6. Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Draft PlanMarch 30, 2020
Lower St. Croix River
Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan
60-Day Review Draft
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 2
Vision
The St. Croix River, groundwater, lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands,
and upland habitat in the Lower St. Croix watershed sustain healthy
ecosystems, recreation, public health, tourism, agriculture, the
economy, and quality of life in our communities.
Mission
Through the Lower St. Croix “One Watershed, One Plan” process,
partners will develop a collaborative and comprehensive plan to
guide the protection and restoration of priority natural resources in
our region over the next ten years.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 3
Table of Contents
i. Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... 6
ii. Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 11
A. Mission and Vision Statements ................................................................................................................. 11
B. Land and Water Resources in Lower St. Croix River Watershed .............................................................. 12
C. Identifying and Prioritizing Issues, Goals, Measurable Outcomes, and Locations.................................... 14
D. Implementation Programs, Priority Activities, and Costs ......................................................................... 15
E. Plan Administration and Targeted Implementation ................................................................................. 17
F. Local Implementation Programs ............................................................................................................... 19
II. Identification and Prioritization of Resource Areas and Issues ............................................................... 23
A. Step One: Foundations for Working Together .......................................................................................... 24
B. Agency and Stakeholder Input .................................................................................................................. 25
C. TMDLs, WRAPS, and GRAPS ...................................................................................................................... 27
D. Local Priorities and Concerns .................................................................................................................... 27
E. Identifying Priority Issues and Resource Areas ......................................................................................... 28
F. Consolidated Issues and Desired Future Conditions ................................................................................. 30
III. Establishment of Measurable Goals, Outputs, and Priority Locations .................................................... 33
A. Goals .......................................................................................................................................................... 33
B. Outputs ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
C. Priority Locations....................................................................................................................................... 33
IV. Implementation Programs ....................................................................................................................... 37
A. Areas of Work ............................................................................................................................................ 37
i. Agricultural Lands .................................................................................................................................. 38
ii. Developed and Developing Lands ......................................................................................................... 39
iii. Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................................................... 40
iv. Prioritization and Analysis, Existing Monitoring ................................................................................... 41
B. Building Social Capacity ............................................................................................................................. 42
C. Shared Services ......................................................................................................................................... 44
i. Agricultural Lands .................................................................................................................................. 44
ii. Developed and Developing Lands ......................................................................................................... 45
iii. Education and Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 45
D. Incentive Programs ................................................................................................................................... 45
E. Operation and Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 46
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 4
F. Extreme Weather and Water Storage Goals ............................................................................................. 47
G. Regulation and Enforcement .................................................................................................................... 48
i. Watershed District Regulation .............................................................................................................. 48
ii. Comprehensive or Land Use Plans ........................................................................................................ 49
iii. County, State and Local Regulations ..................................................................................................... 49
V. Implementation Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 55
A. Using the Implementation Table ............................................................................................................... 55
B. 2021 – 2030 Implementation Table: Table 5-1 ......................................................................................... 59
VI. Funding Sources and Prioritizing Watershed Based Implementation Funds ........................................... 85
A. Federal Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................... 85
B. State Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................... 86
C. Local Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................... 86
D. Other Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................. 86
E. Prioritizing Watershed Based Implementation Funds .............................................................................. 87
VII. Work Planning and Targeting Implementation ........................................................................................ 89
A. Work Planning ........................................................................................................................................... 89
B. Targeting and Prioritizing Specific Projects ............................................................................................... 90
VIII. Local Implementation Programs .............................................................................................................. 95
IX. Plan Administration and Collaboration .................................................................................................... 97
A. Formal Agreements ................................................................................................................................... 97
B. Decision Making, Staffing, and Collaboration ........................................................................................... 98
i. Policy Committee .................................................................................................................................. 98
ii. Steering Committee .............................................................................................................................. 98
iii. Advisory Committee .............................................................................................................................. 98
iv. Collaboration on Grants and with Other Units of Government ............................................................ 99
C. Adaptive Management ............................................................................................................................ 100
D. Evaluation and Reporting ........................................................................................................................ 100
i. Watershed Based Funding Assurance Measures ................................................................................ 101
ii. Annual Accomplishment Reporting .................................................................................................... 101
iii. Biennial Partnership and Work Plan Evaluation ................................................................................. 102
iv. Five-Year Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 103
E. Plan Updates and Amendments .............................................................................................................. 103
X. References .............................................................................................................................................. 105
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 5
Figures
Figure 1-1 Waterbodies and Jurisdictions in Lower St. Croix Watershed
Figure 1-2 Landcover in Lower St. Croix Watershed
Figure 1-3 Groundwater Pollution Sensitivity of Near Surface Materials in Lower St. Croix Watershed
Figure 2-1 The Path to Identifying Priority Issues, Resources, and Desired Future Conditions
Figure 4-1 Community Capacity
Figure 5-1 Vulnerable Groundwater in Agricultural Areas
Figure 5-2 Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams
Figure 5-3 Regionally Significant Lakes
Figure 5-4 Regionally Significant Lakes for Internal Loading Analyses
Figure 5-5 High Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration
Figure 7-1 Completed Subwatershed Analyses and Gully Inventories
Tables
Table 1-1 10-year Implementation Costs for Activities Considered Highest Priority for WBIFs
Table 1-2 LSC Partnership Committees and Functions
Table 2-1 Avenues of Stakeholder Input
Table 2-2 Resource Areas, Description of Relevance, Threatened Uses
Table 2-3 Desired Future Conditions (DFC) (in italics) and Issues Statements for Each Resource Area
Table 3-1 Issues and Goals by Resource Area with Reference to Related Outputs and Priority Locations
Table 5-1 Part A. Implementation Actions for Agricultural Lands
Table 5-1 Part B. Implementation for Developed and Developing Lands
Table 5-1 Part C. Implementation for Ecosystem Services
Table 5-1 Part D. Implementation for Prioritization and Analysis: Issues, Goals, Actions, Measurable
Outputs, and Priority Locations
Table 5-2 Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams for Pollutant Reductions
Table 5-3 Regionally Significant Lakes for Pollutant Reductions and Protections
Table 5-4 Regionally Significant Lakes for Internal Loading Analyses
Table 9-1 Evaluation and Assessment Schedule
Appendices
Appendix A: Land and Water Resource Inventory
Appendix B: Lower St. Croix Watershed Water Storage Analysis
Appendix C: Project Targeting Criteria and Scoring Matrix
Appendix D: Chisago County Water Plan 2020 – 2030
Appendix E: Isanti County Water Plan Summary Document
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 6
i. Acknowledgements
This Plan was developed through a memorandum of agreement (MOA) among 15 local
government units (LGUs) including counties, soil and water conservation districts,
watershed management organizations, and watershed management districts. The
development of this Plan was funded through a Clean Water Fund grant from the
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources and came together through a series of
collaborative meetings among the participating entities and state and regional agencies, and
with input from a variety of watershed stakeholders and the public.
The decision-making body for plan development, the Policy Committee, was compromised of one elected or
appointed board member from each of the 15 LGUs signatory to the MOA. The plan content was developed
primarily through input from the Advisory Committee, comprised of staff from participating entities and state
and regional agencies. The Steering Committee (a subset of the Advisory Committee) and the Planning Team (a
smaller subset of the Advisory Committee) provided guidance on various plan development activities or
specific content at points along the process. The graphic below shows the committee relationships.
A consulting team of Keystone Waters, LLC and Freshwater provided plan writing and meeting facilitation
services throughout the development of the plan.
Committee Relationships
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 7
Policy Committee Members and Alternates
Chisago County Chris DuBose/Mike Robinson Commissioner
Isanti County Susan Morris/Greg Anderson Commissioner
Pine County Steve Hallan/Joshua Mohr Commissioner
Washington County Fran Miron Commissioner
Anoka SWCD Sharon LeMay/MaryJo Truchon Board Supervisor
Chisago SWCD Jim Birkholz/David Tollberg Board Supervisor
Isanti SWCD
Wayne Calander/Greg Swanson/Jerry
Schaubach Board Supervisor
Pine SWCD Doug Odegard/Skip Thomson Board Supervisor
Washington SWCD Diane Blake/Robert Rosenquist Board Supervisor
Brown's Creek WD Craig Leiser/Clayton Eckles District Manager
Carnelian Marine St Croix WD Wade Johnson/Kristin Tuenge District Manager
Comfort Lake Forest Lake WD Steve Schmaltz/Jackie Anderson District Manager
South Washington WD Don Pereira/Kevin Chapdelaine District Manager
Middle St. Croix WMO Doug Menikheim/John Fellegy/Brian Zeller Board Member, Stillwater Council
Sunrise River WMO Janet Hegland/Paul Enestvedt Board Member
Anoka County, Ramsey County, Ramsey SWCD, and Valley Branch WD were invited but chose not to participate on
the Policy Committee.
Advisory Committee Members
Local Staff/Steering Committee Agency Staff
Chisago County & Chisago
Lakes Lake Improvement
District
Susanna Willson Witkowski
& Jerry Spetzman
Board of Water & Soil
Resources
Dan Fabian
Isanti County Darrick Wotachek Barb Peichel
Pine County Caleb Anderson Erin Loeffler
Washington Co.
Stephanie Souter & Maureen
Hoffman MN Department of
Health John Freitag Anoka SWCD Jamie Schurbon*
Chisago SWCD Craig Mell*
MN Department of
Natural Resources Jason Carlson
Isanti SWCD Tiffany Determan* MN Department of
Agriculture
Jeff Berg
Pine SWCD Kris Larson/Katie Petzel Margaret Wagner
Washington SWCD Jay Riggs* & Angie Hong MN Pollution Control
Agency Eric Alms Brown's Creek WD Karen Kill
Carnelian Marine St Croix WD Jim Shaver/Mike Isensee
Metropolitan Council
Jennifer
Kostrzewski Comfort Lake Forest Lake WD Mike Kinney*
South Washington WD Matt Moore*
Middle St. Croix WMO Mike Isensee/Matt Downing
Sunrise River WMO Jamie Schurbon*
*Planning Team Members
Anoka County, Ramsey County, Ramsey SWCD, and Valley Branch WD were invited but chose not to participate on
the Policy Committee.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 8
ii. Acronyms
1W1P – One Watershed One Plan
ACPF – Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework
AIS – Aquatic invasive species
AUIDs – Assessment Unit Identifications
BWSR – (Minnesota) Board of Water and Soil Resources
CIG – Conservation Innovation Grant
CLLID – Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District
COs - Counties
CRP – Conservation Reserve Program
DFC – Desired Future Condition
DO – Dissolved oxygen
ECS – Ecological Classification System
EMWREP – East Metro Water Resources Education Program
EQB – Environmental Quality Board
EQIP – Environmental Quality Incentive Program
FWS – Fish and Wildlife Service
GRAPS – Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies
GW – Groundwater
HUC – Hydrologic unit code
IBI – Index of biotic integrity
LID – Lake Improvement District
LSC – Lower St. Croix
LGUs – Local Government Units
MCBS – Minnesota County Biological Survey
MCD – Metro Conservation Districts
MDA – Minnesota Department of Agriculture
MDH – Minnesota Department of Health
MDNR – Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
MG – Million Gallons
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 9
MIDS – Minimal Impact Design Standards
MnDNR – Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
MOA – Memorandum of Agreement
MPARS – MnDNR Permitting and Reporting System
MPCA – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NPS – National Park Service
NRCS – Natural Resource Conservation Service
PFAS – Perfluoroalkyl substances
PFCs – Perfluorochemicals
PFOs – Perfluorooctane sulfonate
PRAP – Performance Review and Assistance Program
PTMapp – Prioritize, Target, and Measure Application
RIM – Reinvest in Minnesota
RUSLE2 – Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, Version 2
SCRA – St. Croix River Association
SSTS – Subsurface Sewage Treatment System
SWA – Subwatershed Analysis
SWCD – Soil and Water Conservation District
SWMM – Storm Water Management Model
TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load
TP – Total phosphorus
TSS – Total suspended solids
U of M – University of Minnesota
VOCs – Volatile organic compounds
WBIFs – Watershed Based Implementation Funds
WD – Watershed District
WDNR – Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WMA – Wildlife Management Area
WMO – Watershed Management Organization
WRAPS – Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 10
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 11
I. Executive Summary
The Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan (Plan) was developed as part of the State of
Minnesota’s One Watershed One Plan (1W1P) program. The State’s vision and purpose of the 1W1P program
is to align local water planning on major watershed boundaries with state strategies towards prioritized,
targeted, and measurable implementation plans. The process results in a comprehensive watershed plan and
offers the opportunity for groups and organizations to work together in both planning and implementation
across jurisdictional boundaries. While the resulting Plan is comprehensive in that it includes improvements
and protection for a variety of natural resources across a large geographic area, it also incorporates detail in its
prioritization and targeting actions and outcomes for specific waterbodies.
This Plan was developed through a memorandum of agreement and collaborative partnership among 15 local
governments including 4 counties, 5 soil and water conservation districts, 2 watershed management
organizations, and 4 watershed districts. Together, these groups are known as the Lower St. Croix (LSC)
Partners or Partnership. Note that not all local government units within the watershed boundaries chose to
participate in the LSC Partnership.
A. Mission and Vision Statements
Early in the process, the Lower St. Croix 1W1P Policy Committee adopted a mission statement to help guide
the work of the plan development and a vision statement to help imagine the future condition of the
watershed.
Mission
Through the Lower St. Croix “One Watershed, One Plan” process, partners will develop a collaborative and
comprehensive plan to guide the protection and restoration of priority natural resources in our region over the
next ten years.
Vision
The St. Croix River, groundwater, lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands, and upland habitat in the Lower St. Croix
watershed sustain healthy ecosystems, recreation, public health, tourism, agriculture, the economy, and quality of
life in our communities.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 12
B. Land and Water Resources in Lower St. Croix River Watershed
The Lower St. Croix River (LSC) One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) boundary follows the boundary of the Lower
St. Croix River Watershed (HUC 07030005) (Figure 1-1). The Lower St. Croix River Watershed is one of four
major watersheds on the Minnesota side of the St. Croix River Basin. It begins just downstream of the
confluence of the St. Croix and Snake rivers near Pine City and runs parallel to the St. Croix River to the
confluence with the Mississippi River near the city of Prescott, Wisconsin. This watershed consists of several
major tributaries that drain into the Lower St. Croix River including Rock, Rush, and Goose Creeks; the Sunrise
River; Brown’s Creek, Valley Branch Creek, Trout Brook, and O’Connor’s Creek; and several small streams.
The LSC Watershed is approximately 915 square
miles and lies primarily in the North Central
Hardwood Forest Ecoregion. The watershed
includes parts of Pine, Chisago, Isanti, Anoka, and
Washington Counties. Less than half of one percent
of the watershed lies in Ramsey County. There are
60 municipalities and townships located completely or partially within the boundaries of the watershed.
Additionally, there are seven watershed organizations in the watershed including Sunrise River Watershed
Management Organization (WMO), Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Watershed District (WD), Carnelian-Marine-St.
Croix WD, Brown’s Creek WD, Middle St. Croix WMO, Valley Branch WD, and South Washington WD. The
Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District (LID) also lies in the watershed (Figure 1-1.)
The watershed’s surface waters are abundant with 127 lakes, over 1,000 miles of rivers, streams, and
judicial/public ditches, and approximately 152,000 acres of wetlands. A regionally significant big river, the
entire length of the St. Croix River is officially designated as a National Wild and Scenic Riverway by the federal
government. In the upper reaches of the 97-mile reach of the St. Croix River along the LSC Watershed, the river
meanders through a narrow floodplain with numerous oxbow lakes, back channels and sloughs. Upon reaching
the Arcola sandbar north of the city of Stillwater, the river opens up to become Lake St. Croix, a large open
water basin with little flow or gradient change. Lake St. Croix covers the southernmost 25 miles of the river
from Stillwater, MN to Prescott, WI. The channel constricts flow at a few locations throughout the lake
creating four distinct pools.
Unfortunately, the St. Croix River and Lake St. Croix are included on the state’s list of impaired waters because
of high levels of phosphorus which can create nuisance algae blooms, decreasing water clarity and degrading
habitats and recreational suitability. Still, the river and lake have relatively good water quality as compared to
other metropolitan resources and the Mississippi River. They provide extensive habitat and attract recreational
tourists seeking opportunities for paddling, boating, fishing, and swimming. Four Minnesota state parks (Wild
River, Interstate, William O’Brien, and Afton) and numerous natural areas and public lands dot the shoreline in
this watershed.
Lakes are abundant throughout much of the watershed and range from small pristine lakes with little or no
development, to large lakes important for recreation and ringed with developed shoreland. The more
significant lakes in the Lower St. Croix River Watershed include Big Marine, Big Carnelian, the Chisago Lakes
Chain, Coon, Elmo, Forest, Goose, Little Carnelian, Rush, Rock, and Square located in the central and southern
parts of the watershed. Most of these lakes are linked through a chain of small connector waterways. Small
Additional information and multiple layers of
mapping data can be viewed in an interactive map
for the Lower St. Croix Watershed at:
https://maps.barr.com/LSCWD/1W1P/index.html
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 13
impoundments are also a part of the Sunrise River System. These lakes and impoundments contribute to the
biological communities of the adjacent tributaries. Not surprisingly, many of these lakes are impaired for high
nutrients due to non-point source pollution (runoff) from agricultural and developed lands.
The watershed’s numerous rivers, streams, and ditches directly connect the land to the St. Croix River. Rock,
Rush, and Goose Creeks drain the northern portion of the watershed. These creeks are impaired for bacteria
(E. coli) and are also considered sources of nutrient pollution (including total phosphorus) to the St. Croix River
and Lake St. Croix. At 385 square miles, the Sunrise River Watershed makes up a significant portion of the
whole LSC Watershed. Numerous water quality impairments exist in the Sunrise River Watershed, and it is
considered the highest contributor of nutrient pollution to Lake St. Croix, mainly due to its size (MPCA, 2012).
Many other streams enter the St. Croix River and Lake St. Croix throughout the southern portion of the
watershed including Browns Creek, Valley Creek, and Trout Brook.
As the land changes from agricultural uses in the low gradient headwater areas of the watershed to more
forests near the mouths of the tributaries, the stream gradients increase as the elevation drops on the path to
the St. Croix River. Gradient is particularly low in the central portion of the watershed creating landscapes
dominated by wetlands and multiple branches of the Sunrise River watershed. There are numerous springs
along the St. Croix River corridor, creating cool water and coldwater conditions, particularly in the southern
part of the watershed. Due to the presence of these springs in the forested areas of the watershed, there are
15 designated trout streams recognized by the MnDNR.
Before western settlement, the river valley was dominated by hardwood forests and mixed savannah with
large white pine stands in the far northern portion of the watershed. The area produced an estimated 15
billion board feet of timber between 1839-1916. Today land cover in the watershed is a mix of agriculture,
developed areas, and open land and water including: 25 percent forest/shrubland, 22 percent grassland/hay
fields/pastures, 19 percent wetland, 17 percent row crops, 10 percent developed/mining, and 7 percent open
water.
Groundwater is an important resource throughout the Lower St. Croix River Watershed. It accounts for 100%
of the region’s drinking water and more than 80% of groundwater withdrawal is for public water supply use.
Adequate supplies of high-quality groundwater are needed for the region’s residents, businesses and natural
resources. Contamination of groundwater from various pollution sources is a growing concern in much of the
watershed, and large areas of contamination are currently a known and significant problem in much of
Washington County. Groundwater is at greater risk to contamination in areas of high pollution sensitivity. A
large band of high pollution sensitivity extends through the middle portion of the watershed through Anoka,
Isanti and Chisago Counties. Much of Washington County is also sensitive to groundwater pollution.
The complete Land and Water Resource Inventory can be found in Appendix A. Additional information and
multiple layers of mapping data can be viewed in an interactive map for the Lower St. Croix Watershed at:
https://maps.barr.com/LSCWD/1W1P/index.html.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 14
C. Identifying and Prioritizing Issues, Goals, Measurable Outcomes, and Locations
After laying the foundations for working together, the LSC Partners worked diligently to gather input from
agencies, various stakeholders, and among their own organizations in order to identify issues facing natural
resources across the watershed. Issues were prioritized through a series of discussions and a review of current
conditions and existing data in seven resource areas: groundwater, lakes, rivers and streams, wetlands,
uplands, St. Croix River and Lake St. Croix, and social capacity (Table 2-2). Desired future conditions were
developed for each resource area in order to discover shared values and to envision attributes the group will
strive to attain, regardless of time frame (Table 2-2). Section II provides a full description of the process used to
identify and prioritize resource areas and issues, including the robust stakeholder engagement process.
Issues: A summary of issues for various resource areas include:
• Groundwater – quality, quantity, data needs
• Rivers and Streams – water quality, ecosystem quality, altered hydrology
• Lakes – water quality, ecosystem quality, water levels, data needs
• Wetlands – quality, quantity, data needs
• Uplands – habitat loss, encroachment, degradation
• St. Croix River/Lake St. Croix – water quality, ecosystem quality, extreme fluctuations, data needs
Goals: Once issues were identified and desired future conditions were envisioned, broad goals were
developed to address each of the issues and to mitigate current and future threats to the resources (Table 3-
1). In general, the Plan’s goals are statements to improve water quality by addressing agricultural and
urban/suburban runoff, reduce groundwater contamination, protect and restore uplands and wetlands,
prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species, and gather data in all resource areas to better understand
resources and target projects and programs.
Measurable Outcomes: Although goals in this Plan are generally broad, work will be focused on making
progress toward the goals by accomplishing measurable outputs that address resource issues with more
specific and quantifiable outcomes. Measurable outcomes will be realized in priority locations across the
watershed with quantifiable implementation and change measured in a variety of ways including annual
pollution reduction goals of 1,360 pounds total phosphorus in regionally significant lakes; and 3,825 pounds
total phosphorus in key subwatersheds draining to the St. Croix River (Table 5-1).
Priority Locations: Priority locations where work will be focused are those specific resources considered to be
regionally significant, or types of resources or areas where work is needed most in order to realize change and
“move the needle” toward improved or protected water resources. The priority locations vary depending on
the issue being addressed. In some cases, the work is planned to be accomplished watershed-wide. In most
cases, however, work will be focused in particular subwatersheds (Table 5-1). Some of the more significant
priority locations where the bulk of the implementation will be focused include:
• Sunrise River Watershed - due to its size and land use, it is identified as the highest contributor of total
phosphorus in Lake St. Croix
• Subwatersheds of tributaries draining directly to the St. Croix River (downstream of lakes, impoundments, or
large wetland complexes)
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 15
• Thirty-one regionally significant lakes including those in need of restoration and others in need of protection
• Areas where groundwater is sensitive to pollution
• Lands where critical habitat needs protection or areas suitable for wetland restoration or creation
Table 3-1 includes the goals developed to address each issue. Measurable outputs and priority locations are
shown in Table 5-1. Both Tables 3-1 and 5-1 include cross references the other table.
D. Implementation Programs, Priority Activities, and Costs
Section IV reviews the implementation programs, priority actions, extreme weather and water storage goals,
incentive programs, operation and maintenance, and regulation and enforcement.
The complete Implementation Table (Table 5-1) in Section V includes the schedule of activities per biennium
for the life of this Plan, along with the estimated existing funding and external funding needs per activity.
In order to achieve the many goals in the Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Plan, the implementation actions are
broken out across a series of programs. Three of the implementation programs relate to dominant land uses
(agricultural lands, developed and developing lands, and ecosystem services), while the fourth refers to the
background information, assessments, and ongoing data collection that is needed to further target and
prioritize individual projects and to track progress toward achieving the goals.
Types of Implementation Actions
Implementation of Projects and Programs
Actions such as technical assistance, cost share programs, funded best management practices, and
other efforts which directly result in the implementation of physical projects
Shared Services and Staff Capacity
Actions that add to existing staff capacity, whether through shared services, training, or partnerships
Education, Engagement, and Social Capacity
Actions that increase public awareness and understanding of resource LSC 1W1P goals and issues, as
well as their voluntary participation in efforts to reach those goals
Ordinances, Regulation, and Policy
Actions referencing existing or new regulations or policies
Data Collection, Analyses, and Planning
Actions which include evaluation of sites, collection of data, development of plans, and monitoring
Although a variety of funding sources will be used to implement this Plan, including existing local funds, and
state and federal funding, use of the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR’s) Watershed Based
Implementation Funds (WBIFs) allocated to the LSC Watershed is a primary driver for collaboration and the
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 16
development of this Plan. The LSC Partnership prioritized the use of WBIFs for a variety of programs that will
have the greatest impact on the priority water resources in the watershed.
In general, WBIFs are expected to be allocated across program areas with a distribution similar to:
• 70% Implementation (approximately 25% shared services + 45% BMPs & restoration activities)
• 25% Prioritization and Analysis
• 5% Administration
Priority Activities slated for funding from WBIFs include:
• Sharing services to increase engagement with landowners by hiring or contracting with an agricultural
conservationist and agronomist
• Sharing services to improve social capacity and increase education and engagement programs by
expanding the East Metro Water Resources Education Program (EMWREP)
• Sharing services to provide education and ordinance development on Minimal Impact Design Standards
• Conduct subwatershed analyses and other prioritization methods to target best management practices
(BMPs) within priority subwatersheds
• Providing financial and technical assistance for installing, implementing, or retrofitting targeted BMPs
• Providing financial assistance to upgrade SSTS
• Providing education, financial, and technical assistance for restoring shorelines along priority lakes
• Improving ditch maintenance practices to reduce impacts on water resources
• Providing cost share for land restoration or easement establishment in critical habitat areas
• Restore or create wetlands
• Study and address internal loading in priority lakes
Implementation Costs shown in Table 1-1 include a 10-year cost for the activities considered the highest
priority for use of BWSR’s WBIF. It should be noted that the actual additional external funding need is often
significantly higher in some areas of the watershed than in others due to existing local funding sources.
Activities involving prioritization and analysis are not included here because they were not assigned a priority
level; those needs will be determined within annual work plans. A total of $8,844,500 in additional external
funding over 10 years is needed to implement the high priorities activities (excluding prioritization and analysis
costs).
Table 1-1. 10-year Implementation Costs for Activities Considered Highest Priority for WBIFs
Area of
Implementation
10-year
Estimated Cost
10-year Estimated
Local Funds
10-year Existing
Stable External
Funding
Additional External
Funds
Needed
Agricultural Lands
$6,450,000 $475,000 $390,000 $5,585,000
Developed &
Developing Lands
$4,800,000 $3,569,000 $715,000 $516,000
Ecosystem Services
$4,330,000 $1,431,500 $155,000 $2,743,500
TOTAL
$15,580,000
$5,475,500
$1,260,000
$8,844,500
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 17
Evaluation and Adaptive Management will be employed throughout the implementation of this Plan.
Understanding the cumulative impact (or lack of impact) of projects and programs on priority resources is a
critical step in working to meet planning goals and outcomes. Through an iterative process of planning,
implementing, assessing and adapting, adaptive management promotes flexible decision making and
implementation that can be adapted as outcomes from management actions become better understood.
Specifically, for this Plan, adaptive management will be used to further target funding and other resources
once data are gathered and analyses are complete. Collecting water monitoring data in the watershed, in
addition to desktop analyses, will target the most cost-effective practices to be implemented. Additionally, as
As practices that prove to be extremely effective for a given situation are documented, that learning will help
target effective strategies for the next round of implementation. This will allow for changes to the schedule or
implementation as new issues develop or as field work begins and better data become available. Minor plan
amendments may be needed if priority locations change due to additional knowledge (see Section IX.F.)
Evaluation and reporting (see Section IX.E.) are an important component of adaptive management.
E. Plan Administration and Targeted Implementation
Joint Powers Collaboration: Implementation of this Plan will be facilitated through a joint powers
collaboration (JPC) agreement to officially establish the new Lower St. Croix Partnership. The JPC agreement
will be a formal and outward commitment to work together and will be a legally binding document that assigns
decision making authorities and procedures, voting structure, and liability for the LSC Partnership.
Committees: Three committees of the LSC Partnership will guide the implementation of this Plan and
individual LSC Partners (or groups of partners) will carry out the implementation activities through local
agreements. Membership and function of the committees and local staff are presented in Table 1-2. Section IX
includes details on Plan administration and collaboration.
Table 1-2. LSC Partnership Committees and Functions
Committee
Membership Function
Policy Committee (PC)
-Meets quarterly
One representative from each
JPC signatory (LSC Partner),
except Chisago County
Three representatives from
Chisago County
One vote per representative
Act as governing body of LSC Partnership
Review annual reports and implementation
progress
Review and consider recommendations from
Steering Committee on budgets, staffing,
administration, work plans, grant applications
Develop recommendations for consideration
by governing boards of LSC Partners
With approval from local boards, approve
budgets, work plans, agreements with local
entities, grant agreements, etc. to implement
the Plan
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 18
Committee
Membership Function
Steering Committee
(SC)
-Meets monthly or as
needed
Staff of LSC Partners including:
County water planners
WD/WMO administrators, staff
SWCD managers, staff
Evaluate, track progress, and report on
implementation outcomes
Use adaptive management as new data,
analyses, and progress tracking are reported
Develop annual work plans and biennial
budget requests for WBIFs for administration,
shared services, data gathering & analysis
Prioritizes and targets projects and programs
with project targeting criteria and scoring
matrix*
Draft collaborative grant applications
Make recommendations to PC on work plans,
budgets, grant applications, etc.
Advisory Committee
(AC)
-Meets annually, if
needed
Steering Committee members
State agency staff (BWSR, MPCA,
MnDNR, MDH, MDA)
Met Council staff
Other technical stakeholders and
partners (e.g., SCRA)
Provide input on implementation programs,
as requested
Assist with technical analyses, data gathering,
and studies
Assist with avoiding duplication of efforts
LSC Partners Local governments that sign on
to the LSC Joint Powers
Collaborative including:
-Soil water conservation districts
-Counties
-Watershed Districts
-Watershed Management
Organizations
Through approved agreements, implement
the activities of this Plan
Through agreements, house and direct the
work of shared staff, as needed
Perform Plan administration including fiscal
agent and day-to-day contact responsibilities
Prioritize and target projects in approved
SWAs (or other analysis) with project
targeting criteria and scoring matrix*
*Project Targeting and Scoring: During annual work plan development, the Steering Committee will review
and discuss possible projects and programs for use of Watershed Based Implementation Funds (WBIFs) in the
next fiscal year. Each LSC Partner will bring information and analyses related to their proposed project, “set” of
projects (such as projects identified in a subwatershed analysis), or program. Only activities that meet all of the
following “gatekeeper criteria” will be further reviewed for WBIFs.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 19
Gatekeeper Criteria:
1. The proposed projects or program is located in a priority location for the specific activity as listed in the
Implementation Table (Table 5-1).
2. The activity is listed as a high or medium priority for watershed-based funds (assigned an “A” or “B” in the
Implementation Table (Table 5-1)
3. An analysis is complete and/or data are gathered to target and prioritize specific projects where they will
have most benefit using specific analyses components; or the project is outside an area with a completed
prioritization but has a similar cost/benefit as a previously analyzed project.
Examples of analyses used to target and prioritize projects include a subwatershed analysis (SWA), diagnostic
study, feasibility study, etc. These analyses will include spatial and desktop analysis (including historical aerial
photo review, water quality modeling or monitoring for pollution reduction analysis, field evaluation, and cost
benefit analysis.
When appropriate, proposed projects that meet the gatekeeper criteria will be scored using the targeting
criteria and scoring matrix (Appendix C). Resulting scores for projects will be used as guidance to compare and
contrast various projects being considered for inclusion in the annual work plan. The complete process for
annual work plan development and project/program targeting can be found in Section VII.
Additional Collaboration: In addition to the work described in Table 1-2, collaboration, coordination, and
communication on grant opportunities, studies, research, outreach and engagement, or other activities will be
a critical component of the LSC Partnership. This collaboration may be among LSC Partners, or with other
stakeholders or groups performing similar work or having similar goals. The LSC Partners seek to develop and
maintain relationships that will promote effective coordination to accomplish Plan goals.
F. Local Implementation Programs
This Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan can serve as a comprehensive plan, local
water management plan, or watershed management plan developed or amended, approved, and adopted,
according to MN Statutes chapters 103B, 103C or 103D. This Plan is expected to be adopted by some counties
and soil and water conservation districts as their sole water plan for areas within the LSC Watershed. This is
the case for Chisago and Isanti Counties. Since this Plan does not cover all local priorities and planned activities
for Chisago and Isanti Counties, additional content is provided in appendices. See Appendix D for the 2020 –
2030 Chisago County Water Plan, and Appendix E for the Isanti County Water Plan Summary Document.
For other organizations, such watershed districts (WD) and watershed management organizations (WMO), this
Plan will augment, but not replace their current and future watershed management plans. In these cases, their
plans, along with their prioritized and targeted projects and programs, and their capital improvement
programs, remain in effect. Similarly, this Plan will not replace the Washington County Groundwater Plan.
Shafer
Marineon SaintCroix
Oakdale
Stillwater
Harris
Center City
ChisagoCity
Lake Elmo Bayport
Wyoming
Taylors Falls
Rush City
North Branch
Scandia
Grant
Lakeland
Stacy
Afton
Rock Creek
EastBethel
Forest Lake
LindstromPine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott CountyMud Lake
Green Lake
LinwoodLake
West RushLake
ChisagoLake
East RushLake
CoonLake
SunriseLake
ForestLake
GooseLake
Big MarineLake
Big CarnelianLakeSt. Croix RiverCedarCreekBeaverC r e e k
Rum RiverRiceCreekMinnesotaRiverMississippiRiv er
B
ro
wn'sC reek
Sunrise River Sn ak e RiverV e r m illionR iv e r
Valley Cre e kSunrise River
Nort
h
Bra
nc
hG ooseCreekRockCreek
Ru sh C reekMIDDLEST.CROIX
COMFORT LAKEFOREST LAKE
RICE CREEK
SUNRISE RIVER
RAMSEY-WASHINGTONMETRO
SOUTHWASHINGTON
VALLEY BRANCH
BROWNSCREEK
CARNELIAN-MARINE-ST.CROIX
COON CREEK Burnett CountyPolk CountyPolk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
WISCONSIN
CHISAGOLAKES LID
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-24 14:48 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P_2020Update\Figure 1-1 Lower St. Croix River Watershed.mxd User: RCS2
LOWER ST. CROIXRIVER WATERSHED
FIGURE 1-1
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix
PWI
Lake, Pond or
River or Stream
Watershed Districts (WD) andWatershed ManagementOrganizations (WMO)
Brown's Creek
Carnelian-Marine-St. CroixWD
Comfort Lake Forest LakeWD
Middle St. Croix
South Washington
Sunrise River
Valley Branch
Chisago Lakes LakeImprovement District
Municipal
County
MN
MN DNR Watersheds - DNR Level 04 -HUC 08 - Majors 2009. MN DNRHydrography 2015. MN Public WaterInventory Watercourses 2008.
Pine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott CountyBurnett CountyPolk CountyPolk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
WISCONSIN
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-24 14:53 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P_2020Update\Figure 1-2 Landcover in the St. Croix River Watershed.mxd User: RCS2
LANDCOVER IN THEST. CROIX RIVERWATERSHEDFIGURE 1-2
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix Watershed
County Boundary
Landcover
Emergent Wetlands
Forested/Shrub Wetlands
Open Water
Extraction
Coniferous Forest
Deciduous Forest
Mixed Forest
Grassland/Managed Grass
Hay/Pastures
Row Crops
Imperviousness100% 0%
Remote Sensing and Geospatial AnalysisLaboratory, University of Minnesota.Minnesota Land Cover Classification andImpervious Surface Area by Landsat andLidar: 2013 update - Version 2. 1/29/2016
Pine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott CountyBurnett CountyPolk CountyPolk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
WISCONSIN
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-24 15:26 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P_2020Update\Figure 1-3 Groundwater Pollution Sensitivity of Near Surface Materials in Lower St. Croix Watershed.mxd User: RCS2
GROUNDWATER POLLUTIONSENSITIVITY OF NEARSURFACE MATERIALS IN THEST. CROIX RIVERWATERSHED
FIGURE 1-3
0 5
Miles
!;N
Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, County Geologic AtlasProgram. Pollution Sensitivity of Near-Surface Materials. 11/18/2018.
Lower St. Croix WatershedPollution Sensitivity of Near-Surface MaterialsKarst
High
Moderate
Low
Very low
Bedrock at or near surface
Water
County Boundary
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 23
II. Identification and Prioritization of Resource
Areas and Issues
The Lower St. Croix River (LSC) Watershed is an area of 915 square miles
with a diverse mix of agricultural lands, small towns, expanding cities,
and significant water resources. This size and complexity mean it was no
small task to determine the critical issues facing these resources and then
prioritize the resources most in need of restoration and protection. It
involved a variety of methods to gather existing information, identify
gaps, and develop common goals.
Prioritization is an important step in the development of any watershed
plan. It helps to focus and target financial, technical, and organizational
resources where they are needed most and where they can have the
most benefits. Further, identification and prioritization of resources and
issues is needed because, over the life of the Plan, not all of the identified
issues can be addressed at the same time. Knowing what the group will
be focusing on allows for the development of measurable goals to
address the issues, and ultimately for an implementation schedule that
reflects the priorities established by the group.
A wealth of information exists about the natural resources in the LSC
Watershed, and a myriad of stakeholders and groups have vested
interest in the protection and restoration of these resources. The
following sections (depicted in Figure 2-1) describe how data were
gathered and used to form a shared understanding of the resources and
their conditions, and how the thoughts, ideas, knowledge, and desires of
stakeholders were collected and used to help identify priority concerns
and resources.
LSC Watershed
by the Numbers
Area: 915 square miles
Number of Lakes: 127
Number of lakes impaired for
nutrients: 52
Miles of rivers & streams: 1,000
Miles of rivers & streams
impaired: 146
Acres of wetlands: 152,000
Number of counties: 6
(<0.5% Ramsey County)
Estimated Population (2010
Census): 176,000
Number of cities: 37
Number of townships: 23
Land Cover*
Forest/shrubland: 25%
Grassland/hay fields/pastures: 22%
Wetlands: 19%
Row crops: 17%
Developed/mining (roads, parking
lots, rooftops, mines and
quarries): 10%
Open water: 7%
(*Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis
Laboratory, University of Minnesota,
Landsat and Lidar, 2013)
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 24
A. Step One: Foundations for Working Together
The first step in the plan development journey was to lay the groundwork for working together. The critical
activity of setting shared priorities was preceded by an exercise with the Advisory Committee to first
determine the worst outcomes imaginable, design a process which would guarantee those outcomes, and
then flip those 180 degrees to realize the path to finding the best possible outcomes. “Guaranteed failure” was
noted by a long list of things done or left undone such as a lack of communication, no stakeholder
involvement, low meeting attendance, etc. At the end of the exercise, the committee agreed to a series of
beneficial attributes to adopt, including operating principals, considerations for prioritization, and ideal
methods for implementation. Common themes included transparency, communication, flexibility,
consideration of multiple benefits, use of stakeholder input, and development of a clear roadmap for
implementation. These themes served to inform the planning process and will continue to inform plan
implementation in the future.
Stakeholder
Input
Agency
Comments
Workshops Online Survey
Agricultural
Community
TMDLs,
WRAPS,
GRAPS
Local
Priorities
Interactive
Map
Issues in the Lower St. Croix Watershed
Figure 2-1. The Path to Identifying Priority Issues, Resources, and Desired Future Conditions
Resource Areas and Threatened Uses Desired Future Conditions +
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 25
B. Agency and Stakeholder Input
The development of this Plan included a robust program to gather watershed wide stakeholder input through
a variety of avenues and to augment stakeholder feedback collected by local entities during their own planning
processes over the last several years. Input collected by local entities in recent years fed into the local priorities
shared LSC Partners for development of this Plan. The LSC Partners intentionally chose to incorporate input
from previous stakeholder engagement processes to maximize efficiency and minimize duplication.
During the Lower St. Croix planning process, LSC Partners collected input from more than 730 stakeholders,
including 440 farmers and 160 community leaders at cities, townships and community organizations. This
represents a large amount of input from a broad cross section of stakeholders in a watershed with
approximately 176,000 people. (As a comparison, during the Minnesota Governor’s “25 by 25” Water Quality
Goal initiative in 2017, input was gathered from 2,000 people state-wide. This level of feedback was
considered a successful level of public participation.) (Minnesota EQB, 2017.)
AGENCY COMMENTS: At the outset of the process, a formal notification of the intent to prepare a watershed
plan was sent to state agencies, the Metropolitan Council, and the St. Croix Basin Team. The notification
included an invitation to submit priority issues and concerns that should be addressed in the Plan, and
established a 60-day comment period.
Minnesota state agencies including the Board of Water and Soil Resources, Department of Natural Resources,
Pollution Control Agency, Department of Health, and the Department of Agriculture along with the
Metropolitan Council submitted comments on priority issues and significant resources.
WORKSHOPS: Input from additional stakeholders and groups was sought through a series of engagement
events. Individual and various groups were invited including the general public, drainage authorities, federal
agencies, cities and townships, tribal governments, lake and river associations, the St. Croix Research Station,
the St. Croix River Association, citizen-based environmental groups, sporting organizations, and farm
organizations.
July 12, 2018 – Lake St. Croix Boat Tour & Workshop (from Hudson, WI)
August 27, 2018 – St. Croix River Boat Tour & Workshop (from St. Croix Falls, MN)
September 26, 2018 – Northern Area Workshop (North Branch, MN)
At these events, attendees were asked to share their thoughts on a variety of natural resources topics and to
provide insights on what’s working well in their area and efforts that are needed for additional progress. Topics
included surface and groundwater quality, aquatic invasive species, recreation, land use, and wildlife habitat.
SURVEY: In order to gather input from those not able to attend an event, an online survey was developed and
participation was encouraged through various communications including direct emails, newsletters,
newspaper articles, and social media. The survey was available September 1 – October 31, 2018 and resulted
in feedback from 86 participants.
AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY: As input was being gathered from different individuals and groups, it became
apparent that the agricultural community was not well represented in the feedback. Therefore, additional
mechanisms for engaging farmers were used. Input from the agricultural community was sought through in-
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 26
person and phone interviews, agricultural-specific surveys, and an Agricultural Input Session in Scandia, MN on
February 2, 2019.
Overall, the agency, stakeholder, and agricultural input was a valuable resource for the Advisory Committee.
While some input included broad statements about the need for various programs or regulations to help
improve or protect water and land resources in general, other comments were specific to certain resources. All
of the input was reviewed and summarized by the project consultants who ensured that common and
significant themes were incorporated into discussions and content considered and developed by the Advisory
Committee.
During workshops, interviews, and surveys, several key themes emerged.
• Stakeholders want to see locally led watershed management and collaboration across levels of
government and with the public.
• Most people view the St. Croix River as our highest priority regional water resource, but think that lakes
are very important as well.
• Stakeholders expressed a strong desire to protect existing high-quality natural resources, in addition to
restoring impaired rivers and lakes.
• Key concerns include runoff pollution (especially from agricultural areas), groundwater pollution, and
aquatic invasive species.
