DOCSLIB.ORG

Cook County Comprehensive Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2016 Updated by: The Murray County Comprehensive Planning Advisory Committee With Assistance from: The Southwest Regional Development Commission Adopted: December 27, 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE The County has a responsibility to protect its cultural, economic, and natural environments. Because of this, the Murray County Comprehensive Plan will identify goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies designed to appropriately reflect the needs of the County’s citizens and natural environment. This plan will emphasize the importance of proper planning ensuring that decisions made are best for the citizens of the County as well as the environment. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Bill Post Larry Dahl Duane Spartz Bob Sandhurst Pam Schreier Doug Stewart Brian Hamilton Ralph Knapp Keith Hakeneis Burend Cuperus Ryan Verlinde Roger Steinman Craig Bangasser Todd Miller Gary Runkle Jamie Thomazin Tom Hey Troy Wehking Jason Schreier Kevin Vickerman Dale Bergman Dave Dorpinghaus AGENCY REPREPRESENTATIVES 2016 Cathi Fouchi, Minnesota DNR Planning Becky Balk, Minnesota Department of Agriculture Marcy Barritt, Murray County Assessor Jon Bloemendaal, Murray County Ag & Solid Waste Jean Christoffels, Murray County Planning & Zoning Randy Groves, Murray County Highway Department Amy Rucker, Murray County Economic Development Randy Hukriede, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Craig Christensen, Murray County SWCD Chris Hansen, Murray County Water Resources Heath Landsman, Murray County Emergency Management Janet Timmerman, Murray County Historical Museum Dominic Jones, Red Rock Rural Water Jason Overby, Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water Robert Nielsen, Minnesota Department of Health Lindsey Knutson, Minnesota Department of Transportation Annette Fiedler, Southwest Regional Development Commission MURRAY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 2016 First District Second District Third District James Jens Robert Moline Gerald Magnus Fourth District Fifth District Glenn “Corky” Kluis Dave Thiner ii The Murray County Family of Plans, Components of the Comprehensive Plan Murray County’s Comprehensive Plan is an amalgamation of separately created plans each focused on specific topics: Land Use, County Facilities, Hazard Mitigation, Parks, Solid Waste, Water, Economic Development, Transportation, Aquatic Invasive Species have been adopted or are in the process of being developed and are referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Aquatic Transpor- Invasive tation Species Economic County Development Facilities in progress in progress Comprehensive Plan Hazard Water Mitigation Solid Housing Waste Park Facilities Plan ii Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS 8 CHAPTER 2. DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING 10 CHAPTER 3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 34 CHAPTER 4. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL FACILITIES 61 CHAPTER 5. CONSERVATION, PARKS, AND OPEN SPACES 78 CHAPTER 6. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 111 CHAPTER 7. LAND USE 130 CHAPTER 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE 150 iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2007, Murray County celebrated its sesquicentennial, the 150th anniversary of the formation of the County. There had been many changes since the prairie days of 1857. The railroads have come and gone. Horse-drawn plows broke the prairie grass into fields now worked by large farm machinery of a scale not dreamed of a century and a half past. Murray County’s residents past and present built homes and businesses, churches and schools, hopes and dreams into vibrant communities with a quality of life equal to any in Minnesota. Over the past ten years, more change has occurred which has shaped the County There are always challenges in any community. Murray County has lost population since the middle of the last century and the median age of its citizens is increasing. Meanwhile, County buildings are getting older, the number of people within most of the communities and townships is getting smaller and lakeshore development has reached a critical stage in terms of protecting the environment and water quality. Murray County, like many rural counties, is in a state of continuous change and it is this change that makes comprehensive planning so critical. From the beginning stages of this plan’s update, Murray County leaders recognized the importance of citizen involvement and the need to have broad citizen input and representation for the development of the plan. In preparation for the comprehensive planning process, the County Commissioners selected individuals from various places and organizations throughout the County to serve on the Comprehensive Planning Advisory