DOCSLIB.ORG

Zoning Ordinance Updated 12/ 17/ 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Zoning Ordinance Updated 12/ 17/ 2019 BROWN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS David Borchert, Chairman Anton Berg Scott Windschitl Dean Simonsen Jeffrey Veerkamp BROWN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS Brian Braun, Chairman Anita Mohr John Rolloff Dennis Potter Anton Berg BROWN COUNTY STAFF County Zoning Administrator— Laine Sletta County Administrator— Sam Hansen County Auditor— Jean Prochniak County Attorney— Charles Hanson County Engineer— Wayne Stevens BROWN COU1 flY 423182 COUNTY OF BROWN OFFICE OF THE RECORDER BROWN COUNTY COURTHOUSE NEW ULM, MN 56073 BROWN CO, MINNESOTA Recorded on: FEES$ 0 December 17, 2019 2: 00 PM BETTI KAMOLZ, RECORDER Brown County Zoning Ordinance Updated 12/ 17/ 2019 Page left intentionally blank Brown County Zoning Ordinance pg. 2 Updated 12/17/2019 BROWN COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Table of Contents Section 1 Title pg. 1 Section 2 Intent and Purpose pg. 2 Section 3 General Provisions pg. 3 301 Jurisdiction- pg. 3 302 Scope pg. 3 303 Application pg. 3 304 Lot of Record pg. 3 305 Non-Conforming Uses pg. 5 306 Injunctive Relief pg. 5 307 Zoning Coordination pg. 6 308 Zoning and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan pg. 6 Section 4 Rules and Definitions pg. 7 401 Rules pg. 7 402 Definitions pg. 7 Section 5 Zoning Administration pg. 27 501 Office of Zoning Administrator pg. 27 502 Board of Adjustment pg. 28 503 Variances pg. 30 504 Planning Commission pg. 33 505 Zoning Amendments pg. 34 506 Conditional Use Permits pg. 36 507 Zoning Permits pg. 40 508 Violations, Penalties and Enforcement pg. 43 Section 6 Zoning Districts, District Provisions, & Shoreland Areas pg. 44 601 Zoning Districts pg. 44 602 Zoning Map pg. 44 603 A-1 Agricultural/Shoreland Protection District pg. 46 604 R-1 General Residential District pg. 52 605 B-1 Highway Business District pg. 55 606 B-2 General Business District pg. 58 607 I-1 Limited Industry District pg. 60 608 I-2 General Industry District pg. 63 609 Floodplain District pg. 65 610 Project Riverbend pg. 77 611 Shoreland Areas pg. 78 612 Brown Co Zoning Map & Shoreland Mgt Waters pg. 79 Section 7 Performance Standards pg. 80 701 Purpose pg. 80 702 Exterior Storage pg. 81 703 Refuse pg. 81 704 Glare pg. 81 705 Screening pg. 81 706 Landscaping pg. 82 707 Land Reclamation pg. 82 708 Platting pg. 82 Brown County Zoning Ordinance pg. 3 Updated 12/17/2019 709 Permitted Encroachments pg. 82 710 Dwelling Units Prohibited pg. 83 711 Nuisances pg. 84 712 Accessory Buildings and Structures pg. 86 713 Relocating Structures pg. 87 714 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control pg. 88 715 Preservation of Natural Drainageways pg. 90 716 Tree and Woodland Preservation in Res. Development pg. 91 717 Wetland Preservation pg. 92 718 Traffic Control pg. 94 719 Access Drives and Access pg. 94 720 Sewage Disposal Standards pg. 95 721 Manufactured Home Parks pg. 105 722 Agricultural Operations pg. 109 723 Irrigation System Permits pg. 109 724 Livestock Feedlots pg. 110 725 Parking pg. 117 726 Sign Regulations pg. 120 727 Auto Service Station Standards pg. 124 728 Drive-In Business Development Standards pg. 126 729 Mining and Extraction pg. 128 730 Home Occupations pg. 133 731 Bed & Breakfast Inns pg. 134 732 Shoreland Areas pg. 135 733 Seasonal Dwelling pg. 145 734 Renewable Energy Systems pg. 147 735 Communication Towers pg. 157 Section 8 Enforcement pg. 161 Section 9 Separability Supremacy and Effective Date Brown County Zoning Ordinance pg. 4 Updated 12/17/2019 AMENDED BROWN COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF LAND IN BROWN COUNTY BY DISTRICTS, INCLUDING THE REGULATION OF THE LOCATION, SIZE, USE AND HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS, THE ARRANGEMENT OF BUILDINGS ON LOTS AND THE DENSITY OF POPULATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF BROWN COUNTY. THE BROWN COUNTY BOARD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. TITLE 101. This Ordinance shall be known, cited, and referred to as the Brown County Zoning Ordinance. Brown County Zoning Ordinance pg. 5 Updated 12/17/2019 SECTION 2. INTENT AND PURPOSE 201. Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and 394 Counties and 462 Municipalities - Rule 6120.5100 Policy - 44 C.F.R., Chapter 1, and Parts 59-77 delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Findings of Fact: The flood hazard areas of Brown County, Minnesota, are subject to periodic inundation which results in potential loss of life, loss of property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures or flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Methods Used to Analyze Flood Hazards: This Ordinance is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing flood hazards which is consistent with the standards established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 202. This Ordinance is Adopted for the Purpose of: (1) Protecting the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and minimizing those losses described herein relating to flood hazard areas. (2) Protecting and preserving agricultural land. (3) Promoting orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public land. (4) Conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of the county. (5) Conserving the natural resources in the county including wetlands and woodlands. (6) Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. (7) Minimizing environmental pollution. (8) Conserving energy by allowing solar and earth sheltered housing. Brown County Zoning Ordinance pg. 6 Updated 12/17/2019 SECTION 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS 301. Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of this Ordinance shall apply to all the area of Brown County outside the incorporated limits of municipalities. 302. Scope. From and after the effective date of this Ordinance and subsequent amendments, the use of all land and every building or portion of a building erected, altered in respect to height and area, added to or relocated, and every use within a building or use accessory thereto in Brown County shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Ordnance. Any existing building or structure and any existing use of properties not in conformity with the regulations herein prescribed shall be regarded as non-conforming, but may be continued, extended or changed, subject to the special regulations herein provided with respect to nonconforming properties or uses. 303. Application (1) In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare. (2) Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this Ordinance are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other law, ordinance, statute, resolution, or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive or which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevail. 304. Lot of Record (1) All lots which are a part of a subdivision legally recorded with the County Recorder, and lot or lots described by metes and bounds, compliant with official controls at the time, the deed to which has been recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to June 16, 1971, shall be considered to be Lots of Record and shall thereby be considered a legally buildable lot even though such lot or lots may not conform to the minimum requirements of this Ordinance, providing further that the lot is in separate ownership from abutting lands, and all sanitary sewer standards and setback requirements of the County are compiled with. (2) Abutting lots under common ownership must be combined when necessary to accommodate conforming septic systems. 305. Non-Conforming Uses 305.1 Intent and General Application It is the intent of this Ordinance to permit non-conforming uses or structures to continue through their life span or until they are removed, but not to encourage Brown County Zoning Ordinance pg. 7 Updated 12/17/2019 their survival. Such uses are declared by this Ordinance to be incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved. This is not intended to exempt non- conforming uses from applicable further regulations. (1) A non-conforming use of a structure, a non-conforming use of land and water, or a non-conforming structure, shall not be extended or enlarged after passage of this Ordinance by attachment on a building or premises or additional signs intended to be seen from off the premises, or by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited generally in the district involved. (2) If a non-conforming use of a structure or building is discontinued for a period of one year, further use of the structures or property shall conform to this Ordinance. The County Assessor shall notify the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission in writing of all instances of non-conforming uses which have been discontinued for a period of twelve consecutive months. (3) If a non-conforming structure is destroyed by any cause, to an extent exceeding fifty percent of its fair market value as indicated by the records of the County Assessor, a future structure on the site shall conform to this Ordinance. (4) In the Floodplain Zone, the cost of any structural alterations or additions to any non-conforming structure, since the adoption of Floodplain Management Controls, shall not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure unless the conditions of this Ordinance are satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of Brown County's initial flood plain controls must be calculated into today's current cost which will include all costs such as construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Regression Model to Estimate Regional Ground Water Recharge
