Regular Meeting

CITY OF DELAFIELD MEETING AGENDA LAKE WELFARE COMMITTEE Chair: Mike Hausman Members: Chris Arndt, Greg Domino, Jerry Dunnick, Jim Ellsworth, Gayle Gaborsky, Travis Manard, Susan McVey, Ald. Paul Price, Sarah Reardon, VACANT Office: (262) 646-6220 - E-Mail: clerksoffice@cityofdelafieldwi.gov – cityofdelafieldwi.gov August 12, 2026 6:00 PM City Hall, Council Chambers 500 Genesee St. Regular Meeting AMENDED Item 7.B. and 7.C. Added 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Approve the following meeting minutes: A. July 8, 2026 Regular Meeting 5. Citizen Comments 6. Unfinished Business Discussion and possible action on the following items: A. “Welcome to the Lake” Program B. Nagawicka Lake Water Level and No-Wake Rules C. Erosion / Storm Runoff from East Side of Nagawicka Lake D. Wakesurfing Recommendations, Notifications E. Aerators F. Annual Lake Awareness Meeting Date, Location, Agenda 7. New Business Discussion and possible action on the following items: A. Weed Harvesting on Nagawicka Lake B. Aquatic Invasive Species – Starry Stonewort in Nagawicka Lake C. Review and Acknowledge the Recommend Ordinance Amendment and Associated Signage for St John’s Public Pier 8. Requested Future Agenda Items 9. Correspondence 10. Lake Welfare Committee Meeting Dates and Deadlines A. Regular Meeting: October 14, 2026 B. Regular Meeting Submittal Deadline: October 1, 2026 11. Adjournment CITY OF DELAFIELD MEETING AGENDA LAKE WELFARE COMMITTEE Chair: Mike Hausman Members: Chris Arndt, Greg Domino, Jerry Dunnick, Jim Ellsworth, Gayle Gaborsky, Travis Manard, Susan McVey, Ald. Paul Price, Sarah Reardon, VACANT Office: (262) 646-6220 - E-Mail: clerksoffice@cityofdelafieldwi.gov – cityofdelafieldwi.gov All meetings of the Lake Welfare Committee are public meetings. The meeting of the Committee is a working session for the Committee itself, and, outside of the Citizens Comments section, discussion by those in attendance is limited to Committee members, staff and others that may be a party to the matter being discussed. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT NOTICE: Upon reasonable notice (at least 72 hours in advance) the City will furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services when necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in and to enjoy the benefits of a service, program or activity provided by the City. NOTICE OF POSSIBLE QUORUM: It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipality may be in attendance at the above-stated meeting to gather information: no action will be taken by any governmental body at the above-stated meeting other than the governmental body specifically referred to above in this notice. Clerk: MJS Posted: 8/11/2026 X City Hall Bulleting Board X Website X Notified Media From: Siwula, Patrick J - DNR To: Mike Hausman; Tom Hafner Cc: Bunk, Heidi J - DNR; Crane, Breanna R - DNR; Amanda Schmitz Subject: [External] Starry stonewort verified at Nagawicka Lake Date: Monday, August 10, 2026 8:48:34 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png SSW_Statement (18).pdf StarryStonewortID-laminate.pdf SSW native look-alikes.pdf SSW_FAQ (16).pdf SSW research factsheet_template_3.9.2026 (8).pdf SSW Nagawicka Lake 08_26.jfif Hello, I am the regional Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Biologist with WDNR and I’m reaching out to inform you that we have verified the presence of invasive starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa; ‘SSW’) at Nagawicka Lake. Waukesha County staff were monitoring the launch on Bleeker street recently and found a small amount of SSW; they were able to gather a specimen and we have verified the species presence within the waterbody. I will be updating DNR database records accordingly and this species will show as present at Nagawicka on the DNR lakes page . SSW is present in many SE WI lakes and has been present in nearby Lake Country waterbodies for many years. It may have been present already and is just now being detected by trained professionals conducting monitoring at the launch (most new SSW findings are found during in this manner, given the similarities of the species to native muskgrasses and stoneworts). Since first introduced to WI in 2014, we have learned that SSW is a very difficult species to manage, as there are tools to suppress it but none that are effective long-term or at the lakewide scale. This is largely due to the fact that SSW is not a true vascular plant, but rather a macroalgae that looks and grows like a plant, but has very different biology than AIS like Eurasian watermilfoil. The attached ‘FAQ’ fact sheet contains a nice overview of these considerations. One main factor for this species is the presence of small, star-shaped bulbils (its namesake) which are vegetative reproductive structures that are borne on rhizoids under the sediment and are relatively unimpacted by available management techniques. We have also learned that this species behaves differently in different waterbodies and does not always