Does it still matter?

 

A friend saw this article from the Star Tribune and sent me this picture from that short piece.The picture looks like it could have come from our old backyard. This isn't even close to the first time this issue has come up. One of the many motivations we had for selling that house was the constant abuse and disregard the city and state demonstrated for that small, historic lake; reclassified as a "watershed" to make the abuse "legal." MNDOT trashed the lake, first with total disrespect in the 1970s by "bridging the lake" with thousands of tons of dirt dumped on the frozen lake to be used for the freeway construction in the spring. That caused flooding in the lower houses on the east side of the new freeway, buried a good bit of the underground water supply for the lake, poured pollution into the lake, and quickly demonstrated the traditional European invaders' disrespect for anything held sacred by Native Americans. Just that act makes a feeble attempt to rename the lake for political correctness another addition of insult to the injury. 

While we lived on Lakeshore Drive, from 1997 to 2015, we saw countless demonstrations of how little the state of Minnesota and the city of Little Canada cared about that once-beautiful little lake. When we first moved into our home, which had been owned by a goober who used the backyard as a practice course for drunken Bobcat parties and who regularly plowed refuse from his "landscaping company" down the hill into the lake, there was still some life in the lake. My grandson and I built a small deck from our yard, out of fallen trees the previous owner had littered all over the shoreline, and we'd watch catfish, perch, and other small fish bob for pieces of bread he'd toss into the water. 

The city actually, illegally, hired a UofM prof and a pack of nitwits to poach Canadian Geese from the lake for several years before residents (loudly led by Ms. Day) embarrassed them into stopping that practice.

That first summer, the local high school maintenance department dumped a few hundred gallons of toxic chemicals into the school's drainage ditch, which made its way to the lake and killed hundreds of fish. Of course, neither the DNR, the Ramsey County Watershed District, or the state's EPA bothered to even reprimand the school's employees and no thought whatsoever was given to repairing that damage. From then until we left, the only fish we ever saw in the lake were minnows and few of them.  At least one business on the north side of our portion (west) of the lake regularly dumped manufacturing chemicals into a drain that kept that end of the lake coated with petroleum rainbows. 

In 2008, the Watershed District  engineers "designed" a new drainage system that, accidentally, lowered the lake level by at least two feet. As a demonstration of how "complicated" determining where that drain level should have been set, my 9-year-old grandson designed an experiment that we documented for his grade school using string, a level, and a tape measure.

MNDOT "designed" various freeway drainage systems that filled the lake with sand, salt, and roadway contaminates peaking (during our time there) with the 2010's expansion of the freeway and a drainage ditch from the south-going Little Canada Road freeway entrance that immediately filled the meager remains of the spring and turned the lake from a feeble remainder of a lake (that once had a "deep end" that exceeded 8') into a rapidly filling swamp with no spot on the lake that couldn't be walked across. Of course, the slackers who get paid way too much to prevent this kind of thing at the state's EPA, the DNR, and the totally worthless Watershed District bureaucrats were busy cleaning their fingernails or counting the money that appeared on their desks in unmarked brown paper bags as that all happened. (After 18 years trying to defend our backyard lake from all of those worthless deadbeats, I have no respect for any of those departments or their employees.)

 For us, the final insult-to-injury nail-in-the-coffin that convinced us to sell our beloved home was the pointless, overpriced, dysfunctional "noise wall" that served to prevent freeway traffic from seeing the eyesore our lake had become. There is no acoustical justification, even based on MNDOT's own guidelines, for a 15' wooden wall placed hundreds of feet from the nearest property it is intended to "protect." COVID did a far more effective job of lowering the health-endangering noise levels (averaging 91dBA in our backyard during the summer and fall of 2014) from I35E in our neighborhood by reducing traffic massively for 2 years. However, as the wall was being constructed MNDOT got serious about directing freeway contaminants into the lake and the south end of the west side of the lake rapidly filled in and became so overrun with sand, salt, and silt that one of our neighbor's dock was literally lifted out of the water. Waterlilies flourished as the lake level dropped.

One of the reasons we ended up staying in Minnesota for the past 28 years was my wife's dream of living on a lake came true when we found our Lakeshore Avenue home in early 1997 just before my promised transfer back to Denver was due. We kept a kayak and a canoe near our dock and used it regularly on that lake, even as it was being overwhelmed by pollution, invasive plants, and noise. We defended the migrating birds who visited our lake from neighbors and government officials. We regularly argued for the preservation of the lake and its wildlife, usually unsuccessfully. A few of our neighbors were also strong advocates, including Rocky Waite (the name change advocate in the Trib article) and a few were obviously oblivious to the lake and did not consider its existence to be of value. A name change is the least the state owes this lake and its history.

