remaining data is from 2016.
Data for Dickey's Lake shows that the Lake supports dense and well distributed vegetation growth.
67.9% of the survey points were vegetated, while 88.2% of the points within the littoral zone were
vegetated. Species richness was relatively low with only 3 submersed plants and 1 floating leaf plant
being identified. No invasive vegetation was identified in this survey.
The survey for Lydiard showed that 10-0% of the points sampled were vegetated with 85% of those
points occurring within the littoral zone. Species diversity was much greater in Lydiard with 12 different
species observed.
In Wolsfeld, only 3.4% of the sampled point were vegetated, even tough 64% of the lake is considered
littoral. Species diversity was critically low with only one floating leaf species identified, yellow water
lily, and no submergent vegetation.
Long Lake did not support a robust vegetative community either. Only 17.2% of the littoral area was
vegetated with two of the five species identified being invasive in nature (Eurasian watermilfoil and
curly leaf pondweed).
A diverse and robust aquatic vegetative community is important for many reasons. It may improve
water quality through uptake of soluble reactive phosphorous, stabilizing sediments which reduces
availability of nutrients to phytoplankton, and reduces erosive forces of wind and wave action. Aquatic
vegetation also provides habitat for fish and is a food source for waterfowl.
The Long Lake Subwatershed Management plan lists the species that are present in Long, Mooney, Holy
Name, Wolsfeld, Tanager, and School. School and Holy Name are listed as only supporting black
bullhead. This may be a result of the shallow nature of these lakes and the potential for winterkill. Long
and Tanager are identified as sport fisheries, while Mooney and Wolsfeld are identified as panfisheries.
Role of Current proposal
The 2017 proposal to the Hennepin County Opportunity Fund requests funds to develop a baseline
understanding of the level of impact of carp throughout the subwatershed and begin implementation of
management of this species.
This project lends itself to the cooperative nature of the Long Lake Creek Restoration Partnership since it
spans the entire subwatershed. This project is identified in both the TMDL implementation plan and the
Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Plan. Development and implementation of this project may result in
water quality and ecological integrity improvements across the watershed.
Future Management Scenarios
The proposal described above outlines specific data collection requirements (aging, population estimate,
recruitment surveys), that will lead future planning and management efforts to control carp throughout
the entire subwatershed in a sustained fashion.
This section focuses on potential management actions, a timeline, and costs associated with each. It is
important to note that this list and estimates have been developed without the necessary baseline data
that is proposed to be collected as part of the 2017 Hennepin County Opportunity Grant Proposal. Year
1 will be the year after the Hennepin County Grant activities would cease under the current proposal
and assumes that all objectives have been met.
Scenarios are based on many assumptions without the support of baseline data that would be gathered
as part of the current grant proposal. These assumptions include:
• That Long, Tanager, Holy Name, and Wolsfeld are functioning as adult carp summer/winter
habitat (adult lakes). This is based on fisheries survey data showing adult carp present and the
absence of vegetation in Wolsfeld
• Dickey's, Lydiard, and Mooney are hydrologically isolated and support a remnant and low
density carp population based on water quality and vegetation data
• School and the remaining unnamed lakes and wetlands are functioning as carp nurseries
• Adult lakes support a density of 200 kg/ha; twice the threshold of 100 kg/ha
• Movement between carp in Tanager and Long Lake upstream to wetlands
• Movement of carp upstream between Wolsfeld and School
• Carp are isolated in Holy Name, but may move out during infrequent hydrologic inundation
• A portion of carp leave Tanager and enter Lake Minnetonka, but may return to spawn
Year 1 (2020)
Management Activity
Cost
Obstruction Removal in Long
$3,500
Barrier Installation at Wolsfeld inlet
$8,500
Barrier Installation Long Lake Inlet
$10,500
Biomass Removal in Long
$12,500
Telemetry Surveys
$15,000
Project Management
$7,500
Total Year 1
$57,500
Year 2 (2021)
Management Activity
Cost
Biomass Removal on Long
$5,000
Barrier Install on Tanager Outlet
$8,500
Biomass Removal on Tanager
$7,500
Biomass Removal on Wolsfeld (non-traditional)
$15,000
Obstruction Removal
$3,500
Data Collection (electrosurveys, panfish/gamefish
data, telemetry including tags)
$25,000
Project Management
$7,500
Total
$72,000
Year 3 (2022)
Management Activity
Cost
Biomass Removal on Long
$5,000
Biomass Removal on Tanager
$5,000
Biomass Removal on Wolsfeld (non-traditional)
$15,000
Barrier at outlet of Long
$8,500
Aerator on School to promote bluegill or rotenone
$13,000
Data Collection
$25,000
Project Management
$7,500
Total
$79,000
Year 4 (2023)
Management Activity
Cost
Biomass Removal on Tanager
$5,000
Biomass Removal on Wolsfeld (non-traditional)
$10,000
Rotenone Treatment on Nursery Site ($275/acre)
$6,000
Data Collection
$25,000
Project Management
$5,000
Tota I
$51,000
Year 5 (2024)
Management Activity
Cost
Biomass Removal on Holy Name
$7,500
Data Collection
$50,000
Project Management
$3,500
Total
$61,000
Years 6-10
Management Activity
Cost
Additional Biomass Removals
$22,500
2 additional Barriers
$17,000
1 Rotenone Treatment
$10,000
Barrier Maintenance
$10,000
Data Collection
$100,000
Project Management
$25,000
Total
$184,500
Funding Sources
Many potential funding sources exist and have been successfully applied to similar carp management
projects. Table X. below identifies the funding source (grant) and min/max award amounts.