grow to nuisance levels or cause navigational/recreational concern; similar to native chara (muskgrass), it is typically a low-growing species that does not often ‘top out’ unless present in very shallow water. We have also seen variable responses to the native plant community (i.e. not always negative) and have also seen scenarios where SSW frequency increased following aggressive interventions. For these reasons, Department policy currently only supports active management of starry stonewort in situations where it is causing navigational/recreational impairment (such as ‘topping out’), or in confined/shallow locations with heavy boat traffic such as launches and channels (in a containment strategy to reduce risk of it from spreading via prop action in shallow water). In these cases that may warrant active management, DASH and/or diver-assisted hand removal are typically the recommended methods for this species as they provide selectivity to preserve native plants in the area and provide competition to the SSW. The ideal scenario would be to have SSW integrate into the overall aquatic plant community without causing nuisance conditions or unduly displacing the native aquatic plant community. Heidi happened to be out on Nagawicka recently as well and did a thorough assessment of the Bleeker Street launch area and bay – she did not identify SSW in any other locations other than where the County was able to obtain a sample. The location where they found the SSW is at approximately 43.064517, -88.398922 just off the end of the pier. Given where we are at in the boating season and the small amount found (in deeper water as well), we do not feel that a SSW removal event at the Bleeker Street launch would be warranted this season - Moving forward, we would recommend conducting annual monitoring near the launch to inform if hand removal or DASH of SSW at launch area would be warranted, such as if SSW were to be present in the launch ramp itself or in the lane moving out into the lake. Again, this would be part of a containment strategy, to keep SSW low or absent from the high traffic launch ramp area to prevent further spread via that vector. Long-term, we would recommend conducting an updated point-intercept survey of the waterbody to determine the location and frequency of starry stonewort occurrence throughout the waterbody. Your APM plan will then be able to be updated to capture considerations/frameworks for if/when to conduct SSW management – On that note, it would be OK to wait until you are due for the next 5-year update to your plan before doing another PI survey, but we could also consider doing one in the interim to identify the lakewide SSW presence if you would like to do so. The DNR Surface Water Grant Program has an Early Detection & Response (EDR) grant category, which is available for new findings of AIS; this grant category would be able to fund activities such as SSW removal at the boat launch and aquatic plant surveys. It can also be used on activities such as education/outreach/prevention, and if you are interested in pursuing this please let me know and I will provide more information. Please let us know of any questions and I would be happy to set up a call to discuss this finding further. Please also share this information with other Nagawicka folks as needed, Thank you, Patrick Siwula Southeast Region AIS Biologist Office of Great Waters/Environmental Management Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1155 Pilgrim Road, Plymouth, WI 53073 Phone: 920-893-8552 Mobile: 920-400-9172 patrick.siwula@wisconsin.gov dnr.wi.gov Our core values include professionalism, integrity, and customer service. Please visit our survey to provide feedback on your experience interacting with any DNR employee. Identification • Related to many native macro-algae in Wisconsin – Chara (10+ species) – Nitella (9+ species) – Tolypella (2 species) – Lychnothamnus (1 species) • All tend to improve water clarity and quality Identification HUGE Starry stonewort Nitellopsis obtusa Nitella flexilis Chara globularis Chara contraria compared to most of its native relatives Identification – basic body plan Whorl of branchlets Node Internode Bract Identification – basic body plan Oogonium (female) Antheridium (male) Bracts Oogonium (female) Antheridium (male) Identification – basic body plan If you see/feel these long cells on the stem, it is NOT starry stonewort Chara contraria Identification Starry stonewort Nitellopsis obtusa Nitella mucronata Branchlet divides into equal-length parts Branchlet has a short bract coming off the right side Identification • Bulbils • Most macro-algae do NOT produce bulbils. Chara aspera Identification • Bulbils produce clones of the parent • Most macro-algae do NOT produce bulbils. Chara aspera Nitellopsis obtusa (starry stonewort) Identification Horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris) VS. NATIVE Starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa) Identification Sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata) VS. NATIVE Starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa) Distribution in Wisconsin • Starry stonewort is currently not widespread in Wisconsin. It has been verified in 39 inland lakes (primarily in southeastern Wisconsin), as well as coastal portions of Lake Michigan and Green Bay. • Based on the current limited distribution of this non- native species, containment and prevention of SSW is a high priority. • The department and partners plan to continue strategically conducting aquatic invasive species (AIS) early detection monitoring on waterbodies throughout the state in order to detect and respond to new SSW populations early before they become well-established. Starry Stonewort Management Starry Stonewort Research Factsheet The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has continued its efforts on understanding the distribution, ecology and management of starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa, SSW) since this Ch. NR 40 prohibited macroalgae species was first verified in Wisconsin in September 2014. This factsheet summarizes the monitoring and evaluation efforts implemented to date which the department has collaborated on with a variety of partners (e.g., private consultants, state resource managers, lake associations, universities, federal agencies), and is intended to be shared amongst various stakeholders involved in responding to SSW. Steps can be taken to minimize the spread of starry stonewort. • The majority of lakes with verified SSW populations have active Clean Boats, Clean Waters (CBCW) prevention programs to help minimize the spread of this species and other AIS to uninvaded waterbodies. • Laboratory studies indicate that hot water steam for >30 seconds will kill SSW bulbils and prevent them from germinating. Drying or freezing bulbils for >24 hours will also prevent germination. • Another study found that SSW was no longer viable after 2 hours of drying for single plant fragments, 24 hours for small clumps, and up to 4 days for large clumps. • Chlorine bleach (500 ppm) with a 10 minute exposure time did not appear to completely kill bulbils. Top photo: AP Bottom photo: Paul Skawinski 3200-2020-20 Revised March 2026 Lakewide % littoral frequency of starry stonewort (SSW) for lakes with two or more point -intercept plant surveys (n=20). The black squares connected by a solid line indicate the % of sites with SSW divided by the number of sites in the lake where plants are able to grow (e.g., littoral zone). The vertical lines indicate when various management activities for SSW control occurr ed, with the line color and style indicating specific management techniques. Management activities conducted to date have not been effective at reducing the frequency or biomass of starry stonewort • Quantitative pre- and post-treatment monitoring and analysis of management efficacy has been conducted following a variety of management activities implemented to control SSW, such as various chemical herbicides, hand-pulling, diver assisted suction harvesting (DASH), and water level drawdown. • Evaluation of pre- and post-treatment data compiled across several lakes which have utilized chemical control methods (i.e., primarily copper-based herbicides) have not resulted in control nor eradication of SSW, even in scenarios where chemical treatments have occurred numerous times per season or at large spatial scales. • The implementation of a winter water level drawdown did not result in control of SSW, however the sediment never fully dried. • Chemical management of other AIS species such as Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed may also influence the within lake spread of SSW, especially when conducted at a large spatial scale. • SSW populations in some lakes have remained at low frequencies over the past few years of monitoring, while in other lakes it has exhibited a relatively rapid increase in frequency since discovery. 3200-2020-20 Revised March 2026 Additional findings on the effects of management activities on starry stonewort • SSW plant height data collected on one lake showed modest short-term reductions in plant height following chemical treatment of some areas, however other areas chemically treated did not see reductions in height. Additionally, there was no untreated area monitored to understand natural variation in SSW bed height. • Data on other control methods is currently being compiled in order to better understand their efficacy and selectivity. These localized management techniques are often more difficult to quantitatively evaluate given the small scale which they are typically implemented at. • The use of barrier curtains in conjunction with chemical applications was able to keep the herbicide concentration higher and prevent dissipation away from treatment sites, however this did not result in better control of SSW. Impact of starry stonewort on native plants has been observed to be variable. • Data on the impact of SSW to native plant communities is currently limited. There is some