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 ...... 76 6.3.2.5. Public Drainage System Management Program ...... 76 6.3.3. Capital Improvement Projects...... 77 6.4. Performance Evaluation Process...... 78 7. District Authorities, Funding, and Financing ...... 79 7.1. Minnesota Statute 103D Authorities ...... 79 7.2. Water Management Districts ...... 82 7.2.1. Heron Lake Subwatershed Water Management District (HLSWMD) ...... 83 8. Watershed Management Plan Administration ...... 87 8.1. Use of Guidance Documents in this Watershed Management Plan ...... 87 8.1.1. General Intent...... 87 8.1.2. Criteria and Incorporation Process...... 87 8.2. Watershed Management Plan Coordination ...... 88 8.3. Watershed Management Plan Implementation ...... 88 8.4. Watershed Management Plan Schedule ...... 88 8.5. Intergovernmental Conflicts/Resolution Process ...... 88 8.6. Watershed Management Plan Evaluation ...... 89 8.7. Watershed Management Plan Revision and Amendment Procedure ...... 89 8.7.1. General Approach ...... 89 9. Appendices ...... 93 9.1. Citizens Advisory Committee Members ...... 93 9.2. HLWD Watershed Management Plan Kickoff Meeting ...... 94 9.2.1. HLWD March Newsletter ...... 94 9.2.2. Memo to CAC Members ...... 95 9.2.3. Kickoff Meeting PowerPoint Presentation ...... 96 9.2.4. Kickoff Meeting Minutes ...... 100 9.3. Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting ...... 108
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 3
9.3.1. Memo to CAC Members ...... 108 9.3.2. CAC Meeting PowerPoint Presentation...... 109 9.3.3. CAC Meeting Minutes ...... 112 9.4. HLWD Special Meeting ...... 115 9.5. BWSR Hearing Order ...... 118 9.6. WMP Workshop and WMP Correspondence ...... 122 9.6.1. Memo to County Commissioners and SWCD Supervisors ...... 122 9.6.2. Reasons for Implementing a Water Management District ...... 123 9.6.3. WMP Workshop Minutes ...... 124 9.6.4. WMP Workshop Follow-up Memo to Nobles County ...... 126 9.6.5. WMP Workshop Follow-up Memo to Jackson County ...... 128 9.6.6. WMP Workshop Follow-up Memo to Murray County ...... 130 9.6.7. WMP Workshop Follow-up Memo to Cottonwood County...... 132 9.6.8. Memo to Jackson County to Address Concerns ...... 134 9.6.9. Memo to Nobles County to Address Concerns Expressed by Jackson County Commissioner ...... 138 9.6.10. Memo to Murray County to Address Concerns Expressed by Jackson County Commissioner ...... 142 9.6.11. Memo to Cottonwood County to Address Concerns Expressed by Jackson County Commissioner ...... 146 9.6.12. Second Request to Jackson County for Resolution of Support ...... 150 9.7. Nobles and Murray County Commissioner Meetings ...... 152 9.7.1. PowerPoint Presentation for Nobles and Murray County Commissioners Meetings 152 9.7.2. Nobles County Resolution of Support ...... 154 9.7.3. Murray County Resolution of Support ...... 155 9.8. Agency Comments ...... 156 9.8.1. MPCA Comments – Katherine Pekarek-Scott ...... 156 9.8.2. MPCA Comments – Rebecca Flood ...... 159 9.8.3. BWSR Comments – Matt Drewitz ...... 163 9.8.4. BWSR Comments – Mark Hiles ...... 165 9.8.5. SRDC Comments – John Shepard ...... 167 9.8.6. MDA Comments – Robert Sip ...... 168 9.8.7. DNR Comments – Tom Kresko ...... 176 9.8.8. Mark Hiles – December 6, 201 ...... 178 9.8.9. Agency Comments Summary Spreadsheet ...... 179
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 4
9.9. HLWD August Newsletter ...... 182 9.10. News Article ...... 186 9.11. Heron Lake Tour ...... 187 9.11.1. Invitation ...... 187 9.11.2. Tour agenda ...... 188 9.11.3. Tour map ...... 189 9.11.4. Project locations ...... 190 9.11.5. Accomplishments ...... 191 9.11.6. Grant summaries ...... 193 9.11.7. History of the Heron Lake watershed ...... 199 9.11.8. Water Management District map ...... 203 9.11.9. Water Management District summary ...... 203 9.12. Letter to watershed residents receiving cost-share, incentive, and loan payments ... 204 9.13. HLWD November 2011 Meeting ...... 206 9.13.1. November 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes ...... 206 9.14. WMP Open House ...... 213 9.14.1. Open House Advertisement ...... 213 9.14.2. Open House News Release ...... 213 9.14.3. Open House Flyer ...... 214 9.14.4. WMD Fact Sheet...... 215 9.14.5. Open House PowerPoint Presentation ...... 216 9.14.6. Open House Meeting Summary ...... 218 9.15. HLWD Long-Range Work Plan ...... 222 9.15.1. Water Quality ...... 222 9.15.2. Water Quantity and Flooding...... 223 9.15.3. Drainage Systems and Natural Waterways ...... 224 9.15.4. Biotic Habitat ...... 225 9.15.5. Wetlands ...... 225 9.15.6. Education ...... 226 9.15.7. Funding ...... 226 9.16. HLWD Rules and Regulations and Appendices A and B...... 227 9.17. Heron Lake CWP Phase I Diagnostic Study Results ...... 246 9.18. Heron Lake CWP Continuation Work Plan ...... 273 9.19. MOA for WFMDR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan ...... 294
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 5
9.20. WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Report Summary ...... 297 9.21. WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Objectives and Action Items ... 308
List of Tables Table 1. Assessment of Previous Watershed Management Plan Activities...... 16 Table 2. Local units of government within the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 21 Table 3. Commonly observed wildlife species within the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 37 Table 4. Rare species occurring with the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 38 Table 5. Stream reaches impaired because of turbidity in the Heron Lake Watershed District ... 41 Table 6. Waterbodies impaired because of phosphorus in the Heron Lake Watershed District .. 42 Table 7. Stream reaches impaired because of bacteria in the Heron Lake Watershed District .... 44 Table 8. Heron Lake Watershed District Estimated 5-Year Budget and Revenue Summary ...... 65 Table 90. Best Management Practices implemented through the Heron Lake Watershed District WQIP ...... 71
List of Figures Figure 1. Boundary of the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 18 Figure 2. Subwatersheds within the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 20 Figure 3. Geomorphology within the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 26 Figure 4. Slope of the land surface within the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 28 Figure 5. Major soil associations within the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 29 Figure 6. Soil erodibility within the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 31 Figure 7. Presettlement vegetation with the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 32 Figure 8. Land use within the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 33 Figure 9. Confined Animal Feeding Operations in the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 34 Figure 10. Land Ownership within the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 36 Figure 11. Impaired waterbodies in the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 43 Figure 12. Areas subject to flooding in the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 46 Figure 13. Public drainage systems and water resources in the Heron Lake Watershed District. 48 Figure 14. Wetland areas within the Heron Lake Watershed District ...... 50 Figure 15. Best Management Practices installed through Heron Lake Watershed District programs ...... 72 Figure 16. Area encompassed by the Heron Lake Subwatershed Water Management District (HLSWMD) ...... 85
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 6
Executive Summary Heron Lake and its watershed encompass many of the same problems seen in other rural, agricultural areas in Minnesota. Point and non-point source pollution, intensive tillage, non- compliant septic systems, feedlots, and urban storm water runoff are all problems that must be addressed. The Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) implements a watershed approach for education and implementation efforts that is invaluable for determining environmental and economic stability. The approach is described in the Watershed Management Plan (WMP), a requirement of Minnesota Statutes 103D.405, which is overseen by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). Statute also requires that the WMP be revised on a 10-year basis. The major goal for the WMP revision process is to develop and implement a WMP which protects and improves the water and natural resources within the HLWD boundary by supporting watershed residents’ conservation efforts through the use of education and financial programs. The WMP is organized in a manner that will allow the HLWD to concentrate its endeavors on the practical use of land and water resources. It provides a detailed description of the water and natural resources in the HLWD; assessments of the resources and their current status; a detailed framework for the goals, objectives, and action items identified to attain desired outcomes; specifically addresses identified issues; describes statutory authorities, as well as funding and financing options for identified actions; and provides detailed information about WMP coordination, implementation, roles and responsibilities, and evaluation. This WMP is implementation oriented. It establishes a relationship between resource issues, the goals and policies of the HLWD, and specific actions, programs, and projects intended to address or resolve issues or to conclude that a resource issue is best addressed by another organization. The WMP includes a procedure for developing and implementing long-range and short-range work plans. It also includes a self-evaluation process which will be used as a tool to evaluate and monitor the success of WMP implementation. Unlike previous planning efforts, this WMP describes how the HLWD provides both monetary and technical assistance to other organizations to help conserve and protect water and natural resources. The programs, the operational aspects of these programs, and various projects are summarized within the WMP. The staffing needed to operate the programs is funded by an ad valorem levy through the HLWD’s general fund. This WMP provides a detailed approach for the HLWD to create water management districts (WMDs) as a means to limit dependence upon funds generated through means external to the HLWD, such as grants, thereby ensuring sufficient revenue for on-the-ground projects. It is anticipated that these new efforts will help to enhance the HLWD’s ability to the manage water resources.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 7
1. Introduction
1.1. The Watershed Act Watershed districts are special purpose local units of government with boundaries that follow natural drainage patterns (i.e., a hydrologic boundary or watershed). The name of the primary lake or stream in the watershed is usually the name of the district. In 1953, US Congress approved the federal Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. This act provided financial assistance to local agencies responsible for the management of secondary watersheds. These agencies had the power of eminent domain and the ability to levy for support of their activities. When the existing soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) in Minnesota declined to assume those powers in 1955, the Minnesota Legislature approved the Watershed Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, authorizing the creation of watershed districts. Because these districts are based on the natural hydrologic boundaries of a watershed rather than county lines, they allow for more practical and efficient water management. Watershed districts are formed when citizens, county boards, or cities petition the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). The HLWD is one of 46 watershed districts in the State of Minnesota. County commissioners appoint the managers that serve on a watershed district board of managers. Watershed districts have the ability to levy taxes and apply for grants. General operating levy limits are set by state statute. The current general operating levy limit for non-metro watershed districts throughout the State of Minnesota is based upon a percentage of the value of real estate in the district or $250,000, whichever is less. The HLWD is located in portions of Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties in southwestern Minnesota. Heron Lake and its history are of significant importance to the watershed. The HLWD WMP provides an opportunity for local, state, and federal agencies to recognize the important role that the HLWD played in past and on-going watershed improvement efforts.
1.2. Summary of Watershed Management Plan Content The 2011 – 2021 HLWD’s 10-year WMP is organized into eight sections which complies with the BWSR framework and complements the strategic method of the HLWD’s planning process. Introduction: This section provides a summary of the Watershed Act, Plan Content, the Planning Process, and the public involvement and review process. History of the Watershed District: This section provides a summary of previous planning efforts, changes in the HLWD since its inception, a self-assessment of success, and a mission statement. Watershed Setting: This section provides an in-depth description of the watershed, as well as a comprehensive inventory of the water and land resources. Assessment of Water and Water-Related Issues: This section provides a detailed description of the water and natural resources in the HLWD and includes assessments of the resources and their current status.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 8
Goals, Objectives, and Action Items: This section provides a detailed framework for the goals, objectives, and action items identified to attain desired outcomes and specifically address the issues identified within the WMP. Implementation Program: This section defines the HLWD’s implementation strategy to support the goals, objectives, and action items identified in the Goals, Objectives, and Action Items section. District Authorities, Funding, and Financing: This section describes statutory authorities, as well as funding and financing options for actions identified in the WMP. Administration: This section provides detailed information about coordination, implementation, roles and responsibilities, evaluation, and the amendment procedure.
1.3. Description of the Planning Process Planning is a continuous process that requires the collective effort of many. Watershed planning is the primary tool used to assist watershed districts, local governments, state agencies, and the general public in concentrating their endeavors on the practical use of land and water resources. The watershed planning process includes many steps: Adopt a resolution by the board of managers to update the WMP. Distribute notice of decision to develop the WMP and request the local plans and official controls of government agencies within the HLWD. Develop an outline and submit to BWSR. Hold a public meeting to kick off the WMP revision process and gather citizen and stakeholder input. Conduct Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings to review information from the public meeting, identify priority issues and concerns, and assess watershed resources. Complete a land and water resource inventory assessment that incorporates existing information and data from the priority issues process. Develop goals and policies that will directly address priority issues and policies that are “outcome-based” activities. Develop an implementation plan that includes action steps for each policy and the fiscal, regulatory, and programmatic “tools” to complete each action. Write an Executive Summary that will serve as a tool to communicate the purpose and objections of the WMP to decision makers and the general public. Send a copy of the revised WMP to BWSR, state review agencies, and required local governments for a 60-day review period. Review the comments and modify the plan based on those comments if necessary. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed revised plan no later than 45 days after receiving the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Director of the Division of Waters’ recommendations. BWSR prescribes and approves the WMP. BWSR must send copies of the approval order to the HLWD managers, the county boards, governing bodies of each municipality, and SWCDs affected by the HLWD, and the commissioner and director of the DNR.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 9
The HLWD has followed this process during the completion of this WMP and used the process to fully engage the public and affected agencies and organizations. The WMP incorporates the public comment.
1.4. Public and Agency Input Process and Issues HLWD managers and staff discussed the WMP update process at the January, February, and March monthly board meetings in 2011. It was determined that HLWD staff would lead the WMP process. HLWD staff would also be responsible for writing the WMP with assistance from Houston Engineering, Incorporated (HEI). Input would be gathered from the existing CAC as well as the general public. Contact information for CAC members can be found in Appendix 9.1. HEI completed a draft WMP outline which was submitted to BWSR for review on March 14, 2011. The outline was approved by BWSR on March 17, 2011. On April 7, 2011, the WMP Kickoff Meeting was held to gather public input and concerns about water-related issues. Areas of interest included water quality and quantity, wetlands, filter strips and judicial ditches, rock inlets, and watershed hydrology. Information presented at the meeting, as well as the minutes are contained in Appendix 9.2. The CAC met on April 18. Discussion was held regarding the minutes of the Kickoff Meeting. A PowerPoint presentation was given about the HLWD, problems that are currently facing the watershed, and summarized the priorities addressed at the Kickoff meeting. Committee members felt that sediment reduction should be the number one priority. Because there are no major changes in the problems faced, the CAC agreed to pursue BMPs and education similar to what is being done through several grants and the general operating levy should continue. Information presented at the meeting, as well as the minutes, is contained in Appendix 9.3. The Board of Managers of the HLWD met on May 5, 2011. The purpose of the meeting was to review the draft WMP. Staff provided the managers with an update on the WMP status, organization, priority issues, goals, implementation plan and funding, and WMDs. Extensive discussion was held regarding the WMP implementation and WMD. A $200,000 annual limit was placed on WMD revenue collection. The draft WMP was approved for submission as required by statute. The minutes of the meeting are contained in Appendix 9.4. On June 21, the BWSR signed an order to hold a public hearing on the HLWD’s draft WMP. Correspondence from John Jaschke, Executive Director, can be found in Appendix 9.5. During the WMP review comment period, HLWD staff held a workshop for the Jackson County, Murray County, Cottonwood County, and Nobles County Boards, as well as representatives from the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. This workshop, held on July 6, 2011, focused extensively on establishment of a WMD and the mechanism for collecting revenue dedicated to implementing projects. The minutes of the meeting are contained in Appendix 9.6. In addition, correspondence relating to the WMP and WMD
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 10
was drafted and distributed to commissioners and CAC members this information can also be found in Appendix 9.6. The Commissioners in Nobles County and Murray County requested HLWD staff to give a presentation regarding the WMP at their respective meetings on July 19. Both county boards passed resolutions of support for the WMP, including the WMD. The presentations and resolutions are contained in Appendix 9.7. The HLWD received comments on the draft WMP from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), BWSR, Southwest Regional Development Commission, Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), and the DNR. The comment letters, as well as a spreadsheet summarizing how the comments were addressed, can be found in Appendix 9.8. A newsletter addressing financial accountability was distributed to watershed landowners, agency personnel, and government officials in August. The newsletter contained detailed information regarding the proposed WMD. The newsletter can be found in Appendix 9.9. A news article explaining the HLWD WMP, with a description of the WMD, was drafted and distributed to area news media, CAC members, agency personnel, and government officials in September. The article can be found in Appendix 9.10. HLWD staff invited CAC members, county commissioners, managers, and legislators to a Heron Lake Tour held on September 21. The purpose of the tour was to allow attendees to learn more about the essential work the HLWD is doing to provide residents with financial and education opportunities for water quality improvement. Attendees also had the opportunity to view the lake and see public access points. Information distributed at the tour can be found in Appendix 9.11.
HLWD staff drafted and distributed a letter to watershed residents receiving cost-share, incentive, and loan payments. The letter summarized the WMP update process, WMD, and provided information regarding the public hearing. The letter can be found in Appendix 9.12.
The Board of Managers of the HLWD discussed the WMP and WMD at their regular monthly meeting on November 15, 2011. Extensive discussion was held regarding leaving the WMD as described, removing the WMD, and reducing the WMD cap. No changes were made to the WMP as a result of the discussion. The meeting minutes can be found in Appendix 9.13.
The HLWD hosted an Open House on November 28, 2011. The Open House was advertised in local newspapers. A press release was distributed to local news media. A flyer was created and distributed to agency personnel and advisory committee members. A fact sheet was distributed to meeting attendees. The purpose of the event was to provide additional information regarding the WMD and allow residents to ask questions. The meeting summary can be found in Appendix 9.14.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 11
1.5. Consistency with Other Planning Documents HLWD staff served on the advisory committees during the development of the Comprehensive Water Plans for Nobles (2009), Jackson (2008), Murray (2007), and Cottonwood (2007) Counties. In addition, the water plan coordinators, Soil and Water Conservation staff, and a commissioner from each county serve on the HLWD Advisory Committee. All involved have done their utmost to ensure that the HLWD WMP is based upon the findings of the TMDL Study, is consistent with the Comprehensive Water Plans and the TMDL Implementation Plan, and that efforts for zoning, water management, mitigation, policy, and planning are complemented, not duplicated. Portions of the TMDL Study and TMDL Implementation Plan can be found in Appendix 9.20 and Appendix 9.21, respectively.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 12
2. History of the Heron Lake Watershed District
2.1. Previous Planning Efforts The Commissioners in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties submitted a petition requesting the establishment of the Middle Des Moines Watershed District (MDMWD) on April 2, 1969. The petition was approved on February 25, 1970. The first WMP was developed in 1970 and 1971. It was approved by the Minnesota Water Resources Board on October 29, 1971. The MDMWD operated under this WMP through 1990. The second WMP was developed from April of 1985 through July of 1990. A draft WMP was filed with the BWSR (formerly Minnesota Water Resources Board) on February 22, 1998. BWSR staff encouraged MDMWD managers to actively participate in the development of comprehensive local water plans in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties and to examine opportunities to complement and reinforce county water plan objectives by refining the proposed WMP revision. The WMP was approved by the BWSR on September 26, 1990. The MDMWD operated under this WMP until September of 2001. In October of 1995, the name of the district was changed from MDMWD to the HLWD. HLWD staff began drafting a revised WMP in late 1999. In April of 2001, the HLWD filed a draft of the revised WMP with the BWSR. The WMP was approved by BWSR on September 26, 2001. The HLWD operated under this WMP from 2001 through 2011.
2.2. Heron Lake Watershed District Evolution since Establishment The organizational structure of the Board of Managers of the HLWD remains unchanged since its establishment. The Board of Managers of the HLWD consists of five managers: two from Nobles County, two from Jackson County, and one from Murray County. The Managers serve three-year terms at the will of the County Commissioners. Because Cottonwood County’s portion of the HLWD is so small, they do not have a Manager. Cottonwood County does, however, have representation on the HLWD CAC. The HLWD CAC is comprised of agency staff, county commissioners, and members of the general public who offer insight and suggestions for future projects. One boundary change was enacted. The Village of Lime Creek and Murray County filed a petition with BWSR on August 27, 2003 to enlarge the HLWD. The reasons for enlargement were: The petitioned area is contiguous to the HLWD. The petitioned area can be feasibly administered by the HLWD. The addition of the petitioned area to the HLWD would be conducive to the public health and welfare because it would allow the watershed district to participate in management of the flow of water within the actual watershed, and it would allow the petitioned area to participate in watershed district programs which assist in maintaining clean water and managing the control of the flow of water.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 13
The order to enlarge the HLWD was approved by BWSR on October 22, 2003. The following is a list of issues that were identified as the original basis for establishing the HLWD. Conserve and make provident use of the waters and natural resources. Flood control. Improve stream channels for drainage Reduce the amount of debris going into the lakes. Stabilize the banks of ditch systems and streams. Regulate stream flow. Divert or change watercourses. Regulate use of watercourses for disposing of waste. Regulate drainage systems and control surface water entry. Control or alleviate soil erosion and siltation. Make maximum use of soil resources for agricultural production. Regulate riparian landowners’ improvements to watercourses. Provide for established water levels on waterbodies, including prevention of deterioration of the water storage capacity and aesthetic value. Inform people in the watershed of the overall problems. Protect the health and welfare of the watershed. Many of these purposes for establishing the HLWD are already being done by other agencies, are being completed in cooperation with other agencies, or are no longer a priority for the watershed district. Some actions are completed by other agencies. For example, by statute, watercourses are regulated by the DNR and the disposal of waste is regulated by the MPCA. Also, unless a county delegates authority to a watershed district, drainage systems are regulated by the individual counties according to state statute, as is the case with the counties within the HLWD. Over the years, the management of the State Dam on Heron Lake has been a controversial subject. According to statute, management of the dam is the responsibility of the DNR. The HLWD supports the DNR in their management efforts. In the mid-90’s, the decision was made to change the district’s focus to water quality improvement through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and educational activities, while continuing to address as many of the original issues as possible. Once this decision was made, there was a need for additional staff to write grants, promote cost-share, incentive, and loan programs, monitor water quality, and implement education efforts.
2.3. Success of the 2001 Watershed Management Plan The degree of success in accomplishing the goals of the 2001 WMP can be qualitatively evaluated. The previous WMPs identified several general goals. Table 1 presents a self- assessment of the progress toward accomplishing those goals. The amount of progress is generally ranked as low or high. A low amount of progress generally indicates a low priority for the HLWD relative to implementation. A high amount of progress is generally indicated by the actual construction of a project or the implementation of
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 14
specific programs. Those items with a low amount of progress are re-evaluated relative to their continuation in this WMP. The goals for the most part are broad and, generally, the HLWD has made progress toward those goals by making them a high priority. Concrete evidence of plan success can be based upon actual projects that were completed in the effort to meet these goals.
2.4. Review and Assessment of Existing Objectives The HLWD has undertaken and completed a number of activities in an effort to achieve the goals and objectives of the 2001 WMP. More effort has been focused on achieving higher priority objectives than lower priority objectives. Table 1 provides a self- assessment of the degree of activity by objective and evaluates whether there is a need for a similar or revised objective within this updated WMP. The need for a similar or revised objective is based on present water management problems within the HLWD.
2.5. Mission Statement The mission of the HLWD is to protect and improve the water resources within its boundaries by supporting watershed residents through the use of education and financial programs.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 15
Table 1. Assessment of Previous Watershed Management Plan Activities
Degree Continued Need of or Plan Objective Activity Revised Policy? Provide incentives for landowners to install such practices as filter strips along watercourses, field windbreaks, waterways, critical area plantings, and terraces High Yes Provide incentives for landowners to convert to conservation tillage practices that provide improved residue cover High Yes Provide cost-share for the installation of grass buffers around surface tile inlets and catch basins and cost-share for the installation of alternative surface tile intakes High Yes Provide cost-share and loan dollars for the installation of new septic systems High Yes Work with counties to obtain conformance with the State shoreland and Floodplan Management Standards and any state approved management ordinances having jurisdiction within the HLWD Low Yes Work with counties within the HLWD to achieve compliance on all pubic ditches in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103E Low Yes Work with counties within the HLWD to achieve compliance with the grass filter strip requirements for public ditches in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103E Low Yes Provide for drainage in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103D and 103E, strictly adhering to the environmental protection requirements Low Yes Mediate drainage disputes Low Yes Maintain a database of tiling activities Low No Encourage counties to complete feedlot inventories High Yes
Ecourage counties to prioritize feedlots from the inventory results in priority subwatersheds High Yes Contact priority feedlot operators to discuss strategies that minimize feedlot pollutant loading Low Yes Support establishment of inviolate refuges, waterfowl protection areas, that prohibit disturbance, no-wake or non-motorized boating zones, and other boating restrictions to protect waterfowl from disturbance Low Yes
Provide for the reintroduction of extirpated indicator species Low Yes Assist the MPCA in the effort to require a limit of 1 mg/L for phosphorus discharge on all wastewater treatment facility NPDES permits in the watershed High Yes Support modifications to the State Dam to provide a better full pool management as requested by the DNR and to provide more efficient and safer operation of the lift gates Low No Support continued implementation of the State Dam Management Plan to reestablish and strengthen wetland vegetation Low Yes
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 16
3. Watershed Setting
3.1. Location, Size, and Subwatersheds
3.1.1. Location and Setting Heron Lake and its history are of significant importance to the watershed. At the turn of the century, market hunting was common and provided Heron Lake and its residents with additional income. This also brought people from all walks of life to experience the skies darkened by flocks of birds and to try their hand at hunting. In 1909, a land survey was completed that divided the lake into pie-shaped sections. This was done in preparation for draining Heron Lake for agricultural use. The landowners banded together and decided not to drain the lake. During this time, market hunting became illegal, the water quality was declining, and the number of resident and migratory waterfowl decreased. Heron Lake watershed residents began to take increased advantage of the rich soil surrounding Heron Lake, causing additional degradation of the lake. The heightened understanding and realization of the repercussions of land use decisions made within the watershed began about fifty years ago. Since that time, projects, partnerships, and individual efforts have been undertaken in an attempt to reverse the pollution problems that had developed. The time and money spent on water quality improvement efforts attribute to the economic and social importance of the lake and watershed. The Heron Lake watershed encompasses approximately 472 square miles and is located in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties in southwestern Minnesota, as shown in Figure 1. Two lake systems, the Heron Lake System and the Graham Lake System, lie within the Heron Lake Basin. The Heron Lake System consists of three connected lakes, North Heron Lake, South Heron Lake, and Duck Lake; and a marsh, North Marsh, which lie in the eastern portion of the basin. The area of the Heron Lake System is about 12.9 square miles, which is uncommonly large for southwestern Minnesota. Water flow through the Heron Lake System generally is southeast towards the Des Moines River. South Heron Lake drains through Division Creek into North Heron Lake during most of the year. However, during dry periods, this flow can be reversed. Water flow from North Heron Lake and Duck Lake drains into the North Marsh. Outflow from North Marsh goes through the Heron Lake Outlet Channel to the Des Moines River. A DNR dam at the outlet of the marsh controls water levels in North Marsh during periods of low flow. During low-flow conditions, the channel between Duck Lake and North Marsh frequently dries up. The Graham Lake System lies in the north-central portion of the basin and consists of three connected lakes: West Graham Lake, East Graham Lake, and Jack Lake. The area of the Graham Lake System is 1.7 square miles. Tributaries northwest of the Graham Lake System feed into West Graham Lake and Jack Lake on their north shores. Discharge from both of these lakes flows eastward into East Graham Lake. Discharge from the lake system occurs through an outlet at the northeast end of East Graham Lake. Discharge from the East Graham Lake Outlet flows into Jack Creek west of the town of Heron Lake. The Jack Creek basin is 205 square miles in area.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 17
Figure 1. Boundary of the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 18
Two creeks, Jack Creek and Okabena Creek, flow easterly through the District and discharge to Heron Lake. Jack Creek flows through the northern portion of the District and discharges into North Heron Lake. Okabena Creek flows through the southern portion of the basin, discharging into Division Creek. The flow in the upper reach of Okabena Creek normally is diverted out of the Heron Lake Basin into the Little Sioux River Basin through Okabena Lake in Worthington. However, during periods of high flow, the flow in Okabena Creek is split between the Little Sioux River Basin and the Heron Lake Basin. Records are not kept of the amount of water discharged into the Heron Lake Basin from the diversion. The Okabena Creek Basin is 147 square miles in area including the diverted, upper portion of the basin, and 138 square miles in area excluding the diverted part of the basin.1 First and Second Fulda Lakes are located at Fulda, Minnesota, in Murray County in southwestern Minnesota. Both lakes are shallow, with a maximum depth of nine feet and have heavily developed shorelines. The combined surface area of the two lakes is 177 acres, placing it in the upper 15 percent of lakes in the state in terms of size. The watershed for both lakes is relatively small (4.4 square miles) compared to the surface area of the lakes (16:1 radio).2 About 93 percent of land use in the Heron Lake Basin is agricultural, consisting almost entirely of row crops. In 1996, approximately 52 percent of the crop acreage in the basin was corn and about 45 percent was soybeans. The rest of the basin consists of grasslands; deciduous forests; wetlands; the small communities of Heron Lake, Brewster, Okabena, and Kinbrae; portions of the City of Worthington; and small farmsteads.3
3.1.2. Size There are approximately 472 square miles of land within the HLWD. The area is distributed between the counties as follows: Nobles County – 222 square miles (47%) Jackson County – 198 square miles (42%) Murray County – 43 square miles (9%) Cottonwood County – 9 square miles (2%)
3.1.3. Subwatersheds The HLWD can be subdivided into multiple subwatersheds. These subwatersheds are defined by important resources, usually a specific series of lakes, streams, or rivers. The subwatersheds are useful for the purpose of describing and characterizing the resources within the HLWD and developing the implementation strategy. Figure 2 shows the subwatersheds within the HLWD and their direction of flow. Because of the presence of
1 Jones, Perry M. and Winterstein, Thomas A. 1999. Characterization of Rainfall-Runoff Response and Estimation of the Effect of Wetland Restoration on Runoff, Heron Lake Basin, Southwestern Minnesota, 1991-97. 2 Munson, Willis, August 1989. Lake Assessment Program 1988 First and Second Fulda Lakes. 3 Jones, Perry M. and Winterstein, Thomas A. 1999. Characterization of Rainfall-Runoff Response and Estimation of the Effect of Wetland Restoration on Runoff, Heron Lake Basin, Southwestern Minnesota, 1991-97.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 19
Figure 2. Subwatersheds within the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 20
lakes and the HLWD’s focus on water quality, priority watersheds are the Fulda, Graham, and Heron Lake subwatersheds.
3.2. Local Stakeholders Stakeholders within the HLWD include persons, organizations, or government entities having an interest in an activity, project, or program. They are the local units of government and residents who are responsible for or involved with water quality improvement efforts within the watershed. There are several local units of government within the HLWD. Table 2 provides a list of counties, townships, and cities.
Table 2. Local units of government within the Heron Lake Watershed District
Counties Nobles Jackson Murray Cottonwood Townships Bloom Elk Graham Lakes Hersey Lorain
Seward Summit Lake Wilmont Worthington Alba Delafield Ewington Heron Lake Hunter LaCrosse Rost Weimer West Heron Lake Belfast Bondin Fenton Iona Great Bend Springfield
Cities Brewster Heron Lake Okabena Lakefield Kinbrae Wilder Worthington Fulda Lime Creek The primary reason for involving stakeholders during the WMP update process is to build acceptance for the efforts proposed to be undertaken. In addition to seeking support from the general public through the use of newspaper and newsletter articles and public input meetings, the HLWD will employ the use of the CAC.
3.3. Population According to the Minnesota Department of Administration, a giant aging wave will overtake Minnesota in the coming decade. During the coming decade, the number of Minnesotans ages 55 to 69 is projected to grow by 239,000, accounting for almost half of total population growth. The aging trend is expected to persist beyond 2015 as the baby boom generation continues to age. Between 2005 and 2035, the population over age 65 will grow by almost 770,000. The population under 65 will increase only 10 percent during the same period. The proportion of the population 65 or older will go from about 12 percent now to 22 percent by 2035.4 This trend is expected to occur within the HLWD. The population of the HLWD is divided as follows: Nobles County – 222 square miles (31%) – approximately 6,458 residents
4 Minnesota Department of Administration, June 8, 2007. The aging baby boomers are here. http://www.demography.state.mn.us/resources.html?ID=19242 (accessed 3/11)
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 21
Jackson County – 198 square miles (28%) – approximately 3,155 residents Murray County – 43 square miles (6%) – approximately 550 residents Cottonwood County – 9 square miles (1%) – approximately 122 residents The population of the HLWD will likely remain the same or decline slightly. The population of the district will not likely affect the direction that is taken to address resource management.
3.4. Economy Eighty-six percent of the land within the HLWD is agricultural. The economy depends upon farming and related industries. The economy, as well as stressors on watershed resources will remain the same throughout the ten-year period of this WMP.
3.4.1. Overview Minnesota's economy has transformed in the past 200 years from one based on raw materials to one based on finished products and services. The earliest industries were fur trading and agriculture. Agriculture is still a major part of the economy even though only a small percentage of the population, less than 1%, is employed in the farming industry. Minnesota is the U.S.'s largest producer of sugar beets, sweet corn, and green peas for processing and farm-raised turkeys. State agribusiness has changed from production to processing and the manufacturing of value-added food products by companies such as General Mills, Cargill, Hormel Foods Corporation (prepackaged foods and processed meat products), and the Schwan Food Company (frozen foods).5
3.4.2. Agriculture Agriculture and its related economic activities provide the primary force behind the economy of the HLWD. Principal crops grown in the HLWD include corn and soybeans. Minnesota has 81,000 farms totaling nearly 27 million acres. It ranks #5 among the states in annual farm income, generating about 4% of the nation's total agricultural receipts. In terms of revenue generated, Minnesota's top five agricultural products are corn, hogs, soybeans, dairy products, and cattle.6 Livestock and livestock products account for about half of the state's farm income. Minnesota's most valuable livestock products are hogs, accounting for 18% of the state's total agricultural revenues. Minnesota is a leading (#3) hog-producing state. Minnesota has 19 ethanol plants and three biodiesel plants. Heron Lake BioEnergy (ethanol plant) and Minnesota Soybean Processors (biodiesel plant) are located within the HLWD. The state currently has a 10% mandate for ethanol blend and 5% for biodiesel.7
3.4.3. Government The economic importance of government within the HLWD is difficult to quantify. The primary form of government in the HLWD is local: county, city, and township. State and
5 Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Minnesota. (accessed 3/11) 6 http://www.agclassroom.org/kids/stats/minnesota.pdf. (accessed 3/11) 7 http://www.netstate.com/economy/mn economy.htm. (accessed 3/11)
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 22
federal government agencies are also located within the HLWD. These include the DNR, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Farm Service Agency.
3.4.4. Services Service industries are those engaged in providing services for individuals, business, and government establishments, as well as other organizations. The three largest service categories within Minnesota are business, health, and professional. The service industry is typically associated with large population communities. Because of the lack of significant population communities within the HLWD, earnings resulting from services are likely to be less than state averages, with the majority of earning resulting from health care and legal services. The service industry within the HLWD employs health care positions in the medical, health, optometry, chiropractic, and dental fields.
3.4.5. Transportation Other industries play a less prominent role within the HLWD. Transportation is important because of the distance often commuted by residents when performing daily activities. State, county, township, and private roads provide important transportation routes is the HLWD. Interstate 90, oriented east-west, lies just below the south boundary of the watershed. It crosses through part of the HLWD near and in the City of Worthington by the southwest boundary of the watershed district. State Highway 62, oriented east-west, lies just above the north boundary of the watershed. State Highway 86, on the east side of the watershed, passes north to south from Wilder through Lakefield to junction outside the watershed with Interstate 90. Jackson County Road 9 is a north-south arterial, just west of the City of Heron Lake. State Highway 59 runs north from the City of Worthington to the City of Fulda. State Highway 266 lies essentially along the southwest boundary of the watershed from the City of Worthington to the City of Wilmont. State Highway 60 is a principal and important route from the Twin Cities metropolitan area to central and southwestern Minnesota. It traverses the watershed from northeast to southwest from the City of Wilder, by the cities of Heron Lake and Brewster, into the City of Worthington.
3.5. Physical Characteristics The HLWD is a tributary to the West Fork Des Moines River (WFDMR), which flows to the Missouri River (see Figure 2). The Des Moines River originates in lakes on top of the Coteau in northern Murray and southern Lyon counties, principally in Lake Shetek, one of the few large lakes of the southwest. On the southeast shore is Lake Shetek State Park, through which the Des Moines flows as it leaves the lake. The state park located on the lake memorializes an Indian – Settler conflict which occurred during the 1862 Sioux Uprising. From Lake Shetek, the river (the West Fork of the Des Moines) flows southeast toward Jackson County and the Iowa border. In this reach the river makes the Big Bend, a northeastern loop over the Cottonwood-Jackson county line.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 23
The upper reach is a heavily cultivated area and the valley is shallow. But in the highland reach below Windom the river cuts a deeper valley, much of it densely wooded. About ten miles north of Jackson is Kilen Woods State Park, where the valley becomes a gorge 150 feet deep in places; this scenic stretch is heavily timbered with oak and other hardwoods. Except for moderate rapids in the park area, the river is mainly slow, flat water. The park is the site of early Indian attacks on white settlers, five years before the 1862 conflict. Ten miles below Jackson, the Des Moines leaves Minnesota, eventually to become Iowa’s largest river. In contrast to the lowland plains of the four Minnesota River tributaries, the watershed of the Des Moines River is dotted with lakes and ponds. Many of these have been acquired as state wildlife management areas and federal waterfowl production areas. One of the largest is Talcot Lake Wildlife Management Area, an extensive waterfowl marsh in southwestern Cottonwood County; the Des Moines flows through Talcot Lake, its level maintained by a state-operated dam at the river’s lake outlet. The Des Moines is included in the state’s A Gathering of Waters, which describes a fifty-mile canoe trip from the Talcot Lake dam to the Iowa border, including the steep scenic valley in Kilen Woods State Park. The Des Moines in its upper reaches has many small tributaries including Beaver and Lime creeks in Murray County and Jack, Elk, and Okabena creeks in the Heron Lake watershed in Jackson and Nobles counties; the outlet of Heron Lake flows into the Big Bend reach of the Des Moines in Cottonwood County. Almost all tributaries of the Des Moines flow east from the divide to the river, with virtually none entering the river from the east side. The East Fork of the Des Moines, rising in southeast Jackson County and flowing into Martin County, leaves Minnesota and flows into Iowa and then into the main stem, or West Fork. The main Des Moines, or West Fork, flows ninety-four miles in Minnesota and descends about 235 feet from its upper headwater lakes at about 1,510 feet to the Iowa border at 1,275 feet, an average gradient of two and one-half feet per mile; it is a relatively flat stream. The average discharge near the Iowa border is about 350 cubic feet per second (cfs); in a previous flood stage it reached nearly 20,000 cfs. In Minnesota the West Fork drains 1,350 square miles and the East Fork, along with several other small creeks, 200 square miles.8
3.6. Climate The climate of the Heron Lake Basin is continental: cold winters and hot summers. The normal mean annual temperature at Windom, Minnesota is 44.2° F, and the normal annual precipitation is 27.96 inches. January is the coldest and driest month and July is the warmest and wettest month at Windom. Normal January temperature is 11.4° F, normal July temperature is 72.9° F, normal January precipitation is 0.61 inches, and normal July precipitation is 4.08 inches at Windom.9
3.7. Physiography Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework
8 Waters, Thomas F., 1977. The Streams and Rivers of Minnesota. http://www.books.google. com/books?id=aYHPnbeOAquC&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq+description+of+west+des+moines+river+watershed +minnesota&source=bl&ots=H-urTz0uLy&sig=hvOjPSEccXEy71S1qMJiuFyGoWE&hl=en&ei=bNR4Te7nI8 aLrQH MqbXNBW&sa+X&oi=book_result&ct+result&resnum=6&ved+0CEMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false 9 Jones, Perry M. and Winterstein, Thomas A. 1999. Characterization of Rainfall-Runoff Response and Estimation of the Effect of Wetland Restoration on Runoff, Heron Lake Basin, Southwestern Minnesota, 1991-97.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 24
for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by its probable response to disturbance. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The approach used is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity. These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology.10 Soils within the HLWD are very productive and lend themselves to agricultural production. With 97 percent of the land within the HLWD in a corn/soybean rotation, it is apparent that addressing pollution problems that arise from this land use is imperative. The WFDMR and Heron Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Report determined that bacteria and turbidity impairments are watershed wide. Given that these impairments are inherent throughout the watershed, the focus for implementation and education is on a watershed basis. Many of the implementation efforts that are used to address bacteria and turbidity also address the upland component of the phosphorus impairment on Heron Lake. Depending on funding sources, requirements, and availability, projects on a subwatershed basis may be needed. This will be determined as opportunities are presented.
3.8. Geology and Geomorphology The Heron Lake Basin is located on the Coteau Des Prairie, a flatiron-shaped upland that separates lowlands formerly occupied by the Des Moines and James Lobes of the late Wisconsin Laurentide Ice Sheet (Figure 3). The basin lies in a region of the Bemis Moraine of the Des Moines Lobe. The topography of the basin ranges from flat near Heron Lake to rolling at the eastern and western edges of the basin. The land-surface elevation ranges from about 1,450 feet above sea level near Heron Lake to about 1,750 feet at the western edge of the basin.11
10 Griffith, Glen E., Omernik, James M., October 16, 2008. Ecoregions of Minnesota (EPA). http://www.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=fsd. (accessed 3/11) 11 Jones, Perry M. and Winterstein, Thomas A. 1999. Characterization of Rainfall-Runoff Response and Estimation of the Effect of Wetland Restoration on Runoff, Heron Lake Basin, Southwestern Minnesota, 1991-97.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 25
Figure 3. Geomorphology within the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 26
Drier than most of the rest of the state, the region is a transition zone between the prairies and the Great Plains. Once rich in wetlands known as prairie potholes, 90%, or some three million acres, have been drained for agriculture in the Minnesota River basin. Most of the prairies are now farm fields. Due to the quaternary and bedrock geology of the region, as well as the reduced precipitation in the region, groundwater resources are neither plentiful, nor widely distributed, unlike most other areas of the state. Given these constraints, this rural area hosts a vast network of water pipelines which transport groundwater from the few localized areas with productive groundwater wells to much of the region's population. The Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Minnesota mapped four geomorphic areas in the Heron Lake Basin. The geomorphic areas illustrate the physiographic features and identify the nature of present materials in which the soils have developed. These areas are the (1) Lake Benton-Adrian Coteau, undulating, loamy; (2) Ivanhoe-Worthington Coteau, gently sloping, loamy; (3) Blue Earth Till Plain, undulating, loamy; and (4) Blue Earth Till Plain, clayey. A late Wisconsin glacial lake occupied about the same area as the Blue Earth Till Plain. The Lake Benton-Adrian Coteau geomorphic area consists of loess-mantled ground moraine. The relief is marked predominantly by long, irregular slopes. The loess has filled in irregularities of the glacial till plain. The Ivanhoe-Worthington Coteau, gently sloping, loamy geomorphic area consists of a series of terminal and end moraines with ground moraines separating them. The topography ranges from gently undulating to steeply rolling and hilly. The Blue Earth Till Plain, undulating, loamy geomorphic area consists of a gently undulating to rolling till plain. Nearly level to depressional, poorly-drained topography is common throughout the loamy area. The Blue Earth Till Plain, clayey geomorphic area consists of clay-mantled till plain. The dominant landform is one of a nearly level to depressional till plain.12
3.9. Land Slope The slope of the land is relatively mild within the HLWD (Figure 4). Slopes tend to be less than five feet per mile and are greatest near the boundaries of the HLWD.
3.10. Soils Within geomorphic areas, soils were grouped into soil landscape units developed from detailed soil surveys or field work by the Agricultural Experiment Station. The soils were grouped into units based upon the texture of the soil material in the top five feet, the texture of the soil material below five feet, drainage, and color. Most of the Heron Lake Basin falls into three soil landscape units (Figure 5): (1) well-drained, loamy soil over loamy material (54.5 percent); (2) poorly drained, loamy soil over loamy material (19.7 percent); and (3) poorly drained, clayey soil over loamy material (16.7 percent). Well-drained, loamy soil over loamy materials is present mostly in the lowlands of the western Coteau region; whereas, poorly drained clayey soil is present over most of the Blue Earth Till Plain Area of the basin. Once drained, all of the soils are well-suited for agriculture.13
12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Minnesota. (accessed 3/11) 13 Jones, Perry M. and Winterstein, Thomas A. 1999. Characterization of Rainfall-Runoff Response and Estimation of the Effect of Wetland Restoration on Runoff, Heron Lake Basin, Southwestern Minnesota, 1991-97.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 27
Figure 4. Slope of the land surface within the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 28
Figure 5. Major soil associations within the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 29
The soil erodibility factor (K-factor) is a unitless measure of erodibility for a standard condition. The K-factor represents the susceptibility of soil to both the rate of runoff and erosion and ranges from 0 to 1. Soils resistant to erosion and detachment (clays) have low K-factor values (0.0-0.2), whereas easily detached soils (silts) are most erodible and usually have K-factor values greater than 0.40. According to the NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) data layer, K-factors in the Heron Lake watershed range from 0.02 to 0.37, with an average K-factor value of 0.25 (Figure 6).
3.11. Land Use and Cover Types Original vegetation was prairie and wet prairie (Figure 7). Nearly all of the land use in this agroecoregion is accounted for by cropland and animal production (Figure 8). Corn and soybeans are grown on 45 and 49 percent of the cropland, respectively. About 13 percent of the hogs, five percent of the cattle, and four percent of the turkeys grown statewide are raised in this agroecoregion. Confined animal feeding operations dot the landscape (Figure 9). Within this agroecoregion, hogs account for 49 percent of the animal units (AUs) raised, cattle account for 48 percent of the AUs, and turkeys account for two percent of the AUs. Rates of phosphorus and nitrogen applied to cropland from manure and fertilizer average 32 lbs/acre and 148 lbs/acre, respectively. Agricultural production is a dominant and vital part of the economy for this region. According to Minnesota Agricultural Water Resources Coalition, the corn, soybean, beef, and swine production in the four counties within the watershed (Cottonwood, Jackson, Murray, and Nobles) generate more than $750 million annually. North and South Heron Lake and its contributing watershed have undergone significant transformation over the decades. The DNR describes the changes as follows: The Heron Lake watershed was once blessed with rich natural resources including clean water, fertile prairie soil, lush vegetation and abundant wildlife. Gradually, however, the landscape began to change: wetlands were drained, streams were channelized, and croplands replaced prairie grasses and wetlands for intensive modern agricultural production. As a result, the frequency and extent of flooding increased and water became polluted. Dikes built around Heron Lake to contain fluctuating water levels reduced its area by one quarter. This reduction in lake area has led to a loss of habitat and degraded plant and wildlife communities.14 North and South Heron Lakes were once a nationally recognized migratory waterfowl habitat with over 700,000 staging canvasbacks, 50,000 nesting Franklin’s gulls, and large numbers of other birds. Today the lake is primarily used by smaller flocks of mallards and other puddle ducks mainly for refuge during migration.15
14 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rprp/heronlake/place_context.html, accessed 3/11 15 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, October 2008.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 30
Figure 6. Soil erodibility within the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 31
Figure 7. Presettlement vegetation with the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 32
Figure 8. Land use within the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 33
Figure 9. Confined Animal Feeding Operations in the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 34
3.12. Land Ownership Most land within the HLWD is owned privately. Land owned by the state and federal government is usually in the form of Wildlife Management Areas or Waterfowl Production Areas (Figure 10).
3.13. Natural Resources
3.13.1 Important Wildlife Habitats Grasslands and wetlands are important wildlife habitats in the HLWD. Prairie remnants are valuable habitats for those species that utilize grassland ecosystems wholly or in part. Wetlands, including temporary and seasonal basins, marshes, and open waterbodies, provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial biota. Organisms utilizing these areas include fishes, various aquatic invertebrates, waterfowl, big and small game, furbearers, some rodents, wading birds, and many species of songbirds. These habitats, along with woodlands and brushy areas, are important as breeding, nesting, feeding, and resting areas for both migratory and resident wildlife. Common wildlife within the HLWD is included in Table 3.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 35
Figure 10. Land Ownership within the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 36
Table 3. Commonly observed wildlife species within the Heron Lake Watershed District
Scientific Name Common Name Importance to HLWD Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer Primary big game Canis latrans Coyote Furbearer Vulpes vulpes Red fox Furbearer Neovison vison Mink Furbearer Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat Furbearer Castor canadensis Beaver Furbearer Procyon lotor Raccoon Furbearer Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail Small game Lepus townsendii White-tailed Jackrabbit Small game Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked pheasant Upland game bird Perdix perdix Hungarian partridge Upland game bird Branta canadensis Canada goose Breeding waterfowl Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Breeding waterfowl Anas discors Blue-winged teal Breeding waterfowl Anas clypeata Northern shoveler Breeding waterfowl Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Nongame breeding bird Salpinctes obseletus House wren Nongame breeding bird Turdus migratorius American robin Nongame breeding bird Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird Nongame breeding bird Sturnella neglecta Meadowlark Nongame breeding bird Thamnophis radix Plains garter snake Herpeto fauna Storeria occipitomaculata Redbelly snake Herpeto fauna Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger salamander Herpeto fauna Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog Herpeto fauna Rana sylvatica Wood frog Herpeto fauna 3.13.2 Fisheries The DNR manages game fish in six lakes within the HLWD. East Graham, West Graham, Corabelle, and Fulda Lakes are managed as fishery lakes. South Heron Lake is formally designated a wildlife lake and is managed as such. Timber Lake is also managed as a wildlife lake as identified within Minnesota Statutes 97A.101 subdivision 2. This designation allows the DNR to temporarily lower lake levels on a periodic basis to improve wildlife habitat and regulate motorized watercraft and recreational vehicles on the lake. The Graham and Fulda Lakes are managed primarily for walleye. Corabelle is managed primarily for northern pike and yellow perch due to its shallowness and it’s propensity to low oxygen levels during winter. Although South Heron and Timber Lakes are managed as wildlife lakes, northern pike, and occasionally surplus walleye fry are stocked periodically in an effort to bio-manipulate the non-desirable fish species, such as fathead
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 37
minnows and common carp. Both black and white crappie can be found in varying abundances in all six of the lakes in the HLWD. North and South Fulda were reclaimed in the fall of 2008 following the installation of an electric fish barrier. The lake has been stocked with walleye, yellow perch, bluegill, black crappie, and northern pike since the reclamation. Aquatic vegetation has rebounded in both North and South Fulda since the reclamation resulting in improved water transparency.
3.13.3 Rare and Threatened Resources With the exception of rare birds documented in the vicinity of Heron Lake, the majority of rare species in these four counties occur outside boundaries of HLWD. Several of the rarest plants present in the counties are concentrated along the Des Moines River Valley or its abandoned ancient drainage channels. Within the HLWD, Northern Grasshopper Mice occur in Nobles County and all the other species in the table below are found in Jackson County (Table 4). The Trumpeter Swan is listed as a species of concern by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The following species are designated as rare, threatened, endangered, of interest, or of special concern by the DNR.16 Table 4. Rare species occurring with the Heron Lake Watershed District
Scientific Name Common Name Category Status Agency Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Rare bird of interest DNR Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern Rare bird of interest DNR DNR Trumpeter Swan Rare bird threatened Cygnus buccinator USFWS Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Rare bird special concern DNR Larus pipixcan Franklin's Gull Rare bird special concern DNR Rallus elegans King Rail Rare bird endangered DNR Western Harvest Mouse Rare bird DNR Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope Rare bird threatened DNR Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern Rare bird special concern DNR Atrytone arogos Arogos Skipper Rare butterfly special concern DNR Oarisma powesheik Powesheik Skipper Rare butterfly special concern DNR Asclepias sullivantii Sullivant's Milkweed Rare plant threatened DNR Onychomys leucogaster Northern Grasshopper Mouse Rare small mammal of interest DNR Philippus apacheanus A Jumping Spider Rare spider special concern DNR Colonial Waterbird Nesting Site Important site DNR DNR Calcareous Fen (Southwestern) Regulated wetland USFWS There is one calcareous fen located within the HLWD. It is on the south end of South Heron Lake. Calcareous fens are rare and distinctive to wetlands that are characterized by a substrate of non-acidic peat and dependent on a constant supply of cold, oxygen-poor groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium bicarbonates. This calcium-rich environment supports a plant community dominated by “calciphiles,” or calcium-loving species. These fens typically occur on slight slopes where upwelling water eventually drains away and where surface water inputs are minimal. Sometimes they occur as domes
16 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html. (accessed 3/11)
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 38
of peat that grow to the height of the hydraulic head. These settings create an unusual wetland regime where the substrate is almost always saturated to the surface, but flooding is rare and brief. Shallow pools of water in which marl precipitates are typically present surrounded by low, tussocky, grass- and sedge-dominated vegetation. Approximately 200 calcareous fens are known in Minnesota, most of which are only a few acres in extent. They are concentrated at the bases of terrace escarpments in river valleys in southeastern Minnesota, on the sides of morainal hills and valley side slopes in southern and west-central Minnesota, and on the downslope side of beach ridges in the Glacial Lake Agassiz basin in the northwest. Under the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA), impacts to calcareous seepage fens are regulated by the DNR. According to the WCA, calcareous fens may not be filled, drained, or otherwise degraded, wholly or partially, by any activity, unless the commissioner of natural resources, under an approved management plan, decides some alteration is necessary (Minn. Statutes 103G.223). In addition to the protection afforded by the WCA, destruction of any state-threatened plants occurring on a calcareous fen may be regulated under Minnesota’s endangered species law (Minn. Statutes 84.0895).17
17 What is a calcareous seepage fen? Fact Sheet, February 2008. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/Calcareous_Fen_List.pdf. (accessed 3/11)
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 39
4. Assessment of Existing Water and Water-Related Issues
The assessment of issues forms the foundation for the remaining portions of the WMP. The established goals (Chapter 5) serve to address and solve the issues identified for each priority management issue or management category. Policies are established to guide efforts toward accomplishing the goal, and multiple action items are used to implement the policy.
4.1. Range of Resource Issues The range of potential resource issues within the HLWD is large, not all of which can feasibly be addressed by the HLWD. Some of these issues include poor water quality, flood damage to land and buildings, the lack of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and declining groundwater levels as identified in the Clean Water Partnership (CWP) Phase I Diagnostic Study, which can be found in Appendix 9.17. Through the planning process, the HLWD, after considering the range of potential issues and public input, defined and categorized those issues that will be the focus of the HLWD as priority management issues. The HLWD plans to focus its resources on addressing these priority management issues.
4.2. Priority Resource Issues
4.2.1. Water Quality Water quality has been and remains a priority resource issue for the HLWD. Many of their past and current programs are focused on improving water quality. During public meetings and those with the CAC and the Board of Managers, water quality was identified as an important concern. Water quality is a complex and wide-ranging topic. The intricacies of how different constituents interact with each other can be difficult to quantify and identify. The degree of how healthy or degraded a water body is depends on many factors coming from varying sources. In the HLWD, sediment, phosphorus, and bacteria, have been identified as primary constituents of concern. Locating the sources of each of the aforementioned contaminants is integral to reducing the effect they have on a waterbody. Potential source locations of constituent originations are explained below. Information about water quality comes largely from previous studies completed by or for the HLWD or by the MPCA. Waters that are in poor condition are labeled “impaired” and are the focus of improvement efforts by the HLWD. The discussion which follows is focused on “what” is causing poor water quality within the HLWD.
4.2.1.1. Sediment /Turbidity The MPCA listed several stream reaches in the HLWD as impaired for turbidity on the 2002, 2004, and 2006 impaired waters lists. Table 5 lists the reaches that were addressed in the TMDL Report. Data used for assessment was collected through several endeavors from 1994-2004.18 Possible sources of origination include lack of filter strips, inadequate residue management, and streambank erosion due to lack of buffers.
