Anda di halaman 1dari 63

(Draft) Lake Management Plan for Mary Lake

Wright County, Minnesota

Revised: October 29 th 2009

Healthy Lakes & Rivers Partnership Committee

Mary Lake Association

1

Draft- Table of Contents Management Plan for Mary Lake

I.

Introduction:

Summary of Healthy Lakes & Rivers Partnership Program

Physical Description of your lake or drainage Watershed size Watershed Hydrology Precipitation Soils Land Use History of development/impacts on your lake

Organizational history

 
  • 1. mission

  • 2. structure

  • 3. accomplishments

II.

Review of historical and existing conditions for each of nine focus areas:

Water Quality Fisheries Management Plans Aquatic vegetation Wildlife Exotic Species Land Use and zoning Managing water surface use conflicts Public water access Organizational Development and Communication

III.

Summary/Conclusion

Outcome of Visioning Session

IV.

Priorities and Action Plans

Appendices

Appendix I:

DNR Land Use of Mary Lake Watershed Map

Appendix II:

DNR Fisheries Management Plan for Mary Lake

Appendix III: DNR Map of Submergent Vegetation, July 10, 2001

Glossary Guide to Common Acronyms and abbreviations

2

Introduction

In April 2009 the Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association was invited to participate in the Initiative Foundation’s Healthy Lakes and Rivers Partnership program along with seven other Lake Associations in Wright County. Under the coordination of Joe Jacobs and the Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District, representatives attended two days of training on strategic planning, communication, and nonprofit group leadership.

Representatives of many state and local agencies, as well as nonprofit organizations also attended the training sessions in order to offer their assistance to each group in developing a strategic Lake Management Plan. The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association was represented at the Healthy Lakes & Rivers training sessions by: Mike Ollig, Tim Sheehan, Tom Anderson, Steve Smock, Dennis Ruchti, Carter Sheehan.

Following the training sessions, each Lake Association held an inclusive community planning / visioning session designed to identify key community concerns, assets, opportunities, and priorities. The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association held this planning / visioning session on September 26th, 2009, facilitated by Don Hickman of the Initiative Foundation’s Healthy Lakes & Rivers Partnership Program. There were 16 people in attendance, with about 90% of the participants describing themselves as year round residents. Details of the public input received at this session are provided within this plan.

This document is intended to create a record of historic and existing conditions and influences on Mary Lake, and to identify the goals of the Mary Lake community. Ultimately it is meant to also help prioritize goals, and guide citizen action and engagement in the priority action areas. Clearly state agencies, local units of government, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers have a vital role and responsibility in managing surface waters and other natural resources, but above all else this Lake Management Plan is intended to be an assessment of what we as citizens can influence, what our desired outcomes are, and how we will participate in shaping our own destiny.

This Lake Management Plan is intended to be a “living document;” as new or better information becomes available, as we accomplish our goals or discover that alternative strategies are needed, it is our intent to update this plan so that it continues to serve as a useful guide to future leaders.

In discussing lake management issues, it is impossible to avoid all scientific or technical terms. We tried to express our goals, measures of success, and other themes as simply and clearly as possible, and have included a glossary of common limnological terms at the end of the plan to assist the reader. Limnology is the state of lake conditions and behavior.

Finally, we would like to thank the funders of the Healthy Lakes & Rivers Partnership program for Wright County, including the McKnight Foundation, Laura Jane Musser Trust, Xcel Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, McDowall Company, the Cass County Water Plan, Lake Hubert Conservation Association, Portage-Crooked Lakes Association, and the Sibley Lake Association of Wright County, the Ann Lake Sportsmen’s Club of Kennebec County, various staff from the Initiative Foundation, and over thirty generous individuals.

3

Physical Characteristics and location of Mary Lake

Mary Lake (#86-0193) is located in Wright County, immediately southeast of the City of

Howard Lake, MN.

Mary Lake has a surface area of 196 acres and a maximum depth of 47 feet.

Approximately 84 acres (43 percent) of lake is within the littoral zone (having a depth of less

than 15 feet). Water clarity averages 6.5 feet.

Physical Characteristics and location of Mary Lake Mary Lake (#86-0193) is located in Wright Co unty,

4

Water Level:

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters has monitored Mary Lake

levels in cooperation with volunteer readers since 1970. During the period of record the lake

level has varied 2.85 feet based on 286 readings (through November 2008).

In general, water

levels decline from May through September, with the exception of a slight increase in mid-July in response to several storms.

Highest Recorded (feet/date) Lowest Recorded (feet/date) 1,008.57 ft (Aug. 8, 2001) Ordinary High Water (feet) 1,011.42
Highest Recorded
(feet/date)
Lowest Recorded
(feet/date)
1,008.57 ft
(Aug. 8, 2001)
Ordinary High
Water (feet)
1,011.42
1,011.4
(June 25, 2002)

Precipitation

In 1996 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency conducted a Lake Assessment Program (LAP) study of nearby Ann Lake, and noted that in this part of the state average annual precipitation

ranges between 28 and 30 inches and evaporation averages around 37 inches. Summer (May to September) precipitation averages about 18-19 inches.

Soils

Watershed

The predominant land use in the watershed is agriculture. The percentage of cropland or pastures (68.7 percent) is above the Central Hardwood Forests eco-regional range of 22-50 percent.” An analysis of existing land uses was prepared by DNR and is included in Appendix I.

Mary Lake has a relatively small watershed (269.75 acres) for a 196 acre lake.

5

Introduction/History of your Lake/River Association

The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association was first incorporated in 1987 as a non-profit organization. After a brief interruption the association was reorganized in 1993 and has been active ever since.

The original organizers were:

Michael Thoennes

President

Wes Reavely

Vice President

Bob Kurvers

Treasurer

LeAnn Hirsch

Secretary

Terry Allen

Director

Shirley Riordan

Director

Marvin Hirsch

Director

In 1987 dues were $12 per year. There were 33 homeowner’s present at that first meeting. While the association was first formed by area lake homeowners, it has since grown to include landowners within the Lake Mary watershed, sportsmen, and anyone interested in the health and water quality of Lake Mary. Today yearly membership dues are $30. There are approximately 50 active contributing members. The money that is taken in is used for water testing costs, a joint venture buffer zone program, and the annual picnic. Over the years our association has worked closely with the Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD), the Minnesota DNR, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association has come a long way since 1987. Like many organizations it has had its starts and stops along the way. However, someone has always stepped in to help keep our association going and growing. Some years we have seen great progress. Other years we have been able to hang-on to the progress we have made. The reason we have been successful is we have been blessed with many gifted leaders who sacrificed personal time for the betterment of the water quality of Lake Mary. It is important to recognize and thank these folks for the record.

Bill & Helen Mosher Gloria & Bob Wynnemer Mike Thoennes Bob & Patti Kurvers Rosie Rathmanner John & Kay Simons Doreen Birkholz Bill & Diane Michel Tom & Bev Anderson Stephanie & Larry Jensen Terry Allen Gary & Marlene Wilder Jim Stender Dan & Teresa Larson

Steve & Wendy Smock Tim Sheehan Carl & Pam Luckett Paul & Rita Clark Andy & Sue Jude Ray & Joyce Kohler Mae Stifter Jeff & Lori Sandahl Jerry Elliot Wes Reavely Shirley Riordan Diane & Doug Remer Gloria Dotzenroth Stan & Sue Bebo

6

Mike Ollig Dennis & Linda Ruchti Tony & Shirley Remer Carol & Bernie Ballantyne Mary Kay Deidrick Jim Stubbe Mark & Charlene Thomton Brad & Michelle Fleischacker Roman & Jeanine Widmer LeAnn Hirsch Marvin Hirsch Dana & Marcie Allen Harvey & Joyce Nowak

Mission Statement

The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association is a group of concerned citizens whose fundamental goal is to improve Lake Mary’s water quality and to protect our valuable resources. Lake Mary is both an area and a community.

We promote this in many ways:

We foster an increase in lake quality in an environmentally safe manner

We promote interpersonal relationships and friendliness

We respect each others property rights and privacy

We inform and solicit opinions from our membership at our annual meeting

We monitor Lake Mary’s water quality

We demonstrate that Lake Mary is a great place to live, fish and recreate

Before starting to go through our association’s history in the pursuit of improving water quality, two of the greatest benefits from involvement in the Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association should be noted; getting to know your neighbors and making friendships. The largest social event we have is the Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association’s annual picnic. We have held our picnic at the Winsted Sportsman’s Club on Lake Mary every year since 1992. This has been primarily a pot luck type affair, with the association chipping in for the main course. Some years we have had barbequed hot dogs, hamburgers and brats. The last few years’ fish fries have been very popular. We distribute literature regarding safe boating and fishing. In addition, we have distributed useful information on the creation of water quality buffer zones areas near Lake Mary’s shores. During the meeting our association supplies updates on projects and water sample results for the previous year. We also get feedback from the community for future projects or concerns.

.
.

In 2006 we even had a pretty good bluegrass band donate their services. Thank you to everyone who has help in this fun event over the years.

7

Since 1993 we have had an ongoing newsletter which has helped us communicate with seasonal as well as year round homeowner’s. This has been a focal point in keeping our association alive and people informed. The people (editors) who have volunteered should be recognized for their efforts. It takes an incredible amount of time and effort to put a newsletter together. The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association sincerely thanks them for their work.

Mike Thoennes

(1993-2002)

Gloria Wynnemer

(2003-2006)

Diane Remer

(2007-Present)

Originally we delivered our newsletters by hand (house to house) plus U.S. Mail & email list. Thanks to Diane Remer today we have an Internet Blog Hwww.lakemaryassociation.blogspot.com

Some of the other activities our association has been involved with:

Lake Mary area wide garage sales – Since (1993)

Wright County Planning & Zoning Issues (1994)

Lake Mary spring garbage pick-up day (1993)

Neighborhood Watch Program through the Wright County Sheriff’s Department (1994)

Lake Mary’s annual (Ice Out) raffle. Funds used for Walleye stocking (1999)

Lake Mary Association’s bi-annual walleye stocking program (1999)

Victor Township Road Maintenance & Zoning Issues (1994)

Lake water level monitoring (1997)

Precipitation monitoring (1997)

Non-Point Source Pollution Map Study (1997)

Aluminum cans recycle project. Funds used for Walleye stocking (2008)

1987

From the association’s first meeting in 1987 septic systems in the Lake Mary watershed have been taken very seriously. This is an issue that each homeowner must be familiar with.

