Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
Prepared for
Shell Rock River Watershed District
2004
Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
Wenck File #1323-02
Prepared for:
SHELL ROCK RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 1147 Freeborn County Courthouse Albert Lea, Minnesota 56007
Prepared by:
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center 2004 P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1
1.1 DISTRICT MISSION ...... 1-1 1.2 BACKGROUND ...... 1-1 1.3 LIST OF KNOWN STUDIES, PLANS, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS...... 1-1
2.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT...... 2-1
2.1 PRECIPITATION...... 2-1 2.2 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ...... 2-2 2.3 GEOLOGY ...... 2-3 2.3.1 County Setting...... 2-3 2.3.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Setting ...... 2-14 2.4 SOILS ...... 2-15 2.4.1 County Setting...... 2-15 2.4.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Soils ...... 2-20 2.5 ORIGINAL VEGETATION...... 2-23 2.5.1 County Setting...... 2-23 2.5.2 Shell Rock Watershed Original Vegetation ...... 2-23 2.6 TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF OF WATERSHEDS...... 2-25 2.6.1 County Setting...... 2-25 2.6.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Topographic Relief ...... 2-26 2.7 EXISTING LAND USE ...... 2-28 2.7.1 County Setting...... 2-28 2.7.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Existing Land Use...... 2-29 2.8 PUBLIC UTILITIES ...... 2-30 2.8.1 County Setting...... 2-30 2.8.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Public Utilities ...... 2-30 2.8.2.1 Incorporated Cities...... 2-30 2.8.2.2 Unincorporated Villages ...... 2-31 2.9 LAND OWNERSHIP ...... 2-33 2.9.1 County Setting...... 2-33 2.9.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Land Ownership...... 2-34 2.10 SURFACE WATER QUANTITY...... 2-35 2.10.1 County Setting...... 2-35 2.10.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Surface Water Quantity ...... 2-37 2.11 SURFACE WATER QUALITY...... 2-39 2.11.1 County Setting...... 2-39 2.11.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Surface Water Quality ...... 2-41
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc i Table of Contents (Cont.)
2.12 GROUND WATER QUANTITY...... 2-50 2.12.1 County Aquifer Yields ...... 2-50 2.12.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Ground Water Quantity ...... 2-51 2.13 GROUND WATER QUALITY...... 2-52 2.14 ERODING LAND...... 2-55 2.14.1 County Setting...... 2-55 2.14.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Eroding Land ...... 2-57 2.15 IRRIGATION ...... 2-58 2.15.1 County Setting...... 2-58 2.15.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Irrigation ...... 2-58 2.16 DRAINAGE...... 2-59 2.16.1 County Setting...... 2-59 2.16.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Drainage...... 2-63 2.17 POLLUTANT SOURCES...... 2-65 2.17.1 County Setting...... 2-65 2.17.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Pollutant Sources ...... 2-69 2.18 ANIMAL FEEDLOTS...... 2-76 2.18.1 County Setting...... 2-76 2.18.2 Shell Rock Watershed Animal Feedlots...... 2-77 2.19 STORAGE TANKS...... 2-79 2.19.1 County Setting...... 2-79 2.19.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Storage Tanks ...... 2-80 2.20 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, ISTS...... 2-82 2.21 SPECIAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ...... 2-83 2.21.1 County Setting...... 2-83 2.21.2 Shell Rock River Watershed Special Geologic Conditions ...... 2-83 2.22 WETLANDS...... 2-84 2.22.1 County Setting...... 2-84 2.22.1.1 Regulatory Authority...... 2-84 2.22.1.2 Wetland Inventories...... 2-86 2.22.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Wetlands ...... 2-88 2.23 FLOODPLAINS ...... 2-89 2.23.1 County Setting...... 2-89 2.23.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Floodplains...... 2-89 2.24 SHORELANDS ...... 2-90 2.24.1 County Setting...... 2-90 2.24.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Shorelands...... 2-91 2.25 WATER BASED RECREATION LANDS...... 2-94 2.26 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT...... 2-95 2.26.1 County Setting...... 2-95 2.27 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS...... 2-113 T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc ii Table of Contents (Cont.)
2.28 UNIQUE FEATURES AND SCENIC AREAS...... 2-114 2.28.1 County Setting...... 2-114 2.28.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Unique Features and Scenic Areas...... 2-115
3.0 IMPLEMENTATION...... 3-1
3.1 APPROACH ...... 3-1 3.2 GOALS ...... 3-1 3.3 PARTNERS AND FUNDING SOURCES ...... 3-1 3.4 CONCEPTUAL COSTS AND TIMELINE ...... 3-2
FIGURE
1 Shell Rock River Watershed
APPENDICES
A Erosion Implementation B Lakes Implementation C Streams Implementation D Urban Implementation E Flooding Implementation F Wetlands Implementation G Groundwater Implementation H Partnering Implementation I Data Implementation J Other Goals
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc iii
1.0 Introduction
1.1 DISTRICT MISSION
The Shell Rock River Watershed District mission is to implement reasonable and necessary improvements to the water-related and other natural resources of the District. Many water related issues are currently being addressed by one or more local, State, and Federal government agencies. The Board will review current levels of enforcement, funding, and labor available to fully achieve stated goals. The Board may increase the extent or pace of implementation by providing the necessary leadership, and assist with funding, volunteer support, and services necessary.
1.2 BACKGROUND
The Shell Rock River Watershed District was formed in 2003 as shown on Figure 1. The following Water Management Plan utilizes the existing information in the Freeborn County Comprehensive Water Management Plan. The numerous historical plans, studies, citizen group documents, and other relevant material were also used as reference material for compiling this plan. The planning process for the District was focused on implementation, utilizing the extensive citizen and governmental information. Implementation details are given in Appendices A through J.
1.3 LIST OF KNOWN STUDIES, PLANS, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
The following list contains the studies that were compiled for this initial planning effort for the Shell Rock River Watershed District. The documents are listed in reverse chronological order (most recent first).
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 1-1
Lake Management Plan for Lake Chapeau. September 12, 2003.
Proposed Fountain Lake Management Plan. Draft September 24, 2003.
Albert Lea Lake Dredging-Cost Estimate and Potential Dredging Issues. Pinnacle Engineering, August 8, 2003.
Additional Phase II Assessment and Response Action Plan Edgewater Park/Former Albert Lea Dump. Terracon, June 27, 2003.
Subsurface Hydrologic Assessment Edgewater Park / Former Albert Lea Dump Terracon, February 14, 2002.
Subsurface Hydrologic Assessment Edgewater Park / Former Albert Lea Dump, Terracon, August 20 2002.
Albert Lea Lake Management Plan, Final Draft,
Section 206 Program, Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP), Freeborn County Ecosystem Restoration. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Lake Management Plan, Fisheries DNR, August 8, 2001.
Shell Rock River Watershed Proposed Action Goals Don Sorensen, 4/25/01
Vision for the Albert Lea Lake Ecosystem. Lake Restoration Committee, November 1999.
Freeborn County Comprehensive Water Plan, Revised for 1997 to 2005, March 9, 1998; Chapter 5 ~ Shell Rock River Watershed; and Part 1 ~ Physical Environment. Planning and Zoning Office, Freeborn County.
Proposal for the Restoration of Fountain Lake, Albert Lea, Minnesota. Clean-Flo Laboratories, Inc., March 30, 1979.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Eutrophication Survey, Working Paper Series. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory with the cooperation of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota National Guard, October 1974.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 1-2
A Study of Albert Lea lake Watershed. National Biocentric, Inc. 1973.
Report on Investigation of Pollution in Albert Lea Lake and Watershed, Freeborn County. Prepared by Minnesota Department of Health in cooperation with Freeborn County Clean Water, Inc., June-September, 1962.
Note: Additional studies are documented in the text of this Plan, which was originally printed in the Freeborn County Comprehensive Water Management Plan.
The following studies were added during the Plan comment period and will be referenced by the District during projects: • Freeborn County Planning and Zoning. 1997. Albert Lea Lake Report: An Examination of Seven Possible Management Scenarios.
• Weir, Edward and Albert Lea Technical College. 1993. Lake Assessment, 1992, Albert Lea Lake.
• Weir, Edward and Albert Lea Technical College. 1993. Lake Assessment. 1992. Fountain Lake.
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2002. Regional Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Evaluation of Fecal Coliform Impairments in the Lower Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 1-3
2.0 Physical Environment, Land Use and Development
The structure of the following section includes a countywide perspective, followed by more detailed information for the Shell Rock River Watershed District.
2.1 PRECIPITATION
Freeborn County has one official observation station located at the Albert Lea Waste Water Treatment Plant. The average annual rainfall in Freeborn County is between 30 and 31 inches. Prior to 1992, Operation Rain Gauge, (Albert Lea Future Farmers of America, FFA), consisted of nine stations across the County that monitored the rainfall during the growing season, May - September. The average annual rainfall during the growing season, prior to 1992, was 20 inches. From 1992-1996, the average rainfall during the growing season increased to 22.42 inches. This was documented by a network of 23 Freeborn County volunteers.
In 1991, the South Central Minnesota Counties Comprehensive Water Planning Project. SCMCCWPP, Freeborn County along with 12 other counties, received a challenge grant from the Board of Water and Soil Resources, BWSR, to establish a 13 County rainfall monitoring network. Volunteer readers were recruited. Most of the volunteer monitoring stations are located near the corner of every township in all 13 counties. The volunteers report the daily rainfall readings monthly to their County SWCD. The data is then sent to the Water Resources Center at Mankato State University, WRC-MSU, where it is entered into the data base. County rainfall maps are then generated and distributed to the respective counties. The rainfall data is also forwarded to the State Climatologist office.
The rainfall data for the growing season is digitized at the Water Resources Center and then distributed monthly during the growing season to each of the 13 Counties. T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-1
The Albert Lea wastewater treatment plant records will be utilized and the state climatologist has historical county records also.
2.2 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The entry into the "Information Age" has increased public awareness of issues and correspondingly their expectations of service from government. Internet, e-mail and electronic records have made a large amounts of detailed information available to every personal computer, PC, terminal.
The information dispersion allows people to be aware and active on local issues such as water quality, feedlots, lakes, rivers and watersheds, and the preservation of resources through such issues as recycling, waste disposal and public expenditures.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-2
2.3 GEOLOGY
2.3.1 County Setting
The following is a general discussion of the geology of Freeborn County and is based upon information in the Freeborn County Geologic Atlas, WRC-MSU, July 1991.
Geology of Freeborn County The characteristics of the present land surface in Freeborn County, including the topography and nature of surficial materials, are the result of the action of glacial ice and flowing water. The surficial materials are chiefly glacial deposits, collectively called drift, of the continental glaciers that covered Freeborn County during the last million years. The glaciers were centered over southern Canada and extended into southern Minnesota. These glaciers expanded and contracted several times and the interval between glacial episodes may have been sufficient to allow deep erosion and weathering of the drift and bedrock surfaces.
The glacial drift is composed mainly of glacial till, which is characterized by a matrix of sand, silt, and clay with scattered pebbles, cobbles, and some boulders. The drift deposits overlie the bedrock surface and range in thickness from less than 50 feet to over 200 feet. Before glaciation, erosion of the bedrock surface produced valleys on the bedrock surface, all of which are now filled with glacial drift. The nature of thickening and thinning of the glacial deposits is largely influenced by buried bedrock valley cuts.
Structural faulting and uplift is known to have occurred in Minnesota during Precambrian time. The tectonic activity that contributed to the Precambrian faulting is thought to have ceased before Cambrian time. This interpretation suggests that the Cambrian and Ordovician aged bedrock sediments were deposited on top of inactive Precambrian aged fault blocks, and assumes that individual bedrock formations are not deformed internally. For the purpose of this discussion, each bedrock unit is treated as a continuous layer and mapped accordingly.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-3
Bedrock Geologic History The geologic history of the bedrock that underlies Freeborn County is part of a sequence of Late Cambrian to Early Ordovician sedimentary rock which consists of three major rock types: sandstone, shale, and carbonates. The bedrock was deposited layer upon layer in shallow marine waters that flooded southern Minnesota about 500 million years ago. The ancient intruding sea followed a shallow depressional lowland, now called the Hollandale Embayment that extends into southern Minnesota from a larger basin to the south. In a shallow marine environment, the material that is transported by waters is sorted according to the weight and size of the individual particles. Because of different settling rates, coarse (heavy) materials are deposited in turbulent water while the finer (light weight) materials are transported by waves, currents, or winds and deposited in quiet waters.
The relationship between sandstone, shale, and carbonate deposits corresponds to a seaward gradation of sediment size. Sand is deposited along the turbulent shoreline environment, where it becomes cemented over time. Clay and silt are transported by wave and current action to a deeper, lower energy environment where they are deposited to form shale. Still farther off shore, where sand and clay are not transported by wave and current action, calcite is precipitated to form limestone.
The rise of sea level, during Late Cambrian time, resulted in a progressive overlap of sediment types. As the sea advanced landward, sandy beach deposits were overlain by offshore mud which was in turn overlain by carbonates. As a result, the advancing sea is recorded in bedrock layers by the sequence: sandstone overlain by shale overlain by carbonates. In Freeborn County, limestone forms the bedrock surface beneath the glacial drift. These limestones represent the youngest bedrock units that are underlain by progressively older shales and sandstones.
The lithologic character of the bedrock varies with such factors as sediment source, distance from he shoreline, depth of the water, and the transport agent (waves, currents, and winds). Generally however, the lithology of individual bedrock units is nearly uniform throughout Freeborn County rue to the continuous nature of the geological processes that formed them.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-4
Bedrock Units The following descriptions of the bedrock units that underlie Freeborn County are primarily derived from water well drillers' logs but supplemented by more detailed descriptions presented by Mossler (1987).
Cedar Valley. The Cedar Valley unit may exceed 300 feet in thickness. The Cedar Valley is primarily a carbonate rock, fine-grained limestone or dolomite with some shale and shaley units. The Cedar Valley limestone was deposited during the Devonian age on top of Ordovician age Maquoketa and Galena limestones. Its base marks a major erosional unconformity with the underlying bedrock units.
Maquoketa. The Maquoketa Group may be as thick as 80 feet. It is a carbonate unit, composed of limestone and dolomite that is often shaley or contains shale layers. The high shale content of the Maquoketa Group distinguishes it from the underlying Galena or the overlying Cedar Valley groups in water well drillers logs.
Galena. The Galena is recorded as thick as 300 feet. It is a carbonate unit that consists mostly of limestone and dolomite with some silty, sandy, and shaley units. During the Galena time period, carbonate rock forming processes dominated the sedimentary environment.
Decorah. The Decorah Formation is about 50 to 60 feet thick, and is primarily a uniforn1 bed of gray-green shale. The top and bottom of the Decorah shale consists of alternating layers of limestone and shale that mark the transition between the underlying Platteville limestone and overlying Galena limestone. The Decorah shale indicates a quiet water sedimentary environment, probably shallow water tidal flats.
Platteville-Glenwood. These composite formations are generally about 35 feet thick. The Platteville and Glenwood Formations are classified as separate bedrock formations based on major differences in lithologic characteristics. Each of the formations is very thin and difficult to separate at the scale used in atlas map production. For the purpose of this study, the Platteville
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-5
and Glenwood formations are treated as a single geologic unit and for convenience called the Platteville-Glenwood Formations. The Glenwood Formation is a 15 to 20 foot thick shaley unit that directly overlies the St. Peter sandstone. The Glenwood shale represents a low energy sedimentary environment, offshore from the beaches where the St. Peter sandstone was being deposited. The Platteville Formation is a 20 to 30 foot thick bed of limestone that contains thin shale partings at its top and base. The Platteville limestone represents a more seaward sedimentary environment of the Glenwood shale. The Platteville was probably deposited in a shallow marine environment, similar to the modem Bahamas bank.
St. Peter. The St. Peter Formation is varies from about 80 to 110 feet and is primarily a medium- grained pure quartz sandstone. The lower part of the St. Peter may contain beds with varying amounts of silt or shale. The St. Peter sandstone marks the advance of the Middle Ordovician Sea into southern Minnesota. The sandstone was deposited along the turbulent shoreline of the advancing sea. The St. Peter sandstone was deposited on top of the Prairie du Chien dolomite and its base marks a major erosional unconformity.
Prairie du Chien. The Prairie du Chien has been measured as thick as 350 feet. This bedrock group consists primarily of dolomite and sandy dolomite with some thin shale layers and a few units of quartz sandstone. The massive nature of the Prairie du Chien dolomite indicates a low- energy sedimentary environment where carbonate deposition was the dominant rock forming process. Carbonate deposits were terminated when the shallow sea retreated from the continent, exposing the Prairie du Chien dolomite to the forces of erosion. Consequently, the top of the Prairie du Chien Group represents a major erosional surface and its thickness may vary greatly from place to place.
Jordan. The Jordan Formation is generally about 80 feet thick and is characterized as a medium to coarse-grained quartzose sandstone. The base of the Jordan sandstone may contain minor amounts of shale. The Jordan sandstone indicates the return to a high-energy, near shore sedimentary environment, perhaps a beach.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-6
St. Lawrence. This bedrock formation is generally about 80 feet thick. The St. Lawrence may contain several rock types including dolomite, siltstone, shale, sandstone, and glauconite. It is usually characterized by layers of shale, siltstone, and dolomite. The dolomitic units of the St. Lawrence Formation would signify a low energy depositional environment; however, the interbedded clay, silt, and sand indicate an environment with fluctuating conditions.
Franconia. The Franconia is generally about 120 feet thick and is commonly characterized as a fine-grained, glauconitic sandstone. The upper part of the Franconia Formation may contain shale and dolomite layers that are similar to those found in the overlying St. Lawrence Formation. The fine-grained glauconitic sandstone suggests a low-energy sedimentary - environment. Glauconite forms on the sea floor in oxygen-poor water where the rate of sedimentation is very slow.
Ironton-Galesville. The Ironton-Galesville bedrock exceeds 60 feet in thickness, is generally characterized as a medium- to coarse-grained quartz sandstone. The Ironton and Galesville sandstones are classified as separate bedrock formations; however, both sandstone units are sources of groundwater. For the purpose of this plan, the Ironton and Galesville sandstones are treated as a single geologic unit and for convenience called the Ironton-Galesville sandstone.
The Ironton-Galesville sandstone may indicate the return to a higher energy near shore or beach environment of sedimentation.
Eau Claire. The Eau Claire may exceed 100 feet in thickness and consists primarily of shale and siltstone. Its contact with the underlying Mt. Simon sandstone is transitional. The fine- grained sediments of the Eau Claire Formation suggest a low energy environment of sedimentation, either relatively deep and quiet water, or shallow water tidal flats.
Mt. Simon. The Mt. Simon is the deepest bedrock unit discussed in this plan. Its' thickness is unknown but probably attains several hundred feet. The Mt. Simon is usually characterized as a medium- to coarse-grained quartzose sandstone, however, in Freeborn County the well drillers'
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-7
data for the Mt. Simon is sparse. The base of the Mt. Simon marks a major erosional surface with the underlying Precambrian age Hinckley sandstone. The Mt. Simon sandstone marks the advance of the Late Cambrian Sea into southern Minnesota.
Water Supply In Freeborn County, groundwater exists in unconsolidated glacial deposits and in the underlying bedrock. The possibility of developing adequate supplies of groundwater from the glacial deposits is generally poor. However, the bedrock aquifers are among the highest yielding in the United States. The groundwater supplies that are contained within the bedrock aquifers are adequate for present and foreseeable needs.
The following is a general discussion of the groundwater resources of Freeborn County. Specific information relating to unique groundwater characteristics of each watershed is discussed within each of the watershed sections of this Plan.
Bedrock Aquifers Groundwater can be obtained from four bedrock aquifer systems in Freeborn County. They are the Cedar Valley-Maquoketa-Galena aquifer system, the St. Peter-Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer system, the Franconia-Ironton-Galesville aquifer system and the Mt. Simon -Hinckley aquifer system. The data suggest that there is good hydraulic connection between the bedrock units within each of the four bedrock aquifer systems.
An aquifer is any geologic unit that is capable of storing and yielding fresh water in usable quantities. Groundwater is usually held in an aquifer, at significant pressure, by the presence of a confining bed above the aquifer. In most cases confined water is equivalent to artesian water. A flowing artesian well is a well that yields water at the land surface, under its own pressure, without pumping. In a non-flowing artesian well, the pressure is not sufficient to lift the groundwater above the land surface. In the bedrock aquifers that underlie Freeborn County, high groundwater pressure usually occurs in hydraulically isolated layers that are under high pressure.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-8
In bedrock aquifers that form the bedrock surface, high groundwater pressure is sometimes the result of continuous bedrock strata with recharge areas at higher elevations.
A bedrock aquifer system is a multiple aquifer system that is composed of two or more bedrock aquifers that act hydrologically as a single unit and are bound on the top and bottom by aquitards. Individual bedrock aquifers range from coarse-grained deposits such as sandstone to hard fractured sedimentary rocks such as limestone or dolomite.
In Freeborn County, most farm and domestic wells draw water from the uppermost bedrock aquifer that is locally available. Throughout most of Freeborn County the upper bedrock aquifer consists predominately of Cedar Valley -Maquoketa -Galena limestones. Wells that require high pumping capacity are often drilled through two or more bedrock aquifers.
Aquifer Characteristics of Sedimentary Rock Types The most favorable geological structure for groundwater accumulation is found in stratified sedimentary rock like that underlying Freeborn County. Sedimentary aquifers range from loose, coarse-grained deposits such as sandstone to hard fractured sedimentary rocks such as limestone or dolomite. A water bearing rock unit may vary locally in texture or composition; either vertically because of bedding planes, or horizontally because of changes in sediment type. The lithology of the individual sedimentary bedrock units is nearly uniform throughout Freeborn County due to the continuous nature of the geological processes that formed them.
Carbonate Aquifers. The carbonate aquifers are mostly composed of crystalline limestone and dolomite, with some quartz sand and shaley units. In carbonate rock, fractures along bedding planes and pores within the rock provide the primary routes for groundwater flow.
The permeability of carbonate rocks depends upon their porosity, which is primarily due to the enlargement of fractures and other openings by erosion through water circulation.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-9
The ability of dolomite to transmit water is usually lower than that of most limestone. The openings between the crystals in dolomite are small and the rate of erosion by solution is less than in limestone. Dolomite is a hard and very brittle rock which may have wide zones of fracturing that result in increased permeability. Limestone has a higher solubility than dolomite, which leads to more spacious fractures and much wider solution channels. Observations in quarries that are excavated in limestone or dolomite show that openings along bedding planes tend to remain open and transport water.
In Freeborn County, the Upper Carbonate Aquifer System generally consists of 3-4 bedrock units.
Shale & Siltstone Aquitards. Shale and siltstone are composed of fine-grained particles that constitute the finest of the clastic sedimentary materials. The effective porosity of shale and siltstone result in a much more reduced permeability than that found in sandstone and carbonate bedrock units. Consequently, siltstone and shale yield little Groundwater and function as aquitards in the sequence of bedrock sedimentary deposits. Although an aquitard may not yield water in usable quantities, it can hold appreciable amounts of water.
Sandstone Aquifers. The sandstone bedrock units transmit water from between individual grains. The ability of sandstone to transmit water depends upon the size and amount of pore space between individual sand grains. Pore space is mostly a function of the amount of cementation that is holding the sand grains together. The cementing material consists of very small particles that partly or entirely fill the voids between sand grains. The most common cementing materials are clay minerals, calcite, and quartz. The hydraulic properties of any sandstone, as a whole, can be variable because the cementation may be localized.
Aquifer Recharge and Discharge Sites Specific sites of either recharge or discharge have not been identified within the County. Recharge areas have been determined to be in the uplands as precipitation percolates through the
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-10
soil to the aquifers. Discharge then takes place in the major river basins, lakes and streams. This is evidenced by continued flow during periods of drought and low flow.
Geologic Sensitivity of the Cedar Valley -Maquoketa -Galena Aquifer System The three bedrock units that combine to form the Cedar Valley -Maquoketa -Galena aquifer system are the primary bedrock units from which most of the drinking water is pumped. In Freeborn County the Cedar Valley -Maquoketa -Galena aquifer system, is directly beneath the glacial drift. There is no bedrock aquitard of low permeability separating the aquifer system from the overlying glacial drift. Where the glacial drift is shallow, or where it consists of coarse textured material, the potential for the transfer of water soluble contaminates and a hazardous fluid is high. Shallow clay beds do not afford much more protection, and none at all if they are penetrated.
The Geologic Sensitivity Assessment Map, GSAM, indicates parts of Cedar Valley -Maquoketa - Galena aquifer system beneath the Cedar River and Shell Rock River Watersheds are sensitive.
Level of Confidence for the Geologic Sensitivity Assessment of the Glacial Drift When assessing aquifer sensitivity, the hydraulic conductivity of geologic materials that overlie an aquifer is of fundamental importance. The data used to describe the various units of the glacial drift came from individual water well drillers logs. This description of geologic materials included the main sediment type and the depth of these sediments. Most of the well drillers' logs were of sufficient accuracy to warrant their use. These well drillers generally do not have training in geology and based their description of the lithologic material upon an aquifer potential.
The construction of the GSAM came from the data points, (well drillers' logs), within that area. Where data points are dense, more confidence may be placed upon the positioning of these contour lines. Where data points are sparse, the positioning of the contour lines was base upon generalizations.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-11
Despite variations in drillers' lithologic descriptions and density of data points, this information is important and very useful.
Recent Information Regarding Freeborn County Bedrock Hydrogeology Interpretations The geologic information cited above was taken from the South Central Minnesota Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Project-Continuation. (A regional Integration of Existing Data Utilizing GIS) Report to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. John Rongstad, and Cis Berg, 1995, and the Freeborn County Minnesota Geologic Atlas, Water Resources Center, Mankato State University, John Rongstad and Cis Berg, 1991.
Our understanding of hydrogeologic resources is continually evolving and is always subject to reinterpretation based upon new data. The following information was received from the DNR in November 1997 and should be viewed as new and evolving knowledge. It should be considered, along with the other geologic information in this Plan, when land uses that generate hazardous by-products are being proposed at geologically sensitive locations.
Freeborn County Bedrock Hydrogeology Interpretations Freeborn County’s groundwater supply comes from Wisconsinan age glacial deposits and the complex series of bedrock units beneath them. Traditionally these bedrock units have been lumped into large aquifer systems with confining units in between. These systems have been labeled the Upper Carbonate, (consisting of the Cedar Valley-Maquoketa-Galena), St. Peter- Prairie du Chien-Jordan, Franconia-Ironton-Galesville, and the Mt. Simon-Hinckley. The implicit assumption with these groupings is that these units function as one aquifer.
Recent work by state agency and University of Minnesota staff in southeastern Minnesota has questioned this interpretation. In the case of Freeborn County this is important particularly in regard to use and protection of the "Upper Carbonate aquifer".
In the case of the Upper Carbonate, interpretive work has been done in Mower County by the DNR-Division of Waters, Minnesota Geological Survey, and the University of Minnesota
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-12
Geology Department. Since the units under much of Freeborn County are similar, the finding in Mower County may hold true in Freeborn County.
The units present in the "Upper Carbonate" range from the Middle Devonian to Upper Ordovician age. Depending on how much of the Devonian sequence remains, the Upper Carbonate consists of two, three or four distinct aquifers. The sequence of aquifers and aquitards is as follows:
Upper Cedar Valley aquifer Chickasaw shale aquitard Lower Cedar Valley aquifer Pinicon Ridge aquitard Spillville-Maquoketa aquifer Dubuque aquitard Galena aquifer
Water chemistry sampling in Mower County and pumping test at Leroy, Minnesota, have given indications that the aquitards are providing separation between the aquifers. Whether this effect is regional or more localized has yet to be determined; the degree of separation depends on the thickness and lithologic nature of the aquitards.
Efforts should be undertaken to examine the characteristics of the Devonian and upper Ordovician units in Freeborn County. Also, where these units are covered by less than 50-75 feet of glacial material karst features, sinkholes may be found. This may indicate a potential for sinkhole development in portions of Freeborn County with similar geologic setting (See also, Mower County Geologic Atlas. Part A. Minnesota Geological Survey (in process); and, Karst Hydrogeology of Leroy Township. MGS Open File Report 97-2.)
Work by the Minnesota Geological Survey in Olmsted and Goodhue Counties has demonstrated that the St. Peter-Prairie du Chien-Jordan is unlikely to act as one aquifer. Significant sections of the Jordan are lithologically similar to aquitard units and likely provide separation between the Jordan and the overlying Prairie du Chien formations. Tritium age-dating in Fillmore County
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-13
seems to bear this out also. Only the quartzose facies of the Jordan, a medium to coarse-grained sandstone has shown to be a high yielding aquifer. (Goodhue County Geologic Atlas, Part A in process), and (MGS Open File Report 96~1, Bedrock Geology of Rochester Area, Olmsted County.)
The Freeborn County Surface Hydrology Atlas, Geologic Atlas and the GSAM are available for review at the County Planning and Zoning Office.
