WHITE BEAR LAKE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN

MAY 1999

APPENDIX I

PURPOSE

The White Bear Lake Conservation District has begun a year-long program to develop a plan to preserve the quality 
of White Bear Lake. The objective of the lake management plan is to:

Preserve the quality of White Bear Lake and accommodate the needs of its stakeholders.

The District has engaged the services of Dick Osgood, Ecosystem Strategies, to coordinate this project. Elements of this project include:

Forming advisory and steering committees

Gathering physical, biological, land use and social information

Identifying needs and setting priorities

Developing goals, objectives and actions

Implementing and monitoring progress

This report summarizes the physical, biological, land use and social conditions of White Bear Lake (as highlighted above). The purpose of this report is to provide a point of departure for understanding the condition of White Bear Lake and the needs of those who use and value the lake. Information in this report is summarized from available physical data plus the results of a recent Community Input Survey. Together, this information is intended to ‘paint a picture’ of the present condition of White Bear Lake and describe community needs and values for protecting this unique resource.

This report will be used by an Advisory Committee which will provide oversight and guidance for the development of the Lake Management Plan. The development of the plan includes identifying needs and setting priorities; developing goals, objectives & actions; and an implementation plan.

Background

White Bear Lake has been a popular resort area since about the time of statehood. Along with Lake Minnetonka, White Bear Lake developed into a popular vacation destination, drawing visitors from hundreds of miles away. Parks, resorts, steamboats and hotels flourished in the late-1800s and early-1900s. White Bear Lake remains a popular lake for a variety of recreational uses.

THE LAKE

The Basin

White Bear Lake has a surface area of 2,590 acres and a maximum depth of 83 feet - large and deep for metro lake norms. The lake has three distinct basins: the north basin which has a maximum depth of about 30 feet and an extensive littoral area (area where rooted plants grow); the west basin which is shallow with a maximum depth of 22 feet, and the southeast basin has a maximum depth of 83 feet.

Lake Level

Because of its large surface area and its small tributary watershed, lake levels in White Bear Lake fluctuate. Fluctuations of up to 2½ feet in one year and up to 7 feet over the lake’s history have been observed. The impact of lake level changes is magnified because small changes in vertical elevation result in large changes in the horizontal extent of the lakeshore. When lake level changes are extreme, many problems occur. During high water levels, flooding and shoreline erosion increase; and during low water levels, docks and piers are high and dry, navigation is hindered, and recreation is diminished.

Ramsey County installed and operated wells to augment White Bear Lake water levels from the early 1900s until 1977, when these operations were discontinued. The use of groundwater for lake level augmentation is no longer allowed in Minnesota. As well, it has been discovered that the level of White Bear Lake is closely connected with the level of the groundwater aquifer, which means that it is necessary to fill up the aquifer to effectively fill up the lake. The four wells have been or soon will be abandoned, so they are no longer available for lake level augmentation.

An outlet control structure, located near the Ramsey County Park, allows water to leave White Bear Lake when the elevation exceeds 924.37 feet (above sea level). A fixed outlet elevation ‘controls’ lake level to the extent that it holds water back until it reaches the outlet elevation. Except for the outlet control structure, there is no plan or program in place at this time to control or manage White Bear Lake level.

Water Quality

Eutrophication is a process by which lakes become enriched with nutrients - usually phosphorus - that cause an increase in the amount of algae and plants produced in the lakes. Eutrophication is often a concern because the manifestations of over-fertilization are perceived as nuisances. In the extreme, highly eutrophic lakes become filled and are plagued by persistent algae blooms, abundant aquatic plants, and unhealthy fish communities - all of which diminish the recreational use and environmental value of the lake.

Several indicators that are commonly used to track eutrophication and its manifestations. They are:

Indicator Significance

Nutrients Phosphorus is considered the limiting nutrient in most lakes. This means that it is the element in shortest supply relative to the growth needs of algae. Phosphorus is measured from lake water collected in the middle of the lake. Sometimes nitrogen can also limit algae growth.

