The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-08-15 City Council Work Session PacketAgenda City Council Work Session City of Edina, Minnesota City Hall Community Meeting Room Tuesday, August 15, 2023 5:30 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Clean Water Strategy Phase 2: Vision (Values and Goals) and Priorities Discussion IV.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli)cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: August 15, 2023 Agenda Item #: III. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Reports / Recommendation From:Jessica V. Wilson, Water Resources Manager Item Activity: Subject:Clean Water Strategy Phase 2: Vision (Values and Goals) and Priorities Discussion Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None; discussion only. INTRODUCTION: The 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan included a commitment to develop the Clean Water Strategy to define clean water goals, the cost and pace of achievement, and plan implementation opportunities. Establishing a vision for clean water in phase 2 would define the goal, set the priority, define the service levels, and put us on a track to move toward a more sustainable management paradigm in which the service that the City provides more closely aligns with what the community values. The purpose of this work session is to provide a summary of the engagement process, describe how input has shaped the vision and priorities so far, and get policy direction on the clean water vision (values and goals), priority waterbodies, and priority pollutants from the Council ahead of a formal recommendation and future Council action. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report: Clean Water Strategy Phase 2: Vision and Priorities Discussion Staff Report Attachment Engagement Report Staff Report Engagement Report Appendix Staff Presentation Arrow Lake Summary Centennial Lake Summary Hawkes Lake Summary Indianhead Lake Summary Lake Cornelia Summary Lake Edina Summary Lake Harvey Summary Lake Highlands Summary Lake Nancy Summary Lake Pamela Summary Melody Lake Summary Mirror Lake Summary SW Pond Summary August 15th, 2023 Mayor and City Council Jessica Wilson, CFM, Water Resources Manager Clean Water Strategy Phase 2: Vision (Values and Goals) and Priorities Discussion Information / Background: The 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan included a commitment to develop the Clean Water Strategy to define clean water goals, the cost and pace of achievement, and plan implementation opportunities. Establishing a vision for clean water would define the goal, set the priority, define the service levels, and put us on a track to move toward a more sustainable management paradigm in which the service that the City provides more closely aligns with what the community values. We’ve taken a phased approach to development of the Clean Water Strategy.  Phase I (complete): Current State of Edina’s Program Staff reports are available from the August 3, 2022, work session and December 20, 2022, City Council meeting, linked at the end of this report. Lake summaries and fact sheets can be found in the online Water Resources Library and on the project webpage, www.bettertogetheredina.org/clean-water-strategy.  Phase 2 (current): Vision (Values and Goals), Priorities  Phase 3 (future): Detailed management plans for priority waterbodies, including a pilot effort at Lake Cornelia or other lakes as a later step, after buy-in on the policy level. The purpose of this work session is to provide a summary of the engagement process, describe how input has shaped the vision and priorities so far, get policy direction on the clean water vision (values and goals), priority waterbodies, and priority pollutants, and get feedback on a proposed phase 3 scope from the Council ahead of a formal recommendation and future Council action. STAFF REPORT Page 2 The Decision to be Made All of the more than 200 waterbodies in Edina are considered shallow. The deepest lake, Mirror Lake, is about 15 ft deep at its maximum depth. Shallow lakes behave differently than deep lakes. Especially in urban settings, small shallow lakes tend to be warmer, more nutrient rich, and more prolific with aquatic plants and algae. The forces of urbanization and climate change have outsized influence on small aquatic ecosystems. Urbanization has permanently and significantly altered Edina’s landscape. Climate change has already and will continue to stress these systems. Shallow lakes can exist in two states – clear or turbid. In the clear condition, diverse, native plant communities help to control excess nutrients and provide valuable habitat. Turbid lakes have excess algae and suspended sediment that limits the growth of aquatic plants and the benefits they provide. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to restore a turbid lake to a clear-water condition due to the complex ecology within these systems. Figure from Clean Water Vision public meeting board Minnesotans take great pride in our more than 10,000 lakes and it’s common for people to want all lakes to be all things – deep, pristine clear water like on the north shore, and also open water views without any ‘weeds’ and recreation unimpeded by plants. The paradox of shallow lakes is that to have a clean and healthy lake, we must encourage the shallow lake ecology which makes it unsuitable for most recreation and challenges our notion of a conventional lake aesthetic. Recreation and clean water services can directly compete. Managers cannot realistically deliver a shallow lake with a sandy bottom, no plants, and clear water. Given the brutal reality of the past and present forces disrupting aquatic ecosystems and the dichotomy of the clear and turbid water states, what do we envision for a clean water future in Edina? STAFF REPORT Page 3 Potential policy directions Clean Water Status Quo Shallow lakes would be managed for an outcome which prioritizes wildlife habitat and natural aesthetic views over boating and swimming. Native rooted, floating, and emergent aquatic vegetation would be encouraged for their ability to support wildlife and sequester nutrients that would otherwise be available for algae to grow. Shallow lakes are managed for an outcome that prioritizes open water views and recreation access unimpeded by aquatic plants and algae. Tradeoffs: Boating and swimming are inhibited by vegetation. Aquatic plants can be seen above, at, and just below the water surface. Tradeoffs: Chemical control of emergent, floating, and submerged plants will supply phosphorus to opportunistic algae including potentially harmful blue-green algae, contributing to recurring blooms. Oxygen levels in the lake crash due to the decay of organic matter and anerobic decay leads to swampy smells. The fishery suffers from low dissolved oxygen, lack of food, and lack of habitat. Only the lowest quality aquatic animals are found. Significant effort is needed to achieve and sustain this outcome. We understand our lakes never existed like they do now and that we get the exact water quality we deserve. City actions either work toward a new equilibrium or against it. We look for smart and light-touch ways to continue to nudge the waterbodies toward or keep them in their new equilibrium. This policy direction is supported by staff. Significant effort is needed to attempt to balance between the competing values of the clear water state and open water views with recreation access unimpeded by aquatic plants and algae. Waterbodies in the clear water condition will fail to meet resident expectations for boating and open water views. Waterbodies in the turbid water condition will fail to meet regulatory clean water benchmarks. Balancing in the middle between the clear water and turbid water state is not a practical option. City actions and community values are often misaligned. Values and Goals The following values and goals were framed based on what we already know about community values based on established budget pillars, city values, quality of life surveys, and regulatory and stakeholder requirements. These were further refined based on public feedback received so far. The text of the goals was simplified, and the systems approach idea was added under the value statement about city actions. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Ecosystems are in a healthy equilibrium; water is clear and environmental benefits are sustained.  Water clarity improves as people use water friendly practices.  Waters are safe for human contact.  Waters support native plants, insects, and animals consistent with an urban setting.  Shorelines are stable and provide shelter for wildlife consistent with urban lands. City actions align to do the most good towards measurable, desirable clean water outcomes leveraging creativity and innovation.  The city uses an iterative ‘build, test, learn’ model to make progress.  The city uses a systems approach in its implementation to consider cumulative benefits.  The city performs active management to improve or maintain water clarity and chemistry at levels appropriate for urban waters.  Pollution is managed towards achieving water resource conditions that meet standards and support community uses.  In-lake management practices are applied towards achieving conditions that meet standards and support community uses.  Clean water goals are pursued with consideration for multiple benefits and available resources. People are connected to the land and water in reciprocity, both caring for nature and enjoying the benefits of a healthy environment.  People access and interpret knowledge and guidance on urban clean water goals and behaviors that promote them.  People pursue activities that promote clean water and natural resource stewardship.  Waters are restored or maintained in conditions allowing for beneficial uses. All people have access to water and the cultural values and environmental benefits they provide.  Clean water actions prioritize waters with public access.  Clean water strategies recognize the diverse ways people value and experience the city’s waters. The Clean Water Strategy Decision Two potential clean water strategies are offered here, informed by the policy direction decision-to-be-made, values and goals described above. We work toward a healthy ecosystem equilibrium in which waters are clear, safe, and accessible. We control vegetation to promote aquatic recreation and open water views. Prevent pollution: We control pollutants at their source and implement programs to help people do their part. Prevent pollution: We control pollutants at their source and implement programs to help people do their part. STAFF REPORT Page 5 Mitigate pollution: We build, operate, and maintain infrastructure and implement programs to capture and remove pollutants. Restore ecological processes: We restore natural ecosystems on land and in water. Mitigate pollution: We build, operate, and maintain infrastructure and implement programs to capture and remove pollutants. Control aquatic vegetation: We control vegetation above, at, and below the surface. Priority waterbodies The current Water Resources Management Plan lacks a clear goal for achieving clean water outcomes. The lake and pond policy in the Water Resources Management Plan was established in 2015 to provide a clear, consistent process for responding to requests for algae and/or aquatic vegetation control. The purpose of establishing the policy was to formalize how the city had been operating for decades. Prioritization for the 2015 lake and pond policy is based on size, water quality, engagement, and public access. The lake and pond policy has the city coordinate destruction of native aquatic vegetation even though we know healthy native aquatic plant communities are an important part of a healthy shallow lake. This is confusing for people as we say it’s important to protect native aquatic plants for clean water, then help people destroy native aquatic plant communities under the umbrella of a water resources management plan. A process for responding to requests for aquatic vegetation control is far from a plan for transitioning waterbodies to a clean water state. There is no movement on water quality with the current policy and plan. Developing a framework for prioritizing waterbodies helps focus the implementation of clean water services. The draft prioritization criteria and factors were framed around community values and goals. Criteria for priority waterbodies is based on resource condition (water quality, aquatic invasive species, and public health), physical/geographic characteristics, and public use and access. The draft prioritization factors and considerations for ranking are provided below. 50% 20% 30% Prioritization composition Resource Condition (WQ/AIS/Public Health) Physical/Geographic Public Use/Access STAFF REPORT Page 6 An initial (now former) prioritization list was shared at the June 2023 community meetings. This list can be viewed in the materials of the project webpage which are also attached to the engagement report. Table from draft Priority Waterbodies public meeting board (June 2023) The 13 lakes and ponds in the initial draft prioritization were those for which summary sheets were created in phase 1 of the clean water strategy. Minnehaha Creek, Nine Mile Creek – north branch, and Nine Mile Creek – south branch were incorporated into the prioritization during development of engagement materials. Since the June engagement meetings, another sample of 6 natural waterbodies have been run through the prioritization criteria and are shown in the table below (Mud Lake/Bredesen Park, Swimming Pool Pond, Point of France Pond, West Garrison Pond, Birchcrest Pond, and View Lane/Vernon Ave pond). We have not gone through the process to rank all waterbodies in the community. Some waterbodies have moved within the priority tiers as more waterbodies were evaluated and feedback on the criteria was incorporated. Presence of harmful algal blooms was included in the original prioritization criteria. Potential for human or pet contact with harmful algal blooms has been added. We chose not to prioritize waterbodies based on proximity or drainage connections because the conditions under which water moves from one body to STAFF REPORT Page 7 another are complex and many waterbodies across the city are connected. Further, prioritizing waterbodies based on connection would elevate so many waterbodies that it becomes a poor criterion for differentiating waterbodies. Flow routing diagrams for two drainage areas are attached as examples showing the extent of waterbody connections. Instead, we’ve added a goal related to systems approach and cumulative benefits underneath the ‘city actions’ value statement and can consider connections when formulating capital projects and programs and priority waterbodies. The revised tiering based on Council and community feedback received so far are as follows: Highest Priority Tier 2 Tier 3 Lake Cornelia Lake Edina Minnehaha Creek Nine Mile Creek – North Fork Arrowhead Lake Highland Lake Indianhead Lake Lake Nancy Melody Lake Mirror Lake Otto Pond Lake Pamela Mud Lake/Bredesen Park Nine Mile Creek – South Fork Point of France Pond Southwest Ponds Swimming Pool Pond Non-priority Birchcrest Pond Hawkes Lake Lake Harvey Vernon Ave/View Lane Pond West Garrison Pond We will focus our primary effort on highest priority waterbodies, build on our successes, and learn from our failures. Low and non-priority waterbodies would receive a lower tier of service. Priority pollutants We heard good consensus from people on the priority pollutants; nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), sediment, and chloride. We will focus our primary effort on these priority pollutants and observe non-priority pollutants and trends in partnership with local watershed districts and state agencies. Potential Phase 3 components and outcomes  Public participation plan for phase 3  A technical study (pilot at Lake Cornelia) including a breakdown of opportunity spaces where pollutants are coming from (the upstream watershed, upstream waterbodies, in-lake sources), and the costs and relative benefit of actions within those spaces. This would clarify which actions make the most sense to pursue so that we are making wise investments to meet the goals in the most efficient manner. It would also clarify the level and pace of achievement we might expect to see. We would leverage existing studies as part of this work.  A recommendation for defined levels of service, taken through an asset management approach, driven by community values and goals. STAFF REPORT Page 8  A recommendation for resourcing a proposed new Clean Water Strategy.  A schedule and process for accountability in implementing the proposed new Clean Water Strategy.  Tools for communicating the Clean Water Strategy (to be pursued as part of updating the Water Resources Management Plan). Pending Council direction, staff would seek a phase 3 professional services scope for Council consideration at a future meeting. The outcome of this work would likely lead to a major amendment to the Water Resources Management Plan. Key Questions and Discussion  What is your reaction to the potential policy directions for the vision and ultimately, the strategy? What more do you need to be able to decide?  What is your reaction to the waterbodies prioritization framework? What more do you need to be able to decide?  What is your reaction to the priority pollutants? What more do you need to be able to decide?  What other questions would you like answered in phase 3? What level of public engagement would you like to see in phase 3?  What else are you hearing from the community about the Clean Water Strategy? Next Steps Staff will incorporate Council input and make a formal recommendation at a subsequent meeting. City Council will decide on the policy. Staff could bring a phase 3 scope for Council consideration based on direction from the work session. Attachments  Example flow routing diagrams, Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina Subwatershed and Nine Mile Creek (North) Subwatershed Links to past conversations on this topic May 16, 2023 - Clean Water Strategy Phase 2: Vision (Values and Goals) and Priorities Update December 20, 2022 – Request for Purchase: Clean Water Strategy Professional Services Phase 2 and Participation Plan August 3, 2022 – Work Session – Clean Water Strategy Summary March 5, 2019 – Work Session – Water Resources Management – Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy, Lake Cornelia Clean Water Strategy, and Chloride Pollution Prevention September 5, 2018 – Adoption of 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan April 3, 2018 – Work Session – Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan – Implementation Discussion January 17, 2018 – Authorize Staff to Submit Draft Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for Agency Review November 21, 2017 – Work Session – Draft 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan Presentation for Review and Comment Lake Cornelia(North) Lake Cornelia(South) OttoLake SwimPoolPond Point ofFrancePond PamelaLake LakeEdina BirchcrestPond CentennialLakes Nine Mile Creek LakeNancy R i c hf i e l dRichfield M i n n e a p o l i sMinneapolis Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-09-21 08:24 File: \\barr.com\gis\Client\Edina\Projects\CRWMP_Update_2017\Maps\Reports\Figures_CityReviewDraft\Fig_7_4_Lk_Cornelia_Water_Quality.mxd User: rcs2LAKE CORNELIA/LAKE EDINASUBWATERSHED ROUTINGBased on Water ResourceManagement PlanCity of Edina, Minnesota FIGURE A.4.1 1,200 0 1,200Feet !;N 400 0 400Meters *Subwatersheds based on City P8 water quality model. Flow directions are general and do not reflect pipe/channel routing. Imagery Source: USDA 2016 NAIP via MnGeo Minor Subwatersheds (p8 model) Lake/Pond Creek/Stream Flow Direction (general) City of Edina Boundary BirchcrestPond HawkesLake MudLake MirrorLake HighlandsLake MelodyLake Nine Mile Creek PrescottPond E d e n P r a i r i eEden P r a i r i e Ho p k i nsHopkins M i nn e t o n k aMinnetonka Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.9.1, 2023-07-18 09:27 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Clean_Water_Strategy_23271913\Users\SGW\Cornelia_Flow_Routing_07172023.mxd User: sgwNINE MILE CREEK (NORTH)SUBWATERSHED ROUTINGBased on Water ResourceManagement PlanCity of Edina, Minnesota FIGURE A.4.1 1,200 0 1,200Feet !;N 400 0 400Meters *Subwatersheds based on City P8 water quality model. Flow directions are general and do not reflect pipe/channel routing. Imagery Source: USDA 2016 NAIP via MnGeo Nine Mile Creek - NorthDrainage Basin Minor Subwatersheds (p8 model) Flow Direction (general) Lake/Pond Creek/Stream City of Edina Boundary August 15th, 2023 CITY COUNCIL Jessica Wilson, CFM, Water Resources Manager Clean Water Strategy Phase 2: Engagement Report Information / Background: Community engagement with this phase followed the City Council approved public participation plan (attached). Per the participation plan, staff outlined initial vision themes (values and goals), and priorities for public input. These materials are available on the project webpage and provided as an attachment. Staff previewed the Clean Water Strategy engagement elements at the Council’s May 16th meeting. The key takeaways from members of Council were 1) In addition to input from people who live directly adjacent to a waterbody, get input from the broader community and 2) Prioritize health and safety, especially related to harmful algal blooms. The level of public participation for this phase of the project was ‘Involve’. The goal was to work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure the public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. The promise made was to work with the public to ensure that concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the vision and goals developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision. Staff received input through a variety of ways. A Better Together Edina project page, www.bettertogetheredina.org/clean-water-strategy was launched in May 2023. Four community meetings were held at the end of June at parks throughout the city. Staff estimates talking with 42 people at these meetings, and about two dozen people reached out via email, phone or social media with input and reaction. Here is a summary of the appendix to this report where Council can review the community voice in more detail.  