DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper/Lower Red Lake Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper/Lower Red Lake Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Report Watershed May 2021 Upper/Lower Red Lake Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Report Authors Kayla Bowe (Red Lake DNR) Shane Bowe (Red Lake DNR) Denise Oakes (MPCA) Meghan Funke (Emmons & Olivier Resources) Jimmy Marty (Emmons & Olivier Resources) Etoile Jensen (Emmons & Olivier Resources) Joe Pallardy (Emmons & Olivier Resources) Contributors/acknowledgements Zach Gutknecht (Beltrami SWCD, Beltrami County) Brent Rud (Beltrami SWCD, Beltrami County) Chad Severts (BWSR) Jeff Hrubes (BWSR) Cari Roepke (Clearwater NRCS) Chester Powell (Clearwater SWCD) Jolen Simon (Koochiching SWCD) Sam Soderman (Koochiching SWCD) Brent Mason (DNR) Scott Schroeder (MPCA) Kevin Stroom (MPCA) Corey Hanson (Red Lake Watershed District) Editing and graphic design Communications staff Graphic design staff Administrative Staff Cover photo – Mud River near Redby, MN, September 18, 2017 (Kayla Bowe, Red Lake DNR) The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our website for more information. The MPCA reports are printed on 100% post- consumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Document number: wq-ws4-81a Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................. iii List of tables ....................................................................................................................................... iv List of figures ....................................................................................................................................... v Key terms and abbreviations .............................................................................................................. vii Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... viii What is the WRAPS Report? ......................................................................................................................... ix 1. Watershed background and description ......................................................................................... 1 2. Watershed conditions .................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Condition status ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Streams .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Lakes ....................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Water quality trends ............................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Stressors and sources .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.3.1 Stressors of biologically-impaired stream reaches .............................................................. 10 2.3.2 Pollutant sources .................................................................................................................. 12 2.3.2.1 Point sources ........................................................................................................... 13 2.3.2.2 Nonpoint sources .................................................................................................... 16 2.4 TMDL summary ..................................................................................................................................... 18 2.5 Protection considerations ..................................................................................................................... 20 2.5.1 Rivers and streams ............................................................................................................... 20 2.5.1.1 Battle River- South Branch ...................................................................................... 23 2.5.1.2 Blackduck River ....................................................................................................... 23 2.5.1.3 Hay Creek ................................................................................................................ 23 2.5.1.4 Little Tamarac River ................................................................................................ 23 2.5.1.5 Lost River ................................................................................................................. 24 2.5.1.6 Meadow Creek ........................................................................................................ 24 2.5.1.7 Mud River ................................................................................................................ 24 2.5.1.8 O’Brien Creek .......................................................................................................... 25 2.5.1.9 Sandy River .............................................................................................................. 25 2.5.1.10 Spring Creek ............................................................................................................ 25 2.5.1.11 South Cormorant River ........................................................................................... 25 2.5.2 Lakes ..................................................................................................................................... 27 3. Prioritizing and implementing restoration and protection ............................................................ 35 3.1 Targeting of geographic areas ............................................................................................................... 35 Upper/Lower Red Lake WRAPS Report Minnesota Pollution Control Agency iii 3.1.1 Categorization and prioritization for restoration and protection ........................................ 35 3.1.2 Watershed management framework for Minnesota lakes .................................................. 51 3.1.3 Fish habitat conservation framework for Minnesota lakes ................................................. 53 3.1.4 HSPF runoff, sediment, and phosphorus yields ................................................................... 56 3.2 Public Participation ............................................................................................................................... 60 3.2.1 Accomplishments and future plans ..................................................................................... 60 3.2.2 Public notice for comments ................................................................................................. 