Grant Name
Minimum Amount
Maximum Amount
LCCMR
None
Conservation Partners Legacy
$5,000
$400,000
DNR Aquatic Invasive Species
$30,000
BWSR Projects and Practices
$30,000
$750,000
MPCA Clean Water Partnership
$300,000
MPCA 319
$300,000
LSO H C
$400, 000
None
BWSR AIG
$30,000
$750,000
Many of the grant funds could be used to cover implementation of years 1-5 based on data collected
during the 3 years proposed in the Hennepin County Opportunity Grant. These generally have a 45%
costs share, but some have no cost share required.
Potential Results/Consequences of Carp Management
Increased Vegetation
IncreaseannlVegetativeaichnessbndRtoverltanbccurflvithC3blIteductionrilnlarpt iomass:1
In one project example, the variety of aquatic vegetation species doubled and vegetative cover
increased more than 30% in the littoral zone just one year after the target carp biomass of less than 100
kg/ha was achieved. This increase in variety and abundance of vegetation allows for increased habitat
for native fish species and zooplankton, also, it aids in the uptake of Phosphorus available in the water
column. Vegetation that rebounds could include non-native or nuisance species of that may have to be
managed independently in lakes used recreationally.
% bottom # of Carp Biomass
Year cover Species (kg/ha)
2015 40 % 10.0 95
2014 9 % 8.0
2013 N/A N/A
2012 0.7 % 3.0
2011 6 % 5.0 498
Project Lake: Lake Staring, Eden Prairie MN. Data collected by University of Minnesota researchers with data and management
recommendations given to Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD).
Improved Water Quality
Increased Clarity and decreased Chlorophyll -a concentrations
An increase in water clarity has been observed in project areas, especially early season May -June.
Vegetation and algae use Phosphorus available in the water column to grow. Rooted vegetation that is
allowed to mature will use phosphorus to such an extent that it limits algae growth and thus, increases
the clarity of the lake. As rooted plants slow their growth, excess phosphorus is again available for algal
growth that allows for late season blooms. Thus, Chlorophyll -a, a water quality parameter that indicates
algal growth, has been shown to decrease throughout the entire growing season.
TSS
A reduction of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) can be attributed to a reduction in carp biomass below 100
kg/ha since a there is a decrease in resuspension of the sediments that is caused by carp feeding habits.
A 2015 paper by Badiou & Goldsborough reported that carp increased TSS at a rate of 6.1 and 4.8 mg/I
for every 100 kg/ha.
Phosphorous
Project areas have seen a decline in Total Phosphorus (TP) concentrations that can be attributed
especially to increase in vegetation that uses Phosphorus to grow. Many TMDLs site internal loading
from rough fish (carp) and that management/reduction of the rough fish population results in a
reduction of internal phosphorous loading. Many studies have attempted to quantify phosphorus
loading from carp (mesocosms and field trials), but no one study is used to determine actual
phosphorous load/load reductions from common carp management. It is hypothesized that the
reduction in rough fish abundance lessens the influx of Phosphorus since carp feeding habits cause a
disturbance to the sediments that typically lock in some Phosphorus. Chumcahl (2005) showed a
significant positive relationship between chlorophyll -a, TP, and turbidity and carp biomass, but no
loading factor was established, rather a regression model was developed to predict the response of the
three water quality variables to differences in common carp biomass. LaMarra, in a 1975 paper,
demonstrated that a carp density of 200 kg/ha resulted in a loading factor of 1.07 mg P/m2/day.