MnDOT & Little Canada Sound Barrier Final Proposal

The city's MN Pass Municipal Concent document was delivered to everyone concerned in February. It's worth reading. Apparently, construction on the Mn Pass lane and the rest of the project should begin this summer.

One of the statements in the document that I thought was most "entertaining" was one that stated:


The idea that this giant sand "island" could have come from anything other than MnDOT's crappy drainage design is a huge warning that some monkey business is likely to result from an assortment of bureacrats passing the blame around until the barrier is built and nothing is done about the sediment damage. Any idiot can see the drainage pipe is completely buried and backed up and that the overspill from the ramp is continuing to deposit crap into the lake. Over the years since the last construction, I've watched the characters from the Watershed District paddle out, measure random stuff and paddle back without anything good coming from their "efforst." Even to them, it ought to be obvious where that sediment is coming from. For about a year, there was a plume of crap spreading out from the pipe after every rainstorm. It only took a year for the pipe to clog and the damage to be pretty much complete. However, in the years I've spent fighting for our disregarded and damaged lake I've found that MnDOT and, especially, the DNR hire specially "talented" idiots with no clue, concern, work ethic, or personal honesty. The best we can do is hope for the best, but expect the worst.

Both ends of the lake, northeast and southeast, have been harmed by excessive freeway runoff. The old docks at the southeast end have been hauled out of the water and twisted out of shape by the obscene amounts of sediment runoff. The new Gopher drainage design just dumps Gopher's parking lot crap straight into the lake. At this rate, we can probably expect the lake to fill in a few years and development to being in the resulting mosquito swamp. Sometimes it feels like we're living in Florida (and that is not a compliment).

Winter Lake Status

I can't explain why, but one of the things we love about our abused and battered little lake is walking on the ice on a moderate winter day. There is something oddly cool about making a lap or two around the island when the sun is out, the lake is frozen solid, and traffic is blasting past us, oblivious of our presence. It's not quiet. It's miles from pastoral, but it is oddly peaceful. A little more snow and the lake would be cross-country ski-able. A little less and, I guess, you could skate it. Before the winter hammer fell on Last Saturday, we were out on the lake enjoying the moderate temperature and windless day.

A few years ago, this was a 3' diameter concrete
culvert. Today, it's packed with freeway sediment.

The lake's level is as low as it has been in years. So low that I was able to take some pretty pointed pictures (say that 3X fast) of the damage MNDOT's past "engineering" has done to our lake. For example, smack in the middle of this shot is what remains of a drainage culvert MNDOT used to drain water (and massive quantities of sediment) from the south-bound I35E Little Canada Road freeway entrance. When we moved to Little Canada in 1997, this drainage culvert was completely exposed and the lake was approximately 4' deep about a canoe paddle's length away from the culvert. That general condition and relative height stayed constant for years (discounting the catastrophic lake level drop when the Watershed District screwed up the water levels at the end of the 1990's) until the freeway redesign a few years ago.

This picture gives some perspective on how large the
sediment "beach" is, at least the above water line.

For a couple of seasons, all of the freeway entrance ramp drainage was routed through this culvert and over the edge of the ramp's curbs until the drainage culvert was filled with sediment. The rest of the silt and sediment is simply poured off of the ramp into the lake, resulting in a dramatically eroded lake shore and an increasingly steep bank. At one time, this was the deep end of the lake by several feet. There was some source of water movement that always kept the ice either thin or clear about 30' west of this point, but after the freeway redesign the massive influx of sediment filled in that source of current and helped allow the nearly complete coverage of water lilies by making the lake shallow enough for them to take root. The sediment shelf is completely above the water-line right now and anyone can walk out and examine the damage done. You can also see the erosion effect by looking at the freeway fence posts. The concrete post footers are being rapidly exposed as the lake bank vanishes from runoff erosion.

This was my first opportunity to see the Little Canada-funded Gopher Electronics parking lot drainage plan and I'm not particularly impressed. We gave this design a shot on the drainage pipe at the south end of our property about 12 years ago and it worked for a season, but was quickly overwhelmed by the quantity of sediment pouring into the lake from Lake Shore Ave and the sediment "island" has continued to expand since. This design is not a "trap," but is more like a temporary diversion with a little landscaping.

