Lake Superior Basin Plan
Examining the Relative Health of Watersheds
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency February 29, 2004
Lake Superior Basin Plan
“The health of our waters is the principal measure
of how we live on the Land”
- Luna Leopold
February 29, 2003
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Affiliated Partners
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments...... 1
Chapter 1: Forward...... 4
1.1 Introduction...... 4
1.2 The Challenge ...... 4
1.3 Pollutants and Contaminated Sites...... 5
1.4 Local Development Pressures on Land and Lakeshores...... 5
1.5 Environmental Threats...... 6
1.6 Environmental Protection ...... 7
1.7 Environmental Pledge...... 8
Chapter 2: Executive Summary...... 10
2.1 Overview...... 10
2.2 Basin-wide and Geographic Specific Recommendations...... 10
2.3 Public Perceptions...... 13
2.4 Monitoring ...... 14
2.5 Existing Water Management Priorities...... 14
2.6 Emerging Issues...... 17
2.7 Implementation ...... 17
Chapter 3: Lake Superior Basin Plan Recommendations...... 19
3.1 Recommendation Process ...... 19
3.2 Recommendations...... 19
Chapter 4: Introduction – Key Basin Issues/Perspectives ...... 32
4.1 Basin Information Document Highlights...... 32
4.2 Themes in Water Quality Protection...... 33
4.3 Public Perceptions...... 35
4.3.1 Environmental and Economic Views...... 36
4.3.2 Scenery or Natural Environment ...... 36
4.3.3 Environmental Information/Protection ...... 38 4.3.4 Economic Growth vs. Environmental Protection ...... 38
4.3.5 Factors Influencing Land Use Decisions ...... 40
4.3.6 Condition of Streams, Lakes & Wetlands...... 41
4.3.7 Public involvement in resource management ...... 41
4.3.8 Public Views of Current Environmental Efforts...... 44
Chapter 5: Basin Plan Overview...... 45
5.1 Purpose of the Plan ...... 45
5.2 Review Cycle...... 46
5.3 Minnesota’s Basin Management Approach...... 46
5.4 Water Resource Management in Minnesota...... 47
5.5 Water Resource Management in Great Lakes ...... 48
Chapter 6: Process Overview...... 50
6.1 Process Overview...... 50
6.2 Programmatic Work Group...... 50
6.2.1 Roles and Responsibilities:...... 51
6.3 Public Participation...... 51
6.3.1 Listening Log...... 52
6.3.2 Public Meetings ...... 52
6.3.3 The Electronic Survey...... 53
6.3.4 Expanding Basin Views news...... 53
Chapter 7: Introduction – Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment...... 54
7.1 Specific Goals and Objectives: ...... 54
7.2 Methodology...... 55
7.3 Data Interpretation ...... 57
7.3.1 Condition Parameters...... 69
7.3.2 Vulnerability Parameters ...... 91
Chapter 8: Environmental Monitoring...... 131
8.1 Water Quality Monitoring...... 131
8.1.1 Condition monitoring...... 132 8.1.2 Milestone Site Program...... 132
8.1.3 Volunteer Monitoring ...... 133
8.1.4 Problem investigation monitoring...... 133
8.1.5 Effectiveness monitoring ...... 134
8.1.6 Compliance monitoring ...... 134
8.1.7 Ground Water Monitoring ...... 134
8.1.8 Biological Monitoring...... 135
8.2 Air Monitoring...... 136
8.2.1 Criteria Pollutant Monitoring...... 137
8.2.2 Air Toxics Monitoring ...... 138
8.2.3 Acid Rain/Mercury Monitoring ...... 138
8.3 Land Use Monitoring...... 139
Chapter 9: Lake Superior Water Management Priorities ...... 140
9.1 Threatened or Impaired Waters ...... 140
9.1.1 303d Impaired Waters List...... 141
9.1.2 305b Report to Congress...... 143
9.2 St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan ...... 143
9.3 Fish Consumption Advisories...... 144
9.4 Source Water Protection Areas...... 147
9.4.1 Wellhead Protection...... 147
9.4.2 Source Water Assessments ...... 147
9.5 High Quality Waters ...... 148
9.6 State Parks...... 148
9.7 Boundary Waters Canoe Area ...... 158
9.8 Scientific and Natural Areas ...... 158
9.9 County, State, and National Forests...... 158
9.9.1 State Forests...... 158
9.9.2 Superior National Forest...... 159
9.10 City and County Parks, Recreational Areas and Nature Preserves...... 161
9.11 Environmental Hazard Areas...... 161
9.12 Beach Program...... 161
9.13 Water Quality Implementation Projects...... 164 9.14 Grant Funded Projects...... 164
9.14.1 Lake Superior Coastal Program Projects ...... 164
9.14.2 Section 319/Clean Water Partnership Projects ...... 165
Chapter 10: Key Plans and Policies...... 167
10.1 Binational Plans ...... 167
10.2 Superior National Forest Plan...... 168
10.3 State Forest Plans...... 168
10.4 County Forest Plans ...... 168
10.5 Fisheries Management Plans...... 168
10.6 Local Comprehensive Plans and Policies ...... 170
10.7 County Water Plans ...... 170
10.8 Coastal Plans...... 171
10.9 River Corridor Plans ...... 172
10.10 Wastewater Plans...... 173
10.11 Transportation Plans ...... 173
10.12 Regional Economic Development Plans...... 174
Chapter 11: Emerging Issues...... 175
11.1 Local Issues...... 175
11.1.1 Stream Warming ...... 175
11.1.2 Development along the North Shore...... 175
11.1.3 Paper Companies ...... 176
11.1.4 Stability of Northeastern Minnesota’s Resource Based Economy ...... 176
11.1.5 Directional Drilling in Lake Superior...... 176
11.2 Statewide Issues...... 177
11.2.1 Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Program...... 177
11.2.2 Off-Road Vehicle Trails ...... 177
11.2.3 Individual Sewage Treatment Systems...... 178
11.2.4 Management of Wild Rice Waters...... 178
11.2.5 Exotic Species...... 178
11.3 National Issues...... 179
11.3.1 Global Warming...... 179 11.3.2 Water Diversions/Commercial Exportation...... 180
Chapter 12: Basin Plan Implementation...... 182
12.1 Implementation Overview ...... 182
12.2 Guiding Principles ...... 182
12.3 Implementation Structure...... 183
12.4 Implementation Timeframe ...... 185
12.5 Coordination ...... 185
12.6 The Implementation Process...... 186
12.7 Monitoring ...... 186
12.8 Evaluation ...... 187
12.9 Adaptation...... 187
12.10 Next Steps ...... 188
Appendix A - Implementation Example...... 189
Appendix B - Watershed Assessment Guidance ...... 194
Appendix C - Data Dictionary ...... 213
Appendix D - Implementation Projects – Completed to Date ...... 220
Appendix E - Implementation Projects – Not Completed ...... 234
Appendix F - Survey Responses*...... 247
Appendix G - Responsiveness Summary...... 269
Appendix H - Key words and ACRONYMS...... 322
REFERENCES ...... 331
Table of Figures
Figure 2.1 Watershed Assessment Summary Scores...... 12
Figure 7.1 Minnesota Ecoregions ...... 58
Figure 7.2 – Lake Superior Basin Reference Map...... 59 th
Figure 7.3 – 5 Level Watersheds ...... 60
Figure 7.4 Lake Superior North HUC Codes...... 61
Figure 7.5 Lake Superior South HUC Codes...... 62
Figure 7.6 Nemadji River HUC Codes...... 63
Figure 7.7 Cloquet River Watershed HUC Codes...... 64
Figure 7.8 Whiteface Watershed HUC Codes ...... 65
Figure 7.9 Western St. Louis River Watershed Complex HUCs...... 66
Figure 7.10 Central St. Louis River Watershed Complex HUC Codes...... 67
Figure 7.11 – % Public Land Ownership (Condition Parameter)...... 68
Figure 7.12 Number of Dams (Condition Parameter) ...... 73
Figure 7.13 Road Density (Condition Parameter) ...... 76
Figure 7.14 Tourism/Recreation Pressure (Condition Parameter)...... 77
Figure 7.15 Population Density by Hectare (Condition Parameter)...... 78
Figure 7.16 % Change in Population Density 1990-2000 (Condition Parameter) ...... 84
Figure 7.17 # of Stream Crossings (Condition Parameter)...... 85
Figure 7.18 Nonpoint Source Category (Condition Parameter) ...... 86
Figure 7.19 Point Sources (Condition Parameter) ...... 87
Figure 7.20 Overall Conditions...... 90
Figure 7.21 % Riparian Areas in Forest or Wetland (Vulnerability Parameter) ...... 92 Figure 7.22 % Wetland, Bog, Marsh (Vulnerability Parameter) ...... 93
Figure 7.23 % Open Water (Vulnerability Parameter) ...... 97
Figure 7.24 % Erodible Soils (Vulnerability Parameter)...... 98
Figure 7.25 Endangered Species – Number of Occurrences (Vulnerability Parameter) ...... 103
Figure 7.26 Exotic Species – Number of Occurrences (Vulnerability Parameter)...... 109
Figure 7.27 Impaired Waters (Vulnerability Parameter) ...... 110
Figure 7.28 High Quality Waters Index (Vulnerability Parameter) ...... 111
Figure 7.29 Private and Public Water Supplies (Vulnerability Parameter) ...... 116
Figure 7.30 % Native Fish Species (Vulnerability Parameter)...... 117
Figure 7.31 Overall Vulnerability...... 118
Figure 7.32 Watershed Assessment Summary Scores...... 120
Figure 7.33 Lowest Watershed Summary Scores...... 121
Figure 7.34 Public Land Ownership <=50% ...... 122
Figure 7.35 Mid-Level Watershed Assessment Summary Scores...... 123
Figure 7.36 Highest Summary Scores ...... 124
Figure 7.37 Hydrologic Unit Codes – Duluth Metropolitan Area...... 127
Figure 7.38 Overall Conditions – Duluth Metropolitan Area...... 128
Figure 7.39 Overall Vulnerability - Duluth Metropolitan Area...... 129
Figure 7.40 Summary Scores – Duluth Metropolitan Area ...... 130
Figure 9.1 Impaired Waters List 303(d) List ...... 142
Figure 9.2 305(b) Water Quality Assessment – 2002...... 145
Figure 9.3 305(b) Water Quality Assessment-Recreational Use...... 146
Figure 9.4 Source Water Assessment Area for City of Beaver Bay...... 150 Figure: 9.5 Source Water Assessment Area for City of Duluth ...... 151
Figure 9.6 Source Water Assessment Area for City of Grand Marais...... 152
Figure 9.7 Source Water Assessment Area for City of Two Harbors ...... 153
Figure 9.8 Source Water Assessment Area for City of Silver Bay...... 154
Figure 9.9 Percent of Streams in Trout Waters...... 155
Figure 9.10 ORVW Waters...... 156
Figure 9.11 Wild Rice Waters ...... 157
Figure 9.12 County, State Forests, and National Forests...... 160
Figure 9.13 Beaches Monitored Under the Beach Program ...... 163 Table of Tables
Table 2.2 Lake Superior Basin Plan Recommendations...... 18
Table 7.1 Condition Parameters...... 56
Table 7.2 Vulnerability Parameters ...... 56
Table 7.3 Watershed Assessment Worksheet Example...... 57
Table 7.4 [Minor Watersheds with <= 10% Public Ownership] ...... 69
Table 7.5 [Minor Watersheds with >=45 and <=65 % Public Ownership] ...... 70
Table 7.6 [Number of Dams]...... 72
Table 7.7 [Road Density –(% of 100 Meter Cells – Minus Water Features Intersected by Roads ...... 74
Table 7.8 [Recreation/Tourism Pressure - # of Facilities by Watershed]...... 74
Table 7.9 [Population Density/Hectare] ...... 75
Table 7.10 [% Population Density Change,1990 – 2000] ...... 79
Table 7.11 [Stream Crossings >=17] ...... 81
Table 7.12 [Nonpoint Source Category >=25%]...... 82
Table 7.13 [>=50 Point Sources ...... 83
Table 7.14 [Overall Conditions <= 964]...... 88
Table 7.15 [Overall Conditions >=2585]...... 89
Table 7.16 [<=50% of Riparian Area in Forest or Wetland] ...... 91
Table 7.17 [>=50% Wetland, Bog, Fen, Marsh] ...... 94
Table 7.18 [>= 12% Open Water] ...... 95
Table 7.19 [>=50% Erodible Soils ...... 99
Table 7.20 [= >10 Occurrences of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species ...... 101
Table 7.21 [Exotic Species Occurrences by Minor Watershed]...... 104 Table 7.22 [Impaired Waters Index <=2] ...... 105
Table 7.23 [High Quality Waters Index <=11]...... 107
Table 7.24 [Water Supplies >=400]...... 112
Table 7.25 [<=50% Native Fish Species] ...... 113
Table 7.26 [Overall Vulnerability <=1270]...... 113
Table 7.27 [Overall Vulnerability >=2617]...... 114
Table 7.28 [Duluth Metropolitan Area Summary Scores]...... 125
Table 8.1 Sample Monitoring Program ...... 132
Table 9.1 Waters on 2004 Draft Section 303(d) or TMDL List ...... 141
Appendix
Table 1. Base Data LayerS for East-Wide Watershed Assessment PROTOCOL...... 199
Table 2. Condition and Vulnerability Parameters for East-Wide Watershed Assessment Protocol ...... 201
Table 3. Derivation of Data for Base Data Layers...... 203
Table 4. Derivation of Data for Condition and Vulnerability Parameters...... 204
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information)...... 220
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) ...... 234
Acknowledgments
Production of this plan was made possible through the Sam and Donna Martin (Pine County), Dick Sigel,Wayne generosity and teamwork of a variety of organizations and Seidel and Michelle Larson (Lake County), Art Norton (Itasca individuals. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, County), Steve Hughes and Dianne Speed (Aitkin County), whose financial programs support watershed programs Karen Evens (Cook County), Bruce Grohn and Russ nationwide, provided assistance to the Minnesota Pollution Georgesen (St. Louis County) Peggy Nasby (Minnesota Office Control Agency for the completion of the Lake Superior Basin of Tourism), and Darren Vogt (1854 Authority). and basin plans throughout the state. Another agency whose assistance played a key role in this plan is the U.S. Forest As the facilitator of the basin planning process, this report was Service. Both Scott Snelson (Superior National Forest) and prepared and authored by a team of MPCA project staff. Carri Alan Clingenpeel (Quachita National Forest) provided Lohse-Hanson provided the foundation for the plan through her technical guidance to help implement the East-wide Watershed work on the 1997 Lake Superior Basin Information Document. Assessment Protocol as part of the basin planning process. Amy Peterson and Mel Huff (former employees) provided Alan Clingenpeel completed some of the analyses himself, and technical and logistical support critical to the early stages of the provided guidance and training to project staff. planning process. Special thanks for the plan itself should go to Joel Peterson for development of chapters four, nine, and A number of individuals played key roles in providing data for ten; Josh Gerads for work on chapters four, six, nine, eleven, the watershed assessment component of the basin plan. These twelve, and appendix F; Brian Fredrickson for chapters one, individuals include: Alan Clingenpeel (U.S. Forest Service), two, seven, and twelve; Tom Estabrooks for chapters eight and Deserare Hendrickson (MDNR-Fisheries, Clint Little (MDNR- nine; Jennifer Frikken for chapters three, five, ten, eleven, and Waters), Dan Kellner (MDNR, USCOE), Steve Persons appendix C and H; and Tricia Ryan (DNR) and Beth Kluthe (MDNR - Fisheries), Veron Imgrund (MDNR Fisheries), Paul (MDH) for contributions to chapters nine and twelve. Patty Eiler (MDNR Fisheries), Sarah Hoffman (MDNR – Ecological Bacigalupo used her extensive computer skills to edit and Services), Jay Rendall (MDNR – Ecological Services), Nick format the document. Proulx (MNDR – Ecological Services), Don Schliep (MDNR- Fisheries), Scott Niemela (MPCA-Outcomes Division), Paul The key technical advisory group that has been involved in the Trapp (MPCA), Maggie Gorsuch (MDNR), Carrie Bartz process to date is the Lake Superior Basin Programmatic Work (MPCA – Environmental Outcomes), Heidi Bauman (MPCA – Group (PWG). This group, whose members are outlined in the Community Area/wide Programs, Mike Peloquin (MDNR – section that follows, provides advice and support to plan Waters), Nancy Costa (Fond du Lac Reservation), Joan development. The PWG was established in January of 2001. Weyandt, Angel Trettle, and Bruce Benson (Carlton County),
1 Lake Superior Basin Programmatic Work Group
Anderson, Jesse Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Johnson, Mark St. Louis County Planning Department Environmental Outcomes Bauman, Heidi Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Kean, Al Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Community/Area-wide Programs Resources Belden, Dan Western Lake Superior Sanitary District Kerzinski, Ed St. Louis County Health Department
Boheim, R.C. South St. Louis County Soil and Water Klein, Al U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Conservation District Burke, Paul U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kluthe, Beth Minnesota Department of Health
Campbell, Todd Minnesota Department of Transportation Lohse-Hanson, Carri Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Community/Area-wide Programs Carey, Pat Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Lonsdale, Marnie City of Duluth Community/Area-wide Programs Clark, Gene Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Lovdahl, Ted Lake Superior Association of Soil and Water Resources Conservation District Costa, Nancy Fond du Lac Reservation Majewski, Bill City of Duluth (Retired)
Estabrooks, Tom Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Matlack, Brad Carlton County Soil and Water Conservation Community/Area-wide Programs District Evens, Karen Cook County Miller, Dave Forest Resources Council of Minnesota
Hagley, Cindy Minnesota Sea Grant Moon, Larry Lake County Liaison
Hendrickson, Deserae Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Nelson, Mark Minnesota Board of Water and Soil – Fisheries Resources Hildebrand, Robert U.S. Coast Guard (Retired) Peterson, Amy Arrowhead Regional Development Commission (former representative) Hilmoe, Cindy Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Peterson, Joel Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Community/Area-wide Programs Hopkins, Steve U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peterson, Tim U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2 Lake Superior Basin Programmatic Work Group
Retka, Dan Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Sigel, Dick Lake County Land Use Department – Waters Rosberg, Joanne U of M Extension, Nemadji River Project Sandstrom, Paul USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Ryan, Tricia Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Snelson, Scott U.S. Forest Service – Lake Superior Coastal Program Schaub, Tom Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Thompson, John St. Louis County Land Department Community/Area-wide Programs Schomberg, Jesse Minnesota Sea Grant Vogt, Darren 1854 Authority
Ruurd, Schoolderman Arrowhead Regional Development Weyandt, Joan Carlton County Commission Schultz, Marty Arrowhead Regional Development Zabel, Mark Minnesota Department of Agriculture Commission (former representative) Seidel, Wayne Cook/Lake County Soil and Water Conservation District/University of Minnesota Extension Service
3
Chapter 1: Forward
Solitude, scenic views, fish and wildlife, wilderness lakes are impressive in their own right. However, Lake experiences, outdoor recreation, the perfect environment for Superior is in a class by itself. Lake Superior covers a surface rugged individualism…How can we protect our region’s area of about 31,700 square miles. Roughly speaking, Lake water resources in the face of increasing growth and change? Superior is about the size of Maine. It holds such an immense volume of water that it could flood all of North and South America under a foot of water (MN Sea Grant, 1999). 1.1 Introduction There are many reasons to live in northeastern Minnesota; for Northeastern Minnesota has always been known for its rugged some, the basin’s forests, minerals, and waters provide a means landscape and hardy inhabitants. Forested and water rich, this to sustain their families in small rural communities. Others are landscape is a gift from glaciers that once covered this area simply attracted by scenic views and opportunities to hike, fish, 10,000 years ago. Glacial melt waters formed Lake Superior, ski, hunt, or seek solitude right outside their doorsteps. Many as well as the myriad of lakes and wetlands that dot can easily escape to a favorite untrammeled spot or to secluded northeastern Minnesota’s landscape. These fragile lakes and private homes or properties. Our cities, homes, and wetlands persist in abundance principally because glaciers neighborhoods are crisscrossed by streams and rivers, blessed receded without the development of extensive drainage with nearby swimming beaches, or have lake views or other systems. This lack of an extensive drainage or plumbing scenic vistas. Traffic jams are relatively rare. The air is clear. system, coupled with excess precipitation and thin soils We see wolves, deer, moose and other wildlife routinely. For underlain by bedrock, has produced a landscape defined and many of us, this is our vision of the good life. shaped by water.
Nearly one-fifth of the state’s 15,000 lakes and over 150 trout 1.2 The Challenge streams are located in four of the seven counties that make up Minnesota’s portion of the Lake Superior Basin. While Protecting northeastern Minnesota’s valuable natural resources, topography and bedrock make the basin’s landscape a mosaic and resulting quality of life, may well be our biggest future of water bodies, forests are responsible for its generally high challenge. Many of the qualities that attracted us to this region quality. Forests that cover approximately 84 percent of the in the first place are also magnets for people from throughout basin’s surface slowly filter and release precipitation to Minnesota, the surrounding states, and, perhaps, the world. groundwater systems, streams, and lakes (Minnesota Unfortunately, the lakes, streams, and rivers that are such an Environmental Quality Board, 2000). The basin’s streams and
4 important part of our quality of life have natural limits. These 1.4 Local Development Pressures on Land waters are already besieged by an unprecedented number of and Lakeshores pressures and pollution sources:
Development and use pressures are also evident in many of the
Atmospheric pollutants region’s parks, rivers, and lakes. Gooseberry Falls State Park
Bio-accumulative or toxic pollutants has set, and broken, visitor records year after year. Trails
Contaminated sites among the park’s old cedars are often so trampled by visitors
Waterfront use or development that young trees are unable to gain footholds (Minneapolis Star
Exotic species invasions Tribune, 1995). A 1998 series of workshops by the Minnesota
Loss of riparian areas and wetlands Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Sea Grant
Sprawling development reported widespread concern by users about the condition and
future prospects of our lakes. Users expressed worry about
everything from over-development to excessive noise and
1.3 Pollutants and Contaminated Sites pollution (Hagley, et al, 1999). Rivers and streams in the region are under similar pressures. The Minnesota Pollution Bio-accumulative and toxic substances like mercury and Control Agency (MPCA) develops and submits biennial lists of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) travel long distances in the impaired water bodies to the US Environmental Protection atmosphere, only to fall out in the region’s lakes, rivers, and Agency (EPA). This register, which included 130 watersheds streams. One or more of these pollutants are found in fish from in the state in 1996, now numbers closer to 200. Popular and nearly every water body tested (MN Department of Health, scenic attractions like the St. Louis, Knife, Lester, Amity, and 2000). Pollutants bio-accumulate, or increase in concentration, Poplar rivers are included on this ever-growing list. when fish consume microscopic organisms or forage species contaminated with heavy metals or other chemical compounds. On the basis of population figures, it would be easy to conclude Bio-accumulative and persistent toxic pollutants are that the Lake Superior Basin is not subject to the same trends particularly problematic in places where our industrial legacy or pressures as other coastal areas. With the exception of Cook still resides in sediments. The St. Louis River, which is the County, most counties in the basin have either experienced largest U.S. tributary to Lake Superior, is one such slight losses or modest increases in population. However, what watercourse. Pollutants such as mercury, DDT, Dieldrin, is masked by these figures is seasonal or tourism-related dioxin, PCBs, toxaphene, and benzo(a)pyrene have been development. A 1995 Minneapolis Star Tribune article detected consistently in water samples collected from this river reported that tourism expenditures in Cook County increased
(MPCA, 1999). by 143 percent in the period from 1983 to 1993. This insatiable appetite for the North Shore experience drives demand for second homes, resorts, golf courses, and services.
5 Fifty new lodging establishments alone were built on the shore and homes to forests and rural landscapes of northern from 1990 to 1995 (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 1995). There Minnesota? Will these transplants expect the same services are now projects underway or proposed that will provide and amenities formerly available only in the suburbs or city centralized sewer service to large parts of the North Shore. It center? What does this change mean for property values, and is impossible to predict the consequences of this improved consequently, property taxes for the current residents? What sewer service with any degree of certainty. However, about impacts to forests and water quality? Will forests be experience elsewhere suggests that sewers, road improvements, subdivided and fragmented to provide private retreats and and other large public works projects promote subsequent business locations for these technology pioneers? If so, how growth and development. will these changes impact water quality, wildlife, recreation, and opportunities for solitude? For most of recorded human history, we have organized our economic and social lives around cities and urban centers. Cities serve as focal points for religious and political 1.5 Environmental Threats expression, communication, security, culture, employment, and commerce. However, the notion of small towns and cities as “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to centers of economic and social activity is being challenged by repeat it” -George Santayana the world-wide web and information technology. Businesses and employees no longer have to be located in urban centers to The old adage, “Those who do not learn from history are to communicate with their employers and customers. Erik repeat it,” rings true when it comes to the treatment of unique Gordon, Director of the Center for Retailing Education and natural places in the United States. Our desire to live on or Research at the University of Florida, envisions a future where near water, or to have every conceivable amenity available companies and organizations are composed of networks of when we visit, has permanently altered many of America’s individuals located wherever they choose. He thinks larger greatest places. Lake Tahoe, on the California - Nevada companies will outsource much of their work to these networks border, is a case in point. Lake Tahoe’s sky-blue waters and because they can take advantage of increasing need for scenic views have acted like a magnet since the vast American specialization, without the requirement of hiring additional West was settled. Lodging establishments, golf courses, employees (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 1999). resorts, seasonal and year-round homes have steadily and incrementally gobbled up large parts of the lake’s shoreline and This new-found geographic freedom raises some serious watershed. When the lake’s water quality visibly deteriorated, questions about the consequences of technological change on environmentalists took the matter to court. An injunction the quality of life in northeastern Minnesota. Does it now followed requiring that all management agencies and interested mean that technology pioneers and urbanites, who are weary of parties participate in a series of consensus-building workshops fast-paced and stressful lives, will decide to relocate businesses
6 designed to set self-imposed limits on watershed development the Great Lakes. There are also 20 lakes and rivers in the basin (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 1996). on the state’s register, or list, of impaired waters.
Humanity’s crush not only leaves its footprint on the country’s scenic or natural wonders. We are also drawn in huge numbers 1.6 Environmental Protection to the waters edge and coasts. According to a recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Minnesota is extremely fortunate to be a place where civic (NOAA), 53 percent, or about 141 million people, live in involvement is more than a cliché or catch phrase. It is a narrow corridors along the nation’s coasts. These populations tendency deeply entrenched in the traditions and psyche of the have been accompanied by explosive development rates. An state’s population. University of Minnesota professor Wendy estimated 9,000 single-family homes and 6,700 multi-unit Rahn has referred to this trait as “social capital.” “High levels buildings are constructed every week on the nation’s coasts. of social capital are a community resource that allows people in These high construction rates and continued influx of new that community to cooperate with each other and solve residents not only has significant environmental implications, common problems,” (U of M CLA, 2000). Research suggests but helps explain why wealth is also concentrated on the that social capital is more than a nice trait. “Cross-national coasts. Eighteen of the 20 wealthiest U.S. counties are situated comparisons clearly indicate that the more social capital you on the coasts (National Oceanic and Atmospheric have, the more prosperous you are…” (U of M CLA, 2000). Administration, 1999). Some experts argue that social capital is critical to economic success, because it provides the trust necessary to engage in Nothing is particularly unusual about wanting to spend time or business transactions. “Without trust you can’t do that,” live near the water’s edge. However, this desire has taken its (U of M CLA, 2000). toll on aquatic ecosystems and water quality. As populations move to the coasts, natural features that attracted them there in Social capital is very conspicuous when it comes to the first place are often lost or degraded. Population pressures Minnesota’s natural resources and environment management. lead to sprawling development, increased solid-waste Approximately 32,000 volunteers assisted the MDNR in 1999 production, stormwater runoff, demands for water and energy with its mission (Land Management Information Center, 1998). supplies, fragmentation of forests and wildlife habitat, and Volunteers serve as campground hosts, woodland advisors, diminished water quality in rivers and lakes. Even though the firearms safety officers, wildlife researchers, lake level readers, Lake Superior Basin has not yet experienced the population precipitation observers, and in a wide variety of other growth common to other coastal areas, there is already capacities. Similarly, some volunteers throughout the state are significant evidence of water quality deterioration. The St. involved in the MPCA’s lake and stream water-quality Louis River is on the International Joint Commission’s list of monitoring programs. Non-profit organizations, such as the the 42 most impaired rivers, embayments, and harbors around Rivers Council of Minnesota, and local governments also
7 manage important environmental programs that depend on Federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau citizen input and assistance. of Land Management (BLM), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and U.S. EPA all strongly support watershed Paraphrasing an old saying, all conservation is ultimately local. and basin management approaches. The U.S. EPA advocates What this means in practical terms is that local groups and the use of basin, or watershed, approaches as one of its key governments are key partners in environmental protection. strategies for restoring the nation’s impaired waterways. Minnesota, in general, and Northeast Minnesota in particular, have marvelous examples of how social capital is leveraged at The social capital that is so fundamental to the basin approach, the local level to manage natural resources and protect the and that underlies Minnesota’s economic success, is very environment. One example is the Knife River Watershed fragile. According to Rahn, “It is much easier to destroy social Project. This 55,000-acre watershed project jointly capital than it is to create it. Data indicate that young people, administered by Lake and St. Louis County is a partnership of when compared with those of earlier generations, are less likely local, state, and federal agencies, and landowners. One of the to vote, have lower levels of trust, and are less engaged in key features of this project is the emphasis on the development voluntary associations.” For many young people, these of landowner stewardship plans. Stewardship plans provide relationship transactions have been replaced by other values landowners with options to manage their land in ways that (U of M CLA, 2000). This shift in values does not bode well contribute to the restoration and protection of the Knife River. for economic prosperity or environmental programs whose The Knife River Watershed Project is but one illustration of the foundations rest on social capital. creativity embodied in region’s local conservation efforts.
Some time ago, the MPCA concluded that it was virtually 1.7 Environmental Pledge impossible to protect the state’s waters without emphasizing collaborative and natural systems’ approaches. As such, in Without a concerted effort to manage change and growth, the 1995 the agency decided to reorganize its water programs good life will likely slip away lot by lot, lake by lake, stream around the state’s ten major drainage basins. Basins, or by stream. watersheds, provide a natural framework for the assessment of how human activities impact water quality. It is also an To protect the waters that make northeastern Minnesota’s approach that is dependent upon, and benefits from, quality of life the envy of the nation will require our collective Minnesota’s strong reservoir of social capital. talents and commitment. Northeastern Minnesota’s lifeblood, its waters, is under an unprecedented assault from global and Watershed, or basin, approaches are by no means unique to local pollution sources. Communities may have been naïve Minnesota. California, North Carolina and Wisconsin already about what was happening to the region’s waters years ago. have strong basin management or watershed programs. Rivers and lakes were largely used as dumping grounds for
8 unwanted or untreated wastes from industry and individuals. No plan will ever be in a position to single-handedly protect There were so many lakes and rivers in Minnesota that most our water quality and quality of life. Protection of these people never gave it a second thought. However, this legacy of resources requires continuous monitoring and constant dumping virtually untreated wastes into our waters is still with vigilance. The Lake Superior Basin Plan serves as an us in the sediments. The reality is that even fish caught from important starting point and tool to help in these restoration and the fabled waters of northeastern Minnesota come with protection efforts. The plan highlights threatened or consumption warnings. Even Lake Superior, which is so large endangered resources, identifies funding priorities, examines that it conjures up images of invincibility, has fish consumption the relationships between existing programs, and looks at advisories based on the presence of mercury and PCBs. cumulative impacts on water quality. It is intended to be a living document that is updated on a regular basis to examine Northeastern Minnesota is still blessed with an abundance of progress within the basin and to adjust to new or changing high quality lakes and streams. However, the same powerful conditions. forces that promote sprawling development are at work within these watersheds. With minor exception, population growth in the older urban centers in the basin follows the same national trend of static or declining populations. Areas around the periphery of these centers, however, continue to experience steady population growth (Land Management Information
Center, 1998). There has been a considerable amount written about the fiscal and social impacts of sprawl. Urban sprawl poses some serious problems from an environmental perspective. This pattern of development often leads to fragmentation of forests and wildlife habitat, disruption of drainage patterns and water storage areas, increased erosion and sediment delivery, changes in impervious surface, and increases in stormwater runoff volumes. Even minor changes in impervious surfaces within watersheds can impact species diversity or the abundance of fish in area streams. A study of trout populations in Washington State found that significant changes occurred in the diversity of fish species when the amount of impervious surface in a watershed increased by as little as two percent (Horner, 1994).
9
Chapter 2: Executive Summary
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) uses a phrase that aptly 2.1 Overview expresses this plan’s watershed management philosophy. That When it comes to the protection of our state’s water resources, expression is “save the best and restore what we can” (USFS, one expression powerfully summarizes the interrelationship 2000). Obviously, this statement needs to be interpreted within between land and water. Simply stated, this expression says, the context of watershed scale. It does not imply that resources “a lake or river is a reflection of its watershed.” Every natural should be diverted away from impacted watersheds and or human action that takes place within this system defines concentrated solely within high resource value watersheds. water quality in one way or another. These changes are not Even in the most impacted or degraded watersheds, there may always discernible, may be mitigated to some degree by natural be opportunities for restoration, or islands of ecological factors, or may have latent impacts. Reasonable people can significance, equal to watersheds in better overall condition. disagree about the extent or significance of these impacts. What this approach does do, however, is encourage thoughtful However, it is virtually untenable to argue that our use of the and deliberate decisions about how “we,” collectively, leverage land does not have significant and cumulative affects on water. limited financial and human resources to watersheds where intervention is most likely to produce a successful outcome. What this plan attempts to do is broadly define strategies, geographic and programmatic priorities, and goals for the management of water resources in the Minnesota portion of the 2.2 Basin-wide and Geographic Specific Lake Superior Basin. The approach taken by this plan is Recommendations primarily focused on watersheds themselves, even though there are policy recommendations that apply throughout the One of the key ambitions of this plan is to identify policy landscape. Fortunately, the Lake Superior Basin is one of the objectives and geographic priorities for water resource few places in Minnesota, and the nation, where there are still management in the Minnesota portion of the Lake Superior relatively undisturbed watersheds, rivers, and lakes. Therefore, Basin. Chapter Three lists 20 goals developed by an a major component of the plan is to recognize these watersheds interagency group established to guide plan development. and to focus on their protection. Equally important is the These goals, which are summarized in Table 2.2, recommend recognition of watersheds in need of restoration or whose strategies that run the gamut from enforcement actions to integrity is marginal or threatened. environmental education. At least two goals single out the important role local government plays in water quality protection and restoration. Prioritized roughly by order, the
10 first goal simply states that it is incumbent upon everyone to watersheds that score lower in relative watershed health. recognize and publicly support the important role local units of Similarly, goal two suggests that the maintenance and government play in the protection of water resources. The protection of high quality watersheds be a priority. Chapter second goal focuses on the application of land use and Seven also identifies watersheds that fall in the mid range of environmental laws in order to protect water resources. Local relative watershed health. These watersheds are rank ordered governments are where the “rubber meets the road” when it by score. As such, they are prioritized to a degree. However, comes to water resource protection. decisions about the implementation of specific strategies will occur once these watersheds are further analyzed in the plan Besides the broader policy objectives, one of the key goals of implementation phase. the Lake Superior Basin Plan was to set up a system to analyze and target resources to specific watersheds. The technique used in this plan builds off the approach used by the U.S. Forest Service to analyze watersheds in national forests throughout the eastern-half of the United States. The technique uses nineteen conditions and vulnerability indicators to generate a relative score of watershed health. Scores by minor watershed (areas typically from 3200 to 7370 acres in size) are depicted in Figure 2.1. As suggested by the legend, watersheds with lower scores tend to have poorer overall watershed health than watersheds with higher values. Since this is a relative comparison, lower scores do not automatically translate into severely impacted watersheds. It only means that these watersheds scored lower relative to other watersheds in the Lake Superior Basin.
It was beyond the scope of this plan to identify specific strategies for minor watersheds in the Lake Superior Basin. It is envisioned that these specific strategies will be developed as target watersheds are further analyzed during the implementation phase of the plan. There are, however, a number of goals in Table 2.2, and elsewhere in Chapter Three, that specifically target classes of watersheds. Goal Thirteen recommends focusing restoration and monitoring on
11
2.3 Public Perceptions Perceptions about Future Water Quality One of the most intriguing questions asked had to do with Watershed restoration and protection ultimately comes down to perceptions about future water quality in the Lake Superior the attitudes and practices of a wide variety of organizations, Basin. Almost half (48%) of the respondents predicted that the communities, and individuals. Restoration and protection water quality of their favorite lake or stream would decline in efforts are only successful insofar as they convince people and the next ten years. This response raises the question of whether organizations to work toward a common goal, and to modify this inevitability is, in part, a self-fulfilling prophecy. attitudes or practices to support those goals. Understanding these attitudes and practices was the impetus for a survey Top Reasons for living in Northeastern Minnesota conducted early in the plan’s development. In 2001, a survey Participants were asked to identify their top three choices for was conducted to gauge public opinion on a variety of water residing in Northeastern Minnesota. The responses in rank quality and environmental questions. The survey was order were: 1) scenery or natural environment, 2) proximity to administered in person to 122 individuals at locations outdoor recreation, and 3) employment or business throughout the Lake Superior Basin. Another 215 participants, opportunities. who either reside in or visit the basin regularly, provided responses to the same question set over the Internet. Excerpts Environmental Protection: Is it an Impediment to Growth? of the survey results are discussed below. The entire survey is Two-thirds of those surveyed said that environmental summarized in Appendix F. protection was not an impediment to growth. Reading into this response would seem to suggest that most of the participants Water Quality Threats believe that a balanced approach to development and Survey participants identified development and loss of conservation is not only desirable, but possible. The difficulty wetlands, buffers, and shoreline vegetation as the most seems to be in defining and implementing this approach. significant water quality threats. Forestry, mining, and other sources were considered less significant threats. With the Does My Community Balance Economic Development and exception of elected officials, responses were nearly identical Environmental Protection? when broken out by sector (e.g., government employee, There is a pretty clear divide on this question when it comes to business and industry, environmental group member, perceptions about how communities balance environmental researchers, civic groups, and unaffiliated citizens). Elected protection and economic development. 36% of the survey officials identified industrial and municipal discharges as most participants believe their communities strike an appropriate significant water quality threat. balance. In contrast, 39% of the respondents thought that their communities favored economics over environmental protection. A smaller percentage (16%) thought that their
13 communities favored environmental protection over economic planners, sanitary districts, industries, and soil and water development. conservation districts. Two examples of local monitoring efforts currently underway include projects in the Miller Creek and Knife River Watersheds. 2.4 Monitoring It is clearly beyond the scope of this plan to engage in the Monitoring is critical to the determination of water quality and development of a full-scale environmental monitoring plan. overall watershed health in the Lake Superior Basin. As is However, what is clear is that one outcome of this plan must be typical for most of the state, the level of resources devoted to the development of a comprehensive basin-wide environmental water quality and environmental monitoring are not adequate monitoring plan. The current lack of environmental compared to the enormity of the task. The North Shore, which monitoring information and the absence of a comprehensive is arguably one of the most important regions in the state, has data assessment are a couple of the key reasons why the only five streams that are monitored on a long term basis. watershed assessment, discussed in Chapter Seven, was Only the Pigeon and Knife rivers have any long term flow developed. This assessment acts as a database of gauging stations. With the exception of the lower St. Louis environmental information for all 435 minor watersheds in the River, the situation is similar or even worse in large parts of the basin. However, the accuracy and usefulness of this database St. Louis and Nemadji River Watersheds. Additionally, there would only be enhanced with improved water quality and is a lack of key biological information for parts of the basin. In environmental monitoring. particular, fish community data is either absent or out-dated in many of the region’s lakes and streams. 2.5 Existing Water Management Priorities A lack of long term water quality and environmental monitoring data does not mean that significant efforts have not Lake Superior is not only the jewel of the Great Lakes, but the been devoted to improving the availability of water quality and receiving water body for many of Minnesota’s lakes, streams, environmental condition data. Quite the contrary, there have rivers, and wetlands. The Lake is of such state-wide, national, been a number of monitoring efforts initiated recently. Some and international significance that there are a variety of specific of these monitoring projects include: 1) the North Shore programs in place to manage and protect it. These programs Stream Sentinel Study, 2) the Lake Superior Beach Program, automatically make the protection of Lake Superior a basin the Citizen Lake and Stream Monitoring Programs, and 3) the plan priority. Similarly, there are federal and state programs Duluth Streams initiative. These programs have been that set priorities for water quality and water resource augmented by site specific and regional projects carried out by management. These programs are priorities of the plan the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, tribal because they are driven by legislative directives, laws, and environmental and natural resource programs, county water court decisions. Lastly, there are water resource and
14 environmental priorities that are driven by previous state, • St. Louis River Remedial Action Plan. The St. Louis federal, and local decisions, or by the unique combination of River was designated an Area of Concern (AOC) shortly landscape features in the basin (e.g., concentration of forested after passage of the 1987 amendments to the Great Lakes lands, peat lands, wetlands, and lakes). These baseline Water Quality Agreement. While considerable progress priorities are touched on briefly in the following section: has been made to protect and restore habitats, to assess sediments, and to reduce loadings of conventional and toxic Program Priorities pollutants, work will continue for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the AOCs are priority sites for the newly
• Impaired Waters. The Clean Water Act requires that the passed Great Lakes Legacy Act. state identify lakes, rivers, and streams that are not meeting
their uses as designated by water quality standards. States • Source Water Protection. Source water protection is a are then required to develop plans to restore these impaired preventative approach that came about as a result of the uses. Excluding mercury impairments, there are eleven Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The 1996 SDWA water bodies in the Lake Superior Basin on the draft 2004 requires that the Minnesota Department of Health complete impaired waters list. source water assessments for all public water supplies. There are five municipalities and eleven non-community
• Lake-wide Area Management Plan. Signed in response public water suppliers that rely on surface water. Of the to a challenge from the International Joint Commission, the five municipalities, all but Duluth have agreed to use the Lake Superior Binational Program commits the Source Water Assessment to complete Source Water governments of the United States and Canada to a two-part Protection Plans. effort to protect Lake Superior. Part one is a zero discharge
demonstration project focusing on nine toxic persistent bio- • Lake Superior Beach Program. Congress passed the accumulative chemicals. Part two is a broader effort “Beach Act” in 2000 to focus on assessment and designed to protect Lake Superior’s ecosystem through dissemination of information about coastal recreational resource coordination between agencies and public waters. The focus of the program was to strengthen water involvement. The goal of this multiple stakeholder quality standards for beaches, to promote scientific approach is, “to develop new and innovative approaches to research, to improve state, local, and tribal beach programs, watershed management,” (EPA, 2000). The Binational and to provide water quality and risk management Program agreement is incorporated into the Lakewide-Area information to the public. Minnesota initiated its new Lake Management Plan, which is a formal requirement under Superior Beach Program in 2002 and expects to continue Annex II of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. indefinitely into the future.
15
• Lake Superior Coastal Program. Minnesota officially • Superior National Forest. Superior National Forest is a entered the Coastal Zone Management Program in 1999. three million acre forest that stretches for 150 miles along Minnesota’s program, which is entitled “Minnesota’s Lake the U.S. – Canadian border. It contains over 445,000 acres Superior Coastal Program, provides grant funds to of surface water, 1,300 miles of cold water streams, and organizations to help provide access to and manage coastal 950 miles of warm water streams. The Superior National resources. The program has provided millions of dollars in Forest is in both the Lake Superior and Rainy River basins. grant funds to support land acquisition, restoration efforts,
planning and research programs, and environmental • State Forests. The Minnesota Department of Natural education projects. A companion program, referred to as Resources manages nine state forests in the Lake Superior the Coastal Nonpoint Program, was also established to Basin. These forests are managed for multiple uses. identify, and mitigate, sources of nonpoint pollution in the
Lake Superior Basin. This plan was completed in July of • County Forests. Lake Superior Basin counties manage 2001, and its implementation is required by federal law. extensive tracts of forest land for multiple uses. St. Louis County manages over 900,000 acres of tax forfeit lands, Geographic Priorities part of which are in the Lake Superior Basin.
• Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. A one • City Forests and Parks. Cities also manage forest and million acre wilderness area created to preserve a landscape park lands. Duluth has an extensive park and forest system of lakes, rivers, streams, and forests. Parts of the consisting of 11,862 acres of public lands. wilderness fall within the Lake Superior Basin.
• Trout Waters. Watersheds along the coast of Lake
• State Parks. State parks were established by the Superior contain the bulk of the trout streams in the Lake Minnesota Legislature to preserve natural, scenic, and Superior Basin. These streams are designated by the cultural resources. There are eleven state parks in the Lake Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and are Superior Basin. protected through a number of state and federal statutes. These cold water fisheries are easily damaged through
• Scientific and Natural Areas (SNA). Scientific and major watershed alterations or loss of riparian areas. natural areas were created to preserve and maintain the
ecological diversity of Minnesota’s natural resources. • Wild Rice Waters. The Minnesota portion of the Lake There are eleven SNAs in the Lake Superior Basin, totaling Superior Basin contains a number of wild rice lakes and approximately 11, 645 acres. flowages. Successful wild rice propagation requires stable aquatic environments and good water quality.
16 2.6 Emerging Issues Lakes and Lake Superior, in particular, represent one of the largest freshwater systems in the world. With water Minnesota’s Lake Superior Basin is connected not only to the increasingly becoming a global commodity, it will be larger Great Lakes – St. Lawrence system, but is increasingly extremely difficult to prohibit out-of-basin water transfers from influenced by trends in global trade and the environment. Lake Superior. Global warming, or climate change, is clearly one of the issues that continues to receive considerable attention. If predictions are correct, climate change will have serious consequences for 2.7 Implementation Northeastern Minnesota. Possible effects include changes in water levels, water quality, stream flow, forests, species Plan implementation, as it is theoretically envisioned in survival, and disease transmission. According to a recent state Chapter Twelve, is nearly impossible to document as it will government report, some parts of Minnesota have already actually transpire after the publication of this document. The experienced significant increases in precipitation since the reason for this circumstance is that the plan was intentionally early 1990s. The same report said that Minnesota’s climate designed to be dynamic and flexible. Implementation might look like that of Missouri in the future. Another report, strategies will essentially be issue or watershed specific mini- produced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said plans that provide a road map for implementation. No one that as the Great Lakes region warms, ice on many lakes and knows for sure who will champion a particular mini-plan or streams would go out sooner, leading to earlier peak stream strategy. Nor can anyone predict the political climate or flows and reduced water levels later in summer. Reduced resources available to apply to a challenge. However, what is water levels, as reported by the National Academy of Sciences, controllable is the approach and can-do attitude partners and will also have economic consequences in the form of lost implementation champions bring to the process. Ideally, the recreational opportunities and higher transportation costs. implementation process will involve a variety of these self- selected champions who see an opportunity and agree to step Global warming, or climate change, is in a class by itself when forward to work in the public interest. it comes to impacts to water quality and the environment. However, there are a whole series of emerging issues with Some commitments and resource priorities have been serious economic and environmental consequences for the established previously by state and federal mandates. As such, Lake Superior Basin. These issues include water exports from these priorities are also part of the Lake Superior Basin Plan’s the Great Lakes, off-road vehicles and trails, management of priorities. Where the flexibility lies is in the other parts of the wild rice lakes, inadequate waste water treatment, temperature plan that identify a host of local and regional priorities unique impacts to cold water fisheries, and development trends on the to the Lake Superior Basin. These priorities and North Shore. Of this list, water diversions and exports are one recommendations, as identified in Table 2.2, are prioritized of the least appreciated and understood issues. The Great roughly by order. However, the implementation process is
17 anticipated to unfold based on the confluence of opportunity, 9. Protect cold water habitats (trout streams, trout lakes) on resources, and interest. What this means in practical terms is the North Shore and in the Nemadji River Basin. that an issue further down the priority list may be bumped up 10. Minimize the spread of non-desirable exotic species. simply because an implementation champion has decided to run with the issue, or because the resources are available to 11. Watersheds will be the principal planning framework for target a specific watershed or issue. water resource management in the Lake Superior Basin. 12. Target restoration opportunities and monitoring (land, water, and biological) in watersheds that score lower in Table 2.2 Lake Superior Basin Plan Recommendations relative water health. Prioritize by resource value.
13. Support and participate in large scale efforts that support 1. Acknowledge and support the important role local units of government play in the protection of water resources. the goals and objectives of the Lake Superior Basin Plan. 14. Bolster efforts to clean up and restore the St. Louis River 2. The maintenance and protection of high quality watersheds shall be a basin-wide priority (Table 1.1). AOC. 15. Develop contingency plans to protect Lake Superior Water 3. Utilize land use and environmental laws to protect water quality.∗ from interbasin transfers and exports. 16. Use the Minnesota Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Source 4. Reduce stormwater impacts on lakes, streams, and wetlands in the Lake Superior Basin.∗ Pollution Control Program as a foundation for Basin Nonpoint Pollution issues.
5. Develop restoration plans (total maximum daily loads) for watersheds on Minnesota’s impaired waters or section 303 17. Promote innovative wastewater solutions within the basin. (D) List. 18. Establish a structure to implement the Lake Superior Basin Plan.
6. Develop management plans to maintain and enhance threatened basin waters. 19. Provide hydrologic and geomorphologic technical assistance and training in the Lake Superior Basin.
7. Support strategies that protect current and future drinking water sources. 20. Develop, promote, and improve environmental education in the Lake Superior Basin.
8. Improve environmental monitoring in the Lake Superior Basin.
∗ Recommendation was taken from a local county water plan.
18
Chapter 3: Lake Superior Basin Plan Recommendations
3.1 Recommendation Process edited for applicability to jurisdictions through the Lake Superior Basin. Other recommendations presented in this As part of the planning process, the Lake Superior Basin Plan chapter were based on supporting materials scattered Programmatic Work Group (PWG) compiled a list of throughout the plan. Where possible, the references for these recommendations applicable to the basin. Each recommendations are identified next to the goal statements. recommendation consists of three parts: a goal, objectives, and action statements. The goal is a statement encompassing a desired result for the Lake Superior Basin. It may be specific, 3.2 Recommendations pertaining to a distinct geographic location or environmental
concern, or may be a broad strategy that applies to the basin as 1. ACKNOWLEDGE AND SUPPORT THE IMPORTANT ROLE LOCAL a whole. Following each goal are a number of objectives UNITS OF GOVERNMENT PLAY IN THE PROTECTION OF WATER deemed necessary for the effective completion of the goal. RESOURCES. (SEC(S): 4.2, CHPT(S): 10) Objectives are more narrowly defined statements suggesting courses of action to help fulfill the goal. A number of action Objectives:
statements applicable to the objectives and overall goal were 1. Identify and provide adequate support (e.g., then compiled. These action statements are narrowly defined time, equipment, money) to administer implementation strategies devised to specifically address the programs.
desired objectives. 2. Integrate water resource protection programs into local ordinances.
A variety of sources were used as references for the generation 3. Provide technical assistance to local land use of plan recommendations. Two key information sources used authorities as needed. to support recommendation development came from the Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment and county water plans. Action Steps:
Watershed specific recommendations were generated from an a. Identify short and long term costs of not analysis of nineteen indicators used to provide an overview of implementing water resource protection relative watershed health. Recommendations were also pulled programs at the local level (e.g., water plans, from county water plans where issues were consistently wetlands protection technical assistance). identified as critical or important. These recommendations were then reviewed by the PWG, or plan oversight group, and
19 b. Identify opportunities for alternative funding
sources (e.g., fee- based programs, grants, Actiona. Identify Steps: watersheds with the most significant loans). resource values.
c. Communicate needs to the public and b. Identify zoning and ownership patterns within
legislators. these watersheds that can help manage the
d. Provide educational materials such as Nonpoint watersheds.
Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) c. Discourage infrastructure improvements that may programs and software for willing local have direct or indirect impacts in these governments. watersheds.
e. Sponsor workshops on stormwater management, d. Monitor population increases and land use including erosion and sediment controls, stream changes.
protection and new technologies. e. Monitor building permits and variances granted in
f. Provide technical assistance for road crossing shoreland protection zones.*
projects, such as the Interagency Stream Team. f. Address unauthorized use of forest roads that
g. Encourage comprehensive planning. cause environmental damage. g. Utilize new development technologies that lessen
2. THE MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF HIGH QUALITY the hydrologic impacts. WATERSHEDS SHALL BE A BASIN-WIDE PRIORITY (FIGURE(S): h. Evaluate those parameters that contribute to the 7.20, 7.31, 7.32,7.36 TABLE(S): 7.15, 7.26, 7.27, ) high quality of the watershed and apply that knowledge to that watershed and others.
Objectives: i. For wetlands hydrologically connected to lakes
1. Develop strategies to maintain high quality of and streams in watersheds identified as high un-impacted or high resource value watersheds quality, establish buffer areas that provide for (trout waters, wild rice lakes, ORVW waters). infiltration, nutrient, sediment and pollutant
2. Identify high resource value watersheds. removal, and also function to maintain/protect
3. Acknowledge that water resource protection is the aquatic and terrestrial habitat. ultimately more cost-effective than restoration.
4. Reorganize or create policies to focus new growth and infrastructure in areas of existing development.
5. Protect water quality and recreational uses of these watersheds identified in Table 2.1.
20
3. UTILIZE LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS TO PROTECT 2. Reduce impacts to fish and other aquatic WATER QUALITY.* (SEC(S): 4.2) organisms from episodic discharges of stormwater pollutants.
Objectives: 3. Minimize changes in water quantity and peak
1. Develop effective enforcement strategies to discharge rates.
protect water quality. 4. Reduce temperature impacts to cold water streams and lakes.
Action Steps: 5. Protect physical integrity of stream banks and
a. Establish a fund for local legal services targeted shoreline areas. to the enforcement of land use violations (funding source to be after the fact permits). Action Steps:
b. Provide training for law enforcement personnel a. Establish and maintain riparian corridors or on land use issues. buffer strips.*
c. Amend land use ordinances to include clear b. Coordinate stormwater management with local, enforcement language. state, and federal agencies.*
d. Increase fines and after-the-fact permit fees. c. Use biological indicators as stormwater
e. If appropriate, use administrative penalty management end points.*
orders to strengthen enforcement (letter to d. Manage stormwater to protect water quality violator, time for corrective action, fines and standards and beneficial uses.*
enforcement). e. Identify shoreland or riparian areas with
f. Use federal consistency review for federal significant erosion potential.*
actions within the basin. f. Develop erosion control and stormwater
g. Have local governments request enforcement of ordinances that can be used and implemented state laws to protect water resources. in areas not subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II
4. REDUCE STORMWATER IMPACTS ON LAKES, STREAMS, AND permits.*
WETLANDS IN THE LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN. * (SEC(S): 4.2) g. Share ideas and best management practices (BMPs) developed by the communities subject to the NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permits (e.g.,
1. Reduce loadings of metals, nutrients, Duluth, Hermantown, Proctor, Midway, Duluth Objectives:
sediments, and hydrocarbons. Township, UMD, and Rice Lake Township).
21
5. DEVELOP RESTORATION PLANS (TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY g. Further develop monitoring programs to provide LOADS) FOR WATERSHEDS ON MINNESOTA’S IMPAIRED WATERS chemical and biological data to assess the OR SECTION 303 (D) LIST. (SEC(S): 9.1.1, 9.1.2, degree of impairment on priority river reaches FIGURE(S) 9.1, TABLE(S): 9.1) within watershed; develop data suitable for use by local TMDL committees in completion of TMDLs.
1. Meet Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements to h. For wetlands hydrologically connected to lakes Objectives: develop TMDLs for impaired water and streams in watersheds with impairments, bodies/watersheds. establish buffer areas that provide for
2. Restore water quality to state standards in infiltration, nutrient, sediment and pollutant impaired water bodies. removal and also function to maintain/protect
3. Establish watershed or action plans to prevent the aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
future or continuing degradation of impaired i. Work with landowners to implement best waters. management practices.
j. Suggest measures specific to the impairment Action Steps: (more refined (a vs b) water quality criteria-
a. Target restoration efforts to TMDL watersheds 7050), suggest land use tools to use. listed in Table 9.1.
b. Encourage creation of stakeholder groups (e.g., 6. DEVELOP MANAGEMENT PLANS TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE watershed councils and ad hoc organizations) to THREATENED BASIN WATERS. (SEC(S): 9.5, FIGURE(S): oversee TMDL development. 7.16, 7.17,7.18,7.20, 7.28, 7.31, 7.32, TABLE(S):
c. Identify opportunities to accomplish other 7.11, 7.12,7.13,7.22, 7.25, 7.26) watershed goals as part of the TMDL process.
d. Identify monitoring network already in place.
Develop project work plan and monitoring 1. Develop a process for adding coastal Objectives: strategy to identify sources contributing to management measures as needed to protect impairments. basin waters from nonpoint source pollution.
e. Look for efficiencies in the development of 2. Maintain or improve the condition of sensitive TMDLs (combine several in one document). waters in the basin.
f. Establish an integrated (state and local) water 3. Prioritize sensitive watersheds through the quality education and information program to watershed assessment process and provide accurate information about water knowledgeable basin partners. quality issues to the public.
22 Action Steps: 5. Increase the knowledge of groundwater
a. Identify willing and necessary partners to work resources in the basin. on additional management measures as required through NOAA/EPA conditions on the MN Lake Action Steps: Superior Coastal Nonpoint Program. a. Support public water supplier’s efforts to
b. Insure that BMPs are being applied where develop wellhead protection plans including waters are threatened. delineation of drinking water supply
c. Identify new techniques and BMPs where management areas, inventory of potential current BMPs are insufficient to maintain contaminant sources, and development of watershed integrity. management strategies.
d. For wetlands hydrologically connected to lakes b. Support public water supplier’s implementation and streams in watersheds identified as of wellhead protection management strategies. threatened, establish buffer areas that provide c. Support public water supplier’s development of for infiltration, nutrient, sediment and pollutant voluntary source water protection plans removal and also function to maintain/protect including delineation of drinking water supply the aquatic and terrestrial habitat. management areas, inventory of potential contaminant sources, and development of
7. PROTECT CURRENT AND FUTURE DRINKING WATER SOURCES. management strategies. (SEC(S): 4.2, 8.1.7, 9.4, FIGURE(S): 7.19,7.29 d. Support public water supplier’s implementation TABLE(S): 7.13, 7.25) of source water protection management strategies. e. Support efforts by local government to provide
1. Support ongoing programs that protect drinking protection efforts (i.e. well sealing programs, Objectives: water sources. educational efforts, and enhanced testing
2. Support public water supplier’s efforts to opportunities) for private water supplies. provide potable water to consumers at f. Support efforts by the counties, Minnesota reasonable cost through the use of preventative Department of Health, Minnesota Geologic measures and protection of the source water. Survey, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
3. Safeguard high quality groundwater sources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, (aquifers) and surface water sources (lakes and and others to map aquifers, recharge areas, and rivers) for future drinking water sources. threats to current or future drinking water
4. Continue and accelerate well sealing and sources. identification programs.
23
g. Encourage the development of local water d. Recommend establishment of a master database quality databases that are compatible with the for biological indicators such as fish and benthic County Well Index (CWI) so that water quality community status.
data can be correlated with well construction e. Use biological indicators such as fish community and geology and aquifers of concern can be health as the basis for stream, lake, wetland, identified. and watershed projects (e.g. desired end point, stability of system).
8. IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING IN THE LAKE f. Improve information sharing of water quality SUPERIOR BASIN. (SEC(S): 4.2, CHPT(S): 8, FIGURE(S): with local governments and organizations.
7.30, TABLE(S): 7.24) g. Provide assistance to local governments and organizations to better support local monitoring efforts (e.g., time, equipment, money).
1. Identify resources to expand monitoring efforts. h. Assess the human health implications for Objectives:
2. Expand and update fish community and populations that consume beyond the
biological monitoring efforts. recommendations provided by the Minnesota
3. Expand the number of stream flow monitoring Department of Health fish consumption sites.* advisory, or those individuals that consume fish
4. Enlarge the water quality monitoring network and wildlife at a subsistence level. (sites and water bodies).
5. Monitor the effectiveness of management 9. PROTECT COLD WATER HABITATS (TROUT STREAMS, TROUT measures and BMPs. LAKES) ON THE NORTH SHORE AND IN THE NEMADJI RIVER BASIN. (SEC(S): 4.2, CHPT(S) 11, FIGURE(S): 7.13,7.14, Action Steps: 7.16, 7.20, 7.21,7.28, 7.31,9.9, 9.10 TABLE(S):
a. Improve fish community monitoring. 7.7, 7.9, 7.13, 7.16,7.22, 7.26, 7.27)
b. Increase resources dedicated to fish community monitoring in the Lake Superior Basin. Objectives:
c. Support fish community monitoring efforts by 1. Protect high recreational or resource value
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, waters. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Fish 2. Strengthen or improve strategies to maintain and Wildlife Service, Fond du Lac Band, 1854 existing high quality waters. Authority, and others. 3. Improve monitoring of watersheds on the verge of decline.
24 4. Develop strategies to minimize impacts of future h. Support increased stream monitoring for flows, or expected development pressures. water temperature, and water quality.
5. Develop or strengthen strategies that minimize i. For wetlands hydrologically connected to lakes impacts from recreational activities or tourism and streams identified as cold water habitats, (both visitors and facilities). establish buffer areas that provide for 6. Establish baseline data on priority watersheds. infiltration, nutrient, sediment and pollutant removal and also function to maintain/protect Action Steps: the aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
a. Create and implement a comprehensive strategy j. Modify and/or create ordinances that allow for to protect the trout streams on the North Shore innovative stormwater management techniques and in parts of the Nemadji River watershed. (e.g., pervious pavement, green roofs). b. Identify and permanently protect wetlands and groundwater source areas that contribute base 10. MINIMIZE THE SPREAD OF NON-DESIRABLE EXOTIC SPECIES. flow for main stem and tributary streams. (SEC(S): 11.2.5, FIGURE(S): 7.26) c. Protect trout streams by working to reduce sediment loading and to maintain or improve
water quality.* 1. Monitor the spread or movement of non- Objectives: d. Make the protection of wetlands the first desirable exotic species in the basin.
priority. Mitigate as close to the area as 2. Maintain or enhance current levels of non- possible (consider alternative restoration desirable exotic species control.
opportunities within the minor watershed), and 3. Support research to understand impacts of non- only as a last resort allow replacement outside desirable exotic species on native species and the minor watershed. ecosystems. e. Establish specific erosion and sediment control best management practices for coastal Action Steps:
watersheds on the North Shore, and for red clay a. Monitor and reduce the spread of non-desirable dominated regions of the Nemadji River basin exotic species in the Lake Superior Basin.
(e.g., steep slopes, highly erodible soils). b. Limit the “leap frog” effect of non-desirable f. Evaluate the condition of main stem and exotic species from impacted streams, lakes, tributary riparian areas. Prioritize riparian wetlands, and minor watersheds (e.g. develop areas for restoration, establishment of the equivalent of an exotic species contingency easements or acquisition, as appropriate. plan). g. Identify opportunities to increase water storage.
25 c. Monitor watersheds that serve as ports of entry Action Steps:
for non-desirable exotic aquatic species, or a. Identify and implement watershed management where terrestrial systems or landscapes are strategies appropriate to land ownership significantly disrupted. patterns.
d. Champion efforts by the Department of Natural b. Use collaborative multi-stakeholder approaches Resources, Coast Guard, and Sea Grant to for watersheds with low percentages of public reduce the spread of non-desirable exotic land.
species with biological controls, education, c. Employ cost effective techniques where larger technology, and appropriate regulatory blocks of public land provide opportunities to approaches. work with fewer landowners and interested
e. For wetlands in public ownership, manage parties.
vegetation and water levels where necessary to d. Develop strategies and administrative structures discourage extensive monocultures of invasive to manage watersheds that straddle county or non-native species. municipal boundaries (e.g. stakeholder groups, joint powers groups, non-profit watershed 11. WATERSHEDS WILL BE THE PRINCIPAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK organizations, informal watershed networks).