However a 2015 paper by Bajer indicated a carp TP excretion rate of 0.4 mg P/m2/day in a thermally
stratified lake. The disparity in these studies may be due to the fact that it compares rates for thermally
stratified lakes vs. shallow water environs.
Because of this disruption to the sediments, it is necessary to manage carp populations before
addressing TP concentrations using Alum, a common practice that produces a cap on the sediments to
hold Phosphorus in place.
MINNEHAHA CREEK
QUALITY OF WATER
MEMORANDUM
WATERSHED DISTRICT
QUALITY OF LIFE
To: Mayor Robert Mitchell and City Administrator Scott Johnson
From: Kelly Dooley and Laura Domyancich, MCWD
Date: January 3, 2017
Re: Best Management Practices for Water Quality Improvement
The purpose of this memo is to summarize the current best management practices for improving water
quality within the Painter Creek and Long Lake Creek subwatersheds within the City of Medina, MN.
Water quality overview
■ In the Painter Creek Subwatershed, the primary water quality issue is elevated
phosphorus levels. For the past three years, Thies Lake (MN Lake ID 27-0156) has
observed mean total phosphorus (TP) levels above the State standard of TP < 40 ppb for
a deep lake. The lake often receives higher levels of phosphorus in the spring. This trend
of higher phosphorus levels in the spring as well as after large rain events is observed in
other waterbodies throughout the Subwatershed, such as in Lake Katrina (MN Lake ID
27-0154) and Painter Creek. The secondary water quality issue is total suspended solids
(TSS). Several of the lakes in Painter Creek Subwatershed have TSS levels above the
acceptable levels for this region of the State. Painter Creek also has elevated TSS levels,
exporting an annual average of 104,884 pounds of TSS into Lake Minnetonka: Jennings
Bay.
■ In the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed, the primary water quality issue is elevated
phosphorus. Six of the ten lakes within the Subwatershed are impaired for excessive
phosphorus levels. Long Lake is experiencing blue-green algae blooms due to the
excessive phosphorus levels.
Sources of total phosphorus (TP)
■ Internal loading*, urban runoff, agricultural practices (e.g., fertilizers and manure),
horse farms, and wetlands (either a source or a sink for phosphorus)
*In a lake — phosphorus is released from the bottom sediments under low dissolved oxygen
conditions and/or during spring and fall mixing events. Phosphorus is then utilized by algae,
plants, and biota in the surface waters. This can be exacerbated by presence of rough fish
(e.g., carp).
We collaborate with public and private partners to protect and improve land and water for current and future generations.
15320 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55345 • (952) 471-0590 • Fax: (952) 471-0682 • www.minnehahacreek.org
Sources of nitrogen
■ Agricultural practices (e.g., fertilizers and manure), horse farms, runoff, and atmospheric
deposition
Sources of runoff
■ Drain tiles, ditches, and culverts that drain the land and direct water towards adjacent
waters
Best management practices (BMPs)
■ Pollution prevention: an effective tool for reducing phosphorus loads overall. Specific
recommended practices include animal waste management, streambank stabilization,
landscaping that reduces yard waste, fertilizer inputs, and runoff, street sweeping,
pavement maintenance, catch basin maintenance, and public works activities including
management of chemical and sanitary wastes, and storm sewer maintenance.
■ Erosion control: site stabilization during and following land -disturbing activities prevents soil
and other pollutants from entering water bodies. This includes products specifically
designed for containing soil on construction sites, various methods of revegetating land
affected by natural or man-made disturbance, and structural practices that are designed to
slow or divert water that may erode soil.
■ Bioretention: land -based water quality and water quantity control processes that employ
simple, site -integrated designs to provide runoff infiltration, filtration, storage, and water
uptake by vegetation (e.g., raingardens). Bioretention areas are suitable stormwater
treatment practices for all land uses, as long as the contributing drainage area is appropriate
for the size of the practice. Common bioretention opportunities include landscaping islands,
cul-de-sacs, parking lot margins, commercial setbacks, open space, rooftop drainage and
street-scapes (e.g., between the curb and sidewalk). Bioretention is extremely versatile
because of its ability to be incorporated into landscaped areas. The versatility of the practice
also allows for bioretention areas to be frequently employed as stormwater retrofits.