61 3.3 Restoration and protection strategies .................................................................................................. 61 3.3.1 Watershed-wide strategies .................................................................................................. 61 3.3.1.1 Shoreland protection .............................................................................................. 61 3.3.1.2 Forest protection programs .................................................................................... 62 3.3.2 Subwatershed strategies ...................................................................................................... 66 3.3.2.1 Rice paddy management ........................................................................................ 66 3.3.2.2 Wetland restoration ................................................................................................ 67 3.3.2.3 Water quality monitoring........................................................................................ 67 3.3.2.4 In-stream management .......................................................................................... 67 3.3.2.5 In-lake management ............................................................................................... 67 3.3.2.6 Wildlife education ................................................................................................... 68 3.3.2.7 Stormwater management ....................................................................................... 68 3.3.2.8 Nutrient management ............................................................................................ 68 3.3.2.9 Pasture/manure management ................................................................................ 69 3.3.3 Proposed strategies and actions by subwatershed ............................................................. 70 4. Monitoring plan ........................................................................................................................... 73 5. References and further information ............................................................................................. 83 List of tables Table 1. Assessment summary for stream water quality in the Upper/Lower Red Lake Watershed. ......... 6 Table 2. Assessment summary for lakes water quality in the Upper/Lower Red Lake Watershed. ............. 7 Table 3. Water clarity trends at citizen monitoring sites. ............................................................................. 8 Table 4. Water quality trends (2008-2018). .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mud River 090203020703 Pike Creek 090203020704 Upper Sandy River
    HU_12_Name HUC_12 Mud River 090203020703 Pike Creek 090203020704 Upper Sandy River 090203020801 Buzzle Lake 090203050104 Middle Moose River 090203040102 Randeen Cemetery 090203040103 Valley Cemetery 090203040302 Headwaters South Fork Roseau River 090203140201 Mickinock Creek 090203140202 Paulson Creek 090203140203 Upper Moose River 090203040101 Headwaters Roseau River 090203140101 Hansen Creek 090203140102 Hayes Lake-Roseau River 090203140103 Severson Creek 090203140104 Rafferty Creek-Roseau River 090203140106 Headwaters Black River 090300080301 Upper Tamarac River 090203020101 Lost River 090203020102 Little Tamarac River 090203020103 Lower Tamarac River 090203020104 Deer River-Frontal Upper Red Lake 090203020201 090203020202-Frontal Upper Red Lake 090203020202 Manomin Creek 090203020300 Shotley Brook 090203020401 Upper Red Lake 090203020402 Lower South Branch Battle River 090203020502 North Branch Battle River-Battle River 090203020503 Lower Blackduck River 090203020610 Hay Creek 090203020701 Gibibwisher Lake 090203020702 Little Rock Creek 090203020705 Big Rock Creek 090203020706 Lower Sandy River 090203020802 HU_12_Name HUC_12 Lower Red Lake 090203020900 Cahill Lake 090203030100 Roosevelt Lake-Red Lake River 090203030201 Good Lake 090203030202 County Ditch No 43 090203030203 County Ditch No 75-Red Lake River 090203030204 County Ditch No 39-Red Lake River 090203030206 City of Saint Hilaire-Red Lake River 090203030303 Lost River 090203040502 Town of Thorhult 090203040601 Hamre State Wildlife Management Area 090203040602 County Ditch No
    [Show full text]
  • RED LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (March 24, 2010 Through March 24, 2020)
    RED LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (March 24, 2010 through March 24, 2020) Tanya Hanson, Local Water Management Coordinator Red Lake County Soil & Water Conservation District RED LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Ronald Weiss, Chairman 10934 240th Street SW Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 Brent Strand, Vice-Chairman 26264 220th Avenue SE Erskine, MN 56535 Velma Oakland 502 Chicago Avenue SW Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 David Sorenson 508 7th Street NE Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 John Lerohl P.O. Box 36 Oklee, MN 56742 RED LAKE COUNTY SWCD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS David Miller, Chairman 15885 200th Street SE Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 Mark LaCrosse, Vice-Chairman 1005 Chicago Avenue SW Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 Orville Knott, Secretary 10905 170th Street SE Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 David Bachand, Treasurer 706 State Hwy. 222 Oklee, MN 56742 Linda Mickelson, Reporter 21886 270th Avenue SE Oklee, MN 56742 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction History Tour of Red Lake County Geology / Geography Red River of the North Basin – Glacial Lake Agassiz & the Red River Valley Red Lake County Demographic Information Major Watersheds in Red Lake County Land Use Statistics Relationship to the Red Lake Watershed District 10-Year Overall Plan Executive Summary Priority Concerns Priority Concern #1 – Surface Water Quality & Impaired Waters Priority Concern #2 – Quantity of Water passing through RLC Priority Concern #3 – Groundwater Quality Priority Concern #4 – Erosion and Sedimentation Priority Concern #5 – Recreational Opportunities Priority Concern #6 – Ongoing District Activities Reference (Supporting) Documents and Website Locations Funding Opportunities Priority Concern Implementation Schedule Ongoing Activities Implementation Schedule Priority Concerns Scoping Document HISTORY TOUR OF RED LAKE COUNTY Red Lake County has a rich and varied history in which the Red Lake and Clearwater Rivers have played a central role.