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 2007 A Regression Model to Estimate Regional Ground Water Recharge David Lorenz U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] Geoffrey N. Delin U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Lorenz, David and Delin, Geoffrey N., "A Regression Model to Estimate Regional Ground Water Recharge" (2007). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 606. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/606 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. A Regression Model to Estimate Regional Ground Water Recharge by David L. Lorenz1 and Geoffrey N. Delin2 Abstract A regional regression model was developed to estimate the spatial distribution of ground water recharge in subhumid regions. The regional regression recharge (RRR) model was based on a regression of basin-wide estimates of recharge from surface water drainage basins, precipitation, growing degree days (GDD), and average basin specific yield (SY). Decadal average recharge, precipitation, and GDD were used in the RRR model. The RRR estimates were derived from analysis of stream base flow using a computer program that was based on the Rorabaugh method. As expected, there was a strong correlation between recharge and precipitation. The model was applied to statewide data in Minnesota. Where precipitation was least in the western and northwestern parts of the state (50 to 65 cm/year), recharge computed by the RRR model also was lowest (0 to 5 cm/year).
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Minnesota River Watershed
    Minnesota River Basin 2010 Progress Report Middle Minnesota River Watershed MIDDLE MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED This major watershed is characterized by its irregular shape compared Nine Mile Creek to the other major watersheds in the Minnesota River Basin and the fact John Cross it is drained by a numerous smaller tributaries but no major river. The only other major watershed not defined by a main stem tributary in the basin is the Lower Minnesota River Watershed. Little Cottonwood River is the largest sub-watershed, a total of 230 square miles. Ranked sixth in size compared to 12 major watersheds, the Middle Minnesota is approximately 1,347 square miles or 862,060 acres. Agriculture dominates much of the watershed with a number of major river communities found within its boundaries including parts of Redwood Falls, New Ulm and Mankato along with St. Peter, located right before Morgan Creek Vineyard the Minnesota River flows into the Lower Minnesota River Watershed. 38. Lake 35. Red Top Farms Washington Water Demonstration Site Quality Project 2. St. Peter Treaty 33. Wetland Site History Center Litigation 37. Pehling Farm 34. Paired Watershed 1. St. Peter Water 32. Mississippi River Studies for Nutrient 36. State Highway Treatment Plant Basin Health Reduction 169 Erosion 3. GAC Recycle Watersheds Initiative Control Mania 4. Lake Emily 31. New Ulm Clean-up Wastewater Treatment Plant 5. Seven Mile Creek Watershed Project 30. Capitol for a • 6. Wetland day – New Ulm Restorations • 7. Conservation Highlights 29. River Regional • 8. Farm Practice River History & Survey Information Center • 9. Groundwater Vulnerability 28. Coalition for a Study Clean Minnesota • 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeffers Petroglyphs: a Recording of 7000 Years of North American History Tom Sanders 4/24/14
    Jeffers Petroglyphs: a Recording of 7000 Years of North American History Tom Sanders 4/24/14 Introduction For thousands of years, indigenous people left a seemingly endless variety of symbols carved into Jeffers Petroglyphs’ red stone outcroppings. Elders (Dakota, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ojibwa and Iowa) have told us that this is a place where people sought communion with spirits and a place to retreat for ceremonies, fasting and guidance. They tell us that there were many reasons for carving the 5000 images at the site. These elders stressed that the carvings are more than art or mimicry of the natural environment. They tell us that the carvings are eloquent cultural symbols of the rich and complex American Indian societies. They say that elders taught philosophy through parables pictured on the rock and American Indian travelers left written directions for those that were to follow. These carvings of deer, buffalo, turtles, thunderbirds and humans illustrate the social life of the cultures that inhabited this area. Some of these images are drawings of spirits. Many of the carvings are the recordings of visions by holy people. Some of the images are healing alters or prayers to the Great Spirit or one of the helping spirits. Dakota elder Jerry Flute tells us that “Jeffers Petroglyphs is a special place, not just for visitors but also for Native Americans. It is a spiritual place where grandmother earth speaks of the past, present, and future. The descendants of those who carved these images consider this an outdoor church, where worship and ceremony still take place.” Many elders believe that Jeffers Petroglyphs is an encyclopedia that records historic and cultural knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Minnesota River Summary of Surface Water Quality Monitoring 2000