evidence that SSW may negatively impact certain native plants in areas of lakes where SSW is abundant. However in other lakes with SSW, the response of native plants is more variable and mixed effects have been observed. • Many of the chemicals and application rates used to control SSW are also labeled to have impacts on certain native plants, including muskgrasses and stoneworts (Chara & Nitella spp.), coontail, elodea, pondweeds, wild celery, naiads, and watermilfoils. The spread of starry stonewort within lakes is variable over time • In at least one lake where SSW has established, the frequency of this species has declined over the past few years, despite no active management actions being implemented. • The Department will continue to collaborate with partners to conduct annual lakewide aquatic plant point- intercept (PI) surveys in SSW invaded lakes to better understand long-term impacts and evaluate management activities. Literature Cited Brainard, A.S. & K.L. Schulz. 2017. Impacts of the cryptic macroalgal invader, Nitellopsis obtusa, on macrophyte communities. Freshwater Science. 36(1):55–62. Glisson, W. CK. Wagner, M.R. Verhoeven, R. Muthukrishnan, R. Contreras-Rangel, & D.J. Larkin. 2020. Desiccation tolerance of the invasive alga starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa) as an indicator of overland spread risk. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 58:7–18. Glisson, W., M. Nault, C. Jurek, E. Fischer, K. Lund, K. Bloodsworth Cattoor, A. Londo, N. Kovar, E. Hauck-Jacobs, R. Egdell, S. McComas, E. Fieldseth, D.J. Larkin. 2025. Evaluation of a decade of management of a North American aquatic invasive species (Nitellopsis obtusa) highlights scale-dependent effectiveness and monitoring gaps. FACETS. 10:1-14. Gottschalk, S.D. & K.G. Karol. 2020. Survivability of starry stonewort bulbils using commonly available decontamination strategies. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 58:19–25. Wagner, Carli. 2019. Starry stonewort invasion in Minnesota lakes (spread & impacts). Minnesota AIS Research Center, University of Minnesota. Online webinar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQGnun7Oz6s Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Accessed: March 9, 2026. apps.dnr.wi.gov/lakes/invasives/ AISLists.aspx?species=STARRY_STONEW 3200-2020-20 Revised March 2026 Frequently Asked Questions Starry Stonewort Management What is the best way to keep starry stonewort from spreading to other lakes? Prevention is the key to stop the spread of all aquatic invasive species. Practice clean boating and set a good example at boat launches, “Inspect, Remove, Drain and Never Move. ” Pay special attention to anchors and other gear that may have touched lake sediments. In addition, Clean Boats Clean Waters (CBCW) grants and programs can be implemented to help prevent the spread; program volunteers can help educate boaters and assist with cleaning equipment. When should starry stonewort be managed? Management efforts should focus on preventing the spread of starry stonewort ( Nitellopsis obtusa, SSW) outside of the waterbody, and on mitigating the impacts of SSW where it occurs. Consistent monitoring will provide the information to determine whether control is necessary and can save time and resources in the long run. If SSW is causing minimal impacts to recreational use, habitat, or water quality, then the need for active management should be carefully considered. Which management approaches have been tried? Chemical control methods, primarily copper -based herbicides, have been used to attempt control. Drawdowns, dredging, diver assisted suction harvesting (DASH) and hand pulling have also been used. Regular monitoring and analysis of plant communities without active management of SSW has also been conducted. At this point, all control methods are experimental. Please refer to the Department ’s research factsheet on SSW management for more specifics. What is the department doing to learn more about the species and its impacts? The department will continue to support collaborative research with regional and national partners like the U.S. Army Corps Engineer Research and Development Center, University of Minnesota, Indiana University, New York Botanical Garden, Midwest Aquatic Plant Management Society, and local lake organizations. The department is also involved with the Great Lakes SSW Collaborative, an EPA grant -funded effort to increase the capacity for experts, resource managers and citizen scientists to understand the potential impacts of SSW and the best management practices available. What can you do to help us learn more about this species? The department is looking to support collaborate research projects designed to learn how to better manage SSW. Eligible applicants who want to engage in collaborative research may pursue funding through the Surface Water Grant Program’s AIS Research and Demonstration, Aquatic Invasive Species Control or Early Detection and Response grants. In all cases, projects should employ management methods that have promise for effective control and include an evaluation method. Organizations with a new population of SSW are encouraged to develop a lake management plan or an AIS response plan. Funding through the Surface Water Grant Program ’s AIS Prevention or Lake Planning program can help provide financial assistance. For more information, including how to determine eligibility and start developing a project, visit the department ’s information page on the Surface Water Grant Program. 