2.3.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Setting
The primary source of drinking water beneath the Shell Rock River Watershed District is the Cedar Valley-Maquoketa-Galena aquifer system. In the northwestern part of the watershed, the Cedar Valley bedrock has eroded leaving Maquoketa bedrock as the upper most group of the aquifer system. The system has a general hydrologic gradient from northwest to southeast. This is consistent with the Hollandale Embayment.
The Cedar Valley-Maquoketa-Galena aquifer system is covered with unconsolidated surficial deposits, chiefly glacial drift; alluvial silts, sands, and gravel commonly present along streams. This glacial till generally ranges from 100 to 200 feet thick.
Beneath the surficial deposit of till, the Cedar Valley-Maquoketa-Galena aquifer system can extend to thickness of almost 700 feet. The Decorah Formation, a shale confining layer, separates the Cedar Valley-Maquoketa-Galena system from the underlying St. Peter-Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifer system. Still deeper are the Franconia-Ironton-Galesville aquifer system and the Mt. Simon-Hinckley Aquifer system. Each aquifer system is separated from the system above it by a confining layer, generally of shales or rocks of low permeability.
All of the aquifers under the Shell Rock River Watershed District are considered to have extensive reserves of potable water.
Geologically Sensitive Areas. The GSAM indicates that the watershed may be located on landscape with the depth of confining sediment described as Very High Sensitivity - 0 to 10 feet, High Sensitivity - 20 to 30 feet, and Moderately High Sensitivity - 40 to 50 feet deep are located in the Shell Rock River Watershed District.
These areas of geologic sensitivity may be located in the Townships of Pickerel Lake, Albert Lea, Hayward, Freeman and Shell Rock.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-14
2.4 SOILS
2.4.1 County Setting
The soils of Freeborn County are mostly deep and loamy. They formed most extensively in glacial till and less extensively in glacial outwash, lacustrine sediments, alluvium, and organic material. The different parent materials, topography, and native vegetation account for a large number of different kinds of soils in the County.
Although the temperature across the County is generally uniform, soils in the prairie regions are exposed to greater variations in temperature than those in the forest regions. This results in the formation of micro-climates throughout the landscape.
Fine- textured soils such as Lerdal and Minnetonka soils, warm up more slowly than moderately coarse-textured soils, such as Estherville and Dickinson soils, because the contain more moisture.
Dark-colored soils, such as Clarion and Nicollet soils, absorb more heat from the sunlight than the lighter-colored Hayden soils. Soils on south- and west-facing slopes receive more sunlight than soils on north- and east-facing slopes; therefore, they tend to be drier and warmer.
The interaction of all these factors affects the development of soils. During winter, soil-forming processes are largely dormant. Generally, the soils are frozen to a depth of two to three feet for four or five months of the year. The depth to which frost penetrates depends mostly on the quantity of snowfall late in fall or early in winter.
Soil Classification In January of 1980, Freeborn County published a soil survey of the County. The survey includes a general soil map of the County for broad land use planning and 13 broad soil descriptions. The broad classification is a detailed inventory of 64 different soils. The description includes
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-15
essential soil characteristics for the planning, use, and management of crops, pasture and hay, windbreaks and environmental plantings, wildlife habitat, recreation, engineering and soil properties. The 13 broad soil associations are found in four distinctive soil groups.
Group I - Soils Formed Mostly In Glacial Till On Uplands
These are nearly level to hilly and moderately steep, very poorly drained to well drained, upland soils formed mostly in medium and moderately fine textured glacial till. They formed under grass prairie and mixed deciduous trees and grass prairie. They presently are used for farming, wildlife, and homes. With good management, this group of soils has good potential for intensive farming. A few scattered areas of soils in deeper, broad depressions and steeper soils can be managed for wetland wildlife and upland game without seriously restricting the development of prime farmland. There are six soil associations in this group.
1. Webster-Canisteo-Cordova Association. This soil association is found on nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly drained, loamy soils formed mostly in moderately fine and medium textured glacial till on upland plains.
2. Webster-Clarion-Nicollet Association. The association is formed on nearly level to gently undulating, poorly drained to well drained, loamy soils formed in moderately fine and medium textured glacial till on upland plains.
3. Clarion-Webster Association. The association is nearly level to rolling, well drained and poorly drained, loamy soil formed in medium and moderately fine textured glacial till on upland plains and ground moraines.
4. Clarion- Webster-Storden Association. This association consists of nearly level to hilly, well drained and poorly drained, loamy soils formed in medium and moderately fine textured glacial till on end moraines.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-16
5. Lester-Webster-Glencoe Association. This is a nearly level to hilly, well drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained loamy soil formed mostly in medium and moderately fine textured glacial till on end moraines.
6. Hamel-Kilkenny-Lerdal Association. This is a nearly level to moderately steep, poorly drained to well drained, loamy soils formed in medium and moderately fine textured glacial till and alluvial sediments on upland plains and ground moraines.
Group II - Soils Formed In Loess Mantled Glacial Till On Uplands
These nearly level to sloping, very poorly drained to well drained soils are on uplands. They formed in loess mantled, medium textured glacial till. They formed under grass prairie or mixed deciduous trees and grass prairie. The dominant use is intensive farming. A few scattered areas of deeper, broad depressions can be managed for wetland wildlife without seriously restricting the development of prime farmland. Three of the 13 soil associations are in this group.
7. Maxcreek-Merton Association. This is a nearly level, very poorly drained to moderately well drained, silty soils formed In loess mantled, medium textured glacial till on ground moraines.
8. Maxcreek-Blooming-Newry Association. This is a nearly level to gently sloping, very poorly drained to well drained silty soil formed in loess mantled, medium textured glacial till on ground and end moraines.
9. Maxfield-Skyberg Association. This is a nearly level, poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained, silty soil formed in loess mantled, medium textured glacial till on ground moraines.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-17
Group III - Soils Formed In Outwash Materials On Outwash Plains And Stream Terraces
These nearly level to sloping, poorly drained to well drained soils are on outwash plains and stream terraces. They formed in medium and moderately coarse textured materials over sands and sand and gravel under grass prairie. The present use is dominantly farming; some areas are used for wildlife and residential development. This group has good potential as a source of sand and gravel for construction materials. Three of the 13 soil associations are in this group.
10. Biscay-Mayer Association. This is a nearly level, poorly drained, loamy soils formed in medium textured sediments over coarse textured material on broad outwash flats and terraces
11. Dickinson-Estberville-Dakota Association. This is a nearly level to sloping well drained, loamy soils formed in moderately coarse textured and medium textured sediments over coarse textured material on outwash plains and stream terraces.
12. Marsban-Fairbaven Association. This is a nearly level and gently sloping, poorly drained and well drained silty and loamy soils formed In medium textured sediments over coarse textured material on outwash plains and stream terraces.
Group IV - Soils Formed In Organic Material And Loamy Sediments On Lake Plains And In Depressions On Uplands
These nearly level, very poorly drained soils formed in decomposed organic material and loamy sediments of till or lacustrine materials. Native vegetation was reeds and sedges. The dominant use is for truck crops. If properly managed these soils have good potential for this use, as well as for row crops commonly grown in the County. One soil association is in this group.
13. Palms-Muskego-Blue Earth Association. This is a nearly level, very poorly drained, muck and silty soils formed in organic material and loamy sediments in former lake basins and depressions on uplands.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-18
Broad Land-Use Considerations Cropland. The soils in Freeborn County vary widely in their potential for major land uses. Farming is the dominant enterprise in the County, and fortunately the major soils have good potential for cropland. Associations 1, 2, 7, and 9 are used intensively for growing row crops and are well suited to this use. Associations 3, 4, 5 and 6 are also well suited to growing crops, but management is needed to prevent erosion.
Woodland. Because of present conditions there is not much interest in woodland development. (Associations 5 and 6 have good potential for woodland.
Wildlife Habitat. Potential for wildlife habitat is good throughout the County. Wildlife habitat is most fully developed in associations 4, 5, 11, and 12, which have a variety of conditions and habitat types.
Urban. Only a small part of the County is classified as urban or built-up areas. Soil association 11 has the best potential for further urban development provided parts of included areas that are subject to flooding are avoided. Association 6 has been used for urban development. Associations 1, 2, 9, 10 and 13 have poor potential for all types of urban development.
Erosion Prone Soils In Freeborn County, erosion areas are scattered throughout the County, with a small concentration in the north central area. There is a 1 percent high erosion priority on shoreland and a 6.2 percent high erosion priority on other land. The County as a whole consists of 93.8 percent low erosion priority areas.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-19
2.4.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Soils
Watershed Setting The predominate soils of the watershed were formed in glacial till on uplands. They consist primarily of the Lester-Webster-Glencoe association and the Hamel-Kilkenny-Lerdal association.
Lester-Webster-Glencoe Association. This is a nearly level to hilly, well drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained loamy sells formed mostly in medium and moderately fine textured glacial till on end moraines.
Landscape. The landscape has a slightly irregular configuration and is one of hills and knolls, broad flats, drainage-ways, and depressions. Some hills are circular. Slopes are relatively short on the hills and knolls. Differences in elevation between the hills and depressions range mainly from 15 to 40 feet, but a few hills are 80 to 100 feet above the depressions. The natural drainage pattern is poorly developed.
Uses. This association makes up about 27 percent of the County. It is about 33 percent Lester soils, 20 percent Webster soils, 15 percent Glencoe soils, and 32 percent minor soils. It is used for row crops, hay, and pasture. Corn, soybeans, and alfalfa are the principal crops. A few areas are forested.
Limitations. The hazard of erosion is the dominant concern on the Lester soils, and wetness limits use on the Webster and Glencoe soils. Some areas do not have adequate outlets for drainage.
Hamel-Kilkenny-Lerdal Association. This is a nearly level to moderately steep, poorly drained to well drained, loamy soils formed in medium and moderately fine textured glacial till and alluvial sediments on upland plains and ground moraines.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-20
Landscape. The landscape has a mostly smooth configuration and is one of convex hills and concave upper parts of drainage-ways and depressions. Slopes are complex in a few areas. Differences in elevation between the hills and depressions range mainly from 10 to 30 feet, but the range in places is as much as 50 feet. The natural drainage pattern is poorly developed.
Uses. This association makes up about 8 percent of the County. It is about 25 percent Hamel soils, 17 percent Kilkenny soils, 15 percent Lerdal soils, and 43 percent minor soils. It is used for row crops and hay. Corn, soybeans, and alfalfa are the principal crops. A few tracts are used for pasture and woodland, and a few others are used for residential and industrial development.
Limitations. The main management needs for crop production are erosion control, drainage, and maintenance of tilth. Some areas do not have adequate outlets for drainage.
Reflecting the drainage patterns formed in the outwash materials on outwash plains and river terraces are the Dickenson-Estherville-Dakota association, and the Palms-Muskego-Blue Earth association.
Dickinson-Estherville-Dakota Association. This is a nearly level to sloping well drained, loamy soils formed in moderately coarse textured and medium textured sediments over coarse textured material on outwash plains and stream terraces.
Landscape. The landscape is mainly one of broad flats, knolls, and ridges. Slopes are mostly simple but are convex in places.-Differences in elevation between drainage-ways and the knolls and ridges range from 5 to 30 feet.
Uses. This association makes up about 7 percent of the County. It is about 24 percent Dickinson soils, 22 percent Estherville soils, 17 percent Dakota soils, and 37 percent minor soils. It is used mostly for row crops, hay, and pasture. Some areas are used for
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-21
wildlife and residential development, and others are used as a source of sand and gravel for construction materials. The dominant crops are corn, soybeans, oats, and alfalfa.
Limitations. The hazard of erosion is the dominant management concern on the more sloping soils. In addition, crop production is limited in some years because most soils have a low to moderate available water capacity.
This association probably has the best potential for community development. However, the very poorly drained and poorly drained, included soils subject to flooding need to be avoided.
Palms-Muskego-Blue Earth Association. This is a nearly level, very poorly drained, muck and silty soils formed in organic material and loamy sediments in former lake basins and depressions on uplands.
Landscape. The basins and depressions filled with mineral sediments. Later, in most places, organic material accumulated over the sediments.
Uses. This association makes up about 5 percent of the County. It is about 45 percent Palms soils, about 20 percent Muskego soils, about 15 percent Blue Earth soils, and 20 percent minor soils. It has been developed and used extensively for truck crops and row crops commonly grown in the County. A few areas remain in native vegetation and are used for wildlife.
Limitations. Wetness and flooding are major limitations that are being overcome by extensive development. The area is known as unique for its truck crops.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-22
2.5 ORIGINAL VEGETATION
2.5.1 County Setting
Two types of original vegetation, forest and prairie, have strongly influenced the formation of soils in Freeborn County. In the northwestern part of the County, the original vegetation was mainly of Grassland consisting of Prairie, Wet Prairies, Marshes and Sloughs. Dominant plants included Marsh-grasses, Flags, Reeds, Rushes, Wild Rice with Willow and Alder brush in places. The eastern part of the County was dominated by Open Muskeg, (floating bogs), with Mosses, Rushes, Marsh-grasses, Alder brush and scattered small Tamarack. This landscape was broken and interspersed with areas of Grassland made up of Prairie and Wet Prairie vegetation. The remainder of the County, the western and central areas, consisted of brushland. The description of brushland vegetation includes Oak Openings and Barrens, scattered trees and groves of oaks, (mainly Bur Oak), of scrubby form with some brush, thickets and pines.
Pioneer settlers and many early scholars believed that the prairies of the County resulted from fire. No doubt, this was a modifying factor at the edge of the forest, but generally the dominant vegetation is that which is best suited to the climate and soils.
2.5.2 Shell Rock Watershed Original Vegetation
Watershed Setting The majority of original vegetation of the Shell Rock Watershed was mainly of oak woodland and brushland. Prairie Wetland was the second dominate type, and Upland Prairie made up the remainder of the watershed.
Oak Woodland and Brushland. The oak woodland and brushland was a common ecotonal type between the prairie and deciduous forest. Fire, more than landform type or climate, was the significant factor influencing the position and extent of this community.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-23
The oak woodland and brushland vegetation type has often been referred to as savanna. However, in Minnesota the image of a tallgrass prairie dotted with trees to create an orchard-like appearance is more myth than fact. Careful study of the original public land survey records has led to a new interpretation.
The oak woodland and brushland ranged from small groves of trees intermixed with open prairie to a chaparral like community of scrub forest and dense shrub thicket. The structure of the community was largely determined by soil conditions and fire frequency. The oaks, especially bur oak and northern pin oak, were the dominant trees. In the southeast, white oak and black oak were also common.
Upland Prairie and Prairie Wetland. Tallgrass prairie, at the time of the public land survey in the 1850s, covered one-third of the state. It occupied a wide variety of landforms, including beach ridges and swales, glacial lake beds, morainic hills, steep bluffs, and rolling till plains.
Along these landforms, important differences occurred in the plants and animals that compose the prairie ecosystem. The most striking indicator is the predictable change in dominance of a few major prairie grasses. The distribution pattern of these grasses coincides with differences in soil moisture levels related to topography.
In general, prairie cordgrass and bluejoint dominate the wet lowlands; big bluestem and Indian grass occupy the deep fertile soils of the moist uplands; and little bluestem and sideoats grama occur on the thin soils of dry uplands.
Throughout the prairie biome, numerous wetland communities dominated by sedges and rushes, rather than grasses, were interspersed with upland prairie. The glacial moraine landforms of the prairie region were ideally suited for wetland formation; their hilly knob and kettle-type topography abounded with prairie pothole marshes.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-24
2.6 TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF OF WATERSHEDS
2.6.1 County Setting
The relief of Freeborn County is the product of a back-wasting continental glacier. The glacial drift that was deposited was of such thickness that the underlying rock strata have had little effect on the surface relief. The relief ranges from nearly level on the lake plain and on ground moraines to rolling where the end moraines form a complex pattern. In areas where there were scattered ice block depressions, a few large lakes formed. There are many small depressions that formed ponds and wetlands.
Most of the surface of Freeborn County is nearly level or gently undulating. Small hilly areas are in parts of two moraine belts, the Altamont/ Algona Moraine and the Bemis Moraine, that cross the County from north to south. The most rugged tracts are in section 16 in Newry Township and in sections1 and 2 in Pickerel Lake Township, where the hills rise from 50 to 100 feet.
A number of depressions, which lie below the regional water level, are filled by lakes that tend to be marshy around the margins. The greater part of the County is drained southeastward through the Shell Rock and Cedar Rivers. The northwestern part of the County drains to the Minnesota River via the Le Sueur and Blue Earth River basins.
The southeastern comer of the County lies beyond the eastern margin of the Wisconsin drift sheet and shows more mature erosional topography. The extremes of altitude for the County as a whole are between 1,150 feet above sea level in the northwestern comer and about 1,280 feet above sea level in the central part of the County. The average altitude of the County is about 1,250 feet above sea level.
Freeborn County has six major watersheds and 74 minor watersheds shaping the topographic relief. The following table shows that the Shell Rock River Watershed District is the largest watershed, covering 34 percent of the landscape; the Cedar River Watershed is second, covering
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-25
33 percent, and the Le Sueur River Watershed covers 15 percent of the landscape. These three watersheds cover 82 percent of the County. Maps of boundaries and the flow directions of watershed units are shown in the Freeborn County Surface Hydrology Atlas.
Major Watersheds Minor Watersheds Square Miles County Coverage
Shell Rock River #49 18 246 34% Cedar River #48 4 235 33 % LeSueur River #32 12 108 15% Winnebago River #50 6 71 10 % Blue Earth River #30 10 50 7 % Cannon River #39 4 13 <1 %
2.6.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Topographic Relief
There are 18 minor watersheds located in that part of the Shell Rock River Watershed in Freeborn County. These minor watersheds cover a total area of 246.05 square miles in Minnesota. The entire watershed is located within the County. The total area of the Shell Rock River Watershed located with in the County is approximately 35% of the land area of the County.
Minor Location Area Order ID # Outlet Stream Name Twp Rng Sec Total Cnty Sq. Mi. 49001 Bancroft Creek (County Ditch 65) 103 21 16 15.89 15.89 1 49002 County Ditch 65 103 21 16 07.18 07.18 1 49003 Shell Rock River 102 21 25 25.12 25.12 3 (Albert Lea Lake Outlet) 49004 County Ditch 32 102 20 17 10.44 10.44 1 49005 Peter Lund Creek 102 20 07 17.88 17.88 2 49006 Creek to Shell Rock River 101 20 08 08.35 08.35 1 49007 Shell Rock River 101 20 18 13.64 13.64 3 49008 County Ditch 16 101 20 18 15.83 15.83 1
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-26
Minor Location Area Order ID # Outlet Stream Name Twp Rng Sec Total Cnty Sq. Mi.
49009 Shell Rock River 101 20 31 08.73 08.73 3 49010 Shell Rock River Iowa 02.91* 02.91 3 49011 Goose Creek (County Ditch 55) 101 20 31 26.90* 26.90 2 49012 Bancroft Creek 102 21 05 19.86 19.86 2 49013 Shell Rock River 102 21 06 08.31 08.31 2 49014 County Ditch 77 103 22 27 15.94 15.94 1 49015 Armstrong Creek (Cnty Ditch 77) 103 22 26 10.37 10.37 2 49016 Creek to Shell Rock River 102 21 08 17.74 17 74 1 49017 County Ditch 55 101 21 36 09.86 09.86 1 49018 County Ditch 17 101 21 35 11.10* 11.10 1 246.05 246.05
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-27
2.7 EXISTING LAND USE
2.7.1 County Setting
Freeborn County is in the south-central part of Minnesota. The County has a population of 33,060 and a total land area of 449,280 acres, or 702 square miles, and approximately 21,000 acres of water. Albert Lea, the County seat, has a population of 18,310.
Farming is the principal business in the County. Corn, soybeans, small grain, and hay are the main crops. Some areas are used for growing vegetables such as potatoes, asparagus, onions, and sweet corn. Beef, dairy cattle, and swine are the main livestock raised. Land use within the County is as follows:
Cultivated 78.1 % Pasture and Open Space 15.1% Water 2.4% Forested 1.2% Urban Residential 0.8% Other Urban 1.6% Marsh 0.7% Transportation 0.1 %
The Freeborn County Existing Land Use Map is available for review at the County Planning and Zoning Office.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-28
2.7.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Existing Land Use
POPULATION SHELL ROCK RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT 1995 1990 City Population Households Population Households Albert Lea City 18,207 7,619 18,310 7,533 Glenville City 783 305 778 300 Hayward City 236 100 246 103 Manchester City 77 34 69 29 Twin Lake City 142 64 154 69 Total 19,445 8,122 19,557 8,034
Township Population Households Population Households Albert Lea Township 915 366 964 373 Bancroft Township 1,075 384 1,086 383 Freeman Township 552 198 554 198 Hayward Township 447 161 459 163 Manchester Township 478 177 483 176 Pickerel Lake Township 724 253 715 247 Shell Rock Township 464 173 476 177 Total 4,655 1,712 4,737 1,717
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-29
2.8 PUBLIC UTILITIES
2.8.1 County Setting
Freeborn County has 14 municipalities, 14 villages, 20 townships and two watershed districts. Three municipalities do not have sanitary wastewater treatment systems and four do not have storm water systems. Of the 14 villages, one village with ISTS has a shared drain field system. One village in the Turtle Creek Watershed District has shared wells, and sanitary wastewater and storm water treatment systems.
"Inflow/infiltration problem" is a term used to indicate that there are interconnections between the storm water sewer system and the sanitary sewer system. This problem is found in many older systems that have developed leaks over the years; in systems that were constructed of, or extension of, field tile systems; and, in communities where gutters and/or sump pumps were connected to sanitary systems instead of storm water system. The term "inflow/infiltration problems" does not mean that community intentionally connected the two systems.
The records do not indicate where this information was obtained, but it is thought that it may be from the results of an informal survey of city engineers and city clerks in 1988-1989.
2.8.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Public Utilities
2.8.2.1 Incorporated Cities
Albert Lea. Albert Lea is located in Albert Lea and Bancroft Townships. According to the 1990 census, the population is 18,310. The town has four municipal wells. Abandon wells have also been identified. The sanitary system includes an activated sludge system that discharges to the Shell Rock River. According WRC-MSU Inventory Item # 13, the storm sewer system has infiltration/inflow problems, (See the infiltration/inflow discussion on page 31 of Part II). The receiving waters for the storm sewer system are Fountain and Albert Lea Lakes.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-30
Glenville. Glenville is located in Shell Rock Township. According to the 1990 census, the population is 778. The town has two municipal wells. The status of abandon wells is not known. The sanitary system includes a stabilization pond that discharges through County Ditch 16 to the Shell Rock River. According WRC-MSU Inventory Item # 13, the storm sewer system has infiltration/inflow problems, (see the infiltration/inflow discussion on page 31 of Part II). The receiving water for the storm sewer system is the Shell Rock River.
Hayward. Hayward is located in Hayward Township. According to the 1990 census, the population is 246. The town has two municipal wells. The status of abandon wells is not known The sanitary system includes a stabilization pond that is land applied. According WRC-MSU Inventory Item # 13, the storm sewer system has infiltration/inflow problems. The receiving water for the storm sewer system is through County Ditch 32 to Albert Lea Lake.
Manchester. Manchester is located in Manchester Township. According to the 1990 census, the population was 69. The community has a municipal well, but no other public utilities. The status of abandon wells is not known.
Twin Lakes. Twin Lakes is located in Nunda Township. According to the 1990 census, the population is 154. The town has two municipal wells. The status of abandon wells is not known. The sanitary system includes a stabilization pond that discharges to Goose Creek. There is no storm sewer system
2.8.2.2 Unincorporated Villages
Armstrong. Armstrong is located in Pickerel Lake Township. According to the 1980 census, the population of the village was 50. The community has no public utilities. The status of abandon wells is not known.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-31
Gordonsville. Gordonsville is located in Shell Rock Township. According to the 1980 census, the population at that time was 140. The village has no public utilities. The status of abandon wells is not known.
Assessment. The Villages of Armstrong and Gordonsville do not have any public utilities and the villages are located in townships that have geologically sensitive areas. Potential pollution issues should be addressed consistent with the resources available and the availability of grant funds.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-32
2.9 LAND OWNERSHIP
2.9.1 County Setting
Organization Freeborn County, 702 square miles in area, was organized on March 3, 1857. It has 14 incorporated municipalities, 20 townships, 14 villages, two watershed districts, and five independent consolidated school districts. The park system includes 254 acres of parks and public recreation land. Albert Lea is the County seat.
Population The County population reflects the declining trend of most other southern Minnesota counties. From 1980 -1995, the overall population of the County decreased approximately 10 percent. This trend appears to have slowed. From 1990 -1995 the decrease was .09 percent.
1980 population -36,329 Households 1990 population -33,060 Households -13,029 1995 population -32,759 Households -13,114
Transportation Systems The highway systems serving the County also reflect public ownership.
County-State Aid Highway System The County-state aid highway system totals 448 miles. This includes 26 miles of paved roads; 355 miles of bituminous highway and 67 miles of gravel roads.
County Road System The county road system totals 186 miles. This includes 14 miles of bituminous roadway and 172 miles of gravel roads.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-33
Interstate Highway-Systems The interstate highway-systems total 119 miles. This includes 25 miles of Interstate Highway No. 35; 31 miles of Interstate Highway No. 90, and 63 miles of other trunk highways.
Federal Government Ownership Public Land Ownership by the federal government is 720 acres. This includes 680 acres held by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 40 acres of other federal lands.
State of Minnesota Ownership Public ownership by the state agencies is 3,340 acres. (State Planning, Land Information Center data.)
The Department of Natural Resources owns 3,220 acres: 720 acres of wildlife management areas, 500 acres of waterfowl production, 80 acres of public access, 1,840 acres of parks and recreation lands and 80 acres for enforcement purposes.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation owns 280 acres. This includes 120 acres of rest areas; 40 acres of maintenance and storage areas and 120 acres of gravel pits.
Land owned for military affairs totals 40 acres.
2.9.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Land Ownership
Maps. The maps showing the location of federal, state, local, and Indian tribal lands are available for review in the County Planning and Zoning Office.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-34
2.10 SURFACE WATER QUANTITY
2.10.1 County Setting
Freeborn County's ground and surface water use is concentrated in the fourteen urban areas and evenly distributed through the rural districts. Surface water serves a variety of functions, including, but not limited to the following uses: recreation, agricultural irrigation, livestock watering, wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge, commercial and industrial processes, and dust control.
Lakes There are 49 lakes within the County, covering 20,852 acres of area. Surface water supply for the County is adequate. DNR protected waters within the County consist of 21 lake basins, 33 water sources and 18 wetland basins. Over half of these basins listed are affected by artificial drainage systems.
Lakes Classified by Size
Acres Lakes Lakes Affected by Drainage or Dry Lakes
10-25 5 3 25-50 8 5 50-75 4 3 75-100 6 3 100-125 4 2 125-150 1 1 150-200 5 3 200-500 5 3 500-1000 4 1 1000-2500 2 2500-5000 2 1
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-35
Altered Lake Levels Two large lake basins in the center of the County, Fountain and Albert Lea lake basins, were formed from remnant glacial ice blocks left in the post glacial till-filled valley. A mill dam was constructed across the Shell Rock River in the mid-1800's to further fill Fountain Lake. This dam was destroyed in the late 1880's, and a new dam was built in the early 1900's to maintain Fountain Lake for recreational purposes.
Ordinary High Water Marks The boundary of protected waters and wetlands, for regulatory purposes, is defined by the Ordinary Highway Water Mark, OHWM. The OHWM is the elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. Generally, it is the point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial.
Freeborn County has five lakes with established ordinary high water marks. These lake basins were formed originally from ice blocks in glacial till or in till and outwash. Three of the lakes are in the Shell Rock River Watershed District, one in the Winnebago Watershed and one in the Cedar River Watershed.
Protected River Flows The Le Sueur and Shell Rock Rivers both have protected flows. In addition, the Le Sueur River has a United States Geological Survey, USGS, gauge station. Sufficient information is not available to summarize stream flow with any consistency.
Surface Water Appropriation DNR regulates water appropriations. According to DNR 1997 permit records, there are 24 permits allowing surface water appropriation in Freeborn County. Two are in the Cedar River Watershed; one is in the Le Sueur River Watershed; four are in the Winnebago River Watershed; and, 17 are in the Shell Rock River Watershed District.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-36
2.10.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Surface Water Quantity
High, Mean and Low Flow on Streams. There is no information relating to stream flow in the Shell Rock River Watershed District.