FOR WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE LAKE SUPERIOR e. Establish specific goals and objectives for lakes, BASIN. (SEC(S): 3.2, CHPT(S): 5, 6, FIGURE(S): 7.2, 7.3, by sub-watershed, in the basin. 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11), TABLE(S): 7.4,7.5) 12. TARGET RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES AND MONITORING (LAND, WATER, AND BIOLOGICAL) IN WATERSHEDS THAT Objectives: SCORE LOWER IN RELATIVE WATERSHED HEALTH. PRIORITIZE
1. Improve efficiency through collaboration and BY RESOURCE VALUE. (FIGURE(S): 7.20, 7.32, 7.33, geographic targeting of scarce financial and TABLE(S): 7.14 human resources.
2. Provides a logical framework for the assessment Objectives:
of cumulative impacts on water resources. 1. Improve condition monitoring in these
3. Enhance cooperation between adjoining watersheds to determine long term trends and jurisdictions and all levels of government. status.
4. Facilitate watershed specific partnerships to 2. Produce detailed assessments of select
protect and restore water resources. watersheds.
5. Design watershed specific protection and restoration policies and strategies.
26
3. Direct restoration efforts and opportunities to 2. Support volunteer and community based these watersheds based on their resource wetland protection and habitat restoration values. initiatives.
4. Support ongoing efforts to restore or protect these watersheds. Action Steps:
a. Provide assistance to other agencies to help Action Steps: meet shared environmental objectives.
a. Target restoration efforts to watersheds b. Adopt recommendations and strategies
identified listed in Figure 7.33 (poorest relative developed by these efforts as needed.
watershed health). c. Continue to work with local parties to monitor
b. Assess the restoration and protection and devise strategies to reduce the presence of
opportunities in these watersheds. the “nasty nine” chemicals (chlordane, DDT,
c. Prioritize watersheds and develop timetables dieldrin, dioxin, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, for refined scale assessment (priorities based on octachlorostyrene, PCB’s, toxaphene) within the resource value and % public ownership). St. Louis River area of concern (AOC) and the
d. Continue to monitor watershed status Lake Superior Basin.
(improvement vs. decline).
e. Capitalize on windows of opportunity for 14. BOLSTER EFFORTS TO CLEAN UP AND RESTORE THE ST. LOUIS wetland or riparian corridor restoration (e.g., RIVER AOC. (SEC(S): 9.2) grant-funded projects; and wetland, riparian corridor, or stream channel restoration
opportunities incidental to other projects). 1. Delist the AOC. Objectives:
f. Encourage development of watershed 2. Restore impaired beneficial uses of the river.
organizations where feasible. 3. Eliminate loadings of persistent toxic substances to Lake Superior.
13. SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATE IN LARGE SCALE EFFORTS THAT 4. Restore and enhance degraded fish and wildlife SUPPORT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR habitat. BASIN PLAN. (CHPT(S): 9, 10) Action Steps:
Objectives: a. Develop and implement a contaminated
1. Coordinate management of Lake Superior with sediment management strategy for the lower 39 cooperating agencies. river miles of the St. Louis River.
27 b. Continue efforts to clean upland and aquatic j. Eliminate sewage by-passes, including portions of the US Steel and the St. Louis River discharges of untreated wastewater from ships Duluth Tar Superfund sites. Similarly, support and recreational vessels into the Duluth- efforts to clean up Wisconsin sites such as Hog Superior Harbor. Island Inlet, Newton Creek, Coppers Creek, and Howard’s Bay. 15. DEVELOP CONTINGENCY PLANS TO PROTECT LAKE SUPERIOR
c. Restore and protect key aquatic and terrestrial WATER FROM INTERBASIN TRANSFERS AND EXPORTS. habitats. In particular, protect remaining (CHPT(S): 11) wetlands in the St. Louis River and restore wetlands when opportunities arise. d. Clean up the Sargent’s Creek dump and other Objectives:1. Reduce economic and environmental impacts of contaminated sites that discharge through water exports.
surface or groundwater to the St. Louis River. 2. Promote regional, national, and world-wide
e. Evaluate and take action to reduce tributary water conservation programs.
loading of sediments, nutrients, and persistent 3. Establish an economic value for Lake Superior bio-accumulative pollutants to the St. Louis water.
River. 4. Encourage local, state, national and global
f. Evaluate impacts of toxic or persistent bio- protection of fresh water supplies. accumulative pollutants on fish and wildlife populations. Action Steps: g. Assess the human health implications for a. Encourage the state to place a high priority on populations that consume beyond the prohibiting the export and interbasin transfer of recommendations provided by the Minnesota Lake Superior water.
Department of Health fish consumption b. Update the state’s previous economic valuation advisory, or those individuals that consume fish of Lake Superior water.
and wildlife at a subsistence level. c. Evaluate the economic and environmental
h. Complete the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) impacts of a variety of water export scenarios allocations for the St. Louis River. on Lake Superior (e.g., shipping, opportunity
i. Monitor the spread and impact of non-desirable cost, water depths necessary to sustain specific exotic species on the St. Louis River ecosystem. aquatic systems or species).
d. Develop water conservation plans for all North Shore communities (key requirement to minimize water diversions from Lake Superior).
28 e. Evaluate worst-case scenario for water exports 17. PROMOTE INNOVATIVE WASTEWATER SOLUTIONS WITHIN THE or interbasin transfers allowable under the BASIN. (SEC(S): 4.2, 9.4, FIGURE(S): 7.14, 7.15, 7.16, terms of the North American Free Trade TABLE(S): 7.8, 7.9, 7.10) Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).
f. Develop a public outreach and implementation 1. Recognize the unique physical and/or Objectives: program focused on water conservation. environmental conditions in Northeastern Minnesota that restrict the use of traditional 16. USE THE MINNESOTA LAKE SUPERIOR COASTAL NONPOINT individual septic treatment system (ISTS) SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM AS A FOUNDATION technology.
FOR BASIN NONPOINT POLLUTION ISSUES. (SEC(S): 4.2, 2. Sewage treatment options should complement 9.13, CHPT(S): 10) the growth and development patterns.
3. Land use planning should be used to drive Objectives: wastewater investments.
1. Use the 52 NOAA/EPA management measure options as performance standards. Action Steps:
2. Add additional management measures as a. Local and state governments should consider deemed necessary (e.g., gravel pits, mining, alternative technologies and options for and irrigation). wastewater treatment (centralized,
3. Help address “conditions” placed on federal decentralized.
approval of the Minnesota Lake Superior Coastal b. Support the efforts to establish and maintain Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. ISTS inspection, maintenance, and monitoring programs.*
Action Steps: c. Prioritize ISTS evaluation based on the proximity
a. Provide technical assistance through web sites, and sensitivity of the receptors.* pamphlets, and on-the-ground help for implementation of nonpoint BMPs, management 18. ESTABLISH A STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT THE LAKE SUPERIOR measures, and new tools. BASIN PLAN. (CHPT(S): 12, APPENDIX A)
b. Hold workshops on nonpoint BMPs, management measures and new implementation tools.
c. Identify funding source for demonstration 1. Provide oversight and serve as a catalyst for Objectives: projects. plan recommendations.
29
2. Develop implementation campaigns or 19. PROVIDE HYDROLOGIC AND GEOMORPHOLOGIC TECHNICAL
strategies. ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING IN THE LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN.
3. Serve as coordinator for plan implementation. (FIGURE(S): 7.12, 7.17, TABLE(S): 7.6, 7.11)
4. Evaluate costs and benefits for
recommendations. Objectives:
5. Identify and pursue resources for plan 1. Establish a core group of individuals from local,
implementation. tribal, state and federal agencies to provide technical assistance to prevent and correct Action Steps: damage from man made structures that affect
a. Identify the structure and make up of the plan stream flow.
oversight and implementation group. Utilize this 2. Establish wetland mitigation banks, stabilization implementation group to serve as a conduit to projects and hydrologic improvements within the key partners in the planning and implementation minor watershed that serve to maintain process. watershed integrity.
b. Create a structure that empowers participants and makes them equal partners in plan
implementation and oversight. Actiona. IdentifySteps: types of projects needing Stream Team c. Develop work plans to identify campaigns, assistance.
windows of opportunity, and strategies or b. Provide (Rosgen method) geomorphic and stream actions for plan implementation. Work plans channel restoration training to core team should be structured to identify resources members as needed.
needed to carry out the strategy, as well as c. Identify and prioritize projects that impact rivers individual or group implementation and streams, such as stream crossing, responsibilities. stormwater, drainage and flood damage
d. Review the basin plan on a five year cycle. With reduction designs within the Lake Superior Basin.
on-the-ground environmental progress as the d. Provide geomorphic and hydrologic technical bench-mark of success, make adjustments or assistance and training (e.g., to MN DOT and modifications in the plan or implementation county highway engineers) for projects that strategy to achieve lasting results. impact rivers and streams.
e. Develop a public awareness and outreach e. Develop a stream geomorphology reference strategy to facilitate plan implementation. manual for work in streambed.
30
f. Begin development of a program to establish a 3. Promote conservation of our environmental geomorphic watershed baseline for each minor resources. Raise the level of stewardship that watershed. recognizes our individual and collective
g. Begin development of regional hydrology curves responsibility to protect, preserve and restore to aid the design of projects in the Lake Superior the natural environment for ourselves and Basin. future generations.
h. Identify jurisdictional wetlands within stream 4. Foster coordination and cooperation between channel restoration projects. governmental agencies and private, nonprofit
i. Develop a technical paper describing the and other organizations to carry out information scientific rational for stream restoration as a and education efforts. wetland mitigation technique. In addition, develop a proposed mechanism for attributing Action Steps:
credits for such projects if it is to become a a. Provide resources such as technical information, recognized option for wetland crediting and data, case studies of other areas of the state banking. etc. to foster informed decision making by individuals, organizations and governmental 20. DEVELOP, PROMOTE, AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL entities.
EDUCATION IN THE LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN. (SEC(S): 1.6, 2.3, b. Provide for a basic understanding of ecological 4.3.7, 6.3, 8.1.3) systems.
c. Promote activities that raise awareness of watersheds and things that can be done to
1. Promote environmental education to raise minimize impact (e.g., volunteer monitoring, Objectives: awareness and understanding of natural systems storm drain stenciling).
and the cause and effect relationships between d. Educate individuals about the important role our actions and quality of life. that they play when making decisions that
2. Raise awareness of the general public with impact their watershed. respect to the nature of nonpoint source 1 pollution, how communities and individuals contribute to it, and what governmental organizations and individuals are doing about it.
1 *Recommendation was taken or derived from local county water plan
31
Chapter 4: Introduction – Key Basin Issues/Perspectives
Minnesota’s Lake Superior Basin Planning process is a sediment assessments, fish advisories, and environmentally synthesis of a variety of groups that worked to develop plans, sensitive and/or culturally significant areas. Chapter Four of priorities, and identify issues that apply to the management of the BID discusses potential pollution sources including air its natural resources. These groups range from the sources of toxics; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Programmatic Work Group (PWG), to the Lake Superior System (NPDES) permits for point sources of pollution; Binational Program and its Lakewide Management Plan, to the hazardous waste generators; solid waste disposal sites; onsite Minnesota Coastal Program, to county governments and their sewage treatment systems, now called Individual Sewage comprehensive water plans, and state park and forest plans. Treatment systems (ISTS); and feedlots. Section B of Chapter Chapter Ten will discuss these plans in greater detail. Chapter Five contains information about various ongoing monitoring Four will bring forward the main ideas and recommendations efforts including everything from streams to acid rain from these efforts so they can be used as building blocks for monitoring. The Appendices of the BID has a database of the basin plan and its ongoing processes of cooperation. This recommendations for the Lake Superior Basin by local, state, chapter is by no means all-inclusive, as there are probably 50 federal, and integrated groups such as the St. Louis River or more “plans” in existence in the basin. It does, however, Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Committee and the St. Louis attempt to identify the common themes and priorities of the River Board. Many recommendations have been partners in this basin planning process. accomplished; while others are left to be considered and prioritized in the basin planning process. This database can be found in Appendices D and E in the back of this document. 4.1 Basin Information Document Highlights There are 28 figures in the BID, many of which are maps that The Lake Superior Basin Information Document (BID) came show the Lake Superior Basin, or parts of it, and give out in June 1997. It is basically an encyclopedia of information information about the basin. Examples of the figures include gathered about Minnesota’s Lake Superior Basin. It is a Figure 2, which is a color map of the major watersheds, rivers, reference that has aided in these basin planning efforts. and towns. Figure 24 contains potential ground water contamination sources including superfund sites and potential Chapter Three of the BID contains descriptive information of superfund sites, as well as landfills throughout the basin. the basin that includes water quality, climate, geology, soils, Figure 23 shows permitted surface water discharges in relation fisheries, demographics, land use, hydrology, and water usage. to basin streams. Overall, this document is a very useful tool to Part C of Chapter Three describes surface, ground water and help direct basin planning and management.
32 There are also 33 tables in the BID, with topics including • Monitor old dump sites
population and employment demographics, land use a. illegal dumping
percentages and land ownership data. The information from b. test wells
most of the tables and figures has now been updated and • Public water supply protection (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 )
incorporated into the “watershed assessment,” which is a. abandoned well sealing
discussed later in this document. This information is what b. well monitoring
basin planning is all about; being able to relate basin c. establish wellhead protection areas information and risk factors to the basin resources and
subwatersheds. B. Protect surface water quality (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
• Manage to protect shoreline (riparian) areas (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
4.2 Themes in Water Quality Protection • Failing Septic systems (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9)
a. continue and expand septic system education
A number of key themes have emerged from the Minnesota b. continue and expand septic system inspection and Lake Superior Basin planning partners. The Lake Superior triggers
Basin Plan PWG has worked on this basin’s piece for c. continue to develop septic system alternatives
Minnesota’s ten-year water plan, “Watermarks 2000-2010.” • Septage spreading (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
They reviewed and received presentations on county water a. Soil type and slope should determine the setback plans, tribal plans, city environmental issues, and even EPA distances from surface and ground water researchers on “Watersheds at Risk” in this basin. The • Keep gravel pits out of the water table (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, following are the themes that have emerged from the PWG, the 9)
BID, County Water plans, Watermarks 2000-2010, the Lake a. prevents warming of water in cold water stream's Superior Management Plan (LaMP), and MN’s Coastal watersheds
Nonpoint Pollution Program. (The numbers adjacent to these b. helps prevent groundwater contamination from themes correlate with the references at the end of this chapter illegal dumping
and represent support for the theme or issue below.) • Gravel pit restoration (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9)
a. replace topsoil if possible or other organic material
A. Protect Public Health (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7,9) b. replant consistent with surrounding vegetation
• Protect ground water • Gravel pit siting ( 9)
a. manage proper handling/storage of hazardous a. do not allow them in shallow aquifers
materials b. do not allow them in riparian areas
b. ensure proper spill containment around storage c. do not allow them in critical aquifer recharge areas tanks
33
• Erosion control Best Management Practices (BMP) • Hydrology changes (6, 7, 8, 9)
implementation (agricultural, construction and a. impervious surfaces problems rooftops, driveways forestry) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and roads all stop infiltration reducing ground water
a. enforcement, inspections, and workshops are recharge and increasing the speed and volume of needed run-off; they also warm run-off to surface waters
• Reduce pesticide and fertilizer uses for agriculture, b. the NEMO process predicts issues associated with golf courses, and lawns (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) these problems and should be used by local
a. use alternatives or at least follow BMPs government in their planning and zoning processes
b. use should be eliminated in riparian areas c. demonstration projects are needed including:
y green roofs on all types of buildings
C. Development issues/designs (sustainable growth) (1, 2, y rain gardens in natural drainage areas and 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9) ditches
• Roads y pervious block paving for driveways, roads, and
a. erosion control measures need to be in sidewalks
specifications and implemented y grass/grid parking and walkways
b. construction forepersons, owners, inspectors need • Wetlands protection (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
training on BMPs and general permit requirements a. coastal wetlands below the Lake Superior ridge line
c. culvert/bridge placements on waters with fish are rare and should be a priority for protection
should consult fisheries staff and the new “stream b. planning should avoid wetlands filling and use them team” for their natural assets
d. reduce curb and gutter and increase rain garden c. wetland replacement must occur within the same ditches to increase infiltration and water quality minor watershed to avoid serious hydrologic
• Septics (see B. above) changes
• Sprawl (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9) • Manage lands for fish, wildlife, and human values
a. associated taxes rarely pay for infrastructure needs (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
b. causes severe hydrologic changes (i.e., increases a. properly managed riparian buffers provide the most peak flows which cause severe bank erosion, see all–around benefits including:
next bullet) y erosion protection and bank stabilization
c. planning and zoning ahead of time is essential, and y shade for cold water streams and tributaries
Nonpoint Education of Municipal Officials y fisheries enhancement through instream woody (NEMO) program is an excellent tool to illustrate debris and natural leaf nutrients
sprawl impacts. y filtering of nutrients and sediments from surface run-off
34
y aesthetic values along lakes and streams y mercury containing products (7)
y natural contiguous corridors for the movement y railroad ties or treated wood should not be used of wildlife in or near waters - alternative products are
b. make sure planning measures are in harmony with available Minnesota Department of Natural Resources D. Cold water stream temperature issues (6, 8, 9) (high (MDNR), Federal, and Tribal fish and wildlife stream temperatures have started causing fish kills management measures within trout waters)
• Provide recreational opportunities (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, a. maintain forest canopy as much as possible, 8) especially in riparian areas
a. reasonable access to public waters and forest land b. use pervious pavement in light colors to allow water for activities like fishing, boating, hunting, and infiltration and avoid heating run-off. Grass/grid hiking systems serve the same function
b. care must be taken to make sure recreational c. rain gardens on roofs, natural drainage areas and in activities do not negatively impact the resources ditches
being used d. green roofs can go on all types of buildings near
• Provide information and education to the public on cold water streams
resource management issues (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) • Wild rice waters protection and restoration
a. provide web pages a. wild rice watersheds need to be restored to lakes
b. news letters and fact sheets and rivers where it has been extirpated whenever
c. hold public education meetings and workshops as possible
appropriate b. wild rice watersheds must be managed to maintain
• Expand Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or restore hydrology to reduce excessive water level coverages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) fluctuations that are detrimental to wild rice stands
• Exotic species introduction and spread (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
• Toxic substance management (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) 4.3 Public Perceptions
a. household hazardous waste collection (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7) Throughout the development of the Basin Plan Document, the
b. pollution prevention programs (1, 7, 8) public was given several opportunities to raise questions,
c. clean up of contaminated sediments and soils (1, 7) comments, and concerns they had related to their views of
d. Local reduction of pollutants that cause fish basin planning. These various venues for public participation
consumption advisories (1, 5, 6, 7) allowed members of the PWG and MPCA the opportunity to
e. banning toxic products usage including: gain an understanding of the public’s opinions on current basin
35 planning efforts. It also provided the public with the 4.3.1 Environmental and Economic Views opportunity to become active participants in the planning process. Several different methods for public participation Several public surveys have been conducted within the last were set up with the hopes of engaging a variety of interested couple of years demonstrating the public’s views on individuals. These different methods, which will be discussed environmental topics. These surveys include, but are not in greater detail in Chapter Six, were the listening log, a public limited to, the Lake Superior Survey, Lake County Survey, and survey, public meetings, and a quarterly news bulletin. After Duluth Community Survey. Topics addressed in these surveys reviewing the comments raised by the public key themes were include: resident’s reasons for living in Northeastern identified. Minnesota, environmental protection versus economic development, and the public’s appreciation of open spaces Survey: The Lake Superior Survey was an electronic survey within Duluth’s community. given out at eight different public meetings throughout the Lake Superior Basin, and was available online. 122 people 4.3.2 Scenery or Natural Environment took the survey at the meetings and another 215 people took it over the Internet. The survey asked respondents a variety of To gain an understanding of the public’s reasons for living questions concerning water quality, implications of economy within the Arrowhead Region, The Lake Superior Survey on the environment, and public participation within watershed (LSS) asked respondents to identify their top three reasons for management. The survey data was then reviewed for living in Northeastern Minnesota (Figure 4.1). The most environmental priorities, incongruities, common themes, and popular answer for all groups2, except elected officials, was key messages. “scenery or natural environment.” This response heavily outweighed the other responses for all groups that chose it as Several questions in the survey asked respondents to rank their the number one reason for living in the area. However, elected top three choices from a list of ten possible answers (Questions officials ranked it as only the fourth highest reason for Four, Six, and Thirteen). Results to these questions were residency in Northeastern Minnesota. Instead of standing out “…calculated by multiplying the percent of votes received for as the most influential factor for living in the area, as with the each item by the points available for that round of voting (ten other groups, it was surpassed by: “proximity to the outdoor points for round one, nine points for round two, and eight recreation”, “desire to reside in a rural setting,” and points for round three) and then adding the points for each “employment opportunities.” item, for all voted rounds” (Unity manual, 1999).
2 The survey responses were broken down into eight different classifications: government employee, environmental member, civic group, elected officials, business/industry, academic/researchers, citizens, and total group. This breakdown was preformed to see how different groups responded to the same questions.
36 “Employment opportunities” ranked as the third highest reason Figure 4.1-Question Four: What are your top three reasons for for living in the area. However, the business/industry and choosing to live in Northeastern Minnesota? citizen groups ranked “job opportunities” as only the sixth highest reason for living in the area. This ranking was the Less government or neighborly interference in your personal lives lowest of any group. Safer place (appears to be less crime) Familiarity with the area (went to college, visited frequently) Quality of schools, neighborhoods, cultural amenities The appreciation of the outdoors, and the desire to utilize this Family connections 3 resource, is also apparent in the Lake County Survey (LCS). Desire to reside in a rural setting According to the LCS, the top two opportunities respondents Desire to live in a smaller community or urban area wanted to see developed within Lake County were bike trails Employment or business opportunities Proximity to outdoor recreation and walking and hiking trails. Scenery or natural environment
A similar study was conducted, and published, by the University of Minnesota Sea Grant Program4. The goal of the 0.63 “Duluth Community Survey” was to gain an understanding of 1.07 the public’s use and appreciation for the “open space” unique 1.07 3.58 to Duluth (Kreag, 2002). According to the survey, 63% of 4.65 people felt that “Duluth’s appeal would be much less than it is 2.89 4.35 now if open space is converted to developed land (e.g. 4.69 residential, commercial, industrial uses),” and another 21% of OfficialElected 4.07 respondents believed that “Duluth’s appeal would be somewhat 0 1 2 3 4 5
less than it is now. Also, when respondents were asked if, 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 “having developed open spaces5 throughout the city is important to me whether I use them or not,” 93% of people agreed (59% of those responses were “strongly agree”).
3 The Lake County Survey was conducted in 1998 by the Lake County Land Department. 4 “The Duluth Community Survey was a mail survey conducted from May 16 to September 5, 2001 by the Minnesota Center for Survey and Research at the University of Minnesota. 399 surveys were completed and returned by Duluth Residents.” (Kreag 2002) 5 “Developed Open Space” - areas where land and vegetation are altered and controlled. They may have facilities and structures for specific purposes including parks, picnic and beach areas, gardens, sports and recreation areas, golf courses, etc.” (Kreag, 2002)
37 academic/research institutions may stem from the view that 0.52 these institutions have a nonbiased opinion of the results, and 0.84 have nothing to gain or lose with the results of the studies. 1.03 1.47 2.93 “Nonprofit environmental agencies” was the second most 3 3.17 frequent response for reliable information on environmental Total Set 3.47 issues. It was chosen, however, as the most effective guardian 3.93 6.63 of the environment (LSS, Question Six).
0 2 4 6 8 4.3.4 Economic Growth vs. Environmental Protection
According to the survey the public does not perceive The responses in all three surveys seem to point to a common environmental protection as an obstacle for economic growth. connection between residents and the natural environment This was apparent in Question Seven (Figure 4.2) when 66% of located in this area. The desire to maintain outdoor respondents disagreed with the statement that “environmental recreational opportunities is not limited to the surrounding rural protection is an impediment to economic growth,” (47% areas, but is evident within the Duluth city limits as well. strongly disagreed).
4.3.3 Environmental Information/Protection The business/industry group was the only group that chose “Somewhat disagree,” rather than “strongly disagree,” as Several questions from the LSS were directed to see which the most frequent response. organizations the community looks to for environmental 53% of elected officials, the smallest percentage of any information and protection. Question Five asked respondents group, disagreed with the same statement.
“who [they] view as the most reliable source of information on 83% of the environmental group, highest percentage of environmental issues.” "Universities/research institutions" was any group, disagreed with the statement. the most frequent response, receiving 42% of the overall votes. It was the top response for the following categories: total set, government employee, business/industry, academic/researcher, civic groups, and citizens. Elected officials chose “government agencies” (32%) as “the most reliable source of information,” and environmental group members voted for “nonprofit environmental groups” (58%). The public’s trust in
38 While an overwhelming number of those surveyed agree that Environmental Group the environmental benefits offered in this area are a valuable 4% 4% resource, the views on how communities manage these 9% resources are closely divided. Respondents were asked how they view their community’s balance between economic 13% growth and environmental protection (Question Eight, Figure 4.3). 39% of those surveyed (the number one answer) believed that their community “favors economics over the 70% environment.” This is despite the fact that the majority of respondents, 66%, did not believe that “environmental protection is an impediment to economic growth,” (LSS,
Question Seven). 36% of respondents believed that the Business/Industry community strikes an appropriate balance between economics 14% and the environment. 23%
Figure 4.2-Question Seven: What is your view on this 18% statement: “Environmental protection is an impediment to economic growth.” 5% 40% Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Elected Officials
Strongly disagree 13%
40% 27%
7% 13%
39 Figure 4.3-Question Eight: My community… the respondents wanted to see additional development of commercial areas. Further evidence illustrating this close Favors the environment over economics divide is apparent when respondents were asked about land use Favors economics over the environment controls. Of those surveyed, 34% believed that land use Does not protect the environment or pursue economic controls were too restrictive, and 36% of people believed opportunities controls were just right. Strikes an appropriate balance between economics and the environment Clearly, the public is closely divided over economic
development and environmental protection. It is apparent, All Groups Combined however, that many residents of Northeastern Minnesota reside 16% here because of the environmental benefits. Throughout the three surveys the public has expressed a desire for continued 36% access to the natural resources making this area unique.
4.3.5 Factors Influencing Land Use Decisions
39% 9% Question Nine asked respondents what factors they thought were most important when considering land use issues. While no single most important concern emerged, there were several considerations that stood out. 32% of individuals believed that Elected Officials “land use decisions should be based primarily on ‘natural 19% resource impacts (loss of wetlands, habitat).’” This was the top 31% answer for the following categorical breakdowns: environmental group (35% tied with political considerations), citizens (38%), and researchers (48%).
The second most common response was “political 13% 37% considerations (balance of economic, social and environmental considerations” (27%). This was chosen as the top response for the following categories: business/industry (43%), This close split in land management interests was also apparent environmental group (35%), elected officials (40%), in the LCS. When asked about their views on expansion, 42% government employee (28%), and civic members (49%). of respondents wanted to limit new development, and 37% of
40 4.3.6 Condition of Streams, Lakes & Wetlands 4.3.7 Public involvement in resource management
The majority of respondents, 65%, believed that water quality Another common theme coming out of the survey is that the for “streams, lakes and wetlands within 20 miles or so of [their] public does not believe that they are allowed adequate home” was in good condition, and another 19% believed that it involvement in the management of the resources within their was in “excellent condition” (LSS, Question Eleven). The area. 24% of voters cited the improvement “of public general consensus is that water quality is presently in good participation/educational opportunities” as the most important condition; however, the public’s outlook for the future is not as strategy for the protection of waters within their communities optimistic. 48% of the total set believed that, “water quality in (LSS, Question Fourteen). “Expand the implementation of best [their] favorite Lake Superior Basin lake, stream, or river will management practices” (23%) and “increase environmental get worse over the next ten years” (LSS, Question Twelve). It enforcement” (19%) were the second and third highest is alarming that almost 50% of people believe that the water responses respectively, (LSS Figure 4.5). quality in our area will deteriorate. The only groups that did not cite “get worse” as the number one answer were the civic Only 5% of the environmental group chose an increase in member and business/industry groups. public participation/education as the most important strategy in the management of our hydrologic resources. The After gaining an understanding of the public’s views on water environmental group believed that the “most important quality it was important to discover what factors they believe strategy” was to “Create more shoreline buffers and filter threaten it. Question Thirteen (Figure 4.4) asked respondents strips” (24%), “expand implementation of best management what they believed was the most significant threat to the practices” (24%), and “increase environmental enforcement” region’s water quality. All groups, except elected officials (23%). cited, “development (pavement, buildings, and manicure landscapes)” as the most significant threat. Most groups also The “establishment of community development limits” was cited “loss of buffers, shoreline, vegetation, wetlands” and ranked as the fourth most important strategy in the preservation “atmospheric pollutants” as significant factors. The elected of our water resources. This strategy received 19% of the official’s, however, listed development as only the sixth environmental group’s votes (ranking it as their fourth most highest factor of water quality. They viewed “industrial or important strategy). Similarly, researchers, the group voted municipal discharges (pipes) as the largest threat to water the most reliable source of information on environmental issues quality. This group also ranked “septic systems” and (LSS, Question Five), ranked the creation of shoreline buffers “contaminated sites (landfills, leak sites, old industrial sites, as the third most important strategy (receiving 19% of votes and sediments) as substantial threats. The view’s held by the and tied with “increase environmental enforcement”). The elected official’s greatly conflict with the general consensus of citizen and elected official groups also voted this approach the the other groups. fourth most important giving it 12% and 13% respectively. In
41 contrast, the civic member and business/industry groups were 0.53 the only groups that did not vote for community development 1.3 0.56 limits as an important strategy in the protection of their 3.52 community’s water resources. 1.13 4.26 5.5 3.23 Figure 4.4-Question Thirteen: Assuming you believe there are 4 threats to the region’s water quality, what do you perceive as Official Elected 2.96 the most significant? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Other Mining activities (iron, peat, gravel) Forestry activities Figure 4.5-Question Fourteen: As the single most important Contaminated sites (landfills, leak sites, old industrial sites, strategy to protect the quality of rivers, streams, wetlands, and sediments) lakes in my community, I would… Overuse (recreational, consumptive use of water)
Septic Systems Add more technical assistance programs Industrial or municipal discharges (pipes) Improve public participation/educational opportunities Atmospheric pollutants Create more laws or ordinances Loss of buffers, shoreline, vegetation, wetlands Increase environmental enforcement Development (pavement, buildings, manicured landscapes) Expand implementation of best management practices Develop a local tax supported environmental fund Restore currently damaged resources
0.6 Create more shoreline buffers and filter strips 0.82 1.03 Establish community development limits 1.93 1.96 Other 2.79 All Groups Combined 3.49 4% 5% Total Set Set Total 4.11 10% 4.23 6% 6.05 24% 5% 0 2 4 6 8 2% 2% 23% 19%
42 Questions Eighteen and Nineteen again addressed respondent’s Question Nineteen (Figure 4.7) asked respondents, “How much views of their involvement in the management of the water opportunity [they] were provided with for the involvement in, resources within their area. Question Eighteen (Figure 4.6) or comment on, how lakes, rivers, and streams in [their] area asked respondents if they had enough information to know how are protected or managed.” 65% of respondents did not believe lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands within their community that they were given adequate involvement in the management were managed. 60% of those surveyed do not believe that they of resources in their area. are given adequate information on how these resources are managed. Of all the categorical breakdowns only elected Figure 4.7-Question Nineteen: How much opportunity are you officials had the majority (67%) respond that they did have provided with for involvement in, or comment on, how lakes, enough information on how waters within their area are rivers, and streams in your area are protected? managed. Practically none Figure 4.6-Question Eighteen: Do you have enough Some, but not enough information to know how lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands A reasonable amount in your area are managed? Yes No Citizens
All Groups Combined
31% 32%
40%
60%
37%
Elected Officials
33%
67%
43 4.3.8 Public Views of Current Environmental Chapter References (Public survey charts in appendix.)
Efforts 1. Lake Superior Basin Information Document (BID), 1997
Questions Twenty and Twenty-one focused on the 2. Carlton County Community-Based Comprehensive communication between agencies currently working together to Plan, July 2000 and/or Carlton County Water Plan protect the region’s water resources and how effective these 2002-2009 Update
efforts have been. In Question Twenty, 64% of those surveyed 3. St. Louis County Waterplan, 2000
believed that “the amount of coordination among governmental 4. Lake County Comprehensive Water Management Plan, programs responsible for the protection of the region’s water 1992
resources is” inadequate. The environmental group was the 5. Cook County Comprehensive Water Management Plan, most pessimistic with 88% believing coordination was 1998
inadequate. Inversely, elected officials was the most 6. Minnesota Watermarks, gauging the flow of progress optimistic group with 40% stating that coordination was “about 2000-2010, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, right.” Elected officials were also the only group that did not Sept. 2000 have any votes stating that coordination was “very inadequate.” 7. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP), 2000
Finally, Question Twenty-one asked respondents what message 8. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Pollution they would send to Northeastern Minnesota resource managers. Control Program, July, 2001
47% of those surveyed felt that there was “a lot of work ahead 9. MN Lake Superior Basin Programmatic Work Group to protect our resources.” Another 36% of respondents replied, (PWG) “they were willing to do their part to help protect the 10. Verry, Hornbeck, and Dolloff, Riparian Management in environment.” Several groups demonstrated a desire to help the Forests, 2000, page 44 environment by choosing it as the number one response: civic members (75% willing to help), the environmental group (41%), and the elected officials (46%).
44 Chapter 5: Basin Plan Overview
5.1 Purpose of the Plan in the process will be divided into. These include the PWG and the residents (Basin Planning, 2001). The Lake Superior Basin Plan (LSBP) is a watershed approach for managing the Lake Superior Basin. It will set guidelines and The PWG is made up of members of government staff who have recommendations to restore degraded resources and to protect the the interest, ability, and inclination to participate in this 30-month basin’s high quality of water. It is not a replacement for local plan (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2001). Their specific initiatives and plans that already exist, but an extension of these role and functions will be discussed more thoroughly in policies (Basin Planning, 2001). These earlier plans and Chapter Six. programs focused on controlling specific types of pollutants and pollution sources (point source pollution); however, the water The residents will serve as the court of public opinion for the quality problems we see today are more complex and include plan’s development and implementation (MPCA, 2001). They both point source and nonpoint source pollution. A better way to will be asked to submit their ideas, comments and concerns about fight these pollution problems is in a basin management plan development at various stages (MPCA, 2001). These approach, which will improve efficiency, increase effectiveness, comments will then be recorded and become part of the public be more consistent, and improve public awareness. The Basin record. A public survey was also conducted and the results are Plan will knit the plans and policies that already exist together so discussed in greater detail in Chapter Four, (the entire survey is the responsible parties are made aware of the needs, abilities, and located in Appendix F). The views and perspectives of everyday barriers of the existing programs; it will also identify any gaps citizens are extremely important to the process. between them. The Basin plan will be used to better identify water quality problems, create alliances with communities to The overall goals of basin management are: establish shared goals and priorities, and develop integrated point and nonpoint source pollutant reduction strategies. • To identify more clearly specific water quality goals and priorities
The planning process is a cooperation of many agencies in the • To integrate programs to address those goals and priorities
area at the local, state, tribal and federal levels. Other groups that • To develop more effective partnerships with agencies, are part of the process include citizens and special interest governments and organizations (MPCA, 1996) groups. There are two basic categories that individuals involved
45 5.2 Review Cycle • Outreach/Finalize Basin Plan
• Implementation The basin management review cycle provides a scheduling (MPCA, 1996) structure for the form and progression of basin management activities. Cycle length, basin sequence, and the Basin Management Planning Cycle are the three components of how 5.3 Minnesota’s Basin Management Approach decisions are to be made (MPCA, 1996). These three components together provide a schedule for participation Minnesota’s approach to basin management is under the direction programs and agencies to coordinate related activities. of the MPCA. Its approach is geographically based and centered on the protection and restoration of water quality in Minnesota. Cycle length is the time-span of a complete cycle of management Basin Management is designed to 1) identify water quality activities within a basin. One cycle is a five-year period, which problems, 2) establish shared goals and priorities through was chosen to correspond with other cyclical program working with local governments, and 3) develop strategies for requirements (MPCA, 1996). pollutant reduction while focusing on the state’s ten major drainage basins (MPCA, 2002). The level of this planning Basin sequence is the order that activities for each of the nine focuses on: basins will begin, and at which stage each basin will enter the process (MPCA, 1996). • refining water quality related state objectives
• setting basin level water quality priorities The Basin Management Planning Cycle refers to the nine major • defining priority water quality pollutants and problem areas basin management activities: • identifying actions and projects to be performed to address the identified goals, objectives, priorities, and targets
• Stakeholder Outreach/Organization of Internal and External • and serving as a mechanism to help secure funding for Teams implementation of the plans • Compile Data and Develop Basin Information Document
• Analyze Data and Identify Water Quality Problems The intended time length for basin plans is five years, and they
• Prioritization and Targeting are continuously updated in five-year intervals. The goals,
• Develop Strategies objectives, and targets that the plans specify are to be at least
• Basin-Specific Monitoring Plan partially achievable within the five-year life span of the plan
• Draft Basin Plan (MPCA, 1997).
46 The main intentions of basin plans are to help focus attention and This list is by no means complete in either agencies or the roles funding on particular watershed planning and management of those agencies, but rather a general idea of what an agency efforts. This will help advance the goals of the basin plan to does with respect to water management. protect and improve the water quality of the basin (MPCA, 1997). Other state programs and plans associated with the protection of Minnesota’s waters include but are not limited to:
5.4 Water Resource Management in Minnesota The Clean Water Partnership (CWP), under the MPCA, is a program that addresses pollution associated with agricultural and There are many major water programs, policies, and authorities urban runoff and provides resources for local governments to already in place in Minnesota. Some specific state agencies and protect and improve lakes, streams, and ground water. examples of their duties with water programs would include: The Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan (NSMPP) is a prerequisite for the state of Minnesota to continue receiving • The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR): provides financial, technical, and administrative support to local Nonpoint Source grant funds from the United States governments to manage and conserve their water and soil Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). To be eligible for resources (BWSR, 2003). this grant award, all nonpoint source water pollution control projects must be cited in this NSMPP document.
• The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR): Water Management, Surface Water and Hydrographics, Ground Water and Climatology, Regional Operations Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program is a tool to (MDNR, 2002) implement programs that already exist in Minnesota and to help fund unique or under-funded programs. Through partnerships at
• The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH): enforces the the local, state, and federal levels, this program pursues the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, performs onsite water sustainment of coastal communities and ecosystems and the system facilities inspections, administers the state plumbing improvement of government efficiency. and well codes (MDH, 2003).
• The MPCA: protects Minnesota’s environment by enforcing environmental regulations and monitoring environmental quality.
47 The Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) has 5.5 Water Resource Management in Great Lakes worked on the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes since 1991. In this century alone, over 87
nonindigenous aquatic species have been introduced to the Great Water resource management on Lake Superior, and the rest of the Lakes (Great Lakes Commission (GLC), 2002). The panel is Great Lakes, is quite different than inland parts of the basin. aimed at identifying the priorities of the Great Lakes, assisting There are many important organizations and policies effecting and making recommendations to a national Task Force, water management within the Great Lakes. Some of these key coordinating program activities of exotic species in the region, courses of action will be discussed in this section. advising public and private interests to control efforts, and
submitting an annual report to the task force (Great Lakes The purpose of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is to Commission, 2002). re-establish and preserve the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of the ecosystem of the Great Lakes Basin The U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office sets out to (International Joint Commission (IJC), 1987). Information in the protect, maintain, and restore the chemical, biological, and plan helps inform people about the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. physical integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The priorities of The plan also provides a framework for developing the necessary the program are to: programs, practices, and technology needed. This program strives to eliminate or reduce to the smallest level possible, the
1. check lake ecosystem indicators discharge of pollutants into the Great Lakes system.
2. oversee and provide public access to Great Lakes data
3. help communities address contaminated sediments in their Under this agreement, the Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and harbors Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) have taken effect. In an
4. support local protection and restoration of important habitats ecosystem approach, these plans represent a systematic way to re-
5. through activities and projects promote pollution prevention establish and protect beneficial uses in Areas of Concern (AOC)
6. provide assistance for community-based Remedial Action or in open lake waters (IJC, 1987). They also provide a Plans for Areas of Concern and for Lakewide Management continuing historical record of the assessment of the AOC or Plans (USEPA, 2001) Critical Pollutants, proposed remedial actions and their method of implementation, and also changes in the environmental conditions that result from such actions (IJC, 1987). They are to function as a step toward virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances and restoration of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.
48 In the past, proposals have been made to export and distribute Lake Superior water to markets overseas and throughout the U.S. The requests have been withdrawn because of the lack of consultation and the environmental implications. The GLC unanimously adopted a policy position opposing the withdrawal of Great Lakes water for overseas export at their 1998 Annual Meeting (USEPA, 2000). In February 2000, the IJC requested that the U.S. and Canada enforce a six-month moratorium on the sale of Great Lakes water, until recommended studies determined whether or not the Lakes could withstand the loss (USEPA, 2000).
The Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) was created for several purposes. It summarizes both the technical research and scientific study of the Lake Superior ecosystem. It supports priority actions and additional research in the basin by acting as a framework. It states the actual measures that governments, industries, tribes, and other stakeholders can take to prevent and restore pollution. The LaMP will help achieve sustainability in the basin ecosystem by serving as a strategic plan (Lake Superior Binational Program, 2000). .
49
Chapter 6: Process Overview
6.1 Process Overview 6.2 Programmatic Work Group
To aid in the development of the Lake Superior Basin Plan, the The PWG is the final arbitrator and nuts and bolts developer of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) developed a the Lake Superior Basin Plan. Partners at this level are process with the hopes of drawing together a variety of expected to partake in regular monthly meetings, assist with the stakeholders interested in the Lake Superior Basin. The generation of plan solutions and scenarios, evaluate proposed committee formed, as a result of this process, is referred to as solutions, and respond to comments or concerns within their the Programmatic Work Group (PWG). The PWG was respective areas of expertise. Every partner organization designed to establish and direct areas of focus within the Lake involved at this level is considered equal. It is important to Superior Basin. While the MPCA is represented within the note that ‘final arbitrator’ used in this sense does not imply that PWG, its role is not that of a governing entity. The successful the PWG has the authority to ignore or to dismiss concerns or implementation of the basin planning process is dependent suggestions submitted by a steering committee or the citizenry upon a working relationship between all of the interested (MPCA, 2000). parties. Membership Criteria: Partners were selected to serve on the A steering committee was developed to provide day-to-day PWG through an informal process developed by the MPCA. oversight of plan development and guidance for the PWG. This process simply consisted of identifying government Anyone who is a member of the PWG may also participate on agencies and organizations with key management the Steering Committee (MPCA, 2000). responsibilities in the Lake Superior Basin. Members were chosen with regards to their responsibilities in these six Public participation is also a necessary component to the Basin resource management categories: 1) agriculture, 2) forestry, Planning process. For the effective implementation of the Lake 3) urban areas, 4) marinas and recreational boating, Superior Basin Plan, communities within the Lake Superior 5) hydromodification, and 6) wetlands. Other than Basin must work alongside elected officials, environmental representing a unit of government, the PWG is not envisioned members, business representatives, and various other groups. as having strict membership requirements. The PWG is Therefore, numerous avenues have been set up throughout the designed to be a flexible body that relies on its members to planning process allowing the public to voice their comments identify individuals within their own organizations, or others, and concerns. who are best suited to address specific issues (MPCA, 2000).
50 6.2.1 Roles and Responsibilities: subset of the PWG. In these situations the PWG has the option of creating issue specific subcommittees or
1. MPCA: Unless the PWG chooses otherwise, the MPCA workgroups. PWG members may serve on these work leads meetings and works with members to ensure that the groups and include outside advisors or experts as deemed process runs smoothly. The MPCA’s role includes necessary to complete the assigned task. developing agendas, minutes, providing background
materials, focusing meeting discussions, working to resolve 4. Open Meetings: All meetings of the PWG are open to the impasses that may arise, and facilitating member and public public. The PWG recognizes that pubic comments participation in the plan development process. The MPCA solicited at regular meetings are only components of a will also prepare and distribute draft and final versions of broader public participation program. Workshops, open the Lake Superior Basin Plan. houses, and other events are organized separately, or in conjunction with meetings, to solicit broader public
2. PWG Members: PWG members are expected to assist the participation. MPCA in the development of the Lake Superior Basin Plan in a number of ways. Examples are listed below for illustrative purposes: 6.3 Public Participation
Identify and prioritize water quality threats and The residents in the Lake Superior Basin serve as the court of restoration priorities. Develop strategies to address public opinion for the plan's development and implementation. these threats and to promote restoration. Therefore, the views and perspectives of average citizens are extremely important to the process. Residents have been, and
Identify project-funding priorities. continue to be, asked to submit their ideas, comments, and concerns about plan development at various stages of the
Assist with the development and implementation of a planning process. Comments submitted verbally or in writing basin-monitoring program. become part of the public record. These comments and the responses made by the PWG are disseminated widely
Oversee Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) throughout the process. This public distribution of comments development on listed Lake Superior Basin streams and and responses is designed to make it very obvious if important lakes (MPCA, 2000). comments or valuable ideas are brushed-off or ignored (MPCA, 2001).
3. Work Groups or Subcommittees: Generally the PWG operates as a whole. However, occasionally assignments or tasks arise that are more appropriately performed by a
51 Citizens have been given the opportunity to become further • Wednesday, January 24, 2001, Duluth
informed as well as to voice their thoughts, concerns, and • Thursday, January 25, 2001, Two Harbors questions through several different formats during the planning • Saturday, January 27, 2001, Duluth process. The components to the program include: • Monday, January 29, 2001, Duluth
• Tuesday, January 30, 2001, Cloquet
• Listening log
• Saturday, February 3, 2001, Mountain Iron
• Public meetings
• Saturday, February 10, 2001, Grand Marais
• Survey’s
• Tuesday, February 13, 2001, Grand Marais • Expanding Basin Views News The meetings gave citizens the opportunity to voice their own 6.3.1 Listening Log thoughts, concerns, and questions directly to a member of the PWG or other affiliate of the basin planning process. The listening log is a public forum where individuals can come Concerned citizens could then receive immediate answers to to see what others are saying about the environment and their questions. Comments were recorded by a basin team processes within the Lake Superior Basin. Public comments member to allow further review of feedback from the meetings. and agency responses are compiled into a Listening Log report that is updated regularly and available at: There were also six public meetings held in September 2003 to www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/superior/lsbasin/listeninglog.html present the Lake Superior Basin Plan draft document. The Or by searching the MPCA web page at: www.pca.state.mn.us meetings occurred throughout the basin area to provide citizens key word: listening log (MPCA, 2001). the opportunity to learn about, and comment on, the basin plan. These comments were then reviewed and discussed by the 6.3.2 Public Meetings PWG and then incorporated into the final version of the plan. The meeting dates and locations were conducted as follows: Public meetings were held in a variety of communities associated with the Lake Superior Basin Plan. These meetings • Monday, September 15, 2003, Cloquet gave the public the opportunity to listen to members of the • Tuesday, September 16, 2003, Hibbing PWG explain proposed ideas and give updates of current
• Wednesday, September 17, 2003, Grand Marias progress in the basin planning process. Eight meetings were
• Thursday, September 18, 2003, Two Harbors conducted in 2001, at the beginning of the plan’s development,
Monday, September 22, 2003, Duluth as part of the public outreach component to the basin planning •
process. These meetings were conducted as follows:
52 6.3.3 The Electronic Survey
An electronic survey was given at a number of public meetings and was also available online. The survey asked respondents a variety of questions concerning their views of current water quality management. This survey was then reviewed for any recurring themes and messages. Approximately 355 people took the survey either at the public meetings or online. The survey is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Four. The survey graphs derived from the data collected are located in Appendix F of this document. The following are key messages arising from the survey:
• People choose to live in Northeastern Minnesota because of the aesthetic beauty and proximity to outdoor recreation
• The majority of people do not believe that “Environmental protection is an impediment to economic growth”
• Despite this, 39% of people believe that the community “favors economics over the environment”
• 65% of the general public do not believe that they are given adequate “involvement in, or opportunity to comment on, how lakes, rivers, and streams in [their] area are protected or managed”
6.3.4 Expanding Basin Views news
Expanding Basin Views News is a bulletin published quarterly. It is designed to provide information to the public and coordinating agencies on current events within the Lake Superior and Rainy River Basins. This bulletin is available to the public online at: www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/superior/lsbasin/newsbulletins.ht ml (MPCA, 2001).
53
Chapter 7: Introduction – Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment
Cumulative impacts and the targeting of scarce resources are assessment approaches. The North Coast Watershed two of the most daunting challenges faced in the creation of Assessment Program (NCWAP) in California is one example. any basin or watershed plan. One of the key questions always NCWAP is part of an effort to protect coastal watersheds. A comes down to, “how does one target scarce financial and parallel project is also underway in the interior of the state. human capital when water resource protection needs so clearly (Resources Agency, 2001). Watershed assessments are also in outstrip available resources?” Equally puzzling, is how to progress or nearing completion in British Columbia, Canada, create a water resource management plan that accounts for the and as part of the Southern Rocky Mountains Ecosystem myriad of human activities occurring on the landscape. The Project. British Columbia (BC) recently completed a major Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment (LSBWA) watershed assessment project for all 18,000 watersheds that process, described below, attempts to answer these questions make up the province. BC Watersheds, as the project is by using a straightforward technical process. The objective of referred to, provides users with information on 400 descriptive this process is to use data as a foundation for making decisions indicators (BC Ministry of Environment, 2000). about how to manage the water resources in the Lake Superior Basin. 7.1 Specific Goals and Objectives: The LSBWA approach is based on the U.S. Forest Service’s East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol (EWAP), which is There are a variety of goals and objectives that serve as the used in national forests throughout the eastern half of the underpinnings of the decision to use the watershed assessment United States. EWAP was designed to be a relatively rapid approach. Chief among these goals is to encourage use of the watershed assessment technique to be used for broad scale watershed framework for land use and policy decisions. The planning and management activities. The approach is similar watershed assessment encourages this approach because all of to, and emulates, the Hydrologic Condition Analysis (HCA) the data and maps are assembled and presented by minor and other complementary methodologies used by the Forest watershed. Equally important, it also provides a neutral way to Service and Bureau of Land Management. EWAP was created assess cumulative impacts and to prioritize watersheds. for use on 5th level watersheds. However, the process can be Subjectivity is reduced through the use of standardized applied at different scales based on the availability of data procedures for ranking and analysis of watershed parameters sources. (USFS, 2000).
Aside from the U.S. Forest Service, there are a number of government agencies in the U.S. and Canada using watershed
54 It is impossible at this point in time to predict each and every The 7th level watershed classification system was used for the use of the watershed assessment. However, there are some LSBWA because it provides greater flexibility for analysis. over-arching goals for the project that are fundamental to the notion of basin planning and watershed management. These All of the watersheds in the Minnesota portion of the Lake broad goals are as follows: Superior Basin were included in the assessment. The Wisconsin portion of the Nemadji River was excluded only
• Incorporate watershed analyses into decisions and policies because comparable data sets were not readily available. If this
• Identify desired future states for watersheds data becomes available in the future, the assessment will be updated to include these watersheds. It is important to note • Create watershed specific targets and goals that this assessment is a relative comparison of Lake Superior • Prioritize watershed needs Basin watersheds. Maps and comparisons detailed in this • Determine restoration strategies report would be considerably different if minor watersheds in
• Target financial and human resources the Lake Superior Basin were compared against watersheds
• Identify information gaps and monitoring needs throughout Minnesota, or across ecoregion boundaries (Figure
• Identify watersheds in need of finer scale analyses 7.1).
Create baseline information to evaluate trends or program • effectiveness The Lake Superior Basin is entirely contained within what is
referred to as the Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion. The
Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion is a poorly drained 7.2 Methodology region characteristic of Canadian Shield topography. With some exceptions, lakes and rivers in this region are As was mentioned previously, the LSBWA is based on the characterized by high transparency and low nutrient levels. U.S. Forest Service’s EWAP process. With minor exception, it Lake transparency in this region responds quickly to changes in uses exactly the same indicator set. The changes made, and nutrient loads, particularly phosphorous (Heiskary and Wilson, data sets used, are noted in Tables 7.1 and 7.2. Unlike the U.S. 1989). th Forest Service’s EWAP process, which uses 5 level watersheds, the LSBWA uses the Minnesota Department of As described in the EWAP guidance documents, the LSBWA th Natural Resources (MDNR) 7 level minor watershed series. uses parameters that describe existing physical and ecological Minor watersheds are defined by the MDNR as meeting a conditions within watersheds, as well as those indicators minimum size criterion of 1295 hectares (3200 acres). Minor susceptible to change based on management activities. watersheds in the LSBWA typically range in size from 1295 Parameters are divided into two principle classes. Condition (3200 acres) to 18,211 hectares (7370 acres). MDNR parameters are defined as watershed disturbances or stressors. aggregated watersheds that did not meet this minimum Vulnerability parameters are values at risk that can be threshold for size into larger watershed units (MDNR, 1999). positively or negatively impacted by management activities. Condition and vulnerability parameters are aggregated to
55 derive a summary score for watershed health. Watersheds are Table 7.2. below is a list of the vulnerability parameters. then ranked on a continuum from lowest to highest based on Vulnerability, as it is used in this context, refers to values that their scores within the following categories: overall condition, can be positively or negatively affected by management overall vulnerability, and summary scores. “Watersheds with actions. poor condition and high vulnerability are considered to have less integrity relative to those with better condition and lower Table 7.2 Vulnerability Parameters vulnerability,” (USFS, 2000). Parameters Rank = 1 Data Source Percent of Riparian Areas Highest (%) DNR Census of Land The basic parameters used in the LSBWA are described in in Forest or Wetland Use, EPA Reach File 3 Tables 7.1 and 7.2. Data sets used to produce this assessment Percent of Watershed in Highest (%) DNR – 1990 Census of came from a variety of government sources. Most of the data Lakes Land Use sets are available through the MDNR or the Land Management Percent of Watershed in Highest (%) DNR – 1990 Census of Information Center (LMIC). Additional data layers were Wetlands Land Use created from non-spatial government data sources. A complete Percent of Erodible Soils Highest (%) NRCS – STATSGO in Watershed Soils Database description of these data layers is included in the Data Endangered Species – Highest DNR – Natural Dictionary (Appendix C). Number of Occurrences Number Heritage Database Exotic Species – Number Highest DNR – Exotic Species Table 7.1 Condition Parameters of Occurrences Number Program Parameters Rank = 1 Data Source State Impaired Waters Highest MPCA – 303(d) List Public Ownership Lowest (%) DNR Gap Inventory (Index) Number MPCA – 305(b) Report Dams/Diversions Highest Number EPA – National Dam High Quality Waters Highest MPCA, Fond du Lac Inventory (Index) Number Tribe, 1854 Authority Road Density (excludes Highest Number FHWA, MNDOT Private and Public Water Highest Minnesota Geological water) Supplies Number Survey – County Well Recreation/Tourism Highest Number DNR, MN Index Pressure Department of Percent Native Fish Lowest (%) DNR Fisheries, MPCA, Commerce Species Fond du Lac Tribe, Population Density – Highest Density U.S. Census Bureau Grand Portage Tribe Population Density Highest U.S. Census Bureau Rank = 1 applies to the ranking order of watersheds. For instance, % Change 1990 - 2000 watersheds with the highest percent of riparian land in forest or Stream Crossings Highest Number FHWA, MNDOT, wetland would be ranked number one, the second highest two, etc. EPA Reach File #3 Nonpoint Source Group Highest Percent DNR Census of The ranking scheme for the LSBWA follows the process (urban, mining, Land recommend by the USFS. All 435 minor watersheds in the agriculture) Lake Superior Basin were rank ordered on a parameter by Point Sources Highest Number MPCA parameter basis. Using stream crossings as an example, the
56 watershed with the highest number of stream crossings was 7.3 Data Interpretation ranked number one. The second highest number of stream crossings was ranked two, and the process continued until all As part of the development of the LSBWA, significant efforts 435 watersheds were ordered. All parameters were ranked were devoted to the identification of data sources that were exactly this same way. Where watersheds share the same both accurate and comprehensive. However, it is important to value, the score is exactly the same (See Table 7.3). Overall recognize the inherent limitations of spatial data sets. These scores are calculated by summing the adjusted rank column for limits include the temporal nature of the data, coding and each of the individual parameters. interpretation errors, and over generalization of data. Most limitations are identified in the metadata (detailed data Table 7.3 Watershed Assessment Worksheet Example descriptions of public domain information sources). While Hydrologic Watershed Name Stream Stream Stream these errors may be insignificant at some scales, the potential Unit Codes Crossings Crossings Crossings exists for compounded or cumulative errors. (Total) (Rank) (Adjusted Rank) The temporal nature of spatial data is an important aspect of 104600 S Brule R 38 1 1.0 map interpretation. Spatial data sets are assembled and 308900 Stone Cr 37 2 2.0 404000 Cloquet R 31 3 3.0 represent landscapes only as they existed at a particular point in 308000 Floodwood R 30 4 4.0 time. They do not reflect a dynamic landscape where forests 105300 Cascade R 29 5 5.0 regenerate, streams meander and create new channels, and 312300 Barber Cr 28 6 6.5 where structures are built and later demolished. The LSBWA 401800 W Br Cloquet R 28 7 6.5 uses data sets from a variety of time periods. As such, the 104400 Brule R 26 8 9.0 assessment is more or less accurate in some instances based on 309700 Unknown Watershed 26 9 9.0 the availability of current data sources. Name 311000 St Louis R 26 10 9.0 A discussion and series of tables accompany each map in the 402800 Hellwig Cr 25 11 11.0 section that follows. The tables were purposely designed to 105200 Temperance R 24 12 12.5 present information in categories useful for interpretation 315500 Partridge R 24 13 12.5 purposes. These categories may or may not mimic map 308800 Stony Cr 23 14 14.0 legends. Note: Highlighted cells in the adjusted rank column illustrate how ties are handled in the assessment ranking process.
57
7.3.1 Condition Parameters Table 7.4 [Minor Watersheds with <= 10% Public Ownership]
The following section details the condition parameters used in HUC Watershed Name % Public the watershed assessment. Condition parameters identify the Code Ownership presence or absence of watershed disturbances or stressors. 203500 Talmadge R 0.00
Nine condition parameters were included in the assessment. 204300 Unknown Watershed Name 0.00 Each parameter includes a map, a brief discussion section, and 301100 Hay Cr 0.00 a series of tables. 316400 Midway R 0.37 500300 Unknown Watershed Name 0.55
300900 Midway R 1.41 Figure 7.11 Public Land Ownership
318600 Kingsbury Cr 1.80 Public ownership is a key parameter in the assessment because
204700 Little Sucker R 1.81 it serves as an indicator of how much direct control local, state,
204600 Schmidt Cr 1.88 federal, or tribal governments exercise over land and water
405100 Caribou Cr 2.25 resources. Government agencies that serve as trustees of these 316100 Unknown Watershed Name 2.37 lands can single handedly have significant impacts on 204800 Skunk Cr 2.40 watershed integrity based on their management objectives and 204400 Unknown Watershed Name 2.80 practices. Conversely, watersheds with increasingly higher 203400 Unknown Watershed Name 2.80
percentages of private ownership require more collaborative 317300 Midway R 3.30
approaches in order to restore or protect watershed values. 300100 Miller Cr 3.32
204500 Unknown Watershed Name 3.33
It should be noted that public ownership in this context refers 316600 Pine R 3.47
to any entity with more than a 50% interest in a 40-acre parcel. 301000 Mission Cr 3.99
By definition, this approach excludes many of the smaller 301500 Dutch Slough 4.03 properties owned by public educational institutions or 200200 Clarkhouse Cr 4.43 municipalities. This data also excludes tracts of land owned by 313200 E Two R 4.55 non-profit organizations that manage lands for public purposes. 304400 St Louis R 5.94
The metadata for this data source can be viewed at: 316200 Rocky Run Cr 5.98 http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us/metadata/full/gapstpy2.html. 313600 Unknown Watershed Name 6.12 501400 Unknown Watershed Name 6.70 Minor watersheds in the Lake Superior Basin with less than 312900 W Swan R 7.14 10% public ownership are identified in Table 7.4 below. While 315200 First Cr 7.59
500800 Deer Cr 8.09 it is likely that most of these watersheds contain a significant
203800 Amity Cr 8.23 number of private landowners, it is also possible that some
404100 Cemetary Cr 8.40 watersheds contain large, private land holdings.
203900 Tischer Cr 8.46
69 Table 7.4 [Minor Watersheds with <= 10% Public Table 7.5 [Minor Watersheds with >=45 and <=65 % Ownership] Public Ownership] HUC Watershed Name % Public HUC Watershed Name % Public Code Ownership Code Ownership 204000 Chester Cr 8.47 205500 Palisade Cr 50.16 305300 St Louis R 8.89 101400 Irish Cr 51.09 312800 W Swan R 8.97 304300 Little Whiteface R 51.92 311400 Otter (Long L) Cr 9.15 301900 St Louis R 52.01 315400 Spring Mile Cr 9.33 314600 Partridge R 52.12 204900 Pete'S Cr 9.45 202100 Unknown Watershed Name 52.16 500600 Blackhoof R 9.59 202500 Stewart R 52.53 318700 Unknown Watershed Name 9.66 310500 E Br Water Hen Cr 52.88 500200 Clear Cr 9.91 404400 Sullivan Cr 53.67 315000 Second Cr 9.92 307100 Whiteface R 54.90 302100 Ditch 55.66 Watersheds with between 45 and 65 percent public ownership 502100 S Fork Nemadji R 56.47 are outlined in Table 7.5. Watersheds in this table contain a 110400 Good Harbor Cr 56.76 rough mix of private land and larger blocks of public land. 205300 Nelsens Cr 56.87 Public ownership of these larger blocks of land present 307000 Paleface R 57.24 opportunities for special management actions to compensate 403500 Otter R 57.42 for impacts that occur elsewhere in a watershed. 111100 Farquahr Cr 58.78 403700 Little Cloquet R 58.91 Table 7.5 [Minor Watersheds with >=45 and <=65 % 302300 St Louis R 59.01 Public Ownership] 305800 Jenkins Cr 59.47 HUC Watershed Name % Public 316900 Swan River 59.94 Code Ownership 310700 Water Hen Cr 60.28 317100 Red R 45.96 103800 Little Devil Track R 60.44 401400 Pine Cr 46.05 109000 E Br Baptism R 60.56 302400 St Louis R 46.26 317800 Unknown Watershed Name 60.70 109600 Little Manitou R 46.33 405400 Kkehtell Cr 60.96 110500 Unknown Watershed Name 46.70 106100 Caribou Cr 61.08 201800 Little Gooseberry R 47.00 303900 Little Whiteface R 61.28 307300 Whiteface R 47.54 401200 Cloquet R 61.54 307200 Whiteface R 49.49 401300 Langley R 61.60 401000 Indian Cr 49.72 309600 Unknown Watershed Name 61.77 306900 From Dinham L 49.83 316000 Bear Cr 61.83
70 Table 7.5 [Minor Watersheds with >=45 and <=65 % Public Ownership] HUC Watershed Name % Public Code Ownership 401500 Little Langley R 61.92 307400 Whiteface R 61.97 307900 Vaara Cr 61.99 305200 Skunk Cr 62.11 308900 Stone Cr 62.15 402800 Hellwig Cr 62.28 308800 Stony Cr 62.40 201900 E Split Rock R 62.60 310400 S Br Water Hen Cr 62.83 109200 Baptism R 62.96 205200 Campers Cr 63.00 314500 South Br Partridge R 63.11 308000 Floodwood R 63.50 309100 Paleface R 63.53 315900 Camp Eight Cr 63.60 400400 Murphy Cr 63.71 202900 Sucker R 63.75 303600 Spider Cr 63.86 309400 Whiteface R 64.12 400500 Sullivan Cr 64.24 103900 Rosebush Cr 64.28 101100 Carlson Cr 64.60 501900 Net R 64.63 111400 Surface Ro 64.95 312700 Unknown Watershed Name 65.06 401600 From King L 65.20 301300 Stoney Bk 65.39
71 Figure 7.12 Number of Dams Table 7.6 [Number of Dams] HUC Code Watershed Name Number of Dams and other water control structures provide society with Dams power generation, irrigation water, flood reduction, wildlife 108100 Wanless Cr 2 areas, and a variety of other important uses. Nonetheless, the 204500 Unknown Watershed Name 2 existence of dams in a watershed can profoundly impact the 309400 Whiteface R 2 aquatic ecosystem. Dams alter flow patterns, disrupt sediment 311500 St Louis R 2 transport, block fish passage, change channel morphology, 313600 Unknown Watershed Name 2 impact water quality, and have a number of other subtle and 313700 Embarrass R 2 significant impacts on the composition and life cycle of aquatic 315000 Second Cr 2
315300 Sabin L (Embarrass R) 2 organisms (Council of State Governments, 2001).
315800 Embarrass R 2
500800 Deer Cr 2 The number of dams is an indicator of the extent of hydrologic
312900 W Swan R 3 modification in a watershed. It does not, however, measure the
313400 E Two R 3 area of hydrologic influence within the watershed (USFS, 314900 Partridge R 3 2000). This measure is simply a count of dams by minor 316300 St Louis R 3 watershed. For the most part, dams are concentrated on the 317400 St Louis R 3
periphery of the basin and near urbanized areas around the 405400 Kkehtell Cr 3
Duluth Metropolitan area. A small number of dams are 200500 Big Thirty-nine Cr 5
scattered throughout the basin. Minor watersheds with dams 312300 Barber Cr 5 are listed in Table 7.6. This list does not include all wildlife or sediment control dams and structures financed or designed by Figure 7.13 Road Density the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). A register of these dams was not available during the completion Roads serve very important roles as state and local of this assessment. transportation networks. Nonetheless, roads also significantly impact watersheds through hydrologic changes. These changes include alteration of drainage patterns, increased impervious surface, erosion (ditches), and water quality impacts. Road density, as measured by this parameter, is simply an indicator of the number of 100 m2 grids in a watershed, minus water features, that are intersected by any type of road (major, minor, and forest roads). Areas with the highest road densities are as listed in Table 7.7.