Committee, ensuring a broad representation. The Murray County Comprehensive Plan is organized into key elements. Each chapter provides background information on the topic, then examines future development considerations and guidelines: Chapter Introduction Purpose for the Chapter Current Issues facing the County Current Situation Planning to Address Future Concerns One of the main functions of the Murray County Comprehensive Plan is to provide a consistent set of goals and policies that can guide decisions regarding land use by both the private and public sector. Decisions regarding growth and development that were made in the past, as well as those that will be made in the future, will have an effect on the need for public expenditures and taxes, environmental quality, the consumption of energy and land, and will have effects on other resources. Each chapter contains data that serves as the foundation on which the plan is built. This data includes reasonable projections, but since they are estimates it should be noted that they are subject to conditions of change. The Comprehensive Plan should be viewed as a dynamic document, and it should be examined and amended periodically. Murray County Comprehensive Plan -4- The following is a list of the plan’s chapters and the several key issues that were considered during the Committee meetings. Each of the following sections gives a brief overview of the issues facing the County in relation to that element. Demographics and Housing The demographics and housing section of this plan is intended to provide background on people living within Murray County. This information helps decision makers and citizens understand current conditions, evaluate proposals, and formulate policies to improve the community. Housing is typically provided within the incorporated cities where municipal services are available. However, there remain substantial numbers of rural farm and non-farm home sites in Murray County’s townships. The County has an on-going interest in promoting safe and affordable housing. Key Issues Decreasing population Aging of population Housing stock: age, condition, availability, safe and affordable Economic Development The economic base of Murray County provides jobs and income that fuel local prosperity. Economic development, then, is essential to growing the economic base of agriculture, manufacturing and exported services in a sustainable manner. It is vital for the County to ensure that its own ability to provide infrastructure and services is closely coordinated with current and future growth. One of the main themes found within the Economic Development chapter is the retention and expansion of businesses already operating within the County, as well as continued pursuit of new businesses. Key Issues Murray County Economic Development Authority Work Program Diversifying agricultural economy Marketing and funding of the County’s tourism features Broadband infrastructure Renewable energy Historic and Cultural Facilities Historic and cultural facilities occupy unique and special places in our landscape. People are beginning to understand that these structures or sites are non-renewable and once they are gone, they are not coming back. This Comprehensive Plan places an importance on designating, protecting, and preserving historic buildings and places. Each of Murray County’s communities expresses a unique character, a distinguishing sense of place. Murray County Comprehensive Plan -5- All communities and the historical significance they have should be important to Murray County and the County should work with all of its communities in order to protect this uniqueness. Through cooperation and promotion, historic properties will be further realized as the expression of a community’s heritage, and many people will be able to continue to enjoy them. Key Issues Lack of understanding of the importance of historic and cultural facilities Lack of funds for preservation and maintenance Need for systematic facilities plans Conservation, Parks, and Open Space The Conservation, Parks, and Open Space chapter provides a framework for the use, protection, preservation, and enhancement of the County’s natural resources, which include agricultural land, undeveloped natural areas, surface water and ground water, green space and open space, wildlife, and significant scenic and scientific areas. Environmental features have and will continue to play a key role in the development of Murray County. One of the primary issues here is converting marginal lands to agricultural production. This practice can lead to both loss of fertile topsoil and has the potential to cause degradation to water quality. Key Issues Natural resource base and environmentally sensitive land preservation Surface and ground water quality protection Enforcement of buffer law Need for systematic facilities plans Development and maintenance
Recommended publications
  • Shetek-Eaw.Pdf

