DOCSLIB.ORG

Root River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Root River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report z c Root River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report June 2012 Acknowledgements MPCA Watershed Report Development Team: Michael Koschak, Mike Walerak, Pam Anderson, Dan Helwig, Bruce Monson, Dave Christopherson, David Duffey, Andrew Streitz Contributors: Citizen Stream Monitoring Program Volunteers Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture Fillmore County Soil and Water Conservation District The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to a wider audience. Visit our Website for more information. MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Project dollars provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment). 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: wq-ws3-070400086 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2 II. The Watershed Monitoring Approach ................................................................................ 3 Load monitoring network ..................................................................................................................... 3 Intensive watershed monitoring ........................................................................................................... 4 III. Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................. 7 Water quality standards ....................................................................................................................... 7 Assessment units .................................................................................................................................. 7 Determining use attainment status ....................................................................................................... 8 Data management ............................................................................................................................... 9 Period of record .................................................................................................................................... 9 IV. The Root River Watershed Overview ............................................................................... 10 Land use summary .............................................................................................................................. 11 Surface water hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 12 Climate and precipitation ................................................................................................................... 13 Hydrology and groundwater quality ................................................................................................... 14 V. Watershed-Wide Data Collection Methodology ............................................................... 16 Load monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 16 Stream water sampling ...................................................................................................................... 17 Stream biological sampling ................................................................................................................. 17 Fish contaminants .............................................................................................................................. 18 VI. Individual Watershed Results .......................................................................................... 18 HUC-11 watershed units ..................................................................................................................... 18 Stream assessments ........................................................................................................................... 19 Channelized stream evaluations ......................................................................................................... 19 Stream habitat results ........................................................................................................................ 20 Watershed outlet water chemistry results........................................................................................... 20 VII. Watershed-Wide Results and Discussion ....................................................................... 152 Pollutant load monitoring ................................................................................................................. 152 Stream water quality ........................................................................................................................ 158 Fish contaminants results ................................................................................................................. 