Koochiching County
Local Water Management Plan
December 2012 Update
Duration: 2007 – 2017
Update Prepared by: Dale Olson Koochiching County Environmental Services with assistance from Koochiching County Water Management Plan Advisory Committee
Kevin Adee, Commissioner Robert Anderson, Citizen Nolan Baratono, MPCA Jack (Jake) Blake, Citizen Ryan Heinen, SWCD Staff Jeff Hrubes, BWSR Al Linder, SWCD Board Wayne Merrell, Citizen Marie Mettler, KCHD Kevin Peterson, DNR Troy Promersberger, SWCD Board Jana Toman, Citizen Pam Tomevi, SWCD Staff Kelly Elijio, NRCS Marc Windsnes, Citizen Andrew Wright, Citizen Justin Berg, SWCD Staff Chad Severts, BWSR
Page 1 of 62
Table of Contents
Acronyms ………………………………………………………………………… 3
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 5
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………… 7
Water Management Plan Goals, Objectives and Action Plans ………… 13
Appendix A: Koochiching County Water Management Plan Implementation Schedule…………………………………... 26
Appendix B: Koochiching County Water Management Plan 2007 – 2017 Priority Concerns Scoping Document ……… 28
Appendix C: Response to Comments on the “Koochiching County Water Management Plan 2007 – 2017 Priority Concerns Scoping Document …….…………………………. 37
Appendix D: Koochiching County Water Management Plan Accomplishments……………………………………………… 41
Appendix E: Bartlett Lake – Final Report, Lake Protection Challenge Grand Project……………………………………… 43
Page 2 of 62
ACRONYMS
ACOE Army Corps of Engineers BMP Best Management Practices BWSR Board of Water and Soil Resources DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans DNR Department of Natural Resources EDA Environmental Data Access EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESD Environmental Services Department FRCG Forest Resources Council Guidelines ISTS Individual Sewage Treatment System KCHD Koochiching County Health Department KCWMP Koochiching County Water Management Plan LWMP Local Water Management Plan MDH Minnesota Department of Health MOE Ministry of the Environment MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NEMO Non-point Education for Municipal Officials NPDES Non-point Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards NPS Non-Point Source NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OHWL Ordinary High Water Level OMH Ontario Ministry of Health OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources ORVW Outstanding Resource Value Water PCSD Priority Concerns Scoping Document QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control RBWRC Rainy Basin Water Resource Center ROSS Rainy On-site Sewage Study RRCC Rainy River Community College SSTS Subsurface Sewage Treatment System
Page 3 of 62
SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District TEP Technical Evaluation Panel TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load VNP Voyageurs National Park VSLFMG Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines WMPAC Water Management Plan Advisory Committee WRC Water Resources Center
Page 4 of 62
KOOCHICHING COUNTY WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Introduction
This is an update to the 2007 KCWMP. That Plan was developed by the Water Management Plan Advisory Committee (WMPAC) in concert with ESD staff. The WMPAC had six citizen members and eleven agency and county representatives, two from SWCD staff and board, ESD, NRCS, DNR, MPCA, County Health Department, one County Commissioner and expert counsel from BWSR staff. This Committee worked hard, long and cooperatively with ESD staff to produce a Water Plan that fits the needs of Koochiching County.
The WMPAC and Koochiching County understand that the majority of surface waters in Koochiching County that have been sampled, meet or exceed current water quality standards for conventional pollutants, with the exception of the documented impairment for turbidity of the Little Fork River. Mercury impairments have been identified in streams, rivers and lakes within the county as they have across Minnesota. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s state-wide Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and reduction plan.
The mercury TMDL identifies that atmospheric mercury deposition is uniform across the state and is responsible for over 99% of the mercury that finds its way into fish through the process of bioaccumulation. The reduction plan identifies a role for the State and Federal governments to control emissions from various sources. Comprehensive Local Water Management Plans play little to no role in the reduction of mercury pollution.
Comprehensive Local Water Management Plans can address conventional pollutants, including but not limited to nutrients, sediments, bacteria and other generally recognized constituents of non-point source (NPS) pollution. Broad categories of activities that can address NPS include information and education, technical assistance, conservation practices and administration and enforcement of laws, rules, statutes and ordinances that can protect water quality. Increasing the knowledge base by additional monitoring of water resources, inventories of land use activities and assessment of the effects that those land use activities have on water resources will help shape future water quality protection discussion and actions.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 114D, the 2006 Clean Water Legacy Act defines water quality restoration as: actions, including effectiveness monitoring, that are taken to achieve and maintain water quality standards for impaired waters in accordance with a TMDL that has been approved by the United States EPA under federal TMDL requirements.
Chapter 114D.20 Subd. (6) identifies five priorities for addressing water quality restoration as follows: 1) coordinate with and utilize existing local authorities and infrastructure for implementation;
Page 5 of 62
2) Can be implemented in whole or in part by providing support for existing or ongoing restoration efforts;
3) Most effectively leverage other sources of restoration funding, including federal, state, local and private sources of funds;
4) Show a high potential for early restoration and delisting based upon scientific data developed through public agency or citizen monitoring or other means;
5) Show a high potential for long term water quality and related conservation benefits.
The statute also addresses water quality protection activities by as far as practicable, employing the priorities listed above to prevent waters from becoming impaired and to improve the quality of waters that are listed as impaired but do not have an approved TMDL.
The 2007 update of the Koochiching County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan has identified six priority concerns that have relevance to both protecting water resources and addressing the Little Fork River’s turbidity impairment. There may be differences in the degree of emphasis of particular activities or specific priority locations, but until the TMDL study of the Little Fork is completed and a specific implementation plan is developed, the suite of actions identified in the CLWMP is generally accepted as having a beneficial impact on water quality. The objectives and actions of the LWMP may also be adapted to any additional water quality impairments that may be identified through monitoring and assessment activities.
Page 6 of 62
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2007 the Koochiching County Local Water Management Plan was updated by a sixteen- member Water Management Plan Advisory Committee led by Richard Lehtinen, Koochiching County Environmental Services Director. The purpose of the planning process was to develop a plan of work that would protect and enhance surface water, groundwater and related land resources within Koochiching County. The Advisory Committee developed a process designed to incorporate input from citizens, local, state, federal and Canadian units of government, and to develop a plan that was consistent with local, state and federal plans and controls. This document is a 5 year update of the 2007 plan. Requests for comments were mailed to more than 20 local, state and federal agencies. Only 3 comments were received.
The Committee used as a starting point the Rainy River Basin Plan, prepared by MPCA, and the second generation County Water Management Plan. By deriving the new Plan from these existing plans, the Committee was assured the new plan would address issues relevant to both the county and the state. The Committee identified issues it believed ought to be included in the new plan. These issues were then compressed into general categories. From these general categories the Committee proceeded to develop goals, objectives and action plans.
The Committee, after sifting through the Basin Plan, the Local Water Plan and the results of a survey conducted for this project, developed a set of priority concerns which the Plan would address. These priority concerns are:
1. Erosion 2. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems 3. Education/Collaboration 4. Monitoring 5. Protection of Water Quality 6. Forestry
With these priority concerns, the Committee developed a total of fourteen goals, three for Erosion, one for SSTS, one for Education, three for Monitoring, four for Water Quality and two for Forestry. It also created forty-six objectives and seventeen action plans. All these elements included ongoing activities of SWCD, ESD and state agencies and activities that were either new or given higher emphasis which qualified them as High Priority Concerns.
The 2007 Plan was reviewed by local, state, federal, Canadian and cities in Koochiching County as well as adjacent counties. This level of review assured the Committee that the Plan is consistent with the plans of other pertinent local, state and regional plans. Other plans do not have to be amended in order for this Plan to be adopted and implemented.
Page 7 of 62
CONTINUATION OF THE PRIORITY CONCERNS FOR THE 2007 – 2017 PLAN
All priority concerns point in one direction: water quality. Maintaining or enhancing existing water quality is the overriding goal of all priority concerns. The six priority concerns identified in this report attempts to segregate the concern for water quality into logical and discrete categories. Even though some of the priorities overlap they do offer a focus from which to derive goals, strategies and implementation measures. The six priority concerns are:
1. Erosion 2. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems 3. Education/Collaboration 4. Monitoring 5. Protection of Water Quality 6. Forestry
These concerns were developed by the WMPAC.
Erosion Erosion is one of the key contributors to poor water quality. It is a concern for Rainy Lake and for the three major rivers in the county, Rainy, Big Fork and Little Fork. It is also a concern for some of the smaller rivers and lakes.
Water levels in some of the lakes and streams in Koochiching can fluctuate by several feet. Ice movement and high water levels in the spring can damage shoreline vegetation. After the water recedes, vegetation doesn’t always have time to reestablish before spring rains occur. Constantly changing water levels, wave action and water current all work on eroding the shoreline. In areas where the banks are high and steep this can contribute significantly to turbidity and sedimentation. Erosion in slightly sloped shoreline areas is more easily addressed than when it occurs on tall, steep banks.
This Plan will support: • Cost share for erosion control on private land • Technical assistance to property owners is provided by the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) • Best Management Practices for agricultural operations • Forest Resources Council Guidelines for forestry management • Study of the Little Fork River “impaired water” due to turbidity • The Little Fork River / Big Fork River impaired river study • Increased emphasis on shoreland protection by encouraging native vegetation and discouraging lawns up to the shoreline • Implementation of National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards (NPDES) • Consider use of NEMO (Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials) to determine cumulative impacts of runoff due to development
Page 8 of 62
• Best Management Practices for residential and commercial construction, stormwater management, road construction and hydrologic modification contributing to bank instability. • Take erosion control measures on the Rat Root River where the removal of beaver dams and other obstructions has increase the water flow and wave action due to boat traffic.
Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) SSTS makes up a category of its own because there are several grant programs and major activities that fit into this area. It is generally acknowledged that faulty septic systems constitute the greatest manmade threat to water quality in the Rainy River Basin. Point sources of pollution were a major problem several decades ago but are now under strict permit requirements. Nonpoint sources, such as SSTS, now constitute the greatest threat.
• The Jackfish Bay Sewer Project has been completed so the county is currently putting its attention to the rest of Rainy Lake from Tilson Bay to Dove Island, and also Rainy Lake’s islands • The county is also researching the idea of extending sewer and creating a sewer district that would include areas south of Int’l Falls such as Papermakers Colony, Meadowview and other areas. • The county adopted an SSTS ordinance in 2008. Updates to the ordinance will be made as needed • Implementation of a Water Quality Cooperative, or other administrative structure, to be responsible for maintenance, repair and construction of new SSTS is still under consideration • Support the development of Performance Standards for SSTS which would be used for a wide range of types SSTS and have a wider range of effluent quality standards to apply depending on a property’s size, soil type and remoteness from surface water • Combine effort with St. Louis County in finding solutions to SSTS problems in and around VNP
The Board of Commissioners has passed a resolution making the extension of centralized sewer east to Dove Island its top priority.
Education/Collaboration Education is a key component of any Water Management Plan. We all need to be educated about water. It is well known that Minnesotans cherish their water. They want to know how to maintain or enhance their water fronts, their surface water and their groundwater. Education efforts will be made in a variety of ways. LBF High School currently does water monitoring on the Big Fork River. This is a great educational tool that may be expanded to other rivers in the county. There has been discussion regarding creation of a Water Resources Center (WRC) where information could be stored, shared, etc. If created, the WRC will be an international center absorbing information from both Minnesota and Canadian sources. It is important to note that 65 percent of the Rainy River Watershed is in Ontario. Collaboration Page 9 of 62 between Minnesota and Ontario is fundamentally important to protection of the Rainy Basin’s water quality.