Algae Algae are microscopic plants that float in lakes. Algae become nuisances when they become abundant. A particular kind of algae - blue-green algae - are a particular nuisance because they form scums. All algae become more abundant as the level of nutrients in the water increases. The level of algae is determined by measuring chlorophyll - a green pigment - in lake water.

Clarity The transparency of lake water is readily observed by everyone. As the level of algae increases, the water clarity decreases. Clarity is measured using a Secchi disk, which is a 8-inch white or black-and-white disk lowered over the side of a boat until it disappears.

Urban lakes are affected by many factors, which can include runoff, seepage, rainfall, air deposition, over-use, artificial alterations of their basins, manipulation of plants and animals, the introduction of exotic species. To the extent that these factors lead to undesirable results, they may be called pollution.

As phosphorus levels increase, so does:

The abundance of algae and the frequency of algae blooms

The predominance of blue-green (or scum-forming) algae

A reduction in water clarity

The depletion of oxygen below the thermocline (where the lake stratifies)

By measuring three water quality indicators and comparing them to user perceptions of lake condition, lakes fall into categories representing norms for metro lakes. These categories, or grades, look like this:

TP = total phosphorus (parts per billion or ppb); CLA = chlorophyll (ppb); SD = Secchi disk transparency (feet).
Percentile is a ranking of metro lakes, like a grading curve.
Grade is a letter assignment (not meant to indicate ‘passing’ or ‘failing’).
Perceived Condition is based on user perceptions.

Based on data from the past nine years (1989 - 1997), White Bear Lake is in the top ten percentile compared to metro norms. Specifically, the indicators for this period are:

This means that the perceived condition of White Bear Lake is extremely good by metro area norms. An analysis of this data for the past nine years indicates that this condition is stable.

The condition of White Bear Lake has been poorer in the past. There are some data available from the 1970s and 1980s that indicate the phosphorus content of White Bear Lake has dropped from a level of about 33 ppb to its present level of about 19 ppb. With this drop in phosphorus came a decrease in algae (about a 50% reduction) and an increase in water clarity (about a 50% increase).

A rapid population increase during the 1950s and 1960s may have caused the increase in pollution to White Bear Lake. Land development and the use of on-site septic systems increased along with the population increase. However, by the mid-1960s, sanitary sewer service was provided to most of the communities around the lake. For the communities still without sanitary sewer service, improved standards for the construction and operation of on-site septic systems make it unlikely that they pose a significant pollution problem for the lake.

Sources of Phosphorus

There are four main sources of phosphorus to urban lakes:

Point Sources, which enter lakes directly from a discrete location, like a pipe. Point sources are usually discharges from sewage treatment plants or industries. There are no point sources entering White Bear Lake.

Nonpoint Sources, which enter lakes from broad areas. Nonpoint sources are generally runoff which can enter the lake from sheet flow off the land or via storm sewers that collect the runoff and route it to the lake. Groundwater, which enters lakes from seeps or springs from below the water table may be considered a nonpoint source. This may be significant source of phosphorus in White Bear Lake

Atmospheric Sources, which include rainfall and wind-blown phosphorus.

Groundwater Sources, which enters lakes from seeps or springs from below the water table. This source may be significant in White Bear Lake

Urban runoff contains significant amounts of phosphorus. Runoff over hard surfaces picks up phosphorus from many sources: deposited from wind and dust, applied as fertilizer, leaf and litter decomposition, and natural soil fertility. As the percentage of hard surface increases, the amount of phosphorus carried in runoff increases. Studies of runoff in urban areas have found phosphorus in runoff varies with land use:

Thus, the amount of phosphorus carried to a lake will depend on the watershed area and the mix of land use in the watershed. Phosphorus from atmospheric sources is normally a small part of the total annual input to urban lakes; however, because White Bear Lake is so large and its tributary watershed is so small, atmospheric phosphorus is significant.