    Shetek-Eaw.Pdf

    September 10, 2004 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES RE: Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Enclosed is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project, Murray County. The EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and is being distributed for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The comment period will begin the day the EAW availability notice is published in the EQB Monitor, which will likely occur in the September 13, 2004 issue. Comments will be accepted through October 13, 2004. In addition to the EAW, the MPCA’s draft National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit will also be available for public comment concurrently. The contact person for the Permit is Lisa McCormick at (320) 214-3786. Comments received on the EAW will be used by the MPCA in evaluating the potential for significant environmental effects from this project and deciding on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A final decision on the need for an EIS will be made by the MPCA Commissioner after the end of the comment period. If a request for an EIS is received during the comment period, or if the Commissioner recommends the preparation of an EIS, the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board) will make the final decision. The final EIS need decision will also be made by the Board if so requested by the project proposer, other interested parties or MPCA staff and if this request is agreed to by one or more members of the Board or the MPCA Commissioner.
  • West Fork Des Moines River and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan

    West Fork Des Moines River and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan

    West Fork Des Moines River and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan September 2009 Submitted by: Heron Lake Watershed District In cooperation with the TMDL Advisory and Technical Committees Preface This implementation plan was written by the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD), with the assistance of the Advisory Committee, and Technical Committee, and guidance from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) based on the report West Fork Des Moines River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Final Report: Excess Nutrients (North and South Heron Lake), Turbidity, and Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impairments. Advisory Committee and Technical Committee members that helped develop this plan are: Advisory Committee Karen Johansen City of Currie Jeff Like Taylor Co-op Clark Lingbeek Pheasants Forever Don Louwagie Minnesota Soybean Growers Rich Perrine Martin County SWCD Randy Schmitz City of Brewster Michael Hanson Cottonwood County Tom Kresko Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Windom Technical Committee Kelli Daberkow Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Jan Voit Heron Lake Watershed District Ross Behrends Heron Lake Watershed District Melanie Raine Heron Lake Watershed District Wayne Smith Nobles County Gordon Olson Jackson County Chris Hansen Murray County Pam Flitter Martin County Roger Schroeder Lyon County Kyle Krier Pipestone County and Soil and Water Conservation District Ed Lenz Nobles Soil and Water Conservation District Brian Nyborg Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District Howard Konkol Murray Soil and Water Conservation District Kay Clark Cottonwood Soil and Water Conservation District Rose Anderson Lyon Soil and Water Conservation District Kathy Smith Martin Soil and Water Conservation District Steve Beckel City of Jackson Mike Haugen City of Windom Jason Rossow City of Lakefield Kevin Nelson City of Okabena Dwayne Haffield City of Worthington Bob Krebs Swift Brands, Inc.
  • Comprehensive Land

    Comprehensive Land

    2016 Updated by: The Murray County Comprehensive Planning Advisory Committee With Assistance from: The Southwest Regional Development Commission Adopted: December 27, 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE The County has a responsibility to protect its cultural, economic, and natural environments. Because of this, the Murray County Comprehensive Plan will identify goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies designed to appropriately reflect the needs of the County’s citizens and natural environment. This plan will emphasize the importance of proper planning ensuring that decisions made are best for the citizens of the County as well as the environment. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Bill Post Larry Dahl Duane Spartz Bob Sandhurst Pam Schreier Doug Stewart Brian Hamilton Ralph Knapp Keith Hakeneis Burend Cuperus Ryan Verlinde Roger Steinman Craig Bangasser Todd Miller Gary Runkle Jamie Thomazin Tom Hey Troy Wehking Jason Schreier Kevin Vickerman Dale Bergman Dave Dorpinghaus AGENCY REPREPRESENTATIVES 2016 Cathi Fouchi, Minnesota DNR Planning Becky Balk, Minnesota Department of Agriculture Marcy Barritt, Murray County Assessor Jon Bloemendaal, Murray County Ag & Solid Waste Jean Christoffels, Murray County Planning & Zoning Randy Groves, Murray County Highway Department Amy Rucker, Murray County Economic Development Randy Hukriede, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Craig Christensen, Murray County SWCD Chris Hansen, Murray County Water Resources Heath Landsman, Murray County Emergency Management Janet Timmerman, Murray
  • 10-Year Watershed Management Plan

    10-Year Watershed Management Plan

    Heron Lake Watershed District 10-Year Watershed Management Plan Cooperating organizations: Heron Lake Watershed District Houston Engineering, Inc. Effective January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2021 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. The Watershed Act ....................................................................................................... 8 1.2. Summary of Watershed Management Plan Content ..................................................... 8 1.3. Description of the Planning Process ............................................................................. 9 1.4. Public and Agency Input Process and Issues .............................................................. 10 1.5. Consistency with Other Planning Documents ............................................................ 12 2. History of the Heron Lake Watershed District ........................................................... 13 2.1. Previous Planning Efforts ........................................................................................... 13 2.2. Heron Lake Watershed District Evolution since Establishment ................................. 13 2.3. Success of the 2001 Watershed Management Plan..................................................... 14 2.4. Review and Assessment of Existing Objectives ......................................................... 15 2.5. Mission Statement ......................................................................................................
  • Murray County Aquatic Invasive Species Plan