• Seek funding for the WRC to further its principal objectives to a) Monitor the Basin’s water quality, b) Manage collected data, c) Disseminate collected data in informational reports, d) Support citizen-based water quality programs such as River Watch • Emphasize education over regulation (e.g., voluntary use of alternative standards for shoreline development • Prepare informational brochures on groundwater, water quality monitoring, shoreland vegetation and others • Encourage MN DNR, MPCA, BWSR, Dept. of Health, Voyageurs National Park, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Office of the Environment, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Rainy River First Nations to disseminate informational reports, brochures and other educational materials • Convene the Water Management Plan Advisory Committee at least one time each year to review progress on implementing the WMP 2007 – 2017. • Promote natural vegetation for shoreland and alternative standards for shoreland development • Provide information about the hazards of using surface water for drinking and promote safe treatment options and alternatives.
Monitoring Monitoring is important because it requires the active pursuit of information to develop a deeper understanding of the water resource. Generally, water quality in the Rainy Basin is considered “good” as compared to nationally accepted water quality measurement standards and to other geographic areas in Minnesota. There is information, enough to draw conclusions about the general quality of Koochiching County waters. But no body of water, except for the Big Fork River, has been systematically studied to the point where a baseline has been established. The Big Fork River has been systematically monitored by the Big Fork and Littlefork High Schools and guided by volunteer expert, Richard Lacher. The WMP will seek to expand water quality monitoring efforts.
• Continue water quality monitoring of the Big Fork River • Create systematic water quality monitoring programs for Rainy River, Little Fork River, Rapid River, Rat Root River and Rainy Lake in cooperation with the Water Resources Center • Encourage citizen water quality efforts • Support funding of a Volunteer Water Monitoring Coordinator position at Rainy River Community College • Seek funding for surface water studies • Do inventories, as a form of monitoring, of wells in Koochiching County and of unused, unsealed wells
Page 10 of 62
• Encourage high schools to commit to doing long term water quality monitoring consistent with MPCA requirements, in cooperation with the Water Resources Center • Establish water quality baselines for Rainy Lake, Rainy River and the Little Fork River • Utilize and build from the comprehensive Rainy Lake characterization study, organized by Voyageurs National Park, done in 2004 • Support studies of exotic species on Rainy Lake and other bodies of water as appropriate • Support studies of cyno-bacteria (blue green algae) toxicity in Rainy Lake • Rely on Rainy Lake’s status as an Outstanding Resource Value Water (ORVW) to justify funding of studies and programs designed to enhance Rainy Lake’s water quality • Encourage the conduct of nutrient loading studies of Koochiching County’s lakes and rivers.
Protection of Water Quality Due to the amount of wetlands in Koochiching County, nearly all new construction projects have the potential to affect water quality. Wetlands are more thoroughly addressed in the Koochiching County Wetland Flexibility Plan. The WMP will address Priority Concerns that are particularly related to impacts associated with man-made development projects.
• Promote planned, environmentally sensitive development in Koochiching County, designed to ensure good water quality • Preserve and enhance native vegetation on shoreland • Seek funding for wetland restoration where appropriate • Promote use of alternative standards for shoreline development • Follow local zoning and shoreland ordinances (e.g., setbacks, vegetation removal, etc.) in riparian areas to protect the shore impact zone • Require site constraints analysis prior to designing residential or commercial/industrial projects • Seek continued State support of Koochiching County’s Wetland Flexibility Plan • Insist that one size fits all is not appropriate to wetland mitigation in Minnesota • Achieve flexibility in siting wetland replacement by allowing replacement for Koochiching County projects anywhere in Minnesota • Do not require wetland mitigation be the same type of wetland as the type being affected • Avoid adverse impacts on water quality from aggregate mining and quarrying • Assist farmers in manure management and proper grazing practices • Encourage frequent use of the Technical Evaluation Panel to evaluate projects that will affect wetlands • Continue to have the SWCD provide technical assistance to Koochiching County cities and property owners • Consider setting local thresholds for water quality that are stricter than national or state standards.
Page 11 of 62
• Work with cities, landowners and other county departments to initiate or continue stormwater management projects.
Forestry
Forestry is an important component of the Water Management Plan. SWCD will work with state and county governments to assure that this plan is part of their overall program.
This Plan will support:
• Preparation of Forest Stewardship Plans for private property owners • Distribution of trees throughout the county in SWCD’s tree sales program • Collaboration with federal and state agencies and the private sector in helping to assure Koochiching County has healthy, productive and sustainable forests • Promotion of forestry practices that protect water quality • Promotion of the use of Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines on private lands to protect water quality (e.g., riparian buffers, roads and culverts, stream crossings, etc.) • Provide forest management education to non-industrial private forest landowners
Page 12 of 62
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION PLANS
A. Erosion
Goal 1: Carry out activities and programs that are an ongoing function of the SWCD office, NRCS and Land and Forestry.
Objective #1: Continue to pursue and support cost share programs for erosion, provision of technical assistance to property owners with erosion problems, dissemination of best management practices to area farmers and dissemination of Forest Resource Council Guidelines to private property owners of forest lands.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities: Process cost share applications for erosion control projects for private property owners. Apply for grants to fund erosion control projects.
3. Responsibility: Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) has the primary responsibility in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) regional office plays a secondary role, as does the Koochiching County Lands and Forestry.
Objective #2: Seek additional funding sources to address erosion problems on both private and public lands.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Medium
2. Activities: With the ever-decreasing amount of general dollars coming in to the local offices, the SWCD and ESD must adapt to increasing amount of grant program dollars available to continue to provide landowners with financial assistance to address erosion problems/concerns.
3. Responsibility: SWCD and ESD
Goal 2: Support MPCA’s efforts to do a MRAP Study of both the Big Fork and Littlefork Rivers.
Objective #1: Support and participate in MPCA’s MRAP study of the Big Fork and Littlefork Rivers to determine the causes of potential impairment and actions that may reduce those impairments. Page 13 of 62
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Medium
2. Activities: The SWCD will support the MRAP planning effort and may provide technical support for the actual plan development with financial assistance from the MPCA. Both the Littlefork and Bigfork Rivers have completed the 2 year intensive monitoring effort to start the process of developing a TMDL where needed. Data shows that portions of the Littlefork River are impaired due to turbidity but the Big Fork is not. The MPCA is currently finalizing the reports.
3. Responsibility: MPCA has primary responsibility with planning support from the SWCD and ESD.
Objective #2: Support and participate in MPCA’s impaired river study of the Big Fork and Little Fork Rivers.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Medium
2. Activities: Where applicable, the SWCD will contract with the MPCA to complete watershed assessment work for chemical monitoring of the Big Fork and Littlefork Rivers.
3. Responsibility: SWCD
Goal 3: Apply specific measures to improve shoreland protection in order to protect against erosion and to benefit wildlife habitat.
Objective # 1: Follow shoreland protection standards as described in the Koochiching County Shoreland Management Ordinance.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities: Continue to enforce setback requirements, vegetative clearing, grading, filling and other regulations in shoreland areas of the county by following existing ordinances.
3. Responsibility: ESD is responsible for enforcing the county’s land use and shoreland ordinances.
Objective # 2: Update the county’s shoreland and zoning ordinances to keep up with changing shoreland regulations.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
Page 14 of 62
2. Activities: Work collaboratively with SWCD, DNR and other agencies to keep up with ever changing regulations and provide the highest level of protection against erosion.
3. Responsibility: ESD is responsible for updating the county’s land use and shoreland ordinances using input from the Planning Commission, SWCD and others.
B. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS)
Goal 1: Assist residents in bringing SSTS into compliance and continue to replace systems that fall into the Imminent Threat to Public Health (ITPH) category.
Objective # 1: Complete the 2nd half of the original Rainy On-Site Sewage Solutions (ROSS) Project by providing sewer service to the residents between Tilson Bay and Sha Sha Point on Rainy Lake. This project has been renamed to the Island View Sewer Project.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities: In 2009 Koochiching County hired SEH Engineering to design a sewer extension project from where the current Jackfish Bay Sewer Project ended at Tilson Creek to the end of Highway 11 East at Sha Sha Point. The design was completed in 2011 and since that time the county has been seeking financial assistance from various sources. The County Board of Commissioners has passed a resolution making this project the # 1 priority in the county.
3. Responsibility: The Environmental Services Department (ESD), Island View Sewer Committee and County Board.
Objective # 2: Research, design and seek funding for sewer line extension to areas south of Int’l Falls. Design and construct the project if feasible.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities: In 2010 a group of residents approached the City of Int’l Falls and Koochiching County asking for assistance in obtaining water and sewer to the Papermakers and Meadowview areas. The city would only consider the project if the area was annexed. Annexation was voted down so the county created a Papermakers Sewer Committee and is now looking into the feasibility of extending municipal sewer to those area and others.
3. Responsibility: The Environmental Services Department (ESD), Papermakers Sewer Committee and County Board. Page 15 of 62
Objective # 3: Continue an alliance with St. Louis County to find sewer solutions to all areas around and within Voyageurs National Park.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities: In 2010 Koochiching and St. Louis Counties joined forces to create the Voyageurs National Park Clean Water Joint Powers Board (VNPCWJPB). The JPB is seeking solutions to the sewer issues in Ash River, Crane lake, Island View and Kabetogama.
3. Responsibility: The JPB consists of 2 commissioners from each county. Staff from both counties and representatives from each area make up the advisory committee.
Objective # 4: Obtain additional grant or loan money to help low income households bring their failing SSTS into compliance.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities: In 2012 the county was granted a small amount of money from the MPCA to assist low income households with non-compliant systems. If the program is successful the county will look for additional funding to continue the program.
3. Responsibility: ESD and SWCD will be responsible for administering the program.
Objective # 5: Educate the public regarding SSTS.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities: Create an education program that will reach out to the public regarding wastewater treatment.
3. Responsibility: ESD and SWCD will work collaboratively to accomplish this goal.
Objective # 6: Prepare county wide performance standards for effluent treatment.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Medium
2. Activities: Koochiching County believes that SSTS rules should be based on performance of systems and not generalized prescriptive standards like
Page 16 of 62
those used in Chapter 7080. The county would like to develop performance standards based on geology, lot size and other parameters.
3. Responsibility: ESD with County Board approval.
C. Education / Collaboration
Goal 1: Emphasize education and collaborative ventures to allow residents and visitors alike to be good stewards of the county’s water.
Objective #1: Provide general education and technical assistance to landowners/users in Koochiching County.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Medium
2. Activities: Assist interested individuals or groups with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are appropriate within the counties watersheds.
3. Responsibility: SWCD and ESD
Objective #2: Develop a Civic Engagement Outreach program for the Bigfork and Littlefork watersheds with financial assistance from the MPCA.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities: Develop, implement, and evaluate a Civic Engagement Plan which includes conducting planning meetings to achieve MPCA desired outcomes within the Bigfork and Littlefork watersheds. A trusted communications network will be developed with landowners within the watershed that demonstrates clear outreach of goals and future projects to the landowners. Any technical documents developed related to these watersheds will be reviewed by the Civic Engagement planning group.
