HomeMy WebLinkAboutMill Pond Report and Recommendation
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
March 2, 2016
Mayor and City Council
Jessica Van Der Werff, Water Resources Coordinator
Mill Pond – aquatic vegetation management policy review
Provide direction on proposed changes to service level, assessment district, and Lake & Pond Policy.
Information / Background:
In 1980, residents petitioned the City to manage the aquatic vegetation in the Mill Pond. The initial
harvesting of aquatic vegetation was funded in part by the City, resident pledges, and the Watershed
District. The arrangement continued in 1981 and City Council recommended that future aquatic vegetation
improvements be treated as an assessment with all benefitted properties paying a share of the cost. By 1982,
the Watershed District declined to fund the project and the cost was assessed equally to 63 properties (see
Appendix A) with the City contributing $1,500. The assessment district of 63 properties and the City
contribution of $1,500 have remained unchanged since then.
At the special assessment public hearing on October 21, 2014, Council heard from a resident who testified
that properties across the street from the Mill Pond should not be assessed at the same rate as those who
were directly adjacent to the pond. Council decided not to make changes to the 2014 assessment and asked
staff to evaluate the methodology for determining the assessment district. The Council directed staff to seek
comments from all assessed property owners who would be affected and provide information on the
impacts of potential assessment district changes. Council also noted favor of the association structure noted
in the Lake & Pond Policy that was adopted earlier in 2014, in which Mill Pond was not included. The new
policy stipulates that formal associations be organized in order to be eligible for elective services, which
includes submerged aquatic vegetation management.
Staff also sought to evaluate the quality and value of the current service to address complaints and seek
opportunities for improvement.
In the summer of 2015, all properties in the assessment district were mailed a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’
fact sheet and a survey to gauge quality and value of the current service, and satisfaction with the overall
aquatic vegetation management strategy and City outreach (Appendix B). An invitation was subsequently
sent for a community meeting to discuss survey results, assessment district boundaries, and formation of an
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2
association (Appendix D). The outreach was intended to inform residents of potential changes and how they
might be affected. It also was intended to gather feedback that would be used to improve the current
service and be shared with City Council to inform future aquatic vegetation management decisions in Mill
Pond.
Aquatic Vegetation Management and Permits
Aquatic vegetation in Mill Pond is managed by mechanical harvesters, large machines that cut aquatic plants
several feet below the water’s surface. Plants are then removed from the water by a conveyer belt system
and stored on the harvester until they can be transferred to a truck, then composted off-site.
Harvesting can quickly create open areas of water for recreation and fishing access, but it is similar to
mowing a lawn; the plants grow back and may need to be harvested several times during the growing
season.
Minnesota Statute, section 84.091, subdivision 1, establishes that aquatic plants growing in public waters
belong to the state. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has permitting authority for
the management of aquatic plants, outlined in MN Rules 6280. Any destruction or transplanting of aquatic
vegetation in public waters must be authorized by the Commissioner of the DNR. Although the rule was
adopted into Minnesota Statute in 1993, regulations for aquatic plant management had been in place as early
as 1945 through Commissioner’s Orders. The rules are intended to provide a balance between protecting
aquatic plants for fish and wildlife and also allowing access and use of public waters. Removing aquatic plants
where they do not interfere with swimming, boating, or other recreation is not allowed.
Permits for aquatic vegetation destruction are required for the following control methods;
Destruction of any emergent vegetation (for example, cattails and bulrushes).
Cutting or pulling by hand, or by mechanical means, submerged vegetation in an area larger than
2,500 square feet.
Applying herbicides or algaecides.
Moving or removing a bog of any size that is free-floating or lodged in any area other than its place
of origin in public waters.
Transplanting aquatic plants into public waters.
Use of automated aquatic plant control devices.
Physical removal of floating-leaf vegetation from an area larger than a channel 15 feet wide extending
to open water.
There are cases where a permit is not required. If a shoreline property owner wants to maintain a
swimming or boat-docking area, they may cut or pull submerged vegetation without a permit under certain
conditions:
First, the area to be cleared must be no larger than 2,500 square feet.
Second, the cleared area must not extend more than 50 feet along the shoreline or one-half the
length of the shoreline, whichever is less.
A boat channel up to 15 feet wide, and as long as necessary to reach open water, may also be
cleared, through submerged vegetation. The boat channel is in addition to the 2,500 square feet
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 3
allowed. Cut or pulled weeds must be disposed of properly. This channel can also be maintained
through floating-leaf vegetation (except for the yellow lotus, a protected wildflower).
Mechanical harvesting of the Mill Pond requires a permit from the DNR. The permit stipulates the following;
50% maximum removal: The rule limits mechanical removal to up to 50% of the total vegetation.
The limit was set as a compromise between total prohibition of plant removal and total lack of
regulation. The 50% limit is not new; it was codified into Minnesota Rules in 1993 as a result of
legislation that required the DNR to use the rule-making process when making regulations, but it
had been established in previous versions of the rules.