    Murray County Aquatic Invasive Species Plan

    Murray County Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Prevention and Management Plan December 15, 2020 Drafted by: Murray County Environmental Services Department Murray County AIS Prevention and Management Plan 0 Murray County Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention and Management Plan Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ................................................................................ 3 MURRAY COUNTY BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 3 ACTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 4 ELEMENT 1: EDUCATION/AWARENESS ..................................................................................... 4 ELEMENT 2: PREVENTION ...................................................................................................... 7 ELEMENT 3: WATERCRAFT INSPECTIONS .................................................................................... 8 ELEMENT 4: EMERGENCY RESPONSE ......................................................................................... 9 ELEMENT 5: PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................ 10 AIS PROGRAM SUMMARY .......................................................................................
  • State of the Trails Final Report February 2017

    State of the Trails Final Report February 2017

    STATE OF THE TRAILS FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 2017 ParksCounCil of & Minn TrailsESoTA CONTENTS 3 Key Findings 4 Project Overview STATE OF THE TRAILS 6 Experiental Ratngs 7 Trail Roughness Index 8 DNR Investment Groups 10 Overview of State Trail Pavement Conditons 13 Segment-by-Segment Ratngs 13 Alex Laveau State Trail 29 Harmony Preston State Trail 14 Blazing Star State Trail 31 Heartland State Trail 15 Brown’s Creek State Trail 34 Luce Line State Trail 16 Casey Jones State Trail 36 Mill Towns State Trail 17 Central Lakes State Trail 36 Preston-Forestville State Trail 20 Cuyuna Lakes State Trail 37 Minnesota Valley State Trail 21 Douglas State Trail 38 Paul Bunyan State Trail 22 Gateway State Trail 44 Root River State Trail 23 Gitchi-Gami State Trail 47 Sakatah Singing Hills State Trail 24 Glacial Lakes State Trail 49 Shootng Star State Trail 27 Goodhue Pioneer State Trail 51 Willard Munger State Trail 28 Great River Ridge State Trail RECOMMENDATIONS 54 Consistent State Trail Rehabilitaton 57 Create a State Trail Capital Improvement Plan METHODOLOGY 59 How to Understand Our Ratngs 61 Important Caveats 63 Acknowledgments Vector artwork on cover designed by Freepik 2 www.parksandtrails.org KEY FINDINGS STATE TRAIL CONDITIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS: • Minnesota State Trails are currently in good • Lawmakers and the DNR should commit to conditon. Our inventory found 79% of state rehabilitatng an average of 20 state trail miles trail miles are in either excellent or good per year, which is the level needed to maintain conditon. Minnesota State Trails long term. • Only 26 miles of Minnesota State Trails are • Lawmakers should commit to funding state currently in poor conditon, and 90 miles are in trail rehabilitaton through consistent state fair conditon.
  • Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails District 1 – Northeast Strategic Plan

    Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails District 1 – Northeast Strategic Plan

    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 GREATER MINNESOTA REGIONAL PARKS AND TRAILS DISTRICT 1 – NORTHEAST STRATEGIC PLAN GREATER MINNESOTA REGIONAL PARKS AND TRAILS COMMISSION DISTRICT 2 – NORTHWEST DISTRICT 3 – WEST CENTRAL DISTRICT 4 – EAST CENTRAL DISTRICT 5 – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT 6 – SOUTHEAST Adoption Date: June 25, 2014 IT IS THE INTENT OF THE COMMISSION THAT THIS STRATEGIC PLAN BE A DYNAMIC WORKING DOCUMENT THAT WILL EVOLVE OVER TIME. THIS ADOPTED PLAN SHALL BE USED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 PLANNING PURPOSES. Adoption Date: June 25, 2014 Introduction and Enabling Legislation Under 2013 Minnesota Statutes 85.536, the Minnesota State Legislature created the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission (Commission). Under the statute, the Commission “is created to undertake system planning and provide recommendations to the legislature for grants funded by the parks and trails fund to counties and cities outside of the seven-county metropolitan area for parks and trails of regional significance.” The commission includes 13 members appointed by the governor, with two members from each of the six regional parks and trails districts. Through the adoption of this plan, the Commission fulfills it obligation to “develop a strategic plan and criteria for determining parks and trails of regional significance that are eligible for funding from the parks and trails fund and meet the criteria under
  • Lake Shetek State Park Bird Checklist