72
Table 7.7 [Road Density – (% of 100 Meter Cells – Table 7.8 [Recreation/Tourism Pressure - # of Minus Water Features) Intersected by Roads] Facilities by Watershed] HUC Code Watershed Name Road Density HUC WATERSHED NAME # REC 203800 Amity Cr 30 CODE FACILITIES 312400 E Swan Cr 31 109200 Baptism R 7 204000 Chester Cr 33 104100 From Daniels L 8 300100 Miller Cr 39 312400 E Swan Cr 8 203900 Tischer Cr 42 104300 Poplar Cr 9 200200 Clark house Cr 61 204200 Surface Ro 9 204300 Unknown Watershed Name 75 204800 Skunk Cr 14 204200 Surface Ro 87 316300 St Louis R 18 200200 Clark house Cr 22 Figure 7.14 Recreation/Tourism Pressure 110500 Unknown Watershed Name 28
The Recreation/Tourism Pressure indicator is a measure of the impacts from the hospitality industry and its clients (visitors) on watersheds. Impacts, as defined by this parameter, are the structures and facilities designed to accommodate visitors. Included in this data set, are state parks, campgrounds, fishing charter operations, public water access points, hotels, bed and breakfasts, and a host of other tourist-related businesses. The assessment only includes facilities operated to serve the recreational and lodging needs of tourists. It does not include ancillary businesses such as restaurants, laundromats, gift stores, and bait shops. Excluded from this data set, due to incomplete or non-existent data, are private boat access points, motorized trails, and hiking trails.
Watersheds with the highest degree of recreation and tourism pressure are outlined in Table 7.8. Watersheds with the highest concentration of tourist facilities follow an expected pattern. These facilities are concentrated in the Duluth area, near Two Harbors, in Grand Marais, in the Tofte area, the Gunflint Trail area, and near Hibbing, Minnesota.
74 Figure 7.15 Population Density
Population density is a measure of how densely concentrated human activities are across the landscape. Generally speaking, activities that impact watershed condition are most likely to occur where population centers are located. What is particularly noteworthy about Figure 7.15 is that the population density is uniformly low throughout the basin. As would be expected, the highest population densities are located in Hibbing and Duluth. Minor watersheds with the highest population density per square hectare are identified as follows in Table 7.9.
Table 7.9 [Population Density/Hectare] HUC WATERSHED NAME POPULATION CODE DENSITY/HECTARE 300100 Miller Cr 3 312400 E Swan Cr 3 203900 Tischer Cr 4 204000 Chester Cr 5 200200 Clark house Cr 9 204300 Unknown Watershed Name 10 204200 Surface Ro 19
75
Figure 7.16 Population Density (% Change 1990 – 2000) Table 7.10 [% Population Density Change,1990 – 2000] HUC WATERSHED NAME POPULATION Increases in population and development pressure are likely to CODE DENSITY % have ripple effects on watersheds. As such, this measure CHANGE simply tracks those changes over time (1990 – 2000). The (1990-2000) percentages in Figure 7.16 are large because these changes are 306500 Unknown Watershed Name 155 relative to very low population densities. The most significant 306200 Bug Cr 160 point to take away from this map is that the changes in density 403000 Unknown Watershed Name 168
402600 Boulder Cr 171 have occurred in relatively remote parts of the basin (Upper
403400 Unknown Watershed Name 172 Cloquet River Watershed, Gunflint Trail areas). Watersheds
403100 From Twin Lakes 172 with the most significant population density change are
403300 Cloquet R 185 outlined in Table 7.10 below:
306400 Bug Cr 188
107700 Heartbreak Cr 190
103100 Brule R 194 Table 7.10 [% Population Density Change,1990 – 2000] 314100 St Louis R 204
HUC WATERSHED NAME POPULATION 314400 Unknown Watershed Name 207
CODE DENSITY % 310000 Reno Cr 207 CHANGE 309800 Wallow Cr 207 (1990-2000) 309900 N Br Whiteface R 207
401700 Mud Cr 100
401900 Petrel Cr 208 403700 Little Cloquet R 103 300700 Long L Cr 208
108500 Moose L Cr 103
300800 Unknown Watershed Name 208
108900 S Br Manitou R 106
314200 Cranberry Cr 208
109600 Little Manitou R 106
405600 Pine Cr 214 109000 E Br Baptism R 108 110400 Good Harbor Cr 216
108800 Manitou R 110
402000 Wolf Cr 218
105300 Cascade R 110
105200 Temperance R 234
108600 Nine mile Cr 110
401800 W Br Cloquet R 242 111900 Pigeon R 113 107400 From Timber L 256
104200 From Duncan L 117
300600 St Louis R 276 402500 Little Cloquet R 126 403200 Humphrey Cr 285 405700 Coyote Cr 131 400100 Petrel Cr 294
400200 Breda Cr 137
402100 Berry Cr 325
306300 Unknown Watershed Name 140
402400 Cloquet R 330 315400 Spring Mile Cr 154 104100 From Daniels L 340
79 Table 7.10 [% Population Density Change,1990 – 2000] Table 7.10 [% Population Density Change,1990 – 2000] HUC WATERSHED NAME POPULATION HUC WATERSHED NAME POPULATION CODE DENSITY % CODE DENSITY % CHANGE CHANGE (1990-2000) (1990-2000) 107000 Koski Cr 380 102100 Greenwood R 1615 402300 W Br Cloquet R 392 102600 From Little Caribou L 1618 300300 North R 446 101300 Beaver dam Cr 1622 105000 Vern L 460 106800 Sawbill Cr 1808 400300 Unknown Watershed Name 465 106900 Kelso R 2008 104300 Poplar Cr 472 107200 Torgenson Cr 2036 104500 From S Cone L 504 104400 Brule R 504 105100 From E Pipe L 505 Figure 7.17 Stream Crossings 502300 Black R 557 107300 Four mile Cr 615 Stream crossings simply reflect the number of intersections 300200 North R 621 between roads and streams in a given minor watershed. 300500 East R 686 Crossings may be of any type, including bridges and culverts. 300400 Ridgepole Cr 691 This parameter is dimension-less, in that it does not measure 502500 Net R 698 the number of stream crossings per unit area or river mile. The 314800 Wyman Cr 773 crossings include culverts and bridges that separate parts of 502400 Unknown Watershed Name 787 lakes and wetlands from lakes/rivers. This is a relative 101400 Irish Cr 1031 102900 Swamper Cr 1205 measure similar to the number of dams per minor watershed 106700 Burnt Cr 1555 (Figure 7.12). 111700 Pigeon R 1597 102700 Unknown Watershed Name 1603 101900 Stump R 1609 107100 Plouff Cr 1610 102000 Stump R 1612 102800 From Crocodile L 1613 101800 From McFarland L 1613 101200 Portage Bk 1614 101700 Royal R 1614 111800 Pigeon R 1614 103000 Assinika (Stoney) Cr 1614
80 Stream crossings can negatively impact the aquatic ecosystem Table 7.11 [Stream Crossings >=17]
in a number of important ways. These impacts include changes HUC WATERSHED NAME # OF STREAM in stream-flow, bank erosion, channel scouring, and fish CODE CROSSINGS passage. Culverts improperly sized or installed can reduce 109000 E Br Baptism R 20 stream flow and act as fish barriers during low flow periods. 307100 Whiteface R 20
315300 Sabin L (Embarrass R) 20 Bridges and culverts also represent areas where pollutants from roadside ditches or surfaces drain directly into the stream 317800 Unknown Watershed Name 20 (USEPA, 1993). 401700 Mud Cr 20 305900 Whiteface R 21 The minor watersheds with the highest count of stream 311600 Elbow Cr 21
312200 Dempsey Cr 21 crossings per minor watershed are outlined in Table 7.11 as
312800 W Swan R 21 follows:
313700 Embarrass R 21
Table 7.11 [Stream Crossings >=17] 316300 St Louis R 21
102100 Greenwood R 22 HUC WATERSHED NAME # OF STREAM
107600 Blind Temperance Creek 22 CODE CROSSINGS
307700 Sand Cr 22
103000 Assinika (Stoney) Cr 17
313400 E Two R 22
103100 Brule R 17
314500 South Br Partridge R 22
305700 Little Whiteface R 17
318700 Unknown Watershed Name 22
400200 Breda Cr 17
308800 Stony Cr 23
108200 W Br Baptism R 18
105200 Temperance R 24
201200 Gooseberry R 18
315500 Partridge R 24
300600 St Louis R 18
402800 Hellwig Cr 25
301200 Simian Cr 18
104400 Brule R 26
303900 Little Whiteface R 18
309700 Unknown Watershed Name 26
310700 Water Hen Cr 18
311000 St Louis R 26
109300 Crown Cr 19
312300 Barber Cr 28
305200 Skunk Cr 19
401800 W Br Cloquet R 28
305600 Little Whiteface R 19
105300 Cascade R 29
305800 Jenkins Cr 19
308000 Floodwood R 30
307000 Paleface R 19
404000 Cloquet R 31
310800 Mud Hen Cr 19
308900 Stone Cr 37
310900 Unknown Watershed Name 19
104600 S Brule R 38
311800 St Louis R 19
311900 W Two R 19
316800 W Br Floodwood R 19
81 Figure 7.18 Nonpoint Source Category Table 7.12 [Nonpoint Source Category >=25%] HUC WATERSHED NAME % NONPOINT The Nonpoint Source Category is a combined ranking of three CODE CATEGORY land use classes that are considered major diffuse or nonpoint 204000 Chester Cr 35 sources of pollution. Lands included in the Nonpoint Source 316100 Unknown Watershed Name 36 Category include urban, agricultural, and mining lands. 311700 E Two R 37 Watersheds with 25% or more land in these categories are 317200 Silver Cr 37 outlined as follows: 318600 Kingsbury Cr 37 301100 Hay Cr 37 Table 7.12 [Nonpoint Source Category >=25%] 312900 W Swan R 39 501400 Unknown Watershed Name 39 HUC WATERSHED NAME % NONPOINT 500900 Rock Cr 39 CODE CATEGORY 40 501300 Unknown Watershed Name 25 203900 Tischer Cr 40 201700 Little Stewart R 25 305500 Whiteface R 42 316300 St Louis R 26 313600 Unknown Watershed Name 42 500800 Deer Cr 26 304400 St Louis R 43 315400 Spring Mile Cr 26 500200 Clear Cr 43 204700 Little Sucker R 27 317400 St Louis R 43 404900 Bear Trap Cr 27 315200 First Cr 44 302900 E Savanna R 27 312500 Auroric (Little Swan) Cr 44 500100 Unknown Watershed Name 27 305300 St Louis R 45 204600 Schmidt Cr 28 313200 E Two R 48 310600 Water Hen Cr 28 300100 Miller Cr 48 500300 Unknown Watershed Name 28 312400 E Swan Cr 49 301000 Mission Cr 28 317300 Midway R 51 501000 Mud Cr 28 313400 E Two R 52 313000 Unknown Watershed Name 29 312300 Barber Cr Unknown Watershed Name 54 312200 Dempsey Cr 31 305400 61 310900 Unknown Watershed Name 32 200200 Clarkhouse Cr W Two R 68 316400 Midway R 32 313300 Unknown Watershed Name 78 300900 Midway R 32 204300 95 315000 Second Cr 32 204200 Surface Ro 311600 Elbow Cr 33 500600 Blackhoof R 34 500400 Blackhoof R 34 311400 Otter (Long L) Cr 35
82 Figure 7.19 Point Sources Table 7.13 [>=50 Point Sources]
HUC CODE WATERSHED NAME TOTAL POINT
This parameter is a compilation of discrete pollutant sources by SOURCES minor watershed. It includes closed landfills, permitted solid 203900 Tischer Cr 52 waste sites, National Priority List (NPL) sites, Voluntary 311300 Ely Cr 60
Investigation and Clean Up (VIC) sites, underground storage 311600 Elbow Cr 62 tank locations, hazardous waste generators, brownfield sites, 205500 Palisade Cr 64 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 318600 Kingsbury Cr 73 water quality permits, and animal feedlots (state permitted sites 317500 Otter Cr 76 and smaller concentrations of animals as identified by the 204300 Unknown Watershed Name 78
110500 Unknown Watershed Name 80 counties). There are obvious qualitative and quantitative
405500 Ugstad Cr 81 differences between these point sources. However, it was
204000 Chester Cr 88 beyond the scope of this assessment to evaluate and rank
204200 Surface Ro 97 individual point sources. Equally important, these point
312400 E Swan Cr 115 sources represent data identified at various points in time. 204800 Skunk Cr 139 Some point sources have been cleaned up to the point where
313400 E Two R 172 they no longer represent a potential surface or groundwater 300100 Miller Cr 212
pollutant source. These sources will be removed from future 312300 Barber Cr 267 versions of this assessment. 317400 St Louis R 310
200200 Clark house Cr 473
Watersheds with a combined total of 50 or greater point 316300 St Louis R 566 sources are as identified in Table 7.13
83
Figure 7.20. Overall Conditions Table 7.14 [Overall Conditions <= 964] HUC WATERSHED NAME OVERALL Figure 7.20 is a summary of the nine watershed condition CODES CONDITIONS indicators previously discussed. The scores are a relative rank 312300 Barber Cr 424.00 of the 435 minor watersheds throughout the basin. Watersheds 317400 St Louis R 451.50 with lower scores (poorer relative condition) tend to be 316300 St Louis R 485.00 concentrated around Duluth, in the Nemadji River Watershed, 313600 Unknown Watershed Name 503.00 around the periphery of the basin, and in a number of scattered 313400 E Two R 505.00 watersheds on the Lake Superior coast. Watersheds in 204800 Skunk Cr 690.50 moderate condition are scattered throughout the basin, with 312200 Dempsey Cr 707.50 405500 Ugstad Cr 717.00 groupings located in the western part of the St. Louis River, the 311300 Ely Cr 740.50 Cloquet, and the White Face River watersheds. Watersheds in 318700 Unknown Watershed Name 771.00 the best condition (higher scores) tend to be located in the 300100 Miller Cr 796.00 upper reaches of the Cloquet River Watershed, and in the non- 311500 St Louis R 811.50 coastal areas of both Cook and Lake County. 313700 Embarrass R 814.00 403900 Island L Reservoir 827.00 Minor watersheds with scores in the lowest category are listed 316600 Pine R 851.00 below. These scores tend to be located at the southern and 312400 E Swan Cr 852.00 northern borders of the basin. 317500 Otter Cr 856.50 314900 Partridge R 864.50 405200 Beaver R 879.00 311600 Elbow Cr 892.50 301000 Mission Cr 900.00 200200 Clark house Cr 901.50 204000 Chester Cr 902.00 205500 Palisade Cr 912.00 405100 Caribou Cr 925.00 315000 Second Cr 933.50 316200 Rocky Run Cr 942.00
88 Watersheds whose scores are at the higher end of the relative Table 7.15 [Overall Conditions >=2585] condition continuum are listed in Table 7.15. These HUC WATERSHED NAME OVERALL watersheds are scattered throughout St. Louis, Cook, and Lake CODES CONDITION Counties. 200800 Kit Cr 2790.00 111700 Pigeon R 2792.00 Table 7.15 [Overall Conditions >=2585] 100800 Reservation R 2804.50 HUC WATERSHED NAME OVERALL 102300 Gauthier Cr 2827.50 CODES CONDITION 111100 Farquahr Cr 2838.50 106400 Barker Cr 2596.50 100400 Unknown Watershed Name 2840.50 108000 Caribou R 2596.50 309300 Bobcat Cr 2841.00 100100 Pigeon R 2603.00 111500 Pigeon R 2859.50 106300 Poplar R 2603.00 103500 Elbow Cr 2863.00 104500 From S Cone L 2621.50 106900 Kelso R 2867.50 109700 Sugarloaf Cr 2631.50 104900 Vern R 2870.50 403000 Unknown Watershed Name 2632.00 107800 Cross R 2871.00 105900 Poplar R 2651.00 111900 Pigeon R 2878.50 304600 Unknown Watershed Name 2669.00 111600 Pigeon R 2897.00 100600 Hollow Rock Cr 2671.00 310100 N Br Whiteface R 2902.00 306200 Bug Cr 2672.50 106200 Poplar R 2908.00 502300 Black R 2675.00 400800 Cloudy Spring Cr 2913.50 102900 Swamper Cr 2676.50 300700 Long L Cr 2922.50 310200 Shiver Cr 2676.50 105000 Vern L 2929.50 103600 Junco Cr 2677.00 403400 Unknown Watershed Name 2940.00 101900 Stump R 2692.50 106600 Onion R 2945.00 308700 Unknown Watershed Name 2698.50 309800 Wallow Cr 2961.50 310300 Little Shiver Cr 2700.00 105100 From E Pipe L 2971.00 102000 Stump R 2704.50 401100 Trappers Cr 2998.50 400300 Unknown Watershed Name 2714.50 106500 Six mile Cr 3012.00 400700 Whyte Cr 2721.00 103300 Timber Cr 3047.00 401500 Little Langley R 2730.00 108400 Hoist Cr 3050.00 107100 Plouff Cr 2748.00 103400 S Brule R 3107.00 306800 Whiteface R 2769.00 104800 Ball Club Cr 3125.50 108500 Moose L Cr 2772.00 107400 From Timber L 2773.50 111200 Red Rock Creek 2784.50 314200 Cranberry Cr 2787.00
89
7.3.2 Vulnerability Parameters Watersheds with 50% or less of the riparian corridor in wetland or forest are identified in Table 7.16 as follows: The following section details the vulnerability parameters used in the watershed assessment. These parameters refer to values Table 7.16 [<=50% of Riparian Area in Forest or that can be positively or negatively impacted by management Wetland] decisions or actions. Vulnerability and condition parameters HUC WATERSHED NAME % RIPARIAN are interrelated. For instance, as the number of dams or stream CODES AREA IN FOREST crossings increase (condition parameter), the risk of adverse OR WETLAND impacts to aquatic organisms increases (vulnerability 204200 Surface Ro 0 parameter). Ten vulnerability parameters are included in the 204900 Pete'S Cr 0 assessment. Each parameter includes a map, a brief discussion 205100 Unknown Watershed Name 0 204300 Unknown Watershed Name 3 section, and a series of tables. 315200 First Cr 9
313300 W Two R 14 Figure 7.21 % Riparian Areas in Forest or Wetland 200200 Clark house Cr 17
305400 Unknown Watershed Name 37 Riparian areas or corridors are the interface between terrestrial 313600 Unknown Watershed Name 44 (upland) and aquatic ecosystems. “Natural riparian systems are 203900 Tischer Cr 45 considered some of the most diverse, dynamic, and complex 315400 Spring Mile Cr 45 biophysical habitats on the terrestrial portion of the earth” 312300 Barber Cr 46 (Brooks et.al., 1997). These corridors support an array of plant 313400 E Two R 46 and animal species, as well as function to protect water quality, 111700 Pigeon R 48 attenuate floods, and reduce erosion. Figure 7.22. % Wetland, Bog, Marsh The % Riparian Areas in forest or wetland is an indicator of the relative condition of riparian areas within a given watershed. This vulnerability indicator is a measure of the amount of Riparian corridors that consist of forests or wetlands are wetland, bog, and marsh by minor watershed. The premise generally considered more intact than those in other land use underlying this indicator is that impacts to water resources are categories (as it applies to forested regions). The percentage of more likely to occur in watersheds with higher percentages of riparian areas in this category is derived by the intersection of these features. These impacts do not refer to the major stream the stream network and land use layers. This measure or creek, but to the water resources in the watershed as a currently uses land use data from the 1980s. It will be updated whole. Watersheds with over 50% of the land in wetland, bog, to 1990s data in subsequent versions of the assessment. or marsh are listed in Table 7.17.
91
Table 7.17 [>=50% Wetland, Bog, Fen, Marsh] Table 7.17 [>=50% Wetland, Bog, Fen, Marsh] HUC WATERSHED NAME % BOG, HUC WATERSHED NAME % BOG, CODE WETLAND, CODE WETLAND, MARSH MARSH 307900 Vaara Cr 50 304500 Unknown Watershed Name 81 318000 Ditch 52 300200 North R 83 502300 Black R 52 304800 Ditch 88 402600 Boulder Cr 53 307800 Unknown Watershed Name 89 313500 Hay Cr 54 303100 Ditch 89 304700 Floodwood R 54 502400 Unknown Watershed Name 54 Figure 7.23 % Open Water 309000 Unknown Watershed Name 54 307500 Unknown Watershed Name 55 Figure 7.23 displays the % open water by minor watershed. As 305600 Little Whiteface R 55 was discussed in Figure 7.22, the premise behind this 312100 O'Rourke Cr 56 parameter is that impacts to water resources are more likely to 308700 Unknown Watershed Name 56 occur in watersheds with higher percentages of overall area in 308900 Stone Cr 58 open water. Again, these impacts do not refer to a specific 316900 Swan River 59 water body, but to the resources in the watershed as whole. 305000 Floodwood R 60 312000 Unknown Watershed Name 61 What is most striking about Figure 7.22 is that the Lake 303200 Unknown Watershed Name 64 Superior Basin, with the exception of the Boundary Waters, is 305100 Joula Cr 65 largely a stream and wetland dominated region. Coastal 304100 Otter Bk 65 watersheds have even fewer lakes and wetland areas because of 318100 Ditch 66 the steep slopes that parallel Lake Superior. 305200 Skunk Cr 66 302200 E Savanna R 67 300400 Ridgepole Cr 67 Data for both Figure 7.22 and Figure 7.23 came from the 318500 Ditch 68 MDNR’s 1990 Census of Land Use. This data source does not 300300 North R 69 reach the same level of detail as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 309600 Unknown Watershed Name 71 Service National Wetland Inventory maps. However, it is a 304600 Unknown Watershed Name 72 useful broad scale interpretation of these features as applied to 304900 W Br Floodwood R 73 regions like the Lake Superior Basin or the state of Minnesota. 307700 Sand Cr 76 Data for the 1990 Census of Land Use came from photo- 312700 Unknown Watershed Name 77 interpreted high-resolution satellite imagery. The definitions of 318300 Unknown Watershed Name 79 water and bog, wetland, or marsh are as follows: 303000 Sixteen Cr 80
94 Water: “permanent bodies of water such as lakes, rivers, Table 7.18 [>= 12% Open Water]
reservoirs, stock ponds, and open water areas where photo HUC CODES WATERSHED NAME % OPEN WATER evidence indicates that the areas are covered by water the 107500 Cross R 16 majority of the time” (MDNR, 2002). 102100 Greenwood R 16
105000 Vern L 18
Bog, Marsh, Fen: “Grassy, wet areas with standing or slowly 104600 S Brule R 19 moving water. Vegetation consists of grass and sedge sods, 104300 Poplar Cr 19 and common hydrophilic vegetation such as cattail and rushes. 105600 From Rice L 19
These areas include wetlands with lowland coniferous forests 104200 From Duncan L 20 and peat covered or peat filled depressions with a high water 101700 Royal R 21 table, areas are often interspersed with channels or pools of 106900 Kelso R 22 open water” (MDNR, 2002). 102700 Unknown Watershed Name 22
403500 Otter R 22
102600 From Little Caribou L 22 Watersheds with greater than 12% of the total area in open
309400 Whiteface R 23 water are listed in Table 7.18.
405200 Beaver R 24
111800 Pigeon R 24
Table 7.18 [>= 12% Open Water]
104100 From Daniels L 26
HUC CODES WATERSHED NAME % OPEN WATER
405000 From Grand L 28
107400 From Timber L 12 111900 Pigeon R 30
106100 Caribou Cr 13
101800 From McFarland L 31
104900 Vern R 13
403900 Island L Reservoir 46
317800 Unknown Watershed Name 13 106800 Sawbill Cr 13
315200 First Cr 14
103700 Devils Track R 14
314900 Partridge R 14
108100 Wanless Cr 15
300600 St Louis R 15
300700 Long L Cr 15
107300 Four mile Cr 15
105100 From E Pipe L 15
405500 Ugstad Cr 15
104700 McDonald Cr 16
104400 Brule R 16
104500 From S Cone L 16
95 Figure 7.24 % Erodible Soils
This measure is a very coarse description of the % erodible surface soils by minor watershed. It must be recognized that STATSGO, the NRCS data layer used for this measure, is designed for use in broad scale planning. It does not adequately represent the complexity of soil types at finer resolutions. As such, future versions of this assessment will strive for locally derived or improved soils information.
In spite of its limitations, this data set does display some interesting patterns relative to highly erodible soils. Highly erodible soils are concentrated in coastal watersheds, on the periphery of the basin, and in the White Face River Watershed. Minor watersheds where over 50% of the soils are considered highly erodible are listed in Table 7.19.
96
Table 7.19 [>=50% Erodible Soils] Table 7.19 [>=50% Erodible Soils]
HUC CODE WATERSHED NAME ERODIBLE HUC CODE WATERSHED NAME ERODIBLE SOILS (%) SOILS (%) 100600 Hollow Rock Cr 50 313600 Unknown Watershed Name 64 105300 Cascade R 51 111600 Pigeon R 64 108300 Houghtaling Cr 51 107800 Cross R 65 200200 Clark house Cr 52 201900 E Split Rock R 65 202500 Stewart R 53 108900 S Br Manitou R 65 109100 Sawmill Cr 53 106600 Onion R 65 300100 Miller Cr 54 317000 Swamp 66 200500 Big Thirty-nine Cr 54 318100 Ditch 66 103500 Elbow Cr 54 110200 Alfred Cr 67 109200 Baptism R 55 200100 E Br Beaver R 67 110900 Myhr Cr 55 401700 Mud Cr 68 202100 Unknown Watershed Name 56 108000 Caribou R 68 109900 Surface Ro 56 203600 Lester R 69 313800 St Louis R 57 306700 Palo Cr 69 310700 Water Hen Cr 58 303700 Unknown Watershed Name 69 307000 Paleface R 58 301000 Mission Cr 69 313400 E Two R 58 203500 Talmadge R 70 312500 Auroric (Little Swan) Cr 58 302600 Unknown Watershed Name 70 402500 Little Cloquet R 58 312400 E Swan Cr 70 401400 Pine Cr 59 310500 E Br Water Hen Cr 71 201000 Split Rock R 59 303800 Artichoke R 71 306200 Bug Cr 59 309100 Paleface R 71 405600 Pine Cr 59 105900 Poplar R 71 201600 Silver Cr 60 110700 Stone Cr 72 203100 Sucker R 61 107600 Blind Temperance Creek 72 111300 Unknown Watershed Name 61 106400 Barker Cr 72 312800 W Swan R 62 108500 Moose L Cr 73 310800 Mud Hen Cr 62 103700 Devils Track R 73 310900 Unknown Watershed Name 63 301800 Ahmik R 74 500500 Unknown Watershed Name 63 313900 Unknown Watershed Name 74 105400 Mark Cr 63 313000 Unknown Watershed Name 75 202300 Stanley Cr 64 110100 Rollins Cr 75
99 Table 7.19 [>=50% Erodible Soils] Table 7.19 [>=50% Erodible Soils]
HUC CODE WATERSHED NAME ERODIBLE HUC CODE WATERSHED NAME ERODIBLE SOILS (%) SOILS (%) 107900 Two Island R 75 302500 Artichoke R 91 200700 Beaver R 75 109700 Sugarloaf Cr 91 106500 Six mile Cr 75 301900 St Louis R 91 109400 Hockamin Cr 76 306300 Unknown Watershed Name 92 302400 St Louis R 76 317300 Midway R 92 203800 Amity Cr 77 100100 Pigeon R 92 316400 Midway R 78 111400 Surface Ro 93 202200 W Br Knife R 78 105500 Tait R 93 201500 Encampment R 78 204100 Captain Jacobson Cr 94 203200 French R 78 300900 Midway R 95 110600 Durfee Cr 78 203700 E Br Amity Cr 95 312900 W Swan R 79 202700 Sucker R 96 100500 Grand Portage Cr 79 203900 Tischer Cr 97 306900 From Dinham L 79 107700 Heartbreak Cr 97 108400 Hoist Cr 80 306000 Bug Cr 97 204000 Chester Cr 80 106000 Deer Yard Cr 97 110400 Good Harbor Cr 80 405700 Coyote Cr 98 109300 Crown Cr 81 103800 Little Devil Track R 98 318700 Unknown Watershed Name 81 308200 Coons Cr 98 102400 Kadunce Cr 82 318600 Kingsbury Cr 98 102500 Kimball Cr 82 309200 Paleface Cr 100 110300 Indian Camp Cr 82 106300 Poplar R 100 403700 Little Cloquet R 82 200800 Kit Cr 100 313200 E Two R 84 306100 Moonshine Cr 100 108200 W Br Baptism R 84 105800 Mistletoe Cr 100 200400 Big Thirty-nine Cr 84 106100 Caribou Cr 100 202800 Unknown Watershed Name 85 106200 Poplar R 100 401600 From King L 85 109800 Surface Ro And Stream 100 305900 Whiteface R 85 202900 Sucker R 100 302300 St Louis R 85 203400 Unknown Watershed Name 100 201800 Little Gooseberry R 86 306800 Whiteface R 100 404100 Cemetary Cr 89 309300 Bobcat Cr 100 103900 Rosebush Cr 90 310600 Water Hen Cr 100
100 Figure 7.25. Endangered Species Table 7.20 [= >10 Occurrences of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species] This vulnerability parameter is an indicator of the number of HUC CODE WATERSHED NAME # OF distinct occurrences of rare, endangered, or threatened plant OCCURENCES and animal species by minor watershed. Aquatic and terrestrial 106500 Six mile Cr 10 species are included in this parameter because both classes of 107700 Heartbreak Cr 10 species are interdependent. No rare, endangered, or threatened 111000 Unknown Watershed Name 10 landscapes were included in the data set. 502400 Unknown Watershed Name 10 102500 Kimball Cr 11 “Rare features data included in the watershed assessment were 103100 Brule R 11 provided by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research 108400 Hoist Cr 11
109100 Sawmill Cr 11 Program of the Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota
313400 E Two R 11 Department of Natural Resources, and were current as of May
403300 Cloquet R 11 2002. These data are not based on a comprehensive inventory
501100 Nemadji R 11 of the state. The lack of data for any geographic area shall not
101500 Flute Reed R 12 be construed to mean that no significant features are present. 102200 Brule R 12 In addition, there may be inaccuracies in the data of which the 102700 Unknown Watershed Name 12 DNR is not aware, and shall not be held responsible. 104600 S Brule R 12
Permission to use these data does not imply endorsement or 109700 Sugarloaf Cr 12
approval by the DNR of any interpretations or products derived 201200 Gooseberry R 12
from the data” (MDNR, 2001). 311500 St Louis R 12
315300 Sabin L (Embarrass R) 12
As described above, there are a number of limitations to the 201000 Split Rock R 13
data presented in Figure 7.25. With these caveats in mind, 501900 Net R 13 what follows in Table 7.20 is the listing of minor watersheds in 110100 Rollins Cr 14 the Lake Superior Basin with the highest number of distinct 110200 Alfred Cr 14 geographic occurrences of endangered species. In many cases, 402400 Cloquet R 15 these occurrences are for the same species at multiple 205400 Stream #30 16 locations. 103400 S Brule R 17
104700 McDonald Cr 18 107900 Two Island R 18 401300 Langley R 19 111400 Surface Ro 20
302200 E Savanna R 20
109000 E Br Baptism R 21
101 Table 7.20 [= >10 Occurrences of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species] HUC CODE WATERSHED NAME # OF OCCURENCES
311000 St Louis R 21
109500 Crystal Cr 22
110000 Carlton Cr 23
108800 Manitou R 24
108000 Caribou R 28
401200 Cloquet R 32
107800 Cross R 35
205500 Palisade Cr 36
105300 Cascade R 40
200300 Cedar Cr 40
107600 Blind Temperance Creek 41
316300 St Louis R 48
111800 Pigeon R 52
101700 Royal R 62
109200 Baptism R 65
102
Figure 7.26. Exotic Species – Number of Occurrences Table 7.21 [Exotic Species Occurrences by Minor
Watershed]
This parameter is a measure of the number of distinct HUC WATERSHED NAMES EXOTIC geographic locations where aquatic non-native plant and CODES SPECIES – # OF animal species have been identified. This data set includes OCCURENCES
311900 W Two R 1 rivers and lakes where multiple observations have been recorded. This data set does not include exotic species that 313000 Unknown Watershed Name 1 have been identified in the open waters of Lake Superior. 313800 St Louis R 1 316200 Rocky Run Cr 1 Minor watersheds with exotic species occurrences are as listed 318600 Kingsbury Cr 1
402500 Little Cloquet R 1 in Table 7.21. These watersheds are concentrated in, and
403900 Island L Reservoir 1 around lower St. Louis River and on the northern periphery of
404200 Cloquet R 1 the basin.
404500 Cloquet R 1
405000 From Grand L 1 Table 7.21 [Exotic Species Occurrences by Minor 405200 Beaver R 1 Watershed] 501200 Nemadji R 1 HUC WATERSHED NAMES EXOTIC 501800 Anderson Cr 1 CODES SPECIES – # OF 102500 Kimball Cr 2 OCCURENCES 109200 Baptism R 2
100100 Pigeon R 1
110800 Colville Cr E 2
103700 Devils Track R 1
111900 Pigeon R 2
111400 Surface Ro 1
201000 Split Rock R 2
200300 Cedar Cr 1
203200 French R 2
203800 Amity Cr 1
204500 Unknown Watershed Name 2
204200 Surface Ro 1
204800 Skunk Cr 2
204400 Unknown Watershed Name 1
300100 Miller Cr 2
302500 Artichoke R 1
303600 Spider Cr 2
303300 Floodwood R 1
308000 Floodwood R 2
303400 St Louis R 1
311000 St Louis R 2
305700 Little Whiteface R 1
311500 St Louis R 2
308400 Swan R 1
316100 Unknown Watershed Name 2
308900 Stone Cr 1
317600 Squaw Cr 2
309200 Paleface Cr 1
317800 Unknown Watershed Name 2
310800 Mud Hen Cr 1
405500 Ugstad Cr 2
104 Table 7.21 [Exotic Species Occurrences by Minor rivers to the total in each minor watershed. Each category Watershed] (lakes and rivers) is given a score of one to five based on the HUC WATERSHED NAMES EXOTIC percent of impaired rivers and lakes. These scores are then CODES SPECIES – # OF added together for the purposes of the index. Watersheds with OCCURENCES lower scores, as identified in Figure 7.27, contain the highest 501900 Net R 2 number of impaired lakes and rivers (as defined by the Clean 204000 Chester Cr 3 Water Act and Chapter 7050 of Minnesota Rules). 311400 Otter (Long L) Cr 3 312500 Auroric (Little Swan) Cr 3 It is important to exercise care with respect to the interpretation 312800 W Swan R 3 of this data. This data only represents those lakes and rivers 313700 Embarrass R 3 where data exist. Because of the sheer number of rivers and 102400 Kadunce Cr 4 lakes in Minnesota, there are countless lakes and rivers that 204300 Unknown Watershed Name 4 308200 Coons Cr 4 have not been monitored. Recognizing these limitations, the 311200 Mud Hen Cr 4 list that follows in Table 7.22 focuses on watersheds whose 311600 Elbow Cr 4 waters are considered most impaired. 316600 Pine R 4 110500 Unknown Watershed Name 6 Table 7.22 [Impaired Waters Index <=2] HUC CODES WATERSHED NAME IMPAIRED 203900 Tischer Cr 6 305900 Whiteface R 1 311300 Ely Cr 6 308900 Stone Cr 1 312400 E Swan Cr 6 103800 Little Devil Track R 2 312900 W Swan R 6 104200 From Duncan L 2 312200 Dempsey Cr 7 104300 Poplar Cr 2 313400 E Two R 7 104400 Brule R 2 101200 Portage Bk 8 107600 Blind Temperance Creek 2 104100 From Daniels L 10 108700 Manitou R 2 312300 Barber Cr 12 200700 Beaver R 2 317400 St Louis R 18 201400 Crow Cr 2 316300 St Louis R 22 202000 Little Knife R 2 Figure 7.27. Impaired Waters 202600 Knife R 2 204900 Pete'S Cr 2 Impaired waters in this context refers to the waters specifically 205200 Campers Cr 2 identified as impaired in the state of Minnesota’s 305(b) Report 300600 St Louis R 2 300700 Long L Cr 2 to Congress and 303(d) list. The index used in this parameter 301600 St Louis R 2 is a combined score for the percentage of impaired lakes and 301800 Ahmik R 2
105 Table 7.22 [Impaired Waters Index <=2] Table 7.22 [Impaired Waters Index <=2]
HUC CODES WATERSHED NAME IMPAIRED HUC CODES WATERSHED NAME IMPAIRED
301900 St Louis R 2 316300 St Louis R 2
302000 From Puck L 2 316700 Stony Cr 2
302200 E Savanna R 2 317400 St Louis R 2
302300 St Louis R 2 317900 Stoney Bk 2
302400 St Louis R 2 318000 Ditch 2
302500 Artichoke R 2 401000 Indian Cr 2
302600 Unknown Watershed Name 2 401400 Pine Cr 2
302800 St Louis R 2 401700 Mud Cr 2
303400 St Louis R 2 402000 Wolf Cr 2
303600 Spider Cr 2 402400 Cloquet R 2
304100 Otter Bk 2 402500 Little Cloquet R 2
304200 Whiteface R 2 404200 Cloquet R 2
304300 Little Whiteface R 2 404300 Chalberg Cr 2
304400 St Louis R 2 404500 Cloquet R 2
305500 Whiteface R 2 404700 Unknown Watershed Name 2
305600 Little Whiteface R 2 404800 Cloquet R 2
306000 Bug Cr 2 405200 Beaver R 2
306600 Gimlet Cr (Tower Cr) 2 405300 Unknown Watershed Name 2
306900 From Dinham L 2 405500 Ugstad Cr 2
307100 Whiteface R 2 500500 Unknown Watershed Name 2
307200 Whiteface R 2 500600 Blackhoof R 2
307300 Whiteface R 2 500800 Deer Cr 2
307400 Whiteface R 2 501300 Unknown Watershed Name 2
308000 Floodwood R 2 501900 Net R 2
308500 St Louis R 2 502500 Net R 2
308600 St Louis R 2
309200 Paleface Cr 2
309400 Whiteface R 2
310400 S Br Water Hen Cr 2
310700 Water Hen Cr 2
310800 Mud Hen Cr 2
311400 Otter (Long L) Cr 2
311800 St Louis R 2
312200 Dempsey Cr 2
314900 Partridge R 2
106 Figure 7.28 High Quality Waters Index Watersheds with the most vulnerability (lowest index score) are listed in Table 7.23. These watersheds have the highest The high quality waters parameter is a composite index that number of wild rice lakes, Outstanding Resource Value Waters accounts for three traditional measures of high water quality. (ORVW), and highest percent of trout streams. These These watershed measures include the percentage of trout watersheds are vulnerable simply because of the prevalence of waters, the number of state designated Outstanding Resource these resources makes it more likely that they will be impacted Value Waters (ORVW) waters, and the number of wild rice by human activities. lakes. ORVW designation refers to waters whose high quality
is an essential part of their value as exceptional scientific, Table 7.23 [High Quality Waters Index <=11]
recreational, cultural, and aesthetic resources (MN Rules, HUC CODE WATERSHED CREEK INDEX Chapter 7050). Trout streams and wild rice lakes are similarly SCORE
important because of the high water quality required to sustain 105200 Temperance R 8
these uses. The importance of these waters is evidenced by the 107100 Plouff Cr 10
fact that both wild rice lakes and trout streams are defined and 102300 Gauthier Cr 11
identified in numerous places in state statutes and 104400 Brule R 11 administrative laws. 104600 S Brule R 11 106200 Poplar R 11 The High Quality Waters Index was constructed simply by 106500 Six mile Cr 11
107000 Koski Cr 11 using the natural breaks algorithm in Arc View to split the data
107600 Blind Temperance Creek 11 into classes. (Using the natural breaks algorithm in Arc View
109100 Sawmill Cr 11 reduces the variability and weighting that would be applied in a
109600 Little Manitou R 11 straight ranking process.) These five classes were assigned
109700 Sugarloaf Cr 11 values from one to five, with one representing the highest 110700 Stone Cr 11 degree of vulnerability. This process was replicated for trout, 110800 Colville Cr E 11 wild rice, and ORVW waters. Scores were then summed and 110900 Myhr Cr 11
ranked. 111100 Farquahr Cr 11
200600 Beaver R 11
Watersheds with the lowest index score (most high quality 201700 Little Stewart R 11
waters) are identified in the table that follows. What is clearly 202000 Little Knife R 11
evident from Figure 7.28 is that the greatest concentration of 202100 Unknown Watershed Name 11
high quality waters is located in the Boundary Waters, the 202300 Stanley Cr 11
Nemadji River Watershed, and in the first and second tier 203000 Little Knife R 11 minor watersheds that drain into Lake Superior. 203100 Sucker R 11
203400 Unknown Watershed Name 11
203500 Talmadge R 11
107 Table 7.23 [High Quality Waters Index <=11]
HUC CODE WATERSHED CREEK INDEX SCORE
203600 Lester R 11
203700 E Br Amity Cr 11
203800 Amity Cr 11
203900 Tischer Cr 11
204000 Chester Cr 11
300100 Miller Cr 11
300600 St Louis R 11
300900 Midway R 11
301200 Simian Cr 11
301500 Dutch Slough 11
301700 Martin Bk 11
316100 Unknown Watershed Name 11
316400 Midway R 11
317200 Silver Cr 11
317800 Unknown Watershed Name 11
500800 Deer Cr 11
501200 Nemadji R 11
501300 Unknown Watershed Name 11
501800 Anderson Cr 11
502200 State Line Cr 11
108
Figure 7.29 Water Supplies (Public and Private) Table 7.24 [Water Supplies >=400]
HUC CODES WATERSHED NAME (#)WATER This measure is simply a count of public and private water SUPPLIES supplies in the basin. It is based on the County Well Index and 311300 Ely Cr 422 the Public Water data sets supplied by the Minnesota 312200 Dempsey Cr 758 Geological Survey (MGS) and Minnesota Department of 313400 E Two R 807 Health. Lake Superior surface water sources were assigned to 318700 Unknown Watershed Name 991 the minor watershed where the water supply facility was 313000 Unknown Watershed Name 1155 located. Minor watersheds with over 400 combined individual 313300 W Two R 1689 312300 Barber Cr 2264 or public water supplies are listed in Table 7.24. These watersheds are primarily situated on the periphery of the basin, Figure 7.30. % Native Fish Species between the cities of Hibbing and Biwabik. A significant number of monitoring wells associated with the mining This parameter is a measure of exotic (non-native) to native activities may be included in these totals. fish species (desirable non-natives were not identified). Data
used for this parameter came from a variety of sources, It is important to note that individual wells, by definition, serve including MDNR stream and lakes files, MPCA biological homes and certain types of small businesses. As Figure 7.29 surveys, EPA, and the Fond du Lac and Grand Portage tribes. demonstrates, this pattern of individual wells is common These data were augmented on a case-by-case basis with around the Iron Range communities. It is exactly the opposite information from DNR fisheries managers. In spite of this situation on the coast of Lake Superior. Public water supplies thorough approach, there are still areas with little or no data in these regions serve larger municipal populations. What is whatsoever. This lack of current data points to a significant noticeable from these two observations is that source water need for research in this area. protection needs and strategies applied in these two areas require distinctly different approaches. Table 7.25 below is a list of minor watersheds with lower
percentages of native fish species. These watersheds are
considered more vulnerable because the fishery has changed, is
declining, or is in the process of recovering to a state of
equilibrium. Percent native fish does not imply that all fish
species need to be present in a given watershed. It is simply a
comparison of non-native to native based on species
historically present or managed in specific lakes, rivers, and
streams. The definitions of what are considered native vs. non-
native were provided by fisheries managers from the MDNR.
112 Table 7.25 [<=50% Native Fish Species] Figure 7.31 Overall Vulnerability HUC CODES WATERSHED NAMES % NATIVE 100500 Grand Portage Cr 33.33 Vulnerability measures refer to values that can be changed 103400 S Brule R 33.33 (either positively or negatively) based on management actions. 203000 Little Knife R 33.33 It is important to keep in mind that vulnerability refers not to a 203100 Sucker R 33.33 particular water-body or watercourse, but to the watershed as a 312700 Unknown Watershed Name 33.33 whole. As with the condition indicators, lower scores indicate 403200 Humphrey Cr 33.33 higher vulnerability relative to other watersheds in the Lake 500200 Clear Cr 33.33 Superior Basin. 500800 Deer Cr 33.33 501000 Mud Cr 33.33 Overall, watersheds with high to moderately high vulnerability 502100 S Fork Nemadji R 33.33 are scattered throughout the Lake Superior Basin. These areas 502200 State Line Cr 33.33 are located on the periphery of the basin near the Iron Range 308300 W Swan R 40.00 communities, in and around Duluth, in the Nemadji River 109500 Crystal Cr 50.00 111200 Red Rock Creek 50.00 Basin, and in scattered places along the coast. Areas of lower 111600 Pigeon R 50.00 to medium vulnerability are located in the Cloquet River 201700 Little Stewart R 50.00 Watershed, the Whiteface River Watershed, the western part of 202000 Little Knife R 50.00 the St. Louis River Watershed, and in the northern end of both 202100 Unknown Watershed Name 50.00 Lake Superior North and Lake Superior South Watershed units. 306500 Unknown Watershed Name 50.00 311500 St Louis R 50.00 Watersheds with the highest degree of overall vulnerability are 312500 Auroric (Little Swan) Cr 50.00 listed in Table 7.26. 312800 W Swan R 50.00 312900 W Swan R 50.00 Table 7.26 [Overall Vulnerability <=1270] 316200 Rocky Run Cr 50.00 HUC WATERSHED NAME OVERALL 501300 Unknown Watershed Name 50.00 CODES VULNERABILITY 501400 Unknown Watershed Name 50.00 317800 Unknown Watershed Name 821.00 501500 Nemadji Cr 50.00 311500 St Louis R 1009.50 313700 Embarrass R 1138.00 311300 Ely Cr 1158.00 305700 Little Whiteface R 1222.00 311000 St Louis R 1252.50 109200 Baptism R 1258.00 312900 W Swan R 1267.50
113 Watersheds with the least vulnerability as defined by the Table 7.27 [Overall Vulnerability >=2617] cumulative score are listed in Table 7.27. HUC WATERSHED NAMES OVERALL CODES VULNERABILITY Table 7.27 [Overall Vulnerability >=2617] 317100 Red R 2713 HUC WATERSHED NAMES OVERALL 310200 Shiver Cr 2724 CODES VULNERABILITY 318300 Unknown Watershed Name 2724 104800 Ball Club Cr 2621 107200 Torgenson Cr 2730 306800 Whiteface R 2624 307300 Whiteface R 2730 204300 Unknown Watershed Name 2626 304600 Unknown Watershed Name 2732 307800 Unknown Watershed Name 2627 400800 Cloudy Spring Cr 2732 400900 Cloquet R 2627 307400 Whiteface R 2741 303000 Sixteen Cr 2634 314600 Partridge R 2749 307500 Unknown Watershed Name 2637 105100 From E Pipe L 2763 318100 Ditch 2637 300700 Long L Cr 2766 204200 Surface Ro 2638 305400 Unknown Watershed Name 2774 111000 Unknown Watershed Name 2645 102300 Gauthier Cr 2775 105000 Vern L 2647 305100 Joula Cr 2779 109900 Surface Ro 2651 402900 Chicken Cr 2780 305500 Whiteface R 2655 400100 Petrel Cr 2784 315900 Camp Eight Cr 2656 304400 St Louis R 2795 314500 South Br Partridge R 2657 205100 Unknown Watershed Name 2806 111300 Unknown Watershed Name 2658 204900 Pete'S Cr 2807 303200 Unknown Watershed Name 2658 305600 Little Whiteface R 2813 205300 Nelsens Cr 2663 307200 Whiteface R 2818 305300 St Louis R 2671 300500 East R 2825 403100 From Twin Lakes 2675 303500 Unknown Watershed Name 2829 402100 Berry Cr 2676 401100 Trappers Cr 2830 306200 Bug Cr 2681 403000 Unknown Watershed Name 2850 301400 Ditch 2682 308500 St Louis R 2852 302800 St Louis R 2683 502300 Black R 2852 100400 Unknown Watershed Name 2684 200800 Kit Cr 2852 308700 Unknown Watershed Name 2684 308600 St Louis R 2859 309700 Unknown Watershed Name 2693 318500 Ditch 2860 309600 Unknown Watershed Name 2696 201300 Dago Cr 2867 502400 Unknown Watershed Name 2701 205000 Surface Ro 2868 304000 Ditch 2701 302600 Unknown Watershed Name 2878
114 Table 7.27 [Overall Vulnerability >=2617] HUC WATERSHED NAMES OVERALL CODES VULNERABILITY
101300 Beaver -dam Cr 2886
304300 Little Whiteface R 2894
304800 Ditch 2895
304200 Whiteface R 2896
310300 Little Shiver Cr 2897
111700 Pigeon R 2900
306400 Bug Cr 2913
310000 Reno Cr 2938
401500 Little Langley R 2952
300300 North R 2970
309500 Tower Cr 2985
500100 Unknown Watershed Name 2986
400700 Whyte Cr 2990
402300 W Br Cloquet R 2997
300800 Unknown Watershed Name 3008
403400 Unknown Watershed Name 3010
316700 Stony Cr 3067
115
Figure 7.32 Summary Scores – Relative Watershed Health that there is a strong correlation between minor watersheds with 50% or less public land and those watersheds identified in Summary scores are a composite of the total condition and Figure 7.33. Similarly, watersheds in the top two categories vulnerability scores. The scores provide a relative rank of the have very high levels of public ownership. However, this watershed health in each of the 435 minor watersheds in the pattern does not hold for watersheds in the middle category of Lake Superior Basin. Condition and vulnerability scores are summary scores. interrelated. For instance, as the number of point sources increase (condition parameter), there is increased risk to the Figure 7.35 Mid-Level Watershed Summary Scores quality of water supplies (vulnerability parameter). Generally speaking, “watersheds with poor condition and high Figure 7.35 lists minor watersheds that fall in the broad middle vulnerability have less integrity relative to those with better of the summary rankings. Overall, these watersheds are in condition and lower vulnerability (USFS, 2000). The scores, good condition. However, they should be monitored on a as demonstrated by the tables that follow, represent a fixed, or regular, basis to monitor their status. Since this list continuum of circumstances unique to each watershed. These includes some of the region’s most sensitive and high quality scores would be considerably different if they were compared water resources (e.g., trout streams), it is also important to throughout the state. ferret out watersheds most in need of additional study and/or protection and restoration strategies. Figure 7.33 Lowest Watershed Summary Scores Figure 7.36 Highest Summary Scores Figure 7.33 displays summary scores for minor watersheds that fall into the two lowest categories of relative watershed health Figure 7.36 lists watersheds that have the highest summary (see Figure 7.32). The scores are rank ordered from lowest scores. For the most part, these watersheds are located in the relative watershed health to scores that are close to the next unpopulated regions of the basin or on formally designated category. Since the categories are divided equally, care must public lands (e.g., Savanna State Forest, Superior National be taken not to interpret these categories as distinct boundaries. Forest, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness). The scores are representative of a continuum of properties that Maintenance of these watersheds in this high quality state has exist through the entire range of watersheds. Watersheds near been identified as a priority of this plan. As such, activities the margins of any of these categories may be similar in many proposed for these watersheds should be reviewed to reduce respects. negative impacts on the water resources within these watersheds. Watersheds within formally designated public Figure 7.34 Public Ownership of Land <= 50% areas already have a significant degree of protection. Long term protection of these watersheds may only require Figure 7.34 displays the minor watersheds with 50 percent or monitoring of management activities within the watershed less public land ownership. With some exceptions, it appears (e.g., road building, trail construction).
119
Figures 7.37 – 7.40 Duluth Metropolitan Area rural areas. Watersheds in the middle to upper categories of watershed condition and health are located in the Lester-Amity A secondary analysis of minor watersheds was also conducted system, the French River Watershed, Kingsbury Creek, and in in the urbanized areas around Duluth. This analysis was the Midway River system. The scores for all these watersheds carried out because of the significance of the area as the most are listed below (Table 7.28). populated portion of the Lake Superior Basin. It is not a subset of minor watersheds extracted from the basin-wide analysis. The Overall Vulnerability map (Figure 7.39) makes it clear that Rather, it is a comparison of minor watersheds in this region major parts of the area are considered to have a high degree of relative to each other. The same nine conditions and ten vulnerability. The reason for this phenomenon may, in part, be vulnerability parameters used in the basin-wide assessment due to the existence of better information and data. However, were part of this analysis. However, only the hydrologic unit the region also contains a plethora of high quality water code and summary maps were reproduced for display purposes. resources, is the port of entry for many aquatic exotic species, and is characterized by steep slopes and highly erodible soils. As is mentioned in the methodology section of this chapter, the minor watershed layer used for the watershed assessment Table 7.28 [Duluth Metropolitan Area Summary Scores]
lumps drainage areas together that fall under the 3200 acre HUC WATERSHED % PUBLIC SUMMARY threshold. Therefore, many of the small streams in Duluth and CODES NAMES OWNERSHIP SCORES the surrounding municipalities or townships are described on 316300 St Louis R 24 1887 the assessment as part of larger drainage areas. Aggregation of 317400 St Louis R 13 2134 these smaller watersheds may have the effect of “washing out” 300100 Miller Cr 3 2259 unique characteristics of individual streams and watersheds. 405500 Ugstad Cr 15 2287
316600 Pine R 3 2323 Some municipalities, such as the city of Duluth, maintain
203900 Tischer Cr 8 2334 sophisticated programs and web sites with considerable detail 405100 Caribou Cr 2 2378 on their smaller streams and drainages. Information on Duluth 200200 Clark house Cr. 4 2403
area streams is accessible at http://www.duluthstreams.org. 204000 Chester Cr 8 2410
203800 Amity Cr 8 2423
Very few surprises are evident in the Overall Condition, 405200 Beaver R 20 2605
Overall Vulnerability, and Summary maps for the Duluth 203300 Lester R 21 2719
Metropolitan area. The Overall Condition and Summary maps 316200 Rocky Run Cr 6 2735 display similar patterns. Lower relative scores for both 203200 French R 32 2854 condition and watershed health are represented in the lower St. 317300 Midway R 3 2875 Louis River, Duluth’s urban core, in watersheds dissected by 300900 Midway R 1 2896
301000 Mission Cr 4 2919 major transportation corridors, and in developing suburban or
318600 Kingsbury Cr 2 2951
125 Table 7.28 [Duluth Metropolitan Area Summary Scores] HUC WATERSHED % PUBLIC SUMMARY CODES NAMES OWNERSHIP SCORES 203600 Lester R 14 3004 203500 Talmadge R 0 3056 301100 Hay Cr 0 3180 203700 E Br Amity Cr 21 3182 316100 Unknown Watershed 2 3222 Name 316400 Midway R 0 3411 203400 Unknown Watershed 3 3427 Name 405300 Unknown Watershed 18 3524 Name 204500 Unknown Watershed 3 3550 Name 204200 Surface Ro 19 3629 204400 Unknown Watershed 3 3659 Name 204300 Unknown Watershed 0 3895 Name 405400 Kkehtell Cr 61 3899
126
Chapter 8: Environmental Monitoring
Currently there are numerous monitoring efforts active within Presently, there is a substantial lack of both water quantity and the Lake Superior Basin. These efforts include water and air water quality data on North Shore streams. The Lake Superior quality monitoring and land use monitoring. These programs Basin has the poorest flow monitoring record of any major are conducted by a variety of agencies and organizations, and basin in Minnesota. Of the dozens of North Shore streams, often require interagency partnerships to complete monitoring only two have current and historical flow records (the Knife goals and objectives. This chapter attempts to outline the and Pigeon Rivers). The MPCA’s routine stream monitoring different types, and examples, of monitoring practices currently program is the only source of long-term water quality data in underway within the Lake Superior Basin. This chapter is by this area. Five North Shore streams are currently (2003) being no means a comprehensive list of all the monitoring activities monitored via grab sampling (Lester, Knife, Beaver, Poplar underway within the basin. It should also be noted that and Brule). The overall lack of data has made it extremely monitoring efforts included in this chapter were not difficult to assess the impacts of present and future incorporated into the Watershed Assessment, unless specified development on North Shore streams, (MPCA, July 2001). in Chapter Eight or Appendix B. Due to the lack of historical/current water quality and stream flow data it was the recommendation of the Lake Superior 8.1 Water Quality Monitoring Basin Stream Monitoring Considerations, 1999, that “…a phased approach to stream and river monitoring is proposed The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the lead with an emphasis upon cooperative efforts of private and state agency responsible for assessing the quality of public groups coupled with streamlined sampling programs. Minnesota’s waters. The Agency works closely with citizens, Both of these approaches will help in reducing costs,” (MPCA, local units of government, Tribal agencies, other state and 1999). federal agencies, and interested parties to supply requested water quality management information. As part of these Protecting Lake Superior and its near-shore areas from ongoing partnerships, the MPCA works alongside the water degradation will take significant coordination and commitment planners for Lake, Cook, St. Louis, and Carlton Counties. of resources by local, regional, state, and federal governmental Primary issues of concern for these North Shore counties have decision-makers. And, given the general excellent water included: sensitivity of cool/cold water fisheries, the quality that has been previously measured (circa 1971-73), protection of quality natural experiences associated with relatively minor increases in nutrients (phosphorus) can be premium tourism (i.e., prevent nuisance water quality expected to cause perceptible degradation of the stream water conditions), and the assessment of climate change impacts, quality such as by the generation of nuisance growths of (MPCA, 2003). attached algae (periphyton) on stream rocks and in outfall areas (Wilson, 1999).
131 8.1.1 Condition monitoring While there are not vast amounts of historical data on Lake Superior basin waters, there are numerous monitoring projects Condition monitoring addresses the question, “How good is the currently active within the basin. These programs include, but water quality for its intended uses?” Condition monitoring are not limited to: generally requires a comparison of observed water quality conditions with desired water quality, expressed as reference Table 8.1 Sample Monitoring Programs conditions, criteria, or standards. “Random site, or Program Purpose Agency statistically-based, networks work on the same principal as North Shore Sentinel Determine how MPCA, opinion polling; measures at a smaller number of random sites, Streams development is impacting USGS, DNR taken together, can be assumed to represent the conditions area streams throughout the basin,” (MPCA, 1997). Furthermore, the data Beach Program Protect public health at MPCA acquired for condition monitoring can be applied toward (discussed in chpt 9) swimming beaches evaluating trends. Trend assessment considers whether, and in Milestone Long term trends in stream MPCA what direction, water quality is changing over time, in a Monitoring WQ CLMP Plus Lake Determine lake trophic MPCA, particular context. The data acquired for condition monitoring Monitoring status Volunteers may also be used to identify water bodies or areas with Duluth Streams Continuous, real-time data City of problems. Using existing compliance data in connection with for baseline assessment. Duluth, UMD, ambient data, there may be a preliminary determination of State-of-the art data MPCA, whether the problem is primarily due to point sources, nonpoint presentation via web. WLSSD sources or both, (MPCA, Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan (NSMPP), 2001). Another effort concerning water quality includes the Lakewide Area Management Plan. Under this plan, Lake Superior is 8.1.2 Milestone Site Program monitored for the prevalence of the “nasty nine” chemicals (chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin, hexachlorobenzene, This program is the successor to the Routine Stream mercury, octachlorostyrene, PCBs and toxaphene). Source Monitoring Network, a fixed-station network that monitored monitoring is also conducted under this program. Source the effects point sources had on water quality. With a solid, monitoring is monitoring that measures the reduction or “…infrastructure in place for point source wastewater increases in emissions over time from their sources. This is treatment, nonpoint sources of pollution now predominate,” done because there is often a delayed effect between pollution thus the number of fixed stations has been reduced (MPCA, emission changes (+/-) and the visual/measurable changes in 1997). Under the Milestone Site Program, certain fixed station the condition of the environment. sites continue to be monitored. These sites are visited monthly, for two out of every five years, and are checked for basic
132 chemistry, additional nutrient and solids analyses, and other data and compliance data will be collected to determine the site specific data (MPCA, BID, 1997). There are currently relative contributions of various causes and sources of nine milestone sites within the Lake Superior Basin. impairment and the expected impact of specific resource management decisions (MPCA, 2001). 8.1.3 Volunteer Monitoring The investigative process is an analytical approach, one which Several volunteer monitoring programs involve citizens who begins with a given set of information and asks increasingly take lake and stream measurements and then provide the data more specific questions in order to identify the factors that to the MPCA. In 1973, the Citizen Lake Monitoring Program produced a degraded water quality condition. Identifying and (CLMP) was initiated. As part of this program, “… citizens quantifying these factors creates a model that can be used to residing on or near lakes take weekly transparency predict the effect of changing practices in order to restore and measurements of a lake using a Secchi disk and record their protect the water resource. Depending on the nature and scope perceptions of the physical appearance and recreational of the problem, the model could be simple or so complex that suitability of the lake during the summer months,” (MPCA, elaborate computer programming is needed. Monitoring to 1997). This program is a valuable resource to both the MPCA understand a problem is custom designed, and varies in (much of the data provided by volunteers comprises the only complexity with the nature and scope of the problem (MPCA, data available for those lakes) and the public (volunteers gain 1997). valuable knowledge of basic monitoring methods and water quality interactions within lakes), (MPCA, 1997). An example of problem investigation monitoring is the Minnesota Fish Contaminants Monitoring Program conducted 8.1.4 Problem investigation monitoring by the Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). This program tests fish tissue from selected lakes and streams for Problem investigation monitoring focuses on a water-body or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury in fish. The an area that has either been identified as a problem, or is of Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issues an annual fish special interest because of how the water is used (i.e. an aquifer consumption advisory for tested water bodies based on the that is a source of drinking water or a lake that is heavily concentration of these chemicals in fish fillets. Sites are fished). Problem investigation monitoring is more intensive chosen for fish testing based on recommendations from MDNR than condition monitoring. Sometimes neither the cause nor area managers, state and federal agencies, based on suspected the source of contamination is readily known. Problem contamination, high angling pressure, lack of current data, or investigation monitoring does not just identify the problem, but special studies. Within the Lake Superior Basin, fish from 122 provides a more complete description of the problem and the lakes and six stream reaches have been tested for the fish source(s) of the problem. This monitoring will often be done contaminants program (MPCA, 1997). to follow-up on a specific source or sources. Both ambient
133 8.1.5 Effectiveness monitoring 8.1.7 Ground Water Monitoring
Effectiveness monitoring is designed to measure the actual According to an MPCA baseline study conducted from 1995- impact of resource management decisions, such as 1996, “Ground water quality in most aquifers of Region 1 implementation of best management practices. Effectiveness [encompassing the Lake Superior Basin] is good,” (MPCA, monitoring involves monitoring both before and after 1999). However, there are some concerns associated with implementation, and may involve a paired watershed design. ground water quality and distribution in the Lake Superior The monitoring is done in specific locations and provides a Basin. Glacial aquifers found in the basin tend to be, “thin and measure of whether, and to what extent, responses to a problem limited in their extent and yield.” Furthermore, the bedrock were successful (MPCA, 2001). aquifers of this region permit, “limited yield through fractures in the bedrock,” and “the movement of ground water is 8.1.6 Compliance monitoring difficult to define.” Also, “the Biwabik Iron Formation is the only source of drinking water for many Iron Range cities,” The MPCA regulates water pollution from both point and (MPCA 2003). nonpoint sources. Point sources of water pollution include domestic and industrial facilities that discharge treated While much of the Lake Superior Basin contains potable wastewater to surface water or land through discharge points groundwater (naturally safe for human consumption), human (MPCA, 2002). The MPCA issues permits that regulate these activities and natural occurrences can contaminate groundwater discharges. Permits establish specific discharge limits and sources. Threats to ground water include urban development, requirements to protect Minnesota’s surface and ground water industrial processing, agriculture, chemical spills, individual quality for a variety of uses, including drinking water, fishing household septic systems, and sewage overflows. Health risk and recreation (MPCA, 2003). limits have been established for 120 contaminants discovered in Minnesota’s groundwater, “A health risk limit (HRL) is the The importance of compliance monitoring is reflected in a concentration of a groundwater contaminant, or a mixture of report by the Office of the Legislative Auditor stating, “…18 to contaminants, that can be safely consumed daily for a 31 percent of Minnesota’s major facilities have been in lifetime,” (MDH, 2003). ‘significant noncompliance’ in recent years. This is comparable to other Midwestern states and the nation,” (MPCA, 2002). The MPCA has devised strategies aimed at bringing compliance for Minnesota’s major facilities up to 95% by the end of 2003.