18 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, October 2008.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 40
Table 5. Stream reaches impaired because of turbidity in the Heron Lake Watershed District
Assessment Reach Unit ID # Affected Use Pollutants/Stressors Jack Creek, North Branch Headwaters to Jack Creek 07100001-505 Aquatic Life Turbidity Okabena Creek Elk Creek to South Heron Lake 07100001-506 Aquatic Life Turbidity Elk Creek Headwaters to Okabena Creek 07100001-507 Aquatic Life Turbidity Jack Creek JD 26 to Heron Lake 07100001-509 Aquatic Life Turbidity
Heron Lake Outlet Heron Lake (32-0057-01) to Okabena Creek 07100001-527 Aquatic Life Turbidity
Division Creek Heron Lake (32-0057-01) to Okabena Creek 07100001-529 Aquatic Life Turbidity 4.2.1.2. Phosphorus The MPCA listed North Heron Lake and South Heron Lake as impaired due to phosphorus in 2006 (Table 6). Related to the Heron Lake nutrient impairment is a listing for pH in the Heron Lake outlet. Data used for assessment was collected through several endeavors from 1992-2002.19 Potential sources of origination include fertilizer runoff through direct overland flow into ditches and open tile inlets, resuspension of stream and lake sediment, leaking septic systems, inadequate manure management, and wastewater treatment facilities.
19 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, October 2008.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 41
Table 6. Waterbodies impaired because of phosphorus in the Heron Lake Watershed District
Lakes Lake ID# Affected Use Pollutants/Stressors Nutrient/Eutrophication Heron (North Marsh) 32-0057-01 Aquatic Recreation Biological Indicators Nutrient/Eutrophication Heron (Duck) 32-0057-02 Aquatic Recreation Biological Indicators Nutrient/Eutrophication Heron (North Heron) 32-0057-05 Aquatic Recreation Biological Indicators Nutrient/Eutrophication Heron (South Heron) 32-0057-07 Aquatic Recreation Biological Indicators Nutrient/Eutrophication Second Fulda 51-0020-00 Aquatic Recreation Biological Indicators Nutrient/Eutrophication First Fulda 51-0021-00 Aquatic Recreation Biological Indicators Nutrient/Eutrophication East Graham 53-0020-00 Aquatic Recreation Biological Indicators Nutrient/Eutrophication West Graham 53-0021-00 Aquatic Recreation Biological Indicators
4.2.1.3. Bacteria The MPCA listed three stream reaches in the HLWD as impaired for bacteria on the 2002, 2004, and 2006 Impaired Waters Lists (Figure 11). Table 7 lists the reaches that were addressed in the TMDL Report. Data used for assessment was collected through several endeavors from 1994-2004.20 Possible areas of origination include leaking septic systems, inadequate manure management, and confined animal feeding operations.
20 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, October 2008.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 42
Figure 11. Impaired waterbodies in the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 43
Table 7. Stream reaches impaired because of bacteria in the Heron Lake Watershed District
Assessment Reach Unit ID # Affected Use Pollutants/Stressors Okabena Creek Elk Creek to South Heron Lake 07100001-506 Aquatic Recreation Fecal Coliform Elk Creek Headwaters to Okabena Creek 07100001-507 Aquatic Recreation Fecal Coliform Jack Creek JD 26 to Heron Lake 07100001-509 Aquatic Recreation Fecal Coliform
4.2.2. Water Quantity and Flooding Flooding of agricultural lands and roadways within the Heron Lake Basin is a serious economic and resource management concern. Seasonal flooding can occur during and following snowmelt and late spring rains after soils have been partially saturated. The late spring lake-level rises of Heron Lake can range from about four to six feet, resulting in damage to crops and roadway structures. Storm flooding can cause a lake-level rise of about three feet within 48 hours. Flooding not only damages agricultural production and roadway structures, it also results in a number of problems associated with sediment transport. Streambank erosion and associated sediment discharge into Heron Lake following storms can result in increased siltation in the lake and adjacent lowlands. Runoff from agricultural lands also may carry pesticides and nutrients in both dissolved and particulate forms. Concern about flooding at Heron Lake began at about the turn of the century, but flooding problems have increased during the past 50 years. Lake levels were low during the 1930s when discharge from the lake periodically ceased. High lake levels have been recorded since the 1970s.21 During the 10-year WMP period, the HLWD experienced three 100-year storm events. A 100-year storm is described as a rain event in which over six inches of rain falls in a 24- hour period. The 100-year storm events occurred: September 14 – 15, 2004, August 18 – 20, 2007, and September 22 – 23, 2010.22 Certain areas within the HLWD are subject to periodic flooding which results in economic loss. The NRCS identified these regionally significant areas. Most flood prone areas are located along the lower portions of Jack Creek and Okabena Creek and areas adjacent to Heron Lake (Figure 12). The extent of these flood pone areas are estimated to range from 6,800 acres to 9,500 acres adjacent to Jack Creek and approximately 6,500
21 Jones, Perry M. and Winterstein, Thomas A. 1999. Characterization of Rainfall-Runoff Response and Estimation of the Effect of Wetland Restoration on Runoff, Heron Lake Basin, Southwestern Minnesota, 1991-97. 22 http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/flash_floods/ff100924.htm. (accessed 3/11)
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 44
acres adjacent to Okabena Creek. In addition, 10,000 acres near Heron Lake itself experiences chronic flooding.
Each of the counties in the District have completed a multi-jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP) to address natural and technological hazards, including flooding. AHMPs are required by FEMA under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 for certain federal funding. While flood mitigation funding is administered by the DNR, the mitigation program is managed by Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM).
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 45
Figure 12. Areas subject to flooding in the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 46
The types of direct economic damages resulting from flooding have been largely agricultural in nature. Studies have suggested that the increased amount of flood damages are due to the increased development of agricultural lands and the large scale use of tiling systems beginning during the 1920s. The increase of agricultural tiling results in water not having a chance to percolate through the soil. The water is able to move quicker off the land into the waterways and ditches. The decrease in water retention time results in negative impacts on the watershed. As water is moving faster off the fields, contaminants are not able to be filtered by the soil. Normally the soil would bind certain contaminants (e.g., phosphorus) and retain it within the soil. As water is moved away faster, the soil doesn’t have time bind to these contaminants, they stay suspended in the water and flow into the streams and lakes. Soil itself also does not have a chance to settle out and is flushed into ditches. Furthermore, as the flow within the ditches increases, streambanks begin to deteriorate and fail. This has resulted in measureable sediment deposits in Heron Lake and the perception that Heron Lake has lost storage area due to sedimentation. This in turn is perceived to affect the submerged vegetation that once attracted migratory waterfowl. The increased drainage has caused a large amount of lake level flux on the main Heron Lakes. Flooding has been observed to cause lake-levels to rise close to three feet within 48 hours. At times, Heron Lake levels can vary from 1,400 to 1,406 ft-msl during a season. These high Heron Lake levels can dramatically affect backwater on Jack and Okabena Creek.23
4.2.3. Drainage Systems and Natural Waterways Drainage systems are interconnected within natural waterways in the HLWD (Figure 13). Eighty-six percent of the cropland in the watershed is in a corn/soybean rotation. The use of drainage ditches, increasing cropland tiling and channelization can lead to increased water movement through waterways. Furthermore, reducing channel buffers increases the potential for streambanks to fail. The combination of increased water movement and bank destabilization results in streambank erosion and ditch cleanouts that contribute to increasing turbidity in streams and lakes. Under Minnesota Statutes 103E.067 (Ditch Buffer Strip Annual Reporting), each drainage authority is required to report the number of miles of buffer strips established according to section 103E.021; the number of drainage system inspections conducted; and the number of violations of section 103E.021 identified and enforcement actions taken. The WMP can encourage drainage authorities to ensure proper enforcement measures are undertaken. In 2006, BWSR conducted a survey of public drainage ditches in Minnesota. It is estimated 58 percent of the ditches have inadequate buffers.24
23 HLWD Impoundment Reconnaissance Study, March 1997. HDR Engineering, Inc. 24Board of Water and Soil Resources, 2006. Public Drainage Ditch Survey. http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/publications/bufferstudyweb.pdf (accessed 3/11)
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 47
Figure 13. Public drainage systems and water resources in the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 48
4.2.4. Biotic Habitat Much of the fish habitat-related issues in the HLWD can be addressed by looking at watershed hydrology. The hydrology of watershed streams and rivers dictate the quantity and quality of fish habitat. Mankind, in land use and stewardship, has altered the hydrology by drainage and tiling. This has an adverse impact on the habitat within streams and rivers. By increasing drainage and losing storage, the quantity and timing of the stream and river flow is altered and can lead to the erosion of streams and drainage systems. As a result of the increased flow and erosion, there is an increase in sedimentation and siltation to not only streams, but also lakes. The sedimentation causes a decrease in the frequency and number of deeper water pools typically used by fish during winter. It also decreases the amount and quality of spawning habitat for some fish species that require hard substrates. Fish habitat is also limited in lakes because of poor water quality. Poor water quality often leads to poor water clarity. The low water clarity causes limited aquatic vegetation growth. Native fishes typically utilize this habitat as spawning, nursery and refugia areas.
4.2.5. Wetlands Presently, less than one percent of the basin consists of wetlands (Figure 14). Jackson and Nobles Counties, which includes most of the Heron Lake Basin, have less than one percent of the wetlands that were present at the time of settlement by European- Americans. Wetlands have been reduced in the two counties from greater than 284,000 acres in the late 1800’s to presently about 2,000 acres. A primary issue in wetland loss is the loss of water storage, as well as the water quality and other ecological services that wetlands provide. The restoration of wetlands in the Heron Lake Basin may reduce peak and total runoff by increasing available depressional storage and by increasing the potential for evaporation and transpiration. Riparian wetlands adjacent to streams provide hydraulic and hydrologic benefits. Additional storage in riparian wetlands and increased resistance to downstream flow provided by additional wetland vegetation reduces peak discharges following storms. 25
25 Jones, Perry M. and Winterstein, Thomas A. 1999. Characterization of Rainfall-Runoff Response and Estimation of the Effect of Wetland Restoration on Runoff, Heron Lake Basin, Southwestern Minnesota, 1991-97.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 49
Figure 14. Wetland areas within the Heron Lake Watershed District
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 50
Increasing the number of wetlands that reduce peak flows can potentially have other benefits including increased removal of sedimentation and several contaminants that reduce water quality. Reducing peak flows may allow sediment that has entered the stream and become suspended in the water column to settle out. Also, constituents such as phosphorus that are often bound to sediment particles can settle into the wetland and become assimilated into wetland plants. Restoring properly functioning wetlands can potentially assist in promoting a healthy hydrological and biological system.
4.2.6. Education Watershed residents have significant impacts on the environment and its resources. Education seems to be the best tool for providing the public with an understanding of the ramifications of their actions and behavior patterns in order to increase awareness of environmental issues. The largest issue faced by the HLWD relative to education is effectively changing behavior to improve resource condition.
4.2.7. Funding The operation of the HLWD is funded primarily through the ad valorem levy which is the only stable source of funding. Nearly all of the remaining programs and projects of the HLWD are funded through the use of grant dollars. In the absence of either an increase in the ad valorem levy or the continued success in obtaining grant dollars, the efforts of the HLWD to address the issues identified within this WMP are limited.
4.3. Financing District Operations A critical issue facing the HLWD is stable and sufficient funding to finance the HLWD’s projects and programs. When the HLWD changed its focus to water quality improvement through the use of education and implementation, it was soon determined that there was a need to seek funding from sources other than the general operating levy. The effort began in 1996. Since then, 32 grants have successfully been secured. These grants were awarded by local, state, and national organizations such as the MPCA, DNR, AgStar, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), US Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service, BWSR, MDA, and the Heron Lake-Okabena Community Foundation. Over the last fourteen years, the HLWD has received $2,204,093.79 in cash through grants from these organizations. These funds were used to pay for cost-share and incentive programs, water quality monitoring, staff, and education efforts. The HLWD has been very fortunate that outside funders have deemed projects to be good investments in accordance with their goals and priorities. (See Section 6.3.2.2.2 for a summary of BMPs installed.) Loan funds are separate from grant funds. Loan funds have been awarded to the HLWD for septic system replacement, BMP installation, and conservation tillage equipment. Since 1996, $1,146,061.39 has been disbursed for loans for six conservation tillage equipment purchases, one feedlot upgrade, and 76 septic system replacements.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 51
4.4. Priority Resource Issues Lead by Others The HLWD anticipates a cooperative rather than a lead role in addressing select priority resource issues, primarily because of the issues’ complexity, magnitude, and the HLWD’s limited fiscal resources. Specifically, the HLWD anticipates the drainage authorities to continue in the lead role for issues related to public drainage systems. The HLWD anticipates focusing on assisting with methods to reduce erosion, maintain water quality, and decrease flooding through the implementation of BMPs on public drainage systems. Resources issues related to biotic integrity are expected to be led by the DNR. The HLWD anticipates involvement in improving biotic integrity through the implementation of water quality BMPs and restoring wetlands. Efforts related to wetlands are anticipated to be associated with providing incentives for and to restore wetlands and create storage on the landscape to reduce flooding and flood damages. Similarly, the HLWD anticipates the DNR will continue their lead role for issues related to the water levels within Heron Lake.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 52
5. Goals, Objectives, and Actions
The HLWD goals, objectives, and action items presented in this chapter address the requirements set forth in Minnesota Rule 8410.0080. They are intended to address the priority resource issues outlined in Chapter 4 – Assessment of Existing Water and Water-Related Issues. The goals, objectives, and action items establish the direction HLWD will take and provide an indication of how problems and issues will be approached and resolved. The action items are the basis for the implementation plan. The HLWD’s goals are organized by management category. Policies and actions support the goals for the management category. Management categories are defined by this WMP as: A specific resource the HLWD will manage; Broad areas encompassing the actions and efforts of the HLWD related to its day to day operations and long-range goals for managing water and land related resources; A means to communicate HLWD efforts and activities to the cities and citizens; and An organizational framework to guide yearly implementation activities and the expenditure of HLWD financial resources. The management categories are: Water Quality; Water Quantity and Flooding; Drainage Systems and Natural Waterways; Biotic Habitat; Wetlands; Education; and Funding. As used within this WMP the terms goal, policies and actions are defined as follows: Goal: Statement of intended accomplishment for the planning period within a management category. A goal is strategic because it describes a district-wide initiative. Goals are meant to be simply stated, achievable, and measurable. A single goal characterizes each management category. Objective: A narrative description of the anticipated approach used to achieve the goal. Policies set focused objectives and form the basis for specific actions to be implemented by the HLWD. Policies within a management category are numbered for clarity only, rather than to imply importance. Several policies are often related to a single goal. Actions: Specific, tactical activities that when accomplished are effective in implementing a policy and ultimately result in achieving the identified goal. Several actions are often related to a single policy. Actions tend to form the basis for portions of the implementation program. Goals, objectives, and actions, are expected to be consistent with the mission statement of the HLWD. The HLWD mission statement is: The mission of the HLWD is to protect and improve the water resources within its boundaries by supporting watershed residents through the use of education and financial programs.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 53
5.1. Water Quality
Goal: Manage aquatic systems (lakes, rivers and wetlands) to maintain, improve and protect water quality consistent with user expectations and technically achievable goals, while recognizing their ecological and community value.
Objective 5.1-1 Assess, monitor, and document water quality pollutant impairments within streams and lakes. Action 5.1-1a Continue the monitoring component of the surface Water Quality Improvement Program (WQIP) to assess resource condition, evaluate water quality trends, and assess the extent of water quality improvement. Action 5.1-1b Identify and document the areas suspected as being the source of contaminants (e.g., sediment, phosphorus, etc.) affecting the water quality of the watershed to determine priority areas for implementation. Action 5.1-1c Prepare a water quality monitoring program plan as the tool to guide surface water quality monitoring, with identified goals and technical objectives. Action 5.1-1d Provide financial incentives or technical assistance to residents interested in participating in volunteer water quality monitoring programs. Action 5.1-1e Complete monitoring to support state-lead TMDL and water quality assessment initiatives when financially supported by the State. Action 5.1-1f Identify locations within the HLWD that regionally represent resource condition (i.e., Regional Assessment Locations) including water quality, as an organizing framework for water quality monitoring, modeling and assessing trends. Action 5.1-1g Use biotic indices in addition to chemical data to assess the conditions of waters. Objective 5.1-2 Promote the use and construction of BMPs in agricultural and urban settings to maintain and improve water quality. Action 5.1-2a Continue the BMP implementation component of the WQIP. Action 5.1-2b Use education to describe the many benefits of and promote the construction of BMPs. Action 5.1-2c Encourage and assist citizens to upgrade waste systems, including septic systems, manure storage facilities and similar activities. Action 5.1-2d Develop a BMP selection process to assist landowners in choosing proper BMPs to align with the HLWD’s water quality goals and objectives. Action 5.1-2e Use the Regulatory Program and permit process to reasonably ensure the implementation of water quality BMP. Action 5.1-2f Develop a joint plan with the Drainage Authority to implement creative solutions for reducing erosion, improving channel stability, reducing sediment loads, and improving downstream water quality. Objective 5.1-3 Develop attainable water quality targets, while recognizing water quality standards developed by the State of Minnesota and natural year-to-year variability in water quality.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 54
Action 5.1-3a Develop a schedule for the implementation of lake management plans placing priority on those lakes currently meeting designated uses for protection. Action 5.1-3b Determine lakes and streams worthy of protection prior to becoming impaired, and establish non-degradation water quality targets. Objective 5.1-4 Serve as the local governmental agency lead and actively participate in the completion and implementation of TMDLs and water quality protection strategies and projects, consistent with the availability of external funds. Action 5.1-4a Utilize the WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan and future implementation plans to identify and implement projects to achieve water quality goals. Action 5.1-4b Assess and manage waters using a “one watershed” or “watershed-wide” approach. Action 5.1-4c Request the acceleration of the MPCA lead water quality modeling for the HLWD to identify priority source areas causing water quality issues. Action 5.1-4d Use watershed-wide models developed by the MPCA to establish maximum allowable loads to surface waters. 5.2. Water Quantity and Flooding
Goal: Minimize the potential damage to public and private infrastructure, private property, the land, and other important water related natural resources caused by excess runoff and flooding.
Objective 5.2-1 Minimize, avoid, and reduce flood damages by identifying and assessing flood prone areas, characterizing flood damages, and regulating the placement of structures within the floodplain. Action 5.2-1a Develop a map showing flood prone areas, the frequency and the severity of flooding, and to serve as a tool to identify potential upstream priority storage areas. Action 5.2-1b Confirm potential project priority flood storage locations as identified within past studies by the HLWD, for the protection of agricultural lands up to the 10-year flood event and for urban areas exceeding the 50-year flood event. Action 5.2-1c As part of the Flood Damage Reduction Program, successively complete engineering feasibility reports to develop concept designs, evaluate technical feasibility, assess permit requirements, determine the probable flood damage reduction benefits, and develop Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for capital improvement flood damage reduction projects. Action 5.2-1d Utilize the DNR Flood Damage Reduction Program and other suitable programs to construct those capital improvement flood damage reduction projects deemed as beneficial to the residents of the HLWD. Action 5.2-1e Use existing tools including the USFWS restorable wetlands map, high resolution topographic data from the state-wide LiDAR collect, and other appropriate sources, to identify priority areas to create storage through restoring wetlands. Action 5.2-1f Develop criteria to prioritize restorable wetlands according to the values of HLWD, including storage to reduce flooding.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 55
Action 5.2-1g Engage public agency and nongovernmental organization partners and use existing programs and funding opportunities to restore priority wetland. Action 5.2-1h Engage MPCA staff to ensure watershed models developed for water quality purposes by the agency as part of the TMDL program are suitable for use in estimating the hydrologic effects of projects and land use changes. Action 5.2-1i Provide technical assistance to the drainage authority as requested, to credibly assess the adequacy of drainage system outlets and the downstream effects of public drainage system repairs and improvement projects. Action 5.2-1j Coordinate with agencies to address water levels controlled by Heron Lake and consider modification or removal of the control structure to achieve management objectives for the lake. Action 5.2-1k Participate in monitoring, evaluating and updating County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan to reduce flood-related impacts.
Objective 5.2-2 Foster and encourage the use of agricultural conservation practices, management practices, and the implementation of BMPs to reduce the rate and volume of runoff. Action 5.2-2a Work cooperatively with the SWCDs to identify lands which may benefit from soil and water conservation planning and implementation of BMPs to control erosion and runoff. Action 5.2-2b Provide watershed citizens with information and support regarding new and existing BMP technologies to reduce runoff rates and volumes. Action 5.2-2c Identify technology-based and conservation BMPs that may best be implemented within the HLWD to reduce erosion and runoff. 5.3. Drainage Systems and Natural Waterways
Goal: Be a resource to the drainage authority on issues affecting public drainage systems and utilize waterways in a manner which recognizes the origin of the system (e.g., constructed vs. natural channel), the interconnectedness of resources, and present and future conveyance needs, while considering legally established drainage rights and the regulatory environment.
Objective 5.3-1 Use methods, procedures, standards, and criteria for the maintenance, repair, restoration, rehabilitation, and improvement of drainage systems and waterways, while acknowledging that traditional drainage repairs to the as-constructed and subsequently improved condition are a right of the benefitting lands. Action 5.3-1a Develop or use an existing classification system for drainage systems, rivers and streams, which recognizes the origin of the system (i.e., natural or man- made) and influence of human activities (e.g., a constructed waterway, an altered natural waterway or an unaltered natural waterway). Action 5.3-1b Identify and map existing private drainage systems within the HLWD when convenient, as a component of drainage system related activities. Action 5.3-1c Encourage the use of standards and criteria for channel stability for all types of waterways including public drainage systems, based on stability, sediment transport and geomorphic considerations consistent with the waterway
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 56
classification system, to reduce future maintenance and repair. Consider the most appropriate method for implementing these standards if necessary. Action 5.3-1d Assist the drainage authority with establishing criteria for evaluating the adequacy of the outlet and the potential for downstream flooding, when the public drainage system discharges to an area identified as flood prone by the HLWD. Action 5.3-1e Use the resources and programs of the HLWD, working cooperatively with the drainage authority, to objectively evaluate the feasibility of implementing two-stage channel designs, natural resource enhancements and water quality improvements to public drainage systems, especially for those systems discharging to impaired waters. Action 5.3-1f Pursue grant funding working with and on behalf of the drainage authority from the BWSR to modernize the public drainage system records. Objective 5.3-2 Incorporate BMPs for mitigating water quality concerns, reducing the peak rate of discharge, and decreasing sediment yield within public drainage system projects where feasible and acceptable to the drainage authority. Action 5.3-2a Identify priority public and private drainage systems for targeting water quality and peak flow reduction BMP implementation (especially buffers) consistent with the WQIP. Action 5.3-2b Seek funding external to the benefitted area to implement feasible modifications, designs, and resource enhancements to the public drainage system, especially when costs are in excess of traditional repair and improvement costs. Action 5.3-2c Survey private drainage system owners to gain an understanding of the level of interest for installing BMPs, including buffer strips. Action 5.3-2d Work with the drainage authority to encourage greater enforcement of drainage law especially as it pertains to buffer requirements. Action 5.3-2e Meet with the drainage authority and landowners to provide educational information regarding the benefits of buffers, grassed waterways, and similar BMPs. Action 5.3-2f Evaluate locations where field-edge and intake buffers are lacking and where implementation can improve water quality. Action 5.3-2g Lead efforts to evaluate water quality issues associated with public drainage systems in the watershed. Objective 5.3-3 Minimize and address channel instability within natural waterways as a result of additional runoff due to land use changes and promote ecological value as appropriate for the type of open channel. Action 5.3-3a Identify priority reaches for stream stabilization and rehabilitation. Action 5.3-3b Conduct feasibility studies to define ways to address channel instability, bank erosion and promote ecological value. Action 5.3-3c Implement projects to repair erosion and restore stream reaches using sustainable techniques. Action 5.3-3d Provide information, resources, and examples to encourage citizens on how to improve stream bank stability by using BMPs (e.g., streambank buffers, two-stage ditches, cedar revetments, J-hook weirs, and similar practices).
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 57
5.4. Biotic Habitat
Goal: Maintain, improve and restore habitat for fish, wildlife and biota, which also provides aesthetic, recreational and related benefits including water quality improvement to the residents of the District.
Objective 5.4-1 Minimize aquatic habitat loss in streams and lakes to ensure healthy, self- sustaining fish populations. Action 5.4-1a Encourage efforts to increase water storage in the watershed including wetland restorations to more closely mimic natural water regimes. Action 5.4-1b Reduce sediment reaching the water bodies by implementing sediment reducing BMPs in the upper watersheds and consider creating sedimentation ponds to increase water retention time and settle out sediment before reaching streams and/or lakes. Action 5.4-1c Monitor and remove sediment build-up in settling ponds to ensure proper functioning of sediment basins. Action 5.4-1d Encourage the maintenance and enhancement of habitat important for fish and wildlife populations.
5.5. Wetlands
Goal: Manage wetlands in a manner which improves diversity and ecological integrity on a district-wide basis, consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act and local opportunities for preservation, enhancement, and restoration, while balancing multiple resource issues.
Objective 5.5-1 Manage wetlands and establish wetland management goals based on benchmark or reference and ecological condition. Action 5.5-1a Develop information to establish reference conditions for each wetland type for the purposes of defining high wetland quality, wetland restoration goals, and establishing replacement and credit ratios. Action 5.5-1b Use reference wetlands to evaluate, modify and improve methods currently used to characterize wetland functions and values. Action 5.5-1c Evaluate the need for a bio-monitoring program for high quality and other wetlands to better quantify existing conditions and assess the benefits of water quantity control. Action 5.5-1d Evaluate monitoring reference wetlands to determine hydrologic regimes and use data to refine wetland management efforts. Objective 5.5-2 Provide incentives to private landowners to avoid wetland impact, minimize wetland impact, and restore wetlands, while acknowledging that wetland management and the monetary value of wetlands can be based upon differing value systems. Action 5.5-2a Develop maps and other tools which identify the locations of degraded wetlands and therefore opportunities for restoration. Action 5.5-2b Encourage landowners to restore wetlands for beneficial values associated with wetlands. Action 5.5-2c Quantify values for the change in runoff volume, nutrient loads, and the reduction in sedimentation for wetland restoration and enhancement, which in
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 58
turn may be used as a financial incentive to landowners to manage wetland systems. Action 5.5-2d Evaluate alternatives for establishing inclusive management boundaries along waterways that can provide multiple benefits including wetland functions and values, floodplain management, natural resource restoration, and open space. Action 5.5-2e Sponsor and conduct workshops for local governments and landowners to communicate the opportunity for wetland restoration, clarify the process for wetland restoration, and understand the potential financial implications of restoration. Action 5.5-2f Cooperate with others to assist with controlling the spread of exotic plant species within public and private wetlands.
5.6. Education
Goal: Use education and outreach tools as an integral element within the many aspects of the operation of the District to credibly convey data and information, thereby increasing knowledge, awareness and the capacity for decision- making among the constituents of the District.
Objective 5.6-1 Develop educational materials and programs for targeted audiences including local governments, citizens, educators and other interested parties. Action 5.6-1a Offer schools service learning opportunities through restoration projects. Action 5.6-1b Conduct educational tours of BMPs and other water conservation practices being utilized within the watershed or nearby watersheds. Action 5.6-1c Utilize the CAC to engage private citizens and inform them about resource management issues and the activities. Action 5.6-1d Utilize a CAC to engage local government and state and federal agencies and inform them about resource management issues, the activities of the HLWD and opportunities to partner. Action 5.6-1e Develop, conduct, and sponsor workshops, participate in speaking engagements, and prepare press releases. Action 5.6-1f Obtain and organize testimonials from citizens implementing BMPs within the watershed to encourage other citizens to implement similar BMPs. Action 5.6-1g Consider a district-wide signage campaign for streams or other similar resources. Action 5.6-1h Continue distributing information through several channels, including keeping an up-to-date website and periodic newsletters, to keep citizens informed in a timely manner. Objective 5.6-2 Encourage landowners and cities to improve water quality, reduce runoff volume, and enhance ecological systems through the use of cost-share programs. Action 5.6-2a Encourage communities to improve water quality using a targeted education program and BMP implementation cost-sharing. Action 5.6-2b Encourage individuals to implement water quality improvement practices at their homes and businesses, using education and cost-sharing for the implementation of BMPs. Support and utilize SWCD cost-sharing programs to
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 59
encourage citizens to install BMPs for the purpose of improving water quality and reducing the volume of runoff. Action 5.6-2c Evaluate the need for additional cost-share programs to provide incentives to landowners and others responsible for resource management. Objective 5.6-3 Develop and deploy an information management system which identifies, describes, and conveys information about BMPs. Action 5.6-3a Seek funding to develop and deploy a BMP database, which includes information about the type of project, pollutant removal efficiency, and cost. Action 5.6-3b Evaluate deploying the BMP database through the web. Action 5.6-3c Use the database as a tool to communicate the benefits of BMPs implemented.
5.7. Funding
Goal: Establish a stable and sustainable funding base for implementing the goals, objectives, and actions through the programs and projects identified in this Watershed Management Plan and establish a minimum funding level for grant cost-share matching dollars to capitalize on the use of external funds.
Objective 5.7-1 Use the ad valorem levy to provide stable base funding for the most critical programs and staffing needs. Action 5.7-1a Prioritize the most important programs and confirm the base funding labels identified within this WMP. Action 5.7-1b Define the minimum staff requirements and compliment needed to maintain and operate the priority programs. Action 5.7-1c Adjust the ad valorem level (if possible by statute) to provide stable funding for the priority programs or request a legislative increase in the ad valorem levy. Objective 5.7-2 Evaluate and implement measures to become less dependent on the ad valorem levy. Action 5.7-2a Explore the options and effort needed to create a WMD or other alternative means of financing to collect revenues and pay the costs of initiated projects. Action 5.7-2b Increase the fees charged (e.g., permitting fees, inspection fees, etc.) to be consistent with the level of service provided. Action 5.7-2c Initiate assessment levies on improvements that benefit local properties as a means to pay for capital improvement and other projects. Action 5.7-2d Apply for an increasing number of local, state, and federal grants and loans. Objective 5.7-3 Evaluate and implement measures to reduce expenditures to diminish the dependence on grant money. Action 5.7-3a Create and maintain working partnerships with non-governmental organizations such as Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, etc.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 60
Action 5.7-3b Periodically assess internal operations and analyze areas where funding and efforts could be reduced or eliminated when progress toward the goal is not being achieved. Action 5.7-3c Calculate the minimum operating budget through which the HLWD can successfully operate and the budget needs from grants versus tax collections. Action 5.7-3d Assess all funded projects and determine if funding should be transferred to higher priority projects.
6. Implementation Program
6.1. Overview This WMP is implementation oriented. It establishes a relationship between resource issues, the goals and policies of the HLWD, and specific actions, programs, and projects intended to address, resolve, or conclude that a resource issue is best addressed by some other entity or left unresolved. The issues, goals, objectives, policies, and actions are placed within one of several management categories, although there is some interdependence between these categories. Section 6.4 contains a self-evaluation process which is an important component of this WMP. The evaluation process can be used as a tool to evaluate and monitor the success of WMP implementation. Information from the evaluation process can also be used to assist with responding to BWSR’s review of HLWD performance as a component of the Performance Review and Assistance Program (PRAP). The activities related to the operations, management programs, and anticipated projects of the HLWD are embodied with the Long-Range Work Plan (LRWP). The LRWP is intended to be an organization tool for use by the HLWD which is inclusive of reasonably foreseeable capital improvement projects and actions related to the operation and programs. The LRWP is intended to include the content of the HLWD’s Implementation Program and will be used periodically to update the implementation plan, including the list of proposed capital improvement projects and modifications to the various programs. Expectations are that the LRWP will be used to identify, prioritize, plan, and implement specific actions, programs, and capital improvement projects to address the resource issues. The HLWD will periodically prioritize the actions contained within the LRWP, reassess and revise the priorities for implementation, and update the probable costs. The content within the LRWP can then be used to assist with establishing the annual work plan (AWP) and budget for the upcoming year. Unforeseen items originally not included in the LRWP, but consistent with the goals and policies of the District, will be added to the LRWP on an annual basis. Similarly, priorities may be modified and some action items eliminated. The LRWP can also be used to establish priorities for three-year periods and form the basis for a Short Range Work Plan (SRWP). The SRWP can serve as a tool for planning and communicating the anticipated direction of the HLWD for a duration similar to a manager’s appointment to the board by a county.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 61
6.2. Work Plans
6.2.1. Long-Range Work Plan The LRWP (see Appendix ) is intended to serve as a management tool for the duration of the WMP. The content of the LRWP is organized by management category. The content is further classified with regard to geographic location (e.g., district-wide versus a specific subwatershed), priority for implementation, implementation timing and duration, and probable cost range. The LRWP consists of actions based upon the goals and policies within the WMP. The implementation timing provides a general frame of reference for actions and is not intended to be an absolute schedule. Many factors influence the ability to initiate and complete the items identified within the LRWP, including funding availability, the activities of partners or other interest groups, or other unforeseen circumstances. While the LRWP is based upon the goals and policies within this WMP, the content is intended to specifically address the issues identified within this WMP. The completion of assessments and/or studies will generate outcomes which will be added to the LRWP. Therefore, the LRWP also provides for the implementation of projects, programs, and activities that have been identified in past studies and assessments. Projects may be identified through future studies and will be incorporated into the LRWP according to the procedures discussed in Section 8.6, Plan Amendment Procedure.
6.2.2. Annual and Short-Range Work Plans The AWP is envisioned to be a fluid document, which may change from year-to-year according to the achievements of the HLWD, new opportunities, and emerging issues. The AWP essentially consists of those action, operation, and program-related activities within the LRWP having the highest priority, initiation, or completion within the coming year. The AWP is expected to form the basis for the operating budget, while maintaining continuity with past activities. Development of the initial AWP will follow this WMP approval by BWSR. Subsequent to this initial AWP and progress evaluation process, new actions may be added, reprioritized, shelved, or similarly addressed. According to Minnesota Statute 103D.911, a hearing is required prior to adopting a budget on or before September 15th of each year. Expectations are that the LRWP will be of value in establishing the budget for the coming year. An assessment of the accomplishments of previous years and incomplete actions will aid in determining additions to the coming year AWP. The SRWP will consist of those items within the AWP and those actions from the LRWP scheduled within the two subsequent years. The SRWP will provide a mechanism to assess projected budgets and trends, the funding needs of the HLWD, or the need to adjust priorities and the amount of work being proposed. The primary value of the SRWP is the ability to assess potential future trends in the budget needs of the HLWD. The HLWD plans to use the AWP and SRWP as tools for communicating priorities to the CAC and counties. The HLWD will use the input received to finalize actions, adjust priorities, and determine probable costs within in the AWP and the SRWP. The AWP is expected to serve as a tool for establishing a preliminary budget for certification to each of the four
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 62
counties within the HLWD. Once the AWP is established, the HLWD may consult with the CAC for coordination of potential watershed projects with local capital improvement plans.
6.3. Implementation Program The activities of the HLWD are guided by their implementation program. The implementation program of the HLWD includes the: content of this WMP, regulatory controls imposed, including operation of the permitting program, standards implemented through the permit program, education and information activities, collection and management of data and information, formal programs and activities associated with the programs, activities intended to provide solutions to address the issues and problems identified within the WMP, and general operations. This portion of the WMP describes various items comprising portions of the implementation program and along with future amendments and is intended to guide the future activities of the HLWD for the duration of the WMP. These items include a description of the general operations of the HLWD, operations related to program specific activities associated with specific management categories and capital improvement projects.
6.3.1. General Operations The general operation of the HLWD includes office operations, office administration and support, maintaining a staff complement for operating the HLWD, and the execution of the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Managers. Additional activities include assisting the Board of Managers with developing the annual budget based on the implementation plan, identifying implementation priorities, and annually reporting to the BWSR. The District Administrator is primarily responsible for the general operation of the HLWD, with the direction and ultimate oversight provided by the Board of Managers. This program began in 1970 with inception and will continue throughout the HLWD’s existence. The estimated general operation of the HLWD, if funded solely through the ad valorem levy, is listed in Table 8. The anticipated details of the General Operations are: Timeframe: Annual Determining factors: Adequate funding Person(s) responsible: HLWD Administrator Priority audience: HLWD managers, watershed residents, and government officials Estimated annual general operations expenses : o Monthly lease payment o Monthly office expenses o Legal fees o Annual audit
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 63
o Board of Managers per diem o HLWD Administrator salary and benefits o HLWD Watershed Technician salary and benefits o HLWD Resource Technician salary and benefits Estimated cost based upon a five-year average of the budget projection in Table 8: $87,684.00
6.3.2. Programs The District operates a number of programs designed to implement its mission and achieve the established goals. The HLWD also provides both monetary and technical assistance to other organizations to help conserve and protect water and natural resources. The programs, the operational aspects of these programs, and various projects (that are not capital improvement projects) by Management Category are summarized within this section. The staffing needed to operate the programs is funded by the ad valorem levy through the HLWD’s general fund. However, the projects implemented through these programs are primarily accomplished by funds generated external to the HLWD through grants. The programs are used by the HLWD to establish annual budgets and financial commitments and are reflected within the LRWP. The programs within this WMP may differ from those previously used by the HLWD. The LRWP which identifies specific programs is provided in Appendix 9.15. The approximate annual budget for each program for the next five years is presented in Table 8. Presently the HLWD relies heavily upon grants to operate the programs of the District. Table 8 shows that grants will remain important to the District in implementing future programs and the importance of revenue generated by a proposed WMD for the implementation of capital projects.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 64
Table 8. Heron Lake Watershed District Estimated 5-Year Budget and Revenue Summary
Program Type of Expense Revenue Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
General Operation Total Ad Valorem $86,608 $78,096 $85,309 $93,033 $95,374
Education Program Total Ad Valorem $80,338 $99,402 $116,220 $120,000 $123,600
Regulatory and Permit Program Salary and Wages Ad Valorem $2,407 $2,889 $3,467 $3,500 $3,500
Water Quality Improvement Program - Total Ad Valorem & Water Management $158,333 $166,069 $175,405 $176,000 $176,000 BMP Implementation District Water Quality Improvement Program - Total Ad Valorem $50,342 $55,444 $61,541 $63,500 $63,500 Surface Water Monitoring Water Quality Improvement Program - Total Ad Valorem & Water Management District $52,474 $59,484 $67,955 $67,500 $67,500 TMDL Implementation
Public Drainage System Program Total Ad Valorem $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $17,500 $17,500
Flood Damage Reduction Program Total Ad Valorem & Water Management $110,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 District Grand Total $555,502 $551,384 $599,897 $616,033 $621,974
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Expense Type Summary
Salaries and Wages $208,867 $247,554 $293,937 $296,315 $300,674
Professional Services $64,000 $14,420 $14,854 $21,000 $21,000
Operating Expenses $39,450 $40,709 $41,844 $43,718 $44,699
Program Actions $43,185 $48,701 $49,262 $55,000 $55,600
Capital Projects $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Total $555,502 $551,384 $599,897 $616,033 $621,974
Revenue Source Summary
Ad Valorem Levy $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Additional Revenue Needs (Grants / Levied Projects) $105,502 $101,384 $149,897 $166,033 $171,974 Water Management District $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 In the absence of grants and the revenue from a proposed WMD, programs and capital project implementation described by the WMP, will need to be reduced. The HLWD began and operates several programs intended to address the priority resource issues identified within Chapter 4 of the WMP. The activities of the HLWD can be broadly classified according to the type of program. The programs are associated with the daily operation of the HLWD and/or targeted to address a specific issue or issues. 6.3.2.1. Education Program A variety of educational materials, presentations, and other efforts are designed and implemented to inform watershed residents, partners, and the general public about the HLWD and its efforts to protect and improve water and natural resources. The HLWD website was created in 2007. It is used as a tool to inform the public about what a watershed is and does, provide information about pollution prevention and cost-share, incentive, and loan programs available, and provide contact information for federal and state agencies, as well as HLWD managers and staff. The web address is www.hlwdonline.org. In addition to implementation efforts, the HLWD does as much as possible to provide educational opportunities for watershed residents. Those include:
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 65
Annual newsletters: 1998 through 2005 Monthly newsletters: 2006 to present Website development: 2006 PowerPoint presentations to local groups and government entities: 1998 to present The HLWD has also hosted a multitude of educational events. Table 9 provides a list of those events.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 66
Table 9. Educational activities completed under the Heron Lake Watershed District Education Program
Year Event 1999 Drainage Law Informational Meeting 2000 Best Management Practices Workshops (3) 2001 MAWD Summer Tour (hosted) 2002 Contractor's Meeting 2003 Best Management Practices Workshops (2) 2005 TMDL Educational Seminar - 2-day Rain Garden Demonstration Sites (4) Environmental Education section at SSC High School library Watershed tour with HLWD managers Watershed tour with Murray County Commissioners and Auditor Heron Lake: Past and Present public meeting USGS Hydrology Study Results public meeting 2006 Conservation Tillage Demonstration Plot Field Day TMDL Advisory Committee meetings Rain Garden Workshops (2) Watershed Tour with PEBC Water Quality public meeting 2007 Conservation Drainage Field Day Conservation Tillage Demonstration Plot Field Day Urban BMPs public meeting Local Water Management and You workshop Walk on the Wild Side wetland tour Lawns, Lakes, and Laws public meeting 2008 BMP Program for Alba Township kickoff meeting Fulda Lakes BMP Project kickoff meeting Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) workshop Steps in Time historical tour Watershed Tour for Advisory Committee, Commissioners, and Legislators Controlling Common Carp public meeting Conservation Tillage Demonstration Plot research results workshops (2) Social Indicators Pilot Project urban and rural information meetings TMDL Study Public Involvement Committee meetings (2) 2009 Wind and Wildlife public meeting Who Wants to be a Scientist bus tour BioEnergy Impact on Rural Economies and the Environment public meeting Conservation Tillage Bus Tour Drainage Water Management Field Day TMDL Implementation Plan advisory, technical, and public meetings (10) 2010 Drainage Water Management Workshop Eco-Tour with PEBC HLWD 40th Anniversary Open House Conservation Tillage Demonstration Plot Field Day 2011 Drainage Water Management Workshop HLWD Watershed Management Plan kickoff meeting HLWD AC Meeting - Watershed Management Plan HLWD Watershed Management Plan special meeting Wildlife Habitat Workshop Sediment Reduction Demonstration Project Tour Who Wants to be a Scientist bus tour Fulda Lakes Shoreline Showcase Tour HLWD Watershed Management Plan workshop Heron Lake Tour
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 67
Programs and projects related to education are guided by various existing or future plans. The District Administrator, Resource Technician, and Watershed Technician are responsible for developing and implementing the education program. This program began in 1998 and will continue throughout the HLWD’s existence. The anticipated details of the Education Program are: Timeframe: Annual Determining factors: Adequate funding, resident interest, pertinent topic, or speaker availability Person(s) responsible: HLWD Administrator, Resource Technician, and Watershed Technician Priority audience: Watershed residents, agency personnel, and government officials Estimated annual efforts (based upon grant funded practice installation 2007 – 2011): o Two workshops o One tour o Twelve monthly newsletters o One annual report Estimated cost based upon a five-year average of the budget projection in Table 8: $107,912.00 6.3.2.2. Water Quality Improvement Program 6.3.2.2.1. Surface Water Monitoring The HLWD operates a monitoring program to gain basic data about the water quality of its water resources for use in evaluating water quality trends, and assessing the extent of water quality improvement. Water quality and quantity monitoring is guided through the Monitoring Plan and executed by the Watershed Technician with assistance from the Resource Technician and Summer Interns. The goal of the Monitoring Plan is to provide accurate and sufficient data to run the FLUX program and provide valuable information to the public. The annual HLWD monitoring program focuses on three major stream sites in the Heron Lake watershed. Approximately twenty water quality samples are taken from April to September. Stream elevation gages have been placed at each of the sites to record water levels. Discharge measurements will be taken at each of the sites by the DNR. By focusing the HLWD efforts on these main sites, the HLWD will be able to better use and interpret this data for use in the FLUX modeling system to calculate loads for each of the stream sites. Water quality monitoring for the Fulda Lakes, Graham Lakes, and Heron Lakes chain of lakes will be undertaken every third year at previously established sites to maintain the long-term record. From 1996 through 2010, funding for this program was derived from grant dollars. The HLWD was not successful in securing grant funds for the continued implementation of this program. Beginning in 2011, the HLWD will fund water quality and quantity monitoring through its general operating levy.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 68
The anticipated details of the Surface Water Quality Monitoring component of the WQIP are: Timeframe: Annual Determining factors: Adequate funding Person(s) responsible: HLWD Technician, Resource Technician, and Summer Interns Priority audience for water quality monitoring results: HLWD managers, staff, government officials, agency personnel, and the general public Parameters: Total suspended solids, total phosphorus, orthophosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate-nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, chlorophyll A, suspended volatile solids, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH, and biochemical oxygen demand Estimated annual cost based upon a five-year average of the budget projection in Table 8 : $58,865.00 6.3.2.2.2. Best Management Practices Implementation Cost-share and incentive programs for BMPs are funded by the HLWD using funds generated through grants and the general operating levy. Funding is available through this program for a variety of activities related to improving water quality, reducing runoff, and enhancing ecological resources. The Watershed Technician and District Administrator are responsible for administering these programs. The following types of BMPs were eligible under this program for funding through the CWP grant and the general operating levy. The CWP Work Plan can be found in Appendix 9.18. (See Section 7.2.1 for eligible practices under this updated WMP): CRP filter strip incentive BMP installation Waterway reseeding Wetland restoration Conserving use acre payment Rock inlet cost-share for all of Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties Farmstead and field windbreak incentive Field borders incentive (alfalfa or native grasses, five year project life), at least 50% of the acres must be highly erodible land Living snow fence incentive Food plot incentive Created wetland/flood storage/sediment basin cost- Shoreline restoration Rain garden installation Septic system incentive Well sealing for Nobles, Jackson, and Murray Counties Since completion of the previous WMP, the HLWD has been very successful in implementing a range of BMPs, as described within Table 10 and shown in Figure 15. The HLWD is presently participating in a research project funded through a grant awarded by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture in 2011. The demonstration project
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 69
is focused in part on identifying the locations of BMPs installed by the HLWD to improve water quality. A component of the grant is to estimate the water quality benefit of the projects. Expectations are that the tool when completed will be used to confirm the water quality benefits of installed practices. The anticipated details of the BMPs Implementation component of the WQIP are: Timeframe: Annual Determining factors: Adequate funding Person(s) responsible: HLWD Administrator, Technician, and Resource Technician Priority audience: Watershed landowners Estimated annual projects (based upon grant funded practice installation 2007 - 2011): o Filter strips – 200 acres o Grassed waterways – 3 projects o Terraces – 10 terraces o Shoreline restoration – 1 project o Rain gardens – 1 project o Septic systems – 20 systems o Well sealing – 5 projects o Stream restoration – 2 projects Estimated cost based upon a five-year average of the budget projection in Table 8: $176,361.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 70
Table 90. Best Management Practices implemented through the Heron Lake Watershed District WQIP
Best Management Practices Installed 1996 - 2011 Practice Unit # Units Waste Management System system 2 Waste Storage Structure structure 1 Contour Buffer Strip acres 2.1 Critical Area Planting acres 23.94 Multi-Purpose Dam structure 1 Sediment Basin/Wildlife Pond system 12 Farmstead Windbreak acres 21.42 Field Windbreak acres 71.2 Filter Strips acres 5146.74 Grassed Waterways acres 120.59 Stream Channel Stabilization acres 3.5 Structure for Water Control structure 1 Terraces structure 49 Tree Planting acres 18.7 Wildlife Wetland Habitat Management acres 0.5 Wildlife Habitat acres 235.3 Wetland Restoration acres 353.18 RIM acres 559.5 Rock Inlets structure 481 Conserving Use Acres acres 306.87 Rain Gardens structure 7 Wildlife Ponds structure 4 Septic System Incentives structure 45 Food Plot number 4 Flood Control Project/Controlled Drainage acres 20 Mulch number 1 Minimum Till acres 22,084.34 Ridge Till acres 0.00 No-Till acres 3,850.90 Strip Till acres 2,217.30 Forage Residue Management acres 444.80 Rain Gardens structure 4.00 Wildlife Pond structure 4.00 Pond Restoration and Clean Out structure 1.00 Aquatic Planting number 1.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 71
Figure 15. Best Management Practices installed through Heron Lake Watershed District programs
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 72
6.3.2.2.3. Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) After the WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan was approved, project partners believed that it was important to work together to leverage funds and resources by solidifying their commitment to the WFDMR watershed. This allows those involved to maximize resources more effectively, provide new opportunities, and establish a diverse, unique commitment. Coordination among local government units is needed to maximize the benefits of the efforts and available resources, while providing the best possible avenues to address the environmental, educational, economic, and agricultural needs of the watershed, its communities, and its residents. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan was drafted and approved by the seven counties, seven SWCDs, and HLWD that: provides a history of the project; shows the commitment to strengthen partnerships; increases the chances for receiving funding; and maximizes resources by having one application rather than several. It was also decided by the counties, the SWCDs, and the HLWD that the HLWD would be the lead agency and fiscal agent for implementation (Appendix 9.19 contains the MOA). The WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Report stated that the primary contributing sources to excess phosphorus in North and South Heron Lake were found to be divided between point sources, primarily Waste Water Treatment Facilities, and nonpoint sources, including cropland/pasture runoff and streambank erosion. Under current conditions, approximately 79 percent of the internal phosphorus loading to North and South Heron Lake is from sediment release, wind resuspension, and benthic fish represent a larger source of phosphorus than the watershed loading to the lakes. During the WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan process, the internal loading issue was recognized, but it was determined that direct actions with on-the- ground BMPs were the best avenues for addressing these problems. Decreasing the phosphorus load into the lake would be a valuable first step. The HLWD anticipates taking a lead role in the development and completion of the watershed-wide TMDL planned to begin in 2014. The HLWD plans to be actively engaged in the processes of intensive watershed monitoring, HSPF model development, and completion of the watershed-wide TMDL. Expectations are that MPCA will fund the HLWD’s involvement in leading the watershed-wide TMDL. The anticipated details of the Impaired Waters and TMDL component of the WQIP are: Timeframe: Annual Determining factors: Adequate funding Person(s) responsible: HLWD Administrator, Watershed Technician, Resource Technician, and WFDMR Watershed Coordinator Priority audience: WFDMR and Heron Lake watershed landowners Estimated annual efforts (based on grant funded efforts in 2010 and 2011):
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 73
o Monthly assistance for partners during project design and installation during the field season o Monthly assistance for partners for education efforts as needed o Two grant applications o Twelve monthly project updates Estimated cost for WFDMR Watershed Coordinator wages and benefits based upon a five-year average of the budget projection in Table 8 : $62,983.00 6.3.2.3. Regulatory and Permit Program 6.3.2.3.1. Rules and Regulations of the Heron Lake Watershed District The HLWD, in a joint effort with the Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District (O-OWD), implemented rules for stormwater and erosion control. The purpose of these rules is to afford the greatest possible protection to the water quality, flow regime, and habitat of the Heron Lake and Okabena-Ocheda watersheds. The HLWD and O-OWD adopted NPDES Phase II standards for erosion and runoff control in 2005. A copy of the current Rules and Regulations, as well as Appendix A and B, is included in Appendix 9.16. The HLWD will continue to enforce its Rules and Regulations as a matter of policy. 6.3.2.3.2. Permits and Notification The HLWD uses a notification and permit system to enforce its adopted Rules and Regulations. Permits are required for: Installation of agricultural BMPs that require land alteration including surface tile intakes, terraces, waterways, and diversions that have not been designed by the NRCS or SWCD. Installation of new surface tile intakes and catch basins. Disposal of snow within the shore impact zone. The installation or creation of impervious surface. District rules regulate impervious surfaces and the permit process is located in Appendix A of the rules. Earth moving projects involving more than 200 cubic yards of excavation or fill; or which disturbs more than 10,000 square feet of soil, and which project, or any part thereof, is located: within 300 feet of a stream, storm sewer catch basin, drainage tile intake or a wetland; or, within 1,000 feet of a lake. District rules regulating earth moving projects and the permit process are located in Appendix B of the rules. Notification is required for: Removal, conversion, or land-use change of pasture land, agricultural land, or residential, commercial or industrial sites. Construction or expansion of feedlots within the watershed. Expansion shall mean an increase in animal units or geographic size. Removal of trees, brush, or other obstructions within a watercourse, ditch, or natural drainage way. Maintenance performed by a private individual or entity to a public drainage system.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 74
The alteration or modification of, or construction activity upon, a lake shore or land located within the shore impact zone. The placement of fill, construction activity, or drainage activity within a wetland. For purposes of these rules “wetland” shall mean lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water; and possess the following attributes: (1) have a preponderance of hydric soil; (2) are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and (3) under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such vegetation. “Wetlands” shall include all wetlands as designated by the ACOE, the Wetland Conservation Act, FSA, NRCS, and/or the public waters inventory. Any change in course, current or cross section – including any modification, alteration, or change to the bed, banks, or shores – of a public water of the State of Minnesota, as listed on the public waters inventory of the applicable county. The disposal of snow within a shore impact zone or within or upon a public water. Construction projects involving the movement, removal, or disturbance of earth from land areas greater than 43,560 square feet (one acre) in size. Pumping water, either directly or indirectly, into a private or public drainage system. For purposes of this rule, the term “pumping water” shall be defined as the movement of water by artificial, natural, or mechanical means from one location to another at a rate exceeding two (2) gallons per minute, and when more than five hundred (500) gallons of water is moved in a single 24 hour period. The alteration, modification, replacement, or removal of a private bridge or culvert. For purposes of these rules, a “culvert” shall be any perforated or non- perforated tile, conduit, cylinder, tube, or pipe larger than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter. Any alteration, modification, or construction activity within the area located between the high water mark and the low water mark of a waterway, ditch, stream, river, channel, lake, water basin, water body, public drainage system, or a private drainage system which utilizes a public water or drainage system as an outlet. The installation, modification, replacement, or removal of any reservoir, catch basin, or water basin or other water impoundment structure. For purposes of these rules, the term “water impoundment structure” shall mean a man-made structure designed to retain or contain runoff water, not including natural or man-made pits or ponds in which water is collected and maintained primarily by subsurface seepage or percolation. It is a common occurrence for permit applicants to meet with HLWD staff to explain their individual circumstances and conditions surrounding their permit application. Such interaction with the permit applicants is strongly encouraged. The HLWD will continue to use the notification and permit system to enforce its adopted Rules and Regulations. It is also a policy of the HLWD to assist permit applicants with technical advice so that project function may be accomplished in the most environmentally acceptable manner.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 75
The anticipated details of the Permit aspect of the Regulatory Program are: Timeframe: Annual Determining factors: Adequate funding Person(s) responsible: HLWD Administrator and Watershed Technician Priority audience: Heron Lake watershed landowners Estimated annual permit and notification projects (based upon HLWD records): o Five permits o 75 notifications Estimated cost based upon a five-year average of the budget projection in Table 8: $3,153.00 6.3.2.4. Flood Damage Reduction Program The HLWD Flood Damage Reduction Program is focused on capital projects intended to reduce flood damages. The program is focused on providing flood protection for agricultural lands up to the 10-year and the protection of homes, important infrastructure and communities up to the 100-year flood event. Only limited activities have occurred under this program since approval of the previous WMP, primarily because of the concern about the fiscal resources necessary to implement projects. The HLWD completed a study in 1999 which identified potential flood damage reduction (i.e., storage) projects (see Figure 12). The Watershed Technician continued to pursue these projects described in the 1999 report. Upon further research of the projects, it was determined that the permitting process through DNR and Army Corps of Engineers would require substantial time and money. The Board of Managers wishes to place more emphasis on the implementation of flood damage reduction projects in the coming years. The anticipated details of the Flood Damage Reduction Program are: Timeframe: Annual Determining factors: Adequate funding Person(s) responsible: HLWD Administrator, Watershed Technician, and Resource Technician Priority audience: Heron Lake watershed landowners Estimated effort annually (based upon grant funded practice installation 2007 - 2011): o Wetland restorations – 10 acres o Alternative tile intakes – 10 intakes o Sediment basins – 2 projects Estimated cost based upon a five-year average of the budget projection in Table 8 : $82,000.00 6.3.2.5. Public Drainage System Management Program The primary role of the HLWD in managing the public drainage systems traversing the HLWD is cooperative, as the various counties are the drainage authorities within the HLWD. HLWD staff do become involved in the review of public drainage system project maintenance, repair, improvement, and establishment under MS 103D and MS 103E. The primary role of HLWD staff is the review of potential consequences of drainage system
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 76
activities. Some of the specific BMPs implemented under the WQIP are aimed at improving water quality along public (and private) drainage systems. The anticipated details of the Public Drainage System Management Program are: Timeframe: Annual Determining factors: Adequate funding Person(s) responsible: HLWD Administrator and Watershed Technician Priority audience: County drainage authorities, county engineers, and Heron Lake watershed landowners Estimated efforts: o Work with county drainage authorities, county engineers, and watershed landowners to: . Identify water quality improvement and water storage capacity projects within drainage systems . Develop project . Research project funding Estimated cost based upon a five-year average of the budget projection in Table 8 : $16,000.00
6.3.3. Capital Improvement Projects A watershed district may undertake capital improvement projects. Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) are those “larger” projects requiring considerable fiscal resources to implement and construct (e.g., larger flood control projects). Implementing these projects is expected to occur following the completion of a feasibility study, which identifies the project benefits, permit and environmental review requirements, design, and the Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. Expectations are that following the completion of a feasibility study, the District will purse external funds to construct CIPs. All or part of the cost of a capital improvement may be funded through the use of a levy in accordance with MS 103D.921 Subd. 2. After the assessment statement is filed with the auditor, each affected county provides funds to meet its proportionate share of the total cost of the project, as shown by the engineer's report and order of the managers. The potential flood control project and storage locations identified within this WMP are the probable CIPs for the HLWD. Additional CIPs may be identified within future TMDL implementation plans. The HLWD has not previously undertaken capital improvement projects due to financial limitations. However, the District desires to objectively evaluate and implement potential CIPs. The anticipated details of implementing CIPs are: Timeframe: Annual Determining factors: Adequate funding Person(s) responsible: HLWD Administrator and Watershed Technician Priority audience: Heron Lake Subwatershed Water Management District landowners Estimated annual efforts: o Project identification/location o Landowner contact
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 77
o Preliminary engineering / feasibility studies o Research project funding o Project construction Estimated cost based upon a five-year average of the budget projection in Table 8: $200,000.00
6.4. Performance Evaluation Process The HLWD plans to periodically evaluate progress toward accomplishing the goals within this WMP by assessing the extent that actions within the LRWP are completed. The basis for success will be a relative evaluation of how well the goals and policies established to address the issues presented in Section 4 translate into specific activities. These activities may be a specific project, the implementation of new programs, or other actions presented in the LRWP. Success as a whole for a specific management category can be qualitatively assessed by evaluating each action as follows: Less than 25% success (Assign a rank of 1): There is minimal or little to no activity relative to completing the action. Activity and projects being completed within the watershed are largely being done by others and tend to be only marginally related to achieving the HLWD’s goals. If collaboration exists, efforts have not moved beyond a planning or discussion stage. 25%-75% success (Assign a rank of 2): Steady and observable activity towards the completion of the action is evident. Preliminary engineering reports, feasibility studies, implementation plans, or related materials forming the basis for decision-making are in progress, or completed and the processes necessary to implement the recommendations are identified or in place. Permits and/or grant applications may be pending. County and city-level resolutions may be in progress to authorize action. Activity and projects being completed within the watershed are largely being done by the HLWD and are directly related to achieving the HLWD’s goals. If collaboration exists, efforts have moved beyond a planning or discussion stage. Greater than 75% success (Assign a rank of 3): The action is nearing completion or largely completed. Construction is beginning, in progress, or nearing completion. Programs have achieved a stable, mature state. Grant funds are fully committed on an annual basis. Implementation plans are mostly completed. Periodically evaluating success provides the Board of Managers with a mechanism to evaluate progress and make the necessary adjustments needed for improvement.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 78
7. District Authorities, Funding, and Financing
7.1. Minnesota Statute 103D Authorities
7.1.1. Ad valorem tax levies “Ad valorem” means a tax collected over an entire taxing district (e.g., a subwatershed or the entire District) based on property value “in proportion to the value” rather than the anticipated benefits received. An advantage of an ad valorem tax is that the HLWD does not need to appoint viewers/appraisers to determine benefits and divide the costs in proportion to benefits. The ad valorem tax rate is expressed as a percentage of the total value of real property. Several “funds” may be established by the HLWD and supported financially through an ad valorem tax. Organizational Expense Fund (MS 103D.905 Subd. 2) – When a watershed district is first established, or later enlarged, it may levy for an Organizational Expense Fund. The fund is to pay for organizational expenses and preparation of the WMP. Unspent funds remaining after organization and completion of the WMP may be transferred to the General Fund. The watershed district may levy only ONCE upon creation or expansion for this fund. (The HLWD may levy each time it expands, but only in the newly included area.) The amount cannot exceed 0.01596 percent of taxable market value or $60,000, whichever is less. General Fund (MS 103D.905 Subd. 3) - The purpose of this fund is to pay for general administrative expenses and for the construction, or implementation, and maintenance of projects that are of common benefit. A watershed district may levy annually for a General Fund. The ad valorem tax levy may not exceed 0.048 percent of taxable market value or $250,000, whichever is less. The amount of the annual levy for the fund must be determined and justified through the watershed district’s annual budget process (M.S. 103D.911). The managers may annually levy to pay for the cost of basic water management features of projects initiated by petition of a political subdivision within the HLWD or by petition of at least 50 resident owners whose property is within the watershed district. The annual levy cannot exceed 0.00798 percent of taxable market value for more than 15 consecutive years. Political subdivision means a county, city, township, SWCD, school district, or other political subdivision of the state, but not a watershed district. The HLWD is permitted to levy outside of the administrative levy for liability insurance. Minnesota Statute 466.06 “Liability Insurance” gives watershed districts the same authority that cities and counties have to levy in excess of their local tax rate limitation for the purchase of liability insurance. In order to exercise this authority, the HLWD must identify the liability insurance premium as a separate line in its levy certification to the county and indicate that the premium amount is being levied under MS Chapter 466.06. Survey and Data Acquisition Fund (MS 103D.905 Subd. 8) - The Survey and Data Acquisition Fund is designed to pay for making necessary surveys and acquiring data. This fund is to be established only if other funds are not available to the watershed
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 79
district. The Survey and Data Acquisition Fund is established by an ad valorem tax levy. The levy may only be collected once every five years. The maximum levy is 0.02418 percent of taxable market value of real property within the HLWD or $50,000, whichever is less. The fund balance cannot exceed $50,000. At the end of a five (5) year period, any balance remaining in the fund should be accounted for in the new levy in order to keep the fund balance below $50,000. For future projects where a survey has been paid for from this fund, the cost of the survey, as determined by the board of managers, will be included as part of the project work and the sum repaid to the Survey and Data Acquisition Fund. Emergency Projects of Common Benefit (MS 103D.615, Subd. 3) - The purpose of this levy is to pay the costs of projects that protect the interest of the watershed district when associated with a declaration of an emergency. If the work is found to be of common benefit to the watershed district, funding may be raised by an ad valorem tax levy upon all taxable property within the watershed if the cost is not more than 25 percent of the most recent general ad valorem levy of the HLWD. This ad valorem authority may be combined with assessments against benefited property in order to pay costs associated with emergency work performed without a contract.