Engagement Summary Report 1. Public Participation Plan, approved December 20, 2022 STAFF REPORT Page 2 2. Initial (June 2023) Draft Vision (Values and Goals), Draft Priority Waterbodies, Draft Priority Pollutants. People were invited to attend one of four meetings or to review and comment on the materials at the project webpage. 3. Map of meeting locations as attachment. 4. Sample postcards that were mailed to more than 2400 homes. 5. A representative sample of emails received are attached. 6. Traffic for the project webpage and a summary of input received online is attached to this staff report. We heard a range of feedback related to values, prioritization, process, and implementation. Key takeaways and themes from the community engagement report:  People value wildlife, health (of the waterbody), safety and wellness for people, all are able to access for enjoyment, beauty, open water views, stewardship, and legacy. Non-motorized boating was mentioned occasionally.  Concern about aquatic plant type and density. Most were about visual appearance of plants, and many were negative. We heard people describe aquatic plants as “choking” lakes and ponds. We heard a concern for algae (green, filamentous), cyanobacteria (often given the misnomer blue-green algae), curlyleaf pondweed, purple loosestrife, lilypads, cattails, and duckweed.  Concern about waterbody depth. People were concerned about lakes filling in with sediment and getting shallower over time.  The city should take a systems approach. The City should incorporate the connectedness of waterbodies when establishing priority waterbodies.  Curiosity about what detailed management actions within various levels of service will look like including what the level of service is for stormwater ponds.  Governance o Emphasize transparency (including with regard to priorities, tradeoffs). o The policies and programs should be outcome-based. o Measure and report on performance. o The strategy should be adequately funded.  Strategy o Apply a one-water lens. Think about water conservation, protecting aquifers, connections to stormwater management and flood risk reduction. o Consider connections to land and how development and restoration of land impacts water resources and soil health. o Use technology and data in decision making.  Execution o Strive for excellence in execution, for example, with erosion and sediment control programs. o Apply asset management principles. Define levels of service, costs, risks, and tradeoffs.  Engagement STAFF REPORT Page 3 o People want to know how lake associations will be considered with the strategy. o People want to know what they can do, what others can do, what opportunities are available, how to navigate other agencies and make sense of water resources governance. Requests and ideas for more communication, information, technical support, and engagement. August 15th, 2023 CITY COUNCIL Jessica Wilson, CFM, Water Resources Manager Clean Water Strategy Phase 2: Vision (Values and Goals) and Priorities Discussion Information / Background: The 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan included a commitment to develop the Clean Water Strategy to define clean water goals, the cost and pace of achievement, and plan implementation opportunities. Establishing a vision for clean water would define the goal, set the priority, define the service levels, and put us on a track to move toward a more sustainable management paradigm in which the service that the City provides more closely aligns with what the community values. We’ve taken a phased approach to development of the Clean Water Strategy. • Phase I (complete): Current State of Edina’s Program Staff reports are available from the August 3, 2022, work session and December 20, 2022, City Council meeting, linked at the end of this report. Lake summaries and fact sheets can be found in the online Water Resources Library and on the project webpage, www.bettertogetheredina.org/clean-water-strategy. • Phase 2 (current): Vision (Values and Goals), Priorities • Phase 3 (future): Detailed management plans for priority waterbodies, including a pilot effort at Lake Cornelia or other lakes as a later step, after buy-in on the policy level. The purpose of this work session is to provide a summary of the engagement process, describe how input has shaped the vision and priorities so far, get policy direction on the clean water vision (values and goals), priority waterbodies, and priority pollutants, and get feedback on a proposed phase 3 scope from the Council ahead of a formal recommendation and future Council action. STAFF REPORT Page 2 The Decision to be Made All of the more than 200 waterbodies in Edina are considered shallow. The deepest lake, Mirror Lake, is about 15 ft deep at its maximum depth. Shallow lakes behave differently than deep lakes. Especially in urban settings, small shallow lakes tend to be warmer, more nutrient rich, and more prolific with aquatic plants and algae. The forces of urbanization and climate change have outsized influence on small aquatic ecosystems. Urbanization has permanently and significantly altered Edina’s landscape. Climate change has already and will continue to stress these systems. Shallow lakes can exist in two states – clear or turbid. In the clear condition, diverse, native plant communities help to control excess nutrients and provide valuable habitat. Turbid lakes have excess algae and suspended sediment that limits the growth of aquatic plants and the benefits they provide. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to restore a turbid lake to a clear-water condition due to the complex ecology within these systems. Figure from Clean Water Vision public meeting board Minnesotans take great pride in our more than 10,000 lakes and it’s common for people to want all lakes to be all things – deep, pristine clear water like on the north shore, and also open water views without any ‘weeds’ and recreation unimpeded by plants. The paradox of shallow lakes is that to have a clean and healthy lake, we must encourage the shallow lake ecology which makes it unsuitable for most recreation and challenges our notion of a conventional lake aesthetic. Recreation and clean water services can directly compete. Managers cannot realistically deliver a shallow lake with a sandy bottom, no plants, and clear water. Given the brutal reality of the past and present forces disrupting aquatic ecosystems and the dichotomy of the clear and turbid water states, what do we envision for a clean water future in Edina? STAFF REPORT Page 3 Potential policy directions Clean Water Status Quo Shallow lakes would be managed for an outcome which prioritizes wildlife habitat and natural aesthetic views over boating and swimming. Native rooted, floating, and emergent aquatic vegetation would be encouraged for their ability to support wildlife and sequester nutrients that would otherwise be available for algae to grow. Shallow lakes are managed for an outcome that prioritizes open water views and recreation access unimpeded by aquatic plants and algae. Tradeoffs: Boating and swimming are inhibited by vegetation. Aquatic plants can be seen above, at, and just below the water surface. Tradeoffs: Chemical control of emergent, floating, and submerged plants will supply phosphorus to opportunistic algae including potentially harmful blue-green algae, contributing to recurring blooms. Oxygen levels in the lake crash due to the decay of organic matter and anerobic decay leads to swampy smells. The fishery suffers from low dissolved oxygen, lack of food, and lack of habitat. Only the lowest quality aquatic animals are found. Significant effort is needed to achieve and sustain this outcome. We understand our lakes never existed like they do now and that we get the exact water quality we deserve. City actions either work toward a new equilibrium or against it. We look for smart and light-touch ways to continue to nudge the waterbodies toward or keep them in their new equilibrium. This policy direction is supported by staff. Significant effort is needed to attempt to balance between the competing values of the clear water state and open water views with recreation access unimpeded by aquatic plants and algae. Waterbodies in the clear water condition will fail to meet resident expectations for boating and open water views. Waterbodies in the turbid water condition will fail to meet regulatory clean water benchmarks. Balancing in the middle between the clear water and turbid water state is not a practical option. City actions and community values are often misaligned. Values and Goals The following values and goals were framed based on what we already know about community values based on established budget pillars, city values, quality of life surveys, and regulatory and stakeholder requirements. These were further refined based on public feedback received so far. The text of the goals was simplified, and the systems approach idea was added under the value statement about city actions. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Ecosystems are in a healthy equilibrium; water is clear and environmental benefits are sustained. • Water clarity improves as people use water friendly practices. • Waters are safe for human contact. • Waters support native plants, insects, and animals consistent with an urban setting. • Shorelines are stable and provide shelter for wildlife consistent with urban lands. City actions align to do the most good towards measurable, desirable clean water outcomes leveraging creativity and innovation. • The city uses an iterative ‘build, test, learn’ model to make progress. • The city uses a systems approach in its implementation to consider cumulative benefits. • The city performs active management to improve or maintain water clarity and chemistry at levels appropriate for urban waters. • Pollution is managed towards achieving water resource conditions that meet standards and support community uses. • In-lake management practices are applied towards achieving conditions that meet standards and support community uses. • Clean water goals are pursued with consideration for multiple benefits and available resources. People are connected to the land and water in reciprocity, both caring for nature and enjoying the benefits of a healthy environment. • People access and interpret knowledge and guidance on urban clean water goals and behaviors that promote them. • People pursue activities that promote clean water and natural resource stewardship. • Waters are restored or maintained in conditions allowing for beneficial uses. All people have access to water and the cultural values and environmental benefits they provide. • Clean water actions prioritize waters with public access. • Clean water strategies recognize the diverse ways people value and experience the city’s waters. The Clean Water Strategy Decision Two potential clean water strategies are offered here, informed by the policy direction decision-to-be-made, values and goals described above. We work toward a healthy ecosystem equilibrium in which waters are clear, safe, and accessible. We control vegetation to promote aquatic recreation and open water views. Prevent pollution: We control pollutants at their source and implement programs to help people do their part. Prevent pollution: We control pollutants at their source and implement programs to help people do their part. STAFF REPORT Page 5 Mitigate pollution: We build, operate, and maintain infrastructure and implement programs to capture and remove pollutants. Restore ecological processes: We restore natural ecosystems on land and in water. Mitigate pollution: We build, operate, and maintain infrastructure and implement programs to capture and remove pollutants. Control aquatic vegetation: We control vegetation above, at, and below the surface. Priority waterbodies The current Water Resources Management Plan lacks a clear goal for achieving clean water outcomes. The lake and pond policy in the Water Resources Management Plan was established in 2015 to provide a clear, consistent process for responding to requests for algae and/or aquatic vegetation control. The purpose of establishing the policy was to formalize how the city had been operating for decades. Prioritization for the 2015 lake and pond policy is based on size, water quality, engagement, and public access. The lake and pond policy has the city coordinate destruction of native aquatic vegetation even though we know healthy native aquatic plant communities are an important part of a healthy shallow lake. This is confusing for people as we say it’s important to protect native aquatic plants for clean water, then help people destroy native aquatic plant communities under the umbrella of a water resources management plan. A process for responding to requests for aquatic vegetation control is far from a plan for transitioning waterbodies to a clean water state. There is no movement on water quality with the current policy and plan. Developing a framework for prioritizing waterbodies helps focus the implementation of clean water services. The draft prioritization criteria and factors were framed around community values and goals. Criteria for priority waterbodies is based on resource condition (water quality, aquatic invasive species, and public health), physical/geographic characteristics, and public use and access. The draft prioritization factors and considerations for ranking are provided below. 50% 20% 30% Prioritization composition Resource Condition (WQ/AIS/Public Health) Physical/Geographic Public Use/Access STAFF REPORT Page 6 An initial (now former) prioritization list was shared at the June 2023 community meetings. This list can be viewed in the materials of the project webpage which are also attached to the engagement report. Table from draft Priority Waterbodies public meeting board (June 2023) The 13 lakes and ponds in the initial draft prioritization were those for which summary sheets were created in phase 1 of the clean water strategy. Minnehaha Creek, Nine Mile Creek – north branch, and Nine Mile Creek – south branch were incorporated into the prioritization during development of engagement materials. Since the June engagement meetings, another sample of 6 natural waterbodies have been run through the prioritization criteria and are shown in the table below (Mud Lake/Bredesen Park, Swimming Pool Pond, Point of France Pond, West Garrison Pond, Birchcrest Pond, and View Lane/Vernon Ave pond). We have not gone through the process to rank all waterbodies in the community. Some waterbodies have moved within the priority tiers as more waterbodies were evaluated and feedback on the criteria was incorporated. Presence of harmful algal blooms was included in the original prioritization criteria. Potential for human or pet contact with harmful algal blooms has been added. We chose not to prioritize waterbodies based on proximity or drainage connections because the conditions under which water moves from one body to STAFF REPORT Page 7 another are complex and many waterbodies across the city are connected. Further, prioritizing waterbodies based on connection would elevate so many waterbodies that it becomes a poor criterion for differentiating waterbodies. Flow routing diagrams for two drainage areas are attached as examples showing the extent of waterbody connections. Instead, we’ve added a goal related to systems approach and cumulative benefits underneath the ‘city actions’ value statement and can consider connections when formulating capital projects and programs and priority waterbodies. The revised tiering based on Council and community feedback received so far are as follows: Highest Priority Tier 2 Tier 3 Lake Cornelia Lake Edina Minnehaha Creek Nine Mile Creek – North Fork Arrowhead Lake Highland Lake Indianhead Lake Lake Nancy Melody Lake Mirror Lake Otto Pond Lake Pamela Mud Lake/Bredesen Park Nine Mile Creek – South Fork Point of France Pond Southwest Ponds Swimming Pool Pond Non-priority Birchcrest Pond Hawkes Lake Lake Harvey Vernon Ave/View Lane Pond West Garrison Pond We will focus our primary effort on highest priority waterbodies, build on our successes, and learn from our failures. Low and non-priority waterbodies would receive a lower tier of service. Priority pollutants We heard good consensus from people on the priority pollutants; nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), sediment, and chloride. We will focus our primary effort on these priority pollutants and observe non-priority pollutants and trends in partnership with local watershed districts and state agencies. Potential Phase 3 components and outcomes • Public participation plan for phase 3 • A technical study (pilot at Lake Cornelia) including a breakdown of opportunity spaces where pollutants are coming from (the upstream watershed, upstream waterbodies, in-lake sources), and the costs and relative benefit of actions within those spaces. This would clarify which actions make the most sense to pursue so that we are making wise investments to meet the goals in the most efficient manner. It would also clarify the level and pace of achievement we might expect to see. We would leverage existing studies as part of this work. • A recommendation for defined levels of service, taken through an asset management approach, driven by community values and goals. STAFF REPORT Page 8 • A recommendation for resourcing a proposed new Clean Water Strategy. • A schedule and process for accountability in implementing the proposed new Clean Water Strategy. • Tools for communicating the Clean Water Strategy (to be pursued as part of updating the Water Resources Management Plan). Pending Council direction, staff would seek a phase 3 professional services scope for Council consideration at a future meeting. The outcome of this work would likely lead to a major amendment to the Water Resources Management Plan. Key Questions and Discussion • What is your reaction to the potential policy directions for the vision and ultimately, the strategy? What more do you need to be able to decide? • What is your reaction to the waterbodies prioritization framework? What more do you need to be able to decide? • What is your reaction to the priority pollutants? What more do you need to be able to decide? • What other questions would you like answered in phase 3? What level of public engagement would you like to see in phase 3? • What else are you hearing from the community about the Clean Water Strategy? Next Steps Staff will incorporate Council input and make a formal recommendation at a subsequent meeting. City Council will decide on the policy. Staff could bring a phase 3 scope for Council consideration based on direction from the work session. Attachments • Example flow routing diagrams, Lake Cornelia/Lake Edina Subwatershed and Nine Mile Creek (North) Subwatershed Links to past conversations on this topic May 16, 2023 - Clean Water Strategy Phase 2: Vision (Values and Goals) and Priorities Update December 20, 2022 – Request for Purchase: Clean Water Strategy Professional Services Phase 2 and Participation Plan August 3, 2022 – Work Session – Clean Water Strategy Summary March 5, 2019 – Work Session – Water Resources Management – Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy, Lake Cornelia Clean Water Strategy, and Chloride Pollution Prevention September 5, 2018 – Adoption of 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan April 3, 2018 – Work Session – Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan – Implementation Discussion January 17, 2018 – Authorize Staff to Submit Draft Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for Agency Review November 21, 2017 – Work Session – Draft 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan Presentation for Review and Comment PARTICIPATION PLAN I CLEAN WATER STRATEGY – VISION AND GOALS I CITY OF EDINA 1 PARTICIPATION PLAN PROJECT: CLEAN WATER STRATEGY – VISION AND GOALS DECISION TO BE MADE -Establish the vision and goals for the Clean Water Strategy. This policy will drive the strategic approach and priority waterbodies for achieving clean water outcomes in Edina. -Staff will draft initial vision and goals, engage with stakeholders, react to input received, and make a recommendation to City Council. City Council will decide. The outcome will likely lead to a major amendment to the Water Resources Management Plan. DECISIONS ALREADY MADE -The Water Resources Management Plan identifies Lake Cornelia as a focus area for development of the Clean Water Strategy. The vision and goals will be developed with a variety of waterbodies in mind. A potential future phase 3 would focus on planning level actions for specific waterbodies. PROJECT TIMELINE -Development of draft vision and goals, and engagement materials, Q1 – Q2 2023 -Stakeholder meetings, Summer 2023 -City Council check-in, Summer 2023 -Staff recommendation to City Council, Fall 2023 STAKEHOLDERS -Lake Nancy Lake Association -Arrowhead Lake Association -The Indianhead Lake Association -Mill Pond Association -Friends of Melody Lake -Lake Cornelia Lake Group -Energy and Environment Commission -Nine Mile Creek Watershed District -Minnehaha Creek Watershed District -General public DECISION CRITERIA IN SCOPE -Vision and goals -Priority waterbodies and pollutants Approved December 20, 2022 PARTICIPATION PLAN I CLEAN WATER STRATEGY – VISION AND GOALS I CITY OF EDINA 2 OUT OF SCOPE - Planning level actions for a specific waterbody (policy decision must be made first) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - Cost - Cost/benefit - Pace of achievement - Public awareness - Parks Strategic Plan - Climate Action Plan - Sustainability goals - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit LEGAL OR TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules - Nine Mile Creek Watershed District rules - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources rules - Watershed Plans - Local Water Plan (Water Resources Management Plan) - Edina Comprehensive Plan PARTICIPATON LEVEL INVOLVE - Goal: To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure the public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. - Promise: We will work with the public to ensure that concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the vision and goals developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision. TECHNIQUES - Better Together Edina platform - Direct Mail - Community Meetings PARTICIPATION PLAN I CLEAN WATER STRATEGY – VISION AND GOALS I CITY OF EDINA 3 DECISION PROCESS Objective Staff will share the initial vision and goals as well as detailed engagement schedule to get Council input before engaging with the public. Staff will present initial vision and goals and seek input. Staff will refine vision and goals based on input. Staff will describe how input was used. Staff will make a recommendation to City Council. City Council decides. Staff will communicate the decision to the public. Staff will archive the project and process online. Anticipated Outcomes Council has input on initial vision and goals and understanding of how stakeholders will be engaged. People have access to information. People have the ability to provide their input. People have access to information. People know how initial input was used. People have the ability to provide their input. The staff recommendation is influenced by stakeholder input. People know what decision was made. People can view the information, process, and decision on the project webpage. Timeline Summer 2023 Summer 2023 Fall 2023 Fall 2023 Fall/Winter 2023 Close the loop Make a decision Refine Vision and Goals Share Initial Vision and Goals Council Update We’d like your input: Frequent algal blooms High suspended sediment A New Vision for Clean Water Lakes within the City of Edina are all considered “shallow lakes”. Turbid lakes have excess algae and suspended sediment that limits the growth of aquatic plants and the benefits they provide. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to restore a turbid lake to a clear-water condition due to the complex ecology within these systems. Shallow lakes typically exist in either a clear-water state or turbid state. In the clear-water condition, diverse, native plants communities help to control excess nutrients and provide valuable habitat. Ecosystems are in a healthy equilibrium; water is clear and environment benefits are sustained. • Water clarity improves as people use water friendly practices. • Waters are safe for human contact. • Waters support native plants, insects, and animals consistent with an urban setting. • Shorelines are stable and provide shelter for wildlife consistent with an urban landscape. City actions align to do the most good towards measurable, desirable clean water outcomes leveraging creativity and innovation. • The City uses an iterative ‘build, test, learn’ model to make progress. • The City performs active management to improve or maintain water clarity and chemistry at levels appropriate for urban waters. • Pollution is managed towards achieving water resource conditions that meet standards and support community uses. • In-lake management practices are applied towards achieving conditions that meet standards and support community uses. • Clean water goals are pursued with consideration for multiple benefits and available resources. People are connected to the land and water in reciprocity, both caring for nature and enjoying the benefits of a healthy environment. • People access and interpret knowledge and guidance on urban clean water goals and behaviors that promote them. • People pursue activities that promote clean water and natural resource stewardship. • Waters are restored or maintained in conditions allowing for beneficial uses. All people have access to water and the cultural values and environmental benefits they provide. • Clean water actions prioritize waters with public access. • Clean water strategies recognize the diverse ways people value and experience the city’s waters. 3 2 1 What do you value most about Edina’s lakes, streams, and wetlands? What adjustments are needed to this draft vision to reflect those values? What positive impacts do you expect from this initiative? Who might benefit? What negative impacts do you expect and who’s impacted? What does “clean water” mean to you? Clear Turbid Numerous and diverse native plants Healthy habitat for invertebrates and fish vs.2 4 1 1 3 3 4 2 Waters in Edina are currently not healthy. A new plan for achieving clean water is necessary to incorporate the latest scientific knowledge about urban waterbodies and to help us meet community expectations by ensuring that our waters are safe, accessible, and well-managed. The city has developed initial vision themes (values and goals) and is seeking input from the community. Why is the City developing a Clean Water Strategy? Learn more and provide feedback online at: BetterTogetherEdina.org/ clean-water-strategy 3 1 2 How do you engage with Edina’s lakes, creeks, and wetlands? What barriers and access are being created with this proposal? What are the benefits or trade-offs of the factors and considerations being proposed for the ranking of waterbodies? What other factors need to be considered? Who else needs to share their experience and perspective? We’d like your input: Learn more and provide feedback online at: BetterTogetherEdina.org/ clean-water-strategy • Waterbody condition and impairments Poor water quality can limit or impair clean water benefits. • Lake size or creek length (within the City limits) • Watershed impervious cover Impervious areas typically generate more stormwater runoff and higher pollutant loading. • Opportunities for outreach, engagement, or service Opportunities for outreach and environmental stewardship increase connections to nature. • Public access and use Waters with public access may be enjoyed by a greater number of residents and visitors. • Areas of relative disparity Access to environmental benefits may be limited in areas of socio-economic disadvantage or vulnerability. • Harmful algal blooms Some types of blue-green algae can contain toxins which can be harmful if ingested. • Aquatic invasive species (AIS) Some invasive plants and fish negatively impact water chemistry or other functions. • Does the lake or stream have excess nutrients, chloride, and/or sediment? • Is it a natural waterbody greater than 1-acre in size? Is the lake area greater than 10-acres or stream length greater than 1-mile? • Is the adjacent watershed greater than 30% impervious? • Does the waterbody have public access or adjacent public land use? Is there a lake association or similar organization? Are there nearby schools or public institutions? • Are there parks, trails, or other public spaces adjacent to the waterbody? • Is the waterbody located within or near an area of disadvantage relative to access to transportation, household income, and/or access to green space. • Have harmful algal blooms been confirmed and/or no contact warnings been issued? Have indicators of harmful algal blooms been observed? Is there high potential for contact by people and pets? • Are aquatic invasive fish or plants that impact water quality present? This includes curlyleaf pondweed, goldfish, and/or carp. Draft Prioritization Factors and Considerations for Ranking Public Use and Accessibility Physical Characteristics Waterbody Conditions DRAF T Establishing Priority Waterbodies There are over 200 waterbodies in Edina. The current approach is to treat them all the same which spreads resources thin. It takes sustained effort and significant resources to restore and protect a waterbody. The clean water vision would prioritize waterbodies so that resources may be focused on meaningful activities to achieve clean water outcomes. Tier 1 priority waterbodies would be actively managed for transition to clean water. The remainder would be nonpriority waterbodies and would receive a lower tier of service. Priority Waterbodies Lake Cornelia Southwest Ponds South Branch Nine Mile Creek Indianhead Lake Lake Pamela Otto Pond Lake Nancy Harvey Lake Minnehaha Creek North Branch Nine Mile Creek Highlands Lake Hawkes Lake Melody Lake Mirror Lake Arrowhead Lake Lake Edina 100 169 62 Lake Harvey Hawkes Lake Lake Pamela Lake Nancy Otto Pond Nine Mile Creek South Branch Southwest Ponds Highlands Lake Mirror Lake Indianhead Lake Arrowhead Lake Melody Lake Lake Cornelia Lake Edina Minnehaha Creek Nine Mile Creek North Branch Highest Priority Tier 2 Tier 3 Edina Clean Water Services and Priority Pollutants Edina’s Approach for Moving Towards Clean Water • Source control: Working to reduce pollutants such as chloride, fertilizer, and pesticides at the source and educating property owners on source control practices. • Keeping it clean: Street sweeping, regulating erosion and sediment control at construction sites, encouraging smart residential lawn care and smart salting, and supporting the adopt-a- drain program. Prevent Pollution • Infrastructure: Install practices to capture and treat polluted stormwater runoff, inspect and maintain assets to ensure proper function, implement smart technology and innovative solutions to maximize benefits. • Illicit discharge detection and elimination: Identify and mitigate illicit discharges to the storm sewer system and waterbodies. Mitigate Pollution Edina Clean Water Partnerships: • Control invasive species: Control invasive aquatic plants like curlyleaf pondweed and remove invasive rough fish to restore ecological processes. • Control internal loading of phosphorus: Utilize alum and iron to reduce the release of nutrients from lake sediments. • Land Management: Restore natural areas. Restore Ecological Processes 2 3 1 What pollutants are you concerned about? Which clean water services have you observed to be most beneficial to your community and the environment? What actions can you take to help Edina reach its clean water vision? We’d like your input: Eutrophication is the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) that stimulate the growth of aquatic plants and algae, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. The largest sources of nutrients within Edina’s waterbodies are stormwater runoff and phosphorus that’s accumulated and then released from lake sediments. Chloride is a common deicing chemical that makes water more saline and can limit the ability for freshwater plants and animals to survive and reproduce. The primary source of chloride in Edina’s waterbodies is deicing salts applied to roads, sidewalks, and parking lots for winter maintenance. Sediment is material that’s broken down by processes of weathering and erosion and is carried to waterbodies where it settles to the bottom. Sediment clogs waterways and stormwater systems, creates cloudy water, and transports nutrients. The most common source of sediment in urban settings is from construction activities. Priority Pollutants Chloride Phosphorus and nitrogen Sediment Learn more and provide feedback online at: BetterTogetherEdina.org/ clean-water-strategy Creek Valley Elementary Edina HighSchool Valley View Middle School Countryside Elementary Highlands Elementary Normandale Elementary Concord Elementary South View Middle School Cornelia Elementary Harvey Lake Melody Lake Lake Cornelia Mirror Lake Highland Lake Hawkes Lake Arrowhead Lake Lake Edina Indianhead Lake Lake Pamela Southwest Ponds Otto Pond Lake Nancy West Garrison Mud Lake Meadowbrook Lake Our Lady of Grace Lynn/Kipling Inundation Area (constructed) Weber Pond (constructed) Centennial Lakes(constructed) Rabun Pond (constructed) W 50th St Vernon A v e YorkAveSFrance Ave100 62 £¤169 £¤212 §¨¦494 Alden Park ArdenPark Arneson Acres Park Braemar Park Centennial Lakes Park Countryside Park FredRichardsPark Yancey Park Heights Park Highlands Park Krahl Hill Lewis Park Normandale Park PamelaPark Rosland Park Strachauer Park Walnut Ridge Park Weber Field Park Todd Park BredesenPark Van Valkenburg Park SouthB ranc h Nin e M il e CreekNorth B ra nch NineMile Creek M inne hahaCree k EDINA WATERBODIES AND NOTABLE LANDMARKS Edina Clean Water Strategy Barr Footer: ArcGISPro, 06/23/23 12:03 PM File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Clean_Water_Strategy_23271913\Maps\Public_Engagement_Boards\Public_Engagement_Boards.aprx Layout: Public Engagement User: EMA0 0.5 1 Miles !;NMunicipal Boundary Lake/Pond/Creek Wetland School Property Parks Braemar Golf Club HouseJune 29 Arden Park shelter buildingJune 27 Walnut Ridge Park shelter buildingJune 25 Rosland Park pavilionJune 26 We want to hear from you! Clean Water Strategy The City of Edina is working on a plan called the Clean Water Strategy to address issues with local lakes and creeks. The waters in Edina are not healthy, so it’s important to come up with a new plan that takes into account the latest scientific knowledge about urban streams and shallow urban lakes. The goal is to meet the expectations of the community by making sure the water is safe, accessible and well-managed. The Clean Water Strategy will establish the vision and goals for clean water, setting the priority and policy direction that will guide the City in achieving clean water outcomes. By defining these goals and priorities, the City will be able to align its services more closely with what the community values. We’re seeking input on the clean water vision (community values and goals), priority pollutants and priority waterbodies. Join us to share your thoughts! • 3-5 p.m. Sunday, June 25, at Walnut Ridge Park shelter building • 10 a.m.-noon Monday, June 26, at Rosland Park pavilion • 6-8 p.m. Tuesday, June 27, at Arden Park shelter building • 4-6 p.m. Thursday, June 29, at Braemar Golf Course’s Hoyt and Blanchard meeting room Can’t make it? Learn more and share your feedback online at bettertogetheredina.org/clean-water-strategy. Sample of emailed and social media input on the Clean Water Strategy Hello, as I looked at your list of lakes to be addressed in the water quality project, I did not see anything about the water catchment ponds on France Ave and Kipling Ave. They are absolutely filthy! Gritty, oily and filled with substances that simply can't be good for anyone. Even though this project is not yet completed, I have seen kids swimming in them, which seems like a health concern. Not to mention that they drain into the grain of lakes. Please let me know what the city plans to do about water cleanup. I am very glad to see the three initial vision themes in the Staff Report, especially the science-based outcome focus, and asset management. Those one-page lake summaries on Better Together are informative and a great outreach tool. I feel like learning about the science of shallow lakes is next on the list. The community values portion is trickier. I am thinking now of water’s foundational position on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and the disparity of how we act with (believe about) our water, yet absolutely need it, clean and abundant. How do you get to the evolving beliefs of Edina residents? Does the Quality of Life survey have questions that will provide targeted feedback on these new values and goals? Get to the mis-conceptions? Especially the issues (rightly) identified under “Focus on outcomes at the water resources”? I think abundant public outreach is needed for public opinion to get to the place it needs to be for clean water. Clearly stating that the City can’t fix everything, need priorities and priority water bodies, is a strong, realistic, necessary message that should be sobering. Justifying where, and why, is great outreach approach in addition to being practical and effective. The flip side of priorities, it residents becoming more involved and less passive in clean water. Should that be a stated value? As I read the list of draft themes I can see how the different water issues will fit in, especially chloride which I am very glad to see included as one of three pollutants of concern. My last comment is about value/goal of “People being connected to the land and water in reciprocity, ….” I am now thinking of Edina residents, guests, but also businesses within the city and the people (property managers, applicators) employed by them. You know where I’m going; the many people making decisions about Edina and Minnesota waters as part of their jobs. Can they be included in the’ people' of this vision? Try work has driven home how business and resident decisions both contribute to water quality and believe ultimately we’ve got to have this issue resolved with chlorides in order to have clean water. if Edina were to resume weed management in lake Edina, the water would be fit for recreation again. It is unpleasant to have the weed-choked body of water covered in unhealthy algae knowing that it does not have to be so. We had fish in Lake Edina but a few winters ago they ‘froze out’ all dead when the ice melted. I’m not sure where Edina should take this but just trea�ng the surface algae is not addressing all the challenges. The other piece here is that Lake Edina has not been this way in the 20 years I have lived here- this weed infesta�on represents a drama�c change from what was normal that curtails recrea�onal use of the lake in summer�me and the surface does not move, even on a windy day- not normal. I have lived on Lake Edina for 20 years, enjoying the opportunity for ska�ng, snow shoe and cross country skiing. We also have used the lake for canoeing, rowing, sailing, and paddle boa�ng. Lake Edina helps our neighborhood to drain storm water out to the nine mile creek and is a safety valve for sudden rain storms.