Our association has recommended and encouraged scheduled system maintenance. Septic system tanks need to be pumped out regularly to insure proper function. We have sent out information via our newsletters and recommended websites which inform people of how to properly maintain a septic system. Information regarding septic systems can be found at the University of Minnesota Extension Service website: Hwww.extension.umn.eduH or Wright County Planning & Zoning (763-682-7338). The upgrading of septic systems is mandated by Wright County Planning and Zoning when a

property is sold.

Fortunately for Lake Mary, of the 70 properties located around the lake, 55%

have been upgraded to the most current regulations since 1996. Another 25% of these properties on the lake have been checked and passed county zoning inspection and were certified since the 1980s. A properly maintained septic system works. It is each person’s responsibility to be educated on this subject and follow through on regular maintenance.

8

This picture shows concrete exte nsions and a manho le cover being added to a septic

This picture shows concrete extensions and a manhole cover being added to a septic system tank. This allows easy access to pumping the tank which is recommended every three years.

This picture shows concrete exte nsions and a manho le cover being added to a septic

Owner’s Guides are available at (Hwww.extension.umn.eduH)

9

1995

In 1995 our association started officially monitoring lake water quality. At that time chairperson Gloria Wynnemer signed our association up with the Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP) through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. This is a great program in which members of our association use a Secchi Disk to measure water clarity. The disk is white in color and approximately 6 inches in diameter. It is connected to a rope which has marked intervals in feet. The disk is lowered into the water with the rope until it cannot be seen. This depth is then recorded. We measure the depth of light penetration through the lake water which gives us an idea of water clarity / quality. Measurements are taken several times a month between May and September. At the end of the year the recorded information is sent to the MPCA to be entered into the state data base.

1995 In 1995 our association started officially monitori ng lake water quality. At that time chairperson
1995 In 1995 our association started officially monitori ng lake water quality. At that time chairperson

This has been an accurate and inexpensive way to measure water clarity. The data for Lake Mary can be found on the MPCA website: Hclemp@pca.state.mn.usH Lake Mary’s ID# is (86-0193)

Some of the folks who have donated their time in the CLMP program:

Andy Jude – Mike Ollig – Dennis Ruchti – John Simons Steve Smock -- Gloria Wynnemer

______________________________________________________________________________

10

1997

In 1997 the MPCA did a Lake Assessment of Lake Mary. This was requested by our association to get a better idea about the existing water quality of Lake Mary at that time. The results are as follows.

1997 In 1997 the MPCA did a Lake Assessment of Lake Mary. This was requested by

11

MPCA Lake Mary Assessments Notes 1997

MPCA Lake Mary Assessments Notes 1997 12

12

13
13

13

In addition to the (MPCA) Lake Mary Assessment Notes done in 1997, our association also did an independent water quality test on 3 areas of Lake Mary. Braun Intertec is a noted water testing facility and we were lucky enough at that time to have one of our board members working for them. The results are as follows.

In addition to the (MPCA) Lake Mary Assessment Notes done in 1997 , our association also

14

15
15
15

15

1998

In 1998 the Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association was contacted by Wright County (SWCD) regarding a program they were offering. Wright County would pay for the replacement of open surface field tiles in agricultural areas with Blind Surface Inlets or (French Drains). With the approval of area landowners four open field tiles were replaced with French Drains on the southwest side of Lake Mary’s watershed. The actual French Drain locations can be seen in the Water considerations of Appendix II of this document. This has been a win - win situation in that there is filtering of surface water before it enters Lake Mary in these areas without hindering agricultural work. Association Chairperson Dennis Ruchti was a primary diving force for this successful project.

See the installation process of French Drains over the next two pages.

1998 In 1998 the Lake Mary Homeowner’s Associat ion was contacted by Wright County (SWCD) regarding

Open Field Tile Surface Inlet

16

Trench is dug down to tile level, approxima tely 3 -feet. A filter “sock” is attached

Trench is dug down to tile level, approximately 3 -feet. A filter “sock” is attached

Trench is dug down to tile level, approxima tely 3 -feet. A filter “sock” is attached

Pea rock is installed above the filtering sock

17

Phosphates and nutrients are filtere d before entering Lake Mary. Win – Win Situation. 2002 In

Phosphates and nutrients are filtered before entering Lake Mary. Win – Win Situation.

2002

In 2002 our association took another large step in lake water quality management. To gain more detailed information our association became involved with lake water sampling. This is another great program provided by Wright County Water Management.

It is the Wright County Cooperative Lake Monitoring Program. Many lakes in the county participate in this program. It costs our association $235 per year. This program gives a more detailed measurement of water quality then the Secchi Disk readings alone. Our association members take actual water samples (monthly) between May and September of each year. The water samples are taken from Lake Mary and shipped within 24 hours (on ice) through Wright County to RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc. in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota for testing.

Lake water samples are tested for:

Total Phosphorous:

Growth limiting nutrients

Chlorophyll a:

The green pigment in plants, essential to photosynthesis

Secchi Disk

Measures the depth of light penetration in Lake Mary.

18

This data is then recorded in the RMB Labs data base. We create a historical data base for Lake Mary where this information can be used for yearly monitoring and long term trend test analysis. With this information a detailed picture of Lake Mary’s Trophic Status Index (TSI) is created. This measures the water quality health of Lake Mary. The gaining of accurate data to guide us in our number one goal of improving water quality is an invaluable tool. Test results for 2009 are as follows.

TSI Lab Data TP ChlA Secchi TSI TSI Date Time Site Sampler Secchi TSI Avg. Code
TSI
Lab
Data
TP
ChlA
Secchi
TSI
TSI
Date
Time
Site Sampler
Secchi
TSI Avg.
Code
Source
ug/L
ug/L
Ft.
Phos.
ChlAL
Ft.
12:20
Dennis
RMB
H5/17/2009
201
96840
5
23
7
27
61
49
46
PM
Ruchti
Lab
12:30
Dennis
RMB
H6/14/2009
201
100172
16
5
12
44
46
41
44
PM
Ruchti
Lab
12:00
Dennis and
RMB
H7/19/2009
201
104605
25
9
11
51
52
43
49
PM
Linda Ruchti
Lab
1:42
Dennis and
RMB
H8/16/2009
201
108119
18
8
9
46
51
45
47
PM
Linda Ruchti
Lab
1:00
Dennis and
RMB
H9/20/2009
201
111699
20
5
9
47
46
45
46
PM
Linda Ruchti
Lab
Annual Mean
16.8
10
9.6
43
51
44
46

Lake Mary water sampling data for 2009

The Lake Mary water sample database can be accessed by going to RMB Labs website at:

Hwww.rmbel.infoH

Lake Mary’s ID # is (86-0193).

Both the (MPCA) Secchi Disk readings and the water sampling program through Wright County

Water Management have helped our progress as an organization. Each year there is a mandatory training workshop for the Wright County Cooperative Lake Monitoring Program. This is attended by representatives from our lake association to assure proper techniques are implemented in collecting, storing and shipping water samples.

The people who have been involved with this program over the years have been:

Andy Jude

Mike Ollig

Dennis Ruchti

Roman Widmer

Steve Smock

19

Chairperson Dennis Ruchti take s a water sample in 2004 Water samples are marked and sent

Chairperson Dennis Ruchti takes a water sample in 2004

Chairperson Dennis Ruchti take s a water sample in 2004 Water samples are marked and sent

Water samples are marked and sent to RMB Labs, Detroit Lakes Minnesota for testing

20

2004

Separate from the Wright County Cooperative Lake Monitoring Program our association has also conducted independent water sample checks. We check for Fecal Coliform in Lake Mary. Fecal Coliform are microorganisms that live in the intestines of man and warm / cold blooded animals. A subgroup of this is Fecal Coliform bacteria. The presence of large colonies of Fecal Coliform bacteria in a lake indicates that water has been contaminated and could make people, animals or pets sick. Water samples were taken from 5 locations on Lake Mary in 2004 & 2005 and sent to RMB Labs for testing. Fortunately our tests showed completely safe levels.

In 2004 we again entered into another program through Wright County (SWCD) to help improve water quality. This program is called the Joint Venture Program. With this program our association was able to work with an area agricultural land owner and Wright County to have one acre of land “set aside” around an agricultural field tile drainage area. This field tile drains a relatively large area in the southwest portion of Lake Mary’s watershed. Our association and Wright County each contribute to a 5 year funding agreement which pays the landowner to “set aside” this one acre area. The area was then planted by our association members with Prairie Grass. This is now a fine vegetative buffer zone which absorbs phosphorous and nutrients before they enter Lake Mary. The land owner has recently agreed to another 5 year joint venture contract as of 2009 and is happy with the program. Thank You to Mark Reiland and his dad Charlie for their concern and efforts towards Lake Mary water quality.

2004 Separate from the Wright Count y Cooperative Lake Monitoring Pr ogram our association has also

One Acre Prairie Grass Buffer Zone. Light colored circular area shown above.

21

RMB Labs Trend Analysis Report

2002—2009

RMB Labs Trend Analysis Report 2002—2009 According to RMB Labs trend test analysis between 2002 and
RMB Labs Trend Analysis Report 2002—2009 According to RMB Labs trend test analysis between 2002 and

According to RMB Labs trend test analysis between 2002 and 2009 the probability that a true significant trend exists is 95%. Mean Total Phosphorous and Tropic Status Index levels are decreasing, which indicate improving water quality. It is realized that many factors go into a trend analysis. The short period of time of this analysis has to be considered. The amount of rain during these years is a factor. Unknown yearly levels of fertilizers and phosphorus entering the lake are another. However with all the programs our association has been involved with we like to think we are going in the right direction.