161 Groundwater monitoring .................................................................................................................. 163 Water chemistry trends .................................................................................................................... 165 Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 171 References........................................................................................................................... 172 Appendix 1: Water chemistry definitions ........................................................................................... 173 Appendix 2: Biological monitoring stations in the Root River Watershed ........................................... 175 Appendix 3: Intensive watershed monitoring stations in the Root River Watershed ........................... 179 Appendix 4: AUID table of results (by parameter and beneficial use) ................................................. 180 Appendix 5: Minnesota statewide IBI thresholds and confidence limits ............................................. 188 Appendix 2: Biological monitoring results-fish IBI .............................................................................. 189 Appendix 3: Biological monitoring results - macroinvertebrate IBI .................................................... 198 Appendix 8: Good/fair/poor thresholds for biological stations on non-assessed channelized AUIDs .. 207 Appendix 9: Channelized stream AUID- fish IBI .................................................................................. 208 Appendix 10: Channelized stream AUID - macroinvertebrate IBI........................................................ 209 Executive Summary This assessment report is the first in a series of reports for watershed work being conducted in the Root River watershed. The results of surface water monitoring activities in the Root River watershed are reported here. Subsequent reports will explain stressor identification, total maximum daily loads, and restoration and protection plans for the watershed. The Root River watershed (07040008) covers 1,064,961 acres in southeast Minnesota within the Lower Mississippi River Basin. Agriculture is the most prevalent land use in the watershed. The watershed’s wealth of surface waters is a valuable resource for aquatic recreation and its health is essential to resident aquatic life. In 2008 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) undertook an intensive watershed monitoring effort of the Root River watershed’s surface waters. A total of 109 sites were sampled for biology at the outlets of variable sized sub-watersheds within the Root River watershed. These locations included the mouth of the Root River, the outlets of its major tributaries, and the outlets of headwater tributaries. As part of this effort, the MPCA also joined with the Fillmore County Soil and Water Conservation District who completed stream water chemistry sampling at the outlets of the Root River’s 15 major subwatersheds during 2009. In 2011, a holistic approach was taken to assess all of the watershed’s surface water bodies for aquatic life, recreation, and fish consumption use support, where data was available. A total of 142 stream reaches were sampled for fish, and 139 stream reaches were sampled for macroinvertebrates in the Root River watershed during the assessment window. Eighty-six streams were assessed for aquatic life support and eighteen were assessed for aquatic recreation in this effort. Not all streams were able to be assessed due to insufficient data, modified channel condition, or “limited resources waters” water quality designation. Forty-three streams were found to be supporting of aquatic life use in the Root River watershed. Aquatic biological impairments were found scattered throughout the watershed where assessments were made (see Fig. 46 for a map of impaired sites). Forty-three new impairments of aquatic life have been added to the Root River watershed during the 2011 assessment cycle. Eighteen
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ROOT RIVER ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN -I- SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