    [Show full text]
  • (Thief River Falls-Crookston) and Black River EPA Nine Element Plan
    Grant April 2020 Red Lake River (Thief River Falls- Crookston) and Black River EPA Nine Element Plan Federal Clean Water Act Section 319 Small Watersheds Focus Grant Workplan Authors Corey Hanson, Red Lake River WD Myron Jesme, Red Lake River WD Tanya Hanson, Red Lake County SWCD Peter Nelson, Pennington SWCD Nicole Brend, West Polk SWCD Greg Johnson, MPCA Cindy Penny, MPCA Abel Green, MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | 651-296-6300 | 800-657-3864 | Or use your preferred relay service. | [email protected] This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us. Document number: wq-cwp2-14 Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................ i List of figures .................................................................................................................................... iii List of tables ..................................................................................................................................... iv Executive summary ............................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................2 1.1 Document overview ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota's Clearwater River, Section 319 Success Story
    Section 319 NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SUCCESS STORY Managing Agricultural DrainageMinnesota Reduces Bacteria in Clearwater River Waterbody Improved Nonpoint sources of pollution, such as livestock operations, wildlife, and drainage from wild rice paddies, contributed high levels of bacteria in Minnesota’s Clearwater River that violated water quality standards. As a result, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) added a 58-mile segment of the Clearwater River to the state’s Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters in 2002 for pathogens impairment. Project partners implemented a number of restoration projects, including planting buffer strips, stabilizing streambanks and improving the drainage of wild rice paddies. These efforts have reduced bacteria levels; as a result, MPCA removed the 58-mile segment of Clearwater River from the state’s 2010 list of impaired waters for bacteria. Problem The 886,600-acre Clearwater River watershed (Figure 1) drains portion of Clearwater, Mahnomen, Polk and Red Lake counties in northern Minnesota’s Red River Basin. Major land uses in the watershed include agriculture (54 percent), forest (24 percent) and wetlands (14 percent). The watershed has a poorly defined floodplain and low gradient, and it has been altered by extensive drainage, wide- spread conversion of tallgrass prairie to farmland, and urban/suburban development. As a result, the basin is subject to frequent floods that affect urban and rural infrastructure, as well as agricultural production. Between 1948 and 1958, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers channelized approximately 38 miles of the Clearwater River to reduce flood damage to agricultural interests in the surrounding area.
    [Show full text]
  • Heavy Minerals of Glacial Sediments in the Area of Red Lake Falls, Minnesota Howard Hobbs University of North Dakota
    University of North Dakota UND Scholarly Commons Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects 1973 Heavy minerals of glacial sediments in the area of Red Lake Falls, Minnesota Howard Hobbs University of North Dakota Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/theses Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Hobbs, Howard, "Heavy minerals of glacial sediments in the area of Red Lake Falls, Minnesota" (1973). Theses and Dissertations. 138. https://commons.und.edu/theses/138 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HEAVY MINERALS OF GLACIAL SEDIMENTS, IN THE AREA OF RED LAKE FALLS> MINNESOTA by Howard Hobbs Bachelor of Science, Kent State University> 1970 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of North Dakota in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Grand Forks, North Dakota GEOLOGY LIBRAR Unlwersity of Nortb Oakot December 1973 Permission HEAVY MINERALS OF GLACIAL SEDIMENTS lN THE AREA OF RED Title LAKE FALLS MINNESOTA Department Geology Degree ---------==-===--........,===.;;;.....-----------------Mast~r of Science In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a graduate degree from the University of North Dakota, I agree that the Library of this University shall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor who supervised my thesis 'W'Ork or, in his absence, by the Chairman of the Department or the Dean of the Graduate School.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Lake River Watershed WRAPS