Sediment traps are either holding ponds, like those we see along the eastbound sections of the new I694 design, or complicated concrete affairs that have to be regularly maintained. Any man-made system requires maintenance and that is often the fatal flaw in major construction designs. The designs are fine, but the follow-up is insufficient or non-existent. Supposedly, we have traps like the ones illustrated in the mechanical drawings (on the left) for all of our street drains, but if no one cleans the traps they were one more waste of taxpayer dollars.

It's not like all of this hasn't been reported to the city, county, and state in the past, but if you'd like to see what's really going on with our lake, now is the time to take a walk on the ice. Worst case, the lake is about 4' deep at the deepest spot right now. The water levels are probably 2' below where they were early last spring.

If we get the noise barriers and the construction of those barriers doesn't do more harm than good, the quality-of-life value of our lake could improve dramatically. It would be nice to get some of this street and freeway drainage problem solved at the same time so that the lake just doesn't slowly fill with sediment and become a mosquito breeding ground.

Cattails and Minnesota Revisited

Hopefully, you've all recieved notice from the city that Little Canada will, again, be paying for our DNR property permits for spraying the lillies. Please get the forms back ASAP so we can get on with the spraying before the plants start to flower and seed. The earlier the better. And don't forget to thank Joel Hanson (joel.hanson@ci.little-canada.mn.us) and the city council members for getting this started without our having to rattle their cages. The work we did last fall definately had an effect on the lillie growth this year and the high water is helping, too. We might just get our lake back if we keep after it.

Where We Are Today

I stopped by the city offices last week to look at the plans for the upgrades to I35E between Highway 36 and the I35E and I694 rats' nest, but the city doesn't have anything to show, yet. Supposedly, we're going to be getting some noise abatement design into the work, but based on the amateur work I saw from the state with the "analysis" of the impact on our homes with the last work on that roadway, I don't expect much value from that. Honestly, if one of my Musical Acoustics students turned in a final project that was as poorly written and analyzed, I'd fail him.

[Note: The clear weather pictures above are from early June and the overcast pictures were taken 6/21/2011.]
The lake water height has been at historic levels almost all spring, thanks to an extremely wet spring. That hasn't, however, had much impact on the lily growth. It is gratifying to see that last fall's Rodeo spraying has given us some clear water this spring, which indicates that we could get control of this pest weed if the DNR weren't an obstacle and the Water Shed District made some sort of useful contribution. Unlike this time last year, we've been able to canoe the lake in the evening and, other than the dramatic increase in mosquitoes, it's nice to have some of our lake back.

The milfoil is another issue. I found some minnows tangled in that crap near our dock, which is a great demonstration of how destructive that weed is. You'd think the DNR and Watershed District would want to aggressively control this crap at the headwaters of our county's major lakes, since lakes like ours feeds all of the big lakes and there will be no way to get rid of the weed without getting rid of it upstream.

There was some noise about how the city was going to make one last contribution to lake shore owner DNR weed eradication permits, but I haven't heard anything new on that subject either. Regarding the milfoil, it almost seems like we're going to have to get out on our shorelines with a rake and drag the junk out of the lake manually.

Speaking of the Watershed District, they use our lake access to make some sort of water sample, drainage analysis a few times every year. I don't know what results from that testing, but you'd think it would be the kind of thing they'd make available to lake shore owners and the city. Anyone have an idea where that information might exist?

Our pair loons left town a couple of weeks ago. I'd become used to hearing them trumpet every morning and when it stopped it seemed like a good neighbor had moved away. I guess we should just feel lucky to have had them for as long as we did.

Bits of the Mission Accomplished

When I got back from Texas, a week after John and I sprayed, looking at the lake was pretty discouraging. Earlier this week, I was driving past our lake on I35E and I could have sworn I saw the outline of the route John and I took with the canoe and Roundup. Friday, we canoed out into the lake and discovered that canoeing is possible. Today, my wife and I ventured out on the lake with a camera and took some pictures of our lake and, I hope, you can see where John and I whipped up on the lilies; and where we didn't.

The recommended 2nd round of spraying would have really cleaned out the open areas. But you can easily get around the lake and if it's far from perfect it's also far from completely jammed with lilies. The large treated center section is considerably less populated than the untreated edges. Some of the pictures show the difference pretty clearly. The path around the island is less obvious, but in the right light from the right angle, you can see where we were. On the canoe, the cleared area is the only path around the lake.

Some of my wife's pictures show how badly the lake is infected with milfoil. I have no idea how we're going to beat back this contamination, but I suspect that we need some more life in the lake to help with this; animals and fish. There was more life on the lake this afternoon than there was all summer. We spotted a dozen geese, the same number of ducks, a couple herons, and a couple of least bitterns. If we can get an early start with the herbicide next spring, maybe some of the birds and animals will stick around for the summer. The lily infestation pretty much forces the birds to look elsewhere for habitat and hunting.