22

This brings the Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association to where we are today, October 2009. We again follow our Mission Statement and the goal of improved water quality. This guides us to our participation with seven other area lakes in Wright County to the Healthy Lakes and Rivers Partnership Program sponsored by Wright County Water Management and the Initiative Foundation. Participating in the Healthy Lakes and Rivers Partnership Program has helped our organization further identify and quantify new goals and concerns. Creating an official Lake Management Plan has helped our association look into the future. It has also allowed us to look back and appreciate what we already have accomplished and make a permanent record of those accomplishments.

Our Healthy Lakes & Rivers Partnership Program task force is:

Mike Ollig

Steve Smock

Roman Widmer

Tim Sheehan

Dennis Ruchti

John Simons

Carter Sheehan

Tom Anderson

Carl Luckett

In the process of creating this lake plan our association conducted a visioning session on Saturday September 26, 2009. At that meeting new goals were identified and discussed. The content of our visioning session is recorded in the Summery of Visioning / Planning Session of this document.

The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association would also like to thank and recognize some of the people at the Wright County (SWCD) & the Minnesota DNR for all their help. Their patience and guidance has really made a difference in lake water quality and the quality of life in Wright County.

Kerry Saxton

Wright County (SWCD)

Joe Jacobs

Wright County (SWCD)

Brad Wozney

Past member, Wright County (SWCD)

Paul Diedrich

Minnesota DNR (Montrose Office)

Looking forward whatever direction our association takes, there are two programs that should be continued and funded. The taking of water samples through the Wright County Cooperative Lake Monitoring Program is critical. We also must continue the Citizens Lake Measurement Program (CLMP) through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The collection of water samples and (CLMP) measurements writes the historical story of the water quality of Lake Mary. It is at the heart of what we do. Without it we have no reference point. We also must continue to promote septic system maintenance, homeowner shoreline and agricultural vegetative buffer zones. With Lake Mary’s small watershed every project that reduces phosphorus from entering into Lake Mary improves water quality.

Currently Lake Mary’s Mean average Trophic Status Index is 49 (Mesotrophic). With continued programs we are already involved with and the addition of new ways to reduce total phosphorous a long term goal would be to lower Lake Mary’s TSI to 40 or less. Lake Mary would then be considered an Oligotrophic lake. Oligotrophic lakes are among the cleanest lakes in Minnesota. It should be noted that Lake Mary’s Average TSI for 2008 was 44.3

23

1.

Water Quality

Since 1995, citizen volunteers from Mary Lake have participated in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP), recording secchi disk transparency – a measure of water clarity. Andy Jude, Mike Ollig, John Simons, John Wurm, and Gloria Wynnemer, have been responsible for these efforts in recent years.

On the MPCA’s web-site link, “Lake Water Quality Database,” additional water chemistry data is reported. The MPCA’s “Environmental Database Access” system also provides additional water chemistry data which includes total phosphorus concentrations, as well as other data.

One application of secchi disk transparency data is to convert the clarity measurements into a Carlson Trophic Status Index (TSI) score. The Carlson Trophic Status Index (TSI) is a tool used to summarize several measurements of water quality into one index value, which can be used to compare a lake to other lakes, or to historic/future data as a measure of degradation or improvement. In many ways, the index can be viewed as a measure of the potential for algal productivity. Since most people value lakes with low algae productivity, the lower the TSI value, the healthier the lake. Specifically:

TSI Range

Trophic Status

Characteristics

0-40

Oligotrophic

Clean Lake

41-50

Mesotrophic

Temporary algae & aquatic plant problems

50-70

Eutrophic

Persistent algae & aquatic plant problems

Greater than 70

Hypereutrophic

Extreme algae & aquatic plant problems

24

Based on the limited data provided on the MPCA website, an average concentration (or depth) for the key TSI parameters can be determined, and the associated TSI score calculated.

Average TSI Measurements for Mary Lake, 1981-2008.

Year

Chlorophyll a

Total Phosphorus

Secchi Depth

Average TSI

(µg/L)

(µg/L)

(feet)

1981

30.4

43.0

4.3

59.6

1995

---

---

10.2

44.7

1996

9.0

81.0

9.4

46.1

1997

---

---

8.2

47.9

1998

---

---

6.6

50.4

1999

---

---

6.3

50.8

2000

---

---

9.3

45.2

2001

9.3

42.5

9.1

46.9

2002

7.2

27.8

6.9

50.1

2003

11.4

30.6

6.8

50.1

2004

11.6

27.4

7.6

48.7

2005

12.8

27.2

9.2

48.0

2006

14.3

27.3

7.9

48.4

2007

7.0

25.0

8.8

46.6

2008

7.6

22.6

11.2

44.3

These data suggest that water quality in Mary Lake routinely exhibits conditions in the Upper mesotrophic (above 40 but below 50) or lower eutrophic range (a score below 70 but above 50). A graph of all TSI data on record is presented on this page.

Based on the limited data provided on the MPCA we bsite, an average concentration (or depth)

25

The graph above shows the long-term trend in Trophic Status Index values the years for which

The graph above shows the long-term trend in Trophic Status Index values the years for which data are available for Mary Lake. The variation observed within a single year reflects naturally occurring impacts of temperature, precipitation and water level; the important “take home message” of this graph is that the data suggests range around mesotrophic conditions since data were first collected in 1981.

26

A second method of assessing water quality and determining whether your water body is the “best that it can be” is to compare it to other lakes of similar morphology, geology, and land uses. The table below is adapted from the MN Pollution Control Agency “Environmental Data Access” database, and compares observed surface water results in Mary Lake to common water quality ranges for lakes within the Central Hardwood Forest Eco-region.

Average Summer Water Quality and Trophic Status Indicators

Parameter

Typical Range:

Mary Lake

Central Hardwood Forest Eco-region (25 th -75 th Percentile)

(#86-0193)

 

23 – 50

33.0

+ 26.0

Total Phosphorus (μg/L) Chlorophyll a (μg/L) mean

5

– 22

10.4 + 6.1

Chlorophyll a (μg/L) maximum

7

– 37

 

30.4

 

4.9 – 10.5

8.3

+ 3.1

Secchi disc (feet) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L)

< 0.60 – 1.2

0.95

+ 0.23

Nitrite + Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L)

 

<0.01

0.01

+ 0.01

 

75-150

126.6 + 11.5

Alkalinity (mg/L) Color (Pt-Color units)

10 – 20

8.3

+ 2.9

pH

8.6 – 8.8

8.5

+ 0.3

Chloride (mg/L)

4

– 10

 

17

   

2 – 6

3.9

+ 0.4

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Conductivity (μmhos/cm)

300 – 400

305 + 7

A third application of the data is to compare phosphorus concentrations to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency water quality criterion for swimming and other recreational contact. The Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion phosphorus criteria level of 30 micrograms per liter (µg/L) serves as the upper threshold for full-support for swimmable use. This concentration corresponds to Carlson's TSI values of 54 or lower.

Full-support of swimmable use is set at slightly lower phosphorus concentration of 40 micrograms per liter, which ensures that conditions associated with "impaired swimming" would occur less than ten percent of the summer. Phosphorus concentrations above criteria levels would result in greater frequencies of nuisance algal blooms and increased frequencies of "impaired swimming." The upper threshold for partial-support of swimmable use was set at 57 Carlson TSI units for the CHF ecoregion.

The Central Hardwood Forests eco-region phosphorus criteria level of 45-50 micrograms per liter (µg/L) serves as the upper threshold for full-support (partial) swimmable use. This concentration corresponds to Carlson's TSI values of 57-59.

Phosphorus levels above 50 mg/L would result in a classification of “non support” for the swimmable classification.

27

The MPCA uses a summary based on available summer (June through September) data in STORET (STORET is the national water quality data repository developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to calculate achievement in this area. All water quality data collected by MPCA or received from external groups is placed in STORET) collected between 1981 and 2008. The following summary is presented on the MPCA website:

Name

Mean Total

Carlson’s Trophic

MPCA Swimming

Phosphorus

Stratus Index

Criterion 1

(µg/l)

(phosphorus)

Mary Lake

26.0

51

Full Support

Based on the phosphorus data presented above, Mary Lake fully supports recreational use and swimmable contact.

28

2. Fisheries:

1BStatus of the Mary Lake fishery (as of August 21, 2001) according to the MN Dept. of Natural Resources fisheries summary:

Mary Lake is located in south-central Wright County. It is 180 acres in size, with a maximum depth of 46 feet. The lake has an access owned by a local club, and it is open to public use. A full resurvey was conducted during 2001, which included electrofishing, gillnetting, trapnetting, seining, and a vegetation survey. Specialized sampling was also done at ice-out to assess game fish populations, particularly northern pike.

Northern pike is a primary management species for Mary Lake, and a northern pike spawning area was used until the early 1990's. Catch rates of pike in previous surveys have been variable, and were low in 2001. However, average size was high (4.4 pounds), with some pike as large as 32 inches. An estimate of the pike population was made following the netting at ice-out. For pike 20 - 32 inches, there were approximately 240 individuals, or 1.3 per acre. Lower density pike populations tend to produce larger individuals. Practicing catch-and-release, especially of large pike, is important to maintain the favorable size structure of the population.

Mary Lake has also been managed for walleye. Prior to the early 1990's the lake was stocked regularly by the state DNR. Because the lake lacks a state-owned public access, however, walleye are now stocked by the lake association. Fingerlings were stocked most recently in 1999 and 2001. The catch rate in 2001 was typical for lakes similar to Mary. Most of the walleye sampled during the ice-out survey came from the 1989 to 1991 year classes (21-26 inches), and were growing slowly. Walleye sampled during the summer netting were generally smaller, and many came from the 1999 stocking (10-13 inches). With lower numbers of northern pike than in the past, walleye stocking may now be more successful. However, low numbers of yellow perch will probably continue to limit growth rates of walleye.