    Lake Shetek State Park Bird Checklist

    Birds of Lake Shetek State Park Sp Su Fa Wi Birds of Lake Shetek State Park Sp Su Fa Wi ❏ Warbling Vireo C C C ❏ Ovenbird U U LAKE SHETEK ❏ Red-eyed Vireo C U C ❏ Northern Waterthrush O O ❏ Blue Jay C U C C ❏ Connecticut Warbler O O STATE PARK ❏ American Crow CCCC ❏ Mourning Warbler U U ❏ Horned Lark CCCU ❏ Common Yellowthroat C C C ❏ Purple Martin U U U ❏ Wilson’s Warbler U U ✓ ❏ Tree Swallow C C C ❏ Canada Warbler O O ❏ Northern Rough-winged Swallow CCC ❏ American Tree Sparrow C C C ❏ Bank Swallow U U U ❏ Chipping Sparrow C C C Checklist ❏ Cliff Swallow C C C ❏ Clay-colored Sparrow U U U ❏ Barn Swallow C C C ❏ Field Sparrow U U U BIRD ❏ Black-capped Chickadee CCCC ❏ Vesper Sparrow C C C ❏ White-breasted Nuthatch CCCC ❏ Savannah Sparrow C C C ❏ Brown Creeper C C U ❏ Grasshopper Sparrow U U O ❏ House Wren C C C ❏ Fox Sparrow U U ❏ Winter Wren O O ❏ Song Sparrow C C C ❏ Sedge Wren C C U ❏ Lincoln’s Sparrow U U ❏ Marsh Wren U U U ❏ Swamp Sparrow U U U ❏ Golden-crowned Kinglet C C O ❏ White-throated Sparrow C C ❏ Ruby-crowned Kinglet C C ❏ Harris’s Sparrow U U ❏ Blue-gray Gnatcatcher U U U ❏ White-crowned Sparrow U U ❏ Eastern Bluebird CCCO ❏ Dark-eyed Junco C C U ❏ Veery U U ❏ Lapland Longspur C C U ❏ Gray-cheeked Thrush U U ❏ Snow Bunting U U U ❏ Swainson’s Thrush U U ❏ Northern Cardinal UUUU ❏ Hermit Thrush U U ❏ Rose-breasted Grosbeak C C C ❏ American Robin CCCU ❏ Indigo Bunting C C C ❏ Gray Catbird C C C ❏ Dickcissel U U ❏ Brown Thrasher C C C ❏ Bobolink C C C ❏ European Starling UUUU ❏ Red-winged Blackbird CCCO ❏ ❏ Cedar Waxwing CCCU
  • Southern Region Fishing Outlook for 2021 General Outlook

    Southern Region Fishing Outlook for 2021 General Outlook

    Southern Region Fishing Outlook for 2021 General outlook April 20, 2021 – Early in the pandemic last spring (2020), many anglers made alternate fishing opener plans by staying closer to home to find a fishing hotspot. In some cases, this created a shift to the normal angling base by concentrating anglers to try their luck on popular local lakes, whereas angling pressure dipped on remote lakes. Overall, statewide angling and license sales rose about 10% from 2019, partially because of interest to get outdoors and explore new places to fish during COVID restrictions and spring weather was favorable. Lakes in the southern region of Minnesota offer very good fishing opportunities for a multitude of species, especially in the spring. After a dry late fall in 2020 and less snow during the winter, lake levels are at or just below normal for this time of year. While an earlier than normal ice-out occurred in 2021, a prolonged cool period persisted during much of April that slowed lake temperatures from their typical gradual warm up. Numerous shallow lakes in the southern region, with this longer open-water season, were still able to warm up sooner favoring an active fish bite. Fish populations in this part of the state tend to grow faster and reach catchable size in fewer years. It is not uncommon to see a 15-inch walleye or 7-inch bluegill within two years. Northern pike growth is accelerated as well seeing 24-inch pike in about 2 to 3 years. If you do not have a boat, shore fishing is popular as well.
  • STREAM MANAGEMENT PLAN – Page 1 Stream Name Kittle Number Total Length Approved Date of Plan West Fork Des Moines River I-037 116.53 Miles Dec

    STREAM MANAGEMENT PLAN – Page 1 Stream Name Kittle Number Total Length Approved Date of Plan West Fork Des Moines River I-037 116.53 Miles Dec