3. Responsibility: SWCD
Objective #3: Coordinate water quality restoration and protection within the Rainy River Basin.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities: Coordinate with all counties within the Rainy River Basin to identify areas that these local water management plans can work together. Assist with the update of the 2004 Rainy River Basin Plan. The SWCD will work collaboratively with local partnerships to identify or foster projects to be include the States Biennial Budget Request for the BWSR.
Page 17 of 62
3. Responsibility: SWCD
Objective #4: Bi-national coordination among groups and organizations to promote communication and engagement throughout the Rainy River Basin.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities: Establish and support a bi-national watershed coordinator to work with local citizens, groups, and organizations to enhance local planning, implementation, monitoring, and reporting of watershed improvement activities. This position will facilitate networking opportunities, expand the reach of local initiatives, and link local watershed activities to regional/international initiatives to promote watershed-wide communication and collaboration.
Supporting and enhancing the ongoing development and capacities of the International Multi-Agency Working Arrangement (IWA) will also be a major component of this work. Multiple activities, including assisting the IMA Working Group and TAC with development of a core monitoring program could be accomplished through this effort.
3. Responsibility: SWCD will work with multiple groups including neighboring SWCDs and the Lake of the Woods Water Sustainability Foundation to accomplish this objective.
D. Monitoring
Goal 1: Establish a county-wide, watershed, condition monitoring program for surface water consistent with the Rainy River Basin Condition Monitoring approach.
Objective #1: Continue to support and assist the Big Fork River Board River Watch monitoring program.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Medium
2. Activities: This objective is a major component of the Big Fork River Boards yearly activities that it supports. The SWCD and ESD also financially support this effort and provide technical assistance when needed.
3. Responsibility: Big Fork River Board, SWCD, & ESD
Objective #2: Develop new monitoring programs for each of the watersheds in Koochiching County by partnering with local organizations such as existing River Boards to ensure monitoring efforts have local involvement and buy-in.
Action Plan: Page 18 of 62
1. Priority: Medium
2. Activities This objective must partner with neighboring counties where applicable to ensure programs cover entire watersheds. Each program will be locally led, include a local commitment, and have a monitoring plan which identifies specific goals and objectives of the program. This is a broadly scoped, ambitious water quality monitoring program. It is important because its goal is to identify “baseline” conditions for all significant surface water in the Rainy Basin. Waters in the basin that have been sampled meet or exceed state and federal standards for quality (except for turbidity in the Little Fork River and mercury in a variety of other surface waters). By establishing “baseline” conditions for all major surface water, any changes in water quality can be detected, and corrected if deemed appropriate.
International waters such as Rainy Lake and Rainy River would benefit from bi-national, coordinated monitoring. This approach is already being taken in Lake of the Woods. Bi-national collaboration is also encouraged for the Rainy Basin’s tributaries as water from both Minnesota and Ontario affect Rainy Lake, Rainy River and Lake of the Woods. In the center of all this monitoring, hopefully, will be the Rainy Basin Water Resources Center.
3. Responsibilities MPCA should lead and coordinate the monitoring program on the Minnesota side of the Rainy Basin. On the Ontario side it is likely that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) would organize the monitoring program. ESD and SWCD should be strong supporters of this effort as should other state, federal and Canadian agencies. RRCC must necessarily be actively involved if only through its status as the Water Resources Center. Citizens and schools also will need to participate in a massive monitoring program.
Goal 2: Support funding for further studies of aquatic invasive species and of cyanobacteria toxicity on Rainy Lake and other Rainy Basin lakes as appropriate.
Objective #1: Recognizing that the lead agencies to conduct these studies are DNR, MPCA, VNP, OMNR and the Ontario Ministry of Health, this plan anticipates that additional aquatic invasive species and sources of toxicity need to be studied in the Rainy River Basin
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Low
2. Activities There is recent evidence of aquatic invasive species and of cyanobacteria toxicity on Rainy Lake. This plan supports continued monitoring of such species by MPCA and other entities. ESD and SWCD are unlikely to be directly involved in these detection activities. Page 19 of 62
3. Responsibility DNR and MPCA are responsible for detecting aquatic invasive species and cyanobacteria although other agencies both from Minnesota and Ontario will be involved. These agencies include State Dept. of Health, Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA and VNP from Minnesota and OMNR and the Ontario Ministry of Health (OMH) from Ontario.
Goal 3: Evaluate groundwater quality and quantity.
Objective #1: Retrieve and analyze the States database on wells in Koochiching County and prepare reports on how these wells are describing the condition of aquifers, groundwater quality and quantity.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Low
2. Activity SWCD and ESD will request access to the State’s data base on wells. They will seek grant money to hire someone to analyze the data and to prepare a report describing the findings.
3. Responsibility SWCD and ESD will be primarily responsible with technical help from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH).
E. Protection of Water Quality
Goal 1: Ensure the quality of water in the Koochiching County portion of the Rainy River Basin is maintained or improved.
Objectives: a. Work with other counties and Canada to protect water quality within the Rainy Basin.
b. Bring all septic systems, over time, into compliance to help assure the quality of Rainy basin waters is being improved.
c. Encourage the retention or planting of native vegetation along the shoreline to protect wildlife habitat and to discourage lawns, impermeable materials, and others with the intent to improve the quality of Rainy basin waters.
d. Partner with the State Department of Health to update or prepare wellhead protection plans and Source Water Assessments (SWA). Current SWA information can be found at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/swainfo/default.cfm
Page 20 of 62
e. Take actions to reduce local sources of mercury and other toxic materials from polluting the county’s waters by continuing the bi-annual collection of hazardous waste, by collecting for safe disposal, mercury thermometers and by publishing educational materials about mercury and other toxic material.
f. Provide for basin-wide application for the MPCA’s non-degradation regulations.
1) This objective calling for rigorous implementation of the State-wide Non-degradation Rules (Minnesota Rules 7050.0185) is intended to serve as an interim measure to prevent any degradation to current watershed health, pending development of a water quality baseline for all lakes, rivers and streams in the basin. 2) When the existing quality of the stream, river or lake (receiving water) is unknown, efforts should be undertaken to establish and document the present water quality prior to setting permit discharge limits. 3) Permit effluent limits should include consideration of cumulative effects from all inputs (point and non-point) for the watershed. 4) Ultimately, comprehensive monitoring should provide baseline information and information needed to establish quantitative goals based on current and desired future conditions for lakes, rivers and streams within the basin.
g. Utilize stormwater runoff evaluation methodologies such as the Non-point Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) in evaluating community-wide impacts of runoff.
h. Work with cities, landowners and other entities to initiate or maintain stormwater management programs.
I During the period covered by this plan amendment, Koochiching County will seek opportunities to refine watershed analysis and management strategies using detailed GIS information, water quality data and other tools to guide plan actions, target implementation and augment funding from outside sources.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: High
2. Activities The county will continue to work with the Canadian Province of Ontario and Lake of the Woods County to develop a Water Resources Center that can be used by people on both sides of the border. Continue to push forward on 2 large sewer pipe projects that would connect approximately 500 homes and numerous businesses to the Int’l Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant. The county will also continue to require state code SSTS for new construction and Imminent Health Threats. To help alleviate some of the erosion issues both ESD and SWCD along with DNR will take steps to assure there is wide spread retention of native vegetation and Page 21 of 62
fewer lawns being put in. ESD will work with the MDH to prepare wellhead protection plans. In an attempt to keep hazardous wastes from reaching ground or surface water the ESD is expanding HHW collections to the rural parts of the county. They have also initiated a button battery collection program and a free drop location for mercury thermostats and thermometers. New programs will be researched and strong education efforts will be made. Communities, such as International Falls and Northome may benefit from the preparation of community-wide stormwater management plans. The SWCD and ESD will make contacts in this regard. MPCA’s non-degradation regulations are useful to the Rainy Basin because water quality exceeds thresholds for degraded water.
3. Responsibilities Both ESD and SWCD have primary responsibility to implement these objectives in partnership with MPCA, DNR, DOH, other counties and Canadian agencies.
Goal 2: Utilize Koochiching County’s Wetland Flexibility Plan as the primary implementing plan for wetlands, consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. (Note: Wetland Flexibility Plan was developed collaboratively with SWCD, ESD, MPCA, BWSR, DNR and the Corps of Engineers)
Objectives: a. Seek funding for wetland restoration and creation, and apply for wetland bank status as deemed appropriate by SWCD, BWSR and the Army Corps.
b. Promote wetland mitigation standards that reject a “one size fits all” assumption and acknowledges the current wetland stewardship practiced by over 80 percent counties.
c. Allow wetland mitigation sites anywhere in Minnesota for loss of wetland in Koochiching County.
d. Allow flexible wetland replacement as to wetland type.
e. Encourage frequent use of the Wetlands Technical Advisory Committee to work with landowners in mitigating wetland impacts.
f. Support stream restoration as a mitigation for wetland impacts.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Medium
2. Activities Koochiching County has identified wetlands as a high priority issue because over-regulation of wetlands will have adverse impacts on development potential. Almost every development project is affected by wetlands and sometimes the presence of wetlands even precludes development. The Page 22 of 62
Water Plan is not the document upon which wetlands action is based. It is the Wetlands Flexibility Plan that this Water Plan defers to.
3. Responsibilities ESD and SWCD are primarily responsible at the local level. BWSR and the Army Corps of Engineers have primary responsibility at the State and Federal levels. DdNR is also involved in wetland issues but more directly responsible for surface waters. Goal 3: Offer technical assistance to help property owners avoid detrimental impacts on water quality and promote projects which make use of or restore natural vegetation on shoreland areas.
Objectives: a. Maintain as an ongoing activity technical assistance to residents and property owners by ESD, SWCD, NRCS.
b. Work with state and federal agencies to provide assistance when appropriate to residents and property owners.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Medium
2. Activities These are ongoing activities of ESD, SWCD and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
3. Responsibilities ESD, SWCD, NRCS have responsibility at the local level and MPCA, DNR and BSWR at the State level.
Goal 4: Promote environmentally responsible new development in Koochiching County.
Objectives: a. Adopt a new Zoning Ordinance during 2007 which sets higher development standards than those currently in place.
b. Require a constraints analysis prior to designing residential or commercial/industrial projects with the primary purpose to avoid adverse impacts on wetlands and on water quality.
c. Encourage projects which respect the characteristics and suitability of the site for which a development project is being proposed.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Low
Page 23 of 62
1. Activities
This goal and objectives anticipate the adoption and implementation of the new Koochiching County Development Ordinance, which will include Zoning, Subdivision and Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems. ESD will be responsible for implementing this ordinance. The existing Zoning Ordinance dates back to 1975.
3. Responsibility - ESD will implement this whole section.
F. Forestry
Goal 1: Continue to provide technical assistance for forestry.
Objectives: a. Continue SWCD’s tree sales program to encourage the proliferation of native trees throughout Koochiching County.
b. Encourage SWCD, in conjunction with Minnesota Extension, to provide forestry management and other forestry-oriented education.
c. Offer preparation of Forest Stewardship Plans for private property owners by contracted foresters.
d. Encourage SWCD to support programs and activities which promote multiple uses of wood and forestland.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Low
2. Activities SWCD has responsibility to conduct a forestry program for private property owners. The four Objectives describe the forestry program conducted by SWCD.