(and by extension helps with Lake Cornelia) Is there a way to accomplish your plans and preserve the open water in our city lakes? I have lived on Hawkes Lake for over 20 years. It is a wonderful body of water that amazes me with its resilience in the face of the many challenges it has faced over the years. The challenges are only increasing as pointed out in your presentation to city council on May 16. So this is an important undertaking and will be complex from a number of perspectives -- including internal departments like Public Works and then of course the broader community, many of whom aren't aware or concerned that they impact our bodies of water, especially if they don't engage much with them. Watching your presentation, I saw a bit of the Initial framing of the themes and priorities but am wondering if you can make it available to me so I can look it over in more detail? As you are still working on your tiering of the Lakes, I would like to request that Hawkes Lake be paired with Mirror Lake in the same tier. The storm sewer system pumps water from Mirror Lakes to Hawkes Lake so they are in essence the same lake. Thank you for holding the series of meetings on Edina’s Clean Water Strategy. Our lake group has provided feedback on Better Together Edina. We have additional feedback that relates exclusively to Lake Cornelia. · We would like to be informed when and where measurements are taken for curly leaf pondweed. We would also like to know what the results of the measurements are. · Since there is no standard for when the lake should or should not be treated for curly leaf pondweed we feel the lake should be treated regardless of the levels. This invasive species is never going away. Not treating the lake has a negative impact on Lake Cornelia as well as the downstream bodies of water. · This year with NO treatment there are very visible mats of CLP floating throughout the lake. These mats will die off soon and the decay of the CLP will again lead to elevated algae levels and possible toxic algae blooms. We actually just got notice of unsafe levels of algae in the lake. · Any beneficial aquatic plants allowed to grow in the absence of an herbicide are likely overtaken by the CLP. · Lake Cornelia is given a rating of D by the Minnesota DNR. This is an impaired waterbody. Withholding herbicide treatment for CLP with the hope of allowing beneficial aquatic plants to take hold is not a realistic desired outcome. Project Report 30 January 2019 - 08 August 2023 Better Together Edina Clean Water Strategy Highlights TOTAL VISITS 616 MAX VISITORS PER DAY 24 NEW REGISTRATI ONS 9 ENGAGED VISITORS 23 INFORMED VISITORS 223 AWARE VISITORS 363 Aware Participants 363 Aware Actions Performed Participants Visited a Project or Tool Page 363 Informed Participants 223 Informed Actions Performed Participants Viewed a video 0 Viewed a photo 0 Downloaded a document 151 Visited the Key Dates page 26 Visited an FAQ list Page 0 Visited Instagram Page 0 Visited Multiple Project Pages 171 Contributed to a tool (engaged)23 Engaged Participants 23 Engaged Actions Performed Registered Unverified Anonymous Contributed on Forums 22 0 0 Participated in Surveys 0 0 0 Contributed to Newsfeeds 0 0 0 Participated in Quick Polls 0 0 0 Posted on Guestbooks 0 0 0 Contributed to Stories 0 0 0 Asked Questions 2 0 0 Placed Pins on Places 0 0 0 Contributed to Ideas 5 0 0 Visitors Summary Pageviews Visitors Visits New Registrations 1 Apr '23 1 Jul '23 1k 2k Tool Type Engagement Tool Name Tool Status Visitors Registered Unverified Anonymous Contributors Forum Topic DRAFT Clean Water Vision (values and goals)Published 43 16 0 0 Forum Topic DRAFT Priority Waterbodies Published 51 13 0 0 Forum Topic DRAFT Priority Pollutants Published 27 8 0 0 Newsfeed Clean Water Strategy Published 6 0 0 0 Newsfeed Review and Comment Published 3 0 0 0 Newsfeed May 16, 2023 video Published 2 0 0 0 Newsfeed "City seeks community input on clean water strategy"Published 2 0 0 0 Newsfeed Save the Date Published 1 0 0 0 Newsfeed What we're working on now Published 1 0 0 0 Newsfeed The state of Edina's waters Published 0 0 0 0 Newsfeed Find your watershed Published 0 0 0 0 Qanda Clean Water Strategy Published 44 2 0 0 Ideas Clean Water Strategy Ideas Published 15 5 0 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 ENGAGEMENT TOOLS SUMMARY 3 FORUM TOPICS 0 SURVEYS 8 NEWS FEEDS 0 QUICK POLLS 0 GUEST BOOKS 0 STORIES 1 Q&A S 0 PLACES Page 2 of 20 Widget Type Engagement Tool Name Visitors Views/Downloads Document Lake_Cornelia_Summary.pdf 35 43 Document DRAFT Vision and Priorities for review_page 1 (JPG format)31 37 Document DRAFT Vision and Priorities for review_page 2 (JPG format)27 34 Document DRAFT Vision and Priorities for review (PDF)27 29 Document Arrowhead_Lake_Summary.pdf 25 33 Document Lake_Nancy_Summary.pdf 22 28 Document Lake_Edina_Summary.pdf 21 25 Document SW_Pond_Summary.pdf 19 21 Document Indianhead_Lake_Summary.pdf 19 28 Document DRAFT Vision and Priorities for review_page 3 (JPG format)17 19 Document Lake_Pamela_Summary.pdf 14 16 Document Lake_Harvey_Summary.pdf 13 17 Document Hawkes_Lake_Summary.pdf 13 17 Document Mirror_Lake_Summary.pdf 12 18 Document Melody_Lake_Summary.pdf 12 15 Document Public Participation Plan.pdf 11 11 Document Water Resources Management Plan 8 11 Document Lake_Highlands_Summary.pdf 6 8 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY 25 DOCUMENTS 0 PHOTOS 0 VIDEOS 0 FAQS 0 KEY DATES Page 3 of 20 Widget Type Engagement Tool Name Visitors Views/Downloads Document Lake_Highlands_Summary.pdf 6 8 Document 1908 map of Edina waterbodies 4 4 Document Shallow Lakes 4 4 Document Dredging 4 4 Document Aquatic Vegetation 3 3 Document Harmful Algal Blooms 2 2 Document Aeration 2 2 Document MN DNR Curlyleaf pondweed factsheet 0 0 Key Dates Key Date 26 28 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY Page 4 of 20 Visitors 27 Contributors 8 CONTRIBUTIONS 12 25 June 23 Marydalsin AGREES 5 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 09 July 23 Constance AGREES 2 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 FORUM TOPIC DRAFT Priority Pollutants Per street sweeping - seems the timing needs to be more aligned to the season rather t han a preconceived calendar. I often marvel that the sweep seems to come right before all the leaves fall.In addition to sweeping the street - we need to vacuum the sewers wh ere many leaves build up in the drain -0 not just at street levelWe need a better way to inform home owners that they are responsible for keeping leaves out of drains too - or promote the ‘adoption’ of sewers a program run through the U or extensionVery few se wers are adopted in Edina based on the map i reviewed.100% agree that construction debris/dirt needs to be better managed. On behalf of the Lake Nancy Lake Association, the Board offers this input to your relate d questions… 1). Concerned pollutants: A). Impervious surface runoff. In essence, ev eryone in Edina is a shoreline property owner in that all that impervious runoff flows int o Edina’s waterbodies—from fertilizer, road salt, oil drips, construction dirt, lawn debris, dog poo, and un-corralled leaves. B). Invasive species such as goldfish, carp, curly-lea f pondweed and purple loosestrife. C). Internal loading and release of phosphorous. 2). Clean water services most beneficial: We are very impressed by the new filtration syst em at Rosland Park. If it proves successful, more please, especially to improve upstrea m impacts into Edina’s impaired “Chain of Lakes” (all of those interconnected to the wa tersheds such as Garrison Pond, Lake Nancy, Lake Cornelia, and Lake Edina which flo w into Nine Mile Creek). 3). Actions we can take to help Edina reach its clean water vi sion: A). Respond to this draft proposal advocating for a rewrite of the prioritization ran king factors and considerations. B). Share our association concerns with other associa tions, residents and elected officials. C). Continue to use our association as a springbo ard for lake stewardship. D). Continue to be an engaged association exploring ways to reach goals. Since we officially incorporated with the Secretary of State office, our me mbers have adopted storm drains, attended educational presentations, added raingard ens, one member became certified as a Master Water Steward, another member won an award for his book, “The Wonder of Water…” Lake Nancy Lake Association memb ers are concerned and involved. Please do not approve this draft of the plan (See our a dditional concerns in “Draft Clean Water Vision” and “Draft Priority Waterbodies”). Page 5 of 20 10 July 23 sue AGREES 2 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 FORUM TOPIC DRAFT Priority Pollutants Chloride, found in the deicing salts used for winter maintenance, is appropriately listed as a priority pollutant. I would add to the description that what sets chloride apart from other pollutants and makes it so very problematic is its permanency in water -- it won’t break down and realistically cannot be removed. 3/4 of all the salts used here in Edina stay right here in Edina’s waters which are becoming increasingly salty and toxic to aq uatic life (as explained in the section on priority pollutants). In addition to chloride dama ge in water, as a taxpayer and consumer, I am also concerned about the damage to Ed ina’s public and private infrastructure because of the corrosive power of salts. The only solution to chloride pollution is source reduction - there is a viable, effective pathway fo r source reduction through Smart Salting practices (as referenced in the section on prio rity pollutants). I believe all ‘people’ who impact Edina’s waters by applying salts for wi nter maintenance in Edina, not only the residents, but also the public and private proper ty managers, owners, and applicators alike, should be held to the values and goals in t he Vision. Page 6 of 20 Visitors 51 Contributors 13 CONTRIBUTIONS 24 23 June 23 LanaPeterson AGREES 6 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 29 June 23 Mark Sparano AGREES 1 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 05 July 23 Stephanie Rasley AGREES 3 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 FORUM TOPIC DRAFT Priority Waterbodies I understand the need to prioritize water bodies based on size and location. However, our pond directly feeds into Lake Nancy, which feeds into Lake Cornelia. I am sure ther e are many other examples like this. It seems a strategic initiative would consider thes e connected water bodies to maximize efficiency and ensure that the smaller ponds tha t feed into priority waters are healthy and serve as strong filters. Additionally, as someo ne who lives on a non-priority pond, my impression has been you are either a priority or non-existent in the eyes of the city. There are many neighbors who are passionate abo ut clean water and battling invasive species but we are left to navigate it ourselves. For us in tier 4+, what can we expect regarding education, cross-pollination of ideas, and u pdates on how we still have a big role and opportunity? I think the rules and processes are very vague- especially for those new to the city or who have not engaged in the civi c process this way. How can the city partner with the DNR and 7 mile creek to create g uides, grants, and information for the residents of the other 180 water bodies? Navigati ng all three layers independently is overwhelming and a bridge needs to be made for r esidents. This initiative cannot be a priority or nothing- there needs to be an articulation of how tier 4 bodies will be served.Additionally, how will Lake associations in this model work? I agree with most of the items in the proposals. I wish the strategy had some dimensio ning of costs versus benefits. The communication [mailers, websites, etc.] on this initia tive was excellent.My one specific items relates to the Mill Pond within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Over last few years, the water level has been very low. I kn ow Edina does not control the water flow here. However, with low water levels in cree k, the vegetation harvesting is adversely affected [water low equals weeds higher and more of them] and some of the benefits in the overall strategy will not be attained. The priority for my family is the health of any water body feeding into Lake Cornelia - so Swimming Pool Pond and other connecting lakes, ponds, streams, and creeks. Page 7 of 20 06 July 23 RWZ AGREES 5 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 FORUM TOPIC DRAFT Priority Waterbodies The following response is a joint reply from the Lake Cornelia Lake Group board of dire ctors. Our Lake Group is encouraged that the City is developing a Clean Water Strateg y, as was promised in the 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Master Plan (CWR MP). Poster board #1 “A New Vision for Clean Water”, as shared on BTE, is an admira ble vision. Poster board #2 “Edina Clear Water Services and Priority Pollutants” and the “prevent, mitigate, restore” approach does a good job of identifying the breadth of activi ties around which strategies will need to be developed. Unfortunately, poster board #3 “Priority Waterbodies” misses the mark by a wide margin. In order of importance, the s hortcomings of poster board #3, “Priority Waterbodies” and the associated priority matri x, are as follows:A) There is no metric to account for the inter-connectedness of waterb odies and the potential downstream impact of upstream waterbodies, regardless of thei r size. This was the number one issue raised with Staff and Council in 2015 and 2016 f ollowing the implementation of the 2014 priority matrix and was again raised during the 2018 CWRMP review. To have ignored the importance of inter-connected waterbodies, again reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue Edina’s waterbodies fa ce and continues the ‘whack-a-mole’ approach rather than an integrated system-wide c ommunity viewpoint.B) There is no metric that reflects the size of the watershed served by the waterbody rather than simply the size of the water body itself. C) There is no met ric that reflects the waterbody’s importance to the community’s storm water / flood man agement. D) The matrix, as presented, assumes an equal weighting of all criteria on a yes / no basis. All these issues are not equal. A graduated scoring system with meanin gful differences needs to be put in place and a service level associated with each criteri a. The weighting of each criteria is fundamental to being able to comment on whether t he matrix does or does not meet community goals. At present, it does not. E) The matri x should include a fourth category of water bodies, designated as “No Service Level”. T he following comments address areas that deserve additional clarification within the “P riority Waterbodies” poster board. Watershed impervious cover criteria: Which of Edina’ s 200 waterbodies meet the 30% impervious cover criteria? What is the percentage of surrounding impervious coverage for the largest 20 water bodies? Opportunities for out reach, engagement, or service criteria: How near is near? In our opinion “near” should mean walking distance otherwise transportation is involved and then all water bodies a re ‘near’. Public access and use criteria: What is the percentage of publicly owned shor eline for the largest 20 water bodies? Areas of relative disparity criteria: What geograp hic boundaries are currently characterized as areas of "relative disparity" and what wat erbodies are in those areas? Commensurate with Lake Cornelia’s historical waterbody ranking as Edina’s number one priority, three of the five directors attended three of the four recent public meetings. Our comments are based on over 30 years’ experience tryi ng to work towards a more inviting water resource for the greater community and water shed. Respectfully, Lake Cornelia, Lake Group Directors: Joe Gryskiewicz, Larry Olson , Ron Rasley, Rick Vining, Ralph Zickert Page 8 of 20 09 July 23 Constance AGREES 3 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 FORUM TOPIC DRAFT Priority Waterbodies STOP!!! Please DO NOT approve this clean water strategy draft with the proposed prio rity ranking system. The Lake Nancy Lake Association Board is VERY concerned abou t this section of the proposed draft strategy for several reasons including but not limited to: 1). It is a huge departure from the current community-developed priority ranking ap proved in 2015 and then updated in 2017 when new lake associations formed—associ ations encouraged and supported by the city.2). Based upon the proposed draft factors for prioritization and considerations, with the exception of acreage size, Lake Nancy m eets nearly all of the criteria. Yet with a stroke of a pen, this proposal deprioritizes and dismisses previously established guidelines. Further, Lake Nancy may be small in acre age, but services a wider drainage area than a few other larger lakes. 3). The draft inc orrectly states: “the current approach is to treat (all waterbodies in Edina) the same…” Not true. There is a priority ranking in place (high/medium/low) which already ignores many important smaller bodies that are connected to Edina’s Chain of Lakes. 4). Lake Nancy is currently ranked a high priority for several critical factors including that it drain s directly to an impaired waterbody—into Lake Cornelia (of Rosland Park with its public amenities) which then drains into Lake Edina, also impaired, and all that flows into Nine Mile Creek. With this new plan, the city would lower our lake ranking (and other lakes) t o Tier 3 even though Nine Mile Creek Watershed studies in 2021 and 2022 indicated “ significant ‘internal loading’ (the release of phosphorus into the lake from bed sediment ). Some of this loading is assumed to come from goldfish and carp stirring up sediment .” And, “…data shows Lake Nancy fails to meet the state's goals for water quality within shallow lakes. Elevated total phosphorus levels promote algal growth, which reduces water clarity.” 5). Inconsistency in how the “Draft Prioritization Factors and Consideratio n for Ranking” are applied. Including: The draft places several larger lakes in a higher priority even though they do not connect to the larger watershed nor do they have adja cent public land. In contrast, Lake Nancy is placed in Tier 3, ignoring its interconnectio n to Lake Cornelia, ignoring current study data, ignoring the upstream runoff from the g reater neighborhoods, and ignoring the public access trail that allows Edina residents n orth of highway 62 to safely connect to Rosland Park, the Aquatic Center and Lake Cor nelia. The impact from public use pollutants (dog poo, littering, winter clearing), not to mention the expected increase in path-usage when the new pedestrian bridge is constr ucted in 2025, is a serious consideration ignored in this Tier 3 ranking. 6). Disregards establishment of associations in the priority factors—it was the city that encouraged as sociations not only to bring property owners together, but to build lake stewardship and expand education efforts and community engagement. 7). In your proposal to “establis h priorities,” you state, “…resources may be focused on meaningful activities to achieve clean water outcomes.” This is too broad and vague, especially as the city is proposing to lower rankings on waterbodies like Lake Nancy. 8). This statement is troubling: “Is th e waterbody located within or near an area of disadvantage relative to access to transp ortation, household income, and/or access to green space.” The waterbodies in Edina were not “placed” in their locations based upon financial or other inequity/disadvantage factors nor has Edina used that as a previous consideration in lake rankings. If the City was so concerned about this, it would put a greater emphasis on treating Garrison Pon d because it is adjacent to an affordable housing apartment complex that has no other green space access. 9). If anything, the clean water strategy should look at ways to ex pand service not limit to just Tier 1. Lake Nancy Lake Association members are conce rned and involved. Please do not approve this draft of the plan (See our additional conc erns in “Draft Clean Water Vision” and “Draft Priority Pollutants”). Page 9 of 20 10 July 23 sue AGREES 0 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 FORUM TOPIC DRAFT Priority Waterbodies No city has unlimited resources so it’s a realistic to prioritize how resources will be dele gated. I support the approach of justifying where and why resources will be spent base d on measurable, science-based outcomes. The one-page lake summaries are very inf ormative. Having lived in Edina for years, I’ve known mostly about Minnesota’s deep n orthern lakes and little about Edina’s shallow lakes and waters. Will maps eventually sh ow the interconnectedness of ponds, streams and lakes and their functions? Should so me water bodies be thought of as utilitarian only? Page 10 of 20 Visitors 43 Contributors 16 CONTRIBUTIONS 35 25 June 23 Marydalsin AGREES 0 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 26 June 23 LouannWaddick AGREES 3 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 05 July 23 Stephanie Rasley AGREES 7 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 FORUM TOPIC DRAFT Clean Water Vision (values and goals) I understand the concern about effort to improve turbid waters - but I think it would help to know which waters we are considering as “clear’ and which are ‘turbid’. For example I think all the water in the Fred are probably ‘turbid’ but i don’t think cleaning them woul d be as difficult as larger water areas - so many of them are smaller and they have real ly suffered from the golf course maintenance over decades and excess fertilizer use. M any water fowl and turtles use these waters and they are also very unsighlty I am very happy that Edina is pursuing a clean water strategy. One thing that I think it’s missing is the major permanent pollutant, chloride. This pollutant affects all of the wate rs in our two Watersheds.. we need a clear strategy on how to manage chloride. My husband and I are in favor of the city pursuing a clean water policy. Thank you for h osting the recent open house forums. Our values and goals:1. Communication. We w ould like to be informed of what treatments are happening at which lakes, the rationale, and the timing. If a decision is made to not treat a water body that has been regularly tr eated in the past, we would like to be informed in a timely manner. 2. Lake Cornelia. A nnual treatment for curly leaf pondweed throughout the entire lake. 3. We would like to be able to put our hands in the lake water and have our dog walk or swim in Edina’s lak es. Thank you. Page 11 of 20 09 July 23 Constance AGREES 8 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 FORUM TOPIC DRAFT Clean Water Vision (values and goals) Generally speaking the Lake Nancy Lake Association Board is pleased the city propos es expanding the current Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) with a clean w ater strategy. That said we have many concerns including about this process. The valu es and goals proposed clearly demonstrate municipal viewpoints and bias and amend t he current WRMP which is a chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. A better process wo uld have involved key stakeholders in creating the draft (perhaps a workgroup of the E nergy and Environment Committee) BEFORE general community input followed by the opportunity for public engagement expanded with much more promotion and longer le ad times. Our input related to your values-goals questions: 1). What does “clean water” mean to us? There was a time when long-standing residents fondly recall their children safely swimming in the lake. Those may be bygone days, but how nice it would be if tod ay we could dangle a foot over the dock, an arm over the edge of a kayak or even wad e along the shoreline without fear of getting sick. We seek a balance between providin g clean water habitats for the ecosystem AND aesthetic values among shoreline prope rty owners. Regarding the latter point: For Edina properties designated as “lakeshore,” home values are based upon living adjacent to a lake or pond and not swampy wetland s thick with emergent and submerged aquatic plants and weeds. Admittedly we struggl e with that balance: aeration could help with oxygenation and reducing phosphorous, b ut that interferes with winter recreation; curly-leaf pondweed and invasive carp/goldfish continue to infest our lake—are just a few challenges. But unless there are better optio ns or more support from the city our association will continue to treat for submerged aq uatic vegetation as do other lake associations in Edina. 