134 Numerous organizations, agencies, and governments at the program was discontinued, however, in 2001 due to local, state, federal, and tribal level are responsible for lack of funding. Currently, the MPCA maintains protecting LSB groundwater (MN GW IR – forward to MN several programs that are associated directly or GW Dir, MPCA). Local programs involved in ground water indirectly with the protection of the basin’s ground protection include city and county health departments, soil and water: Clean Water Partnership and Section 319 water conservation districts, planning and zoning departments, (provide assistance to local governments for monitoring and county water planers. Furthermore, several state agencies, surface and ground water threats), wastewater and their programs, that deal with ground water issues, are treatment/solid waste permitting, ISTS, LUST sites, and outlined below. nonpoint source pollution.
• The MPCA has restarted a groundwater monitoring • The MDNR and MDH monitor groundwater for water effort as of 2003. The program continues to be quality, direction of flow, and ground water levels in developed. aquifers used as a primary source of water supply (MDH, 2003). 8.1.8 Biological Monitoring
• The MDH’s Site Assessment and Consultation Unit Biological monitoring goes beyond monitoring the chemistry (SAC) is responsible for assessing sites where of a water resource and, “[measures] and [evaluates] the “uncontrolled releases of hazardous chemicals” (i.e. condition of biological systems, and the consequences of state and federal Superfund sites, landfills, dumps, human activities for those systems…” (MPCA, 2003). defense sites, industrial facilities, and voluntary cleanup Because biological monitoring assess the condition of sites) have occurred and may result in human exposure biological organisms, rather than just the chemistry of the (MDH, 2003). resource, “… [it] is often able to detect water quality impairments that other methods may miss or underestimate,”
• The Minnesota Geological Survey, “conducts studies to (MPCA, 2003). This focus on the condition of biological understand the state’s hydrogeologic framework, organisms makes biological monitoring, “… an effective tool characterizes aquifer systems and ground-water flow, for assessing water resource quality regardless of whether the and provides hydrogeologic background information to impact is chemical, physical, or biological in nature, (MPCA, better understand or predict how land use might affect 2003). To ensure the integrity of surface waters, we must ground-water quality,” (MPCA, 2003). understand the relationship between human induced
• From 1989 – 2001 the MPCA operated a program disturbances and their effect on aquatic resources,” (MPCA, known as the Ground Water Monitoring and 2003). Assessment Program (GWMAP). The focus of this program was to, “meet statewide and local ground water quality information needs,” (MPCA, 2001). The
135 “To assess [the] biological condition of surface waters the susceptible to poor air quality (MPCA, 2003). Not only does MPCA utilizes a multimetric approach commonly called the air quality affect our health, but it also affects our crops and Index of Biological Integrity (IBI). This index is a scientifically forests, and in the process can impact our economy. Air validated tool using attributes of biological communities. A pollution can stunt growth and reduce yields in crops, and lead typical IBI will use 8-12 attributes (termed metrics) of a to disease in trees and other plants. Crops damaged or biological assemblage related to taxa richness, community weakened by air pollution produce lower yields, harming composition, trophic structure, reproductive function, tolerance farmers and consumers; and forests weakened by air pollution to human disturbance, abundance, and condition, (MPCA, succumb more easily to pests and disease (MPCA, 2003). 2003). Unfortunately, air, similar to many of our rivers and lakes, does Another biological monitoring study was conducted by Kevin not follow jurisdictional boundaries. Localized air problems Stroom and Carl Richards from 1997-2000; the results of this don’t necessarily have local solutions, especially for nonpoint monitoring effort were published in the document Development source air pollution. Therefore, MPCA efforts are part of the of Macroinvertebrate Biocriteria for Streams of Minnesota’s regional, national, and global efforts on air pollution. This Lake Superior Watershed (LSW). This study, “was an initial cooperative effort to protect air quality is not only important in effort to characterize the reference condition of LSW streams securing the air we breathe, but also in protecting our areas and develop a multimetric index useful for detecting stream waters. impairment” (Stroom, 2000). The study found that, “”…[Lake Superior Watershed] streams begin to show impairment at The role of air pollution as an important contributor to water quite low % watershed disturbance levels. Impairment pollution has long been recognized and, in recent years, has determinations were able to be made for streams with as low as been the subject of growing scientific study and concern (Lake 11.9% developed + hay/pasture/grass lands, and 14.9% Superior Binational Program, 2000). The process in which developed + hay/pasture/grass + roads,” (Stroom, 2000). pollutants are released into the air and later deposited within our water is as follows: 1) pollutants are released from a source, 2) those released pollutants are then transported away 8.2 Air Monitoring from their source to other locations, 3) the air pollutants are deposited to the earth, in most cases directly to a water body or Clean air means healthier people. Air pollutants can cause to a land area that drains into a water body (LAMP,2000). breathing problems, itchy throat and burning eyes, and make asthma and bronchitis worse. It can contribute to cancer, heart A majority of air pollutants arise from burning fossil fuels attacks, and other serious illnesses. Even healthy, athletic (coal, oil and gasoline). The pollution emitted from the three adults can be harmed by breathing air pollutants. Because of main source categories include: mobile sources (i.e. cars and their small size and rapid breathing, children may be even more lawnmowers) (46%), large point sources (i.e. large factories or
136 power plants) (31%), and small sources (i.e. small businesses 8.2.1 Criteria Pollutant Monitoring and solvent use) (23%), (MPCA, 2003). The MPCA is required by federal law to monitor six pollutants Though only eight percent of Minnesota’s major air pollutant and to check the state’s compliance with the Clean Air Act. emission facilities are located in NE Minnesota, they represent Data from criteria pollutant monitoring is also used to one-third of the state’s total air pollutant emissions. These determine whether pollutant levels are increasing or decreasing facilities emit, on average, four times more pollutants than the over time, to inform the public about daily air quality statewide facility average. These emitters include wood conditions, and to develop environmental indicators, (MPCA, products companies, energy utilities, grain elevators, and 2003). mining operations (MPCA, 2003). Despite this fact, it is thought that long range transport pollutants affecting the Lake In Minnesota, the two criteria pollutants of most concern are Superior Basin and its tributaries/watersheds are of greater ground-level ozone and fine particulates because they most significance than local or regional sources due to the limited often approach federal air-quality standards and are linked to number of identified atmospheric sources of pollution within harmful health effects (MPCA, 2003).Ground-level ozone, a the region (LAMP, 2000). major component of smog, is formed in the atmosphere when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the State and federal regulations have traditionally focused on the presence of sunlight. Ozone is irritating to the eyes, nose, large stationary sources of air pollution (i.e. power plants, throat and lungs and aggravates the symptoms of asthma and refineries and factories). For a variety of reasons, stationary other respiratory illnesses. There is one ozone monitoring site sources now emit a much smaller share of air pollution. A within the Lake Superior Basin, located in Cloquet. considerable share of key pollutants – about half, on average, – comes from mobile sources (cars, trucks, and buses, as well as off-road vehicles and equipment). Without understanding and reducing emissions from mobile sources, Minnesota could soon be in violation of federal air quality standards. This violation status would result in costly federal air pollution control requirements. Aside from these potential economic costs, there would be human health concerns, primarily in the elderly and children (MPCA, 2003).
137 Fine particulate matter is a complex mixture of very small rain monitoring site located at, and operated by, the Fond du liquid droplets of solid particles in the air. Fine particulates are Lac Reservation. associated with increased hospitalizations and deaths due to respiratory and heart disease and can worsen the symptoms of “In most areas of Minnesota, up to 90 percent of the mercury asthma. There are three fine particulate matter monitoring sites entering our waters comes from a wide variety of natural and located within the Lake Superior Basin, two are located in man-made air pollution sources located throughout North Duluth and one is located in Virginia (MPCA, 2003). America and the rest of the world. When it is washed out of the atmosphere, this airborne mercury falls on or near our 8.2.2 Air Toxics Monitoring lakes. Conversely, most of the mercury from our air emission sources tends to be transported outside the state. Some in-state The MPCA also monitors Minnesota’s outdoor air for mercury releases, such as mercury in wastewater discharges hazardous air pollutants or air toxics. These pollutants include and certain air emissions that tend to fall near their source, do a wide variety of different chemicals released into the air that affect Minnesota waters more directly. However, releases from are known, or suspected, to cause serious harm to individuals most of these sources have been reduced substantially in exposed to high amounts. Air toxics can be of concern because Minnesota since 1990 (MPCA, 2002). they are known, or suspected, carcinogens or cause other long- term health effects (MPCA, 2003). To combat mercury production, the MPCA has implemented the voluntary agreement program to allow maximum flexibility Unlike criteria monitoring, toxic air pollutants are not regulated with minimal negotiating. In most cases, sources are by federal standards. However, the Minnesota Department of challenged to develop their own reduction efforts, to use trial Health has established Health Risk Values for some of these and error, and to conduct innovative research. Sources can pollutants, which are set at levels considered safe for a lifetime work with other industrial, governmental or nonprofit partners of daily exposure. Air toxics monitored at this time include 65 to reduce mercury releases. One purpose of the program is to volatile organic compounds such as benzene and seven provide a simple, cost-effective mechanism for mercury carbonyl compounds such as formaldehyde (MPCA, 2003). sources to contribute to state reduction goals, particularly when reducing their own stack emissions might not be feasible in the 8.2.3 Acid Rain/Mercury Monitoring short-term. The MPCA has not required specific reduction commitments or specific reporting formats. The MPCA’s role The MPCA began acid deposition monitoring in 1983 to is largely to verify any quantified release reductions, publicize identify natural resources threatened by acid rain and to results and provide technical or other assistance (MPCA, develop a plan to protect those resources. MPCA has two acid 2002). There are five MPCA mercury monitoring sites in the rain monitoring sites in the Lake Superior basin, one in Silver state. The only mercury monitoring station located within the Bay and one in Hovland (MPCA, 2003). There is also an acid
138 Lake Superior Basin is located at, and operated by, the Fond du Lac Reservation.
8.3 Land Use Monitoring
A key to understanding nonpoint source pollution is to understand how pollutants will move through a watershed. To understand pollutant movement, the various pathways of water movement need to be sorted with respect to time and space. Hydrologic pathways are defined by identifying uniquely associated signatures. For example, the stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen will exist in different combinations in snow, rain, or some lake waters. These and other geochemical tools have been used to identify a particular pathway of water movement from storm-event runoff to ground water seepage into a lake (MPCA, 1997).
It is necessary not only to understand how pollutants move through a watershed, but also how alterations in land use will affect watershed health. One possible way to track such effects would be through the use of the USFS Watershed Assessment model (discussed in Chapter Seven). The Watershed Assessment could be updated periodically to represent the most current land use layers. The new data could then be compared to the baseline assessment, completed in 2002, for common themes and trends. Other methods of tracking land use change include remote sensing. Furthermore, the Watershed Assessment can be a tool used to help direct efforts and priorities, including but not limited to: water quality, land use, biota, exotic, and endangered species within the Lake Superior Basin.
139 Chapter 9: Lake Superior Water Management Priorities
The Lake Superior Basin is home to a vast array of natural pollution on the environment, have helped to significantly resources unique to Minnesota. It’s proximity to Lake Superior reduce pollution from cities and industries discharging provides the area with numerous opportunities not available in wastewater into Minnesota’s environment. other parts of the state. The geology of the North Shore is equally intriguing, containing long ridges overlooking the lake Pollution from “nonpoint sources” includes sediment, nutrients, and the Sawtooth Mountains crowding the shoreline. oxygen-demanding substances, toxic chemicals, chloride, According to the US Geological Survey, (Olcott et al., 1978), bacteria and viruses, and temperature changes. These “Bedrock in the [Lake Superior] watershed is a complex of pollutants – from vehicles, industry, power production, lawn Precambrian volcanic and metamorphosed sedimentary rocks care, and pets – are picked up by rain or snowmelt and extensively intruded by dikes and sills.’ Streams flowing over deposited in the environment, often in lakes, streams, and the bedrock often create impressive rapids, cascades, and wetlands (MPCA, 2000). waterfalls,” (MPCA, 1997). In addition, some pollution affecting this area originates from While much of the Lake Superior Basin’s natural resources are outside of the basin, such as air deposition of mercury from a source of pride for communities, past and current activities coal-fired power plants. Remedies to these problems will within the basin have affected watershed health. Lakes and require regional and national efforts. Polluted sediments from streams have become threatened or impaired because of an old industrial and shipping sites still pose challenges in the inability to maintain their designated uses, (MPCA, 1997). Duluth Superior harbor. While the St. Louis River flows much This chapter intends to acknowledge special and sensitive cleaner into the harbor, thanks to vastly improved wastewater management areas and utilize programs currently in place to treatment, contaminants in the river such as mercury, PCBs, optimize the preservation and restoration of these areas. and coal-tar wastes remain at more than a dozen sites (MPCA, 2000).
9.1 Threatened or Impaired Waters Under the Clean Water Act, states must adopt water quality standards to protect the nation’s waters. These standards Pollution from “point sources” – discharges from municipal define how much of a pollutant can be in a surface and/or and industrial wastewater – has come under regulation through ground water while still allowing it to meet its designated uses implementation of the Clean Water Act in 1972. Investments (i.e. drinking water, fishing, swimming, irrigation, or industrial in wastewater infrastructure, evolving technology, regulatory purposes). Many of Minnesota’s water resources cannot programs, and a better understanding of the impacts of currently meet their designated uses because of pollution problems from a combination of point and nonpoint sources
140 (MPCA, 2002). Both point and nonpoint sources of pollution Table 9.1 describes waters in the Lake Superior Basin proposed must be controlled and prevented to reach the Clean Water Act for the 2004 impaired waters or TMDL list. Additional goal of fishable, swimmable waters (MPCA, 2000). information on the impaired waters program can be accessed at MPCA web site. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl.html Minnesota’s rivers, streams, and lakes are a valuable resource for the state. Not only do they provide great natural beauty, Table 9.1 Waters on 2004 Draft Section 303(d) or TMDL List they supply the water necessary for recreation, industry, Listed River/Lake Pollutant or Stressor Target Start/ agriculture, and aquatic life. While the protection of Completion Minnesota’s waters is a major goal of the MPCA, local, state, Amity Creek, Unnamed Cr Turbidity 2005//2011 federal, and tribal governments, citizens, organizations, and to Lester River businesses play a pivotal role in this effort (MPCA, 2002). Beaver River; Headwaters pH, Turbidity 2005//2011 to Lake Superior 9.1.1 303d Impaired Waters List Deer Creek; Headwaters to Turbidity 2004//2012 Nemadji River The Clean Water Act requires states to publish, every two French River, Headwaters to pH, Turbidity 2005//2011 years, an updated list of streams and lakes that are not meeting Lake Superior their designated uses because of excess pollutants. The list, Knife River; Headwaters to pH, Turbidity 2002//2006 known as the 303(d) list (Figure 9.1), is based on violations of Lake Superior water quality standards (MPCA, 2002). Many of Minnesota’s Lester River; Headwaters to Turbidity 2005//2011 water resources cannot currently meet their designated uses Lake Superior because of pollution problems from a combination of point and Nemadji River; Headwaters Turbidity 2004//2012 nonpoint sources (MPCA, Minnesota Department of Natural to State border Resources, 2001). For each pollutant that causes the failure of Miller Creek; Headwaters to Impaired biota, 2003//2011 a water body to meet state water quality standards, the Clean mouth Temperature 2003/20011 Poplar River; Mistletoe Cr to Turbidity 2005//2011 Water Act requires the MPCA to conduct a Total Maximum Footbridge at Lutsen Daily Load (TMDL) study. A TMDL study identifies both St. Louis River; Fond du Lac DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxin, 2002//2015 point and nonpoint sources for each problem pollutant. Water Dam to Lake Superior PCBs, Toxaphene, quality sampling and computer modeling determine how much Talmadge River; Headwaters Low Oxygen, 2005//2011 each pollutant source must reduce its contribution to help to Lake Superior Turbidity assure that the water quality standard is met. Rivers and Lake Superior PCB FCA 2002//2015 streams may have several TMDLs, each one determining the limit for a different pollutant (MPCA, 2001). Winchell Lake PCB FCA 2002//2015 Upper Twin Pond PCB FCA 2002//2015
141
Figure 9.1 Impaired Waters List 303(d) List
Lake Superior Basin 2004 Impaired Waters List: Conventional Parameters (per Section 303(d) Clean Water Act) Cook by EPA AFT d DR rove
ntil app u
Poplar R (T)
La ke
Beaver R (P, T)
Itasca Kn i fe R (P , T )
St. Louis French R (P, T) Leste r R (T ) Af fecte d U se Aq uatic Lif e Aitkin Talmadge R (O, T) Aq uatic Recr ea tio n Miller Cr (B, Tm) Aq Life & Recreation
Amity Cr (T) Pollutant, Stressor or Indicator: A - Ammonia B - Biota C - Chloride N F - Fecal co lif orm Carlton O -Lo w ox ygen Deer Cr (T) P - pH T - Turbidity Tm -T emperature Nemadji R (T) Stream/River Open Water Pine 20 0 20 40 60 Miles Watershed County January, 2004
142 9.1.2 305b Report to Congress The RAP includes problem identification, steps to solve each problem, including determination of responsible parties and a Under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, states and other timetable for actions, and documentation that problems have jurisdictions are required to evaluate the quality of their state’s been resolved (US EPA, 2002). The St. Louis River System waters in order to determine the extent to which state water RAP process determined that nine of the 14 identified quality standards and goals have been met (Figure 9.2 and 9.3). beneficial uses in the St. Louis River System were impaired. These assessments are a fundamental part of MPCA's state Some impairments were associated with the physical loss and water quality management program. Two major goals of the degredation of habitat, with the estuary having lost an Clean Water Act: 1) fishable waters, and 2) swimmable waters, estimated 7,700 (of 12,000) acres of wetland and open water are assessed here in terms of aquatic life use support and habitat since settlement. Other problems were related to swimming/recreation use support. Categories of assessments pollution and toxicity (US EPA, 2002). for supporting swimming or aquatic life use are: fully supporting (FS), partially supporting (PS), and not supporting The St. Louis River System Area of Concern describes the (NS) (MPCA, 2002). geographic area being addressed by the RAP and includes the St. Louis Bay, Superior Bay, Allouez Bay, and the lower Below is a link to the 305b Assessment of Stream Water Nemadji River. The 39 river miles of the St. Louis River Quality in Minnesota’s Streams: between the city of Cloquet and its entrance to Lake Superior http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/305briver.html have been the region of most intense water use and development, affecting the water quality of the river (MPCA, Below is a link to the 305b Assessment of Lake Water Quality 1992). The RAP has progressed through the problem in Minnesota’s Lakes: identification stage and recommendations have been made to http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/305blake.html restore the impaired uses of the area. The St. Louis River Citizen’s Action Committee, a nonprofit RAP organization, is working to implement the recommendations of previous stages
9.2 St. Louis River System Remedial Action (MPCA, 1997). Plan For more information on the St. Louis River System Area of The International Joint Commission developed 14 impaired use Concern, please refer to the following web sites: categories to designate Great Lakes Areas of Concern. http://www.stlouisriver.org/index.html Impaired use criteria provide a framework for the development http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/stlouis.html http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/sediments/studies-stlouis.html of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The RAP identifies specific problems and describes methods for correcting them.
143 9.3 Fish Consumption Advisories Additional information on Fish Advisories is included on the following MDH, MPCA, and US EPA web sites: State and tribal governments protect individuals from the http://www.health.state.mn.us/ possible risks of eating contaminated fish by monitoring their http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish water and issuing fish advisories when contamination levels are unsafe (US EPA, 2002). The Minnesota Fish Contaminants http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/superior/lsbasin/basin- facts.html#bid Monitoring Program in the MDNR tests fish tissue from selected lakes and streams for mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish. Approximately 100 sites across the state are monitored each year by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and are chosen based on recommendations from MDNR, MPCA, and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) staff (MPCA, 1997).
Consumption advisories may recommend that people limit or avoid eating certain species of fish caught from certain lakes and rivers. Statewide advisories are issued to warn the public of possible risks from eating certain species from certain types of waters; most advisories involve mercury and/or PCBs. These chemical contaminants persist for long periods in sediments where bottom-dwelling animals accumulate and pass them up the food chain to fish. Levels of these contaminants may increase as they move up the food chain, so top predators in the chain (i.e. largemouth bass or walleye) may have levels a million times higher than that found in the water (US EPA, May 2002).
144
9.4 Source Water Protection Areas • A well’s construction, maintenance, and use are other important characteristics influencing a well’s vulnerability. Source Water Protection is a preventative measure designed to Ineffective well construction or maintenance could, “… protect public drinking water sources. Source water protection provide for pathways between near surface water and is a result of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). deeper aquifers, effectively bypassing any natural geologic The 1996 amendments to the SDWA require the MDH to protection,” (MDH, 2002). complete a source water assessment for all public water systems. The program is comprised of three parts, wellhead • The water chemistry isotopic composition category protection, source water assessments, and the protection of provides the assessors with the ability to refine a well’s surface water intakes. Wellhead protection plans are vulnerability despite the ranking in the other two developed by the water system and by the Minnesota categories. It is possible for a well to receive a low Department of Health (MDH, 2002). vulnerability ranking in both the geologic sensitivity and construction, maintenance, and use categories but still be 9.4.1 Wellhead Protection contaminated, “… due to the lateral migration of contaminants within the aquifer,” (MDH, 2002). Wellhead Protection is designed to protect public water supply wells. To meet this aim a capture zone for the well (also 9.4.2 Source Water Assessments known as the wellhead protection area) is established. Sources of contamination to a wellhead protection area are identified Source Water Assessments are resources that provide the and a plan and implementation strategy is devised to address public with information pertaining to a water source. The contamination threats. When assessing the wellhead protection primary goal of the assessment is to inform the public as to area several factors are addressed including, geologic where their drinking water comes from, and to what extent it sensitivity, well construction, maintenance and use, water may be contaminated. These assessments can provide valuable chemistry and isotopic composition. information to wellhead protection teams and illustrate the progress of source water protection.
• Geologic sensitivity is the ability of the earth’s materials to protect a water source from contamination. Geologic sensitivity is important, “… because even properly constructed and maintained wells may be at risk if the aquifer which supplies them is quickly recharged by infiltrating surface water,” (MDH, 2002).
147 Information contained in the assessments includes: 9.5 High Quality Waters
• a map of the area contributing water to a public water supply The Lake Superior Basin contains an abundance of high quality waters, including designated trout lakes and streams, • a list of the contaminants that may present a concern to the outstanding resource value waters (ORVW’s) and wild rice users of a public water supply lakes and rivers. These waters are depicted in Figures 9.9,
• a listing of potential contamination sources, to the extent 9.10, and 9.11 on the following pages. that this is practical (MDH, 2002) The activities occurring within the Lake Superior Basin not Within the Lake Superior Basin there are currently twelve only affect inland waters such as the St. Louis River, North municipalities and eleven noncommunity public water supply Shore tributaries and numerous lakes, but also Lake Superior systems that rely on surface water. The cities of Duluth, Two itself. Minnesota shares the lake with Wisconsin, Michigan, Harbors, Beaver Bay, Silver Bay, and Grand Marais all draw Ontario and five tribes. By protecting the inland waters and the drinking water from Lake Superior. There are also seven Lake Superior shoreline, Minnesota will do its part to restore municipalities on the iron range that rely on surface water: and protect the Great Lake. Virginia/Mesabi Mountain pit, Chisholm/Fraser pit, Hoyt Lakes/ Colby Lake, McKinley/Corsica pit, Biwabik/Canton pit, Eveleth/St. Mary's Lake, and Aurora/St. James pit. Most of the 9.6 State Parks noncommunity systems are private businesses (i.e. resorts, restaurants, public parks, or wayside rest areas) that draw State Parks, which are managed by the MDNR, have been drinking water from a variety of sources. Source water established statewide to help preserve many of the state’s assessments have been completed for all the community unique resources. The goal of the State Parks is to “…provide systems and the majority of the noncommunity systems; these a state park system which preserves and manages Minnesota's assessments can be viewed at: natural, scenic and cultural resources for present and future http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/swa/ generations while providing appropriate recreational and educational opportunities,” (MDNR, 2003). The Lake Superior Figures 9.4-9.8 delineate the source water assessment areas for Basin contains eleven state parks, including, Bear Head Lake, the five Lake Superior communities. Although not a Cascade, George H. Crosby, Gooseberry Falls, Grand Portage, requirement of the SDWA, all the communities, with the Jay Cooke, Judge C.R. Magney, Split Rock, Savanna, exception of Duluth, have indicated that they will use the Temperance River, and Tettegouche State Park. Together source water assessment as a basis for the development and these parks comprise 57,293 acres of public land, and receive implementation of a Source Water Protection Plan. over 2 million visitors each year. Gooseberry Falls alone is visited by over 500,000 people a year, and is the second most
148 frequented state park in Minnesota (MDNR, 2003). Unique features located within the Lake Superior Basin’s state parks include the state’s highest falls, hiking trails through forests fir, cedar, spruce, and northern hardwoods, and an ancient lava flow known as the Picnic Flow.
149 Figure 9.4 Source Water Assessment Area for City of Beaver Bay
150 Figure: 9.5 Source Water Assessment Area for City of Duluth
151 Figure 9.6 Source Water Assessment Area for City of Grand Marais
152 Figure 9.7 Source Water Assessment Area for City of Two Harbors
153 Figure 9.8 Source Water Assessment Area for City of Silver Bay
154
9.7 Boundary Waters Canoe Area opportunities are then provided in order to promote a healthier environment The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) is . one of the state’s most spectacular landscapes. Strict Scientific and Natural Areas are unique and often threatened regulations designed to lower the impact of human activity areas because they are generally isolated areas of habitat that have helped maintain this unique area, which encompasses are often times surrounded by extensively altered landscapes. over 1,000,000 acres in northeastern Minnesota. The This separation, from some of the natural processes normally BWCAW was originally established in 1978 when Congress supporting these areas, may hinder their ability to sustain passed the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act. themselves. Thus, it is often necessary to support these areas The Act restricts the use of motorized vehicles, logging, and through specialized management plans, (MDNR, 2003). mining in the area. There are ten Scientific and Natural Areas (SNA’s) located within the Lake Superior Basin totaling approximately The BWCAW is part of the Superior National Forest, and is 11,645 acres. managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Recently, a Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Management Plan and Implementation Schedule was completed. The goal of this 9.9 County, State, and National Forests document is to provide guidance for managing this important wilderness area (USFS, 2003). The Lake Superior Basin is fortunate in its wealth of forests. These forests provide an aesthetic beauty to Northeastern Minnesota not found in many parts of the state. The forests 9.8 Scientific and Natural Areas are comprised of fir, cedar, spruce, and northern hardwoods. Figure 9.12 illustrates county, state, and national forests Scientific and Natural Areas have been established with the located within the Lake Superior Basin. Forest plans objective of preserving and maintaining the ecological encompassing these forests are discussed in 10.2, 10.3, and diversity of Minnesota's natural resources. The MDNR’s 10.4. Division of Ecological Services is responsible for collecting, analyzing, and dispersing necessary ecological information 9.9.1 State Forests and expertise pertaining to these areas. Resources such as landforms, fossil remains, plant and animal communities, In addition to county forests, the Lake Superior Basin rare and endangered species, or other biotic features and encompasses nine state forests. These forests include, Bear geological formations are studied and educational Island, Cloquet Valley, Finland, Fon Du Lac, Grand Portage, Nemadji, Pat Bayle, Savanna, and the Whiteface River State
158 Forest. State forests are managed by the MDNR’s Department of Forestry. Its mission is to promote the recreational benefits provided by the forests while maintaining the health and productivity of the natural resources occurring there (MDNR, 2003).
9.9.2 Superior National Forest
The Superior National Forest runs along the northeastern Minnesota and Canadian border for 150 miles. The three million acre forest was originally established in 1909. Over 445,000 acres (695 square miles) of the forest is surface water. In addition, more than 1,300 miles of cold water streams and 950 miles of warm water streams flow within the boundaries of the forest. Numerous fish species can be found within the forest including, but not limited to, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass, lake trout, brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout. Other wildlife native to the area includes deer, moose, and black bear. The forest also provides some of the last remaining natural habitat for the gray wolf (USFS, 2003).
159
9.10 City and County Parks, Recreational 9.12 Beach Program Areas and Nature Preserves To address a growing concern for the improvement / The city of Duluth boasts an extensive parks system providing maintenance of our nation’s coastal waters the EPA announced recreational opportunities to individuals of varying interests its BEACH program in 1997. Under this program, the EPA and ages. Currently, the city of Duluth owns 11,862 acres of hoped to work with state, tribes, and local government officials park and recreational land. The Duluth City Park system to reduce the risk of disease to users of U.S. recreation waters. includes 129 municipal parks, playgrounds, and public places, eight self-guided hiking trails, and a swimming beach. The BEACH Program focused on four key objectives:
• Strengthening water quality standards for bathing beaches
• Improving state, tribal and local government beach programs 9.11 Environmental Hazard Areas • Providing better information regarding beach water quality Several oil pipelines are located within the Lake Superior to the public
Basin. “Due to the volume of oil pumped through major • Promoting scientific research to better protect the health of pipelines, the potential impact of a rupture is significant,” beach users nds of individuals enjoy more than 30 beaches (USEPA, 2000). In 1990 Congress passed the Oil Pollution along Minnesota’s Lake Superior shoreline. Act as an amendment to the Clean Water Act. Under this act, the USEPA and the U.S. Coast Guard are required to prepare Each year thousands of individuals enjoy more than 30 beaches Area Contingency Plans to improve the efficiency of spill along Minnesota’s Lake Superior shoreline. However, these response. As part of the USEPA Region V plan, databases and beaches are subject to contamination from a variety of sources, maps were produced identifying and locating plant and animal including shoreline development, wastewater collection and species, natural resources, and areas necessary for public health treatment facilities, on-site wastewater treatment systems, that could be adversely affected in the event of an oil spill. urban runoff, disposal of human waste from boats, swimmers Items identified in the plan include natural resource areas, themselves, animal feeding operations, pet wastes, and natural surface water intakes, and shoreline sensitive areas. sources such as wildlife. This contamination presents several health risks to beach patrons.
Currently, the state of Minnesota does not have a consistently implemented monitoring and risk awareness strategy for such health risks. The Minnesota Lake Superior Beach Monitoring Project is an effort by the MPCA, in cooperation with state and
161 local health officials and interested organizations, to address these health risks to beach users. The overall objective of this Project is to develop a comprehensive beach monitoring and public notification plan for beaches adjacent to Lake Superior.
In accordance with BEACH Act performance criteria, further objectives include:
1. Develop a risk-based beach evaluation and classification process
2. Develop a tiered monitoring plan
3. Develop a process for monitoring report submission and delegation
4. Develop methods and assessment procedures
5. Develop public notification and risk communication plans
6. Determine measures to notify USEPA and local governments of human health risks
7. Develop measures to notify the public
8. Develop a process for notification report submission and delegation
9. Develop a process for public evaluation
162 Figure 9.13 Beaches Monitored Under the Beach Program
163 9.13 Water Quality Implementation Projects MPCA’s Clean Water Partnership Program. There are a variety of other programs that provide funds for environmental Many positive actions have been taken to protect and enhance conservation projects. For instance, the Legislative water quality in the Lake Superior Basin over the past decade. Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) provide grants Priorities and projects have been identified through the St. for a variety of natural resource and environmental programs. Louis River RAP process, county water plans, the Lakewide The State Revolving Fund (SRF) provides loans for wastewater Management Plan, and other park, forest, and city plans. This and nonpoint source pollution abatement projects. chapter does not attempt to cover or summarize all of these plans. However, it does endeavor to identify some of the The following projects are supported by the Minnesota Lake progress completed to date on priority projects and Superior Coastal Program and Clean Water Partnership/Section recommendations within the basin. The two spreadsheets that 319 Programs. Coastal Program projects are focused attempt to capture this information are referenced in Appendix principally in the coastal boundary along Lake Superior. D and E. These spreadsheets were updated from an earlier Section 319 and Clean Water Partnership projects may occur version produced for the Lake Superior Basin Information anywhere in the basin. Document (Appendix H). Appendix D is a compilation of actions completed. Appendix E is a table of actions currently 9.14.1 Lake Superior Coastal Program Projects underway or not yet completed. Actions, projects, and monitoring activities over and above what are referenced in 1. Watershed, Soils, Terrain and Stormwater Management Appendix D and E will be briefly mentioned here as well. This Survey for the Lutsen Township Development Plan list is by no means a comprehensive account of every 2. Stormwater Management Plan for the City of Two Harbors recommendation or action undertaken in the basin. 3. Stormwater Management Plan for Grand Marias Watershed
4. Living Water Garden Feasibility Study
5. Wetland Inventory and Evaluation for the City of Duluth 9.14 Grant Funded Projects 6. Preparing for Growth on the North Shore
7. North Shore Sewered Area Land Use Plan
8. Pilot Watercourse Study for Oregon Creek, Duluth, There have been many grant-funded projects which have Minnesota directly or indirectly helped to protect and restore the water
9. Local Implementation of Nonpoint Source Pollution resources of the Minnesota portion of the Lake Superior Basin. Reduction Programs Sources of this funding include the Minnesota Lake Superior 10. Environmental Ordinances and Implementation in the Coastal Program, which passes through grant funds under the Coastal Area auspices of the Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water 11. Best Management Practices Implementation in the Act, Section 319 funds, Great Lakes Commission programs, Minnesota Lake Superior Drainage Basin the U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, and the
164 12. Stewart River Wastewater Improvements 9.14.2 Section 319/Clean Water Partnership 13. Detention Pond Design/Bid Specification – Two Harbors Projects Stormwater Management Plan 14. Wetland Delineation Certification Section 319/Clean Water Partnership projects funded in the 15. Cloquet Comprehensive Wetland Protection and basin include: Management Plan
16. Geographic Information and Decision Support Tools for 1. An erosion control and culvert replacement on the Nemadji Land Use Planning in the Minnesota Lake Superior Coastal River
Zone 2. Awarded 1990 to assess the number of nonconforming 17. Knife River Watershed Landscape-Level Planning systems from the Lester to the Encampment Rivers
Initiative 3. Great Lakes Erosion Control
18. Watershed Educational Program for Primary (pre K 4. St. Louis River Phosphorus Abatement South St. Louis th through 6 ) School Children SWCD Awarded in 1991 Investigate BMP’s to reduce 19. Field identification and mapping of Duluth trout stream phosphorus to the St. Louis River
tributaries 5. Follow-up awarded in 1992 to reduce non-point source 20. Nonpoint Source Pollution Rates from Four North Shore pollution in the St. Louis SWCD Awarded 1994 to develop Streams of Varying Development Pressures projects to correct erosion, sedimentation and pollution 21. Education-Outreach Program for Carlton and S. St. Louis problems
SWCD’s 6. Great Lakes Erosion Control II South St. Louis SWCD 22. Head of the Watersheds “Decentralized” Wastewater awarded 1994 to develop project to correct erosion, Conference April 9-11, 2002 at the Duluth Entertainment sedimentation, and pollution problems
and Convention Center 7. Mountain Lake Phase II project city of Mountain Lake 23. Lake Superior Drainage Mussel Survey Awarded 1994 Implementation of improvement plan for
24. Restoring the St. Louis River Estuary: Pilot Service Mountain Lake
Learning and Curriculum Project for High School Youth 8. Follow-up award in 1995 to continue work already begun. 25. Stormwater Management Plan for Grand Marais Mountain Lake IV awarded in 1995 to fund continuation of Watershed, Phase II, Geographic Information System BMP’s
Database 9. BMP’s Implementation in the Lake Superior Basin 26. Funding for publication of the “Lower St. Louis River BWSWR awarded in 1995 to fund a position to educate, Habitat Plan” design BMP’s and oversee erosion control in the basin 10. Follow-up award in 1998 to continue funding ½ time engineering technician in BWSR Duluth office
165 11. Create Wetlands over Acid Generation Tailings MN DNR Awarded 1996 to convert tailings basins into wetlands to protect water quality and create habitat 12. Follow-up award in 1996 to study two created wetland systems to determine lifetime for treating mining wastes 13. Miller Creek Restoration Project (also received CWP funds) USDA Awarded 1996 riparian tree planting, pond side plantings, reestablish spring and fish habitat 14. Mountain Lake III Awarded in 1996 to continue BMP’s
166 Chapter 10: Key Plans and Policies
This chapter briefly summarizes the major programs and plans restoration and protection of critical habitat. This agreement was that were completed for areas within the Lake Superior Basin. It incorporated into the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan highlights the stated recommendations of the plans and also the (LaMP) and now the nine chemicals from the agreement are the geographic areas they cover. This section was shaped to a large critical chemicals that the LaMP must address per Annex II of the degree by the PWG and from comments provided by the public. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), 2003).
10.1 Binational Plans Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. This document, first completed in 1972 and revised in 1987, encompasses the Great International Joint Commission (IJC) Seventh Biennial Report on Lakes Basin Ecosystem. To maintain the “chemical, physical Great Lakes Water Quality. This document, completed in 1994, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin encompasses the Great Lakes ecosystem, which includes Ontario, Ecosystem” is the main purpose of this agreement. The U.S. and Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Canada agreed that their policy would be that “the discharge of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The main focus of this plan is to toxic substances in toxic amounts be prohibited and the discharge prevent persistent toxic substances from entering the Great Lakes of any or all persistent toxic substances be virtually eliminated.” ecosystem. This plan targets the virtual elimination and “zero” Recognizing that there are areas in the Great Lakes that are discharge of all recurring toxic substances. All sectors of society impaired due to toxic substances, the agreement set up Annex II, including governments, businesses, labor unions, and other which commits both parties to work to eliminate Areas of organizations, join in consensus to make decisions to help the Concern and critical pollutants in the open waters of the Great economic and social transition. Lakes.
Binational Program to Restore and Protect the Lake Superior Basin. Signed in 1991, this agreement commits Minnesota, along with other Lake Superior jurisdictions in the US and Canada, to a two-part program. The first part is a zero discharge and zero emission demonstration for nine toxic chemicals, including mercury, PCBs, dioxin and some pesticides. The second is an ecosystem based approach to resource management, including the
167 10.2 Superior National Forest Plan 10.4 County Forest Plans
Land and Resource Management Plan-Superior National Forest. Most of the counties in the basin are currently in the process of This plan was recently updated. This update covers both the creating a Forest Plan for their county. These new plans will Superior and Chippewa National Forests, the former of which is either update an existing plan or create a new one. The county located within the Lake Superior Basin in northeastern Minnesota forest plans that do exist are so outdated that most of the between Canada and Lake Superior. Since completion in May of recommendations in them have been carried out or they do not 1986, this forest plan has been amended ten times. However, at match-up with today’s needs. the time of this publication, the Chippewa National Forest and Superior National Forest were collaborating on an updated Forest Cloquet Forestry Center Forest Management Plan was Plan for both National Forests. (Superior National Forest) This developed in 1992 by the Cloquet Forestry Center and was to be plan can be viewed at: carried out until 2001. This plan encompasses “the 3,340 http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/chippewa/plan/revision/draft/final_exec_ contiguous acres of the Cloquet Forestry Center, and was used as summary.pdf a guide to oversee management of the forest (University of Minnesota, 1987). Topics addressed in the plan include the need for non-managed reserve areas within the forest, wildlife 10.3 State Forest Plans significance, and a recreational use policy for the increase in recreational pressure on the forest. Minnesota Forest Resources Plan: Program Direction. This 1991 plan, developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Division of Forestry, provides a program 10.5 Fisheries Management Plans and budget for the Division of Forestry for the fiscal years of 1991-1995. It will help direct the future of the Division of The Fish Community Objectives for Lake Superior is a document Forestry, analyze the present issues, and state the Division’s designed to assist agencies and communities in developing continuing responsibilities. management strategies that are beneficial to the native fish communities of Lake Superior. This document is not another management plan, but rather, it is designed to provide a unified direction for management practices and an understanding of the Lake Superior ecosystem. Strategies for meeting the plan’s
168 objectives are left up to each management jurisdiction. To view includes the St. Louis River, and the remedial-action plans that the plan visit: are being developed to help restore the impaired areas. http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/lsc/draftforview2001.pdf The Rainbow Trout Management Plan for the Minnesota Waters The Fisheries Management Plan for the Minnesota Waters of of Lake Superior is designed to build off of existing information Lake Superior was completed by the MDNR Section of Fisheries for the continued preservation and “restoration of wild steelhead in 1995. The plan emphasizes a community approach in the stocks” (MNDR, 2003). Public participation was an extensive management of fisheries, and is a tool for both the MDNR and component to this plan, and included “…dialog with the Rainbow interested citizens. Furthermore, the plan’s strategies and actions Trout Advisory Group, solicitation of comments from the general will aid the Section of Fisheries in focusing its work for the next public, and discussions with interested anglers about the rainbow decade. To review the plan visit: trout fishery” (MDNR, 2003). The plan is available at: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/special_reports/1 http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/special_reports/1 49.pdf 57.pdf
A Joint Strategic Plan for the Management of Great Lakes The State of Lake Superior in 1992, was published by the Great Fisheries is a multi-jurisdictional plan developed in 1981 and Lakes Fishery Commission in 1994. This report contains a revised in 1997. This plan was designed to help coordinate detailed history of the uses, threats, and impairments to Lake management efforts within the Great Lakes watersheds. The goal Superior through the last half century. Also, the document of this plan is to protect Great Lakes fishery resources, including, reports on progresses made towards meeting the Lake Superior “… a healthy aquatic environment, aesthetic and recreational fishery objectives. These objectives were, “…established for values, scientific knowledge and economic activity as well as fish Lake Superior in response to [the document] A Joint Strategic and fishing opportunities” (GLFC, 1997). The plan can be Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (Great Lakes viewed at: Fishery Commission, 1980) and are the template for this report http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/sglfmp97.htm#COMMON on the state of the lake,’ (GLFC, 1994).
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission created A Survey of Fish- Community and Habitat Goals/Objectives/Targets and Status in Great Lakes Areas of Concern in August 1993, to help achieve greater coordination and strengthened partnerships between remedial-action and fishery-management planning. This study discusses the 43 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes, which
169 10.6 Local Comprehensive Plans and Policies 10.7 County Water Plans
The Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan was created in 1997 Aitkin County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan. by the MDNR to link state and federal agency responsibilities This document, updated in 2002, encompasses the local water and to guide the administration of wetland programs, staff, and management plan for Aitkin County, which is located in the budgets. The plan addresses four main issues that are a challenge northeastern part of central Minnesota. This plan serves as a to wetland conservation in Minnesota. The goal of this plan is to handbook and reference for planning and zoning ordinances, “maintain and restore the quality and diversity and increase the Board of Adjustment decisions and Soil & Water Conservation overall quantity of wetlands in the state” to help “promote District policies (Aitkin County Soil & Water Conservation ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable District, 1995). communities.” Carlton County Local Water Management Plan. This document, The North Shore Management Plan was created in December updated by the Carlton County Water Advisory Committee in 1988 by the North Shore Management Board to provide a 2002, encompasses the local water management for Carlton framework for decision-making regarding the North Shore of County, located in northeastern Minnesota. This plan is an Lake Superior (currently the plan is being updated and revised). update to the 1996 and 1990 Carlton County Comprehensive The boundaries of this plan include the “forty-acre subdivision Local Water Management Plans. The 1996 plan added wellhead lines of the rectangular coordinate system established in the U.S. protection, sensitive groundwater areas, high priority wetlands, Public Land Survey, nearest to the landward side of a line 1000 and stormwater management. The 2002 update assesses public feet from the shoreline of Lake Superior, or 300 feet landward opinion, updates data, goals, objectives and actions, and reviews from the center line of U.S. Highway 61, whichever is greater.” resource priorities. The plan also includes the preparation of an The local units of government are anticipated to use this plan for implementation plan including local strategies, local their specific planning and zoning responsibilities. This should participation, and adaptation to changing state programs. provide a framework for all of the North Shore decision making processes. Cook County Comprehensive Water Management Plan. This document, created in 1998 by Cook County, encompasses the local water management plan for the county, which is located in the northeastern tip of Minnesota. Revisions to the plan started in 2003. The main goals of the water plan are: the maintenance or enhancement of surface and groundwater resource quality and
170 availability, sustainable water use, and the education of citizens 10.8 Coastal Plans on the nature and value of Cook County’s water resources.
Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program. This program Itasca County Comprehensive Local Water Plan. This document, provides grants to the coastal community to help balance the completed in 1990, encompasses Itasca County located in pressures of land use needs and those of conservation and northeastern Minnesota. This plan is based on standards of sound preservation, while allowing for public access and recreation. hydrologic management and effective environmental protection This program encompasses the Lake Superior Coast inland to (Itasca County Soil & Water Conservation District, 1990). include the nearest township, approximately six miles, also including the cities of Carlton, Cloquet, Duluth, Hermantown, Lake County Comprehensive Water Management Plan. This Proctor, and Wrenshall. This program is meant to be a tool to document, completed in 1998, encompasses Lake County located apply existing programs and to fund unique or under-funded in northeastern Minnesota. Revisions to the plan started in 2003. plans. It tries to “sustain coastal communities, coastal The goal of this plan is to “maintain and improve both surface ecosystems, and improve government efficiency,” by partnering and groundwater quality through sound ecosystem management.” up with state, local, and federal agencies and other units of It will do this by protecting and improving the quality of surface government. Grant projects must show a direct connection with and groundwater from non-point and point pollution sources preserving, restoring or enhancing the coastal resources of Lake through education, resource planning, administration, and Superior. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program Final existing data (Lake County, 1998). Environmental Impact Statement was completed in May 1999 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1999). St. Louis County Water Plan. This document, completed in 2000, encompasses St. Louis County, located in northeastern Once the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Minnesota. This plan is divided into four different areas: goals Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection the county has on water related issues, objectives on more Agency (US EPA) approved Minnesota’s over-all coastal specific areas that should be addressed during the next five years, program the state was required to develop a coastal nonpoint the actions that should be taken to achieve the specific areas, and pollution program within it. This nonpoint program has to match a priority ranking set up from one to three for the issues. up with the federal “Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.” This is required in Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments (CZARA) of 1990. This guidance covers “management measures” for agriculture, forestry, urban areas, marinas and recreational boating, hydromodification, and
171 wetlands and riparian areas. Minnesota has submitted its within the Duluth and Hermantown City limits in St. Louis nonpoint plan and has attempted to match the federal guidelines County. One goal of this plan is protection of the watershed and with existing programs. trout fishery of Miller Creek, along with creating a model for other watersheds. Another goal of the plan is to provide a Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control healthy urban trout fishery, as well as to educate the public on Program was submitted to NOAA and US EPA in July of 2001. watershed health and urban impacts on trout fisheries. Federal conditional approval of this nonpoint program was received through notice in the federal register on October 16, 2003. Miller Creek Stormwater Modeling was created in February 2000 From that publication time Minnesota will have two years to by the University of Minnesota Duluth Natural Resources address the conditions imposed or face potential reductions in Research Institute (NRRI). Miller Creek was selected because of funding in its 319 and coastal programs. its’ significance as a naturally reproducing brook trout stream. Miller Creek contains large parts of Duluth’s population and is characterized by a large and rapidly expanding commercial 10.9 River Corridor Plans district in the upper part of the watershed. NRRI used EPA’s Stormwater Management Model to predict watershed stormwater St. Louis River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement- runoff volumes and Miller Creek pollutant concentrations. Licensing Two Existing Hydroelectric Projects in the St. Louis River Basin. This document, created in June 1994 and just being Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan. The St. Louis River, located finalized in 2003, considers the “potential natural resource in northeastern Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin, is the benefits, economic costs, and environmental consequences” of major U.S. tributary to Lake Superior. The lower river supports two hydroelectric projects on the St. Louis River Basin. The St. unique ecosystems as well as being the largest harbor and Louis River Basin is located in northeastern Minnesota in international port on the Great Lakes. This plan is the St. Louis and Carlton Counties. The two projects are the St. consequence of the regional and global significance of the Lower Louis River project with Minnesota Power and Light and the St. Louis River ecosystem. The Habitat Plan presents eighteen Cloquet project with Potlatch Corporation (Federal Energy strategies to help deal with the most significant known threats, Regulatory Commission, 1994). and starts working on conservation goals for the St. Louis River. This plan focuses on the lower 21 river miles while also including areas of adjacent forested land. The total area covered Miller Creek Diagnostic Study and Implementation Plan. This document, which was completed in August 2001 by the South St. under this plan is from the Fond du Lac dam to Lake Superior, Louis County Soil and Water Conservation District, covers the approximately 260,000 acres (St. Louis River Citizens Action Miller Creek drainage. The Miller Creek Watershed is located Committee, 2002).
172 10.10 Wastewater Plans 10.11 Transportation Plans
The Cost of Compliance of Western Lake Superior Sanitary Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan 2000. The main goal District with the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative. This of this plan is to “develop a coordinated transportation network document, completed in July 1993 by ENSR Consulting and that allows people and goods to move efficiently across the state” Engineering, was created for the Western Lake Superior Sanitary of Minnesota. Through this network, the Minnesota Department District (WLSSD) to meet the guidelines proposed by the Great of Transportation (Mn/DOT) “preserves, manages and improves Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLWQI). The GLWQI states the state’s highway, transit, air, rail, waterway, bicycle, specific water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life, pedestrian, and non-travel alternative systems.” human health, and wildlife. WLSSD has also put out a final draft document as of June 2003. This new document is the “WLSSD The FY 2003-2005 Transportation Improvement Program for the Comprehensive Wastewater Services Master Plan” This Duluth, MN Urbanized Area was completed in July 2002 and is document looks at the next 25 years of development, future waste an annually created document that describes the highway, transit, water needs, and pollution prevention issues associated with enhancement, and other transportation projects that are being waste water management. recommended for the metropolitan areas for the following three years. An urban area with a population of 50,000 or more has a Blueprint for Mercury Elimination. This plan was created in Metropolitan Planning Organization, which develops a 1997 for WLSSD staff to use as a guide to reduce mercury in the Transportation Improvement Program based on the transportation environment. The guide includes information on sources of needs of that community both now and in the future (Duluth- mercury, methods to successfully reduce mercury, and Superior Metropolitan Interstate Committee, 2002). suggestions for implementing a program (Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, 1997). Tomorrow’s Transportation 2025, Duluth/Superior Long Range Plan 2001-2025. The main goal of this plan is to “guide the Facilities Plan for Wastewater Treatment, Biwabik, Minnesota. future of transportation in the Twin Ports area by planning and This report was created to assist with the selection of suitable and developing a comprehensive, multi-modal, and integrated cost-effective solutions to wastewater treatment needs for the city transportation system. This system will provide a high level of and surrounding areas of Biwabik. Biwabik is located in mobility for all people and goods, preserve infrastructure, northeastern Minnesota on the Mesabi Iron Range in St. Louis improve safety, and provide economic activity consistent with County. This report is needed for further development in the city available environmental and fiscal resources.” The plan and at Giants Ridge recreational area (Rieke Carroll Muller identifies the Duluth-Superior metropolitan area’s dynamic Associates Inc., 1994). transportation needs and provides the tools and strategies
173 necessary to make transportation improvements. This plan also In summary, the plans identified in this chapter provide resources discusses the programmed, planned and potential transportation that can be built upon to provide a foundation for the Minnesota improvements that the Metropolitan Interstate Committee and Lake Superior Basin planning efforts. Use of these plans can local public agencies have identified (Duluth-Superior save time, by preventing duplication of efforts, provide specific Metropolitan Interstate Committee, 2001). information to basin planning efforts when appropriate, and provide continuity to the planning efforts in Minnesota’s Lake 10.12 Regional Economic Development Plans Superior Basin.
Minnesota Forest Resources Plan: 1995 Assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to explain the current state of forest resources in Minnesota, to forecast the supply and demand for forest goods and services, and to be a base for management programs and policies (MDNR, 1995).
The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan of 1995-1999 leads recreation-related land acquisition, facility development and operations, and recreation programming by outlining trends, issues, and strategies to use (Minnesota Planning, 1994).
Historic Reconstruction of Property Ownership and Land Uses along the Lower St. Louis River. The St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee completed this project in 1999. It was created to identify potential pollution problems related to land use and property ownership along the lower St. Louis River. This program professes that in order to successfully cleanup the St. Louis River system, an understanding of the past and current human use of the area must be understood (St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee, 1999).
174 Chapter 11: Emerging Issues
This chapter briefly covers some of the national, statewide, and when riparian vegetation was removed from small streams,” local issues under discussion today. This chapter is by no (Brooks, 1997). means intended to be a comprehensive list or discussion of these topics. The purpose of this section is to simply provide Presently, dense canopies of spruce provide shade to cool many an overview of some key topics with the potential to impact Lake Superior Basin streams. The loss of spruce and other water resource management in the Lake Superior Basin. conifers, whether it occurs through removal, disease, fire, or storm damage, may have impacts on the viability of trout in 11.1 Local Issues these streams. Trout can only survive in streams and lakes with consistent and reliable supplies of cold water. Even minor Local issues are often items of concern unique to the Lake changes in water temperature can have impacts on the Superior Basin, or Northeastern Minnesota. These issues may survivability of trout in some streams. Climate change is one be more recognizable to residents due to their proximity and factor that appears to have significant potential to impact forest immediacy. However, they are not necessarily more important composition, and consequently, cold water lakes and streams. than national or statewide issues. The following sections Climate change is expected to trigger a change from spruce and highlight some of these local issues. other conifers to deciduous species like aspen (Weflen, 2003). The less dense canopies that these new species would create 11.1.1 Stream Warming would not be able to do the job of cooling the waters of the streams, says Mark Ebbers the DNR trout program coordinator. One of the chief factors affecting stream temperature is riparian If Minneapolis weather moves up the North Shore and the forest canopy, which generates a micro-climate that serves to spruce decline, all of these streams would likely lose their trout (Weflen, 2003). cool streams (Weflen, 2003). According to the book Riparian Management in Forests, “The principle source of heat for streams draining forests is solar energy striking directly on the 11.1.2 Development along the North Shore surface of the stream (Brown, 1980). Thus, the temperature of streams is controlled primarily by shade from overhanging Whether the land development found today on and near water vegetation,” (Verry, 2000). Evidence connecting the loss of bodies is seen as unpleasant sprawl or economic growth, it is riparian forest canopy to increases in stream temperature can occurring at a rapid rate. Beautiful scenery is what draws a lot be found in the book Hydrology and the Management of of people to Northeastern Minnesota, whether as tourists or Watersheds 2nd Ed., “Studies have reported annual maximum long time residents. With more people using the area, stream temperatures increased between 4 and 15 degrees C development is likely to occur, and this development may
175 compromise what the people value about the North Shore. A 11.1.4 Stability of Northeastern Minnesota’s four-year study, funded by the Environmental Protection Resource Based Economy Agency, shows that the greatest threat to the health of the Great Lakes is development along its shorelines (BusinessNorth.com, The Arrowhead Region has a resource-based economy (Moore, 2003). With development come sewer lines and roads, this in 2002). Mining, logging, and tourism are what the economy turn leads to more development. Most people can agree that runs on in Northeastern Minnesota. Whether or not it will be growth is a fact of life, but how growth will occur along the able to continue to survive on these elements is in question. North Shore in the days to come is an issue of debate. While Some areas of Northeastern Minnesota are in need of economic sprawling development can degrade water quality, increase growth. An example would be the Iron Range, with recent habitat destruction, and increase run-off and erosion, it can also layoffs and mine closures (Almquist, 2002). Foreign help the economy (Minnesota Environment, 2000). As the competition is an obstacle looking northeastern Minnesota Minnesota Statutes on Sustainable Development state, loggers in the face. Foreign companies can do the same work development should “maintain or enhance economic Minnesota companies do at cheaper costs, because they have opportunity and community well-being while protecting and fewer environmental and governmental restrictions (White, restoring the natural environment upon which people and 2001). Tourism also plays a large role in fueling the economy communities depend,” (Minnesota Environment, 2000). of Northeastern Minnesota. People come from all over for a variety of activities including the lakes, scenery, fishing,
11.1.3 Paper Companies hunting, arts, fall leaves, and a variety of festivals (Faherty, 2001). In 1995 the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Minnesota
Sustainable Forest Resources Act (SFRA), one of the state’s 11.1.5 Directional Drilling in Lake Superior most significant forestry laws, which has since been reauthorized through 2007. The act established policies and On April 5, 2002, a permanent ban was put on Great Lakes programs to ensure sustainable use and management of our drilling (Michigan Land Use Institute, 2002). When looking at state’s forests. Sustainability means meeting the needs of the Lake Superior, Minnesota and Wisconsin have no offshore oil present without compromising the ability of future generations or gas potential or drilling targets. Therefore, there is not a to meet their own needs. Sustainable forestry is a proactive statute related to directional drilling for these states form of management that provides for the multiple uses of the (International Joint Commission, 2002). Considerable public forest by balancing a diversity of both present and future needs controversy has arisen over potential environmental risks from (Minnesota Forest Industries, SFRA). U.S. and Canadian offshore and directional oil and natural gas drilling in the Great Lakes. To date, there have been few reported problems.
176 11.2 Statewide Issues 11.2.2 Off-Road Vehicle Trails
Statewide issues refer to programs, initiatives, and events In response to the growing popularity of Recreational Motor occurring within and around the state of Minnesota. Such Vehicle (RMV) riding, the Minnesota Legislature established a issues may directly or indirectly affect the Lake Superior cost-sharing program designed to “…offer financial assistance Basin. Each year, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency so that locally controlled trails could exist where none had (MPCA) works with the Governor's Office, the State before” (MDNR, 2002). The DNR is responsible for Legislature and other partners to assure that legislation administering the program and developing and maintaining affecting Minnesota's environment effectively achieves public RMV trails and areas. The DNR is also required to improvements in the quality of air, water and land (MPCA, submit a report by January 15, 2003, regarding “multiple uses Legislative Issues). The following sections highlight some in the outdoor recreation system,” and an analysis of the off- important statewide issues. highway vehicle trail system, both now and in the future (Helland, 2003). By April 1, 2007, at least 70 contiguous miles 11.2.1 Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Program must be developed for an ATV trail on state and/or county land (Helland, 2003). The trail must also include vehicle parking The purpose of the Minnesota Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint and rest areas for the public (Helland, 2003). Pollution Control Program, “shall be to develop and implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution to restore “There are currently about 1,000 miles of RMV trails in and protect coastal waters, working in close conjunction with Minnesota (MDNR, 2003). These trails are classified to other state and local authorities” (Minnesota Department of indicate what type of RMV’s are permitted on each trail. Off- Natural Resources, 2001). This document is a joint effort of highway motor vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), the MPCA and the Minnesota DNR, along with assistance from off-highway motorcycles (OHMs), and off-road vehicles such the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). It identifies as jeeps and trucks (ORVs) are generally permitted on state the six categories that Minnesota uses to control nonpoint lands and trails in accordance with state regulations.” (MDNR, pollution: agriculture, forestry, urban and rural areas, marinas, 2003) hydromodification, and wetlands. The Minnesota Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is a To manage the many uses that occur on forest lands and trails, document that is trying to reduce, control, and if possible, the DNR has classified state forests for motor-vehicle use and eliminate nonpoint pollution sources (MDNR, 2001). Most adopted rules to regulate this use. Minnesotans would say clean air and water is important in their lives, this is a step taken to protect them. • Managed state forests-Forest roads and trails are open unless posted closed.
177 • Limited state forests-Forest roads are open; all forest shallow water. This annual plant grows in the spring and trails are closed unless posted open. summer months and begins to ripen in late August when “…the
• Closed state forests-Licensed highway vehicles are seeds ripen gradually from the top down and fall into the allowed on forest roads only. There are no trail riding water,” (MDNR, 2003). opportunities. (MDNR, 2003). “Populations of wild rice have been gradually declining for 11.2.3 Individual Sewage Treatment Systems many years in Minnesota. In recent years, the decline has become more rapid. Scientists are now trying to learn more Few people disagree, that sewage coming from municipal or about how wild rice grows and why it's becoming less industrial sources needs to be treated. Yet, when it comes to common. The Minnesota DNR and various American Indian treating sewage from individual homes, there is a wider range governments manage wild rice and regulate wild rice harvest,” of opinions. The Minnesota Rules state that, “the improper (MDNR, 2003). location, design, installation, use, and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems adversely affects the 11.2.5 Exotic Species public health, safety, and general welfare by discharge of inadequately treated sewage to the ground surface, surface When a species is found in a location where it does not waters, and ground waters,” (Minnesota Rules, 2002). Current naturally occur, but has been moved or introduced there by Minnesota law requires that all counties in Minnesota adopt an human activities, it is called an exotic species (MDNR, 2003). ordinance that conforms to the individual sewage treatment Exotic species are not necessarily detrimental, except when system (ISTS) rules of the MPCA (Association of Minnesota they are “invasive” or “harmful exotic species” (MDNR, Counties, 2002). ISTS’ provide a significant portion of the 2003). Some harmful exotic species that are found in wastewater treatment in Minnesota (AMC, 2002). When Minnesota include the zebra mussel, Eurasian watermilfoil, installed and maintained correctly, septic systems provide long- purple loosestrife, round goby, and ruffe (MDNR, 2003). A term, reliable, high quality treatment and disposal (MPCA, harmful exotic species recently found in Minnesota is the 2001). A large portion of the current ISTS’ are failing to Asian Carp. These carp, which are native to China, were adequately treat sewage or do not meet the minimum treatment introduced to the southern Mississippi River basin to support standards (AMC, 2002). aquaculture operations in the 60’s and 70’s (Conlin, 2002). They have now been found approximately 60 miles from the 11.2.4 Management of Wild Rice Waters Great Lakes near Lake Michigan (Conlin, 2002). If they are able to find their way into the Great Lakes Basin, they have the Wild rice was once found throughout Minnesota, but is now ability to significantly disrupt the food web of the Great Lakes restricted to the central and northeastern parts of the state. It ecosystem and harm the commercial fishing industry (Conlin, typically grows in lakes and rivers with sandy bottoms and 2002). The Asian Carp is large, approximately 39 inches long
178 and 40 to 50 pounds, and because of its feeding habits it is a ice, rising sea levels, earlier arrival of migratory birds, and the direct competitor for food with some native fish species (US lengthening of growing seasons in some areas. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002). This is one example of a harmful exotic species that could easily spread within Glacier National Park, in Montana, has seen 150 of the glaciers Minnesota if necessary actions are not taken. it had in the 19th century reduced to 35 in the 21st century (Rauber, 2003). However, the largest problems are in the polar regions, which hold the greatest ice masses, and where temperatures are warming faster than anywhere else. “Arctic 11.3 National Issues th temperatures during the late 20 century appear to have been Unfortunately, the Lake Superior Basin does not act as an the warmest in 400 years,” according to the Environmental independent ecosystem cut-off from the effects of National or Protection Agency (EPA) (Rauber, 2003). This phenomenon is Global changes in our environment. Alterations in resulting in a thinning of the sea ice that covers the North Pole, management practices, regulations, and natural anomalies which, over the past 40 years, has thinned by 40 percent during occurring in other parts of the state, nation, and world can have late summer and early autumn (Rauber, 2003). Less sea ice repercussions within the Lake Superior Basin. Therefore, it is results in less solar radiation reflected back into space, which important, while managing the basin locally, to remain aware causes increased warming, especially in the polar regions. of national issues. The following sections highlight some of these national issues. On the opposite side of the spectrum, rising sea levels are threatening to wipe out an entire island nation in the South 11.3.1 Global Warming Pacific. Tuvalu, with an area of just ten square miles, will most likely have to be deserted within the lifetime of some of Global warming has become an issue of intense debate over the today’s residents (Price, 2003). This will be the first time in past decade, with people both supporting and opposing the history an entire nation is left homeless because of an scientific research that has been carried out. Whichever side an environmental disaster (Price, 2003). individual takes, it is clear from the facts cited by the National Academy of Sciences, that the Earth’s surface has warmed What does this mean for the Great Lakes? Examples of how about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with most of global warming could affect the Great Lakes region include an this warming occurring in the last twenty years (National increase in disease carried by mosquitoes, changes in forest Academies, 2002). Whether global warming is caused by type and location, water quality changes, and lake level human activity or is part of a natural cycle, the likely effects changes. Global warming also causes changes in precipitation are the same. Some of the effects that have been witnessed patterns. Parts of Minnesota have seen an increase in with this warming include retreating glaciers, thinning arctic precipitation by about 20 percent since the early 1900’s (Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, 2002).