7.1.2. Assessment Levies An assessment levy is a special tax levied on a property to pay for a local public improvement that will benefit that property. The amount of benefit is normally determined by appraisers (often called “viewers”). It is the responsibility of the viewers, not the engineer, to determine the benefits and damages to the property. The engineer is responsible for providing the technical data needed by the viewers to complete their analysis. The technical basis for the benefits may be items that include the extent to which water levels are lowered, the change in the frequency of flooding, or the anticipated increase in property value. Damages typically include the loss of crops associated with constructing a project or the acquisition of land or right-of-way. Assessment may not be levied against property or corporations in excess of the amount of benefits received. The assessments of benefits must be based upon the benefits to the property due to the project and must include: o all property receiving direct benefits, including property owned by the state or a political subdivision; o all property that is contributing water to the project (i.e., within the hydrologic boundary); o all property for which the project provides improved drainage; o all property that contributes waters that are stored, handled, or controlled by the project; o benefits to the state by reason of improvement of lakes, streams, or other bodies of water; and o situations identified by MS 103D.725. Preliminary Fund (MS 103D.905 Subd. 6) - This fund is used for preliminary work on proposed projects of the watershed district. The fund must be established by District Court. The fund can be established both for projects that are petitioned and for
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 80
projects the managers initiate. Further, the fund can be established both for projects that are to be paid for by assessment and for projects that are to be paid for by a combination of assessment and ad valorem, such as basic water management features of a project. When a project is ordered, the fund must be repaid by assessment. If a project is not ordered, repayment could be made from ad valorem. Construction Fund (MS 103D.905 Subd. 5) - The purpose of the Construction Fund is to establish an account that consists of: o the proceeds of watershed district bonds or notes or of the sale of county bonds; o construction or implementation loans from the MPCA under MS 103F.701- 103F.761 or from any agency of the federal government; o funds from special assessments, stormwater charges, loan repayments, and ad valorem tax levies levied or to be levied to supply funds for the construction or implementation of projects. This fund is the primary repository for the construction of projects. Repair and Maintenance Fund (M.S. 103D.905, Subd. 7 and 103D.631) - The purpose of this fund is to provide money for maintaining the projects of a watershed district. The cost of normal or routine maintenance of the projects and the cost of removing obstructions/foreign substances from a drainage system may be paid from the maintenance fund. Managers may assess all the parcels of property and municipal corporations previously assessed for benefits at the time of construction. The assessment must be made pro rata according to benefits determined at the time of project establishment. The collection (or levy) resulting from an assessment may be made annually. However, the fund may not exceed 20 percent of the original cost of construction of the project. Before ordering the levy, the Board of Managers may give notice of a hearing on making the assessment and establishing the maintenance fund. Emergency Projects for Benefited Property Fund (MD 103D.615, Subd3) – The purpose of this fund is essentially identical to the fund Emergency Projects of Common Benefit, with the exception that the benefiting properties are assessed.
7.1.3. Bond Sales A watershed district may establish a Bond Fund consisting of the proceeds of special assessments, storm water charges, loan repayments, and ad valorem tax levies pledged by the watershed district for the payment of bonds or notes issued by the watershed district. The fund is to be used for the payment of the principal, premium, or administrative surcharge and the interest on the bonds and notes issued by the watershed district and for payments required to be made to the federal government.
7.1.4. Funds Derived from Collection of Charges This provision allows a watershed district, through the amendment of its WMP or during an update to the WMP, the authority to establish one or more WMDs for the purpose of collecting revenues and paying the costs of projects initiated under sections 103D.601, 103D.605, 103D.611, or 103D.730.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 81
7.1.5. Funds Derived from Collection of Fees Watershed districts are allowed by law to establish fees and charges for services provided. Fees cannot be charged to the federal government, state, or a political subdivision. These fees include: Permit Fees: application fees for processing applications for a permit to do work in the HLWD. Inspection Fees: fees charged for inspection of permitted work in the HLWD. The fee is established by the hourly rate of the individual doing the inspection. Engineer Review Fees: fees charged for the review work done by the Watershed Technician at the hourly rate. Wetland Delineation Fee: a fee for determining the type and boundary of a wetland. The fee suggested in statute is $75. Some watershed districts have determined staff costs on an hourly rate and bill private individuals according to time involved in the delineation. Permit fee records should be maintained in an organized manner. The HLWD can also collect a permit performance escrow to ensure performance of permit requirements. Escrow is generally set up so that it can be calculated by a number of different variables, depending upon which are the most appropriate to the characteristics of the watershed district. Some watershed districts have set up wetland escrow accounts to cover the costs of wetland mitigation, including land acquisition, and attorney’s fees. 7.2. Water Management Districts The HLWD plans on using WMDs as one of several funding mechanisms for the implementation of activities to solve local and regional problems and issues. The provision for collection of charges (MS 103D.729 and 444.075) allows a watershed district, through the amendment of its plan or during an update to the WMP, the authority to establish one or more WMDs for the purpose of collecting revenues and paying the costs of projects initiated under MS 103B.231, 103D.601, 103D.605, 103D.611, or 103D.730. To establish a WMD, the WMP update or WMP amendment must describe the area to be included, the amount of the necessary charges, the methods used to determine the charges, and the length of time the WMD will remain in effect. After adoption, the amendment or WMP must be filed with the county auditor and county recorder of each county affected by the WMD. The WMD may be dissolved by the same procedures as prescribed for the establishment of the WMD. A distinguishing element of the WMD over an assessment, or ad valorem tax is that the watershed district assumes the authority similar to that of a municipality - the ability to establish a system of charges based a prescribed method, such as a property’s contribution of storm water and/or pollutants to a receiving body of water. Thus, funds generated by a WMD can be proportional to a problem rather than the value of the property. Ultimately the WMD provides a supplemental financing tool for the HLWD and is especially useful in situations when constituents express a desire for a mechanism of localized charges.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 82
7.2.1. Heron Lake Subwatershed Water Management District (HLSWMD) Establishment Purpose: To address long-term water quality goals for improving the water quality within Heron Lake through implementation of the WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan, to fund the Best Management Practice Implementation component of the WQIP, and to construct capital improvement projects through the Flood Damage Reduction Program that reduce sediment and phosphorus loads within the area contributing runoff to Heron Lake. The Heron Lake watershed is approximately 472-square miles in portions of Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties. The estimated size of the watershed at the outlet of Heron Lake is 444-square miles. Heron Lake has been the subject of the WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Study approved in 2008. The WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan identifies water quality issues that impact the lake and watershed, in-lake factors contributing to those issues, and sources contributing to the issues. The implementation plan set forth by the TMDL provides potential projects to improve the water quality and to reach the goals of the HLWD. The numeric goals for water quality for Heron Lake include total phosphorus concentrations less than or equal to 90 parts per billion, chlorophyll-A concentrations less than or equal to 32 parts per billion, and water transparency equal to or greater than 2.3 feet. The HLSWMD includes the 444-square mile area to the outlet of Heron Lake. The portion of the HLWD downstream from the outlet in Cottonwood County is excluded. The revenue generated by the HLSWMD will be used specifically for the purpose of implementing water quality BMPs, including water storage to reduce sedimentation, within the contributing drainage area to North and South Heron Lake. The HLWD will pursue matching grant dollars from the MPCA, DNR, BWSR and other agencies, for implementation in an effort to reduce the amount of funds generated by the HLSWMD. Projects: The WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan identifies a variety of projects required to manage and improve water quality within the WFDMR and Heron Lakes. The revenue generated through the WMD will be used to implement those projects which are the responsibility of the HLWD, through existing programs. Specifically, the revenue will be used for two “projects” which are: Best Management Practice Implementation – WQIP; and Capital projects through the Flood Damage Reduction Program. The Best Management Practice Implementation – Water Quality Improvement Program is being initiated and implemented under MS 103D.730, Stormwater Management Facilities. Various practices will be considered eligible for funding. Cost-share and incentive programs for specific practices or “BMPs” will be funded by the HLWD using funds generated through the WMD charge, grant funds, and the general operating levy. The following types of practices are eligible for funding using the revenue collected through this WMD: Filter strips Terraces Grassed waterways Wetland restorations Septic system incentives Alternative tile intakes
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 83
Field borders on highly erodible land Created wetland/flood storage/sediment basins Shoreline restorations Streambank stabilization Two-stage ditches Conservation tillage practices Rain gardens Wood chip bioreactors The revenue from the WMD will also be used to fund feasibility studies and construct capital projects with the specific purpose of reducing flooding within the priority areas in the Heron Lake Watershed District as shown in Figure 12, through the Flood Damage Reduction Program. The Flood Damage Reduction Program is being initiated and implemented under MS 103D.730, Stormwater Management Facilities. Feasibility studies only will be funded with WMD funds if the Board of Managers has first adopted an order for a potential project that includes a feasibility study and the use of WMD revenue. Following the completion of a feasibility study approved by the Board of Managers, specific capital improvement projects will be established in accordance with MS 103D.601, MS 103D.605, or MS 103D.611. Estimated Costs: Based on the historic and anticipated number of projects the maximum revenue generated for projects is $200,000 per year for a long- range (10-year) budget maximum of $2,000,000. Less revenue may be collected at the discretion of the Board of Managers if funds are successfully secured through grant funds from MPCA, DNR, BWSR, or other agencies. Area for Inclusion: The area to be included in the HLSWMD is land contributing runoff to North and South Heron Lake, but not downstream of these lakes (Figure 9.18), an area of 444-square miles.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 84
Figure 16. Area encompassed by the Heron Lake Subwatershed Water Management District (HLSWMD)
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan January 2012 - December 2021 Page 85
Methods for Determining Charges: The charge will be in proportion to the amount of runoff and sediment generated by a parcel relative to the total runoff volume and sediment load, respectively within the HLSWMD. The method to determine the charge per parcel will be based on the amount of runoff generated by a parcel as an indicator of the contribution to the downstream conveyance system, as well as the relative sediment and phosphorus yield. The calculations will be based upon the type of land cover and soils for each parcel. The process of estimating the amount of runoff volume and sediment yield contributed by a parcel will consist of: Use of curve numbers and the annual average precipitation depth to compute the annual runoff volume for each parcel; Use of the sum of the annual average runoff volumes for all parcels within the HLSWMD to determine the total annual runoff volume; Compute the annual average sediment load from each parcel using the annual average runoff volume multiplied by an average annual sediment concentration; Use of the sum of the annual sediment loads for all contributing parcels within the HLSWMD to determine the total annual sediment load; Use of the sum of the annual sediment load and runoff volume for each parcel. By dividing the sum by the total annual sediment load and runoff volume for all parcels within the HLSWMD, a “charge ratio” can be derived. The charge ratio will then be applied to the total amount of revenue needed for the HLSWMD to carry out the projects, programs and activities of the HLWD within the HLSWMD. This charge will allow for a credit for water quality and volume control BMPs if requested by the landowner. A maximum annual per parcel charge of up to $24.00 will be imposed. If the annual budget exceeds the funds derived from charges, the excess will be made from other funding mechanisms or a reduction in the number of implementation projects planned Lands in good permanent cover where it can be documented by the landowner that the amount of runoff and sediment load is at background levels within the HLS- WMD may be considered exempt from the stormwater charge on a case-by-case basis. Duration: The HLSWMD will be effective for a 10-year period. No later than two years prior to the termination of the 10-year period, the HLWD will determine the necessity to maintain the HLSWMD. If the HLSWMD is desired beyond the 10-year period, the HLSWMD will be addressed in a subsequent WMP.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 86
8. Watershed Management Plan Administration
This section provides detailed information on HLWD WMP administration. It defines the roles of the HLWD and other agencies in the implementation process and a process to resolve intergovernmental conflict. WMP amendment and evaluation procedures are also defined.
8.1. Use of Guidance Documents in this Watershed Management Plan
8.1.1. General Intent The HLWD intends for the WMP to be actively utilized in guiding annual and long-term work efforts. This WMP provides the structure and rationale for the development and utilization of Guidance Documents as a tool to incorporate elements into this WMP by reference. Expectations are that the primary guidance documents will be related to implementing TMDLs (e.g., a TMDL implementation plan) or engineering feasibility reports for capital projects, which are consistent with the goals and policies of this WMP. Thus this WMP has been structured to afford the District the highest degree of long term flexibility to develop or modify technical details into this WMP by reference, in the face of emerging issues and regulations, while maintaining clarity as to management intentions and expectations. Given the existing issues discussed in this WMP, the HLWD recognizes that considerable work remains in the watershed to manage water related issues. The WMP provides the framework to implement this work by identifying issues, action items, and project areas. Products and outcomes of the work efforts are not considered significant changes to the WMP. They are results that will be incorporated into HLWD administration as Guidance Documents.
8.1.2. Criteria and Incorporation Process Not all studies, reports, documents or publications prepared by the HLWD will be considered Guidance Documents for supporting the WMP. Because of the anticipated significance of a Guidance Document in providing long-term assistance towards addressing an issue or topic, such studies, publications, or similar work products are expected to meet certain criteria: The product must have a direct relationship with the WMP content. The relationship may be identified as an overlap with issues, policies / actions, programs, or more broadly, a management area. The product must follow due diligence during development to include a formal public involvement process in accordance with MS 103D or MS 103E. The product content should provide adequate specificity in describing desired processes, outcomes, or recommendations so that implications of the proposed Guidance Document are clear to the Board and others. Any product proposed as Guidance Documents must be formally accepted by and approved by the HLWD Board and the record shall indicate the intent to incorporate the findings into this WMP as a Guidance Document. When requesting acceptance by the Board, the HLWD Administrator will make the board aware that the product is intended to serve as a Guidance Document, and generally state conformance with the criteria. Similarly, updates or adjustments to established Guidance Documents are anticipated to have Board approval.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 87
CIPs proposed in a Guidance Document and if necessary, approved as a WMP amendment, shall be programmed into the AWP and Budget for implementation as well as the LRWP. The HLWD Board shall determine the priority of any proposed projects based on data specific to the issue provided in the Guidance Document and the policies of the WMP. Access to established Guidance Documents will be provided through the HLWD’s website. The HLWD will maintain a distribution list of agencies and individuals who have received a copy of the notice and will distribute notices within 30 days of Guidance Document update or availability.
8.2. Watershed Management Plan Coordination In order to implement the actions identified in this WMP, the HLWD intends to work closely with the CAC, local, state, and federal government agencies, and watershed residents.
8.3. Watershed Management Plan Implementation As noted in Section 6.1, this WMP is intended to be implementation oriented. The HLWD is positioned for successful WMP implementation by the establishment of clearly linked resource issues, goals and policies, and specific action items. Seven management areas have been defined through which the HLWD will work to execute the WMP. The HLWD will utilize a LRWP to identify, prioritize, and prepare for HLWD implementation activities. The LRWP consists of the action items articulated in Chapter 5. The LRWP (see Appendix 9.15) defines a probable implementation timeframe as well as an estimated index for successive years’ budget. (Information on watershed financing is found in Section 6.3.2). The LRWP will generally guide HLWD activities for the foreseeable future. However, it is anticipated that the LRWP will be periodically reviewed and updated. The HLWD will annually prioritize work activities from the LRWP which will constitute the targeted efforts for the coming year. These work activities represent the annual work plan for the HLWD. The intent of the AWP is to provide flexibility to address emerging issues or new opportunities. Thus, priorities set for items in the LRWP can be modified during development of annual work plans. Unforeseen items not on the LRWP can be added to the AWP.
8.4. Watershed Management Plan Schedule Implementation of the WMP will begin with its adoption by the board of managers and final approval from BWSR. The WMP will remain in effect for a ten-year period which is specified as December 2011 to December 2021.
8.5. Intergovernmental Conflicts/Resolution Process During plan development, no intergovernmental conflict occurred. Should such a conflict arise, the board of managers will attempt to mitigate the conflict. If efforts to resolve the conflict fail, a petition to conduct a contested case hearing will be submitted to BWSR.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 88
8.6. Watershed Management Plan Evaluation Periodic review is necessary to assess the success of this plan. The board of managers and CAC will conduct a review every two or three years to ensure the management strategies remain pertinent. Amendments will be recommended if needed.
8.7. Watershed Management Plan Revision and Amendment Procedure
8.7.1. General Approach The HLWD has carefully considered its long term goals and needs extending through the effective date of this WMP. Should an amendment be required based on perceived significant changes involving goals, objectives, standards, administrative procedures, or capital improvements, it will require a thorough review process as described below. The HLWD may revise its WMP through an amendment prior to a WMP update if minor changes are required or if problems arise that are not addressed in the WMP. However, this WMP, the authorities, and the official controls of the HLWD will remain in full force and effect until a WMP revision is approved by BWSR. All amendments to this WMP will follow the procedures set forth in this section, or as required by Minnesota laws and rules (as revised). WMP amendments may be proposed by any person, city or county to the HLWD board, but only the HLWD Board may initiate the amendment process. All recommended WMP amendments must be submitted to the HLWD in writing, along with a statement of the problem and need, the rationale for the amendment, and an estimate of the cost. The HLWD recognizes that the WMP may need to be periodically amended to remain useful as a long-term planning tool. However, the structure and intent of this WMP provides flexibility to respond to short-term emerging issues and opportunities. The structure is provided by the use of guidance documents, concise identification of broad issues in Chapter 4, and related goals and actions in Chapter 5 (which are captured in the LRWP). The HLWD will review and revise its LWRP/implementation program through the HLWD AWP and budget (described in Chapter 6) as well as through evaluation of the LRWP. Technical information (especially water quality data) will require periodic updating, such as when new site specific data are generated. The HLWD intends to post this updated information on the HLWD website (www.hlwdonline.org), with hard copies available upon request. Technical information produced through studies and contained in reports will be incorporated as an extension of the overall Plan through the acceptance of the report as a guidance document, also to be posted to the HLWD website. A report, study, or other written document can only be considered a guidance document if subject to a formal public review process in accordance with the requirements of 103D or 103E. Generally these technical updates and studies which are guidance documents are considered part of the normal course of HLWD operations consistent with the intent of this Plan and not a trigger for a WMP amendment. However, when a guidance document results in an action or policy that is a significant change of direction from the WMP, or implementation of a capital improvement project not identified in the WMP (or not in sufficient detail), a WMP amendment may be required.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 89
The HLWD will keep records of all changes and supplemental data and will, as required for clarity, republish the guidance documents or portions thereof from time to time to provide an updated document for referral by the cities and others.
8.7.2. Amendments to Watershed Management Plan 8.7.2.1. Criteria and Format The HLWD recognizes that considerable work remains in the watershed to manage water related issues. The WMP provides the framework to implement this work by identifying issues, action items, and project areas. Neither a minor nor a general WMP amendment will be required for the following situations: 1. The estimated cost of an activity/study (i.e., non-capital project) is different than shown in the long-range work plan; and 2. The HLWD adds or deletes activities and/or studies to/from the long-range work plan, provided these additions or deletions are consistent with the goals and policies of the WMP, and will be proposed, discussed and adopted as part of the HLWD’s annual budgeting process or some other process which involves public input. If an amendment is needed, the HLWD will prepare plan amendments in a format consistent with Minnesota Rule 8410.014026, Subd. 4, unless a different format is approved by BWSR. The rule requires that, unless the entire document is reprinted, all amendments adopted must be printed in the form of replacement pages for the WMP, each page of which must: (a) Show deleted text as stricken and new text as underlined (for draft amendments being considered); (b) Be renumbered as appropriate; and (c) Include the effective date of the amendment. The HLWD will maintain a distribution list of everyone who receives a copy of the WMP. Within 30 days of adopting an amendment, the HLWD will distribute copies of the amendment to everyone on the distribution list. Generally, the HLWD will provide electronic copies of the amendment or make the documents available for public access on the HLWD website. Printed copies will be made available upon written request, and printed at the cost of the requester.
8.7.2.2. Minor Watershed Management Plan Amendments The minor WMP amendment process is more streamlined than the general plan amendment process. Although no comprehensive criteria are set forth for what constitutes a minor amendment, Minnesota Rule 8410.0020, Subpart 10 gives the following examples of minor plan amendments: “...items such as recodification of the WMP, revision of a procedure meant to streamline administration of the WMP, clarification of the intent of a policy, the inclusion of additional data not requiring interpretation, or any other action that will not adversely affect a local
26 Although this rules pertains solely to Metropolitan Watershed Districts, the content of that rule is used here as guidance for the preparation of amendments to this WMP.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 90
unit of government or diminish a water management organization’s ability to achieve its WMP’s goals or implementation program.” A minor WMP amendment will be required for the following situations: 1. When the HLWD initiates a capital project based on an action listed in the LRWP and the HLWD proposes a new financing approach or method other than an HLWD ad valorem levy, HLWD cost share, HLSWMD, or HLWD bonding; 2. Addition of new goals or actions or revision of existing goals or actions that will require revision of the HLWD rules and regulations; 3. Changes to the goals and/or actions that directly affect the programs or budgets of other local units of government within the HLWD; and 4. When the HLWD initiates a capital project listed in the LRWP and the updated cost estimate is: (a) $500,000 or less, and the increase is more than $200,000 higher than the estimated costs in the LRWP (as annually adjusted); or (b) More than $500,000, and the increase is more than 60% higher than the estimated costs shown in the LRWP (as annually adjusted). In addition, the HLWD will consider certain changes (beyond those changes listed in Section 8.6.2.1) to its itemized program of actions contained in the LRWP to be minor WMP amendments if both of the following conditions are met: 1. The original WMP setting forth the itemized program of actions did not provide enough specificity or information needed for one, some, or all actions to meet the definition of “capital improvement program” as provided in Minnesota law. 2. The affected county does not object to the HLWD when a project was identified in the last AWP. County approval is needed only if the HLWD proposes to use county bonding to fund projects. The HLWD will follow the following review process for minor WMP amendments: 1. The HLWD will send copies of the proposed minor WMP amendment to the affected cities, townships and counties, the state review agencies, and BWSR for review and comment. 2. The HLWD will hold a public meeting, which may be a Board meeting, to explain the amendments and publish a legal notice of the meeting twice, at least 7 days and 14 days before the date of the meeting. The HLWD will also post the notice of the public meeting on the HLWD website and mail the notices to each affected city, township and county. 3. If the proposed amendment is a minor amendment to the HLWD capital improvement program and the project proposes county bonding as the funding method, Nobles, Cottonwood, Jackson and Murray Counties must approve the minor amendment. 4. BWSR must either agree that the amendment is minor or fail to act within 45 days of receipt of the amendment.
8.7.2.3. General Watershed Management Plan Amendments If HLWD or the BWSR decides that a general WMP amendment is needed, the HLWD will follow the general WMP amendment process described in Minnesota rules and laws.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 91
The general WMP amendment process is as follows (and is the same as the WMP review process): 1. The HLWD must submit the amendment to the HLWD cities, Nobles, Cottonwood, Jackson and Murray Counties, the state review agencies (the DNR, MPCA, MDA, and Minnesota Department of Health), and BWSR for a 60-day review; 2. The HLWD must respond in writing to any concerns raised by the reviewers; 3. The HLWD must hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment; 4. The HLWD must submit the revised amendment to the state review agencies and the BWSR for a 45-day review; and 5. The HLWD must submit the final revised amendment to the BWSR for approval. The HLWD will consider sending drafts of proposed general WMP amendments to all WMP review authorities to receive input before beginning the formal review process. Examples of situations where a general WMP amendment may be required include: 1. Establishment of a WMD (or more than one district) to collect revenues and pay for projects initiated through MS 103D.601, 605, 611 or 730 when not currently included in the WMP. To use this funding method, Minnesota law (MS 103D.729) requires that the watershed district prepare an amendment to its WMP. The amendment must describe the area to be included in the WMD, the amount to be charged, the methods used to determine the charges, and the length of time the WMD will remain in force; 2. Addition of a capital improvement project that is not included in the LRWP and is not identified in the WMP’s discussion of issues, policies, or goals; and 3. Addition of new HLWD programs or other initiatives that have the potential to create significant financial impacts or controversy.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 92
9. Appendices
9.1. Citizens Advisory Committee Members
Albert Burmeister 42772 850th Street, Lakefield, MN 56150 Robert Dieter 20697 Sundberg Avenue, Brewster, MN 56119 Scott Nelson 727 Lake Court, Worthington, MN 56187 Rosemary Schulz PO Box 426, Lakefield, MN 56150 Paul Hovland 89499 420th Avenue, Heron Lake, MN 56137 Allen Jensen 89133 380th Avenue, Heron Lake, MN 56137 Charlie Loosbrock PO Box 98, Wilmont, MN 56185 Clarence Madsen PO Box 175, Okabena, MN 56161 Ron Kuecker 650 21st Street, Windom, MN 56101 Gordy Olson 405 4th Street, Jackson, MN 56143 Bill Sauer 234 210th Avenue, Fulda, MN 56131 Dean Schumacher 711 Chapman, Heron Lake, MN 56137 Wayne Smith Box 187, Worthington, MN 56187 Chris Hansen PO Box 57, Slayton, MN 56172 Marv Zylstra 17665 Paul Avenue, Worthington, MN 56187 Ed Lenz 1567 McMillan Street #3, Worthington, MN 56187 Brian Nyborg 603 South Highway 86, Lakefield, MN 56150 Howard Konkol 2740 22nd Street, Slayton, MN 56172 Kay Clark 339 9th Street, Windom, MN 56101 Mark Bartosh 13096 Wass Avenue, Dundee, MN 56131 Mark Hiles 261 Highway 15 S., New Ulm, MN 56073 Katherine Pekarek-Scott 1420 E. College Dr. #900, Marshall, MN 56258 Randy Markl 175 County Road 26, Windom, MN 56101 Tom Kresko 175 County Road 26, Windom, MN 56101
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 93
9.2. HLWD Watershed Management Plan Kickoff Meeting
9.2.1. HLWD March Newsletter
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 94
9.2.2. Memo to CAC Members
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: HLWD Advisory Committee Members
FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator
DATE: March 29, 2011
HLWD Watershed Management Plan As you may recall from information presented at the annual meeting in December 2010, the advisory committee will meet more frequently in 2011. The HLWD will be updating the Watershed Management Plan (Plan). This Plan will be used to focus the conservation efforts within the watershed. Your input and assistance in this process is invaluable.
The Plan kickoff meeting will be held on Thursday, April 7 at 7:00 p.m. at the Heron Lake Community Center. Your attendance at this event would be greatly appreciated. The advisory committee will be reviewing the public input gathered at this meeting and determining effective means to address concerns.
Thank you for your service to the HLWD. I look forward to seeing you on April 7.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 95
9.2.3. Kickoff Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 96
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 97
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 98
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 99
9.2.4. Kickoff Meeting Minutes
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Kickoff Meeting Thursday, April 7 at 7:00 pm Heron Lake Community Center, Heron Lake, Minnesota
Attendance Mark Hiles, BWSR; Albert Burmeister; LeRoy Peterson; Bill Sauer, Murray County; Ed Lenz, Nobles SWCD; Mike McCarvel, HLWD; Rick Penning; Al Langseth, Nobles County; Dean Stenzel; Jack Beardsley, HLWD; Marv Zylstra, Nobles County; Dale Bartosh, HLWD; Katherine Pekarek-Scott, MPCA; Bob Dieter; Brian Nyborg, Jackson SWCD; Rosemary Schultz, Jackson County; Dave Henkels, Jackson County; Jim Buschena, HLWD; Allen Jensen; Rob Baden, Ducks Unlimited; Andrew Olson; Don Gentry; Jerry Christopherson; Paul Hovland; Joel Hovland; Tony Thompson; Sonja Buller; Jan Voit, HLWD; Ross Behrends, HLWD; Lauren Michelsen, HLWD; and Alyson Buschena, HLWD Presentation Jan Voit welcomed the attendees and introduced Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) managers and staff. She explained the agenda and process for public comment. Mark Hiles, Board of Water and Soil Resources, provided information regarding the statutory requirements for watershed management plans, as well as historical information about HLWD’s planning efforts, and the process that will be followed during the plan update process. Jan Voit presented data about stakeholder involvement, focus of the plan, watershed issues, and current implementation, monitoring, and education activities. She also described the public comment process. Public Comment Paul Hovland: Cottonwood County has implemented something so we have to put growth out there along stream and ditch edges and you can’t farm to the edge. I talked to Ron from Cottonwood County and they finally put some teeth in it to enforce those rules. Jerry Christopherson: Who would be the enforcer? Jan Voit: I can’t speak to that. I would assume the county. Brian Nyborg: It is being enforced as they do redeterminations and that process has been three ditches per year roughly for the last three years. Jackson County has what, 88 ditches or something like that; I know it’s a large number. Dave Henkels: Is there a problem with them not being enforced? Jerry Christopherson: I don’t know. I just asked if they were being enforced. Dave Henkels: As far as I know they are. If there are any complaints, I would like to hear them. I know in that respect, the county enforces the ditches and county roads for sure. That goes along with what you’re talking about and is a big problem. Jerry Christopherson: Like county roads, Dave, how do they enforce that?
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 100
Dave Henkels: There’s an ordinance and a violation and a fine for violating. Of course, you don’t want it to get to that point. You serve notices first. Bill Sauer: The ditch system has to acquire that one rod right of way. You can’t just take it from a farmer. Whenever we do a major improvement on a ditch, we make sure we take that rod. And if they end up planting on it, we just come in and cut it down and you only have to do that once. It’s hard to do on the old ditches, but we don’t allow them to lean a disc over the ditch. We send them letters telling them to stay back. And as soon as we do a major repair to a ditch or something like that or a clean out, then we’ll go around and get it appraised and the ditch system acquires the land then. We should have done it twenty years ago when land wasn’t quite so high. Paul Hovland: Isn’t there money available to do that, though? Brian Nyborg: Yeah under the Clean Water Fund we have a sign up for one hundred foot. It’s pretty competitive, the payment rates are competitive but it’s available. We pay for the crop land and the non-crop is donated. The easement starts at the edge of the water. Dale Bartosh: This winter I came across a report on streambank erosion that was pretty amazing. I’ve witnessed this in my life time and I’ve often wondered why no one has picked up on it. I don’t have the exact numbers but there is a very high percentage of soil that moves and comes off of streambank erosion. Something that I don’t think any of us has control over. When we talk about turbidity, it’s something we better take a look at. Because you can point fingers but you have to figure out where it’s at. Bob Dieter: I have the same concern too – streambank erosion. We’ve got a quarter along Jack creek and that pasture was an S curve. It a straight channel now. Jerry Christopherson: The reason it’s cutting that bank out now is you’re getting more water and its coming faster. That’s what it’s doing. Albert Burmeister: Ditches on the east side of Heron Lake that come into the south side of Heron Lake were dug way too deep in the first place. When you dig a county ditch and go under a county tile and the water comes out of the county tile, runs thirty feet, and then goes back into the county tile, there’s no damn sense to that. That’s no lie. It’s right beside the road and you can see it from sitting in the car without getting out. Ridiculous. They clean them out and there’s more dirt that goes in and it’s all in Heron Lake. Rob Baden: Does the watershed do any kind of controlled drainage water demonstrations or monitoring of tiling that’s being put in? One of our biggest issues we have is more water essentially coming at a quicker rate. Essentially the controlled drainage is keeping the water on the land in the spring. Is there any programs addressing that right now? Jan Voit: The HLWD implemented one controlled drainage demonstration project in Wilmont 33. That project was done in 2008 and 2009. There are no projects underway right now. LeRoy Peterson: In regard to the size of the ditches and this business of bank erosion: it becomes obvious that when they first started putting ditches in, they were too narrow. In order to make them wider, it required more land. It’s a good idea to get them wide enough but if you’re going to make them wide enough, you need more money and land is more expensive. The whole business of tiling is dependent on the ditch or the stream that you’re able to empty the tile into. When the whole thing began, apparently no one was concerned about the water going into those ditches and streams. Or the whole process could have been hinged on if you were going to tile,
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 101 there had to be enough land given up to provide adequate width to the ditches to avoid eroding the bank. The other aspect of that is the idea we have that we going to hold water here, there, and everywhere and release it at just the right time. It can’t be done. The only way to stay ahead of it is for the water to be unimpeded year round. Let’s say this water had been running all winter. Then you’re down to some sort of level that isn’t going to become excessive. Paul Hovland: I’m sure that’s a problem in Heron Lake, per se because we have these tributaries all coming in. Because they’ve all been improved to move more water and nothing’s been done to get rid of it. LeRoy Peterson: That’s right. On Shell Lake, that has a big effect on water quality. If the water coming in can go out then you have an exchange going. The quality will be better, the water will be lower and you’ll have more emergent vegetation and better vegetation. I picked up an article in the Cottonwood County Citizen from 1980. There was a meeting at that time attended by seven hundred some people regarding the watershed district and the policy toward Heron Lake. The money was available at that time and obviously they decided what could be done. I think anyone that’s been involved in this Heron Lake process is familiar with the McCombs-Knutson study that was done and a report was made. And as soon as it came out it was trashed by the DNR and anyone else involved and I think including the watershed district because its recommendation was to improve the outlet of the lake and that wasn’t the thing to do. It could have been done 30 years ago but it couldn’t be done now. Dave Henkels: You're saying the outlet has to be improved? And water has to be moved quicker? Paul Hovland: Yes. It has to get out quicker and if you move water quicker, it’s not going to blow up and flood everything. Dave Henkels: But that’s only going to make it worse downstream if you make it exit quicker. Paul Hovland: My point is, right now, if you look at it, which I’m sure you have or you have had the opportunity, before it goes in to go down the river. Dave Henkels: Like the natural flow? Paul Hovland: Well, I don’t know what it is or how it’s been designed, or whatever. But somebody designed it so that our water can’t get out to the lake. And then when that water is gone, then our water takes off. Dave Henkels: That’s never been designed, it’s just the way it’s gone. There’s been no a design. LeRoy Peterson: The melting of the glaciers is what designed it in the first place and it worked fine until we messed with it. Joel Hovland: Doesn’t that just move all the problems downstream? If you get that water moving faster, you’re just dumping more phosphorus downstream. Marv Zylstra: I think I’ve brought up residue management before at meetings. If we’re producing bigger yielding crops, with prices where they are, we need to get rid of residue. I know today, going to Lakefield, there were some fields that were as black as they could get it. And I guess the next thing is still the corn stalks. I think the HLWD needs to continue efforts in reside management and the programs that focuses on residue management. Tony Thompson: I just recently attended the watershed summit at the arboretum a few weeks ago. Several hours of testimony were given from Red River Valley participants. The conclusion
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 102 was they spent a good part of the century figuring out how to divert water and huge amounts of money and it’s only angered people up and down stream. They decided instead that was a wrongheaded approach. Instead of a silver bullet they are now looking for silver buckshots, working on many, many small projects; starting right where the rain drop hits the soil. And I would like to commend the watershed on their work. Bob Dieter: I don’t want to put a clinker in the fire, but Progressive Magazine said that those rollers that we’re using now, that’s the worst thing we could do. You get springs where all that residue is blowing across the fields and ending up in the ditches. Andy Olson: We have had problems where residue has happened and ended up in the ditches. Mike McCarvel: One of the things I see that we continually need is people’s support as we look towards trying to improve the quality of water and finding places along the way, particularly as far upstream as we can, where we can store some of this water. There used to be pastures and more fields that were available when flooding comes that water would stand in those areas. We’ve tried. It’s the old adage: Water can stand, but not on my land. I understand, I’m a farmer too and I understand the schematics. But there are places where it never does dry out. We should figure out ways to hold that water back and be able to improve water quality and then supposedly meter it out as it goes along. We won’t be able to do that on every big rain, but at the same point we’ve opened up all these streams each time we put in more roads or bridges to allow the stream course to flow quicker and exacerbate the problem. It’s difficult to go back now and change that. If we all would have seen what was going to happen, we probably would have done things differently. It’s taken us a while to get where we at and it’s going to take us a while to get back to where we want to be. The key thing is convincing neighbors if they aren’t getting anything out of the land, to put that land aside. You aren’t getting anything out of that crop anyway if two out of three years it drowns out. Let’s set that aside in some kind of program, and there are programs available for some of them that we can use. We need to try to work on holding that water back and larger quantities of water, not just a little pond here or there. Andy Olson: How many years has the watershed existed? Jan Voit: 41 Andy Olson: You’ve had a lot of time to work on the issues here. In my observation, I have not seen the water quality improve here. I’ve seen it degenerate. I really believe the DNR is culpable in this situation with the cork dam. You can’t flush the toilet. It gets worse. I would just like to say that maybe for all concerned it would be best to disband the HLWD and not try to figure out something that isn’t going to work as long as we’ve got the cork in the lake. It would save money for a lot of people. There’s been millions spent here. They’ve tossed around 18 million and that was a number of years ago and what did it accomplish? Dave Henkels: Jan, do you have those charts available that show the water quality improvements that have been made? Jan Voit: We’re not going to talk about the dam, because we have no control over it. Andy Olson: It affects the entire watershed. Jan Voit: The dam has no effect on flooding. We have no jurisdiction over it. The purpose of this meeting and the watershed plan is to focus our efforts in the watershed where we can make a difference.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 103
Ed Lenz: I just wanted to mention that a lot of the BMP practices that HLWD works on and levies money for is small little pieces that are helping the watershed one piece at time. But as one piece goes into the watershed to improve something, you have someone taking 40 acres of pasture out, putting it into production, and tiling it. So if it wasn’t for these little pieces going into the watershed, we’d be at a loss. It would be worse than what it is currently. Keep in mind that if the watershed hadn’t been here, we’d still have the DNR to deal with; we’d still have everyone else. Every piece that the watershed has done is an improvement for the watershed, an improvement for the area. It’s a great resource to have here and I think we want it to continue. It’s a great resource for us at the district. Bob Dieter: I was on the first watershed board and we tried to put in dams upstream and it got into politics and that’s where it ended. Ross Behrends explained the 2009 water quality data for phosphorus and turbidity. Dave Henkels: What jumps out at me in these two charts is the Heron Lake Outlet. Look back at Okabena and Jack Creek’s high levels of phosphorus. What is it about Heron Lake? When that water reaches the outlet, it’s clean. No matter what levels of phosphorus go in to it, look at it. Why is it? Heron Lake is doing its job. And also, in defense of Mr. Olson, we could go back to that level of phosphorus going into that lake and we have really cemented that the outlet is really cleaning it up. So why have the procedures we’ve done to clean up the water really not done anything? The water leaving that lake in the outlet is basically the same as when it was in the creeks. Mike McCarvel: What you’re saying is the phosphorus gets re-circulated into the lake water and comes back into some of these phosphorus readings of the lake. But the phosphorus that is there and that has been there however long the lake has been taking water in, still has all that stuff in there. And it keeps getting, whether its carp or whether it’s something else, stirred back up and re-entered in the readings. Dave Henkels: But isn’t it because at the outlet the phosphorus levels have been the same over the years? So how is that affecting the lake? You tell me that. When the lake is full of phosphorus, what difference is that to the lake? Mike McCarvel: I’d say that maybe you would see more significant drop in water leaving that lake if there wasn’t as much phosphorus going into the lake right now. Dave Henkels: But you didn’t see that back in 2009. Ross Behrends: I see twice as much phosphorus, that’s what the chart shows. Jerry Christopherson: It’s got a lot to do with how the plants got it tied up out there and the vegetation you’ve got out in the lake system. The more vegetation, I would say, yeah, when that plant dies, it releases that phosphorous back into the water or back into the system. Marv Zylstra: It’s more than likely contained in the silt that is in the lake. Paul Hovland: It’s just like if you have a slurry system and never clean the bottom of it. How can it ever get clean? I’m sorry, it may not be an issue perhaps, but I think it totally is. Rob Baden: The only way to really clean that bottom is to draw it down essentially. That’s what we’ve been lacking, in my opinion, in Heron Lake in the past thirty or forty years. The water that
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 104 we’re putting into it is saturated with phosphorus already; it will get bound up in that soil if we dry it out. That’s what we’re missing in the system. We haven’t had any dry years. Joel Hovland: I’m just curious, have there been any studies done or any data gather how much tiling has been done in the last decade? Jan Voit: No Joel Hovland: I really think we need to look at the watershed, this big map, all of this area, and all the pattern tiling that’s being put in and all this water that’s coming in. We gotta look more at that. And where the issues are coming from and why it’s getting worse. I think, in my opinion, is that we need the HLWD. We need some other agency involved, because there’s grant money out there. There are things that can be done, but other state agencies probably aren’t going to do it because it isn’t in their best of interest. I’m the fifth generation out there on Heron Lake. Our farm is on Heron Lake. In the years I’ve been alive, it’s changed and we need someone like the HLWD who is local and who’s going to fight for the improvement of the watershed. Tony Thompson: I don’t know how many people have seen the research that’s going on with two stage ditches, but there are several that have been installed in Lamberton and in northern Minnesota in the Red River Valley. Rather than having the typical drainage ditch with a steep trapezoid that really wasn’t designed to meet flow rates, there are now two-stage ditches which are essentially a notch at the bottom of a created flood plain. We’ve been told we need to maintain two rods of filter strips adjacent to fields but that really isn’t enough. What’s now being done is that a ditch design that has a little notch at the bottom which has a flood plain engineered right into it so the water, during flood events, isn’t striking into creeks with meanderings and with basically the larger cross section being designed to handle floods. This design turns ditches back into creeks essentially. And of course vegetation is planted in them so that when there is a flood event, it prevents the sides from eroding. Does the HLWD have any plans for two-stage ditches? Jan Voit: Two-stage ditches will probably have to be a discussion item in the advisory committee meetings. LeRoy Peterson: That sort of thing happens in a natural creek. The bottom of the creek gets down in the sand and gravel and that’s where we like to keep the water running. Above that, you’re moving the top soil again and that’s where the top soil gets washed out. As Tony says, the idea is to keep the water moving, not holding it back someplace. We’ve been holding it back in Heron Lake for a long, long time. It’s no wonder it’s full of silt and the silt is full of phosphorus. Talking about the melting of the glacier, there certainly was water out of the banks when that glacier was melting. Even though the land wasn’t farmed, it would still cut in and carry silt. But thankfully, in those days, the silt kept going as all the water did and it ended up in the Mississippi river and went to the Mississippi delta and that in fact is what built the Mississippi delta. And it should still be going there. The water should still be allowed to go straight through to the Mississippi delta and not trapped in places in Heron Lake. Dave Henkels: You’ve been talking about tile. I think more focus needs to be put on rock inlets out there. Most of the water problems are coming from open tile intakes. You’d be surprised how much silt would be kept on the ground that way. If we could eliminate open tile intakes, we’d take care of a lot of the silt. They aren’t popular with everyone. People like to see the water sucking down deep holes thinking it’s getting away. Well, it is. But if you look at them, there is
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 105 dirt that’s being washed away too. You should approach the counties and the townships. Think of how many there are in the township ditches. Jerry Christopherson: When they put in open intakes, are there any requirements – do they have to have vegetation around them? Paul Hovland: We’ve got six and I was really beside myself whether they would work. I had three neighbors come in and just talk negative about them. They don’t work so great the first year, but after that, they work wonderful. It takes a while for those things to open up but they work well. I’ve had neighbors give me heck for them but they work great. We don’t talk about the successes enough and commend ourselves for things that are working. Mike McCarvel: I think that’s one of the things that are really going to sell them to farmers. That they do work. They are new, people used to call them French intakes, and people complained about those because they didn’t work. But these are slightly different and from my experience with a couple of them, it’s been really positive. It moves the water and I think you have to tell people, “Hey, this is a way to do that” and to me it’s one of those issues that when people drive down the road and see these fence posts with a white container on it, they think there’s an intake there and a big hole. Then they see a sprayer out there, and the next day they drive by and they see the water pooled up, and it makes people very nervous about what we’re doing out there. I think this is one of those things that it’s a very positive step towards conservation and a positive aspect to drainage and being able to talk good about what we’re doing out there and trying to improve the situation. And we need to sell it to some of our other friends that it works. Katherine Pekarek-Scott: I think continual education is a key component. Maybe not the government talking to Ag producers, it might be Ag producers talking to Ag producers. I’ve been at some meetings lately and I’ve been told point blank, that if you would have told me to do blind intake, there’s no way I would have believed you. But because a neighboring landowner told them about it and how it worked, they are interested. So I think that continual education and maybe having some sort of forum for getting neighbors and people across the watershed together to share ideas would be good. Al Langseth: I’d like thank the HLWD for their incentives programs. We use the septic programs, we do a lot of replacements for septics and things like that and being able to use the incentives you have are great for us. Just thank you for that. Tony Thompson: After closing open tile intakes, adding a wood chip bioreactor is the next step. They are placed at the end of a tile outlet rather than just being a pipe that drops right into the surface water. The tile outlet water runs from the inlet through the bioreactor and passes through wood chips before it empties into the surface water. If you look at the DO readings, you can see it’s scrubbing all the dissolved oxygen out of the water. The evidence that they are very helpful in improving water quality is quite long. It costs about two dollars per treated acres. You have to close all your intakes first, otherwise all the soil will clog it but when there is a huge rainfall event, the water can bypass the reactor and is able to get by. Rick Penning: What have you seen with the controlled tile discharge? What did you hope to see? Do you have grant money for that? Tony Thompson: How can we access the Lessard-Sams money?
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 106
Ed Lenz: The Lessard-Sams funds require a public hunting component. So far, we have not been successful in getting landowners to agree to this, so no funds have been received. We have been successful in getting Clean Water Fund dollars for projects. Conclusion Jan Voit thanked everyone for their participation and reminded them that the information discussed would be used by the advisory committee in the plan update process. Submitted written comments Rob Baden – Ducks Unlimited Drainage Tiling o I’d like to see the watershed keep tract of new tile being put in o Also explore controlled drainage, keeping water on the land o Tile seems to be the biggest culprit and issue we face right now; there is no regulation on it. Is there any way we can regulate this? Thanks for quelling the dam/outlet talk The water quality, phosphorus, nitrogen, etc. levels look good with the decreasing trends. The main issue I think we need to focus on is volume of water and the speed it is entering out system Working with the city and townships to enforce the required buffers on county ditches is another issue I’d like to see the HLWD focus on.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 107
9.3. Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
9.3.1. Memo to CAC Members
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) FROM : Jan Voit, District Administrator SUBJECT: Committee Meeting DATE: April 11, 2011
Watershed Management Plan Kickoff Meeting The Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) required by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to update the Watershed Management Plan (Plan) every ten years. This ensures that local watershed plans reflect the concerns and issues that are facing the watershed and its residents.
The Plan Kickoff Meeting was held on April 7. Attendance included HLWD managers and staff, BWSR staff, county commissioners, CAC members, and the general public. Discussion was held about many topics relating to bacteria, turbidity, and phosphorus.
What’s next? After discussing the upcoming process of updating the Plan at committee meetings over the last two years, the waiting and wondering is coming to an end. It’s time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on the Plan. This Plan has to be approved by BWSR before an application for implementation funds can be submitted! We would like to apply for funds this fall, which puts us on an aggressive schedule. Mark Hiles, BWSR, will be our local contact.
With your help, HLWD staff will draft the plan. Houston Engineering, Incorporated has been hired to assist with Plan development.
Let’s get together and get started! Drafting the Plan will require your input. The first CAC meeting will be held next week. When: Monday, April 18 Where: Heron Lake Watershed District office, Heron Lake Time: 9:00 a.m. Agenda: review Kickoff Meeting minutes, analyze information presented at the Kickoff Meeting, identify priority issues and concerns
Your input and assistance in this process is invaluable! We’re looking forward to your participation in this process and working with you to write the Plan.