3. Responsibility SWCD is responsible for this forestry goal and objectives.
Goal 2: Promote sustainable forestry practices on all lands within Koochiching County.
Objectives: A. Follow Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines (as developed by the Minnesota Forest Resources Council) on all public and private forestlands.
Page 24 of 62
b. Protect riparian areas during timber harvesting operations and road building.
c. Protect water quality supporting active land management techniques such as fee title acquisition, conservation easements and land exchanges where applicable.
Action Plan: 1. Priority: Medium
2. Activities This is rated a medium priority rather than low because it represents a new emphasis for SWCD. SWCD in the past has not actively promoted the Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines on private lands. These Guidelines, while voluntary, are actively followed on forest-industrial land, state, county and federally administered lands. SWCD will promote use of the Guidelines to private landowners.
3. Responsibility SWCD will work with DNR Forestry to implement this goal and objectives.
Page 25 of 62
Appendix A
Koochiching County Local Water Management Plan Implementation Schedule
The goal of the Koochiching LWMP Implementation Plan is to secure funding to further the accomplishments of each of these activities. It is understood that most of these activities require a large amount of both financial and staff support. The costs outlined in this table are not direct costs to the LWMP but rather the total cost of the activity.
Activity Responsible Party Area Timeline Cost A. Erosion 1.1 SWCD, NRCS, County County Ongoing $20,000/year 2013 – 1.2 SWCD & County County $50,000 2017 BBR Bigfork & Littlefork 2013 – 2.1 MPCA & SWCD Unknown Watersheds 2017 Bigfork & Littlefork 2013 – 2.2 SWCD $100,000 Watersheds 2017 3.1 County County Ongoing $40,000 3.2 County & SWCD County Ongoing $40,000 B. SSTS 2013 – 1.1 County Rainy Lake Watershed $15,000,000 2017 1.2 County Rainy River Watershed Ongoing Unknown 1.3 County Voyageurs NP Ongoing $40,000,000 FY 2013 – 1.4 County & SWCD County $25,000 FY 2014 FY 2013 – 1.5 County & SWCD County $20,000 FY 2014 1.6 County County Ongoing Unknown C. Education/Collaboration 1.1 SWCD & County County Ongoing Bigfork & Littlefork FY 2012 – 1.2 SWCD $80,000 River Watersheds FY 2014 FY 2012 – 1.3 SWCD Rainy River Basin $7,000 FY 2014 FY 2012 – 1.4 SWCD Rainy River Basin $100,000 FY2014 D. Monitoring 1.1 SWCD & County Big Fork River Ongoing 1.2 SWCD County Ongoing $50,000 2.1 DNR & MPCA Rainy Lake & River Ongoing Unknown 3.1 SWCD County Ongoing $25,000
Page 26 of 62
E. Protection of Water Quality 2013 – Goal #1 SWCD & County Rainy River Basin $250,000 2017 Goal #2 SWCD & County County Ongoing Unknown Goal #3 SWCD & County County Ongoing Unknown Goal #4 SWCD & County County Ongoing Unknown F. Forestry Goal #1 SWCD County Ongoing Unknown Goal #2 SWCD & County County Ongoing Unknown
Page 27 of 62
Appendix B
KOOCHICHING COUNTY WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2007 – 2017 PRIORITY CONCERNS SCOPING DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION
Purpose Local water management plans are not required by State Statute, but grant funds From the Board of Water and Soil Resources are not awarded to counties that do not have a local water management plan. Therefore, all 87 counties in Minnesota have adopted local water management plans.
When a county decides to prepare a local water management plan, State Statutes provide detailed requirements for the process, content and authority of these plans in Statutes 103B.311 through 103B.331. Stat. 103B.311, Subd. 1 states (in part): “Each county is encouraged to develop and implement a local water management plan.” Subd. 4 identifies five requirements of a local water management plan:
“1) cover the entire area within a county; 2) address water problems in the context of watershed units and groundwater systems; 3) Be based upon principles of sound hydrologic management of water, effective environmental protection, and efficient management; 4) Be consistent with local water management plans prepared by counties and watershed management organizations … 5) The local water management plan must specify the period covered by the local water management plan … at least five years but no more than ten years …”
Back to Subd. 1, it is clearly stated that local government has a great deal of authority once it adopts a local water management plan it states, “Each county that develops and implements a local water management plan has the duty and authority to: “ … 3) exercise any and all powers necessary to assure implementation of local water management plans.” State Statutes make it clear that local counties are empowered to set water policy and to implement goals and objectives for water.
County Primer Koochiching County has generally seen a decline in population since 1960. It is projected by the State of Minnesota to continue to decline in population through the life of this plan (see Table 1).
Page 28 of 62
Table 1. 1940 to 2020 Koochiching County Population
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 16,930 16,910 18,190 17,131 17,571 16,299 14,355 13,970 13,580
Rates of population decline roughly correspond to the number of jobs at the paper mill. This is because the paper mill has about 25 percent of the total jobs in the county. It is hoped that increases in tourist-oriented jobs, location-independent jobs and other miscellaneous types of jobs might combine to give the population a bit of a boost rather than a consistent decline.
Table 2 shows the decline in population between 1990 and 2000 occurred in the cities and not in the unincorporated portion of the county. It is generally believed the 2,252 decline in International Falls is overstated. The 1990 Census counted many people as permanent residents when, in fact they were “temporary” construction workers working at the paper mill expansion project from 1989 to 1991. When they moved, International Falls’ population declined and this decline was reflected in the year 2000 Census.
Lake and riverfront property attract new construction and it is along Rainy Lake, and the Little Fork, Big Fork and Rainy Rivers, that most of the county’s growth is occurring. New construction of seasonal and retirement housing could accelerate as the Hibbing – Grand Rapids – Bemidji tier continues to fill up, making Koochiching County more attractive for development.
Table 2. 1990 and 2000 Cities / County Population (Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census)
Jurisdiction Population 1990 2000 Change Big Falls 341 264 -77 International Falls 8,325 6,073 -2,252 Littlefork 838 680 -158 Mizpah 100 78 -22 Northome 283 230 -53 Ranier 199 188 -11 Subtotal Cites 10,086 7,513 -2,573 Unincorporated 6,213 6,842 629
Page 29 of 62
Total County 16,299 14,355 -1,944
The dominant land use of Koochiching County is managed forest. Managed forest easily takes up about 75 percent of the county. It is important to retain long term, sustainable forests, managed both for economic production and environmental values. Agriculture plays an important land use role even though total production has declined over the years. Other land uses include urban and rural residential development. Urban development located in the cities is declining while rural residential development on the lake and rivers is increasing at a modest pace.
Water Plan Information The Local Governmental Unit (LGU) responsible for the local Water Management Plan (WMP) is the Koochiching County Environmental Services Department. More intimately involved in technical administration and implementation of the WMP is the Koochiching County Soil and Water Conservation District. These two entities work together to fulfill the county’s local responsibility for WMP activities.
The original WMP was adopted in early 1995. The second, and most recent update, was adopted July 27, 2000. Progress on this WMP was delayed due to staff overload and the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) agreed to extend the deadline to July 27, 2007. It is Koochiching County’s intent to adopt the WMP, 2007 – 2017 by July 27, 2007. PRIORITY CONCERNS FROM EXISTING PLANS
The Water Management Plan Advisory Committee (WMPAC) met four times in 2006, on September 27, October 25, and November 15 and December 13, with the primary purpose of identifying Priority Concerns. The Committee relied on two major documents, the “Koochiching County Comprehensive Water Management Plan, 2000 Update” and the “Rainy River Basin Plan, 2004”.
Both of these plans have lists of priority concerns regarding water in Koochiching County. WMPAC members considered priority issues from these two plans and added some of their own. This process resulted in a comprehensive list of potential Priority Concerns from which the Committee has decided to place emphasis on some and not to emphasize others.
Priority Concerns Identified by WMPAC
1. Erosion 2. Water Quality Monitoring 3. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems 4. Protection of Water Quality 5. Education 6. Forestry
Page 30 of 62
This is the proposed set of Priority Concerns for the new Plan. They will be the focus of more in-depth discussion later in this Priority Concerns Scoping Document (PCSD). First, this report will describe the full number of potential issues considered by the WMPAC. The WMPAC was introduced to potential priority water plan issues to be identified in the new plan. These issues were drawn from three sources: 1) a mail back survey of agency personnel conducted by the Environmental Services Department (ESD), 2) issues prioritized in the year 2000 Koochiching County Water Plan, 3) issues identified in the year 2004 Rainy Basin Plan. The Committee was also asked to introduce additional issues which might be added. These issues are described below.
I. Water Plan Survey
A. Most threatened # of Responders 1. streams/rivers 3 2. Lakes 1 3. Wetlands 1
B. Water-Related Problems 1. Erosion 4 2. Development pressure/impact 3 3. Stormwater/drainage mgmt. 2 4. Declining water quality 2 5. Lack of regulations 1 6. Lack of enforcement 1 7. clean drinking water 1 8. Natural habitat destruction 1
II. Koochiching County Comprehensive Water Management Plan, 2000 Update
A. High Priority Goals 1. Administer and implement the Water Management Plan A. re-establish the Water Plan Task Force B. establish a Water Resources Advisory Committee C. delegate tasks to appropriate agencies D. develop a project priority list (Water Plan Committee, SWCD Board, County Board)
Analysis: This high priority goal has not been implemented
2. Encourage people to update their ISTS A. continue ROSS Study B. enforce local ISTS Ordinance and implement 7080 C. continue to develop the Water Quality Cooperative
Analysis: ISTS is still perceived as a high priority. The ROSS Study, while defunct, set a high priority for addressing septic problems on Rainy Lake. This remains a high priority. Performance systems, cluster systems and
Page 31 of 62
others, controlled and administered by a Water Quality Cooperative, are one of the next high priority areas to be pursued by the County.
3. Administer the Wetlands Conservation Act A. continue to work on the Wetland Flexibility Plan B. provide technical assistance to county residents, municipalities, local businesses C. assist the Technical Evaluation Panel in wetland identification and management
Analysis: Wetland Flex Plan was adopted in 2000. Providing technical assistance remains a high priority and the TEP is just becoming active.
4. Reduce erosion and sedimentation A. work with landowners on lake and river shoreland B. protect and improve water quality through riparian buffers
Analysis: SWCD does work with landowners on lake and river erosion control projects. The County has not effectively implemented riparian buffers.
5. Extend sewer service to Jackfish Bay area
Analysis: The Jackfish Bay Sewer Collection System is under construction.
6. Attempt to improve land use practices A. use BMPs for agriculture, industry and development along lakes and streams B. follow Minnesota Forest Resources Council’s Voluntary Site Guidelines for timber harvesting
Analysis: Generally, these objectives are being implemented
B. Moderate Priority Goals
1. Attempt to monitor groundwater quality 2. Assist in protecting wellheads 3. Do an unused, unsealed well assessment 4. Continue to monitor closed landfills 5. Assist in removal of underground storage tanks Analysis: Monitoring groundwater quality would be a huge task. Wellhead Protection plans will be prepared when the State Dept. of Health is ready. The County is unlikely to do an abandoned well assessment. Closed landfills are no longer under county jurisdiction. Removal of underground tanks is done under the guidelines of MPCA.