3200-2020-18 Revised Mar.2020 Top photo: Progressive AE Bottom photo: Paul Skawinski Which management approaches have worked? The department has not yet identified any control measures that work well. Chemical management of SSW has not resulted in sustained control or reduction in population size for any waterbody in Wisconsin. The efficacy of dredging, DASH, and hand -pulling are currently being evaluated. To date, the only SSW population that has decreased over time is the population that has never been actively managed. The department will continue to monitor all populations as resources allow to better understand long term trends in both managed and unmanaged lakes. What should be done if previous management did not work well? When one control strategy doesn ’t work, it is necessary to reevaluate management goals and all available management tools. Involved groups should continue SSW population monitoring to learn how SSW interacts with other plants and animals in each waterbody. In addition, it is important to continue researching how SSW populations react to different types of management and how those same management actions impact native plants, animals and water quality. Please refer to the department ’s guide on Integrated Pest Management, to create a waterbody-specific action plan. Why is the department concerned about continual copper-based herbicide use? Copper is generally considered non-selective, and may have non-target impacts on native species, especially on native macroalgae such as musk grasses. Copper does not degrade after application, but rather accumulates in the sediment, and repeated use in the same area may potentially increase toxicity risks for other aquatic life, as well as potentially give rise to copper -resistant populations of undesirable species. Please refer to the department ’s Copper Compounds Chemical Fact Sheet for more information. Why is the department concerned about management impacts to native plants? Aquatic plants form the foundation of healthy lake ecosystems. They not only protect water quality, but also produce life -giving oxygen. Aquatic plants are a lake's own filtering system, helping to clear the water by absorbing nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen that could stimulate algal blooms. Native aquatic plants also provide important reproductive, food, and cover habitat for fish, invertebrates, and wildlife. What are some alternative management approaches beyond chemicals? Other management options include: drawdowns, dredging, diver - assisted suction harvesting (DASH), hand -pulling and no management. Several of these strategies are being used in conjunction with chemical control of SSW populations in the state. Why is starry stonewort so difficult to manage? Starry stonewort is a bushy, bright green macroalga with star-shaped reproductive structures called bulbils. Unlike the common vascular non-native plants, Eurasian watermilfoil and curly leaf pondweed, SSW does not have a vascular system. Think of vascular plants like the human body, an injection anywhere on the body will move throughout the entire bloodstream. In SSW, each branchlet, stem or bulbil is a single cell type with a different function. If a human body was SSW each arm, leg, torso and head would be a separate cell, an injection into the arm would impact that arm only. Additionally, that arm could grow back if it was removed. Think of a large collection of individuals packed tightly together as a bed of SSW. If someone flew overhead on a normal day with moderate wind and sprayed paint, the paint may drift down and contact the heads and shoulders of the group in a random fashion. If the group was more spread out, the paint may contact more individuals, but still only hit a portion of each individual body part. If the wind was just right, the group was moderately spread apart and enough paint was used, the paint may drift down and uniformly coat most of each individual body part. Unless the final scenario can occur in water, it is unlikely the entire SSW plant structure is affected by a contact herbicide. Contact herbicides only kill or impact the part of the plant that they touch. If the top of the macroalgae is impacted by a treatment, within a short amount of time new cells will grow. If the reproductive bulbils are not impacted by treatment, they will continue producing new SSW vegetative growth. Additionally, SSW management itself can have impacts on native species, as the contact herbicides typically used for SSW are also labeled to impact certain native plant species that often grow near or within SSW beds. Therefore, even when treatments are not effective at managing SSW, they have the potential to cause non-target damage to natives. In conclusion, in aquatic treatments it can be hard to predict how much of SSW will be touched by herbicide and how long the herbicide will remain on the macroalgae. If herbicide contact time and dosage is limited by water flow, water volume, population densities or the amount of herbicide used, there can be variability in treatment success and nontarget impacts. The structure of SSW and its bulbils can also pose challenges during manual and/or mechanical removal. 