If you cannot attend the meeting, it is very important that you let me know. Either send an email to me at [email protected] or call 507-793-2462. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 108
9.3.2. CAC Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 109
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 110
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 111
9.3.3. CAC Meeting Minutes
Watershed Management Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Monday, April 18, 2011 9:00 a.m. Senior Citizens Room, Heron Lake Community Center, Heron Lake, MN
Attendance Jan Voit, Ross Behrends, Alyson Buschena, and Lauren Michelsen, HLWD; Mark Hiles, BWSR; Ed Lenz, Nobles SWCD; Katherine Pekarek-Scott, MPCA; Gordy Olson, Jackson County; Paul Hovland, Bill Sauer, Murray County; Wayne Smith, Nobles County; Allen Jensen, Dean Schumacher, Chris Hanson, Murray County; Tom Kresko and Randy Markl, DNR
Minutes Jan Voit welcomed everyone, asked all to introduce themselves, and reminded the committee of the importance of their decisions. Jan Voit presented the agenda for the meeting and discussion was held about the opinions and concerns expressed at the Watershed Management Planning Kickoff meeting held on April 7, 2011. Jan Voit gave a PowerPoint presentation about the HLWD, the problems that are currently facing the watershed, and summarized the priorities addressed at the public comment meeting. Allen Jensen voiced concerns about the amount of water and silt being carried into Heron Lake. He also asked if it were possible for the silt to fill the lake and what affect that was having on the system as a whole, particularly upstream of Heron Lake. Ross Behrends explained the method used for calculating the water flow going through the Heron Lake system. Dean Schumacher disagreed that Heron Lake was filling. In the northwest corner, there are protruding rocks that would not be visible if the lake was filling in. Paul Hovland asked if it was feasible to use incentive money to put filter strips along ditches within the watershed. All in attendance would like to see the watershed increase the buffers along ditches and add an incentive to encourage landowners to maintain a harvestable buffer. However, Ed Lenz pointed out that securing funding for similar programs has been unsuccessful in other areas of the state. Jan Voit also pointed out that as a watershed district, the HLWD is not the main drainage authority for each county. Paul Hovland asked about streambank erosion along the creeks. He referenced a photo in the PowerPoint presentation and said that we need to prevent or reduce this. Discussion was held regarding the 10” storm event that occurred last fall and the damage that was done to streambanks because of the increased water flow. Mark Hiles encouraged the group to prioritize the issues facing the HLWD and the projects that they would like to see pursued. He informed them that having a prioritized list will increase the HLWD’s chances of receiving funding through grant dollars. The group agreed that prioritizing by subwatershed would be a good idea. The importance of rock inlets was mentioned, as well as current funding available for replacement of open tile intakes in the HLWD and throughout all of Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties.. There have been no complaints about rock inlets from any grant participants.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 112
Wayne Smith asked how projects will be prioritized and if the end plan will look similar to the original watershed plan that was written when the watershed was begun. Jan Voit answered that the plan to which Wayne was referring was an Impoundment Reconnaissance Study conducted by HDR Engineering when he was a HLWD manager. While this study and the sites that were identified will be referenced, they will not be the sole basis for the revised management plan. She explained that because there haven’t been any changes within the HLWD since the last plan that was written by the HLWD (the TMDL), the priorities will be quite similar. The only change that has occurred in the HLWD, Ross Behrends pointed out, has been the amount of water and the speed that it enters the system and the damage that it is able to create. Gordy Olson asked about the advantage of two-stage ditches and if there are any within the HLWD. There are none within the HLWD currently, but they are known to have more benefits than traditional open ditches. There is currently a private ditch owner within HLWD that may be interested in installing a two-stage ditch. However, it would be difficult to get that the landowner support needed to install a two-stage ditch on a public ditch system. Bill Sauer mentioned the need for additional enforcement along ditches and of ditch buffers within the HLWD. Counties can’t afford to pay incentives or acquire land to make all of the environmental improvements that need to be done. Not addressing drainage ditch problems, especially at the bottom of the watershed, would be missing a key point of the picture. Jan Voit pointed out that unfortunately, the HLWD currently does not have jurisdiction over any of the county ditches. The only way the HLWD to be able to take on this issue would be for the counties to turn over the authority of the ditches to the watershed or for HLWD to work with each county and encourage them to change their ditch laws. Wayne Smith asked at what point enforcement would become a means for getting the needed results. It might be the only way to assure that practices are installed. Paul Hovland suggested the HLWD look into installing sediment ponds near Heron Lake and then excavating the sediment. Gordy Olson agreed and commented that then number of the truckloads of sediment would be known more definitely and counties could possibly use the removed sediment. Ross Behrends commented that large sediment ponds at the bottom of the Heron Lake system are not feasible. In order to be successful the sediment ponds need to be implemented at the top of the watershed where the flow can be more easily managed. Wayne Smith asked if sediment reduction would still remain the number one priority. All present agreed that reducing sediment would help in reducing the water quality problems in the watershed. Ed Lenz suggested HLWD continue with incentives to increase residue on fields, sediment basins, and wetland restorations and complemented the HLWD on the work they have been doing and all that they have accomplished. Mark Hiles suggested the HLWD make sure to include in-channel stream protection such as cedar revetments and J-hook weirs in the water plan. Jan Voit asked if we should continue with our education efforts. The group agreed that they are very important to the continued and long-term success of environmental efforts. Newsletters should also be continued. Paul Hovland encouraged the HLWD to use more testimonials to celebrate the success of the projects that are being implemented.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 113
Allen Jensen asked if the HLWD currently has any manure management plans in place. He would like to see manure management included in the watershed plan. Ed Lenz asked if HLWD does anything with feedlots and they be included in the water plan. Including feedlots would help local SWCD’s when they are applying for additional feedlot dollars. Gordy Olson suggested we continue with a conservation tillage plot. Wayne Smith asked about the residue incentives for farmers and if they will be continued. Gordy Olson requested we continue with septic systems replacements in the watershed and the incentives. The septic system incentive program has been popular and it would be beneficial for it to be continued. Ed Lenz suggested that incentives on permanent easements also be included in the plan.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 114
9.4. HLWD Special Meeting
Special Meeting May 5, 2011
ATTENDANCE Jan Voit Heron Lake Watershed District Alyson Buschena Heron Lake Watershed District Lauren Michelsen Heron Lake Watershed District Ross Behrends Heron Lake Watershed District Jack Beardsley Heron Lake Watershed District Gary Ewert Heron Lake Watershed District Mike McCarvel Heron Lake Watershed District Jim Buschena Heron Lake Watershed District Mark Deutschman Houston Engineering, Incorporated Rose Mary Schultz Jackson County Ron Kuecker Cottonwood County Jerry Christopherson Bob Dieter LeRoy Peterson
1. Call to Order Jack Beardsley called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. Agenda Jim Buschena made a motion to approve the agenda. Mike McCarvel seconded this. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Discussion Items Status of the Watershed Management Plan Update (WMP) Jan Voit gave an update on the status of the WMP, including progress made and submission timeline, as required by Minnesota statute and the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR).
Organization of the Watershed Management Plan Mark Deutschman outlined the organization of the WMP. The WMP is organized around seven categories that reflect the issues, goals, objectives, and implementation plan. These categories include: water quality, water quantity and flooding, drainage systems and natural waterways, biotic habitat, wetlands, education, and funding.
Mark also pointed out information included in the WMP, as required by state statute such as the organization’s history and mission statement.
Priority Issues Identified Mark Deutschman reminded the board of the steps taken thus far to ensure that the priority issues identified in the WMP reflect the priorities of the board and HLWD residents. Houston Engineering combined the issues mentioned at the public meetings and created a list of priority issues they feel fit the HLWD.
Goals Identified in the Watershed Management Plan The HLWD identifies specific goals in each of the issues previously mentioned.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 115
Mark Deutschman encouraged the board members to review the goals listed and be sure they reflect the priorities of the HLWD.
Implementation Plan and Funding Mark Deutschman informed the board of the purpose and organization of the implementation plan. The implementation plan will form the basis for how the HLWD will spend its money and towards which projects the money will be directed. The implementation plan is divided into two areas - programs and projects. Programs are the day to day activities of the HLWD – permits, administration, etc. Programs include regulatory and permit, flood damage reduction, education, implementation, water quality improvement, impaired water and TMDL implementation, and public drainage system management. Projects are driven by long-term goals. A spreadsheet has been created to prioritize HLWD projects. The spreadsheet will be reviewed annually by the HLWD board and staff.
Water Management Districts Mark Deutschman explained water management districts (WMD) to the board. WMD are identified areas that contribute to the problems in Heron Lake. They allow the HLWD to assess a charge to properties in proportion to the amount of runoff coming off a property. These dollars would be used solely for projects within the WMD.
The HLWD board would clearly define the WMD charge amount, duration, and through what means landowners will be charged. Any charges collected would only be used for priorities identified by HLWD. The HLWD could restrict how the funds are used. For example, the HLWD could decide only to use WMD money if there is state dollars to match WMD funds. The board could also decide that WMD dollars would not be used for feasibility studies. Rather, the board could decide the WMD dollars would only be used for project implementation to improve water quality. Normally, the board certifies the charge to the county and the auditors would collect the money. The HLWD WMD would set a limit to the amount that can be collected, but the HLWD would have the option to collect a lower amount.
Questions were raised about ensuring the state would be willing to match the WMD dollars. Mark agreed that there is no way to ensure the state would match the dollars, but the state has a history of contributing matching dollars in similar situations. Requiring a match is just one way that locals funds raised could be leveraged for projects, recognizing the state has some responsibility for improving water quality.
Ron Kuecker asked if the money collected through WMD would be used for staffing. Mark answered that is up to the board, but the WMD as in the draft plan does not allow this. Right now the WMD language is written such that the money can only be used for project implementation. This usually makes the WMD charge more acceptable because it can only be used for projects. However, a WMD focused on projects would allow the HLWD to take the money currently generated by the general operating levy for projects and dedicate it solely for staff and administration purposes. This would give the HLWD more financial stability and would reduce its dependence on grants and outside funding.
Jim Buschena asked what would happen to the money if it doesn’t get spent in the event that the HLWD never receives match dollars from the state, if the board placed the restriction on the use of the money collected through the WMD. Mark advised the HLWD to not start collecting until the HLWD has received the match.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 116
Jan Voit reminded the board that one of the driving forces behind including a WMD in the WMP was that the HLWD no longer has CWP money. The majority of HLWD projects in the past have been paid for by CWP money. If the HLWD wants to continue doing what it is doing now, it needs to look for other ways to fund projects.
Gary Ewert asked would happen if the HLWD does not receive grant funds to match the amount generated by the WMD. There are many of actions identified in the WMP that need to be done and grant dollars alone would not provide adequate funding. Jan Voit commented that if the HLWD would not be able to fulfill the requirements of the WMP, they could be deemed a non-implementing watershed district by BWSR. Or, the HLWD would have to scale back what they are trying to accomplish. It would be better to have the ability generate funds through the WMD without the matching restriction.
The board discussed that revenue generated by the WMD could be used specifically for the purpose of implementing water quality BMPs, including water storage to reduce sedimentation, within the contributing drainage area to North and South Heron Lake. The HLWD could pursue matching grant dollars from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, BWSR, and other agencies, for implementation in an effort to reduce the amount of funds generated by the WMD.
Mark encouraged the board to talk to the county commissions and the public and decide if this option aligned with HLWD’s goals and values. He recommended the board set an amount that was “relatively painless for people”.
Clarification was given that by including the WMD in the WMP does not bind the HLWD to enforcing the WMD. Rather, it simply gives the HLWD the authority to ‘turn on’ (i.e., collect the revenue) the WMD, should the HLWD choose to do so in the future. Should the HLWD board choose to not include this in the WMP now and then later decide it needed to be added, an amendment to the WMP would need to be completed, including a public hearing. If WMDs are included in the WMP now, an additional public hearing would not need to be held.
Discussion was held about the amount that the board felt would be an appropriate limit. Jack Beardsley pointed out that by setting a higher limit, the HLWD board would probably collect much less but would have the option to go higher, if the need arose.
Mike McCarvel made a motion to include WMDs in the WMP with a limit of $200,000. Gary Ewert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Jim Buschena made a motion to approve the submission of the WMP to BWSR and other agencies as required by statute. The motion was seconded by Jack Beardsley. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Michael McCarvel Secretary
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 117
9.5. BWSR Hearing Order
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 118
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 119
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 120
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 121
9.6. WMP Workshop and WMP Correspondence
9.6.1. Memo to County Commissioners and SWCD Supervisors
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood County Commissioners and SWCD Supervisors
FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator
DATE: June 29, 2011
HLWD Watershed Management Plan As you are aware, the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) is in the process of updating the Watershed Management Plan (WMP). A kickoff meeting was held on April 7. The Citizen’s Advisory Committee met and prioritized WMP actions on April 18. Further public information was provided at a special meeting on May 7.
HLWD staff would like to present the County Commissioners and SWCD Supervisors in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties with the opportunity to attend a workshop regarding the HLWD WMP. Mark Deutschman, Houston Engineering, will be present to explain the WMP and answer questions.
The workshop will be held on Wednesday, July 6 at 10:30 a.m. at the Heron Lake Watershed District office. Your attendance at this event would be greatly appreciated. The advisory committee will be reviewing the public input gathered at this meeting and determining effective means to address concerns.
Thank you for your service to the HLWD. I look forward to seeing you on July 6.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 122
9.6.2. Reasons for Implementing a Water Management District
Reasons for Implementing a Water Management District June 23, 2011 The Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) as part of their 10-year Watershed Management Plan update is seeking to implement a “Water Management District.” The authority to implement a Water Management District is granted to the District by State law (for more information see http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/planning/Water_ Mgmt_District_Steps_December%202010.pdf). Lands that are upstream of the outlet of North Heron Lake would be included in Water Management District. The sole reason the District is seeking to implement a Water Management District is to generate an annually reliable amount of revenue, dedicated to the construction of projects and agricultural conservation Best Management Practices. The Board of Managers is proposing that all revenue generated by the charge must be used only for developing and implementing projects to improve water quality, slow down the rate that water leaves the landscape and reduces the volume of water leaving the landscape. The revenue can be used for no other purpose. The Watershed Management Plan specifically defines how the revenue can be used. The Board of Managers has included the language to establish the Water Management District, in their 10-year Watershed Management Plan update. Including the language in the Plan establishes the authority to collect charges and establishes the maximum amount of revenue generated. The Board of Managers will then still need to work annually with the County Board of Commissioners to decide upon the actual revenue that will be actually collected (within the cap established in the plan). Establishing the authority in the Watershed Management Plan does not require or mandate collection of the charge. It establishes the authority to collect the charge. The Board of Managers has tentatively identified the collection of $200,000 per year as the maximum revenue collected for project implementation. The estimated charge per parcel would range from $1/month to $3/month and would be collected once per year. The amount that a parcel would be charge would be based on the amount of water leaving their parcel; i.e., areas with a large amount of impervious land would pay a slightly larger charge. The District currently relies very heavily on grants to implement projects and operate the District. Implementing the Water Management District would bring fiscal stability for project implementation and provide revenue to construct project that make a difference to improve water quality and reduce the rate and volume of water moving downstream through the Heron Lake Watershed. Advantages of a Water Management District include: Provides a dedicated source of revenue for that must be used to implement projects. Results in revenue that can be used to leverage (i.e., match) state and federal grant dollars, bringing more revenue for project implementation to the local area. Reduces reliance on grant dollars for implementing locally important projects. Provides revenue to help individual landowners implement projects by providing reliable implementation dollars. Places more control over implementation of the Heron Lake TMDL in the hands of a local entity (Heron Lake Watershed District and the Counties).
If you would like more information about the intent of the Watershed District please call Jan Voit at 507-793-2462 or visit http://www.hlwdonline.org/hlwd/.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 123
9.6.3. WMP Workshop Minutes
Watershed Management Plan Workshop Wednesday, July 6, 2011 10:30 a.m. Senior Citizens Room, Heron Lake Community Center, Heron Lake, MN
Attendance Mark Deutschman, HEI; John Giese, Murray County; Ron Kuecker, Cottonwood Commissioner; Bill Sauer, Murray County; Dave Henkels, Jackson County; Ed Lenz, Nobles SWCD; Dale Bartosh, HLWD; Mike McCarvel, HLWD; Brian Nyborg, Jackson SWCD; LeRoy Peterson; Dennis Daberkow, Jackson SWCD; Jan Voit, HLWD; Ross Behrends, HLWD; Lauren Michelsen, HLWD; and Margaret Peeters, HLWD
Minutes Jan Voit welcomed everyone and introduced Mark Deutschman, the consultant from Houston Engineering (HEI) in Minneapolis. Mark Deutschman was here to describe the details of the Water Management Plan (WMP). Mark Deutschman provided information regarding the revised WMP and the proposed funding mechanism. Discussion followed on the presented proposal. Mark Deutschman explained the WMP and the legal requirements. The mission statement, goals, and policies of the WMP are focused on water quality and quantity management and projects the district plans to undertake to address those issues. The definition of the plan was laid out as well, including the purpose and reasoning behind it. Mark Deutschman explained that the Water Management District (WMD) is a means of generating revenue to pay for projects. The revenue is to help fund and implement programs within the WMD. This is how the HLWD will fund projects into the future. Mark Deutschman described the main focus of the plan, including projects that would address the impairments identified in the West Fork Des Moines River and Heron Lake Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan (TMDL). It was also brought to everyone’s attention that TMDL is not a new focus, but a continued effort of the HLWD. o The HLWD has identified funding as a key issue. Current funding outlets are being exhausted and this is a way for the district to generate revenue inside the boundaries on a stable basis; the parameters of the boundary will be the Heron Lake WMD. Mark Deutschman expressed to the attendees to look at the revenue interests of the WMP, including what the plan has to identify, the mechanism to receive the funds, and a description of how the funds will be used. o To charge fees for all landowners within the water management district. o Capping the maximum charge, this charge will never go above $25/parcel /year. o The amount of revenue collected is set by the board and is required by statute. Ron Kuecker, Mike McCarvel, and Dave Henkels questioned about the WMD location and were curious if it was going to include the area of the watershed downstream from Heron Lake. They had concern about the benefits for people not included in the WMD. Mark Deutschman explained that to increase the size of the WMD to include the area below the outlet of the lake would not be beneficial in trying to get the plan passed and is arbitrary to the problem area, which is above the outlet. Dave Henkels expressed concern that this water management plan will directly increase taxes by 80 percent. Dave Henkels also recommended this be a county-wide level of
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 124
application so not just those within the WMD will have to pay. Mark Deutschman stressed that it would not increase the taxes by 80 percent. And that it is a charge, not a tax. This charge will be proportional to the amount of water that an individual parcel will contribute to the outlet of Heron Lake. The Board of Water and Soil Resources doesn’t want the charge to be perceived as a district-wide charge, but a focused charge to those in the problem area. The idea is that water quality is a benefit to the public. Ron Kuecker raised concerns about the county losing money for taking care of assessing the fee. Jan Voit explained that the HWLD does get billed from Nobles and Murray counties for assessing the septic system loans. Mark Deutschman went on to explain that other watershed districts have successfully implemented this type of plan within their areas. Ross Behrends pointed out that the district is unable to go forward with any storage projects that would greatly benefit the area because of the lack of funding. This WMD, he explained, would give the HLWD the opportunity to move forward to get large projects put into place. Projects within the plan are defined at Best Management Practices and the Flood Damage Reduction Program. These are two aspects that the generated revenue can be used for. Dale Bartosh and LeRoy Peterson voiced concern about the watershed district overlapping duties. Mark Deutschman explained that the watershed district and soil and water conservation districts are not mutually exclusive. Mark Deutschman went on to explain that more projects are completed when these entities work together. If one entity does not have the mechanics to implement a project they could pass it over and vice versa. Mike McCarvel asked if there would be reimbursement funds spent for engineering and pre- project work. Mark Deutschman explained that typically funders will not reimburse you for the efforts and investment expended in getting a project that far along. The language in the WMD right now would allow the district to use the funds for prior investment for a project, including engineering. Mark Deutschman continued by pointing out that if a project is good, the HLWD will have no problem finding the money to fund it. Brian Nyborg questioned the eight step process each property would go through to determine the fee. Mark Deutschman explained by using computer programs like GIS this process can be done fairly rapidly and would take around a week’s time. Dave Henkels brought attention to the district’s authority to exclude certain areas. Mark Deutschman explained that typically, the WMP does not assess county right-of-ways, county roads, township parks, county parks, public works buildings, and school districts. Dave Henkels went on to say that all land should be assessed including that of the Department of Natural Resources.
Conclusion
Mark Deutschman finished by saying the whole concept of the plan is to have money specifically for projects and for feasibility studies. The WMP would allow projects to be implemented on the ground. Jan Voit thanked everyone for coming and thanked Mark Deutschman for presenting information about the WMP.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 125
9.6.4. WMP Workshop Follow-up Memo to Nobles County
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: Nobles County Commissioners CC: Wayne Smith FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator DATE: July 7, 2011
HLWD Watershed Management Plan Should the environment and water quality be important to watershed district residents? We think so! Natural resources are necessary for survival. Using natural resources impacts the natural environment. Each watershed resident impacts the natural environment every day – brushing teeth, flushing the toilet, doing dishes and laundry, mowing the lawn, and tilling and fertilizing the garden. The natural environment is also impacted by construction projects, installation of impervious surfaces, feedlot runoff, and farming practices.
Our actions require us to make choices. For instance, we choose what we buy, where we buy, and what we do with what we buy. While it may be difficult to relate our choices to the environment, it is important to know that the choices we make will somehow affect natural resources.
It is the HLWD’s responsibility to provide its residents with educational and financial assistance to correct actions that contribute to water pollution. The practices and programs that are implemented must be described in a Watershed Management Plan (WMP). According to Minnesota law, the HLWD must update that WMP every ten years. Through that update process, the HLWD must make choices that will affect the natural resources in the district, as well as watershed residents.
The HLWD currently relies extensively on grants to install projects and operate the district. In order to continue to operate the education and implementation efforts to which the residents have been accustomed, the HLWD is exploring all possible statutory options available. One option is a water management district (WMD).
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 126
The sole reason the HLWD is considering the implementation of a WMD is to generate a reliable source of revenue, on an annual basis, dedicated to project construction and agricultural best management practices. The revenue generated through the WMD could be used for no other purpose. It is important to understand that through this process, landowners would be charged a fee based on water runoff from their property. It is actually a contributor concept. Those properties that contribute the most water runoff from their property would have the greater charge.
In order to have the option to implement a WMD, it must be included in the WMP. Including it in the WMP does not mean that the HLWD will initiate it. But, the option is available should the board of managers deem it fiscally responsible.
The HLWD has put forth extensive efforts to provide residents with cost-share and incentive programs, water quality monitoring, staff, and education efforts. Through those efforts, grant funds in excess of $1.6 million dollars have been secured. Competition in the application process is rigorous. The HLWD has been very fortunate that outside funders have deemed our projects to be good investments in accordance with their goals and priorities.
HLWD staff has made documentation a priority in all education and implementation efforts, whether funded through grants or the general operating levy. This provides transparency for government officials and watershed residents and gives a clear picture of what is being accomplished and the effects of implementation projects. These efforts will continue.
The HLWD, through Minnesota law, has the authority to implement a WMD. The WMD would: be implemented solely for the purpose of implementing projects within the watershed to improve water quality, generate funds to be used to put projects directly on the land in the watershed, and collect funds from those landowners that contribute to the water pollution problems. The projects implemented would be done in partnership with landowners, county staff, and soil and water conservation district staff in order to make the best use of the financial and technical resources available.
The HLWD would greatly appreciate receiving a letter of support for the WMP from Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties. Supporting this effort would show each county’s commitment and dedication to improving water quality for the benefit of all residents of the HLWD. It would also show your trust in and support of the HLWD.
Thank you, in advance, for placing your confidence in the HLWD’s continued water quality improvement efforts.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 127
9.6.5. WMP Workshop Follow-up Memo to Jackson County
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: Jackson County Commissioners CC: Gordy Olson FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator DATE: July 7, 2011
HLWD Watershed Management Plan Should the environment and water quality be important to watershed district residents? We think so! Natural resources are necessary for survival. Using natural resources impacts the natural environment. Each watershed resident impacts the natural environment every day – brushing teeth, flushing the toilet, doing dishes and laundry, mowing the lawn, and tilling and fertilizing the garden. The natural environment is also impacted by construction projects, installation of impervious surfaces, feedlot runoff, and farming practices.
Our actions require us to make choices. For instance, we choose what we buy, where we buy, and what we do with what we buy. While it may be difficult to relate our choices to the environment, it is important to know that the choices we make will somehow affect natural resources.
It is the HLWD’s responsibility to provide its residents with educational and financial assistance to correct actions that contribute to water pollution. The practices and programs that are implemented must be described in a Watershed Management Plan (WMP). According to Minnesota law, the HLWD must update that WMP every ten years. Through that update process, the HLWD must make choices that will affect the natural resources in the district, as well as watershed residents.
The HLWD currently relies extensively on grants to install projects and operate the district. In order to continue to operate the education and implementation efforts to which the residents have been accustomed, the HLWD is exploring all possible statutory options available. One option is a water management district (WMD).
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 128
The sole reason the HLWD is considering the implementation of a WMD is to generate a reliable source of revenue, on an annual basis, dedicated to project construction and agricultural best management practices. The revenue generated through the WMD could be used for no other purpose. It is important to understand that through this process, landowners would be charged a fee based on water runoff from their property. It is actually a contributor concept. Those properties that contribute the most water runoff from their property would have the greater charge.
In order to have the option to implement a WMD, it must be included in the WMP. Including it in the WMP does not mean that the HLWD will initiate it. But, the option is available should the board of managers deem it fiscally responsible.
The HLWD has put forth extensive efforts to provide residents with cost-share and incentive programs, water quality monitoring, staff, and education efforts. Through those efforts, grant funds in excess of $1.6 million dollars have been secured. Competition in the application process is rigorous. The HLWD has been very fortunate that outside funders have deemed our projects to be good investments in accordance with their goals and priorities.
HLWD staff has made documentation a priority in all education and implementation efforts, whether funded through grants or the general operating levy. This provides transparency for government officials and watershed residents and gives a clear picture of what is being accomplished and the effects of implementation projects. These efforts will continue.
The HLWD, through Minnesota law, has the authority to implement a WMD. The WMD would: be implemented solely for the purpose of implementing projects within the watershed to improve water quality, generate funds to be used to put projects directly on the land in the watershed, and collect funds from those landowners that contribute to the water pollution problems. The projects implemented would be done in partnership with landowners, county staff, and soil and water conservation district staff in order to make the best use of the financial and technical resources available.
The HLWD would greatly appreciate receiving a letter of support for the WMP from Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties. Supporting this effort would show each county’s commitment and dedication to improving water quality for the benefit of all residents of the HLWD. It would also show your trust in and support of the HLWD.
Thank you, in advance, for placing your confidence in the HLWD’s continued water quality improvement efforts.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 129
9.6.6. WMP Workshop Follow-up Memo to Murray County
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: Murray County Commissioners CC: Chris Hansen FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator DATE: July 7, 2011
HLWD Watershed Management Plan Should the environment and water quality be important to watershed district residents? We think so! Natural resources are necessary for survival. Using natural resources impacts the natural environment. Each watershed resident impacts the natural environment every day – brushing teeth, flushing the toilet, doing dishes and laundry, mowing the lawn, and tilling and fertilizing the garden. The natural environment is also impacted by construction projects, installation of impervious surfaces, feedlot runoff, and farming practices.
Our actions require us to make choices. For instance, we choose what we buy, where we buy, and what we do with what we buy. While it may be difficult to relate our choices to the environment, it is important to know that the choices we make will somehow affect natural resources.
It is the HLWD’s responsibility to provide its residents with educational and financial assistance to correct actions that contribute to water pollution. The practices and programs that are implemented must be described in a Watershed Management Plan (WMP). According to Minnesota law, the HLWD must update that WMP every ten years. Through that update process, the HLWD must make choices that will affect the natural resources in the district, as well as watershed residents.
The HLWD currently relies extensively on grants to install projects and operate the district. In order to continue to operate the education and implementation efforts to which the residents have been accustomed, the HLWD is exploring all possible statutory options available. One option is a water management district (WMD).
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 130
The sole reason the HLWD is considering the implementation of a WMD is to generate a reliable source of revenue, on an annual basis, dedicated to project construction and agricultural best management practices. The revenue generated through the WMD could be used for no other purpose. It is important to understand that through this process, landowners would be charged a fee based on water runoff from their property. It is actually a contributor concept. Those properties that contribute the most water runoff from their property would have the greater charge.
In order to have the option to implement a WMD, it must be included in the WMP. Including it in the WMP does not mean that the HLWD will initiate it. But, the option is available should the board of managers deem it fiscally responsible.
The HLWD has put forth extensive efforts to provide residents with cost-share and incentive programs, water quality monitoring, staff, and education efforts. Through those efforts, grant funds in excess of $1.6 million dollars have been secured. Competition in the application process is rigorous. The HLWD has been very fortunate that outside funders have deemed our projects to be good investments in accordance with their goals and priorities.
HLWD staff has made documentation a priority in all education and implementation efforts, whether funded through grants or the general operating levy. This provides transparency for government officials and watershed residents and gives a clear picture of what is being accomplished and the effects of implementation projects. These efforts will continue.
The HLWD, through Minnesota law, has the authority to implement a WMD. The WMD would: be implemented solely for the purpose of implementing projects within the watershed to improve water quality, generate funds to be used to put projects directly on the land in the watershed, and collect funds from those landowners that contribute to the water pollution problems. The projects implemented would be done in partnership with landowners, county staff, and soil and water conservation district staff in order to make the best use of the financial and technical resources available.
The HLWD would greatly appreciate receiving a letter of support for the WMP from Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties. Supporting this effort would show each county’s commitment and dedication to improving water quality for the benefit of all residents of the HLWD. It would also show your trust in and support of the HLWD.
Thank you, in advance, for placing your confidence in the HLWD’s continued water quality improvement efforts.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 131
9.6.7. WMP Workshop Follow-up Memo to Cottonwood County
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: Cottonwood County Commissioners FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator DATE: July 7, 2011
HLWD Watershed Management Plan Should the environment and water quality be important to watershed district residents? We think so! Natural resources are necessary for survival. Using natural resources impacts the natural environment. Each watershed resident impacts the natural environment every day – brushing teeth, flushing the toilet, doing dishes and laundry, mowing the lawn, and tilling and fertilizing the garden. The natural environment is also impacted by construction projects, installation of impervious surfaces, feedlot runoff, and farming practices.
Our actions require us to make choices. For instance, we choose what we buy, where we buy, and what we do with what we buy. While it may be difficult to relate our choices to the environment, it is important to know that the choices we make will somehow affect natural resources.
It is the HLWD’s responsibility to provide its residents with educational and financial assistance to correct actions that contribute to water pollution. The practices and programs that are implemented must be described in a Watershed Management Plan (WMP). According to Minnesota law, the HLWD must update that WMP every ten years. Through that update process, the HLWD must make choices that will affect the natural resources in the district, as well as watershed residents.
The HLWD currently relies extensively on grants to install projects and operate the district. In order to continue to operate the education and implementation efforts to which the residents have been accustomed, the HLWD is exploring all possible statutory options available. One option is a water management district (WMD).
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 132
The sole reason the HLWD is considering the implementation of a WMD is to generate a reliable source of revenue, on an annual basis, dedicated to project construction and agricultural best management practices. The revenue generated through the WMD could be used for no other purpose. It is important to understand that through this process, landowners would be charged a fee based on water runoff from their property. It is actually a contributor concept. Those properties that contribute the most water runoff from their property would have the greater charge.
In order to have the option to implement a WMD, it must be included in the WMP. Including it in the WMP does not mean that the HLWD will initiate it. But, the option is available should the board of managers deem it fiscally responsible.
The HLWD has put forth extensive efforts to provide residents with cost-share and incentive programs, water quality monitoring, staff, and education efforts. Through those efforts, grant funds in excess of $1.6 million dollars have been secured. Competition in the application process is rigorous. The HLWD has been very fortunate that outside funders have deemed our projects to be good investments in accordance with their goals and priorities.
HLWD staff has made documentation a priority in all education and implementation efforts, whether funded through grants or the general operating levy. This provides transparency for government officials and watershed residents and gives a clear picture of what is being accomplished and the effects of implementation projects. These efforts will continue.
The HLWD, through Minnesota law, has the authority to implement a WMD. The WMD would: be implemented solely for the purpose of implementing projects within the watershed to improve water quality, generate funds to be used to put projects directly on the land in the watershed, and collect funds from those landowners that contribute to the water pollution problems. The projects implemented would be done in partnership with landowners, county staff, and soil and water conservation district staff in order to make the best use of the financial and technical resources available.
The HLWD would greatly appreciate receiving a letter of support for the WMP from Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties. Supporting this effort would show each county’s commitment and dedication to improving water quality for the benefit of all residents of the HLWD. It would also show your trust in and support of the HLWD.
Thank you, in advance, for placing your confidence in the HLWD’s continued water quality improvement efforts.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 133
9.6.8. Memo to Jackson County to Address Concerns
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: Jackson County Commissioners CC: Gordy Olson, Brian Nyborg, Kevin Nordquist, Farley Grunig, and Bob O’Connor FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator DATE: July 13, 2011 RE: Watershed Management
On July 12, 2011, I had the opportunity to attend your county board meeting. Mike McCarvel, Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) Secretary accompanied me. While in attendance, County Board Chair David Henkels expressed concern about the purpose, role, and effectiveness of the HLWD. The HLWD has been successfully managing water at the local level, by employing an effective partnership with the County Boards, Soil and Watershed Conservation Districts (SWCDs), Natural Resources Conservation Districts, and many others. We plan to continue to work with other local units of government into the future to effectively manage our water resources. This memorandum is intended to provide first-hand, accurate information in response to concerns raised during the July 12, 2011 meeting. Watershed Districts are an effective organization for addressing water issues, because the management of water crosses political boundaries. In 2006, Chuck Holtman of Smith Partners, PLLP, provided a report entitled “The Architecture of Water Resources Management in Minnesota.” That report concluded: “The solution is a governmental body that encompasses the entire resource, that can distribute the public benefits of the “commons” equitably and in a manner that is sustainable for the resource.” “… the law recognizes that regulation of land use is an essential part of protecting water resources. Counties, cities, and towns are interested in protecting the resource. But they’re also interested in promoting tax base
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 134
and economic development . . . Watershed districts can address land use issues with an exclusive focus on the water resource.” “… when money for projects and programs is raised through property taxes, watershed-based levies generally are fairer than levies based on city, town, or county boundaries. This way, the cost of management efforts can be placed on the property owners who contribute drainage to the receiving water and who most directly benefit from the sound management of the resource.”27 In 2007, the Office of the Legislative Auditor did a thorough examination of watershed management in Minnesota. It is true that the nature of watershed management is complex. It is also not consistent throughout the state. In some areas, water is managed on a county basis; in other parts, a watershed basis; and in some on both a county and watershed basis. However, the Legislative Auditor’s report concluded: “Water is one of Minnesota’s most valuable resources.” “… the quality and quantity of water in Minnesota is central to our way of life.” “to address the water issues, Minnesota needs to effectively manage its watersheds.” “Ideally, surface water should be managed on a watershed basis.”28 Stormwater runoff and drainage does not respect township, city, and county boundaries. To resolve water management issues, there is a need to plan and manage the watershed. That is exactly what the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) does on a daily basis. The HLWD: has local levy authority and a unique statutory blend of authorities to raise funds needed for improvements and programs and to regulate the use and development of activities to ensure the protection of water quality. provides public benefit through our plans, projects, and programs, which require extensive citizen involvement and state approval and address real on-the-ground resource management issues. demonstrates accountability through annual reports and financial audits provided to the Board of Water and Soil Resources, Department of Natural Resources, local appointing authorities, and constituents. manages on a watershed basis. This means we consider the drainage and the problems no matter where they occur. We work with cities and all our counties and SWCDs to implement collaborative and coordinate projects and programs. The HLWD does its utmost to provide watershed residents with the opportunity to provide feedback on activities undertaken and provide input regarding education and implementation efforts. A list of landowners willing to participate in projects is
27 http://www.waterlaws.com/commentary/bulletins/architectureofwaterresources.html, accessed 7/2011 28 Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, Response to the Recommendations and Findings of the Office of the Legislative Auditor’s Report on Watershed Management, February 2007
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 135
also kept. The following is taken from the survey results provided at the HLWD 40th Anniversary in August 2010: Congrats on 40 years! That’s pretty darn good! Proper drainage and tillage should be equal to water quality. Focus on water quality only may reduce district’s economic base. Doing a very good job. Good job! Your display here today was very interesting and informative. Keep up your good work! Open house was a hit! Glad to be here! Keep up the good work! It is true that Heron Lake and its management have been a source of contention in the watershed. The HLWD focuses its efforts on implementation and education efforts. While the HLWD supports the Resting and Feeding Area designation on Heron Lake, the HLWD has no power regarding public access or dam management. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has sole authority for decisions regarding these issues. HLWD activities should not be confused with DNR authorities. During the last 15 years, the HLWD has obtained more than $1.6 million grant dollars and worked with watershed residents to implement a multitude of on-the- ground projects. The efforts of the HLWD have been formally recognized by the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, winning the Watershed Program of the Year award in 2002, the Minnesota Environmental Initiative, winning the Environmental Education Award in 2006, and by the Department of Natural Resources, winning the Watershed District of the Year award in 2007. In 2008, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study was completed for the West Fork Des Moines River (WFDMR) watershed and Heron Lake. To meet the water quality goals, a 10 percent to 86 percent reduction in bacteria, a 20 percent to 90 percent reduction in turbidity, and a 79 percent reduction in phosphorus is needed. A TMDL Implementation Plan was written to create goals and objectives to address these water quality goals. The TMDL Implementation Plan identified a need for $23.4 million for cost-share and incentive programs. It identified a need for $17.6 million in loan funds for correcting septic systems. In order to put these funds into the hands of watershed landowners, the need is over $22.1 million is needed as inkind contribution from staff in the seven counties, SWCDs, and the HLWD. As the lead organization in the development of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan for the West Fork Des Moines River (WFDMR) watershed, the HLWD takes the role of improving water quality within the watershed very seriously. The same can be said of the seven counties and seven SWCDs in the WFDMR watershed. A Memorandum of Agreement was signed by all 15 entities that outlined the process for working together to implement the actions outlined in the Implementation Plan.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 136
Should the HLWD “turn on” the Water Management District (WMD) that is described in the Watershed Management Plan (WMP), the funds would be used for projects that would reduce water quantity and phosphorus loading to Heron Lake. A charge would be placed on the parcels within the HLWD. The charge would be in proportion to the amount water contributed by the parcel. The draft WMP states that $200,000 is the maximum amount that could be collected through the WMD per year. The HLWD managers live and work in the watershed. They are aware of the financial implications that this could create and given the current economic conditions, would not consider collecting the maximum in the near future. However, they are also concerned about their responsibility to improve the water quality in the watershed. Preliminary information from county auditors indicates that there are 2,373 parcels in Nobles County; 3,366 parcels in Jackson County; and 321 parcels in Murray County. If the HLWD would charge even a nominal amount of $0.50 per parcel per month on average, the revenue could range up to $50,000 on an annual basis for installing on-the-ground projects. These funds would also be used to match state and federal grants, giving the potential to double the amount of money for on-the- ground projects. The amount of $0.50 per month is less than the cost of one can of pop, candy bar, or bottle of water per household per month! While the HLWD does not need the express permission of the county to implement a Water Management District, we truly do seek your cooperation in implementing our projects, realizing that revenue is necessary to do so. The HLWD has authority from the Minnesota Legislature through Minnesota Statutes 103D.729 to establish a WMD. The HLWD realizes the sensitivity of the issue of the WMD charge, wants to ensure that factual information is available, and will be holding a hearing to receive public input. The HLWD would appreciate your support of all opportunities to work cooperatively to implement the projects identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan and HLWD WMP as required by Minnesota law. We also appreciate your trust in our fiscal responsibility and confidence in our efforts to provide continued opportunities for clean water through what might be considered a nominal amount of money.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 137
9.6.9. Memo to Nobles County to Address Concerns Expressed by Jackson County Commissioner
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: Nobles County Commissioners CC: Wayne Smith FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator DATE: July 14, 2011 RE: Watershed Management
It has come to my attention that a commissioner in Jackson County has been in contact with many of you regarding the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) Watershed Management Plan (WMP) and several other items. In order to provide you with first- hand, accurate information, I offer the following. On July 12, 2011, I had the opportunity to attend your county board meeting. Mike McCarvel, HLWD Secretary accompanied me. While in attendance, County Board Chair David Henkels expressed concern about the purpose, role, and effectiveness of the HLWD. The HLWD has been successfully managing water at the local level, by employing an effective partnership with the County Boards, Soil and Watershed Conservation Districts (SWCDs), Natural Resources Conservation Districts, and many others. We plan to continue to work with other local units of government into the future to effectively manage our water resources. This memorandum is intended to provide first-hand, accurate information in response to concerns raised during the July 12, 2011 meeting. Watershed Districts are an effective organization for addressing water issues, because the management of water crosses political boundaries. In 2006, Chuck Holtman of Smith Partners, PLLP, provided a report entitled “The Architecture of Water Resources Management in Minnesota.” That report concluded: “The solution is a governmental body that encompasses the entire resource, that can distribute the public benefits of the “commons” equitably and in a manner that is sustainable for the resource.”
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 138
“… the law recognizes that regulation of land use is an essential part of protecting water resources. Counties, cities, and towns are interested in protecting the resource. But they’re also interested in promoting tax base and economic development . . . Watershed districts can address land use issues with an exclusive focus on the water resource.” “… when money for projects and programs is raised through property taxes, watershed-based levies generally are fairer than levies based on city, town, or county boundaries. This way, the cost of management efforts can be placed on the property owners who contribute drainage to the receiving water and who most directly benefit from the sound management of the resource.”29 In 2007, the Office of the Legislative Auditor did a thorough examination of watershed management in Minnesota. It is true that the nature of watershed management is complex. It is also not consistent throughout the state. In some areas, water is managed on a county basis; in other parts, a watershed basis; and in some on both a county and watershed basis. However, the Legislative Auditor’s report concluded: “Water is one of Minnesota’s most valuable resources.” “… the quality and quantity of water in Minnesota is central to our way of life.” “to address the water issues, Minnesota needs to effectively manage its watersheds.” “Ideally, surface water should be managed on a watershed basis.”30 Stormwater runoff and drainage does not respect township, city, and county boundaries. To resolve water management issues, there is a need to plan and manage the watershed. That is exactly what the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) does on a daily basis. The HLWD: has local levy authority and a unique statutory blend of authorities to raise funds needed for improvements and programs and to regulate the use and development of activities to ensure the protection of water quality. provides public benefit through our plans, projects, and programs, which require extensive citizen involvement and state approval and address real on-the-ground resource management issues. demonstrates accountability through annual reports and financial audits provided to the Board of Water and Soil Resources, Department of Natural Resources, local appointing authorities, and constituents. manages on a watershed basis. This means we consider the drainage and the problems no matter where they occur. We work with cities and all our counties and SWCDs to implement collaborative and coordinate projects and programs.
29 http://www.waterlaws.com/commentary/bulletins/architectureofwaterresources.html, accessed 7/2011 30 Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, Response to the Recommendations and Findings of the Office of the Legislative Auditor’s Report on Watershed Management, February 2007
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 139
The HLWD does its utmost to provide watershed residents with the opportunity to provide feedback on activities undertaken and provide input regarding education and implementation efforts. A list of landowners willing to participate in projects is also kept. The following is taken from the survey results provided at the HLWD 40th Anniversary in August 2010: Congrats on 40 years! That’s pretty darn good! Proper drainage and tillage should be equal to water quality. Focus on water quality only may reduce district’s economic base. Doing a very good job. Good job! Your display here today was very interesting and informative. Keep up your good work! Open house was a hit! Glad to be here! Keep up the good work! It is true that Heron Lake and its management have been a source of contention in the watershed. The HLWD focuses its efforts on implementation and education efforts. While the HLWD supports the Resting and Feeding Area designation on Heron Lake, the HLWD has no power regarding public access or dam management. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has sole authority for decisions regarding these issues. HLWD activities should not be confused with DNR authorities. During the last 15 years, the HLWD has obtained more than $1.6 million grant dollars and worked with watershed residents to implement a multitude of on-the- ground projects. The efforts of the HLWD have been formally recognized by the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, winning the Watershed Program of the Year award in 2002, the Minnesota Environmental Initiative, winning the Environmental Education Award in 2006, and by the Department of Natural Resources, winning the Watershed District of the Year award in 2007. In 2008, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study was completed for the West Fork Des Moines River (WFDMR) watershed and Heron Lake. To meet the water quality goals, a 10 percent to 86 percent reduction in bacteria, a 20 percent to 90 percent reduction in turbidity, and a 79 percent reduction in phosphorus is needed. A TMDL Implementation Plan was written to create goals and objectives to address these water quality goals. The TMDL Implementation Plan identified a need for $23.4 million for cost-share and incentive programs. It identified a need for $17.6 million in loan funds for correcting septic systems. In order to put these funds into the hands of watershed landowners, the need is over $22.1 million is needed as inkind contribution from staff in the seven counties, SWCDs, and the HLWD. As the lead organization in the development of the TMDL Implementation Plan for the WFDMR watershed, the HLWD takes the role of improving water quality within the watershed very seriously. The same can be said of the seven counties and seven SWCDs in the WFDMR watershed. A Memorandum of Agreement was signed by all 15 entities that outlined the process for working together to implement the actions outlined in the Implementation Plan.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 140
Should the HLWD “turn on” the Water Management District (WMD) that is described in the WMP, the funds would be used for projects that would reduce water quantity and phosphorus loading to Heron Lake. A charge would be placed on the parcels within the HLWD. The charge would be in proportion to the amount water contributed by the parcel. The draft WMP states that $200,000 is the maximum amount that could be collected through the WMD per year. The HLWD managers live and work in the watershed. They are aware of the financial implications that this could create and given the current economic conditions, would not consider collecting the maximum in the near future. However, they are also concerned about their responsibility to improve the water quality in the watershed. Preliminary information from county auditors indicates that there are 2,373 parcels in Nobles County; 3,366 parcels in Jackson County; and 321 parcels in Murray County. If the HLWD would charge even a nominal amount of $0.50 per parcel per month on average, the revenue could range up to $50,000 on an annual basis for installing on-the-ground projects. These funds would also be used to match state and federal grants, giving the potential to double the amount of money for on-the- ground projects. The amount of $0.50 per month is less than the cost of one can of pop, candy bar, or bottle of water per household per month! While the HLWD does not need the express permission of the county to implement a WMD, we truly do seek your cooperation in implementing our projects, realizing that revenue is necessary to do so. The HLWD has authority from the Minnesota Legislature through Minnesota Statutes 103D.729 to establish a WMD. The HLWD realizes the sensitivity of the issue of the WMD charge, wants to ensure that factual information is available, and will be holding a hearing to receive public input. The HLWD would appreciate your support of all opportunities to work cooperatively to implement the projects identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan and HLWD WMP as required by Minnesota law. We also appreciate your trust in our fiscal responsibility and confidence in our efforts to provide continued opportunities for clean water through what might be considered a nominal amount of money.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 141
9.6.10. Memo to Murray County to Address Concerns Expressed by Jackson County Commissioner
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: Murray County Commissioners CC: Chris Hansen FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator DATE: July 14, 2011 RE: Watershed Management
It has come to my attention that a commissioner in Jackson County has been in contact with many of you regarding the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) Watershed Management Plan (WMP) and several other items. In order to provide you with first- hand, accurate information, I offer the following. On July 12, 2011, I had the opportunity to attend your county board meeting. Mike McCarvel, HLWD Secretary accompanied me. While in attendance, County Board Chair David Henkels expressed concern about the purpose, role, and effectiveness of the HLWD. The HLWD has been successfully managing water at the local level, by employing an effective partnership with the County Boards, Soil and Watershed Conservation Districts (SWCDs), Natural Resources Conservation Districts, and many others. We plan to continue to work with other local units of government into the future to effectively manage our water resources. This memorandum is intended to provide first-hand, accurate information in response to concerns raised during the July 12, 2011 meeting. Watershed Districts are an effective organization for addressing water issues, because the management of water crosses political boundaries. In 2006, Chuck Holtman of Smith Partners, PLLP, provided a report entitled “The Architecture of Water Resources Management in Minnesota.” That report concluded:
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 142
“The solution is a governmental body that encompasses the entire resource, that can distribute the public benefits of the “commons” equitably and in a manner that is sustainable for the resource.” “… the law recognizes that regulation of land use is an essential part of protecting water resources. Counties, cities, and towns are interested in protecting the resource. But they’re also interested in promoting tax base and economic development . . . Watershed districts can address land use issues with an exclusive focus on the water resource.” “… when money for projects and programs is raised through property taxes, watershed-based levies generally are fairer than levies based on city, town, or county boundaries. This way, the cost of management efforts can be placed on the property owners who contribute drainage to the receiving water and who most directly benefit from the sound management of the resource.”31 In 2007, the Office of the Legislative Auditor did a thorough examination of watershed management in Minnesota. It is true that the nature of watershed management is complex. It is also not consistent throughout the state. In some areas, water is managed on a county basis; in other parts, a watershed basis; and in some on both a county and watershed basis. However, the Legislative Auditor’s report concluded: “Water is one of Minnesota’s most valuable resources.” “… the quality and quantity of water in Minnesota is central to our way of life.” “to address the water issues, Minnesota needs to effectively manage its watersheds.” “Ideally, surface water should be managed on a watershed basis.”32 Stormwater runoff and drainage does not respect township, city, and county boundaries. To resolve water management issues, there is a need to plan and manage the watershed. That is exactly what the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) does on a daily basis. The HLWD: has local levy authority and a unique statutory blend of authorities to raise funds needed for improvements and programs and to regulate the use and development of activities to ensure the protection of water quality. provides public benefit through our plans, projects, and programs, which require extensive citizen involvement and state approval and address real on-the-ground resource management issues. demonstrates accountability through annual reports and financial audits provided to the Board of Water and Soil Resources, Department of Natural Resources, local appointing authorities, and constituents. manages on a watershed basis. This means we consider the drainage and the problems no matter where they occur. We work with cities and all our
31 http://www.waterlaws.com/commentary/bulletins/architectureofwaterresources.html, accessed 7/2011 32 Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, Response to the Recommendations and Findings of the Office of the Legislative Auditor’s Report on Watershed Management, February 2007
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 143
counties and SWCDs to implement collaborative and coordinate projects and programs. The HLWD does its utmost to provide watershed residents with the opportunity to provide feedback on activities undertaken and provide input regarding education and implementation efforts. A list of landowners willing to participate in projects is also kept. The following is taken from the survey results provided at the HLWD 40th Anniversary in August 2010: Congrats on 40 years! That’s pretty darn good! Proper drainage and tillage should be equal to water quality. Focus on water quality only may reduce district’s economic base. Doing a very good job. Good job! Your display here today was very interesting and informative. Keep up your good work! Open house was a hit! Glad to be here! Keep up the good work! It is true that Heron Lake and its management have been a source of contention in the watershed. The HLWD focuses its efforts on implementation and education efforts. While the HLWD supports the Resting and Feeding Area designation on Heron Lake, the HLWD has no power regarding public access or dam management. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has sole authority for decisions regarding these issues. HLWD activities should not be confused with DNR authorities. During the last 15 years, the HLWD has obtained more than $1.6 million grant dollars and worked with watershed residents to implement a multitude of on-the- ground projects. The efforts of the HLWD have been formally recognized by the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, winning the Watershed Program of the Year award in 2002, the Minnesota Environmental Initiative, winning the Environmental Education Award in 2006, and by the Department of Natural Resources, winning the Watershed District of the Year award in 2007. In 2008, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study was completed for the West Fork Des Moines River (WFDMR) watershed and Heron Lake. To meet the water quality goals, a 10 percent to 86 percent reduction in bacteria, a 20 percent to 90 percent reduction in turbidity, and a 79 percent reduction in phosphorus is needed. A TMDL Implementation Plan was written to create goals and objectives to address these water quality goals. The TMDL Implementation Plan identified a need for $23.4 million for cost-share and incentive programs. It identified a need for $17.6 million in loan funds for correcting septic systems. In order to put these funds into the hands of watershed landowners, the need is over $22.1 million is needed as inkind contribution from staff in the seven counties, SWCDs, and the HLWD. As the lead organization in the development of the TMDL Implementation Plan for the WFDMR watershed, the HLWD takes the role of improving water quality within the watershed very seriously. The same can be said of the seven counties and seven
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 144
SWCDs in the WFDMR watershed. A Memorandum of Agreement was signed by all 15 entities that outlined the process for working together to implement the actions outlined in the Implementation Plan. Should the HLWD “turn on” the Water Management District (WMD) that is described in the WMP, the funds would be used for projects that would reduce water quantity and phosphorus loading to Heron Lake. A charge would be placed on the parcels within the HLWD. The charge would be in proportion to the amount water contributed by the parcel. The draft WMP states that $200,000 is the maximum amount that could be collected through the WMD per year. The HLWD managers live and work in the watershed. They are aware of the financial implications that this could create and given the current economic conditions, would not consider collecting the maximum in the near future. However, they are also concerned about their responsibility to improve the water quality in the watershed. Preliminary information from county auditors indicates that there are 2,373 parcels in Nobles County; 3,366 parcels in Jackson County; and 321 parcels in Murray County. If the HLWD would charge even a nominal amount of $0.50 per parcel per month on average, the revenue could range up to $50,000 on an annual basis for installing on-the-ground projects. These funds would also be used to match state and federal grants, giving the potential to double the amount of money for on-the- ground projects. The amount of $0.50 per month is less than the cost of one can of pop, candy bar, or bottle of water per household per month! While the HLWD does not need the express permission of the county to implement a WMD, we truly do seek your cooperation in implementing our projects, realizing that revenue is necessary to do so. The HLWD has authority from the Minnesota Legislature through Minnesota Statutes 103D.729 to establish a WMD. The HLWD realizes the sensitivity of the issue of the WMD charge, wants to ensure that factual information is available, and will be holding a hearing to receive public input. The HLWD would appreciate your support of all opportunities to work cooperatively to implement the projects identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan and HLWD WMP as required by Minnesota law. We also appreciate your trust in our fiscal responsibility and confidence in our efforts to provide continued opportunities for clean water through what might be considered a nominal amount of money.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 145
9.6.11. Memo to Cottonwood County to Address Concerns Expressed by Jackson County Commissioner
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: Cottonwood County Commissioners FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator DATE: July 14, 2011 RE: Watershed Management
It has come to my attention that a commissioner in Jackson County has been in contact with many of you regarding the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) Watershed Management Plan (WMP) and several other items. In order to provide you with first- hand, accurate information, I offer the following. On July 12, 2011, I had the opportunity to attend your county board meeting. Mike McCarvel, HLWD Secretary accompanied me. While in attendance, County Board Chair David Henkels expressed concern about the purpose, role, and effectiveness of the HLWD. The HLWD has been successfully managing water at the local level, by employing an effective partnership with the County Boards, Soil and Watershed Conservation Districts (SWCDs), Natural Resources Conservation Districts, and many others. We plan to continue to work with other local units of government into the future to effectively manage our water resources. This memorandum is intended to provide first-hand, accurate information in response to concerns raised during the July 12, 2011 meeting. Watershed Districts are an effective organization for addressing water issues, because the management of water crosses political boundaries. In 2006, Chuck Holtman of Smith Partners, PLLP, provided a report entitled “The Architecture of Water Resources Management in Minnesota.” That report concluded: “The solution is a governmental body that encompasses the entire resource, that can distribute the public benefits of the “commons” equitably and in a manner that is sustainable for the resource.” “… the law recognizes that regulation of land use is an essential part of protecting water resources. Counties, cities, and towns are interested in
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 146
protecting the resource. But they’re also interested in promoting tax base and economic development . . . Watershed districts can address land use issues with an exclusive focus on the water resource.” “… when money for projects and programs is raised through property taxes, watershed-based levies generally are fairer than levies based on city, town, or county boundaries. This way, the cost of management efforts can be placed on the property owners who contribute drainage to the receiving water and who most directly benefit from the sound management of the resource.”33 In 2007, the Office of the Legislative Auditor did a thorough examination of watershed management in Minnesota. It is true that the nature of watershed management is complex. It is also not consistent throughout the state. In some areas, water is managed on a county basis; in other parts, a watershed basis; and in some on both a county and watershed basis. However, the Legislative Auditor’s report concluded: “Water is one of Minnesota’s most valuable resources.” “… the quality and quantity of water in Minnesota is central to our way of life.” “to address the water issues, Minnesota needs to effectively manage its watersheds.” “Ideally, surface water should be managed on a watershed basis.”34 Stormwater runoff and drainage does not respect township, city, and county boundaries. To resolve water management issues, there is a need to plan and manage the watershed. That is exactly what the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) does on a daily basis. The HLWD: has local levy authority and a unique statutory blend of authorities to raise funds needed for improvements and programs and to regulate the use and development of activities to ensure the protection of water quality. provides public benefit through our plans, projects, and programs, which require extensive citizen involvement and state approval and address real on-the-ground resource management issues. demonstrates accountability through annual reports and financial audits provided to the Board of Water and Soil Resources, Department of Natural Resources, local appointing authorities, and constituents. manages on a watershed basis. This means we consider the drainage and the problems no matter where they occur. We work with cities and all our counties and SWCDs to implement collaborative and coordinate projects and programs. The HLWD does its utmost to provide watershed residents with the opportunity to provide feedback on activities undertaken and provide input regarding education
33 http://www.waterlaws.com/commentary/bulletins/architectureofwaterresources.html, accessed 7/2011 34 Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, Response to the Recommendations and Findings of the Office of the Legislative Auditor’s Report on Watershed Management, February 2007
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 147
and implementation efforts. A list of landowners willing to participate in projects is also kept. The following is taken from the survey results provided at the HLWD 40th Anniversary in August 2010: Congrats on 40 years! That’s pretty darn good! Proper drainage and tillage should be equal to water quality. Focus on water quality only may reduce district’s economic base. Doing a very good job. Good job! Your display here today was very interesting and informative. Keep up your good work! Open house was a hit! Glad to be here! Keep up the good work! It is true that Heron Lake and its management have been a source of contention in the watershed. The HLWD focuses its efforts on implementation and education efforts. While the HLWD supports the Resting and Feeding Area designation on Heron Lake, the HLWD has no power regarding public access or dam management. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has sole authority for decisions regarding these issues. HLWD activities should not be confused with DNR authorities. During the last 15 years, the HLWD has obtained more than $1.6 million grant dollars and worked with watershed residents to implement a multitude of on-the- ground projects. The efforts of the HLWD have been formally recognized by the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, winning the Watershed Program of the Year award in 2002, the Minnesota Environmental Initiative, winning the Environmental Education Award in 2006, and by the Department of Natural Resources, winning the Watershed District of the Year award in 2007. In 2008, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study was completed for the West Fork Des Moines River (WFDMR) watershed and Heron Lake. To meet the water quality goals, a 10 percent to 86 percent reduction in bacteria, a 20 percent to 90 percent reduction in turbidity, and a 79 percent reduction in phosphorus is needed. A TMDL Implementation Plan was written to create goals and objectives to address these water quality goals. The TMDL Implementation Plan identified a need for $23.4 million for cost-share and incentive programs. It identified a need for $17.6 million in loan funds for correcting septic systems. In order to put these funds into the hands of watershed landowners, the need is over $22.1 million is needed as inkind contribution from staff in the seven counties, SWCDs, and the HLWD. As the lead organization in the development of the TMDL Implementation Plan for the WFDMR watershed, the HLWD takes the role of improving water quality within the watershed very seriously. The same can be said of the seven counties and seven SWCDs in the WFDMR watershed. A Memorandum of Agreement was signed by all 15 entities that outlined the process for working together to implement the actions outlined in the Implementation Plan.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 148
Should the HLWD “turn on” the Water Management District (WMD) that is described in the WMP, the funds would be used for projects that would reduce water quantity and phosphorus loading to Heron Lake. A charge would be placed on the parcels within the HLWD. The charge would be in proportion to the amount water contributed by the parcel. The draft WMP states that $200,000 is the maximum amount that could be collected through the WMD per year. The HLWD managers live and work in the watershed. They are aware of the financial implications that this could create and given the current economic conditions, would not consider collecting the maximum in the near future. However, they are also concerned about their responsibility to improve the water quality in the watershed. Preliminary information from county auditors indicates that there are 2,373 parcels in Nobles County; 3,366 parcels in Jackson County; and 321 parcels in Murray County. If the HLWD would charge even a nominal amount of $0.50 per parcel per month on average, the revenue could range up to $50,000 on an annual basis for installing on-the-ground projects. These funds would also be used to match state and federal grants, giving the potential to double the amount of money for on-the- ground projects. The amount of $0.50 per month is less than the cost of one can of pop, candy bar, or bottle of water per household per month! While the HLWD does not need the express permission of the county to implement a WMD, we truly do seek your cooperation in implementing our projects, realizing that revenue is necessary to do so. The HLWD has authority from the Minnesota Legislature through Minnesota Statutes 103D.729 to establish a WMD. The HLWD realizes the sensitivity of the issue of the WMD charge, wants to ensure that factual information is available, and will be holding a hearing to receive public input. The HLWD would appreciate your support of all opportunities to work cooperatively to implement the projects identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan and HLWD WMP as required by Minnesota law. We also appreciate your trust in our fiscal responsibility and confidence in our efforts to provide continued opportunities for clean water through what might be considered a nominal amount of money.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 149
9.6.12. Second Request to Jackson County for Resolution of Support
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
July 21, 2011
Jackson County Commissioners 405 4th St. Jackson, MN 56143
Dear Jackson County Commissioners: It has come to my attention that the enclosed draft letter denying support for the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) Watershed Management Plan (WMP) was distributed to the commissioners in Nobles, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties. The heart of the issue seems to be the proposed Water Management District (WMD). This funding mechanism would allow the HLWD to collect funds from watershed residents in the WMD based on the runoff from their property. These resources could only be used for installing projects to address water quantity problems and the phosphorus impairment in Heron Lake. This money would benefit every lake and stream within the district: Okabena Creek, Elk Creek, and Jack Creek, the Fulda Lakes, Graham Lakes, Corabelle, Teal, and Timber, as well as the Heron Lake system. The Nobles County Commissioners requested my presence at their meeting on July 19. They provided me with an opportunity to give a PowerPoint presentation regarding the HLWD WMP and HLWD activities. Wayne Smith, Nobles County Environmental Services Director; Steve Schneider, Nobles County Director of Public Works; and Ed Lenz, Nobles SWCD Manager all spoke in support of the HLWD. The Nobles County Commissioners passed a resolution in full support of the HLWD WMP. The wording for the resolution is attached. I have not yet received the certified copy. The Murray County Commissioners discussed the WMP at their meeting on July 19. Ross Behrends gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the WMP and HLWD activities. We both answered questions regarding the WMP and WMD. The Murray County Commissioners passed a resolution in full support of the HLWD WMP. The wording for the resolution is attached. I have not yet received the certified copy. On July 18, I had the opportunity to speak with John Jaschke, Executive Director of the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) regarding the WMP Workshop, July 12 Jackson
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 150
County Commissioners meeting, and the July 19 Nobles and Murray County Commissioners meetings. I also provided him with the minutes of the HLWD May 5 special meeting regarding the WMP, the draft letter of non-support from Jackson County, as well as the recent memos that I sent to you. During the discussion, I asked for mediation assistance from BWSR. This would entail having Don Buckhout, BWSR meet with Jackson County Commissioners, HLWD managers, and HLWD staff to discuss the WMP and answer any questions the commissioners may have. This would be done before the hearing on the WMP to ensure that the HLWD has done everything possible to secure your support. The HLWD has collaborated with Jackson County staff for many years. This assistance has been vital to the success of education and implementation efforts. The HLWD has authority from the Minnesota Legislature through Minnesota Statutes 103D.729 to establish a WMD. While the HLWD does not need the express permission of the county to implement a WMD, we truly do seek your support in this endeavor. The HLWD would greatly appreciate receiving a resolution of support for the WMP from Jackson County. Supporting this effort would show your county’s commitment and dedication to improving water quality for the benefit of all residents of the HLWD. It would also show your trust in and support of the HLWD. If you cannot provide a resolution of support, then I would respectfully request that you take no action until the commissioners have attended a mediation session. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerely,
Jan Voit District Administrator
C: John Jaschke, BWR Don Buckout, BWSR Board of Managers, HLWD
Enclosures
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 151
9.7. Nobles and Murray County Commissioner Meetings
9.7.1. PowerPoint Presentation for Nobles and Murray County Commissioners Meetings
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 152
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 153
9.7.2. Nobles County Resolution of Support
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 154
9.7.3. Murray County Resolution of Support
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 155
9.8. Agency Comments
9.8.1. MPCA Comments – Katherine Pekarek-Scott Page 7 Goals, Objectives, and Action Items: This section provides a detailed framework for the goals, objectives, and action items identified to attain desired outcomes and specifically address this the issues identified within the WMP.