2). What do we value most ab out Edina’s lakes…? Adjustments needed to this draft to reflect those values? Edina’s l akes and other waterbodies offer recreation (whether paddleboats, remote control hob by boats, winter skating, or just walking along the serenity of a pond), quintessential Mi nnesota landscape, and wildlife amenities to our otherwise impervious concrete jungle. The primary adjustments needed to this draft: A). Needs to focus more on an “Edina C hain of Lakes” approach which means no matter the size of the lake, it’s the impact on t he interconnected system and relationship to the watershed that should be a priority. B) . Lacks emphasis on upstream impacts. EVERYONE in Edina—residents, shoppers, w orkers, drivers, visitors, etc.—leaves behind something directly or indirectly that ends u p in Edina’s lakes whether it’s from runoff, ignoring storm drains, not picking-up dog po o, or littering. C). Given this is a major update to the already approved comprehensive plan, we expect there to be more opportunities for community engagement and public i nput beyond this BT comment period and the meetings held during vacationing summ er months. 3). What positive impacts do you expect from this initiative? More city resou rces, especially city budget. If our city can find funding to support a one-season sport to offer premium hockey then we should be able to allocate more funding to support this c ritical and suffering natural resource. It is absolutely shameful that so many of Edina’s waterbodies are impaired. Through community input, like ours, we hope the strategy wi ll be less myopic focusing on individual lakes and more about the system we’ve coined Edina Chain of Lakes. Who might benefit? All current and future residents of Edina an d within the entire watershed. What negative impacts do you expect and who’s impact ed? Negative: short-sighted focus on large waterbodies; inconsistent strategy with curr ent lake rankings and proposed priority factors in how you plan to change the service le vels; specific services to be added or discontinued are not available; the draft does not include what type of solutions you propose for city-wide education to reduce upstream l ake pollution; and fails to place priority on the interconnected lake system. Questions f or staff: A). “Build, test, learn” model? Please explain what you mean by this model an d how you would apply it to this plan. B). Impact of development, especially high densit y residential and commercial, on clean water? There is no mention of the impact of the city’s current development expansion and increase in impervious surface on clean wat er. How can an updated clean water strategy include—perhaps demand—that large-sc ale developments contribute to the goals with either a fee to help fund its density impac t on the water system or mandated green space with new ponds (not just raingardens) that benefit clean water and aesthetics? C). Shallow Lakes. How will Edina address th e shallow lake syndrome so that in the long-term current lakes do not become swamps ? As indicated by your diagram, “lakes within the city of Edina are all considered ‘shall ow lakes.’ So true. And we know that lower water levels are breeding grounds for algae and both emergent and submerged aquatic growth. Lake Nancy Lake Association me mbers are concerned and involved. Please do not approve this draft of the plan (See o ur additional concerns in “Draft Priority Waterbodies” and “Draft Priority Pollutants”). Page 12 of 20 10 July 23 sue AGREES 3 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 10 July 23 Becky Thacher-Bell AGREES 4 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 18 July 23 Bob Waldron AGREES 2 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 20 July 23 Dr. Joe AGREES 0 DISAGREES 0 REPLIES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 FORUM TOPIC DRAFT Clean Water Vision (values and goals) I think a Clean Water Strategy is important for Edina and applaud this effort. Just from reading the documents on this site I feel that I know much more about Edina’s waters, for instance learning about the various shallow lakes. Please continue abundant outrea ch with hyper-local data and progress updates on a regular basis. How are we doing? To support what the City is doing, what do residents need to be doing more of? less of? As you look into community values, and evolving beliefs of Edina residents, how will th at be measured? Will you be using the Quality of Life survey? Does it have questions t hat will provide feedback on these new values and goals? uncover misconceptions? We are glad that Edina is looking at ways to address the lake water quality and work to wards improvement. It is difficult to really understand the specific plan, however, and h ow it will be implemented, how it will affect those of us on small ponds (we are on Lake Otto). It doesn't make sense to not treat the chain of lakes that are connected. For exa mple, Lake Nancy and lake Otto, part of the nine mile creek watershed, are tier 3 and w ill not receive treatment. Since everything is connected, shouldn't all lakes in the waters hed receive services? We hope this process can slow down so that people can underst and the specifics. It's important that property owners know what impact these designati ons will have and how they will affect property values and enjoyment of the wildlife aro und all the waterbodies in Edina. Like many, I applaud the work on a clean water strategy. Many of the goals and prioriti es are clear, with likely refinement over time of actions needed by the city, actions need ed by residents and joint actions needed. My comment for this forum is more about ex ecution. In the past, the city hired a vendor to treat Lake Cornelia (and other water bod ies) for curly weed. It is my understanding that they vendor was paid for two treatment s but only executed one. This year, I personally watched a canoe paddle around Lake Cornelia as part of the Curly Weed assessment. It is a vendor that was hired to assess where treatments were needed. My personal experience was that the vendor did not a ppear to stop for any survey work. Later, we hear that Lake Cornelia appears fine to th e vendor, and therefore, not treatment was given. Curly Weed is now growing in Lake Cornelia. Therefore, either the vendor was grossly wrong in how they conduct their wo rk, negligent or fraudulent (taking the city's money without really performing the necess ary work). I would strongly encourage the city look into training programs geared at ve ndor management for the staff overseeing this work. That way, we can more accuratel y execute on any strategy. I agree with the comments below from Bob Waldron and with the comments set forth b y the Cornelia Lake Group Board, of which I am a member.It seems we have to autom atically treat BOTH basins of Lake Cornelia AUTOMATICALLY ANNUALLY for CLPW to prevent the current gross surface growth and subsequent current neurotoxic blue algae bloom.Respectfully, Joe Gryskiewicz, MD Page 13 of 20 Visitors 44 Contributors 2 CONTRIBUTIONS 3 Q Constance Please consider keeping this format open at least through the end of July, perhaps longer. Many residents are currently on vacation and/or spending time at their cabins. A Publicly Answered People can submit questions, comments, and ideas on this phase of the project through at least the end of August. St aff will prepare a staff report in early August for the City Council to discuss the Clean Water Strategy at their August 1 5th Work Session meeting. People can provide input up to and for a couple weeks after the work session. Staff will re ceive City Council direction at the work session meeting and consider any other input from the public, then return to Ci ty Council at a later meeting this fall (date to be determined) with a recommendation and to seek a formal decision fro m the Council. Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 QANDA Clean Water Strategy 03 July 23 Page 14 of 20 Q Constance Please extend the comment period on this BT site. Many of our LNLA members are vacationing right now as are man y other residents who should have a chance to respond. Given this is a MAJOR proposed change/update to the WR MP of the comprehensive plan, the community/public engagement process needs to be robust and thorough. I was a little surprised to learn the council approved the project at the end of 2022 yet the draft plan documents were only pos ted on this site a few days before the public meetings. Please confirm how long residents can post comments and as k questions via BT. Thank you. A Publicly Answered People can submit questions, comments, and ideas on this phase of the project through at least the end of August. St aff will prepare a staff report in early August for the City Council to discuss the Clean Water Strategy at their August 1 5th Work Session meeting. People can provide input up to and for a couple weeks after the work session. Staff will re ceive City Council direction at the work session meeting and consider any other input from the public, then return to Ci ty Council at a later meeting this fall (date to be determined) with a recommendation and to seek a formal decision fro m the Council. The scope of this phase of the project is to get clarity and consensus from the public and the Council o n the vision (values and goals) and priorities. Once that is established, we can begin the work to define the service lev el and what it takes to resource it.The Council has not yet considered or approved a Clean Water Strategy. So far, the y have received a preview of the materials that were presented at the community meetings. The 2022 amendment to the Water Resources Management Plan was to incorporate the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy work that started in 20 19. We expect this Clean Water Strategy to also result in a major amendment to the Water Resources Management P lan when it is complete. You can follow along with that process on this project webpage. Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 QANDA Clean Water Strategy 07 July 23 Page 15 of 20 Q RWZ As it appears questions are taken down after they are posted and it is unclear what happens to them, the questions b elow are being posted yet again. The following response is a joint reply from the Lake Cornelia Lake Group board of directors. Our Lake Group is encouraged that the City is developing a Clean Water Strategy, as was promised in the 2 018 Comprehensive Water Resources Master Plan (CWRMP). The following comments address areas that deserve a dditional clarification within the “Priority Waterbodies” poster board. Watershed impervious cover criteria Which of Edi na’s 200 waterbodies meet the 30% impervious cover criteria? What is the percentage of surrounding impervious cov erage for the largest 20 water bodies? Opportunities for outreach, engagement, or service criteria How near is near? I n our opinion “near” should mean walking distance otherwise transportation is involved and then all water bodies are ‘ near’. Public access and use criteria What is the percentage of publicly owned shoreline for the largest 20 water bodie s? Areas of relative disparity criteria What geographic boundaries are currently characterized as areas of "relative disparity" and what waterbodies are in those areas? Commensurate with Lake Cornelia’s historical waterbody ranking as Edina’s number one priority, three of the five directors attended three of the four recent public meetings. Our comm ents are based on over 30 years’ experience trying to work towards a more inviting water resource for the greater co mmunity and watershed. Respectfully, Lake Cornelia, Lake Group Directors: Joe Gryskiewicz, Larry Olson, Ron Rasle y, Rick Vining, Ralph Zickert A Publicly Answered Questions: Watershed impervious cover criteria Which of Edina’s 200 waterbodies meet the 30% impervious cover cri teria? What is the percentage of surrounding impervious coverage for the largest 20 water bodies? Answer: We evalu ated the 16 waterbodies you see in the Draft prioritization so far. Nine Mile Creek – North Fork, Minnehaha Creek, Lak e Cornelia, Lake Edina, Melody Lake, and Lake Pamela have >30% impervious directly connected based on major su bwatershed. Nine Mile Creek – South Fork, Arrowhead Lake, Mirror Lake, Highlands Lake, Hawkes Lake, Indianhead Lake, Lake Harvey, Otto Pond, Lake Nancy, and Southwest Ponds have <30% impervious directly connected based o n major subwatershed. We plan to run another sample of waterbodies through the draft prioritization and will share th e outcomes of that with the public.Question/Comment: Opportunities for outreach, engagement, or service criteria Ho w near is near? In our opinion “near” should mean walking distance otherwise transportation is involved and then all w ater bodies are ‘near’. Answer: This one isn’t related to proximity. We mean for it to be a space for a community group to gather around or engage with. Some examples could be, a lake association, a scout troop or faith group service pr oject, or a school or faith group water/nature educational visit. Question: Public access and use criteria What is the p ercentage of publicly owned shoreline for the largest 20 water bodies? Answer: We evaluated the 16 waterbodies you see in the Draft prioritization so far. Nine Mile Creek – North Fork, Minnehaha Creek, Lake Cornelia, Highlands Lake, Melody Lake, and Lake Pamela are within or directly adjacent to parks. Lake Edina, Otto Pond, and Lake Nancy are adjacent to public trails. The other waterbodies in the initial prioritization draft are not within or adjacent to a park or tr ail.Question: Areas of relative disparity criteria What geographic boundaries are currently characterized as areas of "r elative disparity" and what waterbodies are in those areas?Answer: We used data from the Metropolitan Council’s Pla ce-based Equity Research. We created heat map plots for the following parameters; median household income, percent of households with no vehicle, percent of land use that is park/greenspace, and percent of land use that is mu ltifamily residential. We compared the Met Council datasets with the Hennepin County Vulnerable Community data fro m their Climate Action Plan, and the areas within Edina that scored most high were similar across the two. Nine Mile Creek – North Fork, Lake Edina, Mirror Lake, and Highlands Lake are within or border an area of equity concern. The other waterbodies in the initial prioritization are not within or bordering an area of equity concern. Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 QANDA Clean Water Strategy 10 July 23 Page 16 of 20 Visitors 15 Contributors 5 CONTRIBUTIONS 15 06 July 23 RWZ VOTES 1 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 IDEAS Clean Water Strategy Ideas The following response is a joint reply from the Lake Cornelia Lake Group board of directors. Page 17 of 20 10 July 23 RWZ VOTES 0 10 July 23 sue VOTES 2 10 July 23 sue VOTES 2 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 IDEAS Clean Water Strategy Ideas Read the response from the Lake Cornelia Lake Gr oup The following response is a joint reply from the Lake Cornelia Lake Group board of dire ctors. Our Lake Group is encouraged that the City is developing a Clean Water Strateg y, as was promised in the 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Master Plan (CWR MP). Poster board #1 “A New Vision for Clean Water”, as shared on BTE, is an admira ble vision. Poster board #2 “Edina Clear Water Services and Priority Pollutants” and the “prevent, mitigate, restore” approach does a good job of identifying the breadth of activi ties around which strategies will need to be developed. Unfortunately, poster board #3 “Priority Waterbodies” misses the mark by a wide margin. In order of importance, the s hortcomings of poster board #3, “Priority Waterbodies” and the associated priority matri x, are as follows: A) There is no metric to account for the inter-connectedness of water bodies and the potential downstream impact of upstream waterbodies, regardless of th eir size. This was the number one issue raised with Staff and Council in 2015 and 2016 following the implementation of the 2014 priority matrix and was again raised during th e 2018 CWRMP review. To have ignored the importance of inter-connected waterbodie s, again reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue Edina’s waterbodies face and continues the ‘whack-a-mole’ approach rather than an integrated system-wide community viewpoint. B) There is no metric that reflects the size of the watershed serv ed by the waterbody rather than simply the size of the water body itself. C) There is no metric that reflects the waterbody’s importance to the community’s stormwater / flood management. D) The matrix, as presented, assumes an equal weighting of all criteria on a yes / no basis. All these issues are not equal. A graduated scoring system with m eaningful differences needs to be put in place and a service level associated with each criteria. The weighting of each criteria is fundamental to being able to comment on whe ther the matrix does or does not meet community goals. At present, it does not. E) The matrix should include a fourth category of water bodies, designated as “No Service Lev el”. The following comments address areas that deserve additional clarification within t he “Priority Waterbodies” poster board. Watershed impervious cover criteria Which of E dina’s 200 waterbodies meet the 30% impervious cover criteria? What is the percentag e of surrounding impervious coverage for the largest 20 water bodies? Opportunities fo r outreach, engagement, or service criteria How near is near? In our opinion “near” sho uld mean walking distance otherwise transportation is involved and then all water bodi es are ‘near’. Public access and use criteria What is the percentage of publicly owned s horeline for the largest 20 water bodies? Areas of relative disparity criteria What geogr aphic boundaries are currently characterized as areas of "relative disparity" and what w aterbodies are in those areas? Commensurate with Lake Cornelia’s historical waterbod y ranking as Edina’s number one priority, three of the five directors attended three of th e four recent public meetings. Our comments are based on over 30 years’ experience t rying to work towards a more inviting water resource for the greater community and wat ershed. Respectfully, Lake Cornelia, Lake Group Directors: Joe Gryskiewicz, Larry Ols on, Ron Rasley, Rick Vining, Ralph Zickert Ordinance requiring salt applicators working in Edin a be Smart Salt Certified. Ordinance that excess deicing salts be swept up wit hin 24 hours. See Madison WI ordinance Page 18 of 20 12 July 23 RWZ VOTES 0 12 July 23 RWZ VOTES 0 12 July 23 RWZ VOTES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 IDEAS Clean Water Strategy Ideas Best Management Practices In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King. As noted by BARR Engineering in their Phase I memo presented in the August 3, 2022 City Council Work Session: “In an effort to understand what other cities are doing to ad vance clean water, BARR reviewed readily available information on the clean water pro grams and practices of four similarly-sized suburban cities, as identified and requested by City staff.” Note that the cities were chosen by City Staff not Barr Engineering AND based on city size. The cities chosen were Evanston, Illinois, Highland Park, Illinois, Ev erett, Washington and Apple Valley, Minnesota. A) What does “SIZE OF THE CITY” ha ve to do with the robustness of their clean water programs? and B) Evanston, Highland Park, and Everett 1) appear to lack similar sized shallow lakes, 2) have very different cli mates, and 3) drain primarily into large water bodies such as Lake Michigan or the Pug et Sound. Compared to Apple Valley, the only city worth comparing to, Edina was dee med as "lacking" per the Barr Engineering memo. So, for Staff to represent to the Coun cil that Edina is “ahead in some areas and behind in others”, seems disingenuous at be st. Who doesn't look good when you benchmark yourself against the little league when you've already made the majors. Edina expects better. Ralph Zickert PS Maybe Madis on, Wisconsin should have been chosen, based on another comment. Waterbody Prioritization Matrix - missing data The “Draft Priority Waterbodies” poster identifies three key areas (Conditions, Charact