    Red Lake River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Report November 2019 Red Lake River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies Report 1 wq-ws4-60a Project Partners Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Red Lake Watershed District Minnesota Department of Natural Resources RMB Environmental Laboratories Pennington County Soil and Water Conservation District Red Lake County Soil and Water Conservation District West Polk County Soil and Water Conservation District Emmons and Olivier Resources Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Red Lake River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies Report 2 Contents Project Partners......................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... viii Key Terms .................................................................................................................................................. x Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. xi What is the WRAPS Report?...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Greenway Map-June 2007.FH11
    The Greenway Grand Forks / East Grand Forks Valley Golf RED RIVER Course U. S. HIGHWAY NO 81 STATE MILL ROAD pedestrian River Heights bridge RIVER ROAD NW Trail Head .7 mi. STATE HIGHWAY 220 HIGHWAY STATE .3 mi. Riverside Dam .4 mi. ALPHA AVE Red River State RED DOT PLACE .4 mi. Recreation .4 mi. U S TRUNK HIGHWAY NO 2 Campground AVE CENTRAL Riverside Park .4 mi. GATEWAY DRIVE 1 mi. Sherlock Park .3 mi pedestrian 10TH STREET NE 10TH STREET NE .8 mi. underpass N 3RD ST 3RD N N 1ST ST 1ST N GATEWAY DRIVE GATEWAY DRIVE E A S T G R A N D F O R K S, M N 4TH ST NW to I-29 U S TRUNK HIGHWAY NO 2 5 TH AVE NW AVE TH 5 Griggs Park .3 mi. Trail Head N WASHINGTON ST G R A N D F O R K S, N D .5 mi. DEMERS AVE E A S T G R A N D F O R K S RED RIVER D O W N T O W N N 3RD ST .3 mi. 7th Avenue N 8TH AVE N AVE CENTRAL Eagle Point 2nd Ave N Access 7TH AVE N Trail Head Access 1ST AVE D O W N T O W N G R A N D F O R K S .4 mi. .4 mi. .3 mi. RR BRIDGE .1 mi. NE AVE ND 2 Crestwood Community Green LaFave Park .2 mi. BUSINESS HWY NO 2 Town Square Athletic Trail Head Rotary Park Fields .5 mi.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Red River of the North Annual Report 2006
    State of the Red River of the North Assessment of the 2003 and 2004 Water Quality Data for the Red River and its Major Minnesota Tributaries April 2006 2 Cover photo: Tamarac River By Wayne Goeken State of the Red River of the North Assessment of the 2003/2004 Water Quality Data for the Red River and its Major Minnesota Tributaries Bruce Paakh, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Wayne Goeken, Red River Watershed Management Board Danni Halvorson, Red River Watershed Management Board April 2006 This document, State of the Red River of the North – Assessment of the 2003/2004 Water Quality Data for the Red River and its Major Minnesota Tributaries, is also available on the MPCA Web site: www.pca.state.mn.us in the water quality and Red River Basin sections. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Detroit Lakes Regional Office 714 Lake Avenue Plaza, Suite 220 Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 (218) 847-1519 Printed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency using no less than 20 percent recycled paper. 3 Acknowledgements This report is the result of the work of many individuals from a large array of water management agencies. The authors express a deep appreciation to those who contributed to the study. Principle technical contributors in all aspects of the project were Mark Evenson and Pat Baskfield (MPCA). Their advice and support in the areas of program design, data assessment, modeling, and report review and comment were invaluable. Their expertise and experience in this arena and their willingness to assist when overloaded with other responsibilities is greatly appreciated. Those contributing during program development and design include: Steve Heiskary, Louise Hotka, Greg Johnson, Jim Klang, Sylvia McCollar, Molly MacGregor, Joe Magner, Bill Thompson, Bruce Wilson and Jim Ziegler (MPCA), and Mike Ell (ND Department of Health).
    [Show full text]
  • Map 2 of Red River of the North State Water Trail
    RED RIVER OF THE NORTH A State Water Trail Guide Section 2 of 3 48 ' ' ' ˚055 ' ' 55 50 CONTINUED ON NEXT PANEL 10 CONTINUED ON NEXT MAP 00 ˚ ˚ ED RIVER ROUTE DESCRIPTION ˚ 22 ˚ 969 96 R 97 97 Except during fl oods, the Red River of the North is slow- 290 64 41 moving and picturesque with its tree-covered banks and 48˚ 3404 frequent wildlife sightings. It is serene and quiet even as the Grand Maraisarr 05 ' 4 220 Red passes through cities. Reminders of the past are found in Creek outtletl 23 the muddy banks where bison bones occasionally are Bridge Climax 21 exposed. These muddy banks may make access diffi cult. 29 There are no rapids except at some of the dams. Low fl ows expose rocks and snags creating hazards for motors and occasionally block the channel. C Rivere outleto e 81 Direcctction of flow . 47 Note: River miles are counted beginning at the mouth of the RKS 7˚35 ' O Red River at Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, and ending at FO K C Breckenridge, Minn., according to a system developed by the D 47˚35 MaraisMa River outleut t 67 ' ND U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Right (R) and left (L) refer to POLPO right and left bank, respectively, when facing downstream. A ' GRA 45 R ˚ 345 iv 409.9 County Road 39 bridge. e 96 48 r ˚00 ' 392.8 County Roads 1/25 bridges. 64 392.7 Norman County Highway 25 Boat Ramp (R). Water Access. Located north of bridge. Parking. Shore ' 10 fi shing.