Fall and Herbicides

It looks like we managed to spray our herbicide on the lilies about the time they would have died naturally. Hopefully, that means next spring's crop will be slowed up a bit.

It struck me that the permit process is probably an annual deal, with a September 1 expiration. If that's so, we ought to have the city apply for next year's permit as soon as possible. Then, we'll have the whole growing season to attack those things and, maybe, keep the lake free all season.

Cattails and Minnesota

This is an interesting Pioneer Press TwinCities.com article on a similar invasive plant problem: Cattail Catastrophe. Thanks for sending this, Barb.

". . . Where native cattails once stood, sprinkled among bullrush, smartweed and other plants, now there's almost certainly a vast lawn of narrow-leaved cattails or their hybrid offspring. These relative newcomers are taller, with narrower, darker-green leaves and slimmer "corn-dog" spikes at the tops. They outcompete the natives, upsetting the ecological balance by creating a monoculture that's inhospitable to other plants, animals and birds. . ."

We have quite a few cattails on our lake, but I'm probably not observant enough to be able to recognize which type we have. Having seen how thick and aggressive some of the cattails have been on the southwest corner of the lake, I'm betting they are the "narrow-leaved cattails or their hybrid offspring." Some of you really have a barrier from geese and other wildlife! Of course, you can't see the lake or get anywhere near it, either.

Someone Is Fighting for Us

Apparently, the DNR "experts" are somewhat clueless about lake life cycles and the effect of uncontrolled plant life in a small lake. This comment, in particular, seemed about as ignorant as anything I've heard in the last 9 years from DNR bureaucrats, "water lilies, a native plant that provides wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. Healthy populations of native aquatic plants are integral to the ecological health of our lakes, but they can also hinder recreation, particularly if they are abundant on the lake's surface. The DNR's APM program tries to balance the protection of aquatic plants with the need for lake shore residents to gain recreational access to the water. " The plant is certainly "native" to our part of North America but anyone capable of walking to the lake shore would see that the infestation of plants in our lake is as far from a "healthy population" as is possible.

I'd love to know how the DNR's bureaucratic inactivity could be described as any sort of "program." As far as I can see, the DNR's sole purpose is to burn its budget without any useful benefit to taxpayers. Clearly, Mr. Hirsch has never set foot any where near Savage Lake, east or west or he is severely impaired in many ways.

Here is the text of a communication between our state representative, Bev Scalze, and the DNR commissioner's office. I was particularly heartened by her impassioned, direct approach to getting the DNR off of it's collective butt:

From: Bev Scalze [mailto: Rep.Bev.Scalze@house.mn]
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 12:22 PM
To: Steve.Hirsch@state.mn.us
Cc: joel.hanson@ci.little-canada.mn.us; rep.jean.wagenius@state.mn; Bob.Meier@state.mn.us; Kathy.Anderson@state.mn.us; Mark.Holsten@state.mn.us; Sean.Sisler@state.mn.us
Subject: Re: Savage Lake aquatic plant control issues

Steve,

Thanks for sending the e-mail message.

However, the information that you relayed was information that had already been communicated by the City Administrator of Little Canada, Joel Hanson, and by Sean Sisler.

I would be glad to give you a tour of the area in question, or you may be able to view it on DNR maps prior to 1959 in comparison with the present day maps.

There is a freeway (35E) that bisected the 30-acre Savage Lake in 1959. It now has expanded to 10 lanes of asphalt with on/off ramps at Little Canada Road. The freeway has polluted the lake, and has also contributed to the decreased depth of Savage Lake with runoff. Now the DNR calls the water bodies west Savage Lake and east Savage Lake, which are considerably smaller because of the freeway. The lakeshore property owners, some of whom have lived there for 73 years, have suffered immense damages because of actions of the State of Minnesota and the Federal Government. The DNR Division of Waters should be more interested in the expansion of 35E which occurred in 2009-10 than they are with this current eradication permit request. Was there a DNR permit granted for the expansion? I would like to see a copy of that to compare with the current permit request from the City of Little Canada on behalf of the property owners.

