DNR seeks more SE dredging data

Weeds pile up on Sleepy Eye Lake

By FRITZ BUSCH

Journal Staff Writer

SLEEPY EYE -- While a large number of weeds are visible in Sleepy Eye Lake, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources officials said they want more detailed project information before they would grant a dredging permit.

Several months ago, the Sleepy Eye City Council approved the $85,000 purchase of a dredge owned by Brown County that is currently at Lake Hanska. Brown County Commissioners earmarked $70,000 in matching funds for dredging operating expenses and agreed to pay dredge moving expenses.

Lake reclamation consultant Jim Ganske of Sleepy Eye urged the council to buy the dredge and begin the project, claiming it could be done for $1 per cubic foot, one-third the cost of most projects.

Before the DNR will issue a dredging permit, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) must be completed. The permit decision will come from reviewing environmental impacts and benefits against criteria set in Minnesota Rule, according to DNR Area Hydrologist Rob Collett of Hutchinson.

Dave Leuthe, DNR Regional Hydrologist in New Ulm, wrote a 2 1/2-page letter on the lake dredging issue May 22. He addressed the letter to Wayne Pelzel of the Sleepy Eye Lake Improvement Committee, Sleepy Eye Mayor Jim Broich, the Brown County Board of Commissioners, Brown County Water Planner Paul Davis, Kent Lokkesmoe of the DNR Division of Waters, DNR Regional Director Cheryl Heide, Minnesota Rep. Jim Clark and Sen. Dennis Frederickson, both of New Ulm and the DNR REAT (Regional Environmental Assessment Team).

Leuthe said the DNR Waters Division and other staffers have been proactive on the issue. Initially, they recommended no dredging, to allow the department to determine how long the benefits of current stocking and rehabilitation efforts would last.

Due to the local fervor and energy of Sleepy Eye Lake dredging efforts, the DNR agreed to consider "limited" dredging, working with the lake improvement committee and Brown County staff.

Brown County Commissioners stated that 150,000 cubic yards of material needed to be dredged to make the project cost effective enough for their involvement in cost sharing, Leuthe said.

DNR staff gathered data, used previous dredging depths and determined that the county's dredging figure could not be met.

Meanwhile, the lake committee and City of Sleepy Eye staff responded with a counter proposal to remove 450,000 to 600,000 cubic yards of dredging sediment. The proposal did not include specific information, justification, purpose or a permit application necessary for review, according to Leuthe.

In 1989 and 1990, 1,010,000 cubic yards sediment was removed from the lake before it was killed with chemicals and restocked with game fish.

Dredging permit criteria reads "the project must be reasonable and practical, represent the minimal-impact solution to a specific need, with respect to other alternatives," Leuthe wrote.

He feels the dredge was purchased for the wrong reasons.

"So far as we can tell from our many meetings with the lake committee, the 'specific need' which has driven the project is not one concerning the lake, but rather with Brown County's wish to sell the dredge and their criteria for economic feasibility and involvement."

Leuthe said further dredging will increase depths and limit aquatic vegetation. Nutrients normally tied up by plants would be available to algae. Fish habitat and water quality would not improve.

"The lake is at risk of shifting back to a blue-green algae dominated system, which no one will enjoy," Leuthe said. "Additional dredging of substantial areas will further affect this sensitive balance by eliminating the habitat area suitable for rooted, aquatic plants.

"While these areas are a nuisance to lakeshore owners and recreational boaters at times, and in certain areas, they are critical in tying up available nutrients and proving excellent habitat that supports a quality fishery, abundant wildlife populations and water quality," Leuthe said.

It is the DNR's observation that the cumulative desires of everyone cannot be attained in the small, prairie lake and that the future health of the lake rests largely in the land use and actions of watershed residents, and not on continued attempts to manipulate the lake itself, the letter said.

Meanwhile, Pelzel said weeds in the lake are becoming such a problem, 60 percent of the lake won't be usable by boat in the near future.

"A simple trip to the lake will tell you why we want to dredge," Pelzel said. "I respect the DNR but we have a divergence of opinion. We want a lake, not a marsh. The best way we know of getting rid of weeds is to dredge."

Pelzel said Rep. Clark and Sen. Frederickson are both supportive of the dredging project but the DNR seems to be doing everything it can to "stonewall" the project, as it did prior to previous dredging projects.

Last weekend, Pelzel and other lake committee and city officials toured the lake by boat and feel an ever larger amount of dredge sediment, compared to their earlier counter proposal, should be removed from the lake.

Pelzel said Sleepy Eye City Manager Mark Kober is putting the dredging permit application together and arrangements are being made with landowners for a sediment deposit site.

"We want to get this ready to go this summer so we can start dredging next year," Pelzel said.