C. Low Priority Goals
1. Maintain balance between recreational use and environmental quality 2. Establish reasonable floodplain limits 3. Safely manage storm water Page 32 of 62
4. Continue to monitor industrial pollution
Analysis: Some of these goals might be considered for a high priority. All of them require more than the local level of government for implementation.
III. Rainy River Basin Plan 2004
A. Overall goal: maintain or improve the existing conditions consistent with local plans, for streams, rivers and lakes in the Rainy River Basin
B. Address failing Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) and unsewered communities, especially along Rainy Lake and rivers and streams
1. Develop performance standards that could allow surface discharge 2. Develop an administrative system to ensure that performance-based systems are properly maintained 3. Extend centralized sewer where environmentally and economically feasible 4. Support the continued development of new ISTS technology and management options
C. Develop monitoring programs to provide information about the water quality of Rainy Lake and the Rainy, Rat Root, Big Fork and Little Fork Rivers
1. Support the continued operation and expansion of the Rainy River Community College partnership a. establish and expand a Rainy River Basin Water Resources Center at RRCC ¹) to monitor water quality and aquatic ecology, ²) to manage water resources data, ³) to release public information about water management needs and resources, ) to establish a Rainy Basin River Watch b. encourage development of River Watch programs for rivers currently not monitored c. establish baselines for water quality throughout the basin d. disseminate water quality information
D. Prevent or reduce erosion and run-off where feasible and remediate existing and future erosion and run-off problems
E. Analyze and maintain or improve groundwater quality in the Rainy River Basin and protect surface water drinking supplies
F. Medium priority goals
1. Protect the special qualities of Rainy Lake that enabled its Outstanding Resource Value Water (ORVW) classification
2. Protect wetland types and functions throughout the basin and recognize the potential of wetlands to maintain or improve water quality
Page 33 of 62
G. Low priority goals
1. Ensure planned and environmentally sensitive development and ensure shoreland development proceeds in a manner that protects the culture, environment and economy of the area
2. Support the forest products industry a. encourage employment of VSLFM Guidelines and effectiveness monitoring b. encourage training opportunities for loggers and forest professionals c. development of a “statement of support” for efforts to maintain forest land uses and management d. support communications to small private landowners to broaden awareness of the Sustainable Forest Incentive Act
After considering issues from the above three sources and any additional issues raised by Committee members, the Committee compiled a long list of issues from which to identify the priority concerns that will be in the new Plan.
The WMPAC discussed and found potentially relevant for the New Water Plan the following priority concerns:
1. Survey found rivers and streams to be most threatened
2. Survey identified water-related problems to be: a. Erosion (both river and Rainy Lake) b. Development pressure and impact on water quality c. Some concern for stormwater and drainage management and declining water quality
3. High priority to establish a Water Plan Task Force Note: The establishment of the WMPAC accomplishes this priority 4. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems are a high priority a. Failing systems are a primary threat to maintaining good water quality b. Rainy Lake east of Jackfish Bay needs to have a Sewage Feasibility Study pursuant to provision of centralized sewage or clustered ISTS both to the mainland and islands c. Prepare a local ISTS ordinance d. Seek funding to be able to form a Water Quality Cooperative e. Seek ISTS solutions for the rest of Koochiching County
5. Wetlands protection a. Continue to implement the Koochiching County Wetlands Flexibility Plan and Ordinance b. Provide technical assistance to county residents, municipalities and local businesses c. Maintain an active Technical Evaluation Panel
6. Erosion and sedimentation
Page 34 of 62
a. Work with landowners on erosion and sedimentation control on both lakes and rivers/streams b. Promote shoreland and riparian buffers with the use of native vegetation c. Discourage planting of lawns to the shoreland and riparian edge
7. Maintain good land use practices to avoid adverse impacts on water quality A. Promote Best Management Practices (BMP) for agriculture, commercial/industrial and residential development near lakes and rivers/streams b. Seek forest practices certification
8. Water quality monitoring a. Develop / maintain monitoring programs to provide information about water quality of Rainy Lake and the Big Fork, Little Fork, Rainy, Rapid and Rat Root rivers b. Encourage the development of volunteer River Watch programs for rivers currently not monitored c. Establish baselines for water quality throughout the Basin d. Support funding for the Little Fork / Big Fork paired river study e. Assure water quality information is disseminated
9. Groundwater quality and surface water drinking supply a. Prepare a well inventory pursuant to monitoring groundwater quality b. Help prepare groundwater protection plans with the State Department of Health c. Do an unused and unsealed well assessment d. Do protection Surface Water Assessment Plans for private surface water providers 10. Education a. Agency (federal, state, local) partnership with Rainy River Community College b. Support the expansion of RRCC’s Rainy River Basin’s Water Resources Center (WRC) c. Promote the WRC as an international repository and dispenser of information and knowledge d. Promote high school participation in water quality monitoring e. Seek funding to help the WRC accomplish its four objectives: • monitor water quality and aquatic ecology • manage water resources data • release information to the trained and lay public about water management needs and resources • establish a Rainy Basin River Watch
11. Rainy Lake a. Protect the special qualities of Rainy Lake that enabled its classification as an Outstanding Resource Value Water (ORVW)
12. Wetland Types and Functions
Page 35 of 62
a. Protect wetland types and functions, as identified in the Koochiching County Wetland Flexibility Plan, throughout the Basin and recognize the ability of wetlands to maintain or even improve water quality
13. Development a. Ensure planned and environmentally sensitive development b. Ensure shoreland development proceeds in a manner that protects the culture, environment and economy of the area
14. Rainy River a. Support efforts to fund studies of Rainy River on such topics as erosion, hydrology, river profile, effects of peaking b. Support efforts to control the practice of peaking in order to protect spawning areas and to prevent other potentially adverse impacts
15. Forestry a. Support sound forest management practices that allow for harvest but avoid adverse environmental impacts on water quality
Additional Priority Concerns
1. Water Quality a. Define water quality generally b. Prepare several “definitions” of water quality depending on the standard being sought
2. Impaired Waters a. Seek funding for study of the Little Fork River Impaired Water b. Implement an action plan for the Little Fork River c. Identify other Impaired Water in Koochiching County
Page 36 of 62
Appendix C
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE “KOOCHICHING COUNTY WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2007 – 2017 PRIORITY CONCERNS SCOPING DOCUMENT” By Richard Lehtinen
This report documents all comments received on the Koochiching County PCSD. The comments are grouped by comments with a Comment-Response format. The Response indicates whether or not a change in the PCSD text will be made.
1. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2/26/07) – Neville Ward Comment: DFO supports the plan, especially efforts to control the practice of peaking.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: Page 14, change “Ontario Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries” to “Fisheries and Oceans Canada”.
Response: Where appropriate, this change will be made.
2. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (3/5/07) Carolyn Bowie Comment: The PCSD has been assigned a file number KE-07-0197 and has been assigned to a fish habitat biologist to review.
3. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2/23/07) John Van den Broeck Comment: Likes the Analysis, Limitations, Status format in the first part of the report. Thinks pages 10-13 should be put in the front of the report, but he would not want to lose portions of the front section.
Response: This PCSD will be an Appendix in the Final Plan. The PCSD will be re- formatted as suggested. The existing format was done in order to track chronologically the development of priority concerns by the WMPAC.
Comment: Would like the first part of the PCSD to be re-formatted to have two headings under Introduction: 1) Purpose of Document, 2) Background.
Response: The Final Plan will be formatted as John Van den Broeck recommends.
Comment: I think you’ve hit all the issues. It’s actually ambitious.
Response: That’s encouraging. Page 37 of 62
4. Andrew Wright, WMPAC member (2/20/07) Comment: County should more actively enforce ISTS regulations and be proactive in extending sewer to high population areas.
Response: This issue is clearly expressed in the PCSD and will be elaborated on in the Final Draft.
Comment: How will drought affect water quality and what procedures will the County follow to deal with drought conditions?
Response: The County Water Management Plan will not address drought. That task is done by water providers.
Comment: Mining can have long term effects on water quality. Mining operations should be required to have provisions for clean up and removal of contaminants.
Response: All mining operations under permit are required to have reclamation plans.
Comment: The County should export water and consider use of public waters for commercial and industrial uses.
Response: This comment has not been raised by any other person or agency. The WMPAC may want to consider this issue in the Final Plan.
5. Voyageurs National Park (3/5/07) Kate Miller Comment: Page 3, please consider nutrient loading in lakes and rivers as a priority concern.
Response: Nutrient loading will be added as an issue under the category 4 heading of Protection of Water Quality.
Comment: Page 12, Monitoring, VNP conducted a baseline survey of water quality on Rainy Lake in 2004. A manuscript is in development for publication.
Response: This will be added as a bullet under Monitoring in the final PCSD.
Comment: VNP applauds efforts to provide sewage treatment systems, the outreach and education efforts identified in the PCSD, and cooperative monitoring efforts among local, county, State, Federal and citizen partners.
Response: This expression of positive support is appreciated.
6. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2/26/07) Lisa J. Thorvig Comment: MPCA has five recommendations for the Local Water Management Plan: 1) how will the County participate in addressing impaired water, developing TMDL pollutant allocations and implementing TMDLs for impaired waters; 2) include maps of impaired waters; 3) commitment of the County to submit data it collects to MPCA; 4)
Page 38 of 62
plans for monitoring as yet unmonitored waters; 5) actions and timing of the County to reduce pollutants causing the impairment.
Response: These five recommendations will be addressed in the LWM Plan but need not be addressed in the PCSD. The PCSD does identify impaired waters as a priority concern.
Comment: Since MPCA is leading the way on reports for mercury, the County should only address pollutants other than mercury in its LWM Plan.
Response: There is only one impaired water other than those affected by mercury and that water is turbidity in the Little Fork River. This impairment is currently being studied by MPCA and the LWM Plan will fully support the findings and recommendation of this study.
Comment: The County should access the water quality section of MPCA’s Environmental Data Access (EDA) to find water quality monitoring data which may be useful to the LWM Plan. The County should consider impaired waters as a top priority.
Response: The County will look into the EDA site and has identified the impaired Little Fork River as a high priority concern.
Comment: The County should begin to implement a county-wide ISTS program in 2007 (the county is currently administering 7080 in shoreland areas).
Response: The County does implement 7080 county-wide and has since 1996.
Comment: The County should be prepared to adopt an ordinance (i.e., local ISTS Ordinance) that implements proposed rule changes for the 2008 construction season.
Response: Koochiching County is working on a Local ISTS Ordinance which should be ready for review by May 2007.
7. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2/28/07) Kevin Peterson
DNR recommends seven additional concerns for the Recommendations section on pages 10 – 13. All of these items will be added to the final PCSD. These items are:
1. Under Education / Collaboration, p. 11 add: • emphasize education over regulation (e.g., voluntary use of alternative standards for shoreline development) • promote natural shoreline and alternative standards for shoreline development • provide information about the hazards of using surface waters for drinking and promote safe treatment options and alternatives
2. Under Protection of Water Quality, p. 12 add: • promote use of alternative standards for shoreline development
Page 39 of 62
• follow local zoning and shoreland ordinances (e.g., setbacks, vegetation removal, etc.) in riparian areas to protect the shore impact zone
3. Under Forestry, p. 13, add: • promote forestry practices that protect water quality • Promote Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines on private lands to protect water quality (e.g., riparian buffers, roads and culverts, stream crossings, etc.)