The problem at Savage Lake regarding the denial by Mr. Sisler of the water lily eradication permit applications, is that there could be "anticipated" use that may not be visible to Mr. Sisler from some points of the lakeshore. A lakeshore property owner could have a canoe in a garage, or could possibly have friends or family that would like to bring over a canoe to the lakeshore property and use it for recreational purposes. A lakeshore property owner should not be required to petition Mr. Sisler with photographs and abstracts of their property. That is a very "heavy handed" DNR approach to the situation. The property owners have rights, and Mr. Sisler, or anyone else in his capacity, should not interfere with those rights to limited recreational use of their property. The property owners haven't been asking for clearing out all of the invasive lilies, nor are they asking to eradicate vegetation that helps the health of Savage Lake. To insinuate that they want to interfere with "healthy populations of native aquatic plants integral to the ecological health of the lake" doesn't give much credit to the property owners. They love their lake. They are not asking for long docks to reach open water as some in the state have done recently. They are simply asking for the ability to use their property in a limited recreational manner. Simply put, they are requesting the ability for anticipated access to open water for a canoe, boat or some other legal means. If they could achieve a channel to reach open water, perhaps they could then construct a dock for easier "visible" access. With the current heavy mat of lilies, it doesn't make much sense.

Since 2000, the overgrowth of water lilies has expanded greatly in Savage Lake. They were simply not there before that time in the massive quantities that are they are now. To apply DNR rules for "wildlife habitat and water quality" in a heavy-handed manner in a lake with 10-lanes of asphalt already going through it is simply ridiculous. The DNR's APM program should take into consideration the impact of the freeway on the property owner's recreational use of the lake, and allow these few residents some small amount of consideration and peace as they put up with the noise and pollution created by the State of Minnesota. To simply deny a permit for a channel through the expanding aquatic plants based upon "visible" recreational use is arbitrary at best. The most visible use of Savage Lake is the continuing harm of 10 lanes of asphalt, and that should not trump the rights of anticipated recreational use by lakeshore property owners.

If legislation would help in your consideration of these extreme situations, I would be glad to work with you on that level. Sometimes statewide "rules" are not fair to severely impacted metro property owners because of 10-lanes of asphalt in their lake, and exceptions are in order.

Please contact me with possible corrections to this situation.

Bev Scalze
State Representative, 54B
357 State Office Building
100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
St. Paul MN 55155
651/296-7153
651/296-4165 (fax)
rep.bev.scalze@house.mn

From: "Hirsch, Steve A (DNR)" 08/27/10 1:37 PM

Dear Representative Scalze:
Commissioner Holsten forwarded to me your August 24, 2010 email regarding aquatic plant management (APM) issues on Savage Lake. As you know, APM issues can be contentious and I am sorry this one has caused problems for your constituents. I hope you find the following information helpful.

The APM permit request for Savage Lake was to control water lilies, a native plant that provides wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. Healthy populations of native aquatic plants are integral to the ecological health of our lakes, but they can also hinder recreation, particularly if they are abundant on the lake's surface. The DNR's APM program tries to balance the protection of aquatic plants with the need for lake shore residents to gain recreational access to the water.

Savage Lake residents were permitted to control 3 acres of water lilies and to clear channels from their shoreline to the open water area. Apparently, some channels were denied because there was no evidence of recreational use along the shoreline. Our APM specialist who did the inspection was very liberal in determining evidence of recreational use; anyone with a dock, boat, canoe, kayak, or paddle boat was authorized a permit. One individual, who did not have a boat on the water, sent a picture of their boat with current registration and the permit was amended within a couple of days to allow a channel for that person. If there are other people in a similar situation, we would certainly be willing to amend the permit for them as well. These folks should contact Sean Sisler (651-259-5807; sean.sisler@state.mn.us) if they wish to amend the permit.

You also expressed concern with the amount of time it took for Savage Lake residents to receive their APM permit, indicating that there was more than a 30-day lag time. In checking with APM staff, however, I learned that DNR received the permit application on July 21 and mailed out the permit two weeks later on August 5. This seems like a reasonable turn-around time, especially since this was a new permit requiring a field inspection prior to issuance.

I hope that this has helped to address your concerns. Please let me know if you need additional information.

Sincerely,

Steve Hirsch, Director
Division of Ecological Resources
(651) 259-5106

The Results

My dog and I ventured on to the lake this morning to review the damage done by Rodeo. I'm a little disappointed, but not surprised. While Dow hasn't tested Rodeo on water lilies, they suggest using the recommendations for "spatterdock"; which was a 3/4-1% solution with handheld application or 6 pints/acre as a broadcast spray. That recommendation also includes "Apply when most plants are in full bloom. For best results, apply during the summer or fall months."

We missed the full bloom moment by about 2 months. Dow states "Annual weeds will general continue to germinate from seed throughout the growing season. Repeat treatments will be necessary to control later germinating weeds." We, obviously, missed the opportunity to continue eradication through the growing season and hit the plants near the end of their normal life.