The removal extent must stay the same year to year: The area allowed for control must
remain in the same location each year. This is stated so that the rules are not used to destroy all
vegetation along the shoreline piecemeal a year at a time.
Invasive species removal: The City of Edina applied for and received an invasive species permit in
2014. Invasive species permits do not have a permit fee. Any removal of invasive species counts
toward the 50% removal maximum.
White Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata): The White Water Lily is a blooming native plant. The
DNR recommends that it be left alone but allows for a channel to be cleared for boat access.
Chemical treatment: Mill Pond is part of Minnehaha Creek. Chemical treatments are not allowed
in moving water and past chemical treatment permit applications have been denied by the DNR.
Current Practices and Constraints
Each summer the City hears feedback about quality and value of the aquatic vegetation harvesting service
related to harvesting areas, frequency, and vendor. The City strives to provide a high level of service while
also considering the legal constraints spelled out by the DNR permit, the physical constraints of the
harvesting equipment, and administrative constraints.
Mill Pond is typically harvested twice per year; in early summer (about June) and late summer (about
August). The contractor uses professional judgment to determine the optimum time to conduct harvesting.
During each visit, the contractor receives a directive from the City to harvest 7 acres (of 14 total acres)
according to the DNR permit which allows for up to 50% of the pond to be harvested. The current strategy
has been to target a center channel plus 50% of each property’s shoreline twice/year. Removal of invasive
species counts toward the 50% limit and native white water lilies have some protections that allow only a
boat access channel. Additionally, Minnehaha Creek runs through Mill Pond which limits the control
methods that may be used; the DNR rules do not allow chemical treatments in streams.
Millpond is 3-5 feet deep, with a couple deep areas that extend to 6 feet deep. There are also shallow areas
along the shore and in much of the upstream end (see Appendix E, page 19) that are less than 2 feet deep.
Harvesting equipment requires about 2 feet of water depth to operate.
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 4
Budgets for mechanical harvesting are set the previous year which does not allowing for adjustments due to
variability in vegetation density and water level in any given growing season. Additionally, few bids are
received from contractors each year. There is usually one or two to choose from.
Service Quality and Value Evaluation
A survey was sent to owners of properties that are in the special assessment district to gauge the quality
and value of the service as well as gather general comments. Of the 63 surveys sent out, 38 were returned
(60% return rate).
Residents were asked;
1. What are your primary activities on Mill Pond?
2. How would you rate the overall value of the service compared with the price paid?
3. How would you rate the quality of the harvesting work?
4. How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the overall aquatic vegetation management
strategy?
5. How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the overall contact between you and the City
regarding management of Mill Pond?
6. Which level of service (regarding frequency) would you be in favor of?
The original survey and returned surveys are shown in Appendices B and C. Specific data related to each
question are shown in Appendix E, pages 11-16.
In general, the data showed mixed uses and activities on the pond that continue year-round. Ratings for
value and quality of service were low and satisfaction with the overall management strategy and City
outreach were mixed, with no real apparent pattern. Lastly, the majority of respondents indicated they were
willing to pay more for increased frequency of harvesting, such as three times per year. In some surveys, it
was apparent that residents were requesting more harvesting in a spatial sense to some areas, however,
harvesting equipment is limited in very near shore where it is shallow and harvesting is already being
conducted to the legal maximum extent under the DNR permit.
Much of the conversation at the community meeting and the feedback from the survey and submitted
comments were related the 50% vegetation removal limit imposed by the DNR permit. The overall message
from the feedback was frustration that more couldn’t be removed, especially in light of the invasive species
presence in Mill Pond. Staff has communicated extensively with the DNR on this matter and has gotten clear
direction that Mill Pond is not a unique situation with regard to vegetation density and that a variance to the
50% removal rule would be difficult to acquire.
Staff recommends increasing harvesting frequency to three times per year.
Although the spatial extent cannot be expanded, the frequency of harvesting may be increased. Based on
resident feedback, staff is recommending increasing the frequency of harvesting to three times per year
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 5
when seeking bids. The area of harvesting would remain the same for each of the three harvesting events,
per the DNR permit requirement.
Assessment District
The cost of the improvement, less the city share, is currently assessed equally among all 63 properties in the
assessment district with each property being assigned a 1.0 residential equivalent unit (REU). Appendix A
shows the properties included in the current assessment district.
Feedback regarding the assessment district was gathered from the community meeting, surveys, and direct
comments via e-mail, phone, and in-person correspondence. Participants at the community meeting
commented that the assessment district seemed fair, but would support a decision to make a change as long
as it was objective. The general consensus among meeting participants seemed to be that if properties have
a view of the pond, they should be included but perhaps not at a full REU. Several surveys and submitted
comments also addressed the assessment district. Some echoed a similar sentiment that was expressed
among the community meeting participants – that properties with a view benefit from the improvement and
should be included at some level. Others that live on Browndale Avenue, across the street from the pond,
stated that their share should be reduced or eliminated completely because they do not have an equal
benefit as those directly adjacent to the pond. Properties on the northern end of Browndale Avenue are
across from Browndale Park and properties on the southern end have views that are almost completely
obstructed by woody vegetation. There are four properties on Sunnyslope Rd E that are across the street
from the pond.