A large number of black crappie were sampled during the ice-out assessment, and many were large. Black crappie ranged in length from 4 inches to nearly 16 inches, with a mean length of 8 inches. An especially strong 1998 year class was evident (7 inches, on average). Catch rates during the summer survey of Mary Lake were much lower than at ice-out, and lower than in previous summer surveys. However, crappie are often difficult to sample during summer netting, and the 2001 catch rate may underestimate their abundance. Growth rates for black crappie appeared to be above average. White crappie were also sampled during the ice-out and summer surveys, in lower numbers than black crappie. Some of the largest crappie sampled during the assessment may have actually been hybrids of the two species. Hybrid crappie typically have higher growth rates, and sometimes reach a larger size.

The catch rate of bluegill during the summer survey was lower than in previous years, but within the normal range for the lake class. Bluegill ranged from 3 to 7 inches, with a mean length of 5 inches. The average size of bluegills sampled during the ice-out netting was higher, with several individuals larger than 8 inches. Growth rates of bluegill appeared slow.

29

The population of largemouth bass in Mary Lake appeared large and healthy in 2001. During spring electrofishing, bass were captured at a rate well above average for the Montrose area. Nearly half of the bass sampled were larger than 12 inches, and several were larger than 15 inches. During the ice-out netting, bass up to 20 inches were caught. Growth of bass appeared slow compared to other lakes in the area, and some may be 15 years or older. Catch-and-release is important to maintain high numbers of larger bass, given the length of time required for bass to reach that size.

Other species sampled during the 2001 surveys included black bullhead, brown bullhead, yellow bullhead, common carp, hybrid sunfish, green sunfish, pumpkinseed sunfish, golden shiner, spottail shiner, and white sucker.

For Wright County the DNR Area Fisheries Manager is Paul Diedrich, MN DNR Fisheries, .7372 SW State Hwy 25, Montrose, MN 55363, and phone: 763-675-3301, e-mail:

Hpaul.diedrich@dnr.state.mn.usH. Mr. Diedrich and his colleagues have prepared a fisheries management plan for Mary Lake. The long range fisheries goal of the DNR plan for Mary Lake is to:

Provide northern pike abundance at 4-5/gill net with an average size greater than two pounds.

The DNR plan also notes the following limiting factors:

Sunfish are small. The access is owned by the Winsted Sportsmen’s Club. Submerged vegetation grows abundantly on the north side of the lake. The lake is highly developed.

The lake has good water quality. The results of water testing in 1996 by the Pollution Control Agency showed total phosphorous, chlorophyll a, and secchi disk were .027 ppm, .009 ppm, and 10.5', respectively. Carlson’s trophic status indices for the parameters were 52, 52, and 43, respectively.

The entire DNR Fisheries Management Plan for Mary Lake is included as Appendix II of this Lake Management Plan (Appendix II).

Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association Fisheries Notes (2009)

After a 7 year break, the Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association took up the duties of walleye stocking Lake Mary in 1999. Prior to this the Minnesota DNR had carried out walleye stocking. The DNR recommends that Lake Mary be stocked with fingerlings; not small fry. Fingerlings seem to thrive better in Lake Mary. The DNR also recommends Lake Mary be stocked every other year with 2000 to 4000 fingerlings. The stocking takes place in the fall (after Labor Day). Before the stocking takes place our association applies for a Live Fish Transportation Importation and Stocking Permit. After completion of stocking, the permit is returned to the DNR where the information is recorded. The hatchery we use for our fingerlings has been Rademacker Ponds in Waconia. The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association along with the Winsted Sportsman’s Club and the Watertown Rod & Gun Club continues to stock Lake Mary bi-annually with 6 inch fingerling walleye. As of 2009 these organizations have introduced over 12000 fingerling walleye into Lake Mary. Catch and release is strongly encouraged.

30

3.

Aquatic Vegetation

In all your discussions, distinguish between beneficial vegetation (wildlife or fish habitat, vegetative buffer zones, native species) and nuisance (impediments to recreation) or exotic/invasive (biological “threats” such as Eurasian milfoil, purple loosestrife, curlyleaf pondweed). It is also important to remember that control of the nuisance kind of vegetation may have adverse impacts on the fishery/wildlife end of things; it is very hard to please everyone. By Minnesota Rule, aesthetics are not part of the definition of nuisances. Recreational impairment is the standard used to define nuisance conditions related to aquatic plants.

Brittany Hummel is now the DNR’s Invasive Species Specialist, 1200 Warner Rd., R3 - Central Region HQ, Saint Paul 55106, 651-259-5828, HBrittany.Hummel@dnr.state.mn.usH. She can either assist you directly or st eer you to the staff that can.

Paul Diedrich is the DNR’s Area Fisheries Supervisor, 7372 State Hwy 25 SW, Montrose, MN 55363, Telephone: 763.675.3301, e-mail: Hpaul.diedrich@dnr.state.mn.usH. Paul has maps locating and quantifying submersed, emergent and floatingleaf pondweeds, as well as curlyleaf pondweed

Audrey Kuchinski, DNR’s Aquatic Plant Manager, Little Falls, (320/616-2496, ext. 3) has a record of permits issued for the control of aquatic plant species when they grow in nuisance proportions. She is able to consult with groups to determine their treatment needs and may be able to recommend goals for beneficial vegetation.

On July 10, 2001 the DNR mapped emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation (mostly cattails, pondweeds and coon tail sp.) Mary Lake (Appendix III).

Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association Aquatic Vegetation Notes

(2009)

The Lake Mary Homeowners Association took a great interest in the DNR Lake Survey done in 2001. This survey identified the dominant submersed plant species, based on Lake Survey transects. This information was then mapped by GPS. See Appendix III. The survey was prepared by DNR Fisheries in Montrose, Minnesota. Curly Leaf pond weed seemed to be in abundance in various areas of the lake, especially on the north side of Lake Mary, where there is a shallow area approximately 1 to 5 feet in depth.

As of 2001 no evidence of Eurasian Watermilfoil was found. This is a concern of the Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association as there are many lakes in our area with this evasive submersed species.

A Point Intercept Map is being considered to upgrade and identify our information regarding dominant submersed plant species in Lake Mary.

31

4.

Wildlife

The “Blue Book,” Developing a Lake Management Plan notes that:

“Minnesota’s lakes are home to many species of wildlife. From our famous loons and bald eagles to muskrats, otters, and frogs, wildlife is an important part of our relationship with lakes. In fact, Minnesota’s abundant wildlife can be attributed largely to our wealth of surface water. From small marshes to large lakes, these waters are essential to the survival of wildlife.

The most important wildlife habitat begins at the shoreline. The more natural the shoreline, with trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, the more likely that wildlife will be there. Just as important is the shallow water zone close to shore. Cattail, bulrush, and wild rice along the shoreline provide both feeding and nesting areas for wildlife. Loons, black terns and red-necked grebes are important Minnesota birds that are particularly affected by destruction of this vegetation. Underwater vegetation is also important to wildlife for many portions of their life cycle, including breeding and rearing of their young.

The primary agency charged with the management of Minnesota’s wildlife is the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Section. For Mary Lake, the DNR Area Wildlife Manager is Fred Bengtson, Assistant Wildlife Manager, St. Cloud, Phone: 320-255-4279, e-mail:

Hfred.bengtson@dnr.state.mn.us The Minnesota County Biological Survey has completed the survey for Wright County.

Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association Wildlife Notes (2009)

Great Blue Herons, Eagles, Loons and Seagulls have been observed in the Lake Mary Watershed yearly. At times Cormorants and Pelicans are also seen on the lake. Many species of duck and geese are observed during migration season. Several local people on Lake Mary supply the Wood Ducks shelter during their travels with Wood Duck houses. Wild turkey, pheasant, fox, raccoon and deer are also a common part of Lake Mary’s wildlife habitat.

32

5.

Exotic Species

Background

"Exotic" species -- organisms introduced into habitats where they are not native -- are severe

world-wide agents of habitat alternation and degradation. A major cause of biological diversity loss throughout the world, they are considered "biological pollutants."

Introducing species accidentally or intentionally, from one habitat into another, is risky business. Freed from the predators, parasites, pathogens, and competitors that have kept their numbers in check, species introduced into new habitats often overrun their new home and crowd out native species. In the presence of enough food and favorable environment, their numbers will explode. Once established, exotics rarely can be eliminated.

Most species introductions are the work of humans. Some introductions, such as carp and purple loosestrife, are intentional and do unexpected damage. But many exotic introductions are accidental. The species are carried in on animals, vehicles, ships, commercial goods, produce, and even clothing. Some exotic introductions are ecologically harmless and some are beneficial. But other exotic introductions are harmful to recreation and ecosystems. They have been caused the extinction of native species -- especially those of confined habitats such as islands and aquatic ecosystems.

The recent development of fast ocean freighters has greatly increased the risk of new exotics in the Great Lakes region. Ships take on ballast water in Europe for stability during the ocean crossing. This water is pumped out when the ships pick up their loads in Great Lakes ports. Because the ships make the crossing so much faster now, and harbors are often less polluted, more exotic species are likely to survive the journey and thrive in the new waters.

Many of the plants and animals described in this guide arrived in the Great Lakes this way. But they are now being spread throughout the continent's interior in and on boats and other recreational watercraft and equipment. This guide is designed to help water recreationalists recognize these exotics and help stop their further spread.

Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Eurasian watermilfoil was accidentally introduced to North America from Europe. Spread westward into inland lakes primarily by boats and also by water birds, it reached Midwestern states between the 1950s and 1980s.

In nutrient-rich lakes it can form thick underwater stands of tangled stems and vast mats of vegetation at the water's surface. In shallow areas the plant can interfere with water recreation such as boating, fishing, and swimming. The plant's floating canopy can also crowd out important native water plants.