• There is a desire for more public education, as well as outreach and support to help farmers and local
communities implement conservation practices.
Table 2-1. Avenues of Stakeholder Input
Formal Notification Comments Stakeholder Input Events Agricultural Community Input Online Stakeholder Survey
• MN Board of Water
& Soil Resources
• MN Department of
Natural Sources
• MN Department of
Health
• MN Department of
Agriculture
• MN Pollution Control
Agency
• Metropolitan Council
• Lake St. Croix Boat Tour
- July 12, 2018
- 110 participants:
Metro Watershed
Partners members
• St. Croix River Boat Tour -
August 27, 2018
- 50 participants: LSC
Policy and Advisory
Cmte members, local
officials, individuals
• Northern Area Workshop
-September 26, 2018
- 40 participants: area
residents and local
officials
• 12 in-person and
phone interviews
• 387 surveys
completed out of
approximately
1,000 direct
requests, 38%
response rate
• Agricultural Input
Session -
February 2, 2019
- 45 participants
• Posted on 1W1P
website
• Link emailed to 150
lake association reps
• Link emailed to
numerous other
stakeholders in basin
• Link included in
Washington Co.
newsletter
• Link included in
articles in Stillwater
Gazette, Valley Life
edition
• Survey open Sept 1 -
Oct 31, 2018
• 86 responses
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 27
C. TMDLs, WRAPS, and GRAPS
The LSC Watershed has a wealth of studies on its groundwater and surface water resources including nine
Total Maximum Daily Load studies (TMDLs), four Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS),
and the Lower St. Croix Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategy (GRAPS). These documents were
used by the plan writers to help develop the Land and Water Resource Inventory (Appendix A) and to
understand the conditions in the watershed, the sources of pollution (issues) affecting various resources, and
goals and strategies that should be considered for inclusion in the Plan. These documents are well known to
resource managers with the participating local entities on the Advisory Committee. As such, Advisory
Committee members were asked to refer to these studies when identifying priority resources and concerns.
The Lake St. Croix Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load Study (MPCA, 2012) was used to identify subwatersheds
where implementation should be targeted to reduce total phosphorus in rivers and streams. Pollutant load
reduction goals from the TMDL were used to determine the percent of progress implementing this Plan will
make toward water quality goals for specific, high priority subwatersheds.
Similarly, the total phosphorus load reduction goals from various TMDLs for high priority lakes were used to
determine the percent of progress implementing his Plan will make towards meeting water quality goals in
those resources.
It should be noted that the TMDL studies in this basin were developed between 2010 and 2016 and that
progress on many TMDL goals has been ongoing in many of the lakes, streams, and rivers through existing
programs and projects.
D. Local Priorities and Concerns
Early in plan development, local priorities and concerns were gathered from four counties, five soil and water
conservation districts, two watershed management organizations, and four watershed districts through the
completion of the “Priority Concerns and Goals” table. These local governments provided information from
their existing local plans and from their general knowledge of issues, challenges, and significant natural
resources in their areas. The information was compiled into a large database and used to help develop a list of
issues that might be addressed in the Plan.
In order to determine gaps and commonalities among work areas of local entities, a table showing the content
areas of existing plans was also compiled. This table included information from comprehensive plans,
watershed management plans, and county water plans. Similar to the “Priority Concerns and Goals” table, this
information was used to determine common themes that carried through the rest of plan development.
Several themes emerged from the documents described above including:
Sensitive and relatively pristine natural areas including lakes, wetlands, uplands, and riparian areas exist
in the watershed and need protection.
Reducing non-point source pollution from agricultural areas is critical to improving conditions in local
water resources and the St. Croix River.
Standards and requirements are needed for development and redevelopment to reduce the impact on
natural resources, preferably the Minnesota Minimal Impact Design Standards.
Groundwater quality and quantity are critical issues to consider in the development of the Plan.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 28
E. Identifying Priority Issues and Resource Areas
Gaining an understanding of watershed conditions and natural resources throughout the basin was an
important step in the prioritization process. While individual resource managers intimately understand their
own resource challenges and opportunities, the groups needed to collectively understand which areas and
features were priorities for working collaboratively. Within the Advisory Committee, local entities discussed
their critical natural resource features in small groups at a meeting early in the process and presented the
information to the full committee. For the Policy Committee, current conditions were presented on two
different occasions by Jim Almendinger with the St. Croix Watershed Research Station.
To further provide geographic context to the discussions on watershed conditions and natural features, an
interactive map was developed for the watershed. (Visit https://maps.barr.com/LSCWD/1W1P/index.html to
select a variety of different options or landscape features to display in the watershed.)
Seven resource areas were identified using common themes from all input. These seven areas were used to
categorize and focus on different types of resources in need of protection and restoration. Threatened uses
were identified for each area to further focus discussions of issues. Table 2-2 provides a description of
relevance and threatened uses for the resource areas.
Table 2-2. Resource Areas, Description of Relevance, Threatened Uses
Resource
Areas Description of Relevance Threatened
Uses
Groundwater Groundwater is an important resource throughout the LSC Watershed.
It accounts for 100% of the region’s drinking water and many natural
resources rely on groundwater to supply base flows including
wetlands, trout streams, lakes, and some non-trout streams.
Contamination of groundwater from various pollution sources is a
growing concern as a large area of pollution sensitivity extends
through the middle portion of the watershed in Anoka, Isanti and
Chisago Counties, and much of Washington County is considered
sensitive to groundwater pollution. Further, groundwater consumption
is on the rise with a 50% increase in pumping for consumption since
1990.
• Drinking
water
• Irrigation
• Base flows
for habitat
and
recreation
Rivers and
Streams
There are over 1,000 miles of rivers, streams, and judicial ditches
draining through the LSC Watershed on their way to the St. Croix River
itself. Of the stream segments with enough monitoring data, 146 miles
are considered impaired for pollutants or stressors including bacteria,
low dissolved oxygen, pH, or significantly low numbers of key aquatic
species. Some streams run through deep ravines, offering cool
environments and harboring trout. Others drain through lake systems,
offering recreation and habitat, and the ability to keep water levels
stable. Many streams and ditches drain agricultural lands, helping to
support the cropping infrastructure while also providing critical and
sensitive habitats.
• Aesthetics
• Recreation
• Habitat
• Fishing
• Drainage
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 29
Lakes Lakes are significant water features throughout the watershed -
providing recreation, habitat, and natural beauty to the area. There
are 127 lakes in the LSC Watershed, covering over 40,000 acres.
Unfortunately, 52 of these lakes are considered impaired due to high
nutrient levels coming from sources such as stormwater runoff,
agricultural runoff, poor shoreline practices, failing septic systems, and
from within the lake itself. High levels of nutrients increase algal
growth, decrease water clarity, negatively impact recreation, and can
reduce habitat quality. Some lakes are experiencing pressures from
new development or redevelopment. Further, some of these lakes
have significant infestations of aquatic invasive species (AIS) which
impact habitats, recreation, and property values and which can be
easily spread to uninfested lakes.
• Aesthetics
• Recreation
• Habitat
• Fishing
• Property
values
Wetlands According to the National Wetland Inventory, there are over 152,000
acres of wetlands in the LSC Watershed providing a variety of functions
including habitat, flood control, filtration, recreation, wild rice
production, and natural beauty. Unfortunately, thousands of acres of
wetlands have been converted or drained for agriculture or developed
for urban and suburban uses. Continued fragmentation, disappearing
recharge areas, and invasive species are a few issues facing wetland
health.
• Habitat
• Flood control
• Filtration
• Aesthetics
• Recreation
• Wild rice
production
Upland
Habitats
Approximately 26% of the land in the LSC Watershed is covered by
forests, shrubland, and prairies. Many large tracts of forests and other
uplands are in public ownership including wildlife management areas,
scientific and natural areas, State parks, etc. Other significant uplands
are privately owned. Habitat loss and habitat degradation is a growing
concern as the region’s population expands.
• Habitat
• Aesthetics
• Recreation
• Filtration
St. Croix
River and
Lake St. Croix
There are 97 miles of shoreline along the St. Croix River, including Lake
St. Croix which comprises the lower 25 miles of the river from
Stillwater, MN to Prescott, WI. Combined, the St. Croix River and Lake
St. Croix are a regionally significant big river with a Wild and Scenic
River designation above Taylors Falls. Recreation, transportation,
habitat, and migratory flyway are among the more important uses of
the river.
• Flyway
• Recreation
• Habitat
• Economic
viability
Social
Capacity
With 37 cities, 23 townships, 6 counties and more than 150,000
residents in the LSC River Watershed, there is a challenge both in
understanding and being able to address all the barriers and
challenges facing improved natural resources in the area. Personal and
political responsibility for making better choices for the environment is
nothing new and will continue. However, the development and
implementation of this Plan offers an opportunity to work together on
the most difficult challenges with the goal of realizing significant
change over the life of the Plan.
• Ability to
address
issues
• Ability to
fund projects
• Relationships
• Political will
• Historic
knowledge
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 30
Review of all the information gathered led to a list of nearly 100 issues that could be addressed by the Plan.
This list of issues was prioritized by the Advisory Committee. Within the committee, there were discussions
about how local priorities fit into the Plan (especially for those entities that are adopting this Plan as their local
water plan). It was decided that regional priorities should be the focus, but that local priorities could be called
out separately to account for locally significant issues.
The Advisory Committee recognized that even if an issue is not considered a high priority for this Plan, it could
very well be addressed in projects or programs that have multiple benefits. For that reason, there was a desire
to keep all issues on the table throughout the planning process. In order to accommodate that desire, the
ranked issues were then separated into tiers A, B, and C in order to reflect their overall priority.
F. Consolidated Issues and Desired Future Conditions
While developing, prioritizing, and ranking the long list of issues was a good exercise (and one that was
revisited during development of the implementation plan and biennial work plans), the group decided to
consolidate the issues into broader topics for a more succinct and manageable list. After consensus among
Advisory Committee members, the consolidated issue statements were recommended to the Policy
Committee who discussed them and with some revisions, crafted final issue statements (Table 2-3).
With the issue statements set, desired future conditions (DFCs) were developed for each resource area as an
important pre-cursor to setting measurable goals. Determining desired future conditions is a way to discover
shared values and to envision the attributes the group will strive to attain, regardless of time frame. The
desired future conditions set the direction for planning and future management, and are reflective of
stakeholder interests.
Through another iterative process of the Advisory Committee developing recommended DFCs, and the Policy
Committee discussing and refining them, the final DFCs were set (Table 2-3).
A
Issues in Tier A are those issues which must be addressed in the LSC 1W1P
B
Issues in Tier B are considered important to pursue as secondary priorities
C
Issues in Tier C will be addressed primarily through multiple benefits, or as funding and time allow
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 31
Table 2-3. Desired Future Conditions (DFC) (in italics) and Issues Statements for Each Resource Area
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater quality and quantity in the Lower St. Croix Watershed is managed to ensure sufficient supplies
of clean water for human uses and natural ecosystems. Sufficient data are available about groundwater and
groundwater-surface water interactions.
1. Groundwater quality is impacted by land use and contamination
2. Groundwater quantity is impacted by consumption and reduced recharge areas
3. Data are lacking to fully understand groundwater resources
LAKES
Lakes in the Lower St. Croix Watershed function as healthy, biodiverse ecosystems with good water quality
and they sustainably support our economic and recreational needs. There is baseline data on all lakes.
1. Lake water quality is degraded, threatened, or in need of protection
2. Lake ecosystems are degraded or threatened by land use, invasive species, climate change, and
high impact recreation
3. Variable lake levels impact shoreland and homes
4. Data are lacking to fully understand lake conditions, threats, and trends
RIVERS & STREAMS
Rivers and streams in the Lower St. Croix Watershed function as healthy, biodiverse ecosystems with good
water quality and natural hydrology, and they sustainably support economic and recreational needs.
There is baseline data on all rivers and streams.
1. River and stream quality is impacted by land use, contamination, and climate change
2. River and stream ecosystems are degraded by land use, invasive species, and climate change
3. Altered hydrology and changes in precipitation impact rivers and streams
WETLANDS
The Lower St. Croix Watershed has expanded, healthy, and thriving wetland ecosystems
that enhance water quality, storage, habitat, and recharge.
1. Wetland quality is impacted by land use and invasive species
2. Wetland quantity is impacted by land use pressure, climate change, loss of groundwater recharge,
and lack of restoration efforts
3. Data are lacking to fully understand wetland resources
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 32
UPLAND HABITAT
The Lower St. Croix Watershed has well-connected native upland habitat corridors
that provide increased quality habitat acreage.
1. Loss of habitat due to land use changes threatens overall ecological health
2. Maintaining habitat with ongoing pressures from land use changes requires restoration and
new habitat creation
4. Existing habitat is at risk of degradation
ST. CROIX RIVER & LAKE ST. CROIX
The St. Croix River and its watersheds are healthy, cherished, and protected by law and by choice.
(St. Croix Basin Water Resources Planning Team Strategic Plan, 2017)
1. Water quality in the St. Croix River and in Lake St. Croix is degraded or threatened by land use
2. Ecosystems and endangered species are degraded or threatened by invasive species, shoreland
practices, development, climate change, and recreation
3. Extreme fluctuations in St. Croix River levels impact shoreland, vegetation, sediment load to Lake St.
Croix, endangered species, commerce, and recreation
4. Monitoring, modeling, and assessment data are needed to target implementation activities and track
changes in water quality and biota
SOCIAL CAPACITY
Residents and visitors of the Lower St. Croix Watershed are ecologically literate.
They understand how they connect with, depend on, and impact their natural resources.
Their decisions and actions protect and restore those resources.
1. Public support, political will, local capacity, engagement, and action are needed to protect and
restore natural resources
2. Distributed and overlapping jurisdictions can be challenging and will require collaboration and
stakeholder engagement
3. The scale of effort needed to protect and restore natural resources is economically difficult
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 33
III. Establishment of Measurable Goals,
Outputs, and Priority Locations
A. Goals
Establishing goals to address each of the issues facing the
resource areas was completed through a series of
conversations, one for each resource area, among Advisory
Committee members over several meetings. Although goals in
this Plan are generally broad, work will be focused on making
progress toward the goals with specific progress measured
through accomplishing the outputs directly related to each
goal and issue (Table 3-1.)
B. Outputs
Measurable outputs address resource issues with more specific and quantifiable outcomes and will be realized
in priority locations across the watershed through specific actions, programs, and projects. Measurable
outputs include quantifiable implementation and change as measured in a variety of ways including outcomes
such as pollution reductions; number of irrigation systems or sewage treatment systems upgraded; number of
communities with ordinances related to development, ditch maintenance, and wetland protections; acres of
wetlands created or restored; acres of critical habitat protected; etc. Measurable outputs were developed
through discussions among Advisory Committee members related to gaps in restoration and protection
activities across the watershed or the need to increase or strengthen existing programs.
C. Priority Locations
Priority locations were selected as those specific resources considered to be regionally significant, or types of
resources or areas where work is needed most in order to realize change and “move the needle” toward
improved or protected water resources. Sometimes the priority location could not be a specific area or
resource, and instead is listed as “watershed wide” meaning the activity is slated to happen throughout the
watershed. As in other areas of the Plan’s development, priority locations were determined for each
measurable output largely through conversations among Advisory Committee members and through an
iterative process of identifying and focusing on locations most in need of restoration and protection.
Table 3-1 includes the goals developed to address each issue. Measurable outputs and priority locations are
shown in Table 5-1. Both Tables 3-1 and 5-1 include a column to cross reference the other table.
Although “social capacity” was identified as a resource area with a set of specific issues, it was determined that
addressing the social capacity issues and advancement of the Desired Future Condition will be realized through
implementation of actions across all resource areas. Therefore, specific goals and measurable outputs related
to social capacity were not developed. Engaging and educating residents, local governments, and other
stakeholders in resource protection and restoration is an important component of implementing each of the
actions slated for the other resource areas. Section IV.B. further describes the need and processes for building
social capacity.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 34
Table 3-1. Issues and Goals by Resource Area with Reference to Related Outputs and Priority Locations
Groundwater (GW)
Issue Goal Related Outputs &
Priority Locations, Table
5-1
1. Groundwater quality is impacted
by land use and contamination
1A. Increase agricultural best management
practices that improve soil health and reduce
groundwater pollution
1
1B. Reduce contamination from subsurface
sewage treatment systems, household hazardous
waste, pesticide use, leaky underground tanks,
closed landfills, abandoned wells, etc.
8, 10, 18, 19
2. Groundwater quantity is impacted
by consumption and reduced
recharge areas
2A. Reduce or maintain groundwater
consumption despite continued growth
4
2B. Increase infiltration and recharge in rural and
urban areas
11, 12, 17
3. Data are lacking to fully
understand groundwater resources
3A. Gather data needed to understand
groundwater resources
44, 45, 46, 47
Rivers & Streams (R&S)
Issue Goal Related Outputs &
Priority Locations,
Table 5-1
1. River and stream quality is
impacted by land use,
contamination, and climate
change
1A. Improve water quality in key rivers and streams with
human contact and significant pollutant loading to St. Croix
River and Lake St. Croix.
2, 14
1B. Maintain naturally reproducing trout populations. 26
1C. Prevent degradation of water resources due to
improper ditch maintenance through legal framework.
7
2. River and stream ecosystems
are degraded by land use,
invasive species, and climate
change
2A. Protect and improve in-stream and riparian
ecosystems and biota.
25, 39
2B. Prevent the dispersion, promote/support the
containment, control, and eradication of invasive species
31, 32
3. Altered hydrology and changes
in precipitation impact rivers
and streams
3A. Manage basin to mimic natural hydrologic conditions
and adapt to future conditions
5, 25
Lakes (LK)
Issue Goal Related Outputs &
Priority Locations,
Table 5-1
1. Lake water quality is
degraded, threatened, or in
need of protection
1A. Improve or protect water quality of lakes in agricultural
areas toward a level achieving total maximum daily loads
(TMDL), watershed restoration and protection strategies
(WRAPS), and Lake Management Plan total phosphorus
goals
3
1B. Improve or protect water quality of lakes in urban or
developing areas toward a level achieving total maximum
daily loads (TMDL), watershed restoration and protection
strategies (WRAPS), or Lake Management Plan goals
11, 15
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 35
1C. Address non-compliant subsurface sewage treatment
systems that pose a threat to lakes
9, 20
1D. Address internal loading in impaired lakes 36, 48
2. Lake ecosystems are
degraded or threatened by
land use, invasive species,
climate change, and high
impact recreation
2A. Protect sensitive lakes 24
2B. Improve shorelines to protect and improve habitat and
water quality
21
2C. Prevent the dispersion, promote/support the
containment, control, and eradication of invasive species
30 - 33
3. Variable lake levels impact
shoreland and homes
3A. Minimize damage to shoreland property caused by
high water
35
4. Data are lacking to fully
understand lake conditions,
threats, and trends
4A. Gather data needed to understand lake conditions and
threats
49, 50, 51, 52, 53
Wetlands (WTL)
Issue Goal Related Outputs &
Priority Locations,
Table 5-1
1. Wetland quality is impacted
by land use and invasive
species
1A. Protect high quality wetlands by maintaining wetland
functions and values
22
1B. Protect wetlands from drainage 6
1C. Limit the spread of invasive phragmites (Common Reed) 34
2. Wetland quantity is impacted
by land use pressure, climate
change, loss of groundwater
recharge, and lack of
restoration efforts
2A. Ensure no net loss of wetlands within basin 28
2B. Increase wetland acreage in basin through creation and
restoration
27, 29
3. Data are lacking to fully
understand wetland resources
3A. Gather data on wetlands in developed or developing
areas
65
3B. Complete wetland inventories 65, 66
3C. Identify high quality wetlands for protection. 65
3D. Identify degraded wetlands 61, 62
3E. Gather additional data needed for wetland inventories
or evaluations
60, 63
Upland Habitat (UP)
Issue Goal Related Outputs &
Priority Locations,
Table 5-1
1. Loss of habitat due to land use
changes threatens overall
ecological health; Existing
habitat is at risk of degradation
1A. Protect upland and existing riparian habitat from
degradation by enforcing ordinances or higher standards.
37,58
1B. Protect and restore high quality native plant
communities that support Species of Greatest
Conservation Need
39
1C. Identify, protect, and restore upland habitat that is
degraded to expand corridors, connect critical habitat
areas and promote resiliency.
40
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 36
1D. Manage climate adaptation through protection and
creation of a resilient and diverse landscape
38
1E. Eradicate and manage invasive species populations 59
1F. Maintain and restore quality habitat as land develops 23
2. Maintaining habitat with
ongoing pressures from
existing land use and land use
changes requires restoration
and new habitat creation
2A. Implement lakeshore/upland restorations on eroded
slopes.
21, 57
2B. Expand Private forest management plans to protect
forested habitat
42
2C. Provide public and private landowners with tools and
resources needed to manage existing habitat, improve
species diversity, and protect against invasive species,
erosion, and overuse.
41
St. Croix River & Lake St. Croix (STC)
Issue Goal Related Outputs &
Priority Locations in
Table 5-1
1. Water quality in the St. Croix
River and in Lake St. Croix is
degraded or threatened by
land use
1A. Track progress towards achieving 27% of phosphorus
loading reduction from the Lower St. Croix contribution to
Lake St. Croix, consistent with the total maximum daily
load (TMDL) by 2030
43
1B. Maintain an improving trend for total phosphorus and
total suspended solids in the St. Croix River
2, 14
1C. Improve or stabilize the concentration trends in the St.
Croix River for nitrates
2
1D. Improve or stabilize the concentration trends in the St.
Croix River for chlorides
16
2. Ecosystems and endangered
species are degraded or
threatened by aquatic invasive
species, climate change, and
recreation
2A. Prevent the dispersion, promote/support the
containment, control, and eradicate invasive species in the
St. Croix River.
30 - 32
2B. Increase or maintain habitat within the St. Croix River
for species on federal & state Endangered, Threatened,
and Special Concern Species List
50, 58
3. Extreme fluctuations in St.
Croix River levels impact
shoreland, vegetation,
sediment load to Lake St. Croix,
endangered species,
commerce, and recreation
3A. Maintain the natural hydrologic regime to the flow of
the St. Croix River and limit impacts to the floodplain.
13, 56
4. Monitoring, modeling, and
assessment data are needed to
target implementation
activities and track changes in
water quality and biota
4A. Monitoring is completed to evaluate the condition
of resources, target implementation and calibration of
models, and evaluate our progress towards goals.
55
4B. Identify optimal locations for project placement
and prioritization.
54, 57
4C. Support research efforts to expand our
understanding of natural and built environments that
affect the St. Croix River and tributaries.
50, 55, 58
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 37
IV. Implementation Programs
A. Areas of Work
In order to achieve the many goals in the Lower St.
Croix Comprehensive Plan, the implementation
actions are broken out across a series of programs.
Three of the implementation programs relate to
dominant land uses (agricultural lands, developed and developing lands, and ecosystem services), while the
fourth refers to the background information, assessments, and ongoing data collection that is needed to
further target and prioritize individual projects and to track progress toward achieving the goals. Further, the
Implementation Table’s structure helps display the intent that most activities in this Plan could have multiple
benefits by addressing more than one issue per action.
Types of implementation activities are listed below. The full Implementation Table (Table 5-1) is found in
Section V.
Implementation of Projects and Programs
Actions such as technical assistance, cost share programs, funded best management practices,
and other efforts which directly result in the implementation of physical projects
Shared Services and Staff Capacity
Actions that add to existing staff capacity, whether through shared services, training, or
partnerships
Education, Engagement, and Social Capacity
Actions that increase public awareness and understanding of resource LSC 1W1P goals and
issues, as well as their voluntary participation in efforts to reach those goals
Ordinances, Regulation, and Policy
Actions referencing existing or new regulations or policies
Data Collection, Analyses, and Planning
Actions which include evaluation of sites, collection of data, development of plans, and
monitoring
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 38
i. Agricultural Lands
There is a high value placed on the rural character of the watershed, and strong
recognition that farming and the health and availability of water resources are
connected. Partnering with farmers and rural landowners to protect groundwater
and surface water resources is essential to meeting plan goals and ensuring that
efforts create a durable impact.
The Lower St. Croix Partnership will support farmers in adopting practices that
reduce surface and drinking water pollution, reduce the demand on drinking
water supply, address impacts from ditching and ditch maintenance, and bring
septic systems into compliance to protect private wells and shared water
resources. This work will be accomplished through a combination of continuing
to implement existing programs, and increasing capacity to expand programs,
technical assistance, and financial assistance.
One particularly important action includes hiring or contracting with an
agricultural conservationist and agronomist. Voluntary agricultural conservation
is significantly more effective with outreach to individual agricultural producers.
This activity takes time and expertise. An agricultural conservationist and
agronomist would provide that personal outreach, technical assistance, and
agronomic advice. It should be noted that agronomy includes the application of
science and technology from the fields of biology, chemistry, economics, ecology,
soil science, water science, pest management and genetics to improve and
manage crops and cropping methods.
Specific high priority and secondary priority actions that will be accomplished in
agricultural areas include:
Shared Services: Hire or contract with agricultural conservationist and
agronomist for basin wide assistance with agronomy, outreach, and technical
assistance to agricultural producers including conservation planning and nutrient
management plans.
Provide cost share for installing or implementing agricultural best management
practices, both structural and non-structural (e.g. soil health BMPs, feedlot
improvements, buffers, swales, etc.). Projects to be chosen targeting and
prioritization process described in Section VII.B.
Develop and implement plan for management and maintenance of ditch system including a system and protocol
for establishing BMPs within easement right of ways of existing public ditches.
Provide education to landowners and cost share to upgrade non-conforming and non-compliant SSTS and to seal
abandoned wells. Promote testing of private wells, provide test kits, host well testing clinics/screenings, promote
best practices to private well owners.
Improved soil
health is one area
of agricultural
conservation that
both farmers and
other land
managers are
realizing may be a
critical issue. Soil
health practices,
such as reduced
tillage and cover
crops, have the
potential to
improve agricultural
profitability while
also protecting
water resources by
increasing the
water holding
capacity of soil and
reducing the
transport of
pollutants to
streams and lakes.
Soil health
improvement
projects are one
example of a
practice that may
be implemented
through this Plan.
SOIL HEALTH
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 39
ii. Developed and Developing Lands
The Lower St. Croix watershed is home to thriving urban communities, and there continues to be a trend of
increasing urbanization and population growth. As this development has potential to add to existing pressures
on surface and groundwater resources, the Lower St. Croix Partnership will support and promote sustainable
development, green infrastructure, and retrofitting in existing developments to increase infiltration, reduce
polluted runoff, stabilize shorelines and streambanks, improve habitat, increase resiliency, and address non-
conforming and non-compliant SSTS. This work will be accomplished through a combination of continuing to
implement existing programs, and increasing capacity to expand programs, technical assistance, and financial
assistance.
Specific high priority and secondary priority actions that will be accomplished in developed and developing
areas include:
Shared Service: Provide outreach, education and ordinance development on Minimal Impact Design
Standards with local governments, developers, and others.
Provide cost share for and actively promote installing, implementing, or retrofitting best management
practices and green infrastructure on developed or developing lands. Projects to be chosen through
targeting and prioritization process (Section VII.B.).
Shared Services Educator: Facilitate shared education and outreach program across basin to provide
education; engage residents, businesses, and local officials; and promote and market programs and
practices
Identify non-conforming/non-compliant SSTS and provide education and cost share to homeowners to
upgrade non-conforming and non-compliant SSTS
Provide outreach and education to lake associations and lake groups or shoreline owners to promote
shoreline restoration projects. Provide cost share for shoreline habitat improvement projects
Work with landowners and local governments to update ordinances, and promote and coordinate land
acquisition, conservation easements, land protection, and wetland buffer zoning when land is developing
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 40
iii. Ecosystem Services
The forests, prairies, wetlands, and aquatic habitat within the Lower St. Croix watershed are diverse and home
to a variety of plant and wildlife species, including a number of endangered or threatened species or otherwise
of special concern. The Lower St. Croix Partnership will work to restore and protect impacted, sensitive, and
high-quality land and water resources including streams and their corridors, lakes and their riparian areas,
wetlands, critical uplands, and the St. Croix River itself. This work will be accomplished through existing
programs and new collaborations to address water storage needs across the landscape, the threat of aquatic
invasive species, and the degradation or needed protection of various aquatic and upland habitats.
Specific high priority and secondary priority actions that will be accomplished with regards to ecosystem
services include:
Perform one large stream restoration project including bank stabilization, in-channel work or improving
floodplain connectivity once every two years. Determine sediment reduction per project during feasibility
and design.
Perform culvert inventory: redesign and restore as road projects are completed to help manage to natural
hydrologic conditions.
In watersheds of trout streams promote infiltration and reduce impervious surfaces.
Identify wetland restoration opportunities and work with landowners (including institutions and public
entities) to create or restore wetlands (including improvement of functions and values) and develop
wetland banks.
Perform alum treatment, carp management, or other methods identified in feasibility studies to reduce
internal loading.
Work with LGUs to set shoreline "view corridors" to 25% of lot width or maximum 35' width and maximum
vegetation clearing standards or adopt innovative shoreland standards to protect buffers, native
ecosystems, and habitat corridors.
Promote and provide technical assistance to develop and implement Landscape Stewardship Plans (using
Landscape Stewardship Planning Model) and Private Forest Management Plans (or Woodland Stewardship
Plans). Coordinate or assist with negotiations, grant applications, and project management for conservation
easements and acquisitions.
Provide cost share to landowners for land restoration or easement establishment or local matching funds
for acquisition grant programs
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 41
iv. Prioritization and Analysis, Existing Monitoring
While there is a substantial amount of data available in parts of the watershed - datasets, maps, surveys and
models are not fully available everywhere. Existing subwatershed analysis and two large gully inventory efforts
are shown in Figure 7-1. In many areas, analysis is lacking and/or additional data is needed to help LSC Partners
make informed management decisions and target and prioritize projects at a finer scale. This will involve
locating areas of concern and priority sites for implementation, evaluating progress toward improved water
quality, and reducing data gaps. The data collected will also be used to help assess progress toward meeting
measurable outcomes and goals, and will help in the development of biennial work plans and possible future
plan amendments.
There are 23 different actions proposed in the Implementation Table 5-1 Part D: Prioritization and Analysis.
Much of this work is considered a local priority or is not eligible for Watershed Based Implementation Funds.
Collaboration with other entities and use of additional funding sources will be needed to accomplish most of
the actions. The highest priority activity in the “Prioritization and Analysis” program area is to conduct analyses
to identify and prioritize water quality improvement projects within a priority subwatershed. The methods and
types of analyses may vary depending on the available data, the ability to collect additional data, modeling
capabilities, staff capacity, etc. Types of analyses can include site or field scale subwatershed analyses,
diagnostic monitoring, spatial analysis and mapping, modeling, cost benefit analyses, or other data-driven
targeting activities.
Other data gathering, monitoring and analysis laid out in the Prioritization and Analysis section will also be
important to determine where various implementation is needed including mapping landcover and
groundwater recharge areas for the entire watershed, identifying sources and locations of groundwater
contamination, and completing the Pine County soil survey.
Additional water monitoring activities and coordination are proposed in key streams and rivers in the
watershed in order to 1) track progress toward meeting the Lake St. Croix nutrient TMDL; 2) better understand
current conditions; and 3) track progress toward the pollutant reduction goals in this Plan. The expansion of
monitoring programs will include coordination and collaboration with the St. Croix Watershed Research
Station whenever possible.
Existing water monitoring programs carried out by LSC Partners, agencies, and others in the watershed vary
widely in their scope depending on the location, available funding, staffing levels, specific study needs, etc.
These programs are expected to continue during the life of this Plan. Data gathered through these programs
will be utilized when appropriate to assess progress on the measurable outputs and goals of this Plan. Water
monitoring reports and program descriptions are available on LSC Partners’ websites and agency websites. In
particular, several reports and information on the status of waters in the watershed can be found on the
MPCA’s Lower St. Croix River Watershed webpage: www.pca.state.mn.us/water/watersheds/lower-st-croix-
river. Data on specific waterbodies can be found on the MPCA’s Water Quality Data webpage:
www.pca.state.mn.us/water/water-quality-data.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 42
B. Building Social Capacity
The Lower St. Croix Partnership understands that much of the work needed to accomplish its natural resource
goals results from voluntary implementation of best practices by landowners, businesses, local governments,
and institutions. Further, there is a need for collaboration among not only the entities implementing the Plan,
but other groups with similar goals of natural resource protection and restoration, research, and civic
engagement.
There is a constant and strong need to continually engage and educate the groups and individuals in various
sectors to 1) build a common understanding of the current conditions of natural resources; 2) develop
consensus on desired future conditions of natural resources; 3) understand the science and impact of practices
that may be harming natural resources vs. best practices aimed at improving natural resources; and 4) build
and maintain relationships and partnerships to collaboratively realize shared goals.
As stated in Section II.F., the desired future condition of social capacity in the watershed is one where
“residents and visitors of the Lower St. Croix Watershed are ecologically literate; they understand how they
connect with, depend on, and impact their natural resources; their decisions and actions protect and restore
those resources.”
Issues facing the improvement of social capacity were identified early in the Plan development process and
include:
• Public support, political will, local capacity, engagement, and action are needed to protect and restore natural
resources
• Distributed and overlapping jurisdictions can be challenging and will require collaboration and stakeholder
engagement
• The scale of effort needed to protect and restore natural resources is economically difficult
There are several aspects to building social capacity including educating and engaging with the groups and
individuals needed to voluntarily implement best practices. The Implementation Plan (Table 5-1) includes
actions that will build on the already successful East Metro Water Resources Education Program by expanding
that program model beyond Washington County through “shared services.” Additional social capacity actions
include working with lake groups and lake residents on preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species and
installing shoreline protection projects; recruiting and training volunteers to perform wetland and water
monitoring through citizen science programs; educating homeowners about septic system and private well
maintenance and compliance; and assisting landowners with understanding the benefits of land conservation,
preservation, and restoration options and practices.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 43
The Lower St. Croix Partnership recognizes that building social capacity is more than just outreach and
education. In their article “A Multilevel Community Capacity Model for Sustainable Watershed Management”
Mae Davenport and Erin Seekamp (2013), “examine the concept of community capacity and describe a
theoretical model for understanding, assessing, and building community capacity for water resource
protection, restoration, and enhancement.” The model (Figure 4-1) is useful for understanding how individual
actions, relationships, structures and policies are a crucial component in successful natural resources
management.
Figure 4-1 Community Capacity
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 44
C. Shared Services
Perhaps one of the most important and impactful features
of the Lower St. Croix Partnership is the decision to share
services across the watershed. From the beginning of their
time working together, it was apparent that local capacity
for implementing conservation varied widely across the
watershed with significantly more staff capacity in
Washington County organizations compared to
organizations in the northern counties of Chisago, Anoka,
Isanti, and Pine. This variation stems directly from the
variation in tax capacity of the entities and the lack of
taxing authority of soil and water conservation districts
(SWCDs).
The Lower St. Croix Partnership intends to share services
for three specific areas of work:
i. Agricultural Lands
The LSC Partnership will hire or contract with an
agricultural conservationist for basin wide assistance with
agronomy, outreach, and technical assistance to
agricultural producers including conservation planning and
the development of nutrient management plans. This work
will include the application of science and technology from
the fields of biology, chemistry, economics, ecology, soil
science, water science, pest management and genetics to
improve and manage crops and cropping methods and to
improve soil health, pollutant reductions, and land
conservation. This work may also be completed by or
augmented by staff with the University of Minnesota-
Extension.
In 2018, a Lower St. Croix Watershed Conservation Planner
position was created with a grant from the Minnesota
Board of Water and Soil Resources with additional
contributions from the federal Natural Resource
Conservation Service and is funded through 2021. This
position is working mainly with agricultural landowners to
develop and implement comprehensive natural resources
management plans and promote and facilitate the
implementation of agricultural best management practices.
The work of the agricultural conservationist planned as a
“shared service” in this Plan is intended to be based off the
grant-funded position (see draft position description in
sidebar).
Lower St. Croix Agriculture Conservationist
(Draft Position Description)
The main responsibility of this position will be
working one-on-one with agricultural
landowners in developing and implementing
comprehensive natural resource management
plans and installing best management practices
(BMPs) to conserve natural resources within
the Lower St. Croix River watershed.
Primary Responsibilities
• Prioritizes data from completed resource
inventories and assessments to promote
and implement best management
practices (BMPs)
• Incorporates economic data into
assessments and management plans to
determine most cost-effective practices
and impacts on production
• Develops comprehensive natural resource
management plans with agricultural
landowners
• Relays information on federal, state and
local cost share and incentive programs to
landowners
• Develops and implements outreach in
close collaboration with partner SWCDs to
ensure seamless implementation of
technical assistance and cost share
delivery
• Advises and understands the installation
and maintenance of conservation BMPs
• Understands and promotes precision
agriculture, GIS tools, and technology in
developing innovative solutions to the
complex issues associated with natural
resources management, including nutrient
management
• Performs technical work according to the
NRCS Field Office Technical Guide,
independently with minimal supervision
• Works with units of government and
private industry for planning purposes in
land use and conservation of natural
resources
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 45
ii. Developed and Developing Lands
The LSC Partnership will hire or use consultants to provide outreach, education and ordinance development on
Minimal Impact Design Standards with local governments, developers, and others. This shared service is slated
for implementation years 4 through 8, allowing time for local staff to make connections and lay the
groundwork with various governments and jurisdictions including townships, cities, the development
community, and other stakeholders.
iii. Education and Outreach
The vast majority of the implementation of this Plan and the resource impacts it seeks will be accomplished
through voluntary actions by landowners. The importance of engaging and educating various stakeholders
cannot be overstated, and there is a direct correlation between the amount of education provided to a group
of stakeholders and the implementation of projects and practices. The Partnership will hire or contract with an
education and outreach program coordinator who will work throughout the watershed to provide education;
engage residents, businesses, and local officials; and promote and market conservation programs and
practices. This position will be modeled after (or may be direct expansion of) the East Metro Water Resources
Education Program (EMWREP) housed at the Washington Conservation District and the newer Anoka County
Water Resources Outreach Collaborative. This work of this position will span several goals and implementation
actions in this Plan including lake shoreline restoration projects, education on aquatic invasive species, SSTS
and irrigation upgrade opportunities, land protection options, etc.
Currently, EMWREP is a partnership of 24 local units of government that works to “educate community
residents, businesses, staff and decision-makers about issues affecting local lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands
and groundwater resources and to engage people in projects to protect and improve the health of these water
resources.” This comprehensive education program uses a wide range of communication avenues and
outreach events to reach a variety of stakeholders. Events like workshops, hikes, tours, and nature outings
complement EMWREP’s written materials like flyers, brochures, and newsletter and newspaper articles.
EMWREP staff also locally coordinate broader initiatives such as the Adopt-a-Drain Program, the Master Water
Stewards Program, and the MS4 Toolkit.
All of the entities in the Lower St. Croix Partnership would benefit from programing modeled on EMWREP to
build on its successes and avoid “recreating the wheel” in other areas.
D. Incentive Programs
Much of the progress toward the natural resources improvements laid out in this Plan will rely on voluntary
implementation and installation of best management practices (BMPs) and projects by landowners. This work
will often depend on programs aimed at incentivizing landowners to make changes to their land or operations,
or to go “above and beyond” existing requirements in reducing pollutants during development or
redevelopment. Upgrading subsurface sewage treatment systems, installing residential raingardens, and
restoring shorelines or native prairies are more examples of practices commonly incentivized through local
programs.
A variety of incentive programs are used by the counties, soil and water conservation districts, and watershed
organizations across the LSC Watershed. Often these programs offer to share in the cost of a project with the
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 46
landowner, developer, or municipality (i.e., cost share program or grant program). Sometimes the program
offers technical assistance as the primary incentive to install the practice, or they use a combination of
technical and financial assistance.
Each organization’s incentive programs are different and specific information can be found on individual
websites. The BMPs implemented through this Plan and using Watershed Based Implementation Funds
(WBIFs) will be chosen through a prioritization and scoring process to target projects where they will provide
the best benefit for the resource at the lowest cost to the taxpayers (Section VII.B.). WBIFs may be used for the
targeted projects in conjunction with other financial or technical assistance from local, state, or federal
sources. (See VI. for more information on funding sources and Watershed Based Implementation Funds.)
Additionally, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) uses cost share programs to protect water quality, improve wildlife habitat, and conserve soil
resources. Cost share funding from these programs are often used to leverage funds or technical assistance
from local partners. NRCS programs include:
• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) - Provides annual payments for converting highly erodible cropland
and marginal pasture into conservation habitat areas with 15-year easements; includes the Continuous
Conservation Reserve Program
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) – Provides cost share for agricultural lands for
conservation improvements
• Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) - Provides an incentive payment to landowners for their
existing conservation efforts while encouraging landowners to improve their conservation performance
by installing and adopting additional activities, and improving, maintaining, and managing existing
activities on their land
E. Operation and Maintenance
The correct operation and regular maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) are crucial activities to
ensure the proper function and expected water quality benefit of each BMP. The entity responsible for
operation and maintenance varies depending on the incentive program or other implementation program
used. LSC Partners have similar requirements for operation and maintenance by private landowners that are
included in the cost share contract. Similarly, all projects that use funding from the Natural Resource
Conservation Service have specific operations and maintenance requirements that are included in a contract
with landowners.
The Washington Conservation District (WCD) has agreements with Washington County, cities, watershed
management organizations, and other partners to perform inspections and maintenance on over 100 surficial
BMPs on public lands or Right of Way. The work involves routine maintenance such as pre-treatment clean
out, vegetative maintenance (controlling invasive species and noxious weeds), supplemental planting, removal
of debris, and minor repairs.
As the number of BMPs on public land increases in other LSC counties, an inspection and maintenance
program similar to WCD’s might be considered to help ensure proper function and long-term benefit.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 47
F. Extreme Weather and Water Storage Goals
According to the Minnesota State Climatology Office, two main themes dominated the last decade's big
weather stories: aggressive precipitation increases, and winter swinging wildly between historically warm, very
cold, and very snowy. The 2010’s were marked with the 1st, 2nd, and 5th warmest years; the 7th coldest
extended winter on record; several significant late-winter snowfalls; and multiple precipitation records,
culminating in the wettest period on record in Minnesota (MnDNR 2019). Extreme weather events and record-
breaking occurrences impact lakes, streams, and groundwater through increased runoff, high water levels,
eroding streambanks, warming water temperature, stressed vegetation, changes to lake ice cover, and more
frequent freeze/thaw events. According to the Minnesota State Climatologist, a changing climate is resulting in
an increase in the extreme rainfall events including a 20% increase in the number of one-inch rains, and 65%
increase in the number of three-inch rainfall events.