eristics, Accessibility) and eight individual criteria to be used in the prioritization of indivi dual waterbodies. Three of the eight criteria were not on the 2014 or 2018 priority matri x and lacked any public input prior to their inclusion. Nor has any data been shared wit h the community regarding the waterbodies and areas affected by those three criteria. It seems unreasonable to ask for ‘final’ comments when it is unclear how the criteria m ay affect the outcome. Edina expects better Ralph Zickert Waterbody Prioritization Matrix - iterative process The “Draft Priority Waterbodies” poster used a yes / no ranking for each of the eight crit eria to be used in the prioritization of future strategies and potential City services. Such an approach flies in the face of a “prioritization” process. No matter what the criteria ev entually end up to be, NOT ALL criteria are equal. The priority matrix warrants an iterati ve process to adequately assimilate community input. The current timeline inferred fro m the BTE is a one and done approach. Edina deserves better. Ralph Zickert Page 19 of 20 15 July 23 Nick123 VOTES 0 Better Together Edina : Summary Report for 30 January 2019 to 08 August 2023 IDEAS Clean Water Strategy Ideas Ban or limit commercial lawn herbicide applications The commercial application of lawn herbicides always drains off the lawns and into the water, causing algae growth, and death and damage to all sorts of reptiles and fish and animals. In rural areas, the same applies, except instead of lawns, it's the herbicides us ed on farms, such as Round Up. The purpose of GMO crops is so the fields can be spr ayed with Round Up, and the crops survive and the weeds die. Makes one wonder how much herbicide we're ingesting, either from our food or from our water supply. Therefor e the easiest thing to do, for the protection Edina's water, that unlike the proposals rega rding road salt, does not jeopardize public safety, is to limit, or ban the commercial appli cation of lawn herbicides. After all, dandelions are natural, not manicured lawns. For th ose in doubt, consider the warning signs about keeping kids and pets off the lawn for 2 4 hours, that the workers place on the lawn after they've applied the chemicals. And for those still in doubt, consider Agent Orange from the Vietnam War. Agent Orange was a variation of what we now know as Round Up. For those unfamiliar, Agent Orange killed more than just jungle plant life, it gave an untold number of American soldiers cancer, and who knows how many Vietnamese got cancer from it as well. Page 20 of 20 Clean Water Strategy Phase 2: Vision (Values and Goals) and Priorities Discussion City Council Work Session August 15, 2023 Jessica Wilson – Water Resources Manager Water Resources Management Plan EdinaMN.gov 2 Local Comprehensive Plan Water Resources Chapter Water Supply Plan Wastewater Plans Local Water Plan (Water Resources Management Plan)Core services of surface water resources management program Clean Water Strategy Development •Phase I (complete): Current State of Edina’s Program •Phase 2 (current): Vision (Values and Goals), Priorities •Phase 3 (future): Detailed management plans for priority waterbodies, including a pilot effort at Lake Cornelia or other lakes as a later step, after buy-in on the policy level. EdinaMN.gov 3 Purpose of today’s work session •Get policy direction on the clean water vision (values and goals), priority waterbodies, and priority pollutants •The staff report and engagement report provide more details on how community input has shaped the vision and priorities so far. •Get feedback on a proposed phase 3 scope A formal staff recommendation and City Council decision is anticipated for this fall. EdinaMN.gov 4 Key Questions and Discussion •What is your reaction to the potential policy directions for the vision and ultimately, the strategy? What more do you need to be able to decide? •What is your reaction to the waterbodies prioritization framework? What more do you need to be able to decide? •What is your reaction to the priority pollutants? What more do you need to be able to decide? •What other questions would you like answered in phase 3? What level of public engagement would you like to see in phase 3? •What else are you hearing from the community about the Clean Water Strategy? EdinaMN.gov 5 Waterbodies in Edina •Failing to meet standards •Shallow •Permanently and significantly altered by urbanization •Stressed by climate change EdinaMN.gov 6 Potential policy directions Clean Water Status Quo Shallow lakes would be managed for an outcome which prioritizes wildlife habitat and natural aesthetic views over boating and swimming. Native rooted, floating, and emergent aquatic vegetation would be encouraged for their ability to support wildlife and sequester nutrients that would otherwise be available for algae to grow. Shallow lakes are managed for an outcome that prioritizes open water views and recreation access unimpeded by aquatic plants and algae. Tradeoffs: Boating and swimming are inhibited by vegetation. Aquatic plants can be seen above, at, and just below the water surface. Tradeoffs: Chemical control of emergent, floating, and submerged plants will supply phosphorus to opportunistic algae including potentially harmful blue-green algae, contributing to recurring blooms. Oxygen levels in the lake crash due to the decay of organic matter and anerobic decay leads to swampy smells. The fishery suffers from low dissolved oxygen, lack of food, and lack of habitat. Only the lowest quality aquatic animals are found. Significant effort is needed to achieve and sustain this outcome. We understand our lakes never existed like they do now and that we get the exact water quality we deserve. City actions either work toward a new equilibrium or against it. We look for smart and light-touch ways to continue to nudge the waterbodies toward or keep them in their new equilibrium. This policy direction is supported by staff. Significant effort is needed to attempt to balance between the competing values of the clear water state and open water views with recreation access unimpeded by aquatic plants and algae. Waterbodies in the clear water condition will fail to meet resident expectations for boating and open water views. Waterbodies in the turbid water condition will fail to meet regulatory clean water benchmarks. Balancing in the middle between the clear water and turbid water state is not a practical option. City actions and community values are often misaligned.7 People are connected to the land and water in reciprocity, both caring for nature and enjoying the benefits of a healthy environment. •People access and interpret knowledge and guidance on urban clean water goals and behaviors that promote them. •People pursue activities that promote clean water and natural resource stewardship. •Waters are restored or maintained in conditions allowing for beneficial uses. All people have access to water and the cultural values and environmental benefits they provide. •Clean water actions prioritize waters with public access. •Clean water strategies recognize the diverse ways people value and experience the city’s waters. Ecosystems are in a healthy equilibrium; water is clear and environmental benefits are sustained. •Water clarity improves as people use water friendly practices. •Waters are safe for human contact. •Waters support native plants, insects, and animals consistent with an urban setting. •Shorelines are stable and provide shelter for wildlife consistent with urban lands. City actions align to do the most good towards measurable, desirable clean water outcomes leveraging creativity and innovation. •The city uses an iterative ‘build, test, learn’ model to make progress. •The city uses a systems approach in its implementation to consider cumulative benefits. •The city performs active management to improve or maintain water clarity and chemistry at levels appropriate for urban waters. •Pollution is managed towards achieving water resource conditions that meet standards and support community uses. •In-lake management practices are applied towards achieving conditions that meet standards and support community uses. •Clean water goals are pursued with consideration for multiple benefits and available resources. Values and Goals 8 The Clean Water Strategy Decision We work toward a healthy ecosystem equilibrium in which waters are clear, safe, and accessible. We control vegetation to promote aquatic recreation and open water views. Prevent pollution: We control pollutants at their source and implement programs to help people do their part. Mitigate pollution: We build, operate, and maintain infrastructure and implement programs to capture and remove pollutants. Restore ecological processes: We restore natural ecosystems on land and in water. Prevent pollution: We control pollutants at their source and implement programs to help people do their part. Mitigate pollution: We build, operate, and maintain infrastructure and implement programs to capture and remove pollutants. Control aquatic vegetation: We control vegetation above, at, and below the surface. EdinaMN.gov 9 Two potential clean water strategies are offered here, informed by the policy direction decision-to-be-made, values and goals provided. Waterbody Prioritization •Criteria for priority waterbodies is based on resource condition (water quality, aquatic invasive species, and public health), physical/geographic characteristics, and public use and access. EdinaMN.gov 10 Factors and considerations for ranking EdinaMN.gov 11 •An initial (now former) prioritization list was shared at the June 2023 community meetings. This list can be viewed in the materials of the project webpage which are also attached to the engagement report. EdinaMN.gov 12 Proposed Waterbody Prioritization The revised tiering based on Council and community feedback received so far are as follows: We will focus our effort on highest priority waterbodies, build on our successes, and learn from our failures. Low and non-priority waterbodies would receive a lower tier of service. EdinaMN.gov 13 Highest Priority Tier 2 Tier 3 Lake Cornelia Lake Edina Minnehaha Creek Nine Mile Creek – North Fork Arrowhead Lake Highland Lake Indianhead Lake Lake Nancy Melody Lake Mirror Lake Otto Pond Lake Pamela Mud Lake/Bredesen Park Nine Mile Creek – South Fork Point of France Pond Southwest Ponds Swimming Pool Pond Non-priorityBirchcrest Pond Hawkes Lake Lake Harvey Vernon Ave/View Lane Pond West Garrison Pond Proposed Priority Pollutants •Nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), sediment, and chloride. •We will focus our primary effort on these priority pollutants and observe non-priority pollutants and trends in partnership with local watershed districts and state agencies. EdinaMN.gov 14 Potential Phase 3 components and outcomes •Public participation plan for phase 3 •A technical study (pilot at Lake Cornelia) including a breakdown of opportunity spaces where pollutants are coming from (the upstream watershed, upstream waterbodies, in-lake sources), and the costs and relative benefit of actions within those spaces. This would clarify which actions make the most sense to pursue so that we are making wise investments to meet the goals in the most efficient manner. It would also clarify the level and pace of achievement we might expect to see. We would leverage existing studies as part of this work. •A recommendation for defined levels of service, taken through an asset management approach, driven by community values and goals. •A recommendation for resourcing a proposed new Clean Water Strategy. •A schedule and process for accountability in implementing the proposed new Clean Water Strategy. •Tools for communicating the Clean Water Strategy (to be pursued as part of updating the Water Resources Management Plan). EdinaMN.gov 15 EdinaMN.gov 16 hybrid sunsh History of Arrowhead Lake 1960s1930s 2022 Arrowhead Lake Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek Public water ID: 27004500 2015 Arrowhead Lake Association incorporated after decades of informal organization. How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Arrowhead Lake include: Lake Management Aquatic Plants Water quality data is available from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for 2014, 2019, and 2020. Summer-average highs and lows of water quality parameters over those years are provided above. The available data shows Arrowhead Lake generally fails to meet the state’s goals for water quality within shallow lakes. Elevated total phosphorus levels promote algal growth, which reduces water clarity. Water LevelsWater Quality bluegill sunsh Fish population: Lowest recorded water level: 871.3 ft (February 18, 1981) Highest recorded water level: 878.6 ft (July 24, 1987) Denotes current Arrowhead Lake drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied 1960 Lakeshore owners install a well to augment lake levels. 1978 The rst permit for chemical treatment of submerged aquatic vegetation and algae in Arrowhead Lake is issued by the DNR. 1992 DNR issues a permit for mechanical harvesting of aquatic plants, an activity that continues until 1998. 1994 Residents stock the lake with 400 bluegill sunsh and 600 largemouth bass. 1995 A DNR sheries survey nds bullhead, green sunsh, and fathead minnows in the lake—all species tolerant of low oxygen conditions (hypoxic). No sh from the previous year’s stocking efforts were recaptured, indicating high mortality. 1996 Pump for lake-level-augmen tation well fails and is replaced. 1994 An aerator, a tool to increase the amount of dissolved oxygen in a lake, is installed and operated year-round, with a goal of managing algae blooms and preventing winter sh kill. 1998 The DNR issues a ood-control permit for Arrowhead Lake. 1994 The DNR issues a permit for excavating a channel to connect the small basin at the southeast end of the lake to provide access for mechanical harvesting of submerged aquatic plants. Chemicals continue to be used to control algae. Mechanical harvesting is abandoned and chemical control of submerged aquatic plants and algae resumes. 1997, 2002, 2008, 2019 Arrowhead Lake pumped for ood control. 2006 Water quality study conducted by NMCWD indicates watershed runoff as the largest source of phosphorus to the lake, based on one year of monitoring data. ~ 2013 Lake-level-management well inoperable; no longer used to control lake water levels. 2020, 2021 NMCWD monitors algal levels within the lake and observes high-levels of blue-green algae. Blue-green algae can produce toxins that may irritate the skin or be harmful if ingested or inhaled. NMCWD and the City issue public alerts to stay out of the water until conditions improve. 2017-2022 The City of Edina conducts aquatic plant surveys. All surveys show invasive curly-leaf pondweed in the lake. 2017 A report for the NMCWD shows poor water quality. 2021-2022 A sheries survey suggests that stocking efforts were successful and that oxygen levels have increased. Follow-up surveys in the spring of 2022 will assess the status of the shery following the 2021 winter. 2006 water quality study, updated by the NMCWD, identies potential management activities to improve the lake's overall health. 2021-2022 The City of Edina begins work on a lake-level management plan for Arrowhead Lake 2016 Residents stock the lake with 1,000 bluegill ngerlings and 1,000 yearlings, 430 largemouth bass ngerlings, and 90 yearlings. 2017 The City of Edina begins annual treatments for curly-leaf pondweed. Eliminating curly-leaf pondweed improves the native aquatic plant community and reduces the phosphorus released into the water when it dies and decays in mid-summer. Arrowhead Lake is a shallow lake located in southwest Edina. The lake is land-locked, with no surface outlet. The lake’s watershed extends north of Highway 62 and is bordered on the west side by Highway 169 and generally bordered on the east and south side by Indian Hills Road Arrowhead Lake has no public boat launch. Non-motorized boats only. fathead minnow large mouth bass21 acres (surface area) 1.0 miles (shoreline) Amenities: Algae Level (Chlorophyll-a) Water ClarityTotal Phosphorous Levels 20 g/L 60 g/L Recent water quality data 80 65 38 18 1.0 Meters Lake depth Mixed land use (single-family, medium-density residential, institutional). Portions of Highways 62 and 169 are tributary to the lake. 179 acres (watershed drainage area) ftMin ftMin 6 6 7 7 5 5 3 3 3 4.8 ft Avg 9 ftMax 62 169 Learn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org Diverse aquatic vegetation is critical to the health of Edina lakes—providing food and shelter for sh and waterfowl and improving water quality. Aquatic plant data from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District indicates the Arrowhead Lake plant community has few and poor-quality species. Invasive plant species within the lake are shown above. Eurasian watermilfoil is a rooted, submerged aquatic plant, and purple loosestrife is a colorful, perennial wetland plant. Both species outcompete native plants, and neither provides suitable shelter, food, or nesting habitat for native animals. White water lilies within the lake are not invasive and provide valuable aquatic habitat. State goalHighestLowest NMCWD = Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Curly-leaf pondweed Purple loosestrife Eurasian watermilol 1964-2002, 2012-2022 Water level data is from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Other species present: primarily green sunsh, black bullhead 1.0 Meters 0.5 Meters Interactive ood map Water resources library Find more information from the City of Edina: Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns Learn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org 1960s1930s 2021 Centennial Lakes Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek Centennial Lakes is a constructed stormwater pond in southeast Edina, east of France Avenue between Gallagher Drive and Minnesota Drive. The Centennial Lakes area hosts a variety of activities. In the summer visitors can shop at the farmer’s market, rent paddle boats, sh from shore, and play putting courses. In the winter, the frozen basins become a skating rink. Non-motorized boats only. As part of the Minnesota DNR’s “Fishing in the Neighborhoods” (FiN) program, designed to provide shore-shing opportunities in the metropolitan area, the lake has been stocked by the DNR every year from 2012–2017 and in 2020. Land use 2022: Primarily commercial and high-density residential 10 acres (surface area) 0.9 miles (shoreline) 214 acres (drainage area) History and Management of Centennial Lakes How You Can Help Reducing the amount of pollution that enters Centennial Lakes helps to protect Nine Mile Creek. Steps that you can take to help include: ft MinLake depth 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 4.3 ft Mean 9 ftMax 1976 Opening of the Galleria shopping center located at the very northern end of the drainage area. Hedberg & Sons sand and gravel pits dominate both sides of France Avenue to Interstate 494. 1991 Completion of the majority of the Centennial Lakes project. 2006 Minnesota DNR completes a sh survey using standard trap nets. The most abundant species found in the lake is green sunsh. 2011 Minnesota DNR completes a sh survey using standard trap and gill nets. The most abundant species recorded are black bullhead and hybrid sunsh. 1983 A preliminary stormwater management plan for the Edina-Bloomington area south of West 76th Street and East of France Avenue is developed. 1985 Construction of Edinborough Park begins. A small portion of the gravel pits are developed into an ofce tower, high-rise senior housing complex, a hotel, and a large indoor public park facility linked to condominiums. This example of a public amenity paired with private development provides a template for Centennial Lakes. 