179 Minnesota might soon feel and look more like Missouri, if The National Academy of Science says that with global temperature readings and precipitation continue to increase warming, “Lake levels are likely to decline, leading to reduced within the next century (MOEA, 2002). Increasing water supply and more costly transportation. Shoreline temperatures in Minnesota have caused disease carrying insects damage due to high water levels is likely to decrease.” This to expand their habitat into the region, increasing the potential conclusion was reached by a regional workshop involving a for transmission of diseases (United States Environmental wide range of researchers and stakeholders that identified key Protection Agency, 2000). The West Nile virus entered issues facing the region and identified potential adaptation Minnesota through mosquitoes in 2002. Minnesota mosquitoes strategies (National Academy of Sciences, 2002). Other also carry St. Louis encephalitis. If global warming continues, impacts the warmer temperatures will have on the Great Lakes these disease carrying mosquitoes can increase their numbers region, as stated by the USEPA, include: reducing habitat (USEPA, 2000). Yellow fever, dengue fever, Eastern equine available for cold water fish in lakes and streams, changing the encephalitis, and La Crosse encephalitis can also spread up into tree species of regional forests, a loss of habitat for endangered Minnesota by mosquitoes if conditions allow (USEPA, 2000). species, and a loss of breeding habitat (USEPA, 2002).
Trees and forests are adapted to specific climate conditions and 11.3.2 Water Diversions/Commercial Exportation as the climate warms, the tree species that are found in northeastern Minnesota’s forests today will be replaced with The distribution of freshwater in North America and the better adapted species. Changes can include health, distribution of the population of North American people do not productivity, geographic extent, and species present in the trees completely match up. This means that some people live in an and forests of the region. If a drier climate moves into the area that has an abundance of freshwater, while others find region, trees and forests will be replaced by grasslands themselves with a shortage of freshwater. An issue that has (USEPA, 2000). emerged, dealing with this topic, is whether or not the areas with a surplus of water should export to areas in need. Areas As the climate in the Great Lakes region warms, ice cover on that would fall under exporters of freshwater include the Great its many lakes and streams would not last as long as it does Lakes Basin, which includes Lake Superior, the largest today, causing spring stream flows to peak sooner and summer freshwater body in the world and third largest by volume. As a stream flows to be reduced (USEPA, 2000). A reduction in whole, the Great Lakes and their connecting channels are the summer stream flow can decrease water quality (USEPA, largest body of surface freshwater in the world (Donahue, 2000). A reduction in summer stream flow into the Great 2001). A common perception is that the Great Lakes are an Lakes will potentially lower lake levels and water quality (US endless supply of freshwater. Yet, in reality, the Great Lakes EPA, 2000). resources are limited, intensively used and ecologically fragile (Donahue, 2001). And even minor stresses on the system can
180 have irreversible effects on the sustainable use, development, and protection of the resource (Donahue, 2001).
Is it the duty of areas with excess to provide for those with scarcity, or should water use be based on sustainability? Water management is going through significant and important economic and financial changes and it is rapidly transforming into a global business (Landry, 2002). According to Terry Anderson, Executive Director of the Political Economy Research Center, “it may be difficult to discourage the transferring of water in this market when the gains from trade are so large.” The environmental or sustainable development perspective is that water is located where it belongs naturally, and the people that live in a less abundant environment need to learn to use the water within its limits (Farid, 1997).
Under both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Free Trade Agreement (FTA), water is a “good,” so governments can not give economic advantages to their own country over interests who wish to import their water (Farid, 1997). For example, NAFTA and the FTA state that, if a party does not impose a tax or duty on itself, it can not impose that tax or duty on another party (Farid, 1997). Since Canadians and Americans “do not pay the full cost of water, any trade from the Great Lakes Basin would subsidize the cost of water for the export consumer,” (Farid, 1997). Until domestic consumers pay the full price of water, it will be a good deal for importers. Many factors should be considered before export is allowed, including environmental affects, politics, and economics.
181 Chapter 12: Basin Plan Implementation
12.1 Implementation Overview 12.2 Guiding Principles
By most standards, adaptability and flexibility are two key For obvious reasons, implementation in Minnesota’s 6200 ingredients of any successful plan. These two premises are square mile portion of the Lake Superior Basin will not be central to the implementation strategy proposed for the Lake rigidly prescribed or defined. Instead, the implementation Superior Basin Plan. It is a strategy built on the philosophy of process relies on the initiative of individuals and organizations a continuous cycle of assessment, implementation, and to implement parts of the plan through a variety of mechanisms evaluation. What this cycle implies in the simplest sense is that and programs. This fluid implementation process is not meant the plan provides a framework where partners and others are in to suggest that organizational coordination and cooperation are a position to shape future projects and activities to support any less important in the implementation phase. In reality, agreed upon outcomes. The framework, which is briefly implementation requires more coordination and participation touched on here, will be designed to provide broad outlines for than plan development. An organic and flexible “desired future states or conditions.” Achievement will require implementation process uses existing programs, authorities, creativity and initiative by citizens, partner organizations, and resources; individual and collective initiative; and businesses, land-owners, and elected officials. “windows of opportunity.”
This chapter is an introduction to the complex subject of plan The largely open and organic implementation process implementation. It does contain a rough outline of some key envisioned for the Lake Superior Basin Plan will lead to a elements of plan implementation. However, the particulars of variety of creative solutions. While the implementation the implementation process will be laid out in considerable process is designed to foster innovation, it is also important to detail in a forthcoming document, appropriately entitled, “The link the process to complementary programs and objectives. Implementation Work Plan.” This work plan will not only Ideally, this connection will result in equilibrium between contain a description of how the process functions, but will individual or organizational initiative and collective emphasize the state of action steps and recommendations responsibility. A series of guiding principles for outlined in Chapter Three. Organizations and individuals will implementation were developed to assist in this effort. These be asked to fill out an on-line survey which will be used to principles, which are outlined in the section that follows, were identify gaps, priorities, and individual or organizational intended to provide an overlay to the work of implementation. leadership. The survey will be distributed widely, with the In essence, these principles are the standard against which results serving as the foundation for the Lake Superior Basin implementation activities are measured. Implementation Work Plan (IWP).
182 Guiding Principles some formal implementation structure. Structure is the glue that holds the planning effort together, and that encourages The Implementation of the Lake Superior Basin Plan will: collective action and synergy amongst organizations and individuals. Figure 12.1 provides an overview of the proposed
Leverage and augment existing plans and programs implementation structure. Specific details will be outlined in the forthcoming IWP.
Focus on the resources (e.g., streams and tributaries, lakes, and land in the basin) The structure described in Figure 12.1 has a number of component parts. The Lake Superior Basin Programmatic
Establish and maintain consensus on priorities Work Group (PWG), or the Implementation Partnership Group (IPG), continues to be a central feature of the plan. This
Emphasize protection and prevention interagency group serves as a key linkage to state, local, tribal and federal agencies and organizations that are ultimately in a
Use a watershed approach position to implement plan recommendations or to influence actions within their organizations or spheres of influence. The
Be based on achieving the maximum extent practicable PWG is comprised primarily of government employees who (e.g., realistic, practical, affordable) represent a wide variety of programs with responsibility for land or water resource management. It will be necessary to
Facilitate stakeholder involvement continue the PWG, or its facsimile, over the long-term to facilitate plan implementation and to periodically update and
Emphasize clear public communication re-evaluate the plan.
Lead to the annual evaluation of progress and results Citizen and stakeholder participation are key parts of any and successful implementation strategy. Accordingly, one of the main parts of the structural diagram is a representation of
Encourage the acknowledgement, celebration, and stakeholders or stakeholder groups that exist in the watershed. publication of successes Stakeholders and their respective groups will provide input and guidance to the implementation process through a number of mechanisms. Individual groups may serve as advisors and 12.3 Implementation Structure provide input to the plan implementation process through their existing structures and communication channels. Where gaps Even though individual and collective initiatives are features of exist in representation or geographic coverage, efforts will be the basin plan implementation strategy, it is necessary to have undertaken to link-up or encourage establishment of watershed
183 Figure 12.1 Implementation Structure
Proposed Implementation Structure Standing/Ad Hoc Implementation Committees
Non-governmental Watershed Advisory Groups Organizations (e.g., (Stakeholders) Businesses/Private land trusts, Land Owners conservancy groups, recreation groups)
Local Government (e.g., Tribal Governments Counties, Cities, Implementation Partnership Group (e.g., Fond du Lac, Townships) (Programmatic Work Group) Grand Portage)
Management Federal Agencies (e.g., Authorities (e.g. North USFS, USFWS, NRCS, Shore Management COE, BLM) Board, Sewer Districts, State Agencies (e.g., MPCA, 1854 Authority) MDNR, BWSR, MNDOT)
Implementation
Action/Project =
184 based groups. The specific nature and relationship of these new authorities and sources of implementation funding are groups to the plan implementation process will be explained in likely to be housed in one of these agencies or organizations. detail in the IWP. While the particulars of these relationships are not spelled out as of yet, these groups are expected to provide advice to ad hoc committees and the PWG. 12.4 Implementation Timeframe
Ad hoc or standing committees are groups created by either the As is noted in Chapter Five, plan updates and reviews occur on PWG or the Watershed Advisory Groups. These groups are a five year cycle. This five year horizon for plan updates also created to focus on specific technical or policy issues correlates well with the proposed implementation cycle. determined to be of significance to the plan implementation Projects underway or proposed for the 2004-2009 period will process. Ad hoc or standing committees come into existence be detailed by plan recommendation and action steps in the and disband as issues are resolved or replaced by topics that IWP. The five year cycle establishes reasonable short term demand urgent consideration. Existing organizations and targets for implementation, while still providing opportunities planning efforts may have groups that serve the same purposes for the use of adaptive management strategies for projects with as ad hoc or standing implementation committees. These significantly longer time horizons. groups could be substituted or used in the same capacity when it is determined that they serve the interests of plan implementation. 12.5 Coordination Figure 12.1 also includes a series of ovals with some key plan implementation partners and mechanisms. These While it is rarely acknowledged, coordination is central to any implementation partners or mechanisms are local, state, tribal, successful project, including the Lake Superior Basin Plan. and federal agencies and units of government, business Coordination is another phrase or word for the communication interests, landowners, and non-governmental organizations. linkages that occur between parts of a process or project. Good From a practical standpoint, these agencies and organizations coordination translates into an understanding of roles, shared are conduits for the vast majority of actions taken to implement goals, matched resource commitments, and information the plan. Implementation would occur through individual or exchanges. Coordination takes place at both the individual and collective initiatives, through existing programs and organizational levels. Individuals, for instance, may coordinate authorities, and through creative use of available funding their responsibilities with respect to a watershed sources. These agencies and organizations may redirect or implementation project. Organizations, on the other hand, may change their priorities to implement plan recommendations coordinate internally or externally on project personnel, consistent with their missions and internal policies. Similarly, sequencing, and on the number of projects undertaken at any given time.
185 Based on the complexity of Minnesota’s portion of the Lake Implementation, planning, evaluation, monitoring, and Superior Basin, there are obvious multiple and simultaneous adaptation are part of what is a continuous improvement cycle coordination needs. The MPCA, as facilitator, has an for the Lake Superior Basin. “Successful watershed important and continuing role in this coordination process. management requires careful consideration of how the plan This role will involve providing information and updates will be implemented, monitored, and evaluated. In addition, it through email, web- site postings, and other forms of requires a commitment to long-term planning and management communication. The coordination with stakeholders and the that facilitates adaptation and adjustment in light of changing diversity of organizations and individuals represented in the ecological, social, and economic factors,” (CSG, undated). basin will be considerably more difficult. Some coordination will naturally occur as stakeholders are drawn into watershed Implementation is generally defined as the action phase of a projects of all types. However, it is not clear how this planning process. Implementation involves identifying tools, coordination process will work with the broader list of securing financial and human resources, assigning organizations and stakeholders present in the basin. These responsibility, and finally taking action to achieve desired relationships and coordination mechanisms, while they are management objectives. Successful long-term implementation explored to a degree in Figure 12.1, will be explained in detail efforts also embody components that focus on monitoring, in the IWP. evaluation, and adaptive management (CSG, undated). These supporting components are briefly discussed in the following sections. 12.6 The Implementation Process 12.7 Monitoring As discussed previously, a central coordinating group will be responsible for providing oversight and guidance during plan Monitoring is used to set priorities, to identify changing implementation. This oversight role involves setting priorities, environmental conditions, and to identify the rate and nature of listening to the public, receiving and acting on reports from ad- changing conditions. Monitoring takes many forms, including: hoc or established committees, and developing approaches or strategies to address watershed specific or basin-wide issues. • Surface water monitoring including, flow volume, What also must be recognized is that decisions to implement biological indicators, temperature, nutrients, turbidity, projects are multi-faceted. Projects may not be implemented as well as other indicators of surface water quality
based solely on their priority within the basin plan. Other • Ground water monitoring, including water levels and factors, such as statutory or legal obligations, funding contaminants
availability, local readiness, and leadership play equally • Monitoring for specific pollutants on the Impaired important roles. waters or 303(d) list
• Fish and wildlife health
186 • Extent and distribution of exotic species information, legislative or administrative directives, and
• Permit compliance (stormwater and point sources) windows of program opportunity.
• Changes in human populations Budgets change and “hot button” issues get more funding from • Land use changes time to time. Every now and then, incentives from federal and • Water appropriation state programs provide opportunities to solve an issue even
• Permit issuance though it may be lower on the priority scale of the basin plan.
• Monitoring of program goals, objectives, and strategies Conversely, falling budgets may curtail or terminate programs
already in place. In these situations, creative partnerships are
necessary to find alternative methods and assistance to promote 12.8 Evaluation programs and to solve issues that would otherwise fall by the way-side. Evaluation is not only critical as a tool in the early stages of the planning process, but is critical as a feedback mechanism to New information can, and should, change the course of action. determine incremental progress. Pre and post evaluation is Monitoring efforts provide information on new issues and on used to provide benchmarks to evaluate progress toward the effectiveness of efforts in progress. New and evolving specified goals or objectives. Mid-course evaluations provide research needs to be acknowledged, and where appropriate, early opportunities to alter projects that are not yielding the incorporated into plan updates and implementation strategies. desired results. “Monitoring during and after the restoration is one way to detect problems before they become prohibitively New directives are a facet of any program. New directives complex or expensive to correct,” (CSG, undated). influence government from municipalities to federal agencies. From new zoning initiatives to the federal court’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act, these directives often influence 12.9 Adaptation program direction. Sometimes these directives are accompanied by funding, but often times they are not Adaptive management is a key aspect of plan implementation. accompanied by the requisite funding. Shifts in directives will Adaptive management acknowledges the uncertainty in plan typically result in some change in direction or adaptation in implementation. It is a collective understanding by participants plan implementation. to adjust direction as new information arises and to accept experimentation as a way to improve successful plan Opportunities come in a variety of forms. For instance, being implementation. Adaptive management needs to account for aware of grant program priorities and cycles provides an changes in budgets, project results, new sources of opportunity to match grant proposals with key plan priorities. Likewise, opportunities to comment on management plans,
187 permits, and licenses, provide opportunities to influence The implementation of the basin plan has and will continue to specific projects and the broader public policy questions. occur simultaneously with the development of the Lake Superior Basin IWP. Individuals and organizations make Finally, the implementation of the basin plan is a case study in decisions everyday that impact the water resources within the adaptive management. The process will be evolving and Lake Superior Basin. Hopefully, the information and broad adapting throughout its five year plan cycle and subsequent outlines in the plan provide guidance to connect these updates. This flexibility serves the process well and provides a individual decisions to the overall management and protection road map for future efforts that attempt to improve upon or of water resources in the Lake Superior Basin. Once the IWP further earlier efforts to restore and protect water resources. is completed, specific campaigns may be undertaken to address urgent or key priorities. These campaigns may be modeled after the implementation plans used in the Lower Mississippi 12.10 Next Steps River Basin or elsewhere in Minnesota (see Appendix A).
The finalization of the Lake Superior Basin is the culmination of a number of years of effort on the part of a dedicated group of public servants. While this document is printed in final form, it must be recognized that the process of managing the basin will never be finished. Therefore, the plan will always be a “work in progress.”
There are several key implementation steps which have been alluded to, or mentioned, in this section of the plan. One key activity is the development of a survey to characterize the current state of knowledge relative to the recommendations and action steps in Chapter Three. This survey will be developed and completed by July 2004. This survey will serve as the foundation for the IWP, which will be completed by September 2004. The survey and IWP will be posted to the Lake Superior Basin web site within a month of these completion dates.
• http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/superior/lsbasi n/index.html
188 Appendix A - Implementation Example
Landscape Buffer Initiative
Lower Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota
This draft implementation plan was outlined for the Lower Mississippi River Basin. This model is similar to the proposals that will be developed from the Lake Superior Basin document in response to the projected goals and objectives outlined in Chapter Three.
Summary A locally led group called the Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota (BALMM) has developed a Landscape Buffer Initiative. This initiative is part of a comprehensive basin plan to protect and restore the region’s surface water and groundwater resources. The initiative calls for the placement of multifunctional vegetated buffers in four types of strategic locations on the landscape to reduce runoff, soil erosion and water contamination while providing high quality wildlife habitat and abatement of peak stream flows:
Highly Erodible Land – Resource Assessment --214,000 acres Acreage Goal --40,230 Allocate 40,000 acres for contour buffers and critical area seedings to protect the region’s most erosive fields and sensitive cold-water trout streams and increase wildlife habitat, mainly in karst topography to the east.
Riparian Zones – Resource Assessment --160,000 acres Acreage Goal --25,000 Allocate 25,000 acres to provide critically needed protection against stream sedimentation and fecal coliform bacteria, mainly in the headwaters region to the west.
Wetland Restoration Sites
Resource Assessment --100,000 acres Acreage Goal --20,000
Allocate 20,000 acres to restore the functions and values of wetlands, and reduce peak stream flows.
Groundwater Protection Zones Resource Assessment --37,600 acres Acreage Goal --10,500 Allocate 10,500 acres to provide protection around sinkholes, in wellhead protection areas, and in focused recharge zones, mainly in karst topography.
189 The BALMM Buffer Initiative subcommittee will provide ongoing direction and support for the project. It is hoped that the RIM Reserve Program can be combined with the Conservation Reserve Program to provide payments for permanent easements. Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, supported by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Natural Resources, Board of Water and Soil Resources, and others, will lead the implementation of the initiative. Significant additional technical assistance will be required to implement the Initiative within a three to five year period.
Land Use, Water Quality and the Landscape Buffer Initiative
The Lower Mississippi River Basin in southeastern Minnesota includes all or part of 17 counties covering 7,266 square miles (4,650,100 acres) of land. Lakes are relatively scarce, but rivers are abundant, with 11,000 stream miles draining surface and groundwater to the Mississippi River. Of these, 736 miles have sufficiently cold and clear water to be designated as trout streams by the Department of Natural Resources.
Beautiful bluffs, springs, caves and trout streams abound in the eastern basin, where steep topography and erosive soils increase the potential for pollutant runoff and sedimentation of streams. Thousands of sinkholes and scores of disappearing streams highlight the close connection between surface water and groundwater. The presence of fractured limestone bedrock lying close below the surface presents a widespread risk of groundwater contamination, especially where recharge is focused in narrow zones along geological formations.
In the southwestern part of the basin, Mississippi tributaries emerge as small streams out of a prairie landscape once rich in wetlands, now extensively drained to support a productive agriculture. Further to the north, in the western Cannon River Watershed, remnants of the Big Woods hardwood forest intermingle with mixed crop and livestock farming in a rolling terrain interspersed with lakes and wetlands.
Water quality data from the past three decades show both positive and negative trends. On the positive side, concentrations of un- ionized ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand and total phosphorus are trending downwards. On the negative side, concentrations of nitrate nitrogen show a steady increase, and concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria and total suspended solids often exceed water quality standards. Shallow groundwater in karst topography often shows high concentrations of nitrates and fecal coliform bacteria.
190 Relatively diverse land use combined with steep stream gradients and cold groundwater supplies for base flow create a relatively high potential for stream water quality. Gains in soil conservation practices in recent decades have helped to reverse some of the adverse effects of highly erosive land use practices, especially in the steep terrain of the blufflands. However, dramatic shifts in agricultural land use away from perennial vegetation (hay and pasture) in favor of row crops is reducing landscape diversity and threatening to increase soil erosion, stream sedimentation, and nitrate leaching to groundwater. According to the National Resources Inventory conducted by the USDA, perennial vegetation as measured by two land use categories – pasture and noncultivated cropland – declined by 180,000 acres, or 28 percent, from 1982 to 1997. During about the same period, the percentage of cropland occupied by corn and soybeans increased from 64 percent in 1974 to 80 percent in 1999 in the nine-county area of Southeastern Minnesota, according to Minnesota Department of Agriculture statistics. A particularly worrisome trend is the replacement of alfalfa with soybeans on steeply sloping fields once protected by contour strip farming of hay and corn.
Increasing perennial vegetation by 200,000 acres is an important land use goal that BALMM has established to address environmental concerns associated with these trends. Strategies to achieve this goal include: 1) promotion of cattle production, especially rotational livestock grazing; 2) changing the federal farm program to provide support for hay along with current program crops; 3) improved forest land management; and 4) the strategic use of vegetated landscape buffers.
The BALMM Landscape Buffer Initiative takes a targeted, strategic approach to encouraging conversion of cropland to perennial vegetation. It identifies four types of locations on the landscape where perennial vegetation can provide maximum benefits. These include contour strips on steeply sloping fields, riparian strips bordering cropland; focused groundwater recharge areas; and wetlands converted to cropland. The BALMM strategy also calls for incentives that help to integrate buffer strips with complementary conservation practices for maximum effectiveness. These include bonus payments to farmers who agree to:
1) maintain a buffer width of 100 feet to maximize wildlife benefits; 2) ensure that cropland adjacent to or upslope of the buffer maintains a rotation average of 30 percent crop residue cover or receives equivalent erosion control from alternative measures; 3) maintain a riparian buffer around fields designated for manure application.
Flexibility: Ideally, the buffer initiative should be sufficiently flexible to allow limited grazing as well as rotation of buffered acreage on contour strips to meet farmers’ soil management needs. Also, flexibility to allocate acreage among eligible practices, and among different counties and regions, in response to landowner interest, is needed to make the initiative responsive to farmers’ needs and local government priorities.
191 Acreage Needs Assessment
Four broad types of landscape buffers are needed to address environmental concerns in the Lower Mississippi River Basin. Estimates of acreage needs for each of these types of buffers are provided below:
Highly Erodible Land: Resource Assessment --210,000 acres Acreage Goal -- 40,000 acres Critical Area Seedings and Contour Buffer Strips on steep, erosion-prone land where row crops are raised and hay acreage is not sufficient to provide effective strip cropping. Soil erosion in this area threatens to degrade soil productivity and harm water quality, especially by causing sediment embededness in cold-water streams with the potential to support trout. This acreage is predominantly in the eastern basin in karst topography, although all counties include significant acreage of such land. Land use analysis using the Universal Soil Loss Equation shows the following need to achieve the BALMM goal of T soil loss on highly erodible land in the basin. This is based on a combination of critical area seeding and hardwood forest establishment on 25 percent of farmland that is eroding at 4T or greater, plus the use of contour buffer strips in conjunction with conservation tillage on additional highly erodible land, as shown in the table below:
Erosion Rate Acres of Highly Acres in Critical Area Contour Buffer Acreage Erodible Land Seeding and Needed to Reach T Hardwood Forest Greater than 4T 60,000 15,000 6,750 (15% of field on 45,000 acres HEL) From 2T to 4T 150,000 18,000 (12% of field) Total 210,000 15,000 24,750
Riparian Buffer Strips. Resource Assessment --110,000 acres Acreage Goal -- 25,000 acres The water quality benefits provided by riparian buffer strips range from erosion control and pollutant filtering to streambank stabilization and improved habitat for stream biota and wildlife. Land cover analysis using GIS and satellite imagery indicates that tributaries in the western basin are the least protected with vegetated buffers (see table below). Most have well under half of riparian acreage in perennial vegetation. Streams in the region are moderately impaired by turbidity (or suspended solids) and fecal coliform bacteria. For counties with primarily karst topography, a relatively high percentage of riparian acreage is vegetated. However, some of the vegetated acreage is pastureland that may be eroding at high rates. In addition, the upper reaches of tributaries in this region sometimes have low percentages of riparian land in permanent vegetation. Thus, riparian
192 buffers in the eastern basin also can provide important benefits. Basinwide, if implemented along with conservation practices in the upland and riparian zones, as called for in the BALMM basin plan scoping document, riparian buffer strips can go a long way toward meeting water quality standards and providing broad ecological benefits to the region.
Land Cover within 100 Feet of Streams County Percent Row Crop Percent Vegetated Other Dodge 54 37 9 Fillmore 27 62 11 Freeborn 63 28 9 Goodhue 38 50 12 Houston 15 73 12 Mower 60 32 8 Olmsted 36 50 14 Rice 53 36 11 Steele 50 40 10 Wabasha 24 63 13 Winona 16 74 10
Percent of land within 100 feet of streams that is in row crops, vegetated, or other land uses. Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
To achieve the target of 50% vegetated land use in the 100 foot (either side) riparian zone in the western basin, and meet the need for improved riparian vegetation management in karst topography, will require an estimated 25,000 additional acres of permanent riparian vegetation, basinwide.
Wetland Restoration: Resource Assessment – 100,000 acres Acreage Goal -- 20,000 acres The drainage, cultivation and development of land have combined to greatly increase the speed of runoff and the peak flows of streams following significant snow melt and rainfall events, as well as greatly reducing wildlife habitat provided by wetlands. The restoration of wetlands in strategic locations can begin to reverse these adverse effects. Opportunities for wetland restoration are greatest in the headwaters region in the western basin, while more limited opportunities exist in the river valleys and elsewhere in the karst region. In Mower and Steele, the SWCD’s estimate 18,000 acres could be restored based on NWI maps and soils information. Multiply that by the five western counties and add acres for the eastern part of the basin, the
193 resource need is 100,000 acres. It is proposed that 18,000 acres be targeted for wetland restoration in the headwaters region. The NRCS will be requested to evaluate how wetland restoration can be targeted in this region to maximize reductions in peak stream flows on the Cedar, Root, Zumbro, Cannon and Vermillion Rivers, in addition to Spring Valley Creek and other streams with severe flooding problems. An additional 2,000 acres are needed for wetland restoration elsewhere in the basin.
Buffers for Groundwater Protection. Resource Assessment -- 37,500 acres Acreage Goal --10,500 acres Vegetated buffers can offer significant protection of drinking water supplies, especially in karstic areas of the basin with a high potential for groundwater contamination. The following three types of locations have been selected for special focus:
Sinkhole Protection – An estimated 1,500 acres are needed, based on a 0.25 acre buffer around a total of 5990 sinkholes on farmland.
Focused Recharge Zone at Decorah Shale outcroppings. This zone occurs throughout karst topography. Olmsted County has worked to identify, map and explore biological filtering alternatives for this recharge zone for several years. Estimated acreage of cropland within this zone in Olmsted County alone is 16,000 acres. Our goal basinwide would be to secure half of this amount for permanent easements with perennial vegetation, or 8,000 acres.
Wellhead Protection Areas – Department of Health estimates 20,000 acres of cropland are a part of wellhead protection areas in the basin. One thousand would be the acreage goal that could provide protection to drinking water within wellhead protection areas that include agricultural land.
194 Appendix B - Watershed Assessment Guidance
East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol for Forest Plan Amendment, Revision, and Implementation
December 2000
The Eastern regions of the USDA Forest Service have jointly developed the East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol (EWAP), which is a rapid characterization of landscape information based on 5th level watersheds and is designed to enhance Forest Plan decisions.
1. Purpose of this Protocol
Τhe Forest Service is directed to: 6
• “Recognize watersheds in assessment and planning” 2
• “Use a consistent and scientific approach… to assess… watersheds” 7
• “Use the results of watershed assessments results to guide planning and management activities”
• “Make maintenance and restoration of watershed health an overriding priority for future forest plans and provide measures for monitoring progress.” 8
The East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol (EWAP) has been adopted to meet these expectations and the following requirements of regulations pursuant to the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Region Eight (R8) and Region Nine (R9) have previously issued guidance related these expectations (R8 1900/2500/2600 August 11, 1998, and 1920 January 14, 2000; R9 1920/2500/2600 April 19 and May 18, 2000, letters):
• "The responsible official has the discretion to determine… (ii) Opportunities for the national forests and grasslands to contribute to the restoration or maintenance of ecological sustainability, including maintenance or restoration of watershed function, such as water flow regimes to benefit aquatic resources, groundwater recharge, municipal water supply, or other uses, and maintaining or restoring ecological conditions needed for ecosystem and species diversity” (219.4(b)).
6
COSR 1999. Committee of Scientists Reports, National Forest Management Act. 2
UFP 2000. Unified Federal policy for Ensuring a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management Planning FR 65(202):62566-62577 7
UFP 2000.. 8
USDA-Forest Service Natural Resources Agenda
195
• "To begin the revision process, the responsible official must… (6) Identify specific watersheds in need of protective or
restoration measures” (219.9(b)).
2. East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol and the Relationship to Other Watershed Analysis Protocols
The East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol (EWAP) is a rapid characterization of landscape information based on 5th level watershed (40,000 to 250,000 acres) land units. The initial protocol was developed in R8 during 1999 and evolved through application across a diversity of ecological provinces of the eastern United States. The EWAP establishes watershed health by describing natural and human-caused parameters that reflect watershed condition and vulnerability.
Condition quantifies watershed disturbances (stressors). Vulnerability denotes values at risk that could be changed (positive or negative) as a result of Forest Service management activities. For example, as the number of dams and road crossings (condition parameters) increase, there is an increased risk for adversely affecting aquatic fauna (vulnerability parameters). Watersheds with poor condition and high vulnerability have less integrity relative to those with better condition and lower vulnerability.
The EWAP is designed to enhance Forest Plan decisions. It emulates Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS, Regional Ecosystem Office, 1995), Hydrologic Condition Analysis (HCA, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 1998), and the Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997).
Watershed assessments and analyses are an ecosystem inventory and monitoring activity (NFIM; EM-AS-WA). The EWAP approximates the six-step HCA (similar steps in EAWS). The main HCA steps and corresponding EWAP solutions are:
Hydrologic Condition Analysis (HCA) East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol (EWAP)
1. Characterize a watershed Identify multiple 5th level watersheds that contain NFS lands. Select supplemental parameters that are truly influential across all the watersheds and add to core parameters. Gather pertinent data for all watersheds. 2. Rate factors (qualitative weight) All parameters weighted equally. 3. Select important factors by watershed Core parameters are applied to all watersheds. 4. Establish current levels Current levels are established for all watersheds. This allows for comparison among watersheds. 5. Establish reference levels Reference is established based on a range of conditions among all watersheds. 6. Identify changes and interpret results Portray watershed condition and vulnerabilities and provide objective interpretation of results. Summarize salient points that describe health of all the watersheds.
196
Watershed assessments that are produced by the EWAP differ from HCA, as follows:
1. The EWAP uses existing data for the primary purpose of producing results for forest plan revision and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses, whereas HCA and EAWS may collect site specific information for implementation of forest plans and related project NEPA analyses;
2. The EWAP provides information to help address national, Regional, and forest watershed health issues;
3. The EWAP includes a strong biodiversity component; th
4. The EWAP considers multiple 5 level watersheds that are assessed at the same point in time;
5. Watershed conditions (stressors) and vulnerability (risks) factors are characterized and the results enable interpretation of relative health and integrity of watersheds and cumulative watershed impacts;
6. Reference levels are relative to the existing conditions amongst the population of watersheds being ranked; they are not
inferred;
7. Results, since they are available for all watersheds and are factual and verifiable, may serve as a foundation for agreeing to watershed priorities that are required by the Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management; and
8. Subjectivity is excluded through the use of data and rankings versus the use of value class assignment and opinion ratings (HCA steps 2, 3, and 6).
The East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol, which is intended for use on 5th level watersheds, is at a finer scale than the IWI, which is applied to 4th level watersheds that are generally larger than 500 thousand acres. Like the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) IWI, the EWAP aggregates watershed attributes into conditions and vulnerabilities groups, however, the EWAP includes more factors that may be used at a finer scale than does the IWI. Some factors that the EPA uses as vulnerabilities are treated as conditions by the EWAP. This is due to a difference in definition for condition and vulnerability between the two processes. For example, the EWAP rates dams as conditions, and not vulnerabilities per the IWI, due to the fragmentation and alteration of flow that dams cause. The EWAP places water quality impairment (EPA 305(b) or 303(d)) waters into a vulnerability category because of the dominance of social values in setting water quality standards and the foundation of such standards in the assignment of impairment. The effect of using factors differently (in some cases) than they are used in the IWI does not affect the generalizations reached in the utility of either the IWI or the EWAP.
The direct application of watershed integrity rankings to forest plan analyses and decisions and their use for establishing watershed maintenance and restoration priorities makes the EWAP a powerful and important tool for ecosystem management.
197
3. Direction For East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol
Background and Scope
The protocol for this assessment originated in the Southern Region (R8) as a process for characterizing landscape information for Forest Plan revision. The protocol, as described in Watershed Analysis: Integration into the Forest Planning Process, 1999, was used by seven National Forests in R8 with the release of their reports in 2000. During 2000, the protocol was introduced into the Eastern Region (R9), slightly refined, and then utilized by seven National Forests in that Region. The development of this version of EWAP was a product of a joint effort by R8 and R9 and includes refinements to the protocol that were suggested by the participating Forests in both Regions. Participants in developing the EWAP were Jack Holcomb, Alan Clingenpeel, Ray Albright, and Kevin Leftwich of R8, and Harry Parrott and Ruth Ann Trudell of R9.
The protocol presented in this document should be followed on all National Forests in R8 and R9. The watershed assessment reports generated from the 1999 and 2000 versions are sufficient for Forest Plan revision; however, there is some benefit in deriving the new parameters as supplemental information.
Objectives
This project provides an assessment of watershed health or condition for the 5th level watersheds (40,000 to 250,000 acres) that contain National Forest System (NFS) lands. This assessment allows a comparison of watershed condition and watershed vulnerability among these watersheds. From this assessment the Forest Planning Teams can:
• Incorporate watershed assessment into the Forest Plan revision process;
• Discuss desired future conditions at the watershed scale;
• Allow a discussion of effects of forest management activities at the watershed level;
• Prioritize watershed maintenance and restoration needs;
• Develop watershed-based riparian management direction;
• Recommend alternative management that emphasizes watershed health; and
• Prioritize where subsequent finer detailed watershed analysis should occur at the next lower scale.
A goal for watershed management in the East is to “save the best and restore the rest” where feasible. This assessment provides a basis for establishing management strategies that will help achieve this goal.
198
Overview of the Process
The EWAP is a rapid characterization of 5th level Hydrologic Units that are termed watersheds in this document. The assessment process follows a logical sequence that provides the basis for describing the existing conditions within a watershed in an objective and credible format:
A. Develop set of watershed parameters based on core set and any supplemental parameters; B. Assemble pertinent data (appropriate Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages, aquatic information, etc.); C. Build database of information for each watershed based on a set of parameters already developed; D. Rank the parameter values among watersheds; E. Summarize ranks to derive condition and vulnerability scores per watershed; and F. Compile results (graphics, data, ranks) into an assessment report.
The assessment process can typically be completed for a Forest within three months. This time period is based on a two-person team working approximately 20 days per person on the project. A central project team is required to develop core databases (approximately 15 days per Forest).
Information from EWAP can be used in the Forest Plan to describe the existing condition and to craft the desired condition. Watersheds of concern should be identified in the “Analysis of the Management Situation” and further tracked through the Forest Plan document. The condition and vulnerability of all the watersheds should be discussed in the effects analysis of the Forest Plan. The results from EWAP may be used to identify relative cumulative impacts as well as identify parameters that control watershed condition and parameters that are most vulnerable within the watershed.
A. Watershed Parameters
The EWAP characterizations are based on parameters that describe the existing physical and ecological conditions within a watershed as well as the parameters that are susceptible to change as a result of Forest Service management activities. These parameters are divided into core and supplemental sets.
Core parameters are mandatory for the process and are arranged into two groups: condition and vulnerability. Condition quantifies watershed disturbances (stressors). Vulnerability denotes values at risk that could be changed (positive or negative) as a result of Forest Service management activities. Watersheds with poor condition and high vulnerability are considered to have less integrity relative to those with better condition and lower vulnerability.
199
The base data layers shown in Table 1 are required for data analysis (except for mine sites and mussels) and included in the reports. These layers are not to be included in the ranking step. Forests may supplement this list of base layers with other parameters that are influential across watersheds and meet the data requirements listed in Step B. Definitions for the parameters are contained in Step C discussion.
Table 1. Base Data LayerS for East-Wide Watershed Assessment PROTOCOL
Category Watershed Parameter Units Expressed Data Source Base Data National Forest Ownership % Forest Derived Forested land use (excluding water area) % EPA - Basins data Layers RCRIS Sites Number EPA - Basins data Superfund, CERCLA Sites Number EPA - Basins data Permit Compliance System Number EPA - Basins data Industrial Facilities Discharge Number EPA - Basins data Mine Sites (Optional) Number EPA - Basins data Mines Land Use % EPA - Basins data Urban and Industry Land Use % EPA - Basins data Agriculture Land Use % EPA - Basins data Stream and Shoreline Density % EPA – Basins data Total Fish Species Number Forest Derived Endemic and/or Native Fish Species Number Forest Derived Total Mussel Species (Optional)** Number Forest Derived Endemic and/or Native Mussel Species (Optional)** Number Forest Derived Hydrologic Modifier Group: Sum of Road Density Rank + Dam Rank Index ^ Other Ranks State Priority Watersheds (Optional)** Category State CWAP report ** New parameter to both R8 & R9 assessment versions. ^ Refer to Table 3 for how this index is derived.
200
Table 2 shows the condition parameters and vulnerability parameters. These layers are to be included in the ranking step. Forests may choose to supplement the 17 core parameters with those shown to be optional. Definitions for the parameters are contained in Step C discussion.
Tables 1 and 2 show some parameters that are listed as optional. Forests may elect to use the parameters if it is determined that the parameter has meaning to the assessment. For example, a Forest may decide to include mine sites as a parameter in the point source group if a preponderance of the mine sites lie within close proximity to a stream. Conversely, if the mines are represented by a scattering of sites, well-isolated from riparian areas or waterbodies, then a Forest may elect to not use the data. Lakes and wetlands are optional since the extent and relevance of these parameters vary greatly across physiographic regions. Forests should consider whether the surface area of lakes and/or wetlands are present within the watersheds or carry significance in the assessment process. Note that Forests must choose to use either a ratio of the native fish species to total fish species and /or endemic fish species to total fish species, dependant upon the availability and completeness of the data.
201
Table 2. Condition and Vulnerability Parameters for East-Wide Watershed Assessment Protocol
Category Watershed Parameter Rank = 1^ Data Source
Condition Recreation Pressure Highest Priority Forest Derived Forest Change Detection Highest Percentage Central Project Team Population Density Highest Density US Census Data Population Density Change Percent Highest US Census Data Number Stream Crossings** Highest Number EPA-Basins data Road Density (exclude water area)* Highest Number Tiger Census data Dams/Diversions Highest Number EPA-Basins data Non-point Source Group excluding Forestry: Agriculture + Urban + Highest Percentage Sum of percentages Strip Mine Land Percent** Point Source Group: RCRIS + CERCLA+ PCS + IFD + Mines Highest Number Sum of point sources (mines are optional)* Vulnerability Percent of riparian areas* Lowest Percentage** EPA-Basins data Erodible Soils* Highest Percentage EPA-Basins data Percent of Watershed in Lakes*(optional) Highest Percentage EPA-Basins data Percent of Watershed in Wetlands*(optional) Highest Percentage EPA-Basins data Aquatic PETS Species Highest Number Forest Derived State Impaired Waters Highest Number Forest Derived Outstanding Resource Waters Highest Percent* Forest Derived Municipal Water Supply Highest Number EPA-Basins data and/or State data Endemic Mussels/ Total Species**(optional) Highest number Forest Derived Native Mussels/Total Species**(optional) Lowest Number Forest Derived Native Fish Species/Total Fish Species* Lowest Number – either native, Forest Derived endemic or both may be used Endemic Fish Species/Total Fish Species Highest Number – either native, Forest Derived endemic or both may be used ^ Rank = 1 applies to ranking order among watersheds * New parameter to R8 assessment version. ** New parameter to both R8 & R9 assessment versions
202
B. Data Requirements
Data used for the assessment should meet the following guidelines to ensure uniformity and replication of the process:
1. Data resolution will be at Forest Planning scale (usually 1:100,000). Finer resolution may be used if the data are available for all the watersheds. th
2. Watershed boundaries follow the 5 level Hydrologic Units as defined by the NRCS/ Multi-agency Map. The Forest may choose to redefine some Hydrologic Unit boundaries as long as the watershed retained the 5th level size (40,000 to 250,000 acres). Watersheds where NFS land was inconsequential (e.g., less than 1% of the watershed) may be dropped from the assessment.
3. The data must include all (including non-Forest Service) lands within the watershed. Data sources are listed in Tables 1 and 2.
C. Database of Information
A data file must be developed that includes the values (percentages, densities, or numbers) for each parameter by watershed. This step will require extensive GIS data manipulation, as well as gleaning data for some aquatic parameters from paper sources (e.g., state lists, books, electro shocking data sheets). See Tables 1 and 2 for data sources.
As part of the process record it is critical that Forests document all data sources. Data assumptions should be documented as well. In order to rank the parameters, the data must be expressed as a number or percentage. The following Tables 3 and 4 describe how the individual parameters are derived.
203
Table 3. Derivation of Data for Base Data Layers
Category Watershed Parameter Derivation Base Data National Forest Ownership Percent of national forest ownership within the watershed (actual ownership) layers Forested Land Use Percent of forested land use within the watershed (excluding water area) RCRIS Sites Number of RCRIS sites found in the watershed Superfund, CERCLA Sites Number of superfund sites found in the watershed Permit Compliance System Number of permits found in the watershed for PCS Discharges Industrial Facilities Discharge Number of permits found in the watershed for IFDs Mine Sites (Optional) Number of mines found in the watershed Mines Land Use Percent of mine land use class within the watershed Urban and Industry Land Use Percent of urban, commercial, and industrial area within the watershed (excluding water area) Agriculture Land Use Percent of agriculture area within the watershed (excluding water area) Stream and Shoreline Density Length of stream and shoreline (grids in spatial analyst) to watershed area, including water area Total Fish Species Number of fish species found in watershed Endemic and/or Native Fish Number of endemic or native species / watershed Species Total Mussel Species Number of mussel species found in watershed (Optional) Endemic and/or Native Mussel Number of endemic or native species / watershed Species (Optional) Hydrologic Modifier Group: Add the rankings for dams and road density for each watershed State Priority Watersheds Taken from State Clean Water Action Plan priority categories
204
Table 4. Derivation of Data for Condition and Vulnerability Parameters
Category Watershed Parameter Derivation
Condition Recreation Pressure Index based on recreation pressure table Forest Change Detection Percent of forest vegetation unchanged between 1984 and 1994 Population Density 1990 Census data found in EPA – Basins data Population Density Change Percent change in population density from 1990 to 1996 – data found in EPA – Basins data Percent Number Stream Crossings Number of road segments that intersect streams and shorelines Road Density Length of roads (grids in spatial analyst) to watershed area, excluding water area Dams/Diversions Number of dams found in the watershed Non-point Source Group Sum of percentage of agriculture, urban, commercial, industrial land use, and mining within Excluding Forestry: each watershed (exclude water area) Point Source Group: Summation of the point sources within the watershed (exclude water area) Vulnerability Percent of Riparian Areas Summation of forested and wetlands along streams and shorelines Erodible Soils Percent of area with a k factor times the square root of maximum slope range that exceeds a threshold value - See discussion in text Percent of Watershed in Percentage of water surface within watershed based on land use data Lakes (Optional) Percent of Watershed in Percent wetlands within watershed based on land use data Wetlands (Optional) Aquatic PETS Species Number of aquatic protected, endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant and animal species in the watershed State Impaired Waters Length of impaired streams (grids in spatial analyst) divided by total stream network in watershed Outstanding Resource Length of ORW streams (grids in spatial analyst) divided by total stream network Waters Water Supply Watersheds Number of drinking water sources found in the watershed and Other Source Areas
205
Stream network data are available in GIS format from EPA RF3 stream reach data, which is at a scale of 1:100,000. Another source of stream network data may be used if the data are at the same scale or finer, are comparable to RF3 data, and are available are for all the watersheds. The stream network data source should be clearly stated in the assessment report.
Calculations by spatial analyst are based on grids rather than arcs. Therefore, density values, such as road, are the number of grids with road segments divided by the total number of grids within the watershed. This number may be slightly different than the density derived by clipping the roads in within a watershed and dividing the total road length to watershed area. At the resolution of this assessment, the difference is not meaningful.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites refer to Superfund National Priority List sites or, simply, “superfund” sites. These are heavily contaminated, toxic areas that the EPA has listed for cleanup. RCRIS sites refer to Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System sites and are hazardous waste sites and solid waste sites (landfills). Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) are National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted discharge sites, meaning that the state allows the entity (i.e., paper mill or manufacturing plant) to release a low level of contaminated water. Together, these are all called point sources of pollution.
Aquatic PETS denotes the number of potentially endangered, threatened, and sensitive aquatic species. Native fish species are those fish that naturally occur within the watersheds of interest.
Land use information comes from the United States Geographical Service land cover data files called GIRAS. Vegetation change information comes from North American Landscape Characterization Landsat Multispectral Scanner Imagery. Vegetation change essentially represents the difference between vegetated and non-vegetated which was interpreted to mean changes between a forested and non-forested condition. Human population data information came from EPA BASINS census data.
Recreation pressure is derived from an index as shown below: Level of Use Developed Recreation Dispersed Recreation 6 High – Year round 6 Several large sites (possibly day use sites) 6 Extensive trail systems of all kinds, bootleg trails 5 High - Seasonal 5 Over 2 large sites or large state park 5 Several trails of all kinds 4 Moderate – Year round 4 1 or 2 sites (medium sized campground), and/or 4 No more than 2 systems of motorized and/or non- 1-2 local “hot spots” motorized trails 3 Moderate - Seasonal 3 1-2 medium sized sites, no hot spots 3 Either horse/bike trail (no motorized) 2 Low – Year round 2 1-2 small day use sites and/or 1-2 local hot spots 2 Hunting / hiking only, state wildlife mgt. area, wilderness 1 Low - Seasonal 1 Roads only 1 Hunting only Recreation Pressure Index = Sum of Level of Use + Developed Recreation + Dispersed Recreation
206
The erodible soils index was calculated as the percentage of watershed area with a soil erodibility factor (kf) multiplied by the square root of the maximum slope range that exceeded a threshold value. In R9, the threshold values were assigned according to ecological sections, and were assigned to be 0.75 for unit 212 and 1.20 for units 212M and 222. In R8, ecological differentiation was not considered and the threshold value was assumed to be 1.20. Foresters should consider selecting a threshold value based on ecological section (e.g., coastal plain). Slope and soil erodibility data were obtained from the USDA NRCS STATSGO coverage at a scale of 1:250,000. This resolution was used since there are no equivalent or better data at a finer resolution.
D. Rank the Parameter Values
A ranking scheme was developed that simply ordered the watersheds by parameter. Other ranking schemes were examined that weighted relative importance of each parameter and/or the level of response per parameter. These ranking schemes are usually very subjective or require arbitrary categorization of the data. The ranking scheme adopted for the EWAP was purposely kept simple and objective.
For each watershed parameter, the watersheds of interest were ranked from 1 to the total number of watersheds (n), based on the ranking order in Table 2. For example, if there are 28 watersheds of interest and road density is one of the watershed parameters, the watershed with the highest road density of the 28 would be ranked as 1, the second highest density as 2, and so on, until the watershed with the lowest road density received a rank of 28. In the case of multiple watersheds sharing the same value (i.e., three watersheds having a road density of 4.1), the rankings would be averaged and an adjusted ranking would be added to the spreadsheet.
Base layer parameters do not need to be ranked.
E. Summarizing the Ranks
Overall condition and vulnerability scores are obtained by summing the ranks of all condition parameters by watershed and vulnerability parameters by watershed respectively. The relationship between condition and vulnerability may be displayed by graphing the condition per watershed (x axis) and vulnerability per watershed (y axis). This is called a watershed assessment plot. The implied assumption is that as the summed scores increase, the watershed condition gets better and the vulnerability lessens.
The overall condition and vulnerability scores can be partitioned to illustrate groups of watersheds. This is accomplished by summing the overall condition and vulnerability scores for a total assessment score per watershed. The total assessment scores can then be sorted and divided into three groups, with the 1/3rd highest scores in the first group and 1/3rd lowest scores in the last group. Those
207
watersheds that fall in the first group can be considered to be in better watershed health than those watersheds in the last group. This grouping of watersheds can be displayed on the watershed assessment plot as well.
An example watershed assessment plot is shown below with three groups:
Watershed Assessment Plot F. The Assessment Report
300 This watershed assessment should not be regarded as a final assessment of the status of all the 250 watersheds, but rather, the EWAP should be 200 considered as an evaluation which points towards 150 the need for additional information or follow-up 100 surveys at a finer resolution. Further detailed
Vulnerability assessment could be done using HCA, EAWS, or a 50 combination of both. 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 The EWAP report should begin with a brief Condition introduction to the landscape setting, the objectives of the report, the parameters selected for the assessment, the data sources, a summary of the methodology used for the assessment, and a preface to the results section. Foresters should consult already completed reports for format examples; however, the format can be adjusted to reflect specific interests of the Forest. The results in the report should be presented in graphic and tabular form. The data values and adjusted ranks for each parameter and each watershed could be listed in an appendix. The majority of the report will be plots or figures that describe watershed condition and vulnerability. Whenever possible, the plots should portray actual value rather than ranks.
Accompanying each plot should be a brief narrative that describes the parameter and highlights the salient information. Most of the plots show the data divided into classes. These classes can be chosen according to natural breaks by the computer program (ARC/VIEW) that created the plots, or by Forest decision.
The report should conclude with a summary page that highlights the most important points derived from the assessment.
208
4. Application of the Assessment
A. Land and Resource Management Planning
Regional Foresters of the Southern and Eastern Regions have each provided guidance and expectations to Forests on watershed integration into land and resource management plans (R8 RO 1900/2500/2600 August 11, 1998, and January 14, 2000; R9 RO 1920/2500/2600 April 19 and May 18, 2000 letters). The intent of both Regions is to facilitate integration into Forest Plans recent national policies and regulations pursuant to the Forest Service Natural Resources Agenda and Strategic Plan, the Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management, and the National Forest Management Act. Watershed health and restoration, watershed assessment, identifying desired future watershed and riparian conditions, and a priority-watershed approach for allocating resources and achieving these conditions are the key elements of national direction. Regional guidance focused on landmarks and major watershed elements for implementing national direction.
The diagram on the following page illustrates the Eastern Region’s guidance.
The Southern Region has completed watershed and regional fauna assessments on southern Appalachian forests during 1999. Regional Forester Estill issued direction in January 2000 (1920) to integrate and display the results of these assessments into Forest Plan revisions. The data are to be the basis of identifying goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that are unique to individual watersheds. Watershed “conditions, capabilities, and vulnerabilities,” as characterized by assessments, will be pivotal in future direction for managing National Forest System lands of the Southern Region.
The East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol provides a consistent, scientific, and rapid characterization of watershed conditions for the purpose of enhancing Forest Plan decisions. Application of EWAP enables National Forests to efficiently obtain the following information for “analyses of the management situation” pursuant to the National Forest Management Act.
1. Characterize all watersheds with objective data;
2. This characterization includes, but is not limited to, identifying those watersheds that:
a. Have a high level of disturbance and those that do not (e.g., fragmentation of riparian corridors, hydrologic modification of watershed processes, increased pollutant loading and discharges);
b. Are most affected by Forest Service management and those in which effects are less;
c. Are biologically rich and those in which aquatic species are at risk; and
d. Have high water quality antidegradation standards and those where water uses have been impaired.
209 R9 Forest Plan Revision Landmarks: Major Watershed Elements And Direct East-wide Watershed Assessment Linkages
Forest Data: Watershed Conditions • Hydrologic Condition Analyses 1.1.1.A.1.1.5 In • Ecological units inventory v • TES & non-native aquatic species • Water supply, demand, & instream flow 1.1.1.A.1.1.3 • Implementation & effectiveness of S&Gs • State BMP audits
Sources of Information: • Unified Watershed Assessments • National Water Quality Assessment 1.1.1.A.1.2 Lands • State “305(b)” & “303(d)” reports • Tribal analyses • Restoration plans (e.g. Atlantic Salmon)
Elements: Analysis of • East-wide Watershed Assessments of watershed conditions and Management vulnerability Situation • Departures from Federal, State, Tribal, & local goals & objectives • Watershed restoration opportunities • Criteria for maintenance & restoration • Reference watershed & riparian areas • Standards & guidelines effectiveness
Watershed as Foundation of Stewardship: • Organic Act & Weeks Law • Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act • Resources Planning & National Forest Management Acts 111A1121 N • Natural Resources Agenda Not • Clean Water, Endangered Species, Coastal Zone Management Acts ice • Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Managing Federal Lands
Watershed: • Riparian ecological function & public value exceed spatial extent 1.1.1.A.1. • Opportunities to protect & restore • Criteria for priorities • Desired Future Conditions
Adjust Need for ****** They are all watershed alternatives ****** Change? **** Some do more watershed restoration ****
Watershed: • Describe affected environment 1.1.1.A.1.1.1 • May bound management area (MA) if goals, objectives, goods, & service depend on watershed-specific processes • Desired future conditions, prescription, standards & guidelines • Criteria for protection & restoration & near-term projects Final EIS & Draft EIS • Cumulative effects whether or not they are MA boundaries Plan and Plan • Inventory & monitoring
210 The following outlines the process for incorporating a watershed assessment into the Revised Forest Plans. Specific details regarding this process are available from the Regional Hydrologist, FS Regional Office in Atlanta.
Assumptions
1. This task will require the full participation and involvement of the Forest ID Team. It is critical to have all the resources involved to identify conditions and impacts with the potential to influence watershed conditions and riparian area management.
2. It is recommended to involve the Districts in the process to provide local information and data, and to gain ownership in using the 5th level watershed management direction.
3. There is a hierarchy of desired future conditions, goals, and standards:
Forest-wide
Management Area
Management Prescriptions
Depending on how the Forest assigned Management Areas, this may add an additional level to the hierarchy, or the hierarchy may collapse into three levels. In the development of watershed direction, desired future conditions, goals, and standards for some of the elements may be elevated to a higher level. Watershed
Follow this seven-step process for each 5th level watershed in the watershed assessment.
th
1. Review information on existing conditions by 5 level watershed. Sources of information include Forest Watershed Assessment Reports, R8 Aquatic Assessment Report, The Nature Conservancy’s Rivers of Life Report, any State or other local reports on watershed conditions, local information from Forest (SO, District) sources, and other publications. th
2. Summarize and document a general description of each 5 level watershed on the Forest. These descriptions will become a part of the process record and be used extensively in later steps, including the effects analysis. A summary of this description will also be included in the Revised Forest Plan. th
3. Identify opportunities to group 5 level watersheds where needed. Watersheds must be adjacent, be similar in conditions, and have similar management schemes. (NOTE: This is not a required step. Only group watersheds where it makes sense to do so.)
211
th
4. Develop desired future conditions for each for each 5 level watershed (or group of watersheds), and then develop the desired future conditions for the riparian areas within each 5th level watershed. th
5. Given the desired conditions, evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed Management Prescription allocations by 5 level watershed in terms of state designated beneficial uses, and compliance and compatibility with other regulatory requirements (e.g., Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (W&SR)). Identify any conflicts and if needed, make any appropriate changes in the Management Prescription allocations. th
6. Develop 5 level watershed specific and riparian area specific goals (where they are different from Forest-wide goals and objectives). th
7. Develop 5 level watershed specific and riparian area specific standards (where they are different from Forest-wide standards and guidelines). Also identify any 5th level watershed specific monitoring needs.
B. Applying the EWAP to Roads Analysis and Resource Management
Depending on scale, EWAP has application to other initiatives such as Roads Analysis. The EWAP is designed as a forest-wide assessment (the forest or watershed scales). Many of the Roads Analysis questions occur at the same scale. Using the data from EWAP provides the answers to many of the Roads Analysis questions at the forest-wide scale. At finer scales (project or ranger district), the EWAP can provide information that links the condition or vulnerability of an individual watershed to the project. In addition, the EWAP offers an added value by including non-Forest Service lands within the associated 5th level watersheds.
The table on page 17 shows how the EWAP has application to Road Analysis questions.
Overall, a great deal of information necessary for a Forest-wide Roads Analysis is collected for EWAP. In addition, the EWAP expands the Roads Analysis beyond Forest Service ownership and allows the team to address other concerns that may be found within the watershed.
The EWAP can aid in forest decisions and resource management. The results of EWAP can be tailored to provide information on local issues and at the level of detail that meets the needs of the forest. For example, a local issue may be development or expansion of a motorized trail. The results of EWAP offers a suite of existing conditions such as recreation pressure, non-point source pollution index, impaired waters, and condition of aquatic biota within the watershed from which to build the environmental analysis. The following are some examples of how EWAP can apply to forest resource management (for some items, base layers must be added that are issue-specific):
212
• Cumulative watershed effects for project planning
• Recreational hot spots of concentrated use that need restoration
• 10% trails and road projects
• Soils of concern on National Forest System (NFS) lands
• Riparian condition on NFS lands
• Linear disturbances (utility corridors, pipelines, etc) in the watershed
The EWAP is most effective when developed and interpreted in an interdisciplinary environment. The base layers can supplemented to reflect forest issues making the application of EWAP both forest wide and watershed specific.
Roads Analysis Questions Appropriate EWAP Layers E1 Ecological attributes Ecoregions and/or physiographic zones, Aquatic TES, Endemic fish and mussels E2 Exotics Introduced aquatic species, TES species, endemics E3 Control of insects Road crossings, dams, lakes E4 Ecological disturbances Streams, lakes, road crossings, dams, soils
AQ1 Modify hydrology Stream crossings, dams AQ2 Surface erosion Erosive soils, streams and roads AQ4 Stream crossings Stream crossings AQ6 Hydrologically connected Roads proximal to streams AQ7 Beneficial uses Impaired waters (305b), TES fish and mussels, endemics AQ8 Roads and wetlands Wetlands from land use and roads AQ10 Aquatic fauna movement restricted Road crossings, dams, and species list AQ11 Riparian communities Roads, Riparian health from land use AQ12 Fishing, poaching, and habitat loss Roads, lakes, roads proximal to streams, stream crossings, TES species AQ13 Non-native introduction Introduced species, road crossings AQ14 Exceptional diversity Fish and mussel richness, TES species
WP1 Impoundments Dams, Impaired and Outstanding Resource waters WP2 Municipal water conflicts Impaired and Outstanding Resource waters, Drinking water sources
PV1 TES species Aquatic TES, endemic fish and mussels
213 Appendix C - Data Dictionary
1. Watersheds 2. Public Ownership
1.1 Department of Natural Resources-Minnesota Watersheds, 2.1 Department of Natural Resources-GAP Stewardship 1999, Clipped to State Boundary. -Data generated by BRW, Inc. Date of source material -Data generated by the Minnesota Department of is from 1976-1998. The data set is based on the Natural Resources-Waters. Date of source material is Mathematically Divided Public Land Survey 1995. The data set consists of statewide minor (PLSDVNE2 layer) also known as the Land watershed delineations with major/minor watershed Management Information Center (PLSS-TRSQ). The identifiers and names for provinces, major watersheds, layer contains land ownership data for the state of and basins. The Land Management Information Center Minnesota at a 1:100,000 scale, with ownership or (LMIC) clipped the full DNR file to the state boundary, administration being more than 50 percent of a forty using a state boundary file from the Minnesota acre for land interest to be expressed. This data is Department of Transportation’s Basemap 1998 data set. primarily used to for a general analysis of ownership and administration information for each PLS quarter- 1.2 Land Management Information Center-Natural Resources quarter section. Conservation Service (NRCS) Watersheds. -Data compiled from the Department of Natural 3. Number of Dams Resources statewide minor watersheds file which is 3.1 Department of Natural Resources-National Dam updated regularly. Date of data is 1999. Inventory -Inventory was obtained from Mike Peloquin (MDNR) 1.3 Minnesota Department of Transportation-DOT Basemap and is up-to-date through the year 2001. This inventory Roads All Types. was then cross-referenced with the Environmental -Data generated by the Minnesota Department of Protection Agency’s National Dam Inventory. The Transportation Survey and Mapping. Date of data is EPA’s inventory was first developed by the U.S. Army 1998. The data set contains roadway centerlines for Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency roads on the USGS 1:24,000 mapping series. Data is Management Agency in 1996. current through the 1994 construction season for
interstates, trunk highways, and county/state aid 3.2 Environmental Protection Agency-Basins Data Set highways. -Data generated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, originally developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Date of source
214
material is 1998. Data set shows the age, number of 5.3 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Public people living downstream, location, size, reservoir Water Accesses capacity, owner and regulatory oversight agency for -Data generated by the Department of Natural dams. Includes some NRCS Dams. Data set was Resources. Data consists of a list of access points, boat developed to track dam related problem areas and to launches on lakes and rivers statewide. Date of data is support the U.S. EPA Better Assessment Science 2002. Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources System (BASINS). 6. Population Density by Hectare
6.1 U.S. Bureau of the Census 4. Road Density -Data generated by the Census Bureau. Data is in a flat 4.1 Environmental Protection Agency-DOT/FHA Major ASCII format. Date of data is 2000. Roads for CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii in BASINS -Data generated by the Environmental Protection 7. Population Density Agency Office of Water. Date of source material is 7.1 U.S. Bureau of the Census from 1992-1996. Data set shows the complete urban - Data generated by the Census Bureau. Data is in a flat principal arterial highway system and arterials in rural ASCII format. Date of data is 2000. areas that were reported to the FHWA by December 1992. The data is to the 1:100,000 DLG-3 data set, 8. Number of Stream Crossings
which maintains a nominal accuracy of at least 80 8.1 Environmental Protection Agency--Reach File 1-Basins meters. -Data generated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Date of data is the 1990s. Data consists of 5. Tourism/Recreation Pressure-# of Facilities intersection of roads layer with stream layer. The data
5.1 Department of Commerce consists of a simple count of the number of -Data source is the Accommodation Database. Date of intersections of culverts or bridges by watershed. data is 2002. 8.2 Department of Natural Resources-Minnesota Land Use
5.2 Lake Superior Counties and Cover: 1990s Census of the Land -Data generated by Aitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Lake, -Data generated by the Department of Natural Pine, and St. Louis counties. Data received in 2002. Resources. Date of source material is from 1987-1996, Data includes State Parks, camps, public water broken down for agricultural and transition areas from accesses, and camp grounds. 1989-1991, and for forested areas 1991-1996. Combination of urban land use, agricultural land use (including cultivated and hay pasture), and mining by
215
watershed. Only land uses in these categories are used. Database. Date of data is from 1996-2002. Feedlot This data set is a general overall view of Minnesota’s contacts were: Wayne Seidel - Conservation Specialist, land use/cover from six different source data sets, Bruce Grohn – GIS Specialist St. Louis County broken down to cover different parts of the state. The Planning Department, Steve Hughs – Aitkin Water data was collected and interpreted in thirty-meter grid Planner, Art Norton – Itasca County SWCD, Sam cells. The purpose of this data is for general statewide Martin – Pine County SWCD, and Angel Trettel – analysis. For more detailed data needs the users should Carlton County Planning and Zoning. go back to the original data sets. 10.2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-Leaking 9. Percent Land in Nonpoint Source Category Underground Storage Tanks Sites 9.1 Department of Natural Resources-Minnesota Land Use -Database providing site information where a petroleum and Cover: 1990s Census of the Land product leak has occurred from a storage tank and has -Data generated by the Department of Natural been reported to the MPCA. Data is current as of 2002. Resources. Date of source material is from 1987-1996, broken down for agricultural and transition areas from 10.3 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-Master Entity 1989-1991 and for forested areas 1991-1996. Database Combination of urban land use, agricultural land use -Data is compiled and updated by the MPCA. Data is (including cultivated and hay pasture), and mining by generated using a variety of methods (i.e. digitizing of watershed. Only land uses in these categories are used. quads, descriptions from people performing projects, This data set, of a general overall view of Minnesota’s other digital data layers, etc.). The data is continually land use/cover, is from six different source data sets, being updated. which cover different parts of the state. The data is broken down into thirty-meter grid cells. The purpose 10.4 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-National Pollutant of this data is for general statewide analysis. For more Discharge Elimination System Water Quality Permits detailed data needs the users should go back to the -A current database listing all permitted water quality original data sets. sites within the state. Up to date through 2002.