A key factor in the plant's success is its ability to reproduce through stem fragmentation and runners. A single segment of stem and leaves can take root and form a new colony. Fragments clinging to boats and trailers can spread the plant from lake to lake. The mechanical clearing of aquatic plants for beaches, docks, and landings creates thousands of new stem fragments. Removing native vegetation crates perfect habitat for invading Eurasian watermilfoil.

Eurasian watermilfoil has difficulty becoming established in lakes with well established populations of native plants. In some lakes the plant appears to coexist with native flora and has little impact on fish and other aquatic animals.

33

Likely means of spread: Milfoil may become entangled in boat propellers, or may attach to keels and rudders of sailboats. Stems can become lodged among any watercraft apparatus or sports equipment that moves through the water, especially boat trailers.

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Purple loosestrife is a wetland plant from Europe and Asia. It was introduced into the East Coast of North America in the 1800s. First spreading along roads, canals, and drainage ditches, then later distributed as an ornamental, this exotic plant is in 40 states and all Canadian border provinces.

Purple loosestrife invades marshes and lakeshores, replacing cattails and other wetland plants. The plant can form dense, impenetrable stands which are unsuitable as cover, food, or nesting sites for a wide range of native wetland animals including ducks, geese, rails, bitterns, muskrats, frogs, toads, and turtles. Many are rare and endangered wetland plants and animals and are also at risk.

Purple loosestrife thrives on disturbed, moist soils, often invading after some type of construction activity. Eradicating an established stand is difficult because of an enormous number of seeds in the soil. One adult plant can disperse 2 million seeds annually. The plant is able to re-sprout from roots and broken stems that fall to the ground or into the water.

A major reason for purple loosestrife's expansion is a lack of effective predators in North America. Several European insects that only attack purple loosestrife are being tested as a possible long-term biological control of purple loosestrife in North America.

Likely means of spread: Seeds escape from gardens and nurseries into wetlands, lakes, and rivers. Once in aquatic system, moving water and wetland animals easily spreads the seeds.

34

Other Midwestern Aquatic Exotics

Curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) is an exotic plant that forms surface mats that interfere with aquatic recreation. The plant usually drops to the lake bottom by early July. Curly-leaf pondweed was the most severe nuisance aquatic plant in the Midwest until Eurasian watermilfoil appeared. It was accidentally introduced along with the common carp.

Flowering rush (Botumus umbellatus) is a perennial plant form Europe and Asia that was introduced in the Midwest as an ornamental plant. It grows in shallow areas of lakes as an emergent, and as a submersed form in water up to 10 feet deep. Its dense stands crowd out native species like bulrush. The emergent form has pink, umbellate-shaped flowers, and is 3 feet tall with triangular-shaped stems.

Round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) is a bottom-dwelling fish, native to Eastern Europe that entered the eastern Great Lakes in ballast water. They can spawn several times per year, grow to about 10 inches, are aggressive, and compete with native bottom-dwellers like sculpins and log perch. They are expected to be harmful to Great Lakes and inland fisheries.

Rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) are native to streams in the Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee region. Spread by anglers who use them as bait, rusty crayfish are prolific and can severely reduce lake and stream vegetation, depriving native fish and their prey of cover and food. They also reduce native crayfish populations.

White perch (Morone americana) are native to Atlantic coastal regions and invaded the Great Lakes through the Erie and Welland canals. Prolific competitors of native fish species, white perch have the potential to cause declines of Great Lakes walleye populations.

35

6.

Land Use and zoning

The water quality of a lake or river is ultimately a reflection of the land uses within its watershed.

While the specific impacts to a lake from various land uses vary as a function of local soils, topography, vegetation, precipitation, and other factors, it is ultimately the land uses which citizens have the most control over through prudent zoning

Many zoning regulations are based upon the Shoreland Management Act and/or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) classification of a given lake. The DNR has classified all lakes within Minnesota as General Development (GD), Recreational Development (RD), or Natural Environmental (NE) lakes, and assigned a unique identification number to the lake for ease of reference. Counties in turn have used these classifications as a tool to establish minimum lot area (width and setbacks) that is intended to protect and preserve the character reflected in the classification. Similar classifications exist for rivers; in Wright County the Mississippi River is considered Class II. Clearly any local municipal jurisdiction may have additional (and usually more restrictive) standards as well.

On any shoreland the permissible density and setbacks for virtually all new uses are determined by the lake or river classification standards established by the Department of Natural Resources.

Mary Lake (DNR Lake ID #86-0193) is a Recreational Development (RD) Lake.

Natural Environment lakes are generally small, often shallow lakes with limited capacities for assimilating the impacts of development and recreational use. They often have adjacent lands with substantial constraints for development such as high water tables, exposed bedrock, and unsuitable soils. These lakes, particularly in rural areas, usually do not have much existing development or recreational use. In Wright County, an NE management district is “established to preserve and enhance high quality waters by protecting them from pollution and to protect shorelands of waters which are unsuitable for development; to maintain a low density of development; and to maintain high standards of quality for permitted development.”

Recreational Development lakes are generally medium-sized lakes of varying depths and shapes with a variety of landform, soil, and ground water situations on the lands around them. They often are characterized by moderate levels of recreational use and existing development. Development consists mainly of seasonal and year-round residences and recreationally-oriented commercial uses. Many of these lakes have capacities for accommodating additional development and use. In Wright County the RD management district is established to “managed proposed development reasonable consistent with existing development and use; to provide for the beneficial use of public waters by the general public, as well as the riparian owners; to provide for multiplicity of lake uses; and to protect areas unsuitable for residential and commercial uses from development.”

General Development lakes are generally large, deep lakes or lakes of varying sizes and depths with high levels and mixes of existing development. These lakes often are extensively used for recreation and, except for the very large lakes, are heavily developed around the shore. Second and third tiers of development are fairly common. The larger examples in this class can accommodate additional development and use. Wright County’s Shoreland Ordinance notes that “the GD management district is established to provide minimum regulations in areas presently developed as high density, multiple use areas; and to provide guidance for future growth of commercial and industrial establishments which require locations on protected waters.”

36

In Wright County the zoning standards associated with each water body class are:

 

General

Recreational

Natural

 

Lake Setbacks 1

Development

Development

Environment

All Structures

75’

100’

200’

Sewer system

50’

75’

150’

Water-orientated Accessory 2 Shore Impact Zone 3

10’

10’

Prohibited

Residential

38’

50’

100’

Agricultural

50’

50’

50’

300’

300’

300’

Any building housing livestock Minimum Side Setbacks AG Zone – All Structures

30’

30’

30’

Dwelling – R1 zoning

15’

15’

20’

R2; R2a; A/R

30’

30’

30’

Accessory Buildings R1; R2; R2a

10’

10’

20’

A/R

15’

15’

20’

Any building housing livestock

100’

100’

100’

Minimum Size to Seperate 4

20,000

20,000

20,000

Lots of Record (sq feet) Development Standards – New Lots Minimum lot size

One acre

One acre

Two acres

Minimum lot width

150’

150’

150’

Minimum depth

150’

150’

150’

Regulations common to all lakes:

Road setback (from center of road) All Local Roads

 

65’

State/County Highways

130’

   

30’

Structure from Top of Bluff 5 Elevation of lowest floor of a dwelling above highest known water level:

 

4’

Maximum Height Regulation is 2 ½ stories

   

(35 feet)

Maximum Lot Coverage by all impervious surfaces (including decks):

 

25 percent

All sewer system must conform to current State and County Standards

 
  • 1 Lake Setbacks measured from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL)

  • 2 Only one water-oriented accessory structure per parcel, subject to size, color, use, and other limitations

  • 3 There are severe limitations on land alternation, vegetative cutting and other activities in the shore impact zone;

  • 4 Lots of record owned in common may only be sold separately if the separate parcels meet the minimum standards listed above. Separately owned lots smaller than 20,000 sq. ft. may be used as dwelling sites only after approval by the Board of Adjustment.

  • 5 A bluff is a steep slope which rises at least 25 feet above a lake. There are severe restrictions on land alternations and vegetative removal within a bluff and within 20 feet of the top of a bluff. Most lakes have numerous properties that are “grand fathered,” or developed prior to the establishment of these restrictions. In general, these pre-existing uses are allowed to remain unless they are identified as a threat to human health or environment, or are destroyed by natural, accidental causes or in association with significant renovation.

37

The Wright County web-site provides a link to the Planning and Zoning ordinances for the county: Hhttp://www.co.wright.mn.us/department/pandz/formsH. On any shoreland the permissible density and setbacks for virtually all new use are determined by the lake or river classification standards established by the Department of Natural Resources.

Lake Mary Planning and Zoning Notes (2009)

The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association has always been concerned with any zoning changes in the watershed. We are especially sensitive to zoning changes that might interfere with natural water runoff vegetation areas. The lake shore area of Lake Mary is almost fully developed. There are a total of 53 acres out of the watershed that are zoned R1 residential. Lake Mary has 70 homes and or cabins on the lake shore. Our association continues to encourage and educate lake shore residents on proper maintenance of septic systems, the use of buffer zones and rain gardens in an effort to reduce phosphates entering Lake Mary.

Our association also has had some success working with area agricultural landowners. There are a total of 152 acres of agricultural land within Lake Mary’s watershed. We continue to work with agricultural landowners to add beneficial vegetative buffer zones to control phosphates and nutrients in runoff water. We do this in a win win fashion where landowners are not financially inconvenienced for water quality conservation programs.

Lake Mary is primarily a spring fed lake. Run off water from the watershed, both agricultural and residential is one of the ways phosphates and nutrients enter into the lake. Our goal is to reduce human impact as much as possible to get lake water quality as good as it can be.

Wright County is currently looking at its present Land Use zoning plan. The quadrant that the Lake Mary watershed is located in will be discussed in open meetings starting sometime in November 2009. The initial meeting will include all township boards within the quadrant being evaluated. All scheduled meetings will be posted on the Wright County Government website Hwww.co.wright.mn.usH under planning and zoning.