Considering this was our first attempt to get control of these long-term invasive plants, I'm not discouraged by the results. Next year, we should get after these weeds before they completely overrun the lake. The effort will be more productive, easier, and will allow us all to enjoy the lake throughout next summer.

One of the worst aspects of letting the lake degrade is the insect invasion; particularly mosquitoes. In past years, when the lake shore was a hot bed of bugs, we could always paddle out into the lake to escape both the heat and the pests. With the lily coverage, that is no longer true. All of these flying, crawling, slithering irritants have homes on the lake, thanks to the lily infestation. Between the mosquitoes and the weeds, a trip around the lake is less than relaxing.

So Tired of Waiting

Approximately one month after submitting the application to the DNR and we're still waiting for their response. Since that slow-moving, dysfunctional bureaucracy has no actual function, except to burn taxpayers' money, we have no leverage on them. The DNR sat by and watched our lake turn into a mosquito breeding swamp and did everything it could to restrict any actions that might have saved Savage Lake.

Now that the city and lakeshore residents are trying to take that responsibility into their own hands, the DNR is doing what it does best: nothing. With an annual budget of "$835.1 million" you'd think they might be interesting in accomplishing something with that giant outlay. You'd be wrong. In one of his rare moves that I agree with, Pawlenty "unallotted $2.950 million for the biennium"2010-2011 from the DNR's budget. I'd recommend unalotting a whole lot more until the bureaucrats in the DNR realize that they have to earn taxpayers' money. Currently, they obviously feel they deserve that outlay simply because past DNR employees actually worked for a living.

Yeah, I'm disgusted. I was disgusted by the babble I've heard from DNR representatives at every Savage Lake meeting since 2004 and I'm even more disgusted with that collection of inert bureaucrats today. If any state representative or administrator wants my vote, all they have to do is promise to de-fund the DNR and I'm on their side.

Lily Eradication

The plan to clear a good bit of our lake with herbicide is in place and the city is ready to pay for permits and the necessary materials. Once the permits are approved, John Bibeau and I are going to apply the herbicide by canoe. The city has sent a letter, with application forms included, to all of the west side lake shore owners, which must be completed and returned to the city by July 12, if you want to have your property's water access joined to the central lake area. The central areas will be cleared regardless of how many lakeshore owners request boating and recreational access.

Filling out the blanks in the form may be slightly tricky, if you don't know the length of your shoreline or the distance from your property to the proposed cleared central area or the 10' channel that will be cleared around the island. I talked to Joel Hansen about the values needed in the form and he said the DNR isn't looking for precise numbers, particularly for the distance from your property to the cleared central areas, but he provided a great resource for getting approximate numbers: the Ramsey County GIS Users Group and the mapping resource available at that site (http://maps.metro-inet.us/RamseyCoGIS/CXviewer.htm#). Give the form your best estimate and get it in on time.

Even if you know the information requested in this form, I recommend you bookmark these sites for future reference.

June 25, 2008 City Council Meeting

The following is an exerpt from the city council's meeting notes. Obviously, some things are dramatically less detailed than what was presented in the meeting. A couple of things stand out from these meeting notes and past statements lake shore owners have heard:

1) The DNR and the Watershed District do not use science, historical records, or justifiable information in making decisions on issues like lake levels. A "finger in the wind" appears to be sufficient information for their pronouncements. If the DNR is the ultimate arbitrator of the lake level and they are not competent to perform that task, it appears that the city and state is practically daring property owners to challenge their decisions in court.

2) However, the buck is constantly being passed in this regard. The "lake," according to the council and the Watershed District, is not a lake, but a watershed. The DNR passes the buck back to the Watershed District, they pass it back to the DNR, and the city pretends their hands are washed of all responsibility.

3) The city is not aggressively investigating or monitoring lake pollution, if they have to be shown pictures of trash, clippings, and old tires before they decide to act on a citizen's complaint of business pollution in the city's lakes.

4) Claims such as "the Public Works Department’s use of salt and eliminating sand usage, coupled with better sweeping practices would go a long way toward water quality improvements" perfectly describes how little the city administration understands the concept of "water quality."



SAVAGE LAKE MEETING RECAP


McGraw recapped the Savage Lake meeting that was held on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 with residents in the Savage Lake drainage area. He noted that Cliff Aichinger, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District did a very good job of presenting a lot of information. McGraw felt that the biggest issues the neighbors have are the high water mark for Savage Lake, how and when it was set, its impact on the lake, and the water lilies that have taken over the west side of the lake. McGraw indicated that most of the neighbors present want the water level raised and want the water lilies gone.