Climate change is an issue specifically identified in this Plan due to its impact on all resource areas including
lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands, uplands, and the St. Croix River. Goals to address the impacts of climate
change are often incorporated with goals addressing other issues and stressors as whole system
improvements. Some goals more specific to climate resiliency and climate change impacts include:
• Manage basin to mimic natural hydrologic conditions and adapt to future conditions
• Minimize damage to shoreland property caused by high water
• Gather data needed to understand lake conditions and threats
• Manage climate adaptation through protection and creation of a resilient and diverse landscape
With additional precipitation comes the need to store more water on the land in order to reduce flooding, and
protect the watershed’s hydrology, natural resources, structures, and infrastructures. In October 2019,
MnDNR staff completed a water storage analysis of the Lower St. Croix River Watershed in order to identify
water storage needs (Appendix B). The analysis used three sets of data including 1) the historic discharge
record for the Saint Croix River at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gaging station at St. Croix
Falls, WI; 2) watershed averaged precipitation data going back to the late 19th century; and 3) Soil and Water
Assessment Tool (SWAT) model output runs characterizing sub-watershed runoff volumes from 1998 to 2007
obtained from the St. Croix Research Station.
The water storage analysis calculated storage needs based on two different time periods. One was based on
precipitation records from 1941 to 2018. The second was based on a projected precipitation from 2018 to
2050. When considering all subwatersheds combined, the 1941 to 2018 water storage goal would equal 2.3
inches over the entire watershed or 113,800 acre-feet of storage while the 2018 to 2050 water storage goal
would equal 0.48 inches over the entire watershed or a total of 23,600 acre-feet of storage.
For purposes of this 10-year Plan, 0.16 inches or 7,900 acre-feet across the entire watershed was chosen as the
most appropriate water storage goal as it best accommodates storage needs well into the future given
modeled precipitation forecasts. Water storage capacity in the watershed will be added and improved through
a variety of practices and projects including improving soil health, restoring and creating wetlands, infiltrating
stormwater runoff, restoring and creating buffers and uplands, etc.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 48
G. Regulation and Enforcement
The enforcement of existing regulations and new regulations resulting from this Plan’s implementation is
critical to the success improvement and protection of water resources. In many areas and locations, water-
related regulations are already in place to address many of the area’s priority concerns. This section describes
existing regulations, controls, and authorities relevant to water management in the Lower St. Croix River
Watershed and provides a brief overview of how this Plan’s implementation may strengthen existing
regulations or form new regulations. Consistent application of regulations and efficient coordination among
organizations is key to maximizing the effectiveness of programs. There are 60 municipalities and townships
located completely or partially within the boundaries of the watershed. There are six counties and associated
soil and water conservation districts within the watershed. Additionally, there are seven watershed
organizations including Sunrise River Watershed Management Organization, Comfort Lake-Forest Lake
Watershed District, Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District, Brown’s Creek Watershed District, Middle
St. Croix Watershed Management Organization, Valley Branch Watershed District, and South Washington
Watershed District (Figure 1-1). All of these government units have some form of regulation impacting water
resources. In some cases, local governments are enforcing State standards and rules, and/or cooperating with
State and regional agencies to enforce regulations.
i. Watershed District Regulation
There are five watershed districts in the LSC Watershed with rules and associated permit programs consistent
with and necessary to meet the requirements of Minnesota statutes §103B.337-103D.345. Regulatory areas
which fall under one or more of these programs include stormwater management, erosion control, buffers,
shoreland and streambank alterations, watercourse and basin crossings, floodplain and drainage alterations,
land alteration, and wetland management. Many of the watershed districts’ rules and standards overlap with
other local ordinances and regulations, requiring coordination among multiple agencies to ensure proper
enforcement.
The LSC Watershed’s two watershed management organizations (WMOs), Middle St. Croix WMO and Sunrise
River WMO, do not have rules nor permitting programs like the watershed districts. Rather, the MSCWMO
reviews development proposals and projects for conformance with their watershed management plan policies
and performance standards. The Sunrise River WMO has minimum standards that are incorporated into
city/township ordinances. The Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District does not have regulations.
It is expected that implementation of this Plan will include continued coordination among watershed entities
and assistance to or collaboration with other local governments on developing and enforcing new or existing
regulations. Areas of collaboration may include Minimal Impact Design Standards, bluff standards, shoreland
protections, etc.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 49
ii. Comprehensive or Land Use Plans
The Metropolitan Council requires all metropolitan counties, cities and townships to have a comprehensive
plan and to update that plan as needed every 10 years. The Metropolitan Council determines the basic
information that plans must cover. Counties in the LSC Watershed which are required to develop
comprehensive plans include Washington County, Anoka County, and Ramsey County. Though, Anoka County
is exempt from preparing a land use plan (Metropolitan Council). The following cities and communities are also
required to develop comprehensive plans: Afton, Bayport, Columbus, Cottage Grove, East Bethel, Forest Lake,
Grant City, Ham Lake, Hugo, Lake Elmo, Linwood Township, Oak Park Heights, Oakdale, Scandia, Stillwater,
West Lakeland Township, Woodbury. All comprehensive plan updates were required to be submitted to the
Metropolitan Council for review by December 31, 2018.
iii. County, State and Local Regulations
Several regulatory areas are enforced on the county scale by the county governments themselves, with
assistance from SWCDs. The following subsections provide detail regarding the regulations that are most
related to watershed management.
Drainage authorities
Minnesota drainage law enables multiple landowners to collectively construct, improve and repair drainage
systems across property boundaries and governmental boundaries, which can be open ditches and/or
subsurface tile. Chapter 103E drainage systems are administered in accordance with Minnesota drainage law
by a public drainage authority. The drainage authority can be a County Board of Commissioners, a Joint County
Board of Commissioners, or a Watershed District Board of Managers. According to statute, generally, the
drainage authority may make orders to:
1. construct and maintain drainage systems;
2. deepen, widen, straighten, or change the channel or bed of a natural waterway that is part of the
drainage system or is located at the outlet of a drainage system;
3. extend a drainage system into or through a municipality for a suitable outlet; and
4. construct necessary dikes, dams, and control structures and power appliances, pumps, and pumping
machinery as provided by law.
This Plan includes a number of programs and new policies aimed at improving ditch maintenance and
management to minimize impacts to wetlands and downstream water resources. Mapping of private ditches
when appropriate, reviewing drainage projects for water quality and wetland impacts, promoting Conservation
Drainage Management techniques are some examples of proposed ditch-related activities in this Plan.
Implementation will be accomplished through collaboration among soil and water conservation district staff
and local governmental units including counties and townships.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 50
Local Implementation of Buffer Law
Minnesota’s Buffer Law (more formally known as Buffer and Soil Loss Legislation, Minnesota Statute 2014,
section 103B.101) requires a 50-foot perennial vegetated buffer along public waters (lakes, rivers and streams)
and a 16.5-foot perennial vegetated buffer along public ditches. These buffers help filter out phosphorus,
nitrogen and sediment. The local water management authority charged with enforcing the buffer law may be a
watershed district, metropolitan water management organization, or a county. Soil and water conservation
districts (SWCDs) are charged with assisting landowners with implementation of the required buffers. The
compliance deadline for public waters was November 1, 2017 and November 1, 2018 for public ditches. As of
July 2019, approximately 98% of parcels adjacent to Minnesota waters are compliant with the Buffer Law, with
SWCDs reporting encouraging progress in their work with landowners around the state (MN Board of Water
and Soil Resources. (2019). Minnesota Buffer Law. https://bwsr.state.mn.us/minnesota-buffer-law.)
Discussions with landowners about the need and benefits of buffers offers an opportunity to discuss other
conservation methods and best management practices that might be possible for a given property, furthering
the implementation and success of this Plan.
Shoreland Management
Counties and other local governments in the LSC Watershed regulate land use and development within the
shoreland of public waters by implementing shoreland rules established by the State of Minnesota (MN Rules
6120.2500 - 6120.3900). These rules establish minimum standards to protect habitat and water quality and
preserve property values. The rules include zoning provisions that require a 50-foot buffer around public
waters and include structure height limits, impervious surface limits, lot requirements, and vegetation removal
guidance. Permits are required from the local unit of government for intensive vegetation removal and
excavations occurring in shoreland overlay areas. The MnDNR ensures that local shoreland ordinances comply
with the state shoreland rules and provides technical assistance and oversight to local governments.
This Plan includes a goal of increasing the number of local governments that adopt innovative shoreland
standards to protect buffers, native ecosystems, and habitat corridors. As an example, this may include setting
shoreline "view corridors" or maximum vegetation clearing standards. An innovative shoreland standards
showcase can be found on the MnDNR’s website at
www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/innovative-standards.html.
Flooding and Floodplain Management
Floodplain ordinances regulate development within the floodplain in order to mitigate flooding impacts. These
ordinances aim to minimize frequency and severity of high water, impacts to other landowners, loss of life and
property, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditure for public
protection and relief, and interruption of transportation and communication. Floodplain ordinances may be
administered by counties or municipalities. Watershed districts and watershed management organizations
may also have floodplain management performance standards in their rules and/or watershed management
plan. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides the Risk Mapping, Assessment, and
Planning (Risk MAP) program to help communities identify, assess and reduce their flood risk. Local
organizations may provide information to FEMA in order to more accurately map flood risk.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 51
Localized flooding, particularly around landlocked basins, is an increasing problem in some parts of the LSC
Watershed as precipitation amounts continue to rise and individual large rain events become more common.
The year 2019 was the wettest on record for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area with over 40 inches of
precipitation.
Due to continued extreme weather fueled by a warmer climate, precipitation amounts are predicted to
continue to increase in the coming decades. Calculations and analysis by the MnDNR helped the Lower St.
Croix Partnership adopt a water storage goal of 0.48 inches over the entire watershed or a total of 23,600 acre-
feet. These figures are based on increasing precipitation amounts predicted from 2018 – 2050. This Plan
includes multiple activities that will help reach this water storage goals including the adoption of stormwater
infiltration requirements (MIDS), wetland creation and restoration, and improved soil health. (See Section IV.G.
for additional information on water storage goals.)
Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS)
Counties and some cities regulate subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), also known as septic tanks or
drain fields, except in Anoka County where cities and townships fill this role. These regulations are intended to
protect citizens’ health, safety, general welfare, and natural resources. SSTS regulations are based on the
following state laws:
1. Minimum technical standards for individual and mid-size SSTS (Chapter 7080 and 7081);
2. A framework for local administration of SSTS programs (Chapter 7082) and;
3. Statewide licensing and certification of SSTS professionals, SSTS product review and registration, and
establishment of the SSTS Advisory Committee. (Chapter 7083).
While no new SSTS-related policies or regulations are proposed in this Plan, the Plan does include a goal of
upgrading or replacing 20 non-conforming or non-compliant SSTS each year in priority areas. This activity will
be implemented by various entities, most of which already have SSTS upgrade programs already in place.
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
The filling, excavation, and draining of wetlands are regulated by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991,
which is administered by a local government unit (LGU). The purpose of WCA is to maintain and protect
Minnesota’s wetlands and the benefits they provide, with a goal of no-net-loss of wetlands. Within the LSC
Watershed, there are several WCA LGUs depending on the particular area. The LGU may be the county,
municipality, watershed district, or watershed management organization. The Board of Water and Soil
Resources (BWSR) maintains a directory of WCA LGUs on its website. WCA is administered under Minnesota
Administrative Rules, Chapter 8420, Wetland Conservation.
The Plan includes a goal to increase the number of local governments with adopted wetland protections
including buffer requirements and setbacks for permanent structures. The Plan also includes additional goals
and outputs related to restoring and creating wetlands and improving wetland health.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 52
Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS)
In June of 2013 the MPCA incorporated Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) into the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual. MIDS contains four elements:
1. A stormwater volume performance goal for new development, redevelopment and linear that will
provide enhanced protection for Minnesota’s water resources
2. New credit calculations that will standardize the use of a range of innovative structural stormwater
techniques
3. Design specifications for a variety of green infrastructure best management practices (BMPs)
4. A model MIDS ordinance package that will help developers and communities implement MIDS
Some local regulatory organizations in the LSC Watershed have adopted MIDS (or similar) as their stormwater
performance standards. This Plan includes a goal to implement MIDS in up to 20 communities across the LSC
Watershed. This high priority activity will be accomplished by hiring or contracting services to provide outreach,
education and ordinance development with local governments, developers, and other stakeholders.
Feedlots
The MPCA established rules for local governments to manage feedlot in Minn. Rules § 7020. Counties may be
delegated by the MPCA to administer the program for feedlots that are not required to have a state or federal
operating permit. The feedlot rule regulates the collection, transportation, storage, processing and disposal of
animal manure and livestock processing activities and aids counties and the livestock industry. The rules apply
to all aspects of livestock production areas including the location, design, construction, operation and
management of feedlots, feed storage, stormwater runoff and manure handling facilities. As of March 2019,
none of the counties in the LSC Watershed are part of the MPCA’s cooperative feedlot program. The number
of feedlots required to register in each county are as follows: Pine (127), Chisago (83), Isanti (39), Anoka (7),
Washington (48), Ramsey (1) (MPCA).
Within this Plan, projects that reduce feedlot runoff and improve manure management are included in the
expansion of programs aimed at engaging agricultural producers and installing agricultural best management
practices.
Well Management and Wellhead Protection
The Minnesota Water Well Code, which regulates activities such as well abandonment and installation of new
wells, is administered and enforced by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) through its Well
Management Program. The MDH also administers the Wellhead Protection Program, which is aimed at
preventing contaminants from entering public water supply wells. Many local governments within the LSC
Watershed have completed wellhead protection plans consistent with MDH guidance.
Well maintenance including proper installation, capping, and inventory of private wells are important aspects
of protecting wells from contamination. Sealing wells that are unused or vulnerable is another important part
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 53
of protecting groundwater and managing a well network. This Plan includes a goal to properly seal 100% of
known or discovered abandoned wells.
Groundwater Management
Of the counties in the LSC Watershed, only Washington County has a comprehensive Groundwater Plan (2014
– 2024) which serves as a link that “ties the governance of surface and groundwater together in an effort to
focus on researching the level of connection between surface water and groundwater, identifying
groundwater recharge and discharge zones, and developing policies and rules to protect and holistically
manage water resources,” (Washington County, 2014).
Other counties in the LSC Watershed would benefit from developing groundwater management plans,
particularly by building on the existing Lower St. Croix Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies
Report. The goal of developing new groundwater plans is included in this Plan along with many other actions
aimed at protecting and conserving groundwater and gathering data to better understand groundwater
resources and challenges.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 54
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 55
V. Implementation Schedule
A. Using the Implementation Table
The Implementation Table (Table 5-1, Section V.B.) includes four parts that distinguish between the different
program areas.
Part A: Agricultural Lands – includes implementation focused in agricultural areas
Part B: Developed and Developing Lands – includes implementation focused in urban areas or areas that are
slated for development
Part C: Ecosystem Services – includes implementation focused on various natural featured that are found
across the watershed including wetlands and uplands
Part D: Prioritization and Analysis – includes implementation focused on gathering and analyzing data; and
completing surveys, subwatershed analyses, and mapping
Within each part of Table 5-1, there are multiple components and a cross reference to the issues and goals
(Table 3-1). The section headings in Table 5-1 correspond to the following information:
Implementation Actions (shown in gray/blue rows): These are the actions (the work) that will be undertaken
in order to realize the measurable outputs in the white rows below. The funding columns to the right estimate
the cost of that implementation action per biennium.
A, B, or C associated with each implementation action: These letters indicate the level of priority for the use of
Watershed Based Implementation Funds. A = Highest priority actions; B = secondary priority actions; C = local
priority actions. A description of priority levels can be found in Section VI.D.
Type of Activity: The type of activity is indicated with an icon to the left.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 56
Implementation of Projects and Programs
Actions such as technical assistance, cost share programs, funded best management practices, and
other efforts which directly result in the implementation of physical projects
Shared Services and Staff Capacity
Actions that add to existing staff capacity, whether through shared services, training, or partnerships
Education, Engagement, and Social Capacity
Actions that increase public awareness and understanding of resource LSC 1W1P goals and issues, as
well as their voluntary participation in efforts to reach those goals
Ordinances, Regulation, and Policy
Actions referencing existing or new regulations or policies
Data Collection, Analyses, and Planning
Actions which include evaluation of sites, collection of data, development of plans, and monitoring
Priority Location: This indicates the location within the LSC Watershed where the corresponding action(s)
listed above will take place. Implementation actions that are not located in a priority location for that activity
will not be eligible for Watershed Based Implementation Funds. Maps for some of the key priority locations
include:
Figure 5-1: Vulnerable Groundwater in Agricultural Areas
Figure 5-2: Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams
Figure 5-3: Regionally Significant Lakes
Figure 5-4: High Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration
Priority locations can also be found through local mapping and data and/or the LSC Interactive Map at
https://maps.barr.com/LSCWD/1W1P/index.html#/.
Measurable Outputs: The output or outcome expected to be realized by the implementation activities over
the life of the 10-year Plan. These are expressed as pollutant reductions, number of acres, number of local
government units, number of shorelines, etc.
Reference to Issues and Goals: In the column to the left of priority locations is a very brief description of the
issue being addressed and a cross reference to issues and goals found in Table 3-1. For instance, “R&S 1A”
would reference the “Rivers and Streams” resource area, goal #1A.
Years 1-2, Years 3-4, etc.: Adjacent to the implementation activities, these columns indicate how much the
activity is expected to cost in each biennium. Adjacent to the measurable outputs, these columns indicate the
amount of the output is expected in each biennium.
10-year Estimated Cost: This column indicates the total cost of the activity expected over the life of the Plan.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 57
10-Year Estimated Local Funds: This column shows funds consistently being spent by LSC Partners on this
activity on a 10-year basis (prorated to their area in the LSC Watershed). These funds are derived only from
local funding sources such as property taxes. These funds may be passed along to other LSC Partners; they do
not include contributions from other LSC partners, even if consistent. (For instance, Washington County
contributes funding to the Washington Conservation District (WCD) for various activities. This cost would be
captured as local funds by Washington County and not by the WCD.) This column includes one row for each
county to indicate the approximate level of funding per county (A = Anoka, C = Chisago, I = Isanti, P = Pine, W =
Washington).
10-Year Existing Stable External Funding: This column shows consistent, stable, and reliable funds from non-
local sources that are being spent on the associated activity on a 10-year basis (prorated to their area in the
LSC Watershed). These funds do not include consistent funding from other LSC Partners as those funds are
captured with “estimated local funds.” This column includes one row for each county to indicate the
approximate level of funding per county (A = Anoka, C = Chisago, I = Isanti, P = Pine, W = Washington).
Additional (Add’t) External Funds Needed: This column shows the amount of external funds expected to the
needed for each activity over the life of the 10-year Plan after local funds and existing stable external funding
(for all counties) is subtracted from the 10-year estimated cost.
Implementing Entities (Imp Entity): These are entities responsible for leading each activity within their
jurisdiction and are limited to members of the LSC Partnership. The lead entities assume responsibility to
implement the activity with assistance from supporting agencies, as needed. The agreements that establish
the organizational arrangement may assign more specific lead entities for some activities. (“COs” = all
counties)
Supporting Agencies (Support Agency): These are State or Federal agencies, or other organizations that are
anticipated to cooperate with the lead entity to complete the activity. Supporting entities identified for a
particular activity may not be limited to those listed.
Table 5-1 Part D (Prioritization and Analysis) is oriented slightly differently. This table includes a column of
“implementation actions” in conjunction with every priority location and measurable output. This is because
every line is a distinct activity related to data gathering, mapping, surveying, monitoring, or analysis. All other
components of the table are the same as Parts A – C.
Other Definitions
Direct drainage and direct catchments: The stream, river, or land area that drains directly to the St. Croix River
or Lake St. Croix and that is downstream of a pollutant-mitigating feature such lake, impoundment, pond, or
large wetland. (Does not apply in Sunrise River Watershed)
Direct lake catchments: The watershed area that drains to a lake if it is downstream of a pollutant-mitigating
feature such as another lake, or an impoundment, ponds or large wetland.
New development: Significant new areas of land conversion from vacant or rural land to residential,
commercial/industrial, institutional, or transportation.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 58
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 59
B. 2021 – 2030 Implementation Table: Table 5-1
Table 5-1 Part A. Implementation Actions for Agricultural Lands
Table 5-1 Part A: Implementation for Agricultural Lands
Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-year
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(A) Shared Services: Hire or contract with agricultural conservationist and agronomist for basin
wide assistance with agronomy, outreach, and technical assistance to agricultural producers
including conservation planning and nutrient management plans. [Approximately 80% of this
position’s time will be directly working with agricultural producers in the LSC Watershed to
identify economical farming practices with water quality benefits to make them a routine part of
farm operations. A target is to interact with operators of >3,000 acres/yr. 20% of the position
will be support of implementation of BMPs led by others.]
$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 $0
$0 $1,250,000 LSC
Partne
rship
BWSR
MDA
NRCS
U of M
Ext
(A) Provide cost share for installing or implementing agricultural best management practices,
both structural and non-structural (e.g. soil health BMPs, feedlot improvements, buffers, swales,
etc.). Projects to be chosen through targeting and prioritization process described in Section
VII.B.
$690,000 $940,000 $1,190,000 $1,190,000 $1,190,000 $5,200,000 A $20,000 A $4,335,000 SWCD
WMO
WD
CLLID
BWSR
NRCS
MDA
MDH
C $200,000 C $200,000
I I $40,000
P $5,000 P
W $250,000 W $150,000
$475,000 $390,000
(C) Provide conservation planning, technical assistance and education on agricultural best
management practices through existing local staff and local initiatives
$547,800 $547,800 $547,800 $547,800 $547,800 $2,739,000 A A $0 SWCD
WMO
WD
BWSR
NRCS
MDA
U of M
Ext
C C $500,000
I I $24,000
P $15,000 P
W $1,700,000 W $500,000
$1,715,000 $ 1,024,000
Priority Location Measurable Output Output by Biennium
1.
GW
Quality
(Table 3 -1
GW1A)
Basin Wide Priority - Agricultural lands where:
1) DWSMA vulnerability is moderate, high, or
very high; or
2) Pollution sensitivity to wells is high or very
high; or
3) Pollution sensitivity to near surface materials is
karst or high; or
4) Well testing show ≥ 5 mg/L nitrate
See Figure 5-1
Install BMPs on 2,200 acres that improve soil
health and/or reduce nitrogen and pesticide
pollution to groundwater -
300 ac 400 ac 500 ac 500 ac 500 ac
2.
Rivers &
Streams +
St. Croix
River WQ
(Table 3-1
R&S 1A;
STC 1B, C)
Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams:
- All streams and tributaries in Sunrise River
Watershed (whole watershed regardless of
direct drainage)
- Direct drainage areas to St. Croix River
through Rock, Rush, Goose, Lawrence, and
Browns Creeks and Trout Brook and other
small streams shown in Figure 5-2
See Table 5-2 for streams and total phosphorus
reduction goals; see Figure 5-2
Reduce total phosphorus by 3,300 lbs/year
(install approximately 220 BMPs @
estimated 15 lbs/BMP) and reduce TSS,
bacteria, and nitrogen as secondary benefit
450 lbs TP
(approx. 30
BMPs)
600 lbs TP
(approx. 40
BMPs)
750 lbs TP
(approx. 50
BMPs)
750 lbs TP
(approx. 50
BMPs)
750 lbs TP
(approx. 50
BMPs)
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 60
Table 5-1 Part A: Implementation for Agricultural Lands
Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-year
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
3.
Lake WQ
from ag
(Table 3-1
LK1A)
Regionally Significant Lakes for Agricultural BMPs
See Table 5-3 for lakes and total phosphorus
reduction goals; see Figure 5-3 for map
Install conservation BMPs, near sensitive
lakes or in direct lake catchments to reduce
TP by 1,275 lbs (estimated 15 lbs/BMP) and
to reduce TSS, bacteria, and nitrogen as
secondary benefit
150 lbs TP
(approx.300
ac and/or
10 BMPs)
225 lbs TP
(approx.
400 ac
and/or 15
BMPs)
300 lbs TP
(approx.
500 ac
and/or 20
BMPs)
300 lbs TP
(approx.
500 ac
and/or 20
BMPs)
300 lbs TP
(approx.
500 ac
and/or 20
BMPs)
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(C) Contact highest agricultural groundwater consumers; provide cost share or technical
assistance to install smart irrigation technologies
$0 $145,000 $145,000 $145,000 $145,000 $580,000 $0 $0 $580,000 COs
SWCD
WD
WMO
MDA
MDNR
U of M
Ext
Priority Location Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
4.
GW
Quantity
(Table 3-1
GW2A)
All agricultural irrigators; highest priority given to
highest consumers [For context: Active water use
permits from MPARS database 2018: 100
agricultural irrigators; 157 Water Supply Wells;
37 Non-crop irrigators. Total = 294. 100 of those
used >1MG in 2018.]
Install or retrofit smart technology on 40
irrigation systems
10 systems 10 systems 10 systems 10 systems
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(C) Incorporate policy to identify and map private ditches when developing conservation plans,
providing cost share funding, or during other regulatory interactions with landowners
$0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No
additional
funding
needs
expected
COs
SWCD
WD
WMO
BWSR
NRCS
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
5.
River &
Stream
Flows
(Table 3-1
R&S 3A)
Basin wide
Identify and map 100% of private ditches as
part of developing Conservation Plans
Maps created during all applicable landowner interactions
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(C) Incorporate policy to and review 100% of drainage projects for possible impacts to wetland
quality; promote Conservation Drainage Management techniques on ditch maintenance
activities.
$34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $170,000 A A $50,000 $0
(-$244,000)
SWCD
WD
WMO
Chisag
o CO
BWSR
MDA
NRCS
C $70,000 C $70,000
I $16,500 I $7,500
P P
W $100,000 W $100,000
$186,500 $227,500
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 61
Table 5-1 Part A: Implementation for Agricultural Lands
Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-year
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
(B) Develop and implement plan for management and maintenance of ditch system including a
system and protocol for establishing BMPs within easement right of ways of existing public
ditches.
$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 $0
$0 $50,000 COs
SWCD
WD
WMO
CLLID
BWSR
MDA
NRCS
(C) Provide training for local staff on topics related to drainage management, wetland
management, and related areas
$1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 All BWSR
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
6.
Drainage
impacts on
wetlands
(Table 3-1
WTL 1B)
All public and private ditches
Review 100% of drainage projects for
possible impacts to wetland quality
All active and proposed projects reviewed
7.
Drainage
impact on
rivers &
streams
(Table 3-1
R&S 1C)
Judicial and public ditches
Maintain or improve downstream water
quality following ditch maintenance
No negative change in downstream water quality
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(B) Provide education to landowners and cost share to upgrade non-conforming and non-
compliant SSTS and to seal abandoned wells. Promote testing of private wells, provide test kits,
host well testing clinics/screenings, promote best practices to private well owners. [Estimated
$13,500/SSTS upgrade*40 systems/2yrs]
$540,000
$540,000
$540,000
$540,000 $540,000 $2,700,000 A A $75,000 $2,156,430 COs
SWCD
WD
WMO
CLLID
BWSR
MDH
MPCA
U of M
Ext
C C $120,000
I $2,700 I $35,870
P $15,000 P
W $195,000 W $100,000
$212,700 $330,870
Priority Location Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
8.
GW quality
from
contamina
nts
(Table 3-1
GW1B)
Priority areas:
Where pollution sensitivity to near surface
materials is high, or in karst areas, or where
bedrock is at or near the surface
Secondary priority:
Basin wide
Upgrade 100 non-conforming or non-
compliant SSTS to properly functioning,
compliant systems. [For context: Estimated
4,202 SSTS basin wide failing to protect GW.
Source: SSTS Annual Report 2018 (MPCA,
Aug 2019) Number of SSTS per county * % of
county in LSC * estimated 15% of SSTS failing
to protect groundwater statewide]
20 systems 20 systems 20 systems 20 systems 20 systems
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 62
Table 5-1 Part A: Implementation for Agricultural Lands
Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-year
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
9.
Lake
impacts
from SSTS
(Table 3-1
LK 1C)
Basin wide:
Shorelands adjacent to nutrient impaired lakes
Chisago Co:
Countywide
Basin wide: Decrease non-compliant and
non-conforming SSTS in shorelands adjacent
to nutrient impaired lakes
Chisago Co: Decrease non-compliant and
non-conforming SSTS in all areas by 50% and
in shorelands adjacent to nutrient impaired
lakes by 80%
[For context: Estimated 5,323 non-compliant
SSTS basin wide. Source: SSTS Annual Report
2018 (MPCA, Aug 2019): Number of SSTS per
county * % of county in LSC * estimated 19%
of SSTS non-compliant statewide]
20 systems 20 systems 20 systems 20 systems 20 systems
10.
GW quality
from
contamina
nts
(Table 3-1
GW1B)
Basin wide Properly seal 100% of known or discovered
abandoned wells
100% of known and discovered abandoned wells are sealed
TOTAL “A” High Priorities for WBIF $6,450,000 $475,000 $390,000 $5,585,000*
TOTAL “B” Secondary Priorities for WBIF $2,750,000 $212,700 $330,870 $2,206,430*
TOTAL “C” Local Priorities $3,494,000 $1,901,500 $1,251,500 $341,000
TABLE A: GRAND TOTAL
$12,694,000
$2,589,200
$1,972,370
$8,132,430
*This total may not reflect the true additional external funding need given significant variation in existing local and stable external funds between counties and LSC Partners.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 63
Table 5-1 Part B. Implementation for Developed and Developing Lands
Table 5-1 Part B: Implementation for Developed and Developing Lands Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(A) Shared Service: Provide outreach, education and ordinance development on Minimal Impact
Design Standards with local governments, developers, and others [1.0 FTE * $120,000/yr or
$240,000/ 2 yrs] (EMWREP lays groundwork in years 1 & 2)
$0 $120,000 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $600,000 A A $250,000 SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
MPCA
U of M
Ext
SCRA
C C
I I
P P
W $300,000 W $50,000
$300,000 $50,000
(A) Shared Services Educator: Facilitate shared education and outreach program across basin to
provide education; engage residents, businesses, and local officials; and promote and market
programs and practices. [80% = develop, distribute and implement outreach programs that
result in behavioral changes achieving water quality benefits; 10% = AIS prevention outreach and
education; 10% = solicit willing landowners to install BMPs that are goals within this plan.
[0.5 FTE to expand EMWREP basin wide; $50,000/yr or $100,000/2 yrs]
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
BWSR
MDH
MPCA
Met
Council
SCRA
(A) Provide cost share for and actively promote installing, implementing, or retrofitting best
management practices and green infrastructure on developed or developing lands. Projects to
be chosen through targeting and prioritization process described in Section VII.B. [44 projects/2
years/$15,000/project; to implement lines 2, 5, 6 below)
$660,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $3,300,000 A $20,000 A $215,000 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
BWSR
MPCA
Met
Council
U of M
Ext
C $200,000 C $200,000
I I $40,000
P P
W $2,475,000 W $150,000
$2,695,000 $390,000
(C) Provide project reviews and technical assistance on stormwater management and urban best
management practices through local staff and local initiatives including evaluating small storm
volume control and large storm rate control ordinances.
$501,600 $501,600 $501,600 $501,600 $501,600 $2,508,000 A $10,000 A $0 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
BWSR
MPCA
Met
Council
C C $500,000
I I
P P
W $1,998,000 W
$2,008,000 $500,000
(C) Work with State agencies and organizations to update Minimal Impact Design Standards to
account for a changing climate and precipitation patterns. [Within already established positions,
provide data and information; participate on committees or work groups]
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 No
additional
funding
needs
expected
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
MPCA
U of M
Ext
SCRA
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
11.
GW
recharge &
infiltration
(Table 3-1
GW 2B) +
Lake WQ
(Table 3-1
LK1B)
Basin wide
[Estimated 40 communities in basin without
MIDS or similar standards]
Implement Minimal Impact Design Standards or
more restrictive in 20 communities; including
climate resiliency provisions or standards
10 LGUs 10 LGUs
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 64
Table 5-1 Part B: Implementation for Developed and Developing Lands Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
12. GW
recharge
(Table 3-1
GW 2B)
In critical groundwater recharge areas as
identified in existing or future maps or
studies
Retrofit 20 existing developments with
infiltration, recharge and reuse projects
4 projects 4 projects 4 projects 4 projects 4 projects
13.
St. Croix
River flows
(Table 3-1
STC 3A)
Direct catchments to the St. Croix River and
Lake St. Croix
Evaluate and update small storm volume control
and large storm rate control ordinances in 4
communities
2 LGUs 2 LGUs
14.
St. Croix
River +
Rivers &
streams
WQ
(Table 3-1
STC 1B;
R&S 1A)
Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams:
- All streams and tributaries in Sunrise
River Watershed (whole watershed
regardless of direct drainage)
- Direct drainage areas to St. Croix River
through Rock, Rush, Goose, Lawrence,
and Browns Creeks and Trout Brook and
other small streams shown in Figure 5-2
See Table 5-2 for streams and total
phosphorus reduction goals; See Figure 5-2
Reduce TP by 100 lbs. (approximately 100 BMPs)
and reduce TSS, bacteria, and nitrogen as
secondary benefit [Assume 1 lb/BMP; typical
reduction for raingarden or similar BMP]
20 lbs TP
(approx. 20
BMPs)
20 lbs TP
(approx. 20
BMPs)
20 lbs TP
(approx. 20
BMPs)
20 lbs TP
(approx. 20
BMPs)
20 lbs TP
(approx. 20
BMPs)
15.
Lake WQ
(Table 3-1
LK 1B)
Regionally Significant Lakes for Urban BMPs
See Table 5-3 for lakes and total phosphorus
reduction goals; See Figure 5 -3
See Table 5-2 for streams and total
phosphorus reduction goals; See Figure 5-2
Reduce TP by 100 lbs. (approximately 100 BMPs)
and reduce TSS, bacteria, and nitrogen as
secondary benefit [Assume 1 lb/BMP; typical
reduction for raingarden or similar BMP]
20 lbs TP
(approx. 20
BMPs)
20 lbs TP
(approx. 20
BMPs)
20 lbs TP
(approx. 20
BMPs)
20 lbs TP
(approx. 20
BMPs)
20 lbs TP
(approx. 20
BMPs)
16.
St. Croix
River
chlorides
(Table 3-1
STC 1D)
Basin wide 75% of all cities have staff certified in MPCA’s
Level 1 and Level 2 Smart Salting Training
Total of
15% of cities
Total of
30% of
cities
Total of
45% of
cities
Total of
60% of
cities
Total of
75% of
cities
Implementation Action Estimated Costs
(C) Contact highest urban/suburban groundwater consumers; provide cost share to install smart
irrigation technologies
$0 $290,000 $290,000 $0 $0 $580,000 A A $10,000 $470,000 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
MDNR
U of M
Ext
C C
I I
P P
W $100,000 W
$100,000 $10,000
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
17. GW
quantity
(Table 3-1
GW 2A)
All irrigators; highest priority given to
highest consumers and communities with
highest residential usage
Install or retrofit smart technology on 40
irrigation systems
20 systems 20 systems
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 65
Table 5-1 Part B: Implementation for Developed and Developing Lands Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
Implementation Action Estimated Costs
(C) Coordinate with State agencies and officials to identify and report hazardous waste
generators
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 No
additional
funding
needs
expected
COs MDH
MPCA
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
18. GW
contamina
nts
(Table 3-1
GW 1B)
Basin wide - all currently unlicensed facilities
and generators
License 100% of hazardous waste generators Figures depend on number of generators identified
Implementation Action Estimated Costs
(B) Identify non-conforming/non-compliant SSTS and provide education and cost share to
homeowners to upgrade non-conforming and non-compliant SSTS
[Activity and costs included in Table A]
COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
BWSR
MDH
MPCA
U of M
Ext
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
19. GW
contamina
nts
(Table 3-1
GW 1B)
Priority areas: Where pollution sensitivity to
near surface materials is high, or in karst
areas, or where bedrock is at or near the
surface
Secondary priority: Basin wide
Upgrade non-conforming or non-compliant SSTS
to properly functioning, compliant systems. [See
Line 8 for context.]
[Covered under Table A #9]
20.
Lake
impacts
from SSTS
(Table 3-1
LK 1C)
Basin wide:
Shorelands adjacent to nutrient impaired
lakes
Chisago Co:
Countywide
Basin wide: Decrease non-compliant and non-
conforming SSTS in shorelands adjacent to
nutrient impaired lakes
Chisago Co: Decrease non-compliant and non-
conforming SSTS in all areas by 50% and in
shorelands adjacent to nutrient impaired lakes
by 80% [See Line 9 for context.]
[Covered under Table A #10]
Implementation Action Estimated Costs
(A) Provide outreach & education to lake associations and lake groups or shoreline owners to
promote shoreline restoration projects. Provide cost share for shoreline habitat improvement
projects [Assume average $4,000 cost share/project]
$80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $400,000 A $39,000 A $0
(-$449,000)
COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
BWSR
SCRA
MPCA
MDNR
U of M
Ext
C $200,000 C $100,000
I $10,000 I $25,000
P $5,000 P
W $320,000 W $150,000
$574,000 $275,000
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 66
Table 5-1 Part B: Implementation for Developed and Developing Lands Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
21.
Lake
shorelines
(Table 3-1
LK 2B &
UP 2A)
Regionally Significant Lakes for Protection
and Sustainable Development: Table 5-3
and Figure 5-3
Install 100 shoreline restoration projects
[100% of lakeshore owners with altered
shorelines are provided information on
restoration programs]
20 projects 20 projects 20 projects 20 projects 20 projects
Implementation Action Estimated Costs
(B) Work with landowners and local governments to update ordinances, and promote and
coordinate land acquisition, conservation easements, land protection, and wetland buffer zoning
when land is developing
(Both MIDs and EMWREP + local staff can help with education.)
Costs included with local staff plus outreach and education activities
already listed.
$0 Existing staff
and proposed
programs
Existing staff
and proposed
programs
No
additional
funding
needs
expected
COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
MDNR
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
22. Protect
wetlands
(Table 3-1
WTL 1A)
Basin wide during land use change or
alteration, development or redevelopment
Increase by 5 the number of LGUs with adopted
wetland protections including buffer
requirements and setbacks for permanent
structures
1 LGU 1 LGU 1 LGU 1 LGU 1 LGU
23.
Maintain &
restore
habitat
(Table 3-1
UP 1F)
Land with priority habitats and corridor
connections
10% of land in new developments is dedicated to
wildlife habitat [significant new areas of land
conversion from vacant or rural land to
residential, commercial/industrial, institutional,
or transportation]
10% of land
in new dev.
10% of
land in new
develop
10% of
land in new
develop
10% of
land in new
develop
10% of land
in new
develop
24.
Sensitive
lake
protection
(Table 3-1
LK 2A)
Regionally Significant Lakes for Protection
and Sustainable Development: Table 5-3
and Figure 5-3
Implement sustainable development and land
preservation programs in lakesheds of priority
lakes through 10 easements or acquisitions
2 easements
or
acquisitions
2
easements
or
acquisition
2
easements
or
acquisition
2
easements
or
acquisition
2
easements
or
acquisition
TOTAL “A” High Priorities for WBIF $4,800,000 $3,569,000 $715,000 $516,000*
TOTAL “B” Secondary Priorities for WBIF $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL “C” Local Priorities $3,088,000 $2,108,000 $510,000 $470,000
TABLE B: GRAND TOTAL
$7,888,000
$5,677,000
$1,225,000
$986,000
*This total may not reflect the true additional external funding need given significant variation in existing local and stable external funds between counties and LSC Partners.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 67
Table 5-1 Part C. Implementation for Ecosystem Services
Table 5-1 Part C: Implementation for Ecosystem Services Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing
Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(B) Perform one large stream restoration project including bank stabilization, in-channel work or
improving floodplain connectivity once every two years. Determine sediment reduction per
project during feasibility and design.
$350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $1,750,000 $0 $0 $1,750,000 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
MDNR
BWSR
MPCA
(B) Perform culvert inventory: redesign and restore as road projects are completed to help
manage to natural hydrologic conditions
$100,000
(inventory)
$100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
MDNR
(B) In watersheds of trout streams promote infiltration and reduce impervious surfaces Costs included with existing programs and activities already listed No additional
funding
needs
expected
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
25.
Rivers &
Streams
ecosyste
ms & flow
(Table 3-1
R&S 2A,
3A)
St. Croix River and Lake St. Croix direct
drainage tributaries
Reduce TP loading and TSS loading by 425 lbs
and 1,085 tons, respectively. Implement 5
stream restoration projects to restore and
improve stream corridors, instream habitat, and
riparian area stability [Average TP
reduction/restoration = 85 lbs; Average TSS
reduction/restoration = 217 tons]
1 stream
resto
project
1 stream
resto
project
1 stream
resto
project
1 stream
resto
project
1 stream
resto
project
26.
Trout
populatio
ns
(Table 3-1
R&S 1B)
Trout streams (Brown's Creek, Valley Creek,
Lawrence Creek, Trout Brook, Willow Brooke,
Mill Stream, Falls Creek, Gilbertsons’s Creek)
Trout populations maintained through stream
restorations, BMP installations, and enforcement
of development standards
Year 3: All
streams
trout YOY
recruit-
ment,
survival of
previous
year class
Year 6: All
streams
trout YOY
recruit-
ment,
survival of
previous
year class
Year 9: All
streams
trout YOY
recruit-
ment,
survival of
previous
year class
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(A) Identify wetland restoration opportunities and work with landowners (including institutions
and public entities) to create or restore wetlands (including improvement of functions and values)
and develop wetland banks. [Will help reach water storage goal.]
$150,000 $990,000 $240,000 $990,000 $240,000 $2,610,000 A A $10,000 $1,885,000 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
BWSR
MDNR C $70,000 C $70,000
I I $25,000
P P
W $500,000 W $50,000
$570,000 $155,000
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 68
Table 5-1 Part C: Implementation for Ecosystem Services Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing
Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
(C) Incorporate policy to develop ditch maintenance evaluation panel and implement
conservation drainage management practices
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additional
funding
needs
expected
COs
SWCD
Priority Location Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
27
Wetland
quantity
(Table 3-1
WTL 2B)
1. In highest priority catchments (red, yellow
and green areas) within BWSR’s
Compensation Planning Framework priority
catchments in the Lower St. Croix River
Watershed
2. In locations where studies or mapping tools
find that restoration will have significant
positive impact on natural resources.
