DOCSLIB.ORG

10-Year Watershed Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 ....................................................................................................... 15 3. Watershed Setting ....................................................................................................... 17 3.1. Location, Size, and Subwatersheds ............................................................................. 17 3.1.1. Location and Setting ............................................................................................... 17 3.1.2. Size .......................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.3. Subwatersheds......................................................................................................... 19 3.2. Local Stakeholders ...................................................................................................... 21 3.3. Population ................................................................................................................... 21 3.4. Economy ..................................................................................................................... 22 3.4.1. Overview ................................................................................................................. 22 3.4.2. Agriculture .............................................................................................................. 22 3.4.3. Government............................................................................................................. 22 3.4.4. Services ................................................................................................................... 23 3.4.5. Transportation ......................................................................................................... 23 3.5. Physical Characteristics .............................................................................................. 23 3.6. Climate ........................................................................................................................ 24 3.7. Physiography............................................................................................................... 24 3.8. Geology and Geomorphology ..................................................................................... 25 3.9. Land Slope .................................................................................................................. 27 3.10. Soils............................................................................................................................. 27 3.11. Land Use and Cover Types ......................................................................................... 30 Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 1 3.12. Land Ownership .......................................................................................................... 35 3.13. Natural Resources ....................................................................................................... 35 3.13.1 Important Wildlife Habitats ....................................................................................... 35 3.13.2 Fisheries ..................................................................................................................... 37 3.13.3 Rare and Threatened Resources ................................................................................. 38 4. Assessment of Existing Water and Water-Related Issues .......................................... 40 4.1. Range of Resource Issues ........................................................................................... 40 4.2. Priority Resource Issues .............................................................................................. 40 4.2.1. Water Quality .......................................................................................................... 40 4.2.2. Water Quantity and Flooding.................................................................................. 44 4.2.3. Drainage Systems and Natural Waterways ............................................................. 47 4.2.4. Biotic Habitat .......................................................................................................... 49 4.2.5. Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 49 4.2.6. Education ................................................................................................................ 51 4.2.7. Funding ................................................................................................................... 51 4.3. Financing District Operations ..................................................................................... 51 4.4. Priority Resource Issues Lead by Others .................................................................... 52 5. Goals, Objectives, and Actions ................................................................................... 53 5.1. Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 54 5.2. Water Quantity and Flooding...................................................................................... 55 5.3. Drainage Systems and Natural Waterways ................................................................. 56 5.4. Biotic Habitat .............................................................................................................. 58 5.5. Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 58 5.6. Education .................................................................................................................... 59 5.7. Funding ....................................................................................................................... 60 6. Implementation Program ............................................................................................ 61 6.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................... 61 6.2. Work Plans .................................................................................................................. 62 6.2.1. Long-Range Work Plan .............................................................................................. 62 6.2.2. Annual and Short-Range Work Plans ......................................................................... 62 6.3. Implementation Program ............................................................................................ 63 6.3.1. General Operations ..................................................................................................... 63 6.3.2. Programs ..................................................................................................................... 64 6.3.2.1. Education Program...................................................................................................... 65 Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 2 6.3.2.2. Water Quality Improvement Program ........................................................................ 68 6.3.2.2.1. Surface Water Monitoring ................................................................................... 68 6.3.2.2.2. Best Management Practices Implementation ...................................................... 69 6.3.2.2.3. Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ........................... 73 6.3.2.3. Regulatory and Permit Program .................................................................................. 74 6.3.2.3.1. Rules and Regulations of the Heron Lake Watershed District ............................ 74 6.3.2.3.2. Permits and Notification...................................................................................... 74 6.3.2.4. Flood Damage Reduction Program ............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • West Fork Des Moines River Watershed Total Maximum Daily
    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 For Submission to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 Chicago, Illinois Submitted by: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency wq-iw7-13e October 2008 Project Technical Team Local project support: Karen Boysen and Mike Hanson, Cottonwood County Environmental Office Jan Voit, Heron Lake Watershed District Advisory Committee members Contractor—technical support (turbidity and Heron Lake excess nutrients): Greg Wilson, Barr Engineering Company Minnesota Pollution Control Agency project support and management: Chris Zadak, Regional Division—St. Paul Greg Johnson, Regional Division—St. Paul Kelli Daberkow, Regional Division—Marshall ii Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………………….….................. 1 1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 3 2.0 Background Information……………………………………………………...........….. 7 2.1 Applicable Water Quality Standards……………………….....………………… 7 2.2 General Watershed Characteristics……………………………………………… 9 3.0 Fecal Coliform Bacteria…………………………………………………….................. 12 3.1 Surface Water Quality Conditions……………………………………...……….. 12 3.2 Fecal Coliform Sources and Current Contribution…………………...…………. 15 3.3 Methodology for Load Allocations, Wasteload Allocations and Margins of Safety……………………………………………………………………...…............. 21 3.4 TMDL Allocations for Individual Impaired Reaches………..………….………. 25 3.4.1 Beaver Creek; CD 20 to Des Moines R (AUID: 07100001-503)……..… 26 3.4.2 County Ditch 20; Headwaters to Beaver Cr (AUID: 07100001-504)…... 28 3.4.3 Lake Shetek Inlet; Headwaters to Lk Shetek (AUID: 07100001-502)….. 30 3.4.4 Lower Lake Sarah Outlet; First Unnamed Cr on Lk Sarah Outlet stream to Lk Shetek inlet (AUID: 07100001-508)………….......................................... 32 3.4.5 Unnamed Creek (Site I3); Outlet at SW Lk Shetek upstream to split into two forks (AUID: 07100001-517)………………………..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Murray County Conclusions of Law Currie, Minnesota and Order
    STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SHETEK AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM FINDINGS OF FACT MURRAY COUNTY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CURRIE, MINNESOTA AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000 - 4410.1600 (2003), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, comments, and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FACILITY HISTORY Project Overview The Shetek Area Water and Sewer Commission (SAWSC), Murray County, is proposing to construct a new sewage collection system around area lakes and expand the city of Currie’s (City) Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) to treat a total Average Wet Weather Flow (AWW) of 319,000 gallons per day (gpd). The WWTF would serve Currie, as well as developed areas within the SAWSC. Ultimately, the project is designed to accommodate an additional 297 Equivalent Domestic Units (EDUs) (connections) of future growth, for a total of 983 EDUs. The expanded WWTF would be located east of the City, and would discharge treated effluent to the West Fork of the Des Moines River. Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in the summer of 2005. The project would be divided into four parts – three parts would involve construction of the wastewater conveyance system, and the fourth would involve the construction of the new wastewater stabilization ponds.
    [Show full text]
  • Asian Carp Population Characteristics and Dynamics in the Mississippi River Watershed Christopher Jerod Sullivan Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2016 Asian Carp population characteristics and dynamics in the Mississippi River watershed Christopher Jerod Sullivan Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons Recommended Citation Sullivan, Christopher Jerod, "Asian Carp population characteristics and dynamics in the Mississippi River watershed" (2016). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 16024. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/16024 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Asian Carp population characteristics and dynamics in the Mississippi River watershed by Christopher Jerod Sullivan A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Fisheries Biology Program of Study Committee: Michael J. Weber, Major Professor Clay L. Pierce Heike Hofmann Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2016 Copyright © Christopher Jerod Sullivan, 2016. All rights reserved. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cook County Comprehensive Plan
    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
    [Show full text]