Established Ordinary High Water Mark. The Shell Rock River Watershed District has three lakes with established ordinary high water marks:
Lake Elevation OHW/NOHW Source Goose (E) 1218.7 NGVD -1929 OHW Report 2 - 12 - 81 Goose (W) 1216.3 NGVD -1929 OHW Report 2 - 12 - 81 Lower Twin 1258.3 NGVD -1929 OHW Report 2 - 05 - 80
Permitted Withdrawals From Lakes and Streams. There are 17 surface water appropriation permits in the Shell Rock River Watershed District. They are located in Shell Rock, Freeman, Albert Lea and Bancroft Townships. The following is a list of surface water appropriations approved by the DNR in the Shell Rock River Watershed District:
Township Watershed Source Use Acres Active Shell Rock Shell Rock Shell Rock R. Irrigation 20 No Shell Rock Shell Rock Gravel Pit Irrigation 40 No Shell Rock Shell Rock Gravel Pit Irrigation 40 No Shell Rock Shell Rock CD 16 Irrigation 80 No Shell Rock Shell Rock Shell Rock R. Irrigation 100 No Shell Rock Shell Rock Shell Rock R. Irrigation 80 No Freeman Shell Rock Gravel Pit Irrigation 55 No Freeman Shell Rock Creek Other 0 Yes Albert Lea Shell Rock Fountain Lake Golf 1 Yes Albert Lea Shell Rock Fountain Lake Golf 4 Yes Albert Lea Shell Rock Unknown Industrial 0 Yes Albert Lea Shell Rock Unknown Industrial 0 Yes Albert Lea Shell Rock Unknown Industrial 0 Yes Albert Lea Shell Rock Shell Rock R. Irrigation 100 No Albert Lea Shell Rock Shell Rock R. Irrigation 60 No Bancroft Shell Rock Shell Rock R. Industrial 0 Yes Bancroft Shell Rock Pond Industrial 0 Yes
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-37
Established State Protected Levels or Flows of Lakes and Streams. The Shell Rock River has a protected flow. There is not enough information to summarize flows with any accuracy.
Flowage Impoundment. The following is a list of dams that affect flowage:
Dam Name Nearest City Owner Hazard Permit 360 Fountain Lake Albert Lea Albert Lea 2 413 Pestorious Pond Albert Lea G. Pestorious 3
Known Water Use Conflicts. There have been no reported surface water use conflicts since the inception of County water planning.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-38
2.11 SURFACE WATER QUALITY
2.11.1 County Setting
1992 NPS Survey of Resource Managers This MPCA report is a summary of "successive surveys of local resource managers", (organizations not cited). The report listed 18 of the County's lakes and one river as impaired. Two lakes in the Blue Earth River Watershed; four lakes in the Le Sueur River Watershed; one lake in the Cannon River watershed; eleven lakes and one stream in the Shell Rock River Watershed District. Details are discussed within the watershed.
MPCA Stream Water Quality Assessment -1994 -305(b) Report to the Congress This report covers data October 1, 1983 through September 30,1993. Only one stream, a 9.8-mile reach of the Shell Rock River, is reported on.
MPCA Lake Water Quality Assessment -1994 -305(b) Report to the Congress This report covers lakes, one in the Cedar River Watershed; nine in the Shell Rock River Watershed District; one in the Winnebago River Watershed; one in the Blue Earth River Watershed; and, four in the Le Sueur River Watershed. All of the lakes are listed as impaired and together they total 10,694 acres of impaired surface water. Details of the survey are discussed within the watershed.
MPCA Lake Water Quality Assessment Data –1996 MPCA monitors some lakes in the state as ecoregion reference lakes or other for specific lake assessment projects. This report updates the data is presented in the 1990 Minnesota Lake Water Quality Assessment Report. The report covers seven County lakes. Three lakes are in the Shell Rock River Watershed District; one lake in the Cedar River Watershed; one lake in the Le Sueur River Watershed and one lake in the Winnebago River Watershed. Details of the survey are discussed within the watershed.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-39
NPDES Permits A total of 21 permits were in effect on October 31, 1996 in Freeborn County. Fourteen permits cover domestic water supplies; four permits for industrial discharges; two permits for water treatment plants; and, one permit for no discharge closed circuit cooling system. Thirteen permits are located in the Shell Rock River Watershed District; two permits in the Cedar River Watershed; two in the Le Sueur River Watershed; two in the Winnebago River Watershed; one in the Blue Earth River Watershed; and, one in the Cannon River Watershed. Details of the permits are discussed within the applicable watershed.
Surface Water Assessment Freeborn County has lakes, rivers, and a ditch system that are used regularly by the public. The protection of these water bodies is an important issue. The surface water, lakes and ponds of the County are hypereutrophic. This is typical for other lakes in the Western Corn Belt Ecoregion. Water quality is affected by summer algal blooms, and secci disc measurements are generally less than two feet. However, no public health concerns have been expressed by federal or state agencies dealing in surface water quality.
Freeborn County is actively taking steps to prevent surface water degradation. If surface water quality were increased, tourism and economic growth would follow. Tourism appears to have minimal effects on surface water quality.
Chemical analysis of Freeborn County's lakes indicates that high level of phosphorus contributing to the algal blooms found in these lakes.
The MPCA is requested to continue to upgrade monitoring sites within Freeborn County on all rivers and lakes. Assistance will be sought through the Citizens Lake Monitoring Program, the Lake Assessment Program, and the Clean Water Partnership Program.
Protected levels and flows should be established for all lakes and rivers in the County. An impact of appropriations and an establishment of desirable water levels would result. Currently no
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-40
evidence exists to suggest that the quantity of surface water available within Freeborn County will limit immediate or future lake uses. High water levels resulting from land use actions are not evident. Surface water quantity has historically remained stable. Annual precipitation received will allow or restrict current water uses in Freeborn County.
The Mulla report points out that erosional factors play an important part in water quality. Agricultural Best Management Practices, BMPs, should be encouraged and demonstrated whenever possible.
The MPCA reviewer of this plan noted that since Freeborn County is a headwater County, and that no water drains into the County, "a comprehensive surface water monitoring plan has the potential to show you where your protection and restoration efforts may be most needed."
2.11.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Surface Water Quality
State Water Quality Management Use Classification of Streams and Lakes. The use classification of streams and lakes in Freeborn County is found in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7050, and is available for review at the County Planning and Zoning Office.
Lake and Stream Water Quality Monitoring Data and Informal Information. The following information is derived from various studies, reports, and informal surveys.
Shell Rock River A summary of water quality data, 1977-1978, indicates that the Shell Rock River (9.8 miles long) exceeds the reach standard for fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and maximum phosphorus. The City of Albert Lea built a 12 million gallon/day waste water treatment plant in 1983. This facility is permitted to operate at 5 million gallons/day and discharges into the Shell Rock River. Individual on-site sewage treatment systems, ISTS, along the Shell Rock River are brought into conformance as non-complying ISTS are identified. In the Fall of 1989, 10 miles of the Shell Rock River were cleaned of debris by the DNR.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-41
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of the river was impaired as a result of oxygen depletion, eutrophication, bottom sedimentation, toxicity due to pesticides, dissolved metals, and turbidity.
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production, pasture land, agricultural chemicals application, urban surface and storm water runoff, waste water disposal, industrial land treatment, failing individual sewage treatment systems, hydrologic modification by flow modification, and other unknown sources. Current use is limited to poor fishing as is the potential future uses.
1994 MN 305b Report to Congress Stream Water Quality. The Shell Rock River was the only stream reported on. In general, the report stated that the river was not supporting the following uses: aquatic life use, swimming use, and wildlife use. The only use that was fully supported was industrial uses.
The primary cause of impairment to river is attributed to high/low phosphorus. Other factors include ammonia-nitrogen, fecal coliform, nutrients, the biological oxygen demand, suspended solids, and turbidity. Non-point source pollution appears to be the source of the river problems.
Albert Lea Lake
Albert Lea Lake covers 2,654 acres. Almost all of the past reports contain abundant information about Albert Lea Lake’s poor water quality. Land use practices, industrial discharges, sanitary sewer systems, and some sewage discharges contaminated the lake. Almost no sport fishing was done there due to the poor water quality. However, in recent years, sport fishing has improved in the channel between the lakes.
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of the lake was impaired as a result of oxygen
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-42
depletion, eutrophication, bottom sedimentation, toxicity due to pesticides, dissolved metals, and turbidity.
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production, pasture land, agricultural chemicals application, urban surface and storm water runoff, waste water disposal, industrial land treatment and failing individual sewage treatment systems. Current use is limited to poor fishing and potential future uses.
1992 Lake Assessment Project In 1992, an MPCA and Local Citizens Lake Assessment Project was conducted on Albert Lea Lake. The goal of the study was to assess the lake nine years after the upgrade of the City of Albert Lea waste water treatment plant. The results indicated that there had been a slight improvement since the upgrade, but overall, the water quality of lake was poorer than other similar lakes of the eco-region. The mean summer concentrations were as follows:
Phosphorous 230 ppb Chlorophyll-a 125 ppb Secci Disk 1.2 feet / 0,4 meter
Despite the improvement in the waste water treatment, the water quality problem persist because of the size of the lake shed, 89,500 acres, and the shallowness of the lake with a mean depth of 3.5 feet.
1994 MN 305b Report to Congress Lake Water Quality. This report states that the Albert Lea Lake, based upon monitoring, is an impaired lake.
Minnesota Lake Water Quality Assessment Data Base 1996. This data base includes monitoring of Albert Lea Lake from 1985 to 1995. The information is presented as “Summer Mean Water Quality”. The lake covers an area of 2453 acres and has a maximum depth of 6 feet and a mean depth of 4 feet. The lake had a TSI average of 77 and an Ecoregion lake rank of 24.
Phosphorus 202 ppb /12* TSI 81** Eco-Rank >36%*** Chlorophyll 125 ppb/12 TSI 78 Eco-Rank >17% Secci Disk 0.4 meters/105 TSI 73 Eco-Rank >30%
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-43
Notes: * Total number of measurements. ** Carlson’s Trophic State Index. *** Indicates that the water quality parameter was less than 30 percent of all assessed lakes in the Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion.
University of Minnesota Limnological Research Center 1996 Report: This reports discusses sediment core sampling and analysis taken from each of the three basins of the lake. Analysis protocol included Magnetic Susceptibility and Pollen Analysis. Included in the Pollen Analysis protocol was examination of sediment horizons, texture and color.
The sediment study made the following conclusion: “Albert Lea Lake has been a shallow water body for several hundred years and probably has been shallow for at least the past 5000 years. The sediment accumulation over the past 150 years since the inception of European settlement and agriculture is approximately 50 cm at the deepest water locations and considerably less in shallower locations.
Chapeau (White) Lake
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of White Lake was impaired as a result of oxygen depletion, eutrophication, and turbidity.
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to agricultural chemicals application, livestock holding and management areas, urban surface water runoff and failing individual sewage treatment systems. Current use is limited as are potential future uses.
Church Lake
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of Church Lake, covering 75 acres, was impaired as a result of, bottom sedimentation and turbidity. The survey attributed the source of the
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-44 degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production and agricultural chemicals application. Current use is limited as is potential future uses.
1994 MN 305b Report to Congress Lake Water Quality. This report states that Church Lake, based upon survey, is an impaired lake.
Eberhart Lake
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of Eberhart Lake was impaired as a result of bottom sedimentation, and toxicity due to pesticides and dissolved metals.
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production and agricultural chemicals application. Current and potential future uses are limited.
1994 MN 305b Report to Congress Lake Water Quality. This report states that the Eberhart Lake, based upon survey, is an impaired lake.
Fountain Lake
Fountain Lake, 530 acres, is located within the City of Albert Lea and its shoreline is almost totally developed. A 1982 survey reported “considerable silting from inlet creeks, domestic and industrial wastes reported”. Siltation and erosion from speedboats was also cited. A large rough fish populations created lake turbidity problems.
1994 MN 305b Report to Congress Lake Water Quality. This report states that the Fountain Lake, based upon monitoring, is an impaired lake.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-45
Minnesota Lakes Water Quality Assessment Data Base 1996. This data base includes monitoring of Fountain Lake from 1985 to 1995. The lake’s easterly and westerly basins were monitored separately. The information is presented as “Summer Mean Water Quality”.
The East basin of the lake covers an area of 320 acres. The mean depth was not calculated. The lake had a TSI average of 73 and an Ecoregion lake rank of 52.
Phosphorus 155 ppb /4* TSI 77** Eco-Rank >52%*** Chlorophyll 60 ppb/4 TSI 71 Eco-Rank >51 Secci Disk 0.5 meters/74 TSI 70 Eco-Rank >46%
The West basin of the lake covers an area of 210 acres. The mean depth was not calculated.. The lake had a TSI average of 73 and an Ecoregion rank of 47.
Phosphorus 150 ppb /4* TSI 76** Eco-Rank >57%*** Chlorophyll 77 ppb/4 TSI 73 Eco-Rank >35 Secci Disk 0.5 meters/74 TSI 70 Eco-Rank >46%
Notes: * Total number of measurements. ** Carlson’s Trophic State Index. *** Indicates that the water quality parameter was less than 46 percent of all assessed lakes in the Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion.
Goose Lake
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of Goose Lake was impaired as a result of oxygen depletion, eutrophication, and bottom sedimentation.
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production, pasture land, agricultural chemicals application, and urban storm water runoff. Current use was listed as limited.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-46
Hall Lake
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of the lake was impaired as a result of eutrophication.
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production and agricultural chemicals application. Current and potential future were listed as limited.
Lower Twin Lake
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of the lake was impaired as a result of oxygen depletion, eutrophication and turbidity.
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production and agricultural chemicals application. Current use was listed as limited.
Pickerel Lake
Pickerel Lake covers 715 acres. The Pickerel Lake Fisheries Survey of the lake found that the carp population was at a level greater than the state-wide median. The bullhead population had reached a level 500 times in excess of the state-wide median.
1994 MN 305b Report to Congress Lake Water Quality. This report states that the Pickerel Lake, based upon survey, is an impaired lake.
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of Pickerel Lake was impaired as a result of oxygen depletion, eutrophication, bottom sedimentation, and toxicity due to pesticides, dissolved metals.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-47
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production, pasture land, agricultural chemicals application. Current use was listed as limited.
School Section Lake
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of School Section Lake, covering 101 acres, is impaired as a result of bottom sedimentation and turbidity.
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production and agricultural chemicals application. Current and potential future uses are limited.
1994 MN 305b Report to Congress Lake Water Quality. This report states that School Section Lake, based upon survey, is an impaired lake.
Sugar Lake
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of the lake was impaired as a result of eutrophication.
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production and agricultural chemicals application. Current and potential future uses are limited.
Upper Twin Lake
1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers. The summary of the 1991 NPS Survey of Resource Managers indicated that the water quality of Upper Twin Lake, covering 677 acres, is impaired as a result of oxygen depletion, eutrophication and turbidity.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-48
The survey attributed the source of the degradation of water quality to non irrigated crop production and agricultural chemicals application. Current use is limited to poor fishing as is potential future uses.
1994 MN 305b Report to Congress Lake Water Quality. This report states that the Upper Twin Lake, based upon survey, is an impaired lake.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-49
2.12 GROUND WATER QUANTITY
2.12.1 County Aquifer Yields
Minnesota Geological Survey S-3 Quaternary Hydrogeology data list surficial soils consisting of areas of glacial till and glacial outwash. Glacial till is an under-layered compact mixture of sand, silt, clay, gravel and boulders. Average water yields are less than one gallon per minute. Glacial outwash is a mixture of sand, silt, clay and gravel with some silt and clay left by glacial rivers on alluvial plains. Water yields in glacial outwash range from 100 to 500 gallons per minute. Outwash areas are located around Bear Lake, Albert Lea Lake, near Oakland, and in the southeast corner of the County.
No data exists on the gallons of ground water used yearly in the County. Present uses for ground water include municipal and individual wells for human consumption, heat exchange units, agricultural irrigation and livestock use.
Ground water tends to flow to the east towards the Mississippi River basin.
Observation Wells The Department of Natural Resources has five observation wells located in Freeborn County. Four of the wells have been observed since 1981. They are located in the Shell Rock River Watershed District, the Cedar River Watershed, the Winnebago River Watershed and the Le Sueur River Watershed. The USGS has been the official observation well since 1984, however, no USGS wells are currently active in the County.
Groundwater supply for Freeborn County is adequate. If drought conditions are present, continuous water level monitoring is requested. Generally aquifer levels are lower in winter months and reach maximum elevations in mid summer; however, this does not always hold true. Precipitation has a direct influence on recharge and discharge in any given year. These averages usually reflect six readings, four readings mainly in spring and summer and two readings in winter. AWLs are not absolutes. They can vary because of precipitation, seasons and number of months read.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-50
Groundwater Appropriation DNR regulates water appropriations. According to DNR 1997 permit records, there are 45 permits allowing groundwater appropriation in Freeborn County.
Two are in the Blue Earth River Watershed; 10 are in the Cedar River Watershed; five are in the Le Sueur River Watershed; nine are in the Winnebago River Watershed; three are in the Cannon River Watershed; and, 16 are in the Shell Rock River Watershed District. The permits are discussed in context of the watershed in Part III.
2.12.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Ground Water Quantity
Ground Water Appropriation. The DNR has issued 16 ground water appropriation permits. Five permits have been issued for irrigation; nine permits for municipal water appropriation, and two permits for industrial use. The total irrigated acres are 705 acres in this watershed. Ground water appropriation totals 126,775 million gallons per year.
Township Watershed Source Use Acres Active MGY Freeman Shell Rock DCRAO Maquoketa Irrigation 150 N 40 Hayward Shell Rock Cedar ~ Galena Irrigation 120 Y 46 Pickerel Lake Shell Rock Cedar ~ Maquoketa Irrigation 140 Y 53 Pickerel Lake Shell Rock Cedar ~ Galena Irrigation 175 Y 57 Hayward Shell Rock Cedar ~ Galena Irrigation 120 Y 46 Albert Lea City Shell Rock Cedar ~ Maquoketa Municipal 0 Y 2400 Albert Lea City Shell Rock Cedar ~ Maquoketa Municipal 0 Y 2400 Albert Lea City Shell Rock Cedar ~ Maquoketa Municipal 0 Y 2400 Albert Lea City Shell Rock Cedar ~ Maquoketa Municipal 0 Y 2400 Albert Lea City Shell Rock Cedar ~ Galena Municipal 0 Y 10 Glenville City Shell Rock Cedar ~ Galena Municipal 0 Y 33 Glenville City Shell Rock Cedar ~ Galena Municipal 0 Y 33 Hayward City Shell Rock Prairie ~ Jordan Municipal 0 Y 9.5 Manchester City Shell Rock Unknown Municipal 0 Y 4 Albert Lea Shell Rock Unknown Industrial 0 Y 1375 Albert Lea Shell Rock Unknown Industrial 0 Y 1375
Ground Water Use Conflict & Well Interference. There have been no reported water use conflicts since the inception of County water planning.
Observation Wells. There is an Observation Well in Section 9 of Albert Lea Township. It monitors the Cedar Valley formation.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-51
2.13 GROUND WATER QUALITY
Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment Program In 1993, the MPCA began the Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, GWMAP, in Freeborn County. The purpose of the program is to discover the basic quality of ground water in the state's principal aquifers, especially aquifers sensitive to wide spread, low-level pollution. As part of this program, MPCA provides technical assistance to local governments by helping to design monitoring programs and evaluate ground water quality data to meet their needs.
As part of the GWMAP, MPCA monitors as many as 125 different water quality parameters. The program depends upon local citizen cooperation, since the wells monitored are private domestic water supplies. Observation wells are not used in this program. Five wells were monitored for 56 parameters in the Cedar Valley Aquifer, and two wells in the Galena Aquifer. The results indicated that the water supplies measured did not exceed established Health Risk Limits( HRL). HRL are not established for all parameters and this program is intended to determine if additional HRL standards are needed. In the event a water quality problem is identified, MPCA notifies well owners using the problem water supply. A copy of the current GWMAP report is available at the County Planning and Zoning Office at the Courthouse.
Minnesota Department of Health Data on Groundwater Quality The Minnesota Department of Health, MDH, data on groundwater quality in Freeborn County prior to 1990, consist of 165 records covering municipal well systems; one non-municipal community system that is included in the Public Water Supply inventory; MDH put out a volatile organic chemical study of municipal well systems that showed the presence of volatile organic chemicals in the County.
Joint Pesticide Study The MDH and MDA have completed a joint pesticide study that test eight public wells in the County. One well was found to have low nitrate-nitrogen levels, and three had pesticides. The
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-52
data on the public water supply wells did not exceed the Health Risk Limit, HRL standards. Well locations were not given in this study.
Moscow and Oakland, (M & 0), Project The M & 0 Project completed in 1989 was at volunteer, private well water analysis for chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide, common agricultural herbicides and organophosphate insecticides. Approximately 70 wells were sampled. Analytical results revealed six wells with a measurable chemical contaminate and two samples that actually exceeded drinking water HRL.
Other Groundwater Quality Studies MDH and MnDOT have collected water as part of a state survey of water samples for pesticide contamination. A national pesticide survey was also conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The results of the survey are on file in the Freeborn County Planning and Zoning Office.
Results of a MDH Nitrate and Pesticide analysis Monitoring Survey, a state-wide Volatile Organic Survey of Non-Community Public Water Systems, and the National Pesticide Survey conducted by the EPA stated that there was no measurable contamination of chemicals or concentration of chemicals were below HRL for these wells.
Routine MDH Well Testing The MDH has drinking water quality data and new well records. New water wells are routinely tested as part of the MDH Water Well Program. In addition, the MDH performs public water, supply and special water quality studies in conjunction with the MPCA and MDA
County Well Testing Approximately 200 private wells are tested annually in Freeborn County. About 10 percent of these wells have bacterial contamination. Less than 3 percent show nitrate/nitrogen contamination. Freeborn County follows up on all identified contaminated wells in an attempt to
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-53
correct the situation. Seven hundred private wells were tested for nitrates and fecal coliforms between 1979 and 1988. The range of nitrates were undetectable to nine parts per million.
Abandon Wells Freeborn County established an abandoned well sealing program in 1992. A similar program was established in 1995 through the NRCS Office for sealing agricultural water wells only; approximately 10 wells have been properly sealed under this program. A County-wide inventory program was started during 1993 in order to locate unused wells. This inventory continues to document underground storage tanks, above ground storage tanks, and feedlot location distances from water wells. Water samples are routinely drawn for property transfers and interested owners information. These samples are tested for bacteria and nitrates by a certified laboratory. The Planning and Zoning Office makes on-site inspections for locating water wells and septic systems for new house construction.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-54
2.14 ERODING LAND
2.14.1 County Setting
Soil erosion was identified as the 6th most important water issue. Soil erosion occurs in both urban and rural settings. County officials are committed to protecting topsoil.
In urban settings, erosion can result because of poor construction management practices. When excavated soils are not protected at building construction sites, or if public and private road projects often do not include silt fences and mulching ground cover, erosion will take place. In Freeborn County there are 1,415 miles of roadway. There are 118 erosion occurrences with the roadways in the County. This is an erosional volume of 34.212 cubic feet, which is very low. This is equal to 24 cubic feet per mile of lost soil. Of the total erosion, 97 percent is from washing, and 3 percent from slides and none is loess.
Soil and other material that is washed or blown into surface waters is of particular concern in Freeborn County because of the large area of surface waters and their importance to this County. When sediment particles are suspend in the water, they then form a thin layer the bottom of streams and lakes. These thin layers create blankets that smother the aquatic habitat. Turbid water decreases light penetration needed for aquatic plant growth and may impair game fishing habitat. This process is called sedimentation.
Silt deposits in wetlands are transported through vegetation which acts as a partial filtering mechanism, and eventually impacts water quality in the nearby lake or stream. The silt that passes through the fringe wetland into the streams and lakes results in increased turbidity and nutrient loads, and a reduction in dissolved oxygen. The net result is an impairment of aquatic habitat and benthic carry capacity. Critical areas of sedimentation are distributed throughout the County with small concentrations in the west central and central part of the County.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-55
Sedimentation is a continuing problem in all of our wetlands and road ditches. Some of the landscapes that are subject to severe erosional problems are in the Hollandale area, the Petran area, and on outwash plains. Other areas of the County that are experiencing serious sedimentation problems include Turtle Creek, Geneva Lake. Albert Lea Lake, Fountain Lake, and Bear Lake.
Land uses that results in excessive wind or water erosion affect water quality. Soil loss totals range from 2 tons per acre per year on organic soils to 5 tons per acre per year on mineral soils. Erosion occurring in excess of one ton per acre per year has a noticeable affect on water quality. The absence of vegetative cover is currently affecting water quality in many areas. We need approximately 26,000 acres in long term set-aside with field or tree cover.
Special events such as heavy rains, drought, and strong winds affect the severity of sedimentation, problems. However, land use practices designed to control or reduce erosion will prevent serious water quality problems in most instances. Alternative tillage systems leaving 30-40 percent residue on the land after planting are also very beneficial for water quality improvement
The surficial soils in Freeborn County, according to MGS map S-3 Quaternary Hydrogeology, consist of areas of glacial till and glacial outwash. Glacial till is an non-layered, compact mixture of sand, silt, clay, gravel and boulders. Glacial outwash is a mixture of sand and gravel with some silt and clay left by glacial rivers in alluvial plains. Outwash is located around Bear Lake. Albert Lea Lake, along Petran and Oakland, and in the southeast comer of the County 22.
Freeborn County has about 380,000 acres of cropland. According to criteria established by the 1985 Farm Bill, 47,800 of these acres are classified as high erodible land (HEL). Approximately 17,634 of these acres are currently, 1997, enrolled in the CRP and 555 acres in the RIM Program. In 1993, 25,775 acres were enrolled in CRP.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-56
2.14.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Eroding Land
Setting Soils in the Shell Rock River Watershed District are highly productive. The productivity of these soils can be maintained with good management using appropriate conservation practices that inhibit soil movement, contain damage from concentrated flow and manage soil water.
Lack of good soil and water management can result in the movement of soil into surface waters as sediment. The loss of soil under these circumstances then becomes a water quality problem instead of a productivity maintenance problem
Good soil conservation and water management practices protect the soil resource and prevent water quality problems.
Broad-based adoption of soil conservation practices can be highly dependent on the availability of reliable information, technical support, financial assistance and competent contractors when public interest is high. Lack of any of these resources at a time of great demand may result in conservation practices not being adopted by the landowner or operator.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-57
2.15 IRRIGATION
2.15.1 County Setting
In 1997, Freeborn County had 17 surface water appropriation permits for irrigation. These totaled 1,180 acres permitted to be irrigated with surface water. Of the 17 permits, only six permit holders actually pumped water in the past five years.
Freeborn County had 13 groundwater appropriation permits for irrigation in 1997. These permits totaled 1,955 acres permitted to be irrigated with groundwater. Of the 13 permits, 11 permit holders actually pumped water in the past five years. The majority of the appropriation was from the Cedar Valley-Maquoketa-Galena carbonate aquifer system.
Mansfield Township had surface and groundwater permits to appropriate water to irrigate 1,022 acres, but actually irrigated 982 acres. The other townships have irrigation less than 1,000 acres, according to the latest information from the DNR (32).
During the past seven years, there have been no reported conflicts regarding either permitted surface or groundwater appropriations with other water uses.
2.15.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Irrigation
Townships Irrigating 1,000 Acres. There are no townships in which there are 1,000 acres or more of land is irrigated.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-58
2.16 DRAINAGE
2.16.1 County Setting
Freeborn County's agriculture is dependent upon the public and private drainage systems. It is our policy to maintain this existing drainage system and to reduce the nutrient and sediment loads carried in the water flowing through this drainage system.
Freeborn County has more than 350 miles of open ditches as shown on the following tables for county ditches and judicial ditches. Average yearly flow data of this ditch system is not available. Extensive drainage is present in Freeborn County and in South Central Minnesota that has a direct effect on water quality and quantity of receiving streams and lakes. Freeborn County's drainage system is physical and financially in good condition. It is County policy to levy repair funds sufficient to cover repair costs and to maintain a reserve balance for future repairs.