3200-2020-18 Revised Mar.2020 The Department has continued to intensify its efforts on understanding the distribution, ecology and management of starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa, SSW) since this ch. NR 40 prohibited macroalgae species was first verified in Wisconsin in 2014. Part of this effort includes continuing annual lakewide point -intercept aquatic plant surveys on waterbodies with verified SSW populations, early detection monitoring on proximal waterbodies without SSW present, as well as quantitative pre - and post- treatment monitoring following a variety of management activities which have been implemented to control SSW (i.e., chemical herbicides, hand -removal, diver assisted suction harvesting (DASH), water level drawdown, etc.). Preliminary data from annual lakewide surveys indicate that SSW frequency can vary across lakes, with some waterbodies exhibiting a relatively rapid increase in SSW frequency since discovery, while other lakes have seen a much slower expansion of SSW, or even a reduction over time. Evaluation of pre - and post-treatment data compiled across several lakes which have utilized chemical control methods (primarily copper-based herbicides) have not resulted in control nor eradication of SSW in the scenarios where this management technique has been attempted. Data on other control methods is currently being compiled in order to better understand their efficacy and selectivity. While this documented lack of control efficacy might be discouraging, the department is committed to continue to work with impacted lakes to develop and test new SSW management strategies as they become available. In addition, the department has also embarked upon several collaborative research efforts with other regional and national partners (i.e., US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, University of Minnesota, Indiana University, New York Botanical Garden, Midwest Aquatic Plant Management Society, etc.) in order to work collectively to understand how the potential impacts of this new invasive species can best be prevented and managed in the Midwest. The department is an active participant in the EPA -grant funded SSW Collaborative, which is intended to increase the capacity of experts, resource managers, and citizen scientists to monitor and control SSW across the Great Lakes basin. Starry Stonewort Management Statement of Department Efforts Top photo: AP Bottom photo: Paul Skawinski 3200-2020-19 Revised Mar.2020 Branchlets in whorls of about 6 Starry stonewort Nitellopsis obtusa (Non-native) (Actual size) Stem is smooth and green. There may be a white/gray coating of minerals covering the stem Branchlets have one or more short bracts, which give the branchlet an unevenly forked appearance Star-shaped growths called bulbils are produced on clear threads at the base of this algae 4mm STARRY STONEWORT Nitellopsis obtusa Starry stonewort is a type of non-native, aquatic algae from Europe and Asia. Unlike the microscopic algae that can make a water body green and cloudy, starry stonewort and its many native relatives in the Characeae family are anchored to the bottom of the lake, and can be well over a meter tall. These large algae resemble vascular plants, with structures that resemble stems and leaves. Starry stonewort has been known to grow in dense stands that exclude other aquatic vegetation. These stands can also create a serious nuisance for boaters and other recreational users of lakes. This species has been documented in Wisconsin and several states to the east. Description : Starry stonewort’s main stem can be over two meters long, and typically has many whorls of 4-8 leaf-like structures called branchlets. These branchlets can be several inches long. Lower branchlets are undivided, but upper branchlets may appear divided, due to a short bract cell that develops where the round, orange reproductive structures will eventually form. White bulbils are formed in the sediments on clear threads called rhizoids. Nodes along the stem can also turn into bulbils in late autumn. Unlike most species of the related muskgrasses (Chara species), the stem of starry stonewort is smooth and generally bright green (unless covered in mineral deposits). Habitat: Starry stonewort may grow anywhere from a few inches deep to 9 meters deep. It prefers hard-water