1988 Bloomington-based United Properties gains control of the Hedberg site and emerges as master developer for the Centennial Lakes project. Negotiations between United and the City of Edina produce a master plan tailored to the terrain of the former gravel pits. The plan calls for conversion of three pits into constructed lined ponds, connected by a constructed channel and public park. 1989 The Centennial Lakes project begins, including construction of three ponds (Central, North, and South Pond) to function as both ood storage and public amenity. Also included is the construction of the site storm sewer system and reconstruction of the France Avenue storm sewer system. The water outlets to “Border Basin” (west of France Avenue and slightly north of I-494) and Nine Mile Creek. Flood storage of the three connected basins is approximately 26 acre-feet. Amenities: Fish population black crappie green sunsh golden shiner northern pike black bullhead hybird sunsh pumpkinseed France Ave S W 76th St Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns Hawkes Lake is a small, shallow waterbody located in northwest Edina, west of Highway 100 and slightly south of Vernon Avenue. A pumped outlet, which discharges to the southwest toward Mud Lake (Bredesen Park), controls the water level at an elevation of 885 feet and helps prevent ooding. Hawkes Lake Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek Public water ID: 27005600 Large mouth bass Northern pike Fish population: Water LevelsWater Quality 7 acres (surface area) 0.5 acres (shore length) 342 acres (drainage area) Water quality data collected by volunteers is available from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Highs and lows of water quality parameters observed during those years are provided above. The available data shows Hawkes Lake fails to meet the state’s goals for water quality within shallow lakes. Elevated total phosphorus levels promote algal growth, which reduces water clarity. Lakes with very high phosphorus levels are often characterized by turbid water, excess plant production, algal blooms, and periodic sh kills. Algae Level (Chlorophyll-a) Water ClarityTotal Phosphorous Levels 20 g/L 1.1 Meters 0.9 Meters 123 83 88 34 How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Hawkes Lake include: History and Management of Hawkes Lake Land use within the watershed includes: Residential (low- and high-density), institutional, open space/parks, and a small commercial area Land use (2022) RESIDENTIAL (Anecdotal evidence) INSTITUTIONAL Amenities: Hawkes Lake has no public boat access. Non-motorized boats only. 1950s1930s 2021 Learn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org Vernon ave Denotes current Hawkes Lake drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied Recent water quality data State goalHighestLowest Lowest recorded water level: 880.9 ft (January 14, 1977) Highest recorded water level: 892.2 ft (July 24, 1987) 1963-2002, 2012-2022 Water level data is from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District 1989 MN DNR issues a permit for chemical control of submerged aquatic vegetation, lamentous algae, and plankton algae. These permits are issued annually through 2014. 2014 2015 Edina's Lake and Pond policy is implemented. The policy prioritizes treatment based on a series of factors, including water body size, level of impairment, citizen involvement, and public use. As a result, Hawkes Lake has not had algae or submerged vegetation control since 2014. NMCWD = Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Interactive ood map Water resources library Find more information from the City of Edina: 1.0 Meters Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns 60 g/L History of Lake 1960s1930s 2021 Indianhead Lake Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek Public water ID: 27004400 How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Indianhead Lake include: Aquatic Plants Diverse aquatic vegetation is critical to the health of Edina lakes—providing food and shelter for sh and waterfowl and improving water quality. Aquatic plant data from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District indicates the Indianhead Lake plant community has few and poor-quality species. Invasive plant species within the lake are shown above. Curly-leaf pondweed can be harmful to overall lake health. The invasive, non-native aquatic plant grows under the ice during the winter and in early spring, often crowding out native species. It dies in late June and early July, much earlier than other native species. As curly-leaf pondweed decays, phosphorus is released into the water, fueling algal production and causing oxygen depletion. Yellow iris and purple loosestrife are perennial plants. Both species out-compete native plants, and neither provides suitable shelter, food, or nesting habitat for native animals. White water lilies within the lake are not invasive and provide valuable aquatic habitat. Water quality data is available from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for 2014, 2019, and 2020. Summer-average highs and lows of water quality parameters from those years are provided above. The available data shows Indianhead Lake generally fails to meet the state’s goals for water quality within shallow lakes. Elevated total phosphorus levels promote algal growth, which reduces water clarity. Water LevelsWater Quality bluegill sunsh Fish population: Lowest recorded water level 861.0 ft (February 28, 2013) Highest recorded water level 865.7 ft (April 23, 2019) Denotes current Indianhead drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied Indianhead Lake has no public boat launch. Non-motorized boats only. Large mouth bass 14 acres (surface area) 0.9 miles (shoreline) Amenities: Curly-leaf pondweed Algae Level (Chlorophyll-a) Water ClarityTotal Phosphorous Levels 20 g/L 60 g/L Recent water quality data 146 61 34 19 State goalHighestLowest 0.5 Meters 0.9 Meters 114 acres (drainage area) black crappie Indianhead is a shallow, landlocked lake located in southeast Edina. The Indianhead Lake subwatershed is southeast of Arrowhead Lake. The residential subwatershed covers 114 acres which ultimately drain to Indianhead Lake via storm sewer and overland ow. hybrid sunsh 7 ftMax Lake depth 4.7 ft Avg. 6 5 5 6 55 Yellow iris Purple loosestrife Learn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org Valley View Rd 2021-2022 The City of Edina begins work on a lake-level management plan for this landlocked waterbody. Lake Management 1960 Lake augmentation well is drilled, and a DNR appropriation permit is issued. 1973 A DNR permit is issued for control of submerged vegetation. Start of annual chemical control of submerged aquatic vegetation through 2019. 1979 Study commissioned by the "Indianhead Improvement" group concludes that the most appropriate lake management approach is controlling phosphorus input from lawn care fertilizers. 1979-1980 Clean-Flo lake cleanser system installed to control submerged aquatic vegetation. The system includes an aerator, a tool to increase the amount of dissolved oxygen in the lake and prevent winter sh kill. 2006 Water quality study completed by NMCWD. The report identies loading from the lake's watershed as the largest source of phosphorus to the lake. 1993 The Minnesota Legislature passes a law that prohibits the use of groundwater (in excess of 10 million gallons per year) to maintain lake levels. This legislation is in response to low lake levels throughout the state following the 1988-1989 drought. 2013 Residents stock the lake with 50 black crappie, 200 bluegill sunsh, and 200 largemouth bass. 2016 Residents stock the lake with black crappie (2,000), bluegill sunsh (5,000), and largemouth bass (1,900). 2019 The Indianhead Lake Association stops non-specic submerged aquatic vegetation control and the City of Edina begins annual spring herbicide treatments for invasive curly-leaf pondweed. Both of these actions improve native plant communities and reduce phosphorus levels. 2020 The lake is dominated by blue-green algae, which can be harmful if ingested by people and animals. 2006 water quality study updated by the NMCWD identies potential management activities to improve the lake’s overall health. 2021 The City of Edina performs a sheries assessment. The results suggest that 2013 and 2016 stocking efforts were successful and that recruitment (survival of sh spawned in the lake) may be occurring. Follow-up surveys in the spring of 2022 will assess the status of the shery following the 2021 winter. NMCWD = Nine Mile Creek Watershed District 1993-2021, 2012-2022 Water level data is from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District 1.0 Meters Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns 1997, 2002, 2008, 2017, 2019 Indianhead Lake pumped for ood control. 2016 Informally organized since the 1970s, the Indianhead Lake Association becomes incorporated May 20, 2016. Interactive ood map Water resources library Find more information from the City of Edina: common carp (invasive) A feasibility study is completed and recommends a variety of management activities, including alum treatment, aeration, sh management, and stormwater ltration. History of Lake Cornelia Lake Cornelia is a shallow lake with northern and southern basins connected by storm pipes. 1960s1930s 2021 North Lake Cornelia 100 62 Stormwater runoff received from 112-acre area. 100 62 Southdale Shopping Center Southdale Shopping Center 1898 Lake Cornelia appears on Edina’s plat map as part of a natural wetland. 1978 The MN DNR issues a permit for the control of submerged aquatic plants. These efforts continue until 2015, when Edina's Lake and Pond policy is implemented. 1929-1941 With the arrival of farmers, area wetlands are drained. Lake Cornelia appears dry at times due to drought conditions. 2016, 2020, 2021 NMCWD monitors algal levels within the lake and observes high levels of blue-green algae. Blue-green algae can produce toxins that may irritate the skin or be harmful if ingested or inhaled. NMCWD and the City issue public alerts to stay out of the water until conditions improve. 2018 Based on observed phosphorus concentrations, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency lists South Cornelia as impaired due to excessive nutrients. 2020 Agencies study the lake to determine the sources of pollution and assign responsibility for water quality improvements. This is a called a Total Maximum Daily Load study, required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Lake Cornelia Algae Level (Chlorophyll-a) Water Clarity Total Phosphorous Levels Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek Public water ID: 27002800 2010 Water quality study completed by NMCWD 2019 Lake study updated 2015-2016 Lake Cornelia Lake Group formed Lake Management Learn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org Aquatic Plants Diverse aquatic vegetation is critical to the health of Edina lakes—providing food and shelter for sh and waterfowl and improving water quality. Invasive plant species within the lake are shown above. Curly-leaf pondweed further contributes to the lake’s problems. The invasive, non-native aquatic plant grows under the ice during the winter and in early spring, often crowding out native species. It dies in late June and early July, much earlier than other native species. As curly-leaf pondweed decays, phosphorus is released into the water, fueling algal production. Eurasian watermilfoil is a rooted, submerged aquatic plant, and purple loosestrife is a colorful, perennial wetland plant. Both species outcompete native plants, and neither provides suitable shelter, food, or nesting habitat for native animals. Water LevelsWater Quality Water quality data for six of the years between 2013 and 2020 is available from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the Metropolitan Council's Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program. Summer-average highs and lows of water quality parameters over those years are provided above. Lake Cornelia has poor water quality. Both basins are on Minnesota’s impaired waters list for excess nutrients. The poor water quality is primarily due to excess phosphorus in the lake. The phosphorus comes from many sources, including stormwater runoff, decaying plants, and nutrient-rich sediments. Bottom-feeding sh also stir up this sediment, releasing phosphorus and creating murky water. 2021 Construction of the Rosland Park stormwater ltration system. The project removes phosphorus from watershed runoff. 2020 South Cornelia Buffer Restoration: Project to restore the shoreline and plant a buffer of native plants completed. May 2020 Alum Treatment: An in-lake alum treatment is performed to control phosphorus release from lake-bottom sediments. 2017 Curly-leaf pondweed treatments: Beginning of annual spring herbicide treatments to control curly-leaf pondweed. Reducing curly-leaf pondweed can improve the native aquatic plant communities and reduce phosphorus levels. 2021 Fish Management: Continued goldsh and carp studies evaluate management methods to minimize lake sediment disturbance. 2008 The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adds North Lake Cornelia to a national inventory of waterbodies that are not meeting water quality goals because of high phosphorus levels. Recent water quality data North Cornelia South Cornelia 1842 Mckinley Street NE Denotes current Lake Cornelia drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied 1950s Suburban growth gives rise to Southdale shopping center, the expansion of highways, and more impervious areas. Storm sewer drainage systems alter the watershed, bringing more runoff and pollutants to the shallow lake. 1960s The Edina City Manager receives a recommendation from City staff to control "weeds" in Lake Cornelia. black crappie green sunsh Stormwater runoff received from 863-acre area 19 acres (surface area) 31 acres (surface area)Amenities:A pavilion, a picnic shelter, tables, grills, a 1.1-mile paved path, and a shing pier. Rosland Park, adjacent to Lake Cornelia, has baseball elds, a disc golf course, a playground, pickleball courts, and tennis courts. There are no public swimming beaches at Lake Cornelia. Non-motorized boats only. bluegill sunsh goldsh (invasive)yellow perch Native and invasive sh population: Other species present: golden shiner, pumpkinseed Lowest recorded water level 858.4 ft (Nov. 30, 2012) Highest recorded water level 862.3 ft (Apr. 30, 2014) Lowest recorded water level 858.1 ft (Nov. 30, 2012) Highest recorded water level 859.6 ft (Jun. 29, 2020) North basin 3 ft Mean 7 ftMax 5 5 44 4 ftMin 197 174 72 84 97 20 g/L State goalsNorthSouth (South’s highest recorded clarity) (North’s highest recorded clarity) (North & South’s lowest recorded clarity) 97 36 How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Lake Cornelia include: South basin 4 ft Mean 8 ftMax ftMin 7 7 66 6 55 hybird sunsh black bullhead As part of Minnesota DNR’s Fishing in the Neighborhoods (FiN) program, the lake is stocked with 120 adult bluegill sunsh to provide shore-shing opportunities in metropolitan areas. 60 g/L NMCWD = Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Curly-leaf pondweed Purple loosestrife Eurasian watermilol31 Interactive ood map Water resources library Find more information from the City of Edina: 2012-2022 North Cornelia water level data is from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. 1964-2002, 2012-2022 South Cornelia water level data is from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns Efforts to control submerged aquatic plants 2015 General submerged aquatic plant treatments stop with the implementation of Edina’s Lakes and Ponds policy, which prioritizes treatment based on a series of factors, including water body size, level of impairment, citizen involvement, and public use. 1.0 Meters 0.2 Meters 0.6 Meters 0.8 Meters South Lake Cornelia 1960s1930s 2021 Lake Edina Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek Public water ID: 27002900 Lake Management Diverse aquatic vegetation is critical to the health of Edina Lakes—providing food and shelter for sh and waterfowl and improving water quality. Invasive plant species within the lake are shown above. Curly-leaf pondweed can be harmful to overall lake health. The invasive, non-native aquatic plant grows under the ice during the winter and grows in early spring, often crowding out native species. It dies in late June and early July, much earlier than other native species. As curly-leaf pondweed decays, phosphorus is released into the water, fueling algal production and causing oxygen depletion which can lead to sh kills. Eurasian watermilfoil is a rooted, submerged aquatic plant, and purple loosestrife is a colorful, perennial wetland plant. Both species outcompete native plants, and neither provides suitable shelter, food, or nesting habitat for native animals. Denotes current Lake Edina drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied 2015 General submerged aquatic plant treatments stop with the implementation of Edina’s Lakes and Ponds policy, which prioritizes treatment based on a series of factors, including water body size, level of impairment, citizen involvement, and public use. 1978 The MN DNR issues a permit to control submerged plants in Lake Edina. 2015 Water balance study is completed by NMCWD; results indicate low water levels are primarily the result of lower- than-average snowpack during the winter of 2014–2015. 2016 Based on water quality indicators, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency lists Lake Edina as impaired due to excessive nutrients. 2017 The Minnesota DNR lists Lake Edina as infested with Eurasian watermilfoil. 2019 Water quality study developed by the NMCWD. The report shows water quality in Lake Edina is highly inuenced by the water quality of the upstream Lake Cornelia. Accordingly, the primary recommended management strategy is to address water quality conditions in Lake Cornelia. 2020 The City of Edina begins efforts to control curly-leaf pondweed. Eliminating this invasive species improves the native aquatic plant community. 2020 Water quality report for NMCWD shows poor water quality. 2020 NMCWD completes an alum treatment on Lake Cornelia, expected to lower phosphorus levels in both Cornelia and downstream Lake Edina. 2020 The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency completes a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. A TMDL identies pollution sources and and estimates pollution reductions needed to meet water quality standards. 2008 First observations of curly-leaf pondweed (CLP) in Lake Edina. The plant is found periodically over the next 13 years. 2020-2021 High phosphorus concentrations encourage excessive growth of blue-green algae. Blue-green algae can be harmful if it is ingested, inhaled, or comes in contact with the skin. Aquatic Plants Water LevelsWater Quality Water quality data is available from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for the years 2012, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Summer-average highs and lows of water quality parameters over those years are provided above. The available data shows Lake Edina generally fails to meet the state's goals for shallow lakes. Elevated total phosphorus levels promote algal growth, which reduces water clarity. Recent water quality data Algae Level (Chlorophyll-a) Water Clarity Total Phosphorous Levels 20 g/L 60 g/L 146 59 State goalsHighestLowest 77 16 4 ftMax ft Min Lake Edina is a shallow lake located in southeast Edina, just east of Highway 100 and north of Industrial Boulevard. There is no public access to Lake Edina. The Nine Mile Creek Regional trail passes along the west side of the lake for 0.3 miles. Non-motorized boats only. Amenities:Lake depth Land use 2022: Land use within the watershed is mainly low-density residential, with smaller portions of high-density residential, commercial, institutional (Cornelia Elementary School), park, wetland, and open-water areas. 24 acres surface area 1.0 mile shoreline 2.9 ft Mean2 3 395 acres drainage area History of Lake Edina How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Lake Edina include: Curly-leaf pondweed Purple loosestrife Eurasian watermilol Learn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org 100 NMCWD = Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Interactive ood map Water resources library Find more information from the City of Edina: 1964-2002, 2012-2022 Water level data is from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Lowest recorded water level: 818.0 ft (February 9, 1982) Highest recorded water level: 825.4 ft (July 24, 1987) 1.0 Meters 0.2 Meters 0.8 Meters Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns History and Management Lake Harvey Watershed District: Minnehaha Creek Public water ID: 27067000 Lake Harvey is a wetland located just east of Highway 100 and south of the Edina Country Club golf course.7 acres (surface area) 0.5 miles (shoreline) 42 acres (drainage area) How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Lake Harvey include: 1930s 1960s 2021 RESIDENTIAL Land use in the area surrounding the wetland is predominantly low-density residential with some scattered areas of institutional land use. Land use (2022) Lake Harvey has limited recreational opportunities. Non-motorized boats only. Amenities: The wetland is not stocked with sh, but there is anecdotal evidence of catsh. Fish population: Algae Level (Chlorophyll-a) Water ClarityTotal Phosphorous Levels Water quality data for 2010 was collected by the Met Council's Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) and made available by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The available data shows that Lake Harvey fails to meet the state’s goals for water quality within shallow lakes. Elevated total phosphorus levels promote algal growth, which reduces water clarity. Lakes with very high phosphorus levels are often characterized by turbid water, excess plant production, algal blooms, and periodic sh kills. Lake Harvey has been treated annually for algae since 1983. Water Quality 152 72 Denotes current Lake Harvey drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied Learn more about these strategies at minnehahacreek.org/education Recent water quality data State goal Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns 1.0 Meters 0.3 Meters 20 g/L 60 g/L RESIDENTIALGOLFPARKWETLAND SCHOOL Highlands Lake is a shallow, land-locked lake with a pumped outlet. The 276-acre watershed is east of Mirror Lake and north of Vernon Avenue. It is bordered on the north by Interlachen Boulevard. A pump is used to control the elevation of Highlands Lake at 888 feet. 1960s1930s 2021 Highlands Lake Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek Public water ID: 27066800 1994 A lift station is installed in neighboring Highland Park, to help control water levels in the lake. Water from the lake outlet ows south, connecting with the storm sewer system along Vernon Avenue, which discharges to Hawkes Lake. 2014 Bluegill, fathead minnow, largemouth bass, yellow perch stocked by residents. 