Page 8 The Board of Managers of the HLWD met on May 5, 2011. The purpose of the meeting was to review the draft WMP. Mark Deutschman, HEI, provided the managers with an update on the WMP status, organization, priority issues, goals, implementation plan and funding, and WMDs. Extensive discussion was held regarding the WMP implementation and WMD. A $200,000 annual limit was placed on WMD revenue collection. The draft WMP was approved for submission as required by statute. The minutes of the meeting are contained in Appendix 4.
Page 11 The goals are for the most part are broad and, generally, the HLWD has made progress has been made toward those goals by making them with a high priority for the HLWD. Concrete evidence of plan success can be based upon actual projects that were completed in the effort to meet these goals.
Page 12 Table 1 has a formatting error where the caption is also shown going down the first column in the table.
Page 13 3.1.1 Heron Lake and its history are of significant importance to the watershed. At the turn of the century, market hunting was common and provided Heron Lake and its residents with additional income. This also brought people from all walks of life to experience the skies darkened by flocks of birds and try their hand at hunting. In 1909, a land survey was completed that divided the lake into pie-shaped sections. This was done in preparation for draining Heron Lake for agricultural use. The landowners banded together and decided not to drain the lake. Through During this time, market hunting became illegal, the water quality was declining, and the number of resident and migratory waterfowl decreased. Heron Lake watershed residents began to take increased advantage of the rich soil surrounding Heron Lake, causing additional degradation of the lake. The heightened understanding and realization of the repercussions of land use decisions made within the watershed began about fifty years ago. Since that time, projects, partnerships, and individual efforts have been undertaken in an attempt to reverse the pollution problems that had developed. The time and money spent on water quality improvement efforts attribute to the economic and social importance of the lake and watershed.
The Heron Lake watershed encompasses approximately 472 square miles and is located in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties in southwestern Minnesota, as
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 156
shown in Figure 1. Two lake systems, the Heron Lake Systems and the Graham Lake System, lie within the Heron Lake Basin.
The Graham Lakes System lies in the north-central portion of the basin and consists of three connected lakes: West Graham Lake, East Graham Lake, and Jack Lake.
Page 18 3.4.2 Minnesota has 19 ethanol plants and three biodiesel plants. Heron Lake BioEnergy (ethanol plant) and Minnesota Soybean Processors (biodiesel plant) are located within the HLWD. The state currently has a 10% mandate for ethanol blend and 5% for biodiesel.7
Page 31 3.13. Natural Resources 3.13.1 Important Wildlife Habitats Grasslands and wetlands are important wildlife habitats in the HLWD. Prairie remnants are valuable habitats for those species that utilize grassland ecosystems wholly or in part. Wetlands, including temporary and seasonal basins, marshes, and open waterbodies, provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial biota. Organisms utilizing these areas include fishes, various aquatic invertebrates, waterfowl, big and small game, furbearers, some rodents, wading birds, and many species of songbirds. These habitats, along with woodlands and brushy areas, are important as breeding, nesting, feeding, and resting areas for both migratory and resident wildlife. Common wildlife within the HLWD is are included in Table 3.
Page 34 3.13.3 Rare and Threatened Resources With the exception of rare birds documented in the vicinity of Heron Lake, the majority of rare species in these four counties occur outside boundaries of HLWD. Several of the rarest plants present in the counties are concentrated along the Des Moines River Valley or its abandoned ancient drainage channels. Within the HLWD, the Northern Grasshopper Mice occur in Nobles County and all the other species in the table below are found in Jackson County (Table 4). The Trumpeter Swan is listed as a species of concern by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The following species are designated as rare, threatened, endangered, of interest, or of special concern by the DNR.15
Page 36 4.2.1 Waters that are in poor condition are labeled “impaired” and are the focus of improvement efforts by the HLWD. The discussion which follows is focused on “what” is causing poor water quality within the HLWD.
Page 46 4.4 Resources issues related to biotic integrity are expected to be led by the DNR. The HLWD anticipates involvement in improving biotic integrity through the implementation
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 157
of water quality BMPs and restoring wetlands. Efforts related to wetlands are anticipated to be associated with providing incentives for and to restore wetlands and creates storage on the landscape to reduce flooding and flood damages.
Page 48 Goals, policies and actions, are expected to be consistent with the mission statement of the HLWD.
Page 58 education and information activities, collection and management of data and information, formal programs and activities associated with the programs, activities intended to provide solutions to the address the issues and problems identified within the WMP., and
Page 68 6.3.2.4. Flood Damage Reduction Program The HLWD Flood Damage Reduction Program is focused on capital projects intended to reduce flood damages. The program is focused on providing flood protection for agricultural lands up to the 10-year and the protection of homes, important infrastructure and communities up to the 100-year flood event. Only limited activities have occurred under this program since approval of the previous WMP, primarily because of the concern about the fiscal resources necessary to implement projects. The HLWD completed a study in 1999 which identified potential flood damage reduction (i.e., storage) projects (see Figure 12). The Watershed Technician continued to pursue these projects described in the 1999 report. Upon further research of the projects, it was determined that the permitting process through DNR and Army Corps of Engineers would require substantial time and money. The Board of Managers wishes to place more emphasis on the implementation of flood damage reduction projects is in the coming years.
Page 69 6.3.3. Capital Improvement Projects A watershed district may undertake capital improvement projects. Capital Improvement Projects are those ―larger‖ projects requiring considerable fiscal resources to implement and construct (e.g., larger flood control projects). Implementing these projects is expected to occur following the completion of a feasibility study, which identifies the project benefits, permit and environmental review requirements, design, and the Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. Expectations are that following the completion of a feasibility study, the District will pursue external funds to construct capital improvement projects.
Page 70 Greater than 75% success (Assign a rank of 3): The action is nearing completion or largely completed. Construction is beginning, in progress, or nearing completion.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 158
Programs have achieved a stable, mature state. Grant funds are fully committed on an annual basis. Implementation plans are mostly completed.
9.8.2. MPCA Comments – Rebecca Flood
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 159
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 160
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 161
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 162
9.8.3. BWSR Comments – Matt Drewitz
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 163
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 164
9.8.4. BWSR Comments – Mark Hiles
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 165
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 166
9.8.5. SRDC Comments – John Shepard
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 167
9.8.6. MDA Comments – Robert Sip
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 168
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 169
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 170
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 171
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 172
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 173
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 174
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 175
9.8.7. DNR Comments – Tom Kresko
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 176
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 177
9.8.8. Mark Hiles – December 6, 201
Jan,
Per your request in our phone conversation you asked the I send a reminder of the changes that need to be made in the plan when the planning process is continued.
1) 1.3 Description of the Planning Process (pg. 9). Bullet number 12 should be changed to read “BWSR Board prescribes and approves a watershed management plan”. Currently the text reads that the managers must adopt the WMP following BWSR board approval.
2) 1.3 Description of the Planning Process (pg. 9). Bullet number 13 should be changed to read “The Board of Water & Soil Resources must send copies of the approval order to the managers, the county board of each county affected by the watershed district, the commissioner, the director, governing body of each municipality affected by the watershed district, and soil and water conservation districts affected by the watershed district”.
3) Any other changes to the plan that the HLWD board of managers would like to change after public information/input/discussion. I know there has been discussion about parcel maximum and minimum charge restrictions be in place for the water management district. Currently the plan does not identify parcel maximum or minimum amounts. There has also been discussion that parcel maximum & minimum fees would limit the District’s ability to collect more than $90,000 annually. Currently the maximum revenue generated by the water management district is capped at $200,000. Again this a policy decision that should be made by the board of managers. If a change is made again I would suggest incorporating it into the plan.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Thanks,
Mark L. Hiles Board Conservationist MN Board of Water & Soil Resources
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 178
9.8.9. Agency Comments Summary Spreadsheet
Comment Comment Response(s) Comment Change Made to Agency Plan Section Page No.(s) Number Plan (Y/N)?
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency provided many editorial comments and suggested text revisions to the The comments were incorporated throughout the WMP. Minnesota Pollution Control WMP via email. A subsequent letter was also provided. 1 General Comment Entire Plan Y Agency (Email)
Thus, to meet requirements of M.S. Section 103D.729 for a Water Management District, the section must specify that The WMP has been modified to identify the Best Management Practice a project will be ordered after a separate notice and hearing process for any project funded wholly or partially with Implementation - Water Quality Improvement Program and the Flood Damage water management district funds. Reduction Program as separate "projects" which will be initiated (and presumably ordered) by the Board of Managers under MS 103D.730 Stormwater Facilities.
The plan has been additionally modified to indicate that each of these projects are comprised of eligible "practices or activities" (e.g., a Best Board of Water and Soil Management Practice for the Water Quality Improvement Program) as 1 7.2.1 82-85 Y Resources (Letter) described within the WMP. Only those practices or activities as defined within the WMP are "eligible" for funding using revenue collected through the Water Management District charge. A WMP amendment would be necessary to modify the list of practices or activities and a subsequent hearing to incorporate new practices or activity not be described in the WMP. Language has been added to indicate that flood damage program activities must be established as a project to use revenue from the WMD.
Therefore, on the Water Management District Map (Figure 16) the word "proposed" should be deleted from the index The word "proposed" is removed from Figure 16. Revisions were also made identifying the Water Management District and the Area of Include par of the plan should be written to describe the within the section Methods for Determining charges as recommend by BWSR Board of Water and Soil 2 7.2.1 82-85 Water Management District, not a proposal of the area. Y by email. Resources (Letter)
As discussed during our June 28, 2011 meeting the implementation section of the plan is driven by a long range work The majority of action items within the Long Range Work Plan are at a plan and development of an annual work plan. The way the BWSR currently makes decisions for competitive Clean watershed wide scale, because one important focus of and location used to Water Funds (CWF) is heavily scored on projects and priorities being identified in a state approved, locally adopted evaluate the success of the District's activities is Heron Lake, which is located plan. While annual plans of work are a great tool to prioritize and identify work load and projects for the upcoming near the outlet of the District. year they are not State approved. Therefore, an annual work plan cannot be used as a direct reference plan to apply for CWF. As recommended on June 28, 2011 I would advise the Watershed District to prioritize implementation, Please note that Section 8.7.2 Amendments to the Watershed Management target (sub-watershed, shoreland, etc), provide measurable action items and identify priority projects. Currently the Plan discusses when a plan amendment is required, should the Long Range majority of the action items are watershed district wide and have no measureable action. Work Plan be modified.
Please note that BWSR guidance indicates that "Projects must be identified in a local water management plan, groundwater plan well head protection plan or surface water intake plan." Relative to CWF funding, the EPA approved implementation plan for Heron Lake is incorporated by reference, providing justification as a priority for CWF funding. Additionally, Section 6.3.2.2 Water Quality Improvement Program is specific to improving water quality making Board of Water and Soil the District eligible for CWF funding. Also, please see comment response 3 6.3 61-77 Y Resources (Letter and Email) BWSR #2.
Although establishing priority areas for the implementation of BMPs is certainly desirable, the experience of HLWD implementing cost-share projects for more than 16 years is that landowner interest is equally or more important for implementation. The HLWD does work with the local SWCD and others to ensure the BMPs implemented will result in improved water quality and reduced runoff. Please note that the WMP does identify priority areas for flood damage reduction. Section 6.3, Implementation Program, has been revised to include timeframe, determining factors, person(s) responsible, priority audience, efforts funded/estimated efforts, and estimated cost as a means to provide prioritization, targeting, and measurable actions.
As discussed on the phone and in personal on June 28, 2011 I would suggest that the Watershed District staff Several meetings were held and HLWD staff and Managers appeared before Board of Water and Soil contact all County Boards and invite Soil and Water Conservation Districts and County Staff to openly discuss the the County Boards to discuss establishing the WMD. Text describing these 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable N Resources (Letter) decision to create a Water Management District. meetings has been Section 1.4.
The Water Management District is being proposed to fund projects that will address the long term water quality See the response to comment BWSR-1. The revised WMD language identifies within Heron Lake and reduce sediment loads within the area contributing runoff to Heron Lake. My concern is a few those specific practices considered eligible for funding. Board of Water and Soil Pages 68-71 and of the practices identified will have limited success in achieving that goal. As stated in our conversation on June 28, 5 6.3.2.2.2 Y Resources (Letter) Table 10 on page 70 2011 the practices I have concern with include: farmstead shelterbelts, living snow fences, well sealing and septic system assessment.
Finally, I have suggested several minor edits and typo changes during our discussion on June 28, 2011, such as, The cover has been modified to include the date and duration of the plan. Board of Water and Soil 6 General Comment Entire Plan dating the plan and having the plan duration period on the front page. Y Resources (Letter)
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 179
Comment Comment Response(s) Comment Change Made to Agency Plan Section Page No.(s) Number Plan (Y/N)?
I would strongly suggest that you consider Comprehensive Plans, zoning, water management, hazard mitigation, and other related plans and policies to ensure that you are not duplicating efforts already in place. HLWD staff served on the advisory committees during the development of the Comprehensive Water Plans for Nobles (2009), Jackson (2008), Murray (2007), and Cottonwood (2007) Counties. In addition, the water plan Southwest Regional coordinators, Soil and Water Conservation staff, and a commissioner from Development Commission 1 General Comment Page 11 Y each county serve on the HLWD Advisory Committee. All involved have done (Letter) their utmost to ensure that the HLWD WMP is based upon the findings of the TMDL Study, is consistent with the Comprehensive Water Plans and the TMDL Implementation Plan, and that efforts for zoning, water management, mitigation, policy, and planning are complemented, not duplicated.
As your proposed plan also addresses flooding, I would invite you to be actively involved in future updates of the Comment acknowledged. The Districts efforts on flood damage reduction are hazard mitigation plans in each county as required by FEMA; failure to do so may endanger future federal funding to oriented at the problem areas identified in Figure 12. Coordination among Southwest Regional our counties. I would also suggest substantially expanding Section 8.2 to address how your plans will be partners will continue into the future. The District welcomes the opportunity Development Commission 2 8.2 Pages 44 and 55 coordinated with all jurisdictions covering your district. Y for involvement in flooding issues. This WMP initiates a "new" flood damage (Letter) reduction program. A paragraph acknowledging this has been added to Section 4.2.2, as well as Action 5.2-1k.
The plan should provide guidance, objectives, goals, and action items for further coordination of agricultural water Comment acknowledged. The HLWD believes the WMP adequately describes MN Department of management issues and Conservation Drainage (CD) implementation efforts at the local level. A number of CD the role of the District when cooperating with the drainage authority. 1 General Comment Entire Plan N Agriculture (Letter) practices exist to address water quality issues.
Even though the HLWD is not the primary lead on drainage issues as indicated on Page 46, it is recommended that Comment acknowledged. The HLWD believes the WMP adequately describes the HLWD plan address the following in a cooperative approach with local drainage authorities: the role of the District when cooperating with the drainage authority. The primary role of the District is to provide incentives for incorporating Discuss how CD practices can be utilized based on drainage needs of the watershed district coupled with associated conservation drainage practices. water management issues.
The use of CD practices and designs be encouraged in a proactive manner by the watershed district and local drainage authorities during repairs and improvements of existing drainage systems.
MN Department of That redetermination of benefits for ditch systems be done in a proactive, consistent and systematic manner. 2 4.2.3 45 N Agriculture (Letter) Buffer initiatives be implemented consistently and according to current drainage law.
That local drainage authorities base drainage regulations on science and current best management practice knowledge.
The HLWD is also encouraged to use scientific reference to support various reference statements about drainage on Comment acknowledged. The statements are general in nature. MN Department of Page 41 of the draft plan. 3 4.2.3 45 N Agriculture (Letter)
A number of targeting tools have been developed or under development to assist local units of government in Acknowledged. The HLWD is currently working under a MDA grant for tracking MN Department of targeting BMPs and conservation practices. and assessing the water quality benefits of agricultural BMPs. 4 6.3.2.2.2 68-69 Y Agriculture (Letter)
The MDA is working with several partners to conduct a comprehensive inventory of agricultural BMPs that address Acknowledged. See response to MNDA #4. MN Department of current Minnesota water quality impairments. 5 6.3.2.2.3 72-73 Y Agriculture (Letter)
The following is additional background information and material for the HLWD to consider when developing both The primary focus of the HLWD is surface water. Many other local and state MN Department of groundwater and surface water quality goals and objectives in relation to agricultural areas. agencies have a lead role in managing groundwater. The WMP includes goals 6 Unknown Y Agriculture (Letter) for surface water quality and quantity.
The MDA also encourages the HLWD to work with other local units of government on collaborative approaches via Comment acknowledged. The HLWD will continue its current cooperative MN Department of the education goals outlined on Pages 54 and 55 of the draft document. efforts. 7 5.6 57-58 Y Agriculture (Letter)
It is suggested the watershed plan: …….It is anticipated that EPA will approve the updated list of impaired waters Revisions have been made to Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 to ensure it reflects shortly. the 2008 Impaired Waters List provided in the MPCA comment letter. Minnesota Pollution Control 1 4.2.1 38-42 Y Agency (Letter)
Local input will be critical in getting the best information possible for this effort. Information can be used by the A paragraph acknowledging the interest of the HLWD in particpating in the Minnesota Pollution Control Watershed District to apply for funding such as the Clean Water Funds (CWF) to continue implementation acitvities "watershed-wide" TMDL approach has been added to Section 6.3.2.2.3 (last 2 6.3.2.2.3 72-73 Y Agency (Letter) that may otherwise not be available. This effort may also help lead to funding for monitoring and civic engagement. paragraph).
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 180
Comment Comment Response(s) Comment Change Made to Agency Plan Section Page No.(s) Number Plan (Y/N)?
In referencing water quality goals, policies, and actions, I believe that there is a vested interest in establishing more The Section 6.3, Implementation Program, has been revised to include quantitative or enumerative goals. This assertion is certainly most apparent as details as set forth in "Actions". For timeframe, determining factors, person(s) responsible, priority audience, example: How many biotic indices assessments will be done each year? Or, how many manure storage facilities or efforts funded/estimated efforts, and estimated cost as a means to provide septic systems does the District Plan to fund or assist with per year/decate/etc? What creative solutions will the prioritization, targeting, and measurable actions. District support as alternatives to standard ditch construction and clanouts? How many lakes or streams per year will you complete a water protection strategy to keep them from becoming impaired? The District operates on limited funding and much of what is accomplished with regard to implementing BMPs is because of the District receiving state MN Department of Natural 1 6.3 61-77 Y and federal grants. Althougth more quantitative goals may seem attractive Resources (Letter) and desirable, the amount of revenue constrains the number of BMPs and water quality implementation projects which can be completed each year. Accountability relative to District activities including attaining the goals identified in the WMP is achieved through the annual reporting requirement to BWSR.
The water quality goals, policies, and actions should also be vetted to determine more quantitative or enumerative Section 6.3, Implementation Program, has been revised to include timeframe, goals. How many engineering reports will be done each year? How many outlet assessments will be done each determining factors, person(s) responsible, priority audience, efforts year/decade? The water quantity section also exhitibits a generalized Flood prone map. I believe that as presented, funded/estimated efforts, and estimated cost as a means to provide this map greatly limits the ability to make effective decisions about flooding projects or responses. I encourage you prioritization, targeting, and measurable actions. The HLWD will work to get in touch with Wayne Smith from Nobles County, or representatives from FEMA, or the consulting firm PBS&J, cooperatively with the counties, SWCDs, and other partners to implement which were hired to update the floodplain maps in Nobles County in 2010. These new maps have a significantly flood reduction projects and will use the best mapping resources available at higher level of detail not published in previous versions. Further, shape-files are available for review and/or use by project initiation. The HLWD will continue to provide leadership and direction LGU staff, with detailed LIDAR data available soon. during project development and implementation. Lastly, the HLWD can be a leader in providing alternative analysis and researching other options for standard MN Department of Natural drainage practices. This strategy could be similar to the decisions made on the in-channel settling pond upstream of The District operates on limited funding and much of what is accomplished 2 6.3 61-77 Y Resources (Letter) Fulda Lake. with regard to implementing BMPs is because of the District receiving state and federal grants. Althougth more quantitative goals may seem attractive and desirable, the amount of revenue constrains the number of BMPs and water quality implementation projects which can be completed each year. Accountability relative to District activities including attaining the goals identified in the WMP is achieved through the annual reporting requirement to BWSR.
1.3 Description of the Planning Process (pg. 9). Bullet number 12 should be changed to read Board of Water and 1 1.3 9 “BWSR Board prescribes and approves a watershed management plan”. Currently the text Y Soil Resources (email) Bullet number 12 was changed to read “BWSR prescribes and reads that the managers must adopt the WMP following BWSR board approval. approves the WMP.” 1.3 Description of the Planning Process (pg. 9). Bullet number 13 should be changed to read Bullet number 13 was changed to read “BWSR must send “The Board of Water & Soil Resources must send copies of the approval order to the copies of the approval order to the HLWD managers, the Board of Water and 2 1.3 9 managers, the county board of each county affected by the watershed district, the Y county boards, governing bodies of each municipality, and Soil Resources (email) commissioner, the director, governing body of each municipality affected by the watershed SWCDs affected by the HLWD, and the commissioner and district, and soil and water conservation districts affected by the watershed district”. director of the DNR.” Any other changes to the plan that the HLWD board of managers would like to change after public information/input/discussion. I know there has been discussion about parcel maximum and minimum charge restrictions be in place for the water management district. Currently the plan does not identify parcel maximum or minimum amounts . There has also been Board of Water and 3 7.2.1 87 discussion that parcel maximum & minimum fees would limit the District’s ability to collect Y Soil Resources (email) more than $90,000 annually. Currently the maximum revenue generated by the water management district is capped at $200,000. Again this a policy decision that should be made by the board of managers. If a change is made again I would suggest incorporating it into Bullet number 7 was changed to read “A maximum annual per the plan. parcel charge of up to $24.00 will be imposed.”
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 181
9.9. HLWD August Newsletter
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 182
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 183
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 184
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 185
9.10. News Article
Heron Lake Watershed District 10-Year Plan: A Renewed Focus on Education and Implementation By Jan Voit, District Administrator
Are the environment and natural resources important to watershed district residents? We think so! Natural resources, especially water and soil, are necessary for survival. Using water and soil impacts the natural environment. Each watershed resident impacts the natural environment every day – brushing teeth, flushing the toilet, doing dishes and laundry, mowing the lawn, and tilling and fertilizing the garden. The natural environment is also impacted by construction projects, installation of buildings, parking lots, and roads, feedlot runoff, and farming practices.
It is the Heron Lake Watershed District’s responsibility to provide its residents with educational and financial assistance to correct actions that contribute to water pollution. The practices and programs that are implemented must be described in a Watershed Management Plan (WMP). According to Minnesota law, the HLWD must update that WMP every ten years. Through that update process, the HLWD must make choices that will affect the natural resources in the district, as well as watershed residents.
The HLWD has put forth extensive efforts to provide residents with cost-share and incentive programs, water quality monitoring, staff, and education efforts. Through those efforts, grant funds in excess of $2.2 million dollars have been secured.
In order to continue the education and implementation efforts to which the residents have been accustomed, the HLWD is exploring all possible statutory options available. One option is a Water Management District (WMD). The sole reason the HLWD is considering the implementation of a WMD is to generate a reliable source of revenue, on an annual basis, dedicated only to project construction and agricultural best management practices.
Through this process, landowners would be charged a fee based upon the amount of water runoff from their property. Those properties that contribute more water runoff from their property would have a larger charge. If the HLWD would charge even a nominal amount of $0.50 per parcel per month on average, the revenue could range up to $50,000 on an annual basis for installing of on-the-ground projects. These funds would also be used to match state and federal grants, giving the potential to double the amount of money for on-the-ground projects. The amount of $0.50 per month is less than the cost of one can of pop, candy bar, or bottle of water per household per month!
The HLWD would greatly appreciate your continued support in their efforts to reduce water pollution through the use of implementation and education. The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) will be holding a hearing on the revised WMP on Thursday, October 13 at 7:00 p.m. at the Heron Lake Community Center.
Please attend this hearing and tell the BWSR board that you support these essential efforts.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 186
9.11. Heron Lake Tour
9.11.1. Invitation
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 187
9.11.2. Tour agenda Heron Lake Tour September 21, 2011 1:00 p.m.
Itinerary: 1:00 p.m. Meet at Heron Lake Community Center 1:15 p.m. Depart Community Center, travel to Creekside Farm Welcome Tour overview 1:30 p.m. Creekside Farm NHLGPA activity report View North Heron Lake 2:30 p.m. Depart Creekside Farm, travel to West Heron Wildlife Management Area (WMA) HLWD implementation efforts explanation 2:45 p.m. West Heron WMA DNR presentation regarding public access 3:45 p.m. Depart West Heron WMA, travel to Community Point HLWD Watershed Management Plan update 4:00 p.m. Community Point, travel to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) property TNC property explanation 4:30 p.m. Depart TNC property, travel to Heron Lake outlet State Dam management plan explanation 5:00 p.m. Depart Heron Lake outlet, travel to Community Center
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 188
9.11.3. Tour map
HL HLWD OFFICE Outlet
TNC Property
Creeksid e
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 189
9.11.4. Project locations
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 190
9.11.5. Accomplishments
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 191
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 192
9.11.6. Grant summaries
Heron Lake Watershed District Grant Summary September 2011
The Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) general operating funds are limited and minimal in comparison to what is needed. In order to make the best use of general operating funds, the HLWD has put forth extensive efforts to obtain outside funding.
The HLWD first began applying for additional outside funding in 1996. Since then, 30 grants have successfully been secured. These grants were awarded by local, state, and national organizations such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, AgStar, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), US Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), and the Heron Lake-Okabena Community Foundation.
Over the last fourteen years, the HLWD has received $2,204,093.79 in cash through grants from these organizations. These funds were used to pay for cost-share and incentive programs, water quality monitoring, staff, and education efforts. The HLWD has been very fortunate that outside funders have deemed our projects to be good investments in accordance with their goals and priorities.
Loan funds are separate from grant funds. Loan funds have been awarded to the HLWD for septic system replacement, best management practice (BMP) installation, and conservation tillage equipment. Since 1996, $1,146,061.39 has been disbursed for loans.
Education and implementation efforts to produce newsletters, provide knowledgeable speakers, and put conservation practices on the ground all cost money. Implementation with the agricultural and urban community takes time, as balance between conservation and making a living must be maintained. It is only with the help of partnering organizations and willing landowners that we can continue making improvements. One person or one project in itself will not make much difference, but combined efforts will make a difference.
Following is a summary of the grants that the HLWD implemented in 2011.
Alternative Tile Intake Cost-Share Program Continuation Project goal: The goal of this project is to reduce sediment and phosphorus amounts entering open tile intakes by replacement with subsurface intakes. This grant provides 75% cost-share not to exceed $300.00 per intake; requests for greater than $300.00 would be approved by the HLWD or respective SWCD board on a case by case basis. Alternative tile intakes have been shown to reduce sediment and phosphorus delivery up to 50% as compared to an open tile intake.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 193
Funded through the Clean Water Partnership grant program administered by the MPCA Timeframe – September 6, 2010 to June 30, 2013 Grant funds - $36,000.00 Inkind match (HLWD and partners) - $46,800.00 Total project cost - $82,800.00
BMP Program for Alba Township Overall Goal: The goal of the project is to decrease water movement, reduce erosion, and improve water quality throughout approximately 23,000 acres in Alba Township through changing tillage methods from conventional tillage to conservation tillage. Conventional tillage is the main practice undertaken on the silty clay loam soils. Creating an awareness among landowners about the relationship between soil conservation and water quality will be critical to the project’s success. Project Goal 1: Use a variety of educational materials and methods to educate and inform Alba Township residents about water quality and the project. Project Goal 2: A 30 percent reduction in nutrient and sediment loading in Okabena Creek is anticipated. This equates to 27,997 pounds of phosphorus and 6,835 tons of sediment staying on the land rather than in the stream. Funded through the EPA Section 319 grant program administered by the MPCA Timeframe – February 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011 Grant funds - $40,800.00 Cash match (HLWD) - $39,552.40 Inkind match (HLWD and partners) - $11,823.67 Total project cost - $92,176.07
Fulda Lakes BMP Project Overall Goal: the goal of this project is to improve the water quality in Fulda Lakes through the use of cost-share and incentive programs and education of residents and landowners. Project Goal 1: Reach the long-term goals for phosphorus that were established in 1992. Basin Long-term goal Average from 1997-2002 First Fulda Lake 60-140 ug/L 148 ug/L Second Fulda Lake 25-105 ug/L 148 ug/L Project Goal 2: Using a variety of educational materials and methods, educate and inform city and township residents about water quality and the project. Obtain 25% sign up rate in the cost-share and incentive programs. Project Goal 3: Install two lakeshore restoration sites to demonstrate effective methods to stabilize banks and improve water quality. Funded through the EPA Section 319 grant program administered by the MPCA Timeframe – February 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011 Grant funds - $55,800.00 Cash match (HLWD) - $20,328.14
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 194
Inkind match (HLWD and partners) - $36,523.82 Total project cost - $112,651.96
Clean Water Partnership Continuation Overall resource goal: The major goal of this project is water quality improvement through the use of education and best management practices implementation. Water quality characterization goals: Water quality goals include reducing nonpoint and point source pollution loads, improving water quantity management, and water quality monitoring. Quantitative water quality goals: Quantitative water quality goals are to decrease total phosphorus loading of the lakes primarily by watershed reduction measures. Funded through a Clean Water Partnership grant administered by the MPCA Timeframe – August 31, 2007 to June 30, 2011 Grant funds - $428,752.50 Inkind match (HLWD and partners) - $1,064,941.27 Loan funds - $378,920.13 Total project cost - $1,872,613.90
Conservation Tillage Demonstration Plot Overall goal: The goal of this project is to build awareness with landowners and operators so that conservation tillage practices are adopted to improve water quality in the Heron Lake watershed. Project goal 1: Conduct 12 planning and evaluation meetings with project partners. Project goal 2: Continue research at tillage demonstration site established in October 2005. Project goal 3: Plan, coordinate, and implement annual public education opportunities for watershed residents, agency personnel, and public officials. Project goal 4: Publish and disseminate results to landowners and operators on an annual basis. Funded through the EPA Section 319 grant program administered by the MPCA Timeframe –January 1, 2009 to August 31, 2012 Grant funds - $20,547.00 Inkind match (HLWD and partners) - $20,568.00 Total project cost - $41,115.00
West Fork Des Moines River Watershed Collaboration The tasks summarized below will be accomplished by using this grant as an avenue to hire a West Fork Des Moines River (WFDMR) Watershed Coordinator, which will promote economic recovery by creating one new job and the potential for additional staff in the future.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 195
Priority 1: There are at least seven different types of water quality monitoring in the watershed. This project would provide the funds for a Watershed Coordinator to assist with monitoring and coordinate monitoring efforts in Iowa and Minnesota. Priority 2: Currently, there are over 14 water plans, implementation plans, and overall watershed plans guiding activities in the basin. The Watershed Coordinator would work with the respective entities to determine whether there are areas where cooperation could be enhanced. Priority 3: The WFDMR Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) project was the first basin-wide, multi- parameter TMDL in Minnesota. The Watershed Coordinator would focus efforts on communicating the results of the TMDL study as outlined in the TMDL Implementation Plan. Priority 4: Civic engagement played a crucial role in the WFDMR TMDL project and the endeavors would be continued through this project. Efforts will also be undertaken to revitalize the Des Moines River Watershed Alliance, an interstate work group devoted to communication and collaboration between Minnesota and Iowa organizations. Funded through a Water Quality Management Planning Grant administered by the MPCA Timeframe – February 17, 2010 to September 30, 2011 Grant funds - $74,122.00 Inkind match (HLWD and partners)- $40,290.00 Total project cost - $114,412.00
Heron Lake Sediment Reduction Demonstration Project Overall goal: Increase landowner awareness of two unique streambank stabilization structures, cedar revetments and J-hook weirs, through two demonstration sites and promote structures through printed media, tours, meetings, and a website. Project goal 1: Install and demonstrate a cedar revetment and a J-hook weir at two locations in the Heron Lake watershed. Project Goal 2: Provide educational opportunities through two tours and inform the public about the project through four newspaper articles and newsletters and four meeting updates to each of the four counties. Project Goal 3: Provide digital documentation for use on the website and in presentations that illustrates structure capability and success through video footage and photographs before, during, and after installation. Funded through the EPA Section 319 grant program administered by the MPCA Timeframe – March 1, 2010 to August 31, 2014 Grant funds - $16,500.00 Inkind match (HLWD and partners) - $13,556.00 Total project cost - $30,056.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 196
Cover Crop Demonstration Project Goal 1: To establish a 40 acre cover crop of tillage radish, purple top turnip, and forage rape for the 2011 growing season Objective 1a: Within the grant period, a cover crop will be incorporated into the crop rotation, seeded in the fall of 2011, and destroyed in the spring of 2011 before the 2012 crop is planted. Goal 2: To provide farmers and service providers with information about innovative cover crop practices to benefit water quality and nutrient management Objective 2a: A field day would be hosted in the fall of 2011, following harvest, and would be open to the public. Objective 2b: The Cover Crop Demonstration Project will be featured in two HLWD newsletters that will be distributed to 3,400 residents, conservationists, and legislators. Objective 2c: Press releases will be distributed to local media outlets highlighting project progress and the upcoming field day before the Cover Crop Demonstration Field Day. A newsletter will also be mailed after the spring of 2012 highlighting the project results. Funded through the Minnesota Nutrient Efficiency Grant Program Minnesota Agricultural Water Resources Coalition Timeframe – October 8, 2010 to January 1, 2012 Grant funds - $3,168.00 Inkind match (HLWD and partners) - $6,702.00 Total project cost - $9,870.00
Fulda Phosphorus Reduction Initiative Overall Goal: Instill a sense of personal responsibility for the two lakes in the Fulda area by engaging students, 4-H members, Master Gardeners, landscapers, and the general public in the awareness of effect of water pollution to the Fulda Lakes through unique educational displays, hands-on opportunities, and various printed media. Project Goal 1: Provide educational materials and information to approximately 25 students and two teachers from St. Paul Lutheran School, members and adult leaders from Bondin-Belfast 4- H Club, and members and adult leaders from Seward Trail Blazers 4-H Club. Project Goal 2: Hire landscaper(s) to design five rain gardens within the City of Fulda. Project Goal 3: Coordinate the installation of five rain gardens within the City of Fulda. Project Goal 4: Increase community awareness through an open house, newsletter, and by other news media. Funded through the EPA Section 319 grant program administered by the MPCA Timeframe – August 1, 2011 to August 31, 2015 Grant funds - $12,600.00 Inkind match (HLWD and partners) - $14,973.00 Total project cost - $27,573.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 197
WFDMR TMDL Implementation Project Overall Goal: To enhance partnerships between Murray, Nobles, Jackson, and Cottonwood Counties and the HLWD through the continued employment of a watershed coordinator to assist with obtaining feelot information through onsite inspections and project promotion. Project Goal 1: Conduct an intensive, onsite inventory and inspection of eighty percent of the feedlots in the watershed through a strong partnership with four counties and the HLWD. Project Goal 2: Increase the knowledge of 50 feedlot operators through a one-day workshop. Project Goal 3: Increase public awareness of the WFDMR TMDL Project through the development of a brochure and website. Project Goal 4: Coordination of project updates and direction through semi-annual meetings with the AC and TC. Funded through the EPA Section 319 grant program administered by the MPCA Timeframe – October 1, 2011 to August 31, 2015 Grant funds - $190,298.00 Inkind match (HLWD and partners) - $163,975.00 Total project cost - $354,273.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 198
9.11.7. History of the Heron Lake watershed
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 199
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 200
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 201
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 202
9.11.8. Water Management District map
9.11.9. Water Management District summary
Water Management District MS 103D.729 and 444.075
The sole reason the HLWD is considering the implementation of a WMD is to generate a reliable source of revenue, on an annual basis, dedicated only to project construction and agricultural best management practices.
Through this process, landowners would be charged a fee based upon the amount of water runoff from their property. Those properties that contribute more water runoff from their property would have a larger charge. If the HLWD would charge even a nominal amount of $0.50 per parcel per month on average, the revenue could range up to $50,000 on an annual basis for installing of on-the-ground projects. These funds would also be used to match state and federal grants, giving the potential to double the amount of money for on-the-ground projects. The amount of $0.50 per month is less than the cost of one can of pop, candy bar, or bottle of water per household per month!
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 203
9.12. Letter to watershed residents receiving cost-share, incentive, and loan payments
Heron Lake Watershed District PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137 507-793-2462 ~ FAX 507-793-2253 Toll free: 888-878-4345 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hlwdonline.org
Memorandum
TO: Watershed residents receiving cost-share, incentive, and or loan payments FROM: Jan Voit, District Administrator DATE: September 29, 2011 HLWD Watershed Management Plan As a watershed landowner, you have participated in one of the many programs and projects that the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) has offered. These include cost- share or incentive payments for on-the-ground projects or loans for conservation tillage equipment or septic system replacement. We sincerely hope that you benefitted from participating in these efforts. We greatly appreciate your assistance in helping us reduce water pollution in the Heron Lake watershed. It is the Heron Lake Watershed District’s responsibility to provide its residents with educational and financial assistance to correct actions that contribute to water pollution. The practices and programs that are implemented must be described in a Watershed Management Plan (WMP). According to Minnesota law, the HLWD must update that WMP every ten years. Through that update process, the HLWD must make choices that will affect the natural resources in the district, as well as watershed residents. The HLWD has put forth extensive efforts to provide residents with cost-share and incentive programs, water quality monitoring, staff, and education efforts. Through those efforts, grant funds in excess of $2.2 million dollars have been secured. In order to continue the education and implementation efforts to which the residents have been accustomed, the HLWD is exploring all possible statutory options available. One option is a Water Management District (WMD). The sole reason the HLWD is considering the implementation of a WMD is to generate a reliable source of revenue, on an annual basis, dedicated only to project construction and agricultural best management practices. No portion of these revenues can be used for staff or administration.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 204
Through this process, landowners would be charged a fee based upon the amount of water runoff from their property. Those properties that contribute more water runoff from their property would have a larger charge. If the HLWD would charge even a nominal amount of $0.50 per parcel per month on average, the revenue could range up to $50,000 on an annual basis for installing of on-the-ground projects. These funds would also be used to match state and federal grants, giving the potential to double the amount of money for on- the-ground projects. The amount of $0.50 per month is less than the cost of one can of pop, candy bar, or bottle of water per household per month! The HLWD would greatly appreciate your continued support in their efforts to reduce water pollution through the use of implementation and education. The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) will be holding a hearing on the revised WMP on Thursday, October 13 at 7:00 p.m. at the Heron Lake Community Center. Please attend this hearing and tell the BWSR board that you support these essential efforts.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 205
9.13. HLWD November 2011 Meeting
9.13.1. November 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes
ATTENDANCE Jan Voit Heron Lake Watershed District Ross Behrends Heron Lake Watershed District Lauren Michelsen Heron Lake Watershed District Margaret Peeters Heron Lake Watershed District Steve Woods Board of Water and Soil Resources Jeff Nielsen Board of Water and Soil Resources Jack Beardsley Heron Lake Watershed District Mike McCarvel Heron Lake Watershed District Dale Bartosh Heron Lake Watershed District Rick Nelson Nobles SWCD Jim Buschena Heron Lake Watershed District Scott Nelson City of Worthington Dave Henkels Jackson County Ron Kuecker Cottonwood County Gary Ewert Heron Lake Watershed District Julie Buntjer Worthington Daily Globe Albert Burmeister Allen Jensen Jerry Christopherson Mark Bartosh Sandy Hartman
1. Call to Order Jack Beardsley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Agenda Jim Buschena made a motion to approve the agenda. Mike McCarvel seconded this. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Board/Staff Workshop Jan Voit explained that the purpose of the board staff workshop was to employ strategy learned at BWSR Academy to enhance the working relationship between board and staff so that we work more as a team. She also reminded managers and staff that there is a need to understand the jobs set before us, roles and responsibilities a board member or staff, and the duties we have toward each other. Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) and Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) staff were present to answer question or clarify information. Steve Woods and Jeff Nielsen, BWSR staff, were introduced.
Jan Voit stated that the public hearing for the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) reiterated that there is a definite need for flood control and water quality improvement. The need to address those issues is very apparent. It is also obvious that the HLWD has a responsibility to obtain funds and not all funding will come from the state.
The WMP was written according to board direction with input from the advisory committee and the general public. The implementation and education efforts identified
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 206
are similar to what the HLWD has been doing. It adds focus on flood control, which again, was included at the direction of the board. Jan Voit asked the managers whether flood control was a priority if they were considering removing the Water Management District (WMD) from the WMP.
Jim Buschena said that flood control is one of our main priorities and if we can help with funding or projects, that would be a benefit.
Gary Ewert stated that it is a priority to address flooding. He was not able to attend the public hearing, but he wondered if the people in attendance were actually a representation of the opinion of all the watershed residents. He did not know what would need changing in the WMP.
Mike McCarvel said that going back a few years ago, citizens of the State of Minnesota approved legislation for water quality and that 3/8 of a percentage increase in sales tax would be dedicated for that. He wondered if the legislature had changed their philosophy about the use of that money for water quality improvement.
Steve Woods informed the managers that the amendment passed a couple years ago was done for 1/3 habitat, 1/3 art, parks, and trails, and 1/3 for water quality improvement. No one at the Capitol thinks that the amendment funds are all the money that needs to be used to address water quality. The idea being the legacy funds is to speed up implementation, to supplement funds that are already being spent. There is no way that the state can pay for everything needed to improve water quality.
Mike McCarvel said that he was happy that the amendment passed. He thought that when the legislature found out how much it would cost to pay for the water quality improvement needed that they would back away from addressing the issue.
Steve Woods explained that the amended dollars were intended to supplement funds that were already being spent. But with the general fund cut backs, it seems that we take two steps forward and one step back with state level funding.
Dale Bartosh stated that flooding issues are on everyone’s mind. When the federal and state governments are in the financial situation they are in, the public is being asked to take more responsibility. When people get their tax statements as far as homestead deductions, we should not expect the public to take this on. About a year ago, Dale said that he made a statement that it is not the time or the place to be doing this. It is even more evident now. The problem is just escalating.
Discussion was held regarding the WMD and project implementation. Jan Voit explained that the HLWD has had many grants for implementation and education. The biggest cash grant that we received was for $428,000. It also contained $500,000 for low-interest loans. We will continue to pursue grants as much as we can. Almost all grants requirement require a local match.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 207
Scott Nelson stated that the HLWD has done a good job bringing in money. Jan Voit explained that funds from the WMD could be used to match grants. None of the managers said that they were planning to increase taxes by 80 percent. The WMD funds could only be used for projects that are identified. The HLWD has let the public know everything that they planned to do through the WMP to this point. Providing information will continue.
Ross Behrends said that over one million feet of tile will be installed. We need to find a way to address this or the flooding problem will only multiply. That’s what we’re dealing with. We need drainage because we need to stay productive. But, the precipitation coming through the tiles only overloads our system quicker. It’s a well-designed system.
Discussion was held regarding large flood control projects and what it would mean to be a non-implementing watershed district. The HLWD could only be considered a non- implementing watershed district if we were not doing any projects or education. The HLWD is doing as much as possible to provide funds for on-the-ground projects. At this point, the HLWD has not had adequate funding to secure large, upstream flood control projects.
Jeff Nielsen explained that Clean Water Fund (CWF) grants do not partner with you on flood control. Projects to address flood control are locally driven implementation. There aren’t state grants for flood control. CWF is for nonpoint source pollution. The grants always require a match. That is required for competitive money. But, funding for flood control has to be generated locally.
Ron Kuecker asked where RCRCA gets their funding for flood control? Steve Woods said that they have their regular county allocations, which is a significant amount of their funding. They apply for grants for projects. They don’t do very much flood control. Area II overlaps into the Redwood and Cottonwood watersheds. They go to the legislature and ask for bonding money to do projects.
Scott Nelson asked if it had ever been considered combining the watershed districts in Nobles County. No discussions about that possibility have taken place.
Jan Voit provided the managers with information regarding WMD implementation in Minnesota.
4. Minutes Discussion was held regarding the minutes of the October 18 meeting. Mike McCarvel made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 18 regular meeting, removing the last paragraph. Gary Ewert seconded this. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Treasurer’s Report Jan Voit presented the treasurer’s report and bills payable. Dale Bartosh made a motion to approve the treasurer’s report. Jim Buschena seconded this. Motion carried unanimously.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 208
6. Water Management District Jack Beardsley gave a recap of the WMD. Discussion was held regarding how projects would be established and how the funds could be used. The HLWD can only collect the funds when specific projects are identified and the projects are approved after a public hearing.
Jack Beardsley stated that as it stands now, the WMD is in the WMP. We have three options, leave it in, modify the amount, or remove it. If there are any changes, now is the time to do it.
Dale Bartosh made a motion to move forward with the WMP, eliminating the WMD portion of it at this time. He said that at some point down the road it could be put back in the WMP.
Jeff Nielsen explained that the WMD is in the plan. It doesn’t have to be turned on. If you take it out now, you would have to submit an amended plan in the future and go through process again. Once BWSR adopts the WMP, they turn the key over to you. You have the choice of turning the WMD on or turning it off. Removing the WMD is just taking the tool out of the tool box.
Jack Beardsley said that if we take the WMD out of the WMP, we could come to the public with a specific plan in the future and then we could go ahead. That doesn’t mean we would turn it on. We would be able to explain that we need a certain amount of money and instead of asking the public for approval to put the WMD in the WMP, you would come back to the public with a specific plan.
Jim Buschena asked if we take the WMD out now, will we have to re-write the WMP? Jeff Nielsen explained that as it stands right now, the WMD is in the WMP. You don’t have to collect one cent. If you take it out right now, you would resubmit the WMP. If you decide to include the WMD in the future, a revised WMP would need to be sent out again, a public hearing would be held. We would go back through the same process. The amendment process would take about five to six months. Once the WMP is approved, BWSR would turn it back over to you. You still have the choice of turning the WMD on and turning it off.
Gary Ewert stated that the WMD is non-functional unless it’s turned on. It is controlled by local people. Jim Buschena said that if it’s in the plan as it is now, it’s not activated until there is a hearing. If we take it out, we’re just making more work for us.
Mark Bartosh asked how the board could approve the plan with the WMD in the WMP after the sentiment at the hearing. Gary Ewert said that he wasn’t at the hearing. He has only heard about what happened. He said that if the statements made at the hearing were a realistic reflection of what the people think, that would be true. However, if you have any kind of thought about the attendance at the meeting, then you would have to question that. He did not believe that the situation at the hearing would mirror the actual beliefs of everyone in the watershed district.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 209
Jim Buschena said that the people would be informed about what projects the board would be doing through the WMD at a public hearing. Dale Bartosh stated that if we don’t listen to the hearing that we just had, how can we expect to move forward with the new funding mechanism. People need to know about and agree that this is what we want to do.
Mike McCarvel asked when do you think it would ever get there – to the point that everyone would agree? Dale Bartosh said that we have had the opportunity to remove a project that would decrease flooding and an attorney said that there might be some liability issues. Mike McCarvel said shouldn’t we listen to our attorney’s opinion? Dale Bartosh said he is trying to have the board understand what the people are telling him.
