agenda 127( &+$1*( ,1 7,0( december 1, 2020 - 4:00 pm

Board of CommissionersFran Miron, Chair, District 1

Stan Karwoski, District 2 Gary Kriesel, District 3

Wayne A. Johnson, District 4Lisa Weik, District 5

BOARD AGENDA

December 1, 2020 - 4:00 PM

Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000

Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer

Because of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Emergency Declaration declared by the Governor of the State of Minnesota and Declaration of Local Emergency issued by the Washington County Board of Commissioners on March 17, 2020, some or all of the county board members may participate by telephone or other electronic means and the Board meeting will be conducted pursuant to and in compliance with Minnesota Statute 13D.021. The County Board meeting will be conducted at the regular meeting location of the Board Room, Washington County Government Center, 14949 62nd Street North, Stillwater, MN. Members of the public can attend the meeting in person, or view/monitor the meeting electronically from a remote location via live web stream.

Members of the public who wish to share their comments or concerns on any issue that is the responsibility or function of Washington County Government, including the items that are listed on this agenda, may provide that comment via email at [email protected], or by telephone at 651-430-6001. Any comments of concerns shared, either prior to or during the board meeting, will be provided to each county commissioner.

Members of the public who wish to participate in the 6 p.m. budget meeting and/or comment on the proposed levy or budget may join the meeting remotely through WebEx at: https://washco.webex.com/washco/j.php?MTID=m533f116f2006d716f0a9418553c56062

1. 3:30 Personnel Committee

2. 4:00 Roll Call

Pledge of Allegiance

3. 4:00 Comments from the Public

Visitors may share their comments or concerns on any issue that is a responsibility or function of Washington County Government, whether or not the issue is listed on this agenda. Persons who wish to address the Board must fill out a comment card before the meeting begins and give it to the County Board Clerk or the County Administrator. The County Board Chair will ask you to come to the podium, state your name and city of residence, and present your comments. Your comments must be addressed exclusively to the Board Chair and the full Board of Commissioners. Comments addressed to individual Board members will not be allowed. You are encouraged to limit your presentation to no more than five minutes. The Board Chair reserves the right to limit an individual's presentation if it becomes redundant, repetitive, overly argumentative, or if it is not relevant to an issue that is part of Washington County's responsibilities.

4. 4:15 Consent Calendar - Roll Call Vote

Consent Calendar items are generally defined as items of routine business, not requiring discussion, and approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect to pull a Consent Calendar item(s) for discussion and/or separate action.

A. Approval of the November 17, 2020, County Board meeting minutes.

B. Approve Grant Agreement No. 13823 for the Adult Mental Health Initiative between the Department of Human Services and Washington County, in the amount of $2,162,826 for the period January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2022, and authorize its execution pursuant to Minn. Stat. 373.02.

C. Approval of Contract No. 13825 with Sheryl and Paul Nickle to provide short-term foster care to individuals working with Washington County Adult Mental Health Case Management.



D. Approve Contract No. 13820 with Canvas Health in the amount of $1,369,497.39, for the period of January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and authorize its execution pursuant to Minn. Stat. 373.02.

E. Approve Amendment No. 4 to Grant Agreement No. 11507 for Mobile Crisis services with the Minnesota Department of Human Services in the amount of $1,047,479.00, for the period of January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2022, and authorize its execution pursuant to Minn. Stat. 373.02.

F. Approval of the plat of Holiday Station Store Denmark Township in Denmark Township.

G. Approve comment letter on the 3M Settlement Plan.

H. Adopt a resolution to accept the 2021 allocation and continue implementation of the state's aquatic invasive species prevention aid program.

I. Approve Grant Agreement No. 13816 with the Minnesota Department of Human Services in the amount of $487,944, for Child and Teen Checkup Administrative Services for the period of January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2023, and authorize its execution pursuant to Minn. Stat. 373.02.