Sources of phosphorus to White Bear Lake which have been measured (see Report on the Diagnostic/Feasibility Study of White Bear Lake, 1991). The two main categories are:

It is interesting to note that the amount of phosphorus carried by runoff (930 pounds) compared to the land area from which it runs off (2,300 acres), computes to a rate of 0.4 pounds per acre per year. This is extremely low compared to the norms presented above. The amount of phosphorus in rainfall represents a large portion of the annual total, but the rate of input - about 0.2 pounds per acre per year - is normal for this area. The total amount of phosphorus entering White Bear Lake is very low for the size of the lake, and this explains why White Bear Lake is of such high quality.

As phosphorus enters the lake, a portion settles or runs out, and the remainder remains in the lake water. Generally, reductions in the amounts of phosphorus entering lakes will lead to reductions in the concentration of phosphorus in the lake water.

Phosphorus from past years that has been deposited in the lake’s sediments can be released back into the water during the summer. This process of recycling - referred to as internal phosphorus - can be a significant factor in some lakes. Internal phosphorus seeps into the lake water in a form readily used by algae and other plants, and can occur at times when algae are actively growing, like mid-summer. It does not appear that internal phosphorus recycling is a significant concern in White Bear Lake.

Aquatic Plants

White Bear Lake is ringed by a diverse community of rooted aquatic plants. Many species of pondweeds and other native plants grow to depths of 15 feet. The lake’s littoral area - the shallow waters where rooted plants can grow - totals 1,100 to 1,300 acres or about 50% of the lake area.

Aquatic plants provide certain benefits to lakes, such as fisheries habitat, food for fish and wildlife, stabilizing the lakeshore, and compete with algae for nutrients. However, when rooted aquatic plants become too abundant or when native plants are overtaken by exotic species, they may be a nuisance. While aquatic plants are abundant and cover a large portion of the lake bottom, they do not appear to pose a significant nuisance in White Bear Lake. Even Eurasian watermilfoil which has been in the lake for over 10 years, has not become a nuisance as it has in almost every other Minnesota lake it has infested. In fact, the diversity of native plants in White Bear Lake remains unchanged since the discovery of Eurasian watermilfoil in October 1988.

The number of species of native plants in White Bear Lake is remarkable (see Appendix A). There are 12 species of native pondweeds, numerous other native plant species, and a variety of emergent plant (those with parts emerging from the water surface, like cattails). This diversity indicates a very ecologically healthy environment. The plants in White Bear Lake provide a great amount of fish habitat.

Fish

Fisheries surveys are performed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources about every five years. These surveys are used by the area fisheries manager to make management recommendations for stocking and habitat improvements. A lake management plan has been prepared which synthesizes this information and outlines the DNR’s operational plan.

The results of the 1994 survey are summarized in Appendix B. White Bear Lake has a diverse and mostly self-sustaining fishery. Walleye and hybrid (tiger) muskie are regularly stocked.

The fisheries management plan calls for improving the walleye and largemouth bass fishery by continued walleye stocking, protecting spawning habitat, and exploring special regulations. In addition, stocking of hybrid muskie by private parties (Muskie Inc.) will be allowed.

The Minnesota Department of Health has issued a fish consumption advisory for White Bear Lake which recommends meals of 5-15 inch bluegill and 15-20 inch northern pike be somewhat restricted due to mercury contamination.

Swimmers’ Itch

Swimmers’ itch has been a problem in White Bear Lake for a long time. The itch is caused by small parasites which normally infect snails and waterfowl. When these parasites are present in the water during parts of their life cycle, they can infect swimmers. The infection, while not harmful, is a terrible nuisance. Precautions such as showering immediately after swimming or briskly toweling off do help avoid an infection. There are no known effective treatments or controls for swimmers’ itch.

THE WATERSHED

Drainage

White Bear Lake has a direct tributary area of 2,300 acres or about 90% the size of the lake’s surface. It is unusual for a lake in the metro area to have a watershed area smaller than the surface area of the lake. Most runoff from this area enters the lake via storm sewers, which provide drainage to about 37 small sub-watersheds around the lake. As noted earlier, the quality of runoff entering White Bear Lake is good compared to metro norms.

An additional 5,250 acres can potentially contribute runoff to the lake, but only in extremely wet years. As urbanization occurs in this area, it is possible that more of this area could be routed to the lake by drainage systems ordinarily provided for urban development.