Mark Bartosh asked how soon the HLWD has to have the plan implemented? Can it be tabled for a year and then acted on a year from now? The HLWD’s plan is expired. Steve Woods explained that a watershed district is required by state statute to update their WMP every ten years. The HLWD is not eligible for getting access to CWL funds without a current plan. Without an approved plan, you are shutting yourselves off from the revenue stream.
Jack Beardsley said that there is a motion on the table. He asked for a second. The motion died for lack of a second.
Jack Beardsley asked Dale what he thought of lowering the maximum as a compromise. Lowering the maximum would be a response to the hearing. It may not be what everyone wants, it still gives us some flexibility, and if we turned it on, the people would be assured of a lower maximum charge. Dale Bartosh stated that he could not go along with a compromise. The people want to know where it’s going to be spent before it’s approved.
Jack Beardsley made a motion to lower the maximum from $200,000 to $50,000. It is a response to the hearing, maybe not what everyone wants, but it gives us some flexibility, if we decide to turn it on. Jim Buschena said that if we have a bigger project, we would have to go back to BWSR and amend it. Jack Beardsley asked for action on the motion.
Mike McCarvel said that he wanted a little more discussion on this. He said that he understands where Dale is coming from. I want to see some continued improvement in clean water. It’s to everybody’s benefit. When the people speak, we’re supposed to respond. Ninety percent of those in attendance at the hearing were opposed to this. A lot of the people that were there were not from our watershed. There are a lot of people from the watershed that were not at the hearing that support what we want to do.
If we don’t move forward with this, then every time we try to do something, we’ll get a group to expound on the negatives. It comes to gridlock and I don’t see us getting away from that. I’ve been on this board for a long time. I got on this board to serve agriculture.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 210
Drainage issues are our economic livelihood. It frustrates me that people speak negatively about what the watershed district has done. I feel that we have been helpful. I’m stubborn enough to say that we need to move ahead on this.
There are people that say that nothing is getting done. I think that we are accomplishing things and we are doing good. But we have to figure out what we want to do and move ahead. We talk about this not being the right time for people in our community to put more dollars toward water quality. Agriculture is having some of the best times that it has ever had. Does this give us a blanket to raise taxes to whatever? No, but we do need to make some sort of progress. I think that’s important in our community and many people support that.
I don’t know where to turn. I think that if we don’t pass this, then every time we want to do anything that we believe is a great project, then they’ll be another hearing with 120 people that don’t like it and we’ll need to recruit 120 to support what we are doing. I don’t like that controversy. I don’t think we should be dealing in that.
Dale Bartosh said that he respected what Mike said. But, when you are in doubt and you don’t know, don’t do anything for the moment.
Jack Beardsley asked for action on the motion. The motion died for lack of a second.
7. Reports District Administrator Jan Voit reported on the BWSR Academy, personnel committee meeting, Cover Crop Field Day, research grant application, grant agreements, MAWD Annual Meeting, and the Clean Water Partnership Grant Application.
Jim Buschena made the following motion:
Be it resolved by the Board of Managers of the Heron Lake Watershed District to submit a proposal with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to conduct the following Project: Heron Lake Phosphorus Reduction Project.
Be it further resolved that Jan Voit, District Administrator be authorized to submit the proposal for the above-mentioned Project and shall have the authority to represent this body in all matters that do not specifically require the action of this body.
Be it further resolved that submittal of a proposal does not obligate this body to accept a grant and/or a loan if so offered.
Whereupon the above resolution was adopted at a monthly meeting of the board of managers this 15th day of November 2011.
Gary Ewert seconded this. Motion carried unanimously.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 211
Watershed Technician Ross Behrends gave the board an update on terrace projects, CRP, RIM Wetland Reserve Program easements, wildlife ponds, City of Worthington stormwater application, water quality data submittal, Heartland Climate Conference and the Corn CAP, and a request to the managers actively farming to participate in the Corn CAP.
Ross explained the permit application from the City of Worthington for constructing a hangar and aprons. The application outlines the erosion control and is done according to HLWD rules and regulations. Mike McCarvel made a motion to approve the permit application for the City of Worthington. Dale Bartosh seconded this. Motion carried unanimously.
Resource Technician Margaret Peeters informed the board about the grant applications, Cover Crop Field Day, BWSR Academy, water quality monitoring, seed harvest for Murray County, updating the website, November newsletter, and the Fulda Phosphorus Reduction Initiative.
Watershed Coordinator Lauren Michelsen related information about seed harvesting at a wetland bank site in Murray County, BWSR Academy, assisting Martin County NRCS and SWCD to install a wetland basin and spillway, seven county management plan evaluation report, staff meeting, Cover Crop Field Day, and site check in Jackson for a rain garden.
8. Staff Performance Review and Wage Negotiation for 2012 Jim Buschena made a motion to close the meeting. Gary Ewert seconded this. Motion carried unanimously.
Dale Bartosh made a motion to open the meeting. Jim Buschena seconded this. Motion carried unanimously.
Jack Beardsley reported that evaluations were conducted for Jan Voit, Ross Behrends, Lauren Michelsen, and Margaret Peeters. All were given satisfactory performance reviews.
Jim Buschena made a motion to provide a $0.40 per hour increase per employee, health insurance as described in the policy for Jan and Margaret, and family coverage for Ross and $2,796 toward his health savings account effective January 1, 2012. Gary Ewert seconded this. Motion carried unanimously.
9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
Michael McCarvel Secretary
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 212
9.14. WMP Open House
9.14.1. Open House Advertisement
9.14.2. Open House News Release Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Open House
Take advantage of this opportunity to ask questions about the Watershed Management Plan and proposed Water Management District.
When: Monday, November 28 Where: HLWD Office Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
For further information contact Jan Voit at 507-793-2462 or [email protected].
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 213
9.14.3. Open House Flyer
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 214
9.14.4. WMD Fact Sheet
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 215
9.14.5. Open House PowerPoint Presentation
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 216
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 217
9.14.6. Open House Meeting Summary
ATTENDANCE Mark Deutschman Houston Engineering Ron Kuecker Cottonwood County Carol Schreiber Tri County News Mike McCarvel Heron Lake Watershed District Ross Behrends Heron Lake Watershed District Margaret Peeters Heron Lake Watershed District Lauren Michelsen Heron Lake Watershed District Jan Voit Heron Lake Watershed District Don Volk Mike DeWall Allen Jensen Stanley Leckband Dennis Haberman Nancy Jensen Dave Ahrens John Nauerth III Gene Freking Harvey Kruger
1. Watershed Management Plan Overview Mark Deutschman gave an overview of the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) update process. The overview included a review of statutory requirements, plan organization, and priorities. The WMP gives highest priority to water quality, flooding, education and outreach, and funding. Lower priority is given to drainage systems and biotic habitat. Establishing priorities in the WMP is necessary because the HLWD wants to focus its resources in select areas where the opportunities for improving water quality and reducing flooding are greatest.
2. Water Management District Mark Deutschman provided a detailed explanation of the Water Management District (WMD). The statutory requirements include a description of the area included in the WMD and the reasons by the area was chosen, amount of necessary charges, method of determining charges, and the length of time the charges could be collected.
The Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) has determined that the WMD includes the area of the watershed that drains to Heron Lake, but not downstream from the outlet. This is based upon the findings of the Total Maximum Daily Load Study and the phosphorus impairment in Heron Lake. The per parcel charge is determined by the amount of water contributed by the parcel. This method, based on accepted engineering calculation methods, reflects the parcels that contribute more water pay more.
Before the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) could access funds using the WMD, they must determine the number of projects and proposed costs, what the charge to residents would be, and present the information at a public hearing when the project is established in accordance with watershed district law (i.e., Minnesota Statute 103D). The funds can only be used for projects and can be turned “on” or “off” as needed for project implementation. The maximum amount the HLWD could collect is $200,000.00. The charge is capped at $24.00 per parcel. This was done to avoid a burden on landowners with several parcels and large parcels.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 218
Preliminary numbers indicate that there are approximately 5,560 landowners and about 8,399 parcels within the WMD. There are some landowners that have more than one parcel. With the maximum per parcel charge of $24.00 and minimum per parcel charge of $3.00, the HLWD could generate around $90,000.00 per in year. The average charge is about $10.00 per parcel per year. The HLWD could not generate $200,000.00 per year with the restrictions that they have placed on the WMD.
3. Questions Dave Ahrens asked the difference between flooding and drainage systems. Mr. Deutschman stated that the HLWD has identified areas that are subject to frequent flooding. Those areas would receive the highest priority should the HLWD pursue a larger flood control project, through the Flood Damage Reduction Program as described in the WMP. The HLWD has acknowledged that the counties are the drainage authority for drainage systems, but would help with water quality and/or flood control should they request assistance.
Mike McCarvel asked how charges for vacant lots, parks, and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and US Fish and Wildlife Service lands would be handled. Mr. Deutschman said that the HLWD has the discretion to determine whether or not these properties would be charged. In most cases, it makes no sense for one local government unit to charge another; e.g., for a charge to park land owned by the county that generates little runoff. Before the WMD would be put into operation, Mr. Deutschman recommends developing a memorandum that addresses all of the details related to what would or would not receive a charge. This memorandum then serves as the decision document for certifying the charges to the county auditors.
Ross Behrends asked if landowners could receive credit for conservation practices installed through use of WMD funds or for past conservation efforts. Mr. Deutschman said this could be done. An agreement would need to be in place to assure that the practices would stay in place.
Stanley Leckband said that his land receives water from other parcels. He asked how the runoff will be measured and if the runoff from other parcels would be considered. Mr. Deutschman explained that the charge for each parcel is determined separately based primarily on the type of soils, the amount of impervious surface, and type of cover.
Mike DeWall asked about the projects that would be done through the WMD. He wanted to know if there would be a charge regardless of whether projects were done. Mr. Deutschman said that the HLWD could not access funds unless a project is established. If no projects occur, then residents would not receive a charge through the WMD. The HLWD must track the revenue generated by the charge separately from other funds (i.e., provide for fund accounting). Allen Jensen asked about the public hearing that is needed to establish the WMD. If the hearing did not go properly, what would happen? Mr. Deutschman stated that the public hearing is done as disclosure to the residents. The HLWD would explain what they are proposing to do, the costs that would be incurred, and the consequences of doing or not doing
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 219
the project. Just because there is a hearing does not mean that the project would go through. The efforts that are most likely to be done through the WMD are the best management practices. The larger flood control projects are more complex and less likely to move forward.
Allen Jensen asked whether tile would be considered in determining runoff. Mr. Deutschman explained that the amount of tile is presently not included as a factor in the method to determine runoff, largely because of lack of information about tile density that is reliable. However, tile density could be used if the information was available. The WMD uses surface water runoff as the determining factor.
John Nauerth III asked why information regarding the WMP was not provided before the public hearing and why the information presented at tonight’s meeting wasn’t available at the hearing. Jan Voit stated that the HLWD did provide information at a kickoff meeting, HLWD board meetings, through the newsletter, and in the newspaper. More information about the WMD could have been given at the public hearing, but the hearing format was structured only to provide comment and not responses to comments.
John Nauerth III suggested that a copy of the WMP be placed in each library. This would allow people without internet access the ability to read the plan.
John Nauerth III asked how the public would know if the HLWD was doing what the WMP requires. Mr. Deutschman said that the HLWD is required to measure progress toward meeting the goals identified in the WMP. An annual report is required to be submitted to BWSR by statute. If the WMD is used, all funds will be tracked separately from general operating levy funds.
Harvey Kruger asked if there are 8,399 parcels in the WMD, why can’t the HLWD collect $200,000.00? Mr. Deutschman stated that the WMD charge is capped at $24.00 per parcel. Most of the parcels will not pay the maximum. The average charge is about $10.00 per parcel. Approximately fifty percent of the parcels will be paying the minimum charge. With the restrictions in the WMD, the HLWD could only collect about $90,000.00 per year.
Ron Kuecker asked what types of projects could be funded through the WMD. Jan Voit explained a handout that listed the projects that could be funded. Eligible practices include filter strips, terraces, grassed waterways, wetland restorations, septic system incentives, alternative tile intakes, field borders on highly erodible land, created wetland/flood storage/sediment basins, shoreline restorations, streambank stabilization, two-stage ditches, conservation tillage practices, rain gardens, wood chip bioreactors, and feasibility studies and capital project construction with the specific purpose of reducing flooding within the priority areas.
Ron Kuecker made the statement that in reality, the WMD would just continue to fund the things that the HLWD has already been doing and use the funds to match state and federal grants. If that is the case, then $200,000.00 would be a drop in the bucket. People need to understand this.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 220
Gene Freking asked why the HLWD is better than the DNR and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) at doing projects. Mr. Deutschman explained that typically, watershed districts get things done that the DNR and others cannot, because leadership comes locally to solve local problems. The DNR usually does not initiate projects related to flood control, unless directed by the legislature. They do provide funds for flood damage reduction projects. An example was given of the federal PL-566 flood control program administered by the NRCS. Some of these projects under the PL-566 program were done by watershed districts.
Gene Freking said that there are too many organizations that take taxpayer dollars to do the same things. What is being done to reduce duplication? Jan Voit explained that last year representatives from the Association of Minnesota Counties, Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), and the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, known as the Local Government Roundtable (LGRT), began meeting to discuss ways to make the best use of their resources. All three organizations agreed that working on a watershed basis is the most effective way to utilize the available staff to implement projects and programs for water quality improvement and education.
Jan Voit stated that the LGRT is promoting counties, SWCDs, and watershed districts working together on a watershed basis. The HLWD is already leading this effort in the West Fork Des Moines River watershed. In an agreement with the counties and SWCDs in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, Cottonwood, Lyon, Martin, and Pipestone, the HLWD wrote the TMDL Implementation Plan, writes grant applications, and is housing a watershed coordinator. The watershed coordinator assists the counties, SWCDs, and HLWD with education and implementation efforts. This is done to make the best use of the resources in each organization and reduce duplication of efforts.
Dennis Haberman asked what the HLWD has done to reduce flooding. Ross Behrends said that the HLWD has helped pay for terraces and other best management practices. Mr. Deutschman stated that state and federal agencies are typically not in favor of on-channel storage, but are supportive of off-channel storage. The HLWD has done a study that identifies several sites in the watershed district where projects of this type could be done. There must be willing landowners and sufficient funds to do the preliminary groundwork to assure that the project can be done. Then the HLWD would seek funds through the DNR or the legislature. Dennis Haberman said that he would gladly pay for his share for the benefits for installing a large flood control project.
Jan Voit thanked everyone for their attendance and their participation. She also reminded them that if they had further questions, she could be reached by telephone, email, or at the HLWD office.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 221
9.15. HLWD Long-Range Work Plan
9.15.1. Water Quality
Long-Range Work Plan Key to Priority Ranking Heron Lake Watershed District 9 High to urgent level of priority, action by District likely to be immenent 3 Moderate level of priority, action by District in foreseeable future
Date Established: May 12, 2011 1 Low level of priority, action by District may be more prudent at a future time Date Last Updated: Septmber 27, 2011 0* Action is substantially complete and thus holds minimal priority
Last Updated by: Jan Voit 0 Currently not a priority for the District, but action may become a future priority
Probable Implementation Dates Dependency?* Plan Geographic Management Area / Action Item Policy Program Name location Priority Status Begin End Yes / No Whom Estimated Budget
5.1 Water Quality 1.1 Continue the monitoring component of the surface water quality 5.1-1a Water Quality Improvement District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget improvement program to assess resource condition, evaluate water quality Program - Surface Water trends, and assess the extent of water quality improvement. Monitoring
1.2 Identify and document the areas suspected as being the source of 5.1-1b Water Quality Improvement District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget contaminants (e.g ., sediment, phosphorus, etc.) affecting the water Program - Surface Water quality of the watershed to determine priority areas for implementation. Monitoring
1.3 Prepare a water quality monitoring program plan as the tool to guide 5.1-1c Water Quality Improvement District-wide 3 Scheduled 2012 2013 No In Program Budget surface water quality monitoring, with identified goals and technical Program - Surface Water objectives. Monitoring
1.4 Provide financial incentives or technical assistance to residents interested 5.1-1d Water Quality Improvement District-wide 3 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget in participating in volunteer water quality monitoring programs. Program - Surface Water Monitoring
1.5 Complete monitoring to support state-lead TMDL and water quality 5.1-1e Water Quality Improvement District-wide 3 Scheduled 2014 2015 Yes MPCA In Program Budget assessment initiatives when financially support by the State. Program - Surface Water Monitoring
1.6 Identify locations within the HLWD that regionally represent resource 5.1-1f Water Quality Improvement District-wide 3 Scheduled 2013 2014 No In Program Budget condition (i.e., Regional Assessment Locations) including water quality, Program - Surface Water as an organizing framework for water quality monitoring, modeling and Monitoring assessing trends.
1.7 Use biotic indices in addition to chemical data to assess the conditions of 5.1-1g Water Quality Improvement District-wide 1 Scheduled 2014 2015 No In Program Budget waters Program - Surface Water Monitoring
1.8 Continue the BMP implementation component of the Water Quality 5.2-1a Water Quality Improvement District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget Improvement Program. Program - BMP Implementation
1.9 Use education to describe the many benefits of and promote the 5.2-1b Education Program District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget construction of BMPs.
1.10 Encourage and assist citizens to upgrade waste systems, including 5.1-2c Water Quality Improvement District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget septic systems, manure storage facilities and similar activities. Program - BMP Implementation
1.11 Develop a BMP selection process to assist landowners in choosing proper 5.1-2d Water Quality Improvement District-wide 3 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget BMPs to align with the HLWD’s water quality goals and objectives. Program - BMP Implementation
1.12 Use the Regulatory Program and permit process to reasonably ensure the 5.1-2e Regulatory and Permit District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget implementation of water quality best management projects Program
1.13 Develop a joint plan with the Drainage Authority to implement creative 5.1-2f Public Drainage Sytem District-wide 1 Scheduled 2013 2014 Yes Drainage Authorities In Program Budget solutions for reducing erosion, improving channel stability, reducing Program sediment loads, and improving downstream water quality.
1.14 Develop a schedule for the implementation of lake management plans 5.1-3a Water Quality Improvement Graham Lakes and 3 Scheduled 2014 2015 No In Program Budget placing priority on those lakes currently meeting designated uses for Program - TMDL Fulda Lakes protection. Implementation Subwatersheds
1.15 Determine lakes and rivers worthy of protection prior to becoming 5.1-3b Water Quality Improvement District-wide 3 Scheduled 2014 2015 No In Program Budget impaired, and establish non-degradation water quality targets. Program - Surface Water Monitoring
1.16 Utilize the WFDMR TMDL implementation plan and future implementation 5.1-4a Water Quality Improvement District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 Yes MPCA In Program Budget plans to identify and implement projects achieve water quality goals. Program - TMDL Implementation
1.17 Assess and manage waters using a “one watershed” or “watershed-wide” 5.1-4b Water Quality Improvement District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 Yes MPCA In Program Budget approach. Program - TMDL Implementation
1.18 Request the acceleration of the MPCA lead water quality modeling for the 5.1-4c Water Quality Improvement District-wide 3 In Progress 2012 2022 Yes MPCA In Program Budget HLWD to identify priority source areas causing water quality issues. Program - TMDL Implementation
1.19 Use watershed-wide models developed by the MPCA to establish 5.1-4d Water Quality Improvement District-wide 3 Scheduled 2016 2017 Yes MPCA In Program Budget maximum allowable loads to surface waters. Program - TMDL Implementation * Dependency means the successful completion of the action item is a shared responsibility with the water management partners. Dependency is also used to help with priorities, project scheduling, and work plan preparation.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 222
9.15.2. Water Quantity and Flooding
Long-Range Work Plan Key to Priority Ranking Heron Lake Watershed District 9 High to urgent level of priority, action by District likely to be immenent 3 Moderate level of priority, action by District in foreseeable future Date Established: May 12, 2011 1 Low level of priority, action by District may be more prudent at a future time Date Last Updated: September 27, 2011 0* Action is substantially complete and thus holds minimal priority Last Updated by: Jan Voit 0 Currently not a priority for the District, but action may become a future priority
Probable Implementation Dates Dependency?* Plan Geographic Estimated Management Area / Action Item Policy Program Name location Priority Status Begin End Yes / No Whom Budget
(2) Water Quantity and Flooding 2.1 Develop a map showing flood prone areas, the frequency and the severity of flooding 5.2-1a Flood Damage District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget and to serve as a tool to identify potential upstream priority storage areas. Reduction
2.2 Confirm potential project priority flood storage locations as identified within past 5.2-1b Flood Damage District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget studies by the Heron Lake Watershed District, for the protection of agricultural lands Reduction up to the 10-year flood event and for urban areas exceeding the 50-year flood event.
2.3 As part of the Flood Damage Reduction Program, successively complete engineering 5.2-1c Flood Damage District-wide 9 Scheduled 2012 2022 No In Program Budget feasibility reports to develop concept designs, evaluate technical feasibility, assess Reduction permit requirements, determine the probable flood damage reduction benefits and develop Opinion of Probable Construction Costs, for capital improvement flood damage reduction projects. 2.4 Utilize the Minnesota DNR Flood Damage Reduction Program and other suitable 5.2-1d Flood Damage District-wide 3 Scheduled 2015 2017 Yes MnDNR In Program Budget programs to construct those capital improvement flood damage reduction projects Reduction deemed as beneficial to the residents of the Heron Lake Watershed District.
2.5 Use existing tools including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service restorable wetlands 5.2-1e Flood Damage District-wide 3 Scheduled 2013 2014 Yes USFWS In Program Budget map, high resolution topographic data from the state-wide LiDAR collect, and other Reduction appropriate sources, to identify priority areas to create storage through restoring wetlands. 2.6 Develop criteria to prioritize restorable wetlands according to the values of HLWD, 5.2-1f Flood Damage District-wide 3 Scheduled 2013 2014 No In Program Budget including storage to reduce flooding. Reduction
2.7 Engage public agency and nongovernmental organization partners and use existing 5.2-1g Education District-wide 3 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget programs and funding opportunities to restore priority wetland.
2.8 Engage MPCA staff to ensure watershed models developed for water quality 5.2-1h Water Quality District-wide 1 Scheduled 2012 2013 Yes MPCA In Program Budget purposes by the agency as part of the TMDL program are suitable for use in Improvement estimating the hydrologic effects of projects and land use changes. Program - TMDL Implementation 2.9 Provide technical assistance to the drainage authority as requested, to credibly 5.2-1i Public Drainage District-wide 3 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget assess the adequacy of drainage system outlets and the downstream effects of System Program public drainage system repairs and improvement projects.
2.10 Coordinate with agencies to address water levels controlled by Heron Lake and 5.2-1j Flood Damage District-wide 0 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget consider modification or removal of the control structure to achieve management Reduction objectives for the lake
2.11 Participate in monitoring, evaluating, and updating County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan 5.2-1k Flood Damage District-wide 0 Scheduled 2012 2022 No In Program Budget to reduce flood-related impacts. Reduction
2.12 Work cooperatively with the SWCDs to identify lands which may benefit from soil and 5.2-2a Water Quality District-wide 9 Scheduled 2012 2022 Yes SWCD's In Program Budget water conservation planning and implementation of BMPs to control erosion and Improvement runoff. Program - BMP Implementation
2.13 Provide watershed citizens with information and support regarding new and existing 5.2-2b Water Quality District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget BMP technologies to reduce runoff rates and volumes. Improvement Program - BMP Implementation
2.14 Identify technology-based and conservation BMPs that may best be implemented 5.2-2c Water Quality District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget within the HLWD to reduce erosion and runoff. Improvement Program - BMP Implementation * Dependency means the successful completion of the action item is a shared responsibility with the water management partners. Dependency is also used to help with priorities, project scheduling, and work plan preparation.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 223
9.15.3. Drainage Systems and Natural Waterways
Long-Range Work Plan Key to Priority Ranking Heron Lake Watershed District 9 High to urgent level of priority, action by District likely to be immenent 3 Moderate level of priority, action by District in foreseeable future Date Established: May 12, 2011 1 Low level of priority, action by District may be more prudent at a future time Date Last Updated: September 27, 2011 0* Action is substantially complete and thus holds minimal priority Last Updated by: Jan Voit 0 Currently not a priority for the District, but action may become a future priority
Probable Implementation Dates Dependency? Plan Geographic Estimated Management Area / Action Item Policy Program Name Location Priority Status Begin End Yes / No Whom Budget
(3) Drainage Systems and Natural Waterways 3.1 Develop or use an existing classification system for drainage systems, rivers and 5.3-1a Public Drainage District-wide 0 Scheduled 2014 2015 No In Program Budget streams, which recognizes the origin of the system (i.e ., natural or man-made) and System Program influence of human activities (e.g., a constructed waterway, an altered natural waterway or an unaltered natural waterway). 3.2 Identify and map existing private drainage systems within the District when 5.3-1b Public Drainage District-wide 0 Scheduled 2016 2017 No In Program Budget convenient, as a component of drainage system related activities. System Program
3.3 Encourage the use of standards and criteria for channel stability for all types of 5.3-1c Public Drainage District-wide 3 Scheduled 2015 2016 No In Program Budget waterways including public drainage systems, based on stability, sediment transport System Program and geomorphic considerations consistent with the waterway classification system, to reduce future maintenance and repair. Consider the most appropriate method for implementing these standards if necessary. 3.4 Assist the drainage authority with establishing criteria for evaluating the adequacy of 5.3-1d Public Drainage District-wide 3 In-Progress 2012 2022 Yes Drainage Authority In Program Budget the outlet and the potential for downstream flooding, when the public drainage system System Program discharges to an area identified as flood prone by the Heron Lake Watershed District.
3.5 Use the resources and programs of the Heron Lake Watershed District, working 5.3-1e Public Drainage District-wide 9 Scheduled 2013 2016 Yes Drainage Authority In Program Budget cooperatively with the drainage authority, to objectively evaluate the feasibility of System Program implementing 2-stage channel designs, natural resource enhancements and water quality improvements to public drainage systems, especially for those systems discharging to impaired waters. 3.6 Pursue grant funding working with and on behalf of the drainage authority from the 5.3-1f Public Drainage District-wide 3 Scheduled 2015 2017 Yes BWSR In Program Budget Board of Water and Soil Resources to modernize the public drainage system System Program records.
3.7 Identify priority public and private drainage systems for targeting water quality and 5.3-2a Public Drainage District-wide 3 In-Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget peak flow reduction BMP implementation (especially buffers) consistent with the System Program Water Quality Improvement Program.
3.8 Seek funding external to the benefitted area to implement feasible modifications, 5.3-2b Public Drainage District-wide 9 Scheduled 2016 2017 No In Program Budget designs and resource enhancements to the public drainage system especially when System Program costs are in excess of traditional repair and improvement costs.
3.9 Survey private drainage system owners to gain an understanding of the level of 5.3-2c Public Drainage District-wide 9 In-Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget interest to install BMPs including buffer strips. System Program
3.10 Work with the drainage authority to encourage greater enforcement of drainage law 5.3-2d Public Drainage District-wide 3 In-Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget especially as it pertains to buffer requirements. System Program
3.11 Meet with the drainage authority and landowners to provide educational information 5.3-2e Public Drainage District-wide 9 In-Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget regarding the benefits of buffers, grassed waterways, and similar BMPs. System Program
3.12 Evaluate locations where field-edge and intake buffers are lacking and where 5.3-2f Public Drainage District-wide 9 In-Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget implementation can improve water quality. System Program
3.13 Lead efforts to evaluate water quality issues associated with public drainage systems 5.3-2g Public Drainage District-wide 9 In-Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget in the watershed. System Program
3.14 Identify priority reaches for stream stabilization and rehabilitation. 5.3-3a Public Drainage District-wide 3 Scheduled 2017 2022 No In Program Budget System Program
3.15 Conduct feasibility studies to define ways to address channel instability, bank 5.3-3b Public Drainage District-wide 3 Scheduled 2017 2022 No In Program Budget erosion and promote ecological value. System Program
3.16 Implement projects to repair erosion and restore stream reaches using sustainable 5.3-3c Public Drainage District-wide 9 Scheduled 2017 2022 No In Program Budget techniques. System Program 3.17 Provide information, resources, examples and encourage citizens on how to improve 5.3-3d Public Drainage District-wide 9 Scheduled 2012 2014 No In Program Budget stream bank stability by using BMPs (e.g., streambank buffers, two-stage ditches, System Program cedar revetments, J-hook weirs, and similar practices). * Dependency means the successful completion of the action item is a shared responsibility with the water management partners. Dependency is also used to help with priorities, project scheduling, and work plan preparation.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 224
9.15.4. Biotic Habitat
Long-Range Work Plan Key to Priority Ranking Heron Lake Watershed District 9 High to urgent level of priority, action by District likely to be immenent 3 Moderate level of priority, action by District in foreseeable future Date Established: May 12, 2011 1 Low level of priority, action by District may be more prudent at a future time Date Last Updated: September 27, 2011 0* Action is substantially complete and thus holds minimal priority Last Updated by: Jan Voit 0 Currently not a priority for the District, but action may become a future priority
Probable Implementation Dates Dependency?* Plan Geographic Estimated Management Area / Action Item Policy Program Name Location Priority Status Begin End Yes / No Whom Budget
(4) Biotic Habitat 4.1 Encourage efforts to increase water storage in the watershed including wetland 5.4-1a Flood Damage District-wide 3 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget restorations to more closely mimic natural water regimes. Reduction
4.2 Reduce sediment reaching the water bodies by implementing sediment reducing 5.4-1b Water Quality District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget BMPs in the upper watersheds and consider creating sedimentation ponds to Improvement increase water retention time and settle out sediment before reaching streams and/or Program - BMP lakes. Implementation
4.3 Monitor and remove sediment build-up in settling ponds to ensure proper functioning 5.4-1c Water Quality District-wide 3 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget of sediment basins. Improvement Program - BMP Implementation 4.4 Encourage the maintenance and enhancement of habitat important for fish and 5.4-1d Water Quality District-wide 3 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget wildlife populations. Improvement Program - BMP Implementation * Dependency means the successful completion of the action item is a shared responsibility with the water management partners. Dependency is also used to help with priorities, project scheduling, and work plan preparation.
9.15.5. Wetlands
Long-Range Work Plan Key to Priority Ranking Heron Lake Watershed District 9 High to urgent level of priority, action by District likely to be immenent 3 Moderate level of priority, action by District in foreseeable future Date Established: May 12, 2011 1 Low level of priority, action by District may be more prudent at a future time Date Last Updated: September 27, 2011 0* Action is substantially complete and thus holds minimal priority Last Updated by: Jan Voit 0 Currently not a priority for the District, but action may become a future priority
Probable Implementation Dates Dependency?* Plan Geographic Estimated Management Area / Action Item Policy Program Name Location Priority Status Begin End Yes / No Whom Budget
(5) Wetlands 5.1 Develop information to establish reference conditions for each wetland type within the 5.5-1a Water Quality District-wide 0 Scheduled 2018 2022 Yes MPCA / DNR In Program Budget District for the purposes of defining high wetland quality, wetland restoration goals Improvement and establishing replacement and credit ratios. Program - Surface Water Monitoring 5.2 Use reference wetlands to evaluate, modify and improve methods currently used to 5.5-1b Water Quality District-wide 0 Scheduled 2018 2022 Yes MPCA / DNR In Program Budget characterize wetland functions and values. Improvement Program - Surface Water Monitoring
5.3 Evaluate the need for a bio-monitoring program for high quality and other wetlands to 5.5-1c Water Quality District-wide 0 Scheduled 2018 2022 Yes MPCA / DNR In Program Budget better quantify existing conditions and assess the benefits of water quantity control. Improvement Program - Surface Water Monitoring
5.4 Evaluate monitoring reference wetlands to determine hydrologic regimes and use 5.5-1d Water Quality District-wide 0 Scheduled 2018 2022 Yes MPCA / DNR In Program Budget data to refine wetland management efforts. Improvement Program - Surface Water Monitoring
5.5 Develop maps and other tools which identify the locations of degraded wetlands and 5.5-2a Water Quality District-wide 9 Schedule 2012 2013 No In Program Budget therefore opportunities for restoration. Improvement Program - BMP Implementation 5.6 Encourage landowners to restore wetlands for beneficial values associated with 5.5-2b Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget wetlands.
5.7 Quantify values for the change in runoff volume, nutrient loads, and the reduction in 5.5-2c Water Quality District-wide 3 Scheduled 2014 2016 No In Program Budget sedimentation for wetland restoration and enhancement, which in turn may be used Improvement as a financial incentive to landowners to manage wetland systems. Program - BMP Implementation
5.8 Evaluate alternatives for establishing inclusive management boundaries along 5.5-2d Water Quality District-wide 3 Scheduled 2014 2016 No In Program Budget waterways that can provide multiple benefits including wetland functions and values, Improvement floodplain management, natural resource restoration, and open space. Program - BMP Implementation
5.9 Sponsor and conduct workshops for local governments and landowners to 5.5-2e Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget communicate the opportunity for wetland restoration, clarify the process for wetland restoration and understand the potential financial implications of restoration.
5.10 Cooperate with others to assist with controlling the spread of exotic plant species 5.5-2f General District-wide 1 In Progress 2012 2022 Yes DNR and others In Program Budget within public and private wetlands.
* Dependency means the successful completion of the action item is a shared responsibility with the water management partners. Dependency is also used to help with priorities, project scheduling, and work plan preparation.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 225
9.15.6. Education
Long-Range Work Plan Key to Priority Ranking Heron Lake Watershed District 9 High to urgent level of priority, action by District likely to be immenent 3 Moderate level of priority, action by District in foreseeable future Date Established: May 12, 2011 1 Low level of priority, action by District may be more prudent at a future time Date Last Updated: September 27, 2011 0* Action is substantially complete and thus holds minimal priority Last Updated by: Jan Voit 0 Currently not a priority for the District, but action may become a future priority
Probable Implementation Dates Dependency?* Plan Geographic Estimated Management Area / Action Item Policy Program Name Location Priority Status Begin End Yes / No Whom Budget
(6) Education 6.1 Offer schools service learning opportunities through restoration projects. 5.6-1a Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget
6.2 Conduct educational tours of BMPs and other water conservation practices being 5.6-1b Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget utilized within the watershed or nearby watersheds.
6.3 Utilize the Citizen Advisory Committee to engage private citizens and inform them 5.6-1c Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget about resource management issues and the activities of the HLWD.
6.4 Utilize the Citizen Advisory Committee to engage local government and state and 5.6-1d Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget federal agencies and inform them about resource management issues, the activities of the HLWD and opportunities to partner.
6.5 Develop, conduct and sponsor workshops, participate in speaking engagements, and 5.6-1e Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget prepare press releases as a component of the educational efforts of the District.
6.6 Obtain and organize testimonials from citizens implementing BMPs within the 5.6-1f Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget watershed to encourage other citizens to implement similar BMPs.
6.7 Consider a district-wide signage campaign for streams or other similar resources. 5.6-1g Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget
6.8 Continue distributing information through several channels including keeping an up-to- 5.6-1h Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget date website and periodic newsletters, to keep citizens informed in a timely manner.
6.9 Encourage communities to improve water quality using a targeted education program 5.6-2a Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget and BMP implementation cost-sharing.
6.10 Encourage individuals to implement water quality improvement practices at their 5.6-2b Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget homes and businesses, using education and cost-sharing for the implementation of BMPs. Support and utilize SWCD cost-sharing programs to encourage citizens to install BMPs for the purpose of improving water quality and reducing the volume of runoff. 6.11 Evaluate the need for additional cost-share programs to provide incentives to 5.6-2c Education District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In Program Budget landowners and others responsible for resource management.
6.12 Seek funding to develop and deploy a BMP database, which includes information 5.6-3a Education District-wide 9 Done (Succesful) 2012 2012 No In Program Budget about the type of project, pollutant removal efficiency and cost.
6.13 Evaluate deploying the BMP database through the web 5.6-3b Education District-wide 3 Scheduled 2012 2014 No In Program Budget
6.14 Use the database as a tool to communicate the benefits of BMPs implemented by 5.6-3c Education District-wide 9 Scheduled 2012 2014 No In Program Budget the Heron Lake Watershed District.
* Dependency means the successful completion of the action item is a shared responsibility with the water management partners. Dependency is also used to help with priorities, project scheduling, and work plan preparation.
9.15.7. Funding
Long-Range Work Plan Key to Priority Ranking Heron Lake Watershed District 9 High to urgent level of priority, action by District likely to be immenent 3 Moderate level of priority, action by District in foreseeable future Date Established: September 27, 2011 1 Low level of priority, action by District may be more prudent at a future time Date Last Updated: September 27, 2011 0* Action is substantially complete and thus holds minimal priority Last Updated by: Jan Voit 0 Currently not a priority for the District, but action may become a future priority
Probable Implementation Dates Dependency? Plan Geographic Estimated Management Area / Action Item Policy Program Name Location Priority Status Begin End Yes / No Whom Budget
(7) Funding 7.1 Prioritize the most important programs of the HLWD and confirm the base funding 5.7-1a General Operation District-wide 9 Done as Part of 2012 2012 No In General Operating labels identified within this Watershed Management Plan. WMP Update Budget
7.2 Define the minimum staff requirements and compliment needed to maintain and 5.7-1b General Operation District-wide 9 Done as Part of 2012 2012 No In General Operating operate the priority programs. WMP Update Budget
7.3 Adjust the Ad Valorem level (if possible by statute) to provide stable funding for the 5.7-1c General Operation District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In General Operating priority programs or request an legislative increase in the Ad Valorem levy. Budget
7.4 Explore the options and effort needed to create a Watershed Management District or 5.7-2a General Operation District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In General Operating other alternative means of financing to collect revenues and pay the costs of initiated Budget projects.
7.5 Increase the fees charged (e.g ., permitting fees, inspection fees, etc.) to be 5.7-2b General Operation District-wide 3 Scheduled 2012 2014 No In General Operating consistent with the level of service provided by the District. Budget
7.6 Initiate assessment levies on improvements that benefit local properties as a means 5.7-2c General Operation District-wide N/A Project Specific 2012 2022 No In General Operating to pay for capital improvement and other projects. Basis Budget
7.7 Apply for an increasing number of local, state, and federal grants and loans 5.7-2d General Operation District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In General Operating Budget
7.8 Create and maintain working partnerships with non-governmental organizations such 5.7-3a General Operation District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 Yes Cooperators In General Operating as Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, etc. Budget
7.9 Periodically assess internal HLWD operations and analyze areas where funding and 5.7-3b General Operation District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In General Operating efforts could be reduced or eliminated when progress toward the goal is not being Budget achieved.
7.10 Calculate the minimum operating budget the HLWD can successfully operate on and 5.7-3c General Operation District-wide 9 Done as Part of 2012 2022 No In General Operating the budget needing to come from grants versus tax collections. WMP Update Budget
7.11 Assess all funded projects and determine if funding should be transferred to higher 5.7-3d General Operation District-wide 9 In Progress 2012 2022 No In General Operating priority projects. Budget * Dependency means the successful completion of the action item is a shared responsibility with the water management partners. Dependency is also used to help with priorities, project scheduling, and work plan preparation.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 226
9.16. HLWD Rules and Regulations and Appendices A and B
HERON LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT
RULES AND REGULATIONS Revised May 2002 Section 1: Introduction.
1.1 Authority. The Heron Lake Watershed District was established by Order of the Minnesota Water Resources Board on February 25, 1970.
1.2 Statutory Policy and Rulemaking Authority. Under Chapter 103D of Minnesota Statutes, it is the policy of the State of Minnesota to authorize the establishment of watershed districts “. . . to conserve the natural resources of the State by land use planning, flood control, and other conservation projects by using sound scientific principles for the protection of the public health and general welfare and the provident use of the natural resources”. The legislature has granted express statutory authority to watershed districts to adopt rules to accomplish the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103D, and to implement the powers of the managers.
1.3 Watershed Regulatory Policy Statement: The Heron Lake Watershed District has been granted express authority by Nobles, Jackson, Murray and Cottonwood Counties to regulate drainage activities for the general welfare within the watershed district. The goal of such regulation is to provide for the initiation, implementation and enforcement of a comprehensive and uniform system of rules and regulations managing, conserving and controlling of the use of water within the watershed district. In order to continue to develop and implement the watershed district’s overall plan, it is desirable and beneficial to manage and control private and public drainage activities affecting water flow between private landowners and/or impacting public drainage systems within the district. Regulation of private and public drainage activities is also desirable and beneficial as a means of data acquisition and record-keeping of all drainage systems within the district as such records assist, aid and facilitate the determination of impact, influence and effect that such private activities have upon public drainage systems and the watershed as a whole. For purposes of these rules, the term “regulate” shall be defined as imposing such restraints upon the private rights of land owners to improve their property through tiling and drainage activity as are necessary for the general welfare.
1.4 Jurisdiction and Applicability of Rules. These rules shall apply to and include all of the area, incorporated and unincorporated, including both land and water, within the territory of the Heron Lake Watershed District. These rules shall have the force and effect of law.
1.5 Inconsistent Provisions. If any rule or regulation herein contained is inconsistent with the provisions of the water law of the State of Minnesota, or other applicable state or federal law, then such state or federal law shall govern and the rule or regulation shall be deemed null and void. Any inconsistency of a rule or regulation with a state or federal law will not and shall not be deemed to affect the validity of any other rule or regulation.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 227
1.6 Scope. It is not intended that these rules shall repeal, abrogate, annul, or in any way impair or otherwise interfere with the existing provisions of other laws.
1.7 Severability. These rules and regulations are intended to be severable and in the event that any rule or regulation herein contained is held to be invalid, the remaining rules and regulations shall be deemed to be in full force and effect as if there had been an expungement of the invalid provisions.
1.8 Due Process. These rules and regulations are intended to provide all affected persons and entities with due process of law.
Section 2: Adoption of Existing Laws, Rules, and Regulations. 2.1 Adoption of Water Law. The Board of Managers expressly adopts by reference all of the water law of the State of Minnesota. The Board of Managers reserves the right to impose rules and regulations that are more restrictive than the laws contained within the water law of the State of Minnesota.
2.2 Other Rules, Regulations, or Provisions. The Board of Managers expressly adopts by reference the rules, regulations, and provisions of the following agencies and statutes to the extent that such rules, regulations, and provisions apply to activities regulated by these rules: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR); Minnesota Department of Health (MDH); Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR); Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB); U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD); Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and/or Cottonwood County; Local governmental units, including municipalities and townships; Minnesota Environmental Rights Law, MS Chapter 116B, as amended; State Environmental Policy, MS Chapter 116D, as amended; Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended. Where more than one rule, regulation, or provision applies, the most restrictive rule, regulation, or provision shall pertain.
Section 3: Definitions. For purposes of these rules, certain words and terms are defined herein. In absence of a definition for a word or term in these rules, the definition established by statute or case law of the State of Minnesota shall apply unless clearly in conflict, inapplicable, or absurd.
3.1 Agricultural Land: means land used for horticultural, row, close grown, pasture, and hay land crops; growing nursery stocks; animal feedlots; farm yards; associated building sites; and public and private drainage systems and field roads located on any of the foregoing. (MS 103G.005, Subd. 2a)
3.2 Board of Managers, Board, or District: means the Board of Managers of the Heron Lake Watershed District.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 228
3.3 Conditional Use: means a land use or development that would not ordinarily be allowed under existing land use rules or ordinances, but which may be allowed with appropriate controls or conditions.
3.4 General Welfare: means any act or anything tending to improve or benefit or contribute to the safety or well being of the general public or benefit the inhabitants of the watershed district. General welfare shall be synonymous with “public welfare” or “public benefit”.
3.5 Impervious Surface: means a constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow than prior to development. Examples include, but are not limited to, rooftops, sidewalks, patios, storage areas, roads, streets, driveways, parking lots, or other structural improvements utilizing concrete, asphalt, or compacted soils.
3.6 Shore Impact Zone: means land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to and one half (½) the distance of the required setback for structures from the ordinary high water mark of the public water; except that on property used for agricultural purposes, the shore impact zone means that land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to and fifty feet (50’) from the ordinary high water mark of the public water.
3.7 Terrace: means an earthen embankment, a channel, or a combination ridge and channel constructed across the existing slope of the land.
3.8 Waterway: means a natural or constructed channel, with a permanent grass or vegetative cover, that is shaped or graded to engineered dimensions, established for the stable conveyance of runoff.
3.9 Project: means any construction activity that includes clearing, grading, or excavation. Projects cannot be phased to avoid the permit requirements.
Section 4: Regulation of Activities. The following activities shall require a permit from the Board of Managers of the Heron Lake Watershed District prior to initiation of the activity.
4.1 Installation of agricultural best management practices that require land alteration including surface tile intakes, terraces, waterways, and diversions that have not been designed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service or Soil and Water Conservation District.
4.2 Installation of new surface tile intakes and catch basins.
4.3 Disposal of snow within the shore impact zone.
4.4 The installation or creation of impervious surface. District rules regulating impervious surfaces and the permit process therefore are located in Appendix A to these rules.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 229
4.5 Earth moving projects involving more than 200 cubic yards of excavation or fill; or which disturbs more than 10,000 square feet of soil, and which project, or any part thereof, is located: • within 300 feet of a stream, storm sewer catch basin, drainage tile intake or a wetland; or, • within 1,000 feet of a lake. District rules regulating earth moving projects and the permit process therefore are located in Appendix B to these rules.
Section 5: Permit Application Process: A request for permit or other approval of an activity under these rules shall be commenced by delivering, either in person or by U.S. Mail, a signed application on the form required by the Board of Managers to the office of the Heron Lake Watershed District, PO Box 345, Heron Lake, MN 56137.
5.1 Permit Fees: A $10.00 application fee and a $40.00 inspection fee shall be charged for each storm water permit. A $10 application fee and a $15.00 inspection fee shall be charged for each erosion control plan permit. Design information must be submitted with the application. After-the-fact permits will be subject to the application fee and all other costs incurred by the District. If, in the opinion of the Board of Managers, it is necessary for the watershed district engineer or other consultant to review the application and all exhibits, view the site, and make a report to the watershed district as to the technical implications of the work, costs incurred by the watershed district during this review shall be borne by the applicant.
5.2 Project Plan: A plan, design, or map of the proposed activity shall be attached to the application form. Such plan, design, or map shall be drawn and shall clearly and accurately show all work to be performed, and shall include, either within the plan, design, or map, or by attachment, the following information at a minimum.
5.3 Construction Plan. At the request of the Board of Managers, the plan, design, or map must show the materials to be used, the proposed duration of the activity and/or construction involving the activity, and the proposed initiation and completion dates.
5.4 Stormwater and Water Quality Management. The plan, design, or map must separately address the issues of, and make provisions for, stormwater management and water quality management both during construction and post-construction activities.
5.4.1 As used in these rules, “stormwater management” shall include the regulation of the quantity (rate control) and quality of stormwater entering lakes, rivers, streams, or public drainage systems in order to ensure that all nonpoint source pollution, erosion, and sedimentation is minimized. 5.4.2 The term “water quality management” shall include the monitoring and control of the quality of the water directly affected by a drainage activity, as well as the receiving waters of a drainage activity, to ensure that minimal degradation in surface or ground water quality occurs. 5.4.3 Stormwater management and water quality management may include structural water management measures (retention areas, swales, infiltration trenches, filter strips, detention basins, vegetative buffer zones, etc.) or nonstructural water management measures (temporary erosion and sedimentation controls, fertilizer and pesticide application controls,
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 230
solid waste collection, phosphorous abatement and control, etc.) or a combination of both types of management measures. 5.4.4 Stormwater management and water quality management plans shall include a maintenance plan for all structural and nonstructural controls included within the plan, to include: the party responsible for maintenance, a maintenance schedule, and procedures to be followed if maintenance is not performed or is inadequately performed. 5.4.5 The goal of stormwater management under these rules is not to exceed the peak runoff rates existing at the initiation of the proposed drainage activity as measured by the average of the 10-year, and 100-year runoff producing events of critical duration for the land involved. 5.4.6 The goal of water quality management under these rules is to maintain or improve overall surface and ground water quality.
5.5 Sewage or Waste. The plan, design, or map must be accompanied by or contain a statement as to whether the drainage activity involves the installation, abandonment, or removal of a sewage or waste disposal system.
5.6 Livestock. The plan, design, or map must be accompanied by or contain a statement as to whether livestock will be watered, fed, pastured, or held upon or around the proposed drainage activity. If livestock are involved with the proposed drainage activity, the Board of Managers may require the requestor to devise a livestock management plan that minimizes the adverse impact upon the proposed drainage activity.
5.7 Design, Material Standards. The plan, design, or map must be accompanied by or contain a statement that all culvert and tile emplacement, construction, design, and materials shall conform, at a minimum, to the standards of the NRCS.
5.8 SWCD and NRCS Checkoff. All applications must be reviewed by and bear a certification of the local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and/or the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that the proposed activity does not involve Wetland Conservation Act standards or Swampbuster provisions.
5.9 Notice to Landowners. All requests for permits or other approval shall contain proof of notification of immediate downstream landowners affected by the drainage activity. Proof of notification may consist of a notarized statement of the requestor identifying all landowners actually notified.
5.10 Easement/Access. All permits and other approvals will contain a grant of easement and/or right of access to the watershed district, its Board of Managers, employees, agents, and assigns, for purposes of inspection and monitoring of the drainage activity.
5.11 Completion Time. Unless otherwise stated on the permit or other approval, the drainage activity involved shall be completed within two years or an extension must be requested and approved by the Board of Managers. The Board of Managers shall be notified upon completion of the activity by the permittee or holder of other approval of the Board.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 231
5.12 Additional Information. After initial review of the request, the Board of Managers may require that the applicant provide such additional information as deemed necessary to evaluate the proposed drainage activity in accordance with the required considerations.
5.13 Best Management Practices. All permitted activities shall incorporate best management practices (BMPs). For purposes of these rules, the term “best management practices” shall mean practices, techniques, and measures that prevent or reduce water pollution from nonpoint sources and which will minimize erosion of soil and deposition of sediment in private or public drainage systems or waters by using the most effective and practicable means of achieving water quality and runoff goals. BMPs include, but are not limited to, structural controls, nonstructural controls, operational procedures, and maintenance procedures. It is the goal of these rules to ensure that the degree of water quality improvement and runoff protection is maximized relative to the cost of implementing the BMPs. The Board of Managers expressly recognizes that the BMPs approved by MPCA in its handbook “Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas” satisfy the requirement for BMPs under these rules.
5.14 Restoration. Exposed and/or disturbed soil shall be restored to a condition equivalent to or better than that which existed prior to the drainage activity.
5.15 Spoils. All spoils will be leveled and shall be seeded to hinder erosion.
5.16 Discharge. Wherever feasible, drainage activities will be discharged through marshlands, wetlands, swamps, retention basins, or other diffusing structures.
5.17. Upstream Storage. Wherever feasible, drainage activities will include use of temporary storage areas, retention basins, or other similar structures to maximize upstream storage and reduce peak flows, erosion damage, and sedimentation.
5.18 Filter Strips. Unless otherwise noted in the permit or other approval of a drainage activity, all tile intake and catch basin permits include a requirement for a grass filter strip possessing a radius of 16.5 feet surrounding such device.
5.19 Impervious Surface. Permits for impervious surface will require, at a minimum, the submission of plans utilizing standards and procedures for controlling runoff rates, nutrients, and sediments contained in applicable rules of the MPCA.
5.20 Shoulder and Bank Protection. All water inlets, culvert openings, and bridge approaches shall have adequate shoulder and bank protection in order to minimize land and soil erosion. For purposes of these rules, the term “adequate shoulder and bank protection” shall include by way of example and not by way of limitation: permanent grass or other ground cover, mulch, sod, riprap, retaining walls, and terraces.
5.21 Slopes. Each landowner shall be required to apply BMPs to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation from all drainage activities. At a minimum, the following rules shall apply:
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 232
5.21.1 All ditch, watercourse, shore land, and water basin slopes shall be constructed with a side slope as determined by customary engineering practices so as to reasonably minimize land and soil erosion. 5.21.2 All determinations as to whether a side slope reasonably minimizes land and soil erosion shall include the intended capacity of the watercourse or other water body; the depth, width, and elevation; and the character of the soils involved. 5.21.3 Exposed or disturbed soil on slopes or topographic contours of any drainage activity, above the low water mark, shall be mulched, sodded, and/or seeded to hinder erosion and maintained until stabilized by establishment of permanent grass or other approved ground cover. 5.21.4 No agricultural practices shall be permitted upon a slope or topographic contour in excess of ten degrees (10) which slope or contour was created, constructed, or developed by a drainage activity permitted or approved under these rules.
5.22 Riprap. Riprap may not be installed more than five feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark and must conform to the natural alignment of the shore or waterway and not obstruct the flow of water.
5.23 No Estoppel. The issuance of a permit or other approval for drainage activity under these rules shall not constitute an estoppel or limitation of any claim or right of action of the watershed district against the applicant, its contractors, agents, or employees for violation of or failure to comply with the provisions, conditions, or limitations of the permit or other approval granted by the Board of Managers or other applicable provisions of the law.
5.24 Changes to Activity, Plan, or Design. Any new development, redevelopment, addition, change, or modification of an existing drainage activity, or a proposed drainage activity previously approved by the Board of Managers shall require review and re-approval by the Board of Managers under these rules. The Board of Managers may waive the application fee if the requestor has previously paid an application fee within the last two years.
5.25 Termination, Cancellation, and Revocation. A permit or other approval of drainage activity may be terminated, canceled, or revoked as provided by this section. Such termination, cancellation, or revocation shall be with or without notice, provided that where no notice is given, the applicant shall possess the right to appeal said action to the Board of Managers by written request delivered within 30 days of the action to the office of the Heron Lake Watershed District.
5.25.1 Termination shall mean the permit or other approval expired by its own terms or that the drainage activity involved has been completed and approved by the Board of Managers, thereby terminating the permit. 5.25.2 Cancellation shall mean the permit or other approval was suspended, either temporarily or permanently, in whole or in part, upon a determination that such cancellation is deemed necessary to protect the public welfare. 5.25.3 Revocation shall mean the permit or other approval was withdrawn after issuance by the Board of Managers based upon an alleged violation of any of the provisions, conditions, or limitations contained in the permit, license, or other approval granted by the Board of
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 233
Managers, or for failure to obtain other necessary approvals from, or comply with the requirements of an authority other than the Board of Managers.
5.26 Limited Approval Only. Obtaining a permit or other approval for drainage activity under these rules shall not constitute absolute authority to perform the drainage activity. The applicant remains responsible for obtaining any other required authorization. The permit or other authority is permissive only and shall not release the applicant from any liability nor obligation imposed by Minnesota law, Federal law, or local ordinances and shall be subject to all conditions and limitations imposed by the Board of Managers or hereafter imposed by applicable law. The Board of Managers, by approving a request for permit or other approval of a drainage activity, makes no representations to the applicant that the proposed drainage activity complies or does not comply with existing law. No liability shall be imposed upon or incurred by the watershed district, its Board of Managers, or its officers, agents, and employees, officially or personally, on account of the granting of the permit or other approval, or on account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the applicant or any of its contractors, agents, or employees relating to the drainage activity.
Section 6: Variances: The Watershed District Board of Managers may hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of these rules in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The Board of Managers may grant variances where it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of these rules.
6.1 The Board of Managers may grant variances only where it is demonstrated that such action will be consistent with the district’s watershed management plan and Minnesota water law generally.
6.2 In order to grant a variance, the Board of Managers shall determine that the special conditions that apply to the structure or land in question do not apply generally to other land or structures in the District, that the granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, and that the variance will not impair or be contrary to the intent of these rules. A hardship cannot be created by the landowner, the landowner’s agent or representative, or a contractor, and must be unique to the property. Economic hardship alone is not grounds for issuing a variance. Land platted within a municipality that has storm water infrastructure installed before the adoption date of these rules, shall be eligible for a variance. The term “undue hardship” as used in connection with the granting of a variance shall mean that the property under consideration cannot be put into a reasonable use if these rules were strictly applied and enforced
6.3 A variance shall become void after one year after it is granted if not used.
6.4 A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a violation of the District Rules and shall automatically terminate the variance.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 234
Section 7: Restrictions and Limitations upon Board Action.