    State of the Minnesota River Summary of Surface Water Quality Monitoring 2000 The purpose of this Summary Report is to consolidate surface water quality monitoring information collected in the Minnesota River Basin for the calendar year 2000. This Report pulls together data collected by multiple agencies and organizations and presents the data in a fashion that allows for comparison between some of the major tributaries and mainstem sites in the Minnesota River Basin. This initial attempt to summarize annual water quality data collected by multiple agencies falls short in that not all tributary data were able to be included in the report. Noticeably lacking are data from tributaries located on the Lower Minnesota River between St. Peter and the confluence with the Mississippi River at Fort Snelling. Previous work has indicated that this portion of the basin contributes a sizable portion of the nonpoint load to the Minnesota River. Although monitoring stations exist in this portion of the basin, at the time this report was being assembled, some organizations had not finalized data analysis for the year 2000. It is expected that the 2001 Summary Report will include data from some of these missing watersheds or stations. In addition, this Report does not include data from many of the smaller tributaries and field scale evaluations occurring within the basin. This Report also helps fulfill the overall mission of the Minnesota River Basin Data Center, which is to inventory, develop, retrieve, interpret and disseminate information on topics that impact the environment, economy and communities within the Minnesota River Basin. This mission was first articulated by the Citizens Advisory Committee in a series of recommendations to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and later by the Minnesota River Basin Joint Powers Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Vermillion River Watershed
    PRELIMINARY DRAFT South Metro Mississippi River Total Suspended Solids Total Maximum Daily Load October 2010 Mississippi River Minnesota River Submitted to: United States Environmental Protection Agency Submitted by: wq-iw9-12b TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Priority Ranking ............................................................................................................................ 8 2.0 Waterbody description ................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Water Quality History ................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.1 Pollutant of Concern ................................................................................................................ 17 3.0 Sediment Sources .......................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Tributary Basins and Watersheds ............................................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Urban and Rural Sources ......................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2 Sediment
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River, Mankato Watershed Characterization Report
    Minnesota River, Mankato Watershed Characterization Report MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES September 20, 2016 Table of Contents Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ 4 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 11 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 12 Study Background ................................................................................................................................... 12 Watershed Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 12 Location .................................................................................................................................................. 12 Geology ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Bedrock Geology ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Achievements Report 2014 Annual Report to the U.S