8. State Department of Health (1/31/07) Beth Kluthe
The DOH recommends as a priority concern “Source water protection for the City of International Falls and resorts located on Rainy Lake”. DOH did a study and published a report on this topic about four years ago. We will add a reference to this study in the Protection of Water Quality section of the PCSD.
9. Board of Water and Soil Resources (2/28/07) Jeff Hrubes Comment: Forest land management should be a priority concern.
Response: Forest land management is addressed under the category of Forestry and will be addressed in more detail in the Final Plan.
Comment: Surface water quality as it relates to development adjacent to riparian areas should be a priority concern.
Response: Development practices in shoreland areas are addressed under the category of Protection of Water Quality and will be addressed in more detail in the final Plan.
Comment: Erosion and sedimentation should be a priority concern.
Response: Erosion is one of the principal concerns in the PCSD. Under Erosion the following bullet point will be added:
• Best Management Practices for residential and commercial construction, stormwater management, road construction and hydrologic modification contributing to bank instability.
2012/2013 Comments and Responses
Chris Parthun, MDH - Refer to Source Water Assessments (SWA) and add citation.
Response: SWA citation added under Protection of Water Quality, Objective (d), pg. 20.
Craig Engwall, DNR – Reference active land management techniques.
Response: Added as an objective (c) under Goal 2 in the Forestry section. Pg. 24.
Page 40 of 62
Appendix D
KOOCHICHING COUNTY WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2007-2012
Significant progress has been made in implementing the 2007-2017 Koochiching County Water Management Plan. Below is a breakdown of some of the accomplishments made in each of the 6 highest priority categories.
Erosion:
• Numerous bank stabilization projects. • Major clearing of the Rat Root River. This should allow better flow and less flooding.
Subsurface Sewage Treatment:
• Completed installation of a sewer line to Tilson Creek that included approximately 250 homes. • Adopted the Koochiching County Subsurface Sewage Treatment Ordinance in August 2008. • Formed the Island View Sewer Committee and completed a design for the remainder of the lake area. • Did a desktop review of septic systems and visited all properties in the Island View Sewer Project area. • Formed the Papermakers Sewer Committee to look at the feasibility of providing sewer in that area. • Continue to enforce Chapter 7080, review septic system designs and issue permits for new systems.
Education/Collaboration:
• Continue to work with state and federal agencies such as the MPCA, DNR, BWSR and ACOE to assure that water related projects follow the proper procedures. • Continue education practices with children and adults such as classroom visits, special event booths and Environmental Education Days. • Continue working with students at the LBF and Bigfork High Schools in the Big Fork River water monitoring program. • Administer the Big Fork River Board and the Rainy Rapid River Board to discuss and move forward on specific needs and the overall health of the rivers. • Reestablished the Littlefork/Rat Root River Board.
Monitoring:
Page 41 of 62
• Collaborated with the MPCA in their Intensive Watershed Monitoring program on the Littlefork and Big Fork Water Sheds. • Continued water monitoring efforts on the Big Fork River and opened discussion regarding the same type of program for the Rainy and Littlefork Rivers.
Protection of Water Quality:
• Major upgrade by the North Koochiching Area Sanitary District (NKASD) to the wastewater treatment facility in Int’l Falls. • Continued efforts to provide properly functioning septic systems or sewer hook up to more homes. • Worked to identify stressors found during the MPCA water monitoring program.
Forestry:
• Koochiching County Lands and Forestry adheres to the Voluntary Site Level Forest Management Guidelines that were put together by the Minnesota Forest Resources Council (MFRC). The guidelines address such things as proper water crossing, forest road development, timber harvesting near streams and lakes, pesticide use and many other water quality related issues. • Completed 18 Forest Stewardship Plans for non-industrial private forest landowners covering 2,081 acres.
SWCD and ESD staff feels like a lot has been accomplished in the past 5 years. Some of the more recent funding applications that have been approved will help the county in its efforts to complete existing projects and develop new ones.
Page 42 of 62
Appendix E BARTLETT LAKE LAKE PROTECTION CHALLENGE GRANT PROJECT
Bartlett Lake 36-0018-00 KOOCHICHING COUNTY
Lake Water Quality
Summary Bartlett Lake is located immediately northeast of Northome, MN in Koochiching County. It is a shallow lake covering 304 acres (Table 1).
Bartlett Lake has no inlets and one outlet, which classify it as a groundwater drainage lake (Figure 1). The outlet (South Branch Battle River) exits from a small northwestern bay of Bartlett lake.
Water quality data have been collected on Bartlett Lake in 1973-1978, and 2002-2003 (Tables 2-3). These data show that the lake is eutrophic (TSI 60), which is characteristic of a shallow lake with abundant aquatic plants and algae.
Bartlett Lake does not have a lake association. It is managed by the Koochiching County Soil and Water Conservation District.
Table 1. Bartlett Lake location and key physical characteristics. Location Data Physical Characteristics MN Lake ID: 36-0018-00 Surface area (acres): 304 County: Koochiching Littoral area (acres): 292 Ecoregion: Northern Lakes and Forest % Littoral area: 96% Major Drainage Basin: Red River Basin Max depth (ft), (m): 16, 4.9 Latitude/Longitude: 47.879405, -94.266823 Inlets: 0 Invasive Species: None as of 2011 Outlets: 1
Public Accesses: None
Table 2. Availability of primary data types for Bartlett Lake. Data Availability Transparency data only exist from the 1970s and from Transparency data 2002-2003.
Page 43 of 62
Chemical data Chemical data only exist from 1970s and 2002.
There is no inlet to Bartlett Lake. Outlet monitoring is not Inlet/Outlet data -- necessary. Recommendations For recommendations refer to page 17. Lake Map
Figure 1. Map of Bartlett Lake illustrating sample sites, stream outlet, and aerial imagery.
Table 3. Monitoring programs and associated monitoring sites. Lake Site Depth (ft) Monitoring Programs 101 10 MPCA: 1976-1978 102 10 MPCA: 1976-1978 201 * Primary site 10 CLMP: 1973-1975; DNR Fisheries: 2002 202 15 CLMP: 2003
Acronyms MPCA: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency CLMP: Citizens Lake Monitoring Program DNR: Department of Natural Resources Page 44 of 62
Page 45 of 62
Average Water Quality Statistics
Table 4 describes available water quality data for Bartlett Lake. Means for total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and secchi depth are based on data from the primary site 201 in 2002. The other parameters are means for 1976-1978 data.
Minnesota is divided into 7 ecoregions based on land use, vegetation, precipitation and geology. The MPCA has developed a way to determine the "average range" of water quality expected for lakes in each ecoregion. For more information on ecoregions and expected water quality ranges, see page 9.
Table 4. Water quality means compared to ecoregion ranges and impaired waters standard. Impaired Ecoregion Waters Parameter Mean Range1 Standard2 Interpretation Total phosphorus (ug/L) 55.8 14 - 27 > 60 Results are poorer than the 3 expected range for the ecoregion; Chlorophyll a (ug/L) 20.4 4 - 10 > 20 however, Bartlett Lake is a shallow lake, so it doesn’t compare as well Chlorophyll a max (ug/L) 34 <15 to the ecoregion reference lakes. Secchi depth (ft) 4.6 7.5 - 15 < 3 Dissolved oxygen Polymictic Dissolved oxygen depth profiles show that the lake mixes often in See page 7 the summer. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen NA 0.4 - 0.75 Data does not exist for this parameter. (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L) 113 40 - 140 Indicates a low sensitivity to acid rain and a good buffering capacity.
Color (Pt-Co Units) 48 10 - 35 Indicates turbid water that could be stained with tannins (brown). pH 7.1 7.2 - 8.3 Within the expected range for the ecoregion. Lake water pH less than 6.5 can affect fish spawning and the solubility of metals in the water.
Chloride (mg/L) 23.7 0.6 - 1.2 Higher than the ecoregion range, but this data is from the 1970s. Total Suspended Solids 6.2 <1 - 2 Higher than the ecoregion range, but this data is from the 1970s. (mg/L)
Specific Conductance 222 50 - 250 Within the expected range for the ecoregion. (umhos/cm) Total Nitrogen :Total 30:1 25:1 – 35:1 Indicates the lake is phosphorus Phosphorus limited, which means that algae growth is limited by the amount of phosphorus in the lake.
1The ecoregion range is the 25th-75th percentile of summer means from ecoregion reference lakes 2For further information regarding the Impaired Waters Assessment program, refer to http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/index.html 3Chlorophyll a measurements have been corrected for pheophytin Units: 1 mg/L (ppm) = 1,000 ug/L (ppb) Page 46 of 62
Water Quality Characteristics - Historical Means and Ranges
Table 5. Water quality means and ranges for primary sites. Years monitored: 1976-1978, 2002-2003. Primary Site Site Site Site Parameters 201 202 101 102 2002 data 2003 1970s 1970s Total Phosphorus Mean (ug/L): 55.8 128.8 116.1 Total Phosphorus Min: 35 81 68 Total Phosphorus Max: 72 184 183 Number of Observations: 8 9 8 Chlorophyll a Mean (ug/L): 20.4 75.7 77.9 Chlorophyll-a Min: 4 15.2 16 Chlorophyll-a Max: 34 181 240 Number of Observations: 8 8 9 Secchi Depth Mean (ft): 4.6 4.5 2.9 3.3 Secchi Depth Min: 3.0 3.0 1.1 1.1 Secchi Depth Max: 6.2 5.5 7.2 9.5 Number of Observations: 8 3 9 9
Figure 2. Bartlett Lake total phosphorus, chlorophyll a and transparency historical ranges. The arrow represents the range and the black dot represents the historical mean (Primary Site 201). Figure adapted after Moore and Thornton, [Ed.]. 1988. Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual. (Doc. No. EPA 440/5-88-002)
Page 47 of 62
Transparency (Secchi Depth)
Transparency is how easily light can pass through a substance. In lakes it is how deep sunlight penetrates through the water. Plants and algae need sunlight to grow, so they are only able to grow in areas of lakes where the sun penetrates. Water transparency depends on the amount of particles in the water. An increase in particulates results in a decrease in transparency. The transparency varies year to year due to changes in weather, precipitation, lake use, flooding, temperature, lake levels, etc.
The mean transparency ranges from 3 to 4.5 feet (Figure 3). There is a large data gap between the 1970s and the 2000s. Transparency in the 1970s was low, whereas transparency in 2002-2003 is better. There is not enough data for a statistical trend analysis. Transparency monitoring should be continued annually at site 201 in order to track water quality changes.
Transparency: Annual Means 5.0 4.5
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 Site 101 2.0 Site 102 Secchi Depth Depth (ft) Secchi 1.5 Site 201 1.0 0.5 Site 202 0.0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 2002 2003
Figure 3. Annual mean transparency in Bartlett Lake at all sites.
Bartlett Lake transparency ranges from 3.0 to 6.2 ft at the primary site (201). Figure 4 shows the seasonal transparency dynamics. There is not enough data to get a true picture of the transparency pattern in Bartlett Lake. The transparency appears to be fairly consistent throughout the summer. Some lakes vary throughout the summer while some lakes stay constant. The dynamics have to do with algae population dynamics and lake turnover.
Page 48 of 62
Seasonal Transparency Dynamics 7
6 2002
5 2003
4
3
Secchi Depth Depth (ft) Secchi 2
1
0
Figure 4. Seasonal transparency dynamics and year to year comparison (2002-2003).