Comments from property owners in the shallow upstream areas also expressed a sense of inequity and
were frustrated that they were paying an equal share, yet didn’t perceive an equal benefit. Sixteen properties
in the upstream portion of the pond are adjacent to a section of the creek that has been historically and
consistently more shallow. These sixteen properties were identified with input from the owner of the
harvesting company who had worked on the creek for many years and noted the area that is historically
shallow and inaccessible in dry years. A share of less than a full REU would ensure that those properties
contribute to the improvement in normal years while recognizing that the shallow area may not get equal
service if water depth prohibits access in dry years. In dry years when the water is low, this section of the
pond is inaccessible with the harvester equipment.
In any case, shoreline property owners may remove additional vegetation (by pulling or cutting) under the
DNR general permit, given certain conditions. For areas that are too shallow for the harvester to access in
any given year, residents may still manage the aquatic vegetation along their shoreline. The work may be
contracted out or may be performed by the property owners themselves.
The assessor’s office was contacted for feedback on the matter. One idea from the community meeting to
objectively approach the assessment district was to include only properties that were classified as ‘lakeshore
residential’ on the tax rolls (properties that are classified as ‘lakeshore residential’ are taxed at the same rate
as non-lakeshore properties). This approach was unproductive because none of the properties along the Mill
Pond are classified as lakeshore, even those that are directly adjacent to the water, because a pond on a
creek doesn’t fit the assessor’s definition of lakeshore. The assessor’s office seemed to support assessing
only those directly adjacent to the water. The hypothetical question raised was, “What if owners are
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 6
assessed for a view across the park, then a tree grows in the park and obstructs views?” Views are screened
by vegetation that presently exists or could exist in the future, and those areas are owned and managed by
others. Property owners that are not directly adjacent to the pond have limited ability to maintain their
view. In the case of the two properties on the southern end of Browndale Avenue (4905 and 4909) views
are completely obstructed by vegetation during the growing season. Furthermore, maintaining vegetation in
this particular area is important for stabilizing the steep slope.
Four properties on Sunnyslope Road E are also across the street, but have a more clear view of the pond.
These properties have minimal vegetation obstructing their view, unlike the properties on the southern end
of Browndale Avenue (4905 and 4909) which have a dense vegetation screen.
Resident feedback, landscape characteristics, and pond depth constraints have been carefully considered. A
map of the proposed assessment district is shown in Appendix G.
Staff recommends the following changes to the Mill Pond assessment district;
Two properties on the southern end of Browndale Avenue (4905 and 4909) be removed from the
assessment district
Four properties on the northern end of Browndale Ave be reduced to 0.33 REU
Four properties on Sunnyslope Rd E be reduced to 0.33 REU
Sixteen properties in upstream shallow area be reduced to 0.66 REU
Remaining properties maintained at 1.0 REU
Lake & Pond Policy and Forming an Association
An association is a voluntary organization made up of people who own land on or near a body of water and
is often formed by land owners who are concerned about issues regarding the quality or use of the body of
water and want to deal with them in an organized manner. According to the City Lakes & Ponds policy,
adopted in 2014, lake and pond groups must organize as an association in order to be eligible for elective
city-coordinated activities (such as mechanical harvesting). Mill Pond wasn’t originally included in the policy,
but could be added. The approved Lake and Pond Policy is included in Appendix H.
Currently, there is no structure for regularly obtaining feedback from the Mill Pond community as a whole
to ensure that decisions represent the majority. City staff attempt to balance requests for service and
competing values based on feedback from a relatively small subset of property owners. Organizing an
association empowers the community to play a larger role in the decision making process and encourages a
more representative voice.
Based on feedback from the community meeting and submitted comments, the participants seemed mostly
neutral, with a small group speaking in favor of organizing an association. Many commented that they didn’t
see the added value of forming and that it seemed like another component to manage. City staff noted that
an association is required among other lake and pond groups in order to be eligible for elective services,
including submerged aquatic vegetation management.
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 7
Staff recommends that Mill Pond be included in the Lake & Pond Policy which would require
residents to formalize as an association in order to be eligible for elective services. A proposed
amendment to the Lake and Pond Policy is included in Appendix I.
Appendices
Appendix A: Mill Pond Assessment District
Appendix B: Mill Pond Survey Packet_20150812
Appendix C: Mill Pond Surveys_raw
Appendix D: Mill Pond Meeting Invitation_20150930
Appendix E: Mill Pond Aquatic Vegetation Management Presentation
Appendix F: Mill Pond Resident Comments
Appendix G: Proposed Assessment District
Appendix H: Lake and Pond Policy
Appendix I: Proposed Lake and Pond Policy Amendment