Bioretention practices require periodic maintenance, which should be considered as a
selection criterion.
■ Infiltration: stormwater infiltration practices capture and temporarily store stormwater
before allowing it to infiltrate into the soil. Design options include infiltration basins,
infiltration trenches, dry wells, and underground infiltration systems. As the stormwater
penetrates the underlying soil, chemical, biological, and physical processes remove
pollutants and delay peak stormwater flows. Infiltration practices are applicable to sites with
naturally permeable soils and a suitable distance to the seasonally high groundwater table,
bedrock or other impermeable layer. They may be used in residential and other urban
settings where elevated runoff volumes, pollutant loads, and runoff temperatures are a
We collaborate with public and private partners to protect and improve land and water for current and future generations.
15320 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55345 • (952) 471-0590 • Fax: (952) 471-0682 • www.minnehahacreek.org
concern. In applications where the stormwater runoff has a particularly high pollutant load
or where the soils have very high infiltration rates, a significant amount of pre-treatment,
such as bioretention, should be provided to protect groundwater.
■ Filtration: filtering practices include media filters (surface, underground,
perimeter), vegetative filters (filter strips, grass channels), and combination
media/vegetative filters (dry swales). Media and media/vegetative filters operate similarly
and provide comparable water quality capabilities as bioretention. Vegetative filters are
generally more suitable as pre-treatment practices, but in some situations can be used on a
stand-alone basis. These practices are especially useful in agricultural settings with larger
land areas of non -perennial vegetation, frequent land disturbance, and animal waste.
Filtering practices have widespread applicability and are suitable for all land uses, as long as
the contributing drainage areas are limited (e.g., typically less than 5 acres). Media filters
are not as aesthetically appealing as bioretention, which makes them more appropriate for
agricultural, commercial, or light industrial land uses or in locations that will not receive
significant public exposure. Media filters are particularly well suited for sites with high
percentages of impervious cover (e.g., greater than 50%). Media filters can be designed with
an underdrain, which makes them a good option for treating stormwater. They can also be
installed underground to prevent the consumption of valuable land space (often an
important retrofit or redevelopment consideration). Vegetative filters can be incorporated
into landscaped areas, providing dual functionality.
■ Education: best management practices are only useful if they are well -understood and
implemented, and maintained. City staff connected to the local community and supported
by water resource professionals can hold workshops and community meetings to provide
guidance on selecting BMPs for a specific landscape. A number of publications are also
available for this purpose.
Resources
■ Grant funding: cost share and other grant funding may be available for residents and
municipalities for construction of BMPs, but this program is undergoing current revision.
■ Technical assistance: MCWD staff in Planning, Permitting, and Research and Monitoring can
provide guidance on identifying water resource issues and water quality goals and
appropriate practices that will help reach those goals.
■ External resources: the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Freshwater Society, and
the Master Water Stewards program can also provide technical assistance.
■ BMP Information adapted from: Main Page. (2016, December 12). Minnesota Stormwater
Manual. Retrieved 17:25, December 21, 2016 from
https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=30462.
We collaborate with public and private partners to protect and improve land and water for current and future generations.
15320 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55345 • (952) 471-0590 • Fax: (952) 471-0682 • www.minnehahacreek.org
�% M P C A T o t a l M a x i m u m D a i l y L o a d R e p o r t :
h t t p s : / / w w w . p c a . s t a t e . m n . u s / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / f i l e s / w q - i w 1 1 - 1 7 e . p d f
�% M P C A I m p l e m e n t a t i o n P l a n :
h t t p s : / / w w w . p c a . s t a t e . m n . u s / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / f i l e s / w q - i w 1 1 - 1 7 c . p d f
W e c o l l a b o r a t e w i t h p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e p a r t n e r s t o p r o t e c t a n d i m p r o v e l a n d a n d w a t e r f o r c u r r e n t a n d f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s .
1 5 3 2 0 M i n n e t o n k a B o u l e v a r d , M i n n e t o n k a , M N 5 5 3 4 5 " ( 9 5 2 ) 4 7 1 - 0 5 9 0 " F a x : ( 9 5 2 ) 4 7 1 - 0 6 8 2 " w w w . m i n n e h a h a c r e e k . o r g