10. Number of Point Sources 11. Percent Riparian Areas in Protected Status 10.1 Feedlot county contacts 11.1 United States Geological Survey--GIRAS Land use -Land -County feedlot information was obtained for Cover Data (1980s) concentrated animal feeding operations that did not -Data collected by the United States Geological Survey meet the state criteria for registration. This information and generated into ARC/INFO coverage by the was then combined with the MPCA Master Entity Environmental Protection Agency. Date of source material is from 1977-early 1980’s. Data can be used
216
where intermediate scale land use data is suitable and broken down for agricultural and transition areas from dates are represented in any geographic application. A 1989-1991 and for forested areas 1991-1996. different representative date is applied to each Combination of urban land use, agricultural land use quadrangle of land use data, so when joined together (including cultivated and hay pasture), and mining by these quadrangles will not likely match along their watershed. Only land uses in these categories are used. edges because of the differences in time coverage. Data This data set is a general overall view of Minnesota’s is useful for water quality analysis, growth land use/cover from six different source data sets, management, and other environmental impact broken down to cover different parts of the state. The assessments of land use patterns. data was collected and interpreted in thirty-meter grid cells. The purpose of this data is for general statewide 12. Percent Wetland, Bog, Marsh analysis. For more detailed data needs the users should 12.1 Department of Natural Resources-Minnesota Land Use go back to the original data sets. and Cover: 1990s Census of the Land -Data generated by the Department of Natural 14. Percent Erodible Soils Resources. Date of source material is from 1987-1996, 14.1 Natural Resources Conservation Service-STATSGO broken down for agricultural and transition areas from Database 1989-1991 and for forested areas 1991-1996. -Data generated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture- Combination of urban land use, agricultural land use Natural Resources conservation Service. Date of (including cultivated and hay pasture), and mining by source material is 1994. Data consists of a broad watershed. Only land uses in these categories are used. description of soil and non-soil areas that occur This data set is a general overall view of Minnesota’s repeatedly in a landscape. It is used for regional, multi- land use/cover from six different source data sets, county, river basin, State, and multi-state resource broken down to cover different parts of the state. The planning, management, and monitoring. Data can be data was collected and interpreted in thirty-meter grid used as a reference source but not as a regulatory tool. cells. The purpose of this data is for general statewide analysis. For more detailed data needs the users should 15. Endangered Species-Number of Occurrences go back to the original data sets. 15.1 Department of Natural Resources-Natural Heritage Program Rare Natural Features 13. Percent Open Water -Data generated by the Department of Natural 13.1 Department of Natural Resources-Minnesota Land Use Resources, Division of Ecological Services. Date of and Cover: 1990s Census of the Land data starts in the 1800’s, but confidence in data -Data generated by the Department of Natural accuracy and completeness starts in 1987. This Resources. Date of source material is from 1987-1996, database is updated daily. The data is based on
217
Element Occurrence Records. Database contains rare 18.2 Fond du Lac Tribe-Section 302 Standards of Designated and endangered animal and plant species, and landscape Use features. -Data applies to the waters of the Fond du Lac Reservation that are Potential Outstanding Reservation 16. Exotic Species-Number of Occurrences Resource Waters. High Quality Waters include wild 16.1 Department of Natural Resources-Exotic Species rice areas and aesthetic waters. These waters can -Information obtained from Jay Rendall, who is the include a stream, reach, lake or impoundment. Date of coordinator of Exotic Species program for the data is 2000. Department of Natural Resources. Date of data is 2002.
17. Impaired Waters 18.3 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-Wild Rice Lakes 17.1 Pollution Control Agency-303 D List -Data generated by the Minnesota Pollution Control -Data generated by the MPCA. Date of data is 1998. Agency. Data obtained through the Minnesota Office of Data is based on ten years of monitoring for dissolved the Revisor of Statutes. Data is current as of 2000. oxygen, pH, turbidity, un-ionized ammonia, metals, fecal coliform, bacteria, and other parameters. A water 18.4 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-Designated Trout body is placed on this list if ten percent of samples Streams exceed standard over a ten year period. -Data compiled by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency from the Department of Natural Resources 17.2 Pollution Control Agency-305 B Report to Congress Commissioners order designating streams. Date of data -This data is submitted to the U.S. EPA. The date of is 2000. this data set is 1998, but is updated every two years. This data set can be used to identify impaired waters 19. Water Supplies-Private and Public and the pollutants that contaminate them. 19.1 Minnesota Department of Health-Public Water Supplies -Digitized location, can be both surface and ground 18. High Quality Waters water. Surface and groundwater supplies were used. 18.1 Wild Rice Resource Guide-1854 Authority Date of data is 2002. -Data collected by the 1854 Authority’s wild rice survey and through contact with the Tribes, DNR, 19.2 Minnesota Geological Survey-County Well Index USFS, and graduate/PhD students. Date of data is -Data generated by the Minnesota Geological Survey. 2002. Data set is comprised of waters that presently or Date of data is 1998. This data is based on the Water historically contained wild rice. Well Driller Log form from the Minnesota Department of Health. This data set is the most complete list of
218
wells in Minnesota, even though it does not represent 20.5 Grand Portage Tribe all the wells in the state. -Data generated by the Grand Portage Tribe. Date of data is 2002. 19.3 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-Well Index. -Data generated by the Minnesota Pollution Control 20.6 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Agency. This data is an update to the well index. Date -Data compiled from a basin-wide bio-monitoring of data is 2002. program carried out in 1998 and 1999.
20. Percent Native Fish Species 20.7 Fish Managers The fish data taken from these sources is based on fish species -Telephone conversations with Resource Managers that are present/not present in the watershed, not on the total from Finland and Grand Rapids in the Lake Superior number of occurrences of fish species found in the watershed. Basin. Date of information is from 2002-2003.
20.1 Department of Natural Resources Fisheries, French 21. Ecoregions River, Grand Marais 21.1 Minnesota Geographic Data Clearinghouse-Level III -Data compiled from lake and stream surveys done by Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States the Department of Natural Resources. Most recent -Data generated by the Land Management Information surveys used, data ranges from 1950-2002. Center, Minnesota Planning, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Date of data is 1989. The 20.2 Department of Natural Resources Information ecoregions are based on land use, soils, land surface Warehouse form and potential natural vegetation and used to -Data compiled from lake and stream surveys done by categorize stream and lake characteristics. The 1989 the Department of Natural Resources. Date of data is version of data was created using vectorized Arc/INFO 2001. version of the MLMIS40 DNR watersheds.
20.3 Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Continent 22. Hydrologic Unit Codes-Duluth Metropolitan Area Ecology Laboratory 22.1 Department of Natural Resources-Minnesota Watersheds, -Data generated by the Environmental Protection 1999, Clipped to State Boundary. Agency. Date of data is 1997-2000. -Data generated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Waters. Date of source material is 20.4 Fond du Lac Tribe 1995. The data set consists of statewide minor -Data generated by the Fond du Lac Tribe. Date of data watershed delineations with major/minor watershed is 1996. identifiers and names for provinces, major watersheds,
219
and basins. The Land Management Information Center 25. Beaches Monitored-Beach Program (LMIC) clipped the full DNR file to the state boundary, 25.1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency using a state boundary file from the Minnesota -Data generated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Department of Transportation’s Basemap 1998 data set. Agency. Data covers beaches that are monitored under the MPCA’s Beach Program. Date of data is 2003. 23. Source Water Assessment Area 23.1 Minnesota Department of Health -Data generated by the Minnesota Department of Health and provided by Beth Kluthe. Data covers the cities of Beaver Bay, Duluth, Grand Marais, Two Harbors, and Silver Bay. Date of data is 2002.
24. County, State Forests and National Forests 24.1 Minnesota Department of Transportation -Data generated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Date of data is from 1995-2000.
24.2 Department of Natural Resources-GAP Stewardship -Data generated by BRW, Inc. Date of source material is from 1976-1998. The data set is based on the Mathematically Divided Public Land Survey (PLSDVNE2 layer) also known as the Land Management Information Center (PLSS-TRSQ). The layer contains land ownership data for the state of Minnesota at a 1:100,000 scale, with ownership or administration being more than 50 percent of a forty acre for land interest to be expressed. This data is primarily used to for a general analysis of ownership and administration information for each PLS quarter- quarter section.
220 Appendix D - Implementation Projects – Completed to Date
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Basin 60% reduction of in-basin LaMP Lake Superior Mercury EPA, Environment Canada, Complete Virtual elimination of sources of mercury by 2000 Stage 2 basin contamination Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario and inputs (1990 baseline) Lake Superior tribes Basin Voluntary agreements (#1, Level LaMP Lake Superior Mercury, PCBs, Environment Canada, EPA, Complete Seven facilities in 1) 2000 basin dioxin Michigan, Ontario, Wisconsin Minnesota portion of basin have submitted voluntary reduction plans Basin Direct or indirect financial LaMP Lake Superior Mercury, EPA, Michigan, Wisconsin Complete MPCA provided $23,470 assistance (#5, Level 1) 2000 basin pesticides, dioxin to seven cities to reduce mercury and $10,000 to two counties to collect abandoned waste
Basin Government assistance for LaMP Lake Superior PCBs Complete Survey found only testing and removal of PCBs at 2000 basin municipalities likely to still municipalities, schools, hospitals own PCBs; these are now and small business (#64, Level under #56 2) Basin Recycler and auto salvage LaMP Lake Superior PCBs Environment Canada, Michigan Complete State program to educate training (#69, Level 1) 2000 basin salvage yard operators on removing hazardous materials Basin Demo contractor training (#71, LaMP Lake Superior PCBs EPA, Michigan, Wisconsin Complete Workshops held in Level 1) 2000 basin Ashland and Duluth in 2001
Basin Use mercury sniffing dog in LaMP Lake Superior Mercury Complete Mercury detector dog used schools (#77, Level 2) 2000 basin in basin Basin Add Toxic Reduction Plans to LaMP Lake Superior Mercury Michigan, Wisconsin Complete All major municipalities water permits (#148, Level 1) 2000 basin have submitted plans
221
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Basin Lower federal reporting limits LaMP Lake Superior Mercury, PCBs, Environment Canada, EPA Complete EPA has lowered mercury (#187, Level 2) 2000 basin dioxin reporting limits and included dioxin in the TRI Basin Conduct a targeted education PPS Lake Superior Discharges and ? Complete Educate operators of PCB- program about PCB Basin emissions of toxic containing equipment, management issues households, small businesses, and industries about PCB management issues Basin Inventory PCB-containing PPS Lake Superior Discharges and State/federal: Lake Superior Complete Inventory PCB-containing equipment in the basin Basin emissions of toxic states, EPA equipment and accelerate its phase-out Basin Replace chlorination as a sewage PPS Lake Superior Discharges and State/federal: Lake Superior Complete Replace chlorination as a disinfection process, especially Basin emissions of toxic states, EPA sewage disinfection for facilities that treat pulp and process paper mill effluent Basin Support short-term agricultural PPS Lake Superior Discharges and State: Lake Superior states Complete Support short-term chemical collection programs in Basin emissions of toxic agricultural chemical the basin to remove stored collection programs banned pesticides, which have the potential to contaminate Lake Superior Basin Switch or modify paper PPS Lake Superior Pulp and paper State/federal: Lake Superior Complete Eliminate dioxin manufacturing (both production Basin mills states, EPA production through process and inputs) to further switching or modifying reduce or eliminate dioxin paper manufacturing production process Carlton Carlton County Comprehensive CALWP Carlton General point and Local: Carlton Co. LWP Task Complete? Designate and map LWP Task Force should County NPS Force sensitive areas, recommend designate areas sensitive to regulations groundwater contamination. and recommend possible land use and chemical restrictions Carlton Inspect and certify as leak-free CALWP Carlton Leaking Local: Carlton Co., Complete? Require inspection of tanks older than 15 years and County underground municipalities/townships underground storage tanks under 1100 gallons storage tanks with high potential for leakage
222
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Carlton Include presentations on water CALWP Carlton Discharges and Local: Carlton Co. SWCD, Complete Public education management and waste County emissions of toxic Carlton Co. Zoning Office reduction at the annual Conservation Days at the Cloquet Forestry Center Carlton Publicize waste reduction CALWP Carlton Discharges and Local: Carlton Co. Complete - Public education policies, especially those for County emissions of toxic ongoing hazardous waste disposal and non-toxic alternatives to household hazardous wastes Carlton Establish a composting program CALWP Carlton General NPS Local: Carlton Co. Complete Establish a composting for non-hazardous organic County program materials Carlton Expand the household hazardous CALWP Carlton Discharges and Local: Carlton Co. Complete? Public education waste program to include more County emissions of toxic publicity, locations, and dates Carlton Determine high priority sites for CALWP Carlton Solid waste Local/state: Carlton Co. Zoning, Complete Prioritize sites for aquifer well monitoring near abandoned County Carlton Co. SWCD, MPCA, and/or leachate testing dumps/landfills MDH, NRCS Carlton Initiate a water testing and CALWP Carlton Solid waste Local/state: Carlton Co., MPCA, Complete? Monitoring high priority monitoring program for high- County MDH well sites near priority sites in connection with landfill/dump sites abandoned dumps and/or landfills Carlton Require (by ordinance) CALWP Carlton Solid waste Local: Carlton Co. Complete Require reporting of identification and reporting of County hazardous or potentially by-product disposal, storage, and hazardous material waste sites of hazardous disposal & storage materials Carlton Initiate an ongoing surface water CALWP designated Land treatment Local/state: Carlton Co., Carlton Complete- Develop testing program and septic system testing priority water and disposal Co. SWCD, MPCA, MDH, NRCS ongoing program; LWP Task Force will resources designate county water resource areas to be tested Carlton Require that septic tank pumpers CALWP Carlton Land treatment Local: Carlton Co. Available? Require certification of in Carlton County complete the County and disposal pumpers MPCA/ U of MN training course and be certified by the MPCA
223
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Carlton Publicize that septic tanks CALWP Carlton Land treatment Local/state: Carlton Co., state & Complete- Public education should be pumped or cleaned County and disposal local agencies ongoing every 2-5 years Carlton Promote the MPCA Citizen's CALWP Carlton General point and Local/state: Carlton Co. MPCA Complete- Promote volunteer Lake and Stream Monitoring County NPS ongoing monitoring Programs to test more lakes and obtain base data on local water quality Carlton Adopt the Sediment Control CALWP Carlton Erosion Local: Carlton Co. Complete? Require erosion control Handbook developed by the County BMP’s at const. sites BWSR and Metro SWCD’s for inclusion in construction site permits Carlton Locally adapt and promote CALWP Carlton Forestry practices Local: Carlton Co. Complete- Adapt and promote forestry erosion control BMP’s County ongoing forestry erosion control for the public, natural resource- BMP’s related industries, and managers Carlton Adopt an ordinance requiring CALWP Carlton Runoff Local: Carlton Co. Complete? Adopt ordinance re: that all salt/sand mixture storage County storage of salt/sand stockpiles be placed on mixtures impervious pads constructed to hold all stored materials and drain all runoff to a holding tank or basin Carlton Strongly emphasize education as CALWP Carlton General NPS Local: Carlton Co. Complete- Public education a tool to help control nonpoint County ongoing source pollution Carlton Update and maintain the list of CALWP Carlton General point and Local: Carlton Co. Zoning Officer Complete- Update and maintain the impacted bodies of water County NPS ongoing list of impacted bodies of water North Shore Amend Cook Co. Land Use CLWP Cook County General NPS Local: Cook County Planning and Complete - for Modify land use Ordinance to include provisions zoning most of topics, ordinances to reduce NPS on: stormwater management, stormwater pollution shoreland buffer zones, junk mgmt is not yards, dog yards, and complete; dog development of undersized lots kennels still under discussion, no buffer zone concept
224
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Amend land use ordinance to CLWP Cook County Erosion Local: Cook Cty Planning & Complete Prevention of future require phase restoration of new gravel pits Zoning sediment and nutrient gravel pits loading from gravel pits North Shore Annually monitor groundwater CLWP Cook County Solid waste Local: Cook County Sanitarian, Monitored, but Monitor groundwater and and adjacent surface runoff on dump sites Cook SWCD (field reviews) not annually - adjacent surface water for three old dumpsites. In the no budget for pollutants leached from old absence of on-site wells, the annual dump sites nearest property owner's well monitoring should be monitored North Shore Conduct a Forestry BMP session CLWP Cook County Forestry practices Local/state: MES, Cook County Complete-but Educate loggers about at the Loggers Workshop SWCD could receive forestry BMP’s more focus as private lands get logged North Shore Conduct a well sealing program CLWP Cook County Abandoned wells Local: Cook Cty SWCD Complete- need Seal abandoned wells with cost-sharing funds available more money in through the Minnesota Board of the fund-no Water & Soil Resources more BWSR money North Shore Conduct an education program CLWP Cook County Leaking Local: Cook Cty Planning & Complete for Education of small for owners of small underground underground Zoning gas stations and underground storage tank tanks storage tanks resorts owners North Shore Conduct an education program CLWP Cook County Discharges and Local/state: Cook County Water Complete-but Hazardous waste use, on proper use, storage, and emissions of toxic Plan Coordinator, MPCA, MES businesses storage, disposal, and disposal of household and could probably avoidance education business hazardous wastes (inc. use regular program pesticides). Include info. on refreshers non-toxic alternatives North Shore Conduct an information and ed. CLWP Cook County Abandoned wells Local/state: Cook Cty Planning & Complete-be a Conduct an informational prog. on abandoned well law for Zoning, MES good refresher and educational prog. on landowners, real estate agents, class for realtors abandoned well law for gov. agencies, and well drillers landowners, real estate agents, gov. agencies, and well drillers North Shore Conduct field reviews at the 10 CLWP Cook County Solid waste Local/federal: Cook SWCD, U.S. Complete-is Assess dump sites for old dump sites to assess soil old dump sites Forest Service ongoing for pollution sources erosion, vegetation, access and illegal dump illegal dumping review
225
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Conduct presentations on exotic CLWP Cook County Habitat State: MDNR, Sea Grant, MES Complete Educate public about species for lake associations, modification exotic species sportsman clubs, and other community groups North Shore Conduct voluntary septic system CLWP Cook County Land treatment Local: Cook County Sanitarian Complete - Survey septic systems surveys and disposal started a compliance program around lakes North Shore Construct "awareness and CLWP Cook County Habitat State/federal: MDNR, U.S. Forest Complete-still Educate public about identification" posters on exotic modification Service find access sites exotic species species and post at boat landings without the info and resorts - understand this is DNR responsibility? North Shore Cover county and state CLWP Cook County Runoff Local/state: Cook Co. Highway Partial- Use BMP’s to prevent stockpiles of road de-icing Dept., MNDOT, City of Grand practices not runoff of materials materials to prevent high Marais consistent- concentrations of salts in runoff would be good water to get some monitoring data on this North Shore Develop a county-sponsored CLWP Cook County Land treatment Local: Cook County Sanitarian Complete Develop grant/loan loan or grant program for cost- and disposal program to cost-share in sharing on sewage treatment sewage treatment systems systems North Shore Develop specific education CLWP Cook County Development Local: Cook County Water Plan Partially Wetland education programs for real estate agents, and/or wetland Coordinator complete, in developers, contractors and conversions that zoning staff property owners about the attend Realtors Wetland Conservation Act of meetings-but 1991 more could be completed North Shore Distribute "Shoreland BMP" CLWP Cook County General NPS Local/state: Cook Co. SWCD, Complete on Educate landowners about packets to shoreland property Shoreland MES lakes with BMP’s for shoreland areas owners in Cook Co. associations, more to do North Shore Distribute brochures on exotic CLWP Cook County habitat State: MES Complete/do Educate public about pest species to shoreland shoreland modification exotic species property owners (in Shoreland BMP Packet)
226
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Encourage research to improve CLWP Lake Superior Land treatment State: MES Complete/doing Research alternative existing systems, find alternative Basin and disposal systems, educate public systems and field test mound about the alternatives and trench systems; publicize the results North Shore Expand Cook County recycling CLWP Cook County Discharges and Local: Cook County Planning & Complete Collect Hg-containing program to include fluorescent emissions of toxic Zoning (Solid Waste Officer) wastes (florescent light light tubes and household tubes and batteries) batteries as markets develop North Shore Financially support, contribute CLWP North Shore General point and Local/state: Cook County Local Complete – Support and distribute information to, and distribute NPS Water Plan Coordinator, MES ongoing water quality newsletter 500 copies of the "Arrowhead Currents" water quality newsletter North Shore Identify industrial toxics (and CLWP Cook County Discharges and Local: Public Utilities Complete Identify and regulate (to their sources) that are being emissions of toxic Commission, Cook Co. reduce or eliminate) dumped into public treatment Emergency Mgmt. Director industrial toxics being plants designed for domestic dumped into POTWs sewage and require business/industry to reduce and eliminate use of toxics North Shore Implement the Wetland CLWP Cook County Development Local: Cook County Planning & Complete Wetland protection Conservation Act and/or wetland Zoning, Cook SWCD conversions North Shore Inventory underground fuel CLWP Cook County Leaking Local: Cook Cty Planning & Partial data, old Inventory small (<500 tanks less than 500 gallons in underground Zoning gallon) underground capacity storage tanks storage tanks to detect leaks North Shore Prepare a fact sheet on road CLWP Cook County Erosion Local: Cook County SWCD, Complete-could Educate about road construction techniques that will Cook County Highway Dept. be improved construction BMP’s minimize soil erosion and water pollution. The fact sheet will include a sample Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. North Shore Prepare, print and distribute a CLWP Cook County General point and Local: Cook County Water Plan Complete Distribute summary of summary brochure of the Cook NPS Coordinator local water plan County Comprehensive Water Management Plan North Shore Produce or use an existing video CLWP Cook County General NPS Local/state: Cook County Water Complete Educate citizens about to use as an introduction to the shoreland Plan Coordinator, MES shoreland BMP’s Shoreland BMP’s Packet
227
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Promote a clean-up effort for CLWP Cook County Solid waste Local: Cook County Solid Waste Complete PCA, Promote cleaning up small recent small dump sites; provide dump sites Officer but what about dump sites to avoid cost-sharing for sites on private privates? This polluting nearby surface property was very costly water or groundwater for the couple of sites county has complete North Shore Provide recognition to CLWP Cook County Discharges and Local: Cook County Water Plan Complete- Recognize businesses that businesses who decrease or emissions of toxic Coordinator ongoing reduce or eliminate use of eliminate their use of toxic toxic materials materials North Shore Publicize loan/grant program CLWP Cook County Land treatment Local: Cook County Planning and Complete Publicize loan/grant from MPCA and AEOA for and disposal Zoning, Cook County Sanitarian program to increase upgrading sewage treatment number of people systems upgrading their system North Shore Publicize the information CLWP Hovland and Air emissions Local/state: Cook County Water Complete Educate citizens about acid collected from the acid rain Birch Lake Plan Coordinator, MPCA rain monitoring results monitoring sites at Hovland and Birch Lake North Shore Purchase two table-top displays CLWP Cook County Land treatment Local/state: MES, Cook County Complete Educate landowners about of an on-site sewage treatment and disposal Sanitarian, Cook Co. Water Plan sewage treatment systems system and develop an Coordinator information and education program on sewage treatment systems North Shore Request increased enforcement CLWP Cook County Habitat Local: Citizen’s Task Force, Cook Complete Enforce exotic species (by Minnesota DNR) of current modification County Board control laws laws designed to prevent transport of exotic pests North Shore Conduct an information and CLWP Cook County Land treatment Local/state: Cook County Complete Public education education program on sewage and disposal Sanitarian, Minnesota Extension treatment systems Service North Shore Support and help publicize CLWP Cook County Discharges and Local/state: Cook County Water Complete Educate producers of MPCA education program for emissions of toxic Plan Coordinator, MPCA hazardous waste businesses who produce hazardous wastes
228
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Support the Lake States CLWP Great Lakes Hydromodification Local: Cook County Board, Complete as Support proclamation Governors and Canadian Basin Citizen’s Task Force issues arise against diversion of water Provinces Proclamation that no from the Great Lakes Basin water be diverted from the Great Lakes Basin (letter or resolution from County Board and Task Force) North Shore Work with MPCA to secure a CLWP Cook County General point and Local/state: Cook County Complete for Create a groundwater network of groundwater testing groundwater NPS Planning and Zoning, Water Plan last GWMAP monitoring network sites in Cook County for the Coordinator, MPCA review Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Program North Shore Conduct a public information LLWP Lake County Abandoned wells Local: Lake Co. Water Plan Complete Public education program on the importance of Coordinator, Lake Co. Health properly sealing abandoned Dept. wells North Shore Conduct a session of forestry LLWP Lake County Forestry practices Local/state: Lake Co. Forestry, Complete- Educate loggers about BMP’s at the annual Loggers Lake Co. SWCD, MES, DNR ongoing forestry BMP’s Workshop Waters North Shore Conduct an abandoned well LLWP Lake County Abandoned wells Local: Lake Co. Water Plan Complete? Locate abandoned wells inventory Coordinator North Shore Conduct an annual meeting of LLWP Lake County General point and Local: Lake Co. Water Plan Complete= Promote consistency in local, state and federal agencies NPS Coordinator, Lake Co. Planning & PWG data management and land to discuss concerns, cooperative Zoning and water use guidelines projects and resolve disputes, if any to increase consistency in data mgmt. and land & water use guidelines North Shore Conduct an inventory of LLWP Lake County Leaking Local: Lake Co. Water Plan Complete? Inventory underground underground storage tanks underground Coordinator storage tanks storage tanks North Shore Develop a brochure on septic LLWP Lake County Land treatment Local: Lake Co. Planing & Complete? Public education on septic system maintenance that will be and disposal Zoning, Lake Co. Health system management & distributed through a mass maintenance mailing and/or will be available for pick up at locations throughout the county
229
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Develop and implement a LLWP Lake County Discharges and Local/state: Lake Co. Solid Waste Complete? Public education Household Hazardous Waste emissions of toxic Department, MPCA, Office of education prog. consisting of Waste Management news articles, school & group presentations North Shore Ensure that contracts for drilling LLWP Lake County Abandoned wells Local/state: DNR, MPCA, Lake Complete? Require proper sealing and exploratory wells include Co. Attorney, MDH capping of exploratory clauses for proper sealing and wells capping North Shore Feature an on-site sewage LLWP Lake County Land treatment Local/state: MES, Lake Co. Complete NRRI Public education treatment system on the Country and disposal Planning & Zoning Living tour and/or have a demonstration site North Shore Monitor groundwater and LLWP Lake County Solid waste Local/state: Lake Co. Water Plan Complete? Monitor groundwater and adjacent surface water runoff at old dump sites Coordinator, MPCA, Lake Co. adjacent surface water the 16 known old dump sites Solid Waste Dept. runoff at old dump sites North Shore Participate in the BWSR cost- LLWP Lake County Abandoned wells Local: Lake Co. Planning & Complete? Seal abandoned wells share program for sealing Zoning abandoned wells North Shore Upgrade the Lake Co. Land Use LLWP Lake County General NPS Local: Lake Co. Planning & Complete? Revise Land Use Ordinance to include sections on Zoning Ordinance to address shoreline buffer zones, soil specific NPS pollution erosion limits, veg. and elev. concerns buffers around gravel pits, sw runoff mgmt., design auth. for water impoundments, dog kennels North Shore Write a series of newsletters for LLWP Lake County Pesticides and Local/state: Lake Co. solid waste Complete Public education homeowners on the proper use, fertilizers department, MES storage and disposal of fertilizers and pesticides Range Upon completion of a SLWP Iron Range General NPS Local: St. Louis Co. Entire basin? Wellhead groundwater study, develop a protection/groundwater comprehensive strategy to mgmt. planning protect municipal groundwater on the Iron Range
230
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Lower St. Continue to monitor & improve RAP dams at Knife Habitat Local/state: MNDNR, WDNR, Complete Aquatic habitat protection Louis operating procedures at dams on Falls, Cloquet, modification MN Power St. Louis to prevent fish Scanlon, stranding Thompson and Fond du Lac Lower St. Develop I & E mailing list for RAP Nemadji & St. General point and Local: Carlton County Board & Nemadji Use effective delivery Louis Nemadji & St. Louis River Louis River NPS SWCD, Douglas County Board, complete system to inform, educate, watersheds Watersheds Metro Interstate Committee, local and get feedback from governments watershed landowners Lower St. Dvlp. watershed project in RAP Nemadji R. General NPS Fed: NRCS Complete Diagnostic: comprehensive Louis Nemadji Riv. basin basin watershed project (I) Lower St. Enact ordinances for pasturing RAP St. Louis, Ag practices Multi: counties, SWCDs, DNR, Partially Enforcement of, and Louis or watering of cattle on banks of Carlton, & SCS, St. Louis River Board complete development of local stream; purchase or obtain cons. Douglas ordinances; land easements on riparian areas Counties acquisition, cons. easements Lower St. FERC EIS should evaluate RAP St. Louis Habitat Federal/state: FERC, MNDNR, Complete Aquatic habitat protection Louis various flow regimes relative to River dams modification WDNR, MN Power optimum aquatic habitat; future modifications of dam operations should be monitored
Lower St. Post signs at boat launches & RAP Barker's General point and Local/fed: marinas, launch Complete Education Louis marinas on cleaning recreational Island, Spirit NPS operators, & sporting stores, LK water craft; distribute Lake, Harbor Sup Research Institute, Coast educational materials Cove, Guard, Corps Lakehead Boat Basin marinas; Minnesota Slip and a location on Park Point; Sky Harbor Airport; boat launches Lower St. Fully implement "don't dump" RAP Duluth, General NPS Multi: state agencies, local Complete- Education Louis program & provide ed. on yard Superior, agencies, WLSSD, MN Power, ongoing waste disposal Cloquet volunteers
231
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Lower St. Adopt & enforce county point- RAP St. Louis Land treatment Local: St. Louis Co. Complete Regulation requiring point- Louis of-sale ordinances for ISTSs to River & other and disposal Environmental Services, Douglas of-sale inspections of reduce the amount of water bodies Co. Zoning Office & Health ISTS’s and upgrading, if inadequately treated wastewater Dept., Carlton Co. Zoning Office, necessary reaching the St. Louis River and St. Louis River RAP CAC other water bodies Lower St. Promote the use of silvicultural RAP St. Louis Forestry practices Local/state/federal: MN & WI Complete – Education, technical Louis BMP’s and audit BMP River, harbor, DNR, state extension services, revisit assistance, and auditing compliance to reduce NPS Lake Superior SWCDs, county foresters, NRCS, periodically regarding forestry BMP’s nutrient & sediment loading US Forest Service, private forestry groups Lower St. Reduce populations of purple RAP St. Louis Habitat State/federal: MN & WI Complete Use of biological control Louis loosestrife by using biological River AOC modification Departments of Agriculture, agents, regulation, control organisms approved for Natural Resources, & education use by the USDA Transportation; Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission; USFWS Lower St. Reduce the amount of RAP Fond du Lac, Land treatment Local/state: St. Louis Co. Health Complete Determine best solution to Louis inadequately treated wastewater MN; Oliver, and disposal Dept., City of Duluth, WLSSD, septic system problem, reaching the St. Louis R. by WI Fond du Lac and Oliver residents, implement solution correcting the failing septic MN DNR, MPCA, WI DNR system problems in Fond du Lac, MN and Oliver, WI Lower St. WLSSD should proceed w/ RAP Duluth area, Discharges and Local/state: WLSSD, MPCA, city Complete Find alternatives to Louis plans to discontinue chlorination Superior emissions of toxic of Superior chlorination at WLSSD & for a period to conduct studies of Superior WWTF alternatives; the city of Superior should examine alternatives to chlorination at their WWTF Lower St. Extend (indefinitely) the life of RAP Duluth/Superi Contaminated Local/federal: US ACOE, Seaway Complete? Develop plan to extend life Louis the Erie Pier Dredged Materials or harbor sediment Port Authority of Duluth, Harbor of Erie Pier dredge facility Processing Facility by Technical Advisory Committee of processing & reusing dredged the Metropolitan Interstate material, and (if necessary) Committee relocating non-reusable dredged materials to an inland disposal Lower St. Amend the County Local Water SLWP St. Louis General point and Local: St. Louis Co. Complete - Review and amend LWP Louis Plan to meet environmental County NPS ongoing as needed protection needs
232
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Lower St. WLSSD should develop a plan SLWP Fond du Lac, General point and Local: WLSSD Complete Develop sewage treatment Louis for sewage treatment at the South Shore of NPS plan (extension of sewer Fond-du-Lac area of Duluth, the Pike Lake lines or small collector south shore of Pike Lake in (Canosia & systems) in specific areas Canosia and Grand Lake Grand Lake in/near Duluth townships, and the Greenwood Twnshps), Beach area of Duluth Greenwood Beach area of Town of Duluth Lower St. Develop a contaminated soils SLWP St. Louis Leaking Local: St. Louis Co. Complete Develop a policy to deal Louis policy for soils contaminated by County underground with land farming of leaking underground storage storage tanks contaminated sediments tanks Lower St. Develop a policy relating to SLWP St. Louis Land treatment Local: St. Louis Co. in Complete? Develop a policy Louis septage disposal County and disposal cooperation with towns and cities addressing septage disposal, help identify suitable septage disposal sites Lower St. Expand "Point of Sale" SLWP St. Louis Land treatment Local: St. Louis Co. Complete? Inspect ISTS's upon sale of Louis inspections of ISTS's to include County and disposal Environmental Services property/transfer of title, all sales or transfers of title of develop timetable to property; include a well correct any problems found inspection when appropriate Lower St. For ISTS's, encourage early site SLWP St. Louis Land treatment Local/state: St. Louis Co. Complete? Use education, planning, Louis evaluation, facilitate proper County and disposal Environmental Services, regulation, and research to system installation, and University Extension/St. Louis promote proper emphasize responding to Co. construction of ISTS's and complaints and obvious problem replacement of failing areas systems Lower St. Form a task force to assist in the SLWP St. Louis Development Local/state: St. Louis Co. Board; Complete? Wetland regulations -- Louis development of wetland County and/or wetland BWSR; task force members: a creation and regulations and suggest conversion representative from Duluth, implementation implementation measures Duluth area town official, town official from each Commissioner District, North and South St. Louis Co. SWCDs Lower St. Identify and seal abandoned SLWP St. Louis Abandoned wells ? Complete? Inform county, towns, and Louis wells according to appropriate County cities about state well state law, especially in sensitive sealing program and densely developed areas
233
Table 8.1.1 Implementation Projects Completed (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Lower St. Inventory underground storage SLWP St. Louis Leaking Local/state: MPCA, St. Louis Co. Complete? Inventory UST's, notify Louis tanks; notify adjacent property County underground Assessor, city assessor, land use adjacent landowners if owners when a remedial action storage tanks permitting agencies problem develops plan has been ordered or when groundwater contamination is suspected Lower St. Require that demolition material SLWP St. Louis Solid waste Local: official control regulating Complete? Establish Louis be disposed at sites providing County agency (St. Louis Co.?) standards/requirements for max. environmental protection, demolition disposal sites. reduce impact to adjacent evaluate feasibility of properties, follow MPCA recycling requirements and appropriate LGU standards Lower St. Review water level fluctuations SLWP St. Louis Hydromodification ? Complete Review water level Louis on streams and lakes controlled County (FERC) fluctuations on by dams, and where fluctuations lakes/streams affected by appear frequently request that dams the appropriate agency review any permit fluctuations Lower St. Support the planning efforts of SLWP St. Louis and General point and Local: St. Louis Co. Complete- Support watershed Louis the St. Louis and Cloquet Cloquet Rivers NPS ongoing management planning watersheds, and encourage the development of other watershed plans, both within the county and for Lake Superior Upper St. Purchase all available blocks of SLRB Upper St. General point and Local: St. Louis River Board Complete Land acquisition/habitat Louis River land currently owned by Louis, NPS protection Minnesota Power Whiteface, and Cloquet Rivers Upper St. Establish mandatory forest SLRB Upper St. Forestry practices Local/state/federal: St. Louis Complete Land use Louis River management zones and Louis, River Board, all levels of management/restrictions guidelines along the river to Whiteface, and government or jurisdictions and which all levels of government Cloquet Rivers their agencies or jurisdictions, and their agencies, shall adhere
234 Appendix E - Implementation Projects – Not Completed
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Basin 33% reduction of in-basin LaMP Lake PCB EPA, Environment Canada, Progress not Virtual elimination of sources of PCBs by 2000 (1990 Stage 2 Superior contamination Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario and quantifiable inputs (note: database too baseline) basin Lake Superior tribes fragmented to estimate percent reduction) Basin Retrieve and destroy all canceled LaMP Lake Pesticide EPA, Environment Canada, Incomplete Virtual elimination of pesticides by 2000 (1990 Stage 2 Superior contamination Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario and inputs (note: pesticide baseline) basin Lake Superior tribes sweeps after 2000 indicate critical pesticides still present Basin 80% reduction of in-basin LaMP Lake Mercury EPA, Environment Canada, Future milestones Virtual elimination of sources of mercury by 2010; Stage 2 Superior contamination Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario and inputs 100% by 2020 (1990 baseline) basin Lake Superior tribes
Basin 60% reduction of in-basin LaMP Lake PCB EPA, Environment Canada, Future milestones Virtual elimination of sources of PCBs by 2005; 95% Stage 2 Superior contamination Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario and inputs by 2010; 100% by 2020 (1990 basin Lake Superior tribes baseline) Basin 80% reduction of in-basin LaMP Lake PCB EPA, Environment Canada, Future milestones Virtual elimination of sources of dioxin, HCB and Stage 2 Superior contamination Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario and inputs OCS by 2005; 90% by 2015; basin Lake Superior tribes 100% by 2020 (1990 baseline) Basin Internal purchasing policy (#13, LaMP Lake Mercury, PCBs Michigan Ongoing Identify existing policies Level 2) 2000 Superior and gaps basin
Basin Import and labeling of mercury LaMP Lake Mercury EPA, Michigan Ongoing Encourage national bearing products (#19, Level 2) 2000 Superior labeling basin
Basin Promote energy conservation LaMP Lake Mercury Environment Canada, EPA, Ongoing Assemble portfolio of programs (#22, Level 1) 2000 Superior Michigan, Ontario, Wisconsin existing programs, identify basin gaps, propose projects
235
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Basin Municipal energy councils (#24, LaMP Lake Mercury Environment Canada, Ontario Ongoing Identify existing groups, Level 2) 2000 Superior encourage formation of basin new groups Basin Demand Side Management line- LaMP Lake Mercury Incomplete Minnesota is not pursuing charge with utility deregulation 2000 Superior deregulation at this time (#25, Level 2) basin
Basin Collections (HHW, pesticides, LaMP Lake Mercury, Environment Canada, EPA, Fond Ongoing WLSSD hazardous waste elemental mercury, etc.) (#32, 2000 Superior pesticides Du Lac Reservation, Michigan, collections; municipal Level 2) basin Ontario, Wisconsin swaps; abandoned waste collection
Basin Burn barrel outreach and LaMP Lake Dioxin EPA, Fond Du Lac Reservation, Ongoing WLSSD completed a ordinances (#49, Level 1) 2000 Superior Michigan, Wisconsin second open burning basin survey; MPCA prepared materials on not burning trash while camping Basin Encourage PCB mentors (#55, LaMP Lake PCBs Environment Canada, EPA, Ongoing Connect PCB experts in Level 2) 2000 Superior Michigan the basin basin
Basin Encourage PCB cooperatives LaMP Lake PCBs Environment Canada, Ontario Ongoing MPCA is working with (#56, Level 1) 2000 Superior three electric cooperatives basin and a municipal utility
Basin Encourage destroying PCBs LaMP Lake PCBs EPA, Michigan, Ontario Ongoing Contact remaining users (#58, Level 2) 2000 Superior basin Basin Encourage testing for PCBs LaMP Lake PCBs EPA, Michigan Ongoing MPCA has identified high (#62, Level 1) 2000 Superior risk transformers basin
Basin Seek and destroy mercury and LaMP Lake Mercury, PCBs EPA, Michigan, Ontario, Ongoing Mercury Free Zone has PCBs in schools (#73, Level 1) 2000 Superior Wisconsin enrolled schools in the basin basin and collected mercury products
236
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Basin Investigate wet scrubbers (#93, LaMP Lake Mercury Ongoing Prepare and distribute Level 1) 2000 Superior report basin Basin Assist taconite and electric LaMP Lake Mercury Ongoing MDNR study on mercury utilities with mercury reduction 2000 Superior treatability of scrubber dust technologies (#94, Level 2) basin Basin Convert from coal to low LaMP Lake Mercury Incomplete Gas market unfavorable for mercury energy at industrial 2000 Superior switch utilities (e.g., taconite) (#95, basin Level 2)
Basin Separate pyrite fraction from LaMP Lake Mercury Incomplete Taconite facility is not coal at taconite facilities (#96, 2000 Superior pursuing study Level 1) basin Basin Hospital P2 projects (#100, LaMP Lake Mercury Environment Canada, EPA, Ongoing MPCA assisting with Level 1) 2000 Superior Michigan, Ontario sphygmomanometer and basin thermometer swap; MOEA coordination of HEARRT Basin Partner with dental associations LaMP Lake Mercury Environment Canada, Michigan, Ongoing WLSSD and Minnesota (#101, Level 1) 2000 Superior Ontario Dental Association are basin promoting amalgam separators; MPCA is distributing a limited number of separators Basin Alternative energy (#114, Level LaMP Lake Mercury Grand Portage Reservation, Ontario Ongoing Encourage alternative 2) 2000 Superior energy development basin Basin Convert from coal to low LaMP Lake Mercury Ongoing Look for low mercury coal mercury energy at utilities 2000 Superior sources (#119, Level 2) basin Basin Coordinate with TMDL and ON LaMP Lake Mercury Fond Du Lac Reservation, Ontario Ongoing LaMP coordinator is Certificate of Approval (#144, 2000 Superior working on mercury Level 1) basin TMDL Basin Bans on non-essential uses of LaMP Lake Mercury Michigan Ongoing Encourage local or state the nine (#147, Level 2) 2000 Superior bans basin Basin Limit toxics in air permits and LaMP Lake Mercury, PCBs, Michigan Ongoing Look for opportunities to lower emissions threshold for 2000 Superior dioxin, HCB, establish appropriate limits MACT (#149, Level 2) basin OCS
237
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Basin Consider ONRW when LaMP Lake Mercury, PCBs, Incomplete MN Rules Ch. 7052 has reviewing water quality rules 2000 Superior pesticides, dioxin not been reopened since (#156, Level 1) basin 2000 Basin Pursue Binational Toxics LaMP Lake Mercury, PCBs, Environment Canada, EPA, Ongoing LaMP/BTS crosswalk Reduction Strategy goals (#176, 2000 Superior pesticides, dioxin Michigan Level 2) basin Basin Lower mercury limits for sludge LaMP Lake Mercury Ongoing Encourage EPA to lower and med waste incinerators 2000 Superior limits (#179, Level 2) basin Basin Change RCRA to prevent LaMP Lake Mercury Ongoing Encourage EPA to change burning mercury waste (#180, 2000 Superior policy Level 2) basin Basin Nationwide product stewardship LaMP Lake Mercury Ongoing Encourage EPA to develop (#188, Level 2) 2000 Superior nationwide stewardship basin Basin Provide incentives to utilities to LaMP Lake Mercury Ongoing Try voluntary reduction control mercury and invest in 2000 Superior approach first alternative energy (#189, Level basin 2) Basin Tighten pesticide shipping laws LaMP Lake Pesticides Ongoing Encourage federal (#190, Level 2) 2000 Superior government to tighten basin shipping laws Basin Retire federal mercury stockpile LaMP Lake Mercury EPA, Michigan Ongoing Encourage federal (#191, Level 2) 2000 Superior government to retire basin stockpiles Basin Remediate sediment (#194, LaMP Lake Mercury, PCBs, Environment Canada, Ontario, Ongoing Pursue remediation via Level 2) 2000 Superior pesticides, dioxin Wisconsin Superfund and grants basin Basin Coordinate monitoring strategy LaMP Lake Mercury, PCBs, Environment Canada, EPA, Fond Ongoing Coordination via the (#199, Level 1) 2000 Superior pesticides, dioxin Du Lac Reservation, Grand Portage Binational Executive basin Reservation, Michigan, Ontario, Committee monitoring Wisconsin program Basin Promote the EPA's Green Lights PPS Lake Discharges and State: Lake Superior states Ongoing Promote "Green Lights" program with a recycling angle Superior emissions of program, as well as Basin toxic recycling of fluorescent bulbs
238
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Basin Limit waste incineration and PPS Lake Air emissions ? Ongoing Limit waste incineration separate or limit the use of Superior and/or separate precursors precursors in the waste stream Basin (e.g. plastics) from the waste stream (or limit their use) Basin Promote and alter existing PPS Lake Discharges and State/federal: Lake Superior states, Ongoing Promote and alter awareness campaigns to reduce Superior emissions of EPA awareness campaigns mercury and other chemicals of Basin toxic focused on mercury concern in the solid-waste and wastewater streams -- target specific audiences Basin Publicly recognize and support PPS Lake Discharges and State: Lake Superior states Ongoing/add more Recognize progress of the dischargers and emitters that Superior emissions of dischargers and emitters achieve loading reductions by Basin toxic through "green" awards providing "green" awards
Basin Reduce mercury emitted from PPS Lake Air emissions State/federal: Lake Superior states, Ongoing Encourage alternatives that fuel combustion by continuing to Superior EPA reduce Hg loading from encourage demand-side Basin fuel combustion management, by promoting energy audits, and by encouraging the use of low- mercury fuels Carlton Design and implement a CALWP Carlton General point and Local/state: Carlton Co., MDH, Ongoing? Monitor water quality in program for periodic testing of County NPS MN Geological Survey wells in targeted areas wells in designated areas of the county; establish monitoring wells where needed Carlton Encourage the development of CALWP Carlton General point and Local/state: Carlton Co. LWP Task Ongoing Foster and communicate lake associations on all County NPS Force, Carlton Co. Lake with lake associations residential county lakes, Associations, MPCA coordinate and communicate between assoc's and LWP Task Force North Shore Adopt more stringent siting CLWP Cook General point and Local: Cook County Planning and Not complete -- Prevention of future criteria for wells, sewage County NPS Zoning identifying recharge problems in known treatment systems and special recharge areas is not sensitive areas land uses in known recharge areas complete to the areas detailed level needed for site decisions
239
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Amend land use ordinance to CLWP Cook Erosion Local: Cook County Planning and Not complete Prevention of future require restoration plans on County Zoning sediment and nutrient existing gravel pits gravel pits loading from gravel pits
North Shore Conduct an abandoned well CLWP Cook Abandoned wells Local: Cook County Planning & Not complete-would Locate abandoned wells inventory County Zoning be a good survey item North Shore Conduct an education program CLWP Cook General NPS Local: Cook County Planning & Not complete Educate citizens about the on the provisions of the land use County Zoning county land use ordinance ordinance North Shore Conduct an educational program CLWP Cook Development Local: Cook County Water Plan Not complete Education on the values and functions of County and/or wetland Coordinator wetlands and explain the conversion Wetland Conservation Act North Shore Coordinate development of an CLWP Cook Development Local/state/federal: Cook Co. Not complete Education educational area on a wetland County and/or wetland Water Plan Coordinator, local that will highlight the values and conversion School District, MDNR, U.S. functions of wetlands Forest Service North Shore Cover county and state CLWP Cook Runoff Local/state: Cook Co. Highway Partial- practices not Use BMP’s to prevent stockpiles of road de-icing County Dept., MNDOT, City of Grand consistent-would be runoff of materials materials to prevent high Marais good to get some concentrations of salts in runoff monitoring data on water this North Shore Develop a comprehensive CLWP Cook General NPS Local: Cook County Water Plan Started on several Create comprehensive lake approach for lake management County Coordinator lakes in form of plans including issues such as use, planning-voluntary access, and non-conforming systems North Shore Develop an ordinance that CLWP Cook Erosion Local: Cook County Planning & Not complete Regulate road construction requires Erosion & Sediment County Zoning (current ordinances and grading to reduce Control Plans on major road are inadequate) erosion construction and grading projects
North Shore Develop specific education CLWP Cook Development Local: Cook County Water Plan Partially complete, Wetland education programs for real estate agents, County and/or wetland Coordinator in that zoning staff developers, contractors and conversion attend realtors property owners about the meetings-but more Wetland Conservation Act of could be complete 1991
240
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Distribute "Shoreland BMP" CLWP Cook General NPS Local/state: Cook Co. SWCD, Complete on lakes Educate landowners about packets to shoreland property County MES with associations, BMP’s for shoreland areas owners in Cook Co. Shoreland more to do North Shore Encourage Grand Marais, Grand CLWP Grand General point and Local/state/tribes: Cook Co. Board Ongoing-more work Design and use state-of- Portage and the Organized Marais, NPS of Commissioners, Bureau of can be complete the-art technology to clean Townships to design and use Grand Indian Affairs, MPCA, Emergency here up fuel spills state-of-the-art clean-up Portage, Management Director, Fire technology for fuel spills Organized Departments Townships North Shore Enlist developed lakes/streams CLWP Cook Development Local/state: Cook County Water Ongoing-but need Monitor lake clarity, in the Citizen's Lake or Stream County and/or wetland Plan Coordinator, MPCA more volunteers provide information to Monitoring Programs developed conversion citizens lakes North Shore Find an acceptable site to land CLWP Cook Land treatment Local: Cook County Ongoing- winter Find an acceptable site to apply septage during wet periods County and disposal alternatives are land apply septage during needed, also, other wet periods mgmt options need investigating North Shore Identify and propose methods of CLWP Cook Development Local: Cook County Water Plan Not complete (needs Wetland protection protecting high risk wetlands County and/or wetland Coordinator, Cook SWCD assistance from a high risk conversion variety of agencies) wetlands North Shore If research determines that joint CLWP Cook Land treatment Local: Cook County Sanitarian No incentives, loans Financial incentives for systems are preferable, offer County and disposal are available, the BMP implementation financial incentives in the county collaborative of grant/loan program sewer districts is a start, but more help here would be beneficial for small communities North Shore Increase the number of acid rain CLWP Cook Air emissions Local/state: Cook Co. Water Plan Not complete - sites Monitor fir deposition of monitoring sites and broaden County Coordinator, MPCA reduced mercury via precipitation their capabilities to include additional contaminants (i.e. mercury)
241
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Monitor coliform bacteria levels CLWP Poplar , General point and Local/state: MNDNR - Waters, Not complete- lakes Monitor bacteria levels on developed rivers as compared Devil NPS MPCA, Cook Co. Water Plan have been bigger to undeveloped rivers Track, Coordinator concern due to Brule and greater density Flute Reed Rivers, other rivers North Shore Produce a map of all known CLWP Cook Leaking Local: Cook County Planning & Not complete other Locate all known underground storage tanks County underground Zoning than state LUST underground storage tanks storage tanks map and map for future reference North Shore Promote testing for failing septic CLWP Cook Land treatment Local: Cook County Sanitarian Ongoing Monitor for failing systems systems on high-density lakes County and disposal (i.e. infra-red/chl-a) North Shore Promote the development of CLWP Cook General point and Local: Cook County Water Plan Ongoing Promote Lake Association Lake Associations County NPS Coordinator development North Shore Publicize and promote the CLWP Cook Erosion Local: Cook Co. SWCD Ongoing Educate landowners about SWCD cost-share program for County the existence and uses of erosion control practices the cost-share program
North Shore Review Erosion & Sediment CLWP Cook Erosion Local: Cook County SWCD Ongoing-this needs Review erosion and Control Plans on major road County more work in terms sediment control plans construction and grading of routine projects maintenance and alterations to roads, initial projects seem to manage most sediment controls, but routine maintenance and road longevity becomes problem later. Also, no private road assessments except when North Shore Secure funding and install a CLWP Cook General point and Local/state: Cook County Water In progress Secure funding and install system of dry hydrants in critical County NPS Plan Coordinator, MDNR, county a system of dry hydrants in areas Fire Departments critical areas
242
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Sponsor a well water-testing CLWP Cook General NPS Local: Cook County Planning & Not complete Monitor drinking water, program. Include a follow-up County Zoning, Cook County Sanitarian interpret data and suggest program on interpreting results BMP’s and treatment options North Shore Study the issue of wetland CLWP Cook Development Local: Cook County Planning & Not complete Wetland protection setbacks for inclusion in the County and/or wetland Zoning, Cook SWCD Cook County Land Use conversion Ordinance North Shore Support the phase-out ban of CLWP Lake Discharges and Local: Cook Co. Citizen's Task Ongoing Support phase-out ban of toxic pollutants that accumulate Superior emissions of Force, Cook County Board toxic pollutants in the food chain through Basin toxic communication with state and federal legislators North Shore Air and water quality standards LLWP Lake Discharges and Local: Lake County Ongoing Role in development of (role in development of County emissions of water quality standards standards) toxic North Shore Conduct annual field reviews at LLWP Lake Solid waste local: Lake Co. SWCD, Lake Co. Ongoing Assess dump sites for the dump sites to assess soil County Solid Waste Dept. pollution sources erosion, condition of vegetation, dump sites access and illegal dumping
North Shore Cover all stockpiles of road de- LLWP Lake Runoff Local: lake Co. Highway Dept. Ongoing Use BMP’s to prevent icing materials to prevent high County runoff of materials concentrations of salts in runoff
North Shore Facilitate the possibility of group LLWP Lake Land treatment Local: Lake Co. Planning and Ongoing Encourage group sewage sewage treatment systems where County and disposal Zoning treatment systems, where possible possible North Shore Need for additional water quality LLWP Lake General point and Local: Lake County Ongoing Monitoring data County NPS North Shore Participate in the Individual On- LLWP Lake Land treatment Local/state: Lake Co. Planning & Ongoing Financial assistance for site Wastewater Treatment County and disposal Zoning, MPCA septic systems Systems Grant Program administered by the MPCA
243
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern North Shore Promote Lake Superior LLWP Lake General point and Local/state: Lake Co. Water Plan Limited/ongoing Promote Lake Superior monitoring County NPS Coordinator, University of monitoring Minnesota - Duluth, Natural Resources Research Institute, Lake Superior Center North Shore Promote the Forest Stewardship LLWP Knife Forestry practices Local/state: Lake Co. Forestry, Ongoing Promote and work with Program and work cooperatively River DNR, Lake Co. SWCD Forest Stewardship with the Stewardship Forester in Program the Knife River watershed
North Shore Promote the MPCA's Citizen's LLWP Lake General point and Local/state: Lake Co. Water Plan Ongoing Promote Citizen's Lake Lake and Stream Monitoring County NPS Coordinator, MPCA, Lake Co. Monitoring Program Program Planning & Zoning North Shore Subcommittee of the Citizen's LLWP Lake General point and Local: Citizen’s Task Force Ongoing Examine municipal water Task Force will study the County NPS Subcommittee, Lake Co. Local quality issue municipal water quality issue, Water Plan Coordinator explore treatment options and make recommendations to the local municipalities North Shore Test around junk yards and if LLWP Lake Solid waste Local/state: Lake Co. Water Plan Partially complete Letter from Task Force necessary prosecute junk yard County Coordinator, Lake Co. Solid Waste requesting prosecution of owners who are polluting Dept., Lake Co. Planning & owners of polluting junk surface and groundwater Zoning, MPCA yards Lower St. Enact ordinances for pasturing RAP St. Louis, Agricultural Multi: counties, SWCDs, DNR, Partially complete Enforcement of & Louis or watering of cattle on banks of Carlton, & practices SCS, St. Louis River Board development of local stream; purchase or obtain cons. Douglas ordinances; land easements on riparian areas Counties acquisition, cons. easements Lower St. Improve content & coordination. RAP Duluth & Pesticides and State: MES (Duluth/Spooner) Ongoing? Education of turf mangers Louis of MES turf management Superior fertilizers education Lower St. Increase SWCD tech. staff to RAP St. Louis Agricultural Local: MN SWCDs and WS Ongoing Technical assistance to Louis assist livestock operators with River practices ABDI-LCD individuals BMP implementation watershed
244
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Lower St. Manage critical subwatersheds RAP St. Louis Forestry practices Multi: state & county foresters, Ongoing Establish procedures & Louis in vegetation age/class/diversity River, industrial forest owners, private. mechanisms to allow for to reduce peak flows in streams Nemadji forest consultants age/class/diversity River management in critical subwaters forest subwatersheds heds Lower St. Work to protect streams flowing SLWP Keene Hydro- Local: city of Duluth, surrounding Ongoing Protect urban stream water Louis through the city of Duluth and Creek and modification communities, St. Louis Co., SWCD quality; reduce flooding reduce flooding potential other streams flowing through Duluth Lower St. Address inflow and infiltration SLWP Winton General point and Local/state/federal: St. Louis Co., Ongoing Education and financial aid Louis problem via education and NPS WLSSD, state and federal funding providing financial aid sources
Lower St. Amend official controls of local SLWP St. Louis General NPS Local: county, town and city Need more Change official controls to Louis governments to require County governments; SWCD` require buffer strips along vegetative preservation buffer lakes and rivers areas along lakes and rivers; allow selective cutting in these areas with an approved management plan. Req. width of strip Lower St. Conduct watershed studies in SLWP St. Louis General point and Local/state: local units of Ongoing CWP Conduct watershed studies Louis lakes that appear to have WQ County NPS government., lake associations, on "problem" lakes, problems and in those lakes problem MPCA, University Extension/St. educate about Clean Water identified in the LWP problem areas Louis Co., MDNR - Waters, MDA Partnership Program area map Lower St. Develop an information SLWP St. Louis General point and Local/state: St. Louis County Not complete Create a clearinghouse of Louis clearinghouse for environmental County NPS Environmental Services, area information related to the information libraries, all environmental local environment regulating agencies and researchers
245
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Lower St. Expand recycling efforts SLWP St. Louis Solid waste Local/state: St. Louis Co. Solid Ongoing Expand recycling effort, Louis County Waste, WLSSD, University offer economic Extension development assistance to industries that process recycled material, encourage purchase of recyclable/recycled products Lower St. Improve background data on the SLWP St. Louis, General point and Local/state: lake associations, Ongoing Encourage lake Louis county's lakes and rivers through Cloquet, NPS MPCA, University Extension/St. associations to begin condition monitoring, problem Whiteface, Louis Co., St. Louis Co. Env. monitoring programs investigation, and encouraging Little Serv., town and city govt’s, Indian (either through MPCA or landowner participation in lake Grand, Reservations, North and South SLC otherwise), monitor associations Nichols, SWCD conditions/problems in targeted county lakes and streams Lower St. Improve information and SLWP St. Louis Land treatment Local: St. Louis Co. Environmental Ongoing Education, creation of a Louis education promoting adequate County and disposal Serv's, St. Louis Co. MIS, land information system so individual sewage treatment University Extension/St. Louis Co. landowners, developers, systems etc. can receive info. on areas that should be set aside for ISTS. Lower St. In intensively developed areas SLWP St. Louis Land treatment Local: St. Louis Co. Environmental Ongoing Scrutinize use of ISTS's in Louis where ISTS's are proposed, County and disposal Services intensively developed areas identify problem areas, examine problem building permits, the potential areas for sewering, and density
Lower St. Land use controls should SLWP St. Louis General NPS Local: St. Louis Co. Ongoing Land use controls should Louis consider cumulative watershed County consider cumulative impacts, and land use plans watershed impacts, and should consider watershed issues land use plans should (to the extent possible) consider watershed issues (to the extent possible) Lower St. Promote forestry BMP’s and SLWP St. Louis Forestry practices Local/state: St. Louis Co. Ongoing Forestry BMP’s Louis professional forestry assistance County Extension Service, DNR-Forestry, SWCD
246
Table 8.1.2 Implementation Projects Underway (Based on Available Information) Area of Recommendation Source Focus Issue Implementer Status Management Strategy Concern Lower St. Salvage yards should be SLWP St. Louis Solid waste Local: St. Louis Co. Environmental Ongoing-limited Require Louis licensed/permitted and required County Services, town and city regulatory licensing/permitting of to conduct on-going monitoring; agencies salvage yards and on-going develop a method for taking monitoring; develop action when a salvage yard is not enforcement actions in compliance
Upper St. Manage Unique Project Areas to SLRB Upper St. General point and Local: St. Louis River Board Not complete Protect areas of vital Louis protect the intrinsic values that Louis, NPS importance to the character contribute to the rivers' character Whiteface, of the river system and Cloquet Rivers Upper St. Render a future desired SLRB Upper St. Forestry practices Local: St. Louis River Board Ongoing Create/preserve mature to Louis condition of a mature to old Louis, old growth forest (St. growth late successional mixed Whiteface, Louis County believes that conifer and hardwood riparian and this management strategy forest within the management Cloquet is both undesirable and zones Rivers unachievable.)
247 Appendix F - Survey Responses*
*Questions 4, 6, and 13 asked respondents to rank their top three choices from a list of ten possible answers. Results to these questions were “…calculated by multiplying the percent of votes received for each item by the points available for that round of voting (10 points for round 1, 9 points for round 2, and 8 points for round 3) and then adding the points for each item, for all voted rounds” (Unity manual).
248 Question 1: If you were given the responsibility to design a new voting system to improve upon the 2000 presidential election, whom would you hire as a consultant?