    Cold Snap Photography Prepared For: Root River Planning Partnership Prepared By: Houston Engineering, Inc. Photo by Bob Joachim Root River Watershed | ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN List of PLan Abbreviations i Plan Definitions iii Executive Summary iv 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Preamble 1-1 1.2 Plan Area 1-1 1.3 Watershed Characteristics 1-4 1.4 Plan Overview 1-4 1.5 Plan Partners and Roles in Plan Development 1-5 1.6 Incorporating Comments into the Plan __________________1-7 2. ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF RESOURCES, CONCERNS, AND ISSUES CAUSING CONCERN 2-1 2.1 Definitions 2-1 2.2 Identifying Potential Resource Concerns and Issues 2-2 2.3 Prioritizing Potential Resource Concerns and Issues 2-13 2.4 Priority Resource Concerns and Issues 2-14 2.4.1 "A" Level Priorities 2-14 2.4.1.1 Description and Resource Concern Locations 2-14 2.4.1.2 Issues Affecting "A" Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-18 2.4.2 "B" Level Priorities 2-18 2.4.2.1 Description and Landscape Locations 2-18 2.4.2.2 Issues Affecting “B” Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-26 2.4.3 "C" Level Priorities 2-26 2.4.3.1 Issues Affecting “C” Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-35 2.5 Use of Priority Categories in Plan Implementation 2-35 2.6 Emerging Issues 2-35 2.6.1 "Scientific and Technical Emerging Issues 2-36 2.61.1 Climate Change and Infrastructure Resilience 2-36 2.6.1.2 Endocrine Active Compounds 2-37 2.6.1.3 Water Movement Within a Karst Landscape 2-37 2.6.1.4 Improving Soil Health 2-37 2.6.1.5 Buffers for Public Waters and Drainage Systems 2-38 2.6.1.6 Invasive Species 2-38 2.6.1.7
    [Show full text]
  • Delineation Percentage
    Lake Superior - North Rainy River - Headwaters Lake Superior - South Vermilion River Nemadji River Cloquet River Pine River Rainy River - Rainy Lake Little Fork River Mississippi River - Headwaters Leech Lake River Upper St. Croix River Root River Big Fork River Mississippi River - Winona Upper/Lower Red Lake Kettle River Mississippi River - Lake Pepin Mississippi River - Grand Rapids Mississippi River - La Crescent Crow Wing River Otter Tail River Mississippi River - Reno Mississippi River - Brainerd Zumbro River Redeye River Upper Big Sioux River Mississippi River - Twin Cities Snake River Des Moines River - Headwaters St. Louis River Rum River Lower Big Sioux River Lower St. Croix River Cottonwood River Minnesota River - Headwaters Cannon River Mississippi River - St. Cloud Long Prairie River Lake of the Woods Lower Rainy North Fork Crow River Mississippi River - Sartell Lac Qui Parle River Buffalo River Wild Rice River Minnesota River - Mankato Sauk River Rock River Redwood River Snake River Chippewa River Watonwan River Clearwater River East Fork Des Moines River Red River of the North - Sandhill River Upper Red River of the North Blue Earth River Red River of the North - Marsh River Roseau River Minnesota River - Yellow Medicine River Le Sueur River Little Sioux River Bois de Sioux River Cedar River Lower Minnesota River Pomme de Terre River Red Lake River Lower Des Moines River Upper Iowa River Red River of the North - Tamarac River Shell Rock River Two Rivers Rapid River Red River of the North - Grand Marais Creek Mustinka River South Fork Crow River Thief River Winnebago River Upper Wapsipinicon River 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% %Altered %Natural %Impounded %No Definable Channel wq-bsm1-06.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Root River Soil and Water Conservation District Annual Report
    2020 Root River Soil and Water Conservation District Annual Report Larry Ledebuhr Family 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..……….……….……………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 MISSION STATEMENT.….................................................................................................................3 ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES.…….………………………………………………………………………………………...4 COUNTY LAND DESCRIPTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY.………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 SWCD & NRCS STAFF 2020.……………………………………......................................................................7 ROOT RIVER SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT SUPERVISORS.…….…………………………….…..8 SUPERVISORS NOMINATION DISTRICT ….……………………………………………………………………………….….9 DISTRICT ACCOMPLISHMENTS.………………………………………………………………………………………………..10 EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH……………………………………………………………………………………………………….24 MEETINGS…………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………….……24 STAFF DEVELOPMENT…….……………………….……………………………………………………………………………….25 PARTNERSHIPS………….…….……………………………………………………………………………………………………….26 2 INTRODUCTION This annual report is to assist and present an overview of the accomplishments and activities of the Root River Soil and Water Conservation District in a manner consistent to the District’s policies and long-range goals. MISSION STATEMENT The Root River Soil and Water Conservation District’s mission is to provide assistance to cooperators in managing the natural resources on their land. In addition, the district will continue to educate people on local conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Southeastern Minnesota Floods from Record Rains, August 2007