Land Use

The predominant land use in the watershed of White Bear Lake is comprised of single-family residential and multi-family residential dwellings. The main commercial corridor is along Highway 61. Wetlands and open space make up a large portion of the watershed, especially in the indirect drainage area.

Population

The population of White Bear Lake increased from 3,646 in 1950 to 23,290 by 1970. Since that time, the city’s population has become more or less stable.

The population growth of the seven municipalities around the lake began to accelerate in the 1980s and is anticipated to continue until about 2000.

Finally, population growth in the metro area will slow from a rate of about 15% per decade in the 1980s and 1990s to a rate of about 9% per decade through the year 2020.

LAKE USES

The large open lake provides opportunities for recreational boating of all types - sailing, canoes, power boats, pontoons, fishing boats, personal watercraft, even ice boating in the winter. White Bear Lake also provides several public and private beaches for swimming; public and private boat ramps, private and municipal docks; city parks and a county park; and areas for bicycling and walking along the lakeshore. The lake supports a diverse fishery, enjoyed by anglers year-round. Many area residents enjoy the lake’s aesthetic qualities such as large expanses of clear water and its wildlife inhabitants which have recently included a nesting pair of bald eagles.

White Bear Lake is clearly a focal point of the community and is important for area businesses because it attracts people from near and far. The lake’s recreational, environmental, cultural, historical and commercial value to the community is of great significance.

MANAGEMENT

There are numerous agencies and entities with some responsibility and authority for managing land and waters in and around White Bear Lake. The list below is meant to provide a quick overview of those agencies, entities and others with some management role for White Bear Lake.

Government

Federal

Environmental Protection Agency

Army Corps of Engineers

United States Geological Survey

Soil & Water Conservation Service

United States Fish & Wildlife Service

Department of Commerce - Weather service

State

MN Department of Natural Resources - Numerous divisions

MN Pollution Control Agency - Numerous divisions

MN Board of Water & Soil Resources

MN Department of Agriculture

MN Department of Health

MN Geological Survey

MN Department of Transportation

MN Environmental Quality Board

Legislative Commission on Minnesota’s Resources

State Planning

University of Minnesota

Water Resources Center

Sub-State

Metropolitan Council

Metropolitan Mosquito Control District

Rice Creek Watershed District

White Bear Lake Conservation District

Local

Ramsey & Washington Soil & Water Conservation Districts

Ramsey & Washington County Environmental Services

Ramsey County Parks

Cities and townships around the lake and in the watershed

Private & Nonprofit

Consultants & Venders - Planning, management, treatment, legal

Foundations & Interest Groups - Funding, advocacy, public interest, conservation, preservation, education

Users - Anglers, boaters, birders, swimmers

Lakeshore & Riparian Residents

White Bear Lake Homeowners Association

Dock Associations

Clubs - Sailing, Fishing & Waterski

Businesses - White Bear Area Chamber of Commerce

COMMUNITY INPUT SURVEY

The results of the Community Input Survey are summarized in an Appendix D.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Metropolitan Council - Population census and population forecasts; lake water quality data.

MN DNR - Fisheries assessments; aquatic plant surveys.

Ramsey County Public Works - Water quality data.

Rice Creek Watershed District - Report on Diagnostic/Feasibility Study of White Bear Lake (1991); pollution inputs; watershed data; lake data.

White Bear Lake Cons. District - Milfoil and aquatic plant surveys

DIRECTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Several areas are highlighted based in the results of the survey. They are listed here to kick off the discussions of the Advisory Committee. These are:

White Bear Lake is a highly valued resource in the community. It provides aesthetic, recreational, commercial and wildlife qualities that ought to be protected and preserved.

Certain lake uses threaten or conflict with the aesthetic, recreational, commercial and wildlife values. These uses and activities should be addressed in the lake management plan:

- Surface uses that lead to congestion and are noisy

- Shoreline uses such as commercial activities, public areas and access, over-development

- Uses that cause harm such as ice fishing houses (litter/sanitation), motor boats (gas/oil)

- Uses that are unsafe or incompatible with other uses such as seaplanes

Aquatic plants are generally not perceived as a nuisance, in fact they may provide an ecological service to the lake by providing fish and wildlife habitat and water quality benefits. Eurasian watermilfoil has not yet become a nuisance (except in small areas), but there is concern that it may someday. A comprehensive approach to managing aquatic plants is needed.