Jimmy Carter (former president) Antonin Scalia (Supreme Court Justice) Kathryn Harris (Florida Secretary of State) Homer Simpson (television character)
Ahmat MaHamat-Saleh (Excellency of Chad) None of the above Jesse Jackson (Rainbow PUSH Coalition)
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 25% 17% 29%
50% 17% 6% 8% 63% 62% 6% 6% 4% 2% 4% 1%
Citizens Business/Industry Government Employee 22% 25% 35% 47% 44% 56% 13% 13%
4% 4% 5% 6% 3% 5% 17% 1%
Civic Member Researchers 27% 38% 37% 45%
4% 4% 4% 4% 25% 12%
249
Question 2: How long have you lived in Northeastern Minnesota?
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 15> years
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group
24% 25% 19%
53% 8% 13% 67% 81% 10%
Citizens Business/Industry Government Employee 22% 13% 4% 27% 13% 45% 55% 15% 70% 14% 8% 14%
Civic Member Researchers 23% 25%
46%
62% 13% 19%
12%
250
Question 3: In what capacity are you here today?
Elected official Government employee Business/Industry representative Environmental group (member/representative) Academic/Researcher Civic/Association member Citizen
All Groups Combined 5%
26% 45%
7% 2% 8% 7%
251
Question 4: What are your top three reasons for choosing to live in Northeastern Minnesota?
Less government or neighborly interference in your personal lives Desire to reside in a rural setting Safer place (appears to be less crime) Desire to live in a smaller community or urban area Familiarity with the area (went to college, visited frequently) Employment or business opportunities Quality of schools, neighborhoods, cultural amenities Proximity to outdoor recreation Family connections Scenery or natural environment
0.52 0.84 0.63 1.03 1.07 0.39 1.47 1.07 1 2.93 3.58 1.22 3 4.65 2.53 3.17 2.89 Group 6.23
Total Set 3.47 4.35 3.08 3.93 4.69 4.49 Environmental 6.63 Official Elected 4.07 8.05
0 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 024 6810 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
0.98 0.45 0.1 1.04 0.7 0.92 1.17 0 1.14 1.41 3.11 1.25 3.28 3.4 2.99 3.11 3.82 2.76
Citizen Citizen 3.08 2.72 2.61
2.14 3.04 Employee 5.44
3.77 3.13 Government 4.06 7.02 6.64 5.73 Business/Industry
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
0.32 0.32 1.36 1 2.2 1.25 2.2 2.38 2.52 5.13 2.68 2.38 4.6
Civic Member 6.63 Researchers 3.48 8.25 7.32
0 246810 0 2 4 6 8
252
Question 5: Who do you consider the most reliable source of information on environmental issues?
Nonprofit environmental groups Business or trade associations Government agencies Elected officials University/research institutions The media (newspapers, television, magazines) Property rights organizations Other
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 7% 4% 7% 7% 20% 14% 2% 23% 3% 7% 23% 58% 42% 19% 27% 32% 5%
Citizens Business/ Industry Government Employee 8% 8% 4% 4% 13% 6% 9% 30% 2% 9% 6% 4%
26% 47% 38% 12% 34% 40%
Civic Member Researchers 4% 8% 25% 25% 4%
13% 84% 37%
253
Question 6: In your opinion, what category of organizations or individuals are the most effective guardians of the environment?
Business or trade groups Tribal government
Elected officials Local government
Property rights organizations Federal government
Media (newspapers, television, magazines) State government
Other Environmental organizations
0.61 0 0 0.62 1.06 0.84 1.06 0 0.45 1.14 0.56 1.71 1.61 1.06 0 1.66 1.23 2.2
3.44 4.52 Group 2.16
Total Set 4.92 5.29 5.75 5.58 6.35 4.46 Environmental 6.35 Elected Official 6.92 9.42
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 024 6810
0.66 2.75 0.21 0.7 1.12 0.1 1.83 0.83 0.1 1.6 1.15 0.76 2.23 1.16 1.53 2.01 1.15 0.95
Citizen 3.19 3.25 4.34
4.11 3.82 Employee 5.82
4.42 7.27 Government 7.21 6.23 4.51 5.99 Business/Industry
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
0 0.69 1 0.32 2.5 1.02 2.29 0 2.29 0.32 2 2.47 4.79 2.73 4.82 5.94 Researcher
Civic Member 2.29 6.24 5.04 7.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
254
Question 7: What is your view on this statement: “Environmental protection is an impediment to economic growth.”
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 13% 4% 4% 6% 16% 9% 40% 47% 13% 27% 12% 70% 7% 19% 13%
Citizens Business/Industry Government Employee 5% 4% 14% 12% 17% 23% 39% 18% 13% 49% 17% 5% 13% 40% 31%
Civic Member Researchers 13% 8%
23% 49% 25% 53% 4% 13% 12%
255
Question 8: My community . . .
Favors the environment over economics Favors economics over the environment Does not protect the environment or pursue economic opportunities Strikes an appropriate balance between economics and the environment
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 19% 5% 16% 24% 31% 36%
5%
39% 9% 13% 37% 66%
Citizens Business/Industry Government Employee 16% 22% 16%
36% 41% 39%
33% 30% 40% 10% 9% 8%
Civic Member Researchers 12% 27% 38% 37%
4%
25% 57%
256
Question 9: Land use decisions should be based primarily on . . .?
Land suitability
Natural resource impacts (loss of wetlands, habitat)
Market forces (economics)
Watershed land use mix (% forested, residential, commercial)
Political considerations (balance of economic, social and environmental considerations)
Neighborhood acceptance
Supporting infrastructure (sewer, gas, water lines)
Other
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 5% 7% 13% 4% 17% 2% 16% 2% 35% 27% 40% 33% 32% 35% 15% 1% 7% 9%
Citizens Business/Industry Government Employee 1% 6% 14% 10% 4% 4% 14% 21% 3% 4%
20% 14% 28%
38% 43% 21% 17% 1% 19% 18%
Civic Member Researchers 4% 4% 25% 13%
13% 28%
48%
12% 49% 4%
257
Question 10: Do fish consumption advisories have any affect on your use of the region’s water resources?
Impacts my consumption of fish Impacts my recreational use Impacts both my recreational use and fish consumption I do not believe there is any impact
I was unaware that a fish advisory existed This issue does not affect me directly
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 24% 13% 18% 17% 36% 13% 8% 42%
2%
13% 19% 19% 43% 33% Citizens Business/Industry Government Employee
27% 17% 24% 31% 35% 4% 47% 3% 11% 22% 18% 22% 13% 26%
Civic Member Researchers 13% 12% 28% 38%
28%
49% 32%
258
Question 11: From your perspective, what is the water quality like in streams, lakes, and wetlands within 20 miles or so of your home?
Excellent
Good
Poor
Severely degraded
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 4% 6% 13% 12% 19% 17% 25%
25%
69% 65% 45%
Citizens Business/Industry Government Employee 4% 5% 4% 17% 12% 21% 7% 5% 25%
72% 63% 65%
Civic Member Researchers 13% 15% 25% 12%
62% 73%
259
Question 12: The water quality in your favorite Lake Superior Basin lake, stream, or river will . . . over the next 10 years?
Get worse
Stay the same
Improve
All Groups Combined Business/Industry Environmental Group 19% 22% 27% 35% 48%
59% 14% 33% 43%
Citizens Elected Officials Government Employee 20% 15%
33% 46% 47%
67% 38% 34%
Civic Member Researchers 4% 25% 29% 50%
67% 25%
260
Question 13: Assuming you believe there are threats to the region’s water quality, what do you perceive as the most significant?
Other Atmospheric pollutants
Mining activities (iron, peat, gravel) Loss of buffers, shoreline, vegetation, wetlands) Forestry activities Development (pavement, buildings, manicured landscapes) Contaminated sites (landfills, leak sites, old industrial sites, sediments) Overuse (recreational, consumptive use of water) Septic Systems Industrial or municipal discharges (pipes)
0.6 0.53 0.42 0.82 1.3 0.7 1.03 0.56 1.17 1.93 3.52 2.48 1.96 1.13 0.7 2.79 4.26 1.89
3.49 5.5 Group 2.03
Total Set Set Total 4.11 3.23 6.33 4.23 4 4.26 Environmental 6.05 Official Elected 2.96 7.02
0 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
0.95 0.91 0.1 1.11 0 0.43 0.91 1.14 0.94 1.97 1.95 1.34 2.36 1.23 1.99 2.75 3 2.78
Citizen Citizen 4.22 3.55 2.22
4.47 4.86 Employee 3.82
3.13 4.64 Government 5.83 5.13 5.73 7.55 Business/Industry
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
1 0.4 0 1.48 1 1.08 3.13 1.11 1 1.4 1.25 3.26 4.5 3.75 1.25 1.83 Researcher
Civic Member 4.63 5.7 9.25 6.98
0246810 0 2 4 6 8
261
Question 14: As the single most important strategy to protect the quality of rivers, streams, wetlands, and lakes in my community, I would . . . Add more technical assistance programs Develop a local tax supported environmental fund
Improve public participation/educational opportunities Restore currently damaged resources
Create more laws or ordinances Create more shoreline buffers and filter strips
Increase environmental enforcement Establish community development limits
Expand implementation of best management practices Other
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 4% 5% 5% 5% 10% 13% 13% 19% 6% 24% 6% 23% 5% 19% 2% 2% 25% 23% 24% 19% 24% 24%
Citizens Business/ Industry Government Employee 6% 6% 4% 9% 6% 1% 5% 12% 4% 8% 9% 20% 1% 4% 1% 34% 6% 3% 39% 1% 26% 24% 22% 20% 4% 9% 16%
Researchers Civic Member
19% 13% 27% 24% 13% 4%
8% 19% 23% 25% 25%
262
Question 15: What do you see as the most important action that could be taken to protect groundwater quality?
Improve monitoring and research Reduce the application or use of chemicals Improve understanding of drinking water issues Development of additional spill emergency plans Promote groundwater conservation Other Increase funding for drinking water programs (testing, monitoring) Control land use in groundwater recharge areas Increase septic system or drainfield monitoring Set aside land or water for future drinking water sources
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 1% 3% 4% 13% 17% 13% 19% 13% 13% 2% 4% 6% 9% 4% 21% 19% 25% 6% 6% 28% 5% 37% 4% 3% 25%
Citizens Business/ Industry Government Employee 1% 4% 4% 12% 9% 9% 2% 23% 13% 15% 2% 17% 1% 21% 13% 10% 6% 4% 21% 4% 17% 40% 40% 4% 8%
Civic Member Researchers Citizens 1% 4% 23% 14% 12% 23% 15% 29% 15% 1% 6% 8% 29% 21% 14% 42% 17% 14% 4% 8%
263
Question 16: The source of my drinking water is . . .
Bottled water Well Surface water Cistern (attachment for precipitation) I do not know
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 4% 3% 3% 7% 1% 5% 5% 26% 37%
57% 89% 63%
Citizens Business/ Industry Government Employee 4% 5% 1% 3% 5% 2%
32% 36% 45% 53% 60% 54%
Civic Member Researchers 13% 5% 4%
42% 49%
87%
264
Question 17: Water quality should be organized by . . .
Political boundaries
Watersheds or basins
Landscape classifications (ecological regions)
Other
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 6% 5% 6% 14% 9% 19%
10%
80% 75% 76%
Citizens Business/ Industry Government Employee 1% 8% 6% 14% 5% 8% 10%
76% 86% 86%
Civic Member Researchers 4% 15%
100%
81%
265
Question 18: Do you have enough information to know how lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands in your area are managed?
Yes
No
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group
33% 32% 40%
60% 67% 68%
Citizens Business/ Industry Government Employee
34% 35% 41%
59% 66% 65%
Civic Member Researchers
29% 38%
62% 71%
266
Question 19: How much opportunity are you provided with for involvement in, or comment on, how lakes, rivers, and streams in your area are protected or managed?
Practically none
Some, but not enough
A reasonable amount
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Member 20% 9% 25% 32% 35% 40%
40% 40% 59%
Citizens Business/ Industry Government Employee 16% 26% 31% 32% 39% 48%
36% 37% 35%
Civic Groups Researchers
19% 25% 27% 38%
37% 54%
267
Question 20: The amount of coordination among governmental programs responsible for protecting the region’s water resources is . . .
Very inadequate
Somewhat inadequate
About right
Do not know
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group
20% 20% 22% 17% 21% 40%
15%
61% 44% 40%
Citizens Business/ Industry Government Employee 8% 23% 12% 27% 27% 29% 16%
14% 27% 30% 23% 64%
Civic Member Researchers 13% 15% 19% 4% 38%
49% 62%
268
Question 21: If you could send one message to all Northeastern Minnesota resource managers, it would be too . . .
Keep up the good work
Try a little harder We have a lot of work ahead to protect our resources I am willing to do my part to help protect the environment
All Groups Combined Elected Officials Environmental Group 11% 8% 14% 6% 36% 9% 41% 46%
46%
47% 36%
Citizens Business/ Industry Government Employee 9% 15% 10% 32% 5% 27% 7% 36% 7%
42% 54% 56%
Civic Member Researchers 8% 25% 8% 38%
75% 46%
269 Appendix G - Responsiveness Summary
Responsiveness Summary - Lake Superior Basin Plan – January 2004
Comment from Chel Anderson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
I want to point out a possible intersection between your work and the MN County Biological Survey (MCBS) for you to consider as you continue to formulate, and take the next steps in the planning process. The MCBS has completed field work in the North Shore Highlands and products are in development, and field work is in progress in the Laurentian Uplands and Toimi Uplands subsections. The results may be of interest and or useful to what you broadly summarized the other night as a winnowing process for developing geographic and activity priorities (e.g. bioiversity significance ranking of sites within the subsections based on statewide criteria; mapping to native plant community of sites ranked as outstanding). If you are not familiar with MCBS data, I encourage you to explore what's available and how it might be of use to the next phase of the process. You can either contact me or the Program Supervisor, Carmen Converse, 651-296-9782, [email protected] with any questions or for additional information. Thanks again. I look forward to reviewing the Plan.
Response to Chel Anderson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on the Lake Superior Basin Plan. We are interested in looking at the MN County Biological Survey data to see if it is possible to incorporate it into the Lake Superior Watershed Assessment. The Watershed Assessment model, which is incorporated into the Lake Superior Basin Plan, has a constant need to be updated. While we would like to be able to update it now, we lack the time and resources to do this at present. Therefore, the state of the Watershed Assessment at the present time is what is going to be included in the final draft of the plan. We would like to update the Watershed Assessment again in the near future, and will be contacting you at that time.
Comment from John Brazner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
You are probably aware of the Comparative Watershed Study that our group did a few years ago that included lots of North Shore streams. We worked at Amity, Talmadge, French, and Sucker and found the more the forest had been reduced to immature trees, the more degraded the fish and invertebrate communities were and the poorer the water quality. That is a great over simplification of our results, but that's the idea. I'm still trying to get two fish papers published from that work and there are many others in the same state. Naomi Detenbeck may have passed along some of the information from her work on that Project. She has published a couple things that you may be aware of as well.
270
Response to John Brazner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John – Thanks for the reminder of the excellent work your team carried out relative to nonpoint source pollution in North and South shore streams. Naomi Detenbeck presented a summary of her work at one of our “practioners (resource managers)” meetings. We also reviewed one of the many published papers from this work, entitled “Effects of Hydrogeomorphic Region, Catchment Storage, and Mature Forest on base flow and Snowmelt Stream Water Quality in Second Order Lake Superior Basin Tributaries.” The findings noted in this paper, and in your note, document a correlation between water quality, storage, and the percent of the catchment (watershed) in immature forest. Your conclusion that watersheds or catchments with a higher percentage of immature trees negatively impacts water quality and aquatic communities is supported by the work of a number of scientists cited in your extensive literature review.
This work is unquestionably important when it comes to understanding the nonpoint source pollution puzzle. While we did not use the entire data set in the plan, parts of it were used in our basin-wide Watershed Assessment. The decision to use the basin-wide assessment was predicated on the idea that it would be necessary to have some tool to compare watersheds across the entire 6200 square mile area. Regrettably, forest age class is one of the missing variables in the assessment. Percent watershed in immature forest (forest age class) is one of the datasets we hope to acquire and analyze in the future. As such, we hope to make better use of the study findings in the future to manage watersheds throughout the Minnesota portion of the Lake Superior Basin. The findings will also have immediate value to the plan implementation process because they can be used as part of a more detailed analysis of North Shore watersheds.
Comment from Cathy Jensen, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
I went through the basin plan and have just a very few comments.
In a couple of places in section 8-2, monitoring sites operated by the Fond Du Lac tribe are mentioned but it is not clear whether there was any data from the sites used in your analysis. Was it? If not, you may want to say the data was unavailable or whatever. It is sort of left hanging.
Response to Cathy Jensen, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Chapter VIII, titled Environmental Monitoring discusses a variety of monitoring efforts underway in the Lake Superior Basin. Section 8.2 discusses air monitoring that is currently taking place in the Lake Superior Basin. The discussion of monitoring data in this chapter does not necessarily imply that the data was used in the Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment. Parameters incorporated in the Watershed Assessment are outlined and discussed in Chapter VII, as well as in Appendix C.
271
We agree that it is desirable to be as clear as possible about data sources used in the Watershed Assessment. However, we are also concerned that mentioning something about the Watershed Assessment in one sub-heading would raise similar questions for each of the other categories. As such, we will take a look at the introduction to this chapter to see if it is possible to incorporate a statement that makes it clear that monitoring data discussed in Chapter VIII was not incorporated into the Watershed Assessment, unless explicitly stated as such in either Chapter VII or the Data Dictionary (Appendix C).
Comment from Cathy Jensen,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
The section on emerging issues is good and very important, but really needs a good editor. The global warming section needs to be less wishy washy. I realize you are trying to avoid controversy but there are too many 'some people think. . .' Perhaps something like Whether global warming is caused by human activity or is part of a natural cycle, the likely effects are the same. . . .
Response to Cathy Jensen,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
We agree that emerging issues are very important, and have the potential to significantly impact the water resources of the Lake Superior Basin. The issue of global warming is very complicated and controversial. It was difficult figuring out how to briefly portray this important issue without getting into the complexities and uncertainties that have dominated public policy discussions on this topic for years. We will take a look at the global warming text and see if it is possible to make it more direct. Your grammatical suggestions on the global warming topic are greatly appreciated and will be incorporated into the final draft of the plan.
Comment from Cathy Jensen,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
The section on statewide and local issues really doesn't say anything except that there will always be state and local issues that arise that could have an impact on LS policy and implementation projects.
Response to Cathy Jensen,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Confusion in the sections on Statewide and Local Issues was due to formatting/editing problems. Section 11.2 Statewide Issues and 11.3 Local Issues are not sections by themselves but introductory paragraphs for the larger section. Statewide Issues include the sub-sections headed:
272
11.2.1 Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Program, 11.2.2 Off-Road Vehicle Trails, 11.2.3 Individual Sewage Treatment Systems, 11.2.4 Management of Wild Rice Waters, and 11.2.5 Exotic Species. Local Issues include the sub-sections headed: 11.3.1 Stream Warming, 11.3.2 Development along the North Shore, 11.3.3 Paper Companies, 11.3.4 Stability of Northeastern Minnesota’s Resource Based Economy, and 11.3.5 Directional Drilling in Lake Superior. The numbering format used, ex. 11.2.3 is defined as follows. The 11 heading depicts the chapter, the 2 depicts the section, and the 3 depicts the sub-section. We will do some minor formatting, i.e. changing font sizes, underlining, and adding informative wording in the introductory paragraphs to make the chapter more clear.
Comment from Cathy Jensen, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
"It will be hard to keep a good market for water down when the gains from trade are so large monetarily" (Section 11.1.2) I think there is probably a better way to say this.
Response to Cathy Jensen, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Thank you for your comment on this matter. We agree that there is a better way to say this and grammatical changes will be made to the final draft of the plan.
Comment from Cathy Jensen, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
You might also want to update the section on off highway vehicles based on the last legislative session. The DNR is required to submit a report to the legislature by January 15th of 2005 "....concerning the compatibility of multiple uses of the outdoor recreation system." The report must address "the current and future availability of outdoor recreational opportunities for non-motorized and motorized and recommend legislation and policy changes to preserve natural resources and to assure the continued availability of outdoor recreation opportunities for all residents of this state. The report must also address cost of maintenance, operation, and enforcement of the current off-highway vehicle trails system. . . ." In other words, the legislature has heard a lot of complaints over the last few years and is trying to get a better picture of the system and what is going on.
The basin plan is full of great information and is well organized. I know it was a huge job and is very well done. Good work!
273
Response to Cathy Jensen, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Thank you for the updated information regarding the role of the DNR and off highway vehicles. We have looked into this topic and will update section 11.2.2 with the correct information in the final version of the plan.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Although it may be too late in the game for major reshuffling of the order of presentation, or condensing, I’ll boldly and/or sheepishly put forth some reactions and suggestions in this regard, for consideration.
There seems to be significant overlap, or repetition, across some chapters – I expect because there was more than one author. Also, the order of presentation doesn’t flow very well for me. Following is a suggested reshuffle and integration of chapters that might also benefit from some reshuffling of information between chapters.
Acknowledgements Chapter 1: Executive Summary Chapter 2: Basin Plan Overview (integrate current Chapter 10: Key Plans and Policies, which also addresses current water resource management in MN and the Great Lakes) Chapter 3: Basin Plan Development Process Chapter 4: Key Basin Issues and Perspectives (integrate most of current Chapter 2: Forward) Chapter 5: Environmental Monitoring (Because this chapter is about the current situation, I believe it fits better before the “new” assessment information.) Chapter 6: Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment Chapter 7: Emerging Issues Chapter 8: Lake Superior Water Management Priorities Chapter 9: Recommendations Chapter 10: Implementation Framework
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on the draft version of the Lake Superior Basin Plan. As you know from the last PWG meeting, we are not in a position to reorganize the plan at this stage in the process; we are more concerned with making content changes so that everyone can be comfortable with the plan as a whole.
274
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Chapter 1: Executive Summary It seems to me that the order of the executive summary presentation (i.e. subsections) should follow the order of the remainder of the document, and vice versa.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
We will adjust the Executive Summary as you described so that its flow more closely follows that of the plan itself.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
1.1 Overview, 2nd paragraph, page 4: Suggest replacing “intact watersheds” and “intact rivers and lakes” with “relatively undisturbed” watersheds, rivers and lakes. 1.3 Existing Water Management Priorities, Program Priorities,
• Lake-wide Management Plan, page 7: Suggest expanding the discussion about part two of this effort / plan. The one sentence describing part two doesn’t tell the reader very much. It would be good to include more about the purposes of this plan. Lake Superior Coastal Program, page 8: Suggest replacing “to focus, and diffuse, sources of nonpoint pollution” to “to focus on diffuse sources of pollution.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
We will make the changes as you suggested in the final document.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
1.5 Emerging Issues: Although global warming and water export are real issues, off-road vehicles and trails, management of wild rice lakes, inadequate wastewater treatment, temperature impacts to cold water fisheries, and development trends, are surely more important to most readers. The latter issues are only mentioned, while global warming and out-of-basin water transfer are given much more discussion. I’d suggest an approximate equal amount of discussion about the entire list of emerging issues, with enough information to summarize the environmental
275
implications of these issues. I question the accuracy of the last statement of this subsection.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
We agree that the proximity of issues such as off-road vehicles and trails, management of wild rice lakes, inadequate wastewater treatment, temperature impacts to cold water fisheries, and development trends make them more visible to readers of the LSBP. These issues do receive greater attention in chapter eleven, “Emerging Issues,” but we will look at trying to provide a more full description of these issues in the “Executive Summary.”
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
1.6 Monitoring: In the 4th line on page 10, add “compared” after “adequate”. In the 3rd paragraph of this subsection (on page 11), line 3, “obvious” might better be said as “clear”, but I still question this statement, because the development of a comprehensive basin-wide monitoring plan seems to imply an unlimited budget to monitor everything. Because funding for monitoring has been, and is likely to remain quite limited, I believe the basin plan should speak about developing a strategic basin-wide monitoring plan. This plan should be based on coordinated, ongoing prioritization, including the Watershed Assessment provided in the Basin Plan, and involve coordination of various monitoring efforts in the basin.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
The goal of the plan was not to create a “full scale environmental monitoring plan,” as mentioned in this section. As you acknowledge, the resources needed to create something of this nature far outweigh the available funding and personnel hours necessary to carry out an effort of this nature. It was because of the lack of monitoring information available across the entire basin that we produced the Watershed Assessment. Your suggestion to create a “strategic basin-wide monitoring plan” is worth discussing with the PWG as the plan moves into the implementation phase.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
1.7 Implementation: The first paragraph seems very pessimistic. Based on the PWG implementation framework discussion held on 11-13-03, I believe this subsection should summarize a framework that should be developed in more detail in the current Chapter 12, Basin Plan Implementation. “Implementation Framework” is better terminology, rather than “implementation plan”, because implementation will be an ongoing outcome, or component, of the Basin Plan. Implementation doesn’t really have an end, as implied by the word “plan”. This framework
276
should provide a common vision for how local, state and federal governments, as well as nonprofits and private stakeholders, can work together to further define priorities, understand individual and collective motivations, and effectively coordinate actions to protect and restore natural resources in the Lake Superior Basin. Following is a suggested rough outline for an implementation framework chapter. Implementation Framework Guiding Principles Strategies Process This framework is a critical component of the Lake Superior Basin Plan, worthy of spending some additional writing and review time, I believe. Without it, the plan does not have a good bridge to the next phase of cooperative action.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
You are correct to note that the implementation process is largely undefined in the draft plan document. We recognize that this is a weakness of the plan and hope to capture some of the key aspects of how this process will work in the final version. We have had at least two sessions and will have two follow up sessions in January of 2004 for the express purpose of getting the implementation framework outlined in sufficient detail in the plan document. We expect that a number of details will be discussed and later incorporated into a more robust and complete version of the implementation strategy. This strategy document will detail how the partnership operates and what the specific roles and responsibilities are of participants. At this stage, we can not say with certainty how the basin plan process will operate into the future. However, we can say that it will include a broader cross section of the business community and citizenry.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources Chapter 2: Forward The title of this chapter doesn’t seem very descriptive. Maybe the chapter title should be “Introduction”, and the first subsection title “Key Basin Characteristics”, or it should be integrated with Chapter 4, as suggested above.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
We appreciate your comments on the restructuring of the document, but, as previously discussed, our focus at this time is content related issues. We are going to move the Forward so that it follows the typical format of similar documents.
277
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
2.1 Introduction, 1st paragraph: Suggest replacing “excess precipitation” with “abundant precipitation.”
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
We believe that “excess precipitation” is more accurate in the context of this statement.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Chapter 3: Lake Superior Basin Plan Recommendations Although I can see some benefit to having the recommendations early rather than late in the document, the location of this chapter doesn’t feel right to me. I’d suggest relocating as indicated above.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
The recommendation chapter occurs in the beginning of the document because it is such an important aspect of the plan. When establishing the table of contents the internal team used numerous plans as models for the LSBP. The structure of the plan is consistent with many other similar documents.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
A recommendation that has been discussed, but doesn’t seem to be directly addressed in the Basin Plan is to “Take proactive water quality protection and/or restoration to avoid the 303d list and TMDLs
278
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
We agree with your sentiment that a proactive approach needs to be taken to protect waterways, and their respective watershed, before they become impaired. It was this reasoning that lead to the creation of Recommendation II, “The maintenance and protection of high quality watersheds shall be a basin-wide priority.”
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Recommendation 3., Action Step c.: I wonder if the word “strict” should be replaced with “clear”.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Pending PWG approval, the action statement will be changed to read: Amend land use ordinances to include specific enforcement language.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Recommendation 8., Objectives: I’d suggest adding some clarification about developing strategic monitoring plans (because $ will always be limited).
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
The recommendations, objectives, and action steps were created as measures that could be taken to restore or preserve the natural resources within the basin. We understand that the measures used to achieve these steps will greatly depend on a variety of issues, including available funding, that continually are in a state of flux. We will propose adding an action step H, to the PWG, that focuses on a monitoring plan.”
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Chapter 7: Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment. On many of the figures, it would be more intuitive for me to have the categories in the legends ordered low to high from bottom to top, rather than low to high, top to bottom.
279
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Due to the number of maps, the work required to change the map legends would be overwhelming and would force us to neglect other “content” changes needed in the final version of the plan.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
th th Section 7.2 Methodology: The first paragraph indicates that 7 order watersheds were used for the LSBWA, while Figure 7.3 shows 5 order watersheds, which is my understanding of what was used.
Page 71: I believe Figure 7.11 – Public Ownership on page 70, and the associated text on page 71, are the first information about condition parameters. Therefore, I suggest adding a heading “Condition Parameters” at the top of page 71 to separate and clarify this portion of Chapter 7.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
The 7th order watershed boundaries were used in the Watershed Assessment Model. Figure 7.3 was included as a reference map illustrating the relationship of the minor watersheds with respect to the 5th order watersheds. There is a “Condition Parameter” label above the public ownership map found on page 70. The label was inserted here because the map precedes the discussion of public ownership found on page 71. We will add the same label at the beginning of the discussion.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Figure 7.16: The legend would be clearer if it read “% Change in Population Density”. It also appears that the first category listed (white color, 94 – 37) may have been eliminated during map preparation, because I don’t see any white on the map and the next category is 37 – 140.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
We will make the changes to the map legend. All categories are included in the map legend; category -94-37 is represented by watersheds in yellow; there is no white category.
280
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Page 93: Suggest adding a heading “Vulnerability Parameters” at the top of this page to separate and clarify this portion of Chapter 7.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Again, there is a “Vulnerability Parameter” label above the first vulnerability map found on page 94. We will insert the same label at the beginning of the discussion.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Figure 7.21 – % Riparian Areas in Forest or Wetland: The heading in the legend uses the terminology “Protected” in place of “Forested or Wetland”, which may not be clear to all readers.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
We will alter the legend label to coincide with the map title.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Chapter 8: Environmental Monitoring 9.1.1 Criteria Pollutant Monitoring, 4th paragraph: Should “liquid droplets of solid particles” be “liquid droplets and solid particles”?
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
This statement was taken from a MPCA fact sheet, and is consistent with the referenced information.
281
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
9.2 Threatened and Impaired Waters, last paragraph: Should the last sentence start with “Although”, and should “primary goal” be “major goal”, so as not to relegate air quality to a secondary goal?
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
These changes will be made to this sentence.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Chapter 9: Lake Superior Water Management Priorities For some of the figures in this chapter, it would be more intuitive for me to have the categories in the legends ordered low to high from bottom to top, rather than low to high, top to bottom.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Due to the number of maps, the work required to change the map legends would be overwhelming and would force us to neglect other “content” changes needed in the final version of the plan. The maps in Chapter IX are consistent with those in the rest of the document.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
9.4.1 Wellhead Protection, last bullet: In the last quote, “do” should be “due”. 9.12 Beach Program, numbered list on page 162: I believe the sentence numbered “1.” should not be a numbered item in the list. 9.14 Grant Funded Projects: Is it really correct to say that the NRCS provides grant funds “through” the LCMR and CWPP? 9.14.2 Section 319/Clean Water Partnership Projects item 4.: “SWCS” should be “SWCD” item 10.: “engineer” should be “engineering technician”
282
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
The changes will be made to these passages.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Chapter 10: Key Plans and Policies 10.4 County Forest Plans, Cloquet Forestry Center Forest Management Plan: The description doesn’t indicate for what forest(s) the plan was developed.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
The following information will be included in the final version of the plan: The Cloquet Forestry Center Forest Management Plan encompasses “the 3,340 contiguous acres (University of Minnesota, 1987) of the Cloquet Forestry Center.”
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
10.8 Coastal Plans: Is the March 17, 2003 federal register date correct? Because the conditions associated with NOAA/EPA approval of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Plan will be resolved within 2 years, and the Lake Superior Basin Plan is a long-term document, I’d suggest not listing the conditions here. The reference “(MPCA, 2001)” also seems confusing, or incorrect.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Thank you for drawing our attention to the federal register date. After doing some follow up research we discovered that the actual date of conditional approval was October 16, 2003. We will make the necessary corrections to the final document. We will also remove the conditions of EPA’s approval for the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Plan.
283
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Chapter 11: Emerging Issues Because people typically imply priorities associated with the order of listing topics, I’d suggest discussion of local, state and national issues, in this order. This would imply more of a grass roots basis for priorities and would move the discussions about global warming and water diversion to later in the chapter.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
The changes you proposed will be made to the final document.
Comment from Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
Chapter 12: Basin Plan Implementation See comments above about an implementation framework.
Response to Al Kean, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
See response above concerning implementation framework.
Comment from Mike Kennedy, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
Dear Mr. Fredrickson,
On behalf of the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the broadly "defined strategies, geographic and programmatic priorities, and goals for the management of water resources in the Minnesota portion of the Lake Superior Basin," as described in the Lake Superior Basin Plan dated July, 2003. As stated in the third sentence of the Executive Summary, "every natural or human action that takes place within this system defines water quality in one way or another." To that end we feel it is imperative that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency include direct references of the need to educate citizens in the watershed.
284
The cumulative effects of individual behaviors and actions in the watershed result in challenges to control and greatly reduce non-point pollution in the Lake Superior basin. Education of citizens, about their behaviors and effects thereof, lead to a more informed, environmentally literate citizenry. A more environmentally literate citizenry possesses the knowledge about the environment and issues related to it; being capable of, and inclined to, further self- directed environmental learning and/or action. (North American Association for Environmental Education) Minnesota's State Goals for Environmental Education (Minn. Stat. §115A.073) outline the need for such education by stating the following:
¾ understand ecological systems
¾ understand the cause and effect relationship between human attitudes and behavior and the environment
¾ be able to evaluate alternative responses to environmental issues before deciding on alternative courses of action
¾ understand the effects of multiple uses of the environment
It would be of great benefit to these efforts if the Lake Superior Basin Plan were to include specific statements about the need to educate citizens of the Lake Superior basin watershed.
The basin plan outlines 20 Lake superior Basin Recommendations on page 13 of the document. I would like to suggest a 21st: as follows: Develop, promote, and improve educational efforts in the Lake Superior Basin concerning non-point pollution. I believe this statement would help educators set priorities, attain funding, and develop educational opportunities about many topics addressed in several other recommendations. Education about issues such as storm water impacts, exotic species, drinking water protections, cold water habitats, watershed restoration, wastewater, and hydrologic and geomorphologic understanding will ensure the "environmental health, beauty and unique natural character of the Lake Superior basin."
I would be very happy to discuss with you and/or the Lake Superior Basin Planning team the reasoning and strategies behind the above statements. Please feel free to contact me if so desired.
Again, the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the good work you do on behalf of the people of Minnesota.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Kennedy Education Specialist Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
285
Response to Mike Kennedy,
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
Mr. Kennedy,
Thank you for taking the time to review the draft version of the Lake Superior Basin Plan. After reviewing your comments we propose to alter recommendation twenty, and the associated objectives and action steps, to further emphasize the need for environmental education in the Lake Superior Basin. We will present the proposed changes to this recommendation (outlined below) to the Programmatic Work Group (PWG) for them to discuss. The recommendation will be incorporated into the final version of the document based on the recommendation of the PWG.
The draft version of recommendation twenty now reads:
XX. DEVELOP, PROMOTE, AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION IN THE LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN.
Objectives:
1. Promote environmental education to raise awareness and understanding of natural systems and the cause and effect relationship between human attitudes and behavior and the environment.
2. Raise awareness of the general public with respect to the nature of nonpoint source pollution, how communities and individuals contribute to it and what governmental organizations and individuals are doing about it.
3. Promote conservation of our environmental resources. Raise the level of stewardship that recognizes our individual and collective responsibility to protect, preserve and restore the natural environment for ourselves and future generations.
4. Foster coordination and cooperation between governmental agencies and private, nonprofit and other organizations to carry out information and education efforts.
Action Steps:
a. Provide resources such as technical information, data, case studies of other areas of the state, etc. to foster informed decision making by individuals, organizations and governmental entities.
b. Provide for a basic understanding of ecological systems.
c. Promote activities that raise awareness of watersheds and things that can be done to minimize impact (e.g., volunteer monitoring, storm drain stenciling).
d. Educate individuals about the important role that they play when making decisions that impact their watershed.
286
Comment from Beth Kluthe,
Minnesota Department of Health
It was great to see the inclusion of drinking water and source water protection issues in the plan. I have just a few comments on the draft plan.
1. p. 47. Under 5.3 the MDH bullet. It may be more correct to state that MDH "administers the state plumbing and well codes".
2. Chapter 8. Is there an opportunity for a brief description or discussion of groundwater monitoring?
3. p. 148 under the SWA discussion. It states there are currently five municipalities that rely on surface water. That is incorrect. There are also seven municipalities on the range that rely on surface water: Virginia/Mesabi Mountain pit; Chisholm/Fraser pit; Hoyt Lakes/ Colby Lake; McKinley/Corsica pit; Biwabik/Canton pit; Eveleth/St. Mary's Lake; and Aurora/St. James pit. All the source water assessments have been completed and may be found at: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/swa.
Response to Beth Kluthe,
Minnesota Department of Health
Thank you for the comments and suggested improvements to the basin plan. We plan to incorporate your corrections, suggestions, and comments as recommended. We will also insert a brief section on groundwater monitoring in Chapter VIII.
Comments from LeRoger Lind,
Two Harbors, MN
These are my comments on the Lake Superior Basin Plan Draft.
In general the plan is a long-overdue, comprehensive roadmap for stabilizing the North Shore with respect to rapidly increasing development forces. Not having read the entire report, my comments are focused on the Recommendations section. Most of the action items will require coordination on a regional basis along the entire North Shore. They must also be prioritized due to resource and sequencing constraints. It is difficult to imagine more than a few of the goals being accomplished before they become irrelevant without some type of regional authority to guide the process.
287
Response to LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Thank you for taking the time to go through, and comment on, the recommendations of the Lake Superior Basin Plan. We agree that in order for many of these recommendations to be fulfilled in a timely manner a collective approach must be taken during the plan’s implementation phase. It is envisioned that other agencies, partnerships, and local governments will take the lead on recommendations that fit their current programs and initiatives. This cooperative approach will, hopefully, allow greater flexibility and provide unique opportunities for the implementation of the plan’s recommendations.
The next step in the implementation phase of this document will include prioritizing the recommendation action steps by the PWG. This will allow the group to identify priorities, actions steps not being met, and resource constraints that exist for current activities.
Comment from LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Financial forces currently drive development on an individual project basis. Few resources are available for assessing the cumulative effects of development on the environment, public safety or public health. These issues are viewed as something to be dealt with in the future since we can’t deal with something that doesn’t exist at this time. There is no proof of irreversible change and no resources to quantify it. This plan should provide guidance to developing data and processes to quell this line of thinking.
Response to LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
We agree. Whether the resources are available or not, there should be recognition of the fact that land use change and land use decisions are a collective issue. Perhaps the best outcome in this day of limited resources is to focus efforts on the education of people regarding the environmental implications of land use decisions. This may “plant the seed” of requests and demands for additional resources that are necessary to protect the integrity of our natural resources.
As you suggest, there are “[few resources available] for assessing the cumulative effects of development on the environment, public safety, or public health.” It was because of the lack of monitoring data available basin-wide that we conducted the Watershed Assessment (Chapter VII LSBP). This assessment allowed us to compare watershed impacts/vulnerability throughout the basin, and helped us identify high resource watersheds. While there are no costs associated with preserving an unimpacted watershed versus repairing a highly impacted one, there are several recommendations, objectives, and action steps that cite the need to protect the relatively low impacted watersheds; most specifically, recommendation II states, “The maintenance and protection of high quality watersheds shall be a basin-wide priority.”
288
Comment from LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
A moratorium on large-scale commercial and industrial development should be enacted through either legislation or cooperation of local units of government to make this plan effective. Developments currently planned will at least double wastewater output and air pollutant emissions in the next decade along the North Shore. The shoreline, tributary banks and ridges will be filled in before a load capacity analysis can be completed. Without an oversight committee we will only be able to track the damage and witness the process continuing into the second and third tiers. The plan goals will be much more difficult to accomplish the longer current random approach to development continues.
Response to LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
We agree that a regional perspective is needed as it relates to the increasing developmental pressures on the North Shore. This issue also applies to pressures on inland lakes and rivers within the basin. A broader perspective would also help to examine the cumulative effects that individual impacts are collectively having on the environment and natural systems. Because there is no regional government, a collaborative effort by all levels of governments, businesses, organizations and the citizens is needed.
Added to this is the complexity of impacts from land use and land use change. Often times, other than a change in land use, there is no perceptible change in the environment. This is in part due to the complexity of natural systems and the equilibrium between components of that system. Impacts are often secondary and cumulative, having a delayed (perceptible) effect or have no observed changes until some environmental threshold is reached that upsets the balance of the natural system to the point where degradation of the environment is accelerated. In addition, without high-quality environmental data (baseline), it is even more difficult to measure and invoke efforts to counteract degradation.
Comment from LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Recommendation 1; action step a.
Why limit the scope to long term costs? Public health and water quality are currently being affected by runoff from failed mound systems. Current development on stream banks and ridges will increase erosion and road repair costs. Costs from these and other effects of development to individual landowners should also be identified.
289
Response to LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Recommendation 1, action step a will be changed a to read: identify short and long term costs of not implementing water resource protection programs at the local level (e.g., water plans, wetlands protection, technical assistance).
Comment from LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Recommendation 2; objective 3.
If Lake Superior were considered part of this Plan, restoration would consist of very expensive water filtration plants. Protecting the watershed is a much more cost-effective solution. Fewer costs would be passed on to future generations.
Response to LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
As the receiving waters for streams and rivers in the basin, Lake Superior’s importance is clearly recognized by the framers of the basin plan. The principal reason Lake Superior is not highlighted to a larger degree is that it is already the subject of an extensive and ongoing management effort by federal, state, and provincial governments. We do not have the resources, nor would it be prudent, to attempt to duplicate the work completed to date under the Lake-wide Area Management Plan.
You are absolutely right about the importance of watershed protection. Work to maintain the integrity of watersheds will pay dividends down the road with costs avoided. These costs include water filtration, culverts and storm sewers, flood control, property damage, and other related costs.
Comment from LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Recommendation 2; objective 4.
On the surface this appears to be a good strategy. However, in practice these “development nodes” promote extremely high-density building and the size of the “node” is limited by the size of the sewage treatment plant alone. Lake Superior is viewed as an infinite receptacle for semi-treated wastewater. This strategy must include a load capacity analysis for pollutants to be effective.
290
Response to LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
This objective is not meant to exceed the limitations of current infrastructures. Rather, it was included to address current development trends (i.e. urban sprawl). This action step, as it relates to the recommendation, was included to focus new growth to areas of existing infrastructure. As you noted, other issues, including wastewater plant capacity, will ultimately play a role in where new growth occurs.
Comment from LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Recommendation 6; objective 1 It is not clear if this recommendation or Recommendation 16 covers large industrial sites and power generation plants. In any case, these sources of pollution are growing as fast as other commercial development and must somehow be “managed” in order for this Plan to be effective.
Response to LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Neither this recommendation nor recommendation 16 refers to point sources of pollution such as industrial sites or power generation plants. These recommendations focus on the need to develop strategies for minimizing the effects of nonpoint pollution. However, point sources of pollution have been included in the Watershed Assessment Model which is cited in the action steps for recommendation 2 objective 5 and the action steps for recommendation 12. Also, recommendation 8 objectives 3 & 4 identify the need for more monitoring efforts in the basin, and recommendation 9 objective 4 identifies the need to, “develop strategies to minimize impacts of future or expected developmental pressures.”
Comment from LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Recommendation 7; action item Ground water should be protected in rural areas under development pressure by requiring test wells to be installed on sites being proposed for larger developments (>1000 gallons per day). Conditional use permits should not be issued for groundwater exxtration if the test wells indicate a significant effect on other wells in the area. Extraction of large quantities of groundwater from a given location may also affect the value of surrounding properties without the owner’s knowledge since wells may not be in place. This is currently a serious issue in many locations on the North Shore and is currently dealt with on first come, first served basis.
291
Response to LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
We will pass on your concern about groundwater to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). The MDNR issues appropriation permits that govern freshwater withdrawls from surface and groundwater. Generally speaking, well interference is factored in as part of the appropriation permit issuance. Small volume or household wells do not receive appropriation permits. As such, well interference and productivity are delegated to the homeowner and driller. The low productivity of bedrock aquifers in Northeastern Minnesota is also a key factor in limited groundwater development and use.
Comment from LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Recommendation 10 Until the Federal and State governments get serious about controlling bilge water in foreign and other shipping vessels this recommendation will deal with symptoms rather than causes of the spread of exotic species in Lake Superior and its watershed.
Response to LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
We agree that to effectively fight invasive exotic species more stringent regulation of shipping vessels is necessary. However, since exotic species have already been introduced into the basin, it is the recommendation of the LSBP that we try to limit their spread to the best degree possible using the measures under our control. It is believed that certain measures can be taken to help limit their spread, and the effect they have on native species within the basin. Comment from LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
Recommendation 11; action item a Decisions are currently being made on the local level that makes the implementation of this recommendation urgent if it is to be meaningful. Properties are being rezoned and platted at random without any analysis of the �ffect on the affected watersheds. Current zoning density is based upon historical uses. As cities increase their boundaries through annexation, surrounding rural areas are rezoned to smaller lot sizes as the properties become more valuable and accessible. Local units of government have not accepted watershed capacity as a planning framework.
292
Response to LeRoger Lind, Two Harbors, MN
As you have suggested, it is important to move quickly into the implementation phase of the planning process. To effectively implement this document there will need to be a successful public component that incorporates local parties into the process. As you mentioned, it is difficult to promote the benefits related to preserving resources before they become impacted. This issue is one that will need to be addressed as the plan moves into the implementation phase.
Comment from Carrie Lohse-Hanson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Thanks for the copy of the latest basin plan and thanks for incorporating many of my first set of comments! I have a few additional comments and an update on LaMP activities for Appendices D and E.
• TOC: there is no section 12.4.2 on page 247.
• page 16, quote under section 2.5: The full quote is "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana, The Life of Reason. 1905. The version in the plan is awfully close, but it bugs me when quotes are misquoted, even a little (I know - anal retentive).
• page 36, toxic substance management bullet: LaMP should be added to the household hazardous waste collection sub-bullet (i.e., 1,2,3,4,5, should be 1,2,3,4,5,7) and to the mercury containing products ban sub-bullet (i.e., 7). I don't know where the following treated wood recommendation came from, but it would be interesting to identify it.
• I also recommend expanding the fish consumption sub-bullet to "Local reduction of atmospheric pollutants that cause fish consumption advisories." Leaving it at just "fish advisories" is a bit confusing since it doesn't explain what action is recommended to deal with the problem.
• page 144, second paragraph, sentence beginning "Most advisories involve...": While this might be true nationwide, I don't think we should imply that Minnesota advisories are also based on chlordane, dioxin or DDT. I recommend just listing mercury and PCBs. We used to have a dioxin advisory for part of the St. Louis but MDH eventually dropped it because of the age of the data. I talked with Pat McCann about this and she agrees limiting the remark to mercury and PCBs.
• I also faxed page 144 to Pat since she is the expert on fish consumption advisories.
• page 162, Section 9.13: the text refers to Appendices B and C several times, but it is apparent when looking at the latest version of the appendices that they have been relabeled D and E.
I also (finally!) updated the LaMP/LSBP lines for Appendices D and E. Please delete all lines that have LaMP or LSBP in the source column and replace them with the info in the attachment. I have not just updated, I have revised significantly. When the data base was first developed, Stage 2 wasn't published and Stage 3 was off in the future. The revised list reflects the final schedules in Stage 2 and the actual commitments in
293
Stage 3. Sorry it took so long to do this. Thanks for the opportunity to look at the Basin Plan again!
Response to Carrie Lohse-Hanson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Thank you for your comments pertaining to the Lake Superior Basin Plan. All of your grammatical/editing suggestions will be incorporated into the final version of the LSBP. The content changes you proposed for pages 36, concerning LaMP involvement in a couple of themes and the fish consumption bullet, on page 144, dealing with fish advisories, will also be incorporated into the final version of the plan. Sources for the fish advisory section included both federal and state standards; we agree that the section would be improved by including only the regional concerns for fish advisories (i.e. mercury and PCBs).
Comment from Phil Monson, Minnesota Extension Service
I have a few thoughts connected with the draft basin plan. I have perused the plan, but not read it. We need to build and maintain the connections to community (citizens, elected officials, etc.). I know this was mentioned, but it needs to be closely matched to any actions within the plan · a major reason that people lack or lose interest in environmental issues is because the groups that provide the necessary technical guidance are perceived to be at odds on the issues. The audience desires to be a part of the action. Their stake in the issue relates to their comfort in life (e.g., financial well being, recreational desires, personal, moral or ethical beliefs). If there is no potential risk of change to this comfort status, they will let it slide the media drives what much of the public uses to guide to their knowledge of the issues. Public involvement/outreach has to be as good as the media.
Response to Phil Monson, Minnesota Extension Service
We acknowledge the need for public participation within the Lake Superior Basin Planning Process. Throughout the process numerous attempts were made to involve local stakeholders and interested parties. Efforts to increase public awareness of, and involvement in, the LSBP include an environmental survey, listening log, news bulletin, as well as public meetings that were held at the beginning of the plan’s development and after the draft version was completed. One of the most valuable assets to the plans development was the formation of the Programmatic Work Group (PWG). This group includes members located throughout the basin representing a variety of partners. The PWG is responsible for collectively addressing basin issues and implementing the LSBP.
Recently, there have been several stories in the paper, as well as on the news, related to the negative impacts on water quality of North Shore Streams. The PWG has discussed using this recent attention to environmental issues as a marketing catapult to gather support for the plan.
294
Comment from Phil Monson, Minnesota Extension Service
I recently attended a conference sponsored by the Blandin Foundation (Vital Forests, Vital Communities). The conference was convened on the premise that participants would take up action on particular tasks that they saw fit with the theme of the forest resources of Minnesota. It was widely attended (about 120) by about 40% public sector (including academia), 20% industry, 20% non-profit. Tom Duffus gave a good presentation. The conference had some of its roots from the “The Governors Advisory Task Force Report on the Competitiveness of Minnesota’s Primary Forest Products Industry.” The bottom line from the conference attendees was that public education is a critical component of any initiative regarding forest resources. Another part is that it was widely agreed that forest resources are being lost to development, more or less couched in the form of subdivision of land.
I think that these two points may be an ingredient to augment basin plans. Recommendations by the (primarily) industry groups included the need to streamline permitting to speed up harvest schedules. This was one of a number of needed changes to make Minnesota logs more competitive with existing markets. I’m sure this isn’t new, but it has the potential to be an example of disagreement between two groups of technical providers.
Response to Phil Monson, Minnesota Extension Service
It was difficult to outline exactly how the implementation of the LSBP is to occur, since the implementation phase will actually transpire after the publication of the document. However, public involvement within the process is considered a high priority. Although the specifics for the public outreach component of the plan’s implementation have not yet been completed, many of the plan’s recommendations and action steps target the need for public involvement. A few examples include:
Recommendation 5
• Action Step B: “Encourage creation of stakeholder groups (e.g., watershed councils and ad hoc organizations) to oversee TMDL development.” Recommendation 18
• Action statement E: “Develop a public awareness and outreach strategy to facilitate plan implementation.” Recommendation 20
• Action statement C: “Promote activities that raise awareness of watersheds and things that can be done to minimize impact (e.g., volunteer monitoring, storm drain stenciling).”
• Action Statement D: “Educate individuals as to the important role that they have when making decisions that may have an impact on their watershed.”
• Action Statement F: “Raise the level of stewardship that recognizes our individual and collective responsibility to protect, preserve and restore the natural environment for ourselves and future generations.”
295
It is difficult to outline specific strategies for the plan’s public involvement process, as well as implementation as a whole, because the geographic focus is so large. The basin spans approximately 6,200 square miles. However, it is envisioned that as the plan moves further into implementation public involvement will be addressed on a more local level.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
December 8, 2003
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Offices Attn: Brian Fredrickson 525 Lake Avenue South, Suite 400 Duluth, MN 55802
RE: St. Louis County Land Department comments on (draft) Lake Superior Basin Plan
Dear Mr. Fredrickson:
Enclosed are comments on the draft plan for the Lake Superior Basin. We would like to have had these to you sooner but we felt it important to take an in-depth look at the plan. Obviously, this plan has the potential to affect a great deal depending on how it is interpreted and implemented, so we do not take its content lightly.
We have many concerns relating to the interpretation of the plan (see enclosed).
Certainly we must exercise due diligence while working near water and wetlands. In our professional opinion we must preserve the ability to perform work in riparian areas, near wetlands, and in forested wetlands. Following established guidelines will help to maintain the quality of the water, protect wildlife habitat, cultural and historic areas, and the visual quality of our forest. We would like to know specifics of how this plan may be implemented, how assessments might be made, and to what extent will greater regulation be required resulting from the plan.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Area Manager John Thompson at 218-625-3700. We have asked him to continue working on this project for the Department.
Sincerely, David J. Epperly Land Commissioner
296
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Mr. Epperly,
Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on the Lake Superior Basin Plan. We appreciate your interest and the County’s willingness to participate in the planning and implementation process.
Your comments address a variety of topics and sections in the plan document. As such, we are simply going to address these issues on a case-by case basis in this responsiveness summary.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
General comments:
This document pulls together a great deal of previously available information to describe the basin in detail. The Land Department has some broad concerns which go more to the ultimate use of the plan. These are:
Will this plan lead to more regulation? This is of particular interest to Forestry because those watersheds identified as most pristine are those where intensive forestry has been practiced for over 25 years. Voluntary guidelines are working, without an extensive , and costly, enforcement effort.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
A number of regulatory programs are discussed in the body of the Lake Superior Basin Plan. While these programs and authorities are discussed in a number of locations, the plan is not a regulatory document. The primary purpose of the plan is to serve as a tool that practioners, citizens, and public policy makers can use to help better manage surface and groundwater resources. What is, perhaps, more important is that the plan is part of an ongoing and cooperative relationship between local, state, federal, and tribal governments. These ongoing and cooperative elements of the plan are probably less likely to lead to regulation than would be expected in areas where there is an absence of such partnerships.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
The Land Department views the expansion of bureaucracy as a negative.
297
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Expansion of programs for the sake of expansion is not a basic goal or tenet of the Lake Superior Basin Plan. In fact, one of the primary purposes of the plan is to target scarce financial and human resources to critical water resource issues within the Lake Superior Basin. Essentially this concept translates into the willingness to share technical expertise across agencies, to target key water resource issues, and to use the collective power of the partnership to speak clearly and effectively to secure resources and attention.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
How will the plan be used, and who are the users?
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Since this plan has a very diverse constituency and set of interests, it is practically impossible for us to predict how this plan will be used. What we do know for sure is that the plan is a guidance tool that will be used by local, state, and federal agencies to help meet both legal and programmatic goals. As you noted in your comments, research institutions and agencies are likely to use the plan as a justification or impetus for the application of grants. It also likely that the plan will be a resource for other programs such as county water plans, comprehensive plans, and environmental assessment worksheets and impact statements.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
How will assessments of watershed health and necessary safeguards be made. The Land Department does not view the Forest Service system as an appropriate model when it is applied to the entire basin, with the need for a broad range of land uses ranging from industry and housing to forestry and tourism.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
As designed, the adapted version of the USFS East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol was intended to serve as a screening tool to categorize classes or characteristics of watersheds. Where warranted, it is envisioned that this screening process would lead to finer scale analysis or detailed watershed plans and projects. These finer scale analyses would likely be implementation projects or outcomes of the plan development process.
Given its origins in the Eastern half of the United States, the USFS EWAP protocol seems to be a very adaptable and appropriate model for the Lake Superior Basin. The EWAP protocol was developed and used for Watershed Assessments that were partially or wholly within National Forests in the Eastern half of the United States. These assessments simply applied watershed boundaries to the mixed land uses and ownership
298
patterns common to the more populated East. In many cases, these assessments included urban areas, small settlements, and extractive and agricultural land uses. These are exactly the same land ownership and use patterns common to the Minnesota portion of the Lake Superior Basin.
The Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment is not a perfect product. It is envisioned as a product that will be continuously improved and refined as better data sets become available. However, in the absence of such a tool, it is a significant stride in the effort to better manage watersheds and water resources in the basin. The Watershed Assessment was developed largely because of the scarcity of water quality data in many areas of the basin. This tool was intended to be a valuable, neutral way to assess key characteristics in watersheds. It is not a statement about how we, as a society, have used, or currently use land. The Watershed Assessment has been refined over the past year as a consequence of the comments and suggestions of many technical reviewers. The comments of staff from St. Louis County were especially helpful as an audit of data sources. County staff also provided data, which has been incorporated into the Watershed Assessment and acknowledged in the plan.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
We found the document to be ambiguous as to the intent of many statements. An example would be the repeated use of the word “protect”. What are we protecting the watershed from? Unrestricted development? Forest management? Permanent clearing of riparian areas? Other uses? It is impossible to extract the intent from such statements. It has been our experience that ambiguity in such statements often leads to unintended consequences when read by others who place different meanings on the text- and often find a judge who agrees with them.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Thank you for highlighting the many nuances and interpretations of words that are commonly taken for granted. Our use of the word protect, as used in the context of the Lake Superior Basin Plan, was generally understood to mean “maintain the integrity of a watershed.” We plan to take your advice and will establish a section in the appendix with definitions or terms of reference.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
Many parts of the document are based upon public perception rather than science or proven land use principles.
299
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
It is unclear what you mean “many parts of the document are based on public perception versus science or proven land use principles.” If you are referring to the survey of public perceptions discussed in Chapter IV, please understand that this section of the plan was not the foundation for the recommendations in Chapter III. The principal purpose of this section was to discuss public participation and to provide a glimpse into the understanding and thought processes of a broad cross section of the basin’s citizenry. It is interesting to note that the survey responses produced results similar to those in the Lake County and “Duluth Values Open Space” surveys.
Many of the other sections that are not extensively cited (see Chapter XIII references) were summarized from county water plans. So, to the extent that these documents reflect public perceptions, those same themes are carried through and highlighted in the Lake Superior Basin Plan. We promised our partners in the begging of this process that it would build upon the work of local governments. So, we would prefer that the basin plan carry forward priorities of county plans and other officially recognized plan documents. We will check the summarized recommendations in Chapter IV one more time to make sure the intent has not changed significantly from the original sources.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
Much of the narrative is difficult to link to the formation of a plan, being somewhat editorial in nature. The document utilizes a U.S. Forest Service watershed evaluation program, which may be well adapted to use in a totally rural setting, but which does not, in our opinion, fit well when applied to more settled areas.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
There were a number of comments about the design and layout of the Lake Superior Basin Plan. While we agree that the plan does not follow a traditional design, the table of contents (TOC) and design are based on similar plan documents in other states. We recognize that it is difficult to know how a document works until it is largely assembled. However, we did review the TOC on a number of occasions with the entire Lake Superior Basin Plan Programmatic Work Group (PWG).
The document is cumbersome largely because it is a hybrid or update to parts of the “1997 Lake Superior Basin Information Document.” As will be noted in comments submitted by others, we intend to produce a user friendly version of the plan document following the finalization of the plan document.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
The maps would be much more informative if landmarks such as roads, or the legal survey grid were overlaid. It is strongly suggested that the survey grid be added at whatever scale is needed for clarity.
300
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Your comments on map design are appreciated. In fact, we took your previous comments on map design and incorporated major highways and key cities into nearly all of the maps in Chapter VII and I. The only maps without landmarks are the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) maps in Chapter VII. We will take a look at the HUC code maps and see if it is possible to include locational information on the margins of the maps. A CD of the Watershed Assessment will be provided with the final version of the plan. As such, you will be free to experiment with your own map design.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
Implementation of actions called for in the plan is not spelled out, but rather, is left to the Programmatic Working Group, which is loosely defined, at best. In spite of this loose definition
“The PWG is the final arbitrator and nuts and bolts developer of the Lake Superior Basin Plan.” It is our opinion that the process for PWG member selection should be formalized.
We note with interest that procedures for implementation are being worked out even as we are asked to provide comment. It is our opinion that the comment period should be extended to allow comments on the implementation plan.
Throughout this process, our Land Department has been emphatic that this document not create a basis for nuisance litigation of the sort plaguing the U.S. Forest Service. This unending litigation has brought meaningful levels of land management to a halt, with dramatic and sad results now showing up as huge areas of blown down timber or massive fires.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
You are correct to note that the implementation process is largely undefined in the draft plan document. We recognize that this is a weakness of the plan and hope to capture some of the key aspects of how this process will work in the final version. We have had at least two discussion sessions on this topic already, and plan to conduct two additional sessions in January of 2004 for the express purpose of getting the implementation framework outlined in sufficient detail in the plan document. We expect that a number of details will be discussed and later incorporated into a more robust and complete version of the implementation strategy. This strategy document will detail how the partnership operates and what the specific roles and responsibilities are of participants. At this stage, we cannot say with certainty how the basin plan process will operate into the future. However, we can say that it will include a broader cross section of the business community and citizenry.
301
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
There are some parts of the document that we view favorably:
The Land Department views the overall intent of the document favorably. Quality of the environment is one of the principle reasons our citizens choose to live here.
The document pulls together a great deal of information about the quality of the Basin.
The effort to get all the players at the table is commendable.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
We are glad that you see value in the process. We think it is extremely important in the current fiscal climate to work cooperatively toward our common goals.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
Because the document is quite lengthy, we are not commenting on every aspect which is viewed as favorable or neutral. We have attempted below to highlight those areas of concern to St. Louis County’s Land Management Program.
Specific items that the Land department views unfavorably: ( the page and current language is quoted. Land Department comments are underlined.)
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
As project staff, we will try to address some of your specific comments and concerns relative to the recommendations and action steps contained in Chapter III. However, you should know that these recommendations and action steps were ultimately reviewed and approved by the PWG after about a four month process. So, changes that significantly alter the intent of a recommendation will have to be balanced against the interests of others who did not comment because they were satisfied with the direction and nature of the recommendations.
Overall, we think it might be possible to address a number of your concerns with Chapter III recommendations by modifying the introductory paragraphs to make it clear that the recommendations need to be considered in the context of what is appropriate for a given watershed and political jurisdiction. For instance, what might be appropriate for Lake County may not apply equally well to St. Louis or Carlton County. This does not mean that the plan should only address issues that apply across the board. However, we will make a better effort to make sure that
302
readers understand that the recommendations need to be considered in light of other circumstances.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
Page 13, Lake Superior Basin Plan Recommendations: III. “Utilize land use and environmental laws to protect water quality.” This statement lacks definition and appears to promote a highly regulatory approach. The term “protect” is open to many interpretations in this context
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Recommendation three (3), in Chapter III, recommends that land use and environmental laws be utilized to protect water quality. While this recommendation may seem unnecessary or heavy handed to St. Louis County, it was determined to be a high priority by local units of government elsewhere in the basin. Again, it may be possible to insert a word or two in the recommendation or introductory paragraphs to make it clear that this recommendation applies to some, but not every region or jurisdiction in the basin.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
V. “ Develop restoration plans (total maximum daily loads) for watersheds on Minnesota’s impaired waters or section 303 (D) list.” Is this a requirement to seek permits before working in any watershed on the list? Given the presence of mercury in even the most remote and pristine watersheds, this could constitute a blanket requirement for permitting.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Recommendation V that discusses restoration plans for waters on the 303(d) or impaired waters list does not mean permits will be required before work commences in a listed watershed. However, it does mean that the plan will require that the sources of the impairment be identified and reduced to an extent that the water body meets the numerical water quality standards contained in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7050, and Chapter 7052. The requirement to meet water quality standards is part of a federal requirement, under the Clean Water Act. The TMDL process would exist absent a basin plan. What the basin plan does for the process is provide a venue and opportunity for partners to recommend cooperative or non-regulatory strategies to meet water quality standards. As you note, mercury is a special case. State and federal regulators have approached the ubiquitous nature of the mercury issue by starting a state-wide TMDL. The only practical impact of this state-wide TMDL on local watershed management would be to encourage good erosion control practices, since mercury tends to be bound up with soil particles.