Present concerns address establishment and maintenance of grass buffer strips on both sides of drainage ditches. Construction and maintenance of berms on the sides of ditches would prevent erosion and slumping of the banks.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-59
Freeborn County Ditches
No. Lien Status Township Construction Condition Area 1. 1904 Inactive 2. 1923 Inactive 4. 1904 Active Pickerel Lake Ditch/tile Good 4 5. 1904 Active Nunda & Mansfeld 6. Inactive 7. Inactive 8. 1904 Active Bath Ditch/tile Fair 5.5 9. 1907 Inactive Manchester 10. Inactive 11. 1907 Active Manchester Ditch/tile Good 6.4 12. 1907 Inactive 13. None Inactive 15. Active Bancroft, Riceland Ditch/tile Good 2.8 16. 1908 Active Albert Lea, Freeman,& Ditch/tile Good 8.2 Shell Rock 17. 1908 Active Nunda, Freeman Ditch/tile Good 6.8 18. 1910 Inactive Mansfield 19. None Inactive 20. None Inactive 21. None Inactive 22. None Inactive 23. 1911 Active Alden, Nunda, & Mansfield Ditch/tile Good 8.2 24. None Inactive 25. 1913 Active Albert Lea Ditch was abandoned and part was taken over by the City of Albert Lea for storm sewer. 26. None Inactive 27. None Inactive 28. 1914 Active Manchester, Bath, & Ditch/tile Fair 7.8 Hartland. 29. 1916 Active Hartland Ditch Good 6.4 30. 1925 Active Geneva, Bath, Bancroft, Ditch Good 4.8 Riceland 31. 1919 Active Moscow, Oakland Ditch/tile Fair 6.8 32. 1919 Active Riceland, Hayward Ditch/tile Fair 8.6 33. Inactive 34. 1922 Active Alden, Carlston Tile Good 6.4 35. 1920 Active Freeborn Ditch/tile Fair 5.7 36. 1921 Active Hayward, Riceland Tile Good 4.6 37. 1922 Inactive Carlston, Manchester 38. None Inactive 39. 1921 Active Manchester, Carlston Ditch/tile Good 2.2 40. 1942 Active Freeman Ditch/tile Fair 6.8 41. Inactive
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-60
No. Lien Status Township Construction Condition Area 42. Inactive 43. 195? Active Freeman Ditch/tile Fair 2.2 46. 1958 Active Bath Ditch/tile Fair 11.4 47. 1956 Active Oakland, Hayward Ditch/tile Good 2.8 48. 1959 Active Pickerel Lake Ditch/tile Good 5.5 49. 1959 Active Shell Rock Ditch/tile Fair 3.6 50. 1958 Active Freeman, Albert Lea Ditch/tile Good 2.2 52. 1959 Active Freeman Tile Good 3.2 53. 1961 Active Pickerel Lake, & Ditch/tile Good 3.4 Manchester 54. 1946 Active Pickerel Lake, Alden & Ditch/tile Good 8.1 Manchester 55. 1975 Active Shell Rock, Nunda, & Ditch/tile Fair 21.2 Freeman 56. 1961 Active Albert Lea Tile Good 1.4 57. 1963 Active Bath Ditch/tile Good 3.1 58. 1962 Active Manchester Ditch/tile Good 1.4 59. 1962 Active Freeman Tile Good 2.6 60. 1964 Active Freeman Tile Good 2.2 61. 1964 Active Bath Tile Good 1.7 62. 1969 Active Oakland, Hayward Ditch/tile Fair 12.1 63. 1968 Active Bancroft, Hartland, Bath & Ditch/tile Good 5.7 Manchester 64. 1968 Active Geneva Ditch/tile Good 3.8 65. 1973 Bancroft, Bath & Ditch/tile Fair 9.1 Manchester. 66. 1972 Active Pickerel Lake & Tile Fair 1.8 Manchester. 67. 1971 Active Bath Tile Good 2.9 68. 1977 Active Pickerel Lake Ditch/tile Good 7.1 69. Inactive 70. 1973 Active Pickerel Lake & Alden Tile Good 1.8 72. 1977 Active Alden Ditch/tile Good 1.4 73. Inactive 75. Active Ditch/tile Good 5.4 76. Active Ditch/tile Good 3.2 77. Active Ditch/tile Good 14.8 79. Permanent Ditch/tile Good 9.4 easement for 1 rod grass strip 80. Active Ditch/tile Good 5.4 81. Active Ditch/tile Good 4.2
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-61
Judicial Ditches
No. Lien Status Township Construction Condition Area 1. 1907 Inactive Freeborn & Mower County 2. 1923 Inactive Freeborn & Mower County 3. Inactive Freeborn & Mower County 4. 1921 Inactive Freeborn & Mower County 5. 1922 Freeborn & Mower County Ditch/tile Fair 4.2 6. 1923 Hartland Ditch/tile Fair 10.2 7. 1923 Bath Tile Good 2.2 8. 1922 Freeborn & Waseca County Ditch/tile Fair 9.6 9. 1923 Albert Lea, Freeman & Ditch/tile Poor to 8.2 Pickerel Lake Fair 10. None 11. None 12. 1923 Freeborn & Steel County Ditch/tile Good 2.8 13. None 14. 1917 Carlston Township Ditch/tile Fair to 14.2 Good 15. None 16. None 17. 1929 Oakland Township Ditch/tile Good 3.6 18. 194? Riceland Township Ditch/tile Good 4.? 20. 1948 Shell Rock & Hayward Ditch/tile Good 7.1 21. 1950 Manchester, Bancroft & Ditch/tile Good 7.2 Hartland Townships 22. 1948 Hayward & Riceland Ditch/tile Good 6.9 23. 1948 Freeborn & Steele County Ditch/tile Good 1.8 24. 1971 Freeborn & Mower County Ditch/tile Fair 39.4 25. 1950 Mansfield Township Ditch/tile Good 10.2 26. 1952 Moscow Township Ditch/tile Good 1.6 26. 1953 Freeborn & Faribault Co. Ditch/tile Good 8.4 27. 1953 Newry Township Ditch/tile Good 4.2 28. 1953 Geneva Township Ditch/tile Good 2.1 29. 1955 Riceland Township Tile Good 1.5
A Public Drainage Map is available for review in the Freeborn County Surface Hydrology Atlas in the County Planning and Zoning Office.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-62
2.16.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Drainage
A Public Drainage Map is available for review in the Freeborn County Surface Hydrology Atlas in the County Planning and Zoning Office.
Shell Rock River Watershed District Ditch & Drainage System There are 25 county ditches and 4 judicial ditches in the Shell Rock River Watershed District. Combined, they drain a total of 178.5 square miles, or 56 percent of the watershed. The following is a list of County and Judicial Ditches.
County Ditches
No. Lien Status Township Construction Condition Area 4 1904 Active Pickerel Lake Open Ditch/tile Good 4 11 1907 Active Manchester Open Ditch/tile Good 6.4 15 Active Bancroft, Riceland Open Ditch/tile Good 2.8 1908 Active Albert Lea, Freeman & Open Ditch/tile Good 8.2 Shell Rock 17 1908 Active Nunda, Freeman Open Ditch/tile Good 6.8 25 1913 Active Albert Lea Ditch was abandoned and part was taken over by City of Albert Lea for storm sewer. 32 1919 Active Riceland, Hayward Open ditch/tile Fair 8.6 40 1942 Active Freeman Open ditch/tile Fair 6.8 47 1956 Active Oakland, Hayward Open Ditch/tile Good 2.8 49 1959 Active Shell Rock Open Ditch/tile Fair 3.6 50 1958 Active Freeman, Albert Lea Open Ditch/tile Good 2.2 52 1959 Active Freeman Tile Good 3.2 53 1961 Active Pickerel Lake, & Open Ditch/tile Good 3.4 Manchester 54 1964 Active Pickerel Lake, Alden, Open Ditch/tile Good 8.1 & Manchester 55 1975 Active Shell Rock, Nunda, & Open Ditch/tile Fair 21.2 Freeman. 56 1961 Active Albert Lea Tile Good 1.4 58 1962 Active Manchester Open Ditch/tile Good 1.4 59 1962 Active Freeman Tile Good 2.6 62 1969 Active Oakland, Hayward Open Ditch/tile Fair 12.1 63 1968 Active Bancroft, Hartland, Open Ditch/tile Good 5.7 Bath & Manchester
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-63
No. Lien Status Township Construction Condition Area 65 1973 Active Bancroft, Bath, & Open Ditch/tile Fair 9.1 Manchester 66 1972 Active Pickerel Lake & Tile Fair 1.8 Manchester. 68 1977 Active Pickerel Lake Open Ditch/tile Good 7.1 70 1973 Active Pickerel Lake & Alden Tile Good 1.8 76 Active Open Ditch/tile Good 3.2 77 Active Open Ditch/tile Good 14.8
Judicial Ditches
No. Lien Status Township Construction Condition Area 9 1923 Active Albert Lea, Freeman & Open Ditch/tile Poor to 8.2 Pickerel Lake Fair 20 1948 Active Shell Rock & Hayward Open Ditch/tile Good 7.1 21 1950 Active Manchester, Bancroft Open Ditch/tile Good 7.2 & Hartland Townships 22 1948 Active Hayward & Riceland Open Ditch/tile Good 6.9
Summary of Ditch Water Quality and Quantity Modeling Information. There is currently no ditch water quality and quantity modeling information available for the ditches of this watershed.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-64
2.17 POLLUTANT SOURCES
2.17.1 County Setting
A Freeborn County Citizen Attitude Survey, completed in June 1988, concerning water resource issues revealed "pollutant effects of waste disposal sites" as the number four priority. This reflects the importance of this issue as perceived by a representative sample of households. In response to this attitude expressed by our citizens Freeborn County is following MPCA Solid Waste Management Rules Chapter 7001. The scope of these rules requires an agency permit for the storage, treatment, utilization, processing, transfer intermediate disposal or final disposal of solid waste.
Solid Waste Disposal Pollution from landfills or dumpsites is an important concern to Freeborn County residents. Freeborn County has one closed solid waste landfill, which is managed by the City of Albert Lea. Annual monitoring reports are on file with the Water Resource Center at Mankato State University. Because of geologically sensitive areas in the southeast comer and east central portion of the County, these areas should not be considered when siting landfills.
Prior to 1973, solid waste disposal was virtually unregulated throughout the state. Villages and townships did operate official dumps, in which burning was used as a method of volume reduction and rodent control. In 1970, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, SWDA, was amended to promote resource recovery, alternatives to land disposal and a program was established to close open dumpsites. The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, required local and regional solid waste planning activities to encourage material recovery and to reduce dependence on land disposal.
Demolition Landfills There are currently three permitted demolition landfills in Freeborn County. Prior to 1990, there was one permitted demolition landfill in the County. When permitting a. demolition landfill site,
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-65
MPCA. DNR and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers are consulted to ensure compliance with existing regulations.
MPCA Master Entity System List of [Waste Disposal] Sites The Master Facility List Report dated March 20, 1997, list 34 waste disposal sites in Freeborn County. Nineteen sites are in the Shell Rock River Watershed District; eight sites in the Cedar River Watershed; two sites in the Blue Earth River, Le Sueur River, and Winnebago River Watersheds respectively; and, one site in the Cannon River Watershed. Specific information is about each site is discussed in the applicable watershed.
Hazardous Waste Generators Freeborn County fully supports state and federal guidelines for labeling, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste generated in Freeborn County.
The Hazard Waste Cleanup Program conducted by the MPCA Site Response Section acts to reduce or eliminate threats to human health and the environment caused by improper disposal, or spills of hazardous wastes. The MPCA oversees the investigation and cleanup of the waste by parties responsible or uses state or federal superfund dollars for the cleanup if no responsible party is known, able or willing to undertake the cleanup. There are currently no state or federal superfund sites within Freeborn County.
Information identifying hazardous waste generators enable the County to understand the possible threats to water and resources from local facilities. It also enables a County to develop appropriate emergency plans. If water pollution is discovered, knowing where hazardous waste facilities are located may help to track the source of pollution.
The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act established a "cradle to grave" tracking system of hazardous waste generators to eliminate inappropriate methods disposal. Minnesota
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-66
does not have any operating hazardous waste disposal facility. The majority of it is being transported out of state. Some materials are being recycled or incinerated in Minnesota.
MPCA Hazardous Waste Information Management System In March of 1997, the system listed 295 EPA hazardous waste generator registrant identifications on file in Freeborn County.
Out of the 295 registrants on file, a total of 143 were active generators County-wide. In the Shell Rock River Watershed District, there are 122 active generators with Albert Lea addresses; three with Glenville address; and two with Hayward address. In the Cedar River Watershed, there are three with Hollandale addresses, and three with Clarks Grove addresses. In the Le Sueur River Watershed there are two with Freeborn addresses, and two with Hartland addresses. The Winnebago River Watershed list three with Emmons addresses. In the Blue Earth River Watershed, two generators are listed with Alden addresses.
Under the Federal RCRA, hazardous waste generators are divided into three classifications:
1. Large quantity generators that produce greater than 1,000 kg or 2,200 pounds per month. 2. Small quantity generators which produce from 100 kg to 1000 kg per month. 3. Generators of less than 100 kg (200 pounds) per month are exempt from hazardous waste regulations.
In Minnesota, including this third category, all generators of hazardous waste are regulated. Certain site and accumulation requirements differ between large and small generators.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-67
Pesticides & Fertilizers The land application of synthetic chemicals; even when applied with strict adherence to labeled directions, and in accordance to state and federal agency rules, offers a potential for impact as a pollutant source.
Fertilizer and pesticide data show nine Freeborn County incidents occurring since 1984. These incidents include vehicle accidents, a plane crash, and the dumping of unknown pesticide. MDA and MPCA were notified and investigated all incidents. 1985 restricted use pesticide sales indicated these chemicals were used to treat potato and soybean fields for leafhoppers, aphids and flea beetles. Less then 300 gallons of restricted use pesticide were purchased for use in Freeborn County.
It should be noted that 1985 data may not be representative of what is currently being used within the County. This information is on file at the Planning and Zoning Office.
Ten non-commercial pesticide applicators were licensed by MDA for Freeborn County in 1988. Fifty-six commercial pesticide applicators were licensed by MDA for Freeborn County in 1988. Fifteen licensed fertilizer plants were operating within Freeborn County during 1988. The following plants are also licensed by MDA:
1. Dry Bulk Blend. 2. Liquid Cold Blend. 3. Suspension fertilizer material. 4. Anhydrous ammonia (82%N). 5. Aqua Ammonia Converter. 6. Nitrogen solutions. 7. Manufacturer Liquid Base Materials. 8. Arnmoniation-Granulation. 9. Manufacturer secondary and minor elements products.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-68
Continued cooperation between federal, state and local officials is needed to monitor pollutant sources. Freeborn County endorses MPCA and MDA for their part in licensing, monitoring, and educating chemical applicators.
Public and private land use practices effect our surface and groundwater quality. Effective controls over point sources will assist in accomplishing our goals. Freeborn County is committed to an effective policy, clearly defined to select the appropriate practices, which will minimize impacts from pollutant sources.
2.17.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Pollutant Sources
Landfill and Dumps The following is a list of landfills and dumps and as shown on the MPCA Master Entity List.
Albert Lea Demolition Landfill between I-35 & Hwy 65, approx. 1 mile No. of Hwy 23 & I-35 MPCA # 4384 ~ SW ¼ Section 32 of Bancroft Township.
Status: This is a permitted demolition landfill.
Albert Lea Dump (Former) On West Edgewater Drive, under North Edgewater Park MPCA # 386 ~ NW ¼ Section 6, Albert Lea Township.
Status: This site is listed on the 1980 Statewide Outstate Dump Inventory which includes lists and maps showing the location of municipal waste disposal facilities, industrial surface impoundments, and closed municipal dump sites. This inventory was conducted and compiled in 1980; detailed information regarding the current status of this site is not available from the MPCA.
It is also listed in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System. This is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-69
database of potential or actual hazardous waste sites nationwide. These sites are candidates for addition to the federal and state Superfund list.
Update: The MPCA has contracted for investigations and reports are on file at the MPCA Majors and Remediation Division Superfund Section. The most recent report was dated June 27, 2003 and titled “Additional Phase II Assessment and Response Action Plan” Edgewater park/Former Albert Lea Dump- MPCA 1940 Edgewater Drive Albert Lea, Minnesota”. Recommendations include additional monitoring, evaluating leachate treatment remedies, prioritizing site activities and design of treatment remedies.
Albert Lea Gas Manufacturing Site northeast corner of Broadway and Front Street MPCA # 370 ~ SW ¼ Section 9 Albert Lea Township.
Status: This site is listed in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency database of potential or actual hazardous waste sites nationwide. The site is a candidate for addition to the federal and state Superfund list.
The firm is participating in the Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program. This is a program in which a voluntary investigation has been or is being conducted, with MPCA staff providing technical review of the investigation and any necessary remedial activities.
Albert Lea Sanitary Landfill 1 mile south of the Hwy 20 & US Hwy 90 intersection MPCA # 328 ~ NE ¼ Section 32 Bancroft Township 2, 8, 10, 12
Status: This site is listed on the 1980 Statewide Outstate Dump Inventory which includes lists and maps showing the location of municipal waste disposal facilities and closed municipal dump sites. The facility had been issued a Solid Waste Facilities Permit for solid waste handling and disposal.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-70
The facility is now closed and undergoing cleanup. It has been removed from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, by the EPA. These sites are no longer considered a federal concern. Investigation of this site is now funded through state dollars rather than through federal funds. No further remedial action is planned.
Alliant Energy 111 East Front St. MPCA # 4375 ~ SW ¼ Section 9 Albert Lea Township
Status: This is a closed landfill site undergoing cleanup.
American Gas Machine Co/Lou-Rich Machine Tool 505 West Front Street 3400 ~ NW ¼ Section 17 Albert Lea Township.
Status: This is a closed landfill site undergoing cleanup. It is listed in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency database of potential or actual hazardous waste sites nationwide. The site is a candidates for addition to the federal and state Superfund list.
Glenville Dump Southeast part of Glenville off frontage road, ½ mile south of Hwy 13 MPCA # 1665 ~ NW ¼ Section 7 Shell Rock Township.
Status: This site is listed on the 1980 Statewide Outstate Dump Inventory which includes lists and maps showing the location of municipal waste disposal facilities, industrial surface impoundments, and closed municipal dump sites. This inventory was conducted and compiled in 1980; detailed information regarding the current status of this site is not available from the MPCA.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-71
Hayward Dump 1 mile west of Hayward, ½ mile south of Hwy 46. MPCA # 1660 ~ NE ¼ Section 8 Hayward Township.
Status: This site is listed on the 1980 Statewide Outstate Dump Inventory which includes lists and maps showing the location of municipal waste disposal facilities, industrial surface impoundments, and closed municipal dump sites. This inventory was conducted and compiled in 1980; detailed information regarding the current status of this site is not available from the MPCA.
Imperial Inc. Northwest corner of Hwy 3 and County Road 74. MPCA # 48 ~ NE ¼ Section 6 Albert Lea Township.
Status: This site has been removed from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, by the EPA. These sites are no longer considered a federal concern. Investigation of this site is now funded through state dollars rather than through federal funds. A cleanup of this site is now, (1997), in progress.
Jensen Demolition Landfill Area bounded by W 9th St, Lincoln Ave & California Street. MPCA # 1262 ~ SE ¼ Section 17 Albert Lea Township.
Status: This is a permitted demolition landfill, but is now closed.
Manchester Dump 1 ½ miles north of Manchester on Hwy 13, east of Hwy 13 about ¾ miles. MPCA # 1662 ~ SE ¼ Section 11 Manchester Township.
Status: This site is listed on the 1980 Statewide Outstate Dump Inventory which includes lists and maps showing the location of municipal waste disposal facilities, industrial surface impoundments, and closed municipal dump sites. This inventory was conducted and compiled in 1980; detailed information regarding the status of these sites is not available.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-72
Municipal Sanitary Sewer on Frank Hall Drive, between 3rd Street and 4th Street. MPCA # 327 ~ NW ¼ Section 16 Albert Lea Township.
Status: No further remedial action is planned. This site has been removed from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, by the EPA. It is no longer considered a federal concern. Investigation of this site is now funded through state dollars rather than through federal funds.
Olson Demolition Landfill 3/4 mile SE of County Roads 84 and 81 intersection, S. on gravel rd. MPCA # 1217 ~ NE ¼ Section 31 Hayward Township.
Status: This is a permitted demolition landfill, but is now closed.
Peterson Demolition Landfill / Matson Demolition Landfill 3/4 - 1 mile west-northwest of CSAH 18 & CSAH 17 intersection, between RR tracks. MPCA # 1218 ~ SW ¼ Section 20 Albert Lea Township 8.
Status: This is a permitted demolition landfill.
Peterson Transfer Station approximately 3/4 to 1 mile W-NW of the Hwy 18 & Hwy 17 inters, between the RR tracks. Clarks Grove. MPCA # 3091 ~ SW ¼ Section 20 Albert Lea Township.
Status: This facility is part of a permitted demolition landfill.
Swenson Disposal Site Southwest of CSAH 20 and County Road 101 intersection. MPCA # 109 ~ NE ¼ Section 6 Albert Lea Township.
Status: This site has been removed from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, by the EPA. These sites are no longer
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-73
considered a federal concern. Investigation of this site is now funded through state dollars rather than through federal funds. No further remedial action is planned.
Unnamed - Freeman Township 1 mile southwest of Hwy 5 and County Road 77 intersection. MPCA # 1670 ~ NE ¼ Section 26 Freeman Township.
Status: This site is listed on the 1980 Statewide Outstate Dump Inventory which includes lists and maps showing the location of municipal waste disposal facilities, industrial surface impoundments, and closed municipal dump sites. This inventory was conducted and compiled in 1980; detailed information regarding the current status of this site is not available from the MPCA.
Unnamed - Twin Lakes South of County Road 87, 1/2mi east of US Hwy 69. MPCA # 1672 ~ NW ¼ Section 1 Nunda Township.
Status: This site is listed on the 1980 Statewide Outstate Dump Inventory which includes lists and maps showing the location of municipal waste disposal facilities, industrial surface impoundments, and closed municipal dump sites. This inventory was conducted and compiled in 1980; detailed information regarding the current status of this site is not available from the MPCA.
Wilson Company Dump Between CMSTP & M RR & CRI & P RR tracks, on North shore of Albert Lea Lake, SE ¼ Section 9 Albert Lea Township. The Shell Rock River Watershed District will update this information during the comment period.
Status: This site is listed on the 1980 Statewide Outstate Dump Inventory which includes lists and maps showing the location of municipal waste disposal facilities, industrial surface impoundments, and closed municipal dump sites. This inventory was conducted and compiled in 1980; detailed information regarding the current status of this site is not available from the MPCA.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-74
NPDES Permitted Facilities
The following is a list of facilities, current to March 20, 1997, that are permitted by the MPCA to discharge waste water to surface waters of the state. The Shell Rock River Watershed District will update this information during the comment period.
Permit # Facility Location Receiving Water Type
MN0041092 City of Albert Lea Albert Lea Shell Rock River Domestic
MNG640002 City of Albert Lea Albert Lea Fountain Lake Wastewater Treatment
MN0020184 City of Clarks Grove Clarks Grove Bancroft Creek > Ditch Domestic
MN0021245 City of Glenville Glenville Shell Rock R > CD16 Domestic
MN0041122 City of Hayward Hayward Land Spread Domestic
MN0000175 Hudson Foods Inc Albert Lea Albert Lea Lake Ditch & Municipal Sewer Industrial
MN0000086 Lou-Rich Inc. Albert Lea Albert Lea Lake Storm Sewer Industrial
MN0033740 DNR Myre-Big Isle Albert Lea Albert Lea Lake Creek Domestic
MN0044458 MnDOT Info Albert Lea Shell Rock River Goose Creek Domestic
MN0000124 Seaboard Foods Albert Lea Shell Rock River Albert Lea Lake Industrial
MN0049336 City of Twin Lakes Twin Lakes Goose Creek Domestic
MN0061450 Ulland Brothers Inc Albert Lea Red Cedar River Industrial
MNG250024 Ventura Foods Albert Lea Albert Lea Lake Ditch NCC
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-75
2.18 ANIMAL FEEDLOTS
2.18.1 County Setting
A county attitude survey test showed that pollution from feedlots is a top concern, ranking sixth in the survey. Pollution from feedlots occurs when surface water runoff from a feedlot carries pollutants from the accumulated animal manure and inadequately lined holding ponds allow water to enter surface and groundwater. Freeborn County continues to participate in the MPCA Feedlot Permitting Program.
The County has developed a detailed feedlot inventory database in the Planning and Zoning Office. Currently there are 513 feedlots in the County Feedlot Inventory. The inventory shows the following information:
County Feedlots Based on Size by Animal Units
AU Size Number of Feedlots 0 25 1-49 157 50-99 95 100-199 98 200-299 52 300-399 31 400-499 16 500-999 23 1000-1999 15 2000 + 1 Total 513
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-76
County Livestock Category by Animal Units
Livestock Animal Units Category All Feedlots 300 + Feedlots 300 + Percent of All Feedlot Beef Cattle 9341 1740 19 Dairy Cattle 8126 2237 28 Swine 69193 47581 69 Turkey 1309 913 70 Chicken 3771 2517 67 Other 794 340 43 Total 92533 55328 60 Minnesota Agricultural Statistics provide the following trend information for Freeborn County:
Cattle 1992 1993 1995 1996 Net Change Beef Cows 1,700 1,900 2,100 2,200 +500 Dairy Cows 4,500 4,500 3,800 3,600 -900 All C &C 20,100 20,100 20,000 20,900 +200
Dairy Farms Grade Total 1993 Dairy Farms A 54 B 38 92 1996 Dairy Farms A 48 B 21 69 Net Change -6 -17 -23
Swine 1991 1992 1994 1995 Net Change Annual Production 302,000 289,300 279,000 276,000 -26,000
2.18.2 Shell Rock Watershed Animal Feedlots
Animal Feedlots The feedlot inventory lists a total of 146 feedlots in the Shell Rock River Watershed District. Fifty-four feedlots are permitted and 92 do not have permits. The 54 permitted feedlots produce 17,611 animal units and the 92 without permits produce 6,052 animal units. A total of 26,663 animal units of manure are produced in the watershed. Manure production is as follows:
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-77
Livestock No Permit Permitted Total Beef Cattle 2,234 AU 1,076 AU 3,310 AU Swine 2,010 AU 15,260 AU 17,270 AU Dairy 1,357 AU 935 AU 2,292 AU Turkey None None None Poultry 430 AU None 430 AU Other 21 AU 340 AU 361 AU Total 6,052 AU 17,611 AU 23,663 AU
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-78
2.19 STORAGE TANKS
2.19.1 County Setting
Freeborn County supports the enforcement of federal and state standards for construction, location, registration and management of storage tanks. Leaking storage tanks pose a serious threat to our health and to our environment. Regulated material is stored in an estimated 40,000 underground bulk storage tanks throughout Minnesota.
A March 20, 1997, report of the Tanks and Spills Section of the MPCA Hazardous Waste Division shows that Freeborn County has a total of 153 above ground, and 193 underground active tanks larger than 1,100 gallons. A total of 209 tanks in the inventory have been removed. The inventory lists 18 tanks that are classified as abandoned. Since registration requirements began, there has been 70 leak incidents investigate, and 18 of the files are still open. This inventory is also discussed in Part III by specific watersheds.
Listed are standards for underground storage tanks:
1. Constructed to be compatible with the stored substance 2. Either made from non-corrosive material or is steel encased in non-corrosive material. 3. Cathodically protected from corrosion or otherwise designed to prevent release of stored substances. 4. Installed according to specific requirements of the American Petroleum Institute Bulletin #1615, November 1979 and all manufacturer’s recommendations provide for the testing and upgrading of old tanks, and specific cleanup procedures.
Local officials do not currently have an estimate of underground tanks 1,100 or less in Freeborn County. MPCA estimates 25% of all underground tanks are leaking their contents into the ground. At present, the MPCA has a program in place that requires registration of tanks larger
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-79 than 1,100 gallons. Freeborn County needs a contingency action plan for leaking tanks that include the following: 1. Provisions for land disposal sites for contaminated soil. 2. A local program to assist the state in tank registration verification. 3. A program to assist the state in leak investigation.
Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources concern about the protection of underground water supplies involves management practices and local monitoring of the situation. The DNR policy reflects protection of our natural resources by establishing base conditions trends, and future needs. The MPCA, through government cooperation, communication and coordinating, does the planning, regulation and management of activities that address storage tanks. The Minnesota Extension Service will in water quality educational efforts and research solutions to handle and solve contamination from leaking storage tanks.
2.19.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Storage Tanks
The Shell Rock River Watershed District has a total of 101 above ground storage tanks and 131 underground tanks. In addition, 166 tanks have been removed, and 11 tanks have been reported abandon. All of the tanks have over a 1,100 gallon capacity.
A total of 55 tank leaks have been reported and 13 of the incidents have not been satisfactorily resolved.
City of Albert Lea. A total of 59 facilities using an Albert Lea addresses have storage tanks over 1,100 gallon capacity. Thirteen of the sites have total of 88 above ground tanks and 46 sites have a total of 122 under ground tanks. A total of 153 underground tanks have been removed.
A total of 49 tank leaks have been reported and 12 of the incidents have not been satisfactorily resolved.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-80
City of Glenville. A total of 4 facilities using a Glenville address have storage tanks over 1,100 gallon capacity. Two of the sites have total of 3 above ground tanks and 2 sites have a total of 6 under ground tanks. A total of 7 underground tanks have been removed.
A total of 2 tank leaks have been reported and both of the incidents have satisfactorily resolved.
City of Hayward. A total of 4 facilities using a Hayward address have storage tanks over 1,100 gallon capacity. Three of the sites have total of 10 above ground tanks and 1 site has a total of 3 under ground tanks. A total of 6 underground tanks have been removed.
A total of 3 tank leaks have been reported and 1 of the incidents has not been satisfactorily resolved.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-81
2.20 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, ISTS.
Freeborn County has made individual and community sewage treatment systems a priority issue. The importance of design, location, use and maintenance of these systems is actively pursued.
The improper design, location, installation, use, and maintenance of ISTS adversely affects, the public health, safety, and general welfare by discharge of inadequately treated sewage to surface and groundwater. Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 provides the minimum standards and criteria for the design, location, installation, use, and maintenance of ISTS.
According to the MPCA, polluted surface or groundwater may affect human health and welfare in a variety of ways ranging from nuisance effects to life threatening toxicity. Drinking water may be affected by smell, taste, increased need for treatment, possible health effects or total prohibition of use. Substitute water sources may substantially increase delivery costs. Water contact recreational activities in polluted water bodies may be curtailed by unpleasant odors or tastes. Health effects such as skin irritations, nuisance factors such as algae and aquatic weeds. Consumptive activities such as fishing and hunting may be restricted.
