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.

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.

Who They Represent

The sad status of our lake has made me wonder who works for us and who doesn't? So, I created a map of where our mayor, city council members, and city employees live (as best I could based on city information and the white pages). The results were interesting. Most interesting is that the White Pages has John Keis listed as a St. Paul resident (533 Brimhall St, St. Paul, MN) while he lists his residence as 3094 Payne Avenue on the Little Canada website.

I was a little surprised to see that two council members, Shelly Boss and Michael McGraw, live on the poor side of the freeway (Boss lives at 62 Bryan Street East and McGraw is listed at 179 Little Canada Road East). That's encouraging, if a little difficult to understand. Rick Montour, Joel Hanson and Bill Blesener live almost exactly where I would I would have predicted.

My difficulty is in understanding how their positions on our lake can be so hostile to our side of the lake and so unconcerned with its condition. Honestly, I expected them all to live wrapped around Gervais Lake, which also depends to a mild degree on the water supply collected by the poor side of Savage Lake.

The DNR's Proposed APM rules

Thanks to our Representative Bev Scalze, I received the most recent rules for the DNR's APM permits.

-------------------------

Judge Luis recommended that the DNR's proposed APM rules be adopted, with the changes proposed by the DNR in its response to public comments. The judge also suggested some additional minor wording changes, which the DNR is considering.

The changes proposed by DNR in its response to public comments include:
1) Eliminate the provision preventing commercial aquatic pesticide applicators from applying pesticides to public waters under an APM permit for violation of APM rules;
2) Provide for the full appeal process to occur before an APM permit is revoked;
3) Eliminate the phrase "but not limited to" in several places;
4) Clarify that more than 100 shoreline feet of submersed aquatic plant control may be allowed adjacent to commercial campgrounds;
5) Specify public participation requirements for lake vegetation management plans on the grandfather lakes (notice or news release in a local newspaper, public meeting, and a 30-day comment period);
6) Clarify ambiguous language for landowner approval requirements for APM permits so it does not appear that landowners need approval from their next-door neighbors before controlling aquatic plants; and
7) Retain current penalty language in rule, which specifies that violations of APM rules are misdemeanors.

You can review a pdf file of the Judges report at the web page below under "Rulemaking documents."
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/rules/apm/index.html

You can also review the rule making record including the ALJ's report at the Office of Administrative Hearings web page by clicking on the link below.
http://www.oah.state.mn.us/cases/200019885-AqPlantMgmt/index.html

Steve Enger
MN DNR
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4025
651-259-5092
e-mail: steve.enger@dnr.state.mn.us

10-20-2008 Lake Shore Owner's Meeting

This is somewhat old news, but since my notes ended up on a computer that I rarely use these days, I'm late in posting it.

10-20-2008 Meeting

Officials Present:

Bill Dircks – Public Works Superintendent
Cliff Aichinger – Watershed District
Neil Vanderbosch – DNR
Lee Elfering – City Engineer
City Council Members

Information

Early on, it was declared that the DNR and Watershed District have decided that the current oversized, improperly positioned lake drain is an immobile object. The DNR is claiming the oversight in preventing the lake from being raised to previous levels. The Watershed District has decided that their latest attempt at correcting their original mistake will be their last attempt. The city is confused and isn’t sure who to believe.

“Nobody called me,” Neil Vanderbosch said in reply to a citizen’s request that the state review its position on water lilies. He seemed to believe the policy that if government is unresponsive, government has no responsibility. I know that I wrote, emailed, and called the DNR several times in 2002 asking for assistance with the artificially low lake height. I’m not even close to the only local citizen who called the DNR, Watershed District, city officials, state legislators, and anyone else who might have been able to help if anyone else had given a damn.

Vanderbosch continued his comedy act by saying, “We can’t go on individual lakes. We’d never get anything done,” regarding the DNR’s ability to review our lake’s situation. I’ve only been in Minnesota for a dozen years, but I’ve not yet seen any evidence that the DNR gets anything done outside of inflating their bureaucracy and attending meetings in resort areas (particularly during winter months). I guess it’s true that if the DNR bothered with monitoring individual lakes and rivers, it would be more difficult for them to attend junkets in Hawaii.