    STREAM MANAGEMENT PLAN – Page 1 Stream name Kittle Number Total Length Approved Date of Plan West Fork Des Moines River I-037 116.53 miles Dec. 22, 2011 Region Area Fisheries Office Plan Managed Reach (river miles) Length Plan Managed Reach 4 Windom (F418) mile 0.00 to mile 116.53 107.42 miles (w/o Lake Shetek) Major Watershed: Counties West Fork Des Moines River – Head waters (51) Cottonwood (17), Jackson (32), Murray (51) Rosgen Fisheries Species Similar Length Channel Ecological of Management Reach Reach name Stream Miles miles Type Classification 1 Interest walleye, northern pike, 1 Mouth-Windom 0.0 – 23.69 23.69 NA II-B, C, D channel catfish Windom-Heron Lake walleye, northern pike, 2 23.69 – 43.43 19.74 NA II-B, C, D outlet channel catfish Heron Lake outlet-Lime walleye, northern pike, 3 43.43 – 71.09 27.66 NA II-B, C, D Creek channel catfish walleye, northern pike, 4 Lime Creek-Lake Shetek 70.09 – 96.76 25.67 NA II-B, C, D channel catfish Lake Shetek - 96.76 – 105.86 9.11 - (DOW 51004600) Lake Shetek- walleye, northern pike, 5 105.86 – 116.53 10.67 NA II-B, C, D Yankton Lake outlet channel catfish Long Range Goals Goal 1: Reaches 1, 2, 3 – An accessible fishery for walleye, channel catfish, and northern pike and suitable aquatic habitat to support it. Objectives (Desired Future Conditions) and Operational Plans: 1. Walleye, northern pike, and channel catfish populations as defined by minimum catch rates for adults; presence of naturally reproduced young; and adequate age structure (values based on historic fisheries survey catch rates associated with anecdotal reports of angling success): a.
  • Land and Water Resources Narrative

    Land and Water Resources Narrative

    Land and Water Resources Narrative Introduction and History The Des Moines River Watershed, located in southwestern Minnesota, is a primarily agricultural watershed rich with unique natural features and diverse water resources. Two main river systems form the main arteries of this watershed: the West Fork Des Moines River and the East Fork Des Moines River. The West Fork Des Moines River starts in Lake Shetek in the headwaters of the watershed and flows southeast into Iowa, passing through the cities of Windom, Jackson, and others. The East Fork Des Moines River also drains southeast, flowing into the West Fork across the Iowa border. From there, the Des Moines River flows into the Mississippi at Keokuk, Iowa, and supplies the city of Des Moines with drinking water (Figure 1). Figure 1: General location of the Des Moines River Watershed 1 | Page The Des Moines River Watershed was formed in glacial material deposited by the Des Moines Lobe glacier, approximately 12,000 years before present. The eastern part of the watershed was largely under the Des Moines Lobe, but as one travels west, hilly morainal features start to appear where the edge of the glacier formed a patchwork of hills and wetland-filled valleys. Finally, the westernmost border of the watershed is the Buffalo Ridge, a high ridge towering 100-200 feet over the surrounding plains landscape that is part of the larger Coteau des Prairies feature. The Coteau des Prairies, or hill of the prairie, is a flatiron shaped plateau on the plains that was missed by the most recent glaciation.
  • Rapid Watershed Assessment Des Moines Headwaters (MN) HUC: 07100001

    Rapid Watershed Assessment Des Moines Headwaters (MN) HUC: 07100001

    DES MOINES HEA D WATERS (MN) HUC: 07100001 Rapid Watershed Assessment Des Moines Headwaters (MN) HUC: 07100001 Rapid watershed assessments provide initial estimates of where conservation investments would best address the concerns of landowners, conservation districts, and other community organizations and stakeholders. These assessments help land–owners and local leaders set priorities and determine the best actions to achieve their goals. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250-9410, or call 1 (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. DES MOINES HEA D WATERS (MN) HUC: 07100001 Introduction Located in Southwest Minnesota, the Des Moines Headwaters 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subbasin lies within the Loess Prairies and Des Moines Lobe portions of the Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion. Approximately ninety six percent of the 801,772 acres in this HUC are privately owned. The remaining acres are state, county or federal public lands, conservancy land or held by corporate interests. Assessment estimates indicate 1,661 farms in the watershed.