ISTS serve the sewer needs of most of the rural residents and those living in the smaller towns in the County. In fact. 16 of 28 of the incorporated and unincorporated municipalities have no municipal sewer system. The significant exception is the City of Albert Lea, which has a wastewater treatment facility that discharges into the Shell Rock River.
ISTS are used by approximately one-third of Minnesota's residents. Typically, these users are in a rural setting. However, there has been an increasing number of housing subdivision developments in the past decade relying on ISTS.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-82
2.21 SPECIAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
2.21.1 County Setting
The Upper Carbonate aquifers have the potential for sinkhole development where there is less than 50-75 feet of glacial material covering them. According to the GSAM, the Upper Carbonate is particularly vulnerable in the Cedar River and Shell Rock River Watershed Districts, and to a lesser degree throughout the remainder of the County. To date no sinkhole development has occurred in Freeborn County.
2.21.2 Shell Rock River Watershed Special Geologic Conditions
The principal aquifer that underlies the Shell Rock River Watershed District is the Cedar Valley Group. This formation is directly beneath the glacial till throughout most of the watershed. Soil associations overlying this formation are generally poorly drained, however, there are inclusions of more well drained soils.
Generally, the glacial deposit is 100 feet deep or more over the above aquifer. However, some areas are geologically very sensitive because the aquifer system is less than 10 feet from the surface.
Recent geological interpretations, (November 1997), indicates that there may be the potential for the development of karst formations throughout most of the watershed. There are no known karst areas, sand plains, or sinkholes in this watershed at this time. The bedrock valleys appear to have drained in a southerly and easterly direction.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-83
2.22 WETLANDS
2.22.1 County Setting
In general terms, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. The single feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is at least periodically saturated with or covered by water. The water creates severe physiological problems for all plants and animals except those that are adapted for life in water or in saturated soil. In general, wetlands can be considered among the most productive ecosystems in the world.
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems and enhance bio- diversity. The water table is usually at or near the surface of the land. In order to fit this description, wetlands must have all of the following three attributes:
1. At least periodically, the land supports a predominance of hydro phi tic vegetation. 2. The substrate is predominantly hydric soil. 3. The substrate is saturated with water long enough during the growing season of each year to support hydrophitic vegetation.
Wetlands, as defined by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service include lands that are identified under other categories in some land use classifications. For example, wetlands and farmlands are not necessarily exclusive. Many areas that are defined as wetlands are farmed during dry periods, but if they are not tilled or planted to crops they will support hydrophytes.
2.22.1.1 Regulatory Authority
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act The MPCA is involved in protecting wetlands under the provisions of the Clean Water Act 401 water quality certification process. Anyone who wishes to obtain a federal permit, be it a Coast
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-84
Guard Section 10 permit, a COE 404 permit or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permits, must first obtain a State 401 water quality certification from the MPCA. Activities which may require both a 401 and a 404 permit include: construction of boat ramps, riprap for erosion, fill in a wetland, building in a wetland, construction of dams or dikes, stream channelization and stream diversion.
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act Under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) authorizes permits for disposing of dredged material, side-casting for drainage projects and other filling activities for both private and public projects.
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act In 1991, the legislature approved the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The goal of this act is to promote no-net-loss of wetlands and to protect the benefits wetlands provide. The benefits cited in the law include conserving surface waters, providing recreational opportunities, reducing runoff, providing floodwater retention, reducing stream sedimentation, contributing to improved subsurface moisture, helping to moderate climatic change and enhancing the natural beauty of the landscape.
The WCA moves toward its no-net-loss goal by requiring persons proposing to drain or fill a wetland to first try to avoid disturbing the wetland; second, if disturbance is unavoidable, to minimize the impact; and finally, to replace any lost wetland functions and values (MN Statutes 103A.202). Certain wetland activities area exempt from the act allowing projects with minimal impact or projects located on land where certain pre-established land uses are present to proceed without regulation.
The WCA took effect through an interim program beginning in 1992 and became fully effective January 1994. The program is administered by local units of government (LGUs) with over site provided by BWSR and enforcement provided by DNR Conservation Officers.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-85
2.22.1.2 Wetland Inventories
National Wetland Inventory The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service established the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) project to inventory wetlands and determine trends according to standardized environmental characteristics. The NWI project located and classified wetlands using a remote sensing technique with high altitude aerial photography. Wetlands generally ranging in size between one to three acres were mapped. The NWI maps became available on 7.5 minute USGS topographic map format in 1990. They can be viewed at the Freeborn County SWCD Office.
USDA Inventory The USDA in conjunction with the local SWCD and NRCS offices has inventoried wetlands for the purposes of administering the 1985 Food Security Act. These wetlands were located using soil information, cropping history with field verification as needed.
Minnesota Wetland Report 1995 The Board of Water and Soil Resources published this report in December of 1996. It provides the following information about wetlands in Freeborn County. Appendix F of the Minnesota Wetland Report 1995 is a 1984 remaining pre-settlement wetland paper by Anderson and Craig, published by the University of Minnesota Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, CURA 84-3. It states that the County has 3000 acres of pre-settlement wetlands remaining, or 1.5 percent.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-86
Appendix G is a summary by County of Circular 39 Type wetlands found in the NWI (1971). It contains the following information about Freeborn County wetlands:
Circular 39 Type Acreage in 1971 1 765 2 246 3 8,797 4 216 5 363 6 278 7 68 7 0 Riverine 193 Industrial-Municipal 0
Total Wetlands 10,926 2.4% Total Deep Water 8,695 1.9%. Total Uplands 442,472 95.8%. Total Area of County 462,093
County Inventory On January 31, 1985, the County finalized the inventory and designation of protected waters and wetlands (7). Eighteen wetland areas were identified within Freeborn County. Six of these wetlands are located near lakes, two are located near a natural or altered water course, and the remaining ten are located within the five watershed areas. An Inventory of Minnesota Lakes. Minnesota DNR Bulletin 25 lists the protected waters lake basins in the County.
The DNR Section of Wildlife currently has one variable crest structure installed for the purpose of allowing temporary drawdown for improving lake habitats in the District. The control structure is on Lower Twin Lake.
Fringe wetlands around all our local lakes and major streams serve an important role in water quality. Goose Lake wetlands are very important to Fountain and Albert Lea Lakes. Bear Lake, Pickerel Lake, and Twin Lakes wetlands all serve as important recreation and wildlife habitat areas.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-87
Purple Loosestrife, Lythrum Salicaria, is threatening Freeborn County. Beginning in 1987, threatened areas were mapped. During 1989, the MDA and DNR cooperated with local officials to fund aerial and ground chemical application for the eradication of this noxious weed. In 1997 Freeborn County began biological control opportunities against Purple Loosestrife. This program is in cooperation with the DNR biological control state wide program.
The District will seek opportunities to improve wetland management. Existing effective measures provide wetlands as flood reservoirs, wildlife habitat, water filtration, sedimentation ponds, and hunting and trapping recreational uses.
2.22.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Wetlands
Specific plans have not been developed for this watershed.
National Wetland Inventory Maps. Wetlands shown in the NWI are available for review at the Planning and Zoning Office, at the Soil and Water Conservation District Office, and in the Surface Water Hydrology Atlas, Freeborn County, Water Resources Center, Mankato State University 1993, which is found in schools and local libraries.
Plans for Wetlands with Controlled Outlets. Freeborn County has four lakes with control structures which are or have been used to draw down lake levels for the purpose of enhancing wildlife habitat.
Lower and Upper Twin Lakes: There is an operable outlet on Lower Twin Lake.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-88
2.23 FLOODPLAINS
2.23.1 County Setting
Freeborn County participates in the regular phase of the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, which includes adoption of a Floodplain Ordinance. Municipalities participating in the regular phase of the NFIP include Albert Lea, Emmons, Geneva, Glenville and Twin lakes. The County's Floodplain Ordinance is in compliance with Minnesota State Law. Generally, enforcement of the Floodplain Ordinance is adequate (42).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service reported in 1982 through the National Resources Inventory that 41,800 acres of County land were susceptible to annual flooding. This includes 33,600 acres of cropland; 2,300 acres of pasture land; and, 5,900 acres characterized as other (44).
Streams and lakes with known flooding problems are identified by Federal Emergency Agency Maps, FEMA. Over 50 percent of Freeborn County has no flooding potential. Eight percent of the County is covered with water with about a 45 percent flooding potential (43). FEMA Maps are available in the Planning and Zoning Office.
2.23.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Floodplains
Watershed Setting. Freeborn County participates in the regular phase of the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, which includes adoption of a Floodplain Ordinance. District municipalities participating in the regular phase of the NFIP include Albert Lea, Glenville and Twin Lakes. The County's Floodplain Ordinance is in compliance with Minnesota State Law. Generally, enforcement of the Floodplain Ordinance is adequate.
The City of Albert Lea is the only municipality within Freeborn County to have a Floodplain Ordinance. The intent of this ordinance, is to regulate development within floodplain, define terms, and establish floodplain districts. Albert Lea's Floodplain Ordinance is consistent with the County Floodplain Ordinance.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-89
2.24 SHORELANDS
2.24.1 County Setting
The 1969 Minnesota Shoreland Act, as amended in 1973 and 1989, provides direction for land use management in shoreland areas of Minnesota. Shoreland, as defined in statute, includes land within 1000 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of a lake and 300 feet from a stream bank. In addition to the Shoreland Management Act, the State of Minnesota regulates shoreland use through the 1969 Floodplain Management Act and the 1973 Minnesota Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Freeborn County adopted a revised Shoreland Ordinance in 1989. The purpose of the Ordinance is to reduce the effect on public water of uncontrolled and unplanned development, to maintain economic value of shore land property, and to preserve the unique qualities of natural shorelands and waters. Land Use Zoning Districts were established by Freeborn County to be consistent with the classification of the lake or stream. There are currently no municipalities within Freeborn County that have adopted a municipal shore land ordinance. Freeborn County is a member of the 37 County joint powers addressing the Minnesota River watershed. (#45)
A state classification system of lakes and streams exists to designate land use and compatible activities for unincorporated areas with water basin acreage of 25 acres or more and streams with drainage area of two square miles or greater. In 1976, the rules for municipal shore1ands included classification of water basins of 10 acres or greater in incorporated areas. Criteria for classification include present development density, lake size and shape, natural characteristics of the waters and shorelands, and County and regional needs. Classification of lakes and streams are as follows:
Natural Environment – those waters needing significant protection from development; Recreational Development – those waters which can support additional development and recreational use;
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-90
General Development – those waters which will support high density development and multiple use and have significant development.
A complete list of protected waters and their Shoreland classification is listed in inventory item #46. The Shoreland Management Classification of Freeborn County Lakes and Rivers is as follows:
Natural Environment -15 lakes Recreational Development- 5 lakes General Development -1 lake No classification -18 lakes
DNR lake survey reports indicate that erosion on Fountain Lake, siltation at the inlets to Bear Lake, and conflicting uses on Geneva are problems. Other general problems include substandard ISIS, nonpoint source pollution from urban and agricultural runoff and conflicting water level proposed for various uses.
A list of protected waters and their shoreland classifications (M. S. 105.486) is shown under the applicable watershed.
2.24.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Shorelands
Local Governments With Approved Shoreland Controls. Freeborn County administers the County Shoreland Ordinance which includes this watershed. A copy of the Shoreland Ordinance is available for review at the County Planning and Zoning Office.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-91
Protected Waters and Classifications Lakes. The following are protected waters:
Number Name Section Township Class 24-14:SR Albert Lea Lake various Albert Lea & Hayward Natural Environment 24-17:SR Goose Lake 3 Albert Lea Natural Environment 24-18:SR* Fountain Lake 4,5,6,8,9,32 Albert Lea & Bancroft General Development 24-25:SR* Pickerel Lake 18,19,13,24 Albert Lea & Hayward Recreational Development 24-27:SR Lower Twin Lake 2,10,11 Nunda Natural Environment 24-31:SR Upper Twin Lake 1,2,26,35,36 Nunda & Pickerel Lake Natural Environment 24-37:SR Sugar Lake 28,29 Manchester Natural Environment 24-38:SR Halls Lake 29 Manchester Natural Environment 24-40:SR School Section Lake 36 Manchester Natural Environment 24-68:SR Mud Lake 12,13 Pickerel Lake N. A.
2. Streams. The following natural and altered natural watercourses are protected waters:
Name Sec Township Sec Township Bancroft Creek (BC):SR 28 Bancroft 32(B-18) Bancroft UN to BC:SR 9 Bancroft 9 Bancroft UN to BC:SR 15 Bancroft 15 Bancroft UN to BC:SR 20 Bancroft 21 Bancroft UN to Fountain Lake:SR* 3(B-17) Albert Lea 4(B-18) Albert Lea UN to Albert Lea Lake:SR 1 Albert Lea 7(B-14) Hayward Peter Lund Creek:SR 21 Hayward 7(B-14) Hayward UN to Fountain Lake:SR 26 Manchester 6(B-18) Albert Lea UN from Sugar Lake:SR 28(B-37) Manchester 28 Manchester UN from Halls Lake:SR 29(B-38) Manchester 20 Manchester UN to Fountain Lake:SR* 13(B-25) Pickerel Lake 8(B-18) Albert Lea UN to Albert Lea Lake:SR 9(B-18) Albert Lea 9(B-14) Albert Lea Name Sec Township Sec Township Shell Rock River:SR* 25(B-14) Albert Lea 32 Albert Lea UN tributary:SR 8 Shell Rock 8 Shell Rock Goose Creek (GC):SR 11(B-27) Nunda 13 Nunda UN to Lower Twin Lake:SR 2(B-31) Nunda 2(B-27) Nunda
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-92
C. Wetlands. The following are wetlands:
Number Name Sec Township(s) 24-13*:SR Unnamed 7,18 Geneva 24-32:SR Eberhart Lake 23 Pickerel Lake 24-33:SR Church Lake 23,26 Pickerel Lake 24-52:SR Unnamed 19 Freeman 24-53:SR Unnamed 19;24 Bancroft & Manchester 24-56:SR Unnamed 20 Albert Lea 24-65:SR Unnamed 12 Nunda 24-73:SR Unnamed 19,30 Manchester 24-76:SR Unnamed 19 Albert Lea
Notes & Abbreviations * This is corrected from a previous typographic and/or cartographic error. B- Basin UN Unnamed
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-93
2.25 WATER BASED RECREATION LANDS
County Setting Freeborn County is interested in developing water-based recreation within the 39 lakes located here. Implementation of this Comprehensive Water Plan and restoration of Albert Lea Lake would enhance our recreational lands. Clean water partnership grants will be explored to enhance the recreational pursuits. DNR Public Water Access is available at five locations on five different lakes in the County. There are five other public accesses on four lakes, which are administered by local units of government.
There is an adequate amount of water-based recreational land in Freeborn County. Eight public and private campgrounds are located here, and public demand for these facilities is good. There are no DNR wild and scenic river boating or canoe routes or access points in Freeborn County. Helmer Myre-Big Island State Park; has information, picnic area, interpretive center and programs, semi-modern and rustic group camp areas, all season heated visitor center, good bird watching, waterfowl and wildlife observations, remnants of natural prairie pothole region with native plants, lake that is usable by small boats and canoes, 15 camping sites with electrical hookup, flush toilets, showers, and a dumping station.
According to the United Stated Department of Interior National Park Service, Freeborn County has received grant money to develop and enhance the park systems. A Land Use Policy Plan was put into Ordinance in 1982. This policy covers flood prone areas, shorelands, agricultural, residential, urban fringe, business and industrial areas, and feedlot operations. Continued enforcement of this policy helps ensure our water quality concerns are protected.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-94
2.26 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
2.26.1 County Setting
There are six major lakes with fish management in the County. They are Albert Lea Lake, Lake Geneva, Fountain Lake, Lake, State Line Lake, Pickerel Lake and Morin Lake. There are four wildlife management lakes with management plans. They are Bear, Lower Twin, Upper Twin and Geneva Lakes. In addition, Bear Lake is also designated as a Waterfowl Feeding and Resting Area. Because of the significant littoral areas, most all lakes in the County have the potential of providing high quality wildlife habitat. Fountain Lake is probably and exception because of the development around the lake and motorboat use. Goose, Bear and Halls/Sugar are important wildlife lakes.
In Freeborn County, the most prevalent fish in the rivers are northern pike and bullheads. As a result of excessive stream channeling, the rivers are faced with severe siltation and erosion along with fluctuating water levels.
Shell Rock River Watershed District Fish And Wildlife Habitat
The following topics are discussed in a composite format for each designated fish or game management activity: Designated Lakes and Wildlife Management Areas for Fish or Game Management; Designated Trout Lakes or Streams; Ecological and Management Classification of Lakes and Streams; Biological Surveys and Conclusions of Lakes and Streams; and, State Management Plans for Fish and Wildlife.
There are no designated Trout lakes or streams in this watershed.
Albert Lea Lake is the largest and is located partially in the City of Albert Lea. It has a total surface area of 2,654 acres and a maximum depth of 5.5 feet. There are three inlets, two are streams and the third is Fountain Lake. The Shell Rock River is the only outlet.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-95
Albert Lea Lake winter kills annually. It is very turbid and experiences extremely heavy algal blooms. The lake has frequently generated foul odors, has had a number of fish kills, and has long been considered polluted. Numerous studies have revealed the presence of gross chemical and bacterial pollution of the lake (50).
A report by the Environmental Protection Agency and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency revealed that the sediment contained amounts of arsenic, zinc, copper, chromium, cadmium, nickel, phosphorus, potassium, iron and mercury (27).
Albert Lea Lake has historical problems with extremely high rough fish populations. Fish management of Albert Lea Lake is minimal because of current ecological conditions. The lake is very shallow. Dredging, aeration and drawdown have been considered but rejected because of costs or minimal benefits in relation to costs. Current management of the lake is limited to periodic assessments (54). In 1997, the DNR re-established a Northern Pike spawning area at Myre Island State Park.
1995 Citizen Attitude Survey. In 1995, a citizen attitude survey was conducted regarding the future use of Albert Lea/ and Fountain lakes. A total of 376 responses were received which covered 30 issue categories. Recreational use was cited as the primary emphasis for the lakes: 138 responses. Conservation was listed as the second most important emphasis: 111 responses, and Economic Development as a distant third emphasis: 28 responses.
DNR Surveys and Lake Management Plans. The following is extracted from surveys, studies and management plans developed by DNR Fisheries.
Lake Surveys. The lake was initially surveyed in 1945. It was resurveyed and mapped in 1955. The most recent survey was in 1992. Lake sounding was done in 1945 and 1955.
Population assessments were done in 1967 and 1984; Fish kill study in 1984; and Winter D.O. testing 1967-1970, 1975, and 1992.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-96
Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics and Use
Lake Area 2,654 acres Maximum Depth 5.5 ft. Littoral Area 2,654 acres Length of Shoreline 24 mile(s) Greatest length 7.13 miles
Inlets (dry and intermittent) Date observed 8/31/92 Average Flow Name Origin Width Depth CFS Barriers Shell Rock River Fountain Lake No data Fixed Crest Dam Peter Lund Creek Drainage Ditch 10.7 1.3 1.17 None Unknown Creek Drainage Ditch 17.8 1.14 1.2 None
Additional information on inlets Shell Rock River: The bottom is mainly mixed sand and silt. Fish move here during the winter in response to higher oxygen levels. Peter Lund Creek: This is the most suitable area for northern pike spawning. Unnamed Creek: Unsuitable, bottom is mainly mud. Outlet Date observed 01/31/92 Shell Rock River no data Fixed crest dam
Long Range Goal The DNR’s long range fisheries and wildlife goal is to restore lake to a healthy, shallow water basin to provide primary benefits for waterfowl, aquatic furbearers, nongame wildlife, aesthetic values, and intrinsic ecosystem health. Provide secondary benefits to fish community and sport fishery through rehabilitation of water quality and aquatic macrophyte community (submergent and emergent).
Social Considerations Albert Lea Lake is bordered by the city of Albert Lea, a community of 18,500. Albert Lea is located in Freeborn County in southern Minnesota, an area with few recreational lakes. A citizens group, the Lakes Improvement Committee, has been formed to support lake rehabilitation efforts on both Fountain and Albert Lea Lakes.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-97
The Fountain Lake Sportsmen's Club has occasionally assisted local commercial anglers with transporting game fish from Albert Lea Lake to Fountain Lake. As an example, on March 22, 1991 they assisted in the capture and restocking of two 6 pound northern pike, and seven walleyes totaling 28 pounds after a seine haul in the Albert Lea Lake channel.
Present Limiting Factors Lake habitat and water quality have been seriously degraded from point and nonpoint industrial, agricultural, and urban sources. Lake conditions have improved remarkably in the past ten years. Industrial and municipal pollution abatement is nearly complete with agricultural and urban pollution the main existing pollution sources. Total phosphorus concentrations have decreased to less than one third of the average concentration measured prior to the upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant (Weir 1993).
The basin is shallow and eutrophic-hypereutrophic. Water quality is poorer than typical lakes for the ecoregion Weir 1993). Water is turbid with high sedimentation. The lake bottom is covered with a layer of mud and silt.
Severe algae blooms occur, although these have improved. Aquatic plants are limited in both diversity and distribution. In 1989 only one saga pondweed plant were found in 30 sampling stations (MDNR 1989). Plant biomass is largely in the form of algae rather than submergent or emergent macrophytee.
Poor water quality and shallow depth favor the development of winterkill conditions. The fish community is dominated by high populations of carp and black bullhead. Surveys in the past 10 years indicate limited recovery in the fish community. Spawning conditions for game fish are very degraded, especially for marsh vegetation spawners (northern pike). Sediments of the lake are suspected of contamination with various toxins from industrial pollution.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-98
Survey Needs A fisheries resurvey should be conducted every ten years to document changes in the fish community and lake conditions. Rehabilitation efforts will require extensive survey efforts in the areas of nonpoint source pollution from urban and agricultural (AGNPS) areas, and lake rehabilitation feasibility and engineering. Lake sediments need to be tested for presence of toxic substances.
Habitat Development and Protection Habitat rehabilitation should focus on sediment consolidation, enhancement of aquatic macrophytes, improvements in water quality and water clarity, and protection and enhancement of shoreland and riparian zones. Fish and wildlife habitat and aesthetic values have the potential to be restored from both in-lake and upper watershed treatments. Agriculture buffer strips, urban runoff abatement, and wetland and stream corridor restoration are needed.
Commercial Fishery Albert Lea lake has been fished by commercial anglers at least since the 1960's. Carp yield recorded in Lanesboro files since 1980-81 is listed below:
Year Species Yield 1980-81 Carp 119,470 lb 1981-82 Carp 24,400 lb 1984 Carp 7,500 lb 1985 Carp 7,500 lb 1988-89 Carp 150,000 lb 1990 Carp 200,000 lb 1991 Carp 58,000 lb 1991 Quillback 2,000 lb Commercial angling of both carp and bullhead should be encouraged to utilize fish biomass. It is unlikely that commercial removal will have a limiting l I influence on these species.
Stocking Plans Spawning populations of numerous species of fish are present. Improvements in fish community structure are dependent upon improvements in lake habitat, macrophyte restoration and water
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-99 quality improvement. Some walleye and channel catfish are apparently migrating from Fountain Lake and the Shell Rock River.
Evaluation Plans Lake surveys on a ten-year rotation will document changes through time in lake conditions and fish community structure. Additional surveys and studies may be required in conjunction with lake restoration efforts, but fisheries involvement in these will be primarily technical.
Fountain Lake Fountain Lake was last surveyed in 1991 and has a maximum depth of 14 feet and an area of 555 acres. There are four inlets to Fountain Lake: Bancroft Creek, Wedges Creek, Pickerel Lake Creek, and Lake Creek. The only outlet is to the Shell Rock River.
The lake is almost entirely located within the city limits of Albert Lea. In 1980, a helixor-type aeration system was installed and has successfully prevented winter fish kill. Recent stockings of flathead catfish, channel cat, northern pike and walleye, coupled with an aggressive fish removal program seems to have increased the lakes sport fishing (50).
A 1985 Fisheries Lake Survey found that the bullhead population exceeded the state-wide median by a factor of approximately l00. However, carp and goldfish population had decreased (27). The most recent Lake Management Plan (written 3/30/84) for Fountain Lake includes the establishment of acceptable northern pike, black: crappie, channel cat-fish, walleye, bluegill, and large mouth bass fisheries as long range goals (54).
Past Surveys Fish population assessments: 1990, 1985, 1984, 1982, 1979, 1975, 1972, and 1970. Lake surveys: 1954 and 1947. Game Lake Survey: 1956.
Lake Sounding: 1971, 1955, 1947. Winter D. O. and various others since 1945.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-100
Water quality management study:
July 1971, Fountain Lake was classified in lake class 42 (Dennis Schupp, unpublished). The 1990 population assessment sampled eleven species of fish. Population densities when compared to lakes in lake class 42 were average for white sucker, bluegill, white crappie, black crappie, and walleye. Densities were low for northern pike, green sunfish, and yellow perch. Density was high for carp and black bullhead. Data were not available for channel catfish and orangespot sunfish. The catch of 6.64 channel catfish/trap would probably rate in the high category. Mean individual weight of fish were average for all species. Large adult walleye and catfish were captured during the fall boom shocking operation.
Past surveys indicate fish populations have been highly variable due to regular winterkill, but have stabilized since aeration began in 1980. However, black bullhead densities may have increased in the past 10 years.
Past Management The earliest fish management on record indicates Fountain Lake was stocked with panfish prior to the lake reclamation in 1966. After reclamation, management consisted of infrequent stocking of northern pike, winter D.O. monitoring, and environmental review.
In 1980 a helixor-type aeration system was installed by the city of Albert Lea. since 1980 there have been nine plants of fingerling and yearling catfish, four plants of walleye fingerlings, and various plants of winter rescue northern pike, largemouth bass fingerlings, crappie adults, and bluegill adults.
The response of walleye and catfish density has been excellent, with multiple year classes of both species sampled in 1990, and large size fish available (greater than 20 in) for both species.
Population assessments on a three to four year interval have documented these changes. Commercial fishing by Class B permit has been ongoing since the 1950s to utilize high densities
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-101
of black bullhead and carp. Aeration system operation has been annual since 1980 with the City of Albert Lea monitoring winter dissolved oxygen.
Social Considerations. Fountain Lake is located within the city limits of Albert Lea. Both fishing pressure and water recreation use are high, although no creel or recreational use data is available. Conflicts have arisen between boaters and anglers. Concerns over shoreline erosion due to boat wakes and waves have been raised. On April 19, 1988 Ordinance No. 20 was passed by the Freeborn County Commissioners restricting boat speeds in posted slow wake areas. A fish kill in the channel between Fountain Lake and Albert Lea Lake in the winter of 1990-1991 raised concerns that gamefish from Fountain Lake were migrating out of Fountain into Albert Lea Lake.
The Fountain Lake Sportsmen Club is very active and concerned over fisheries management on the lake. The City of Albert Lea completed riprap of the shoreline in 1996
Limiting factors: Prior to aeration, regular winterkill, high populations of rough fish, and habitat degradation were the primary limiting factors. Since aeration began, severe winterkill has been controlled. High populations of carp and black bullhead continue to be a problem. A limiting factor to channel catfish management has arisen due to the unavailability of quality of channel catfish yearlings. Private source fish have been expensive, and are believed to have poor to variable genetic fitness.
Habitat development and protections: Fish habitat and water quality has been degraded by intensive agriculture and municipality impacts. An intensive restoration project would be needed to reverse this situation.
Other Management Tools: Protect aquatic habitat through environmental review process. Work with City of Albert Lea to monitor aeration system operation. Work with the Fountain Lake Sportsmen Club to improve communication and understanding of management policies and goals.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-102
Long Range Goal: Provide a primary fishery of walleye at 1-3 fish/trapnet with 30% over 15 in, black crappie at 2-20 fish/trapnet with 40% over 9 in, and channel catfish at 2-5 fish/trapnet with 30% over 18 in. Maintain a secondary fishery for black crappie, bluegill, and largemouth bass.
Midrange Objective: 1. Evaluate success of walleye fingerling and channel catfish yearling stockings through periodic assessments and surveys. 2. Monitor status of carp and black bullhead populations to determine if lake reclamation is needed. 3. Monitor fish populations and adjust management plan, stocking rates, et. al., as needed to maintain a quality fishery.
Bancroft Creek / County Ditch #63
Bancroft Creek is a small warmwater stream which is tributary to Fountain Lake. The entire stream, 10.3 miles, was surveyed in 1985. It had the most flow (2.65 cfs) of the three permanent streams which fed the lake. The majority of the creek has been ditched to improve agricultural land and consequently there was little habitat left for game fishes.
Sixteen fish species representing eight families were captured. The main fishes collected were large carps, white suckers, sad yellow perch in Sector I and small minnows and white suckers in Sector 2. The most important fishes taken were three walleyes (5-7 inches) and three northern pike (21-23 inches). The walleyes would have originated from the 1985 fry stocking in Fountain Lake. The closest walleye stocking site in the lake was at least one mile away from the points of capture, therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that the fry stocking was successful in Fountain Lake.