There is a perception that pollution from the watershed - such as stormwater runoff, lawn chemicals, and on-site septic systems - is or could become excessive.

The history of large lake level fluctuations is a concern. There is a belief that pumping, which was discontinued in the 1970s, provided relief for low level conditions and can (and perhaps should) be resumed. State law and the fact that the wells are no longer in use precludes pumping in the future. There is no plan in place for lake level control.

There is concern and frustration regarding the leadership and direction provided by the White Bear Lake Conservation District.

Appendix A

Aquatic Plant Surveys

Sources: MN DNR fisheries survey, 1969

A Limnological survey of White Bear Lake, Prof. J. Shapiro, 1970 - 1971

Vegetation Survey of White Bear Lake: Ramsey & Washington Counties, B. Hanson & R. Naplin, 1973

MN DNR fisheries survey, 1979

MN DNR fisheries survey, 1989

White Bear Lake Aquatic Plant Survey, S. McComas & J. Stuckert, 1997

Symbols: R = rare   O = occasional   P = present    C = common   A = abundant

Appendix B

1994 Fisheries Survey

Source: MN DNR
Survey date: July 25, 1994

N within normal range for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics

+ greater than normal range for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics

- less than normal range for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics

n/a no available range

Appendix C

White Bear Area Population

Source: Metropolitan Council census and projections

k = thousands

m = millions

Percentages in parenthesis represent changes since previous period

Appendix D

WHITE BEAR LAKE - MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Community Input Survey - Survey Results

June 1998

This survey was mailed to 132 people in the White Bear Lake community. This summary represents 44 returns or 33%. People receiving the survey represented the White Bear Lake Conservation District, Mayors, Councilmembers and staff from the five cities around the lake, board and committee members from the White Bear Area Chamber of Commerce, members of the White Bear Lake Homeowners Association, representatives from lake businesses, members of the White Bear Preservation Coalition, representatives of dock associations around the lake, and others.

The results summarized here are not intended to be definitive or scientific, but instead serve as a point of departure for future work in developing a management plan for White Bear Lake. These results will provide initial direction to the Advisory Committee

The number of responses received for each question is listed in parenthesis. To facilitate this summary, answers were grouped by general categories. Because some questions could be answered with more than one answer - for example lake uses: fishing, swimming, etc. - the total number of responses often exceeds the total number of respondents. The answers to "V. Other Comments" are reported word-for-word.

I. Personal Information

a?    How long have you lived in or conducted business in the White Bear Lake community?

0 - 5 years (3)

6 - 10 years (4)

11 - 15 years (6)

16 - 20 years (2)

21 - 25 years (8)

26 - 30 years (3)

30+ years (15) Longest resident = 70 years; Longest business = 109 years

Not applicable (1)

a? Are you interested in serving on the Advisory Committee?

Number of positive responses (17)

II. Uses and Values of White Bear Lake

Understanding how people use and value White Bear Lake is critical to focusing meaningful management attention. As you answer these questions, please be specific.

a? Describe your recreational use(s) of White Bear Lake.

Swimming (27)

Power boating (21)

Ice skating (4)

Sailing/sail-boarding (17)

Canoeing (4)

Fishing (17)

Ice boating (3)

Watching/viewing (14)

Birding/wildlife (3)

Waterskiing (7)

Snowmobiling (1)

Biking (5)

Everything (1)

Walking (5)

Commercial activity (5)

a? What about White Bear Lake is valuable to our community?

Recreation (23)

Public lake/parks (4)

Aesthetic/beauty (19)

Property values (4)

Focal point of community (15)

Size (5)

Business climate (9)

Wildlife (4)

Quality of life (7)

Everything (2)

Water quality (7)

Good sailing (1)

Uncrowded (5)

a? What about White Bear Lake and its environs are of aesthetic or environmental value to you?