    Watershed Achievements Report 2014 Annual Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act Section 319, Clean Water Legacy and Clean Water Partnership Projects in Minnesota This page left blank intentionally. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency www.pca.state.mn.us On the cover: they furnish a perennial base of streamflow by ground water discharge. Cover photo courtesy of Daniel Dix. Non-tourists kayaking in Water supplies are obtained from wells tapping Pleistocene the Cottonwood River near New Ulm. glacial deposits, Cretaceous sandstone, Cambrian sandstone, From: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document. and Precambrian crystalline rocks. The most accessible and html?gid=10414 widely used aquifers are beds of sand and gravel buried in the glacial deposits. The 1,284 square mile Cottonwood River Watershed is situated between the Little Cottonwood River Sub-Watershed to the Dominant regional ground water flow is northeastward from east and the Redwood River Watershed to the west. The the topographic high in the southwest toward the Minnesota watershed drains sections of Lyon, Murray, Cottonwood, River. Local flow patterns indicate ground water discharging Redwood, and Brown counties. The River itself originates in into rivers and creeks. Most of the Cottonwood River the Northern Glaciated Ecoregion on top of the Coteau des Watershed is an area of ground water recharge, indicated by a Prairies or “Highland of the Prairies,” an impressive morainal decreased in hydraulic potential as depth below land surface plateau and important drainage divide, so named by French increases. explorers. Except for a few isolated wetlands set aside by state The dissolved solids and water type in surficial aquifers (less and federal agencies, many of the Coteau’s wetlands have than 100 feet deep) depend on mineral composition of the been drained and converted to cultivated fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Minnesota River Assessment Project
    Revisiting the Minnesota River Assessment Project An Evaluation of Fish and Invertebrate Community Progress May 2011 Legislative Charge The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is to spend $348,000 to retest the comprehensive assessment of the biological conditions of the lower Minnesota River and its tributaries within the Lower Minnesota River Major Watershed, as previously assessed from 1976 to 1992 under the Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP). The assessment must include the same fish species sampling at the same 116 locations and the same macroinvertebrate sampling at the same 41 locations as the MRAP assessment. The assessment must: (1) include an analysis of the findings; and (2) identify factors that limit aquatic life in the Minnesota River. HF 1231, Article 2, Section 4(a) Authors Estimated cost of preparing this report (as Principal Author: Benjamin Lundeen required by Minn. Stat. § 3.197) Principal Author: Michael Koschak Total staff time: 926 hrs. $25,949 Production/duplication $0 Contributors / acknowledgements Total $25,949 Name: Glenn Skuta Name: Scott Niemela The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs Name: Dan Helwig by using the Internet to distribute reports and Name: Joel Chirhart information to a wider audience. Visit our website Name: Mike Feist for more information. Name: Larry Gunderson MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer Name: Kristofor Parson recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.state.mn.us | 651-296-6300 Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332 This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us Document number: lrwq-s-2sy11 Forward Residing in the southwestern portion of Minnesota, the Minnesota River Basin encompasses parts or all of 38 counties and contains 13 major watersheds, which drain nearly 20 percent of Minnesota (Figure 1) (Musser et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Flooding in the Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota, Spring 2001
    science for a changing world Flooding in the Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota, Spring 2001 INTRODUCTION Department of Public Safety, Division of Resources, as well as other State and local Emergency Management, oral commun. agencies. Stage and discharge data During spring 2001 there was much July 9, 2001). gathered at these gages are used for flood flooding in the Mississippi River Basin in forecasting, operations of dams and Minnesota. Greater than normal Record flows were recorded at nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) diversions, managing emergency activities precipitation starting with late fall rains in continuous-streamflow gaging stations during floods, and performing follow-up 2000, greater than normal snowfalls, a within Minnesota or along the Wisconsin studies to better understand river flood- delayed snowmelt, and record rains in flow characteristics. This report April, all contributed to the flooding. Parts border. In addition, 14 stations recorded their 2nd or 3rd highest peaks of record. summarizes flooding in that part of the of the southern one-half of Minnesota had These gaging stations are maintained by Mississippi River Basin that includes streamflows of magnitudes not seen in stream-gaging stations within the borders more than 30 years. Approximately 50 the USGS as part of a network of gages used by the USGS, U.S. Army Corps of of Minnesota and monitoring points along counties were declared disaster areas with Engineers, National Weather Service, the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. greater than 34 million dollars in total Minnesota Department of Natural Peak stages and discharges are reported flood damage (S. Neudahl, included in this report for 44 stream- gaging stations (table 1) maintained by the USGS in the Mississippi River Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Minnesota River Assessment Project: an Evaluation Of