J. Adopt a resolution approving the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail right-of-way plat across parts of sections 5, 8, 17, and 20, T31NR21W in Hugo, and sections 5, 8, 17, 20, 29, and 32 T32NR21W in Forest Lake.

K. Adopt a resolution of support for Washington County’s application to the Minnesota Park and Recreation Foundation to pursue grant for funds for the purchase of portable disc golf equipment totaling $3,618 over a one year period.

L. Approval of Change Order No. 15 in the amount of $10,807.50 with Valley Paving for the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 6 Project (RB-2204).

M. Adopt a resolution and authorize execution of Agreement No. LUP #8204-0073 for construction, maintenance, and operation of a non-motorized recreational trail to be constructed with Trunk Highway (TH) 36 and Manning Avenue Interchange Project (RB-2588), located at the intersection of TH 36 and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 15 (Manning Avenue) in the City of Stillwater.

N. Approve Relocation Agreement No. 13814 and appropriation estimate for the relocation of a transmission line and appurtenances to accommodate the construction of the Trunk Highway (TH) 36 and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 15 (Manning Avenue) Interchange Project (RB-2588) in the City of Stillwater.

Consent Calendar



9. 5:10 Adjourn

O. Approve Change Order No. 6 to Contract No. 12904 with Pember Companies Inc., in the amount of $9,350.00, for the Environmental Center Site Improvements Project (PHE-001).

P. Approve a resolution for two, three-year Service Agreements No. 13805 and No. 13806, between Motorola Solutions, Inc. and the Washington County Sheriff's Office for the repair and maintenance of the 800 MHz Radio System.

Consent Calendar

5. 4:15 Public Health and Environment - Maureen Hoffman, Planner (item A); Jeff Travis, Senior Environmental Program Manager (item B)

A. Adopt three resolutions related to Lower St. Croix One Watershed, One Plan:

1. Withdraw the county from the current Lower St. Croix One Watershed, One PlanMemorandum of Agreement.

2. Enter the county into a Joint Powers Agreement for the implementation of the Lower St.Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan and appoint a commissioner to the new Policy Committee.

3. Adopt the Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan as asupplementary planning document to the county's Groundwater Plan.

B. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health and Environment to waive late fees for 2021 health licenses.

6. 4:35 General Administration - Kevin Corbid, County Administrator

A. Coronavirus relief fund spending plan update and potential board actions

7. 4:55 Commissioner Reports - Comments - Questions

This period of time shall be used by the Commissioners to report to the full Board on committee activities, make comments on matters of interest and information, or raise questions to the staff. This action is not intended to result in substantive board action during this time. Any action necessary because of discussion will be scheduled for a future board meeting.

8. Board Correspondence

10. 66:00 PM Public Budget Meeting on Proposed 2021 Washington County Budget

A. Public Budget Meeting on the 2021 Proposed Budget.

1 | N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNTY BOARDWASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA

NOVEMBER 17, 2020

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONVENES

The Washington County Board of Commissioners met in regular session at 9:00 a.m. in the Washington County Government Center, County Board Room.

Present: Commissioner Fran Miron, District 1Commissioner Stan Karwoski, District 2, via WebExCommissioner Gary Kriesel, District 3, via WebExCommissioner Wayne Johnson, District 4Commissioner Lisa Weik, District 5

Also Present: Kevin Corbid, County Administrator, via WebExSusan Tice, County Attorney Civil Division Chief, via WebExStephanie Kammerud, Administrative Assistant

Board Chair Miron announced that because of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Emergency Declaration issued by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and the Declaration of Emergency issued by the Washington County Board of Commissioners on March 17, 2020, some or all of the county board members may participate by telephone or other electronic means, and the Board meeting will be conducted pursuant to and in compliance with Minnesota Statute 13D.021. Members of the public can attend the meeting in person, or view/monitor the meeting electronically from a remote location via live web stream.

