5.9 Summary

The following tables summarize the proposed implementation action items, their relationship to the problems and issues identified in Section 3.0 above, the metrics by which the District will be evaluating progress toward resolving those issues and problems, the estimated District costs of implementing those actions, and anticipated implementation schedule.

Table 16.  Problems and issues identified in the Gleason Lake subwatershed and actions proposed to address them.

 

Problem or Issue

Actions in Implementation Plan

Degree of Improvement

Water Quality

The water quality in Gleason Lake has consistently been scored in the C-D grade range on the District’s annual lake report cards.    Based on this monitoring history Gleason Lake’s water quality is not supportive of swimming

  • A phosphorus load reduction plan for Gleason Lake that sets forth actions to reduce loading to meet in-lake P concentration goals.  These actions include an enhanced regulatory program, LGU requirements to reduce phosphorus form existing development, and capital projects to reduce internal and external loads.
  • Continue monitoring Gleason Lake and Gleason Lake Creek, and obtain baseline data for other lakes through Citizen Assisted Monitoring program or satellite data. 
  • Implementation of all the actions in the phosphorus load reduction plan would theoretically reduce in-lake P concentrations, improve water clarity, and meet District water quality goals.
  • Baseline data would fill a data gap and provide for tracking water quality trends across the subwatershed
 

Development and redevelopment in the subwatershed will increase nutrient and TSS loads from the watershed as well as increasing the volume of stormwater runoff.

Rules will be amended to require more stringent pollutant load reduction on new development and redevelopment, including adding a volume management requirement to reduce pollutant transport

Would depend on ability of developers to incorporate adequate BMPs on their projects and properly maintain them to sustain removal efficiencies.

Gleason Lake Creek conveys significant phosphorus and sediment loads downstream, and dissolved oxygen can fall below the state standard during low flows.

Rules will be amended to require more stringent pollutant load reduction on new development and redevelopment, including adding a volume management requirement to reduce pollutant transport

Would depend on ability of developers to incorporate adequate BMPs on their projects and properly maintain them to sustain removal efficiencies.

The Gleason Lake Management plan identified some areas of shoreline erosion on Gleason Lake that could be contributing to reductions in lake water clarity and increased pollutant loading

Update the shoreline erosion survey as part of internal load diagnostic and feasibility study and assess impacts on water quality

 

Would depend on extent of problem and willingness of shoreline property owners to implement improvements

Water Quantity

The HHPLS channel erosion survey on Ditch #15 identified five erosion locations, including two that were of a high level of concern.  Gleason Lake outlets through Gleason Creek, and the Upper Watershed Stream Assessment identified five erosion locations on Gleason Creek.  

  • Rules will be amended to require more stringent pollutant load reduction on new development and redevelopment, including adding a volume management requirement.
  • Would depend on ability of developers to incorporate adequate BMPs on their projects and properly maintain them to sustain removal efficiencies.
  • Cooperatively construct regional infiltration improvements to mitigate impact of new runoff from development.
  • Work cooperatively with LGUs to restore spot erosion problems
  • Cooperatively construct stream stabilization project on Ditch #15.
  • Depends on extent of problem and ability to develop cooperative or collaborative improvements.
 
   

The HHPLS identified a number of ponding locations that are predicted to overtop during the 100-year event, as well as others with a minimal amount of freeboard. 

LGUs directed to evaluate these locations as part of their local water management planning.

Completed as LGUs complete their local plans.

Development, redevelopment, and reconstruction in the subwatershed in areas of potential development may increase volume of stormwater runoff from the subwatershed as well as increasing nutrient and sediment loads.

  • Rules will be amended to require more stringent pollutant load reduction on new development and redevelopment, including adding a volume management requirement.
  • Cooperatively construct regional infiltration improvements to mitigate impact of new runoff from development.

 

Would depend on ability of developers to incorporate adequate BMPs on their projects and properly maintain them to sustain removal efficiencies.

 

The HHPLS identified two locations where for both existing and future conditions higher velocities than desired may result in erosive velocities at outlets or culverts.  

LGUs directed to evaluate these locations as part of their local water management planning.

Completed as LGUs complete their local plans.

Wetlands

The subwatershed includes Preserve classification wetlands adjacent to Gleason Lake that provide high to exceptional fish habitat and aesthetic values that should be protected.

 

  • Key Conservation Areas identified that include high-value wetlands.  In key areas, LGUs are required to include in their local plans strategies for conserving these values.