Create or restore 1,000 acres of historic wetlands
lost to land use changes
200 acres
created or
restored
200 acres
created or
restored
200 acres
created or
restored
200 acres
created or
restored
200 acres
created or
restored
28
Wetland
loss
(Table 3-1
WTL 2A)
Judicial and public ditches
Mitigate loss of wetland acres resulting from
ditch maintenance activities
No net
wetland loss
No net
wetland
loss
No net
wetland
loss
No net
wetland
loss
No net
wetland
loss
29
Wetland
quantity
(Table 3-1
WTL 2B)
Basin wide
Create and maintain 2 new BWSR approved
wetland banks within the basin
1 new wetland bank 1 new wetland bank
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(C) Perform AIS inspections, education/outreach, and enforcement; install signage; install
decontamination stations; and develop rapid response plans and early detection programs
$710,000 $710,000 $710,000 $710,000 $710,000 $3,550,000 A A $100,000 $458,600 Counti
es
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
MDNR
SCRA
MAISRC C $610,000 C $1,470,000
I I
P P
W $934,400 W
$1,544,400 $1,547,000
(C) Work with lake groups and associations on AIS prevention outreach and education [Funds
needed included with Shared Services Educator from Developed/Developing Lands Program]
$77,000 $77,000 $77,000 $77,000 $77,000 $385,000 A $10,000 A $0 Counti
es
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
MDNR
SCRA
MAISRC
C $10,000 C
I I $15,000
P P
W $350,000 W
$370,000 $15,000
(C) Partner with St. Croix River Association and MN AIS Research Center (MAISRC) to identify and
implement AIS prevention measures including following MAISRC recommendations for invasive
phragmites control
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 A A $20,000 $392,500 Counti
es
SWCDs
WDs
WMO
CLLID
MDNR
SCRA
MAISRC C $30,000 C
I $7,500 I
P P
W $50,000 W
$87,500 $20,000
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 69
Table 5-1 Part C: Implementation for Ecosystem Services Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing
Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
30
AIS in
Lakes &
St. Croix
River
(Table 3-1
LK 2C; STC
2A)
High traffic boat launches on St. Croix River
and Lake St. Croix
Increase watercraft inspection hours by 25% Increase
hours by 5%
Increase
hours by
5%
Increase
hours by
5%
Increase
hours by
5%
Increase
hours by
5%
31
AIS
(Table 3-1
LK 2C; STC
2A; R&S
2B)
Within 15 miles of all public boat launches on
zebra mussel infested lakes and rivers
Provide AIS decontamination station 2 new decon stations 2 new decon stations
32
AIS signs
(Table 3-1
LK 2C; STC
2A; R&S
2B)
Basin wide
Install AIS informational signage at 20 boat
launches and marinas
4 new
launches w/
signage
4 new
launches
w/ signage
4 new
launches
w/ signage
4 new
launches
w/ signage
4 new
launches
w/ signage
33
AIS in
Lakes
(Table 3-1
LK 2C)
Lakes in Chisago Co. and Isanti Co. with public
access
Develop 1 comprehensive AIS rapid response
plan for lakes
1 comprehensive AIS rapid response plan developed
34
Phragmite
s
(Table 3-1
WTL 1C)
In order of priority
1. Chisago Lakes LID
2. Carlos Avery WMA
3. Elsewhere in Chisago Co
Reduce the size and number of invasive
phragmites locations as reported on EddMaps by
50% or 45 infestation areas.
Reduce by 9
infestations
Reduce by
9
infestation
Reduce by
9
infestation
Reduce by
9
infestation
Reduce by
9
infestation
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(C) Develop resiliency plans or responses, such as a Slow-No-Wake Ordinance or Channel and
Weir Operations and Maintenance Plans, to address vulnerable properties
$20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 A A $40,000 SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
MDNR
SCRA C C
I I
P P
W $60,000 W
$60,000 $0
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 70
Table 5-1 Part C: Implementation for Ecosystem Services Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing
Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
Priority Location
Measurable Output
35.
Lake
levels
(Table 3-1
LK 3A)
Chisago Co. Lakes = Chisago Lakes Chain of
Lakes (Chisago, South Lindstrom, North
Lindstrom, Green, Little Green, North Center,
South Center), Fish, Horseshoe, Little
Horseshoe, Sunrise
Develop resiliency plans or responses, such as a
Slow-No-Wake Ordinance or Channel and Weir
Operations and Maintenance Plans, to address
vulnerable properties
Review and modify existing plans
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(A) Perform alum treatment, carp management, or other methods identified in feasibility studies
to reduce internal loading
$0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $600,000 A$10,000 A $340,000 SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
MPCA
BWSR C C
I I
P P
W $250,000 W
$260,000 $0
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
36.
Internal
loading
(Table 3-1
LK 1D)
In lakes where internal loading is estimated
to be a significant contributor to degraded
water quality and where not addressing the
internal loading would result in sustained
degradation
(See Internal Loading Lakes Table 5-4)
Address source of internal loading 3 in lakes
1 study 1 study 1 study
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(A) Work with LGUs to set shoreline "view corridors" to 25% of lot width or maximum 35' width
and maximum vegetation clearing standards or adopt innovative shoreland standards to protect
buffers, native ecosystems, and habitat corridors. See
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/innovative-standards.html
(Funding could be for consultant to get ordinance work done or E&O))
$40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $120,000 A A $118,500 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
MDNR
C C
I $1,500 I
P P
W W
$1,500 $0
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
37
Shoreland
(Table 3-1
UP 1A)
Basin wide
Increase the number of LGUs (including
counties) by 2 that adopt innovative shoreland
standards
1 new LGU
w/ adopted
standards
1 new LGU
w/ adopted
standards
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 71
Table 5-1 Part C: Implementation for Ecosystem Services Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing
Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(C) Work with developers/contractors and landowners to develop diverse landscape plans, multi-
dimensional buffers, and living fences for developments
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $0
$0 $500,000 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
BWSR
MDNR
MPCA
U of M
Ext
SCRA
Priority Location
Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
38
Resilient
lands
(Table 3-1
UP 1D)
Private lands in priority corridors and critical
habitat areas and large-scale developments
with land-use change
Increase in the number of diverse landscape
designs and plantings resilient to climate change
4 designs 4 designs 4 designs 4 designs 4 designs
Implementation Actions Estimated Costs
(B) Promote and provide technical assistance to develop and implement Landscape Stewardship
Plans (using Landscape Stewardship Planning Model) and Private Forest Management Plans (or
Woodland Stewardship Plans). Coordinate or assist with negotiations, grant applications, and
project management for conservation easements and acquisitions. ($80,000/yr for staff)
$160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $800,000 A A $570,000 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
CLLID
MDNR
MPCA C C
I $20,000 I
P $100,000 P
W $20,000 W $90,000
$140,000 $90,000
(A) Provide cost share to landowners for land restoration or easement establishment or local
matching funds for acquisition grant programs
$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 A A $400,000 COs
SWCDs
WDs
WMOs
NRCS
MDNR
BWSR
MPCA
SCRA
C C
I I
P P
W $600,000 W
$600,000 $0
Priority Location Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium
39.
Land
protection
(Table 3-1
UP
1B; R&S
2A)
First priority: Areas near already protected
lands (public or private), tributaries near
impaired waters, areas where known
endangered species are present and
identified biologically significant natural areas
as identified by MLCCS mapping
Second priority: Basin wide
At least 1000 acres protected through acquisition
and easements.
200 acres
protected
200 acres
protected
200 acres
protected
200 acres
protected
200 acres
protected
40.
Land
protection
(Table 3-1
UP 1C)
First priority: Areas where upland habitat is
fractured and shoreline areas where there is
high to moderate development or land under
future development pressure
Second priority: Basin wide
Create 20 new Landscape Stewardship Plans
4 new plans 4 new
plans
4 new
plans
4 new
plans
4 new
plans
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 72
Table 5-1 Part C: Implementation for Ecosystem Services Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing
Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
41.
Habitat
improve
(Table 3-1
UP 2C)
Basin wide based on prioritized mapping
including MLCCS maps and other critical
habitat mapping
1,000 new acres managed for better habitat, or
as recommended in Landscape Stewardship
Plans
200 new
acres
managed
200 new
acres
managed
200 new
acres
managed
200 new
acres
managed
200 new
acres
managed
42.
Protected
lands
(Table 3-1
UP 2B)
Areas located along bluffland or adjacent to
publicly owned forest land such as state parks
and trails
Increase acres under private Forest Management
Plans or Woodland Stewardship Plans by 20% [23
plans over 10 years]
4 new plans
developed
4 new
plans
developed
4 new
plans
developed
4 new
plans
developed
7 new
plans
developed
TOTAL “A” High Priorities for WBIF $4,330,000 $1,431,500 $155,000 $2,743,500*
TOTAL “B” Secondary Priorities for WBIF $2,650,000 $140,000 $90,000 $2,420,000*
TOTAL “C” Local Priorities $5,035,000 $2,061,900 $1,582,000 $1,391,100
TABLE C: GRAND TOTAL
$12,015,000
$3,633,400
$1,827,000
$6,554,600
*This total may not reflect the true additional external funding need given significant variation in existing local and stable external funds between counties and LSC Partners.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 73
Table 5-1 Part D. Implementation for Prioritization and Analysis: Issues, Goals, Actions, Measurable Outputs, and Priority Locations
Table 5-1 Part D. Implementation for Prioritization and Analysis
Goals &
Issues
Table 3-1
Priority Locations Measurable Outputs Implementation Actions
Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
43 STC
1A
Basin wide Evaluate the water quality
metrics, set reporting
standards, report on goal
progress
Identify, appoint, and empower
entity or person to lead/evaluate the
water quality metrics, set reporting
standards, report on goal progress.
$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0
$0 $250,000 TBD MPCA
Met
Council
SCRA
44 GW
3A
Order of Priority:
1) Surrounding known
contamination sites where
data are lacking
2) DWSMAs
3) Townships without nitrate
testing
4) Basin wide
Pollution sources (including
mines), areas around
chemical contamination
sites, vulnerable areas, and
surface water-GW
interactions are studied and
mapped
Work with State agencies and
Metropolitan Council to study and
map pollution sources (including
mines), areas around chemical
contamination sites, vulnerable areas,
and surface water-GW interactions
$0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $0
$0 $100,000 Counties MDH
MDA
MPCA
MDNR
Met
Council
45 GW
3A
Basin wide
100% of recharge areas and
groundwatersheds of GW
dependent natural resources
are mapped
Support agencies such as DNR and
Met Council in mapping recharge
areas and groundwatersheds of GW
dependent natural resources
$0 $40,000 $40,000 $10,000 $0 $90,000 $0
$0 $90,000 Counties MDH
MPCA
MDNR
Met
Council
46 GW
3A
Basin wide where needed Complete at least one
county groundwater plan
Build on existing GRAPS to develop
groundwater plans that lay out
technical framework, issues, policies
and implementation actions for the
protection and conservation of
groundwater resources.
$0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $0
$0 $100,000 Counties MDH
MPCA
Met
Council
47 GW
3A
Maintain basin wide; expand
in Isanti and Pine Co.
1) DWSMAs
2) Groundwatersheds of
GW-dependent natural
resources
Maintain existing or increase
number of new observation
wells
Work with MnDNR to maintain and
expand observation well program
$83,730 $83,730 $83,730 $83,730 $83,730 $418,650 A A $0 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
CLLID
MDNR
C C $13,000
I $650 I
P P
W $405,000 W
$405,650 $13,000
48 LK
1D
Regionally Significant Lakes
for Internal Loading Analyses
Table 5 -4
Calculate internal loading of
phosphorus
Calculate internal loading of
phosphorus on 15 lakes @ $25,000
each)
$75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000 A A $125,000 SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
CLLID
MPCA
C C
I I
P P
W $250,000 W
$250,000
$0
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 74
Table 5-1 Part D. Implementation for Prioritization and Analysis
Goals &
Issues
Table 3-1
Priority Locations Measurable Outputs Implementation Actions
Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
49 LK
4A
Anoka Co. Lakes = Pet, Rice,
South Coon, Skunk,
Tamarack
Chisago Co. Lakes = Sunrise,
Little Horseshoe
Isanti Co. Lakes = Hoffman,
Horseleg, Horseshoe, Upper
and Lower birch, East and
West Twin, Tamarack (30-
0001-00), Long (30-0002-
00,) Big Pine (30-0015-00),
Grass (30-0017-00),
Splittstoeser (30-00041-00)
Baseline data such as
transparency, total
phosphorus and chlorophyll-
a are collected
Develop monitoring plan and collect
data using available means such as
volunteers, Met Council's CAMP,
MPCA's citizen monitoring program,
MPCA's Intensive watershed
monitoring program, SWCDs,
counties, parks departments, lake
associations, etc.
Anoka Co annual costs (5 lakes *
$2,100/lake) = $10,500
Chisago Co annual costs (2 lakes) =
$1,200
Isanti Co annual costs (12 lakes) =
$1,430/lake = $17,160
$57,720 $57,720 $57,720 $57,720 $57,720 $ 288,600 A $4,500 A $284,100 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
CLLID
MPCA
Met
Council
USGS
SCRA
C C
I I
P: N/A P
W: N/A W
$4,500 $0
50 LK
4A
STC
2B,
4C
Basin wide
Participate in studies and/or
stay informed of latest
science to assess the impact
of a changing climate on
lakes and the St. Croix River
Use latest climate science to
implement adaptive management
Included in existing work $0 $0 $0 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
CLLID
MPCA
MDNR
Met
Council
SCRA
St. Cr Res
Station
51 LK
4A
Chisago Chain of Lakes
100% of lakes prone to
anthropogenic water level
variation are identified
Manage the channel and weir system
with an approved operation and
maintenance plan.
$72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $360,000 A A $0 CLLID MDNR
C $250,000 C
I I
P P
W $110,000 W
$360,000 $0
52 LK
4A
Basin wide
100% of lakes prone to direct
anthropogenic water level
variation are identified
Participate in DNR lake level
monitoring program to routinely
collect lake level data
$26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $130,000 A $10,000 A $0 SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
CLLID
MDNR
C $81,000 C
I I
P P
W $39,000 W
$130,000 $0
53 LK
4A
Subwatersheds of Regionally
Significant Lakes
Table 5 -3 and Figure 5-3
20 subwatershed project
targeting analyses are
completed (estimated
$10,000-$50,000/SWA or
$30,000 ave)
Conduct analyses to identify and
prioritize water quality improvement
projects within a priority
subwatershed. Methods and analyses
can include site or field scale
subwatershed analyses, diagnostic
monitoring, spatial analysis and
$150,000
(5 SWAs)
$150,000
(5 SWAs)
$120,000
(4 SWAs)
$90,000
(3 SWAs)
$90,000
(3 SWAs)
$1,200,000 A $10,000 A $50,000 $0
(-$420,000)
Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
CLLID
BWSR
MPCA
MDNR
MDA
C C $60,000
I I
P P
W $1,500,000 W
$1,510,000 $110,000
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 75
Table 5-1 Part D. Implementation for Prioritization and Analysis
Goals &
Issues
Table 3-1
Priority Locations Measurable Outputs Implementation Actions
Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
54 STC
4B
Regionally Significant Rivers
and Streams:
- Streams and tributaries
in Sunrise R. Watershed
- Direct drainage areas to
St. Croix River through
Rock, Rush, Goose, and
Browns Creeks and
Trout Brook and other
small streams as shown
in Table 5-2 and Figure
5-2.
20 subwatershed project
targeting analyses are
completed (estimated
$10,000 - $50,000/SWA or
$30,000 ave)
mapping, modeling, cost benefit
analyses, or other data-driven
targeting activities. See Section VII.B.
for further description.
$150,000
(5 SWAs)
$150,000
(5 SWAs)
$120,000
(4 SWAs)
$90,000
(3 SWAs)
$90,000
(3 SWAs)
55 STC
4A,
4C
Tributaries to the St. Croix
Coordinated hydrologic,
chemical, and biological
monitoring of the St. Croix
River and its tributaries;
nutrient loading data of
major tributaries to the St.
Croix River is evaluated.
Operate up to 10 new monitoring
stations that lack data (quality and
quantity) to evaluate progress toward
achieving the TMDL and to identify
priority subwatersheds. @
$10,000/year/station
$100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $900,000 A A $800,000 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
CLLID
MPCA
SCRA
Met
Council
USGS
St. Cr Res
Station
Basin
Team
C C
I I
P P
W $100,000 W
$100,000 $0
56 STC
3A
Land use authorities in the
St. Croix Riverway.
Evaluate the floodplain and
zoning ordinances for
consistency and
effectiveness in protecting
the floodplain function and
preventing flood damages.
Include impacts of variances
in the evaluation.
Work with land use authorities along
St. Croix River and MnDNR Area
Hydrologists to evaluate floodplain
and zoning ordinances and update
where appropriate.
$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 A A $150,000 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
MDNR
SCRA
C $50,000 C $50,000
I I
P P
W W
$50,000 $50,000
57 STC
4B
&
UP
2A
Intermittent and perennial
tributaries and watercourses
flowing directly to St. Croix
River
Inventory and prioritize
active erosion sites.
Identify, evaluate, and rank active
gullies directly discharging into the St.
Croix or its tributaries Rural SWA
[LIDAR to identify gully locations;
RUSLE & BWSR pollution reduction
calculator to determine pollution
reduction numbers]
$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 A A $225,000 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
MDNR
BWSR C C $25,000
I I
P P
W W
$0 $25,000
58 STC
2B,
4C
UP
1A
Basin wide
Map priority restoration and
protection areas for
acquisition, easements, and
voluntary stewardship
Complete level 4/5 MLCCS basin wide.
Expand the Washington County
Natural Resource Framework and use
their methodology in Anoka, Chisago,
Isanti, and Pine Counties.
(MLCCS = $1,000/sq mi * 640 sq miles)
$240,000 $200,000 $200,0000 $0 $0 $640,000 $0
$0 $640,000 Counties
SWCDs
MDNR
BWSR
MPCA
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 76
Table 5-1 Part D. Implementation for Prioritization and Analysis
Goals &
Issues
Table 3-1
Priority Locations Measurable Outputs Implementation Actions
Years
1 - 2
Years
3 - 4
Years
5 - 6
Years
7 - 8
Years
9 - 10
10-year
Estimated
Cost
10-yr
Estimated
Local Funds
10-year
Existing Stable
External
Funding
Add’t
External
Funds
Needed
Imp.
Entity
Support
Agency
59 UP
1E
First priority: Public lands or
near public lands; areas may
be further prioritized thru
cooperative weed mgmt
area
Second priority: Basin wide
Map and target "eradicate
and control list" invasive
species populations for each
county
Contact 50% of landowners
for species on restricted list
Implement a cooperative weed
management area (including MNDOT
when possible) and promote
associated implementation strategies.
$0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $200,000 A A $32,000 $163,500 Counites
CLLID
MnDOT
MDNR
MDA
MAISRC
C C
I $4,500 I
P P
W W
$4,500 $32,000
60 WTL
3E
Pine County Complete soil survey
Complete soil survey as developed by
NRCS, USDA & shown in Soil Survey
Geographic (SSURGO) Database
To be completed by NRCS $0
$0 Unknown NRCS Pine
County
61 WTL
3D
Wetlands upstream of
nutrient impaired streams
and lakes
Monitor 10 identified
wetlands for nutrient and
volume contribution to
impaired lakes and streams
Use subwatershed analyses or
monitoring/modeling data to identify
degraded wetlands with the potential
of contributing high nutrient loads to
downstream resources.
$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000 A A $300,000 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
BWSR
C C
I I
P P
W $450,000 W
$450,000 $0
62 WTL
3D
Basin wide Identify 5 degraded wetlands
with best restoration
potential in each HUC 10
Use existing Restorable Wetland
Prioritization Tool to focus effort
To be completed in conjunction with existing activities $0 $0
$0 $0 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
BWSR
63 WTL
3E &
1D
1st priority: Public ditches in
Isanti Co.
2nd priority: Basin wide
Obtain Nutrient Loading
Data in basins/wetlands near
Ditch outlets to identify
areas for ditch
improvements to filter
runoff
Collect water quality data near ditch
outlets of 25 ditches (estimated
$2,000 per ditch)
$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 A $4,000 A $4,000 $42,000 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
CLLID
MPCA C C
I I
P P
W W
$4,000 $4,000
65 WTL
3A,
3B
&
3C
1st Priority: Isanti County
2nd Priority: Basin wide
Create wetland inventory
based on MLCCS, and
function and value
assessment and/or floristic
quality assessment
Increase by 5 the number of LGUs
with policies requiring wetland
function and value assessments with
project proposals such as
developments or ditch work.
$20,000
$50,000
$50,000
$0 $0 $120,000
$0 $0 $120,000 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
CLLID
BWSR
MPCA
66 WTL
3B
Pine County and Isanti
County
An inventory and map of all
areas of wetland loss and
historic wetlands is locally
verified
Verify recently completed inventory
and map % of areas of wetland loss
and historic wetlands
$12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $60,000 $0
$0 $60,000 Counties
SWCDs
WDs
WMOS
BWSR
MDNR
TABLE D: GRAND TOTAL
$6,532,250
$3,268,650
$234,000
$3,029,600*
*This total may not reflect the true additional external funding need given significant variation in existing local and stable external funds between counties and LSC Partners
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 77
Table 5-2. Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams for Pollutant Reductions (See Figure 5-2)
Stream Name Lake St. Croix TMDL Total
Phosphorus Reduction Goal (lbs/yr)
10-year TP Reduction Goal*
Sunrise River and Tributaries 18,306 2,256
Lawrence Creek** 1,177 118
Browns Creek** 1,954 195
Trout Brook** 1,419 142
Small Streams Draining to St.
Croix River (south of Lawrence
Cr & north of Valley Br.)
6,450 645
Rock Creek 3,512 351
Rush Creek 2,451 245
Goose Creek
2,980 298
TOTAL 38,249 4,250
*10% per stream + 425 lbs for stream restoration projects in Sunrise River Watershed
** According to Lake St. Croix TMDL: Actual phosphorus load reduction goals in Lawrence Creek, Brown’s Creek,
and Trout Brook may be smaller than shown (possibly even zero) due to substantial landlocked portions resulting in
smaller drainage areas than those used to calculate load reductions.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 78
Table 5-3. Regionally Significant Lakes for Pollutant Reductions and Protections
Lake ID Name
Ag BMPs
Needed
Urban BMPs
Needed
Protection &
Sustainable
Development
Needed
Overall TP
Reduction
Goal lbs/yr
10-year TP
Reduction
Goal
(5%/lake) County
2003400 Martin X X 2,973 149 Anoka
2002600 Linwood X X X 341 17 Anoka
13004200 Birch X X Not available Chisago
13000100 Blooms*X X Not available Chisago
1300120 Chisago X X X 143 7 Chisago
13006800 Fish*X X X 8 0 Chisago
13008301/
13008302 Goose (North & South)X X X 4,935 247 Chisago
13004102 /
13004101 Green/Little Green X X 33 2 Chisago
13003300 Little X X 2,657 133 Chisago
13003201 North Center Lake X X X 1,108 55 Chisago
13003500 North Lindstrom X X X 59 3 Chisago
13006901/
13006902 Rush (East* & West)X X 6,663 333 Chisago
13002700 South Center X X X 1,260 63 Chisago
13002800 South Lindstrom X X 107 5 Chisago
30000800 Hoffman*X Isanti
30000300 Horseshoe*X Isanti
30001200 Horseleg*X X 1 0 Isanti
30000700 Lower Birch*X
Strategies Isanti
58011700 Rock X 6,641 332 Pine
82004900 Big Carnelian X X X 53 3 Washington
82005204 Big Marine*X X X 35 2 Washington
82004500 Clear*X Washington
82003400 East Boot*X Washington
82000400 Edith X X 6 0 Washington
82010600 Elmo X X 56 3 Washington
82001400 Little Carnelian*X X 29 1 Washington
82002500 Louise X 58 3 Washington
82003300 Mays*X Washington
82002000 McKusick X 5 0 Washington
82004600 Square X X X 9 0 Washington
82003100 Terrapin*X Washington
TOTAL LBS/YR 27,180 1,359
Protection Strategies Only
*Groundwater Dependent Lakes
Protection Strategies Only
Protection Strategies Only
Protection Strategies Only
Protection Strategies Only
Protection Strategies Only
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 79
Table 5-4. Regionally Significant Lakes for Internal Loading Analyses
Lake ID Name
Internal
Loading
Analysis
Needed County
2002600 Linwood A Anoka
2003400 Ma rtin A Anoka
30000900 Typo A Anoka, Isanti
13006901 East Rush A Chisago
13008301/
13008302 Goose (North & South)A Chisago
13001400 Linn A Chisago
13003300 Little A Chisago
13003400 Pioneer A Chisago
13004400 School B Chisago
13002900 Wallmark A Chisago
13006902 West Rush A Chisago
58011700 Rock A Pine
82007600 Barker A Washington
82012000 Benz A Washington
82004900 Big Carnelian B Washington
82005400 Bone B Washington
82011000 Downs A Washington
82003400 East Boot B Washington
82015900 Forest B Washington
82005900 Goose B Washington
82002100 Long A Washington
82004200 Lynch A Washington
82014800 Plaisted A Washington
82015100 South School Section A Washington
82013500 Unnamed (Echo)A Washington
82007700 Unnamed (Goggins)A Washington
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Shafer
Marineon SaintCroix
Oakdale
Stillwater
Harris
Center City
Chisag oCity
Lake Elm o Bayport
W yom ing
Taylors Falls
Rush City
North Branch
Scandia
Grant
Lakeland
Stacy
Afton
Rock Creek
EastBethel
Forest Lake
LindstromPine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott CountyBurnett CountyPolk CountyPolk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
WISCONSIN
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-25 14:38 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W 1P_2020Update\Fig ure 5-1 Vulnerable Groundwater in Ag ricultural Areas.m xd User: RCS2
VULNERABLEGROUNDW AT ERIN AGRICULT URAL AREAS
FIGURE 5-1
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix W atershed
!(W ells ≥ 5 m g /L Nitrate
Priority Location #1
PW I W atercourse
Lake, Pond or Reserv oir
Municipal Boundary
County Boundary
Pine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott CountyGo
o
s
eCreekSunriseRiver,N o r th Branch
SunriseRiverSunriseRiver,SouthBranchRush C re e k
Trout Brook
B
r
o
w
n's
C
r
e
e
k
Sunrise
River,We st B ra n c h
RockCreek
Burnett CountyPolk CountyPolk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
WISCONSIN
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-28 12:14 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P_2020Update\Figure 5-2 Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams.mxd User: RCS2
REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANTRIVERS AND STREAMS
FIGURE 5-2
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix Watershed
Regionally SignificantRivers and Streams forPriority Locations 2 and 14(Tables 5-1 and 5-2)
PWI Watercourse
Lake, Pond or Reservoir
County Boundary
Pine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott CountyMcKusick
Louise
Clear
Clear
South Center
Rock
South Lindstrom
Mays
LittleCarnelian
Square
Big Marine
Edith
Terrapin
Horseshoe
Clear
Elmo
Horseshoe
Big Carnelian
East Boot
Horseleg
Lower Birch Horseshoe
Hoffman
BloomsGreen
Little Green
NorthCenterLake
Martin
Linwood
West Rush East Rush
North Lindstrom
Little
Chisago
Birch
Goose(South Bay)
Goose(North Bay)
Fish
Fish Burnett CountyPolk CountyPolk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
WISCONSIN
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-26 08:01 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P_2020Update\Figure 5-3 Regionally Significant Lakes.mxd User: RCS2
REGIONALLYSIGNIFICANT LAKES
FIGURE 5-3
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix Watershed
Regionally Significant Lakes
For Priority Locations 3 and 15
(Tables 5-1 and 5-3)
Agricultural BMPs Needed
Urban BMPs Needed
Agricultural and UrbanBMPs Needed
Protection & SustainableDevelopment Needed
PWI Watercourse
Lake, Pond or Reservoir
County Boundary
Pine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott County!Rock
!
Big Carnelian
!
Martin
!
Linwood
!
West Rush
!
East Rush
!
Little
!
Goose (South Bay)
!
Goose (North Bay)
!School
!Long
!
Linn
!Pioneer
!South SchoolSection
!Long
!Lynch
!
Goose!
Forest !Bone
!East Boot
!
Typo
!Barker
!Unnamed(Goggins)
!
Plaisted
!Benz
!Unnamed (Echo)
!Downs
!
Wallmark Burnett CountyPolk CountyPolk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
WISCONSIN
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-26 08:07 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P_2020Update\Figure 5-4 Regionally Significant Lakes for Internal Loading Analyses.mxd User: RCS2
REGIONALLYSIGNIFICANT LAKESFOR INTERNALLOADING ANALYSES
FIGURE 5-4
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix Watershed
Regionally SignificantLakes for internal loadinganalysis; priority locations 36and 48 (Tables 5-1 and 5-4)
PWI Watercourse
Lake, Pond or Reservoir
County Boundary
Pine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott CountyBurnett CountyPolk CountyPolk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
WISCONSIN
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-03-02 11:09 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P_2020Update\Figure 5-5 High Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration.mxd User: RCS2
HIGH PRIORITY AREAS FOR WETLAND RESTORATION
FIGURE 5-5
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix Watershed
PWI Watercourse
Lake, Pond or Reservoir
Wetland Restoration PriorityAreas (BWSR)
Highest Priority Areas
Medium Priority Areas
Low Priority Areas
County Boundary
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 85
VI. Funding Sources and Prioritizing Watershed Based
Implementation Funds
The Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan incorporates programs and projects
across the LSC Watershed that are needed to address the issues, make progress on the goals, and realize
the measurable outputs. There are multiple funding sources that will be used to implement the actions
in the Implementation Plan including funds generated from the implementing entities (local
governments), State Watershed Based Implementation Funds, other State funds, Federal funds, and
funds from organizations, non-profits, and other partners.
A. Federal Funding Sources
Federal funding includes all funds derived from the Federal tax base. For example, this includes
programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) funding for habitat projects,
and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Section 319 funds which are often used to improve water
quality. State dollars may be leveraged through various federal cost share programs. Partners will seek
federal dollars for projects and practices in this Plan that align with objectives of a given federal agency.
For example, CRP dollars may be appropriate for agricultural practices implemented across the vast
acreages of farmland present in the basin (Washington and Chisago counties contain a combined
196,517 acres of farmland).
Federal funding excludes general operating funds obtained from BWSR, counties, fees for service and
grants or partnership agreements with state government or other conservation organizations.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 86
B. State Funding Sources
State funding includes funds derived from the State tax base as well as funds derived from all State-
implemented grant programs. Examples of such programs include projects and practices grants,
accelerated implementation grants, targeted watershed demonstration program grants, and state
easement programs. Examples of state agencies which administer grant programs include BWSR, MPCA,
MnDNR, and MDH. Watershed Based Implementation Funding will be a key grant program for
implementation of projects identified in this Plan. Minnesota’s Clean Water, Land and Legacy
Amendment and Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund also provide significant sources of
funding for projects. Funds under the Legacy Amendment include the Arts & Cultural Heritage Fund,
Clean Water Fund, Outdoor Heritage Fund, and Parks & Trails Fund. The State’s zero-interest Clean
Water Partnership (CWP) loan program presents another option for obtaining advance funding for
implementation. State funding excludes general operating funds obtained from BWSR, counties, service
fees, and grants or partnership agreements with the federal government or other conservation
organizations.
Watershed Based Implementation Funds (WBIFs) are State funds that originate from the Clean Water
Land and Legacy Amendment (Clean Water Funds) and will be used to help implement this Plan through
an allocation from BWSR to the LSC Partnership. See below for information on the prioritized use of
these funds.
C. Local Funding Sources
Local funding sources that may be used to implement this Plan include property taxes levied by
counties, townships, cities, and watershed districts on properties within their jurisdictions. Watershed
management organizations do not have taxing authority, but instead collect funds from their member
communities in the form of assessments or “dues.” Soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) do not
have taxing authority. Instead, SWCDs use a variety of funding streams including funding from counties,
grant funding, and fees for contracted services. These SWCD funding streams may not always be stable
or consistent because they rely on agreements with other entities, successful grant applications, and
allocations by other entities. Because they are not locally generated, SWCD funds were not included
under “estimated local funds” in the Implementation Table (Table 5-1). However, some stable and
reliable funds received by SWCDs were included under “existing stable external funds” in Table 5-1.
Further information on the origin of funding figures in Table 5 is included in Section V.A.
D. Other Funding Sources
Non-governmental organization (NGO) funding sources may be used to fund Plan implementation in
addition to federal, state and local sources. Examples of NGOs that offer grant programs for water-
related initiatives include McKnight Foundation, Jeffers Foundation, Initiative Foundation, and
Mortenson Foundation. NGOs such as Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited may coordinate with LSC
Partners to implement projects and initiatives that meet shared goals. Educational organizations such as
University of Minnesota, University of St. Thomas, and St. Mary’s University, may provide in-kind
services to support initiatives such as aquatic invasive species research and management, water
monitoring, lake sediment sampling and community education and outreach. Particularly, University of
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 87
Minnesota’s Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) and MN Aquatic Invasive Species
Research Center (MAISRC) can be valuable partners for implementing projects within this Plan.
Private sector companies, such as those engaged in agribusiness (e.g. seed companies, tool
manufacturers) or technology (e.g. geographic information system (GIS)), may also be a potential source
of funding or in-kind services for implementation. For example, Esri, a GIS company, offers a cost share
grant program for government and nonprofit agencies to purchase GIS software. Incorporating
economics and cost-benefit analysis into implementation practices is key to ensuring project efficiency.
Working with private companies can provide further emphasis on these topics. Partners will seek
partnerships with private sector businesses as such opportunities arise.
E. Prioritizing Watershed Based Implementation Funds
Watershed Based Implementation Funds (WBIFs) are State funds that originate from the Clean Water
Land and Legacy Amendment (Clean Water Funds) that BWSR will allocate to the Lower St. Croix
Planning Region each biennium to help implement the Plan. WBIFs are an alternative to the traditional
project-by-project competitive grant processes used to distribute Clean Water Funds before the One
Watershed One Plan process got underway. WBIFs are being used to implement comprehensive (1W1P)
watershed plans in order to foster collaboration among local governments, accelerate water
management outcomes, enhance accountability, and improve consistency and efficiency across the
state.
The Lower St. Croix Partnership will allocate WBIFs across different program areas in order to leverage
other funding sources, and to advance progress in multiple areas through a variety of actions. WBIFs
could be allocated across program areas with a distribution such as:
70% Implementation
• 25% shared services
• 45% best management practices and restoration activities
25% Prioritization and Analysis
5% Administration
The use of WBIFs will be prioritized using the following guidance: First, in order to be eligible for WBIFs,
the implementation actions must have a clear water quality connection and should primarily support
actions that need stable and consistent funding while being divided across types of actions so as to
ensure progress in several parts of the Plan. Table 5-1 includes the following prioritization levels for each
implementation action as indicated by “A, B, or C” and noted below.
A - Highest Priorities for Watershed Based Implementation Funds: These actions have basin-wide
benefit, promote multiple benefits, maximize implementation efficiency, and would need consistent and
reliable funding in order to be effective. Shared services and project implementation in high priority
locations are at the top of the list, and are expected to receive up to 25% and 45% of the WBIF allocation
in each biennium, respectively.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 88
B - Secondary Priorities for Watershed Based Implementation Funds, as available: These actions have
the potential to produce regional and basin-wide benefits but may already have stable and consistent
funding or may have a lower overall impact on natural resources than higher priority activities. They will
be considered for funding through WBIFs depending on the amount remaining after highest priority
actions have been considered, but may rely entirely on local funds or funding sources other than WBIFs.
C - Local priorities funded without Watershed Based Implementation Funds: These actions were
identified as ones that should be funded through sources outside of WBIFs due to being low or no
additional cost, locally specific, or without an immediate connection to water quality outcomes.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 2, 2020 89
VII. Work Planning and Targeting
Implementation
Implementation of this Plan is based on collaboration
and coordination among the members of the LSC
Partnership. Deciding how and where to spend
Watershed Based Implementation Funds (WBIFs) is a
critical step in accomplishing the outcomes of this
Plan. This section describes how an annual work plan
will be developed to allocate WBIFs to various
activities, and how the funds will be targeted to get
the right projects and programs in the right places, at
the right time to capitalize on opportunities and
maximize impact given cost benefit.
A. Work Planning
Each year, the Steering Committee, with input from the Advisory Committee, will develop an annual
work plan to be recommended to the Policy Committee for their consideration. The annual work plan
will be based on a variety of factors including:
• Priority level for Watershed Based Implementation Funds (see Section VI.D.)
• Commitments from previous years
• Implementation of planned activities previously delayed
• Staff capacity
• Funding availability and/or partnering/cost share opportunities
• Consistency with Plan goals
• Distribution of activities across resource areas
• Feasibility and readiness
Annual work plans will identify the LSC Partner(s) responsible for carrying out each activity, along with a
budget for each proposed activity. The work plan will be used to develop a biennial budget request for
Watershed Based Implementation Funds (WBIF) to BWSR. The work plan and budget request will
promote local water management priorities for state funding requests. The LSC Partners may also
pursue block grant requests and other funding based on the work plan to accomplish the Plan
Implementation Table (Table 5-1).
Approval of the work plan will coincide with execution of agreements with individual LSC Partners to
carry out the activities specified in the work plan.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 90
B. Targeting and Prioritizing Specific Projects
During annual work plan development, the Steering Committee will meet to review and discuss possible
projects and programs for use of Watershed Based Implementation Funds (WBIFs) in the next fiscal
year. Each LSC Partner will bring information and analyses related to their proposed project, “set” of
projects (such as projects identified in a subwatershed analysis), or program. Only activities that meet all
of the following “gatekeeper criteria” will be further reviewed for WBIFs.
Gatekeeper Criteria:
1. The proposed projects or program is located in a priority location for the specific activity as listed in
the Implementation Table (Table 5-1).
2. The activity is listed as a high or medium priority for Watershed Based Implementation Funds
(assigned an “A” or “B” in the Implementation Table (Table 5-1)
3. An analysis is complete and/or data are gathered to target and prioritize specific projects where
they will have most benefit using the analyses components below**; or the project is outside an
area with a completed prioritization but has a similar cost benefit as a previously analyzed project.
Steering Cmte (w/
Adivsory Cmte
Input)
•Set guidance, direction, and budget for shared staff positions
•Decide on analyses, mapping, modeling needs
•Set budget and expectations for administrative work with fiscal agent and day-to-day contact
•Decide on specific project, program, or a "set of projects" for implementation; answer gatekeeper questions*
•Develop annual work plan with appropriate budget line items and responsible parties
Policy Committee
•Review and approve annual work plan
•Approve agreements with partnering entities to carryout work
Local Staff
•Carryout approved work plan components through agreements
•Score BMPs with criteria (as guidance)*, concentrating all or most funds on only those that score in the top 25%
*See Section VII.B. and Appendix C for project targeting criteria and prioritization process
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 91
**Minimum components of targeting and prioritizing analyses
(e.g., SWA (see sidebar), diagnostic study, feasibility study):
Spatial analysis that includes pollutant delivery evaluation to
the targeted waterbody
Desktop analysis that includes historical aerial photo review
Water quality modeling or monitoring for load reduction
analysis
Field evaluation for BMP feasibility and potential
Cost benefit analysis completed based on amount of
WBIFs/pound total phosphorus removed and total project
cost/pound total phosphorus removed, both annualized for 30
years
Already completed subwatershed analyses and areas where actively
eroding gullies have been inventoried are shown in Figure 7-1.
There are a variety of pollution reduction estimation tools available to
analyze different types of projects. In general, the following types of
projects will be analyzed with the listed estimation tools.
• Urban stormwater BMPs: MIDS calculator for volume, total
suspended solids, and total phosphorus (particulate and dissolved)
• Agricultural runoff BMPs: PTMApp, SWMM, RUSLE2, Simple method,
ACPF or BWSR Pollutant Reduction Estimator
• Gully stabilization BMPs or streambank/shoreline restoration BMPs:
BWSR Pollutant Reduction Estimator or an alternate method agreed
to by the Steering Committee
• Wetland Restoration for Pollutant Reduction: Estimation via outflow
monitoring or other methods agreed to by the Steering Committee
• In-lake internal loading treatment: Internal loading analysis
Some proposed activities, such as habitat restoration or land protection,
will not be able to be analyzed for pollutant reductions. In those cases, it
will take a discussion of the proposed project’s merits and the opportunity
it offers to address issues and meet the goals and outcomes of this Plan to
determine if WBIFs are warranted during that fiscal year.
A subwatershed analysis
(SWA) is a method to
systematically analyze and
assess a subwatershed to
determine the location and
cost benefit of best
management practices that
can be implemented to
reduce pollution to a specific
waterbody or surface water
system.
Within the LSC Watershed,
the SWA Program is a
collaborating effort among
the Metro Conservation
Districts (MCD), a
joint powers governmental
entity consisting of eleven
Soil and Water Conservation
Districts in Minnesota’s Twin
Cities metropolitan area.
Specific protocols for
completing SWAs in urban
areas and rural areas were
developed by MCD. The SWA
methodology is reviewed and
updated regularly as new
techniques are learned. The
MCD SWA Program will be
used often during this Plan’s
implementation to target and
prioritize the best projects.
The MCD SWA protocol can
be found at:
www.metrotsa4.org/swa
SUBWATERSHED
ANALYSIS (SWA)
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 92
When possible, proposed projects that meet the gatekeeper criteria, should be scored using the
targeting criteria and scoring matrix (Appendix C). Resulting scores for projects, such as best
management practices in urban and agricultural areas, will be used as guidance by the Steering
Committee to compare and contrast various projects being considered for inclusion in the annual work
plan. Components of the targeting criteria and scoring matrix include:
• Cost benefit
• Proximity to stream or river
• Reduction of total phosphorus in highest priority lakes on Minnesota’s Lake Phosphorus Sensitivity
Significance List
• Multiple benefits such as groundwater protection, flood reduction, habitat improvements, and
educational opportunities
• Project readiness and urgency
• Partnerships and funding leveraged
The complete targeting criteria and scoring matrix can be found in Appendix C. Revisions and updates to
the criteria and matrix may be needed to better target projects and practices during future work plan
development. Changes to the criteria and matrix will not require a Plan amendment as explained in
Section IX.E.
Chisago LakesChain of Lakes
Sunrise River System
SevenLakesPine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott County!Coon Lake !Martin Lake
!St Croix RiverDirect Phase II
Rush Lake andRush Creek
Top50P!
BoneLake
SevenLakes
!DeMontrevilleLake!ForestLake North
!Lily Lake
!McKusickLake
!
Perro Creek!St. CroixRiver Direct
ForestLake South Burnett CountyPolk CountyPolk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
St.
C
roix
RiverEsc
arpmentWISCONSIN
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-03-25 15:15 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P_2020Update\Figure 7-1 Completed Subwatershed Analyses.mxd User: rcs2
COMPLETEDSUBWATERSHED ANALYSES
FIGURE 7-1
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix Watershed
Escarpment and streamswith completed inventoryof actively eroding gullies
Completed SubwatershedAnalysis
Municipal Boundary
County Boundary
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 94
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 95
VIII. Local Implementation Programs
This Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan can serve as a comprehensive plan,
local water management plan, or watershed management plan developed or amended, approved, and
adopted, according to MN Statutes chapters 103B, 103C or 103D. This Plan is expected to be adopted
by some counties and soil and water conservation districts as their sole water plan for areas within the
LSC Watershed. This is the case for Chisago and Isanti Counties. Since this Plan does not cover all local
priorities and planned activities for Chisago and Isanti Counties, additional content is provided in
appendices. See Appendix D for the 2020 – 2030 Chisago County Water Plan, and Appendix E for the
Isanti County Water Plan Summary Document.
For other organizations, such watershed districts (WD) and watershed management organizations
(WMO), this Plan will augment, but not replace their current and future watershed management plans.