Quiet/peacefulness (18)

Trees (2)

Clean water (11)

No milfoil or other weeds (2)

Wildlife, eagles (10)

Public access (2)

Slow boating (sail, fishing) (3)

Wetlands (1)

Native/natural shoreline (3)

Fishing (1)

a? What uses conflict with or detract from how you use or value White Bear Lake?

PWCs/Jet skis (19)

Poisoning of aquatic plants (4)

Big boats (11)

Traffic (4)

Noise (11)

Over-development (4)

None (7)

Commercial uses detract (3)

Crowds (weekends) (5)

Unregulated use (2)

Ice houses/litter (4)

Too Many docks (1)

Seaplanes (4)

Lack of public access/space (1)

Snowmobiles (4)

Limited access (1)

a? What uses should be regulated?

PWCs/Jet skis (23)

Snowmobiles (4)

Boat speed (20)

Number of private docks (4)

Noise (11)

Number of boats on lake (4)

Seaplanes (9)

Stormwater (3)

Health & safety concerns (7)

Boat size (2)

Ice fishing houses (5)

Most uses (2)

Chemical use (5)

No additional regulations (1)

III. The Condition of White Bear Lake

Lake condition refers to the water, the plant and animal life, and other factors in its physical environment. As you answer these questions, please give your impression of the lake’s condition, changes in the lake’s condition, or threats to the lake’s condition.

a? How do you perceive the overall water quality of White Bear Lake?

Great, excellent (14)

Clear, better than most (24)

OK (2)

Dirty (1)

a? How do you perceive the quality of the fishery in White Bear Lake?

Great, very good (7)

OK, average (18)

Decline in crappies & bass (1)

Poor, low levels of gamefish (5)

Don’t know (9)

a? How do you perceive the quality of aquatic plants in White Bear Lake?

Acceptable, OK (16)

No perceived problem (2)

Milfoil is a concern (13)

Too many weeds (5)

Don’t know (6)

a? How does the condition of White Bear Lake add to or detract from how you use or value the lake?

Adds to:

Quality (11)

High community value (3)

Sailing enhances image (3)

Clarity (3)

Lake level (2)

Detracts from:

Swimmer’s itch (8)

If ‘weeds’ get out of control (5)

Does not detract (5)

Increased boat traffic/speed (3)

Do not use after chem. treatments (1)

Cannot use (1)

IV. Issues and Concerns

a? What are important issues and concerns for the management of White Bear Lake?

Traffic/overcrowding (17)

Chemical use (3)

Milfoil threat/control (14)

Levels of gamefish (2)

Maintain water quality/clarity (13)

WBLCD (2)

Runoff controls/improvement (13)

Septic systems (2)

Lake level (7)

Gas/oil spills (2)

Noise (5)

Pollution (2)

Balance public/private access (4)

Weeds (1)

Health & safety (4)

Increase public access/areas (1)

Dock numbers (3)

Transient boaters (1)

Consistent enforcement (3)

Use of groundwater for lake (1)

Over-development of shore (3)

a? What is the most important issue?

Water quality/pollution (15)

Health & safety (1)

Milfoil (8)

Herbicides (1)

Crowding (4)

Balance public/private use (1)

Stormwater (4)

Jet skis (1)

Lake level (1)

Education of residents (1)

Public access (1)

Property development (1)

a? What areas of conservation are important to you?

Water quality (24)

Preserve undeveloped land (4)

Wildlife (9)

Milfoil/exotic species (6)

Runoff, lake level, fishing (each 2)

Lawn chemicals (6)

Septic systems, over-development,

Shoreline environment (6)

Marsh off island, litter, gas/oil, litter, none (each 1)

Noise (5)

a? What concerns do you have about the management (or lack of management) in White Bear Lake?

WBLCD lacks direction, leadership, too political etc. (13)

Milfoil (2)

Increasing population & use (2)

Lack of support by cities (1)

More public info./stewardship (3)

WBLCD should use its authority (1)

Over-regulation (3)

Greater control at public beaches (1)

Has been good (3)

Fair strategies (1)

None (2)

Don’t know who manages (1)

Local lake vs. public water (2)

Lack of stormwater management (1)

V. Other Comments

Hope this survey went to a wide range of stakeholders and not just to lakeshore owners and government officials.