It is our association’s intention to be represented and to present concerns and information to the zoning board regarding water quality issues for this area. Our association understands that there will be pressure to develop 2 nd tier land in the Lake Mary watershed some day. Many people in the metro area are moving west. Wright County is one of the fastest growing counties in the state of Minnesota. However, we feel Lake Mary is a unique situation because of its small watershed. With intelligent zoning geared towards water quality conservation, Lake Mary can be a quality lake that folks can use and enjoy for generations to come.

A Lake Mary watershed Land Use Plan map can be seen in Appendix I

38

Managing water surface use conflicts

The goal of lake management is to ensure that the lake can continue to provide the benefits that

attract homeowners and users. However, conflicts among uses arise almost invariably. Successful resolution of conflicts lies in the ability of the users to work collaboratively to arrive at acceptable compromises.

The primary agency responsible for managing surface water use conflicts is the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Information and Education. The Boat and Water Safety Section within the Bureau oversees surface water use and is in charge of administering the Water Surface Use Management (WSUM) program. The goal of this program is to enhance the recreation use, safety and enjoyment of the water surfaces in Minnesota and to preserve these water resources in a way that reflects the state’s concern for the protection of its natural resources.

Within this context, any governmental unit may formulate, amend or delete controls for water surface use by adopting an ordinance. Submit the ordinance for approval by the MDNR Boat and Water Safety Coordinator by calling 1 (800) 766-6000 or (651) 296-3336. To gain approval the ordinance must:

Where practical and feasible accommodate all compatible recreational uses;

Minimize adverse impacts on natural resources

Minimize conflicts between users in a way that provides for maximum use, safety and

enjoyment, and Conform to the standards set in WSUM Rules.

From a practical standpoint, any community considering this action should also consult with their local law enforcement agency (that will largely enforce the local ordinance) to ensure that any restrictions can be effectively enforced.

An alternative or complementary approach is to encourage education and a “community standard” of acceptable behavior. Annual distribution of state standards for hours of operation, setbacks from shorelands, loon nests, swimming areas, and other hazards or sensitive areas helps create “peer pressure” to minimize the types of behavior that tend to lead to the most conflicts.

Lake Mary water surface use conflicts notes (2009)

Jet skis were a concern in 1998 primarily because of noise. Residents around Lake Mary were directed to the State of Minnesota House of Representatives which at that time was considering a ban of jet skis on lakes of less than 200 acres. This legislation was never passed. At times, jet skis continue to be an issue on Lake Mary. However, with the introduction of 4 stroke engines conflicts seem to be somewhat less. A more r ecent conflict that has risen is over the use of wakeboard boats. Erosion of lakeshore property is an issue; especially on a smaller lake such as Lake Mary.

39

Public water access

Research has shown that Minnesotans rely heavily upon public access sites to access lakes and rivers. A 1988 boater survey conducted by the University of Minnesota showed that three- fourths of the state’s boat owners launch a boat at a public water access site at least once a year. In addition, over 80 percent of boat owners report using public water access sites for recreation activities other than boating.

The primary agency responsible for pubic water accesses in Minnesota is the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Trails and Waterways Unit. They are responsible for the acquisition, development and management of public water access sites. The DNR either manages them as individual units or enters into cooperative agreements with county, state, and federal agencies, as well as local units of government such as townships and municipalities. The DNR’s efforts to establish and manage public water access sites are guided by Minnesota Statutes and established written DNR policy. The goal of the public water access program is free and adequate public access to all of Minnesota’s lake and river resources consistent with recreational demand and resource capabilities to provide recreation opportunities.

According to the 2001 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Survey, there is one public access on Mary Lake, as shown below:

2BPublic Access Information

6BOwnership

7BType

8BDescription

   

The lake has an access owned by a local club, and it is open to public use

40

9.

Organizational Development and Communication

The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association has developed and matured since it was organized in

  • 1987. Our Mission Statement has kept our association focused on it’s number one goal; the

improvement of lake water quality.

Mission Statement

The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association is a group of concerned citizens whose fundamental goal is to improve Lake May’s water quality and to protect our valuable resources. Lake Mary is both an area and a community.

We promote this in many ways:

We foster an increase in lake quality in an environmentally safe manner

We promote interpersonal relationships and friendliness

We respect each others property rights and privacy

We inform and solicit opinions from our membership at our annual meeting

We monitor Lake Mary’s water quality

We demonstrate that Lake Mary is a great place to live, fish and recreate

Our association board is composed of area residents who are motivated to improve water quality and quality of life around Lake Mary. We have 7 voting board members. There is an election of new board member positions every two years of people who are willing to serve. We try to bring new people into the leadership of our association to minimize burnout. It is through this rotation of individuals that helps keeps our association relatively fresh. However, burnout is a constant struggle with a volunteer organization. From our accomplishments we think we have done a good job. The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association board is set up as follows:

Chairperson

Vice Chairperson

Secretary

Treasurer

Board member

Board member

Board member

Our board meets approximately 3 times a year spring, summer, and fall. These meetings are to review and approve funding for ongoing projects our association is involved with. Some of these projects are noted in the Introduction / History of your Lake Association in this document. Over the years committees have been created and responsibilities have changed or rotated. Many individuals have been involved at the leadership level. We thank them all.

41

People who have served as Chairpersons over the years have been.

Mike Thoennes

Gloria Wynnemer

Bill Mosher

Dennis Ruchi

Mike Ollig

As far as benchmarking and keeping track of projects and long term goals our association has done well. We keep track of our progress by monitoring lake water quality through our involvement with the Citizens Lake Measurement Program (CLMP) and the Wright County Cooperative Lake Monitoring Program. Also feed back from area residents and governmental agencies.

We have recorded data indications that the projects we have been involved with have helped improve water quality in Lake Mary. We set up committees and try and rotate responsibilities in water sample collection, picnic committees, and water monitoring. Our association keeps in contact with members through its newsletters and blog.

Over all, the Lake Mary Homeowner’s association functions fairly well. We keep in contact with the Wright County (SWCD) the (MPCA) and the Minnesota DNR to guide us in decisions we make. We set up meetings around board members schedules and are flexible to rescheduling meetings because of conflicts that inevitably arise.

Our (2009) members of the Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association board are:

Chairperson

Mike Ollig

Vice Chair

Tim Sheehan

Secretary

Mike Ollig

Treasurer

Carl Luckett

Board member

Roman Widmer

Board member

Dennis Ruchti

Board member

Andy Jude

42

Summary of Visioning/Planning Session

The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association’s visioning session was held Saturday September 26 th 2009 at the Winsted Sportsman’s Club, which is located on Lake Mary. The meeting started at 10 am and was completed at noon. Subway sandwiches and beverages were served after the meeting. There were a total of 16 people who attended the session, including Burton Horsch, a Victor Township board member and Deb Stenberg the chairperson of neighboring Lake Ann Association. Over 90% of the people present were Lake Mary homeowners. An introductory power point presentation was given by Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association’s chairperson Mike Ollig. This included history, goals, projects and ongoing activities that the association has been involved with since it was incorporated 1987. Don Hickman with the Initiative Foundation’s Healthy Lakes & Rivers Partnership Program facilitated our visioning session. Focus areas were discussed in general, then regarding how they pertain to Lake Mary. These Focus Areas included:

Water Quality

Fisheries Management Plan

Aquatic Vegetation

Wildlife

Exotic Species

Land Use and Zoning

Managing water surface use conflicts

Public Access

After discussing each issue a vote was taken. Two votes were allowed for each person present. The two most important focus areas identified for Lake Mary were:

Aquatic Vegetation – 9 Votes

Water Quality - 8 Votes

Aquatic Vegetation was identified as the top priority. The people in attendance at our visioning session tied aquatic vegetation with exotic species in pursuit of improved water quality. The concern identified was the increase in submersed plant species; specifically curly leaf pond weed. It appears that curly leaf pond weed is significantly increasing in Lake Mary. Lake Mary has a surface area of 196 acres and a maximum depth of 47 feet. Approximately 84 acres or (43%) of the lake is within the littoral zone. The littoral zone is the shallow areas (less than 15 feet in depth) around a lake’s shoreline, usually dominated by aquatic plants. These plants produce oxygen and provide food, shelter and reproduction areas for fish and animal life.

The primary area of concern was the north side of Lake Mary. There is a large area where the water depth is five feet or less. Curly Leaf Pond Weed seems to be dominant in this area. Additional concern was raised that this vegetation was increasing and further spreading to other areas of the lake. Aesthetics and Recreational interference because of curly leaf pond weed was not the issue to those present. The issue was the tremendous amounts of extra phosphate loading that is being released during the life cycle of this invasive species. It was also noted the curly leaf pond weed was possibly inhibiting the growth of beneficial vegetation such as Northern Watermilfoil. The concern is that even with all our work and effort with water quality projects that are beneficial for Lake Mary, we may be in a no win situation. If the amount of phosphates and nutrients released by dying curly leaf pond weed continues to increase our efforts to actually improve water quality might not be effective.

43

Our association is aware of the great importance vegetation has with regards to Lake Mary’s fishery. Our goal would be to find ways, working with the Minnesota DNR and Wright County (SWCD), to improve both water quality and fish habitat.

In discussing submersed plant species it was also noted that at the present time Eurasian Watermilfoil has not been detected in Lake Mary. However, it is a concern as other lakes in the area already have Eurasian Watermilfoil infestation.

The Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District has suggested that our association consider having a Point Intercept Map survey done. A question was raised as to the benefits of doing a Pont Intercept Map Survey vs. a Submersed Plant Species Survey. In 2001 a Submersed Plant Species Survey was done by the DNR. At that time many different species of curly leaf pond weed were identified. According to the DNR survey the largest area mapped by GPS of curly leaf pond weed was located on the north side of Lake Mary. In discussion it was thought, but was unknown, whether the Point Intercept Map was a more detailed study than the Submersed Plant Species Survey. This question will be answered by contacting the DNR and Wright County Soil & Water. At the end of the visioning session volunteers signed up to be on a Aquatic Vegetation Task Force. These folks included:

Tom Anderson

Andy Jude

Mike Ollig

Gloria Wynnemer

The Aquatic Vegetation Task Force will meet within the next two months and make recommendations regarding costs vs. benefits of either study. The goal would be to accurately identify what Lake Mary has now for submersed plant species compared to the 2001 DNR survey. With a Point Intercept Map survey done our association, the DNR and Wright County (SWCD) could make informed decisions for future projects. Our association would also be eligible for government grants for water quality improvement projects for Lake Mary.