In these cases, their plans, along with their prioritized and targeted projects and programs, and their
capital improvement programs, remain in effect. Similarly, this Plan will not replace the Washington
County Groundwater Plan. Existing plans can be found on each organization’s website:
Brown’s Creek WD: bcwd.org/
Carnelian Marine St. Croix WD: www.cmscwd.org/
Comfort Lake-Forest Lake WD: www.clflwd.org/
Middle St. Croix WMO: www.mscwmo.org/
South Washington WD: www.swwdmn.org/
Sunrise River WMO: www.srwmo.org/
Washington County Groundwater Plan: www.co.washington.mn.us/1212/Plans
DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 2, 2020 96
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 2, 2020 97
IX. Plan Administration and Collaboration
A. Formal Agreements
Implementation of this Plan will be facilitated through a joint powers collaboration (JPC) agreement to
officially establish the new Lower St. Croix Partnership. Most or all of the fifteen entities that signed the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to cooperate on the development of the Plan are expected to
become members of the LSC Partnership in order to jointly and collaboratively implement the activities
and make progress toward the goals laid out in this Plan. The JPC agreement will be a formal and
outward commitment to work together and will be a legally binding document that assigns decision
making authorities and procedures, voting structure, and liability for the LSC Partnership. The LSC
Partnership intends to review the effectiveness of the JPC structure after 18 months.
A Policy Committee will be established as the governing body of the LSC Partnership with all partnering
entities (JPC signatories), except Chisago County, having one voting representative on the committee.
Because Chisago County makes up nearly 50% of the land area in the LSC Watershed, the county will
have 3 representatives on the committee and will have 3 votes. This voting structure will also be
reviewed after 18 months. The Policy Committee will develop recommendations for consideration by
the governing boards of all LSC Partners. The governing boards will be the final decision-making
authority. The JPC will specify the support level needed for approval.
The Policy Committee will establish bylaws to provide a framework for its operation and management.
The bylaws for the LSC Partnership will include defining a decision-making quorum as 50% of the
members plus one; requiring that motions need affirmative support of a 2/3 majority of those present
to pass; that Roberts Rules of Order will be used to conduct business during committee meetings; and
that the Policy Committee meet quarterly. Additional legal provisions and details for the operation of
the LSC Partnership will be developed within the joint powers collaboration agreement or the bylaws.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 98
B. Decision Making, Staffing, and Collaboration
The successful development of this Plan was due, in large part, to the effective collaboration and
cooperation among LSC Partners. The structure and function of committees responsible for the Plan’s
implementation will be similar to the committees that worked to develop the Plan through the MOA.
i. Policy Committee
As described above, a Policy Committee will be established as the governing body of the LSC Partnership
with all partnering entities (JPC signatories), except Chisago County, having one voting representative on
the committee. Chisago County will have 3 representatives on the committee and will have 3 votes.
The Policy Committee will establish bylaws to describe the functions and operations of all committee(s)
and will have the power to modify the bylaws. The Policy Committee will meet, at least quarterly, to
review past progress and future planned activities and shall consider recommendations from the
Steering Committee on budgets, staffing, administration, work plans, grant applications, etc. The Policy
Committee will develop recommendations on these items for consideration by the governing boards of
all LSC Partners and will carry out the collective will of the governing boards. With support from the
governing boards, the Policy Committee will take appropriate actions including approval of grant
applications, grant agreements, payment of invoices, and professional contracts for plan administration
(including fiscal agent and day-to-day contact). Policy Committee members will keep their respective
governing entities regularly informed on the implementation of the Plan and will coordinate, as needed,
with their local staff serving on the Steering Committee.
ii. Steering Committee
The LSC Partnership will continue using a Steering Committee to act as a local implementation work
group that includes staff with the LSC Partnering entities, including local county water planners, local
watershed organization staff, and local SWCD staff. The Steering Committee will work collaboratively
and in a similar manner as during plan development. The committee will perform the logistical and day-
to-day implementation of this Plan and will make recommendations to the Policy Committee on work
planning, budgeting, grant applications, and other issues needing Policy Committee approval.
The Steering Committee will develop the annual work plan and biennial grant request for Watershed
Based Implementation Funds for Policy Committee consideration, and will work to track and report
progress towards goals and measurable outputs as laid out in Section IX.E.
iii. Advisory Committee
The LSC Partnership will seek the input from an Advisory Committee on an as needed basis during plan
implementation. Similar to the Advisory Committee used during development of the Plan, the
committee will consist of Steering Committee members plus members of state agencies and the
Metropolitan Council. Individuals with other stakeholder groups or partnering organizations with similar
goals and performing similar work in the area may also be invited to join the Advisory Committee, or
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 99
attend meetings, as warranted. These groups might include the St. Croix River Association, St. Croix
Watershed Research Station, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, or others.
iv. Collaboration on Grants and with Other Units of Government
The LSC Partnership will seek grant opportunities to implement high priority activities in this Plan that
are in need of additional funding, including those activities designated as “medium priority” (or “B” in
Table 5-1). Grant applications may be submitted by the LSC Partnership itself, if eligible, or the LSC
Partnership may agree to collaborate on an application submitted by a single LSC Partner or group of
partners. Collaborative grant applications may be a significant source of funding for some activities in
this Plan.
Overall collaboration, coordination, and ongoing communication are critical for a partnership operating
under a joint powers agreement. As throughout the development of this Plan, the LSC Partners will
continue to coordinate and collaborate with local, state, and federal governments. This may be done
formally through Advisory Committee meetings and work, or on a more ad hoc basis as situations and
opportunities arise where input, collaboration, or other assistance is needed from partnering
governments and organizations.
Coordination and communication are especially critical to avoid duplication of efforts (e.g., data
gathering or analyses) or to develop a common language or message for outreach and education
programs. The Partners seek to develop and maintain relationships that will promote effective
coordination to accomplish Plan goals.
Many governmental units have roles and responsibilities related to water and natural resource
management within the LSC Watershed and have established plans, goals, and actions to manage these
resources. Input from State and local governmental agencies was considered and incorporated in the
development of this Plan, and many of the priority issues and goals included in this Plan directly or
indirectly support the goals, objectives, and responsibilities of other governmental units. The LSC
Partners will continue to coordinate with Met Council, BWSR, MDA, MDH, MnDNR, and MPCA as
required through State-legislated programs and to accomplish the many Plan activities that identify
these agencies as cooperating entities. Similarly, continued coordination and communication with local
governmental units, such as cities, township boards, county boards, watershed district boards, joint
powers boards, drainage authorities, and other water management authorities is necessary to facilitate
watershed wide activities. The LSC Partners will also collaborate with non-governmental organizations
where mutual benefit may be achieved. Many of these collaborations are intended to increase habitat,
recreational opportunities, and improve water quality within the Plan area, while providing education
and outreach opportunities.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 100
C. Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is an iterative process of planning, implementing,
assessing and adapting; and it is a key component in the process of watershed
plan implementation. In essence, adaptive management is learning by doing
and using improved data and information over time to improve
decision making with the intent of achieving a goal within a specified
timeframe. Adaptive management utilizes data gathering and
incorporates learning from experience and improved science. It
promotes flexible decision making and implementation that can be
adapted as outcomes from management actions become better
understood. Monitoring of implementation outcomes advances scientific
understanding and helps adjust policies and implementation as part of the
iterative process. Whenever feasible, monitoring will be used to determine the
effectiveness of completed projects.
Specifically, for this Plan, adaptive management will be used to further target funding and other
resources once data are gathered and analyses are complete. Data gathering (e.g., strategic tributary
monitoring) is used to target cost-effective projects and practices and maximize the benefits of limited
public funds. Further, as practices that prove to be extremely effective for a given situation are
documented, that learning will help target effective strategies for the next round of implementation.
This will allow for changes to the schedule or implementation as new issues develop or as field work
begins and better data become available. Minor plan amendments may be needed if priority locations
change due to additional knowledge (see Section IX.F.) Evaluation and reporting (see Section IX.E.) are
an important component of adaptive management.
D. Evaluation and Reporting
Evaluation of the implementation activities within the Plan is critical in assessing progress toward
measurable goals and providing accountability to watershed residents and stakeholders. BWSR’s
Prioritized, Targeted and Measurable (PTM) framework is a core component of implementation and
progress evaluation. As such, demonstrating measurable results is key to evaluation under this Plan.
Three frequencies of progress reporting will occur: annual accomplishment reporting, biennial
partnership and work plan evaluation, and a thorough assessment after 5 years. Additionally, assurance
measures specific to the use of Watershed Based Implementation Funding (WBIF) will be evaluated by
BWSR. Table 9-1 includes a schedule of the different evaluation methods.
Implement
Monitor
Evaluate
Adjust
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 101
Table 9-1. Evaluation and Assessment Schedule
Plan
Year
Annual Accomplishment
Reporting (LSC Report,
PRAP Level I, WBIF
grant reports)
Biennial
Partnership
and Work Plan
Evaluation
Watershed
Based Funding
Assurance
Measures
Five-Year Evaluation
(Thorough
Assessment, Course-
Correction)
1 X
2 X X X
3 X
4 X X X
5 X X
6 X X X
7 X
8 X X X
9 X
10 X X X
i. Watershed Based Funding Assurance Measures
WBIF is a key funding source for implementation of activities in this Plan. BWSR’s WBIF Assurance
Measures provide a framework for summarizing and systematically evaluating how these non-
competitive implementation funds are being used to achieve clean water goals. The assurance measures
are based on fiscal integrity and accountability for achieving measurable progress and will be used as a
means to help the Lower St. Croix Partnership meaningfully assess, track, and describe the use of these
grant funds. The assurance measures are supplemental to existing reporting and ongoing grant
monitoring efforts and include the following:
1) Prioritized, targeted, measurable work is making progress toward achieving clean water goals;
2) Programs, projects, and practices are being implemented in priority areas;
3) Grant work is on schedule and on budget; and
4) Non-state funds and being leveraged
Data for the assurance measures will be gathered once per biennium through a combination of eLINK
reports and local data and information provided by grantees and the LSC Partnership. The Funding Policy
and Assurance Measures for Watershed Based Funding are available on BWSR’s website:
https://bwsr.state.mn.us/watershed-based-implementation-funding-program.
ii. Annual Accomplishment Reporting
Each year, the LSC Partnership will evaluate their collective accomplishments and will report their
progress on implementation activities and outcomes to the LSC Policy Committee. The report will
include feedback requested from agencies on the Advisory Committee. Results of this accomplishment
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 102
assessment and report will be used to support future work plan development, will facilitate adaptive
management decisions, and may indicate necessary plan amendments.
A consistent method for tracking and reporting progress toward Plan goals will be developed by the LSC
Partnership. Methods may include one or more of the following: standard reporting form, spreadsheet,
map-based database, state of the watershed report, and/or individualized waterbody report cards.
Required baseline information will include a summary of activities completed during the reporting
period, dollars spent, budget balance remaining, measurable output achieved, and progress toward Plan
goals. Pollutant load reduction estimates from the tools used to identify practices will be used to track
progress toward goals.
Annual reporting will also be accomplished through existing methods including BWSR’s Level I
Performance Review and Assistance Program (PRAP) and eLINK reporting.
Partners are committed to collaboratively reviewing and submitting to BWSR’s Level I PRAP plans and
reports for each LGU in the partnership. PRAP uses four levels to review and assess performance ranging
from statewide oversight in Level I, to a focus on individual Local Government Unit (LGU) performance in
Levels II and III, and to remediation in Level IV. Level I is an annual tabulation of required plans and
reports for all LGUs. Specific performance standards can be found on BWSR’s Performance Standards
Checklists at https://bwsr.state.mn.us/prap_review.
Projects utilizing Watershed Based Implementation Funds will be subject to reporting requirements in
the grant agreements executed between BWSR and the grant recipients. Grantees will submit an annual
progress report to BWSR by February 1 of each year on the status of program implementation by the
Grantee. Information provided must conform to the requirements and formats set by BWSR. All
individual grants over $500,000 will also require a reporting of expenditures by June 30 of each year.
As Partners implement activities to address local priorities (beyond those identified in the targeted
Implementation Table), progress will be made in the watershed beyond what is covered under the
reports described above. Partners are expected to seek additional grant funding from other sources, and
utilize local funds, to implement additional programs and projects. Reporting on such progress should
align with the WBIF Assurance Measures, though may not necessarily be tracked in eLINK. Partners may
use the standard reporting format developed by the LSC Partnership (noted above) to track their
progress on local priorities, particularly in relation to overall Plan goals.
iii. Biennial Partnership and Work Plan Evaluation
As the LSC Partnership works together over time and refines its administration and implementation
protocols, an assessment of the partnership’s functionality is appropriate. Every two years, individual
LSC partners and agencies will be requested to provide feedback on a variety of items including
fulfillment of committee purposes and roles, efficiencies in service delivery, collaboration among the
partners and other governments or groups, and success in securing funding. Responses may be gathered
in a quantifiable manner or may be more qualitative in nature. The LSC Policy Committee will review the
results of the evaluation and will consider if any issues need to be addressed or protocols or practices
revised.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 103
In addition to evaluating the LSC Partnership, a biennial evaluation of this Plan’s implementation will be
performed to evaluate previous years’ work and to support development of the next biennial work plan.
LSC Partners will meet to evaluate progress in the work plan, revisit the priorities and focus areas, make
recommendations on future budgeting decisions, advise on possible actions to be completed in the
upcoming years, and relay the results of the biennial work plan evaluation to the LSC Policy Committee.
This evaluation will use the results of the annual assessment and will be tied to measurability within the
targeted Implementation Table. Information from annual Watershed Based Implementation Funding
grant reports, Level I PRAP reports, and other sources will also be utilized in this evaluation.
iv. Five-Year Evaluation
Five years into the Plan, LSC Partners will collaboratively perform a thorough assessment of the
Implementation Table. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine implementation progress and
consider whether staying the course or resetting direction is necessary. Revisions may be made to the
Implementation Table as a result of this assessment, which must consider new information and data.
Previous years’ annual and biennial reporting will help inform this evaluation. LSC Partners should
consider updated information such as revisions to models and new monitoring data, as available. If a
WRAPS has been completed or revised since the Plan was originally adopted, this evaluation must
include an assessment of any changes necessary due to the WRAPS. BWSR involvement in this
evaluation may include Level II PRAP to evaluate progress on plan implementation, operational
effectiveness, and partner relationships.
E. Plan Updates and Amendments
This Plan is intended to extend through 2030. In order for this Plan to remain a useful long-term
planning tool, partners may wish to make revisions to the Plan prior to a scheduled Plan update. Plan
amendments will be needed if significant changes are required involving goals, policies, administrative
procedures, funding, or the targeted Implementation Table; or if problems arise that are not addressed
in the Plan. Similarly, local priorities and issues may also change, requiring revisions to the Plan. This
Plan will remain in full effect through 2030 unless an updated plan is approved by BWSR and adopted by
the LSC Partnership prior to that date.
Plan amendments may be proposed by any agency, person, county, city or township, but only the LSC
Partnership’s Policy Committee may initiate the amendment process. All proposed Plan amendments
must be submitted to the LSC Policy Committee in writing, along with a statement of the problem,
rationale for the amendment and an estimate of associated costs.
In recognizing the need to maintain flexibility during implementation, a Plan amendment is not required
for the following situations:
• Revising of estimated cost for activities listed in Implementation Table (Table 5-1)
• Adding or removing activities from the Implementation Table, provided that:
o The activity is consistent with Plan goals, and
o The action is performed through the annual work plan
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 104
• Altering the timeline for planned activities within the Implementation Table
• Including new or updated monitoring data, model results, targeting process or scoring (Section
VII. B.), subwatershed analysis protocol, or other technical information
• Revising proposed priority project locations presented in Table 5-1 in response to modeling
results, mapping, subwatershed analyses, site visits, feasibility studies, or other technical
evaluations
• Formatting or reorganizing the Plan
• Revising a procedure meant to streamline administration of the Plan
• Clarifying existing Plan goals or policies
Such changes will be performed through annual work plans and the biennial work plan update. If it is
unclear whether a proposed revision to the Plan requires an amendment, the LSC Partnership will
coordinate with BWSR staff to determine the need for a Plan amendment and whether a minor or major
amendment process should be followed.
Draft Plan amendments presented to the Policy Committee for consideration shall be prepared and
formatted as described herein. Amendments must be provided (printed or digitally) in the form of
replacement pages for the Plan, each page of which must:
• Show deleted text as stricken and new text as underlined
• Be renumbered as appropriate (unless the entire Plan is reproduced)
• Include the effective date of the amendment (unless the entire Plan is reproduced)
If the Policy Committee, in coordination with BWSR, determine that a Plan amendment is needed, the
LSC Partnership will complete the amendment according to the following procedure:
• Submit the proposed amendment to the all cities, townships, counties, watershed organizations,
and SWCDs within the Plan boundary and applicable state review agencies (BWSR, MDA, MDH,
MnDNR, and MPCA) for a 60-day review
• Respond in writing to address comments submitted by the reviewers
• Hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment
• Submit the final revised amendment, with the written comments received and the comment
responses, a record of the public hearing, and a summary of the changes incorporated into the Plan
to BWSR for approval
The LSC Partnership will maintain a distribution list for copies of the Plan and within 30 days of adopting
an amendment distribute copies of the amendment to the distribution list. Electronic copies of the
amendment will be provided or documents made available for public access on the LSC Partnership
website. Printed copies will be made available upon written request.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 105
X. References
Davenport, M. A., Seekamp, E. (2013) A Multilevel Community Capacity Model for Sustainable
Watershed Management. Society and Natural Resources, 26(9), 1101-1111.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (December 2019) Top Weather and Climate Stories of the
2010s. State Climatology Office Climate Journal. Retrieved from
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/journal/index.html.
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) (2017) Retrieved from
https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/content/25-2025-overview.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (August 2019) 2018 SSTS Annual Report; Subsurface Sewage
Treatment Systems in Minnesota.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (January 2019) County Feedlot Program. Retrieved from
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/county-feedlot-program.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (January 2020) Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Retrieved from
https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Main_Page.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota
Board of Water and Soil Resources (2019) Lakes of Phosphorus Sensitivity Significance (LPSS). Retrieved
from https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-lakes-phosphorus-sensitivity.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2012) Lake St.
Croix Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load Study.
Washington County (2014) Washington County Groundwater Plan 2014 – 2024.
60-DAY REVIEW DRAFT LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
MARCH 30, 2020 106
Appendix A: Land and Water Resource Inventory
Appendix B: Lower St. Croix Watershed Water Storage Analysis
Appendix C: Project Targeting Criteria and Scoring Matrix
Appendix D: Chisago County Water Plan 2020 – 2030
Appendix E: Isanti County Water Plan Summary Document
Appendix A: Land and Water Resource Inventory
DRAFT
Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan
March 2020
LAND AND WATER RESOURCES INVENTORY
Lower St. Croix River Watershed
February 2019
Boats on the St. Croix River. Photo courtesy of Dianne Towalski.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 5
2. LAND USE ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
3. ECOREGION AND SOILS ...................................................................................................................................... 11
4. CLIMATE AND PRECIPITATION ........................................................................................................................... 11
5. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 14
5.1 GOOSE CREEK WATERSHED (ROCK, RUSH, & GOOSE CREEKS) ................................................................... 15
5.2 SUNRISE RIVER WATERSHED ...................................................................................................................... 17
5.2.1 NORTH BRANCH SUNRISE RIVER ......................................................................................................... 18
5.2.2 WEST BRANCH SUNRISE RIVER ........................................................................................................... 18
5.2.3 SOUTH BRANCH SUNRISE RIVER AND CARLOS AVERY........................................................................ 19
5.2.4 MAIN STEM SUNRISE RIVER ................................................................................................................ 19
5.2.5 COMFORT LAKE-FOREST LAKE SUBWATERSHED ................................................................................ 20
5.2.6 CHISAGO LAKES CHAIN OF LAKES SUBWATERSHED ........................................................................... 21
5.3 DIRECT DRAINAGE TO ST. CROIX RIVER (SUNRISE RIVER TO WASHINGTON COUNTY) .............................. 22
5.4 CARNELIAN-MARINE-ST. CROIX WATERSHED ............................................................................................. 24
5.5 BROWN’S CREEK WATERSHED .................................................................................................................... 25
5.6 MIDDLE ST. CROIX WATERSHED ................................................................................................................. 26
5.7 VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED .................................................................................................................... 27
5.8 SOUTH WASHINGTON WATERSHED ........................................................................................................... 28
5.9 ST. CROIX RIVER AND LAKE ST. CROIX ........................................................................................................ 29
6. GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................................. 31
6.1 GENERAL HYDROGEOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 31
6.2 POLLUTION SENSITIVITY ............................................................................................................................. 32
6.3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY .......................................................................................................................... 35
6.4 GROUNDWATER USE .................................................................................................................................. 37
6.5 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWLS ............................................................................. 38
7. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................................................... 39
7.1 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ...................................................................................................................... 39
7.1.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 39
7.1.2 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................... 40
7.2 RARE AND ENDANGERED FEATURES .......................................................................................................... 41
7.2.1 RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES .................................................................... 41
7.2.2 MCBS SITES OF BIODIVERSITY SIGNIFICANCE AND NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES ........................... 41
8. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 44
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
3
FIGURES
Lower St. Croix Watershed Interactive Map:
https://maps.barr.com/LSCWD/1W1P/index.html
Figure 1. Lower St. Croix River Watershed Location ……………………………………………………………………..…...7
Figure 2. Lower St. Croix River Watershed Landcover ……………………………………………………………………….10
Figure 3. Statewide Precipitation Levels in 2017 (MnDNR State Climatology Office, 2018) ……………….12
Figure 4. Precipitation Trends in East Central Minnesota (1993-2013) with Five-Year Running Average
(MnDNR, 2018)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..13
Figure 5. Precipitation Trends in East Central Minnesota (1913-2013) with Nine-Year Running Average
(MnDNR, 2018) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
Figure 6. Surface Waters & Subwatersheds in Northern Portion of Lower St. Croix R. Watershed…… 23
Figure 7. Surface Waters & Subwatersheds in Southern Portion of Lower St. Croix R. Watershed…….30
Figure 8. Lower St. Croix Watershed Simplified Geologic Cross Section (MDH, 2018) …………………….…32
Figure 9. Lower St. Croix Watershed Pollution Sensitivity, Near-Surface Materials (MDH, 2018)…….. 33
Figure 10. Lower St. Croix Watershed Pollution Sensitivity of Wells (MDH, 2018) …………………………...34
Figure 11. Reported Groundwater Use by Aquifer Type (MDH, 2018) ……………………………………………..37
Figure 12. Reported Water Use by Resource Category (MDH, 2018) ……………………………………………….39
Figure 13. Sites of Biodiversity Significance by Minnesota County Biological Survey ……………………....43
TABLES
Table 1. Reported 2016 Water Use from DNR Groundwater Appropriation Permit Holders (MDH, 2018)
...38
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
4
ACRONYMS
1W1P – One Watershed One Plan
AIS – Aquatic invasive species
AUIDs – Assessment Unit Identifications
DO – Dissolved oxygen
ECS – Ecological Classification System
GRAPS – Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies
GW – Groundwater
HUC – Hydrologic unit code
IBI – Index of biotic integrity
LSCR – Lower St. Croix River
MCBS – Minnesota County Biological Survey
MDA – Minnesota Department of Agriculture
MDH – Minnesota Department of Health
MG – Million Gallons
MnDNR – Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
MPCA – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NPS – National Park Service
PFAS – Perfluoroalkyl substances
PFCs – Perfluorochemicals
PFOs – Perfluorooctane sulfonate
SSTS – Subsurface sewage treatment system
TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load
TP – Total phosphorus
TSS – Total suspended solids
VOCs – Volatile organic compounds
WD – Watershed District
WiDNR – Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WMA – Wildlife Management Area
WMO – Watershed Management Organization
WRAPS – Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
5
1. INTRODUCTION
The Lower St. Croix River (LSCR) One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) boundary follows the boundary of the
Lower St. Croix River Watershed (HUC 07030005) (Figure 1). The Lower St. Croix River Watershed is one
of four major watersheds in the St. Croix River Basin. It begins just downstream of the confluence of the
St. Croix and Snake rivers near Pine City and runs parallel to the St. Croix River to the confluence with
the Mississippi River near the city of Prescott, Wisconsin. This watershed consists of several major
tributaries that drain into the Lower St. Croix River including Rock, Rush, and Goose Creeks; the Sunrise
River; Brown’s Creek, Valley Branch Creek, Trout Brook, and O’Connor’s Creek; and several small
streams.
The Lower St. Croix River Watershed is approximately 915 square miles (585,735 acres) and lies primarily
in the North Central Hardwood Forest ecoregion, with small portions of the Northern Lakes and Forests
ecoregion in the north, and Western Corn Belt Plains ecoregion to the south (MPCA 2014(i)). The
watershed is located in the Upper Mississippi River Basin and encompasses parts of Pine (8.5%), Chisago
(47.3%), Isanti (7.2%), Anoka (6.2%), Washington (30.6%), and Ramsey (0.1%) counties. There are 60
municipalities and townships located completely or partially within the boundaries of the watershed.
Additionally, there are eight watershed organizations in the watershed including the Chisago Lakes Lake
Improvement District (LID), Sunrise River Watershed Management Organization (WMO), Comfort Lake-
Forest Lake Watershed District (WD), Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix WD, Brown’s Creek WD, Middle St.
Croix WMO, Valley Branch WD, and South Washington WD (Figure 1.)
The watershed’s surface waters are abundant with 127 lakes, over 1,000 miles of rivers, streams, and
judicial/public ditches, and approximately 152,000 acres of wetlands. A regionally significant big river, the
entire length of the St. Croix River is officially designated as a National Wild and Scenic Riverway by the
federal government. In the upper reaches of the 97-mile reach of the St. Croix River along the LSC
Watershed, the river meanders through a narrow floodplain with numerous oxbow lakes, back channels
and sloughs. Upon reaching the Arcola sandbar north of the city of Stillwater, the river opens up to become
Lake St. Croix, a large open water basin with little flow or gradient change. Lake St. Croix covers the
southernmost 25 miles of the river from Stillwater, MN to Prescott, WI. The channel constricts flow at a
few locations throughout the lake creating four distinct pools.
Unfortunately, the St. Croix River and Lake St. Croix are included on the state’s list of impaired waters
because of high levels of phosphorus which can create nuisance algae blooms, decreasing water clarity
and degrading habitats and recreational suitability. Still, the river and lake have relatively good water
quality as compared to other metropolitan resources and the Mississippi River. They provide extensive
habitat and attract recreational tourists seeking opportunities for paddling, boating, fishing, and
swimming. Four Minnesota state parks (Wild River, Interstate, William O’Brien, and Afton) and numerous
natural areas and public lands dot the shoreline in this watershed.
Lakes are abundant throughout much of the watershed and range from small pristine lakes with little or
no development, to large lakes important for recreation and ringed with developed shoreland. The more
significant lakes in the Lower St. Croix River Watershed include Big Marine, Big Carnelian, the Chisago
Lakes Chain, Coon, Elmo, Forest, Goose, Little Carnelian, Rush, Rock, and Square located in the central and
southern parts of the watershed. Most of these lakes are linked through a chain of small connector
waterways. Small impoundments are also a part of the Sunrise River System. These lakes and
impoundments contribute to the biological communities of the adjacent tributaries. Not surprisingly,
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
6
many of these lakes are impaired for high nutrients due to non-point source pollution (runoff) from
agricultural and developed lands.
The watershed’s numerous rivers, streams, and ditches directly connect the land to the St. Croix River.
Rock, Rush, and Goose Creeks drain the northern portion of the watershed. These creeks are impaired for
bacteria (E. coli) and are also considered sources of nutrient pollution (including total phosphorus) to the
St. Croix River and Lake St. Croix. At 385 square miles, the Sunrise River Watershed makes up a significant
portion of the whole LSC Watershed. Numerous water quality impairments exist in the Sunrise River
Watershed, and it is considered the highest contributor of nutrient pollution to Lake St. Croix, mainly due
to its size (MPCA, 2012). Many other streams enter the St. Croix River and Lake St. Croix throughout the
southern portion of the watershed including Browns Creek, Valley Creek, and Trout Brook.
As the land changes from agricultural uses in the low gradient headwater areas of the watershed to more
forests near the mouths of the tributaries, the stream gradients increase as the elevation drops on the
path to the St. Croix River. Gradient is particularly low in the central portion of the watershed creating
landscapes dominated by wetlands and multiple branches of the Sunrise River watershed. There are
numerous springs along the St. Croix River corridor, creating cool water and coldwater conditions,
particularly in the southern part of the watershed. Due to the presence of these springs in the forested
areas of the watershed, there are 15 designated trout streams recognized by the MnDNR.
Before western settlement, the river valley was dominated by hardwood forests and mixed savannah with
large white pine stands in the far northern portion of the watershed. The area produced an estimated 15
billion board feet of timber between 1839-1916. Today land cover in the watershed is a mix of agriculture,
developed areas, and open land and water including: 25 percent forest/shrubland, 22 percent
grassland/hay fields/pastures, 19 percent wetland, 17 percent row crops, 10 percent developed/mining,
and 7 percent open water.
Groundwater is an important resource throughout the Lower St. Croix River Watershed. It accounts for
100% of the region’s drinking water and more than 80% of groundwater withdrawal is for public water
supply use. Adequate supplies of high-quality groundwater are needed for the region’s residents,
businesses and natural resources. Contamination of groundwater from various pollution sources is a
growing concern in much of the watershed, and large areas of contamination are currently a known and
significant problem in much of Washington County. Groundwater is at greater risk to contamination in
areas of high pollution sensitivity. A large band of high pollution sensitivity extends through the middle
portion of the watershed through Anoka, Isanti and Chisago Counties. Much of Washington County is also
sensitive to groundwater pollution.
The information contained within this Land and Water Resources Inventory is largely transcribed from
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Lower St. Croix Watershed Monitoring and Assessment
Report (February 2014) along with various local water management plans, watershed restoration and
protection strategies, total maximum daily load studies, and the Lower St. Croix Groundwater
Restoration and Protection Strategy (MDH 2018). Few maps are included in this inventory although a
detailed interactive map of the entire watershed is available at:
https://maps.barr.com/LSCWD/1W1P/index.html.
Shafer
Marineon SaintCroix
Oakdale
Stillwater
Harris
Center City
ChisagoCity
Lake Elmo Bayport
Wyoming
Taylors Falls
Rush City
North Branch
Scandia
Grant
Lakeland
Stacy
Afton
Rock Creek
EastBethel
Forest Lake
LindstromPine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott CountyMud Lake
Green Lake
LinwoodLake
West RushLake
ChisagoLake
East RushLake
CoonLake
SunriseLake
ForestLake
GooseLake
Big MarineLake
Big CarnelianLakeSt. Croix RiverCedarCreekBeaverC r e e k
Rum RiverRiceCreekMinnesotaRiverMississippiRiv er
B
ro
wn'sC reek
Sunrise River Sn ak e RiverV er m illionR iv e r
Valley Cre e kSunrise River
Nort
h
Bra
nc
hG ooseCreekRockCreek
Ru sh C reekMIDDLEST.CROIX
COMFORT LAKEFOREST LAKE
RICE CREEK
SUNRISE RIVER
RAMSEY-WASHINGTONMETRO
SOUTHWASHINGTON
VALLEY BRANCH
BROWNSCREEK
CARNELIAN-MARINE-ST.CROIX
COON CREEK
B u r n e t t C o u n t yPolk County
Polk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
WISCONSIN
CHISAGOLAKESLID
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-12-05 12:01 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P\Figure 1 Lower St. Croix River Watershed.mxd User: RCS2
LOWER ST. CROIXRIVER WATERSHED
FIGURE 1
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix Watershed
PWI Watercourse
Lake, Pond or Reservoir
River or Stream
Watershed ManagementDistricts and Organizations
Brown's Creek
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix
Comfort Lake Forest Lake
Middle St. Croix
South Washington
Sunrise River
Valley Branch
Chisago Lakes LakeImprovement District
Municipal Boundary
County Boundary
MN
MN DNR Watersheds - DNR Level 04 -HUC 08 - Majors 2009. MN DNRHydrography 2015. MN Public WaterInventory Watercourses 2008.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
8
2. LAND USE
The Lower St. Croix River Watershed is comprised of rolling, wooded bluff land, and small wooded
valleys. Above the bluffs, agriculture, rural residential and urban lands are the more prevalent land uses.
The Lower St. Croix River was designated as a Wild and Scenic River in 1972, resulting in stricter
regulations on the development of surrounding riparian land and additional protection of instream
hydrological changes and water quality. This has allowed the bluffs surrounding the Lower St. Croix River
to remain relatively undisturbed; this is where the majority of forests lies in this watershed (Figure 2.)
Before western settlement, the river valley was dominated by hardwood forests and mixed savannah
with large white pine stands in the far northern portion of the watershed. Once the treaty of 1837 was
signed, the federal government obtained the land within the Lower St. Croix Watershed, and started
intensively logging it, producing 15 billion board feet of timber between 1839-1916 (MPCA, 2014(i)). The
St. Croix River was used to transport large amounts of timber south to mills which shipped lumber across
the country. Following the logging boom, fertile land that was cleared for logging was converted to
agricultural production (MPCA, 2014(i)).
Today land cover in the
watershed is distributed as
follows: 25 percent
forest/shrubland, 22 percent
grassland/hay
fields/pastures, 19 percent
wetland, 17 percent row
crops, 10 percent
developed/mining, and 7
percent open water (Remote
Sensing and Geospatial
Analysis Laboratory,
University of Minnesota,
Landsat and Lidar, 2013)
(Figure 2).
Farmland accounts for
115,280 and 81,237 acres in Washington and Chisago counties respectively. The number of farms in
these counties has dropped by 8% and 15% between 2002 and 2007, respectively. The majority of farms
in these two counties are smaller than 180 acres (MPCA, 2014(i)). There are 189 permitted feedlots in
the watershed, scattered throughout the watershed with higher densities in the east and north central
regions.
Significant population centers are located along the I-35 and I-94 corridors, including the eastern Twin
Cities metropolitan area, Stillwater, Forest Lake, Wyoming, and North Branch. Urban sprawl has
increasingly affected the southern portion of this watershed, with metropolitan communities (e.g.
Oakdale, Woodbury, and Mahtomedi) expanding east further into the watershed. Woodbury was the
third fastest growing city in the metropolitan area, expanding by 12,875 residents between 2000-2009
MPCA, 2014(i)). From 2000 to 2010, Washington and Chisago counties grew by 18% and 31%
Lower St. Croix Land Cover Distribution, 2013
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
9
respectively, among the highest growth rates for counties in Minnesota (MPCA, 2014(i)). Urban growth
results in more impervious surfaces (e.g. parking lots, driveways, roads, sidewalks, rooftops) which
impede natural infiltration processes, and can lead to higher runoff rates, increased sedimentation and
altered thermal regimes in urban waterways.
By 2030, Chisago and Washington counties are projected to grow by 13,778 (25%) and 128,842 (55%),
respectively. In Washington County alone, there is a projected need for a 57,638 (66%) household
increase (Chisago Co., 2017) (Washington Co., 2009). As population centers expand and development
increases, so does the need for environmental planning and regulation. Municipal and county
comprehensive plans contain environmental and natural resource considerations as part of their
development outlook, and generally aim to accommodate projected growth in sustainable ways. Factors
cited as influencing land use include natural resource base, geographical location, cultural influences,
population characteristics, and residential development patterns. While urban sprawl can negatively
impact natural resources, Low Impact Development (LID) and Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS)
aim to allow development to continue while mitigating natural resource impacts. Many local
organizations such as watershed districts and watershed management organizations enforce such
environmental protection regulations. It is critical to obtain buy-in and support from development
authorities such as municipalities and counties in order to ensure these regulations are enforced in an
efficient and effective way.
Pine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott CountyB u r n e t t C o u n t yPolk County
Polk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
WISCONSIN
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-12-06 11:43 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P\Figure 2 Landcover in the St. Croix River Watershed.mxd User: RCS2
LANDCOVER IN THEST. CROIX RIVERWATERSHEDFIGURE 2
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix Watershed
County Boundary
Landcover
Emergent Wetlands
Forested/Shrub Wetlands
Open Water
Extraction
Coniferous Forest
Deciduous Forest
Mixed Forest
Grassland/Managed Grass
Hay/Pastures
Row Crops
Imperviousness100% 0%
Remote Sensing and Geospatial AnalysisLaboratory, University of Minnesota.Minnesota Land Cover Classification andImpervious Surface Area by Landsat andLidar: 2013 update - Version 2. 1/29/2016
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
11
3. ECOREGION AND SOILS
The Lower St. Croix River Watershed is located within the North Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion,
with small portions lying within the Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion in the north and Western
Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion to the south. According to the Ecological Classification System (ECS), the
watershed is located within the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province and the Laurentian Mixed Forest
Province, the Western Superior Uplands Section and the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal
Section. The watershed also lays within the Mille Lacs Uplands, the St. Croix Moraine, the Anoka Sand
Plain, and the St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines Subsections (MnDNR, 2018(i)).
Alfisols and Entisols soil types are prominent throughout this watershed; these are usually loamy or
sandy soils which allow productive row crop agricultural practices to thrive (MPCA 2014(i)). Alfisols are
formed from weathering processes under forests or mixed vegetation that contributes to high clay
content; making them fertile with a high moisture holding capacity. Entisols occur in areas of recently
deposited parent materials or in areas where or in areas where erosion or deposition rates are faster
than the rate of soil development; such as steep slopes and flood plains. Soil types are illustrated in the
Lower St. Croix River One Watershed One Plan Interactive Map available at
https://www.barr.com/maps/LSCWD/1W1P/index.html#/-93.0692/45.3940/9.
4. CLIMATE AND PRECIPITATION
Due to its position in the continent, Minnesota is located on the boundary between the semi-humid
climate regime of the eastern U.S., and the semi-arid regime to the west. Semi-humid climates are areas
where average annual precipitation exceeds average annual evapotranspiration, leading to a net surplus
of water. Minnesota’s ecoregion has a continental climate, characterized by warm summers and cold
winters. The mean annual temperature for Minnesota is 4.5˚C (40.1˚F); the mean summer temperature
for the LSCR Watershed ranges from 19˚C (67˚F) to 21˚C (70˚F); and the mean winter temperature
ranges from -9˚C (15˚F) to -7˚C (18˚F) (MnDNR State Climatology Office, 2018).
Precipitation is the source of almost all water inputs to a watershed. Figure shows two representations
of precipitation for calendar year 2017. The map on the left indicates total precipitation, showing the
typical pattern of increasing precipitation toward the eastern portion of the state. According to this
figure, the LSCR Watershed area received 28 to 32 inches of precipitation in 2017. The map on the right
shows the amount those precipitation levels departed from normal. For the LSCR Watershed, the map
shows that precipitation ranged from two (2) inches below normal to four (4) inches above normal.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
12
Figure 3. Statewide Precipitation Levels During 2017 (MnDNR State Climatology Office, 2018)
The LSCR Watershed is located in the east central precipitation region. Figure 4 and Figure 5 display the
areal average representation of precipitation in east central Minnesota for 20 and 100 years,
respectively. An areal average is a spatial average of all the precipitation data collected within a certain
area presented as a single dataset. Rainfall in the east central region displays no significant trend over
the last 20 years. Though rainfall has varied in intensity on an annual basis, average precipitation in east-
central Minnesota has not changed dramatically over this time period. Looking further into historical
records, precipitation in east-central Minnesota over the past 100 years displays a statistically significant
rising trend. This long-term trend is typical for Minnesota over this time period.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
13
Figure 4. Precipitation Trends in East Central Minnesota (1993-2013) with Five-Year Running Average (MnDN
State Climatology Office R, 2018)
Figure 5. Precipitation Trends in East Central Minnesota (1913-2013) with Nine-Year Running Average (MnDNR
State Climatology Office, 2018)
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
14
5. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
The Lower St. Croix River Watershed begins as the mainstem of the St. Croix River flows south from the
confluence with the Snake River and continues 97 miles south until its confluence with the Mississippi
River in Prescott, WI. This section of river includes Lake St. Croix, the southernmost 25 miles of the river
from Stillwater, MN to Prescott, WI. Combined, the St. Croix River and Lake St. Croix provide a regionally
significant big river, officially designated as a National Wild and Scenic Riverway by the Federal
government and an Outstanding Resource Value Water by the State of Minnesota. Recreation,
transportation, habitat, and migratory flyway are among the more important uses of the river. Along
this stretch, the main channel of the St. Croix River meanders through a narrow flood plain with
numerous oxbow lakes, back channels and sloughs. Upon reaching the Arcola sandbar north of the city
of Stillwater, the river opens up to become Lake St. Croix, a large open water basin with little flow or
gradient change. The channel constricts flow at a few locations throughout Lake St. Croix; creating
characteristics of a large river system with increased flow and channel development.
There are six major tributaries to the St. Croix River in the Lower St. Croix River Watershed: Rock Creek,
Rush Creek, Goose Creek, Sunrise River, Browns Creek, and Valley Branch Creek. Some smaller
tributaries include Lawrence Creek, Trout Brook, O’Connor’s Creek, and Silver Creek. The majority of
other tributaries in this watershed are unnamed, intermittent streams and some judicial ditches.
There are numerous lakes located in the central and northern portion of this watershed. Most lakes are
interconnected with outlets and channels eventually flowing to the St. Croix River. The most significant
lakes in the watershed include Coon, Rock, Rush, Goose, Sunrise River pools, Big Marine, Forest, Green,
Chisago, North Center, North Lindstrom, South Center, South Lindstrom, Square, Carnelian, Little
Carnelian, and Elmo.
Wetlands are prevalent throughout this watershed, playing a large role in the dynamics of some lakes
and rivers. According to the National Wetland Inventory (2013), there are approximately 152,000 acres
of wetlands throughout the watershed. The central and southern sections of the mainstem St. Croix
River included in this watershed have few wetlands in the immediate riparian areas. Riparian wetlands
are more prevalent in northern sections of the river. Lagoons, sloughs, and oxbow lakes are an
important part of the floodplain throughout the river as the water levels fluctuate seasonally. Estimated
wetland loss between the 1860’s to early 1980’s varied significantly across the watershed from 57% in
Washington County to only 8% in Pine County. Other counties had estimated wetland loss of 36% in
Chisago County, 29% in Anoka County, and 20% in Isanti County (MnDNR, Division of Waters, 1997).
In addition to significant natural features, there is a vast network of stormwater infrastructure features
working to manage and move water within the built environments of the watershed. There are thirty-
one MS4s across the watershed including twenty cities or townships, three counties, five watershed
districts, Century College, the Minnesota Correctional Facility, and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. “MS4s” (or municipal separate storm sewer systems) are communities or institutions
that own, operate, and manage stormwater conveyances or systems of conveyances including structures
such as roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made
channels, storm drains, etc.). These entities receive a permit to discharge stormwater through these
systems. The MS4 General Permit is designed to reduce the amount of sediment and pollution that
enters surface and ground water from storm sewer systems to the maximum extent practicable.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
15
Through the MS4 General Permit, the system owner or operator is required to develop a stormwater
pollution prevention program that incorporates best management practices applicable to their area.