7.1 Time deadline for action. The Board of Managers will approve or deny within 60 days a written request for a permit or other governmental approval of drainage activity under these rules. Failure of the Board of Managers to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If the Board of Managers denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that the request is denied. The time deadline for permit action begins the day after the Board of Managers first regular meeting following receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the watershed. If the watershed district receives a written request that does not contain all required or necessary information, the 60-day limit starts over only if the watershed sends written notice to the requestor within ten business days of the initial consideration of the request by the Board of Managers telling the requestor what information is missing.
7.1.1 The watershed district’s response meets the 60-day limit if the watershed district can document that its written approval or denial action was sent within 60 days of receipt of the written request as defined above. 7.1.2. The time limit in subdivision 6.1 is extended if a state statute, federal law, or court order requires a process to occur before the Board of Managers acts on the request, and the time periods prescribed in the state statute, federal law, or court order make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline is extended to 60 days after completion of the last process required in the applicable statute, law, or order. 7.1.3. The time limit in subdivision 6.1 is extended if a request submitted to the watershed district requires prior approval of another local, state, or federal agency or board. For purposes of this provision, another local, state, or federal agency or board includes the following: a city, county, town, school district, metropolitan, or regional entity, or other political subdivision. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline for watershed district action is extended to 60 days after the required prior approval is granted. The watershed district will forward copies of the application to such other state or federal agencies whose approval is required. 7.1.4 The Board of Managers may extend the time limit in subdivision 4.3.1. before the end of the initial 60-day period to protect against serious or significant harm to the public health, safety, or welfare by providing written notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length. A decision by the Board of Managers to require an engineering report, environmental impact assessment, or similar preliminary evaluation of a request submitted to the watershed district shall be deemed an act to protect against serious or significant harm to the public health, safety, or welfare.
7.2 Required Considerations. The following criteria shall be considered by the Board of Managers in approving or denying a written request for a permit or other approval of a proposed activity under these rules.
7.2.1 The private or public benefits and costs of the proposed activity.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 235
7.2.2 The present and anticipated agricultural land acreage availability and use affected by the proposed activity. 7.2.3 The present and anticipated land use affected by the proposed activity. 7.2.4 The flooding characteristics of property affected by the proposed activity and downstream for 10 and 100-year flood events and the anticipated impact or effect upon said flooding characteristics of the proposed activity. 7.2.5 The waters to be drained and availability of alternative measures to conserve, allocate, and use the waters – including the potential for storage and retention of such waters. 7.2.6 The anticipated effect of the proposed activity upon water quality – to include construction. 7.2.7 The anticipated effect of the proposed activity upon fish and wildlife resources – to include construction. 7.2.8 The anticipated effect of the proposed activity upon shallow ground water availability, distribution, and use. 7.2.9 The overall environmental impact of the proposed activity.
7.2.10 The adequacy and non-erodability of the outlet for the proposed activity. 7.2.11 The need and reasonableness of the proposed activity. 7.2.12 The anticipated injury or damage to adjoining or downstream property from the proposed activity and potential alternatives avoiding/reducing such injury and damage. 7.2.13 Whether the benefits of the proposed activity outweigh the anticipated harm. 7.2.14 Whether the proposed activity is consistent with the “general welfare”. In determining the general welfare, the Board of Managers will consider both agricultural best management practices and water quality best management practices. 7.2.15 Whether, under all the circumstances, the proposed activity constitutes a reasonable use of the land and resources involved. For purposes of these rules, the term “reasonable use” shall be interpreted to incorporate the doctrine of reasonable use; i.e., in affecting a reasonable use for a legitimate purpose a landowner, acting in good faith, may drain his land of surface waters and cast them as a burden upon the land of another, although such drainage carries with it some waters which would otherwise have never gone that way, if there is a reasonable necessity for such drainage; and if reasonable care be taken to avoid unnecessary injury to the land receiving the burden; and if the utility or benefit accruing to the land drained reasonably outweighs the gravity of the harm resulting to the land receiving the burden; and if, where practicable it is accomplished by reasonably improving and aiding the normal and natural system of drainage according to its reasonable carrying capacity, or if, in the absence of a practicable natural drain, a reasonable and feasible artificial drainage system is adopted.
7.3 Reservation of Right to Require Preliminary Analysis. The Board of Managers reserves the right, when in the Board’s considered opinion, such action is deemed to be in the public’s welfare, to require that any person or entity requesting a permit or other approval of a drainage activity under these rules, procure and pay for an engineering study, environmental impact assessment, or other preliminary analysis determined by the Board of Managers to be beneficial and reasonably necessary to the Board’s consideration, evaluation, and determination of the request.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 236
Section 8: Other Regulation of Activities Affecting Drainage. The Board of Managers may enter into or issue letters of understanding, consent agreements, stipulations, orders, or other forms of approval for activities affecting drainage which do not require a permit under these rules. In all such cases, approvals will be entered into or issued upon majority approval by the Board of Managers after notice and hearing at a regular, special, or emergency meeting.
Section 9: Notification of Activities Affecting Drainage.
9.1 Activities Requiring Notification. The following activities shall not be commenced absent notification, not less than 60 days prior to the initiation of the activity, to the Board of Managers.
9.1.1. Removal, conversion, or land-use change of pasture land, agricultural land, or residential, commercial or industrial sites. 9.1.2. Construction or expansion of feedlots within the watershed. Expansion shall mean an increase in animal units or geographic size. 9.1.3. Removal of trees, brush, or other obstructions within a watercourse, ditch, or natural drainage way. 9.1.4. Maintenance performed by a private individual or entity to a public drainage system. 9.1.5. The alteration or modification of, or construction activity upon, a lake shore or land located within the shore impact zone. 9.1.6. The placement of fill, construction activity, or drainage activity within a wetland. For purposes of these rules “wetland” shall mean lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water; and possess the following attributes: (1) have a preponderance of hydric soil; (2) are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and (3) under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such vegetation. “Wetlands” shall include all wetlands as designated by the ACOE, the Wetland Conservation Act, FSA, NRCS, and/or the public waters inventory. 9.1.7. Any change in course, current or cross section – including any modification, alteration, or change to the bed, banks, or shores – of a public water of the State of Minnesota, as listed on the public waters inventory of the applicable county. 9.1.8. The disposal of snow within a shore impact zone or within or upon a public water. 9.1.9. Construction projects involving the movement, removal, or disturbance of earth from land areas greater than 43,560 square feet (one acre) in size. 9.1.10. Pumping water, either directly or indirectly, into a private or public drainage system. For purposes of this rule, the term “pumping water” shall be defined as the movement of water by artificial, natural, or mechanical means from one location to another at a rate exceeding two (2) gallons per minute, and when more than five hundred (500) gallons of water is moved in a single 24 hour period. 9.1.11. The alteration, modification, replacement, or removal of a private bridge or culvert. For purposes of these rules, a “culvert” shall be any perforated or non-perforated tile, conduit, cylinder, tube, or pipe larger than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter. 9.1.12. Any alteration, modification, or construction activity within the area located between the high water mark and the low water mark of a waterway, ditch, stream, river, channel,
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 237
lake, water basin, water body, public drainage system, or a private drainage system which utilizes a public water or drainage system as an outlet.
9.1.13. The installation, modification, replacement, or removal of any reservoir, catch basin, or water basin or other water impoundment structure. For purposes of these rules, the term “water impoundment structure” shall mean a man-made structure designed to retain or contain runoff water, not including natural or man-made pits or ponds in which water is collected and maintained primarily by subsurface seepage or percolation.
9.2 Form and Place of Notification. The notice required by this section must be in writing and delivered to the office of the Heron Lake Watershed District, PO Box 345, Heron Lake, Minnesota 56137.
Section 10: Effect on Other Drainage Law. 6.1 No Effect. These rules and regulations shall not be deemed to have any impact, influence, nor effect upon the requirements for drainage projects regulated and controlled by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E and 103D involving public drainage systems.
6.2 Responsibility. It remains the responsibility of the person or entity engaging in an activity which requires a drainage project petition prior to initiation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E or 103D to make appropriate application to the drainage authority possessing jurisdiction.
Section 11: Enforcement Powers. The Board of Managers may enforce any violation of a watershed district’s rules and regulations, or the terms, conditions, and/or limitations of a permit or other approval of a drainage activity issued thereunder, through injunction, action to compel performance, restoration, abatement, or other appropriate relief in the district court and/or by referral of criminal misdemeanor charges to the appropriate county attorney office.
11.1 A violation of a rule, regulation, order, stipulation, agreement, or permit issued by the Board of Managers under these rules and regulations shall be a misdemeanor as that term is defined by Minn.Stat. § 609.02, Subd. 3, as amended.
11.2 Concurrent Authority to Enforce Water Law. The enforcement powers described herein are not exclusive to the watershed district, but are concurrent with all county, state, and federal agencies possessing authority to regulate the activities embraced herein.
Section 12: Appeal of Decision by Board of Managers. 12.1 Reconsideration. Any person aggrieved by a decision on a permit or other approval of the Board of Managers shall possess the right to appeal for reconsideration to the Board of Managers by making a written demand for a hearing within 30 days of the person receiving written notice of the decision.
12.2 Appeal to County Board. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board of Managers upon a request for reconsideration shall possess the right to appeal the Board’s decision to the appropriate Board of County Commissioners by making a written demand to the County
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 238
Commissioners to be placed upon the County Board’s agenda. Said demand shall be made within 30 days of the Board of Managers final decision.
12.3 Appeal to District Court or BWSR. Any person may appeal a rule, permit decision, or order made by the Board of Managers by appropriate action to the District Court or by appeal to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. An appeal of permit decision must be filed within 30 days of the Board of Managers’ final decision.
Section 13: Adoption or Amendment of Rules.
13.1. Procedure. Rules of the Heron Lake Watershed District shall be adopted or amended by a majority vote of the Board of Managers after public notice and hearing. Rules must be signed by the secretary of the Board of Managers and recorded in the Board of Managers’ official minute book in accordance with MS 103D.341, Subd. 2, as amended.
13.2 Repeal of Rules. All rules and regulations bearing an earlier date of adoption or amendment than these rules shall be of no further force or effect and shall be repealed on the date that these rules become effective. Hereafter, any adoption or amendment to these rules by the Board of Managers shall act as a repeal of these rules to the extent that such adoption or amendment is inconsistent herewith.
Section 14: Effective Date of Rules. 14.1 Effective Date of Rules. These rules shall be effective upon the date of the occurrence of the last of the following actions:
14.1.1 Approval of the rules by the Board of Water and Soil Resources. 14.1.2 Approval of the rules by the Board of Managers after notice and hearing and publication as required by law. 14.1.3. Filing of the rules with the County Recorders of Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties, and with the governing body of each municipality located, in whole or in part, within the watershed district.
These rules are hereby adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 103D on this 21st day of May, 2002.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 239
Appendix A
HERON LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT AND OKABENA-OCHEDA WATERSHED DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT PERMITTING RULES
EROSION CONTROL AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Purposes and Policy. The purpose of this section is to afford reasonable protection to the water quality and habitat of the Heron Lake and Okabena-Ocheda watershed districts’ lakes and streams. Erosion control measures provide for the prevention of nutrient, sediment and other pollutant loading from soils exposed during construction. Runoff storage and treatment systems provide for the filtration of nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants from storm flows; protection of stream beds and banks and mitigation of downstream flooding through moderation of peak flows both into and within the resource; preservation of aquatic and terrestrial habitat; protection of scenic resources; and maintenance of property values.
To accomplish these purposes, the Heron Lake and Okabena-Ocheda watershed districts hereby adopt, by reference, the standards put forth in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit Program, also known as the NPDES Phase II Permit, along with any future amendments.
1. Permit Coverage and Limitations 1.1 A watershed district and NPDES Phase II permit shall be required, and all construction site erosion control provisions of this permit shall apply, to land disturbing activities associated with construction activity and small construction activity as defined below.
1.1.1 Construction activity includes clearing, grading and excavation, that disturbs land of equal or greater than five (5) acres and includes the disturbance of less than five (5) acres of total land area that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb five (5) acres or more. 1.1.2 Small construction activity includes clearing, grading and excavation, that disturbs land of equal to or greater than one (1) acre, and includes the disturbance of less than one (1) acre of total land area that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb equal to or greater than one and less than five (5) acres. 1.1.3 For drainage ditches, small construction activity does not include routine maintenance that is performed to maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 240
2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: Permits and Administration. 2.1 No activity meeting the requirements for an NPDES Phase II Permit shall occur before a permit is issued from the Heron Lake Watershed District or Okabena- Ocheda Watershed District. 2.2 The applicant must provide the following when requesting a watershed district permit:
2.2.1 A completed watershed district application; 2.2.2 A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the MPCA NPDES Phase II Permit Program; 2.2.3 A proposed timetable and schedule for completion and installation of all elements of approved erosion control and stormwater management plans and a proposed schedule for completion of construction; and 2.2.4 A $10.00 application fee and $40.00 site inspection fee.
3 Permit Conditions 3.1 The SWPPP shall be implemented prior to the start of any land disturbing activity and shall be maintained over the duration of the project. Permanent stormwater components of the plan shall be maintained in perpetuity. 3.2 The permittee is responsible for the successful completion of the SWPPP. The permittee shall be liable for all costs incurred, including environmental restoration costs resulting from noncompliance with an approved plan. 3.3 Application for a permit shall constitute express permission by the permittee and landowner for the watershed district Board of Managers, employees, agents and assigns to enter the property for purposes of inspection, monitoring a project for compliance with the SWPPP, and if necessary, requiring curative action.
4 Permit Transfer When the owner or operator changes (e.g. an original developer sells portions of the property to various homebuilders), the new owner or operator must submit to the watershed district a copy of the change of ownership/subdivision short form application that was sent to the MPCA as a requirement of the Stormwater Phase II Permit Program.
5 Plan or Permit Amendments Any major modification to an approved SWPPP, construction schedules or alterations to accepted sequencing of land disturbing site activities shall be approved by the watershed district.
6 Fees A $10.00 application fee and a $40.00 inspection fee shall be submitted with the erosion control and stormwater management permit application. Application fees are waived for public entities. After-the-fact permits will be subject to the application fee and all other costs incurred by the District. If, in the opinion of the Board of Managers, it is necessary for the watershed district engineer or other consultant to review the application and all exhibits, including the SWPPP, view the site and make a report to the watershed district
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 241
as to the technical implications of the work, costs incurred by the watershed district during this review shall be borne by the applicant. Public entities are not exempt from these costs.
7 Termination of Coverage A permittee wishing to terminate an erosion control and stormwater management permit must submit to the watershed district a copy of the Notice of Termination (NOT) form sent to the MPCA. Compliance with the erosion control and stormwater management permit is required until the NOT is received by the watershed district.
When residential lots are transferred to the home owner, the permittee must distribute the MPCA’s “homeowner factsheet” to the homeowner to inform the homeowner of the need for, and benefits of, practices to achieve final stabilization of the lot.
8 Compliance and Enforcement 8.1 The watershed districts will perform field inspections on all construction sites that disturb one acre or more to determine if:
8.1.1 The MPCA NPDES Phase II Permit application and a watershed district permit have been acquired. 8.1.2 There is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the site and it is being followed. 8.1.3 The Best Management Practices called for in the SWPPP are working properly.
8.2 The watershed districts, during inspections, will record deficiencies and violations of permitting rules and SWPPP’s. Recommendations for correcting deficiencies and violations will be distributed to landowners, contractors and permittees.
8.3 The watershed districts, when necessary, will exercise enforcement actions up to and including issuing “stop work orders” for sites that do not comply with MPCA NPDES Phase II and watershed district permit requirements.
8.4 The watershed districts will make non-compliance determinations and referrals to MPCA to take enforcement action in the following situations.
8.4.1 All non-permitted sites that disturb more than 1 acre. 8.4.2 Permitted and non-permitted sites where serious environmental damage has occurred to surface waters.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 242
Appendix B
HERON LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT AND OKABENA-OCHEDA WATERSHED DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT PERMITTING RULES
EROSION CONTROL ON CONSTRUCTION SITES SMALLER THAN ONE ACRE
Purposes and Policy. The purpose of this section is to afford reasonable protection to the water quality and habitat of the Heron Lake and Okabena-Ocheda watershed districts’ lakes and streams. Erosion control measures provide for the prevention of nutrient, sediment and other pollutant loading from soils exposed during construction.
1. Earth Moving Projects: A district permit will be required for any earth-moving project, which will result in: grading involving more than 200 cubic yards of cut or fill and which project, or any part thereof, is within 300 feet of a water of the state or is within 1000 feet of a lake; or disturbance of more than 10,000 square feet of soil and which project, or any part thereof, is within 300 feet of a water of the state or is within 1000 feet of a lake. Waters of the state include: street gutters, storm sewer catch basins, natural streams, drainage ditches, drainage tile intakes, and wetlands. The purpose of the permit is to insure that adequate erosion control measures are taken before, during and after the earth-moving project.
2. Permit Requirements: Permit applicants must submit one set of the following documents to the Board for its review:
2.1 A Completed Permit Application Form. A request for permit under these rules shall be commenced by delivering, either in person or by U.S. Mail, a signed application on the form required by the Board of Managers to the office of the Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District, 1567 McMillan Street, Suite 3, Worthington, MN 56187.
A $10.00 application fee and a $15.00 inspection fee shall be charged for each erosion control plan permit. Application fees are waived for public entities. Erosion control plan information must be submitted with the application. After-the-fact permits will be subject to the application fee and all other costs incurred by the District. If, in the opinion of the Board of Managers, it is necessary for the watershed district engineer or other consultant to review the application and all exhibits, view the site, and make a report to the watershed district as to the technical implications of the work, costs incurred by the watershed district during this review shall be borne by the applicant.
2.2 A set of Project Plans, including at least: A scale drawing of the site showing property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant and the proposed earth-moving project.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 243
An Erosion Control Plan showing proposed methods of retaining waterborne- sediments onsite during the period of construction, and shall specify methods and schedules to determine how the site will be restored, covered, or revegetated after construction. [Note: an erosion control plan does not require the signature of a registered professional engineer.]
2.3 In addition, the permit applicant shall provide specific measures to control erosion based upon recognized engineering standards and the grade and length of the slopes on the site, to include--at a minimum--the following:
2.3.1 Silt fences or other approved devices shall be placed near the toe of the slopes to prevent soil from moving offsite. All devices shall be installed in accordance with the adopted standards. All silt fences and other devices must be replaced, supplemented or repaired when they become non-functional or sediment reaches the height defined in the adopted standards. These repairs must be made within 24 hours of discovery or as soon as field conditions allow. 2.3.2 Diversion channels or dikes and pipes shall be provided to intercept all drainage at the top of slopes that have grades of more than 10:1. Also, diversion channels or diked terraces and pipes shall be provided across said slopes if needed to ensure that the maximum flow length does not exceed 100 feet. No unbroken slopes longer than 75 feet on grades steeper than 3:1 shall be allowed.
2.3.3 Require that a device meeting the approved standards be installed, around each catch basin inlet on the site. The device shall remain in place until final stabilization of the site occurs. 2.3.4 Ensure that flows from diversion channels or pipes are routed to sedimentation basins or appropriate energy dissipaters in order to prevent transport of sediment to outflow conveyors and to prevent erosion and sedimentation when runoff flows into the conveyors. Any temporary of permanent drainage ditch that drains water from a construction site, or diverts water around a site, must be stabilized within 200 linear feet of the property boundary. Stabilization and energy dissipation practices, where needed, must be installed within 24 hours of the connection to surface water. 2.3.5 Provide that site-access roads be graded or otherwise protected with a device or devices meeting the approved standards to prevent sediment from leaving the site via the access roads. 2.3.6 Require that soils tracked from the site by motor vehicles be cleaned daily (or more frequently, as necessary) from paved roadway surfaces throughout the duration of construction. 2.3.7 Assure that all erosion and sediment control measures be deployed, inspected and maintained for the duration of site construction. If construction operations interfere with these control measures, the devices may be removed or altered as needed but shall be restored to serve their intended function at the end of each day. 2.3.8 Specify that all exposed areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 244
Type of Slope Time* Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days
*Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.
A schedule of significant grading work will be required as part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
2.3.9 Require that temporary erosion protection and permanent cover be provided in accordance with the adopted standards. 2.3.10 Maintain an undisturbed grassed area, or install and maintain silt fence or other approved device, or provide a 4-foot wide sodded area along the curb line of all streets adjacent to the site and along all property boundaries where runoff could leave the site. 2.3.11 Erosion control practices must be maintained until final stabilization of the site occurs. (70 percent vegetative cover is achieved.)
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 245
9.17. Heron Lake CWP Phase I Diagnostic Study Results
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 246
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 247
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 248
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 249
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 250
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 251
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 252
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 253
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 254
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 255
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 256
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 257
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 258
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 259
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 260
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 261
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 262
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 263
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 264
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 265
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 266
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 267
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 268
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 269
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 270
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 271
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 272
9.18. Heron Lake CWP Continuation Work Plan
Heron Lake Watershed District: Clean Water Partnership Project Continuation
Three-Year Implementation Work Plan 2007-2010
Project Sponsor: Heron Lake Watershed District
Contributing Sponsors: Nobles County Jackson County Murray County Cottonwood County Soil and Water Conservation Districts (4 counties) Natural Resources Conservation Service (4 counties) Minnesota Extension Service (4 counties) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources North Heron Lake Game Producers Association, Inc. Prairie Ecology Bus Center United States Fish and Wildlife Service
October 16, 2007 Revised: November 20, 2008 December 23, 2008
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 273
Table of Contents
I. Statement of Problems and Existing Conditions ...... 277 II. Statement of Project Goals and Objectives ...... 280 III. Project Organization and Responsibility ...... 281 IV. Identification and Summary of Program Elements ...... 283 V. Milestone Schedule ...... 286 VI. Monitoring Plan ...... 286 VII. Watershed Assessment ...... 289 VIII. Quality Assurance Project Plan ...... 290 IX. Workplan Budgets ...... 290 X. Appendices ...... 292
List of Tables
Table 1. Local Units of Government in the Project Area…………………………………… 6
Table 2. Summary of In-Lake Total Phosphorus Goals……………………………………. 9
Table 3. Milestone Schedule……………………………………………………………….. 15
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Heron Lake Watershed District………………………………………..... 7
Figure 2. Map of Impaired Waters…………………………………………………………. 8
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 274
Work Plan Changes
Workplan Change #1: November 20, 2008 Project staff has discovered that rain garden project installation costs have increased during the past year. The current cost-share cap of $1,000 is insufficient to cover 75% of the installation costs. Also due to the crop prices and economy, the CRP enrollment has decreased. Project staff is interested in increasing cost-share for rain gardens and decreasing the acreage goal for CRP. This “Within Element Change” would be made in Element 2: Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading Reductions, Task A: BMP Enrollment and would constitute the following: . Reduce CRP filter strip incentive from 900 acres at $25 per acre ($22,500) to 600 acres at $25 per acre ($15,000). . Increase rain garden cost-share from 30 rain gardens at $1,000 each ($30,000) to 30 rain gardens at $1,250 each ($37,500).
Workplan Change #2: December 23, 2008 Project staff has indicated the price of trees and seed has increased and would like to increase the CRP filter strip incentive from $25/acre to $50/acre. This “Within Element Change” would be made in Element 2: Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading Reductions, Task A: BMP Enrollment and would constitute the following: The cost within Element 2 would not change (remain at $15,000) but the acreage goal would be decreased from 600 to 300 acres.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 275
1. Grant Project Summary
Project Title: (No more than 10 words, 50 characters or less; please reference the waterbody as applicable) Heron Lake Watershed District: Clean Water Partnership Continuation
Organization (Grantee): Heron Lake Watershed District
Project start date: August 31, 2007 Project end date: August 31, 2010
Work plan submittal date: October 16, 2007
Grantee Contact Name: Jan Voit Title: District Administrator
Address: PO Box 345
City: Heron Lake State: MN Zip: 56137
Phone #: 507-793-2462 Fax: 507-793-2253 E-mail: [email protected]
Watershed, Lake or Water Body (if applicable): Heron Lake
Latitude/Longitude for center of project area: 43° 46’ 39”N, 95° 27’ 44”W
County: Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood
Project Funding Type (check one): CWP Diagnostic CWP Implementation
319 Implementation 319 Non-implementation
Grant Amount: $428,752.50 Proposed Cash Match Funds: $0
Proposed Inkind Match Funds: $631,220.00 Proposed Loan Funds: $500,000.00
Total Project Costs: $1,559,972.50
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 276
Table 1. Local Units of Government in the Project Area Local Units of Government in the Project Area: Counties: 1. Nobles 2. Jackson 3. Murray 4. Cottonwood Townships: 1. Bloom 2. Elk 3. Graham Lakes 4. Hersey 5. Lorain 6. Seward 7. Summit Lake 8. Wilmont 9. Worthington 10. Alba 11. Delafield 12. Ewington 13. Heron Lake 14. Hunter 15. LaCrosse 16. Rost 17. Weimer 18. West Heron Lake 19. Belfast 20. Bondin 21. Fenton 22. Iona 23. Great Bend 24. Springfield Cities: 1. Brewster 2. Heron Lake 3. Okabena 4. Lakefield 5. Kinbrae 6. Wilder 7. Fulda 8. Worthington Agencies: 1. SWCD 2. NRCS 3. FSA 4. DNR 5. USFWS Organizations: 1. NHLGPA 2. PEBC 3. 4. Other: 1. 2. 3. 4. State Senate Districts: District 22 State House Districts: District 22B
Statement of Problems and Existing Conditions
The Heron Lake watershed encompasses approximately 472 square miles and is located in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties in southwestern Minnesota, as shown in Figure 1. Land use within the watershed consists primarily of cultivated land in agricultural production. The watershed boundaries run 30 miles east and west and 16 miles north and south. Three major lake systems are found within the watershed. They are the Heron Lakes (3 lakes and a marsh), the Graham Lakes (3 lakes) and the Fulda Lakes (2 lakes) systems.
Heron Lake and its history bring significant importance to the watershed. At the turn of the century, market hunting was common and provided Heron Lake and its residents with additional income. This also brought people from all walks of life to experience the “darkened skies” and try their hand at hunting. In 1909, a land survey was completed that divided the lake into a pie shape. This was done in preparation for draining Heron Lake for agricultural use. The landowners banded together and decided not to drain the lake. Through this time as market hunting become illegal, the water quality was declining and the number of resident and migratory waterfowl decreased. Heron Lake watershed residents began to take increased advantage of the rich soil, causing additional degradation of Heron Lake. The heightened understanding and realization of the repercussions of the land use decisions made within the watershed began about fifty years ago. Since that time, projects, partnerships, and individual efforts were undertaken in an attempt to reverse the pollution problems that had developed. The time and money spent on water quality improvement efforts attribute to the economic and social importance of this watershed.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 277
Figure 1. Map of HLWD
There are four major problems in this watershed: Drainage and the speed of water as it moves through the watershed. Flooding causes erosion, dramatically impacting water quality. Urban sources of pollution from point sources and storm water runoff are a major problem in this system, particularly in the Okabena subwatershed. Point sources from the City of Worthington contribute large quantities of nutrients and sediments to Okabena Creek. The cities of Brewster and Okabena discharge the effluent from their wastewater treatment facilities into Okabena Creek. The City of Lakefield wastewater treatment plant discharges its effluent into South Heron Lake. There is a source of nutrients in or near the City of Fulda that negatively impacts Second Fulda Lake.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 278
Tillage practices and lack of vegetative cover, riparian and field buffer strips, and windbreaks is another concern for the watershed. Compliance with feedlots (MN Rules 7020), ordinances and nutrient management (including manure spreading) and septic waste (MN Rules 7080). The number of feedlots not exempted by MN Rules 7020 (more than 50 animal units or 10 animal units within shoreland areas) ranges from 411 to 882, or 3 to 6 times more than have been permitted.
Okabena Creek, Elk Creek, Jack Creek, Heron Lake, and the West Fork Des Moines River (WFDMR) are included on the 2008 303(d) Draft Impaired Waters List. A TMDL study for Heron Lake and the WFDMR watershed is nearing completion. Decisions made at this level will have a direct impact on the Mississippi watershed and the Zone of Hypoxia. A map containing the impaired waters is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. 2008 Draft 303(d) Listings in the Heron Lake watershed
Population: 12,368 Project Area: 472 square miles Land Uses within the Heron Lake watershed: 86% Agricultural; 100% Drained/Tiled 5% Urban/Suburban; 3% Impervious Surface 2% Wetland 2% Water 5% Farmsteads
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 279
Statement of Project Goals and Objectives A. Overall Resource Goals The major goal of this project is water quality improvement through the use of education and best management practices (BMP) implementation.
B. Water Quality Characterization Goals Water quality goals include reducing nonpoint and point source pollution loads, improving water quantity management, and monitoring water quality and project effectiveness.
C. Preliminary Quantitative Goals Quantitative water quality goals are to decrease total phosphorus (TP) loading of the lakes primarily by watershed reduction measures. These goals are included in Table 2. Table 2 was developed in the original 1992 Clean Water Partnership (CWP) diagnostic study. There have been improvements in the Fulda and Graham Lake basins. Heron Lake has been inundated with nutrient loading for several years and it may take years to meet the goals. Regardless, there have been improvements when looking at the averages from 1997 to 2006. The goals for this project would be to strive to attain the short-term goals for the Heron Lake system.
Table 2. Total Phosphorus Goals (ug/L) Summary of In-Lake Total Phosphorus Goals For Lakes in the Heron Lake Watershed
1997- 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2006 1992 2002 Short Long
Summer Summer Term Term Lakes Average Average Goals Goals First Fulda 161 148 145 60-140 136 166 80 228 149 127 70 Second Fulda 173 148 111 25-105 142 161 56 225 184 121 67 West Graham 213 156 196 111-191 160 140 95 285 157 100 96 East Graham 206 188 193 108-188 142 159 114 340 172 200 133 North Heron 316 558 158 73-153 663 570 363 610 727 413 358 South Heron 288 690 174 89-169 583 676 293 1346 549 684 1495 Note: Short Term Goals were based on BATHTUB modeling with Point Sources reduced to 1 mg/l and Nonpoint
Sources reduced by 25%, excluding feedlot loading reductions. Long Term Goals were based on a feedlot loading
reduction of 5-85 ug/L.
Red text indicates the average still exceeds the short-term goal.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 280
D. Information and Education Goals for Citizens in the Project Area The goal of increasing pubic awareness of water quality issues will be met through use of quarterly meetings of the advisory committee, monthly newsletters, semi-annual public education meetings, and individual landowner assistance.
Project Organization and Responsibility A. Roles and Responsibilities HERON LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT: As Project Sponsor, the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) will administer the entire HLWD CWP Continuation Project and develop the work plan. As sponsor of the CWP Project, all goals and actions of the CWP Project will be conducted and/or overseen by the project staff. All legal requirements of the executed Grant and Loan Agreements are the responsibility of the project staff. The HLWD has committed to contribute $282,540 inkind toward this CWP project for staff (2.7 FTE), mileage, office expenses, telephone, legal fees, and miscellaneous activities. In addition, the HLWD will sponsor a $500,000 CWP Loan for loan eligible activities within the watershed district. See the executed copy of the CWP Loan Agreement for specific requirements of administering this loan and loan eligible BMP categories.
NOBLES COUNTY: Reducing pollutant loadings, improving water quality, restoring wildlife species, and increasing public awareness are all worthwhile goals included in Nobles County’s Comprehensive Water Plan. Nobles County is proud to be a partner in this worthwhile project and commits $35,100 inkind contribution.
JACKSON COUNTY: Jackson County will support and commit its departments to activities assigned to them by the project’s implementation plan for the sole role of protecting and improving water quality and quantity in Jackson County and the HLWD. Jackson County commits $35,100 inkind for this grant.
MURRAY COUNTY: Murray County supports the HLWD in continuing the implementation plan of the CWP for the sole purpose of protecting and improving water quality in Murray County and the Heron Lake watershed. Murray County commits $18,000 inkind services to this project.
COTTONWOOD COUNTY: Cottonwood County supports the Heron Lake watershed in continuing the implementation plan of the CWP for the sole purpose of protecting and improving water quality and quantity in Cottonwood County and the Heron Lake watershed. We believe in the success of the project and are willing to contribute $1,800 of inkind services which includes attending CWP advisory meetings and other services as needed.
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (SWCD): The SWCDs in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties support the CWP Project as a means to improve and protect water quality and quantity in the Heron Lake watershed. Each individual SWCD will contribute $17,125 inkind contribution for assisting in all aspects of the goals and objectives for this project.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 281
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS): The NRCS offices in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties support the CWP Project as a means to improve and protect water quality and quantity in the Heron Lake watershed. Each individual NRCS office will contribute $5,125 inkind contribution for assisting in all aspects of the goals and objectives for this project.
EXTENSION: University of Minnesota Extension in Jackson, Nobles, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties support the CWP Project as a means to improve and protect water quality and quantity in the Heron Lake watershed. The Extension offices in all four counties will work in cooperation to contribute $5,000 inkind. This could include staff time from local and regional educators working on any agricultural or urban education efforts conducted within the watershed, office space, and travel expenses.
PRAIRIE ECOLOGY BUS CENTER (PEBC): Watershed and water quality programs conducted by the PEBC supplement and complement the HLWD activities, building awareness of our watershed and the human role in protecting the quantity and quality of our water resources. The PEBC will contribute $1,000 inkind services.
NORTH HERON LAKE GAME PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION (NHLGPA): The NHLGPA sees the CWP project as an excellent opportunity to assist the HLWD in educating local residents about water quality issues, in addition to fostering an appreciation for our area’s rich wildlife heritage. The NHLGPA will contribute $4,680 inkind for habitat improvement and volunteer monitoring.
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS): The USFWS fully supports the funding of this project. Our projected inkind contribution toward this effort is a minimum of $150,000. These funds will be used to protect and restore key wetland and upland areas, which will provide multiple benefits including water quality improvement, water retention, and wildlife habitat.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR): The DNR full supports the funding of this project and provides $9,000 inkind which will include staff time for Heron Lake education meetings, wetland restorations, use of boat, motor, and trailer, and staff time for vegetative surveys and associated mileage. These activities will promote environmental educational efforts and application of those practices within the watershed, as well as monitor the effects upon Heron Lake through lake surveys.
Specific responsibilities are outlined in the milestone schedule. A Project Organization Chart and Staff Directory are included in Appendix A. The resolution and letters of support for this project are presented in Appendix B.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 282
Identification and Summary of Program Elements Element 1: Outreach Component to Increase Public Awareness One of the most important long-term efforts of this project is to convey information and education to watershed residents. Awareness of the consequences of individual actions and producing changes in behavior can reduce the quantity of pollutants reaching our streams and lakes. Task A: CWP Advisory Committee Meetings Facilitate quarterly advisory committee meetings Time frame: September 2007 – August 2010 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff Estimated Cost: $480.00 Cash: $0.00 Inkind: $480.00 Task B: Promote local ownership Monthly newsletters Semi-annual public education meetings Individual landowner assistance Time frame: September 2007 – August 2010 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff, project partners Estimated Cost: $67,045.00 Cash: $56,825.00 Inkind: $10,220.00 Element 2: Non-point Source Pollutant Loading Reductions The Diagnostic Study indicated that a large percentage of phosphorus and sediments came through the watershed. Implementation activities will be focused throughout the watershed, with first priority given to willing landowners. Task A: BMP Enrollment CRP filter strip incentive: 900 600 300 acres at $25 $50 per acre Farmstead and field windbreak incentive: 50 acres at $50 per acre BMPs (terraces, waterways, critical plantings) cost-share: 20 projects at $6,500 each Perpetual easement incentive: 250 acres at $200 per acre Subsurface sewage treatment system loans: 35 systems at $5,714 each Feedlot loans: 2 projects at $75,000 each Rain garden cost-share program: 30 rain gardens at $1,000 $1,250 each Conservation tillage equipment loans: 3 pieces of equipment at $50,000 each Time frame: September 2007 – August 2010 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff, project partners Estimated Cost: $905,020.00 Cash: $235,000.00 Inkind: $170,020.00 Loan: $500,000.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 283
Element 3: Point Source Loading Reductions The CWP program is a non-point source program. Point source problems within the watershed were addressed by the MPCA through the NPDES program. Water quality data gathered through CWP grants was used as the basis for requiring a 1.0 mg/L phosphorus discharge limit for the City of Worthington’s municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities, as well as for the City of Brewster’s wastewater treatment facility upgrade due to the addition of the Minnesota Soybean Processors’ facility.
Heron Lake was included on the 2004 impaired waters list for excessive nutrients. The Cottonwood County Environmental Office and HLWD, in partnership with Barr Engineering and MPCA, are conducting a TMDL Study for the entire WFDMR watershed, of which the HLWD is a subwatershed. Preliminary findings of the study indicate the need for additional phosphorus loading reductions from point sources including the cities of Worthington, Brewster, Okabena, and Lakefield. Communication is a key component to continuing the partnerships developed through the CWP diagnostic process. Task A: Project updates Communication with NPDES permitees regarding project progress Time frame: September 2007 – August 2010 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff Estimated Cost: $200.00 Cash: $0.00 Inkind: $200.00 Element 4: Improve Water Quantity Management Control water flow in the watershed through the installation of alternative surface tile intakes and water/sediment control basins, wetland restoration, storm water retention ponds, critical area plantings, and riparian easements. Task A: BMP Enrollment Alternative tile intakes: no costs at this time due to funding through an EPA 319 grant Wetland restoration: 250 acres at $300 per acre Time frame: September 2007 – August 2010 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff Estimated Cost: $230,280.00 Cash: $75,000.00 Inkind: $155,280.00 Element 5: Monitor Water Quality The purpose of the monitoring effort is to ensure timely completion of the watershed treatment strategies and their effectiveness in improving the stream and lake water quality. Application of BMPs will be tracked by the project staff and the MPCA. A database will be prepared each year and analyzed to determine water quality trends. Data will be submitted annually to MPCA for entry into STORET. More information is provided in Section VI: Monitoring plan. Task A: Monitor water quality Volunteer monitoring program Stream water quality analysis
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 284
Lakes water quality analysis in 2009 (done once every three years) Equipment and miscellaneous Time frame: monthly, from May-September Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff Estimated Cost: $48,667.50 Cash: $45,487.50 Inkind: $3,180.00 Element 6: Improve Habitat for Resident and Migrant Wildlife Species Re-establish an environment capable of supporting sustainable wildlife populations and supplement existing programs for wildlife. Task A: BMP Enrollment WHIP incentive – 80 acres at $25 per acre Improve habitat through artificial nesting structures and prescribed burning Time frame: September 2007 – August 2010 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff, project partners Estimated Cost: $6,500.00 Cash: $2,000.00 Inkind: $4,500.00 Element 7: Compile and Maintain a Database Compile project-related information such as project participant, project type, cost-share, incentive, or loan payments received, beginning and ending date for project. Task A: Compile and maintain a database Software and miscellaneous Time frame: September 2007 – August 2010 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff, project partners Estimated Cost: $6,000.00 Cash: $1,000.00 Inkind: $5,000.00 Element 8: Project Administration Oversee all goals and actions of the CWP project. Task A: Oversee all goals and actions of the CWP project HLWD staff and Board time spent on the project is considered inkind and documented in Element 8 Summer interns’ time for water sampling, site inspections, etc. is considered cash and documented in Element 8 Reporting: eLINK, semi-annual and annual reports to MPCA Mileage Office expenses, phone, copying, etc, Legal fees, miscellaneous Time frame: September 2007 – August 2010 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff Estimated cost: $295,780.00 Cash: $13,440.00 Inkind: $282,340.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 285
Milestone Schedule Table 3. Milestone Schedule Program Element Activity Years 1-3 by Quarters - Quarter 1 beginning September 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun
Element 1 – Outreach Component to Increase Public Awareness Quarterly meetings (All partners) X X X X X X X X X X X X Promote local ownership through monthly newsletters, semi-annual X X X X X X X X X X X X public education meetings, and individual landowner assistance (HLWD, DNR, NHLGPA, USFWS) Element 2 - NPS Pollutant Loading Reductions Promote CRP filter strip and windbreak incentive program (All X X X X X X X X X X X X Partners) Promote BMPs (All partners) X X X X X X X X X X X X Promote perpetual easement incentive (All partners) X X X X X X X X X X X X Promote SSTS loan program (All partners) X X X X X X X X X X X X Promote BMP loan program (All partners) X X X X X X X X X X X X Promote conservation tillage loan program (All partners) X X X X X X X X X X X X Element 3 - Point Source Pollutant Loading Reductions Encourage MPCA to require phosphorous reduction based on TMDL X X X X X X X X X X X X Study findings for all NPDES permits within the watershed Element 4 - Water Quantity Management Install alternative surface tile intakes. (All partners) X X X X X X X X X Install water/sediment control basins. (All partners) X X X X X X X X X Restore wetlands for water retention. (All partners) X X X X X X X X X Encourage the development of storm water retention ponds X X X X X X X X X X X X that will hold water and release it slowly. (All partners) Promote critical area planting in sensitive areas. (All partners) X X X X X X X X X X X X Retire suitable areas as riparian easements. (All partners) X X X X X X X X X Element 5 - Monitor Lake Water Quality Continue stream and lake monitoring programs. Emphasize X X X X X X X X X the high priority watersheds and the lakes. (HLWD) Increase volunteer monitoring through the Citizens Lake X X X X X X X X X and Stream Monitoring Program. (HLWD) Element 6 - Improve Habitat Re-establish an environment capable of supporting X X X X X X X X X sustainable wildlife populations and supplement existing programs for wildlife. (HLWD) Element 7 - Compile and Maintain a Database Compile project-related information (HLWD) X X X X X X X X X X X X Element 8 – Project Administration Oversee all goals and actions of the CWP project. (HLWD) X X X X X X X X X X X X
Monitoring Plan The 2007-2010 Hydrology Study will focus on three major stream sites in the Heron Lake watershed. Approximately, twenty water quality samples will be taken from April to September. Stream elevation gages will be placed at each of the sites to record water levels. Discharge
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 286 measurements will be taken at each of the sites by the DNR. By focusing our efforts on these main sites, we will be able to better use and interpret this data for use in the FLUX modeling system to calculate loads for each of the stream sites. Water quality monitoring for the Fulda Lakes, Graham Lakes, and Heron Lakes will be undertaken in year three at previously established sites to maintain the long-term record. The goal of the hydrology plan is to provide accurate and sufficient data to run the FLUX program and provide valuable information to the public. Sites: Site Name STORET Name Location County Road Device ID S002-009 Heron Lake T104N, R37W, Jackson 400th Ave CR10-Stilling
O3 Outlet E 1/2 of Sec. 21. well Baseline and Storm events: 20 grabs Stream Stage: CR10 stilling well with data downloads every two weeks. Discharge Measurements: DNR contract through Pat Baskfield, MPCA.
Site STORET Name Location County Road Device Name ID S001-568 Okabena T103N, R37W, Jackson 370th Ave CR10-Stilling
I3 Creek SW 1/4 of Sec. 7. well Baseline and Storm events: 20 grabs Stream Stage: CR10 stilling well with data downloads every two weeks. Discharge Measurements: DNR contract through Pat Baskfield, MPCA.
Site STORET Name Location County Road Device Name ID S001-557 Jack T104N, R37W, Jackson 370th Ave CR10-Stilling
I4 Creek NW 1/4 of Sec. 31. well Baseline and Storm events: 20 grabs Stream Stage: CR10 stilling well with data downloads every two weeks. Discharge Measurements: DNR contract through Pat Baskfield, MPCA.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 287
Field Parameters: Dissolved Oxygen pH Temperature Transparency Visual Observations
Lab Parameters: Total Phosphorous (TP) Ortho Phosphorous (OP) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Suspended Volatile Solids (SVS) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3) Turbidity Nitrate_Nitrite Nitrogen (NO2_NO3) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Estimated Number of Samples:
Baseline/Storm Total Samples Parameter Event Duplicate Per Parameter Total Phosphorous (TP) 180 18 198 Orthophosphorous (OP) 180 18 198 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 180 18 198 Suspended Volatile Solids (SVS) 180 18 198 Turbidity 180 18 198 Nitrate_Nitrite Nitrogen (NO2_NO3) 180 18 198 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 180 18 198 Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3) 180 18 198 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 180 18 198 Storm and Baseline: I3 sampled 20 times, I4 sampled 20 times, and O3 sampled 20 times. Duplicate: 6 per year. Fecal coliform samples collected 8 times annually at all three sites. Duplicate: Two per year. Stream Sample Analysis Budget: Sample analysis completed by Minnesota Testing Laboratories, Inc. (MVTL) in New Ulm, MN.
Parameter Unit Price Samples Cost Container
Total Phosphorous (TP) $16.00 198 $3,168.00 500 mL H2SO4 Orthophosphorous (OP) $16.00 198 $3,168.00 500 mL Unpreserved Total Suspended Solids (TSS) $12.50 198 $2,475.00 Liter unpreserved Suspended Volatile Solids (SVS) $16.50 198 $3,267.00 Liter unpreserved Nitrate_Nitrite Nitrogen (NO2_NO3) $28.00 198 $5,544.00 Liter unpreserved Turbidity $12.00 198 $2,376.00 Liter unpreserved Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) $24.00 198 $4,752.00 Liter unpreserved Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3) $19.00 198 $3,762.00 Liter unpreserved Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) $21.00 198 $4,158.00 Liter unpreserved TOTAL $165.00 $32,670.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 288
Sample analysis completed by Worthington Wastewater Treatment Lab, Worthington, MN. Parameter Unit Price Samples Cost Container Fecal Coliform $14.00 72 $1,008.00 120 mL plastic Fecal Coliform-Duplicates $14.00 6 $84.00 120 mL plastic
Estimated shipping for samples delivered to MVTL in New Ulm by Speedee from Windom, MN. Total Cost/cooler Samplings Total Estimated Cost Cooler containing ice and samples $9.00 60 $540.00
Total cost for analysis: $ 33,762.00 Estimated cost for shipping: $ 540.00 Total cost $ 34,302.00 Lake Sample Analysis Budget: Sample analysis completed by Minnesota Testing Laboratories, Inc. (MVTL) in New Ulm, MN. Parameter Unit Price Samples Cost Container
Total Phosphorous (TP) $16.00 33 $528.00 500 mL H2SO4 Orthophosphorous (OP) $16.00 33 $528.00 500 mL Unpreserved Total Suspended Solids (TSS) $12.50 33 $412.50 Liter unpreserved Suspended Volatile Solids (SVS) $16.50 33 $544.50 Liter unpreserved Nitrate_Nitrite Nitrogen (NO2_NO3) $28.00 33 $924.00 Liter unpreserved Turbidity $12.00 33 $396.00 Liter unpreserved Chlorophyll a $32.50 33 $1072.50 Liter unpreserved, Amber Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3) $19.00 33 $627.00 Liter unpreserved Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) $21.00 33 $693.00 Liter unpreserved TOTAL $173.50 $5,725.50
Baseline: Fulda Lakes, Graham Lakes, and Heron Lakes (six sites) once per month – May through September, one year only – 2009 sampling season. Duplicate: Three samples
Monitoring data will be submitted to MPCA for entry into STORET on an annual basis.
Watershed Assessment The lakes and streams within the watershed have undergone an extensive diagnostic study. These are the problems identified through that Phase I Diagnostic Study: The major sources of nutrients and total solids to Okabena Creek are Elk Creek and the section of Okabena Creek that drains the City of Worthington. In 1992, point sources in the City of Worthington contributed the equivalent of 35 percent of the total phosphorus and 68 percent of the phosphate phosphorus that enters North Heron Lake. Streambank erosion was very evident at the Elk Creek sampling site. Jack Creek is a major inflow to North Heron Lake. The major source of loading of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments are from the North Branch and the westernmost branch. The high sediment load and total phosphorus is due to the steep slopes in this part of the watershed. In-lake loading of nutrients is a problem in the Fulda Lakes. Water quality data suggest that there are sources of nitrates and phosphorus in or near the city of Fulda that result in large quantities of nutrients entering the lakes during storm events.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 289
Approximately 75 percent of the volume of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments enter the Graham Lakes system from an unnamed stream. Approximately 50 percent of the phosphorus in this system is from in-lake loading. North and South Heron Lake have the worst overall water quality in the watershed. They are classified as hypereutrophic. South Heron Lake exports total phosphorus to North Heron Lake. This represents approximately seven percent of the loading of total phosphorus to North Heron Lake. The major flows into North Heron Lake are Jack Creek and Okabena Creek. There is major point source loading into Okabena Creek from several sources. Reducing point sources in the City of Worthington to a 1 mg/L of total phosphorus would reduce total phosphorus loading into Okabena Creek and ultimately North Heron Lake by approximately 108,000 pounds a year. Livestock wastes appear to be a significant contributor to water quality problems in the watershed. Direct runoff from livestock confinement as well as over-application of manure and poor manure management are sources. Water flow dramatically impacts water quality and erosion as well as the level and frequency of flooding. Based on the miles of public ditches and tiles, the watershed is extensively drained. There was no information on miles of private tiles or number of surface tile inlets. There are numerous pumping stations in the watershed, but they are not regulated. The amount of water they pump into Okabena Creek, Jack Creek, North Heron Lake, and South Heron Lake cannot even be estimated.
These problems are a direct result of drainage and the resulting higher peak and base flows, urban sources of pollution and stormwater runoff, and intensive agricultural land use. All of these contribute to the water quality and quantity degradation in the watershed.
Quality Assurance Project Plan The QAPP that was submitted in September 2004 for the CWP project will be implemented. The QAPP is on file at the HLWD office and will be reviewed and updated annually before the beginning of the monitoring season.
Workplan Budgets Project Outlay Budget Summary
Funding Types Total Objective Grant, Loan and In-kind (2) (1+2) Local Cash (1)
1. Increase public awareness $ 56,825.00 $ 10,700.00 $ 67,525.00 2. Nonpoint source pollutant loading $ 735,000.00 $ 170,020.00 $ 905,020.00 reductions 3. Point source pollutant loading $ 0.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 reductions 4. Improve water quantity management $ 75,000.00 $ 155,280.00 $ 230,280.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 290
5. Monitor water quality $ 45,487.50 $ 3,180.00 $ 48,667.50 6. Improve habitat for resident and $ 2,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 6,500.00 migrant wildlife species 7. Compile and maintain a database $ 1,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 6,000.00 8. Project staffing $ 13,440.00 $ 282,340.00 $ 295,780.00 9. $ 0.00 10. $ 0.00 Total Costs $ 928,752.50 $ 631,220.00 $1,559,972.50
Project Support Budget Cash Amount CWP Grant amount requested - $428,752.50 cannot exceed $500,000 for 3 years. Clean Water Partnership Loan $500,000.00 amount requested (loans are currently being offered at a 2% interest rate)
Project Sponsors Cash In-kind Total Project (Add additional rows as necessary) Contribution To Contribution To Support (2+3) Project (2) Project (3) A. Project Sponsor Contribution $ 0.00 $ 282,540.00 $ 282,540.00
B. Local Contributing Sponsors: 1. Nobles County $ 0.00 $ 35,100.00 $ 35,100.00 2. Jackson County $ 0.00 $ 35,100.00 $ 35,100.00 3. Murray County $ 0.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00 4. Cottonwood County $ 0.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 5. Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and $ 0.00 $ 68,500.00 $ 68,500.00 Cottonwood SWCDs 6. Prairie Ecology Bus Center $ 0.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 7. NHLGPA $ 0.00 $ 4,680.00 $ 4,680.00 B. Subtotals: $ 0.00 $ 164,180.00 $ 164,180.00
C. State and/or Federal Contributing Sponsors: 8. Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and $ 0.00 $ 20,500.00 $ 20,500.00 Cottonwood NRCS 9. U of M Extension Service - $ 0.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties 10. USFWS $ 0.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 291
11. Department of Natural Resources $ 0.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 C. Subtotals (no more than 20% of $ 0.00 $ 184,500.00 $ 184,500.00 the total project costs)
SUBTOTAL: All project sponsors $ 0.00 $ 631,220.00 $ 631,220.00 (A+B+C)
GRAND TOTALS Total Cash Total In-kind Total Project Cost $ 928,752.50 $ 631,220.00 $ 1,559,972.50
Staff and Governing Directory Jan Voit, District Administrator Ross Behrends, Watershed Technician HLWD HLWD PO Box 345 1567 McMillan St., #3 Heron Lake, MN 56137 Worthington, MN 56187 507-793-2462 507-376-9150 extension 111
Melanie Luinenburg, Education Coordinator Chris Bauer, CREP Technician HLWD HLWD/Jackson SWCD PO Box 345 603 S. Hwy. 86 Heron Lake, MN 56137 Lakefield, MN 56150 507-793-2462 507-662-6682 extension 3
John Beardsley, President Gary Ewert, Vice President HLWD HLWD 701 Douglas Ave. 2725 N. Rose Ave. Lakefield, MN 56150 Worthington, MN 56187 507-662-6476 507-372-7810
Leo Crowley Michael McCarvel HLWD HLWD 1946 21st St. 39574 160th St. Fulda, MN 56131 Brewster, MN 56119 507-425-3180 507-842-5460
Dale Bartosh Wayne Smith, Nobles County 33499 880th 960 Diagonal Road, Box 187 Heron Lake, MN 56137 Worthington, MN 56187 507-793-2682 507-376-3109
Marv Zylstra, Nobles County Gordy Olson, Jackson County 17665 Paul Ave. 405 4th St. Worthington, MN 56187 Jackson, MN 56143 507-376-5996 507-847-2240
Bob Ferguson, Jackson County Chris Hansen, Murray County 412 13th St. PO Box 57
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 292
Heron Lake, MN 56137 Slayton, MN 56172 507-793-2480 507-836-6148 extension 156
Bill Sauer, Murray County Mike Hanson, Cottonwood County 234 210th Ave. 235 9th St. Fulda, MN 56131 Windom, MN 56101 507-425-2732 507-831-2060
Ron Kuecker, Cottonwood County Ed Lenz, Nobles SWCD 650 21st St. 1567 McMillan St., #3 Windom, MN 56101 Worthington, MN 56187 507-831-4363 507-376-9150 extension 3
Brian Nyborg, Jackson SWCD Howard Konkol, Murray SWCD 603 S. Hwy. 86 2740 22nd St., #3 Lakefield, MN 56150 Slayton, MN 56172 507-662-6682 extension 3 507-836-6690 extension 3
Kay Clark, Cottonwood SWCD Steve Woltjer, Nobles NRCS 339 9th St. 1567 McMillan St., #3 Windom, MN 56101 Worthington, MN 56187 507-831-1153 extension 3 507-376-9150 extension 3
Joel Poppe, Jackson NRCS Brian Christiansen, Murray NRCS 603 S. Hwy. 86 2740 22nd St., #2 Lakefield, MN 56150 Slayton, MN 56172 507-662-6682 extension 3 507-836-8933
April Sullivan, Cottonwood NRCS Holli Arp, MES 339 9th St. 1567 McMillan St., #6 Windom, MN 56101 Worthington, MN 56187 507-831-1153 507-372-3900
Chrystal Dunker, PEBC Sara Hanson, NHLGPA PO Box 429 PO Box 43 Lakefield, MN 56150 Windom, MN 56101 507-662-5064 507-830-1040
Mark Vaniman, USFWS Randy Markl, DNR 49663 County Road 17 175 County Road 26 Windom, MN 56101 Windom, MN 56101 507-831-2220 507-831-2900 extension 226
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 293
9.19. MOA for WFMDR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan
West Fork Des Moines River Watershed Memorandum of Agreement
History The West Fork Des Moines River (WFDMR) watershed encompasses portions of Cottonwood, Jackson, Martin, Murray, Nobles, Pipestone, and Lyon counties in southwestern Minnesota. The watershed is approximately 1,334 square miles and one of Minnesota’s ten major drainage basins. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Assessment for the West Fork Des Moines River began in 2001 through watershed assessment efforts. Barr Engineering and the MPCA, along with local partners, developed a comprehensive TMDL report addressing 15 bacteria impairments and 15 turbidity impairments for the WFDMR watershed. In addition, one excess nutrients (phosphorus) impairment and one pH listing in the Heron Lake watershed were also addressed.