McGraw reported that Aichinger gave the property owners some encouragement on how to accomplish both through the DNR. Aichinger indicated that if that avenue was not successful, the City’s legislative representatives would need to get involved. McGraw pointed out that the treatment of the water lilies would be at the property owners’ expense. While the DNR has approved some treatment of the water lilies, McGraw felt that more was warranted given that there had never been water lilies on West Savage Lake in the past.

Blesener noted that Aichinger made it clear that Savage Lake is classified as a wetland and not a lake.

McGraw further reported that the Watershed does not test water quality of wetlands. However, they have done testing of Savage Lake and committed to continue to do testing. The result of the testing is that Savage Lake is not polluted.

McGraw reported that the issue of the School District dumping into the wetland system. It was determined that latex field paint was being dumped, which is not hazardous. The School District has been informed to cease this practice or they will be fined.

With regard to water quality, McGraw reported that discussions focused on treatment with the City Engineer recommending that rain water gardens be installed in the Savage Lake drainage area to provide treatment. It would not be possible to put a rain water garden at the end of the culvert that runs directly into the lake near the Day property, however. The City Engineer indicated that he would work with property owners in this drainage area to determine the level of interest in both having the gardens in yards as well as maintenance of the gardens. With regard to the culvert, it may be possible to install a system for collecting trash and debris before it gets into Savage Lake. This would have to be cleaned frequently to prevent blockage and flooding.

The City Administrator indicated that there are still roles that the City can plan relative to concerns about Savage Lake. He noted that the City is trying to get good historical information on the lake level. He pointed out that many people who live on Savage Lake have been there for many years and can provide information. The Administrator also pointed out the Watershed’s willingness to contact the DNR to request a re-evaluation of the ordinary high water mark. The Administrator noted that before an adjustment in that level would be possible, it is likely that a flood study will need to be done to determine if there would be any negative impacts as a result of higher water levels. He pointed out that one property owner on East Savage expressed opposition to having the water level raised. With regard to water lilies, the Watershed has indicated it will assist in working with the DNR on a more extensive eradication plan. The Administrator noted that the Watershed has indicated that property owners can request their Board to provide funding to help defray the costs.

McGraw felt that the property owners had a legitimate argument for the removal of the water lilies from Savage Lake given that at one time there were none on the lake. McGraw felt that if the property owners and the Watershed presented the information in an organized fashion, the argument for total removal of the water lilies would be stronger.

Keis asked about the street sweeping discussion, and asked if the City can justify the cost of a sweeper. The City Administrator felt the issue was not one of economic payback to the City, but rather issues of aesthetics and water quality. He noted that cities typically sweep three times per year. Little Canada has been sweeping only once per year, given timing issues with fall sweepings. The Administrator felt that the purchase of a sweeper should be looked into, noting that the City will get some additional LGA funds that could be used for the purchase. There are additional issues related to operating costs, and the Administrator suggested it may be possible to hire a person part-time to do sweeping. The other issue is what to do with the materials that are swept up. Under the contracting arrangement, the contractor must dispose of this material.

The Administrator felt that the Public Works Department’s use of salt and eliminating sand usage, coupled with better sweeping practices would go a long way toward water quality improvements. Additionally the installation of rain water gardens and collection of trash at catch basins will help the lakes. Further, the Watershed has indicated their assistance with the DNR relative to the Savage Lake water level and water lily eradication.

Montour felt that a lot of good things came out of the neighborhood meeting. He suggested that an action plan be put together so that it is clear who owns which tasks and establishes a timeline for when action items will be addressed. McGraw stated that it is his understanding that a Savage Lake Homeowners Association will be formed, which would take on tasks at hand with the assistance of the Watershed and the City.

The City Administrator indicated that he could put together an action plan, but noted that there will be a lot of variables depending on DNR reaction to raising the ordinary high water mark for Savage Lake as well as additional water lily removal. If the DNR does not support these actions, legislative action will be needed. Montour indicated that having a document outlining the action steps and responsibilities would be helpful.

Elvy Day, Lakeshore Avenue, indicated that it will take the cooperation of all parties working together to move forward on the issues. She thanked the City for any help they would provide.

Blesener pointed out that a lot will depend on the DNR, and it could be that they will not be supportive of raising the ordinary high water level or additional water lily removal. Day pointed out that there are other environmental groups that could be solicited for help.