The following sections provide an overview of the surface water resources and their conditions within
the major subwatersheds and watershed management organizations in the LSCR watershed.
5.1 GOOSE CREEK WATERSHED (ROCK, RUSH, & GOOSE CREEKS)
Sources and Additional Monitoring Data:
Goose Creek Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies Report (MPCA, 2015) Lower
St. Croix Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report (MPCA, 2014(i))
Chisago County Soil and Water Conservation District Water Body Assessments
The Goose Creek Watershed comprises the northern portion of the Lower St. Croix River Watershed and
includes the subwatersheds of Rock Creek, Rush Creek, and Goose Creek. The watershed is
approximately 184 square miles within the Northern Central Hardwood Forest ecoregion, and is located
in Chisago and Pine counties and less than one square mile in Isanti County (Figure 6).
Surface waters within the Goose Creek Watershed were assessed in 2009 for pollutants and biological
health and many of the waterbodies have more than one impairment. Lakes in this watershed impaired
for excess nutrients include Goose Lake (North Bay and South Bay), Horseshoe Lake, Rock Lake, and
Rush Lake (East and West). Continuous yearly water quality monitoring data from 2012 to the present
shows improving water quality trends on Goose Lake (North Bay and South Bay), Horseshoe Lake and
Rush Lake (East and West). East Rush Lake shows a long-term trend for eutrophication parameters
indicating a 98% increase (improvement) in Secchi transparency depth between 1979 and 2012.
Additionally, Fish Lake in the Goose Creek Watershed has one of the best water quality in all the lakes in
Chisago County. Some of the smaller lakes including Rabour, Mandall, and Little Horseshoe have not
been assessed due to lack of data, however, it’s likely these too are impaired.
According to the Goose Creek Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) (MPCA, 2015),
likely pollutant sources for lakes include upstream lake effluent, internal release of phosphorus from
lake sediments, and fertilizer and manure runoff from agricultural lands.
The major streams in the Goose Creek Watershed including Rock Creek, Rush Creek and Goose Creek are
described below. According to the Goose Creek WRAPS, the likely pollutant sources for the streams’
bacteria (E. Coli) and biological impairments include upstream lake effluent and fertilizer and manure
runoff from agricultural lands. Two additional unnamed creeks (07030005-729 and 07030005-741) were
found to meet standards for turbidity but lacked enough data for complete assessment.
Rush Creek begins as an outlet of Rush Lake and flows east approximately 14 miles, passing through the
town of Rush City before it reaches the St. Croix River. It is impaired for E. Coli, fish and
macroinvertebrate IBI. Agricultural land uses make up more than half the watershed landscape. The
upper two-thirds of this watershed are dominated by agricultural cropland with urban areas and small
parcels of woodland present, while the lower portion is predominately forested. The most common
stressors affecting stream biota are low dissolved oxygen (DO), high phosphorus levels, lack of habitat,
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
16
altered hydrology, and physical connectivity. Low DO levels are present in the stream headwaters
resulting from the low gradient nature of the stream upper watersheds, and the location of impaired
lakes with excess nutrients in the headwaters (Rush Lake). Stream eutrophication is a localized stressor
in the stream upper reaches with DO and nutrient levels improving in the stream lower reaches. There is
also a lack of habitat with low diversity of pools and riffles and the presence of fine sediments in the
stream bed resulting from the wide and shallow nature of the stream and predominantly sand substrate.
Several dams and a perched culvert are located along Rush Creek, impeding stream connectivity and fish
migration. One dam was recently removed on the creek in Rush City; habitat restoration in that area
may improve the streams ability to support diverse aquatic communities. The riparian corridor of this
creek becomes forested as it flows downstream past Rush City, allowing for natural infiltration of surface
water runoff. Within the Rush Creek subwatershed, two channelized tributaries (County Ditch 6 and an
unnamed creek) were found to have poor fish communities and below average habitat conditions.
The headwaters of Goose Creek start with small watercourses that flow into Goose Lake, eventually
draining through an outlet of Goose Lake in the Township of Fish Lake. A tributary to the creek flows
from Horseshoe Lake. Flowing southeast approximately 22.2 miles, Goose Creek passes through the
town of Harris and eventually into the heavily forested Wild River State Park, before its confluence with
the St. Croix River. Agricultural lands comprise just over half of the watershed.
During the 2009 assessment, Goose Creek’s fish community varied from poor to above average,
resulting in an impairment for aquatic life. Invertebrate communities, in contrast, show improvement
over previous years. Habitat quality in this creek varies from poor to good which is likely a result of small
channelized sections degrading habitat, while other undisturbed portions maintain natural habitat
characteristics that are supportive of healthy aquatic communities.
Rock Creek begins as an outlet of Rock Lake flows southeast approximately 15.6 miles before its
confluence with the St. Croix River. Along its course Rock Creek has numerous small tributaries and
three unnamed creeks. While this subwatershed is heavily agricultural, the riparian corridor along Rock
Creek remains largely intact which likely contributes to the average and above average fish and
macroinvertebrate communities. While the creek meets standards for biota, it’s recreational use is
impaired by E. Coli.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
17
5.2 SUNRISE RIVER WATERSHED
Sources and Additional Monitoring Data:
North Branch Sunrise River Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (MPCA, 2006)
Comfort Lake Forest Lake Six Lakes Total Maximum Daily Load (CLFLWD, 2010)
Comfort-Lake-Forest-Lake Watershed Management Plan Vol II (CLFLWD, 2011)
Martin and Typo Lakes Total Maximum Daily Load (MPCA, 2012)
Lake St. Croix Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load Study (MPCA, WiDNR, 2012)
Chisago Lakes Chain of Lakes Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (MPCA, 2013)
Lower St. Croix Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report (MPCA, 2014(i))
Sunrise River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (MPCA, 2014(ii))
Sunrise River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Study (Chisago SWCD, 2013)
Sunrise River Watershed Management Plan (SRWMO, 2010)
Anoka Conservation District Water Monitoring Programs
Chisago County Soil and Water Conservation District Water Body Assessments
Isanti County Soil and Water Conservation District Water Monitoring Programs
Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Watershed District Monitoring Programs
The Sunrise River Watershed is approximately 385 square miles and is located in the North Central
Hardwood Forest ecoregion. It lies in parts of four counties (Anoka, Chisago, Isanti, and Washington)
with the largest area in Chisago County. The area includes eight incorporated cities (North Branch, Stacy,
Wyoming, Forest Lake, East Bethel, Chisago City, Lindstrom, and Center City) and covers portions of
nineteen townships. Several smaller streams combine to form the Sunrise River: the North Branch of the
Sunrise River, which begins in Isanti County and flows east to its confluence with the main branch in
Sunrise Township; the West Branch of the Sunrise River which begins in Anoka County and flows east to
the confluence with the main stem in Stacy, MN; the South Branch of the Sunrise River which begins in
Coon Lake in Anoka County and flows northeast through the pools and wetlands in the Carlo Avery
Wildlife Management Area; and the main branch of the Sunrise River which starts in northern
Washington County and flows north and east to its confluence with the St. Croix River at Sunrise
Township (Figure 6).
The Sunrise River Watershed is a high priority subwatershed of the Lower St. Croix River Watershed. It
was identified as one of the greatest contributors of phosphorus and sediment to the St. Croix River and
was allocated a 33% reduction in phosphorus loading in the Lake St. Croix Nutrient TMDL (MPCA,
WiDNR, 2012).
The watershed has a mixture of residential, agriculture, and forested land with approximately 8%
developed, 24% in wetlands and open waters, 24% in cropland, 18% in grassland, and 26% in forest. The
watershed contains numerous lakes; many are highly developed and important for recreation, while
others have little or no development are important “natural environment” lakes. Of the 140 lakes (over
10 acres in size) in the watershed, 46 lakes (or bays) have been monitored for impairments to aquatic
recreation with 22 being deemed “non- supporting” for aquatic recreation due to high nutrient levels.
Depending on the lake, high nutrients can originate from lawns and paved surfaces in developed areas,
failing septic systems along the shoreline, field and feedlot runoff in agricultural areas, and internal
loading within the lake.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
18
Of the more than 100 stream reaches (many reaches can make up one stream) within the region, only 5
were found to be fully supporting (not impaired) for aquatic life and 2 for aquatic recreation. Ten
reaches were found to be non-supporting for aquatic life and 7 for aquatic recreation. Many of the other
reaches were monitored, but did not have sufficient data to completely assess them. Many of these non-
supporting waterbodies have approved TMDLs, and some have approved implementation plans.
5.2.1 NORTH BRANCH SUNRISE RIVER
The North Branch Sunrise River Watershed drains approximately 78 square miles in eastern Isanti and
central Chisago Counties. The headwaters of the North Branch Sunrise River begin 4.75 miles east of
Isanti, in the township of North Branch. The North Branch Sunrise River then flows east 24.1 miles, and
through the city of North Branch before reaching its confluence with the main stem of the Sunrise River
in the Township of Sunrise. Along its course, four named tributaries flow into the river: County Ditch 7,
County Ditch 19, Judicial Ditch 4, and Hay Creek. Cropland comprises 40% of the land use in this
watershed followed by forests (22%), grassland (19%) and wetlands/open water (11%). Developed land
comprised the remainder of the land use here. The BWSR soil erosion and water quality risk levels are
high and medium, respectively.
The North Branch Sunrise River is impaired due to E. Coli and does not meet fish IBI standards. The
riparian corridor of this river is largely undisturbed outside of the city of North Branch. Within the city
impervious surfaces decrease natural infiltration. The North Branch Sunrise River Bacteria TMDL was
completed in 2006.
County Ditch 7 was the one tributary assessed and although limited biological data were available, its
fish communities were in poor condition. Overall, habitat in County Ditch 7 seemed average for
supporting aquatic communities, but lack of cover for certain aquatic species could be contributing to
poor diversity. The other ditches and tributaries in this subwatershed do not have enough data for
assessment. The same is true for the 7 of the 8 lakes in this subwatershed (Splittstoeser, Grass,
Horseleg, Horseshoe, Big Pine, Chain North and Chain South). According the MPCA’s Water Quality
Dashboard (accessed October 2018), Mud Lake (13-0066-00) was assessed and found to be in good
condition.
5.2.2 WEST BRANCH SUNRISE RIVER
The West Branch Sunrise River Watershed is located in the west central portion of the Lower St. Croix
Watershed, encompassing roughly 53 square miles in parts of Isanti, Anoka, and Chisago Counties. The
West Branch Sunrise River begins in the township of Oxford, and then flows in a southeasterly direction
15.4 miles until it reaches Pool 1 of the Sunrise River just east of the town of Stacy. In that span this
waterway flows through two nutrient impaired lakes (Typo and Martin) and a mix of agricultural land
use and wetland complexes. Twenty-two basins are in the watershed; all but one is shallow. Forests
account for almost half the land use (47%) followed by wetlands and open water at 26%, grassland
(11%), developed areas (9%) and cropland (7%). In this subwatershed, the BWSR soil erosion and water
quality risk levels are both ranked “medium.”
According to the MPCA’s assessment in 2011, fish and Invertebrate communities on the West Branch
Sunrise River downstream of Martin Lake indicate an impaired condition, with tolerant species
dominating the communities resulting in low fish and invertebrate IBI scores. Poor habitat quality at
separate stations on the reach downstream of Martin Lake could be driving low diversity in the aquatic
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
19
communities. Homogenous channel development throughout this stretch of river is characteristic of a
low gradient system (i.e. absence of riffles); these stations were scored in the low gradient fish class but
still fail to meet thresholds. The reach downstream of Martin Lake is impaired for aquatic life due in part
to turbidity exceedances from excess algae growth, which can be attributed to the extreme nutrient
impairment in Martin Lake. The reach between Typo and Martin lakes is impaired for aquatic life use
due to excess turbidity and pH. Typo and Martin Lakes are highly eutrophic, and high nutrient levels and
algal respiration may drive the swing in pH values observed. Dissolved oxygen levels are low in the reach
upstream of Typo Lake; this reach is also completely channelized and within a large wetland complex.
With the exception of Fawn Lake, all the basins in this watershed are shallow; as a result, reductions in
watershed phosphorus loads and addressing internal loading will be important to see improved water
quality in the area lakes. The Martin and Typo Lakes Total Maximum Daily Load Study (MPCA, 2012)
indicates that Martin Lake needs a 41% reduction in total phosphorus loading, much of which should
come from reduced phosphorus exiting Typo Lake which flows into Martin Lake. The TMDL found that
nutrient loading into Typo Lake comes from direct watershed runoff, in-lake contribution, Subsurface
Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS), and atmospheric deposition. The overall reduction required to meet
water quality standards in Typo Lake is 81% or 7,041 lbs/year.
The Sunrise River Watershed TMDL Study (Chisago SWCD, 2013) addressed the nutrient impairment in
Linwood Lake, a eutrophic deep lake that drains into the West Branch Sunrise River. The lake needs a
21% reduction in total phosphorus loading including controlling internal loading, upgrading septic
systems, increasing conservation tillage, and implementing other best management practices in the
watershed.
5.2.3 SOUTH BRANCH SUNRISE RIVER AND CARLOS AVERY
As described in the Sunrise River WRAPS Report (MPCA, 2014(ii)), the South Branch Sunrise River and
Carlos Avery subwatersheds cover a combined 95 square miles in Anoka and Chisago Counties. The
Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area (WMA) comprises over a third of the subwatershed with 24,000
acres (37.6 square miles). The WMA features grasslands, wetlands, and small lakes with 23 actively
managed pools that provide almost 12,000 acres of waterfowl habitat. Overall, land use in these
subwatersheds includes approximately 12 – 16% developed areas and cropland; with forest, grasslands,
wetlands and open water comprising the remainder. Here, the BWSR soil erosion risk level is low to
medium and the water quality risk level is medium.
This subwatershed includes the South Branch Sunrise River, impaired for low dissolved oxygen; and the
Main Stem Sunrise River from the outlet of the North Sunrise Pool (Pool 3) to the Kost Dam, impaired for
fish IBI and low dissolved oxygen.
Most of the surface water in this area has not been assessed due to insufficient data including multiple
pools within the WMA, ditches, unnamed tributaries, and multiple lakes including Mud, East Twin, West
Twin, South Twin, Anderson, Devil, Goose, and Little Coon. The exception is Coon Lake in Anoka County
which was assessed and found to be meeting standards.
5.2.4 MAIN STEM SUNRISE RIVER
As described in the Sunrise River WRAPS Report (MPCA, 2014(ii)), the Main Stem Sunrise River
subwatershed covers 51 square miles in Chisago County. It includes the bacteria-impaired reaches of
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
20
Hay Creek and the Sunrise River from the North Branch Sunrise River to its confluence with the St. Croix
River, the nutrient-impaired Vibo Lake, and the unimpaired Main Stem Sunrise River from the Kost Dam
to the North Branch Sunrise River.
Although the reach downstream of the North Branch Sunrise River is impaired for aquatic recreation use
due to excess bacteria, it has good levels of both dissolved oxygen and turbidity and is fully supporting
aquatic life uses.
The reach between the Kost Dam and the North Branch Sunrise River has more gradient than other
reaches, allowing for a more natural riverine environment where both fish and invertebrate
communities are significantly healthier than upstream reaches. Habitat quality is in better condition in
this stretch of river, providing support to healthy aquatic communities.
Vibo Lake is a 56-acre shallow, turbid lake with a watershed area of more than 7,700 acres that includes
primarily cropland and developed residential properties. The lake needs a 93% reduction of total
phosphorus. This lake exists in an algal state with few macrophytes and harbors curly-leaf pondweed.
5.2.5 COMFORT LAKE-FOREST LAKE SUBWATERSHED
The hydrologic area of the Comfort Lake-Forest Lake subwatershed covers 54 square miles at the
southern edge of the broader Sunrise River Watershed. This subwatershed area nearly matches the
area of the Comfort-Lake-Forest-Lake Watershed District (49 square miles). Over 60% of this
subwatershed is covered by forests, grasslands, wetlands and open water. Developed land covers
approximately 18% of the area and cropland about 21% of the area. The BWSR soil erosion and water
quality risk levels are considered high.
Forest Lake lies within this subwatershed. A deep lake 2,200-acres in size, its shoreline is highly
developed and it serves as an important recreational use lake. Forest Lake meets water quality
standards but harbors the AIS of Eurasian watermilfoil, zebra mussels, curly-leaf pondweed, and
flowering rush. Other lakes in this subwatershed meeting water quality standards include Keewahtin
(formerly Sylvan/Halfbreed), Heims, Sea, and Third Lakes.
One shallow lake and six deep lakes in this subwatershed are considered impaired due to high nutrients.
The impairments for Bone, Shields, Little Comfort, Comfort, School, and Moody Lakes are addressed in
the Six Lakes TMDL Study (CLFLWD, 2010). Impairments for Second Lake, a deep lake in Chisago County,
are addressed in the Sunrise River WRAPS (MPCA, 2014(ii)).
Many of the lakes in the Comfort Lake-Forest Lake subwatershed are connected by streams and
drainage ditches. Drainage in the south-central portion of the subwatershed is characterized by short,
intermittent ditches that discharge to Forest Lake. Forest Lake forms the headwaters of the Sunrise River
which flows northwest out of Forest Lake and turns northeast, then flowing through Comfort Lake. The
unnamed drainage through the east portion of the subwatershed flows from Moody Lake to Bone Lake
to School Lake to Little Comfort Lake to Comfort Lake.
Much of the Sunrise River in this area is composed of straightened channels, as it was formerly
designated Judicial Ditch 1, officially abandoned in 1997. From Comfort Lake to Pool 1, the Sunrise River
is impaired for low dissolved oxygen and high bacteria and does not meet standards for fish or
macroinvertebrate IBIs. Several other creeks and ditches in this subwatershed are also impaired for low
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
21
dissolved oxygen and high bacteria. Judicial Ditch #2 from its headwaters to the Sunrise River is impaired
due to high chlorides.
5.2.6 CHISAGO LAKES CHAIN OF LAKES SUBWATERSHED
The Chisago Lakes Chain of Lakes Watershed cover 56 square miles in Chisago County and includes 20
lakes, most of which form a chain of lakes that outlet to the Sunrise River. This subwatershed is
considered high risk for both soil erosion and water quality according to the BWSR risk analyses. Many of
the lakes here are important for recreation and have highly developed shorelines including Green,
Chisago, North Lindstrom, South Lindstrom, North Center, and South Center Lakes.
The chain of 20 lakes ranging in size from 20 acres to over 1,500 acres are connected either through
surface water tributaries or groundwater inflow/outflow. The principal outlet from the Chain of Lakes is
located at Lake Ellen and flows out of that outlet at 898.2 feet above sea level; when the lakes reach
899.9 feet above sea level the outlet to Wallmark Lake functions as the secondary outlet to the Chain of
Lakes. The outlet at Lake Ellen and the outlet from Chisago to Green Lake are controlled by weirs which
are opened only during times of high water. Tributaries leaving the two outlets eventually meet at
Bloomquist Creek near the Sunrise River.
The Chisago Lakes Chain of Lakes WRAPS (MPCA, 2013) addresses the restoration or protection needs of
the lakes in this subwatershed. Seven of the lakes currently meet water quality standards (North
Chisago, South Chisago, Green, Little Green, North Lindstrom, South Lindstrom, and Spider), while a few
others do not have sufficient data to make an assessment. Nine other lakes – a mixture of shallow and
deep lakes - are impaired due to high nutrients (North and South Center, Emily, Ogrens, Pioneer,
Wallmark, Linn, Little, and School).
Although several small unnamed creeks in this subwatershed do not have sufficient data to assess,
Bloomquist Creek is impaired for excess ammonia and low dissolved oxygen.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
22
5.3 DIRECT DRAINAGE TO ST. CROIX RIVER (SUNRISE RIVER TO WASHINGTON COUNTY)
Sources:
Lower St. Croix Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report (MPCA, 2014(i))
Sunrise River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (MPCA, 2014(ii))
This subwatershed covers 79 square miles along the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway in Chisago County
(Figure 6). It includes Wild River State Park and Interstate State Park. The steep ravines and bluffs as
the land approaches the St. Croix River are known as the “Escarpment” in Chisago County. The BWSR soil
erosion and water quality risk levels are “high” in this area, with approximately 22% of the area in crops
and 8% developed. Grassland, forests and wetlands comprise the remainder of the land use here.
This area subwatershed includes Lawrence Creek, a designated coldwater fishery, beginning in the
township of Shafer and flowing southeast 11.1 miles before reaching the St. Croix River near the town of
Franconia. According to an assessment in 2011 (MPCA, 2014(i)), Lawrence Creek appears to be fully
supporting for aquatic life use with fish and invertebrate communities that score well above the
threshold. Habitat quality in Lawrence Creek is very good, accommodating diverse aquatic communities.
The riparian corridor in the lower reaches of Lawrence Creek is comprised of intact forestland. In the
headwaters area, agricultural land uses are more prominent in the riparian area, with small sections of
the river having been channelized.
Dry Creek North, Dry Creek South, Lawrence Creek, many smaller tributaries, and a few small lakes are
also within this subwatershed but do not have sufficient data to assess whether or not they meet state
standards.
!nPine CountyKanabec CountyPine County
Chisago County
Isanti County
Chisago County
Chisago County
Washington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyMud Lake
SouthCenterLake
GreenLake
NorthCenterLake
SouthLindstromLake
LinwoodLake
WestRushLake
EastRushLake
CoonLake
SunriseLake
ForestLake
GooseLake
ChisagoLake
WolfCreek-SaintCroix River
GooseCreek-SaintCroix River
North BranchSunrise River
Sunrise River
WISCONSIN
COMFORT LAKEFOREST LAKE
SUNRISE RIVER
G o o se Creek
SunriseRiv e r ,N orthBranch
Dry CreekSunrise RiverSunriseRiver,SouthBranchHayCreek Rush Creek
Outlet Neander LakeSu
n
riseRiver,West Bra n chRockCreekHayCreek
Kost Dam
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-01-16 11:00 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P\Figure 6 Surface Waters and Subwatersheds in the Northern Portion of Lower St. Croix River Watershed.mxd User: RCS2
SURFACE WATERS AND SUBWATERSHEDS IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OFLOWER ST. CROIX RIVERWATERSHED
FIGURE 6
0 4
Miles
!;N
!n Dam Location
Lower St. Croix Watershed
Subwatersheds
Rivers and Streams
Lake, Pond or Reservoir
River or Stream
Carlos Avery WMA
Watershed ManagementDistricts and Organizations
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix
Comfort Lake Forest Lake
Sunrise River
Chisago Lakes LakeImprovement District
County Boundary
MN DNR Watersheds - DNR Level 04 -HUC 08 - Majors 2009. USGS NHDWBDHU10. 2/16/2018. MN DNRHydrography 2015.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
24
5.4 CARNELIAN-MARINE-ST. CROIX WATERSHED
Sources and Additional Monitoring Data:
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed Management Plan (CMSCWD, 2015)
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Multi Lakes TMDL (CMSCWD, 2012)
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Water Monitoring Programs
The Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix watershed covers approximately 81.4 square miles in Washington County
and home to thousands of acres of lakes and wetlands (Figure 7). There are two types of drainage within
the watershed – landlocked systems and waters that drain to the St. Croix River.
In the western and central portions of the watershed, the drainage system is characterized by numerous
small ponds and lakes, many of which are landlocked. For example, Long (May), Terrapin, and Mays
Lakes form a chain of lakes interconnected by a defined drainage way that terminates at Clear Lake,
which is landlocked. The same is true for Square Lake which overflows to a landlocked basin. These areas
likely serve as important groundwater recharge areas. There are few well defined drainage systems in
this area, indicating the permeable nature of the soils and the relatively flat relief of the terrain.
In the eastern half of the watershed, the drainage system is characterized by steep terrain, river terraces
and well-defined water courses that, for the most part, drain to the St. Croix River. For example, Silver
Creek drains a chain of lakes in the southern portion of the watershed to the St. Croix River including
South and North Twin Lakes and Silver, Loon and Carol Lakes. Another example is perennial Mill Stream
that drains Hay and Sand Lakes during times of high water. This portion of the watershed has a well-
defined drainage system with few lakes. Many of the spring creeks are identified as trout streams by the
DNR.
There are several significant creeks within the watershed including the state-designated trout streams:
Fall’s Creek, Willow Brook, Gilbertson’s Creek and Mill Stream. Fall’s Creek is considered to be the finest
and most ecologically diverse natural area in Washington County and is of state-wide significance. Fall’s
Creek and Willow Brook have a naturally reproducing populations of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
and the lower portion of Fall’s Creek flows through the Fall’s Creek Scientific and Natural Area.
Carnelian Creek is another important stream in this watershed, traversing almost 9 miles through three
communities and connecting numerous wetlands along its path from Big Marine Lake through Turtle,
Bass and Big Carnelian Lakes and finally on to Little Carnelian Lake. The natural watercourse of Carnelian
Creek was modified by a major improvement project completed in July of 1985, referred to as the outlet
project. The main purpose of the project was to alleviate flooding around Big Marine Lake, Big Carnelian
Lake and along the entire watercourse. Flow on the creek is governed by a fixed weir which did not
overtop between 2009 to 2016. Before 2009 and since 2016, however, there have been substantial and
consistent flows draining approximately 1/2 of the watershed district and discharging to the St. Croix
River.
Silver Creek is the final significant stream in the watershed, flowing perennially from Carol Lake to the St.
Croix River near the St. Croix Boom Site. The upper portion of the stream’s corridor encompasses a
system of five good quality shallow lakes with significant areas of riparian wetland habitat. The middle
reaches of the corridor contain a number of unique groundwater-dependent plant communities
including rich fen and mixed hardwood seepage swamp. The lower reaches of Silver Creek are an
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
25
ecologically rich area with high quality plant communities and a high quality, groundwater-fed perennial
stream.
There are 31 named lakes in the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix watershed. Several of the lakes fall within
parkland or protected areas including Big Marine, Terrapin Lake, Mays Lake, Clear Lake, Lake Alice and
portions of Square Lake. The remaining lakes are generally surrounded by predominantly large lot
residential homes. The Carnelian Creek chain of lakes consists of Big Marine, Turtle, Bass, Big Carnelian
and Little Carnelian. Big Marine, Big Carnelian and Little Carnelian are some of the principle lakes in the
District, all with exceptionally good water quality. Square Lake consistently has the best water quality of
any lake in the seven-county metro area with an average Secchi disk reading of 21.1 feet. This lake
maintains a groundwater base flow and continuously outlets through an artificial outlet to the south into
a landlocked basin. The lake was stocked with rainbow trout until 2013 when stocking stopped due to
concerns about effects on water clarity.
There are several lakes that are impaired due to high nutrients, ten of which were addressed in the
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Multi-Lake TMDL (CMSCWD, 2012) including East Boot,
Fish, Goose, Hay, Jellum’s, Long, Loon, Louise, Mud, and South Twin Lakes.
5.5 BROWN’S CREEK WATERSHED
Sources and Additional Monitoring Data:
Brown’s Creek Watershed Management Plan (BCWD, 2018)
Brown’s Creek Impaired Biota Total Maximum Daily Load (BCWD, 2010)
Brown’s Creek Watershed District Water Monitoring Programs
The Brown’s Creek watershed covers approximately 30 square miles in central Washington County
(Figure 7). Land cover in the watershed includes 46% forest, 16% wetland, 12% agriculture, and 13%
developed land (where impervious surfaces cover greater than 10% of the land). Brown’s Creek itself is
a state-designated trout stream with several distinct reaches. The reaches have been grouped by their
character and functional assessment into two main sections; Main Branch and North Branch. Two
tributaries feed the North Branch which then flows through a floodplain of shrub swamp and then
enters a large emergent marsh wetland complex where it crosses the Gateway Trail. Downstream from
the Gateway Trail, Brown's Creek reenters a mixed hardwood tamarack swamp. Further downstream,
the creek shows significant signs of human alteration.
The Main Branch of Brown’s Creek flows through a deep valley where the creek channel has cut into the
Tunnel City Group bedrock formation. Within these reaches the cold groundwater provides a major
component of the baseflow to Brown’s Creek and provides one of the key elements needed to support a
trout fishery. The lower sections of Brown’s Creek is bordered by hardwood forests and steeply sloped
uplands and is impaired for aquatic life due to dissolved oxygen, lack of coldwater assemblage and
turbidity and impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli. The gorge runs parallel to the Brown’s Creek
State Trail through steep slopes with high erosion potential. There are areas of significant groundwater
discharge as the gorge cuts through the Prairie Du Chien bedrock layer.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
26
The main water quality concerns for Brown’s Creek and its tributaries are total suspended solids (TSS),
total phosphorus (TP), thermal loads and E. coli bacteria. Sections of both branches of Brown’s Creek,
the North Branch and Main Branch are impaired for aquatic recreation and aquatic life due to low levels
of dissolved oxygen, lack of a coldwater fish assemblage, and high levels of E. coli bacteria. The North
Branch is also impaired due to a low score of the Minnesota Macroinvertebrate Index of Biological
Integrity (M-IBI). In 2010, the Brown’s Creek Watershed District completed the Brown’s Creek Impaired
Biota TMDL Report and Stressor Identification (BCWD, 2010). Through the stressor identification
process, the primary stressors to the biota in the impaired reach of Brown’s Creek were identified as
high suspended solids, high temperatures, and high copper concentrations. A corresponding TMDL
Implementation Plan was completed in 2012.
In addition to Brown’s Creek and its tributaries, there are a number of lakes, large ponds and wetlands
throughout the watershed. The most prominent lakes are Long Lake in Stillwater, Masterman Lake in
Grant and South School Section Lake in Hugo. Lesser known lakes include; Lynch, Plaisted, Benz,
Woodpile, and Bass East. In addition to these lakes there are several large ponds and open water
wetlands that provide many of the same recreational and aesthetic benefits as larger lakes and in many
cases are locally referred to as lakes. These resources include; North School Section, Bass West, Goggins,
Kismet Basin, July Avenue Pond, Sinnits Pond (Formerly Jackson WMA), Pat Lake and Brewers Pond.
Lakes impaired due to high nutrient levels include Benz, Long, Lynch, Plaisted, South School Section, and
Goggins.
5.6 MIDDLE ST. CROIX WATERSHED
Sources and Additional Monitoring Data:
Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Plan (MSCWMO, 2015)
Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization Water Monitoring Programs
The Middle St. Croix watershed encompasses approximately 19.8 square miles in the east central part of
Washington County (Figure 7). Land use in the watershed is evenly distributed between agricultural
uses, rural residential and high-density residential/commercial land uses. The general drainage system of
the watershed can be broken into two different types. The first type is located in the western area of the
watershed and is characterized by numerous small ponds and lakes, many of which are landlocked. The
drainage density in this area is low, indicating the permeable nature of the soils and the relatively flat
relief of the terrain. The second type of drainage system is located in the northern, eastern and southern
portions of the watershed. Well-defined drainage systems and few lakes, ponds and wetlands
characterize this area. The drainage density of this portion of the watershed is medium, indicating the
permeable nature of the soils and moderate to steep relief of the terrain. This area is also dominated by
the St. Croix River bluff, which has many perennial and ephemeral streams that flow parallel to each
other and into the St. Croix River.
There are four primary waterbodies in the Middle St. Croix watershed: Lily Lake, McKusick Lake, Perro
Pond, and Perro Creek. Lily Lake is a 36-acre deep lake located within the City of Stillwater. It is impaired
due to excess nutrients; a TMDL is slated for 2021. Lily Lake drains to McKusick Lake, a 45-acre shallow
lake also located in the City of Stillwater. McKusick Lake was removed from the impaired waters list in
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
27
2012 after improvements in the watershed were installed and monitoring data indicated the lake now
meets water quality standards. McKusick Lake ultimately discharges to the St. Croix River.
Perro Creek is an urban stream that runs 1.8 miles through the City of Bayport, discharging directly to
the St. Croix River. The creek conveys water from two subwatersheds that encompass a total of 660
acres of urban land in the cities of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, and Bayport. The creek is impaired due
to high E. coli bacteria with a TMDL slated for 2021.
Perro Pond is a shallow 53-acre water body classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources as a public water wetland. Perro Pond receives drainage from 340 acres of mixed urban land
use primarily from the City of Oak Park Heights. The pond outlets can outlet to Perro Creek under certain
conditions, or directly to the St. Croix River.
5.7 VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED
Sources and Additional Monitoring Data:
Valley Branch Watershed Management Plan (VBWD, 2015)
Valley Branch Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (VBWD, 2016)
Valley Branch Watershed District Water Monitoring Programs
The Valley Branch watershed comprises approximately 70 square miles in southern Washington County
(with a small portion of the watershed in northeast Ramsey County) (Figure 7). Prior to construction of a
flood relief and water quality project by the Valley Branch Watershed District started in 1987 (Project
1007), all of the land within the watershed eventually drained to Valley Creek on its way to the St. Croix
River. The entire watershed remains tributary to the St. Croix River, but the outflows from the northern
two-thirds of watershed have been diverted from Valley Creek to a storm sewer pipe along Interstate
94.
Prominent land covers present within the Valley Creek watershed include agricultural land at 22% and
forest at 17%. Developed areas with imperviousness greater than 10 percent account for approximately
21% of the watershed, with the majority of the development located in the northwest portion of the
watershed.
Surface waters in the Valley Branch watershed include numerous streams, lakes, and wetlands.
Perennial streams are limited to Valley Creek and Kelle’s Creek. Kelle’s Creek is located in a steep-sided
ravine in the southern portion of the city of Afton. The creek is a spring-fed perennial creek that flows
from the upper portions of the ravine to the St. Croix River, discharging into the river downstream
(south) of downtown Afton. Much of the Kelle’s Creek Watershed is undeveloped and the land use is
primarily rural residential in the lower portions of the watershed and agricultural uses in the uplands to
the southwest. Kelle’s Creek is impaired due to high bacteria (E. coli) levels and was included in the
Valley Branch Watershed District WRAPS (VBWD, 2016).
Valley Creek is the other perennial stream within the watershed. The majority of the Valley Creek
watershed is located in the city of Afton and a small portion is located on the east edge of the city of
Woodbury. The creek is comprised of three major branches: the North Fork, South Fork, and the Main
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
28
Stem. The MnDNR designated the perennial reaches of Valley Creek as a trout stream. It sustains a
naturally reproducing population of native brook trout along with large populations of brown trout,
rainbow trout, and native brook lamprey.
There are 11 lakes in the watershed classified as MnDNR public waters: Sunfish, Acorn (Mud), Olson,
Silver, Edith, Eagle Point, DeMontreville, Horseshoe, Jane, Elmo, and Long Lakes. Of these, Jane Lake,
and DeMontreville Lake have outstanding water quality.
Lake Elmo is the largest and deepest lake in Valley Branch Watershed with a surface area of 284 acres
and a maximum depth of 137 feet. It is the deepest lake in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and one of
the deepest lakes in the state. The lake likely intersects the Jordan Sandstone and is a local discharge
zone for that aquifer. Lake Elmo is known for its outstanding water quality. Although it is impaired for
mercury in fish tissue (as are many lakes throughout the Lower St. Croix Watershed) and for
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in fish tissue, Lake Elmo and the Lake Elmo Park Reserve provide an
important area of recreation to the region.
Lakes impaired due to high nutrients (Down’s Lake, Echo Lake, Goose Lake South, and Sunfish Lake),
were included in the Valley Branch Watershed District WRAPS (VBWD, 2016).
5.8 SOUTH WASHINGTON WATERSHED
Sources:
South Washington Watershed Management Plan (SWWD, 2016)
The most southern portion of the Lower St. Croix River Watershed includes the eastern portion of the
South Washington Watershed District, with only 12 square miles draining to the St. Croix River (Figure
7). The significant water features in this area include Trout Brook which drains over 2,200 acres of
agricultural, forested areas, and rural residential lands before flowing through Afton State Park and into
the St. Croix River. Trout Brook is impaired due to high bacteria.
O’Conners Creek lies to the south of Trout Brook and drains over 2,400 acres of cropland and hayfields
before flowing into the shallow wetland-like O’Conners Lake. Both the creek and the lake maintain good
water quality.
Watershed inventory and modeling work has shown that ravine erosion (as opposed to bed or bank
erosion) is a significant contributor to known sediment and nutrient levels in the District’s water
resources. Response to stabilize ravines is well established and relatively inexpensive. However, to date,
there is little planning completed to guide that response. In partnership with MnDNR and Washington
Conservation District, SWWD will complete a ravine inventory, rank the inventoried ravines based on
erosion potential and downstream impact, and document standard stabilization practices to be used.
Focus of this planning effort will be watersheds drained by natural streams and those with direct
drainage to the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers. Ravines in SWWD’s lake watersheds will be assessed as
part of lake management planning. (SWWD, 2016)
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
29
5.9 ST. CROIX RIVER AND LAKE ST. CROIX
Sources:
Lake St. Croix Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (MPCA, WiDNR 2012)
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed Management Plan (CMSCWD, 2015)
Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Plan (MSCWMO, 2015)
Valley Branch Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (VBWD, 2016)
South Washington Watershed Management Plan (SWWD, 2016)
The Lower St. Croix River Watershed (HUC 07030005) begins as the mainstem of the St. Croix River flows
south from the confluence with the Snake River and continues 97 miles until its confluence with the
Mississippi River at Prescott, WI (Figures 6 and 7). In the upper reaches of this section, the river
meanders through a narrow floodplain with numerous oxbow lakes, back channels and sloughs. A
regionally significant big river, the entire length of the St. Croix River is officially designated as a National
Wild and Scenic Riverway by the Federal government. Called the “St. Croix National Scenic Riverway,”
it’s recreationally managed by the National Park Service. The river is also designated as an Outstanding
Resource Value Water by the State of Minnesota.
This 97-mile reach of the river along the Lower St. Croix River Watershed includes Lake St. Croix which
covers the southernmost 25 miles of the river from Stillwater, MN to Prescott, WI. Upon reaching the
Arcola sandbar north of the city of Stillwater, the river opens up to become Lake St. Croix, a large open
water basin with little flow or gradient change. The channel constricts flow at a few locations throughout
the lake creating four distinct pools: Bayport, Troy Beach, Black Bass, and Kinnickinnic Pools.
Together, the river and Lake St. Croix have relatively good water quality as compared to other
metropolitan resources and the Mississippi River. They provide extensive habitat for native
communities and attract recreational tourists seeking opportunities for paddling, boating, fishing, and
swimming. Four Minnesota state parks (Wild River, Interstate, William O’Brien, and Afton) and
numerous natural areas and public lands dot the shoreline in this watershed.
Unfortunately, the river and Lake St. Croix do have their water quality challenges. Along the entire
length of the Lower St. Croix Watershed, the river and Lake St. Croix are impaired for aquatic
consumption due to mercury and PCBs in fish tissues. Additionally, Lake St. Croix is impaired for aquatic
recreation due to high nutrients. The Lake St. Croix Nutrient TMDL (MPCA, WiDNR, 2012) indicates the
total phosphorus loading from the entire St. Croix River basin (more than 7,700 square miles in
Wisconsin and Minnesota) needs to be reduced by 27% to return Lake St. Croix to the conditions that
existed prior to 1950, before major ecological changes were experienced.
MIDDLEST. CROIX
VALLEY BRANCH
BROWNS CREEK
CARNELIAN-MARINE-ST.CROIX
SOUTHWASHINGTON
Big MarineLake
Big CarnelianLake
LakeSt. CroixChisago CountyAnoka CountyChisago CountyWashington County ChisagoCountyAnoka CountyWashington CountyAnoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakotaCount
y WashingtonCountyRamsey CountyDakota County
Dak
o
t
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
MINNESOTA
WISCONSIN
ValleyC re e k
SilverCreek
Tr out Brook
B
r
o
wn'
s
CreekSt.CroixRiverSt.CroixRiverBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-12-06 12:35 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P\Figure 7 Surface Waters and Subwatersheds in the Southern Portion of Lower St. Croix River Watershed.mxd User: RCS2
SURFACE WATERS AND SUBWATERSHEDS IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OFLOWER ST. CROIX RIVERWATERSHED
FIGURE 7
0 4
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix Watershed
Rivers and Streams
Lake, Pond or Reservoir
River or Stream
Watershed ManagementDistricts and Organizations
Brown's Creek
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix
Middle St. Croix
South Washington
Valley Branch
County Boundary
MN DNR Watersheds - DNR Level 04 -HUC 08 - Majors 2009. USGS NHDWBDHU10. 2/16/2018. MN DNRHydrography 2015.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
31
6. GROUNDWATER
As the Washington County Groundwater Management Plan (Washington Co., 2014) so aptly states:
There are many competing interests for the use of groundwater. The two main users are humans and
natural ecosystems. Human uses include domestic, commercial, industrial, and irrigation. Natural
ecosystems include streams, lakes, wetlands, and fens.
Groundwater is an important resource throughout the Lower St. Croix River Watershed. It accounts for
100% of the region’s drinking water and more than 80% of groundwater withdrawal is for public water
supply use. It is important to ensure that adequate supplies of high-quality groundwater remain
available for the region’s residents, businesses and natural resources. (MDH, 2018)
Contamination of groundwater from various pollution sources is a growing concern in the watershed.
Groundwater is at greater risk to contamination in areas of high pollution sensitivity. A large band of
high pollution sensitivity extends through the middle portion of the watershed through Anoka, Isanti
and Chisago Counties. Much of Washington County is also considered sensitive to groundwater
pollution.
6.1 GENERAL HYDROGEOLOGY
Groundwater sources within the Lower St. Croix vary according to the underlying geology. The geology
in the watershed is the result of complex processes, which occurred from igneous, metamorphic,
sedimentary and glacial action that took place in the region over several geologic time periods.
Advancing and retreating marine seas left behind a sequence of limestone, sandstone, and shale
bedrock layers dating back to the Paleozoic Era (570 to 245 million years ago). Following these events,
the bedrock was subjected to a long period of erosion. Beginning about 1.5 million years ago in the
Quaternary period, a sequence of glaciers advanced and retreated shaping the land and leaving in their
wake formations of clay, silt, sand, and gravel on top of bedrock formations. (Washington Co., 2014).
Figure 8 shows a simplified geologic cross-section of the Lower St. Croix River Watershed.
There are three major types of bedrock aquifers in the watershed including
• Basalt (volcanic rocks) in the northernmost part of the watershed
• Sandstone (Jordan Sandstone, Tunnel City Group/Wonewoc Sandstone, and Mt. Simon
Sandstone aquifers) present through the middle section of the watershed and through the St.
Croix River Valley
• Sandstone/carbonate mix aquifers (Prairie de Chien Dolomite, St. Peter Sandstone, and
Platteville Limestone) prevalent in the southern half of the watershed
Glacial deposits in the watershed consist mainly of undifferentiated red and gray drift (predominantly
till) and corresponding outwash derived from them. These outwash units form aquifers locally.