Total Phosphorus
Bartlett Lake is phosphorus limited, which means that Total Phosphorus algae and aquatic plant 200 growth is dependent upon 180 available phosphorus. 160 Site 202, 2002 Total phosphorus was 140 Site 102, 1976 evaluated in Bartlett Lake in 120 Site 102, 1977 1976-1978 and then 2002. 100 The data indicate that the Site 102, 1978 phosphorus may increase 80 Site 101, 1976 as the summer goes on, 60 Site 101, 1977 which is typical in a shallow Phosphorus Total (ug/L) 40 lake (Figure 5). Site 101, 1978 20 The most interesting result 0 is that the phosphorus was much higher in the 1970s than in 2002. Before the Clean Water Act was Figure 5. Historical total phosphorus concentrations (ug/L) for Bartlett Lake. A passed in the 1970s, the line is drawn for 2002 data only. City of Northome discharged their sewage into Bartlett Lake. Included in the discharge was a local creamery, which discharged directly into Bartlett up until the time it closed in the early 1970s. There have been some upgrades to the city sewer and storm sewer systems throughout the years which has greatly limited the run-off into Bartlett.
Phosphorus should continue to be monitored to track these improvements in water quality. Page 49 of 62
Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a is the pigment Site 202, 2002 that makes plants and algae 250 Chlorophyll a green. Chlorophyll a is tested Site 102, 1976 in lakes to determine the Site 102, 1977 200 algae concentration or how Site 102, 1978 "green" the water is. 150 Site 101, 1976 Chlorophyll a concentrations Site 101, 1977 greater than 10 ug/L are 100 perceived as a mild algae Site 101, 1978 bloom, while concentrations greater than 20 ug/L are 50 perceived as a nuisance.
0 Chlorophyll a was evaluated in Bartlett Lake in 1976-1978 and 2002. Chlorophyll a concentrations exceeded 20 ug/L every year monitored, Figure 6. Chlorophyll a concentrations (ug/L) for Bartlett Lake. indicating nuisance algae blooms (Figure 6). The chlorophyll a concentrations are much lower in 2002 than in the 1970s. These results are consistent with the phosphorus and transparency results.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is the amount of oxygen dissolved in lake 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 water. Oxygen is necessary for all living organisms to survive except for some bacteria. Living organisms breathe in oxygen that is dissolved in the water. Dissolved oxygen levels of <5 mg/L are 0 typically avoided by game fisheries.
Bartlett Lake is a shallow lake, with a maximum depth of 15 ft. 1 Dissolved oxygen profiles from 2002 indicate that site 201 mixes throughout the summer (Figure 7). In a shallow lake, the water column never completely stratifies. Any windy day can mix up the Depth (m) Depth 2 water column causing phosphorus from the anoxic lake bottom to re-suspend into the water. This phenomenon is 5/22/2002 known as internal loading. Hypolimnion samples from 3 6/5/2002 2002 indicate internal loading ranging from 47-113 ug/L. 6/20/2002 7/9/2002 4 8/6/2002 8/15/2002
5 9/4/2002 Figure 7. Dissolved oxygen and temperature 9/23/2002 profile for Bartlett Lake in 2002 at site 201.
Page 50 of 62
Trophic State Index Table 6. Trophic State Index for site 201. Phosphorus (nutrients), chlorophyll a (algae Trophic State Index Site 201 concentration) and Secchi depth (transparency) are related. As phosphorus increases, there is more food TSI Total Phosphorus 63 available for algae, resulting in increased algal TSI Chlorophyll-a 61 concentrations. When algal concentrations increase, the TSI Secchi 56 water becomes less transparent and the Secchi depth TSI Mean 60 decreases. Trophic State: Eutrophic Numbers represent the mean TSI for each The results from these three measurements cover parameter. different units and ranges and thus cannot be directly compared to each other or averaged. In order to standardize these three measurements to make them 100 directly comparable, we convert them to a trophic state index (TSI). Hypereutrophic
The mean TSI for Bartlett Lake is in the 70 eutrophic range (Figure 8). There is Bartlett Lake Eutrophic good agreement between the TSI for phosphorus, chlorophyll a, indicating 50 that these variables are strongly related. The TSI for Mesotrophic transparency is lower than the other two parameters. 40 This could be due to the fact that there is a lot of phosphorus at the bottom of Bartlett Lake from 1970s loading from the city of Northome and a local creamery. Oligotrophic Eutrophic lakes (TSI 50-70) are characteristic of "green" water most of the summer. "Eu" means true and the root "trophy" means nutrients therefore, eutrophic literally means true nutrients or truly nutrient rich (phosphorus). 0 Eutrophic lakes are usually shallow, and are found where the soils are fertile. Eutrophic lakes usually have Figure 8. Trophic state index chart with abundant aquatic plants and algae. corresponding trophic status.
Table 7. Trophic state index attributes and their corresponding fisheries and recreation characteristics. TSI Attributes Fisheries & Recreation <30 Oligotrophy: Clear water, oxygen throughout Trout fisheries dominate the year at the bottom of the lake, very deep cold water. 30-40 Bottom of shallower lakes may become anoxic Trout fisheries in deep lakes only. Walleye, (no oxygen). Cisco present. 40-50 Mesotrophy: Water moderately clear most of No oxygen at the bottom of the lake results in the summer. May be "greener" in late summer. loss of trout. Walleye may predominate. 50-60 Eutrophy: Algae and aquatic plant problems Warm-water fisheries only. Bass may possible. "Green" water most of the year. dominate. 60-70 Blue-green algae dominate, algal scums and Dense algae and aquatic plants. Low water aquatic plant problems. clarity may discourage swimming and boating. 70-80 Hypereutrophy: Dense algae and aquatic Water is not suitable for recreation. plants. >80 Algal scums, few aquatic plants Rough fish (carp) dominate; summer fish kills possible Source: Carlson, R.E. 1997. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 22:361-369.
Page 51 of 62
Ecoregion Comparisons
Minnesota is divided into 7 ecoregions based on land use, vegetation, precipitation and geology. The MPCA has developed a way to determine the "average range" of water quality expected for lakes in each ecoregion. From 1985-1988, the MPCA evaluated the lake water quality for reference lakes. These reference lakes are not considered pristine, but are considered to have little human impact and therefore are representative of the typical lakes within the ecoregion. The "average range" refers to the 25th - 75th percentile range for data within each ecoregion. For the purpose of this graphical representation, the means of the reference lake data sets were used.
Bartlett Lake is in the Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion. The mean total phosphorus, chlorophyll a and transparency (secchi depth) for Bartlett are all poorer than the expected ecoregion ranges (Figure 9). Since Bartlett Lake is a shallow lake, it doesn’t compare as well to the ecoregion ranges.
80 40 0
70 35
5
60 30 increased algae 50 25 10
40 - a ppb) (ug/L, 20
15
30 15 Secchidepth (ft) Chlorophyll Total Phosphorus (ug/L, (ug/L, ppb) Phosphorus Total 20 10 20
10 5 crystal clear
0 0 25 NLF Bartlett NLF Bartlett NLF Bartlett Ecoregion Ecoregion Ecoregion
Figures 9a-c. Bartlett Lake ranges compared to Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion ranges. The Bartlett Lake total phosphorus and chlorophyll a ranges are from 9 data points collected in May-September of 2002. The Bartlett Lake secchi depth range is from 11 data points collected in May-September from 2002-2003. Page 52 of 62
Lakeshed Data and Interpretations
Lakeshed Understanding a lakeshed requires an understanding of basic hydrology. A watershed is defined as all land and water surface area that contribute excess water to a defined point. The MN DNR has delineated three basic scales of watersheds (from large to small): 1) basins, 2) major watersheds, and 3) minor watersheds.
The Red Lake Major Watershed is one of the watersheds that make up the Red River Basin, which drains north to Lake Winnipeg (Figure 10). This major watershed is made up of 60 minor watersheds. Bartlett Lake is located in minor watershed 66021 (Figure 11).
Figure 10. Red Lake Watershed. Figure 11. Minor Watershed 66021
contributes water to Bartlett Lake.
The MN DNR also has evaluated catchments for each individual lake with greater than 100 acres surface area. These lakesheds (catchments) are the “building blocks” for the larger scale watersheds. Bartlett Lake falls within the Bartlett (6602100) lakeshed (Figure 12). Though very useful for displaying the land and water that contribute directly to a lake, lakesheds are not always true watersheds because they may not show the water flowing into a lake from upstream streams or rivers. While some lakes may have only one or two upstream lakesheds draining into them, others may be connected to a large number of lakesheds, reflecting a larger drainage area via stream or river networks. For further discussion of Bartlett Lake’s full watershed, containing all the lakesheds upstream of Bartlett Lake lakeshed, see page 15. The data interpretation of the Bartlett Lake lakeshed includes only the immediate lakeshed as this area is the land surface that flows directly into Bartlett Lake. Figure 12. The 6602100 Lakeshed. This area is the land Page 53surface of 62 that flows directly into Bartlett Lake.
The lakeshed vitals table (Table 8) identifies where to focus organizational and management efforts for each lake. Criteria were developed using limnological concepts to determine the effect to lake water quality.
KEY Possibly detrimental to the lake Warrants attention Beneficial to the lake
Table 8. Bartlett Lake lakeshed vitals table. Lakeshed Vitals Rating Lake Area 304 acres descriptive Littoral Zone Area 292 acres descriptive Lake Max Depth 16 ft descriptive Lake Mean Depth NA NA Water Residence Time NA NA Miles of Stream 0.09 descriptive Inlets 0 Outlets 1 – South Branch Battle River Major Watershed 62 - Upper/Lower Red Lake descriptive Minor Watershed 62011 descriptive Lakeshed 6201101 descriptive Ecoregion Northern Lakes and Forest descriptive Total Lakeshed to Lake Area Ratio (total 7:1 lakeshed includes lake area) Standard Watershed to Lake Basin Ratio 7:1 (standard watershed includes lake areas) Wetland Coverage 35% Aquatic Invasive Species None Public Drainage Ditches None Public Lake Accesses None Miles of Shoreline 4.3 descriptive Shoreline Development Index NA NA Public Land to Private Land Ratio 0.4:1 Development Classification General Development Miles of Road 9.2 descriptive Municipalities in lakeshed Northome Forestry Practices NA Feedlots None Municipal sewage system extended along Sewage Management south shore; however some homes not yet connected Lake Management Plan None Lake Vegetation Survey/Plan None
Page 54 of 62
Land Cover / Land Use
The activities that occur on the land within the lakeshed can greatly impact a lake. Land use planning helps ensure the use of land resources in an organized fashion so that the needs of the present and future generations can be best addressed. The basic purpose of land use planning is to ensure that each area of land will be used in a manner that provides maximum social benefits without degradation of the land resource.
Changes in land use, and ultimately land cover, impact the hydrology of a lakeshed. Land cover is also directly related to the land’s ability to Figure 13. The 6602100 lakeshed land cover (http://land.umn.edu). absorb and store water rather than cause it to flow overland (gathering nutrients and sediment as it moves) towards the lowest point, typically the lake. Impervious intensity describes the land’s inability to absorb water, the higher the % impervious intensity the more area that water cannot penetrate in to the soils. Monitoring the changes in land use can assist in future planning procedures to address the needs of future generations.