Water Quality was identified by those attending our visioning session as the second priority our association should consider. Some of the ideas brought up to help increase water quality were:

Reevaluate whether the filter socks on the French Drains installed in 1998 need to be

cleaned or updated. Find out if other agricultural land owners would be interested in changing out some of

their open surface field inlets with French Drains. Check into the possibilities of other land owner interest in “set aside” buffer zone areas

where the Wright County Water Soil & Water District would deem worth while. Possibly additional Joint Venture Programs. Study the merits of funding lake shore residents for (Lakescapping) projects. This action could reduce runoff nutrients and phosphates entering Lake Mary. Start an educational plan with lake shore owners towards voluntary vegetation buffer zones adjacent to the lake shore. Also possible rain garden funding being offered by the Wright County (SWCD) was discussed.

44

A Water Quality Task Force was set up to investigate how funds we obtain from the Initiative Foundation could be used for some of these ideas. The task force volunteers are:

Carl Luckett

Pam Luckett

Mike Ollig

Tim Sheehan

The goal would be to decrease phosphate levels entering Lake Mary from run-off water. To quantify any additional buffer zones effectiveness, Lake Mary would conduct its own independent water sampling. The water sample testing would be done before and after buffer zone areas were installed to get a measurable result.

One disappointment in the meeting was that of all the area agricultural land owners (5) that were invited to the meeting none attended. We did communicate with Mark Rieland who is involved with the French Drain and Joint Venture programs. Mark owns property on the southwest side of the Lake Mary watershed. He is very satisfied with his involvement with our association and will continue to work with us in any way he can to help improve lake water quality. He just couldn’t make the date of our visioning session. We will continue to try and make progress in being inclusive to area land owners who are so important to Lake Mary water quality.

Lake Mary’s visioning session was very successful. We were able to prioritize the top two issues that are of concern. The people who attended the meeting have all been involved with other projects and duties of the association over the years. This will be a good group who will follow through on the objectives we came up with at the visioning session. Many have had experience with participating and chairing projects in their professional life and bring those skills to our task forces. The Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association thanks Don Hickman and the Initiative Foundation for doing such a great job. We also thank all the folks who attended the visioning session for their input, concern and participation.

45

Grantee Action Plan and Evaluation Form

Grantee

Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association

Organization:

Project

Gloria Wynnemer

Coordinator:

Phone/Email:

 

Project Title:

Lake Mary Point Intercept Map Survey

Summary of Project

(1 or 2 sentences)

To coordinate a Point Intercept Map survey of Lake Mary along with other participating lake associations within Wright County.

*Note: At least one objective should answer the question, “So What?” What difference will your project make in your community, in changed lives, in new skills, knowledge, behaviors, or attitudes? Can you measure that change?

*Objective #1

(must be measurable results, not just effort)

Action Plan-

What steps need to be done to achieve this objective:

 

To accurately identify submersed plant species in the 84 acres (43%) of Lake Mary’s littoral zone. This project would answer many questions and concerns in our community.

 

How large of a problem is Curly Leaf Pond Weed in Lake Mary?

to lower phosphate and TSI levels.

Is it spreading?

DNR & Wright County (SWCD)’s opinion of the survey?

Is it an option to treat curly leaf pond weed in Lake Mary?

How would you treat it?

What would the Minnesota DNR allow / recommend?

How would treating different areas of the lake effect fisheries?

Does Lake Mary have Eurasian Milfoil?

Measurable results would be gaining this valuable information. Use this

 

Action

By When

Person

 

Responsible

 

1.

Contact the MN DNR office in Montrose

   

to answer questions.

Is the 2001 DNR submersed plant species survey different than a Point Intercept Map

 

survey?

Will a Point Intercept Map be a

 

part of the next DNR survey of Lake Mary

This was

 

in 2011?

finished

Mike

 

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

October.

Ollig

A Point Intercept Map will not be a part of

15

th 2009

the DNR’s survey of Lake Mary in 2011. A Point Intercept Map survey is more detailed than the submersed plant species survey done by the DNR in 2001.

 

2.

   

Contact Joe Jacobs at the Wright County

 

(SWCD)

What does a Point Intercept Map

This was

 

cost? First estimates are ($3000 to $5000).

finished

Mike

Lake Mary does have evasive curly leaf

October

Ollig

pond weed. Our association is interested in doing a Point Intercept Map. However, it will depend on cost before we commit.

16

th 2009

46

   
  • 3. Meet with Wright County (SWCD), and

 

Gloria W

other area lake associations. Also meet with the companies doing the (RFP) Request For

2009

Proposal. Establish costs.

2010

  • 4. If we decide to participate; monitor

2009

Gloria W

progress towards the (Point Intercept Map)

2010

Expected Result:

 

Survey to completion in the fall of 2010. The expected result in this effort is to have an updated accurate map of present submersed plant species in Lake Mary. With this information our association, the DNR and Wright County (SWCD) can make informed decisions on the path to better water quality for Lake Mary. It should be noted that with a Point Intercept Map Survey finished our lake association will also be eligible for future grant monies for other water quality projects through Minnesota government agencies, such as the DNR.

 

Results: *Please note: the remaining questions are to be filled out at mid term (if grant exceeds $5,000) and at end of grant period for evaluation purposes.

Objective #1 Mid-point Result (fill

out at mid-point ONLY if grant exceeds $5,000)

Objective #1 Actual Result (to be

completed at end of grant period for final report)

 
 

Initiative

Foundation

use only

   

47

Grantee Action Plan and Evaluation Form

Grantee

Lake Mary Homeowner’s Association

Organization:

Project

 

Coordinator:

Phone/Email:

 

Project Title:

Lake Mary Watershed Vegetation Buffer Zone Project

Summary of Project

(1 or 2 sentences)

Identify additional areas in Lake Mary’s Watershed that would be good candidates for (Joint Venture) vegetation buffer zones. Fund these areas through (Joint Venture) agreements with Wright County (SWCD) and interested landowners. Examine the possibilities of funding of buffer zone projects along residential lake shore properties.

*Note: At least one objective should answer the question, “So What?” What difference will your project make in your community, in changed lives, in new skills, knowledge, behaviors, or attitudes? Can you measure that change?

*Objective #1

(must be measurable results, not just effort)

Action Plan-

What steps need to be done to achieve this objective:

Expected Result:

 

To “set aside” additional buffer zone areas in critical locations in the Lake Mary watershed. Reduce the amounts of phosphate runoff into Lake Mary. Measurable results would be achieved by sampling the runoff water from new buffer areas for phosphorous levels before and after the installation. Also by measuring for lower TP & TSI levels in the years after buffer zone installations. Conduct trend tests through RMB Labs Lake Mary data base.

 
 

Action

By When

Person

 

Responsible

 

1 Identify candidate buffer zone areas in the Lake Mary watershed. Conference with

Dec. 31 s

 

Wright County (SWCD) to see if these areas are appropriate.

2009

  • 2. Conference with Wright County (SWCD).

February

 

Discuss cost vs. benefit of a Joint Venture

2010

agreement in candidate areas.

  • 3. If a Joint Venture Program is deemed

February

 

appropriate, contact landowner to see if they

2010

would be interested in participating.

  • 4. If landowner is interested, follow through

   

with offer of one or more acres for a buffer zone. Cost $500 per acre per 5 year (Joint Venture) agreement. Plant prairie grass. Need to check cost per acre.

2010

 

Expected result would be lower levels of phosphates entering Lake Mary. Lower over all lake TP & TSI levels and better secchi disk readings.

 

48

Results: *Please note: the remaining questions are to be filled out at mid term (if grant

Results: *Please note: the remaining questions are to be filled out at mid term (if grant exceeds $5,000) and at end of grant period for evaluation purposes.

Objective #1 Mid-point Result (fill

out at mid-point ONLY if grant exceeds $5,000)

Objective #1 Actual Result (to be

completed at end of grant period for final report)

 
 

Initiative

Foundation

use only

49

Grantee Action Plan and Evaluation Form

* Objective

# ___

(must be

measurable results, not just effort)

Action Plan-What

steps need to be done to achieve this objective:

 

Action

By When

Person

Responsible

1.

   

2.

   

3.

   

4.

   
 
 
 
 

Initiative

Foundation

Use Only

Expected Result:

Results: *Please note: the remaining questions are to be filled out at mid term (if grant exceeds $5,000) and at end of grant period for evaluation purposes.

Objective

# ___

Mid-point Result

(fill out at mid-point ONLY if grant exceeds $5,000)

Objective

# ___

Actual Result (to be completed at end of grant period for final report)

*Please copy this page for any additional objectives you have that pertain to this project.

50

Appendix I Land Use within Mary Lake Watershed

51

Appendix II

DNR Fisheries Management Plan

Region

Area

D.O.W.

County

D.O.W Lake

Acreage

III

0BMontrose

Number

Wright

Name

180

86-193

Mary

Long Range Goal:

Provide northern pike abundance at 4-5/gill net with an average size greater than two pounds.

 

Operational Plan:

  • 1. Manage for native species including northern pike, largemouth bass, bluegill and black crappie.

 
  • 2. Allow removal of carp and bullheads by commercial fishermen in

 

order to utilize these species.

 
  • 3. Conduct population assessments at 10 year intervals (next 2011) to include an evaluation of the

 

largemouth bass population by spring electrofishing. 4.Permit lake association to stock walleye fingerlings every other year.

 

Mid Range Objective:

 

Determine changes in the status of the fishery.

 

Potential Plan:

Acquire public access with ramp, parking

100,000.