    Floods from Record Rains in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, August 17−30, 2007 1 2 3 4 By J.D. Fallon , H.S. Garn , M.L. Harris , and K.D. Lund 1USGS Minnesota Water Science Center, 2 USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center, 3 USGS Illinois Water Science Center, 4 USGS Iowa Water Science Center INTENSE PRECIPITATION USGS MONITORING FLOOD STATISTICS FLOOD AFFECTS Provisional summary of peak stages and discharges at selected streamflow-gaging stations in the upper Midwest Flood of August 2007 Previous maximum discharge Approximate Peak recurrrence Peak Station Drainage area Peak discharge Date interval Peak stage discharge Years of State number Station name (mi2) stage (ft) (ft3/s) (2007) (years) (ft) (ft3/s) Date record Illinois 05439000 S. Br. Kishwaukee River at Dekalb, IL 77.7 15.34 3,100 Aug. 24 100 15.80 3,500 July 1983 28 Illinois 05440700 Rock River at Byron, IL 7990 15.50 32,100 Aug. 25 nd 16.12 35,400 June 2000 7 Illinois 05529000 Des Plaines river near Des Plaines, IL 360 8.62 3,800 Aug. 24 10 10.88 4,900 Oct. 1986 67 Illinois 05530990 Salt Creek at Rolling Meadows, IL 30.5 10.57 1,350 Aug. 23 10 - 25 14.03 1,650 Aug 1987 34 Illinois 05536000 North Branch Chicago River at Niles, IL 100 9.61 1,800 Aug. 24 10 11.35 2,590 Aug. 1987 57 2 Illinois 05536235 Deer Creek near Chicago Heights, IL 23.1 12.37 1,320 Aug. 24 100 12.15 1,380 July 1957 59 1 2 Illinois 05539900 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Water Quality Restoration and Protection Prioritization Framework
    Wisconsin’s Water Quality Restoration and Protection Prioritization Framework Final Draft Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Long-Term Vision Implementation of the Priority Goal for Total Maximum Daily Load or Alternative Plan Development Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Water Quality and Watershed Management Bureaus July 27, 2015 dnr.wi.gov wisconsin.gov Wisconsin’s Water Quality Restoration and Protection Prioritization Framework Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Prioritization Minimum Elements ........................................................................................................ 3 Description of Changes from Past Prioritization Scheme ............................................................. 3 Mechanism for Restoration Area Prioritization ............................................................................... 4 Mechanism for Protection Area Prioritization ................................................................................. 4 Factors Considered in Prioritization .................................................................................................. 5 Consideration of EPA National and Regional Priorities ................................................................ 6 Ongoing Restoration and Protection Planning Work ................................................................... 6 Approach for Changes to Priorities ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Stream Runoff and Climate in Minnesota's River Basins
    ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Project Report No. 543 Annual Stream Runoff and Climate in Minnesota’s River Basins by Todd R. Vandegrift and Heinz G. Stefan September 2010 Minneapolis, Minnesota ABSTRACT Stream flows recorded by the USGS from 1946 to 2005 at 42 gauging stations in the five major river basins of Minnesota and tributaries from neighboring states were analyzed and related to associated climate data. Goals of the study were (1) to determine the strength of the relationships between annual and seasonal runoff and climatic variables in these river basins, (2) to make comparisons between the river basins of Minnesota, and (3) to determine trends in stream flows over time. Climatic variables were air temperature, precipitation, the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), and the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (PHDI); the latter are common indices of soil moisture. Water year averages showed stronger correlations than calendar year averages. Precipitation was a good predictor of stream flow, but the PDSI was the best predictor and slightly better than PHDI when linear regressions at the annual timescale were used. With an exponential regression PDSI gave a significantly better fit to runoff data than PHDI. Five-year running averages made precipitation almost as good a predictor of stream flow (runoff) as PDSI. A seasonal time scale analysis revealed a logical stronger dependence of stream flow on precipitation during summer and fall than during the winter and spring, but all relationships for seasonal averages were weaker than for annual (water year) averages. Dependence of stream runoff on PDSI did not vary significantly by season.