303
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
IX. “ Protect cold water habitats (trout streams, trout lakes) on the North Shore and in the Nemadji River Basin.” Again, the use of the word “protect” is ambiguous.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Recommendation IX has already been covered by the discussion that recommends adding a terms of reference or definition section.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
XX. “ Safeguard the environmental health, beauty and unique natural character of the Lake Superior Basin.” This statement says nothing.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Recommendation XX is explained better in Chapter III. It was originally drafted with the idea that environmental stewardship should be a core value of basin citizens. Since we have a suggestion to include a specific recommendation on environmental education in Chapter III, this recommendation seems like a likely candidate for change. As such, we plan to bring this recommendation before the PWG on January 14 for discussion and possible modification.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.1.2 Again calls for a regulatory approach
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
The intent of this objective is to integrate water resource protection programs into local ordinances. So, to the extent that the ordinances already exist, this would not be a change from what is already a regulatory approach.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.9.f “Protect water quality and recreational uses of these watersheds identified in Table 1.0.” We cannot find Table 1.0. If you mean Figure 1.0, the entire basin is depicted, and again, we cannot find your reference.
304
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
We apologize for the omission. Table 1.0 was a carry-over from a previous version of this document. It will be included in the final version.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.2. f “ Limit unauthorized access to logging roads not actively used for logging.” Logging roads are used for numerous valid activities after logging is over. This issue goes directly to the ability of the public to use land for recreation, harvesting of non-timber crops, and traditional uses by native people. The Land Department does not subscribe to such blanket closure, but does advocate closure for specific purposes.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Limit unauthorized use of logging roads not actively used for logging was designed to get at the problems of dumping, and erosion or damage to streams or water courses caused by destructive activities. We will gladly modify this section to make it more explicit with respect to what constitutes an authorized or unauthorized use. 3.2.2.f will now read “Address unauthorized use of forest roads that cause environmental damage.”
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.2.i “Create preservation area adjacent to wetlands intended to maintain or improve the water quality of lakes or streams. Wetlands within and adjacent to recreational lakes that provide fish spawning habitat should be a high priority for protection and restoration.” This statement leaves very little land out. It can be argued that nearly all wetlands meet this criteria. Left in this form, this statement could serve as a basis for creation of more de-facto wilderness. We note that strict preservation efforts are failing nationwide in protecting the resources they claim to defend.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Recommendation II action step I., is similar in purpose to action steps in recommendations V, VI, and IX. The recommendation II action step has been revised to read: “For wetlands hydrologically connected to lakes and streams in watersheds identified as high quality, establish buffer areas that provide for infiltration, nutrient, sediment and pollutant removal, and also function to maintain/protect the aquatic and terrestrial habitat.” The language in the action steps, for recommendations V, VI, and IX, has also been revised to narrow the emphasis to those wetlands that are connected or linked to specific waters emphasized in the recommendation.
305
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.3.1.a-g “ Utilize land use and environmental laws to protect water quality.” We object to this entire section as being over-regulatory and turning land use issues into criminal proceedings involving law enforcement personnel. In addition, this section ignores the reality of budgetary constraints on regulatory agencies as well as law enforcement
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
The comment about utilizing environmental and land use laws to protect water quality has already been addressed.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.4.a “Establish and maintain riparian corridors or buffer strips.*” This statement is all right if the intent is to follow appropriate management practices in the Riparian Management Zone, such as recommended in Minnesota’s Voluntary Site-Level Guidelines. If the intent is to create off- limits buffers, St. Louis County Land Department is opposed to such intent. The current guidelines are proving to be an effective compromise. We point to the fact that the most pristine watersheds are precisely in those areas where forest management has been practiced for many years.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
The comment about riparian corridors is intended to imply what you described in your comments. Again, the idea is not to set up exclusion zones. Rather, the concept is to maintain the integrity of these areas for the purposes that they serve in protecting stream and lake water quality.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.5.h “ Create management areas adjacent to wetlands that maintain or improve the water quality of lakes or streams. Wetlands within and adjacent to recreational lakes that provide fish spawning habitat should be a high priority for protection and restoration.” Same comment as above.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
See discussion on wetlands in previous examples.
306
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3..2.7.c “ Support public water supplier’s development of voluntary source water protection plans including delineation of drinking water supply management areas; inventory of potential contaminant sources; and development of management strategies.” We are not sure what this really entails, and while we certainly support clean water, we do not understand the impact of this statement.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Source water protection is a legal responsibility of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The MDH has already completed source water assessments for public water suppliers in the basin. The recommendation simply provides support for the next phase of the process, which is the completion of source water protection plans for these same water suppliers.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.9 “Protect cold water habitats…” The word “protect” is used repeatedly and we find it to be a word with many connotations. Our concern is the likelihood of litigators attaching other meanings than intended by those drafting this plan.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
As discussed in a number of places, we intend to create a terms of reference or definitions section to clarify the use of words like protection.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.9.f “ Prioritize riparian areas for restoration, establishment of easements or acquisition.” Who would acquire? Is this a movement to place all riparian land in public ownership? Perhaps this can be improved by adding the words “as appropriate” to the end of the sentence.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
No, this is not an effort to put all riparian lands in public ownership. It is simply recognition of the importance riparian areas play in the health of cold water streams and lakes. The idea, again, is to maintain the integrity of these areas. The word prioritize implies that evaluation and judgment will be part of the any effort to focus on these areas. However, we can insert, as appropriate, to further clarify this point.
307
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.9.i “Create preservation areas adjacent to wetlands that maintain or improve the water quality of lakes or streams...” This statement is similar to 3.2.5.h except that it goes on and calls for preservation areas. It is unlikely that the drafters of this statement have ever looked at the impact such a rule would have. Given the prevalence of wetlands on much of our landscape, this rule would place vast areas of productive land off limits to uses such as forestry.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Recommendation IX focuses on the protection of cold water habitats (trout streams, trout lakes) on the North Shore and in the Nemadji River Basin. Action step I specifically mentions the creation of preservation areas adjacent to wetlands that maintain or improve the water quality of lakes or streams. Please keep in mind that this recommendation specifically mentions the North Shore and the Nemadji River Basin. These are two regions within the basin with lowest percentages of wetland or open water by minor watershed. Therefore, the number of wetlands that this action step would apply to would be significantly less than implied by your comment. The concept of the action step is to provide a buffer to protect the biological and water quality values of both the wetlands themselves, as well as any downstream or connected lakes and rivers. In keeping with your comments about language, we will change the action step to read “maintain buffers or riparian areas adjacent to …”
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
3.2.18.b “ Create a structure that empowers participants and makes them equal partners in plan implementation and oversight.” The Land Department would take the position that public input is a necessary part of decision making. However, we would view this statement with some reservation as possibly usurping the authority and responsibility of the St. Louis County Board to the citizens of the County.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
The intent of this recommendation to acknowledge and consciously design a process that incorporates a wide spectrum of stakeholders into plan implementation. The idea is that watershed management really requires the participation of a wide range of stakeholders and interests to have any lasting impact. We do not see this process usurping the authority of any public entity, including the St. Louis County Board.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
4.2.A “ Reduce pesticide and fertilizer uses for agriculture, golf courses, and lawns. B. use should be eliminated in riparian areas.” We disagree. Herbicide and pesticide use is often needed to achieve other very beneficial results, such as the establishment of long-lived conifers next to streams. The important statement is that such pesticides shall be used strictly according to label directions, which is law. Forestry applications tend to take place on very long intervals, often well over 100 years between uses.
308
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Section 4.2 is really a compilation of themes and recommendations taken from county water plans, the Lakewide Area Management Plan, Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Program, and other similar documents (see pages 44 and 45). As such, the concepts and language are not original to the drafters of this document. To insure the accuracy of the statements, we will go back to the original sources to verify that the intent is accurately represented. The item under B of 4.2 is entitled “Reduce Pesticides and Fertilizer Uses for Agricultural, Golf courses, and Lawns.” As such, the focus of this item is not directed at forestry applications per se. Based on our interpretation, this item is not at odds with the use identified in your comment letter.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department
11.3.1 As part of the section dealing with stream temperature, it states: “ Logging of these stream side spruce stands could help explain the disappearance of trout from some of the cold water streams of Northeastern Minnesota.” This is a highly speculative statement, and leads the reader to infer that no logging should ever be done near a stream. In fact, periodic regeneration of stream side forests, in a controlled manner, is essential for maintaining the forested condition most beneficial to all wildlife. The long-term effects of never harvesting are readily evident in the Shipstead-Newton –Nolan area, as manifested by many areas of deforested shoreland now occupied by brush instead of trees.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
The section on stream warming that you commented on does state that “logging of some of the streamside spruce stands could help explain the disappearance of trout from some of the cold water streams of Northeastern Minnesota”. This statement was cited from a Department of Natural Resources publication. While the science that underlies this statement is sound, (reduction of canopy leads to increased exposure to solar radiation) we will review and strengthen this section with a number of other sources. It is likely that some changes in stream geomorphology also occurred when vast tracts of forest land were cleared in Northern Minnesota at the turn-of-the century. Fishing pressure may have played a role as well.
From our perspective, this statement does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that logging should be prohibited in riparian areas. It simply states that removal of spruce stands may be one of the causative agents in the loss of trout from some Northeastern Minnesota cold water streams. It is our opinion that the Voluntary Site Level Forest Management Guidelines also recognize the need to maintain a dense canopy adjacent to trout streams. As the guidelines suggest, the need to provide this canopy does not imply that logging should be prohibited from riparian zones.
309
Comment from, St. Louis County Land Department
Table 8.1.1 ( appendix) From the St. Louis River Plan: “Establish mandatory forest management zones and guidelines along the river to which all levels of government or jurisdictions, and their agencies, shall adhere.” We disagree. This is one-size-fits-all management, and tends to be extremely restrictive, as well as near impossible to efficiently implement. The Land Department’s recommendation is that the St. Louis River Plan should be brought into conformance with statewide guidelines.
Table 8.1.2 (appendix) From the St. Louis River Plan: “ Render a future desired condition of a mature to old growth late successional mixed conifer and hardwood riparian forest within the management zones.” This statement defies biological reality. It is neither possible nor desirable to always have this condition in our northern forest. This statement should be struck.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Table 8.1.1 and Table 8.1.2 are compilations of recommendations from a variety of officially recognized plans in the Lake Superior Basin. While we recognize the strength of your arguments, it would be inappropriate of us to alter or to strike the recommendation from the summary. It is our opinion that proper venue to advance changes in the St. Louis River Plan would be at a periodic plan review (there should be period reviews and assessments of all plans).
Since Table 8.1.1 and Table 8.1.2 summarize progress, or lack thereof, on a variety of recommendations, we can insert a note in the Management Strategy column that captures your concerns about appropriateness of the recommendation. This note would be attributed to St. Louis County.
Comment from St. Louis County Land Department Summary:
St. Louis County Land Department cannot over stress the position that creating new regulation can have serious unintended consequences, in terms of nuisance litigation, which has so effectively gridlocked the U.S. Forest Service
We would not want to see further regulatory obligations come from this plan. We note that the waters of the Basin are some of the healthiest in the state now, and feel that continuation of existing programs such as the St. Louis County water plan, existing zoning laws, implementation of Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines, and the Wetlands TAC are sufficient to maintain this health.
A number of issues within the document might be described as “one size fits all”. Examples would be the elimination of herbicides in riparian areas, or the recommendation to establish mandatory forest management zones and guidelines. Such all encompassing regulation simply cannot properly be applied to the wide range of forest conditions which exist. The Land Department would oppose such language in the final draft.
310
St. Louis County Land Department can see this document used to identify watersheds which could benefit most from remedial efforts. The background information collection herein can serve as a valuable resource for grant writing efforts to benefit specific watersheds. In addition, the data collected here may be useful in the application of zoning rules and requests for variance. Data from the report would be particularly useful in securing grants to fund more programs such as the Knife River Stewardship Committee, which works directly with private land owners who might not otherwise apply the appropriate land use practices.
Response to St. Louis County Land Department
Thank you again for taking the time to review and comment on the Lake Superior Basin Plan. We appreciate your interest and willingness to work in a partnership with other agencies to manage the land and water resources of Minnesota’s Lake Superior Basin.
Comment from Don Schreiner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
I have attended a number of PWG meetings on the L.S. Basin Plan and have had a chance to briefly review the final draft. I have the following comments:
The plan is a very good reference document for the L.S. basin and breaking the land mass down by watershed unit is the proper approach to address the water quality/land use issues in the plan. It has been recognized both nationally and locally for many years that the watershed approach is the best approach for managing water quality and it is encouraging that this is the approach adopted by the MPCA.
The 20 recommendations are very inclusive, however, they are somewhat vague and fuzzy when one tries to determine what they really mean and who will be responsible for accomplishing the many tasks listed. I understand that this is not an implementation or operational plan, but that is really where the rubber meets the road and it is critical that this strategic plan be quickly followed up by an operational plan or the effort will loose momentum. Although chapter 12 discusses in extremely general terms an implementation approach. It is unclear who will lead this effort, who will monitor it, how it will be developed and what the timeframe for implementation will be. I would suggest some type of flow chart that shows the anticipated structure of the implementation plan, who will be involved, what the expectations are and some examples from the L.S. Basin of what the priorities will be. I would also suggest a timeline that describes when major milestones will be reached and how they will be funded. Right now it appears that if agencies undertake many of the tasks they normally do and it can fall under a specific recommendation, it automatically becomes part of the implementation process. I think the bottom line is that Chapter 12 should be beefed up with some actual specifics and a few examples from the L.S. Basin.
311
Response to Don Schreiner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Thank you for taking the time to review the draft version of the Lake Superior Basin Plan. As you mention, the recommendations found in Chapter III are a little vague, and do not site specific actions or parties responsible for acquiring the desired results. The recommendations were laid out this way because the geographic focus of the plan is so large; the basin spans approximately 6,200 square miles. More specific strategies, and the parities interested/capable of executing them, will be outlined in greater detail as the plan moves into the implementation phase.
Your comments concerning Chapter XII (Plan Implementation) coincide with other opinions, including our own, that greater detail is needed. To more completely address this chapter we will be drawing on ideas and themes from the PWG implementation workshop held in November. For a more efficient transition from the planning phase to the implementation of this document, the PWG will continue to devise the implementation framework which may, or may not, result in a separate implementation document.
Comment from Don Schreiner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
One area I did not see described was the expected life of the plan. How long will the plan be used and when is it scheduled for revision.
Response to Don Schreiner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The plan is on a review cycle of five years (Section 5.2, page 47).
Comment from Don Schreiner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
As mentioned earlier the plan is really an excellent reference document. Much time and effort has gone into the planning process, which I am sure has benefited all those involved. I am concerned that many people may not take the time to read the entire document because it is so large and relatively complex (Chap 7). A potential reorganization may better provide casual readers with a more focused document. From my brief overview it looks like chapters 1-3 are the real plan, chapters 4-6 are ancillary information or background, chapters 7-10 are really reference material, chapter 11 describes future issues that may arise for the plan to address - might want to include up with chapters 1-3 and chapter 12 is the implementation description or the transition to the next phase which I discussed above as needing some more specifics. Bottom line is that the authors may want to reconsider the present organization with the reader in mind so they can tune into the important parts of the plan easier.
312
Response to Don Schreiner,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Your concern with the layout of the plan has been echoed by several other individuals. We are discussing possibilities for streamlining the document so it is more user-friendly and has better overall flow. However, due to the amount of work already necessary to finalize the plan, it may be difficult to alter the plan’s organization; at this time, we are more concerned with making changes in the document’s content.
Comment from Don Schreiner,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Finally, there are a few major references in the fishery management plan section on page 166 that are not listed. These include: ------
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1997. A joint plan for management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Ann Arbor, MI.
38p.
Horns, W.H. and 10 co-authors. 2003. Fish community objectives for Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 03-01. 78p.
Schreiner, D.R., editor, 1995. Fisheries management plan for the Minnesota waters of Lake Superior. Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Fisheries Special Publication 149. 86p.
Schreiner, D.R., editor, 2003. Rainbow trout management plan for the Minnesota waters of Lake Superior. . Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Fisheries Special Publication 157. 17p.
Hansen, M.J., editor. 1994. The state of Lake Superior in 1992. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 94-1. 110 p.
I hope these comments have been helpful. I know there has been a lot of hard work and many hours spent on this document. I’m sure it will
serve the region well over the next decade.
Response to Don Schreiner,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
We will include the fishery management references you proposed in the final version of the plan.
313
Comment from Kevin Stroom, Duluth MN
I would like to remind you, or alert you for the first time, to a pretty big study I did on North Shore tributaries in 1997-99. It was my research project for my Masters in Water Resources Science at the U of M. Carl Richards, MN Sea Grant Director, was my advisor for the project. It was titled, "Development of Biological Criteria for Streams of Minnesota's Lake Superior Watershed". It is an NRRI Technical Report, available at both UMD libraries. Several copies were also sent to the PCA in Duluth. We found much the same results as those recently reported, by studying the aquatic insects in 31 streams from Proctor to the Canadian border and comparing with land use using GIS. However, I have never been contacted about it and it has never been used to my knowledge, except for mention in the Coastal Zone Management document, which is kind of frustrating since Carl and myself wanted to do a study that would be useful to somebody and not just gather dust on a shelf. Anyhow, I would be happy to discuss it if you would ever want to, or I would encourage you to read it if you haven't. I believe I sent a copy to Jesse A., Joel Peterson I think, and to a Pam McDougal? (involved in MillerCr.?).
Response to Kevin Stroom, Duluth MN
Kevin, Thanks for reminding us of the excellent study you completed under the tutelage of Carl Richards at the University of Minnesota Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI). Your findings suggest that even moderate disturbances in watersheds (12-17% in developed +hay/ pasture/ +grasslands + roads) resulted in the classification of some streams as impaired based on your locally derived biological criteria. Since aquatic organisms are integrators of overall stream conditions, these findings seem to suggest that some of these streams have systemic water quality or stream stability problems. These impairments may also be expressed in fish populations whose diets are made up of aquatic insects.
We will look for opportunities to cite your work and to incorporate the findings into the body of the plan. As you will see in our response to John Brazner, we developed a Watershed Assessment of minor watersheds throughout the 6200 square mile of the Minnesota portion of the Lake Superior Basin. The practical challenge with this approach is that it is necessary to have geographically comprehensive data to use as part of the assessment. Therefore, we are limited to using more site specific information as part of a more detailed approach to plan implementation.
Your report indicates that this is a first generation effort to develop biological criteria for the North Shore. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is also in the process of developing biological criteria for Lake Superior. So, it may be possible to combine your effort with that of the MPCA to develop a more geographically complete dataset for the Lake Superior Basin. We can then incorporate the work into our Watershed Assessment, which we also consider to be a first generation product.
Comment from David Syring, John Eaton, Adriene Falcon, North Shore Watershed Watch
We are writing as representatives of a recently formed coalition of North Shore citizens working to assure that development along the shore is planned and accomplished in a manner that most benefits our communities and environment. We intend to work cooperatively with local
314
governments to improve citizen participation in discussions and decisions regarding the quality of life in northeastern Minnesota and the stewardship of special places within the Lake Superior watershed.
We are submitting this letter in support of the concept of the MPCA’s Draft Lake Superior Basin Plan. Such a plan can be a positive step towards addressing the pressures of development that are currently reshaping the environment and character of the Lake Superior Basin. Our group thinks that such a comprehensive approach to the entire basin offers hope for managing change in a manner that protects our local communities and environment. In general we support the analysis and recommendations offered by the plan.
We do wish to emphasize, however, that the value of this plan will lie in effective implementation during a difficult period of limited finances. There will potentially be resistance by local units of government to some of the plan’s recommendations as they will be perceived as under funded mandates added to already heavily burdened local governments. As the plan summary points out, “Local governments are where the ‘rubber meets the road’ when it comes to water resource protection” (page 5). It is our perception as citizens of the region that it is precisely at this point where rubber and road meet that local decision-makers need to be better educated and empowered to make decisions that consider the comprehensive impacts of development on the region’s environment and character. Too often such decisions are ad hoc and focused on individual, short-term benefits of proposed projects.
Response to David Syring, John Eaton, Adriene Falcon, North Shore Watershed Watch
We agree with you wholeheartedly that these are not the easiest of times to implement strategies and actions like those proposed in the Lake Superior Basin Plan. But, is there ever a good time to embark on a courageous and ambitious program focused on the restoration and maintenance of water quality in Northeastern Minnesota? While resources are key to water resource programs, tight resources can also lead to innovative approaches and improved agency and organizational collaboration.
Comment from David Syring, John Eaton, Adriene Falcon, North Shore Watershed Watch
Our main concern in relation to the plan is the difficult question of how the plan will lead to concrete protections and improvements for the basin. There are already many overlapping plans that claim to be for the protection of the resources we treasure. Each of our local counties have comprehensive plans, we have a North Shore Management Board, with its plan. These all contain many laudable objectives that we support, but our perception as citizens is that too often these plans simply sit on a shelf and are not used by local decision-makers. Without willing support from local elected officials, a clear sense of urgency, a concrete timeline, and specific individuals identified to accomplish specific action items, we are concerned that the MPCAs Lake Superior Basin Plan may become simply another well-intentioned effort that has no clear impact on local resources and communities. We would welcome any revisions to the plan that clarify accountability for specific actions.
315
Response to David Syring, John Eaton, Adriene Falcon, North Shore Watershed Watch
The implementation chapter is clearly one of the weakest parts of the draft Lake Superior Basin Plan. Our intent is to augment this section once the plan advisory committee provides guidance on a myriad of implementation questions. The implementation process is likely to operate on dual tracks, with both formal and informal processes. Hopefully, we can create that sense of urgency and collective-will necessary to become proactive in our approach to water resource restoration and maintenance.
Comment from James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Lake Superior Basin Plan. Staff from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Northeast Region has reviewed the Plan and is submitting the following comments and concerns for your consideration.
Our main concern is that the plan lacks specificity about what needs to be done, when it will be done, who will do it, and how it will be funded. We recognize the plan is intended to be strategic in nature but without increased specificity, the chances of its successful implementation may be diminished.
The Implementation section of the plan needs to be strengthened by establishing priorities and assigning responsibility for the various recommendations. An implementation process with broad based support of management entities throughout the basin also needs to be developed. Without commitment to the process of developing an implementation plan, it may be too easy to dismiss this document as another plan to be put on the shelf.
Response to James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
We agree that the successful implementation of the plan requires more detail describing how the plan will be implemented. The final version of the plan will contain more specifics detailing how it is to be implemented. The PWG will continue to develop the implementation strategy of this document after the final version of the plan has been published. One of the first steps in plan implementation will be to prioritize the action steps associated with the recommendations, and identify agencies/initiatives addressing those action steps.
Comment from James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
A more detailed discussion about the purpose and potential use of the plan is necessary. A better discussion of what the plan is trying to
316
accomplish will improve chances of implementation.
Response to James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The purpose of the LSBP is outlined in section 5.1 (Purpose of the Plan), and explains that the plan, “…will be used to better identify water quality problems, create alliances with communities to establish shared goals and priorities, and develop integrated point and nonpoint source pollutant reduction strategies” (46). As mentioned previously, the implementation strategy is still being developed so it is difficult to account for exactly how the document will be “used.”
Comment from James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The Plans use of GIS technology to identify potential areas of vulnerability is to be applauded. Additional work to determine if actual problems exist is necessary, however, before preventative or mitigative strategies can be developed.
Response to James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
We agree that a more detailed analysis is needed to decide what areas should be targeted for preventative or mitigative strategies. These decisions will not be based solely on the Watershed Assessment; professional knowledge, monitoring information, and other data will all play a role in deciding how to effectively manage the basin’s resources. The Watershed Assessment was designed to be a screening tool to help evaluate the 435 minor watersheds that make up the basin. This assessment, coupled with professional expertise, monitoring information, and other data will help focus our restoration/mitigative efforts.
Comment from James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Some specific comments on the Plan include:
Page 8 – In the section on the Lake Superior Costal Program change the “words focus and diffuse” to “identify and mitigate”. Page 11 under Implementation – Chapter 12 is the implementation chapter not chapter 11. Page 13 – Use the same numbering system to number the recommendations on page 13 as is used to number the recommendations on pages 20 to 32.
317
Response to James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
We will make the necessary punctuation/grammatical changes to the document.
Comment from James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Page 13 – Several of the recommendations read more like a goal or mission statement, while others are more specific and action oriented. For example, in XX, “Safeguard the environmental health, beauty and unique natural character of the Lake Superior Basin’, this recommendation reads more like the broad overall goal/mission of the plan. If these recommendations are in roughly priority order (as suggested on page 11), perhaps this should be one of the first recommendations. Conversely, V. “Develop management plans to maintain and enhance threatened basin waters”, reads more as an objective that can be measured. One could report on how many plans were developed, whereas it would be difficult to measure XX, which acts more as a guiding statement. In a quick scan, we may suggest that II, XI, XIII, XVI and XX may serve as mission statements, while the others as way to accomplish that mission. If the purpose is to have measurable recommendations listed on this page, one might wordsmith those listed above to be more consistent with an objective and keep them on this list.
Response to James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
As project staff, we will try to address some of your specific comments and concerns relative to the recommendations and action steps contained in Chapter III. However, you should know that these recommendations and action steps were ultimately reviewed and approved by the PWG after about a four month process. So, changes that significantly alter the intent of a recommendation will have to be balanced against the interests of others who did not comment because they were satisfied with the direction and nature of the recommendations.
Comment from James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Page 14 second paragraph under Introduction – There are all or parts of seven counties in the basin not just four as the paragraph seems to indicate.
Response to James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
As you suggest, the passage’s wording implies that there are only four counties in the basin instead of seven. We will edit the passage so it
318
accurately depicts the number of counties in the basin.
Comment from James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Pages 20 to 32 – Action Steps should flow from the Objectives and be specific and measurable. Each Action Step needs to identify what needs to be done, a party or parties responsible for implementation, and a time frame for accomplishment. The Action Steps could be tied to the Implementation Projects listed in Appendix D (completed and underway) to show implementation progress. A matrix could be developed that described the Recommendation, Objective, Action Step, who accepts responsibility and date completed.
Response to James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
A survey has been created to address the action steps in Chapter III. PWG members will prioritize each action step and then identify the action steps their agency is working on, what the progress is, and when the action will be completed. This will enable the PWG to identify who is responsible for each action step, what the projected completion date is for each item, and what resource needs are affecting its completion. Furthermore, this survey will aid the PWG in identifying high ranking action steps not currently being addressed.
Comment from James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Page 31 and 32 – There are two recommendations numbered 19.
Chapter 13- Additional references from Don Schreiner.
Horns, W.H. and 10 co-authors. 2003. Fish-community objectives for Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 03-01. 78p. [Look over brook trout section Pages 42 and 43. This can be found on the FLFC website at www.glfc.org.]
Schreiner, D. R., editor. 1995. Fisheries management plan for the Minnesota waters of Lake Superior. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries, Special Publication 149, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Schreiner, D. R., editor. 1992. North Shore steelhead plan. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota.
319
Response to James Weseloh, Regional Planner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
We will include the references submitted by Don Schreiner in the final version of the plan.
Comment from Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
I would like to provide comments on the draft Lake Superior Basin Plan. I believe that the document is put together well, and most of my comments are relatively minor. I hope that comments via email are acceptable.
Response to Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on the draft Lake Superior Basin Plan. We were not particularly specific about the format for comments. So, your email comments will work just fine.
Comment from Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
The 1854 Authority is supportive of language in various parts of the document dealing with the protection of wild rice. In particular, in section 3.2, we strongly support recommendation 2 and objective 1: -The maintenance and protection of high quality watersheds shall be a basin-wide priority. -Develop strategies to maintain high quality of un-impacted or high resource value watersheds (trout waters, wild rice lakes, ORVW waters).
Response to Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
We concur with your recommendation about the need to develop strategies to maintain the high quality of relatively intact or high resource value watersheds. As you well know, the Lake Superior Basin still has a significant number of watersheds and water bodies that still fit this definition. It makes sense from both an environmental and economic perspective to safeguard these high quality resources, rather than to attempt restoration once they are degraded. This emphasis on a pro-active approach is why one of the first implementation projects focuses on the development of a pilot watershed protection plan for a high quality/high resource value watershed.
320
Comment from Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
On page 36 under themes in watershed protection, I am unsure if wild rice waters protection is placed correctly in the document. Should section 4.2.1 be separate?
Response to Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
There are some mistakes in the language and formatting of this section. We will look it over closely and make the necessary changes to the final draft.
Comment from Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
In the recommendations listed in section 3.2, I do have some comments under recommendation 14 (Bolster efforts to clean up and restore the St. Louis River AOC). We are in support of action step g (Assess the human health implications for populations that consume beyond the recommendations provided by the Minnesota Department of Health fish consumption advisory, or those individuals that consume fish and wildlife at a subsistence level.) However, we would like to see this action step apply to the lake Superior Basin as a whole. Bands continue to exercise treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather in the 1854 Ceded Territory of northeastern Minnesota. These rights are based on subsistence, not recreation. I am not sure where this expanded action step would fit (perhaps under recommendation #8 or #20?) It may be a consideration to add an additional objective in one of these locations, or include a separate recommendation all together. A suggestion for the objective or recommendation: protect and enhance basin health to support continued exercise of treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather. This type of language should also be added in section 4.2 (themes in water quality protection) as well.
Response to Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
Your comments raise an important issue. From our standpoint, it appears that recommendation VIII would be the best fit for this additional action step. We will go ahead with the suggestion that a new action step be added to recommendation VIII. In our opinion, it may be best to stick with a more general recommendation about assessing the human health implications of any population that uses fish and wildlife at a subsistence level, or beyond consumption levels recommended by the Minnesota Department of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, or another regulatory body. This approach would then include immigrant populations or other segments of society whose diets are also heavily dependent upon fish and wildlife.
321
Comment from Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
On page 32, section 3.2: the last recommendation should be #20 (the draft has two #19’s)
On page 46, section 5.1: add “tribal” to beginning of second paragraph – the planning process is a cooperation of many agencies in the area at the local, state, “tribal”, and federal levels.
On page 53, section 6.3.3: the survey graphs derived…Appendix D. I think that it should be Appendix F.
On page 144, section 9.3: add “tribal” to first sentence – state and “tribal” governments protect individuals….
Response to Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
Thanks for bringing these corrections/additions to our attention. These changes will be incorporated, as you suggested, into the final version of the plan.
Comment from Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
Thanks for all of your hard work on the plan and for the opportunity to provide comment. Please contact me if you any questions.
Response to Darren Vogt, 1854 Authority
Thanks for taking the time to review and comment on the plan. We appreciate your interest and willingness to participate in a partnership to help manage the land and water resources of the Lake Superior Basin.
322 Appendix H - Key words and ACRONYMS
Definitions taken from the Minnesota Sea Grant "Glossary of the Great Lakes, 1995" unless otherwise indicated. 5th Level Subdivisions within a sub-basin. The 5th level (10-digit) in the hydrologic unit hierarchy. Watersheds range in size from 40,000 to Watershed 250,000 acres. (FGDC Proposal, 2002) In the Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment these watersheds typically range in size from 3200 acres to 7370 acres. The 7th 7th Level order watershed classification system was used for the Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment because it provides greater Watershed flexibility for analysis. (LSBP, 2004 – Also referred to as minor watershed)
Accumulation The build-up of a substance in a plant or animal due to repeated exposure to and uptake of that substance from the environment.
Substances that cause or contribute to air pollution and which can cause serious health and environmental hazards, such as cancer Air Toxics or other illnesses.
Aquatic Nuisance Water-borne plants or animals that pose a threat to humans, agriculture, fisheries, and/or wildlife resources. Species A geographic area that fails to meet the general or specific objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, or where such Area of Concern failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the area's ability to support aquatic life.
Area drained by a river and its tributaries or a plot or field surrounded by dikes, also termed a catchment or watershed. (Harrold, Basin 1986)
The role that the government decides a water body will fulfill. Examples of these include healthy fish and wildlife populations, fish Beneficial Use consumption, aesthetic value, safe drinking water sources, and healthy phytoplankton and zooplankton communities.
Best Methods used to control nonpoint source pollution by modifying existing management practices. BMPs include the best structural Management and non-structural controls and operation and maintenance procedures available. BMPs can be applied before, during and after Practices pollution producing activities, to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters.
Buffer A transitional area between two different land uses that mitigates the effects of one land use on the other. (Verry, 2000)
A critical pollutant that was used as a pesticide until banned by the U.S. in 1983 (except for use in controlling underground termites). Chlordane Chlordane bioaccumulates in the food chain. Concentrations are highest in fat and liver tissue of predatory species. It has been detected in lake trout and other wildlife.
323
Chemicals that persist at levels that are causing or could cause impairment of beneficial uses lakewide. Include Chlordane, DDT, Critical Pollutant Dieldrin, Dioxin, Hexachlorobenzene, Mercury, Octachlorostyrene, PCBs, and Toxaphene.
Or Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, one of the nine critical pollutants, was commonly used as an insecticide after World War II and is now banned in the U.S. and Canada. DDT and its metabolites are toxic pollutants with long-term persistence in soil and water. They concentrate in the fat of wildlife and humans and may disrupt the human body's chemical system of hormones and enzymes. DDT DDT caused eggshell thinning in a number of fish-eating birds and is associated with the mortality of embryos and sterility of wildlife, especially birds. DDT still enters the Great Lakes, probably from a number of sources including airborne transport from other countries, leakage from dumps, and the illegal use of old stocks.
Designated The role that a water body is slated to fulfill, such as a drinking water source. Uses are specified in water quality standards for each Uses water body or segment, whether or not the current water quality is high enough to allow the designated use.
A critical pollutant, was used as a pesticide for veterinary uses and to control soil insects. In the U.S. and Canada, its use is now restricted to termite control. Dieldrin has a long half-life in shallow waters compared to most chlorinated organic compounds. Dieldrin It is acutely toxic and poses a potential carcinogenic threat to humans. This chemical enters the Great Lakes System from the air or contaminated sediments and has been detected in fish and wildlife in all of the Great Lakes.
A critical pollutant considered to be highly toxic, 2, 3, 7, 8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD is a variant in a family of 75 Dioxin chlorinated organic compounds referred to as dioxins. An unwanted chemical byproduct of incineration and some industrial processes that use chlorine, dioxin tends to accumulate in the fatty tissue of fish. Dioxin is a suspected human carcinogen.
Any release or unloading of a substance or materials from a pipe, or other emission source. The addition of any pollutant to the Discharge Waters of the State or to any disposal system from a point source.
A biological community and its environment working together as a functional system, including transferring and circulating energy and Ecosystem matter.
Environmental A report detailing the environmental impacts of and the alternatives to an action or project. Required under the National Impact Environmental Policy Act and/or Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. Statement
Those species found beyond their natural ranges or natural zone of potential dispersal. Examples found in Minnesota include zebra Exotic Species mussel, Eurasian watermilfoil, purple loosestrife, round goby, and ruffe. (LSBP, 2004)
Metallic elements with relatively high atomic weights that can contaminate groundwater and surface waters, wildlife, and food. Heavy Heavy Metals metals have the potential to be toxic at relatively low concentrations. Examples include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc.
324
A critical pollutant once used as a pesticide for grain protection until banned by the U.S. in 1976. It is still produced as a byproduct Hexa- during the manufacture of other chlorinated hydrocarbons. It is a persistent toxic substance and is found in the tissues of fish, chlorobenzene animals, and humans from the Great Lakes Basin. Limited uses of HCB are still permitted.
High Quality Water bodies that have uses or characteristics of "high quality". Examples of these include wild rice waters, ORVW, and trout Waters streams.
The Clean Water Act requires that the state identify lakes, rivers, and streams that are not meeting their uses as designated by water Impaired Waters quality standards. States are then required to develop plans to restore these impaired uses. Excluding mercury impairments, there are eleven rivers and streams in the Lake Superior Basin on the draft 2004 impaired waters list. (LSBP, 2004)
The action phase of a planning process. Implementation focuses on specific projects or classes of projects that advance goals identified in the plan. These projects may or may not proceed as prioritized, based upon factors such as local acceptance, funding Implementation availability, readiness, new information, and policy or legislative directives. Implementation is a dynamic process where projects are executed and modified based on a continuous cycle of evaluation and adaptation to changing circumstances. (LSBP, 2004)
The Implementation Work Plan (IWP) is a separate blueprint or strategy document outlining actions or projects that will be undertaken to implement the Lake Superior Basin Plan. Within the IWP, there will be tables and narrative sections that identify key projects, Implementation timetables for project completion, lead agencies and organizations (including business and non-governmental organizations), funding Work Pan sources, and measures of success. The IWP will be built around two and five year cycles. The two year cycles are designed to correspond to the biennial budget process of the State of Minnesota. The five year cycle corresponds more closely with local water management timeframes. (LSBP, 2004)
Any liquid, gaseous or solid waste resulting from any process of industry, manufacturing, trade, or business or from the development Industrial Waste of any natural resource.
Inflow and The penetration of water from the soil into sewer or other pipes through defective joints or connections and/or the penetration of water Infiltration through the ground surface into the subsurface soil.
Integrity An unimpaired condition of a resource (i.e. watershed, lake, river). (MWD, 2004)
At the head of the Great Lakes System, Superior is the world's largest freshwater lake by surface area and long considered the Lake Superior cleanest and most pristine of the Great Lakes. Industrial activity, shipping, and atmospheric inputs of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances have raised concerns about the lake's water quality.
Lake Superior Used to describe Lake Superior and the surrounding watersheds emptying into the lake. Basin
325
An amount of water, sediment, nutrients, pollutants, heat etc. that is introduced into a receiving water. Loading may be either of Load anthropogenic origin (pollutant loading) or natural (natural background loading).
Load Capacity The greatest amount of load that a water body can receive without violating water quality standards.
A critical pollutant, which is a heavy metal and a neurotoxin that is toxic if breathed or ingested at sufficiently high concentrations. Mercury is present naturally in the environment. It has commonly been used in a wide variety of applications including thermometers, fluorescent bulbs, mirrors, hide preservation, paints, for plastic coloring, in inks and stains, and in golf course pesticides. Because of Mercury its common use, mercury is released during garbage incineration. It is also released through the combustion of fuels such as coal and wood for energy production. Mercury readily bioaccumulates in all aquatic organisms, especially fish and shell fish and in humans and wildlife that consume fish. Many lakes in the Great Lakes region have fish consumption advisories due to high levels of mercury primarily caused by atmospheric deposition.
Minor In the Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment these watersheds typically range in size from 3200 acres to 7370 acres. The Watershed Lake Superior Basin is made up of 435 minor watersheds. (LSBP, 2004 – Also referred to as 7th level watersheds)
Nonpoint Pollution where the sources cannot be traced to a single, distinct, identifiable point. Nonpoint source pollution can come from Source Pollution atmospheric deposition, erosion, and runoff from parking lots, farms, and streets.
A critical pollutant that is a toxic substance and is a by-product of high temperature industrial processes involving chlorine. Like Octa- dioxin, OCS is not produced intentionally. Release to the environment occurs in effluent from chlorine and gas production, aluminum chlorostyrene smelting, and other metal production. OCS has been found in leachate from industrial landfills and fly ash from waste incinerators.
Outstanding Waters of the State of Minnesota with high water quality, wilderness characteristics, unique scientific or ecological significance, Resource Value exceptional recreation value or other special qualities which warrant stringent protection from pollution. Waters
Particulates Very small Separate particles composed of organic or inorganic matter.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls is a critical pollutant. PCBs are a group of over 200 nonflammable compounds formerly used in heating and cooling equipment, electrical insulation, hydraulic and lubricating fluids, and various inks, adhesives, and paints. These PCBs compounds are highly toxic to aquatic life, persist in the environment for long periods of time, and are bioaccumulative. PCBs are suspected carcinogens, and are linked to infant development problems. Fish from some lakes and streams in Minnesota contain measurable amounts of PCBs.
A numeric value that indicates relative acidity and alkalinity on a scale of 1 to 14. A pH of 7.0 is neutral, higher values indicate pH increasing alkalinity; lower values indicate increasing acidity.
326
Pollution from a distinct, identifiable source, such as a pipe, smokestack, exhaust, closed landfill, permitted solid waste site, NPL site, Point Source VIC site, underground storage tank location, hazardous waste generator, brownfield site, NPDES water quality permit, and animal Pollution feedlots.
Pollutant Chemicals or refuse material released into the atmosphere or water or onto the land.
To observe beforehand; to keep, guard, observe; to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction; to keep alive, intact, or free from Preservation decline. (MWD, 2004)
Protection To maintain the integrity of an ecosystem; to prevent its destruction, decline, and/or collapse. (LSBP, 2004)
Generally, public waters are water bodies determined by Minnesota statutes to have significant public value. They are managed by Public Waters the state.
Receiving Rivers, streams, lakes, or any body of water into which wastewater is discharged which another source discharges into. Waters
Regulation Rules that outline specific procedures developed by federal or state agencies which are used to implement laws.
A bringing back to a former position or condition; a restoring to an unimpaired or improved condition; a representation or Restoration reconstruction of the original form. (MWD, 2004)
Riparian areas or corridors are the interface between terrestrial (upland) and aquatic ecosystems. These corridors support an array Riparian Area of plant and animal species, as well as function to protect water quality, attenuate floods, and reduce erosion. (LSBP, 2004)
These are areas set aside to preserve the ecological diversity of Minnesota's natural heritage. They include landforms, fossil Scientific and remains, plant and animal communities, rare and endangered species or other biotic features and geologic formations. The areas Natural Areas are preserved for scientific study and public edification as components of a healthy environment. The program is administered by the MDNR, Division of Ecological Services.
Soil particles that are, or were at one time, suspended in and carried by water as a result of erosion and/or resuspension. The Sediments particles are deposited in areas where the water flow is slowed such as in harbors, wetlands, and lakes.
Refers to Minnesota lands located 1000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage and 300 feet from a river, Shorelands stream or the landward extent of floodplains.
Stormwater Rainwater runoff, snow melt runoff, surface water runoff and discharges that are collected by storm sewers.
Stressor Any chemical, physical, or biological entity that can induce adverse effects on individuals, populations, communities, or ecosystems.
327
All water above the surface of the ground including, but not limited to lakes, ponds, reservoirs, artificial impoundments, streams, Surface Water rivers, springs, seeps, and wetlands.
Total Maximum TMDLs are set by regulators to allocate the maximum amount of a pollutant that may be introduced into a water body and still assure Daily Load attainment and maintenance of water quality standards.
A critical pollutant, toxaphene is an insecticide that was developed as a substitute for DDT. Its use is now restricted in the U.S. and Toxaphene Canada. Toxaphene has been detected in wildlife as far north as the Arctic and levels in Lake Superior appear to be increasing in fish and sediments.
An indicator of the property of water that causes light to become scattered or absorbed. The lower the turbidity, the deeper light can Turbidity penetrate into a body of water and, hence, the greater the opportunity for photosynthesis and higher oxygen levels. Turbidity is caused by suspended clays, silts, organic matter, plankton, and other inorganic and organic particles. (Brooks, 1997)
A term that refers to the elimination of inputs and discharges of persistent toxic substances with the end goal being their elimination from the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Because it is not practical to completely remove persistent toxic substances, especially from Virtual contaminated sediments, the qualifier "virtual" is appropriate. It may not be possible to achieve total elimination from the Great Lakes Elimination System for some persistent toxic substances produced by natural processes and/or by the release of toxins from contaminated sediments.
Volatile Organic Organic chemicals that evaporate readily into the atmosphere, providing a path for transport through the environment. Compounds
Watershed The drainage basin or area in which surface water drains toward a lake, stream or river at a lower elevation.
In the Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment, "condition" quantifies watershed disturbances (stressors). In the Watershed Assessment the condition parameters include recreation pressure, vegetation change detection, population density, population Watershed density percent change, hydrologic modifiers, road crossing, road density (exclude water area), dams/diversions, nonpoint source Condition group excluding forestry (agriculture + urban + strip mine land percent), and point source group (RCRIS + CERCLA + PCS + IFD + Mines). (LSBP, 2004)
In the Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment, the overall condition and vulnerability scores are obtained by summing the ranks of all condition parameters by watershed and vulnerability parameters by watershed respectively. For example, as the number of Watershed dams and road crossings (condition parameters) increase, there is an increased risk for adversely affecting aquatic fauna Health/Integrity (vulnerability parameters). Watersheds with poor condition and high vulnerability are considered to have less integrity relative to those with better condition and lower vulnerability. (LSBP, 2004)
328
In the Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment, "vulnerability" denotes values at risk that could be changed (positive or negative) as a result of management activities. The vulnerability parameters in the watershed assessment include percent of riparian areas, Watershed erodible soils, percent of watershed in lakes, percent of watershed in wetlands, endangered species, exotic species, state impaired Vulnerability waters, high quality waters, water supply, endemic mussels/total species, native mussels/total species, native fish species/total fish species, and endemic fish species/total fish species. (LSBP, 2004)
Water Table The upper surface of the groundwater or that level below which the soil is saturated with water.
The lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Wetlands must have a predominance of hydric soils; be inundated or saturated by surface water or Wetlands groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation. This is a legal definition and controversy still exists among scientists and policy makers as to how many of these characteristics must be present in order for an area to be defined as a wetland.
Zero discharge refers to halting all inputs from all human sources and pathways to prevent any opportunity for persistent toxic substances to enter the environment from human activity. To completely prevent such releases, the manufacture, use, transport, and disposal of these substances would have to stop. The Binational Program has designated nine toxic substances (critical pollutants) Zero Discharge to be part of the Zero Discharge Demonstration Program for the Lake Superior Basin. These substances are chlordane, dieldrin, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, octachlorostryrene, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2, 3, 7, 8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and toxaphene.
AMC Association of Minnesota Counties CAC Citizens Action Committee [St. Louis River CAC] ANS Aquatic Nuisance Species CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, AOC Area of Concern Compensation, and Liability Act ARDC Arrowhead Regional Development Commission CLMP Citizen Lake Monitoring Program ATV All-terrain Vehicle CLWP Comprehensive Local Water Plan AWRA American Water Resources Association CNP Coastal Nonpoint Program [Minnesota] CNPCP Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program BALMM Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota CSG Council of State Governments BID Basin Information Document CWA Clean Water Act BLM Bureau of Land Management CWI County Well Index BMP(s) Best Management Practice(s) CWP Clean Water Partnership BWCAW Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments BWSR Board of Water and Soil Resources [Minnesota]
329
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane ISTS Individual Sewage Treatment Systems IWI Index of Watershed Indicators EAWS Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale IWP Implementation Workplan EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency [U.S.] LaMP Lakewide Management Plan EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program LCMR Legislative Commission on the Minnesota Resources ESA Endangered Species Act LCS Lake County Survey EWAP East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol LGU Local Government Unit LMIC Land Management Information Center FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement LSB Lake Superior Basin FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency LSBP Lake Superior Basin Plan FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission LSBWA Lake Superior Basin Watershed Assessment FS Fully Supporting LSS Lake Superior Survey FTA Free Trade Agreement LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs MDA Minnesota Department of Agriculture GGL Glossary of the Great Lakes MDH Minnesota Department of Health GIS Geographic Information System MDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources GLC Great Lakes Commission MEPA Minnesota Environmental Policy Act GLFC Great Lakes Fishery Commission MGS Minnesota Geological Survey GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office MLSCP Minnesota's Lake Superior Coastal Program GLWQI Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative MLUI Michigan Land Use Institute GWMAP Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Program MNDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MOEA Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance HCA Hydrologic Condition Analysis MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency HCB Hexachlorobenzene MS Minnesota Statutes Hg MWD Merriam Webster Dictionary
IFD Industrial Facilities Discharge NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement Mercury IJC International Joint Commission NCWAP North Coast Watershed Assessment Program IPG Implementation Partnership Group NEMO Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials
330
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act NFMA National Forest Management Act SFRA Sustainable Forest Resources Act NFS National Forest System SNA Scientific and Natural Areas NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SRF State Revolving Fund NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priority List TCDD Dioxin NPS Nonpoint Source Pollution TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service U of M NRRI Natural Resources Research Institute University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts CLA NS Not Supporting USCOE United States Corps of Engineers NSHP North Shore Harbor Plan USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency NSMB North Shore Management Board USFS United States Forest Service NSMP North Shore Management Plan USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service NSMPP Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan USGS United States Geological Survey
OCS Octachlorostyrene VIC Voluntary Investigation and Clean Up OEA Office of Environmental Assistance VOC Volatile Organic Compound OHM Off-highway Motorcycle ORV Off-road Vehicles WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ORVW Outstanding Resource Value Waters WLSSD Western Lake Superior Sanitary District WQ Water Quality PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls W&SR Wild & Scenic Rivers Act PCS Permit Compliance System WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility PS Partially Supporting PWG Programmatic Work Group
R8 Region Eight R9 Region Nine RAP Remedial Action Plan RMV Recreational Motor Vehicle
331 REFERENCES
Aitkin County Soil and Water Conservation District and Aitkin County Water Planning Task Force. 1995. Aitkin County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan. Aitkin, MN.
Almquist, T. 2002. “Economic Growth Needs to Occur Across the Iron Range.” The Daily Tribune . Hibbing, MN.
Anderson, T.L. 2002. “Water: From a Public Resource to a Market Commodity.” Water Resources IMPACT. Vol. 4, No. 1: pp 4 – 5. American Water Resources Association (AWRA). Middleburg, VA.
Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC). 2002. “Fact Sheet: Individual Sewage Treatment Systems.” St. Paul, MN.
Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). 2003. About the Board of Water and Soil Resources: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/whatbwsr.html.
Brooks, Kenneth N., Peter F. Ffoliott, Hans M. Gregerson, and Leonard F. DeBano. 1997. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. pp. 337-341. Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA.
BusinessNorth.com. January 13, 2003. Duluth-based Study Points to Development as Greatest Threat to Great Lake: http://www.businessnorth.com/duws.asp?RID=388. Duluth, MN.
California Resources Agency. 2001. North Coast Watershed Assessment Program Methods Manual: Draft Copy: http://www.ncwatershed.ca.gov/pdf/draft_ncwap_manual.pdf. Fortuna, CA.
Carlton County Water Advisory Committee. 1996. Carlton County Local Water Management Plan. Carlton, MN.
Cloquet Forestry Center. 1992. Cloquet Forestry Center Forest Management Plan 1992-2001: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD5945.htm. Cloquet, MN.
Conlin, M. 2002. “Asian Carp Poised to Invade the Great Lakes”. Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. ANS Update. Vol 8, No. 3. IL.
Cook County. 1998. Cook County Water Plan. MN.
Council of State Governments (CSG). Working at a Watershed Level: A Training Course in Watershed Planning & Management. pp 6-36 – 6-37.
332
Donahue, M.J., T. Crane and C. Manninen. 2001. “A Water Resources Management Decision Support System for the Great Lakes: International Water Issues on the U.S.-Canadian Border.” Water Resources IMPACT. Vol 3, No. 2. American Water Resources Association (AWRA). Middleburg, VA.
Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Committee. 2002. 2003-2005 Minnesota Transportation Improvement Plan: http://www.ardc.org/plans/mntip0305.pdf. Duluth, MN.
Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Committee. 2001. Tomorrow’s Transportation 2025, 2001-2025 Long Range Transportation Plan: http://www.ardc.org/plans/lrptoc2001.pdf. Duluth, MN.
Eastern Region USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan-Superior National Forest.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering. 1993. The Cost of Compliance of WLSSD with the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative. Acton, MA.
Faherty, P. 2001. “Tourism: What it means for regions facing an economic slump. Tourism industry impacts former mining area.” Murphy McGinnis Newspapers.
Farid, C., J. Jackson, and K. Clark. 1997. The Fate of the Great Lakes: Sustaining or Draining the Sweetwater Seas? Canadian Environmental Law Association and Great Lakes United. Toronto, ON.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-Office of Hydropower Licensing (FERC). 1994. St. Louis River Basin-Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Licensing Two Existing Hydroelectric Projects in the St. Louis River Basin.
FGDC Proposal. 2002. Federal Standards for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries. Version 1.0. http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/HUC/HU_standards_v1_030102.doc.
Great Lakes Commission (GLC). October 25, 2002. Aquatic Nuisance Species: http://www.glc.org/ans/anspanel.html.
Great Lakes Commision des Grands Lacs. 2002. Resolution: Addressing the Invasion Threat of Asian Carp: http://www.glc.org/about/resolutions/02/asiancarp.html.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) 1993. A Survey of Fish-Community and Habitat Goals/Objectives/Targets and Status in Great Lakes Area of Concern.
Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Center, Great Lakes Protection Fund, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District. 1997. Blueprint for Mercury Elimination: http://www.wlssd.duluth.mn.us/Blueprint%20for%20mercury/HGCNTNT.HTM.
333
Hagley, C., D. Jensen, G. Kreag, and K. Anderson. 1999. Summary Report on Treasures Under Pressure – the Future of Northeastern Minnesota Lakes: Results of the 1998 Public Workshops. Minnesota Sea Grant: Duluth, MN.
Harrold, L., G. Schwab, and B. Bondurant. July 1986. Agricultural and Forest Hydrology. Agricultural Engineering Department Ohio State University. Columbus, OH.
Heiskary. Steven A. and Bruce C. Wilson. 1989. “The Regional Natural of Lake Water Quality Across Minnesota.” Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science. Vol. 55. No. 1. Minnetonka, MN.
Helland, J. 2003. The All-Terrain Vehicle Law of 2003. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/atv2003.pdf. House Research Department. Minnesota House of Representatives.
Horner, R.R., J.J. Skupien, E.H. Livingston, and H.E. Shaver. 1994. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff: Technical and Institutional Issues. Terrene Institute. Washington D.C.
International Joint Commission (IJC). 2002. 11th Biennial Report: Great Lakes Water Quality: http://www.ijc.org/comm/11br/english/report/contents.html.
International Joint Commission. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: http://www.ijc.org/agree/quality.html.
International Joint Commission. 1994. Seventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality.
Itasca County Soil and Water Conservation District, J.M Montgomery Consulting Engineers Inc., and The Northern Minnesota Citizens League. 1990. Itasca County Comprehensive Local Water Plan. Itasca County, MN.
Kreag, Glenn. January 2002. Duluth Values Open Space . University of Minnesota Sea Grant Program. Duluth, MN.
Lake County. 1998. Lake County Comprehensive Water Management Plan. Lake County, MN.
Lake County Land Department. 1998. Community Attitudes Survey. Lake County, MN.
Lake Superior Binational Program. 2000. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) 2000. Prepared by the Superior Work Group.
Land Management Information Center (LMIC). 1998: http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/. St. Paul, MN
334
Landry, C.J. “Overview: The New Economy of Water.” 2002. Water Resources IMPACT. Vol. 4, No. 1. American Water Resources Association (AWRA). Middleburg, VA.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2004. http://www.m-w.com/home.htm.
Michigan Land Use Institute (MLUI). 2002. An End to Great Lakes Drilling: A Timeline: http://www.mlui.org/projects/enviropolicy/timeline.asp. Beulah, MI.
Minneapolis StarTribune. December 2, 1996. “Business Leaders are Pro-Environment.” Minneapolis, MN.
Minneapolis StarTribune. July 28, 1999. “Partners in Virtual Venture.” Minneapolis, MN.
Minneapolis StarTribune. June 11, 1995. “Trouble in Paradise: North Shore is Feeling the Pressure of Its Popularity.” Minneapolis, MN.
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 2003. About the Board of Water and Soil Resources: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/index.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). 2000. Fish Consumption Advisory. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Health. December 12, 2004. Health Risk Limits for Groundwater. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/groundwater/hrlrule.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Health. 2000. The Protector: Newsletter for Minnesota’s Source Water Protection Program. Vol. 9. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Health. December 3, 2004. Rule Revision – Health Risk Limits for Groundwater Rule. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/groundwater/hrlgw/talks.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Health. 2002. Source Water Protection General Information. Minnesota Department of Health: http://www.health.state.mn.us/. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Health. 2003. Source Water Assessment: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/index.htm. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Health. 2003. Wellhead Protection: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/whp/index.htm. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2003. Invasive/harmful exotic species: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/exotics/index.html. St. Paul, MN.
335
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Division of Forestry. 1995. Minnesota Forest Resources Plan-1995 Assessment: http://www.iic.state.mn.us/finfo/plans/dnr/mfrp2.htm. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Division of Forestry. 1991. Minnesota Forest Resources Plan: Program Direction: http://www.iic.state.mn.us/finfo/plans/dnr/mfrp1.htm. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Division of Waters. 2002. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/programs.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, MPCA, and BWSR. 2001. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/superior/coastal np.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Grant-in-aid trail program: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rmv/gia.html St. Paul, MN. .
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Limited License to Use Copyrighted Material: Natural Heritage Information System. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1999. “Minnesota Watershed 1999, Clipped to State Boundary: Metadata Summary.” St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan: http://www.iic.state.mn.us/finfo/plans/dnr/mnwetcp. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2001. “Natural Heritage Program Rare Natural Features: Tier One Metadata Record.” St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Recreational Motor Vehicle Riding: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rmv/index.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Scientific and Natural Areas: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/sna/index.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. State Forests: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state_forests/management.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Sept. 2000: State Forest Riding Rules, RMV Use Classification. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/regulations/rmv/stateforests.html. St. Paul, MN.
336
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. State Parks: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state_parks/facts.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Wild Rice: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snapshots/plants/wildrice.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2000. Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan-Moving Minnesota: http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/PDPA/2000pdf/chapt1.pdf. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Environment. 2000. Up North and Personal: Sprawl in Northern Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Vol. 1, No. 1.
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. 2000. Minnesota Watermakers: Gauging the Flow of Progress 2000-2010, Draft Copy. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Forest Industries. 2003. Sustainable Forest Resources Act: http://www.minntrees.org/pdf/FactSheet2.pdf. Duluth, MN.
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA). 2002. Global Warming and Climate Change in Minnesota: http://www.moea.state.mn.us/reduce/climatechange.cfm#minnesota. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Planning. 1994. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan of 1995-1999. http://www.iic.state.mn.us/finfo/plans/state.html.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 305b Assessments of Lake Conditions in Minnesota's Major River Basins: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/305blake.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2002. 305b Assessments of Stream Conditions in Minnesota's Major River Basins web page: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/305briver.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. March 2003. Air Quality in Minnesota: Into the Future, Report to the Legislature: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/lr-aq-1sy03.pdf. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2002. An Assessment of Representative Lake Superior Basin Tributaries DRAFT. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1999. Baseline Water Quality of Minnesota’s Principle Aquifers: Region 1, Northeast Minnesota http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwmap/baselinene-sum.pdf. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. June, 12, 2002. Basins/Watersheds: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/index.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2000. Bylaws and Ground Rules. Lake Superior Basin Plan Programmatic Work Group. Duluth, MN.
337
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. February 2003. Citizen’s Guide to Monitoring of Outdoor Air: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/aq1-08.pdf. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1987. Clean Water Partnership Program: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/cwpartner.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2002. Contaminated Sediments: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/sediments/index.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1996. Framework Plan: Minnesota’s Statewide Framework For Basin Management.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2001. Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwmap/. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. April 23, 1997. Ground Water Profile: Arrowhead Region. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/arrowhead- gwp.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. February 3, 2003. Industrial National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program: www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/inpdes_p.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2001. Lake Superior Basin: Basin Planning: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/superior/lsbasin/basin-planning.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1997. Lake Superior Basin Information Document: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/superior/pubs/bid-text.pdf. Duluth, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1999. Lake Superior Basin Monitoring Considerations.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2001. Lake Superior News Bulletin: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/superior/lsbasin/newsbulletins.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1999. Lake Superior/Duluth Harbor Toxics Loading Study, pp. vi-x. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2002. Legislative Issues: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/legislature/. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2001. Listening Log: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/superior/lsbasin/listeninglog.html. St. Paul, MN.
338
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2002. Mercury Reduction Program-Progress Report to the Minnesota Legislature: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/legislature/reports/2002/mercury-02.pdf. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2001. Minnesota 2001-2005 Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nonpoint/mplan.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). 2001. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/superior/coastal np.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2001. Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. July 2001. North Shore Stream Monitoring Work Plan Update.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2000. Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas: Best Management Practices for Dealing with Storm Water Runoff from Urban, Suburban and Developing Areas of Minnesota.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. July 1, 2002. Special Report: Water Quality Point-Source Permitting and Compliance/Enforcement: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/water-pointsourceplan.pdf. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2002. Total Maximum Daily Loads and Minnesota’s Waterways: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl.html. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency & Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1992. The St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan: Stage One. Duluth, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. April 1995. The St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan: Progress Report. Duluth, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Why Treat Sewage? Facts about individual sewage-treatment systems. Policy and Planning Division: Community and Area Wide Programs Section.
Minnesota Rules. 2003. Chapter 7050. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Rules. 2002. Chapter 7080. St. Paul, MN.
339
Minnesota Sea Grant. 1995. Glossary of the Great Lakes, A Minnesota Perspective. Version 1. Duluth, MN
Minnesota Sea Grant. 1999. Lake Superior Facts, Pub. S4. Duluth, MN.
National Academies, The. 2002. National Academy of Sciences: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf. Washington D. C.
National Academy of Sciences. 2002. The Evidence for Warming: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db309563a0852566f2006d63bb/345cb310c049adb185256a840058568e?Op enDocument. Washington D. C.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999. Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970-1998: Addendum to the Proceedings - Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy. Washington D.C.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Minnesota Office of Planning. 1978. Minnesota Coastal Zone Management Program- Public Hearing Draft.
Natural Heritage Institute. 2001. The Bi-National Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Physical Assessment Project: http://www.n-h-i.org/Projects/InternationalRivers/RioGrande/RioGrande.html.
North Shore Management Board. 1988. North Shore Management Plan.
Price, T. 2003. “High Tide in Tuvalu.” Sierra, July/August 2003.
Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. 1994. Facilities Plan for Wastewater Treatment-Biwabik, Minnesota.
Rolo, A., B. Babbitt, and C. Miller. June 27, 2000. “Interview by Elizabeth Arnold.” Minnesota Public Radio.
Rauber, P. 2003. “The Melting Point.” Sierra. July/August 2003.
South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District. 2001. Miller Creek Diagnostic Study and Implementation Plan-Clean Water Partnership Phase I Report. Duluth, MN.
St. Louis County. 2000. St. Louis County Water Plan. Duluth, MN.
340
St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee. 1999. Historic Reconstruction of Property Ownership and Land Uses along the Lower St. Louis River. Duluth, MN.
St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee. May 2002. Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan. Duluth, MN.
Unity 1998 SE Reference Manual. July 1999. Communications Technology International, Inc.
University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts. 2000. “Raising Minnesota: CLA and Our Quality of Life.” Duluth, MN.
University of Minnesota Duluth-Natural Resources Research Institute. 2000. Miller Creek Stormwater Modeling. Duluth, MN.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program Final Environmental Impact Statement.
U.S. Department of the Interior-National Park Service. 2000. Voyageurs National Park Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and Visitor Use Plan: http://planning.den.nps.gov/document/voyafgmp%2Epdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). September 3, 2002. Areas of Concern: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/aoc/index.html. Chicago, Illinois.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Climate Change, Wildlife, and Wildlands: Great Lakes and Upper Midwest: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsOutreachMaterialORWKit.html. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 2002. “Fact Sheet Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories, EPA-823-F-02-007.” Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Global Warming-State Impacts-Minnesota: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsStateImpactsMN.html. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Great Lakes Ecosystem Report 2000: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/rptcong/2001/download.html. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Great Lakes National Program Office: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/fund/2000summaries/intro.html. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Inland Sensitivity Atlas. Washington, DC.
341
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) 2000 Summary Edition: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/summaryeditionLaMP2000.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. “Asian Carp-Key to Identification.” La Crosse Fishery Resource Office, Wisconsin. Onalaska, WI.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. “Asian Carp.” La Crosse Fishery Resource Office, Wisconsin. Onalaska, WI.
U.S. Forest Service. 2000. East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol for Forest Plan Amendment, Revision, and Implementation.
U.S. Forest Service. 2003. Superior National Forest: http://www.superiornationalforest.org/.
Verry, Elon S., James W. Hornbeck, and C. Andrew Dolloff ed. 2000. Riparian Management in Forests. Lewis Publishers: New York.
Von Sternberg, B. 2003. “Asian Carp Swimming, Eating Their Way Toward Great Lakes.” Star Tribune, June 22, 2003. St. Paul, MN.
Weflen, K. 2003. The Crossroads of Climate Change. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Conservation Volunteer: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb01/warming.html. St. Paul, MN.
White, J. 2001. Days of small loggers numbered?: A good job done environmentally. Mesabi Daily News. Virginia, MN.
Wilson, Bruce, Jesse Anderson, Mark Evenson. 1999. Lake Superior Basin Stream Monitoring Considerations. Duluth, MN.
342