The URL can be used to link to this page

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 .