Karst conditions, which exist in much of southern Washington County, include landscape features such
as sinkholes, caves, sinking streams, and springs. Dissolution of water-soluble carbonate rocks (such as
limestone or dolomite) starts an erosive process and creates conduits between the surface and
groundwater.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
32
6.2 POLLUTION SENSITIVITY
Pollution sensitivity (or aquifer vulnerability or geologic sensitivity) refers to the time it takes recharge
and contaminants at the ground surface to reach the underlying aquifer. Some aquifers are deeper and
more geologically protected than water table or surficial sand aquifers.
Figure 9 shows the pollution sensitivity of surficial aquifers by looking at the top ten feet of soil and
geologic material. There is a mix of pollution sensitivity ratings across the watershed with the highest
sensitivity in southern Washington County where karst conditions exist. A band of high pollution
sensitivity reaches through portions of Chisago, Isanti, and Anoka Counites. For surficial aquifers a
“highly sensitive” rating means it only takes between hours to a week for water and its corresponding
pollution to travel from the surface to the surficial aquifer. Travel time in “low sensitivity” areas could be
weeks to a year.
Figure 10 shows the pollution sensitivity of deeper aquifer materials in the watershed. Due to the
absence of statewide data of this type, the map was created by calculating the sensitivity at individual
wells and interpolating between them. The figure shows that most of the watershed with a low pollution
sensitivity rating for deeper aquifers. Southern Washington County and a small band through portions
of Chisago, Isanti, and Anoka Counties have a mix of moderate and high pollution sensitivity ratings.
Travel time from the surface to deep aquifers in highly sensitive areas is days to months while in low
sensitivity areas it would take several decades to a century.
Figure 8. Lower St. Croix Watershed Simplified Geologic Cross Section (MDH, 2018)
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
33
Figure 9. Lower St. Croix Watershed Pollution Sensitivity of Near-Surface Materials (MDH, 2018)
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
34
Figure 10. Lower St. Croix Watershed Pollution Sensitivity of Wells (MDH, 2018)
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
35
6.3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Both naturally occurring and human-made contaminants affect groundwater quality in the Lower St.
Croix Watershed. Nitrate, pesticides, arsenic, radium, perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected in wells sampled in the watershed (MDH, 2018).
Nitrate is one of the most common groundwater contaminants in Minnesota and is a public health
concern where it’s found in groundwater used for drinking. Non-natural sources of nitrate include
animal manure, fertilizers (both agricultural and urban/suburban), failing subsurface sewage treatment
systems (SSTS), and nitrous oxides from the combustion of coal and gas. Nitrate easily dissolves in water
and moves readily through soil and into aquifers.
The drinking water standard and State Health Risk Limit for nitrate is 10 mg/L. Less than one percent of
12,249 wells sampled in the Lower St. Croix River Watershed had levels of nitrate at or above this
standard (MDH, 2018). However, high levels of nitrate are present in areas where there are human-
caused sources of nitrate and high pollution sensitivity.
In Washington County, the average nitrate level is 2.05 mg/l based on over 14,000 well water tests
conducted between 1978 and 2013 (Washington Co., 2014). Nitrate levels are highest in the southern
Washington County communities of Cottage Grove, Denmark Township, and Grey Cloud Island. In the
southern portion of the county, the bedrock is close to the surface, covered by a thin layer of glacial
material offering limited protection to the nitrate-sensitive aquifers below. Historical data collected by
Washington County’s Department of Public Health and Environment and supported by a MPCA study
indicate 16 percent of the private wells tested in the Cottage Grove area exceed the 10.0 mg/l nitrate
(MPCA, 2000).
Pesticides are used in a variety of landscapes and can cause a variety of health problems if consumed in
drinking water. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) monitors three wells in the Lower St.
Croix Watershed for “common detection pesticides” used in row crop agricultural including acetochlor,
alachlor, atrazine, metolachlor, and metribuzin. These wells are in regions of sensitive geology which
increases the potential for groundwater contamination. A range of one to two common detection
pesticides were detected in the samples and no detections exceeded human health-based drinking
water standards.
In Washington County, an MPCA study in 2000 in the Cottage Grove area tested 74 private wells and
found that 68 percent of the groundwater samples contained pesticide or pesticide breakdown
products. None of the samples collected by the MPCA exceeded the federal and state drinking water
standards for pesticides. According to the study, there was a strong correlation between pesticides and
nitrate occurrences in groundwater. The MPCA states that the correlation between pesticides and
nitrate indicates that agricultural practices are the most likely source of the contaminants (Washington
Co., 2014).
Recently, the MDA began evaluating pesticide presence and magnitude in private residential drinking
water wells as part of the Private Well Pesticide Sampling (PWPS) Project in 2014 as a companion
program to the MDA Township Testing Program (TTP). Townships in different counties have been, and
will continue to be, sampled every year until the project concludes in 2020. Townships in the PWPS
depend on the participation of well owners and may not reflect all of the townships sampled in the TTP.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
36
In 2015, as part of the PWPS Project, 173 wells in 2 townships in Washington County (Cottage Grove and
Denmark) were sampled for pesticides. Samples were analyzed for only 22 compounds, with higher
Method Reporting Levels (MRLs). One pesticide (metolachlor) was detected in two wells out of those
sampled in these two townships. No levels exceeded human health reference values (MDA, 2016)
Arsenic and radium are naturally occurring chemicals found in groundwater from certain aquifers.
Approximately four percent of newly constructed wells in the Lower St. Croix River Watershed have
arsenic levels above the Safe Drinking Water Act standard of 10 ug/L (MDH, 2018). Human activity does
not tend to exacerbate the presence or abundance of these chemicals. However, private well users
should be made aware of their possible presence and health risks.
Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), also referred to as Perfluorochemicals (PFCs), are a family of
manmade chemicals that have been used for decades to make products that resist heat, oil, stains,
grease, and water. PFAS are extremely stable and do not breakdown in the environment if they are
released through spills and disposal.
The greatest concentration of PFAS in the Lower St. Croix Watershed is concentrated in the Oakdale,
Lake Elmo, and West Lakeland areas in Washington County. The contamination is traced back to PFA
disposal in the former Washington County Landfill during the 1960s and 1970s and the 3M Oakdale
disposal site, a Superfund site on EPA’s National Priority List, used during the late 1940’s to 1950’s
(MDH, 2018). Remediation efforts are underway by 3M, and are led by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA), who also work very closely with the MDH regarding testing of private and public wells.
After PFAS contamination was initially discovered, a number of private wells were issued well advisories,
and a treatment plan was constructed to treat the City of Oakdale’s water supply. In recent years, EPA
and MDH have issued new health advice which has resulted in treatments to make both private wells
and public water supplies safer for residents. MDH continues to work with the MPCA to sample both
public and private wells, and provides regular updates to Washington County staff on testing results,
well advisories, and other pertinent information (Washington County, 2018).
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are carbon-containing compounds that evaporate easily from
water into air at normal air temperatures and typically have a strong odor associated with them. They
are found in a wide variety of commercial, industrial and residential products including fuel oils,
gasoline, solvents, cleaners and degreasers, paints, inks, dyes, refrigerants, and pesticides. When VOCs
are spilled or improperly disposed of, a portion will evaporate, but some will soak into the ground. Rain,
water or snowmelt push VOCs deeper into the soil until they reach the groundwater table and can end
up in wells and drinking water.
VOC contamination has been found in three areas in the Lower St. Croix Watershed including
Baytown/West Lakeland Townships, Lake Elmo/Oakdale, and Lakeland/Lakeland Shores. Some public
and private wells in these areas use granular activated carbon filters to treat drinking water and remove
VOCs.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
37
6.4 GROUNDWATER USE
Population growth and development impacts groundwater supply by increasing demand and reducing
infiltration and recharge areas. Overuse of groundwater decreases the amount available for public and
private water supplies. It also impacts water levels in some natural resources including some lakes,
wetlands, and streams. With population growth there is increased development of impervious surfaces,
reducing the land area available for aquifer recharge.
Weather also affects groundwater supply. The highest demand on aquifers often comes from irrigation
during drought conditions. The combination of drought, decreased recharge of aquifers, and additional
use for irrigation poses a serious threat to groundwater supplies. In the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,
summer water usage is 2.6 times the water usage in the winter (U of M, 2011).
In the Lower St. Croix Watershed approximately 3,700 million gallons (MG) of groundwater are pumped
for consumptive uses each year, 90% of which comes from bedrock aquifers. Surficial sand (water table)
and buried sand and gravel (confined) aquifers account for a small percentage of use (Figure 11). More
than 80% of the groundwater is used for public water supply which has increased from 2,000 MG per
year in 1990 to 3,000 MG per year in 2016. The next largest use of groundwater is industrial processing,
followed by non-crop irrigation. These uses have remained stable over the years (Table 1.)
Figure 11. Reported Groundwater Use by Aquifer Type (MDH, 2018)
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
38
Table 1. Reported 2016 Water Use from DNR Groundwater Appropriation Permit Holders (MDH, 2018)
6.5 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWLS
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) permits all high capacity water withdrawals
where the pumped volume exceeds 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year. Permit
holders are required to track water use and report back to the MnDNR yearly. MnDNR has records of
reported water use from 1988 to the present. The changes in withdrawal volume are a representation of
water use and demand in the watershed and are taken into consideration when the MnDNR issues
permits for water withdrawals. Other factors considered when issuing permits include: interactions
between individual withdrawal locations, cumulative effects of withdrawals from individual aquifers, and
potential interactions between aquifers. This holistic approach to water allocations is necessary to
ensure the sustainability of Minnesota’s groundwater resources.
The largest water user in the LSCR Watershed uses St. Croix River water for cooling at a power plant.
Power plant cooling uses about 120 billion gallons per year, or 97% of the reported water use in the
LSCR Watershed. Power plant cooling is mostly non-consumptive and greatly skews the water use
statistics, so power plant cooling has been removed from the water use statistics for the remainder of
this section.
Of all non-power plant cooling water appropriated in 2016 in the LSCR Watershed (3.8 billion gallons),
approximately 97% of water appropriations were from groundwater resources with the remaining 3% of
coming from surface water resources (Figure 12). Water use statistics indicate that the vast majority of
historical water use within the LSCR Watershed has been from groundwater resources (MDH, 2018).
Aquifer Water Supply Agricultural Irrigation Industrial Processing Non-Crop Irrigation Power Generation Other Total (MGY) Total (percent) Surficial Sand (Water Table) - 2 33 - - 15 50 1.35
Buried Sand and Gravel (Confined) 18 2 - 2 - 4 26 0.70
Bedrock 3023 64 206 154 52 125 3624 97.81
Unknown - 5 - - - - 5 0.14
Total (MGY) 3041 73 239 156 52 144 3705 100.00
Total (percent) 82.14 1.92 6.46 4.27 1.40 3.81 100.00 --
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
39
Figure 12. Reported Water Use by Resource Category (MDH, 2018)
7. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
7.1 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
This section provides a broad summary of fish, wildlife, and rare and endangered species within the LSCR
Watershed. Specific sites, species, and more information can be found using the Lower St. Croix River
One Watershed One Plan Interactive Map available at https://maps.barr.com/LSCWD/1W1P/index.html.
7.1.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
The LSCR Watershed is primarily located within the North Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion with small
portions in the Northern Lakes and Forests in the north and Western Corn Belt Plains to the south.
According to the Ecological Classification System (ECS), the LSCR Watershed is located within the Eastern
Broadleaf Forest Province and the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province, the Western Superior Uplands
Section and the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal Section. The watershed also lays within the
Mille Lacs Uplands, the St. Croix Moraine, the Anoka Sand Plain, and the St. Paul Baldwin Plains and
Moraines Subsections. These are further defined on the MnDNR website for the Ecological Classification
System: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html (MnDNR, 2018(i)).
The St. Croix River is an important flyway for migrating birds in the spring and fall. Millions of birds
travel through the St. Croix River Valley, which connects the Mississippi flyway with the western
Great Lakes basin and much of central Canada. Habitat in the watershed is important to the journey of
these birds and has the potential to attract an incredible diversity of species. Important birding areas
include the Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area, St Croix Bluffs Regional Park, and Lake St. Croix.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
40
Sixteen bird species considered endangered, threatened, or of special concern by the State of Minnesota
have been documented in the LSCR Watershed.
Invasive plants and animals can have a detrimental effect on wildlife habitat. Common terrestrial
invasive species in the LSCR Watershed include glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), European buckthorn
(Rhamnus cathartica), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp.
micranthos), wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa), emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), and brown
marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys).
The invasive fugus (Bretziella fagacearum, formerly Ceratocystis fagacearum) causes oak wilt; a deadly
disease that affects all species of oaks (Quercus) found in Minnesota. The fungus invades the water-
conducting vessels of oaks, eventually killing infected trees. Oak wilt is a significant concern in uplands
throughout the LSCR Watershed.
Section 7.2.2 presents further information from the Minnesota County Biological Survey, Sites of
Biodiversity Significance and Native Plant Communities.
7.1.2 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Many lakes in the LSCR Watershed are popular fishing destinations. Some of the most common fish
species found in major LSCR Watershed lakes include black bullhead, black crappie, bluegill, brown
bullhead, green sunfish, hybrid sunfish, largemouth bass, muskellunge, northern pike, walleye, common
carp, pumpkinseed, yellow bullhead, yellow perch, white sucker, and golden shiner (MnDNR 2018(ii)).
There are multiple trout streams within the LSCR Watershed including Brown’s Creek, Valley Branch and
Valley Creek, Old Mill Stream, and Lawrence Creek (MnDNR, 2015).
Aquatic invasive species (AIS) can be found in or around most lakes and many wetlands throughout the
LSCR Watershed. AIS can negatively impact ecological integrity as well as recreational suitability of a
waterbody. Aquatic invasive plants present in the LSCR Watershed include Eurasian watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum), European common reed (Phragmites australis), curly-leaf pondweed
(Potamogeton crispus), flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus), narrow leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia),
purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), watercress (Nasturtium
officinale), and yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus). Aquatic invasive animal species include Asian clam
(Corbicula fluminea), Chinese mystery snail (Cipangopaludina chinensis), bighead carp
(Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), common carp (Cyprinus carpio),
rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus), and zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha).
The MPCA Lower St. Croix Watershed Biotic Stressor Identification Report presents a summary of key
causes or “stressors” that contribute to impaired fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in the
LSCR (MPCA, 2016).
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
41
7.2 RARE AND ENDANGERED FEATURES
7.2.1 RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES
Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute (MS.84.0895) requires the MnDNR to adopt rules designating
species meeting the statutory definitions of endangered, threatened, or species of concern.
Corresponding regulations that regulate the treatment of species designated as endangered and
threatened are in Minnesota Administrative Rules (MN R.6212.1800 - 6212.2300). There are 152 species
of plants and animals within the LSCR 1W1P boundary that are listed in Minnesota’s List of Endangered,
Threatened, and Special Concern Species (MN R. 6134), including 25 different freshwater mussels. There
are 7 species of plants and animals within the LSCR 1W1P boundary that are listed as federal
endangered or threatened. These include five Federally endangered freshwater mussels: Higgins Eye
(Lampsilis higginsii), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), spectaclecase
(Cumberlandia monodonta), and winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa).
7.2.2 MCBS SITES OF BIODIVERSITY SIGNIFICANCE AND NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES
The Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) is a MnDNR program within the Division of Ecological
and Water Resources with the goal of identifying significant natural areas and collecting and interpreting
data on the distribution and ecology of rare plants, rare animals, and native plant communities. Data
collected by MCBS are entered into the Natural Heritage Information System, managed by the DNR's
Division of Ecological and Water Resources. As a result of this systematic survey, the relative ecological
importance of natural areas and representative ecological landscapes can be assessed.
MCBS ecologists delineated sites of biodiversity significance that helped to geographically organize the
data. According to the MCBS data, there are 76 sites of “outstanding” or “high” biodiversity significance
encompassing approximately 37,770 acres within the LSCR Watershed and 1,730 areas of native plant
communities (16 different types of native communities) encompassing approximately 39,883 acres
(Figure 13).
Along the St. Croix River itself, common native plant communities include: Mesic Hardwood Forest
System, Wet Meadow/Carr System, Wet Forest System, Marsh System, Floodplain Forest System, Fire-
Dependent Forest/Woodland System, and Forested Rich Peatland System. The majority of native plant
community acreage is found further to the north, especially north of the city of Marine on St. Croix.
Clusters of native plant communities can be found elsewhere in the watershed as well. Near Linwood
Lake and the Isanti-Anoka county border, a diverse mixture of the aforementioned communities exists.
South of Rush Lake in Chisago County, communities of swamp and peatland can be found. Fire-
Dependent Forest/Woodland System communities are widespread near Big Marine Lake and the Warner
Nature Center. Further south, communities of Upland Prairie System, Mesic Hardwood Forest System,
and Fire-Dependent Forest/Woodland System are found near Afton State Park and St. Croix Bluffs
Regional Park.
Sites of biodiversity significance mirror the locations of native plant communities with larger and higher
quality sites being found further to the north. Significant acreages of “outstanding” biodiversity
significance exist near Linwood Lake and the Isanti-Anoka county border, and in Wild River State Park
and other reaches of the St. Croix River.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
42
Minnesota Sites of Biodiversity Significance and Native Plant Communities can be viewed using the
Lower St. Croix One Watershed One Plan Interactive Map at:
https://maps.barr.com/LSCWD/1W1P/index.html.
Pine CountyKanabec CountyPine CountyChisago CountyKanabec CountyIsanti County
Isanti CountyChisago County
Isanti CountyAnoka County
Chisago CountyWashington County
Anoka CountyWashington CountyAnokaCounty
HennepinCounty Anoka CountyRamsey County
Washington CountyRamsey CountyWashingtonCountyDakota CountyHennepin CountyRamsey CountyHennepin C o u nty
Dakota CountyScott CountyMud Lake
Green Lake
LinwoodLake
West RushLake
ChisagoLake
East RushLake
CoonLake
SunriseLake
ForestLake
GooseLake
Big MarineLake
Big CarnelianLakeSt. Croix RiverBeaverC r e e k
RiceCreekMinnesotaRiverMississippiRiv er
B
ro
wn'sC reek
Sunrise River
V er m illionR iv e r
Valley Cre e kSunrise River
Nort
h
Bra
nc
hG ooseCreekRockCreek
Ru sh C reekB u r n e t t C o u n t yPolk County
Polk CountySt Croix County
St Croix CountyPierce County
MINNESOTA
WISCONSIN
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-12-05 12:01 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P\Figure 1 Lower St. Croix River Watershed.mxd User: RCS2
SITES OF BIODIVERSITYSIGNIFICANCE BYMINNESOTA COUNTYBIOLOGICAL SURVEY (MCBS)
FIGURE 13
0 5
Miles
!;N
Lower St. Croix Watershed
PWI Watercourse
Lake, Pond or Reservoir
River or Stream
Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Outstanding
High
Moderate
Below
MN DNR Watersheds - DNR Level 04 -HUC 08 - Majors 2009. MN DNRHydrography 2015. MN Public WaterInventory Watercourses 2008. Sites ofBiodiversity Significance - MinnesotaCounty Biological Survey 2015.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
44
8. REFERENCES
Brown’s Creek Watershed District (BCWD). 2010. Brown’s Creek Impaired Biota Total Maximum Daily
Load
Brown’s Creek Watershed District (BCWD). 2018. Watershed Management Plan.
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD). 2012. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed
District Multi Lakes Total Maximum Daily Load.
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD). 2015. Watershed Management Plan.
Chisago County (Chisago Co.). 2017. Chisago County Comprehensive Plan.
Chisago County Soil and Water Conservation District (CCSWCD). 2013. Sunrise River Total Maximum
Daily Load.
Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Watershed District (CLFLWD). 2010. Six Lakes Total Maximum Daily Load.
Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Watershed District (CLFLWD). 2011. Watershed Management Plan Vol II.
Lower St. Croix River One Watershed One Plan (LSCR 1W1P) Interactive Map. Retrieved from
https://maps.barr.com/LSCWD/1W1P/index.html.
Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization (MSCWMO). 2015. Watershed Management
Plan.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). 2016. 2014-2015 Private Well Pesticide Sampling Project
Report.
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). 2018. Lower St. Croix River Watershed Groundwater
Restoration and Protection Strategies Report.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). 2018(i). Ecological Classification System:
Ecological Land Classification Hierarchy. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html.
Accessed September 2018.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). 2018(ii). LakeFinder. Retrieved from
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/index.html. Accessed October 2018.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). 2015. Trout Angling: Southern Minnesota.
Retrieved from: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fishing/trout_streams/south_mn_maps.html.
Accessed November 2018.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) State Climatology Office. 2018. 1981-2010
Normals Map Portal. Retrieved from
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/summaries_and_publications/normalsportal.html. Accessed
October 2018.
Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan: Land and Water Resources Inventory
45
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) State Climatology Office. 2018. Annual
Precipitation Maps. Retrieved from
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/historical/annual_precipitation_maps.html. Accessed
September 2018.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2000. Groundwater in Cottage Grove, Minnesota.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2006. North Branch Sunrise River Fecal Coliform Total
Maximum Daily Load.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2012. Martin and Typo Lakes Total Maximum Daily Load.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (MPCA, WiDNR).
2012. Lake St. Croix Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load Study.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2013. Chisago Lakes Chain of Lakes Watershed Restoration
and Protection Strategy.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2014 (i). Lower St. Croix River Watershed Monitoring and
Assessment Report.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2014 (ii). Sunrise River Watershed Restoration and
Protection Strategies.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2015. Goose Creek Watershed Restoration and Protection
Strategies Report.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2016. Lower St. Croix Watershed Biotic Stressor
Identification Report.
Sunrise River Watershed Management Organization (SRWMO). 2010. Watershed Management Plan.
South Washington Watershed District (SWWD). 2016. Watershed Management Plan.
Washington County. 2009. Washington County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Washington County. 2014. Groundwater Plan, 2014-2024.
Washington County. 2018. 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
University of Minnesota Water Resources Center. 2011. Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework.
Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD). 2015. Watershed Management Plan.
Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD). 2016. Valley Branch Watershed Restoration and Protection
Strategy Report.
Appendix B: Lower St. Croix Watershed Water Storage
Analysis
DRAFT
Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan
March 2020
Lower St. Croix Watershed
Water Storage Analysis
Written by:
Clean Water Hydrologist Jason Carlson
October 2019
Purpose:
The Lower Saint Croix River (LSCR) One Watershed One Plan (1W1P) Advisory Team has identified the
need to assess water storage as a means to improve/protect watershed hydrology. Pre-settlement
hydrologic conditions identified by the team as a desired future condition will likely need a set of
incremental benchmark goals to meet shorter term planning goals. The purpose of this analysis is to
identify storage volumes needed to reach the desired future condition or some proxy which best
represents that condition as well as any possible benchmarks which would have a positive impact on
watershed hydrology.
Data:
The LSCR water storage analysis will use three primary sets of information. The first data set is the
historic discharge record for the Saint Croix River at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream
gaging station at St. Croix Falls, WI (5340500). The gage has the longest data record for discharge in the
watershed but is located approximately 52 miles upstream of the confluence of the Saint Croix River and
the Mississippi River. A substantial portion of the LSCR watershed, 258 square miles (28%), is not
capture by this gage. Additionally, a large portion of the Upper Saint Croix River’s watershed discharges
to this gage. The use of this data set therefore requires an assumption that the hydrologic trends
identified are also representative of the LSCR watershed. A targeted approach representing the LSCR
Watershed specifically will determine potential water storage volumes.
The second data set used in this analysis is watershed averaged precipitation data going back to the late
19th century. The dataset utilizes gridded monthly precipitation totals averaged over major watersheds
within the state and compiled by the Minnesota State Climatology Office.
The third data set consists of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model output runs characterizing
sub-watershed runoff volumes from 1998 to 2007 obtained from the St. Croix Research Station director
Jim Almendinger.
Analysis:
The approach to determining storage goals for the LSCR watershed comprises three parts. The first part
uses a series of analyses to identify changes in hydrologic conditions over time and to determine
succinct periods in the records where alteration has occurred. The second part utilizes the points in time
established in the first part to separate historical data and look at trends before and after the periods of
change. The third and final part takes those trends and attributes the larger watershed relationships to
subwatersheds delineated in the SWAT model by applying runoff ratios calculated within the model.
This creates targeted goals that are representative of the physical conditions driving hydrology
throughout the watershed. These subwatershed goals can then be prioritized and appropriate
management strategies developed.
Part 1:
The first analysis in this part utilizes methods in the USGS Manual of Hydrology: Part 1 (Searcy J.K and
Hardison C.H., 1960) to calculate a double mass curve comparing the relationship between the annual
mean discharges from the USGS stream gage with a computed annual mean discharge dataset. The
computed discharge dataset derived from the relationship between effective annual precipitation and
measured annual discharge removes the non-linear relationship between precipitation and discharge, as
it would otherwise violate the premise of the double mass curve. Effective precipitation consists of a
percentage of both past and current year’s precipitation, which produces the current year’s annual
discharge, and compensates for the lag seen from groundwater storage and other factors.
The results from the double mass curve do not show a visual break in the relationship through the
period of record (a). A covariance test determining the variance around a line of regression calculates
the degree of significance that two data sets do not represent a consistent record. Assessment of the
two variables in the double mass curve using each year of the period of record as a separation point for
a pre and post data sets excluded the first and last decades. The strongest significant breaking point
(95% significance) located at the year 1942, had the highest F value (b).
a. Double Mass Curve
b. Covariance Analysis Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Cumulative Computed Runoff (inches over watershed)Cumulative Measured Runoff (inches over watershed)
Saint Croix River at St. Croix Falls, WI
USGS Gage (05340500)Double Mass Curve
The next analysis utilizes the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nonstationarity Detection
Tool (Friedman D., 2018). The tool runs multiple statistical tests on annual peak data at the St. Croix Falls
USGS gage to determine breaks in stationarity in the hydrologic record (c). Identified breaks in both
distribution and mean identified around 1934 and 1941 indicate possible hydrologic alteration.
c. USACE Nonstationarity Detection Tool
The third analysis calculates the HURST coefficient and identifies the persistence of a record to behave
in a non-random manner (Hurst H.E., 1951). Values from one-half moving towards one indicate a more
strongly persistent data set where increasing values are more likely to follow increasing values and
decreasing values following decreasing values.
The HURST coefficients from both the precipitation and discharge records were computed (0.73 and
0.81 respectively) and the annual cumulative departure from the mean for those records were graphed
by dividing by the standard deviation to normalize the data (d,e). The negative slopes in both graphs
from around 1910 to 1940 indicate annual values consistently below the mean value of the overall
record, indicative of a period of drought. From 1937 to 1940, both data sets show a break in slope and
generally increase to the end of the record.
d. Annual precipitation cumulative departure from mean
e. Annual discharge cumulative departure from mean
The Double Mass Curve analysis, the Nonstationarity Detection tool, and both cumulative departure
analysis’ of precipitation and discharge identified points between 1940 to 1942 as the most likely change
period in the historical record. The middle of this period at 1941 is therefore determined to be the best
representative breaking point to separate current hydrologic function with historic hydrologic
conditions.
Part 2:
The precipitation and discharge records are separated into two time-periods to determine trends
(beginning of record – 1941 and 1941 to present). Linear equations based on a 7 year running average of
the data for each record are computed pre and post 1941 and the equation for the post break point
data set forecasted forward to 2050 represents future conditions. 2050 was chosen as the target year
as it is often an output for forecasted climate models and runs approximately 30 years from the
implementation start of the 1W1P for the LSCR (f,g).
f. Annual Precipitation with 1941 Change Point
g. Annual Discharge with 1941 Change Point
Part 3:
The final step of the analysis computes the changes in runoff for the LSCR and its subwatersheds based
on two distinct periods. The first period begins at the point of hydrologic change at 1941 and ends at the
most current year of data at 2018. The second period begins at 2018 and goes forward to 2050. Runoff
volumes computed at the three years of 1941, 2018, and 2050 for each sub-basin allowed the
calculation of runoff reduction goals on a future and past basis.
SWAT model outputs of average annual runoff divided by basin averaged annual precipitation for the
model period (1998-2007) create modern runoff ratios per subwatershed to attribute changes at the
subwatershed scale.
The modern modeled runoff ratios multiplied by the projected 2050 annual precipitation amount,
derived from the post 1941 equation from graph f, created the projected runoff estimates per
subwatershed under the assumption that the relationship between precipitation and discharge would
remain constant.
The model runoff ratios for each subwatershed multiplied by the 7-year average precipitation from 1941
(f) created runoff estimates per subwatershed reflecting runoff representing 1941 hydrologic conditions.
A pre-1941 runoff ratio adjustment was not computed to adjust the modeled outputs due to the
considerable drought persisting through most of the discharge records in the period prior to 1941 (h).
Doing so would have estimated much less runoff and would not reflect pre-settlement discharge
volumes accurately prior to the drought period.
h. Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index
Calculation of the difference in subwatershed runoff volumes for the two periods created two separate
runoff volumes to use as water storage goals.
RESULTS:
The two potential basin wide storage goals based on this analysis represent the difference in runoff
between the two periods of 1941 to 2018 as well as 2018 to 2050. The subwatershed goals for each
period when mapped in geographic information system software provide visual context (i, j). Total
watershed reduction volumes calculated by multiplying inches of runoff and area in acres and then
converting to feet for each subwatershed create potential watershed wide volume reduction goals in
acre-feet.
The 1941 to 2018 water storage goal would equal 2.3 inches over the entire watershed or 113,800 acre-
feet of storage (i). The 2018 to 2050 water storage goal would equal 0.48 inches over the entire
watershed or a total of 23,600 acre-feet of storage (j).
i. SWAT Modeling Runoff Subwatershed Storage Goal 2018-2050
j. SWAT Modeling Runoff Subwatershed Storage Goal 1941-2018
CONCLUSIONS:
The LSCR watershed is projected to have additional precipitation of 6.34 inches annually by 2050 when
compared to pre-1941 averages. Estimates are that 2.78 inches of that additional water will make it into
rivers and out of the watershed as discharge. While the volume may seem like a large amount, breaking
it into two separate periods provides the possibility for setting long term and shorter-term storage
goals.
Considering the watershed as functioning in a stable manner may also be desired since the change in the
hydrologic record occurred 78 years in the past. Addressing future water inputs from increased
precipitation in this instance may be the most desirable goal.
Either way the SWAT model results enable the prioritization of subwatersheds throughout the LSCB and
give light to potential management strategies based on the volume reduction and the location within
the watershed.
One example of this might be where a high contributing subwatershed is located along steep blufflands
along the river. Finding available areas suitable for water storage may not be possible, but identifying
the need to maintain perennial cover to increase interception would be a viable option. Another
example would be prioritizing high contributing inland watersheds, which may have degrading wetland
complexes that could be restored to increase storage capacity. A third example might be where there is
a watershed that has substantial forested acreage requiring protection from clear cutting to prevent
increases in runoff while also preventing loss of habitat for wildlife.
Citations
Friedman, D., J. Schechter, Sant-Miller, A.M., C. Mueller, G. Villarini, K.D. White, and B. Baker. (2018), US
Army Corps of Engineers Nonstationarity Detection Tool User Guide. US Army Corps of Engineers:
Washington, DC.
Hurst, H.E. (1951). "Long-term storage capacity of reservoirs". Transactions of American Society of Civil
Engineers. 116: 770.
Searcy J.K and Hardison C.H., “Double Mass Curves. Manual of hydrology: Part 1. General Surface Water
Techniques,” US Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1541-B., 1960.
Appendix C: Project Targeting Criteria and Scoring
Matrix
DRAFT
Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan
March 2020
1
Criteria and Points for Ranking Agricultural and Urban BMPs for Watershed Based Funds
as referenced in Section VII.B.
1 Lake
Restoration
& Protection
The project addresses total phosphorus on a priority lake (See
table on page 2)
LPSS Priority Class* is
“Impaired” or “Highest” = 5
LPSS Priority Class is “High”
or “Higher” = 3
Can score points for #1 or #2, but not both.
2 Stream
Restoration
Project is located near stream reach and will address stream
impairment or Lake St. Croix total phosphorus impairment)
Within ¼ mile = 5
Within ½ mile = 3
3 Groundwater Project improves groundwater quality/quantity (examples: soil
health, nutrient management, pesticide reduction, recharge,
infiltration, reuse)
Yes = 3
No = 0
4 Readiness Concept plans, cost estimates, and landowner
agreements/easements are complete 3 or 0
Yes = 3
No = 0
5 Urgency &
Opportunity
Is the project contingent on securing funding now? (Example,
BMP is part of a larger project that will move forward with or
without the BMP; opportunity would be lost if not funded and
implemented now)
Yes = 1
No = 0
6 Cost
effectiveness
Level of cost benefit when compared to all projects analyzed in
particular SWA or similar targeting analysis.
Top 1% = 10
Top 10% = 7
Top 25% = 5
Top 50% = 3
< 50% = 0
7 Partners &
Funding
Partnership and collaboration with agencies, organizations, or
other groups is being leveraged or utilized by this project (Are
there multiple partners providing funding, in-kind support, or
other assistance or involvement?)
Yes = 1
No = 0
8 Multiple
Benefit
Project provides added benefit of habitat improvements
(aquatic, riparian, upland, wetland). Note: water quality
improvements are not considered habitat improvements for
this criterion.
Yes = 1
No = 0
9 Multiple
Benefit
Project provides added benefit of education (examples:
signage, demonstration project)
Yes = 1
No = 0
10
Multiple
Benefit
Project improves water quality while also addressing flooding
concern (examples: pond, wetland restoration, or floodplain
expansion)
Yes = 1
No = 0
TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE 26
2
*Lakes of Phosphorus Sensitivity Significance (LPSS) - May 24, 2019: A ranked priority lake list based on
sensitivity to additional phosphorus loading and the significance of that sensitivity.
Developed by: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, and Board of
Water and Soil Resources
Lake Phosphorus Sensitivity Significance, LPSS Priority Class = Grouping of waterbodies based on the lake
phosphorus sensitivity significance priority score, which is a function of phosphorus sensitivity, and lake
size, lake total phosphorus concentration, proximity to MPCA’s phosphorus impairment thresholds, and
watershed disturbance. Classes relate to the state’s priority of focusing on “high quality, unimpaired
lakes at greatest risk of becoming impaired.”
Lake ID Name LPSS Priority Class
2002600 Linwood Impaired
2003400 Martin Impaired
13004200 Birch NA
13000100 Blooms NA
1300120 Chisago Higher
13006800 Fish Highest
13008301/13008302 Goose (North & South) Impaired
13004102 /13004101 Green/Little Green Highest
13003300 Little Impaired
13003201 North Center Lake Impaired
13003500 North Lindstrom Higher
13006901/13006902 Rush (East & West) Impaired
13002700 South Center Impaired
13002800 South Lindstrom Higher
30000800 Hoffman NA
30001200 Horseleg Highest
30000300 Horseshoe Highest
30000700 Lower Birch NA
58011700 Rock Impaired
82004900 Big Carnelian Higher
82005204 Big Marine Highest
82004500 Clear Higher
82003400 East Boot Impaired
82000400 Edith Higher
82010600 Elmo Higher
82001400 Little Carnelian Higher
82002500 Louise Impaired
82003300 Mays High
82002000 McKusick High
82004600 Square Highest
82003100 Terrapin High
Appendix D: Chisago County Water Plan 2020 – 2030
DRAFT
Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan
March 2020
CHISAGO COUNTY
LOCAL WATER
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
December 2020-December 2030
1
February 21, 2020
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4
Background of the Lower St. Croix, One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) Planning Process 8
Responsible Local Unit of Government ........................................................................... 8
Lower St. Croix, One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) Implementation Framework ......... 9
Chisago County Local Water Management Staff Participation in the Lower St. Croix,
One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) ................................................................................. 11
Local Water Management Plan Adoption and Updates ................................................. 11
Expiration Date of Current Plan ..................................................................................... 11
Lower St. Croix, One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) Local Water Management Plan
Adoption and Updates .................................................................................................... 11
Purpose of the Chisago County Local Water Management Plan Appendix to the Lower St.
Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan ............................................... 12
Purpose............................................................................................................................ 12
Chisago County Water Plan Policy Team Review of Goals and Objectives ................. 13
Priority Concerns to be Addressed ..................................................................................... 14
Summary of Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................... 15
Consistency of the Plan ...................................................................................................... 17
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 18
Protect Quality and Quantity of Groundwater .................................................................... 18
Goals ............................................................................................................................... 18
Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 18
Aquatic Invasive Species .................................................................................................... 20
Goals ............................................................................................................................... 20
Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 20
Noncompliant Septic Systems ............................................................................................ 22
Goals ............................................................................................................................... 22
Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 22
Land Use Practices.............................................................................................................. 24
Goals ............................................................................................................................... 24
Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 24
Make Informed Decisions ................................................................................................... 32
2
February 21, 2020
Goals ............................................................................................................................... 32
Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 32
Sufficient Resources ........................................................................................................... 36
Goals ............................................................................................................................... 36
Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................. 38
Implementation Schedule ................................................................................................... 38
Priority Concerns Scoping Document ................................................................................ 38
Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2017-04-01 Local Water
Resources Riparian Protection in Chisago County ............................................................. 38
Chisago County Local Water Management Plan, August 15, 2013 – Amended June 2018
............................................................................................................................................ 38
One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) – Lower St. Croix Watershed Factsheet ..................... 38
3
February 21, 2020
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Chisago County Board of Commissioners
District 1 Chris DuBose
District 2 Rick Green
District 3 George McMahon
District 4 Ben Montzka
District 5 Mike Robinson
Water Plan Policy Team
John Eret Citizen at Large
Larry Nelson Citizen at Large
Craig Mold Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District
Mike Robinson County Board
Brian Sandel Citizen at Large
Kurt Schneider Chisago County Zoning/Environmental Services
Frank Storm Citizen at Large (Chairman)
Betty-Jo Thorsten Chisago County Public Health
Technical Advisory Committee
John Freitag Minnesota Department of Health
Brain Livingston Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Craig Mell Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District
Dan Fabian Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Jeff Berg Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Garrett Miller Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District
Jerry Spetzman Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District
Craig Wills Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Staff to Water Plan Policy Team
Susanna Wilson Witkowski Chisago County Water Resource Manager
4
February 21, 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Chisago County, located in east central Minnesota, approximately 35 minutes north of the
Twin Cities metropolitan area, was established in 1851, seven years before Minnesota
became a state. Chisago, the county name, comes from the Chippewa Indian word, Ki-Chi-
Saga, which means Fair and Lovely Waters. Chisago County borders the St. Croix River to
the east, and shares borders with Pine, Isanti, Anoka, and Washington Counties. The county
seat, first at Taylors Falls, moved to Chisago City in 1865 and then to Center City in 1875,
where it remains today. Table 1: Population trends (US Census Bureau)
Year Population Percent Increase
1960 13,419
1970 17,492 30.4
1980 25,717 47.0
1990 30,521 18.7
2000 41,101 34.7
2010 53,887 31.1
The Minnesota Planning State Demographic Center projects that by 2030, the population of
Chisago County will be 69,540. This represents a 29% increase over 2010. This will
accelerate development pressures.
A great majority of the land in Chisago County remains largely undeveloped, primarily in
agricultural use, woodlands, or wetlands. The majority of development in the County has
occurred in the southwest, along I-35 on the western side of the county, along Highway 8,
and the Northern (Rush City) Lakes area.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) owned land accounts for a large part of
the County; Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area, Wild River State Park, Interstate Park,
and Chengwatana State Forest total over 15,500 acres, or 6%, of the total land area.
Chisago County (University of Minnesota 2000 Chisago County Land Cover and Impervious
Surface Area) had the following percentages of land use:
5
February 21, 2020
Table 2: Chisago County Land Cover
Chisago County Land Cover Acres Percent
Agriculture 105,500 37%
Forest 77,100 27%
Grass/Shrub/Wetland 54,200 19%
Water 14,500 5%
Urban 31,800 11%
Total 283,100 100%
Figure 1: Chisago County Land Cover
Chisago County has abundant water resources. The DNR designates public waters to
indicate which lakes, wetlands, and watercourses over which DNR Ecological and Water
Resources has regulatory jurisdiction. The statutory definition of public waters includes
public waters and public waters wetlands. Public waters are all waterbasins and
watercourses that meet criteria set forth in Minnesota Statutes that are identified on Public
Water Inventory maps authorized by Minnesota Statutes. Public water wetlands include all
type 3, type 4, and type 5 wetlands (as defined in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No.
39, 1971 edition) that are 10 acres or more in size in unincorporated areas or 2.5 acres or
more in size in incorporated areas. Currently, DNR Waters utilizes scanned mylar county-
scale maps printed on paper to show the general location of the public waters and public
waters wetlands (lakes, wetlands, and watercourses) under its regulatory jurisdiction. These
maps are commonly known as Public Waters Inventory maps. The DNR sets the regulatory
“boundary” of these waters and wetlands as the ordinary high water level.
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Chisago County Land Cover
6
February 21, 2020
Chisago County is almost entirely in the St. Croix River watershed. Chisago County has
been divided into multiple subwatersheds – Rock Creek, Rush Creek, Goose Creek, Sunrise
River, Lawrence Creek, and direct drainage. Figure 2: Chisago County Watersheds
Water runoff from Chisago County lands contribute to nutrient and sediment water quality
concerns in the St. Croix River. A Total Maximum Daily Load study (TMDL) and
Implementation Plan has been completed for Lake St. Croix. The TMDL allows for 46,000
pounds per year of phosphorus to be loaded to the St. Croix River from Chisago County.
This requires 21,000 pounds per year of reduction from the estimated TMDL baseline load of
68,200 pounds per year in the early 1900s. Chisago County’s required reduction ranks 3rd
largest among the 19 counties in the St. Croix basin.
To achieve the St. Croix Basin Partners’ goal of 20% reduction of phosphorus by 2020,
Chisago County needs to reduce loadings by 16,200 pounds per year. To attain this goal,
activities must be implemented that achieve an average annual rate of phosphorus reduction
of 500 pounds per year over 30 years, or 1,600 pounds per year over 10 years.
7
February 21, 2020
Figure 3: Subwatershed Phosphorus Loading
Quantifying changes in phosphorus loadings to the St. Croix River since the TMDL baseline
conditions of the early 1990s is difficult. With respect to agricultural practices, there have
been several in Chisago County that have had a significant impact on phosphorus loading.
The amount of animal agriculture has decreased dramatically. Farming practices have
changed. In the 1990s, it was common to see tillage practices that retained minimal residue
on the field after harvest. Since then there have been significant improvements to tillage
equipment, herbicides, and seed genetics that have resulted in an increase in residue retained
on fields post-harvest, which in turn lessens the amount of phosphorus in runoff.
Chisago County also has implemented a program to eliminate nearly 100% of septic systems
characterized as “Imminent Threat to Public Health Septic Systems”. However, many failing
systems still exist throughout the county.
The State of Minnesota has passed legislation restricting the use of phosphorus in lawn
fertilizer. This legislation has resulted in substantial reductions of phosphorus application to
turf grass in Chisago County.
The Sunrise River in east-central Minnesota is a watershed and river system that has many
impairments that affect water quality and aquatic biota. While the majority of the watershed
is in Chisago County, portions of the watershed are in Isanti, Anoka, and Washington
Counties. Within the St. Croix Basin, the Sunrise River (with approximately 5% of the land
area) is one of the larger contributors of phosphorus and sediment to the St. Croix River. In
fall 2007, a joint multi-agency effort was initiated to perform a detailed watershed study of
aquatic resources of the Sunrise River Basin. The primary partners of this study include the
US Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Chisago County.