Management Recommendations:
Stocking. None
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-103
Habitat Improvement. Further ditching and ditch maintenance should be discouraged to stabilize fish habitat conditions in Fountain Lake. Applications to draw water from the creek for irrigation should be denied because of the general lack of permanent flow feeding the Fountain Lake reservoir. Land Acquisition. None Discussion of Fishery. No specific problem was detected. .
Ecological Classification of Waterway Sector 1 0.0 - 14 miles - Class 3 warm water feeders. Sector 2 1.4 - 10.3 miles - Class 4 rough fish and forage fish.
Shoff Creek ~ County Ditch 68
Shoff Creek is a small warmwater stream which is tributary to Fountain Lake. Permanent flow near the mouth at low stage was only 0.59 cfs. The creek was surveyed in 1985.
The upper half of the creek (Sector 32 is ditched and row crops were planted within a few feet of the banks.
Next Shoff Creek enters Mud Lake (Sector 2). Pickerel Lake Creek, the only tributary also flows into Mud Lake. After leaving the lake, Shoff Creek flows for 2.9 miles through Sector I and enters Fountain Lake.
As long as Mud Lake, (Sector 2), was not scheduled to be surveyed and Sector 3 was only a narrow drainage ditch, typical of most ditches in the area, no data was collected in Sector 3. In Sector 1, 14 species of fish representing seven families were captured. Yellow Perch were very abundant, while orange spotted sunfish, green sunfish, largemouth bass and black bullheads were fairly abundant. Other species which were quite common were carp, goldfish and central mudminnow. The fathead minnow was the only small minnow species taken and they were scarce.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-104
Management Recommendations:
Stocking None Habitat Improvement Further ditching and ditch maintenance should be discouraged to stabilize fish habitat in Fountain Lake. Applications to draw water from the creek for irrigation should be denied because of the general lack of permanent flow feeding the Fountain Lake reservoir. Land Acquisition None Additional Survey Work The impact of the new fish barrier needs to be researched more carefully to ascertain if it is beneficial to the northern pike population in Fountain Lake. Fish Management Problems Keeping northern pike from moving upstream into winterkill areas, (also potent spawning grounds, may be doing more harm than good.
Ecological Classification of Waterway Sector 1 - 0.0 ~ 2.9 - Class 3 Warmwater Feeders Sector 2 - 2.9 ~ 3.4 - Winterkill lake Sector 3 - 3.4 ~ 5.7 - Class 4 Straight Ditch
Wedges Creek County Ditch #9 and County Ditch #58
Wedges Creek is a small warmwater stream 9.5 miles long, which is tributary to Fountain Lake. It was surveyed in 1985. Permanent flow at low stage was 0.81 cfs. About 85 percent of the stream has been ditched to improve the land for agriculture, therefore there was very little habitat left for game fishes.
Eighteen species of fish representing eight families were captured by electro fishing the creek. Some adult crappies and northern pike and a few young-of-the-year largemouth bass were taken in the lower stream section below a permanent fish barrier. Black bullheads, orange spotted sunfish, green sunfish, yellow perch, white suckers and various minnows were very abundant fishes.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-105
Apparently largemouth bass spawn successfully in the lower part of the creek and it also provides a good spring season fishery for black crappies.
Management Recommendations:
Stocking None Habitat Improvement: Further ditching and ditch maintenance should be discouraged to stabilize fish habitat in Fountain Lake. Applications to draw water from the creek for irrigation should be denied because general lack of permanent flow to feed Fountain Lake reservoir. Land Acquisition None Additional Survey Work The impact of the new fish barrier needs to be researched more carefully to ascertain if it is beneficial to the northern pike population in Fountain Lake. Fish Management Problems Keeping northern pike from moving upstream into various marshy lakes may be doing more harm than good to the pike fishery in Fountain Lake because successful pike spawning appears to be lacking in Fountain Lake,
Ecological Classification of Waterway Sector 1 - mi. 0.0 - 1.4 - Class 3 warm water feeders Sector 2 - mi. 1.4 - 9.5 - Class 4 Rough Fish -.Forage Fish
Pickerel Lake
Pickerel Lake has a surface area of 715 acres and a maximum depth of six feet. The inlet is an unnamed creek which enters the lake and the southeast end. The outlet is Shoff Creek on the northwest end. Pickerel Lake has had problems with high turbidity, frequent winter kills, heavy algae blooms, high rough fish populations, and a lack of aquatic vegetation. Past management of the lake has been primarily -for waterfowl and furbearers (50). There is no current lake management plan for Pickerel Lake (54).
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-106
History and Past Management: All surveys have described Pickerel Lake as shallow and eutrophic, with turbid water and minimal aquatic vegetation. Frequent winterkill has favored black bullheads which are tolerant of low dissolved oxygen.
The initial survey in 1948 reported high turbidity (secchi 3 inches) and a heavy green algae bloom. Aquatic vegetation consisted of softstem and hardstem bullrush, arrowhead, and cattail scattered along the shore. The only fish species observed were carp and "bullheads, however a fisheries survey was not conducted.
The 1950 game lake survey found the lake in better condition. A lake drawdown was conducted in fall 1949 to induce winterkill of carp and "bullhead". A carp barrier was installed on the reconstructed dam. Turbidity was lower (secchi 21 inches) than in 1948 and attributed to an algae bloom. Six species of aquatic macrophytes were found with sago pondweed rated as common and other species occasional.
The lake was improving for waterfowl use. In August 1958, a third game lake survey was conducted. The water level was 12 in below normal. This resulted in high turbidity (secchi 8 in) from slit resuspension. Vegetation was reported as scarce compared to previous years with less than 1% of the lake vegetated. The only fish observed were dead bullheads.
There is no information available concerning the lake reclamation project conducted in 1966. The lake was treated with a fish toxicant to eliminate rough fish. Apparently the carp barrier on the dam was failing in 1967 as a new barrier was planned to be installed. The lake was managed for waterfowl and furbearers.
There is no detailed information describing a northern pike spawning project conducted in 1968. The project was deemed unsuccessful as no fry or fingerlings were found during four field checks.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-107
Fish stocking and removal records date back to 1915. Northern pike, "sunfish", "crappie", and largemouth bass were stocked sporadically from 1915-1940. "Bullhead" adults and yearlings were stocked annually from 1955-1960 totaling 63,500 fish.
No stocking occurred from 1961-1967. In 1968 7,240 "crappie" yearlings, 2,950 "sunfish" yearlings, and 34 northern pike yearlings were stocked. During the period 1946-1950 15,875 pounds of carp were removed from Pickerel Lake by contracted fishermen.
Pickerel Lake has been frequently opened to unlimited fishing in the winter due to winterkill conditions.
The first complete fisheries survey of Pickerel Lake was conducted in 1983. This survey found the lake had changed little since the Game Lake surveys were conducted.
Fish populations were dominated by small black bullheads (428/trapnet), all <10 in. A yellow perch population had developed (61/trapnet) with most perch from 5.0-7.0 in. Ages I and II yellow perch were collected indicating successful reproduction. Black crappie were also present (l/trapnet). other abundant species were green sunfish (22/trapnet) and carp (15/trapnet). Just one northern pike and two bluegills were collected.
Two management strategies were recommended in the 1983 survey. First, management to improve the size structure of the black bullhead population by occasional lake drawdown. The goal was to kill carp, green sunfish, and 90, of the black bullheads thus reducing competition faced by the remaining bullheads. The second strategy suggested using the lake to raise walleye for stocking other lakes. This was dependent upon a reduction or complete removal of roughfish populations by winterkill.
The survey pointed out the importance of maintaining an effective fish barrier at the outlet. Northern pike are thought to migrate into Pickerel Lake from Fountain Lake only to be killed when oxygen is depleted in winter.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-108
The 1984 survey was conducted to determine if carp and black bullhead populations had been reduced by winterkill to allow walleye rearing. Oxygen tests taken during the winter of 1983-84 and local reports of winterkill indicated that the majority of the fish population would be lost during the Winter. However, the survey indicated this was not the case. The winterkill did not reduce black bullhead and carp populations to levels needed for walleye rearing. The survey stated that the 1984 Lake Management Plan was cancelled because without drawdown Pickerel Lake would be nothing but a bullhead lake.
1993 Survey Results. A severe winterkill occurred in February 1993. This kill may be responsible for a large reduction in trapnet catch rates of black bullheads and carp. In 1984 mean catch of black bullheads was 1,524/set (106.5 lbs/set) and carp 85.0/set (88.9 lbs/set). Catch rates in 1993 were 45.3/set (13.9 lbs/set) for black bullheads and 44.3/set (46.9 lbs/set) for carp. Black bullhead abundance was average for lake class 43. Comparisons for carp are unavailable but abundance is likely also average. A similar situation occurred in 1983-84 with different results. Trapnetting catch of both species dramatically increased in 1984 after winterkill. Therefore the lower catch rates in 1993 must be interpreted with caution. Water levels and turbidity were high in 1993 which may have reduced trapnet effectiveness.
A black crappie population has developed since the 1984 survey. Only age 2 and 3 fish were collected indicating poor reproductive success in recant years. Trapnet catch rate was 14.4/set (2.6 lbs/set) with a mean length of 6.8 inches. Abundance and mean weight are average for lake class 43.
Yellow perch abundance was above average with average sized fish for the lake class. Age 2 and 3 fish dominated the catch with one age 4 fish collected.
Bluegill abundance has historically been low in Pickerel Lake. None were collected in 1984 (6 trapnets). Just 13 were captured in 1993. Ages 2-4 were present with a mean length of 5.7 inches. Green sunfish were captured at a rate of 3.6/set. This is average for the lake class. High numbers of green sunfish indicate a lack of predators, particularly largemouth bass.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-109
Electrofishing catch was very poor, likely due to turbid conditions. Fathead minnows were caught in good numbers (119/hr). Just two black crappie and 14 carp were collected in 2 bra of electrofishing.
1993 Water Quality Pickerel Lake was in similar condition in 1993 to that of past surveys. Water level was very high due to heavy spring and summer rainfall. The lake wee very turbid due to silt from runoff, wind action, and carp/bullhead activity. Secchi depth was only 6 in. Dissolved oxygen readings dropped to 1.0 mg/1 at a depth of 5 ft. A heavy fish kill occurred again in February 1994.
Social Considerations. A small county park is located on the west side of the lake. The lake access is in the park. Summer fishing pressure and recreational use data are not available however pressure is likely low. Fishing from ice houses in winter months has been good.
Limiting Factors. Without aeration to prevent winterkill, development of gamefish populations with multiple year classes will not occur. Aeration has been successful on Fountain Lake. However, the expense of aeration equipment and cost of operation and monitoring are prohibitive.
Land Acquisition None is needed.
Habitat Development and Acquisitions. Water quality improvement would lead to increased aquatic vegetation growth which would be valuable spawning and waterfowl habitat. However, this is unlikely due to the shallowness of the basin and heavy silt load present in the lake.
Commercial Fishery. Encourage utilization of carp and black bullheads by issuing commercial fishing permits.
Stocking Plans. Stocking is not planned due to frequent winterkill.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-110
Long Range Goals. Manage Pickerel Lake as a periodic winterkill lake. Habitat quality is poor for development of multiple year classes of gamefish. Management would require reclamation and aerator installation.
Upper Twin Lake
The management classification waterfowl – muskrat. A survey in 1966 recommended the following:
Access Acquisition. Access is a problem that should be remedied, and a parking area is needed.
Water Level Manipulation. Water level control should be instigated and levels should ~ be raised from 1 to 2 feet to provide more and better conditions for waterfowl and muskrats. A control gate at the outlet should be installed and a structure on the outlet on the north end should be installed to maintain water levels.
Fisheries Management. Eliminate carp from the lake to permit submerged vegetation to re-establish itself.
Shell Rock River
The permanent source of the Shell Rock River is considered to be Albert Lea Lake, a 2,654-acre reservoir. Albert Lea Lake is fed by drainage ditches, some urban effluent and Fountain Lake's 534-acre reservoir which receives almost all of its flow from agricultural drainage ditching. The river flowed primarily through open farmland and swamps. The current was very slow because of the extremely low gradient. This river was wide and shallow with only 13 pools being over four feet deep. The bed was comprised of largely sand, slit and muck.
The river was widest at the source, 125 feet average, and in at least one place it was over 200 feet wide. It then gradually became narrower and narrower until it was only 51 feet wide near the
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-111
Iowa line. The current and firmness of the bed gradually improved from the source to the mouth. The main source of new pollution in the Shell Rock River system probably comes from nutrients carried in runoff from urban and agricultural land.
Fish management problems: Water quality in the Shell Rock River was poor because of abundant silt and nutrients which had accumulated in the riverbed and the enriched inlet flow from Albert Lea Lake. The water in Sector 2 (above the new Albert Lea Sewage Plant) looked like pea soup during the summer survey. Most of the fish in this upper reach were killed during the hot summer months in 1985 when the river was extremely low. No fish were killed anywhere downstream of the new sewage plant (in Sector 1) which proves that the-water quality from the plant was much better than the water discharged from Albert Lea Lake. The effluent from this plant represented about 90 percent of the flow in the river at Mile 10.9 during the survey.
The river was surveyed in 1985 and the following was recommended:
Habitat Improvement: The water quality is poor in the river because of nutrients deposited at the river source in Albert Lea Lake. A method of recycling these nutrients needs to be deve1ped.
Ecological Classification of Waterway Sector 1, 0.0 to 11.4 Class II -C (Northern pike) Sector II (11.4 to ml. 12.2) Class IV Rough Fish - Forage Fish.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-112
2.27 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS
There are currently nine State Wildlife Management Areas in the County. Eight are open to public use. The management of the areas consists of managing water levels, improving habitat, and planting food plots where possible. October 1, 1985, there were three federal waterfowl protection areas in the County. In September 1986 there were two Statutory Game Refuges in the County. The Moscow Statutory Game Refuge is 1,120 acres, and with Fountain and Albert Lea Statutory Game Refuge is 7,600 acres.
Land use practices on private lands throughout the County are important to the quality of our lives and the welfare of the fish and wildlife. The most important component is that fish and wildlife management is local in nature.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-113
2.28 UNIQUE FEATURES AND SCENIC AREAS
2.28.1 County Setting
Impressive scenic areas are located in Freeborn County's preserved land areas, parks, and along trails. Continued maintenance and upgrading of these areas will contribute to increased future access and use. Freeborn County endorses enhancement of scenic areas for increased local and regional tourist use. The following is a summary specifying points of interest in the County:
Public Access Freeborn County has 13 public access points on lakes and none on rivers.
Rare Species A total of 10 rare plant species have been identified in Freeborn County.
Public Recreation Areas Freeborn County has one nature center, one swimming beach and four hunting areas.
Private Recreation Areas The County has one private group camp and no resorts.
Semi-Public Recreation Areas Freeborn County has eight privately owned public campgrounds; four golf courses; and, three shooting ranges.
Public Parks There are four municipal parks; five County parks; and, one state park within Freeborn County. Historic, Archeological, Scientific, Natural and Unique Protected Preserves and Areas. Freeborn County has 26 protected archeological sites; one historical site; one Nature Conservancy Preserves; and, no scientific, natural, or unique features areas. Scenic and natural areas exist at
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-114
Helmer Myre State Park Pioneer Village, and Nelson Wildlife Sanctuary. Archeological sites include mounds, burial, and camp/habitation.
2.28.2 Shell Rock River Watershed District Unique Features And Scenic Areas
There are Special Concern, and Threatened species in this watershed. There is no known endangered species.
Trails The County has 24.3 miles of hiking trails; 258 miles of snowmobile trails. and 11 5 miles of cross country skiing trail.
Special Concern, Threatened And Endangered Species The following plants exist in Freeborn County. The DNR Natural Heritage Program can provide additional information Common names for the plants, include:
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid -Platanthera praeclara Valerian -Valeriano Edulis Sullivant's Milkweed -Asclepias Sullivatii Rattlesnake-Master -Erygium Yuccifolium Tuberous Indian Plantain -Cacalia Plantaginea Canadian Black -.Snakefoot -Sanicula Canadensis Small White Lady's Slipper -Cypripedium Candidom
The following birds are found in Freeborn County. Common names for birds include: Common Moorhen -Gallinda Chloropus King Rail -Riallus Elgans
The following mammals are found in Freeborn County. Common names for mammals include: Eastern Spotted Skunk -Spilogale Potorius
More sites, and rare or endangered plant species probable, exist in the County but are unidentified.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 2-115
3.0 Implementation
3.1 APPROACH
The size of the District and unique issues involved across the District leads the Board to utilize a subwatershed-based approach in water resources management. The District consists of 18 subwatersheds.
3.2 GOALS
The Shell Rock River Watershed District Goals were created directly from the County Comprehensive Water Management Plan, the Albert Lea Lake Management Plan, and Board input and other documents. The utilization of pre-existing goals provides the Board with good public support for major issues in the watershed. The goals (projects) are listed in Appendices A through J, by resource category. The appendices detail the overall goal, the objective of the goal, the individual action steps, lead agencies, partners/secondary lead, conceptual cost estimate, potential funding sources, time line, and references. The references are abbreviated as C= County Plan, FL= Fountain Lake Management Plan, A = Albert Lea Lake Management Plan, and LC = Lake Chapeau Management Plan. The number associated with each goal is the order the goal occurs in the original reference.
3.3 PARTNERS AND FUNDING SOURCES
The partners and funding sources are identified in the appendices, and additional groups may be involved as projects develop. As identified in the Plan’s mission statement, it is the intent of the
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 3-1
Board to partner with other agencies and groups that are currently involved in a particular aspect of water management.
Identified funding sources include: • Grants (Federal, State, and local) • Ad valorum taxing authority, • Assessments, • Utility (floodwater) charge, • Sales taxes, and • Donations and bequests.
Each funding source will be targeted towards individual projects as they develop.
3.4 CONCEPTUAL COSTS AND TIMELINE
Conceptual costs were included in the implementation appendices to convey a macro level of funding needs for each project. Costs will be refined through time and also based on partner’s levels of contributions. A preliminary timeline is included on the appendices, which will also be refined with time and funding options.
T:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\finalpdf\finalplan.doc 3-2 Figures
Appendix A
Erosion Implementation Appendix A. Erosion Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - TO CONSERVE THE TOPSOIL IN THE SHELL ROCK RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT AND TO HOLD THE SOIL ON THE LAND District, County, Varies per SWCD District Grants, Federal, Ongoing C18, Page 29 Project SWCD
1. To reduce soil erosion from water and wind 1. Promote adoption of conservation tillage through an educational on problem lands. campaign. a) Determine reasons for non-adoption of conservation tillage, b) Develop materials that address reasons from a. above. ------and c) Track adoption through annual crop residue surveys.
2. Upon the completion of the soil survey, identify land with erosion potential in the following categories:a. less than T b. T to 2T, c. 2T ------to 4T, d. Greater than 4T, 3. After Action 2 is completed, identify sites with erosion in ------categories c. and d. 4. Concurrent with Action 3, promote implementation of additional soil conservation practices for sites in categories c. and d., of Action 2. a. Landowners having erosion problems in categories c. and d. should implement conservation practice alternatives, such as ------30% residue. b. Promote conservation support programs available for adoption of conservation practices.
5. Landowners with erosion sites in category d. of Action 2, that cannot be controlled by conservation practices should be encouraged to place those lands under conservation use ------easements or to contact conservation agencies or organizations for purchase. This Action should be ongoing.
2. Reduce soil loss due to concentrated flow 1. With continuous CRP sign-up, promote conservation incentive during storm events. program practices to control concentrated flow erosion problems. ------
2. As an ongoing action, identify sites with persistent gully problems. a. Contact landowners having gully problems to present ------conservation practice alternatives. 3. Reduce sediment delivery to surface waters. 1. As an ongoing activity, identify sites along streams, ditches and lakes needing sediment control. a. Require the installation of filter strips. b. Promote french drain tile systems. c. Research and ------implement alternative methods of protecting surface tile inlets to reduce sediment delivery through tile systems.
4. Provide necessary support resources for 1. Identify resources needed to support demand for conservation adoption of conservation measures. services and programs in objectives 1 and 2. a. Identify sources of support from agencies, volunteers and other local resources. b. ------Assist local agencies in meeting their staffing needs to ensure conservation planning and resource needs are fully utilized.
2. Develop a Shell Rock River Watershed District catalog of conservation practices, programs and services to be distributed to landowners through local government offices, agricultural lenders ------and producer groups. 3. Cooperate with the Land Improvement Contractors Association to encourage contractors to work on small scale conservation practices. a. Determine the reasons contractors do not seek ------conservation work. b. Develop a strategy to overcome the reasons identified in 3a.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP A. Erosion Page 1 of 2 Appendix A. Erosion Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - CONTROL AND PREVENT EROSION ALONG LAKE SHORE AND RESTORE SEVERELY DAMAGED Grants, District, SHORELINE AREAS. DNR, USACE, $5 to $25 per C19, Page 32 A7 District Private, USACE, Ongoing City, County linear foot State Page 9
1. Educate the public on erosion control. 1. Possible use of partial temporary drawdowns to establish Everyone who wants to should participate. shoreline vegetation in order to mitigate erosive wave and ice ------Some groups will have a more active role than action. others. 2. Publish case histories of success and failure. ------3. Report on the condition of the shoreline. Grade the severity of erosion around the lake. Research the impact of erosion and cost ------to repair. 4. Seek cooperation from relevant agencies, (County Board, DNR, MPCA, SWCD, City of Albert Lea and landowners) in setting an ------example by fixing their shorelines. 5. Demonstrate erosion control and shoreline restoration projects ------such as aquascaping along public lands. 6. Utilize the Shell Rock River Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee to accomplish tasks and to promote an education plan, ------which should include necessary funding 7. Create avenues to present educational material to the public and keep the message of erosion control up front and in the news (e.g. Video, Web Page, Public TV, Public Service Announcements). ------
2. Present options to riparian landowners 1. Consider permitting program to encourage agreed-upon or ------regarding how to repair their shoreline. selected methods. 2. Create and present options that are effective and aesthetically pleasing. Options may include: near shore dredging with backhoe, aquascaping, riprap with fieldstone or quarry rock, shaping bank to a 3:1 slope, utilizing filter blanket with riprap, require a buffer from the ------waters edge, and possible use of aeration to minimize ice damage. Consider riprap with field stone rather than quarry stone whenever possible. Develop a demonstration project.
3. Encourage aquascaping, discourage retaining walls. ------4. Develop a list of contractors who are qualified to do the types of ------work presented as options. 5. Identify costs associated with various practices. ------6. Disseminate the above information to all residents through a ------newsletter. 3: Establish a funding mechanism to help offset 1. Develop a cost share program. ------the cost of erosion control work. 2. Consider an assessment that will be paid back over a selected ------time period. 3. Consider a loan program. ------4. Encourage multiple landowners to work together to lower costs. ------5. Research the availability and applicability of other state and ------federal programs that might be used to offset costs.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP A. Erosion Page 2 of 2 Appendix B
Lakes Implementation
Appendix B. Lakes Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ POTENTIAL LEAD CONCEPTUAL SECONDARY FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY COST ESTIMATE LEAD SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - SEEK A CLEAN WATER PARTNERSHIP PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCES OF POLLUTING ENTERING ALBERT LEA LAKE. District MPCA $5,000 District 2004 C 15, Page 21 1. Work with the City of Albert Lea, Freeborn 1. Apply to the MPCA for a Clean Water Partnership project, and County and other parties interested in the seek the support and sponsorship of local group of concerned improvement of the water quality of Albert Lea citizens, sportsmen, school class, conservation club , City of Albert Lake. Lea, County Board of Commissioners, Riverland Community ------College, and WRC-MSU who will help make a CWP successful.
PROJECT GOAL - DEVELOP AN ALBERT LEA LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT SUSTAINS ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND District, City of INTEGRATES GOALS FOR WATER QUALITY, FISH MANAGEMENT, DAM REPLACEMENT, EROSION CONTROL, County, DNR, District $75,000 AL, County, 2004 C32, Page 57; C34, RECREATION, AERATION, AND VEGETATION. USACE Grants, DNR Page 59, A6, Page 8; C33, Page 58; 1. To develop a plan having public approval so 1. Insure that the lake management plan addresses these issues: A2, Page 6; A5 that actions can be implemented. dredging and places to spread the spoil, improving shoreline and Page 8; C16, Page other aquatic vegetation, controlling ice damage, improving water ------22. quality, and improving fish and wildlife habitat.
2. Replace the Albert Lea Lake Dam. 1. Clarify management responsibility for the dam, since it has been determined the County has ownership. -- -- $1,000,000 -- 2004 (Planning) -- 2. The design should allow for water level control to maximize flood flow efficiency and minimize bounce; to manage sediment transport, aquatic vegetation and rough fish, and to limit ice ------damage to shoreline.
3. Consider draw downs to establish aquatic plants and improve water quality, and/or to provide flood control in the City of Albert ------Lea. 4. Improve recreational opportunities (e.g. canoeing, fishing, ------parking) at or near the dam. 3. Habitat rehabilitation that focuses on 1. Upper watershed treatments to enhance and sustain improved water quality and clarity through the improvements in the lake environment to include agricultural buffer implementation of both in lake and upper strips on ditches and streams, restoration of wetlands and ------watershed treatments. floodplains, urban runoff abatements, sediment catch-basins, and other measures as necessary to improve water quality.
2. Preservation and enhancement of shoreland and riparian zones around lakes and along water courses in the watershed with an ------emphasis on the promoting of native species propagation and the control of exotic and invasive species. 3. Employ lake management techniques for the purposes of facilitating the restoration of aquatic macrophyte vegetation (with benefits for water quality, shoreland buffers for reducing erosion, and fish and wildlife habitat enhancement); the consolidation, stabilization and oxidation of lake bottom sediments, the control of ------carp and rough fish populations (which stir up bottom sediments and reduce water clarity affecting aquatic vegetation generation and subsequently habitat biodiversity) and the enhancement of aesthetic values.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP B. Lakes Page 1 of 6 Appendix B. Lakes Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ POTENTIAL LEAD CONCEPTUAL SECONDARY FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY COST ESTIMATE LEAD SOURCES 4. Possible use of aquatic vegetative plantings where necessary to enhance habitat for food and nesting sites, and mitigate shoreland ------erosion. 5. Possible employment of chemical treatment to supplement the efficiency of possible drawdowns used for the purposes of ------controlling carp and rough fish populations. 6. Possible harvesting, or netting, of rough fish to assist in maintaining the stability of bottom sediments and enhance water ------clarity. 7. Stocking of predator game fish to assist in rough fish control and ------the lengthening of the clear water cycle. 8. The timely use of aeration to maintain healthy game fish populations in controlling rough fish and extending the clear water ------cycle should be considered. 4. Possibly dredge the lake. 1. Remove fine flocculent sediment to minimize resuspension in District, USACE, City of $10,000,000 to areas identified in a Lake Management Plan. District USACE, City of 2004 (Planning) -- AL, DNR, County $20,000,000 2. DNR Fisheries recommendations. AL 3. Research purchasing a dredge. Cost from City of ------Albert Lea Study 4. Prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. ------5. Obtain all other necessary permits. ------6. Consider removing soft sediment in West Basin for deep-water ------fish habitat, improved water quality and recreation. 7. Consider very limited dredging in the Central Basin ------8. Design and construct sediment traps ------9. Clean out channel between Albert Lea Lake and Fountain Lake ------10. Lease/purchase necessary acres for placement of dredge ------spoils. PROJECT GOAL - DEVELOP LAKE MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR CHAPEAU, CHURCH, FOUNTAIN, GOOSE, HALL, LOWER TWIN, PICKEREL, SCHOOL SECTION, SUGAR AND UPPER TWIN LAKES District, City of County, District $40,000 Per Lake AL, County, 2004 C17, Page 27 USACE, DNR Grants, DNR
1. Identify groups of citizens interested in the 1. Consider applying to the MPCA for a Lake Assessment Project, improvement of the water quality of the LAP and seek the support and sponsorship local group of watershed lakes. concerned citizens, sportsmen, school class, conservation club , ------City of Albert Lea, County Board of Commissioners, Riverland Community College, and WRC-MSU. 2. Seek support and sponsorship of local units of government. ------2: Complete an inventory of all dams ; obtain 1. Inventory all dams in the watershed and clarify the ownership of information on their condition, ownership, and and management responsibility for each dam. Determine operation; and develop a priority of actions. management roles and responsibilities. Determine the intended ------function and condition of each dam.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP B. Lakes Page 2 of 6 Appendix B. Lakes Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ POTENTIAL LEAD CONCEPTUAL SECONDARY FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY COST ESTIMATE LEAD SOURCES PROJECT GOALS - LAKE CHAPEAU District, 2004 District DNR, Lake Varies by Project Private, LC 1; page 1 Chapeau Lake (Planning) Habitat Chapeau 1. Reinstall the water control structure 1. Take the necessary actions including eminent domain to achieve the land owner's permission to reinstall the water control Assoc. $30,000 Habitat structure. Assoc. 2. Determine management responsibilities for the water control structure. The Lake Chapeau Habitat Committee will be responsible for the cost of building the water control structure in ------accordance with the existing agreement with the DNR. However, the DNR requires a local government entity to accept responsibility for, care of the structure. 3. The water control structure will be installed at the level agreed on by the Lake Chapeau Habitat Committee and the DNR. The structure will be designed so that stop logs can be removed the and lake level lowered as needed to properly manage the lake. However, Lake Chapeau could be used as a temporarily holding basin therefore it is recommended that the water control structure ------be stepped. One half would be at the agreed elevation, the other half would have additional stop logs installed to a level two feet above the agreed on level. This would allow the lake to temporarily retain about 350 acre feet of water in heavy rain events.