Rocky Waite, Lakeshore Avenue, appeared before the Council to clarify a few issues from the last meetings. He indicated that when he brought the issue of the School District’s dumping into the storm sewer system, it was not latex field paint that he noticed, but another substance which appeared to be anti-freeze. The City Administrator indicated that the City did contact the School District on the occasions that Mr. Waite reported the dumping, but the substance was not tested. He further reported that the Watershed has contacted the School District to cease this practice, or they will be fined.

With regard to the Gopher Electronics property, Waite showed pictures of existing conditions. He indicated that the original building plans for this site call for a sediment pond, and noted that the pond has not existed for a number of years. The City Administrator reported that the pond was originally put in but has eroded out. He has talked to the property owner and is trying to get voluntary cooperation to clean up and repair this pond.

Waite pointed out that at the May 28th meeting Council Member Montour indicated that Gopher Electronics was not dumping into Savage Lake. Montour indicated that what he said was that Gopher Electronics was not dumping pollutants into the lake.

Waite presented pictures showing discarded old tires on the Gopher Electronics property as well as broken concrete and asphalt near the lake edge. He also showed piles of leaves dumped on this property. Waite contended that these materials would be considered pollutants. Waite indicated that he wanted to show that he did have documentation for the issues that he raised relative to Savage Lake.

Blesener indicated that the City will contact Gopher Electronics and request that they clean up their property.

Waite reported that in researching the ordinary high water level (OHW) for Savage Lake, he found that in 1964 when the freeway went through that level was at 899.5. Blesener pointed out that the OHW is currently at 895.1 as established by the DNR. Allan noted that the flood level is 896, and pointed out that an OHW of 899.1 would flood properties abutting Savage Lake.

Blesener indicated that he was in the back yards of the Freeman and Smith properties, and noted that the lake level is currently 18 inches below the top of the concrete wall in the Smith back yard. The water level is about 3 inches below the top of the weir. Blesener indicated that to raise the water level to 899.1 will put water in people’s basements on East Savage Lake. Blesener indicated that the Watershed discussed with the DNR as to how the OWH is determined, and they indicated that they look at the vegetation around the lake as well as historical water lines. The DNR indicated that it is their opinion that the OHW is within 3 inches of its historical levels.

Waite again indicated that the OHW was 899.1 in 1964. Allan pointed out that different base lines have been used over the years.

Waite referred to 1979 minutes in which Roy Nadeau referred to the high water level for Savage as the highest point in the freeway culvert. He indicated that that elevation is 899.2. Blesener again pointed out that an 899.1 elevation will flood some homes.

Keis stated that he could not prove whether Waite is right or wrong, but indicated that the bottom line is that the City does not determine the ordinary high water line. It is the DNR that makes this determination. Keis suggested that Waite bring his arguments to the DNR.

Waite stated that he wanted the City Council to provide support for this effort. McGraw pointed out that this is a difficult situation given the impact that an 899.1 elevation would have on East Savage Lake properties. McGraw indicated that he has lived in Little Canada since 1971 and reported that he has never seen the yards on East Savage Lake flooded. McGraw pointed out that while property owners may not like it, at some point it has to be accepted that it is the DNR that sets the OHW level.

Waite indicated that he has been researching the City’s records for the 1960’s and believes that it was the City that put in the gate system that managed the Savage Lake level. He noted that he found minutes in which comments were made by the then City Attorney relative to maintaining Savage Lake at its highest level and preventing the lake from becoming a swamp.

Allan pointed out that it will be up to the DNR hydrologist to determine if the 895.4 OHW level is appropriate. She pointed out, however, that an 899.1 level will not be approved as it will flood people’s backyards. Allan noted that there were people at the June 17th neighborhood meeting who oppose an increase in the OHW. Allan pointed out to Mr. Waite that it is apparent in looking at the lake that an increase of a foot will cause flooding.

Waite stated that he realizes an increase to 899.1 will not be approved, but felt that the lake could be raised by 1 ½ to 2 feet. Allan again indicated that the DNR will make the determination, and will likely do a flood study as part of their review. Allan again pointed out the impact to abutting properties.

Waite stated that he did not want to flood anyone out. He suggested another solution may be to cut off the pipe joining East and West Savage. That would allow the level of West Savage to be raised.

Blesener felt increasing the lake level 1 ½ feet will put water in people’s back yards. An increase of 4 feet will put water in basements.

The City Administrator stated that he would put the Savage Lake action plan together, outlining options as well as responsibilities.

Getting Started

Savage Lake has received the short shrift from the Little Canada city government and the state of Minnesota for so long that the lake is practically dead and gone. The long history of this body of water deserves more respect and this website is an attempt to begin a process of organizing lake shore property owners to begin the process of restoring the lake to recreational and scenic beauty.