    [Show full text]
  • South East Minnesota Trout Streem Maps 1-16
    16 SE 13 14 15 10 11 12 7 8 9 MAP 1 4 5 6 1 2 3 !. !. Map 1 Species Managed 8 Q 8 Freiheit Spring R RQ Canfield Creek r “South Branch” (W) Brown 39 Watson Creek ¤£52 e RQ Æÿ80 iv il R 1 t ra Camp Creek Brown, Rainbow RQ 11 o T RQ o te R Crystal Creek (W) Brown !. ta Æÿ16 S RQ1 Spring Valley Etna Creek Brown Forestville Creek RQ17 Spring Valley RQ11 t® “North Branch” (W) Brown Creek !. South Branch Root River Brown, Rainbow South Branch Root River RQ12 t® t® Spring Valley Creek Brown (W), Rainbow Preston Watson Creek (W) Brown RQ5 Carimona !. Willow Creek Brown, Rainbow RQ118 RQ12 RQ12 Forestville (W) Wild trout population State Park Camp /Mystery Cave Creek Forestville Creek !. Forestville 17 118 RQ RQ16 RQ3 RQ5 RQ15 !.Ostrander Canfield Etna Creek Willow Creek Creek Etna !. RQ14 Crystal Creek Cherry Grove !. Greenleafton !. RQ20 RQ20 Big Spring !. RQ9 ¤£63 Bristol !. RQ44 RQ26 York !. RQ5 RQ30 Fillmore County 30 Æÿ56 RQ Miles Granger !. 0 0.5 1 2 3 ´ 6 7 16 SE 13 14 15 10 11 12 7 8 9 MAP 2 4 5 6 1 2 3 r Map 2 Species Managed ive t® t® 25 ot R il RQ Girl Scout Ro Tra te 21 Chickentown Creek (W) Brook Sta RQ Æÿ16 Gribben Gribben Valley Camp Creek Maple Duschee Creek Brook, Brown, Rainbow Creek Forestry Unit Hallum Frego Creek (W) Brown RQ10 Creek South Branch Creek Yucatan Girl Scout Camp Creek (W) Brook Duschee !. Root River Creek !.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Watershed Assessment Root River (MN / IA) HUC: 07040008
    ROOT RIVE R WATE R SHED (MN) HUC: 07040008 Rapid Watershed Assessment Root River (MN / IA) HUC: 07040008 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. ROOT RIVE R WATE R SHED (MN) HUC: 07040008 Introduction The Root River 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subbasin is located within the Western Corn Belt Plains and Driftless Area Ecoregions of southeastern Minnesota and northeastern Iowa. Approximately ninety seven percent of the 1,064,970 acres in this HUC are privately owned. The remaining acres are state, county, federal or conservancy lands or covered by open water. Estimates indicate 3,027 farms in the watershed. Approximately fifty seven percent of the operations are less than 180 acres in size, thirty nine percent are from 180 to 1000 acres in size, and the remaining farms are greater than 1000 acres in size.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Water Quality Southeast 25% by 2025 Minnesota Dear Fellow Minnesotans
    Improving water quality Southeast 25% BY 2025 Minnesota Dear Fellow Minnesotans, In the land of 10,000 lakes, clean water should be a right, not a privilege. But the reality is that the quality of our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater is threatened from many sources all across our state. We are at a crucial moment – we can continue to let water quality become worse or we can work together to reverse the damage that has been done and prevent future water degradation. That is why your involvement in this summer’s Community Water Meetings is so important. It will take all of us working together to protect our waters for ourselves and future generations. That is why, after hearing from citizens and experts at Water Summits in Morris and St. Paul, I set the goal to improve our State’s water quality 25 percent by 2025. This goal does not mean that every pollutant will be reduced by 25 percent; it does not mean that every part of the state will improve 25 percent; but it means that in aggregate for the state and the many pollutants there will be a 25 percent improvement. At the current level of effort, there will be only a 7 percent improvement statewide, and without further action, water quality will get worse. To be clear, this is not a regulation. More importantly, it is a call to action and the reason for Minnesotans to gather for Community Water Meetings this summer. I want to hear from people in every part of our State about the water concerns in their communities, how it will benefit our economy and quality of life to improve water quality, and what we can do to make greater progress toward clean water.
    [Show full text]
  • From Rail Town to Trail Town: Examining Inherited Space & Place Along