8
February 21, 2020
The objective of the Sunrise River Watershed Study is to prepare a plan for watershed
management that provides the technical basis for future management of aquatic resources
including wetlands. Key issues the group is evaluating include water quality, nutrient and
sediment loading, stream stability and erosion, aquatic habitat conditions, and management
of wetland resources. The study includes evaluation of how land use and projected future
population growth influences these key resource issues, how future land use might be better
managed, and the potential economic cost for such management actions. Water managers
will use the results to guide management decisions that will benefit the Sunrise River and the
downstream St. Croix River.
BACKGROUND OF THE LOWER ST. CROIX, ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN (1W1P)
PLANNING PROCESS
Responsible Local Unit of Government
The Chisago County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 11/1019-1 –
Authorization to revise and update the Chisago County Comprehensive Water
Management Plan on October 19, 2011. This resolution is authorized under Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 103B.301, the Comprehensive Local Water Management Act.
The resolution states that the Chisago County Board of Commissioners delegates to the
Chisago County Environmental Services/Zoning Department the responsibility of
coordinating, assembling, writing, and implementing the revised local water management
plan pursuant to M.S. 103B.301 as implemented through the Water Plan Policy Team (Policy
Team).
The Policy Team consists of five citizen members (appointed by the Chisago County Board
of Commissioners), one supervisor from the Chisago Soil & Water Conservation District,
one County Commissioner, and the Director of Chisago County Zoning/Environmental
Services. In addition, the Policy Team is supported by the Technical Advisory Team, which
is made up of representatives from Chisago County Public Health, Chisago Lakes Lake
Improvement District, Chisago Soil & Water Conservation District, Comfort Lake Forest
Lake Watershed District, Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources, Minnesota
Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
Water Plan administration and Policy Team coordination is overseen by the Chisago County
Water Resource Manager.
9
February 21, 2020
Lower St. Croix, One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) Implementation Framework
On September 16, 2013, the Chisago County Board of Commissioners approved the Chisago
County Local Water Management Plan – September 2013 to September 2023. The
Implementation Plan for the Chisago County Local Water Management Plan expired on
December 31, 2018, requiring an amendment (or five-year update) of the Goals and
Objectives, and Action items of the Chisago County Local Water Management Plan.
On January 18, 2017, the Chisago County Board of Commissioners approved Resolution No.
17/0118-5 to Support a Lower St. Croix Watershed One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P)
Implementation Framework Project. The resolution states that Chisago County
recognizes and supports watershed-scale planning and coordination efforts consistent with
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter §103B.801, also known as One Watershed, One Plan.
The adopted resolution further states that Chisago County supports an application by the
Washington Conservation District to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
(BWSR) for a planning grant to develop a coordinated, watershed-scale implementation
framework and anticipates entering into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Counties,
Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Watershed Management Organizations within the
Lower St. Croix watershed (Figure 4: Lower St. Croix Watershed Map) to implement this
collaborative effort and be eligible for plan-based implementation funding. Figure 4: Lower St. Croix Watershed Map
10
February 21, 2020
On February 21, 2018, the Chisago County Board of Commissioners approved the Lower St.
Croix Watershed Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement is an
agreement of fifteen organizations in the lower St. Croix watershed to collectively develop,
adopt, and implement, as local government units, a coordinated watershed management plan.
Minnesota statutes 103F.48 subd 4. requires Soil & Water Conservation Districts, in
consultation with local water management authorities, to adopt a summary of “other
watercourses” for inclusion into the local water plan. On April 1, 2017, the Chisago Soil &
Water Conservation District approved Resolution No. 2017-04-01 Local Water Resources
Riparian Protection in Chisago County. If the summary is incorporated into the plan with no
other changes, it can be done as an addendum, without the formality of a full plan
amendment process.
On June 6, 2018, the Chisago County Board of Commissioners moved to approve the
inclusion of Chisago Soil & Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2017-04-01, Local
Water Resources Riparian Protection in Chisago County, as an Addendum to the Chisago
County Local Water Management Plan 2013-2023 and proceed with notifications to the
following agencies including, soil and water conservation districts, Municipalities, towns and
townships, Watershed districts, Boards of contiguous counties, joint powers organizations,
BWSR regional supervisor, the Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources, Agriculture,
Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
On February 6, 2019, the Chisago County Board of Commissioners approved Resolution No.
19/0206-3 to Waive the five-year Amendment Requirement for the Chisago County
Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan, as Chisago County is supporting the
transition to the 1W1P for the Lower St. Croix watershed. In March of 2019, Chisago
County submitted the approved Resolution No. 19/0206-3 to the Board of Water and Soil
Resources and request to waive the required amendment of the Implementation Plan, of the
Chisago County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan, that expired on December
31, 2018.
On October 11, 2019, the Board of Water and Soil Resources approved the Chisago County
Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan waiver of the five-year amendment
requirement. The order from BWSR states that the 1W1P for the Lower St. Croix Watershed
may substitute for the current County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan when
completed and adopted by the Chisago County Board.
11
February 21, 2020
Chisago County Local Water Management Staff Participation in the Lower St. Croix,
One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P)
Beginning in 2017, the Chisago County Water Resource Manager participated in the Lower
St. Croix One Watershed, One Plan planning process to develop a coordinated watershed
management plan along with water resources staff from the fifteen collaborating agencies, or
Lower St. Croix (LSC) Partners, who signed the Memorandum of Agreement. The
Administrator of the Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District also participated in the
planning process.
Participation included actively participating in the 1W1P Steering, Advisory and Policy
Committee meetings to identify and prioritize resource areas and issues, consolidating issues
that were identified through agency and stakeholder input, developing the desired future
conditions for the resource areas, and establishing measurable goals, outputs and priority
locations for each of the issues and resource areas.
Chisago County water resources staff also worked with the LSC Partners to develop the
implementation actions found in the 2020-2029 Implementation Table (Table 5-1), Table 5-
2, and Table 5-3 of the Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan.
Local Water Management Plan Adoption and Updates
First Chisago County Water Plan Adopted – January 19, 1993
First Update 1998 – 2002
Second Update 2006 - 2011
Amendment – August 27, 2009
Amendment 2010 to 2013 – March 4, 2010
Third Update 2013 – 2023
Amendment – May 14, 2018
Waiver of Five-Year Amendment – October 11, 2019
Expiration Date of Current Plan
September 30, 2023
Lower St. Croix, One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) Local Water Management Plan
Adoption and Updates
County Board Approved Resolution to Support 1W1P Implementation Framework -
January 18, 2017
County Board Approved Lower St. Croix Watershed Memorandum of Agreement -
February 21, 2018
12
February 21, 2020
PURPOSE OF THE CHISAGO COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX TO THE LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Purpose
The purpose of the Chisago County Local Water Management Plan Appendix to the Lower
St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan is to allow for the inclusion of
County watershed priorities that were established in the September 2013 – 2023 Chisago
County Local Water Management Plan.
During the 1W1P prioritization process to develop water related measurable goals and
strategies, or objectives, some of the current objectives identified in the Chisago County
Local Water Management Plan were not included in the final Lower St. Croix River
Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan. However, BWSR and the 1W1P planning
process allowed Chisago County and other counties to include all objectives absent from the
final Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan as an Appendix to
the plan.
Chisago County Water Plan Policy Team members and residents have identified watershed
priorities to include in the Chisago County Local Water Management Plan Appendix. The
County will use the priorities identified in the Appendix to obtain and use resources to
protect, improve, and conserve water resources in Chisago County including lakes, rivers,
wetlands, and groundwater.
The Chisago County Local Water Management Plan Appendix does not replace, but
supplements the Mission, Vision, Resource Areas, Issues, Measurable Goals, Outputs and
Priority Locations as established in the Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed
Management Plan.
13
February 21, 2020
Chisago County Water Plan Policy Team Review of Goals and Objectives
The majority of the Goals and Objectives that were adopted in the September 2013 – 2023
Chisago County Local Water Management Plan are included in the Measurable Goals,
Outputs and Priority Locations as found in the Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive
Watershed Management Plan.
However, in the winter of 2019 and 2020, the Chisago County Water Plan Policy Team
reviewed the Goals and Objectives in the September 2013 – 2023 Chisago County Local
Water Management Plan to identify which Goals and Objectives to include in an Appendix.
Prior to the Water Plan Policy Team meetings, staff from Chisago County, the Chisago Soil
and Water Conservation District and the Comfort Lake – Forest Lake Watershed District
updated the status of each Objective and made a recommendation to keep the Objective as
Written or to either Modify, Change or Delete the Objective. Staff also marked the
suggested Priority ranking of each Objective prioritizing each in following the Tier A, B, C
ranking as shown in the 1W1P Prioritized Issue Statements identified in the Lower St. Croix
River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan.
Goals and Objectives from the September 2013 – 2023 Chisago County Local Water
Management Plan that were not included in the Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive
Watershed Management Plan are listed in Goals and Objectives section in this Appendix.
Some Objectives found in this Appendix can also be found in the Lower St. Croix River
Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan. These Objectives may be included in the
Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan, but have specific
notation to Chisago County. These Objectives are identified in the alphabetical list under the
Objective along with a brief description of where the related objective can be found in the
implementation table (Table 5-1) in the Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed
Management Plan.
At their meeting on February 10, 2020, the Water Plan Policy Team passed a motion
approving the draft Appendix.
14
February 21, 2020
PRIORITY CONCERNS TO BE ADDRESSED
The following Priority Concerns have been adopted by the Chisago County Water Plan
Policy Team, as addressed in the September 2013 – September 2023, Chisago County Local
Water Management Plan.
The Priority Concerns of Chisago County water resources have been expressed by residents,
Water Plan Policy Team members, and agency input. All comments and descriptions of the
concerns have been documented in the Priority Concerns Scoping Document are located in
the September 2013 – September 2023, Chisago County Local Water Management Plan.
A Priority Concern is to protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used for
drinking water.
A Priority Concern is the introduction or spread of aquatic invasive species and their
negative effect on water quality, navigation, recreation, or fisheries.
A Priority Concern is septic systems that are failing, noncompliant, or an Imminent
Threat to Public Health.
A Priority Concern is the influence of agricultural, rural, and urban land use practices
on water quality.
A Priority Concern is that citizens and elected officials receive accurate and
understandable information to make informed decisions.
A Priority Concern is to obtain sufficient resources to achieve goals established in the
Water Plan.
15
February 21, 2020
SUMMARY OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The table below is a summary of the estimated timeline and potential resources needed to
fully implement the Chisago County Local Water Management Plan Appendix. These
estimates are for planning purposes only and are not intended to be a commitment by
Chisago County or partner resource agencies. Detailed information on specific goals and
objectives can be found in the appendix and September 2013 – September 2023, Chisago
County Local Water Management Plan.
Table 3: Summary of Goals and Objectives Costs in Dollars
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Totals
Protect Quality
& Quantity of
Groundwater
35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 175,000
Aquatic Invasive
Species
75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000
Non-compliant
Septic Systems
31,000 31,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 110,000
Land Use
Practices
1,392,500 1,390,000 1,305,000 1,305,000 1,120,000 6,512,500
Make Informed
Decisions
125,000 125,000 105,000 75,000 75,000 505,000
Sufficient
Resources
145,000 145,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 710,000
Totals 1,803,500 1,801,000 1,676,000 1,646,000 1,461,000 8,387,500
16
February 21, 2020
Figure 4: Summary of Five Year Estimated Cost of Goals and Objectives in Dollars
Figure 5: Summary of Five Year Estimated Cost of Goals and Objectives by Percentage
Participants in previous Water Plan activities have been very successful in obtaining state
and federal resources for plan implementation. It is anticipated that this success will
continue into the future.
$175,000 $375,000
$110,000
6,512,500
$505,000
$710,000 Protect Quality & Quantity
of Groundwater
Aquatic Invasive Species
Non-compliant Septic
Systems
Land Use Practices
Make Informed Decisions
Sufficient Resources
2%4%1%
78%
6%
8%Protect Quality & Quantity
of Groundwater
Aquatic Invasive Species
Non-compliant Septic
Systems
Land Use Practices
Make Informed Decisions
Sufficient Resources
17
February 21, 2020
CONSISTENCY OF THE PLAN
The Chisago County Local Water Management Plan Appendix is consistent with other
pertinent state, county, regional, and other local plans. There are no recommended
amendments or potential conflicts with official controls at this time.
18
February 21, 2020
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Listed below are the goals and objectives to support the six priority concerns. Each objective
includes a brief description of the proposed activity. Included with the description is:
a. When it is anticipated to be completed
b. Local unit(s) of government delegated implementation responsibility
c. Estimated financial and in-kind resources it will take to complete the
objective
d. The watershed or groundwater units benefiting from the objective.
e. Location of Objective found in the implementation table (5-1) in the Lower
St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan
PROTECT QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF GROUNDWATER
A Priority Concern is to protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used for
drinking water.
Goals
• Protect groundwater from human caused contamination to meet or exceed applicable
drinking water standards.
• Manage groundwater withdrawal to protect and conserve current and future uses
including drinking water, recreation, ecological, agriculture, commercial, and
industrial uses.
Objectives
1. Support local Wellhead and Source Water Protection activities and provide technical
assistance and information as requested.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County, Minnesota Department of Health, local communities
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000 to support Chisago County staff
d. Wellhead Protection Areas
2. Use information in the Chisago County Geologic and Hydrogeologic Atlas in
decision making.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County, Minnesota Geologic Survey
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County groundwater
19
February 21, 2020
3. Support improved security of city water supply wells and Wellhead Protection areas.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County, Minnesota Department of Health, local communities
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. Wellhead Protection areas
4. Support protection of water resources by participation in Chisago County Emergency
Management Planning.
a. 2021-2125
b. Chisago County, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County groundwater
5. Promote comprehensive policies to protect ground and surface water from sand and
gravel mining and processing, including frac sand mining.
a. 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $10,000 per year X 5 years = $50,000
d. All Chisago County groundwater
6. Access Minnesota Department of Health Contaminants of Emerging Concern
program for support in outreach and education efforts to enhance citizen
understanding of their role in protecting groundwater quality including their use and
disposal of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, hazardous materials, pesticides,
and fertilizers.
a. Ongoing program starting in 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. Al Chisago County groundwater
20
February 21, 2020
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
A Priority Concern is the introduction or spread of aquatic invasive species and their
negative effect on water quality, navigation, recreation, or fisheries.
Goals
• Monitor aquatic invasive species for current and new infestations.
• Manage aquatic invasive species to maintain water quality, recreation, and fish and
wildlife habitat.
Objectives
1. Partner with the Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, and other agencies to provide watercraft
inspections and education on aquatic invasive species at public water accesses
throughout the Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District, Chisago Lakes Lake
Improvement District, and northern Chisago County.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County, Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
c. $50,000 per year X 5 years = $250,000
d. Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District, Chisago Lakes Lake
Improvement District, northern Chisago County
e. Lakes 2C, Rivers & Streams 2B, St. Croix River & Lake St. Croix 2A, #30
and 31, Page 11 – Implementation Action C
2. Partner with local lake associations to control aquatic invasive species, as identified
by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for purposes of improved
navigation.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District
c. $15,000 per year X 5 years = $75,000
d. Chisago Lakes Chain of Lakes watershed
21
February 21, 2020
3. Develop multiple aquatic plant and invasive animal comprehensive surveys, such as
Point-Intercept surveys, covering major lakes located within the County and under a
five-year rotation.
a. Ongoing program starting in 2021-2025
b. Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District, Chisago County
c. $10,000 per year X 5 years = $50,000
d. Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District, Chisago County
22
February 21, 2020
NONCOMPLIANT SEPTIC SYSTEMS
A Priority Concern is septic systems that are failing, noncompliant, or an imminent
threat to public health.
Goals
• Keep 100% of Imminent Threat to Public Health septic systems in compliance with
State and County standards.
• Bring 50% of failing septic systems in rural unincorporated areas into compliance.
• Bring 80% of failing septic systems in the shoreland zone into compliance.
Objectives
1. Preserve septic system data by updating septic system index.
a. 2021-2022
b. Chisago County
c. $15,000 per year X 2 years = $30,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
2. Support the construction of community wastewater treatment systems in unsewered
Rural Village Centers as defined in the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan:
Almelund, Sunrise, Palmdale, Rush Point, and Stark. Provide support through staff
assistance to communities in researching grant opportunities.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
3. Partner with local communities in the effort to connect areas of high density,
undersized, riparian lots to community wastewater treatment systems. This includes
shoreland areas around the Chisago Lakes Chain of Lakes, Goose Lake, Rush Lake,
and resorts.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
23
February 21, 2020
4. Promote and encourage participation in the Chisago County/Chisago Lakes Joint
Sewage Treatment Commission Holding Tank Waste Receiving Program and
encourage expansion of the program so that septage may be accepted. Promote and
encourage all municipal sewage treatment facililties to accept individual sewage
treatment system sewage.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
5. Mail approximately 200 Septic System Owners Guides each year to owners of new or
newly purchased homes or replacement septic systems.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $1,000 per year X 5 years = $5,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
24
February 21, 2020
LAND USE PRACTICES
A Priority Concern is the influence of agricultural, rural, and urban land use practices
on water quality.
Goals
• Reduce phosphorus loading from Chisago County to the St. Croix River to help meet
20% basin wide reduction goal.
• Protect surface water from human caused contamination to meet or exceed applicable
water quality and environmental standards by implementing local water management
plans.
Objectives
St. Croix Basin
1. Complete whole farm management plans for local agricultural producers to identify
best management practice locations to reduce nutrient loading to surface waters.
Complete 2 whole farm management plans per year.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
c. $10,000 per year X 5 years = $50,000
2. Implement projects identified in the St. Croix River Escarpment Inventory to stabilize
erosion concerns and improve water quality. Assist in stabilization of 2 gullies per
year.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
c. $30,000 per year X 5 years = $150,000
e. Rivers & Streams 1A, St. Croix River & Lake St. Croix 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D, #
2, 14, 25, 26 and 57
25
February 21, 2020
Sunrise River Watershed
4. Implement projects recommended in the US Army Corps of Engineers Sunrise River
Watershed Study, including the drained wetlands inventory and Soil and Water
Assessment Tool model, and strategies for water quality, wetland and aquatic
ecosystem management, restoration, and protection, including wetland restoration to
provide wildlife habitat, flood storage and infiltration areas for runoff.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. No estimate at this time
e. Wetlands 1A, 1B and 2B, #6, 22, and 27, Page 10 – Implementation Action A
Chisago Lakes Chain of Lakes Watershed
5. Implement projects that will help meet the goals of the Chisago Lakes Chain of Lakes
Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan (TMDL) or those identified in completed
subwatershed assessments. Actively market local/state/federal conservation programs
that provide incentives to landowners to install 40 best management practices per year
to improve overall water quality within the watershed.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Chisago County
c. $300,000 per year X 5 years = $1,500,000
e. Lakes 1B and 2B, #3, 15, and 21, Page 7 – Implementation Action A
Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District
6. Implement projects that will help meet the goals of the District’s Capital
Improvement Program (2011).
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District
c. $100,000 per year X 5 years = $500,000
7. Implement projects using the District’s Residential, Agricultural, and Urban
Stormwater Retrofit programs to help with achieving the in-lake water quality goals
established in the Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District Watershed
Management Plan.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District
26
February 21, 2020
c. $50,000 per year X 5 years = $250,000
8. Support development of a Sunrise River Regional Stormwater Management Facility
downstream of the City of Forest Lake to help correct problems related to excess
nutrient and sediment loads to the Sunrise River and Comfort Lake.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District
c. $500,000 per year X 5 years = $2,500,000
9. Implement projects that will help meet the goals of the City of Wyoming Surface
Water Management Plan
a. Ongoing program upon plan approval 2021-2024
b. City of Wyoming
c. $10,000 per year X 4 years = $40,000
North Branch Sunrise River Watershed
10. Implement projects that will help meet goals of the North Branch Sunrise River Total
Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan or are identified in completed
subwatershed assessments. Actively market local/state/federal conservation programs
that provide incentives to landowners to install 10 best management practices per year
to improve overall water quality within the watershed. Conduct citizen informational
meetings.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County, Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural
Resources Conservation Service
c. $75,000 per year X 5 years = $375,000
d. Rivers & Streams 1A, St. Croix River & Lake St. Croix 1B, 1C and 1D, #2,
14, and 54, Page 4 and 7 – Implementation Action A
Rock Creek, Rush Creek, Goose Creek Watersheds
11. Implement projects that will help meet the goals of the Rock, Rush, Goose Creeks
Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies or are identified in completed
subwatershed assessments. Actively market local/state/federal conservation programs
that provide incentives to landowners to install 20 best management practices per year
to improve overall water quality within the watersheds.
a. 2021-2025
27
February 21, 2020
b. Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Chisago County
c. $150,000 per year X 4 years = $600,000
e. Rivers & Streams 1A, St. Croix River & Lake St. Croix 1B, 1C and 1D, #2,
14, and 54, Page 4 and 7 – Implementation Action A
28
February 21, 2020
Agriculture
12. Assist livestock operators with proper management of manure, wastewater, and
contaminated runoff. Prioritization will be to areas with direct discharge to waters of
the state. Priority conservation practices include: manure storage facilities, grass
filter strips, manure management plans, clean water diversions, and closure of waste
storage facilities.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
e. Groundwater 1A, Lakes 1A, Page 4 - Implementation Action A
Rural
13. Implement projects that will help meet water quality goals of the Chisago County
Comprehensive Parks and Trails Plan and other public lands. County parks include:
Dennis Frandsen, Fish Lake, Checkerboard, Kost Dam, Ki-Chi-Saga, Sunrise Prairie
Trail, and North Sunrise Park Reserve.
a. Ongoing program: 20121-2025
b. Chisago County Environmental Services, Parks Division
c. 20,000 per year X 5 years = $100,000
14. Develop a plan to remove excess sediment in the shoreland area of Dennis Frandsen
Park. Complete appropriate studies, which may include an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet, and obtain necessary permits.
a. 2021-2022
b. Chisago County Environmental Services, Parks Division
c. $10,000 per year X 2 years = $20,000
15. Implement the plan to remove excess sediment in the shoreland area of Dennis
Frandsen Park. Plan may include application of sediment to nearby farmland.
a. 2021-2022
b. Chisago County Environmental Services, Parks Division
c. $30,000 per year X 2 years = $60,000
29
February 21, 2020
16. Review historic aerial photographs to determine locations of abandoned or converted
feedlots adjacent to public waters to identify potential remnant pollutant loading
sources.
a. 2021
b. Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District
c. $2,500
17. Develop a pilot conservation payment initiative at a watershed level that provides
agricultural producers an annual payment based on the level of conservation
performances implemented throughout the farm
a. 2021-2024
b. Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District
c. $25,000 per year X 4 years = $100,000
Urban
18. Assist local communities with the incorporation and installation of stormwater Best
Management Practices to reduce nutrient and sediment loading during reconstruction
of local road projects, especially areas with direct discharge of untreated stormwater
to public waters. Examples include, but are not limited to: North Branch Maple
Street, and City of Lindstrom streets that dead end at a lake.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District, Chisago Lakes Lake
Improvement District
c. $10,000 per year X 5 years = $50,000
e. Groundwater 2B, Lakes 1B, # 2, 3, 14 and 15, Page 7 and 10 – Implementation
Action A, B and C
19. Inspect and assess construction sites before and during construction to ensure that
conditions placed upon plats are fulfilled, especially those relating to erosion control,
stormwater protection, and wetland compliance. The inspection includes a summary
of the soil, water, and vegetative resources, a summary of resource degradation
potential, and recommendations on the preservation, enhancement, and protection of
the resources.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District
c. $15,000 per year X 5 years = $75,000
e. Groundwater 2B, Lakes 1B, 2A and 2B, Wetlands 1A and 1B, Page 7 –
Implementation Action C
30
February 21, 2020
20. Update the Chisago County Subdivision Ordinance to include standards that will
improve water quality of surface water runoff.
a. 2021-2022
b. Chisago County, Chisago County Planning Commission
c. $20,000 X 2 years = $40,000
Wetlands
21. Compile and manage a computerized inventory of all Wetland Conservation Act
replacement plans, wetland banks, no net loss determinations, and delineations.
a. 2021-2023
b. Chisago County
c. $15,000 per year X 2 years = $30,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
e. Wetlands 3A, 3B, and 3E, #29 and 66
Shorelands
22. Update the Chisago County Shoreland Ordinance to be consistent with the revised
State of Minnesota Shoreland Ordinance.
a. On hold until State of Minnesota Shoreland Ordinance is adopted.
b. Chisago County, Chisago County Planning Commission
c. No estimate at this time
d. All Chisago County watersheds
23. Inventory all General Development and Recreational Lakes in the County to
determine the percentage of shoreline that has been converted from natural vegetation
to maintained yard. Use this inventory to educate and promote landowners to install
Best Management Practices that will help capture and treat the runoff from their
property before entering their lake.
a. 2021-2022
b. Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District
c. $10,000 per year X 2 years = $20,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
e. Lakes 2B, Uplands 2A, #2, 15, and 21
31
February 21, 2020
Drainage Ditches
24. Maximize the efficiency of the use of road maintenance products while protecting
public safety and minimizing harmful effects on water quality. Support and/or
conduct annual road and sidewalk salt management training. Attendees may include
local units of government, private applicators, and local businesses.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County Public Works Department
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
e. St. Croix River & Lake St. Croix 1D, #16, Page 7 – Implementation Action A
32
February 21, 2020
MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS
A Priority Concern is that citizens and elected officials receive accurate,
understandable information to make informed decisions.
Goals
• Develop a civic engagement strategy.
• Provide high quality information to citizens and decision makers.
• Maintain a high quality monitoring and assessment program.
Objectives
Education and Outreach
1. Host the countywide Chisago Children’s Water Festival on an annual basis. Invite all
Chisago County fifth grade students and teachers to the one day event. Provide youth
and classroom teachers with an innovative, quality, hands-on learning opportunity
highlighting the relationship and interdependence of water to all living things.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County, Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District
c. $10,000 per year X 5 years = $50,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
2. Develop a civic engagement strategy for County water resource management.
a. 2021-2022
b. Chisago County
c. $10,000 per year X 2 years = $20,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
3. Establish and maintain county-wide Hook, Line and Sinker recycling program.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County, Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
33
February 21, 2020
4. Provide opportunities to municipal officials, planning commissions, and the
agricultural community to receive education on how their land use decisions have a
direct impact on non-point source runoff pollution. Principles outlined in the
University of Minnesota Non Point Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO)
program will be implemented.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
5. Provide information and education to Chisago County citizens using the
Environmental Connections Newsletter. Publish newsletters twice yearly.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $20,000 per year X 5 years = $100,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
Monitoring and Assessment
6. Develop a County wide annual water quality monitoring plan for nutrients, aquatic
life, and other parameters to determine ambient water quality concentration trends and
loading for all public waters in Chisago County, including lakes with public accesses
and the main stems and selected tributaries of Rock Creek, Rush Creek, Goose Creek,
Sunrise River, and Lawrence Creek.
a. 2021-2022
b. Chisago County
c. $10,000 per year X 2 years = $20,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
e. Lakes 4A, #49
7. Implement a County wide lake water quality monitoring plan.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $10,000 per year X 5 years = $50,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
e. Lakes 4A, #49
34
February 21, 2020
8. Implement County wide river and stream water quality monitoring plan.
a. Ongoing program starting in 2021-2023
b. Chisago County, Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District
c. $30,000 per year X 3 years = $90,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
e. St. Croix River & Lake St. Croix 4A and 4C, #55
9. Develop an annual water quality monitoring report for Chisago County describing the
water resources that were monitored and what parameters they were monitored for.
The annual report will provide a complete summary of the monitoring results.
a. Ongoing program starting in 2021-2025
b. Chisago County, Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
e. Lakes 4A, #49
10. Participate in volunteer programs such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Citizen Lake and Stream Monitoring, Surface Water Assessment, or Citizen Lake
Monitoring Plus.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
e. Lakes 4A, #49
Lake and River Associations
11. Assist local lake and river associations, lake improvement districts, and lake
management planning. Provide liaison and technical assistance, help facilitate grant
resources for water quality improvement projects, and continue to work with existing
lake and river associations.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
Supporting agencies: Local lake and river associations, Chisago Soil and
Water Conservation District
c. $10,000 per year X 5 years = $50,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
35
February 21, 2020
12. Strengthen and support existing and help form new lake and river associations in
Chisago County.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
36
February 21, 2020
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES
A Priority Concern is to obtain sufficient resources to achieve goals established in the
Water Plan.
Goals
• Sufficiently fund Water Plan activities.
• Maintain sufficient staff in place to implement Water Plan activities.
• Maintain active participation of government, volunteer organizations, and citizens in
Water Plan activities.
Objectives
1. Administer and coordinate the Chisago County Local Water Management Plan
Appendix to the Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $80,000 per year X 5 years = $400,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
2. Administer and coordinate the Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District Water
Resources Management Plan.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $50,000 per year X 5 years = $250,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
3. Explore the feasibility of formation of additional lake improvement districts,
watershed management organizations, or watershed districts in Chisago County.
a. 2021-2022
b. Chisago County
c. $5,000 per year X 2 years = $10,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
4. Provide technical and administrative support to the St. Croix Basin Water Resources
Planning Team.
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. St. Croix River Basin
37
February 21, 2020
5. Pursue additional partnership and funding opportunities. Actively pursue local, state,
and federal grants
a. Ongoing program 2021-2025
b. Chisago County, Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District
c. $5,000 per year X 5 years = $25,000
d. All Chisago County watersheds
38
February 21, 2020
APPENDIX
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
PRIORITY CONCERNS SCOPING DOCUMENT
CHISAGO SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.
2017-04-01 LOCAL WATER RESOURCES RIPARIAN PROTECTION IN
CHISAGO COUNTY
CHISAGO COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AUGUST 15, 2013
– AMENDED JUNE 2018
ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN (1W1P) – LOWER ST. CROIX WATERSHED
FACTSHEET
Appendix E: Isanti County Water Plan Summary
DRAFT
Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan
March 2020
ISANTI COUNTY APPENDIX D-SUMMARY OF LOWER ST. CROIX WATERSHED.
I. Executive Summary
The purpose of the Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) is to identify existing and potential water resource issues, create an
implementation strategy for protection and foster positive land use management and sustainable development within the entire
County in a way that is respectful of the resources. The LWMP is administered by the Isanti County Zoning Office with assistance from
the Isanti Soil and Water Conservation District (ISWCD). Both agencies are committed to providing landowners with applicable
information to assist them in making wise choices in land management and collectively protect the natural resources of Isanti County.
Isanti County is aware that many local, state and federal agencies are involved with water resource restoration and protect ion. The
intent of this plan is to reduce the duplication and eliminate gaps in implementation strategies aimed at the common goal of
protecting, preserving and improving water resources in Isanti County. Additionally, the County is aware that there are several
existing plans that address water resources within the county (i.e. Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies/WRAPS and
Storm Water Retrofit Assessments/SRAs). These existing plans will incorporate water quality monitoring and assessment, w atershed
analysis, civic engagement, planning, implementation, and measurable results to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the
LWMP. The goal of this plan was to incorporate the high priority actions from said plans such that the actions to pro tect waters can
be found in one location.
The original LWMP was formally adopted on August 18, 1993. The second update and current local water management plan was
adopted on January 1, 2006 and was originally set to expire in December 2015. The County wa s granted a two-year extension from
the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) which extended the expiration date to May 2018.
This plan was developed in accordance with the requirements of Comprehensive Local Water Management Minn. Stat. 103 B.301 to
103B.355
Isanti County held public participation meetings with the Water Plan Task Force (WPTF) to identify the priority concerns. Th ese
meetings were facilitated to receive input about perceived threatened water resources, environmental issues, riparian zone decline,
land use changes, and aquatic invasive species. The WPTF then considered all input and used this information to create an
implementation plan to address these issues. From this selection process, the following priority concerns and goals were identified:
Protect groundwater resources from impairments and develop a sustainable framework for groundwater users.
Protection and restoration of Isanti County surface water quality and quantity.
Promote land use management practices th at are beneficial to Isanti County's natural resources.
Aquatic invasive species (AIS) prevention and management.
Ditches and drainage management is also identified as a concern and will be addressed within the surface water quality priori ty
concern. After the priority concerns were established, the County Zoning Office and ISWCD worked together to develop the
implementation schedule and plan.
Additional water quality date are lacking at County Ditch outlets in the North Branch and West Branch of the S unrise River and
obtaining this data to understand surface water drainage and potential impairments from drainage ditches is a priority concern for
Isanti County.
1
ISANTI COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT 2018-2028
II. Implementation Plan Summary
The implementation schedule (pages 43-61) was developed by the Isanti County Zoning Office in partnership with the
Isanti Soil and Water Conservation District (ISWCD). Within this portion of the document, all goals, objectives, and action
items for this current plan are identified to address the four priority concerns and are strategies identified in the 1W1P
for LSC. The following respective objectives under each priority will obtain the County’s goals.
Ground Water Priorities
Increase local agencies, stakeholders, and consumers capacity to protect Isanti County’s groundwater resources.
Protect quality and quantity of groundwater within areas identified as vulnerable/sensitive using the most current
plans/studies.
Promote wise groundwater withdrawal to protect and conserve current and future uses including drinking water,
recreation, ecological, agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses.
Surface Water Priorities
Work with local municipalities and developments to protect and conserve surface water quality.
Acquire data necessary to gain a greater understanding of the resources, threats, and strategies to better target
practices for planning and implementing watershed activities.
Implement projects that minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment, and bacteria to surface waters to meet the
goals of WRAPS, TMDLs and/or SRAs.
Enforce County zoning ordinances with land uses to protect surface water quality and pursue additional regulations
or ordinance amendments.
Land Use Management Priorities
Develop and improve local plans, controls, and ordinances to reduce impacts from storm water runoff from lands
being developed or converted.
Develop a process for drainage management with a focus on public and private drainage systems.
Ensure the protection of healthy, connected forest and natural areas for both water quality and habitat.
AIS Prevention and Management Priorities
Monitor and map surface waters for current and new infestations of AIS.
Protect lakes with public accesses from AIS infestation.
Make informed decisions regarding AIS.
Proactively provide education and information on AIS.
The action items identified in this section also align with the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS)
for the Rum River, Lower St. Croix, and the Snake River Watersheds and strive to be consistent with other local, state, and
regional watershed plans. The following sections of this summary will provide information regarding the County’s major
watersheds, summary of the priority concerns and implementation schedule, and a table of additional public waters in
the Lower St. Croix Watershed.
Isanti County will leverage funds from the natural resource block grants and clean water fund grants to support the work within this
One Watershed One Plan as identified in the implementation table and text. Table 1 lists an inventory of public waters within the Lower St.
Croix that may not have enough water quality monitoring to identify impairments. These additional lakes are shallow natural lakes that
protection strategies shall be addressed to preserve the aesthetics and high value they represent to the County and Watershed. Isanti Soil
and Water Conservation District will assist the County and Watershed Partners to further develop more data to assess those waterbodies as
time and funding allows. The County will focus efforts to pursue additional Shoreland Ordinances to protect the upland and riparian habitat
surrounding these sensitive resources.
2
ISANTI COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT 2018-2028
III. Watershed Distribution
Figure 1-Lower St. Croix is 14.4% of Isanti County.
3
ISANTI COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT 2018-2028
Lower St. Croix River Watershed:
The eastern edge of Isanti County is in the Lower St. Croix River Watershed and represents 14.4% of the
total land mass in the county. This watershed encompasses 585,735 acres in east central Minnesota and
is within the St. Croix River Basin. The sub watersheds within Isanti County’s boundaries include the
north and west branch of the Sunrise River. The Lower St. Croix River is in the process of the 1W1P and
is projected to be completed early in 2020. Both the Isanti County and ISWCD have chosen to
participate in the development of the action goals. The implementation schedule section of this plan
will include action items comparable to the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) for
the Sunrise River Watershed and implementation table in the 1W1P. The North Branch of the Sunrise
River has multiple natural environment lakes and are considered healthy and need protection efforts
identified in this plan. The stream itself however, has some impairments that have been identified in the
completed report (Dec. 16, 2014). Maps on page 8,9,10 of the Sunrise WRAPS indicate that the stream
is not supporting aquatic recreation and the goals of the 1W1P will help identify additional areas for
water quality monitoring which have insufficient data at this time. A County Ditch 20 Feasibility Study
has been completed by the Anoka Conservation District to understand the complexity of water quality
issues with Typo Lake, which is a hypereutrophic lake shared by both Isanti and Anoka County. Currently
this is the only lake with enough water quality data within the Sunrise River to determine the stressors.
Additional monitoring may be necessary for other lakes and tributaries as part of the 1W1P for the
Lower St. Croix. As mentioned in the implementation schedule in action item 3.8 the ISWCD will
continue to identify projects to implement as they arise. Additional funding may be necessary to
implement these projects along with the ones mentioned in the County Ditch 20 Study.
Rum River Watershed:
The Rum River Watershed flows through the county from the west to the northeast, then flows out to
the south – southeast. The Rum River Watershed covers 80.9% of the this county’s land mass and has a
whole total watershed land mass of 1,013,760 acres, stretching from Lake Mille Lacs and flowing south
emptying into the Mississippi River in the City of Anoka. The watershed covers portions of Aitkin, Mille
Lacs, Isanti, Anoka, Crow Wing, Morrison, Benton, Kanabec, Chisago, and Sherburne Counties as well as
portions of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Tribal Land. This watershed is broken down into five smaller
subwatersheds in Isanti County which include Upper Rum River, Stanchfield Creek, Middle Rum River,
Lower Rum River, and Cedar Creek. The river also passes extensive marshes and backwaters throughout
the County. The Rum River is also designated a Wild and Scenic Riverway by the Minnesota DNR. With
the Rum River Watershed comprising the vast majority of this county’s land mass, the implementation
schedule focuses action items to address the priority concerns within this watershed. These concerns
are comparable to efforts identified in the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) for
the Rum River, which was completed in July 2017. County staff has proceeded into the One Watershed
One Plan process for the Rum River after the Lower St. Croix had started.
Isanti County has elected to complete both One Watershed One Plans as this encompasses 95.3 percent
of the County’s Land Mass. Currently, only 1 lake within the LSC watershed portion of the County are
actually impaired(Typo Lake). The natural environment lakes are also of concern because development
is occurring around some of these lakes as well and may have indirect impacts from land use changes.
A full list of the natural environment lakes and public water wetlands in LSC Watershed are in this
appendix summary in Table 1.
4
ISANTI COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT 2018-2028
Table 1-Inventory of shallow natural environment lakes and public water wetlands in LSC Watershed in
Isanti County.
As part of the MnDNR biological survey, many of the lakes listed above are surrounded by rare and
natural plant communities and were surveyed by botanists and biologists from MnDNR. A map of these
in Isanti County can be viewed on the 1W1P LSC Sites of Biodiversity interactive map or Fig. 13 of the
Land and Water Resources Inventory. Northwest Anoka County also has an abundance of these plant
and animal communities identified in the 1W1P.
Lake Number Lake/Wetland Name Acres Classification Township Section(s)SubWatershed
30-0015 Big Pine Lake 165 NE North Branch 4,9 NBSR
30-0142 Grass Lake 107 NE North Branch 12,13 NBSR
30-0012 Horseleg Lake 95 NE N.Branch, Oxford 4,35 NBSR
30-0003 Horseshoe Lake 119 NE Oxford 2,11 NBSR
30-0011W Mud Lake 51 NE N.Branch, Oxford 1,2,36 NBSR
30-0006W Hurley Lake 39 NE Oxford 12 NBSR
30-0010W Lilligren Lake 30 NE Oxford 23 WBSR
30-0019 Little Pine Lake 29 NE North Branch 4 WBSR
30-0002 Long Lake 199 NE Oxford 24 WBSR
30-0007 Lower Birch Lake 75 NE Oxford 14 WBSR
30-0018 Rice Lake 54 NE North Branch 11,14 WBSR
30-0041 Splittstoeser Lake 30 NE Isanti 25 WBSR
30-0014 Spring Lake 33 NE North Branch 2 WBSR
30-0001 Tamarack Lake 135 NE Oxford 18 WBSR
30-0004 Twins Lake 59 NE Oxford 10,11 WBSR
30-0005 Upper Birch Lake 83 NE Oxford 11,12 WBSR
30-0016 Unnamed 40 NE North Branch 9,10 WBSR
30-0008 Hoffman Lake 187 RD Oxford 14,23 WBSR
30-0009 Typo Lake 273 RD Oxford 21,22 WBSR
Wetland
Number
30-206W Unnamed PWWetland North Branch 9 NBSR
30-16W Unnamed PWWetland North Branch 10 NBSR
30-208W Unnamed PWWetland North Branch 32 NBSR
30-146W Unnamed PWWetland North Branch 33 NBSR
30-210W Unnamed PWWetland North Branch 33 NBSR
30-211W Unnamed PWWetland North Branch 34 NBSR
30-147W Knute PWWetland North Branch 23 NBSR
Tributaries NBSR
30-150W Hay Creek
PWWetland
Tributary North Branch 36,25 NBSR
Unnamed Trib. From
NBSR to Big Pine
Lake and Spring Lake
PWWetland
Tributary North Branch
9,10,11,14
,23 NBSR
All lakes in this table are classified as shallow lakes less than 15 feet deep.
Isanti County Public Water Inventory For Protection and Restoration
NBSR=North Branch of Sunrise River, WBSR=West Branch of Sunrise River
5
ISANTI COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT 2018-2028
IV. AIS Concerns for North Branch and Oxford Township
Currently there is only a select few known AIS investations in public water bodies in the Isanti County
portion of the Lower St. Croix. One of those is purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), a species of
concern in Horseleg Lake and has been mapped by Isanti County Parks Director. Currently biological
control may be obtained to manage this infestation.
Secondly, Chisago County has identified concerns for the aquatic or semi aquatic invasive species
European Phragmites (Phragmites australis ssp. australis). Currently this species has only been found in
a few Isanti County Highway Right of Ways and active treatment plans have begun for these known
infestations through Minnesota Department of Agriculture(MDA) Noxious Weed Grants and
partnerships with Anoka Conservation District Metro wide Phragmites Level 2 Grant. No known
infestations have affected public water lakes or wetlands to date. Additional surveying of these
wetlands around the natural environment lakes and township road right aways will be considered a
protective strategy to keep invasive Phragmites out of these rare plant communities and environments
surrounding these lakes. Isanti County will leverage local funds and additional MDA grants to continue
the Early Detection, Eradication, and Monitoring Plan through the Isanti County Agriculture Inspector.
There are no identified infestations of aquatic invasive fish or invertebrates are known in this portion of
the LSC watershed. Additional surveying data would help assess these natural environment lakes.
6
ISANTI COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT 2018-2028
See Isanti County Implementation Plan(pages 43-61) at https://www.co.isanti.mn.us/documentcenter/view/474 .