 

  • Ongoing effort that is dependant on property owner willingness to pursue conservation, District budget and staff capacity, and LGU plan completion.

 

  • Rules will be amended to establish management standards based on management classification for impacts to wetlands from development and redevelopment.
  • Implementation of revised rules would help minimize future impacts to the highest-value wetlands while still providing a measure of protection to those that provide mainly downstream resource protection.
 

Wetlands with high to moderate restoration potential should be considered for protection and restoration.

Wetlands identified as being of high to moderate wetland potential would be managed according to a Manage 1 wetland classification if they have been assessed as a Manage 2 or 3.   This would minimize further degradation that might make future restoration more difficult or costly.

No wetlands are identified for restoration in this Plan cycle. 

Ecological Integrity

Few opportunities are available to conserve minimally disturbed landscapes, but there are potential restoration opportunities to improve and increase habitat; native vegetation restoration along the upper watershed channel corridor for streambank stability, erosion control, and habitat connectivity; and urban forest preservation and restoration to increase evapotranspiration and reduce runoff.

 

Key Conservation Areas identified that include high-value wetlands.  In key areas, LGUs are required to include in their local plans strategies for conserving these values.

Ongoing effort that is dependant on property owner willingness to pursue conservation, District budget and staff capacity, and LGU plan completion.

Wetlands with high ecological value are present and those wetlands and associated upland areas should be conserved to preserve their values and create larger areas of ecological value

Key Conservation Areas identified that include high-value wetlands.  In key areas, LGUs are required to include in their local plans strategies for conserving these values.

Ongoing effort that is dependant on property owner willingness to pursue conservation, District budget and staff capacity, and LGU plan completion.

The Gleason Lake fishery was last surveyed in 1996 and revealed a panfish fishery that could be improved through a piscavore stocking program

  • Support the fishery through improvement of water quality, management of aquatic vegetation where internal load management is required, and the promotion of shoreline restoration.
  • Evaluate need for fishery management to control internal phosphorus loading as part of the Gleason Lake diagnostic and feasibility studies.
  • Work cooperatively with the DNR on fishery management issues

Depends on response of natural system to improved water quality

Eurasian water milfoil is present in the lake as is curly leaf pondweed

 

  • Evaluate vegetation management as part of internal load management diagnostic and feasibility study.

Depends on the extent of infestation.  If control of milfoil, CLP and other invasive aquatic vegetation will help achieve internal phosphorus load reduction goals, then a significant improvement can be had through chemical or other control.  If control would not benefit lake water quality, then there would be no improvement.

An aquatic plant survey conducted for the Gleason Lake Management Plan revealed a significant vegetative community dominated by coontail

Periodically update aquatic plant survey

Completion of these surveys would assist in ongoing internal load management

Groundwater

Many of the major wetlands in the subwatershed were identified in the FAW as combination recharge-discharge wetlands.  As development occurs it will be important to maintain runoff and infiltration rates to help maintain hydrology to these wetlands.

 

  • Amend rules to require infiltration or abstraction of the first one inch of rainfall on new permitted development and redevelopment.
  • Identify a network of surficial aquifer monitoring wells across the watershed, monitor groundwater levels and quality.
  • Promote Better Site Design (Low Impact Development) principles for new development that mimic predevelopment hydrologic regime.
  • Infiltration on site will assist in preventing further modification of surficial groundwater recharge and help to maintain wetland hydrologic regimes.
 

Several wetland areas in the Hadley Lake watershed are in highly sensitive aquifer impact areas Several wetland areas in the Hadley Lake watershed are in highly sensitive aquifer impact areas

  • Amend rules to require pretreatment of stormwater discharged to wetlands or infiltration areas in the areas of high aquifer sensitivity.
  • Establish a new District rule that requires an additional level of analysis and review of permitted development and redevelopment where there is a potential for development to adversely impact groundwater connected to a surface water feature.

Will help minimize future impacts to groundwater and provide for proactive management rather than reactive

Almost the entire subwatershed is identified as a Wellhead Protection Area for the City of Plymouth. 

 

Stormwater and groundwater management within those areas will be coordinated with wellhead protection plans.

Will help minimize future impacts to drinking water and provide for proactive management rather than reactive

Table 17.  Summary of metrics to be used in evaluating progress toward Gleason Lake subwatershed goals.