    [Show full text]
  • Mn) Huc: 09020303
    RED LAKE (MN) HUC: 09020303 Rapid Watershed Assessment Red Lake (MN) HUC: 09020303 Rapid watershed assessments provide initial estimates of where conservation investments would best address the concerns of landowners, conservation districts, and other community organizations and stakeholders. These assessments help land–owners and local leaders set priorities and determine the best actions to achieve their goals. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250-9410, or call 1 (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. RED LAKE (MN) HUC: 09020303 Introduction The Red Lake 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subbasin is part of the Red River Basin in northwestern Minnesota. The watershed occurs in the Glacial Lake Agassiz Plain and Northern Minnesota Wetlands Level III Ecoregions. The greater Red River basin characteristically has a poorly defined floodplain and low gradient that combine with extensive drainage, widespread conversion of tallgrass prairie to farmland, and urban/ suburban development to leave the basin subject to frequent floods that affect urban and rural infrastructure and agricultural production.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Flow Response to Climate in Minnesota
    ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Project Report No. 510 Stream Flow Response to Climate in Minnesota by Filiz Dadaser-Celik and Heinz G. Stefan Prepared for Legislative Citizens Committee on Minnesota Resources St. Paul, Minnesota April 2009 Minneapolis, Minnesota 1 The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap, age or veteran status. 2 Abstract The variability of stream flows in Minnesota, and the relationship between stream flows and climate are the focus of this report. We analyze historical flow records of Minnesota streams to determine how much frequency and magnitude of flows have been affected by climate and land use changes. Flow duration analysis, high and low flow ranking, and flood frequency analysis were applied to recorded mean daily stream flows, 7-day average low flows, and annual peak flows. Data from 36 gauging stations located in five river basins of Minnesota (Minnesota River, Rainy River, Red River of the North, Lake Superior, and Upper Mississippi River Basins) covering the 1946-2005 period were used. To detect any changes that have occurred over time, data from the 1986-2005 and the 1946-1965 periods of record were analyzed separately. Flow duration curves were prepared for all gauging stations, and low flows (Q90, Q95), medium flows (Q50), and high flows (Q5, Q10) in the two time periods were examined. Multiple stream gauging stations in the same river basin generally showed consistent changes in stream flows, although deviations from a typical river basin pattern were noted at a few gauging stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Polk County Local Water Plan 5 Year Update/Approved 9/13/17
    Polk County Local Water Plan 5 Year Update/Approved 9/13/17 Local Water Management Coordinators East Polk Soil & Water Conservation District West Polk Soil and Water Conservation District 1 Polk County Board of Commissioners Donald Diedrich 32620 200 th St. SW Warren, MN 56762 Warren Strandell 2024 10th St. SE East Grand Forks, MN 56721 Gerald Jacobson 42310 Center Ave. S. Fertile, MN 56540 Gary Willhite 618 Lowell St. Crookston, MN 56716 Joan Lee 28292 300th St. SE McIntosh, MN 56556 2 Polk County Water Plan Committee Joan Lee County Commissioner Jerry Jacobson County Commissioner Lisa Newton East Polk Soil & Water Conservation District Sarah Mielke East Polk Soil & Water Conservation District Ken Pederson East Polk Soil & Water Conservation District John Sorenson West Polk Soil & Water Conservation District Nicole Bernd West Polk Soil & Water Conservation District Brett Arne MN Board of Water & Soil Resources Josh Holte Polk County Environmental Services Emily Hutchins, MN Department of Natural Resources Stephanie Klamm Natural Resources Conservation Service Dan Wilkens Sand Hill River Watershed District Corey Hanson Red Lake Watershed District Christine Slowinski Middle River Snake River Watershed District Denise Oakes MN Pollution Control Agency Michael Knudson IWI Laurie Fairchild U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Rob Sip MN Department of Agriculture Jennilynn Marchand MN Department of Health Richard Rock Union Lake Improvement District Mike Schulz Maple Lake Improvement District Bob Baird City of Crookston Mike Powers City of East Grand Forks Assoc. of Townships 3 Table of Contents County Commissioners……………………………………………………………….2 Task Force Committee…………………………………………….………………….3 I. Executive Summary………………………………………………………5 Introduction Purpose of the Local Water Management Plan Local Water Management Update Process Description of Priority Concerns Consistency with Other Plans Watersheds in Polk County II.
    [Show full text]