2. Control rough fish. 1. Establish a rough fish removal program (commercial netting). ------LC 2; page 2 2. Establish carp barriers on the dam. ------3. Install carp traps on the creek that flows into Fountain Lake. ------4. Stock the lake with predator fish. ------3. Establish a game fishery. 1. Stock lake with appropriate game fish. ------2. Install an aeration system to increase oxygen levels in winter ------and prevent winter kill. 3. Develop and mark the city-owned walk-in trail on the southeast ------side of the lake. 4. Consider installing a public boat landing on the lake. ------4. Re-establish the west side as a water fowl 1. Install the water control structure at a level that maintains the District, nesting site. proper water level in the marsh on the west side of the lake. DNR District Varies by Project Ongoing LC 3; page 2 Private, DNR 2. Develop floating nesting sites for ducks and geese. ------3. Encourage lake property owners to place duck nesting boxes on ------their shoreline. 5. Improve water quality through re- 1. Control rough fish population. See No. 2. District, DNR District Varies by Project Ongoing LC 4; page 2 establishment of submergent plants. Private, DNR
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP B. Lakes Page 3 of 6 Appendix B. Lakes Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ POTENTIAL LEAD CONCEPTUAL SECONDARY FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY COST ESTIMATE LEAD SOURCES 6. Maintain Lake Chapeau as a quiet waters 1. Maintain the current no wake rule District, Concurrent recreational lake. County District $1,000 LC 5; page 3 Private, DNR with Lake Plan
2. Establish a noise ordinance for the lake. ------3. Encourage the use of the lake by canoeists in the community. ------7. Consider the Benefits of sediment removal. 1. Conduct a study into the feasibility, benefits and costs of District, Concurrent sediment removal. District DNR Undetermined LC 6; page 3 Private, DNR with Lake Plan PROJECT GOALS - FOUNTAIN LAKE 1. Fisheries Management 1. MN DNR to continue game fish stocking District, District, City DNR Varies by Project Private, DNR, Ongoing FL 1; page 1 of AL City of AL 2. Place artificial fish habitat into Bancroft Bay Area. A) PVC tubes stacked into triangle and placed into sandy bank for catfish, b) woody debris for pan fish, c) spawning habitat for northern pike, d) ------installation of cribs for panfish habitat in designated areas.
3. Improve aquatic habitat. A) Plant emergent submergent and floating leaf vegetation in Bancroft Bay and Pleasant Bay area. ------
4. Rough Fish Control. A) Fish barriers at Wedge Creek, White Lake Outlet Creek, Bancroft Creek, Goose Lake Outlet Creek and ------Pickerel Lake. 5. Seining of rough fish. ------2. Improve water quality and clarity. 1. Sediment traps in Bancroft Creek, Wedge Creek, Goose Lake District, City Outlet. District, County, of AL, DNR, Varies by Project 2004 (Planning) FL 2; page 1 City of AL DNR, MPCA MPCA, County 2. Install sediment traps in storm water basins (City of Albert Lea) ------and add green strips in new developments. 3. Provide method to disperse geese that gather at lake aeration ------sites. 4. Treat lake with flocculent. ------5. Stabilize lake bottom sediments with vegetation. ------6. On lake fueling. ------7. Create green space to filter run-off before it enters lake. ------8. Incorporate government acres, stables area and similar areas ------into the City Sewer System. 3. Stablize shoreline and educate lakeshore 1. Develop vegetative shoreline protection demonstration project in District, City District, USACE, owners. Edgewater Park. Varies by Project of AL, DNR, Ongoing FL4; page 2 City of AL DNR MPCA 2. Provide shoreland education program for lakeshore owners and ------students. 3. Rock rip-rap around Katherine Island. ------4. Gradually replace concrete rip-rap with field stone. ------5. Analyze future of channel. ------
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP B. Lakes Page 4 of 6 Appendix B. Lakes Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ POTENTIAL LEAD CONCEPTUAL SECONDARY FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY COST ESTIMATE LEAD SOURCES 4. Replace dam. 1. Variable crest dam. ------5. Develop a sediment removal plan based on scientific knowledge. District, District, Concurrent with DNR Undetermined Private, DNR, FL5; page 2 City of AL Lake Plan City of AL
6. Establish Baseline Water Quality Data. 1. Parameters that will be monitored for : turbidity, temperature, USACE, dissolved oxygen, redox, conductivity, nitrate, pH, phosphorous, DNR, City of $10,000 (with District District, City Ongoing FL6; page 3 chlorophyll, fecal coliform, samples can be taken every other week AL, County GIS) of AL, DNR and during storm events. 2. Perform year-round monitoring but winter monitoring will be ------specific to dissolved oxygen 3. All monitoring sites and data collected will be linked to an Arc------View database. 4. Compile and provide data to local, state and federal agencies ------and general public 5. Storm Water outlets will be monitored in our Comprehensive ------Water Plan. 7. Access between Albert Lea Lake and 1. Consider a Lock and Dam system to connect Albert Lea Lake District, City of Fountain Lake with Fountain Lake District, DNR, Concurrent Undetermined AL, USACE, FL7; page 3 City of AL USACE DNR, City of AL with Lake Plan PROJECT GOAL - SUPPORT THE DNR GOALS TO IMPROVE THE FISHERIES OF THE SHELL ROCK RIVER WATERSHED District, DISTRICT DNR District Varies by Project Ongoing C41, Page 77 DNR 1. Seek to improve the water quality of 1. Encourage and support communities in the evaluation of their watershed protected waters. waste water treatment systems and improvements it if necessary. ------
2. Support LAPs as needed to determine the water quality of ------streams and lakes of the watershed. 3. Promote erosion control to reduce runoff loading throughout the ------watershed. 4. Support activities to reduce urban and rural nutrient, chemical ------and sediment runoff into public waters. 2. Seek to improve recreational access to the 1. Encourage the Minnesota and Iowa Department of Natural river. Resources to cooperatively establish a canoe route and primitive ------camp sites on the river. 3. Inhance water quality through the restoration 1. Ask DNR to proceed with vegetation mapping on Albert Lea District, of aquatic plants, wildlife habitat and fisheries on Lake. DNR District Varies by Project Ongoing A4, Page 7 USACE, DNR Albert Lea Lake. 2. Take core samples to determine depth and type of viable seed ------bank existing in the lake. 3. Work with Minnesota State University to germinate seed banks and establish a aquatic plant restoration plan for Albert Lea Lake. ------
4. Start aquatic nursery in existing farmland ponds. ------5. Consider a more extensive draw down after deep-water fish habitat has been established, the emergency aeration permit has ------been issued and the aeration equipment installed.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP B. Lakes Page 5 of 6 Appendix B. Lakes Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ POTENTIAL LEAD CONCEPTUAL SECONDARY FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY COST ESTIMATE LEAD SOURCES 6. Establish a management plan for non-native/exotic species. ------7. Purchase and manually plant native species like hard stem bull rush, chara, and lemna. Hand planted areas may also be protected by wave breakers allowing them a better chance of survival. ------
4. Maintain and enhance existing game fisth 1. Research and implement reestablishing the rough fish removal District, populations and improve water quality (through program (commercial netting). DNR District, MPCA Varies by Project Ongoing A3, Page 6 DNR, MPCA fisheries management). 2. Research and implement installing carp traps where necessary. ------3. Research and implement installing an electric weir on the Shell ------Rock River for rough fish control. 4. Research and implement stocking of predator fish (Consulting ------with DNR for appropriate species). 5. Maintain and enhance existing game fish 1. Research and implement emergency (5ppm) aeration permit in populations and create a sustainable fishery. channel between Fountain and Albert Lea Lakes. ------
2. Consideration of slot limits/ catch and release program for ------predator fish. 3. Improving spawning habitats for all game fish. ------4. Provide deep-water habitat described in the limited dredging ------plan. 5. Aid and encourage DNR to fulfill and fund their operational plans and objectives in their 2001 Fisheries Lakes Management Plan for ------Albert Lea Lake. 6. To provide aquatic ambush sites or rock structures for predator ------fish. 7. Improve fishing in Shell Rock River below Albert Lea Lake. ------
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP B. Lakes Page 6 of 6 Appendix C
Streams Implementation
Appendix C. Streams Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - MAINTAIN EFFICIENT SYSTEM AND REDUCE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT, NUTRIENTS AND District, County, Varies by C20, Page 36 PESTICIDES INTO THE COUNTY SURFACE WATERS THROUGH THE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS District County, Ongoing SWCD Project C21, Page 37 Private 1. Maintain or improve upon existing ditch 1. Require vegetative buffer strips along both public and private ------system. ditches in order to minimize soil deposition. 2. Support and encourage utilization of Reinvest in Minnesota and Conservation Reserve Program to compensate property owners for ------the vegetative buffer strips along open water ditches.
3. Identify the location of injection wells and require their closure. When appropriate, seek federal, state funding to replace that ------injection well with wetland acres. 4. Educate landowners about land treatment measures to minimize ------sedimentation in ditches. 5. Seek more consistent enforcement of State Drainage Laws. ------6. Work with NRCS and other state and federal agencies to identify marginal cropland and then approach landowners about alternative ------uses for that land. 7. Require grass buffer strips along public drainage ditches. ------8. Promote the use of BMP around surface water inlets on ------agricultural land. 9. Determine sediment loading of surface waters by measuring flow in that ditch, creek, or stream and analyzing for Total ------Suspended Solids. 2. Reduce soil erosion in farm drainage ditch 1. Seek state revolving fund loans for the Agricultural Best systems. Management Practices Program. ------2. Level spoil banks when County ditches are being maintained or ------realigned. 3. Identify ditches that contribute excessive sediment to the surface ------waters. 4. Educate landowners on State of Minnesota drainage Laws. ------5. Promote conservation practices on all agricultural lands through ------the Soil and Water Conservation Service.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP C. Streams Page 1 of 3 Appendix C. Streams Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES 3. Maintain or improve the existing drainage 1. Prepare a Comprehensive Ditch and Drainage Maintenance systems in the watershed. Plan identifying the problems and needs of each county ditch in the watershed and retaining drainage efficiency of the systems. The plan would include assessments of: a) The condition of the ditches and options for maintenance, b) development of treatments for impervious surface runoff in developing areas, c) surface intakes, d) tile inlets, e) water retention, which can include long term and ------temporary storage, f) silt traps, g) bank stability problems, h) conservation buffers, i) the retention of existing natural outlets and natural buffers, and j) the channel grade and capacity of all drainage systems.
2. Require storm water retention facilities for all development sites ------to control runoff from impervious surfaces. 3. Require storm water retention facilities to control runoff from ------county, state, and federal highway drainage systems. 4. Identify existing natural stream buffer and natural retention sites. a) Select and protect all effective sites through easement or ------purchase programs of natural retention basins.
5. Identify and install strategic sites for water retention. ------4. Reduce soil erosion and sedimentation 1. Identify ditches that contribute excessive sediment to surface affecting drainage systems. waters to establish priority drainage systems needing treatment. ------
2. As an ongoing activity, repair sites along ditches with erosion and chronic bank stability problems. ------3. As an ongoing activity, prevent sediment from entering drainage system through soil conservation practices on the upland. ------
4. As an ongoing activity, establish vegetated buffers along public and private ditches using programs available to landowners through ------Shell Rock Watershed District, federal, state and local programs. 5. Research and implement alternative methods of protecting tile inlets and surface intakes to reduce sediment delivery to ditches. ------
6. Install silt traps at strategic sites in ditches with provision for ------efficient removal and disposal of sediment. 7. Promptly level spoil banks when ditches are maintained as an ------ongoing activity.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP C. Streams Page 2 of 3 Appendix C. Streams Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES 5. Relieve flooding problems in the Shell Rock 1. Identify damage in the river as a result of the 1993 flood that is River below Albert Lea Lake. impeding flow in the river or causing erosional problems. a. Seek cooperation with regulatory agencies to develop and implement a plan to repair damaged sites and remove obstacles. b. Seek ------cooperation with regulatory agencies to develop a monitoring and maintenance plan for the river below Albert Lea Lake to minimize future damage.
2. Request the MN DNR to contact the IA DNR and investigate ways to improve water quality and flow in the Shell Rock River. ------
PROJECT GOAL - TO IMPROVE EFFICIENT USE OF NUTRIENTS, REDUCING NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. District, County, Varies by District County, Ongoing C24, Page 47 SWCD Project Private 1. Promote appropriate use of nutrients to 1. Promote soil testing on a regular cycle provide optimum crop yields while minimizing ------nutrient loss to surface water and groundwater.
2. Promote timely application of fertilizer through a watershed newsletter, producer groups and county fair promotion. ------
3. Encourage private sector assistance for nutrient management ------planning. 2. Prevent over-application of municipal 1. Review sewage sludge generators sludge application wastewater treatment sludge on agricultural management plans to maintain nutrient and heavy metal lands to prevent build up of nutrients and heavy concentrations in soils at acceptable levels established by MPCA. ------metals in accordance with current MPCA The plans will include monitoring protocols and identification of regulations. alternate disposal sites.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP C. Streams Page 3 of 3 Appendix D
Urban Implementation
Appendix D. Urban Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - CONTINUE WITH IMPROVEMENTS OF THE CITY OF ALBERT LEA WASTE WATER TREATMENT MPCA, Varies by City of AL, FACILITY SYSTEM TO ASSURE EXCELLENT TREATMENT AND MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR EMERGENCY BYPASS OF City of AL Ongoing C6, Page 10 WASTEWATER. District Project MPCA 1. Adequately fund the annual capital 1. Educate public on the cost/benefit ratio of wastewater treatment. improvement budget to continue improvement of ------wastewater treatment. 2. Seek necessary fee increases. ------3. Identify alternative sources of funding. ------2. Communicate improvements to the public 1. News releases and special features. ------using the following resources: 2. Adult community education. ------3. Flyers in utility bills. ------4. Posting on the City Home Page. ------3. When an emergency bypass occurs, minimize 1. Publish news releases with information on when, where, and why the impact and inform the public. Research and a bypass will occur; the volume of water expected, the reason for ------implement a permanent solution. the bypass, and alternatives. 2. Follow the notification emergency response procedures. ------4. Work with users on pretreatment and water 1. Identify users whose wastewater needs additional treatment. ------conservation. 2. Educate the public on the advantages of water conservation. ------3. Provide water conservation kits to homeowners. ------5. Continue sump pump/clean water abatement 1. Reduce negative user responses by educating the public about program. the need and benefits that result from separating clean water from ------wastewater. 2. Seek the support of environmental groups and non-profit ------organizations. 3. Investigate cost sharing and deferred assessment strategies. ------4. Publish an annual report of savings in wastewater treatment capacity and treatment dollars as a result of the program. ------6. Research effects of pharmaceuticals, low- 1. Investigate use of ozone, ultraviolet or other methods of level contaminants, pathogens and other advanced treatment. ------potential health issues. PROJECT GOAL - OBTAIN MEASURABLE STORM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT BY SEEKING OPPORTUNITIES TO City of AL, Varies by IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF STORM WATER RUNOFF. District City of AL MPCA, Ongoing C7, page 10 Project District 1. Ensure that current construction and industrial 1. Improve linkage between local and state agencies on project storm water discharge standards are being met. review. ------
2. Provide an annual education seminar for builders and developers on storm water management practices that will protect the water ------quality of streams and lakes. 3. Review the status of all industries in the watershed that require industrial discharge permits. ------
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP D. Urban Implementation Page 1 of 7 Appendix D. Urban Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES 4. Identify urban storm water discharge points to streams, wetlands ------and lakes. 2. Retrofit existing storm water systems for 1. Accelerate the existing program to install effective sediment traps water quality benefit. and floatable controls on all storm water system inlets. ------
2. Identify and research and implement public, private, and non- profit owners of property with existing impervious surfaces such as ------parking lots to retrofit the storm water drainage system with sediment traps and detention structures. 3. The City of Albert Lea will proactively 1. Develop adequate staff and financial resources to implement the implement the Federal Phase II Storm Water Phase II Storm Water Management Program. ------Permit requirements. 2. Educate builders, developers and realtors on the existing and Phase II Storm Water Management thresholds that require specific ------conservation practices. 4. Identify and seek to improve urban lawn and 1. Provide public education regarding the effect of unneeded and/or vegetation management practices that adversely excessive use of phosphorus, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides ------impact water quality. on local water quality. 2. Develop a program of urban soil testing for lawns, flowerbeds ------and vegetable gardens. 3. Evaluate the need for an ordinance regulating the use of ------chemicals on lawns, flowerbeds and vegetable gardens. 4. Develop District rules on “alternative landscaping” opportunities with the emphasis on riparian property. ------5. Improve street management practices to 1. Use remote cameras to locate inflow and infiltration problems in reduce water quality impacts. sanitary and storm water sewer systems. Research and implement ------compliance measures. 2. Encourage cooperation between the City of Albert Lea and other communities when confronted with emergency incidents effecting the environment and other technical matters. Cooperation could ------include use of regular trucks and a vacuum truck.
3. Encourage the City of Albert Lea to continually assess and address pollution problems that may relate to urban snow removal. ------
PROJECT GOAL - OBTAIN MEASURABLE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES OF SMALL Varies by County City, COMMUNITIES. County District, Cities Ongoing C8, Page 12 Project MPCA
1. Identify small communities that have public 1. Evaluate the adequacy and functioning of the existing public utilities that adversely affect water quality, and utility systems of all small communities in the watershed. ------establish priorities for the improvement of those public utilities.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP D. Urban Implementation Page 2 of 7 Appendix D. Urban Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES 2. Establish priorities for improvement/replacement of public utility systems that are based upon the severity and magnitude of the ------problem and the impact on water quality. 2. Determine the need for financial assistance to 1. Determine the cost of the needed improvements in each high priority communities based upon the community. ------communities’ ability to pay for the services.
2. Establish a committee of elected officials from the affected communities, the County, the City of Albert Lea and the MPCA to determine each community’s financial needs. The needs should be determined by a review and evaluation of the existing and projected ------tax base, existing public debt obligations, the existing operating budget, and proposed expenditures in the capital improvement plan.
3. Obtain public support for public utilities by 1. Hold the meetings in each of the affected communities and holding information meetings in small discuss: a) problems, b) possible solutions and costs and benefits ------communities. of each solution, and c) consequences of taking no action 2. Utilize volunteer community organizations and individuals to help ------gain support for resolving problems. 4. Help small communities develop budgets and 1. Freeborn County to assist communities in obtaining funds and obtain funds for necessary improvements in assistance in developing a funding plan. ------public utilities. 2. Determine short term (1-5 years) water quality improvement projects. a. Study and develop information on inflow-infiltration (I-I) problems. ------b. Initiate a sump pump abatement program. c. Install manhole sumps as maintenance is performed d. Televise sanitary sewer systems to determine I-I problems. 3. Determine long term (5-20 years) water quality improvement projects including the feasibility of the following: a. Replacement of storm and sanitary sewer lines. b. Piping sanitary sewage to the City of Albert Lea. ------c. Up-grading treatment ponds. d. Installing storm water detention basins.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP D. Urban Implementation Page 3 of 7 Appendix D. Urban Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY OF THE CITY OF ALBERT LEA’S STORM WATER MANAGEMENT District, Varies by Cityof AL, City of AL Ongoing C9, page 14 SYSTEM MPCA Project MPCA 1. Require the City to evaluate the condition of 1. Encourage the City to seek engineering assistance to evaluate its storm water management system, and to its storm water management system. ------submit a Local Water Management Plan to the District. 2. Establish a schedule and priority if repair or replacement is ------required. 2. If corrective action is required, seek 1. Seek priority placement on the MPCA Wastewater Infrastructure additional funding to augment the City budget. Fund, WIF. ------
2. Investigate other potential sources of supplemental funding. ------PROJECT GOAL - DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY OF THE CITY OF GLENVILLE’S STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM . District, City, County District, City $10,000 MPCA, Ongoing C10, Page 14 County
1. Require the City to evaluate the condition of 1. Encourage the City to seek engineering assistance to evaluate the its storm water management system. its storm water management system. ------
2. Establish a schedule and priority if repair or replacement is ------required. 2. If corrective action is required, seek 1. Seek priority placement on the MPCA Wastewater Infrastructure additional funding to augment the City budget. Fund, WIF. ------
2. Investigate other potential sources of supplemental funding. ------PROJECT GOAL - DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD’S STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM County District, City $10,000 City, District Ongoing C11, Page 15
1. Require the City to evaluate the condition of 1. Encourage the City to seek engineering assistance to evaluate the its storm water management system. its storm water management system. ------
2. Establish a schedule and priority if repair or replacement is ------required. 2. If corrective action is required, seek 1. Seek priority placement on the MPCA Wastewater Infrastructure additional funding to augment the City budget. Fund, WIF. ------
2. Investigate other potential sources of supplemental funding. ------
PROJECT GOAL - SUPPORT CLARK'S GROVE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE FLOODING AND STORMWATER QUALITY City, Varies by District City, District Ongoing -- County Project 1. Support City's ongoing efforts of capital ------improvements.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP D. Urban Implementation Page 4 of 7 Appendix D. Urban Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - DETERMINE IF THE CITY OF MANCHESTER NEEDS A PUBLIC UTILITIES SYSTEM. County District, City $5,000 City, District Ongoing C12, Page 15
1. To determine the need for a City public 1. Encourage the City to seek engineering assistance to evaluate system. its lack of public utilities on both surface water and ground water ------supplies. 2. Establish a schedule and priority if public utilities are required. ------2. If public utilities are required, seek additional 1. Seek priority placement on the MPCA Wastewater Infrastructure funding to augment the City budget. Fund, WIF. ------
2. Investigate other potential sources of supplemental funding. ------
PROJECT GOAL - IDENTIFY AND REDUCE SOURCES OF URBAN POLLUTION. Cities, County, Varies by C22, Page 39; District District, Ongoing Cities Project C13 Page 16 County 1. Identify and eliminate residential sources of 1. Develop a program to identify and close garage floor drains. pollution from petroleum products and ------hazardous by-products beginning in 2001 and continuing. 2. Provide continuing education about the danger of accumulating household hazardous waste and continue to provide a collection ------system that is convenient to use. 2. Reduce the amount of soil amendments and 1. Develop a program to provide and advertise a program of free by-products that enter surface water. soil testing along with information regarding the need for soil amendments based on the various soil types in the County. a. Provide free soil testing and recommendations for fertilizer use on ------lawns and gardens. b. Provide the information to the public so they can use the appropriate fertilizer mix for lawn and garden application. 2. Require the City of Albert Lea and other municipalities of ------Freeborn County adopt a zero phosphorus recommendation for 3. Require the public, City of Albert Lea maintenance, and City residents to responsibly dispose of lawn clippings. ------
3. Increase the use of free compost and wood 1. Inform the public, using a media campaign, about the availability chips throughout the County. and use of free compost and wood chips. ------2. Inform County farmers about the availability of free compost as a ------soil amendment. 4. Reduce volume and velocity of urban runoff. 1. Develop a program to install vegetative buffers of native plants along the lake and stream shorelines of city, private and County ------property. 2. Develop an incentive program to install detention basins to control surface water runoff. a. Assist communities in finding ------funding and devising methods and oversight procedures to correct problem sites.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP D. Urban Implementation Page 5 of 7 Appendix D. Urban Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES 3. Develop a plan to gain state support to require controls and treatment for runoff from State highways, I-35 and I-90 before the ------runoff enters the surface waters of Freeborn County. 4. Ensure compliance with building permits requirements to manage ------runoff. 5. Identify the sources of commercial and 1. Review reports of industrial handling of hazardous by-products ------industrial pollution. and verify procedures by conducting spot checks. 2. Identify and inspect salvage yards to ensure compliance with the Motor Vehicle Salvage Facility Environmental Compliance Manual, ------Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1994.
3. Inspect and ensure that only appropriate items are placed in the ------sanitary landfill. 4. Inspect and ensure that only appropriate items are placed in the ------demolition landfill. 5. Develop a list of small hazardous waste generators other than regulated industries and determine the highest priority of risk. a. Develop a program for small hazardous waste generators to safely ------and conveniently dispose of their hazardous waste.