The one piece of information I obtained from questioning Vanderbosh is that the Division of Waters should be in charge of monitoring water quality. Now, I need to figure out who is in charge of the Division of Waters.

Proposed Actions

Dredging the “wetlands” (at the corner of Jackson and Demont) and other drainage issues

This “wetlands” was designed to route water from Demont to Savage Lake, trapping sediment before reaching the lake. The wetlands hadn’t been cleaned “since the mid-80s.” Elfering has recommended not removing sediment from the other lake sediment inlets. Elfering is pushing rain water gardens and strongly argued against drain traps due to the maintenance costs and effort required. If the gardens are built, they will try to get started on them during the winter.

One drawback to the gardens is that they will prevent some water from getting to the lake. Another drawback is that they won’t take back any of the existing damage to the lake.

Preventing water from reaching the lake

The city is planning on switching to all salt winter street treatment to reduce the sediment from the streets. Bill Dircks said the city is planning on sweeping more often and earlier in the spring and through the summer. He is recommending a vacuum or regenerative air sweeper to remove both the small and large particulate material. The City is planning on purchasing a regenerative air sweeper at a cost of $50,000 more than a traditional sweeper. Pre-wetting the salt should reduce the need for quantity (30% less salt) and increase the effectiveness. Other salt delivery systems are also being considered.

Ye Old Water Level Controversy

The water level, supposedly, is currently at 895.4’ above sea level. The DNR lists the lake height at 898’. Mayor Blessner requested that the DNR’s numbers be revised to match the Watershed District’s number. This is newspeak at its finest. If the current claim to being the “right height” doesn’t match the old data, we’ll just revise the old data and hope nobody notices. In the meantime, the lake continues to fill with sediment and the level continues to drop.

Resolutions

The city resolved to have the city engineer look further into having the state highway department pay for dredging the sediment that was dumped into the lake near the freeway.

The city offered to pay the DNR fees and the chemical costs for spraying the water lillies next spring. Thomas Day and John Bibeau volunteered to be responsible for spraying the lake according to the DNR specifications.

10-8-2008 Little Canada City Council Meeting

Tonight, one of the last items on the City Council’s agenda was Savage Lake water quality. Before the meeting, Joel Hansen dropped a packet off at many Savage Lake homes describing the history of the lake, some of the problems, and the options available to the city and residents. One of the suggested remedies for the lake has been rain water gardens. Residents were asked to bring a signed copy of an approval form if there is interest in installing rain water gardens on Savage Lake yards.

Joel summarized the recommendations of the city, the Watershed District, and residents. The Watershed District’s measurements stated that the “100 year flood” level and their estimation of the current lake level would not allow for an further change in the lake level. The DNR has allowed for chemical irradiation of up to 5 acres of water lilies on the west Savage Lake. There is some discussion still left regarding the weir design and height.

Joel discussed recommendations for a different street sweeping system to pick up more of the “fine particulate” material from the streets. That involves a $200k purchase of equipment, which members of the council (especially the Mayor) balked at. They discussed cost sharing the equipment with another community.

I asked that the city look into containing the runoff from the freeway into the east side of the lake. Joel admitted he hadn’t included that in the summary, but he was working on that issue. In retrospect, I realized that the freeway runoff should be the responsibility of the state, particularly DOT. I offered to obtain pictures of the sediment traps used at the Shakopee Arboretum to provide to Joel as a design possibility.

Joel will call for a neighborhood meeting to discuss and describe the remedies for the lake. October 20th, at 7PM is the proposed meeting date.

From the city's meeting notes:

SAVAGE LAKE WATER QUALITY ISSUES
The City Administrator reviewed his October 3, 2008 report on the Savage Lake water quality action plan which was directed last summer after a neighborhood meeting held by the Watershed and City staff.