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp Revisiting the Minnesota River Assessment Project An Evaluation of Fish and Invertebrate Community Progress May 2011 Legislative Charge The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is to spend $348,000 to retest the comprehensive assessment of the biological conditions of the lower Minnesota River and its tributaries within the Lower Minnesota River Major Watershed, as previously assessed from 1976 to 1992 under the Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP). The assessment must include the same fish species sampling at the same 116 locations and the same macroinvertebrate sampling at the same 41 locations as the MRAP assessment. The assessment must: (1) include an analysis of the findings; and (2) identify factors that limit aquatic life in the Minnesota River. HF 1231, Article 2, Section 4(a) Authors Estimated cost of preparing this report (as Principal Author: Benjamin Lundeen required by Minn. Stat. § 3.197) Principal Author: Michael Koschak Total staff time: 926 hrs. $25,949 Production/duplication $0 Contributors / acknowledgements Total $25,949 Name: Glenn Skuta Name: Scott Niemela The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs Name: Dan Helwig by using the Internet to distribute reports and Name: Joel Chirhart information to a wider audience. Visit our website Name: Mike Feist for more information. Name: Larry Gunderson MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer
    [Show full text]
  • Map of Minnesota River State Water Trail from Morton to Cambria
    MINNESOTA RIVER STATE Route Description, RM 191 to 123 WATER TRAIL R and L represent sides of the river facing downstream MAP 4 - Morton to Cambria 191.5-188 Tiger Lake Wildife Management Area. 190.9 (R) Confluence with Crow Creek. Includes the Cottonwood River 189.8 (R) Morton trailer access. 189.0 Highway 19 bridge. 188.8 Railroad bridge. 186.5 (L) Confluence with Birch Coulee Creek. 182.6 Powerline crossing. 180.8 (L) Confluence with Purgatory Creek. 179.7 (L) Franklin trailer access. Watercraft campsite and rest area, County Roads 11/5 bridge, town of Franklin. 178.8 (R) Confluence with Wabasha Creek. 173.8 County Roads 3/8 bridge. 172.0 (L) Confluence with Threemile Creek. 169.6 (L) Mack Lake Park. Trailer access, watercraft campsite and toilet. 167.7 (R) Kettner’s Landing trailer access. 165.7 (L) Fort Ridgely State Park. Parking, fee camping, historic site, drinking water and toilets. Vehicle permit required to park at Fort Ridgely. 164.8 (L) Confluence with Fort Ridgely Creek. 163.6 (L) Highway 4 trailer access and bridge. Minnriver Wildlife Management Area. 159.8 (L) Confluence with Spring Creek. Route Description, Cottonwood River - 158.8 250th Avenue bridge. 153.1 (L) Confluence with Little Rock Creek. Springfield to the confluence with the Minnesota River 153.1 (R) Confluence with John’s Creek. 163.5-143.1 Caution: This section can be difficult to navigate. The river changes greatly, due to R and L represent sides of the river facing downstream frequent flooding and creates oxbows, espcially in high water conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River - Mankato Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies
    Minnesota River - Mankato Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies January 2020 wq-ws4-63a Authors Joanne Boettcher and Bryan Spindler Contributions and Review Ashley Ignatius, Abdiwahid Yusuf, Breeanna Bateman, Wayne Cords, Scott MacLean, Rachel Olmanson, Kristi Kalk, Angus Vaughan, Kim Laing, Dan Fettig WRAPS Feedback Group Amy Clyde, Nicollet County Heidi Rauenhorst, Hawk Creek Watershed Project Holly Kalbus, LeSueur County Michael Schultz, LeSueur SWCD Holly Hatlewick, Renville SWCD Eric Miller, Nicollet SWCD Diane Mitchell, Renville County Ronald Otto, Sibley SWCD Dave Bucklin, Cottonwood SWCD Alan Gleisner, Brown SWCD Julie Conrad, Blue Earth County Kurt Mathiowetz, Redwood SWCD Jon Lore, DNR Cody Dale, Renville SWCD Brooke Hacker, DNR Melanie Krueger, Brown SWCD Brady Swanson, DNR Joshua Mankowski, LeSueur County Garry Bennett, DNR Amanda Strommer, MDH Taralee Latozke, DNR Jennifer Mocol-Johnson, BWSR John Knisley, Brown County Those with disabilities limiting their ability to access report information may contact the MPCA Watershed Project manager to provide alternate formats that suit their needs. Minnesota River - Mankato Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies 2 Table of Contents Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction and Background ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]