6. Develop a program to require regular cleaning of hard surfaced ------parking lots. 6. To evaluate the condition of the communities 1. Seek funds to engage engineering assistance to evaluate the individual sewage treatment systems and the feasibility of a community wastewater treatment systems. ------need of community wastewater treatment systems. 2. Establish a drinking water testing program for the villages to determine if there are unsafe levels of nitrates/ fecal coliform in the ------water supply. 3. Establish a schedule and priority if repair or replacement is ------required. 7. If corrective action is required, seek 1. Seek priority placement on the MPCA Wastewater Infrastructure additional grant funding to augment the budget. Fund, WIF. ------
2. Investigate other potential sources of supplemental funding. ------
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP D. Urban Implementation Page 6 of 7 Appendix D. Urban Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - TO MINIMIZE CONTAMINANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO SURFACE WATERS FROM ROAD MAINTENANCE County, Varies by County, City, ACTIVITIES. City of AL, District Ongoing C28, Page 51 Project State State 1. Control sedimentation sources from road 1. Repair, stabilize and re-vegetate road ditch erosion sites. ------ditches. 2. Control petroleum product contamination 1. Educate residents regarding the prohibition on the use of from road maintenance. petroleum products for use in dust control on rock-surfaced road ------through a watershed newsletter and county fair promotion. 2. Control over-application of seal coat products on asphalt road ------surfaces or salt. 3. Improve street sweeping practices. 1. Review, research and implement improvements to current City and County programs. ------
PROJECT GOAL -ENCOURAGE LAND USES THAT ARE IN HARMONY WITH THE ALBERT LEA LAKE RESTORATION DNR, City PLAN. Varies by DNR, City of of AL, District Ongoing A9, Page 11 Project AL, County County
1. Enhance the peninsula East of the channel 1. Clear scrub trees and brush. Then replant with native trees, ------and South of Front Street. shrubs, and grasses 2. Steeper banks to be re-sloped and vegetation planted to hold ------banks in place. 3. Construct a path on the west side of peninsula above the normal water level for anglers. (Suggested material for path be compacted ------limestone.) 4. Develop a sand beach on east side of peninsula. ------5. Install park benches, picnic tables, and fixed grills. ------2. Beautify the old city waste treatment plant 1. Extend park area that exists on the west side of channel site. throughout the old treatment plant site knowing that the existing lift ------station and storage tanks will remain on site. 2. Establish picnic areas, pavilion, and walking paths. ------3. Enhance the areas on each side of the 1. Extend the bike/walking trails from Front Street to Bridge Ave. Shellrock River between Front Street and ------Fountain Lake. 2. Remove debris/sediment in channel from Front Street to Bridge ------Ave. 3. Develop a soil berm between channel and railroad tracks. (Flood ------prevention/Derailment Containment) 4. Encourage the city to study land use options 1. All subdivisions within 1,000' of the West and Central Basin shall that are compatible with a sustainable ecological be served by city sewer. ------restoration of Albert Lea Lake.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP D. Urban Implementation Page 7 of 7 Appendix E
Flooding Implementation
Appendix E. Flooding Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - TO ASSESS THE SURFACE WATER QUANTITY OF ALL PROTECTED WATERS IN THE SHELL ROCK RIVER WATERSHED DNR, City of $10,000 with DNR, District, District Ongoing C14, Page 19 AL GIS MPCA
1. To better understand the dynamics of the 1. Request that the DNR establish stream flows for all protected ------surface water in the watershed. waters in the watershed. 2. Seek local volunteers to monitor and record stream fluctuations. ------2. To establish a repository for the information. 1. Develop a GIS layer for the evaluation of hydrological changes of ------protected waters. 2. Make available to DNR/MPCA Watershed data for entry into ------STORET or other appropriate format. PROJECT GOAL - TO MINIMIZE FLOOD DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND PRESERVE THE FUNCTION OF THE FLOODPLAIN. State, District, Varies by District County County, Ongoing C31, Page 55 Project FEMA, USACE
1. Control development within the floodplain. 1. Comply with the National Flood Insurance Program. ------2. Continue the enforcement of the County floodplain ordinance. ------3. Comply with the State statues relating to drainage. ------4. Restrict any development which would threaten the floodplain. ------6. Return land within floodplain to natural state whenever possible. ------2. Restore and retain water upstream throughout1. Prioritize wetlands as water holding basins. ------the watershed. 2. Restore wetlands throughout the watershed. ------3. Educate landowners on conservation programs. ------4. Identify and restore natural flood plains. a) Aerial photos during ------flood periods and b) DNR documented areas. 5. Promote on-going state and federal best management practices ------programs. 6. Return land within flood plain to natural state whenever possible. ------7. Encourage BMP’s in rural and urban setting to positively impact ------flood plains. 8. Encourage education initiatives promoting land stewardship ethics to help bring attention to the importance of preserving flood plains. ------
3. Prevent shoreland and stream bank erosion. 1. Repair any shoreline or stream bank erosion. ------2. Encourage vegetative means of erosion control. ------3. Encourage the use of emergent aquatic plants as a shoreline ------buffer. 4. Discourage riprapping shoreline. ------4. Restore natural hydrological regimes- (natural 1. Identify pre-settlement hydrological regimes. ------flow before water diversions). 2. Encourage natural stream meanders. ------
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP E. Flooding Page 1 of 1 Appendix F
Wetlands Implementation
Appendix F. Wetlands Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ POTENTIAL LEAD CONCEPTUAL SECONDARY FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY COST ESTIMATE LEAD SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - PRESERVE EXISTING RURAL AND URBAN WETLANDS AND ENCOURAGE RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT. District, District, DNR, DNR, SWCD Varies by Project Ongoing C29, Page 52 BWSR BWSR, SWCD
1. Identify techniques that will enhance the 1. Promote enrollment of wetlands into RIM, WRP, CRP, CREP, ------quality and life of wetland systems. and other State, Federal, and Private organizations. 2. Educate public about the function of wetlands, such as recharge of groundwater/retention of water, habitat for wildlife, outdoor laboratory for students/scientists, fishing and aesthetic value. ------
3. Elected officials to adopt the use of tax breaks as incentives for protection of non-DNR protected wetlands. (WCA Preservation ------Program) 4. Conduct wetlands inventory and prioritize according to ------ecological functions and values. 5. Identify priority wetlands and either by easement or fee title, purchase rights for restoration, or preservation from willing sellers ------through federal, state, and local funding partnerships. 6. Amend local zoning ordinance to discourage encroachment on ------wetlands. 7. Seek consistent enforcement of conservation measures found in ------State and Federal statues. 8. Follow existing U.S. Corps of Engineer, DNR, and BWSR ------wetland regulations. 9. Consider the SRRWD acting as local governing unit for ------implementation of Wetland Conservation Act. 10. Seek state funding to digitize Wetland Inventory and Soil ------Survey. 11. Determine the sources of funding and apply for assistance from state and federal programs to control purple loosestrife infestations ------on public or private wetlands. 12. Review dam structures on the lakes to determine the desirability and feasibility of modifying these to restore and enhance wetland ------environments. 13. All wetland replacement plans should replace wetlands within ------the Shell Rock River Watershed.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP F. Wetlands Page 1 of 2 Appendix F. Wetlands Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ POTENTIAL LEAD CONCEPTUAL SECONDARY FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY COST ESTIMATE LEAD SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - INVENTORY DRAINED WETLANDS; IDENTIFY POTENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND VALUES, AND $50,000 for PRIORITIZE FOR RESTORATION. DNR, BWSR, watershed, or District, DNR, District District, Ongoing C30, Page 53 less per BWSR SWCD subwatershed
1. Identify and inventory drained wetlands 1. Use available maps, photos, and resources to identify and ------inventory drained wetlands. 2. Solicit volunteers or interns from local colleges or the WRC MSU to use all possible resources to identify and inventory drained ------wetlands. 3. Retrieve DNR documented drained basins to incorporate into ------drained Wetlands Inventory. 2. Identify potential wetland functions and 1. WCA Technical panel to review the mapped areas and values and establish priorities for drained determine potential functions and values within the Shell Rock ------wetland restoration. Watershed. 2. Water Planning Advisory Committee to establish priorities, based upon functions and values, of those drained wetlands that are ------potential for restoration. 3. Continue to seek funding to establish wetland 1. Consider hiring a grant writer and use multiple agencies (e.g., restoration projects such as the Grass Lake COE, BWSR, DNR, MPCA, USDA, USFWS) and private Project and others. organizations (e.g. National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon ------Society, Nature Conservancy, and Isaac Walton League) to develop a partnership to seek funding.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP F. Wetlands Page 2 of 2 Appendix G
Groundwater Implementation
Appendix G. Groundwater Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - TO PROTECT THE WATER SUPPLY IN GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS District/MDH/ County Staff County Ongoing C2, Page 3 DNR To prevent new and existing land uses that 1. Review all existing uses that generate hazardous by-products generate hazardous by-products from and which may be located in areas shown as Moderately High, High ------contaminating ground water. or Very High Sensitivity on the GSAM. 2. Assure that there is appropriate management of those byproducts. Require a conditional use permit if necessary or ------amortize the discontinuance of the use. PROJECT GOAL - IDENTIFY UNSEALED WATER WELLS THAT ARE NO LONGER IN USE AND DEVELOP A PROGRAM TO SEAL THEM. County District Staff County Ongoing C23, Page 41 1. Identify unsealed water wells that are no 1. Review well driller, City, County and State records for the longer in use within the jurisdictions of the City location of old wells. ------of Albert Lea and small communities. 2. Review historical records such as the Sanborn books and other ------old plat books for locations of old wells. 3. Review the Freeborn County water well file at the Water ------Resources Center, Minnesota State University Mankato. 4. Develop a public information program explaining the potential hazard of unsealed water wells and ask for public help to identify ------these wells. PROJECT GOAL - REVIEW EXISTING DATA AND STUDIES ON CLOSED DUMPS AND THEIR IMPACT ON WATER RESOURCES City of AL, County, District $5,000 per Site District Ongoing -- MPCA
1. Research and Implement Corrective Action to 1. Review reports, identify partners and implement corrective ------protect Water Resources actions
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP G. Groundwater Page 1 of 1 Appendix H
Partnering Implementation
Appendix H. Partnering Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - FACILITATE ALL RESIDENCES AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE NOT CONNECTED TO A MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM TO HAVE AN APPROVED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. County, County District Staff Ongoing C27, Page 50 District
1. To prevent contamination of ground and 1. Support measures to upgrade ISTS systems. surface water from the improper design, ------installation, location, use or maintenance of ISTS. 2. Inventory non-conforming sewage systems and develop a ------program to upgrade improperly installed systems. PROJECT GOAL - ESTABLISH AN ANNUAL CLEANUP DAY ACTIVITY ALONG THE RIVERS AND AROUND THE LAKES. Chamber, District, City District City of AL, $2,000 of AL, Ongoing C39, Page 63 County, State Chamber
1. Establish as an annual city-County activity, a 1. Organize a delegation of interest groups from the Advisory summer cleanup day along the rivers and Committee and request that the city and County jointly sponsor the ------around the lakes, and seek the active annual cleanup day. participation of the DNR. 2. Submit a request to DNR to participate in the Adopt a River ------Program. 2. Identify and map areas to be cleaned up. 1. Map known scattered dump sites along the streams and lakes ------and connecting ravines. 2. Request that outdoor-oriented organizations and other knowledgeable persons identify any other sites that should be ------cleaned up. 3. Prioritize the sites according to the following: a) Size of the area to be cleaned, b) Difficulty in removing the waste, c) Accessibility for ------individuals and vehicles. 3. Provide logistics to collect and haul waste. 1. Select a central collection point for the volunteers to bring the ------waste. 2. Before the waste is disposed of, ask the media to do a story about it with a picture of the volunteers and the waste they ------collected. 3. If special equipment or help is needed, coordinate with the Army Reserve and they will usually be able to provide assistance. ------
4. Coordinate with the city and County to furnish dump trucks and a pay loader to load and haul the waste. a) Garbage to the landfill, b) Scrap metal to be sold at the salvage yard, c) Aluminum to be sold ------and recycled, d) Appliances and tires to be disposed of appropriately. 5. Pay the tipping and recycling fees from the solid waste fund. Money realized as a result of selling the waste should go back to ------the solid waste fund.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP H. Partnering Page 1 of 3 Appendix H. Partnering Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES 4. Organize the cleanup day activities. 1. Select a Saturday in the late summer when the water level in the ------streams and rivers will be low. 2. Schedule the cleanup before the heat of the day, from 8 am to 1 ------pm. 3. Use a very large map of the watershed that shows the cleanup ------sites. 4. Assign volunteers to sites according difficulty of the site. The assignment of sites should provide every volunteer, regardless of age or physical ability, an opportunity to participate. a) Young children and Cub Scouts must be accompanied by parents or adult supervisors, and should be assigned to safe areas within a park or along a lake, b) Handicapped volunteers should be assigned to ------accessible areas within a park or along a lake, c) Boy Scouts and FFA with their adult leaders can work in all but the most difficult locations, d) College students and other adults can be assigned as needed.
5. Provide for volunteer recognition and a picnic 1. Arrange for a state level speaker or personality to speak at the ------after the cleanup is finished. picnic and thank the volunteers. 2. Solicit food and drinks from local fast food establishments. Make sure that the food sponsors get the publicity and the volunteers get ------plenty of food. 3. Solicit prizes from business and industry to given to volunteers at ------a drawing during the picnic. 4. Arrange for maximum media coverage of the volunteers and the ------cleanup activities. 5. Provide a timely news release citing the number of volunteers who participated and the pounds of waste, number of tires and appliances that were collected and disposed of properly. ------Emphasize that every day can be a personal cleanup day by disposing of waste properly.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP H. Partnering Page 2 of 3 Appendix H. Partnering Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY-WIDE SUMMER WATER FESTIVAL Chamber, District, City Convention City of AL, $2,000 of AL, Ongoing C40, Page 65 Visitors District Chamber Bureau
1. Establish as an annual city-County activity, a 1. Organize a delegation of interest groups and request that the city Summer Water Festival and seek the active and County jointly sponsor an annual Summer Water Festival. participation of the community civic, social, ------conservation, sporting and business associations. 2. Consider forming a Summer Water Festival 1. Form a Summer Water Festival Board with representation from Board to plan activities, contract events and the city, county and each of the sponsoring organizations. ------raise funds. 2. Grant the Board the authority to plan activities, events and raise ------funds. 3. Provide a limited initial city-county startup budget for festival activities for a limited time. Thereafter, provide matching funds as ------part of a cost-sharing budget.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP H. Partnering Page 3 of 3 Appendix I
Data Implementation
Appendix I. Data Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - DEVELOP RAINFALL RECORDS FOR THE ENTIRE WATERSHED. SWCD/ District $1,000 Annual District On-Going C1, Page 1 County Assure the continuation of the volunteer reader 1. Provide recognition of the volunteer service with newspaper network. articles about the volunteers, publication of the rainfall maps, and ------an annual appreciation dinner for the volunteers. To have a minimum of one volunteer reader in 1. Encourage other members of the community to become each township. volunteer readers. Seek assistance from the FFA, other youth organizations, farmer organizations, conservation clubs and any ------other sources to recruit the needed volunteer readers. PROJECT GOAL - DEVELOP AN URBAN SURFACE WATER MONITORING PLAN THAT WILL PROVIDE BASELINE INFORMATION AND ONGOING DATA TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS IN $5,000 Plan, District, City City of AL District 2004 C42, Page 79 OBTAINING GOALS. $10,000 Annual of AL
1. Develop baseline data on the effectiveness 1. Develop baseline data about the daily treatment of wastewater, of programs to reduce the freshwater inflow into correlated to local precipitation, before the “Sump Pump” program wastewater treatment systems and correlate the began. findings to public money spent on the programs ------by reviewing the effectiveness of the “Sump Pump Program” and inform the public.
2. Express the results in wastewater treatment capacity used and ------the public cost to treat it. 3. Continue to monitor the daily treatment of wastewater, correlated to local precipitation, after the “Sump Pump” program is completed. ------
4. Compare the before and after results in wastewater treatment ------capacity used and the public cost to treat it. 5. Inform the public about the monitoring results and the financial impact of the program. Utilize the press, television, and utility bill ------mailings. 2. Establish baseline information pertaining to 1. Identify the major storm water drains in each of the city’s storm the quality of storm water entering Fountain and sewer sheds. Albert Lea lakes from the City of Albert Lea and ------White’s Lake a.k.a. Lake Chapeau.
2. The city, in cooperation with the County water planning coordinator and the MPCA, establishes the parameters to be used ------when testing for storm water quality. 3. After selected rainfall events, take water samples at the last manhole in selected storm sewer sheds before the water enters the ------lake.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP I. Data Page 1 of 5 Appendix I. Data Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES 4. Have the storm sewer water samples analyzed and establish baseline data on storm water quality for each storm sewer shed. ------
5. Prioritize storm water sewer sheds for improvement based upon ------the degree of water quality degradation. 3. Determine the effectiveness of the city’s catch-1. Correlate the storm water quality information to areas of paved basin sump program, and the effectiveness of and unpaved parking lots that do not have detention ponds. the program to retrofit impervious surfaces Determine any differences between the quality of the runoff from ------areas with detention ponds. paved vs. unpaved sites where possible.
2. Compare the water quality of the runoff from paved parking lots with detention ponds to the water quality data obtained in action 1. ------
3. Inform the public about the results of the study via the media and ------utility bill flyers. 4. Determine whether current lawn care 1. If lawn care products are demonstrated to be degrading water practices are detrimental to storm water quality quality, conduct an extensive public information program. ------and take appropriate action. 2. Continue to test storm water quality to determine whether the ------public information program is effective. 5. Determine the quality of storm water being 1. Provide information to the public regarding the need to establish discharged into lakes and streams from water quality baselines of storm water flowing from parking lots. impervious surfaces. Emphasize that the water quality of the lakes and streams is ------dependent upon the quality of the storm water flowing into them. Utilize utility bill flyers, TV and the press. 2. Sample at least two rainfall events in both the spring, summer ------and fall seasons. 3. Compare the quality of the storm water being discharged from parking areas both seasonally and as an aggregate for each ------parking lot. 4. Prioritize parking areas for remedial action by the degree of ------storm water quality degradation. 5. Continue to monitor and determine any changes in water quality as parking areas are being retrofitted with detention basins. ------
6. Determine the public satisfaction with water- 1. Provide “Suggestion Boxes” in various locations to receive public based recreation activities and delivery systems. comments and recommendations for improvement. ------
2. Utilize volunteers to conduct periodic oral surveys of public satisfaction and suggestions for improvement of recreational ------facilities. 3. Refer the survey results to the parks and recreation board on a ------quarterly basis for review and appropriate action.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP I. Data Page 2 of 5 Appendix I. Data Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - ESTABLISH A WATER QUALITY BASELINE AND MEASURE OF PROGRESS District, $5,000 Startup, District County County, 2004 C43, Page 82 $25,000 Annual MPCA
1. Determine baseline information. 1. Review 1973 National Biocentrics Study ------2. Review 1992 PCA Lake Assessment Study ------3. Determine which parameters will be monitored ------2. Develop and implement a monitoring plan. 1. Develop a schedule for completion of monitoring objectives ------2. Develop both short term and long-term strategies ------3. Monitor streams, ditches, and stormwater outfalls entering ------Fountain and Albert Lea Lakes. 4. Monitor the Shell Rock River downstream near Iowa. ------5. Monitor the following: a) Chemicals (nutrients, contaminants), b) Sediment, c) Biota (amphibians, fish, and invertebrates) ------
3. Education and Public Awareness 1. Involve the media ------2. Utilize Volunteers for Monitoring (Secchi Disk, Staff Gauges, ------Rain Gauges, etc.) 3. Involve the Education System (Science Classes, Project WET, ------etc.) PROJECT GOAL - TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE RURAL SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM District, WITHIN AN OVERALL WATERSHED MONITORING PLAN Varies by District County County, 2004 C44, Page 83 Project MPCA
1. Beginning in 2001, effectively manage a 1. Designate a monitoring program manager. ------comprehensive monitoring program. 2. Develop a budget for implementation of the monitoring program. ------3. Identify monitoring components to be carried out by volunteers ------or staff. 4. Select sites for monitoring. ------2. Beginning in 2001, measure water quality 1. Establish a precipitation monitoring grid with at least one site per chemistry parameters. township using volunteer precipitation gauge readers. ------
2. Measure water quality in public and private ditches using ------appropriate protocols.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP I. Data Page 3 of 5 Appendix I. Data Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES 3. Measure land use changes in rural areas of 1. Measure adoption of conservation tillage through a tillage the watershed that are identified in the Eroding transect survey. Land, Drainage and Rural Pollutant Sources ------sections of the watershed plan.
2. Measure compliance with feedlot standards through the county ------feedlot ordinance. 3. Measure installation of conservation buffer installation through ------SWCD records and reporting. 4. Measure adoption of soil conservation practices through SWCD ------records and reporting. 5. Measure compliance with ISTS standards through county ISTS ------ordinance. PROJECT GOAL - TO ASSESS CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS OF THE WATER AND BIOLOGICAL QUALITY IN THE SHELL ROCK RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING PROGRAM. $10,000 District, District MPCA, DNR Startup, County, 2004 C45, Page 85 $50,000 Annual MPCA
1. Monitor the sediment loads in the streams, 1. Use volunteer monitoring programs to measure sediment. a) ditches and lakes of the watershed. Participate in the MPCA volunteer monitoring program, b) Identify ------protocols for measuring sediment. 2. Determine sediment load point and non-point sources. ------2. Monitor the water chemistry in the streams, 1. Measure levels of: phosphorus, fecal coliform bacteria, nitrogen, ditches, stormwater outfalls and lakes of the biological oxygen demand, heavy metals and pesticides/herbicides ------watershed to determine baseline and future conditions. 2. Develop and implement a program of septic and gray water system inspections to determine sources of contamination. ------
3. Monitor the current and future conditions of 1. Conduct a biological assessment of the current conditions of the the biological systems in the watershed. aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal communities in the ------watershed. 2. Inventory existing native plant communities for preservation. a) ------Identify potential restoration sites. 3. Monitor changes in lake plant communities for 5 to 7 years. ------4.Inventory existing invasive non-native species. a) Measure ------effectiveness of eradication efforts. 5. Monitor the habitat conditions of aquatic animals. ------
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP I. Data Page 4 of 5 Appendix I. Data Implementation Plan Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES 4. Continue to monitor the adoption of land use 1. Monitor wetland restorations. ------changes. 5. Determine the trophic conditions of the lakes 1. Establish the existing trophic conditions of the lakes in this ------of the watershed. watershed. 2. Annually determine the change in trophic status of the lakes. ------
PROJECT GOAL - ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE LAKE MONITORING PLAN FOR ALBERT LEA LAKE. $5,000 Startup, Concurrent District City of AL District A1, Page 5 $10,000 with Lake Plan Annual 1. Establish Base Line Data. 1. Parameters that will be monitored for: turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, redox, conductivity, nitrate, pH, phosphorous; ------chlorophyll, fecal coliform. Samples will be taken every other week and during storm events. 2. Incorporate the 1973 National Biocentrics Monitoring Sites into ------our Comprehensive Watering Plan. 3. Perform year-round monitoring but winter monitoring will be ------specific to dissolved oxygen. 4. All monitoring sites and data collected will be linked to an Arc------View database. 5. Compile and provide data to local, state and federal agencies ------and general public. 6. Storm Water outlets will be monitored in our Comprehensive ------Water Plan.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP I. Data Page 5 of 5 Appendix J
Other Goals
Appendix J. Other Goals Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - PRESERVE REMAINING ORIGINAL OAK WOODLAND AND WET/UPLAND PRAIRIE PLANT SWCD/District SWCD District/DNR Varies On-Going C3, Page 7 COMMUNITIES /DNR Consider management practices that do not 1. Consider implementing the return of marginal cropland to its destroy the remaining Oak Woodland and natural state for native plants. ------Upland Prairie plant communities. 2. Support local conservation groups and encourage habitat ------preservation. 3. Educate the public about the value of native plants. ------4. Encourage participation in Conservation Reserve Program, Reinvest in Minnesota and the Swampbuster Programs, especially ------on steep slopes and erodible soils. PROJECT GOAL - ESTABLISH PLOTS OF NATIVE PLANT SPECIES TO REDUCE SOIL EROSION. SWCD/District SWCD District/DNR Varies On-Going C4, Page 7 /DNR 1. Establish native plant species restoration 1. Seek support of individual land owners to dedicated tracts of land plots, particularly on erodible soils. for the purpose of establishing native plant species restoration ------plots. 2. Seek the active participation of public and private school environmental/biology classes, scouting organizations, Future Farmer of America, and other similar youth groups to establish ------native plant species restoration plots. 3. Recognize the conservation practices of the landowner with an appropriate letter/certificate from the County and/or Watershed ------Board and sign for the mail box post. 2. Encourage control of invasive exotic plants 1. Educate public about invasive exotic plants ------2. Encourage public and private cooperation in control and ------eradication of exotic plant species PROJECT GOAL - RESTORE AND REPLACE NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES THAT ARE DISTURBED AS THE RESULT OF SWCD/District ROAD WORK AND OTHER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION AT ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES AND PROTECTED SWCD District/DNR Varies On-Going C5, Page 7 AREAS /DNR
Encourage preservation and propagation of 1. Educate local government and private developers of the ------native plant communities. importance of native plant community restoration. 2. Cooperation of local government and private interest in meeting ------this objective.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP J. Other Page 1 of 5 Appendix J. Other Goals Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - IMPROVE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN FOUNTAIN LAKE DNR, Varies by District, City City of AL Ongoing FL 3; page 2 District Project of AL, DNR 1. Pleasure boat friendly. 1. Public dock on Bridge Avenue. ------2. Increase passage size from Fountain Lake to Edgewater Bay ------(culvert) Hatch Bridge. 3. Public dock at north end of Broadway (access to downtown). ------4. Maintain designated quiet areas for Dane Bay and Bancroft Bay. ------2. Recreational Use 1. Increase park benches at Danish Park. ------2. Public walk and bike path. ------3. Regrade 300' of shoreland in Edgewater Bay and also look at ------improving facilities for recreational use. 4. Reroute road in Edgewater Park and place bleachers for ski------show enthusiasts. 5. Make portions of the existing Lake Shore road into bike-walking ------trails. 6. Stabilize shoreline around the beach and Katherine Island. ------PROJECT GOAL - KEEP THE PUBLIC INFORMED AND INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A County, District, City WATER ORIENTED RECREATION PLAN. City of AL $1,000 Ongoing C35, Page 60 District, DNR of AL, DNR
1. Inform local units of government and seek 1. Provide a workshop for local government official to explain the their public support. purpose and process of developing a water oriented recreation plan. a) Emphasize that the reason for developing a watershed ------management plan is so the public can enjoy water oriented experiences and recreation. 2. Provide information to the public and seek 1. Provide timely news releases for the newspaper, radio and their input throughout all phases of the planning television. ------and implementation of the recreation plan.
2. Provide interviews to radio and television, (Albert Lea Matters; CTVA; news shows, etc.), on current and proposed activities. ------
3. Provide speakers to civic organizations, clubs and schools. ------4. Develop projects through which volunteer groups can become ------involved and participate. 5. Develop water oriented science activities for students. ------6. Develop nature walks with signed observation stops for science classes and the general public. Use volunteers to develop the trails ------and observation points.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP J. Other Page 2 of 5 Appendix J. Other Goals Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - IDENTIFY NEEDS FOR WATER-ORIENTED PARKS AND OTHER RECREATION FACILITIES. Concurrent District, City City of AL DNR $2,000 with Lake C36, Page 61 of AL Plans 1. Identify water oriented recreational needs 1. Develop a recreational needs questionnaire and randomly survey throughout the watershed. the watershed to determine the adequacy of existing recreational facilities and the need for additional facilities. The survey should include at least the following: a) Fishing facilities, b) Swimming beaches, c) Boat and canoe access points on lakes and the Shell Rock River, d) Park benches around lakes, e) Picnic tables, fire pits ------or grills and trash containers located around lakes and along the rivers, f) Primitive campsites, g) The zoning of the surface water of lakes for uses such activities as swimming, water skiing, wildlife habitat and speed zones for motorized watercraft.
2. Develop a recreational needs questionnaire for high school ------students and survey all of the students. 3. Seek additional input from the public, including the chamber of commerce, sportsmen organizations and conservation clubs. ------
PROJECT GOAL - DEVELOP A WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION PLAN FOR THE WATERSHED. Concurrent District, City County -- $2,000 with Lake C37, Page 62 of AL Plans 1. Develop a recreation plan that takes into 1. Inventory the existing facilities, including location and condition. consideration existing facilities and the needs ------identified in the survey. 2. Compare the existing facilities with the needs identified in the ------survey. 3. Develop a plan that includes: a) Public recreational experience expectations, b) The upgrading of existing facilities and development of new facilities to meet the public expectations, c) ------Establish priorities for the improvement of existing facilities and development of new facilities.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP J. Other Page 3 of 5 Appendix J. Other Goals Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - DEVELOP MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE WATER-ORIENTED Concurrent RECREATION PLAN. County,City District, City DNR $2,000 with Lake C38, Page 62 of AL of AL Plans
1. Develop a budget to implement the 1. Determine short-term (1-5 years) and long-term (5-20 years) recreation plan. maintenance and development goals and schedules needed to ------implement the plan. 2. Prepare a budget to fund the implementation of the short-term ------and long-term maintenance and development goals. 2. Develop the funding resources necessary to 1. Consider a Watershed Parks and Recreation Board that will implement the plan. manage the implementation of the plan. a) The board should consist of elected representatives from local units of government, civic organizations and sportsmen/conservation clubs that are willing to provide funding to help implement the plan. b) Develop a ------cost sharing budget or division of responsibility among local units of government for the maintenance of existing facilities and the development of new facilities.
2. Consider a subcommittee of the Watershed Parks and Recreation Board to identify programs of private organizations and government agencies that correspond to the development goals of ------the plan and then seek funding from those entities.
PROJECT GOAL -RECREATION PLAN FOR ALBERT LEA LAKE Concurrent County,City District, City DNR $2,000 with Lake A8, Page 10 of AL of AL Plan 1. To produce a comprehensive water based 1. Establish a 300' Limited Wake Zone (5 mph) around the entire ------recreation plan. lake for boats traveling parallel to the shore. 2. Divide Albert Lea Lake into three recreational zones. West Basin - everything West of I-35, Central Basin - I-35 East to Big Island Narrows, North Basin - Big Island Narrows to CSAH 46. a) Albert Lea Lake West Basin Recreational Zone to include unlimited recreation, b) Albert Lea Lake Central Basin Recreational Zone to a 25 mph speed limit. *Float Plane will be exempt from the 25 mph ------speed limit in Central Basin, c) Albert Lea Lake North Basin Recreational Zone will be entirely covered by the limited Wake Zone (5 mph) but shall include a buoy marked maximum 25 mph travel zone leading to the Central and West Basins.
3. Develop Albert Lea Lake Recreational Use Ordinance. a) Develop and install a large sign at all lake accesses that easily defines the rules on the lake, b) No wake during high water ------(Coincide with Fountain Lake), c) Travel corridor will be defined by colored buoys, d) Create buffer zone between lake and eagles nest and other sensitive areas 2. Sustain and enhance game fish populations 1. Refer back to Albert Lea Lakes Fisheries Management Plan. ------3. Alternative recreation 1. Develop public beaches and public docks ------
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP J. Other Page 4 of 5 Appendix J. Other Goals Shell Rock River Watershed District Water Management Plan
NO. OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PARTNERS/ CONCEPTUAL POTENTIAL LEAD SECONDARY COST FUNDING TIME LINE REFERENCE AGENCY LEAD ESTIMATE SOURCES PROJECT GOAL - TO PERMIT ALL FEEDLOTS IN THE SHELL ROCK RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT County MPCA Staff County C25, Page 47
1. Develop a program to contact and permit all 1. Initiate a letter to all feedlots without permits. Include a feedlot feedlots without current permits. permit application and ask the operator to complete the application ------and return it to the Planning and Zoning Office within 30 days
2. Develop a program to provide assistance in 1. Include in the first letter, information about BMPs and cost identifying and correcting feedlots with potential sharing funds to correct potential pollution problems. ------pollution problems 2. Develop a program, in cooperation with the SWCD and NRCS, ------to correct potential pollution problems. 3. Seek state and federal funding to eliminate or mitigate the possible pollution contamination from feedlots. ------4. Work with the NRCS, SWCD, MPCA, MDA and Extension Educator on means to provide education on the potential pollution ------affects from feedlots. 5. Require best management practices within feedlot site. ------PROJECT GOAL - TO PERMIT ALL EXISTING AND FUTURE FEEDLOTS. County MPCA Staff County C26, Page 48
1. Develop a program to manage feedlots 1. Follow MPCA Feedlot Permitting Program Standards. MN Rules ------throughout the County. Chapter 7020. 2. Design a program for correction of failing feedlots. ------3. Maintain an inventory of existing feedlots within County to determine the current status of operation. ------4. Seek state and federal funding to eliminate or mitigate the ------possible pollution contamination from feedlots. 5. Work with the NRCS, SWCD, MPCA, MDA and Extension Educator on means to provide education on the potential pollution ------affects from feedlots. 6. Require best management practices within feedlot site. ------7. Recommend MDA and U of M Agricultural Engineering conduct research to address effective means of runoff treatment. ------
8. Co-sponsor continuing education on the value and use of manure as domestic fertilizer, and the development and ------implementation of manure management plans.
t:\1323\02\Draft_Plan\Final_Imp_Plan\APP J. Other Page 5 of 5