The Administrator reported that the first action plan task dealt with lake level. The Administrator indicated that research has been done and some conflicting information found, however, it appears that the lake level has always been very close to the current outlet level of 895.1. The Administrator noted that the Watershed has conducted an elevation survey of nine homes around East and West Savage Lakes that appeared to have the lowest elevations as compared to the lake level. The results of this analysis is that the 100-year flood elevation is only .2 feet above the low entry elevation of the shop garage at 334 Little Canada Road. Based upon Watershed rules, they cannot support any increase in the normal elevation as that would increase the 100-year flood elevation. Given the elevation of the lowest structures, that would put them in the 100-year flood plain. The Administrator reported that one possible modification was suggested by Little Canada resident Tom Wenzel, a senior water resource engineer with the MN Board of Water and Soil Resources. He suggested modifications to the hydraulics of the new structure to better match those of the former culvert. This would slow down the removal of flood waters, thus resulting in more flood detention, increased residence time, periodic increases in flood elevations, and hopefully have some impact on how much the lake drops below the current elevation as the summer progresses. The Administrator reported that the Watershed will be evaluating this option.

The second task was to determine the feasibility of eradicating lily pads. The Administrator reported that he has met with Mr. Neil Vanderbosch, Aquatic Plant Management Specialist with the DNR, who indicated that a full eradication will not happen. The Administrator indicated that Mr. Vanderbosch will be revising the plan he previously prepared to indicate the level of eradication that will be acceptable. He has indicated that a maximum eradication of 5 acres is acceptable for large bodies of water, and has suggested that 3.5 acres may be the most that will be approved for West Savage Lake. The Administrator reported that it is an expensive undertaking to contract for eradication. The Administrator suggested an economical option would be for the City pay the cost of the chemical if there are residents on the lake willing to apply it.

Blesener asked for clarification on the outlet weir (normal level). The City Administrator noted the correspondence from the Watershed indicating that the top of the weir is 895.4, which was raised from 895.1 in 2006 to compensate for the tip in the outlet pipe. The Administrator noted the need for the DNR to modify their information to correspond with the 895.4 level. Blesener pointed out that the 100-year flood elevation is only two to three inches below the Smith’s garage floor elevation.

The Administrator reviewed task 3 for dredging the wetland at Jackson and Demont. The City Engineer will have plans and specs ready for this work by the end of the month to be completed over the winter. He will include alternates for the sediment plumes in areas of Savage Lake noting that access to these areas will be difficult.

Task 4 relative to evaluation/installation of storm water improvements. The Administrator noted that the installation of rain water gardens in the Savage Lake drainage area is the most reasonable option. Surveys were recently mailed to property owners in the drainage area to determine the level of interest. Survey information is due by October 15th. The Administrator indicated that the plan would be to have these rain water gardens installed next summer.

Task 5 calls for the evaluation of a street sweeper purchase. The Administrator reviewed the two types of sweepers, noting that the regenerative air sweeper is favored by the Watershed as it picks up the fine particulates which carry the most contamination. The cost of a regular sweeper is estimated at $140,000 versus $200,000 for the regenerative air sweeper. The Administrator indicated that the Watershed has been approached relative to funding a portion of this cost as a demonstration project. The Administrator also indicated that the cost of this equipment could be included in the City’s Capital Improvement Budget or funded with LGA dollars depending on the level of future LGA funds. Blesener suggested that another option would be a joint purchase with another city, and suggested that City staff explore this option. The City Administrator indicated that staff is currently discussing a shared sweeper with neighboring cities. The City Administrator indicated that should a sweeper be purchased, the goal would be to hire a retired individual to operate the sweeper on an as-needed basis. With the purchase of a sweeper, the City’s streets could be swept more frequently, thus improving water quality, appearance, etc.

Task 6 calls for the evaluation of pre-wetted salt spreading. The City Administrator indicated that this task is still being evaluated.

Tom Day, Lakeshore Avenue resident, stated that he appreciates the work that the City is doing with regard to Savage Lake water quality. He indicated that there are two additional issues that need study. The first is the freeway run-off coming to West Savage Lake and the fact that the drainage pipe is full. The City Administrator indicated that staff would check on this issue. The second issue is the drainage from the north side, and Day suggested the installation of sediment traps. Day indicated that he would obtain some pictures of these traps.

The City Administrator suggested that the next step would be to call for a neighborhood meeting to review study progress with the neighborhood.

Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:

RESOLUTION NO. 2008-10-250 – SCHEDULING A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2008 AT 7:00 P.M. TO REVIEW THE SAVAGE LAKE ACTION PLAN UPDATE

The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Montour.
Ayes (4).
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.

Savage Lake meeting 6/17/2008

From: Oyen, Cameron
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:32 PM
To: Cliff Aichinger
Cc: Joel Hanson; barbara.allan@ci.little-canada.mn.us; michael.mcgraw@ci.little-canada.mn.us; lelfering@elferingeng.com; bill.dircks@ci.little-canada.mn.us
Subject: Savage Lake meeting 6/17/2008

Cliff, et al:

Several things arising out of the 6/17 Savage Lake Public Meeting (it rambles a bit, so please read to the end):

1) Thank you! for taking the time to meet with us all; some cranky, some just emphatic, all interested in what is best for a wonderful water resource. Thank you for maintaining your cool in the face of some heavy fire at times.

2) We are truly grateful for the wise and insightful contribution of our neighbor Tom Wenzel to the discussion; he stepped outside the box for a moment and viewed the matter from a different angle. We saw his suggestion to approach the new bureaucrat at the DNR (I can say that, being a bureaucrat myself) about taking another look at the water level assumptions, among other things, as a positive turning point in the discussion. We have at least some hope of positive change, as long as we base the baselines on some real history, as provided by folks who have some, rather than some "one-size-fits-all" bureaucratic standards and interpretations that DO NOT always fit "all."

3) The Oyen perspective began a couple of years prior to our June 15, 2002 move-in date. We had every reason to expect, based on visits to our property and that of our neighbors, whom we knew going back several years, that the water would remain open and that the level would not drop so significantly. From our personal, Savage Lake residential experience, the lake (we do not live on Wetland Shore Ave, by the way - our street name is one thing we hold on to as our proof of "lakedom") was higher in the summers of both 2002 and 2003 than it has ever been since, including its highest this year, a few weeks ago. We now have some shrub roses planted where our 02/03 high-water mark was and the water is still at least many inches lower than this point. Those first two years I even had to be careful when mowing that I did not submerge the mower wheels at the edge of the lawn. No such problems since.

4) I put in our dock in July 2004 and used waders to do most of it, as the water was 18"-24" at the end of the new dock. At that time, the cattails were no further out than the first three feet of the dock's length, extending into the water. They have now almost completely enveloped the full 19 foot length of the dock, as they seek water that had receded. It was not long after the dock installation that the water went down precipitously and the dock that had been in at least 18" of water was land-locked by mud flats the rest of that summer and nearly all of summer 2005.

5) I think your statement that the water would have been low anyway, even without the new weir is only partially accurate. The new weir did not allow the lake basin, the spring following its installation, to retain spring snow melt and spring rain in order to retain a little depth through the drought. Had more water been allowed to remain, the percolation and evaporation would have had less effect than it did.

6) We look forward to working with our city council, city staff and others to pursue some common sense solutions to the two matters of most concern; water level and weed removal. We truly hope you will advocate with our legislative reps, state agencies and other involved entities to balance any competing interests.

7) Please keep in mind that all we are asking for is a return to the way things were prior to 2004. These are not requests to enhance, but to restore. And since public entity action had a hand in creating the current situation, it makes sense for public entity action to pursue and facilitate restoration, whether the lake is a lake or a wetland, whether it is considered private or public. It is we, the residents of the lakeshore who have been adversely affected, and not by our own action. Please keep these important points in mind as we proceed.

We look forward to taking the next steps.

Changing the Lake's Name

To add insult to injury, H.F. No. 2503, was introduced to change Savage Lake's name (and the names of 13 other Minnesota towns, lakes, and rivers) to the "less offensive" "Gathering Natives Lake." Other than the ridiculous politically correct aspect to this new name, my biggest complaint is that there is apparently no interest from natives in this lake and no evidence of any attempt by government to protect this lake that, supposedly, has historic value. The state and federal government piled dirt on the lake in order to kill the lake's stream source and to build the I35E "bridge." That was done in such a hurry that no effort to determine if historic relics were present could be made. Personally, I think the "savages" the lake's name refers to would be the government officials who have ravaged the lake.