I feel White Bear Lake is an excellent public resource. It needs to be viewed on a large scale. I believe it is the 2nd largest lake in the Twin Cities area and must be viewed as usable by more than White Bear Lake land owners.

Our main challenge is to maintain the status quo.

I think all watercraft and people should be restricted in the amount of noise they emit. Individuals need to be more responsible.

I would support more regulations that mandate or encourage catch and release fishing. I would also be in favor of restricting the number of boats launched by restricting parking for trailers. Once those parking spots are full, don’t allow trailer parking on streets. Regulate the number of boats allowed on one dock. I’ve seen docks with 4 pontoons + 2 boats. That seems excessive.

The WBLCD board needs to have people trained in Robert’s Rules, public meeting law, and attend workshops & conferences to learn about issues - for example, pollution, herbicides, public healths and safety. The board needs a full time administrator, a public information committee and a web site.

At this point in time, I do not see any reason for the WBLCD to continue to exist. For as long as I have tracked this organization, it has been more dysfunctional than functional. This board has no clear purpose, vision, or values. [Followed by 15 specific examples and experiences]

I have only been in the community a short time, but appreciate the efforts of those who have the knowledge and expertise in this area who are willing to be involved in responsible management and conservation of the lake.

This questionnaire is an excellent idea! I hope you receive many responses. Good luck!

I think people don’t realize how much they can and should do themselves, rather than expecting ‘they’ will do it. Can’t we get neighborhood reps to bring things to the residents attention? The city can apply for grants from the Met council & MPCA to purchase and try some new sediment catchers and velocity attenuators. Make it clear to residents that their councilmember is there to help them. My neighbors let things happen - they have no idea who to call when things go wrong. In several cases when residents did call the city to request help, no action was forthcoming. When I got involved a year ago, I resolved to clear up their problems. Why didn’t the solution happen sooner?

I have been told that the Ramsey county Sheriff’s water patrol on occasion is over-zealous. They have been stopping the same boat twice in the same afternoon to check for life jackets, etc. I don’t know if its true, but over-regulation is just as bad as no regulation.

I believe, in its current capacity, the WBLCD lacks sufficient resources to effectively manage White Bear Lake. The directors take it upon themselves to research, investigate, enforce and direct activities on the lake. This is all as volunteers. I see a need for increased staff.

Long term goals should be activities that enable more people to use the lake. Fishing, sailing, swimming, pontoon-boat, etc. High speed boat use should be regulated in some form in the future.

Well - it’s a tough job with so many communities involved, but in general I think the WBLCD Board has done well.

I would like to see rules of lake use posted. I would like to see those rules enforced. Most importantly, I would like to see many rules dropped until it is clear what they are for. Pulling every boat over for a life jacket & fire extinguisher check to meet quotas is not going to make the lake a safer place for boating and swimming! Enforcing speed limit rules, reckless driving and removing illegal structures will!

I very much appreciate the lake, but I use it very little, and know very little about it.

Sometime, somehow they are going to have to reduce the number of commercial docking slips on the lake.

Would like to see new street lights like on Banning Ave. all the way around the lake with walk/bike path or road.

I hope the lake plan will be simple enough so it is understood and gets used, otherwise everyone will lose.

We should take a van load of people who think storm sewers are great down to Madison, Wisconsin to see true eutrophication due to runoff from urban/suburban/agricultural activities. In Madison, fish kills are common and residents don’t swim in the lakes, instead the city’s debating building swimming pools (probably $$). I realize the geology and aquifer system for WBL is different from Lake Mendota in Madison, but nonpoint source pollution is a big problem there - and increasingly here. There you can experience what results - it’s a lake that is nice to look at, but not to boat or fish or swim in. It smells and the beaches are closed due to high bacteria levels.

I think a watershed approach/plan is very appropriate to identify (avoid) future problems & issues.