Phosphorus export, which is the main cause of lake eutrophication, depends on the type of land cover occurring in the lakeshed. Figure 13 depicts the land cover in Bartlett Lake’s lakeshed.
The University of Minnesota has online records of land cover statistics from years 1990 and 2000 (http://land.umn.edu). Although this data is 11 years old, it is the only data set currently available for comparing land use over a decade. Table 9 describes Bartlett Lake’s lakeshed land cover statistics and percent change from 1990 to 2000. Due to the many factors that influence demographics, one cannot determine with certainty the projected statistics over the next 10, 20, 30+ years, but one can see the transition within the lakeshed from agriculture, grass/shrub/wetland, and water acreages to forest and urban acreages. The largest changes in percentage are the decrease in agriculture cover (-67.0%); and the increase in urban cover (+79.9%). The impervious surface data did not have a high enough resolution to capture any changes from 1990-2000. The increase in urban acreage can be used as a surrogate for the increase in impervious intensity.
Page 55 of 62
Table 9. Bartlett Lake’s lakeshed land cover statistics and % change from 1990 to 2000 (http://land.umn.edu). 1990 2000 % Change Land Cover Acres Percent Acres Percent 1990 to 2000 Agriculture 285 14.27 94 4.71 67.0% Decrease Forest 933 46.72 1,057 52.93 13.3% Increase Grass/Shrub/Wetland 344 17.23 290 14.52 15.7% Decrease Water 300 15.02 314 15.72 4.7% Increase Urban 134 6.71 241 12.07 79.9% Increase
Impervious Intensity % 0 1,869 93.64 1,869 93.64 The impervious surface 1-10 31 1.55 31 1.55 data did not have a high 11-25 38 1.9 38 1.9 enough resolution to 26-40 21 1.05 21 1.05 capture any changes from 1990-2000. The 18 0.9 18 0.9 41-60 increase in urban 61-80 9 0.45 9 0.45 acreage can be used as 81-100 10 0.5 10 0.5 a surrogate for the increase in impervious Total Area 1,997 1,997 intensity. Total Impervious Area 40 2.38 40 2.38 (Percent Impervious Area Excludes Water Area)
Demographics
Bartlett Lake is classified as a general development lake. Recreational development lakes usually have over 225 acres of water per mile of shoreline, 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline, and are more than 15 feet deep.
The Minnesota Department of Administration Geographic and Demographic Analysis Division extrapolated future population in 5-year increments out to 2035. Both Koochiching County and the City of Northome have declining population projections (Figure 14).
Population Growth Projection Compared to 2006 Population 2%
1%
0% -1%
-2%
Percent -3% -4% Koochiching County total; 2006 population: 13,619 -5% Northome City; 2006 population: 243 -6% 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year Figure 14. Population growth projection for Northome City and Koochiching County. (source: http://www.demography.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=19332)
Page 56 of 62
Bartlett Lake Lakeshed Water Quality Protection Strategy
Each lakeshed has a different makeup of public and private lands. Looking in more detail at the makeup of these lands can give insight on where to focus protection efforts. The protected lands (easements, wetlands, public land) are the future water quality infrastructure for the lake. Developed land and agriculture have the highest phosphorus runoff coefficients, so this land should be minimized for water quality protection.
The majority of the land within Bartlett Lake’s lakeshed is made up of private forested uplands (Table 10). This land can be the focus of development and protection efforts in the lakeshed.
Table 10. Land ownership, land use/land cover, estimated phosphorus loading, and ideas for protection and restoration in Bartlett Lake’s lakeshed (Sources: Minnesota DNR GAP Stewardship data, National Wetlands Inventory, and the 2006 National Land Cover Dataset). Private (57%) 16% Public (27%) Forested Open Developed Agriculture Uplands Other Wetlands Water County State Federal Land Use (%) 6.7% 6.6% 17.6% 6.1% 20% 16% 20% 7% 0% Runoff Coefficient Lbs of 0.45 - 1.5 0.26 - 0.9 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 phosphorus/acre/ year Estimated Phosphorus Loading 61 – 203 35 - 119 42 36 Acreage x runoff coefficient
Focus of Open, develop- pasture, Focused on grass- Cropland ment and Protected Description Shoreland land, protection shrub- efforts land
Forest stewardship Potential rd Protected by Restore planning, 3 County Phase 3 Shoreline party State National wetlands; Wetland Tax Forfeit restoration certification, Conservation Forest Forest Discussion CRP Lands SFIA, local Act Items woodland cooperatives
DNR Fisheries approach for lake protection and restoration
Credit: Peter Jacobson and Michael Duval, Minnesota DNR Fisheries
In an effort to prioritize protection and restoration efforts of fishery lakes, the MN DNR has developed a ranking system by separating lakes into two categories, those needing protection and those needing restoration. Modeling by the DNR Fisheries Research Unit suggests that total phosphorus concentrations increase significantly over natural concentrations in lakes that have watershed with disturbance greater than 25%. Therefore, lakes with watersheds that have less than 25% disturbance need protection and lakes with more than 25% disturbance need restoration (Table 11). Watershed
Page 57 of 62 disturbance was defined as having urban, agricultural and mining land uses. Watershed protection is defined as publicly owned land or conservation easement.
Page 58 of 62
Table 11. Suggested approaches for watershed protection and restoration of DNR-managed fish lakes in Minnesota.
Watershed Watershed Management Disturbance Comments Protected (%) Type (%) Sufficiently protected -- Water quality supports healthy and > 75% Vigilance diverse native fish communities. Keep public lands protected.
< 25% Excellent candidates for protection -- Water quality can be maintained in a range that supports healthy and diverse native < 75% Protection fish communities. Disturbed lands should be limited to less than 25%. Realistic chance for full restoration of water quality and improve 25-60% n/a Full Restoration quality of fish communities. Disturbed land percentage should be reduced and BMPs implemented. Restoration will be very expensive and probably will not achieve water quality conditions necessary to sustain healthy fish > 60% n/a Partial Restoration communities. Restoration opportunities must be critically evaluated to assure feasible positive outcomes.
The next step was to prioritize lakes within each of these management categories. DNR Fisheries identified high value fishery lakes, such as cisco refuge lakes. Ciscos (Coregonus artedi) can be an early indicator of eutrophication in a lake because they require cold hypolimnetic temperatures and high dissolved oxygen levels. These watersheds with low disturbance and high value fishery lakes are excellent candidates for priority protection measures, especially those that are related to forestry and minimizing the effects of landscape disturbance. Forest stewardship planning, harvest coordination to reduce hydrology impacts and forest conservation easements are some potential tools that can protect these high value resources for the long term.
Bartlett Lake lakeshed was classified with having 37.2% of the watershed protected and 17.1% of the watershed disturbed (Figure 15). Therefore, Bartlett Lake should have a protection focus (Figure 16). Goals for the lake should be to limit any increase in disturbed land use. Since there are no other contributing watersheds, protection must focus on the area directly encircling the lake, mostly the City of Northome.
Percent of the Watershed Protected
0% 75% 100%
Bartlett Lake (37.2%)
Percent of the Watershed with Disturbed Land Cover
0% 25% 100%
Bartlett Lake (17.1%)
Page 59 of 62
Bartlett, Status of the Fishery (as of 06/04/2007)
Bartlett is a shallow, eutrophic, 292-acre lake located in the southwest corner of Koochiching County near the town of Northome. Bartlett Lake is heavily vegetated with several species of submerged plants growing to the surface in shallow water. Winterkills occur frequently on Bartlett Lake and the composition of the fishery can change rapidly. There is a small unimproved earthen boat ramp located on the south side of the lake within a municipal campground. A DNR fishing pier is also located at this campground. The Bartlett Lake fishery is presently managed for northern pike and black crappie.
At the time of this investigation, northern pike gillnet abundance (5.83/net) was the highest recorded for Bartlett Lake since 1946 and was greater than the median for lakes in the same classification. The pike sampled appeared to be either brood fish stocked in 2004 or 2005 or progeny that hatched following the introduction. Pike lengths ranged from 18.1 to 28.4 inches with an average length of 24.7 inches. The average weight of 3.56 pounds was exceptional for this lake class.
Black crappie adults were introduced in 2004 and 2005 and appear to have successfully reproduced. The black crappie trapnet abundance (29.44/net) was extraordinary for this lake class. Most crappie sampled were relatively small and were either two or three year-olds. Growth rates of crappie were the second highest on record for the International Falls Management Area. Lengths of crappie sampled ranged from 4.5 to 10.2 inches, however, 19% of the catch were over nine inches in length.
Yellow perch also were present in Bartlett Lake in high numbers (65.00/net). Perch lengths ranged from 5.4 to 11.7 inches and averaged 7.3 inches. Approximately 26% of the catch were greater than eight inches in length and 10% were greater than nine inches in length.
Other species observed during this investigation included black bullhead, brown bullhead, bluegill and white sucker. The sport fishery of Bartlett Lake is currently the most attractive it has been in many years.
See the link below for specific information on gillnet surveys, stocking information, and fish consumption guidelines: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showreport.html?downum=36001800
Page 60 of 62
Key Findings / Recommendations
Monitoring Recommendations
Bartlett Lake is lacking a complete data set. Transparency monitoring at site 201 should be continued annually. It is important to continue transparency monitoring weekly or at least bimonthly every year to enable year-to-year comparisons and trend analyses. This monitoring can be done by a dedicated volunteer who lives on the lake.
A couple more years of phosphorus monitoring would be helpful to better compare the current water quality to the 1970s. The lake appears to have improved in the past 30 years, but the data is too limited to do a statistical trend analysis.
Priority Impacts to the lake
Bartlett Lake has an advantage that no other watersheds flow into it. The land area directly surrounding the lake has the largest impact on the lake. The City discharged all sewage into Bartlett Lake up until around the mid-1970s. Included in the discharge was a local creamery which discharged directly into Bartlett up until the time it closed in the early 1970s. There have been some upgrades to the city sewer and storm sewer systems throughout the years which has greatly limited the run-off into Bartlett. The City is working with an engineer to design upgrades to their water and sewer systems. Over half of the system is pre-1930.
Stormwater runoff from Northome, shoreline development, septic systems, and aquatic plant removal are the most likely contributors of phosphorus to the lake.
Best Management Practices Recommendations
Projects that would have the best chance of improving the water quality of Bartlett Lake include stormwater management and city sewer upgrades in Northome, shoreline restoration, connection of homes with septic systems to municipal sewage system, and education about protecting native aquatic plant beds.
Native aquatic plants stabilize the lake’s sediments and tie up phosphorus in their tissues. When aquatic plants are uprooted from a shallow lake, the lake bottom is disturbed, and the phosphorus in the water column gets used by algae instead of plants. This contributes to “greener” water and more algae blooms.
Organizational contacts and reference sites 392 Highway 11 East, International Falls, MN 56649 218-286-5220 DNR Fisheries Office [email protected] http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/internationalfalls/index.html 525 Lake Avenue South, Suite 400, Duluth, MN 55802 Regional Minnesota Pollution 218-723-4660, 800-657-3864 Control Agency Office http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hqzq3e1 Courthouse, 715 4th Street , International Falls MN 56649 Koochiching Soil and Water 218-283-1174 Conservation District http://www.koochichingswcd.org/ Page 61 of 62
Page 62 of 62