On December 18, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency approved the West Fork Des Moines River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Final Report: Excess Nutrients (North and South Heron Lake) Turbidity, and Fecal Coliform Impairments Report (TMDL Report) that provided detailed information about water quality impairments goals (a 10 percent to 86 percent reduction in bacteria and a 20 percent to 90 percent reduction in turbidity in the WFDMR watershed and a 79 percent reduction in phosphorus in Heron Lake) were established.
A local stakeholder advisory committee provided input and received project updates during the development of the TMDL Report. This committee provided a foundation for developing an implementation plan. The implementation plan development process began in 2009 and local, state, and federal representatives from conservation agencies were solicited for involvement in this process. These two committees met jointly and resulted in the development of the West Fork Des Moines River and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan), approved by MPCA on September 22, 2009.
Conditions It is the goal of the undersigned to leverage funds and resources by solidifying our commitment to the WFDMR watershed. This will allow for those involved to maximize resources more effectively, provide new opportunities, and establish a diverse, unique commitment. Coordination among local government units is needed to maximize the benefits of the efforts and available resources, while providing the best possible avenues to address the environmental, educational, economic, and agricultural needs of the watershed, its communities, and its residents.
Accordingly, we, the undersigned, agree to the following: 1. As a subset of the WFDMR-HL TMDL Technical Committee, the WFDMR Implementation Work Group (Work Group) is formally established. It will consist of the appropriate staff from Cottonwood, Jackson, Martin, Murray, Nobles, Pipestone, and Lyon Counties (County) and Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) and the Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD).
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 294
2. The members of the Work Group and their respective agencies and staffs are to place a priority on WFDMR activities and on their coordination and communication with one another, local and state governments, private groups, and individuals, to work toward the bacteria, turbidity, and phosphorus reduction goals described in the TMDL Report and thereby improving water quality in the watershed. They should also move promptly to identify existing funding sources to accomplish these ends. 3. The Work Group should implement an aggressive, coordinated approach to allocate existing resources, to the extent possible, toward short-term opportunities that will improve the watershed. These short-term efforts will demonstrate a coordinated intergovernmental approach to water quality improvement. 4. As a vehicle to implement a long-term management approach, a common vision, and integrated planning, the undersigned should utilize the Implementation Plan to guide implementation actions to address the bacteria and turbidity impairments in the WFDMR watershed. 5. Until such time as funding can be secured to support a watershed coordinator, the HLWD staff will serve as the project lead. The HLWD responsibilities and commitment to the Work Group is to review grant guidelines and determine eligibility, coordinate Work Group meetings, and develop grant applications. The Work Group’s responsibility is to bring forth funding opportunities, provide contributions, if possible, and review proposals in a timely manner. If funding is secured through future grant mechanisms, this MOA may be amended to reflect changing grant oversight responsibilities, document housing needs, and any other actions deemed necessary by the Work Group. 6. If funding proposals are successful, the HLWD will also serve as the fiscal agent and be responsible for overseeing the grant and meeting grant requirements. The Work Group will be responsible for completing activities specified in the grant workplan and attending relevant meetings. 7. Should funding become available for which only select entities would be eligible, those entities would come before the Work Group to discuss the opportunity. Should the Work Group agree that funding should be pursued; the process described above will be employed. Should the Work Group decide the application would not further the needs described in the Implementation Plan, the individual entity would be on its own to develop an application. 8. For addressing Heron Lake’s phosphorus impairment, the HLWD, together with Nobles, Cottonwood, Jackson, and Murray counties, SWCDs, or other entities may partner together to seek funding opportunities outside of the terms aforementioned. The HLWD will inform the Work Group, but will be responsible for their own grant development, implementation, and reporting.
It is further mutually agreed that: All commitments made by the undersigned are subject to the availability of funds and each agency’s budget priorities, statutory authorities, and legal obligations. Nothing in this agreement, in and of itself, obligates the signatory entities to expend appropriations or to enter into any contract, assistance agreement, interagency agreement, or other financial obligations. The respective County, SWCD, and HLWD offices will handle their own activities and utilize their own resources, including the expenditure of their own funds, in pursuing the objectives of this MOA.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 295
This MOA does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by law or equity against the signatory entities, their officers or employees, or any other person or third party, and does not direct or apply to any person outside of the agencies covered by this agreement. This MOA may be signed in counter parts and will take effect upon the date of the last signature of the parties below and shall remain in effect for four years from the date of execution. The agreement may be extended or amended upon written request of any of the parties below and the subsequent written concurrence of the others. Any of the parties may terminate their participation in the MOA with a 60-day written notice to the others.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 296
9.20. WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Report Summary
2.1 Project History In 2003, the MPCA, Cottonwood County, and HLWD made the determination that it was in the best interests of both local organizations to conduct a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study in partnership. Cottonwood County became the local lead agency for the WFDMR TMDL Study. The HLWD’s role was to assist in public education efforts. Houston Engineering was hired to develop the TMDL, but due to contracting issues, the contract was terminated. In 2005, Barr Engineering was hired to write the TMDL. Also at that time, Cottonwood County hired a watershed coordinator.
An Advisory committee was developed and three meetings were held. Two public meetings were also held. Cottonwood County and the HLWD worked together to prepare, conduct, and summarize the meetings.
The 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 (referred to TMDL Report from this point forward) was completed and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in October 2008. The TMDL Report was approved by EPA on December 18, 2008.
2.2 Watershed Characteristics The WFDMR watershed is located in southwestern Minnesota and is a part of the Western Corn Belt Plains and Northern Glaciated Plans ecoregions. The watershed extends across seven counties: Murray, Cottonwood, Jackson, and Nobles, and a small portion of Pipestone, Lyon, and Martin. It covers an area of 1,333 square miles. The river originates in the northwestern part of the watershed from several lakes including its principal source, Lake Shetek. The WFDMR flows from the Lake Shetek outlet near Currie in a southeasterly direction for 94 miles to the Minnesota/Iowa border and eventually enters the Mississippi River at Keokuk, Iowa.
Although the WFDMR has not gone through significant channelization, other alterations to the waterbody have occurred in the form of dams, which are located at several locations along the WFDMR. These include dams at the lower ends of Lake Shetek and Talcot Lake and in the cities of Windom and Jackson. Smaller dams include those on the outlets of North Heron Lake, Fulda Lakes, the Graham Lakes, and a fish barrier on the Heron Lake outlet. The river is mainly slow, flat water, except for some moderate rapids near Kilen Woods State Park. The overall gradient from the Talcot Lake dam to the City of Jackson is approximately 2.1 feet per mile. The WFDMR is used for fishing, hunting, and canoeing in the summer and snowmobiling and ice fishing in the winter.
The dominant land use in the WFDMR watershed is row crop agriculture (approximately 85.5 percent), with 9.5 percent pasture/open, 3 percent water/marsh, 1.5 percent urban, and 0.5 percent forested. Land adjacent to the stream is utilized for pasture, cropland, urban development, and recreation. The population of the watershed is 22,069 with approximately 8,828 households based on US Census and county estimates. The
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 297 annual average precipitation on the watershed ranges from 25 to 29 inches along the northwest to northeast gradient. Runoff patterns also increase along the same gradient.
North Heron Lake and South Heron Lake were once a nationally recognized migratory waterfowl habitat with over 700,000 staging canvasbacks, 50,000 nesting Franklin’s gulls, and large numbers of other birds. Today the lake is primarily used by smaller flocks of mallards and other puddle ducks, mainly for refuge during migration.
2.3 Impairments 2.3.1 Fecal Coliform Bacteria The MPCA listed 15 stream reaches in the WFDMR watershed as impaired for fecal coliform bacteria (a human health concern that limits recreational use of the water) on the 2002, 2004, and 2006 Impaired Waters Lists. Table 1 lists the 15 reaches that were addressed in the TMDL Report. Data used for assessment was collected through several endeavors from 1994-2004.
Table 1: Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impairments REACH DESCRIPTION YR UNIT ID LIST 07100001- 1 Beaver Creek CD 20 to Des Moines R 02 503 07100001- 2 County Ditch 20 Headwaters to Beaver Cr 02 504 07100001- 3 Des Moines River Beaver Cr to Lime Cr 04 546 07100001- 4 Des Moines River Lime Cr to Heron Lk Outlet 04 533 07100001- 5 Des Moines River Windom Dam to Jackson Dam 04 501 07100002- 6 Des Moines River JD 66 to IA border 04 501 07100001- 7 Elk Creek Headwaters to Okabena Cr 06 507 07100001- 8 Jack Creek JD 26 to Heron Lk 06 509 07100001- 9 Lake Shetek Inlet Headwaters to Lk Shetek 02 502 07100001- 10 Lime Creek Lime Lk to Des Moines R 04 535 Lower Lk Sarah Unnamed Cr on Lk Sarah Outlet 07100001- 11 02 Outlet to Lk Shetek inlet 508 07100001- 12 Okabena Creek Elk Cr to South Heron Lk 06 506 07100001- 13 Unnamed Creek Unnamed Cr to Lk Shetek 02 519
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 298
07100001- 14 Unnamed Creek Unnamed Cr to Unnamed Cr 02 517 Upper Lk Sarah Lk Sarah Outlet to first 07100001- 15 02 Outlet Unnamed Cr 513
2.3.2 Turbidity The MPCA listed 15 stream reaches in the WFDMR watershed as impaired for turbidity (a measure of cloudiness of water that affects aquatic life) on the 2002, 2004, and 2006 impaired waters lists. Table 2 lists the 15 reaches that were addressed in the TMDL Report. Data used for assessment was collected through several endeavors from 1994- 2004.
Table 2: Turbidity Impairments REACH DESCRIPTION YR UNIT ID LIST 07100001- 1 Beaver Creek CD 20 to Des Moines R 04 503 07100001- 2 Des Moines River Beaver Cr to Lime Cr 04 546 07100001- 3 Des Moines River Lime Cr to Heron Lk Outlet 04 533 07100001- 4 Des Moines River Windom Dam to Jackson Dam 98 501 07100001- 5 Des Moines River Jackson Dam to JD 66 02 541 07100002- 6 Des Moines River JD 66 to IA border 02 501 07100001- 7 Des Moines River Heron Lk Outlet to Windom Dam 06 524 07100001- 8 Des Moines River Lk Shetek to Beaver Cr 06 545 07100001- 9 Division Creek Heron Lk to Okabena Cr 06 529 1 07100001- Elk Creek Headwaters to Okabena Cr 06 0 507 1 Heron Lk (32-0057-01) to Des 07100001- Heron Lake Outlet 06 1 Moines R 527 1 07100001- Jack Creek JD 26 to Heron Lk 06 2 509 1 Jack Creek, North 07100001- Headwaters to Jack Cr 06 3 Branch 505 1 07100001- Lime Creek Lime Lk to Des Moines R 04 4 535 1 07100001- Okabena Creek Elk Cr to South Heron Lk 06 5 506
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 299
2.3.3 Excess Nutrients The MPCA listed North Heron Lake and South Heron Lake as impaired due to excess nutrients (which limits both its recreational use and ecological/wildlife function) in 2006. Related to the Heron Lake nutrient impairment is a listing for pH in the Heron Lake outlet. Data used for assessment was collected through several endeavors from 1992- 2002.
Table 3: pH and Excess Nutrient Impairments ASSESSMENT YEAR IMPAIRMENT REACH DESCRIPTION UNIT ID / DNR LISTED LAKE # Heron Lake Heron Lk (32-0057- 1 pH 06 07100001-527 Outlet 01) to Des Moines R Excess North Heron 2 02 32-0057-05 Nutrients Lake Excess South Heron 3 02 32-0057-07 Nutrients Lake
2.4 Sources of Impairments 2.4.1 Bacteria The dominant factors for levels of fecal coliform bacteria (will be referred to as bacteria from this point forward) are time of year and occurrence of runoff-producing rainfall events. Both summer samples and wet samples were much higher than spring samples and dry samples, respectively; often five to ten times higher. Regarding the seasonal differences, spring geometric means were well below the 200 organisms/100 mL standard and summer values were generally above it. Explanations for seasonal differences likely include a greater percentage of wet sampling days during summer versus the spring and the growth of bacteria in sediments and riparian areas during summer months. Elevated summer-dry values may be indicative of contributions by a continuous-type source that is present mainly in the summer (e.g., cattle in/near streams) and/or warmer temperatures. In addition, many sites showed a significant percent exceedence of the 2,000 organisms/100 mL portion of the standard.
According to the TMDL Report, there are four sources of bacteria: humans, wildlife, pets, and livestock. The sources were derived from the 2000 US census data separated between rural and community residents, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) – Wildlife Section, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and from county feedlot inventories respectively. The amount of bacteria produced daily by each animal type was obtained from a variety of sources, which are all recommended in EPA’s guidance document Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. The estimated bacteria produced from each source is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Bacteria Production by Source Type Percent Type Percent Pets 0.3% Dairy 2% Wildlife 0.2% Poultry 0.1%
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 300
Humans 0.3% Sheep 8% Beef 32% Horse 0.1% Swine 57%
The total bacteria produced by each source type were categorized by application type/method. For humans, this meant calculating the number of people that had adequately treated and inadequately treated wastewater for both rural and urban populations. For livestock, assumptions were based on professional judgment by county staff. Livestock assumptions were divided into five categories: feedlots or stockpiles without runoff controls, overgrazed pasture near streams or waterways, other pasture, surface-applied manure to fields, and incorporated/injected manure in fields. The assumptions were then paired with bacteria estimates to calculate loads. Table 5 illustrates the estimated delivery potential by county. Livestock-related activities show the greatest potential due to the shear amount of bacteria produced versus humans, wildlife, or pets, although inadequate septic systems show a contribution during dry periods.
Table 5: Bacteria Delivery Potential by County “very low to none” (less than 1%) “moderate” (5-20%) “low” (1-5%) “high” (greater than 20%) Nobles County Cottonwood County Spr- Spr- Sum- Sum- Spr- Spr- Sum- Sum- Source wet dry wet dry wet dry wet dry Feedlots or stockpiles without runoff controls Overgrazed pasture near streams or waterways Other pasture Surface-applied manure Incorporated / injected manure Failing / inadequate septic systems Deer + other wildlife Dogs+cats in city— waste not collected Dogs and cats outside city
Jackson County Murray County Source Spr- Spr- Sum- Sum- Spr- Spr- Sum- Sum-
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 301
wet dry wet dry wet dry wet dry Feedlots or stockpiles without runoff controls Overgrazed pasture near streams or waterways Other pasture Surface-applied manure Incorporated / injected manure Failing / inadequate septic systems Deer + other wildlife Dogs+cats in city— waste not collected Dogs and cats outside city
2.4.2 Turbidity Conclusions regarding turbidity sources were based largely on analysis/interpretation of the available data and information. Various sources of information used in the analysis include water quality data, soils and land use information. A comparison of historical data indicates about 40 percent of the water yield at the United States Geological Survey station in Jackson is related to anthropogenic sources. A simplified turbidity conceptual model was used to identify several possible sources and pathways. The following is a list of external and internal sources. It should be noted that the internal sources are usually related to external sources. External Sources Feedlots with pollution hazards Impervious surfaces Livestock in riparian zone Permitted point sources Row cropland Carp Ditches/channelization Internal Sources Channel scour Algal growth and decay
Feedlots with pollution hazards present a low contribution but there are feedlots that have pollution potential. Livestock in the riparian zone is also minimal, but there are pastures that may be contributing to the problem.
Ninety-seven percent of the cropland in the watershed is a corn/soybean rotation. The use of drainage through ditches and channelization can lead to increased water movement through waterways resulting in bank erosion and ditch cleanouts contributing to turbidity. Impervious surfaces can cause turbidity issues from increased runoff similar
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 302 to ditches and/or channelizations. This was deemed a low contribution source because of the small area of impervious surfaces.
Point sources, i.e. wastewater treatment facilities, have specified limits of total suspended solids that can be discharged. Violations of the limits do occur, but for the most part are a minor source. Another point source, stormwater from construction or industrial facilities, is usually short-term and provides minor contribution.
Benthic feeders such as carp may have a profound effect on turbidity issues in the water but it is difficult to gage the relative impact.
2.4.3 Excess Nutrients The excess nutrients water quality standard mainly looks at phosphorus, a limiting nutrient in Minnesota. The TMDL Report used water quality data, other information, and simple modeling to estimate in-lake and watershed sources of phosphorus. The delivery of phosphorus to surface waters in the watershed was also determined. The following is a list of potential sources of phosphorus to Heron Lake.
Point Sources (NPDES permittees) Wastewater Treatment Facilities Industrial Stormwater Municipal Stormwater Livestock facilities (greater than Construction Stormwater 1,000 animal units)
Nonpoint Sources Inadequate Septics Urban Runoff Row Cropland Rural runoff Feedlots Deicing chemicals Atmospheric Deposition Streambank Erosion
Internal Loading Carp Wind
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 303
There are five wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to Heron Lake. Currently, the Brewster, Worthington Industrial, and Worthington Municipal WWTFs are the only facilities with discharge limits for phosphorus (1 mg/L monthly average maximum). In the watershed, Worthington is the only permitted community for stormwater. Construction and industrial stormwater activities are minimal in this agriculturally- dominated watershed. Construction stormwater without proper runoff controls can contribute sediment and phosphorus but usually is a minor impact. Large feedlots, which require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, have a zero discharge permit limit. Manure application from NPDES facilities is addressed in the Section 5.
The TMDL Report provided estimates for source contributions from both WWTF and other sources of phosphorus during dry, average, and wet flow conditions. The estimated relative phosphorus contributions, other than WWTFs, were applied during an average year. Cropland and pasture runoff (62.3%) accounted for a significant portion of the phosphorus load. The following are other phosphorus sources ranked from highest to lowest percent contribution: streambank erosion (12.0%), atmospheric deposition (9.0%), urban runoff (5.3%), inadequate septics (3.1%), rural runoff (3.0%), feedlots (2.8%), and deicing chemicals (2.5%). During a dry year, SSTS (5.2%), urban runoff (7.6%), atmospheric deposition (12.5%), and agricultural runoff (67%) become more prominent sources of phosphorus, while streambank erosion (33%) becomes more prominent during a wet year.
Other sources of phosphorus loading to Heron Lake include internal sediment phosphorus release, wind resuspension, carp, and other benthic feeders that stir up fine sediments. It is difficult to gage the relative impact of these internal sources, but under current conditions, these sources as a whole represent a larger source of phosphorus than the watershed loading to North Heron Lake and South Heron Lake.
2.5 Measurable Water Quality Goals 2.5.1 Bacteria The water quality standard for Class 2B streams for bacteria is as follows: organisms not to exceed 200 organisms per 100 milliliters (org/100 mL) as a geometric mean of not less than five samples in any calendar month, nor shall more than ten percent of all samples taken during any calendar month individually exceed 2,000 org/100 mL.
The standard applies only between April 1 and October 31. Recently, the bacteria water quality standard was changed from fecal coliform bacteria to E. coli. The fecal coliform bacteria standard of 200 org/100 mL is roughly equivalent to 126 org/100 mL of E. coli bacteria. Therefore, to adapt the fecal coliform bacteria TMDL allocations based on future E. coli standards, a multiplication factor of 0.63 is needed. Future monitoring will utilize the E. coli water quality standards geometric mean of 126 org/100 mL and 1,260 org/100mL.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 304
In order to determine percent reduction needed to meet the water quality standard, a simple equation is used and shown below. Table 6 shows the percent reduction needed by reach where adequate data was available. It is evident that the bacteria issue is watershed wide.
summer geomean-water quality X 100 = percent reduction standard
Table 6: Percent Reduction Needed by Impaired Reach REACH DESCRIPTION ASSESSMEN PERCENT T UNIT ID REDUCTI ON NEEDED 1 Beaver Creek CD 20 to Des Moines R 07100001-503 74 2 County Ditch 20 Headwaters to Beaver Cr 07100001-504 * 3 Des Moines River Beaver Cr to Lime Cr 07100001-546 71 4 Des Moines River Lime Cr to Heron Lk Outlet 07100001-533 35 5 Des Moines River Windom Dam to Jackson Dam 07100001-501 10 6 Des Moines River JD 66 to IA border 07100002-501 52 7 Elk Creek Headwaters to Okabena Cr 07100001-507 76 8 Jack Creek JD 26 to Heron Lk 07100001-509 62 9 Lake Shetek Inlet Headwaters to Lk Shetek 07100001-502 * 10 Lime Creek Lime Lk to Des Moines R 07100001-535 63 Lower Lake Sarah Unnamed Cr on Lk Sarah 11 07100001-508 86 Outlet Outlet to Lk Shetek inlet 12 Okabena Creek Elk Cr to South Heron Lk 07100001-506 51 13 Unnamed Creek Unnamed Cr to Lk Shetek 07100001-519 86 14 Unnamed Creek Unnamed Cr to Unnamed Cr 07100001-517 84 Upper Lake Sarah Lk Sarah Outlet to first 15 07100001-513 * Outlet Unnamed Cr *No reductions calculated because of the limited dataset.
2.5.2 Turbidity The water quality standard for Class 2B streams for turbidity is 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Total suspended solids (TSS) and transparency (using a transparency tube) are two surrogates that can also be used. A TSS surrogate was used in the TMDL Report.
To determine the TSS equivalent to the turbidity standard for the individual reaches, paired turbidity and TSS samples were compiled. Table 7 presents the surrogate standard for each of the impaired reaches. For a percent reduction, the 90th percentile TSS load for the flow regimes was compared to a loading capacity at the mid-point of each flow regime. Table 7 also shows the range of reductions needed for the specified
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 305 flow regimes. The data indicate that the greatest reductions in TSS load will need to occur during higher flow periods.
Table7 : Turbidity Reductions and TSS Surrogate REACH DESCRIPTION UNIT TSS-NTU PERCENT FLOW ID SURROGA REDUCTIO ZONES TE NS Beaver CD 20 to Des 65-95 High to Mid- 1 503 71 Creek Moines R range Des 73 60-75 High flows- Beaver Cr to 2 Moines 546 Dry Lime Cr River conditions Des 58 5-75 High flows- Lime Cr to 3 Moines 533 Dry Heron Lk Outlet River conditions Des 66 40-60 High flows- Windom Dam to 4 Moines 501 Dry Jackson Dam River conditions Des 50 40-90 High flows- Jackson Dam to 5 Moines 541 Dry JD 66 River conditions Des 50 40-80 High flows- JD 66 to IA 6 Moines 501 Dry border River conditions Des 54 30-55 High flows- Heron Lk Outlet 7 Moines 524 Dry to Windom Dam River conditions Des 60 30-80 High to Mid- Lk Shetek to 8 Moines 545 range Beaver Cr River 62 20-75 High flows- Division Heron Lk to 9 529 Low Creek Okabena Cr conditions 1 Headwaters to 62 50-75 Moist-Low Elk Creek 507 0 Okabena Cr conditions Heron Heron Lk (32- 59 60-95 Moist-Low 1 Lake 0057-01) to Des 527 conditions 1 Outlet Moines 59 40-90 High flows- 1 Jack JD 26 to Heron 509 Low 2 Creek Lk conditions Jack 57 20-30 High flows- 1 Headwaters to Creek, N. 505 Dry 3 Jack Cr Branch conditions 1 Lime Lime Lk to Des 535 54 80-85 High flows-
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 306
4 Creek Moines R Low conditions 62 25-90 High flows- 1 Okabena Elk Cr to South 506 Low 5 Creek Heron Lk conditions
2.5.3 Excess Nutrients Excessive phosphorus causes increased algae blooms and reduced transparency, which may significantly impair or prohibit the use of lakes for ecological and recreational use. The excessive nutrient water quality standard was recently changed to account for lake and regional differences. The new standard for a shallow lake system in the Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion, is a total phosphorus concentration less than or equal to 90 µg/L, chlorophyll-a concentration less than or equal to 30 µg/L, and Secchi disc transparency greater than or equal to 0.7 meters (2.3 feet). Both North Heron Lake and South Heron Lake are shallow lakes in the Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion. North Heron Lake is less than five feet deep, while South Heron Lake does not exceed 12 feet deep. Based on 2006 data, a 79 percent phosphorus reduction is needed to meet the water quality standard (Table 8).
Table 8: Current Phosphorus Loading and Percent Reduction Needed Heron Lake Phosphorus Loading Summary May-September, 2006 Conditions
Source Category Current/Observed (pounds)
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 4,075 Nonpoint Sources/Stormwater Runoff 37,182
Internal Loading 153,286
Total 194,543 Target Load 25,421
Percent Reduction Needed 79%
2.6 Wasteload and Load Allocations The allocation tables are not presented here to conserve space but can be viewed in the TMDL Report.
It should be noted that through data analysis and modeling, the cities of Worthington, Okabena, Lakefield, and Brewster and Swift Brands, Inc. that have WWTF discharge to Heron Lake will have new phosphorus discharge limits. For the period from February through September, all five facilities will meet a total phosphorus load limit consistent with an average effluent concentration of 0.4 mg/L. Between October and January, a 1 mg/L phosphorus permit effluent limit will be in effect. The WWTFs have several years (2-3 permit cycles) to meet the new effluent limits.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 307
9.21. WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Objectives and Action Items
7.0 Identification and Summary of Implementation Objectives and Action Items Below is a list of the actions selected by the Advisory and Technical Committees as described in Section 5.0 and Section 6.0.
Objective 1. Protect banks from erosion and runoff through buffer programs Action A. Provide a $500 per acre incentive for 15-year buffer strips. Eligible landowners would receive a one-time cash incentive of $500 per acre for installing a buffer strip for 15 years. The buffer strip would need to meet the CRP and NRCS technical requirements of the practice. The 1,500-acre goal is based on implementation of BMPs through HLWD’s Clean Water Partnership program over ten years. According to eLINK pollutant reductions, this action could reduce 2,034 tons of sediment and 3,333 pounds of phosphorus per year. Staff time from the seven-county SWCD and NRCS offices, HLWD, and BWSR would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Assuming each contract would be eligible for state and/or federal cost-share at a maximum of 75 percent the project cost, the landowner’s 25 percent contribution would also be allocated toward inkind. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county SWCD and NRCS offices, landowner, HLWD, and BWSR Total costs: $1,005,000.00 Cash: $750,000.00 o 1,500 acres x $500/acre incentive = $750,000.00 Inkind: $255,000.00 o Staff time: 150 contracts x 20 hrs/contract x $35/hr = $105,000.00 o Landowner: 150 contracts x $4,000/contract x 25%= $150,000.00
Action B. Provide a $1,000 per acre incentive for perpetual buffer strips. Eligible landowners would receive a one-time cash incentive of $1,000 per acre for a perpetual easement. This incentive would be for perpetual buffers and would operate under the technical requirements of the Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) program. Local staff believes that the Minnesota Legislature will fund RIM in the near future. The 1,500-acre goal is based on implementation of BMPs through HLWD’s CWP program over ten years. According to eLINK pollutant reductions, this action could reduce 20,336 tons of sediment and 33,327 pounds of phosphorus per year. Staff time from the seven-county SWCD and NRCS offices, HLWD, and BWSR would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county SWCD and NRCS offices, HLWD, and BWSR Total costs: $1,605,000.00 Cash: $1,500,000.00 o 1,500 acres x $1,000/acre incentive = $1,500,000.00 Inkind: $105,000.00 o 150 contracts x 20 hrs/contract x $35/hr = $105,000.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 308
Action C. Cost-share and incentive program for harvested buffers. Eligible landowners would receive 100 percent cost-share plus a one-time $200 per acre incentive for a harvested native grass buffer. Only areas without an existing buffer will qualify for this program. The width requirements would be a minimum of 100 feet and a maximum of 200 feet. The closest 50 feet to the watercourse cannot be harvested and the remaining acres could be harvested each year. The 1,500- acre goal is based on implementation of BMPs through HLWD’s CWP program over ten years. According to eLINK pollutant reductions, this action could reduce 20,336 tons of sediment and 33,327 pounds of phosphorus per year. Staff time from the seven-county Environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, and HLWD would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county Environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, and HLWD Total costs: $705,000.00 Cash: $600,000.00 o 1,500 acres x $200/acre incentive = $300,000.00 o 1,500 acres x $200/acre for establishment cost = $300,000.00 Inkind: $105,000.00 o Staff time: 150 contracts x 20 hrs/contract x $35/hr = $105,000.00
Objective 2. Address Nonpoint Source Pollution through cropland changes Action A. Replace open tile intakes with alternative tile intakes by providing 75 percent cost share. Eligible landowners would receive a one-time cost-share payment of 75 percent with a maximum of $450 per intake to replace open tile intakes with alternative tile intakes. There are an estimated 18,342 open tile inlets in the watershed that would be eligible for this program. Based upon the HLWD’s Alternative Tile Intake Program, the goal is to install 350 intakes. According to eLINK pollutant reductions, this action could reduce 140,000 tons of sediment and 175 pounds of phosphorus per year. Staff time from the seven-county SWCD and NRCS offices, and HLWD would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. The landowner contribution would be the remaining 25 percent of the cost. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county SWCD and NRCS Offices and HLWD Total Costs: $259,000.00 Cash: $157,500.00 o 350 intakes x $450 max cost-share/intake = $157,500.00 Inkind: $101,500.00 o Staff time: 350 intakes x 4 hrs/intake x $35/hr = $49,000.00 o Landowners: 350 intakes x $600/intake x 25% = $52,500.00
Action B. Provide a $15 per acre incentive for variable rate fertilizer application. Eligible landowners using broadcast fertilizer application would receive an incentive of $5 per acre per year for three years for changing to variable rate commercial fertilizer application on a maximum of 500 acres per producer, providing signing a
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 309
three-year agreement. The fertilizer would need to be incorporated, applied in the spring, and use University of Minnesota Extension fertilizer recommendations. The acreage goal is based on 100 producers implementing the maximum acres over a ten-year period. Staff time from the seven-county environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, HLWD and crop consultants would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county Environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, HLWD and crop consultants Total costs: $757,000.00 Cash: $750,000.00 o 50,000 acres x $15/acre = $750,000.00 Inkind: $7,000.00 o Staff time: 100 contracts x 2 hrs/contract x $35/hr = $7,000.00
Action C. Provide an annual $300 per acre incentive for planting a third crop. Eligible landowners would receive an annual payment of $300 per acre for converting cropland to a third crop such as native grasses for 10 years or the length of the grant. Contracts can be a maximum of 40 acres and the third crop can be harvested annually. Acreage goal is based on implementing 10,000 acres. Staff time from the seven-county environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, HLWD, and crop consultants would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county Environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, HLWD and crop consultants Total costs: $3,017,500.00 Cash: $3,000,000.00 o 10,000 acres x $300/acre incentive = $3,000,000.00 Inkind: $17,500.00 o 250 contracts x 2 hrs/contract x $35/hr = $17,500.00
Objective 3. Provide flood storage opportunities Action A. Fully fund perpetual easement program for wetlands. Eligible landowners would receive a $6,500 per acre payment for a perpetual easement for restoring wetland and upland acres. The cost of restoration would also be paid. A minimum of one upland acre per basin acre would be required. The acreage goal is based on wetland restorations through the HLWD’s CWP program. The difference in incentives through the TMDL Implementation Plan should result in greater participation and the acreage goal reflects this. According to eLINK pollutant reductions, this action could reduce 17,000 tons of sediment and 23,618 pounds of phosphorus per year. The BWSR will assist with easement and contractual requirements at an estimated cost of $750 per easement. Staff time from the seven- county environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, BWSR, and HLWD would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 310
Person(s) responsible: Seven-county Environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, BWSR, and HLWD Total costs: $2,116,125.00 Cash: $2,105,625.00 o 300 acres x $6,500/acre payment = $1,950,000.00 o 300 acres x $500/acre for restoration costs = $150,000.00 o $750/easement x 7.5 easements = $5,625.00 Inkind: $10,500.00 o Staff time: 7.5 easements x 40 hrs/easement x $35/hr = $10,500.00
Action B. Provide a $2,500 per acre incentive for restoring wetlands through the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). Eligible landowners would receive a $2,500 per acre incentive for restoring wetlands through the Wetland Reserve Program. The acreage goal is based on wetland restorations through the HLWD’s CWP program. The difference in incentives through the TMDL Implementation Plan should result in greater participation and the acreage goal reflects this. According to eLINK pollutant reductions, this action could reduce 17,000 tons of sediment and 23,618 pounds of phosphorus per year. Staff time from the seven-county environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, and HLWD would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county Environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, and HLWD Total costs:$753,500.00 Cash: $750,000.00 o 300 acres x $2,500/acre incentive = $750,000.00 Inkind: $3,500.00 o Staff time: 5 contracts x 20 hrs/contract x $35/hr = $3,500.00
Action C. Provide 75 percent cost-share for flood storage projects. Eligible landowners would receive 75 percent cost-share up to $30,000 for flood storage projects. The projects include excavated ponds, created wetlands, and embankments installed according to NRCS specifications. The acreage goal is based on wildlife ponds installed through the HLWD’s CWP program. Staff time from the SWCD and NRCS offices, and HLWD would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. The landowner contribution of 25 percent would be also used as inkind. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county Environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, and HLWD Total costs: $162,800.00 Cash: $120,000.00 o 4 contracts x $30,000/contract = $120,000.00 Inkind: $42,800.00 o Staff time: 20 hrs x 4 contracts x $35/hr = $2,800.00 o Landowner cost: 4 contracts x $40,000/contract x 25% = $40,000.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 311
Objective 4. Feedlot Management Action A. Obtain feedlot inventory by conducting Level III Feedlot Inspections. A targeted, Level III feedlot inspection would include an inventory of all animals, size of buildings, feedlot drainage area, distance to discharge point (stream or tile), buffers, and topography. Current feedlot rules require that a minimum of seven percent of the feedlots be inspected each year. This implementation plan would require an expedited completion of the Level III inventory. There are 712 feedlots in the watershed. A Level III inventory would be completed for each of these feedlots within the first five years of the project. Staff time from the seven-county environmental offices would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-5 Person(s) responsible: Seven-County Environmental Offices Total Costs: $124,600.00 Cash: $0.00 Inkind: $124,600.00 o Staff time: 5 hrs/site x $35/hr x 712 feedlots = $124,600.00
Action B. Provide 75 percent cost-share for feedlots to address runoff problems. Through the inventory, all 712 feedlots would be inspected and ranked by pollution potential. The project would provide 75 percent cost-share with a maximum cost of $100,000 per feedlot to fix polluting sites. Staff time from the seven-county environmental offices, SWCDs, and NRCS would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. The 25 percent remaining cost would be to the landowner, which would also be used as inkind. Timeframe: Years 2-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-County Environmental Offices, SWCDs, and NRCS and landowners Total Costs: $7,139,760.00 Cash: $5,325,000.00 o 71 feedlots x $75,000/max cost/feedlot = $5,325,000.00 Inkind: $1,814,760.00 o Staff time: 71 feedlots x 16 hrs/project x $35/hr = $39,760.00 o Landowner: 71 feedlots x $100,000/feedlot x 25% = $1,775,000.00
Action C. Provide a $500 per acre incentive for feedlot buffer strips. Eligible landowners would receive a one-time cash incentive of $500 per acre for installing buffer strips around feedlots to control runoff. The buffer strip would need to meet the NRCS technical requirements of the practice and be 10 years in length. It is estimated that 75 percent of the feedlots in the watershed are in need of this practice. Based on the goals for the other buffer programs identified in this plan, the goal is 150 contracts. Staff time from the seven-county environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, HLWD, and BWSR would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Assuming each contract would be eligible for state and/or federal cost-share at a maximum of 75 percent the project cost, the landowner portion would also be allocated towards inkind. Timeframe: Years 1-10
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 312
Person(s) responsible: Seven-county Environmental offices, SWCD and NRCS offices, and HLWD Total costs: $114,000.00 Cash: $75,000.00 o 150 acres x $500/acre incentive = $75,000.00 Inkind: $39,000.00 o 150 contracts x 6 hrs/contract x $35/hour = $31,500.00 o Landowner contribution: $50/acre x 150 acres = $7,500.00
Objective 5. Initiate Urban BMP Programs Action A. Provide 75 percent cost-share for rain garden projects. Eligible landowners would receive 75 percent cost-share up to $3,000 for installing a rain garden to reduce rainfall runoff through infiltration. Contracts would be 10 years in length. Residential and commercial projects must be designed according to RAIN GARDENS: A how-to manual for homeowners. The goal is to install 14 per year over a 10-year period based on the HLWD’s rain garden cost-share program. Staff time from the seven-county environmental offices, SWCD, and HLWD would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county Environmental offices, SWCD, and HLWD Total costs: $609,000.00 Cash: $420,000.00 o 140 rain gardens x $3,000/project = $420,000.00 Inkind: $189,000.00 o 10 hrs x $35/hour x 140 projects = $49,000.00 o Landowner: 140 projects x $4,000/project x 25% = $140,000.00
Action B. Conduct an urban tree survey. Work with local communities to develop an inventory of tree types and conditions in public right-of-way. Staff time from the cities would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-2 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county Environmental offices, cities, and HLWD Total costs: $29,820.00 Cash: $0.00 Inkind: $29,820.00 o 852 hrs x $35/hr = $29,820.00
Action C. Improve community tree diversity. Work with local communities to install and/or replace trees. Trees would be planted using the 10-20-30 rule to ensure diversity. The goal is to replace trees on 252 blocks in a 10-year period. Staff time from the cities would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 3 - 10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-county Environmental offices, cities, and HLWD
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 313
Total costs: $259,560.00 Cash: $189,000.00 o 252 blks x 15 trees/blk x $50/tree and materials = $189,000.00 Inkind: $70,560.00 8 hrs/blk x 252 blks x $35/hr = $70,560.00
Objective 6. Address In-lake Phosphorus Loading in Heron Lake Action A. Work with stakeholders to address internal loading in Heron Lake. Input gathered through the planning process showed support for continuing drawdowns on Heron Lake. In addition, input gathered indicated support for conducting an a three-year annual fish kill using rotenone and game fish stocking in the fourth year. It is estimated that the project cost would be $2.3 million. Project partners would work with landowners, DNR, HLWD, and other stakeholders to determine feasibility of this project. Staff time from the DNR and HLWD would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: DNR, landowners, and HLWD Total costs: $7,000.00 Cash: $0.00 Inkind: $7,000.00 o Staff time: 200 hrs x $35/hr = $7,000.00
Objective 7. Address Point Source Pollution Action A: Provide cost-share for SSTS upgrades. Eligible landowners would qualify for 25 percent cost-share, maximum of $2,500, to upgrade a SSTS. It is estimated that there are 3,818 systems in the watershed that are noncompliant. The goal is to install 1,600 systems in a 10-year period, based upon 40 per county per year. Staff time from the seven-county environmental offices and HLWD would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-County Environmental Offices and HLWD Total Costs: $4,224,000.00 Cash: $4,000,000.00 o 1,600 SSTS x $2,500.00/SSTS cost-share = $4,000,000.00 Inkind: $224,000.00 o Staff time: 4 hrs/SSTS x 1,600 SSTS x $35/hr = $224,000.00
Action B: Provide low interest loans for SSTS upgrades. Eligible landowners would qualify for a low interest loan for 100 percent of the cost to upgrade a SSTS. If a landowner receives the 25% cost-share identified in Objective 7, Action A, then only 75 percent of the project cost would be eligible for the loan. For simplicity, this action is calculated figuring a loan of 100 percent of the cost. It is estimated that there are 3,818 systems in the watershed that are noncompliant. The average cost of an upgrade is $11,000. The goal is to install 1,600 systems in a 10- year period, based upon 40 per county per year. Staff time from the seven-county
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 314
environmental offices and HLWD would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Total Costs: $36,320,000.00 Cash: $0.00 Loan: $17,600,000.00 o 1,600 SSTS x $11,000.00/system = $17,600,000.00 Inkind: $18,720,000.00 o Staff time: 20 hrs/SSTS x 1,600 SSTS x $35/hr = $1,120,000.00 o Landowner cost: 1,600 SSTS x $11,000.00/system = $17.600,000.00
Action C: Conduct annual MS4 meetings. An annual meeting with the city of Worthington, HLWD, and the MPCA would be held for the city of Worthington and HLWD to provide an update on activities completed in the previous year. It would also be an opportunity to review and discuss the implementation of the MS4 SWPPP. Adaptive management principles could also be applied in the meetings. Staff time preparing and attending the meetings would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Total Costs: $8,400.00 Cash: $0.00 Inkind: $8,400.00 o Staff time: 4 hrs/mtg x 6 attendees x $35/hr x 10 yrs = $8,400.00
Action D: Conduct annual WWTF meetings. An annual meeting with five WWTF, HLWD, and the MPCA would be held for those in attendance to provide an update on activities completed in the previous year and WWTF changes. Staff time preparing and attending the meetings would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Total Costs: $12,600.00 Cash: $0.00 Inkind: $12,600.00 o Staff time: 4 hrs/mtg x 9 attendees x $35/hr x 10 yrs = $12,600.00
Objective 8. Provide Educational Opportunities Action A. Offer manure management workshops. Annual workshops in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties would be offered to address manure management topics such as proper timing, rate, method of application, existing regulations, setback/winter application requirements, and nutrient management. Workshops would be conducted by county, SWCD, NRCS, HLWD and University of Minnesota Extension, and MPCA staff. Locations would be rotated throughout the watershed during the ten-year grant period. Staff time would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 315
Person(s) responsible: Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood County Environmental Offices, SWCD and NRCS Offices, U of M Extension, and MPCA Total Costs: $119,600.00 Cash: $100,000.00 o $2,500/workshop x 4 co/yr x 10 yrs = $100,000.00 Inkind: $19,600.00 o Staff prep time: 4 hrs/co x 4 co x $35/hr x 10 yr = $5,600.00 o Staff speaker time: 10 hrs/speaker x 4 co x $35/hr x 10 yr = $14,000.00
Action B. Provide urban BMP workshops. Annual workshops in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties would be offered to inform homeowners and city staff about urban stormwater control measures. Workshops would be conducted by county, SWCD, HLWD, University of Minnesota Extension, and MPCA staff. Locations would be rotated throughout the watershed during the ten-year grant period. Staff time would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood County Environmental Offices, SWCD Offices, HLWD, U of M Extension, and MPCA Total Costs: $119,600.00 Cash: $100,000.00 o $2,500/workshop x 4 co/yr x 10 yrs = $100,000.00 Inkind: $19,600.00 o Staff prep time: 4 hrs/co x 4 co x $35/hr x 10 yr = $5,600.00 o Staff speaker time: 10 hrs/speaker x 4 co x $35/hr x 10 yr = $14,000.00
Action C. Provide permeable paver demonstration sites. Develop a 10-year agreement with homeowners and/or business owners to provide a permeable paver demonstration site in each of the four core counties. Agreements will specify conditions for one education event at each site and maintenance. Education events would be conducted by county, SWCD, HLWD, and University of Minnesota Extension, and MPCA staff. Staff time would be allocated as inkind at a rate of $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-County Environmental Offices, SWCD Offices, HLWD, U of M Extension, and MPCA Total Costs: $60,680.00 Cash: $59,000.00 o Paver purchase/installation: 1,225 sq ft x $10/sq ft x 4 sites = $49,000.00 o $2,500/event x 4 events = $10,000.00 Inkind: $1,680.00 o Staff time for paver installation: 8 hrs on-site x $35/hour x 4 sites = $1,120.00 o Staff prep time: 4 hrs/event x 4 co x $35/hour = $560.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 316
Action D. Develop a website. Develop a website for the project, which will be linked to each county’s, as well as to the HLWD and MPCA websites. This website would contain water quality information, project updates, and program availability. The website would be maintained by project staff. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Seven-County Environmental Offices, HLWD, and MPCA Total Costs: $4,700.00 Cash: $1,200.00 o $120/year for website hosting x 10 years = $1,200.00 Inkind: $3,500.00 o Staff time: 10 hrs/year x $35/hr x 10 years = $3,500.00
Action E. Develop and distribute an annual newsletter. An annual newsletter would be mailed to each household in the watershed informing residents about programs and activities undertaken in the project. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Watershed Coordinator and/or Technicians Total Costs: $41,000.00 Cash: $41,000.00 o Postage: $1,500/distribution x 10 years = $15,000.00 o Publication: $2,600/distribution x 10 years = $26,000.00
Action F. Facilitate Advisory and Technical Committee meetings. Conduct annual meetings with Advisory and Technical Committee members to provide project updates and obtain input and direction. Inkind would be contributed by Advisory Committee members at $15 per hour and Technical Committee members at $35 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Advisory and Technical Committee members Total Costs: $28,600.00 Cash: $300.00 o $30/meeting for refreshments x 10 years = $300.00 Inkind: $28,300.00 o Advisory: 2 hrs/mtg/member x $15/hr x 8 members x 10 yrs = $2,400.00 o Technical: 2 hrs/mtg/member x $35/hr x 37 members x 10 yrs = $25,900.00
Action G. Provide quarterly project updates to watershed groups. Conduct quarterly meetings with members of existing watershed groups and others to provide project updates. The intent would be to consolidate several existing watershed groups and host one meeting in each county four times per year. Inkind would be contributed by attendees at $15 per hour. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Watershed Coordinator
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 317
Total Costs: $28,800.00 Cash: $4,800.00 o $30/meeting for refreshments and mailing x 4 mtgs/yr x 4 counties x 10 years = $4,800.00 Inkind: $24,000.00 o 2 hrs/meeting/attendee x $15/hr x 20 members x 4 counties x 10 years = $24,000.00
Action H. Create project brochure. Develop a color brochure promoting the project and educating residents about the importance of water quality improvement efforts. The brochure would be distributed at events and displayed at project partners offices. Timeframe: Year 1 Person(s) responsible: Watershed Coordinator Total Costs: $900.00 Cash: $900.00 o $0.45/brochure x 2,000 brochures = $900.00 Inkind: $0.00
Action I. Promote Des Moines River enhancement through community events. Coordinate with communities along the river to provide the public with educational and recreational opportunities such as a booth at community events, canoe trips, and water quality education activities. Timeframe: Years 1 - 10 Person(s) responsible: Watershed Coordinator Total Costs: $5,000.00 Cash: $5,000.00 o $500/year for promotion x 10 years = $5,000.00 Inkind: $0.00
Objective 9. Effectiveness Monitoring Action A. Sample 15 stream sites for E. coli bacteria in WFDMR watershed. Collect five E. coli samples per month at the 15 sites impaired for bacteria in Year 5 and Year 10 of the project to determine implementation effectiveness. Monitoring of all 15 sites will be dependant on implementation practices installed during the project timeline. Samples should be collected from April 1-October 31 by Watershed Technicians and/or Coordinator. Shipping, ice and supplies will be additional costs. Field measurements of transparency, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature and conductivity and visual observations will also be collected at each sampling occasion. Timeframe: Year 5 and 10 Person(s) responsible: Watershed Technicians and/or Coordinator Total Costs: $22,700.00 Cash: $22,700.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 318
o Sample analysis: 5 sampling occasions/site x $20.00/sample x 15 sites/month x 7 months x 2 yrs=$21,000.00 o Ice: $5.00/occasion x 5 occasions/mo x 7 mo x 2 yrs = $350.00 o Shipping: $15.00/occasion x 5 occasions/mo x 7 mo x 2 yrs = $1,050.00 o Miscellaneous Supplies: $300.00 Inkind: $0.00
Action B. Sample 15 stream sites for turbidity in WFDMR watershed. Collect twenty-five turbidity, total suspended solids, total suspended volatile solids, and chlorophyll-a samples per year at the 15 sites impaired for turbidity in Year 5 and Year 10 of the project to determine implementation effectiveness. Monitoring of all 15 sites will be dependant on implementation practices installed during the project timeline. Samples should be collected from ice-out through September by Watershed Technicians and/or Coordinator. Often, this sampling will be conducted at the same time as the E. coli sampling so ice and shipping costs reflect the occasions when the sampling can not occur simultaneously. Field measurements of transparency, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature and conductivity and visual observations will also be collected at each sampling occasion. Timeframe: Year 5 and 10 Person(s) responsible: Watershed Technicians and/or Coordinator Total Costs: $56,450.00 Cash: $56,450.00 o Sample analysis: 25 samples/yr x $75.00/sample x 15 sites/yr x 2 years = $56,250.00 o Ice: $5.00/occasion x 5 samples/yr not included in Action A x 2 yrs = $50.00 o Shipping: $15.00/occasion x 5 samples/yr not included in Action A x 2 yrs = $150.00 Inkind: $0.00
Action C. E. coli and turbidity synoptic surveys in WFDMR watershed. Conduct a synoptic survey along six of the major tributaries into the WFDMR in Year 1. This information will be useful in focusing future implementation dollars and provide a current baseline. Depending on funding timeline, this sampling could be repeated in the final year of the grant (if prior to Year 5). Collect at least 10 samples/subwatershed for analysis of turbidity and E. coli. Samples should be collected on three flow regimes (high, moderate and low) by Watershed Technicians and/or Coordinator. Field measurements of transparency, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, and visual observations will also be collected at each sampling occasion. Timeframe: Year 1 Person(s) responsible: Watershed Technicians and/or Coordinator Total Costs: $8,200.00 Cash: $8,200.00 o Dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and conductivity field meter: $2,200.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 319
o Sample analysis: 6 subwatersheds x 10 sites/subwatershed x 3 samples/yrs x $33.00/sample = $5,940.00 o Ice: $5.00/occasion x 3 occasions = $15.00 o Shipping: $15.00/occasion x 3 occasions = $45.00 Inkind: $0.00
Action D. Monitor Heron Lake tributaries. Continue current sampling regime of collecting thirty turbidity, total suspended solids, total suspended volatile solids, total phosphorus, and ortho phosphorus samples per year at Okabena Creek, Jack Creek and the Heron Lake Outlet in Years 1-3. These sites also have continuous stage tracking equipment. Flow measurements are collected by the DNR. Samples should be collected from ice-out through September by HLWD staff, Watershed Technicians and/or Coordinator. Field measurements of transparency, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature and conductivity and visual observations will also be collected at each sampling occasion. Timeframe: Years 1 - 3 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff, Watershed Technicians and/or Coordinator Total Costs: $90,900.00 Cash: $65,700.00 o Sample analysis: 30 samples/yr x $105.00/sample x 3 sites x 3 yrs = $28,350.00 o Ice: $5.00/occasion x 30 occasions x 3 yrs = $450.00 o Shipping: $10.00/occasion x 30 occasions x 3 yrs = $900.00 o DNR flow contract: $4,000.00/site/yr x 3 sites x 3 yrs = $36,000.00 Inkind: $25,200.00 o Staff: 30 occasions x 8 hrs/occasion x $35/hr x 3 yrs = $25,200.00
Action E. Monitor North and South Heron Lake. Collect 12 samples per year in Years 1-3 on North Heron Lake and South Heron Lake from April through September. In addition, monthly samples will be collected from October through March for one year. Lab analysis of turbidity, total suspended solids, total suspended volatile solids, chlorophyll A, total phosphorus, and ortho phosphorus water column samples and total phosphorus and ortho phosphorus analysis of near bottom water samples. Samples would be collected by HLWD staff. Field measurements of Secchi disk readings, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature and conductivity and visual observations will also be collected at each sampling occasion. Timeframe: Years 1-3 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff, Watershed Technicians and/or Coordinator Total Costs: $23,730.00 Cash: $11,970.00 o Summer sample analysis: 12 samples/yr x $135.00/sample x 2 sites x 3 yrs = $9,720.00 o Winter sample analysis: 6 samples/yr x $135/sample x 2 sites x 1 yr = $1,620.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 320
o Summer Ice: $5.00/occasion x 12 occasions x 3 yrs = $180.00 o Winter Ice: $5.00/occasion x 6 occasions x 1 yr = $30.00 o Summer Shipping: $10.00/occasion x 12 occasions x 3 yrs = $360.00 o Winter Shipping: $10.00/occasion x 6 occasions x 1 yrs = $60.00 Inkind: $11,760.00 o Staff-Summer sampling: 12 occasions/yr x 8 hrs/occasion x $35/hr x 3 yrs = $10,080.00 o Staff-Winter sampling: 6 occasions/yr x 8 hrs/occasion x $35/hr x 1 yr = $1,680.00
Action F. Conduct macrophyte, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fisheries survey. Utilize DNR Shallow Lakes and Fisheries units to conduct thorough macrophyte, phytoplankton, zooplankton and fishery survey in Year 2. This would be done using protocol defined by DNR. Local staff would be available for assistance as needed. Timeframe: Year 2 Person(s) responsible: HLWD staff, Watershed Technicians and/or Coordinator, and DNR Total Costs: $11,777.50 Cash: $0.00 Inkind: $11,777.50 o Fisheries survey staff: 2 staff x 80 hrs x $35/hr = $5,600.00 o Fisheries survey mileage: 300 miles x $0.55/mile = $165.00 o Shallow Lakes survey: 2 staff x 80 hrs x $35/hr = $5,600.00 o Shallow Lakes survey mileage: 750 miles x $0.55/mile = $412.50
Objective 10. Project Administration Action A. Hire and House a Watershed Coordinator. Hire a watershed coordinator to direct project activities and seek funding. Funds would also be needed for a computer, telephone costs, and travel. This position would be housed in the HLWD office. HLWD would provide office space and supplies needed to support the position. The HLWD has the most experience with grant administration and implementation and would be able to provide first-hand assistance to the watershed coordinator. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: HLWD Total Costs: $1,018,700.00 Cash: $979,700.00 o Salary and Benefits: $44/hr x 2080 hr/yr x 10 yrs = $915,200.00 o Equipment: 1 computer x $2,500.00/computer = $2,500.00 o Travel: 8000 mi/yr x $0.55/mi x 10 yrs = $44,000.00 o Telephone: $1,800.00/year x 10 yrs = $18,000.00 Inkind: $39,000.00 o Office Space and Office Supplies: $3,900/yr x 10 yr = $39,000.00
Action B. Hire and House an Engineering Technician.
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 321
Hire an engineering technician to provide technical information for projects within the watershed. Office and field equipment needed to support the position would also be purchased. This position would be housed in the Murray SWCD office. Housing a technician in an SWCD office provides optimum opportunities for direct contact with landowners. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Murray SWCD Total Costs: $1,073,200.00 Cash: $1,034,200.00 o Salary and Benefits: $44/hr x 2080 hr/yr x 10 yrs = $915,200.00 o Equipment: $75,000.00 o Travel: 8000 mi/yr x $0.55/mi x 10 yrs = $44,000.00 Inkind: $39,000.00 o Office Space and Office Supplies: $3,900/yr x 10 yrs = $39,000.00
Action C. Hire and House Two Watershed Technicians. Hire two watershed technicians to promote and enroll projects within the watershed. The project would also provide the office and field equipment needed to support the positions. One position would be shared between the Jackson SWCD and Cottonwood SWCD office and the other technician would be shared between Nobles and Murray Counties. Housing will be provided by the respective county and/or SWCD offices. Housing a technician in an SWCD office provides optimum opportunities for direct contact with landowners. Timeframe: Years 1-10 Person(s) responsible: Jackson SWCD, Cottonwood SWCD, Nobles and Murray counties Total Costs: $1,252,600.00 Cash: $1,174,600.00 o $26/hr x 2080 hr/yr x 2 technicians x 10 yrs = $1,081,600.00 o Equipment: 2 computers x $2,500.00/computer = $5,000.00 o Travel: 16,000 mi/yr x $0.55/mi x 10 yrs = $88,000.00 Inkind: $78,000.00 o Office Space and Supplies: $3,900/yr x 2 technicians x 10 yrs = $78,000.00
Heron Lake Watershed District Watershed Management Plan December 2011- December 2021 Page 322