2020 A water level study is conducted by the City of Edina. Based on historical data, groundwater levels and precipitation in the Highlands area have increased over the past decade. Highlands Lake is not currently monitored for total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a. 2019 data from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources shows that Highlands Lake meets goals for water clarity. Land use in the Highlands Lake watershed is characterized by residential areas, part of the Interlachen golf course, a wetland area, Highlands Park, and a portion of the drainage from Highlands Elementary School. 11 acres (surface area) 3.7 feet (average depth) 0.9 miles (shoreline) bluegill sunsh fathead minnow largemouth bass Amenities:Highlands Lake is surrounded by the 40-acre Highlands Park. The park has benches, picnic tables, tennis courts, a playground, and baseball, soccer, and football elds. Motorboats are not allowed on Highlands Lake, except for emergency rescue or maintenance. Water Clarity yellow perch Water Quality Fish stocked in the last 10 years:Land Use How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Highlands Lake include: Learn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org 273 acres (drainage area) Data from Minnnesota Department of Natural Resources Interlachen Blvd Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns 2.5 Meters 1.0 m History of Highlands Lake 4 ft Mean 4 ft Mean 8 ftMax 1 ft 5 5 3 3 Lake depth Denotes current Highlands Lake drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied 2022 The City of Edina conducts an aquatic plant survey. Curly-leaf pondweed is found and treated. common carp (invasive) Lake Nancy and Otto Pond Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek Public water ID: 27067700 Fish population: Lakes History and Management Denotes current Lake Nancy and Otto Pond drainage areas; historical drainage areas were larger. 2015 Shoreline residents meet to discuss incorporating as a lake association. Construction of Highway 62 and local roadways. 2016 Lake Nancy Lake Association is incorporated with at least 50% of shoreline owner involvement. The purpose of the association is to: (1) maintain, protect, and improve the water quality, aesthetic values, wildlife habitat, and recreational capacity of Lake Nancy, (2) educate shoreline owners and the public about the condition and protection of Lake Nancy, and (3) provide a representation framework for shoreline owners’ interests regarding Lake Nancy. Historically, Lake Nancy, Otto Pond, and present-day Swimming Pool Pond were all connected. The construction of Highway 62 and local roadways in the late 1950s and early 1960s resulted in the waterbodies being separated. 2018 NMCWD commissions a sheries survey which identied an abundant goldsh population in Lake Nancy and Lake Cornelia, connected via a storm sewer under Highway 62. Similar to carp, goldsh have the potential to negatively impact water quality by stirring up wetland sediments and increasing nutrient levels due to nutrient cycling through the sh gut. 2019 Aquatic plant survey conducted on Lake Nancy. No curly-leaf pondweed found. 2020 Aquatic plant survey conducted in the spring on Lake Nancy. No curly-leaf pondweed found during the survey, but a resident reports seeing the plant later in the year. 2021 Curly-leaf pondweed is found in two locations during a formal survey of Lake Nancy. These invasive aquatic plants were hand-pulled. 2021 A report on the invasive goldsh population and inter-waterbody movement in the Lake Cornelia system is prepared for the NMCWD. A population of about 8,000 goldsh is estimated in Lake Nancy. The report's recommendation is to test multiple removal approaches on Lake Cornelia (baited box netting, baiting and seining, stream trapping) before considering other management activities for Lake Nancy. 2022 A report evaluating internal loading in Lake Nancy and Otto Pond is prepared for the NMCWD. The review of water quality data and information from sediment cores suggest that Lake Nancy has signicant “internal loading” (the release of phosphorus into the lake from bed sediment). Some of this loading is assumed to come from goldsh and carp stirring up sediment. By contrast, the water quality of Otto Pond is relatively good and there is no evidence of internal loading. Lake Nancy and Otto Pond are located just north of Highway 62 and west of Highway 100. The wetlands are not connected, but both ultimately drain to Lake Cornelia. At times, Otto Pond also drains north to the Minnehaha Creek watershed. There is a public trail between Lake Nancy and Otto Pond, but no public boat access on either waterbody. Non-motorized boats only. Amenities: 10 acres (surface area) 4 acres (surface area) 30 acres (drainage area) 119 acres (drainage area) How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Lake Nancy and Otto Pond include: 2017 Aquatic plant survey conducted on Lake Nancy and no curly-leaf pondweed found. 1978 A DNR permit for submerged aquatic plant control is granted for Otto Pond. These treatments occur annually until 2015. 1980 A DNR permit to treat planktonic algae and submerged vegetation is granted for Lake Nancy. Annual algae treatments are ongoing; treatment for submerged aquatic vegetation occur until 2015. 2015 Annual treatment of algae begins in Otto Pond. Annual treatment of Lake Nancy for submerged aquatic vegetation resumes. Water Quality Water quality data was obtained during a 2021 study of internal loading in Lake Nancy and Otto Pond. Summer averages of water quality parameters are provided above for both Lake Nancy and Otto Pond. This data shows Lake Nancy fails to meet the state's goals for water quality within shallow lakes. Elevated total phosphorus levels promote algal growth, which reduces water clarity. Phosphorus and chlorophyll-a levels in Otto Pond are just slightly above state goals, reecting better water quality than in Lake Nancy. Algae Level (Chlorophyll-a) Total Phosphorous Levels 20 g/L60 g/L Water Clarity goldsh (invasive) 1960s1940s 2021 Water Levels Woodale AveLearn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org OTTO POND Recent water quality data Data are only available for Lake Nancy NMCWD = Nine Mile Creek Watershed District NANCY 4 ftMax 5 ftMax 1 ft1 ft Wetland depth Wetland depth Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns Late 1950s- Early 1960s Interactive ood map Water resources library Find more information from the City of Edina: 1964-2022 Water level data is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Lowest recorded water level: 861.0 ft (July 28, 1988) Highest recorded water level: 863.3 ft (April 10, 1965) 1.0 Meters 0.2 Meters (Nancy) 0.6 Meters (Otto) 256 95 67 24 State goalsNancyOtto Lake Pamela Watershed District: Minnehaha CreekPublic water ID: 27067500 2000-2002 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District completes projects to address poor water quality in Pamela Lake and Minnehaha Creek. Actions include: Dredging the lake to increase the average depth and create about 1.2 acres of deep-water habitat Dredging the two major storm sewer outlets and constructing sediment-settling basins at those outlets to capture and settle pollutants from storm sewer runoff before it drains into the wetland Building three settling ponds in the northern part of the park to receive and clean stormwater runoff from stormwater drains Water quality data was collected by the Met Council's Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program and made available by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Data is available for six of the years between 2005 and 2015. Summer-average highs and lows of water quality parameters over those years are provided at left. The available data shows that Lake Pamela generally fails to meet the state’s goals for water quality within shallow lakes. Elevated total phosphorus levels promote algal growth, which reduces water clarity. Lake Pamela is a 7-acre DNR-protected wetland located in the south end of Pamela Park, just west of France Avenue between 58th and 62nd streets. Lake Pamela sits in the 62-acre Pamela Park. The park features playground equipment with benches and grassy areas for picnics. There are also soccer elds, softball elds, tennis courts, a batting cage, and an ice rink in the winter. Non-motorized boats only. Amenities: 7 acres (surface area) 0.6 miles (shoreline) 276 acres (drainage area) History and Management of Lake Pamela How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Lake Pamela include: 1 2 3 RESIDENTIALWETLAND 2022 The land use in this watershed is primarily low-density residential. PARK 1961 A ood-control ditch is constructed from Pamela Park north toward 58th Street, eventually connecting to Minnehaha Creek. 1996 The rst of annual permits for algae control issued by the MN DNR. Water Quality 8 feet (Max depth) 3.4 feet (Average depth) 1950s1930s 2021 Denotes current Lake Pamela drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied Recent water quality data Algae Level (Chlorophyll-a) Total Phosphorous Levels 213 194 10 5160 g/L 20 g/L State goalsHighestLowest Water Clarity France Ave S Learn more about these strategies at minnehahacreek.org/education Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns 1.0 Meters 1.1 Meters 0.5 Meters 1960s1930s 2021 Melody Lake Watershed District: Minnehaha CreekPublic water ID: 27002900 Fish population: Lake Management Denotes current Melody Lake drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied 1970 Minnesota State 100 is expanded, and a lift station is installed at Melody Lake to manage water levels. Water is pumped to the Highway 100 drainage system, which ows north and ultimately discharges to Minnehaha Creek. 1988 DNR permit allows treatment of the lake with aquatic herbicides and algaecides. Treatment for lamentous algae occurs annually. 2009 The Metropolitan Council gives the lake a letter grade of "D" for water quality, describing it as severely impaired. Historical data shows the lake to be highly eutrophic—having excessive nutrients (primarily phosphorus), which can lead to algal blooms, lack of oxygen, and turbidity. 2013 Melody Lake is treated for submerged aquatic vegetation (invasive Eurasian watermilfoil ) and algae (both lamentous and planktonic). 2015 Aeration system, purchased and installed decades earlier by the Friends of Melody Lake group, is shut off and abandoned in place when the group elects not to pay for the service. 2015 General submerged plant treatments stop with the implementation of Edina's Lakes and Ponds policy, which prioritizes treatment based on a series of factors, including water body size, level of impairment, citizen involvement, and public use. 2016 A lake-level management plan is developed by the City of Edina to dene the circumstances under which Melody Lake will be pumped. According to the plan, a water level greater than 887 feet will trigger pumping until the elevation is lowered to 886 feet. 2018-2022 The City of Edina conducts aquatic plant surveys. Nymphaea odorata, known as North American white water lily or pond lily, is found in each survey. This is a plant with large, fragrant, white owers and at, round leaves (up to 10 inches across) oating on the water's surface or just beneath. Flowers open early in the morning and close about noon. 2019 Curly-leaf pondweed found and treated in seven locations; no curly-leaf pondweed was found in the lake in no curly-left pondweed was found in the lake in 2018, 2020, or 2021. 2021 The City of Edina completes shoreline restoration at Melody Lake Park, adding a native plant buffer to stabilize the shoreline, provide wildlife habitat, and manage invasive plants. The restoration opens views and makes it easier to access Melody Lake. A rock landing was added at the shoreline for year-round use. 2022 The City of Edina conducts an aquatic plant survey. Curly-leaf pondweed is found and treated. 1995 Friends of Melody Lake, an informal lake group, organizes. 1986 Melody Lake treated for excessive algae. 2016 Friends of Melody Lake ofcially incorporated Melody Lake, a landlocked basin, is located just west of Highway 100 and north of Benton Drive. Water levels within the lake are controlled by a pump installed to maintain a consistent water elevation (approximately 887 feet). This helps reduce the ood risk to nearby homes. A 4-acre park with benches surrounds Lake Melody, offering visitors a quiet place to walk and spot wildlife. Motorboats are not allowed, except for emergency rescue or maintenance. Amenities: Land use 2022: Low-density residential and institutional 8 acres (surface area) 0.9 miles (shoreline) 176 acres (drainage area) History of Lake How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Melody Lake include: Curly-leaf pondweed Diverse aquatic vegetation is critical to the health of Edina Lakes—providing food and shelter for sh and waterfowl and improving water quality. Invasive plant species within the lake are shown above. Curly-leaf pondweed an be harmful to overall lake health. The invasive plant grows under the ice during the winter and is generally the rst pondweed to come up in the spring. It dies in late June and early July, much earlier than other native species. As curly-leaf pondweed decays, phosphorus is released into the water, fueling algal production and depleting oxygen. Eurasian watermilfoil is a rooted, submerged aquatic plant. Like curly-leaf pondweed, it outcompetes native plants and does not provide suitable shelter, food, or nesting habitat for native animals. Aquatic PlantsWater Quality Eurasian watermilfoil Water quality data for 2009 and 2010 was collected by the Met Council's Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) and made available by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Summer-average highs and lows of water quality parameters over those years are provided above. The available data shows that Melody Lake fails to meet the state's goals for water quality within shallow lakes. Elevated total phosphorus levels promote algal growth, which reduces water clarity. Recent water quality data State goalsHighestLowest Algae Level (Chlorophyll-a) Total Phosphorous Levels 20 g/L 60 g/L 164 82 140 61 Water Clarity 0.5 Meters bluegill sunsh white crappie northern pike Walleye 4.2 ft Avg. 7 ftMaxLake depthSource: Fishbrain.com 100 Learn more about these strategies at minnehahacreek.org/education Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns 1.0 Meters History of Lake 1960s1930s 2021 ~1995 A pumped outlet is installed on the southwest side of the landlocked lake to alleviate high lake levels. Water pumped from Mirror Lake ows southwest to the storm sewer system along Blake Road. Mirror Lake Algae Level (Chlorophyll-a) Water ClarityTotal Phosphorous Levels Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek Public water ID: 27005500 20 g/L 60 g/L Lake Management Diverse aquatic vegetation is critical to the health of Edina Lakes—providing food and shelter for sh and waterfowl and improving water quality. Invasive plant species within the lake are shown above. Curly-leaf pondweed can be harmful to overall lake health. The invasive plant grows under the ice during the winter and is generally the rst pondweed to come up in the spring. It dies in late June and early July, much earlier than other native species. As curly-leaf pondweed decays, phosphorus is released into the water, fueling algal production and depleting oxygen. Purple loosestrife is a colorful, perennial wetland plant. Like curly-leaf pondweed, it outcompetes native plants and does not provide suitable shelter, food, or nesting habitat for native animals. Denotes current Mirror Lake drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied 2004 A lake study for NMCWD concluded that the cause of Mirror Lake's water quality problem was excess phosphorus from stormwater runoff and internal sources. Internal sources include mid season die-back of curly-leaf pondweed and phosphorus from lake bottom sediments. Mirror Lake is a landlocked basin in the northwest portion of Edina. Water levels within the lake are controlled by a pump installed to manage the water elevation (approximately 908.5 feet). 2015 General submerged plant treatments stop with the implementation of Edina’s Lakes and Ponds policy, which prioritizes treatment based on a series of factors, including waterbody size, level of impairment, resident involvement, and public use. 1982 Water quality study is completed. The study recommends the development of a water quality management program to address dense aquatic weed and algae growth. 2019 Water quality report for NMCWD shows poor water quality. Aquatic plant data shows that the number of plant species and quality of the plant community is poor. 2019 Curly-leaf pondweed found and treated in seven spots. 2022 The City of Edina conducts an aquatic plant survey. Curly-leaf pondweed is found and treated. The 2004 water quality study will be updated by NMCWD, including recommendations for management activities to improve lake health. 2022 NMCWD will conduct a sh survey of Mirror Lake. Aquatic Plants Water LevelsWater Quality 23 acres (surface area) 1.4 miles (shoreline) 282 acres (drainage area) yellow perch Recent water quality data Mirror Lake has no public boat access. Motorboats are not allowed, except for emergency rescue or maintenance. Land use 2022: The Mirror Lake watershed is primarily single-family residential land use, but also includes a portion of the Interlachen Country Club golf course. Amenities:goldsh (invasive) 104 89 46 30 State goalsHighestLowest 0.4 Meters 0.6 Meters The lake is not stocked with sh, but there is anecdotal evidence of goldsh and perch Fish population: How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Mirror Lake include: 15 ftMax 5.4 ft Avg. 121312 7 101111 8 ftMin ftMin Lake depth 12 Learn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org 1963-2002, 2012-2022 Water level data is from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District NMCWD = Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Interlachen Blvd Water quality data is available from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for the years 2012 and 2019. Summer-averages highs and lows of water quality parameters over those years are provided above. The available data shows Mirror Lake fails to meet the state's goals for water quality within shallow lakes. Elevated total phosphorus levels promote algal growth, which reduces water clarity. Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns Interactive ood map Water resources library Find more information from the City of Edina: Lowest recorded water level: 905.7 ft (April 30, 2015) Highest recorded water level: 909.4 ft (June 27, 2014) 1.0 Meters Curly-leaf pondweed Purple loosestrife Southwest Edina Ponds Watershed District: Nine Mile Creek History and Management of Southwest Edina Ponds The Southwest Edina Ponds are a series of natural and constructed ponds and wetlands that ultimately drain to the South Fork of Nine Mile Creek. The watershed (shown below) is bordered by West 70th Street to the north, West 78th Street to the south, Gleason Road on the west, and the Soo Line Railroad on the east. 1976 Stormwater project expands existing ponds and creates new, shallow ponds (2-4 feet deep) in low-lying areas. The ponds are designed to create stormwater storage and waterfowl nesting habitat, including “goose islands” at the center of the ponds and a vegetated perimeter. 411 acres (drainage area) How You Can Help Steps that you can take to help Southwest Edina Ponds include: 1970s1930s 2021 Denotes current Southwest Edina ponds drainage area; historical drainage areas may have varied 2008 The City of Edina receives a permit to chemically control lamentous and planktonic algae in Cote Pond. Two treatments are authorized from June 10 to September 1. 2009 Residents petition the City to restore one of the Southwest Edina Ponds (Cote Pond) to its original as-built condition. This would require the pond, located just west of Delaney Boulevard and south of Long Brake Trail, to be drained and sediment to be removed from the bottom. After comparing eld measurements to the original design, City staff conclude that the pond does not show signicant sedimentation and full-scale dredging is not pursued. However, removal of sediment buildup around storm sewer inlets is recommended. Homeowners are encouraged to plant native buffer strips next to the pond and implement good lawn-maintenance techniques to prevent organic waste and chemicals from entering the pond. 1980s Treatment for Cote and Long Brake ponds starts. 1990s Treatment for Shannon Pond starts. RESIDENTIAL 2022 The Southwest Edina Ponds watershed is mainly characterized by low- and medium-density residential land use. There are some commercial and industrial areas in the eastern portion of the watershed. Learn more about these strategies at ninemilecreek.org COMMERCIALCahill RdW 78th St Installing rain gardens and planting shoreline buffers Cleaning up grass clippings and leaves Participating in the adopt-a-drain program (mn.adoptadrain.org) Redirecting gutter downspouts towards vegetated areas Minimizing use of fertilizer on lawns Shannon Pond Cote Pond Long Brake Trail Pond