lakes with marl sediments. This species can tolerate low light conditions, and may persist under ice cover in some lakes. Because of its likelihood to be transported by boating equipment, boat landings are good places to monitor for the introduction of starry stonewort. Similar species: Starry stonewort is closely related to many other large, native algae, the most common ones being species of Chara (muskgrasses) and Nitella (stoneworts). All Nitella species have branchlets that fork near their ends, while starry stonewort branchlets do not fork. Most Chara species have rough stems covered in long, narrow cells; starry stonewort stems are smooth and do not have any long, narrow cells covering them. A couple of Chara species produce bulbils, but these tend to be ball-shaped, rather than star-shaped. Management and Control: Manual removal of starry stonewort is difficult, but can be an option for small populations. Diver-assisted suction harvesting has been used to increase the efficiency of manually removing starry stonewort. Care must be taken to remove the bulbils as well, or these bulbils will sprout new individuals. Some chemical herbicides have been able to reduce starry stonewort, but effectiveness tends to decrease as the stands get taller and more dense. An effective biological control agent is not known at this time. Only male starry stonewort has been documented in the United States. This means that there is no sexual reproduction taking place, and therefore, no production of seeds. All reproduction of starry stonewort here is via transportation of stem fragments or bulbils. Bract cell - a short cell that forms beside a reproductive structure on a branchlet. Branchlets - leaf-like structures, usually in whorls of 4-8. Bulbils - starchy structures that are produced in the sediments or at nodes along the stem. Node - a location where a branchlet meets a stem or branch. Rhizoids - colorless, transparent threads in the sediments that provide stability and produce bulbils. Information adapted from the following sources: Sleith et al. 2015. Distribution of Nitellopsis obtusa (Characeae) in New York, USA. Brittonia. 67:2 166-172. Skawinski, P.M. 2014. Aquatic Plants of the Upper Midwest, 2nd Ed. Available through the UW-Extension Lakes Program. Clean Boats, Clean Waters www.uwsp.edu/cnr/uwexlakes/cbcw Wisconsin Citizen Lake Monitoring Network www.uwsp.edu/cnr/uwexlakes/clmn MEMO Date: July 22, 2026 To: Park & Recreation Commission Topic: Ordinance Amendment and Associated Signage for St John’s Public Pier From: Stephen Laughland, Ald. D7 & Park & Recreation Commission Chair Person The park hours are explicitly named by Ordinance in Sec. 36-1 and need to be amended to specifically change the hours in St John’s Park for use of the new Public Pier. The ordinance amendment also needs to exclude the restrictions for time of usage associated with St Johns Northwestern Academy, and to designate a private slip for their exclusive use. The hours will continue to be that the park, and the pier, are closed between one-half hour after sunset and 7:00 a.m. each day, until the Common Council takes action to amend the Ordinance. Temporary Signage posted: And Additional Signage is: MEMO Recommended Action Recommend the Common Council amend the City of Delafield Ordinance in Sec. 36-1 to accomplish the following: 1. Designate the hours of the public pier in St. John’s Park located on St. John’s Bay to be from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. 2. Limit the duration of occupation of a pier slip to a maximum of three hours. 3. Prohibit overnight parking of boats at the public pier. 4. Designate the southwest slip, closest to the shoreline on the south side of the pier, as reserved for the exclusive use of St. John’s Northwestern Academy. 5. Exclude St. John’s Northwestern Academy from the hours, duration and overnight restrictions, to allow full-time 24-hour use of the pier and lake access, matching that of all residents with lake access. 6. Replace the temporary signage with the appropriate updates pursuant to these changes. 7/21/26, 3:18 PMDelafield, WI Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 1about:blank (a) (b) (c) Sec. 36-1. - Park curfew. Hours restricted. All city-owned parks shall be closed between one-half hour after sunset and 7:00 a.m. each day. Exception. The city council may, upon written application of any group desiring to organize an athletic, recreational or social function, grant a permit waiving the restrictions of subsection (a) of this section for a specified number of days. Ice skating exemption. Ice skating on the city pond on Genesse Street and in the Oakwood Community Park shall be permitted until 10:00 p.m. (Code 1997, § 19.01; Am. #238; Rep. & Recr. #683) THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR ST. JOHN’S NORTHWESTERN ACADEMY USE ONLY PUBLIC PIER UNTIL FURTHER NOTCE: • Use is prohibited between one-half hour after sunset and 7:00 AM (City of Delafield Ord. Sec. 36-1) • No overnight parking • 3 Hour docking limit