Objective

Metric

Existing

Desired

Location

Water Quality

Phosphorus Loading (lbs annually)

1,309 (Ultimate)

694

Gleason Lake

Water Quantity

Volume Reduction (Acre-feet)

 

51

Watershed-wide

1.5 year discharge (cfs)

53.7

53.7

Watershed-wide

100 year discharge (cfs)

91.2

91.2

Watershed-wide

Ecologic Integrity

Index of Biologic Integrity

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Gleason Lake Creek Reach 5

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Gleason Lake Creek Reach 4

 6.56

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Gleason Lake Creek Reach 3

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Gleason Lake Creek Reach 2

 6.89

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Gleason Lake Creek Reach 1

Stream Visual Assessment Protocol

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Gleason Lake Creek Reach 5

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Gleason Lake Creek Reach 4

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Gleason Lake Creek Reach 3

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Gleason Lake Creek Reach 2

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Gleason Lake Creek Reach 1

Wetlands

Wetland Acreage

471.5

471.5 or greater

Watershed-wide

121.6

121.6 or greater

Preserve

132.0

132.0 or greater

Manage 1

118.8

118.8 or greater

Manage 2

113.4

113.4 or greater

Manage 3

 

 Table 18.   Summary of Gleason Lake subwatershed implementation program.

Item

Description

Estimated Cost

Schedule

Section 3.0 Problems Addressed

MCWD Capital Projects

1

Construct pond at the Gleason Lake inlet.

$287,100

2007

3.1.1,3.1.2, 3.1.3,

3.2.3

2

Regional infiltration

$179,700

2009

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.4.2, 3.5.1

$32,900

2015

3

Internal load management

$35,800

 

2014

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4

MCWD Data Acquisition/Study

1

Identify keystone, umbrella, and indicator species, evaluate habitat, and develop conservation strategies

Part of watershed-wide study

2010 and ongoing

3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4

 

2

Develop infiltration/filtration strategies appropriate to wellhead protection areas and areas of groundwater sensitivity

Part of watershed-wide study

2008

3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3

3

Identify potential locations within the subwatershed for future wetland restoration

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.4.1

MCWD Land Conservation Program

1

Undertake land conservation efforts in accordance with Figure 19

No District priority areas in subwatershed

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2

MCWD Regulatory Program

1

Amend District Rules to increase stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment

Part of watershed-wide effort

2007-2009

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3

2

Amend District Rules to require abstraction of 1” of rainfall  from new development and redevelopment

Part of watershed-wide effort

2007-2009

3.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1

3

Amend District Rules to adopt wetland management rules based on wetland management classification

 

Part of watershed-wide effort

2007-2009

3.1.3, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1

MCWD Hydrodata Program

1

Monitor Gleason Lake and Gleason Creek

Part of watershed-wide hydrologic data program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2

2

Obtain baseline water quality data for Hadley, Kreatz, and Snyder Lakes and update every 3-5 years

Part of watershed-wide hydrologic data program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1, 3.1.2

3

Identify shallow wells to monitor groundwater levels

Part of watershed-wide study

2008 and ongoing

3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1

MCWD Education/Communication Program

1

Provide targeted education materials to key stakeholder groups to meet objectives of plan

Part of watershed-wide education program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

All

2

Provide workshops, seminars, and brown bags for LGU staff, developers, and other interested parties

Part of watershed-wide education program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

All

3

Work cooperatively with the Gleason Lake Association

Part of watershed-wide education program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

All

4

Develop a small grant program to provide financial assistance to property owners desiring to implement BMPs on their property or to install demonstration projects on public property

Part of watershed-wide program

2008 and ongoing

3.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1

MCWD Operations and Maintenance

1

Inspect Gleason Creek and Ditch #15 channel annually

Ongoing activity

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4

2

Monitor high vegetative-diversity wetlands for exotic species

Part of watershed-wide program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.4.1

3

Maintain detention ponds to sustain removal efficiency

Ongoing for existing projects. Incorporate into life-cycle cost of new projects.

As set forth in Cooperative Agreement

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3

Collaborative Projects

1

Construct pond and ditch improvements identified in the Gleason Lake Management Plan

$503,000

Share cost with Plymouth

2011

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3

3.2.1, 3.2.3

2

Construct pond on Ditch #15 upstream of CR 6

$590,300

Share cost with Plymouth

2010

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.3

3

Work cooperatively with cities to identify and repair erosion on Gleason Creek and Ditch #15

Part of watershed-wide program

2008 and ongoing

3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4

4

Turn back County Ditch #15 and #32 to Plymouth and Wayzata, respectively

Ongoing activity

2008

3.2.1