    FROM RAIL TOWN TO TRAIL TOWN: SCHOOL UNDERPASSES EXAMINING INHERITED CENTRAL BUSINESS SPACE & PLACE DISTRICT ELEVATOR ALONG MIDWESTERN RAIL TRAILS DEPOT HOTEL INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS STOCK YARD SWITCHING YARD AUSTIN DUNN MADRID, IA 1951 MOTIVATIONS BACKGROUND & CONTEXT RAILS TO TRAILS TRAIL TOWNS PLACEMAKING A TYPOLOGY OF TRAIL GEOGRAPHIES A TYPOLOGY OF SPACES & STRUCTURES CASE STUDIES ROCHEPORT MO - KATY TRAIL MADRID IA - HIGH TRESTLE TRAIL LANESBORO MN - ROOT RIVER TRAIL REPLICABLE STRATEGIES SO WHAT TRANSPORTATION & EFFICIENCY Calories per per Kilometer Gram http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/05/oh-so-efficient-bicycle.html INTIMACY MAY 15th, 2017 Booneville, MO GOOD ALSO GOOD NOT GOOD 1,300 MILES OF MIDWEST GLORY AN UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN GREENWAY SYSTEM MIDWEST HISTORICAL RAILROADS 40 mi 1850-PRESENT CENTRAL IOWA ACTIVE & ABANDONED LINES 40 mi BOONE MARSHALLTOWN AMES HIGH TRESTLE TRAIL DES MOINES METRO INDIANOLA 10 mi CENTRAL IOWA TRAIL SYSTEM 10 mi AMES MADRID SLATER WOODWARD HIGH TRESTLE PERRY BRIDGE ANKENY MINBURN MADRID HIGH TRESTLE BRIDGE WOODWARD 50,000 VISITORS ANNUALLY BENTON MACKAYE An Appalacian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning 1924 Orleans Sibley Spirit Lake McIntire Milford Riceville Cresco RidgewayDecorah Elma Alta Vista Calmar Primghar Orange Charles City City Clermont Sheffield Laurens Bradgate Belmond Sumner Elkader Rolfe Tripoli Rutland Clarksville Hampton Allison Waverly Readlyn Humboldt Coulter Storm Thor Shell Rock Denver Sioux Lake Hazleton Sageville City Waterloo Sageville Fort Dodge Correctionville
    [Show full text]
  • Root River Watershed WRAPS
    Root River Watershed Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Report February 2016 wq-ws4-18a 1 Authors Shaina Keseley, MPCA Fillmore Soil and Water Conservation District Contributors / acknowledgements Mower County Soil and Water Conservation District Olmsted County Soil and Water Conservation District Root River (Houston County) Soil and Water Conservation District Winona County Soil and Water Conservation District Winona County Ashley Ignatius, MPCA Joe Magee, MPCA Ben Roush, MPCA Tiffany Schauls, MPCA Justin Watkins, MPCA Pat Bailey, MDH (wrote portions of the Groundwater section) Jason Carlson, MN DNR (wrote portions of the Groundwater section) Editing and Graphic Design Administrative staff: Cindy Penny Cover Photo Shaina Keseley, MPCA Note Regarding Legislative Charge The science, analysis and strategy development described in this report began before accountability provisions were added to the Clean Water Legacy Act in 2013 (MS114D); thus, this report does not address all of those provisions. When this watershed is revisited (according to the 10-year cycle), the information will be updated according to the statutorily required elements of a Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Report. 2 The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our website for more information. The MPCA reports are printed on 100 percent post-consumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. 3 Table of Contents Authors .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Root River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan
    Root River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan © Coldsnap Photography June 2013 Sections 1 through 9 and the appendices of this plan were written by Zach Reusch, Acer Forest and Tree, LLC. Sections 10 and 11 were written by Brooke Haworth, Ecologist with the Ecological and Water Resources Division of the Minnesota DNR. Funding provided by: US Forest Service, US Environmental Protection Agency and Minnesota Forest Resources Council This plan was written in order to provide guidance to natural resource managers in the Root River Watershed with the goal of promoting sustainable management of the landscape, the vegetation, and the wildlife in the watershed. It can serve as a reference for those writing stewardship plans, those interested in learning about natural features, those interested in watershed protection, and those seeking to improve the health of rivers, streams, soil, vegetation and terrestrial and aquatic animals in the watershed. The overall supervision of this project and editing and revision of the draft plan was provided by the Root River Landscape Stewardship Project Steering Team, which consists of the following members: Richard Biske, Southeast Minnesota Conservation Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy Lindberg Ekola, Landscape Program Manager, Minnesota Forest Resource Council Gary Michael, Private Forest Management Coordinator, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Donna Rasmussen, Administrator, Fillmore Soil and Water Conservation District Hannah Texler, Regional Plant Ecologist, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Oversight of the grant from the US Forest Service was provided by Dennis McDougall, Forest Stewardship Program Coordinator. The grant administrator was the Fillmore Soil and Water Conservation District. Additional assistance was provided by the Root River Landscape Stewardship Planning/Coordination Committee.
    [Show full text]