Creel survey

5,000.

 

TOTAL

$ 105,000

Primary Species Management

Secondary Species

 

FOR CENTRAL OFFICE

Northern pike

Management

USE ONLY

Largemouth Bass

 

Area Supervisors Signature

Date

Entry date

Year Resurvey

 

/

__

/

__

Regional Supervisors Signature

Date

Stock species - Size - Number

 

/

__

/

__

per Acre Pr./Sec

NARRATIVE:

Schedule

Year

(Historical perspectives - various surveys; past management; social considerations; present limiting factors; survey needs; land acquisition; habitat development and protection; commercial fishery;

Beginning

stocking plans; other management tools; and evaluation plans)

Population Manipulation

 

YES

NO

Year __

Development

 

__

YES

NO

Year __

__

Creel or Use Survey

 

YES

NO

Year __

Other

__

52

Surveys Lake surveys 2001, 1985, 1973, 1949, 1941. Population assessments 1988, 1980. Ice- out netting and northern pike population estimate, 2001. Spring electrofishing for largemouth has been done annually because Lake Mary is a control lake in the statewide regulations study. Sunfish reduction project 1974-76. Initial lake management plan in 1986. Part of a study, Investigational Report 415, Macrophyte Removal to Enhance Bluegill, Largemouth and Northern Pike Populations (1992). Lake Assessment Notes 1997, MPCA.

Past Management Stocking - between 1949-92 included largemouth, northern pike, minnows, bluegill, crappie, sucker, yellow perch and walleye. The Winsted Sportsmen’s Club operated a controlled northern pike spawning area on the southeast side of the lake in the 1970's.

Antimycin was applied in 1974 and 1976 to improve the size of sunfish. Results suggest that the application was successful. However, observations showed that maintenance treatments would be necessary to prolong the improved fishery.

The research unit also conducted a plant harvesting project 1986-90. Removal of aquatic vegetation did not improve panfish populations.

About 1976 the Section of Fisheries collaborated with Victor Township to construct a box culvert on the outlet of Lake Mary. The culvert design describes it as a fish barrier, however, it apparently never was.

Social Considerations The Lake Mary’s Association is active in walleye stocking and aquatic vegetation control. A boat access on the east side of the lake is maintained by the Winsted Sportsmen’s Club.

Present Limiting Factors Sunfish are small. The access is owned by the Winsted Sportsmens Club. Submerged vegetation grows abundantly on the north side of the lake. The lake is highly developed.

The lake has good water quality. The results of water testing in 1996 by the Pollution Control Agency showed total phosphorous, chlorophyll a, and secchi disk were .027 ppm, .009 ppm, and 10.5', respectively. Carlson’s trophic status indices for the parameters were 52, 52, and 43, respectively.

Survey Needs Resurvey 2011. Spring evaluation of largemouth bass by electrofishing should

be done in the same year.

The bass population appears excellent. For the years 1996-2000

electrofishing catch rates ranged from 76-121 largemouth per energized hour. During 2000 the a catch rate was 86.3 largemouth per hour of electrofishing and proportional stock density was

65.

53

Historical net catches of some important species (1st-3rd quartiles are for Lake Class 34):

 

1971

1973

1980

1985

1988

1990

2001

Class 34

Northern

4.00

2.50

10.0

2.16

5.67

11.67

1.0

2.29 - 7.62

pike

Bluegill

18.50

73.83

24.20

48.25

59.3

33.75

13.7

6.25 - 51.42

Black crappie

0.00

10.83

3.00

6.75

1.75

1.25

0.6

2.00 - 34.25

Yellow perch

12.00

11.00

3.67

5.33

0.17

1.17

0.5

2.17 - 32.00

Walleye

2.50

0.00

2.67

1.66

4.00

2.83

3.0

0.75 - 7.43

Fish population status: During 2001 northern pike, yellow perch and black crappie were below the first quartile value. Catches of bluegill and walleye were within the range of expected values. Spring trap netting revealed a quality crappie population with several individuals close to 16 inches. Yellow perch have been present in low numbers during the 1980's.

Land Acquisition At various times the state has tried to enter into an agreement with the Winsted Sportsmen’s Club to either lease or buy the land for public access. The Club has preferred to continue ownership. The state should acquire land for a public access.

Habitat Development Existing emergent vegetation has been mapped using GPS/GIS technology. The map will provide a base of information for the future and may provide the ability to identify critical fish habitat.

Commercial Fishery No commercial fishery is present. Neither carp nor bullheads are present in large numbers.

Stocking Plans

Since the transfer of this lake to the Montrose Area it has been managed for

native species and no stocking has been done. The lake association stocked the lake in 1999 and several times thereafter with walleye fingerlings. It seems likely that the group will continue to stock the lake and a reasonable goal, based on past experience, would likely be about three per gill net. During the years that walleye were stocked at Lake Mary the gill net catch averaged 2.79 per gill net,

Northern pike have been abundant with the catch larger than the third quartile value in 1980 and 1990. Stocking contributed many small northern pike to the lake. Even though the northern pike catch is below the first quartile I would advise the lake association that the lake will benefit from a continued low level population of northern pike. Chances are increased that walleye stocking will be successful.

Other Management Tools Because much effort has been placed in evaluating the largemouth bass population it’s possible that enough information exists such that experimental fishing regulations could be promulgated for bass. It will be necessary to determine interest on the part of stakeholders.

54

Watershed Considerations: Work with local units of government to reduce non-point pollution sources. The Wright County Planning and Zoning Office has local authority to regulate septic systems; and the Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District can suggest best management practices for area agriculturalists. The immediate watershed of the lake has been mapped and land use practices identified. The size of the watershed is 200 acres and the land to water ratio is 1.5:1. Land uses are forest,12%; water/wetlands, 1%; cultivated lands, 55%; residential,19%; pasture/grasslands, 13%. The Wright SWCD has worked with area agriculturalists to install several (4) “French Drains.” These devices help to purify surface waters as it enters field tile systems (covering 40 acres on the south side of the lake) and eventually flows to the lake. The 1 acre buffer zone is also shown.

Watershed Considerations : Work with local units of govern ment to reduce non-point pollution sources. The

The four small green circles indicate French Drains. The larger green circle indicates the one acre buffer zone.

55

Appendix III 2001 DNR Map of Emergent and Floating leaf Aquatic Vegetation

Appendix III 2001 DNR Map of Emergent and Floa ting leaf Aquatic Vegetation 56

56

Glossary

Aerobic: Aquatic life or chemical processes that require the presence of oxygen.

Algal bloom: An unusual or excessive abundance of algae.

Alkalinity: Capacity of a lake to neutralize acid.

Anoxic: The absence of oxygen in a water column or lake; can occur near the bottom of eutrophic lakes in the summer or under the ice in the winter.

Benthic: The bottom zone of a lake, or bottom-dwelling life forms.

Best Management Practices: A practice determined by a state agency or other authority as the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing pollution.

Bioaccumulation: Build-up of toxic substances in fish (or other living organism) flesh. Toxic effects may be passed on to humans eating the fish.

Biological Oxygen Demand: The amount of oxygen required by aerobic microorganisms to decompose the organic matter in sample of water. Used as a measure of the degree of water pollution.

Buffer Zone: Undisturbed vegetation that can serve as to slow down and/or retain surface water runoff, and assimilate nutrients.

Chlorophyll a: The green pigment in plants that is essential to photosynthesis.

Clean Water Partnership (CWP) Program: A program created by the legislature in 1990 to protect and improve ground water and surface water in Minnesota by providing financial and technical assistance to local units of government interested in controlling nonpoint source pollution.

Conservation Easement: A perpetual conservation easement is a legally binding condition placed on a deed to restrict the types of development that can occur on the subject property.

Cultural eutrophication: Accelerated “aging” of a lake as a result of human activities.

Epilimnion: Deeper lakes form three distinct layers of water during summertime weather. The epilimnion is the upper layer and is characterized by warmer and lighter water.

Eutrophication: The aging process by which lakes are fertilized with nutrients.

Eutrophic Lake: A nutrient-rich lake – usually shallow, “green” and with limited oxygen in the bottom layer of water.

57

Exotic Species: Any non-native species that can cause displacement of or otherwise threaten native communities.

Fall Turnover: In the autumn as surface water loses temperature they are “turned under” (sink to lower depths) by winds and changes in water density until the lake has a relatively uniform distribution of temperature.

Feedlot: A lot or building or a group of lots or buildings used for the confined feeding, breeding or holding of animals. This definition includes areas specifically designed for confinement in which manure may accumulate or any area where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained. Lots used to feed and raise poultry are considered to be feedlots. Pastures are not animal feedlots.

Groundwater: water found beneath the soil surface (literally between the soil particles); groundwater is often a primary source of recharge to lakes.

Hardwater: Describes a lake with relatively high levels of dissolved minerals such as calcium and magnesium.

Hypolimnion: The bottom layer of lake water during the summer months. The water in the hypolimnion is denser and much colder than the water in the upper two layers.

Impervious Surface: Pavement, asphalt, roofing materials or other surfaces through which water cannot drain. The presence of impervious surfaces can increase the rates and speed of runoff from an area, and prevents groundwater recharge.

Internal Loading: Nutrients or pollutants entering a body of water from its sediments.

Lake Management: The process of study, assessment of problems, and decisions affecting the maintenance of lakes as thriving ecosystems.

Littoral zone: The shallow areas (less than 15 feet in depth) around a lake’s shoreline, usually dominated by aquatic plants. These plants produce oxygen and provide food, shelter and reproduction areas for fish & animal life.

Local Unit of Government: A unit of government at the township, city or county level.

Mesotrophic Lake: A lake that is midway in nutrient concentrations (between a eutrophic and

oligotrophic lake). vegetation.

Characterized by periodic problems with algae blooms or problem aquatic

Native Species: An animal or plant species that is naturally present and reproducing.

Nonpoint source: Polluted runoff – nutrients or pollution sources not discharged from a single point. Common examples include runoff from feedlo