Noted for the record:1. That either the Washington County Board Chair or the County’s chief Administrator has

determined that an in-person meeting of the entire County Board may not be practical nor prudent because of the existing Pandemic and Emergency.

2. All County Board members participating in this meeting, whatever their physical location, can hear one another and can hear all discussion and testimony.

3. All members of the public present here today at the regular meeting location, if any, can hear all discussion and testimony and all votes of the members of the County Board.

4. At least one member of the County Board or the Chief Administrator of the County is physically present at the regular meeting location.

5. Each member of the County Board participating in this meeting by telephone or other electronic means is considered present at the meeting for purposes of determining a quorum and participating in all proceedings.

6. Proper notice of this meeting has occurred.7. All votes will be conduct by roll call.

The Board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

2 | N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Board Chair Miron asked for comments from the public; none were heard.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Commissioner Weik moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt the Consent Calendar as follows:

A. Approval of the October 20, 2020, and November 3, 2020, County Board meeting minutes.

B. Approval of voting delegates for the 2020 Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) Annual Meeting to be held December 7, 2020.

C. Approval of voting delegates for the 2020 Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust (MCIT) Annual Meeting to be held December 11, 2020.

D. Approval to establish Fund 341 for fiscal management pertaining to the 2020A Refunding Bond Issuance.

E. Approval of Resolution No. 2020-132 as follows:

RESOLUTION APPROVING STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF

WASHINGTON ON BEHALF OF ITS COUNTY ATTORNEY

WHEREAS, the County of Washington on behalf of its County Attorney desires to enter into Joint Powers Agreements with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to use systems and tools available over the State’s criminal justice data communications network for which the County is eligible. The Joint Powers Agreements further provide the County with the ability to add, modify and delete connectivity, systems and tools over the five year life of the agreement and obligates the County to pay the costs for the network connection.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of Washington, Minnesota as follows:

1. That the State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements by and between the State of Minnesota acting through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the County of Washington on behalf of its County Attorney are hereby approved.

2. That the County Attorney, Pete Orput, or his or her successor, is designated the Authorized Representative for the County Attorney. The

3 | N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0

Authorized Representative is also authorized to sign any subsequent amendment or agreement that may be required by the State of Minnesota to maintain the County’s connection to the systems and tools offered by the State.

F. Approve a grant agreement between the Department of Human Services and Washington County for the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) in the amount of $330,000, for the period of December 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021.

G. Approve Amendment No. 2 for Contract No. 11545, between Network Design Inc. and Washington County, for a total contract amount of $170,000.

H. Approve permanent use of fund balance in the amount not to exceed $35,000 from Library Fund 230 to be used for furnishings and equipment.

I. Approval of Resolution No. 2020-133 as follows:

CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) CHARGES FOR ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS

WHEREAS, the Washington County Board of Commissioners approved the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Saint Paul Port Authority (the “Port Authority”) on August 11, 2015 designating the Port Authority to implement and administer the Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE of MN”) improvement financing on behalf of the County, and providing for the imposition of special assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 216C.435 and 216C.436 and Chapter 429 (the “Act”); and as needed in connection with that program; and

WHEREAS, the County understands that the Port Authority will issue its PACE OF MN special assessment revenue bond to finance the Improvements, and that the sole security for that bond will be special assessments imposed by the other cities and/or counties participating in PACE OF MN; and

WHEREAS, to facilitate and encourage the financing of improvements located within the County, the County covenants to levy assessments for said Improvements on the property so benefitted, in accordance with the Application and Petition for Special Assessments received from the owner(s) of the Property and approved by the Port Authority; and

WHEREAS, after imposition of the special assessments, the County shall collect such assessments twice a year and remit them to the Port Authority for use in the repayment of the Loan(s) or Bond(s). The County will take all actions permitted by law to recover the assessments, including without limitation, reinstating the outstanding balance of assessments when the land

4 | N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0

returns to private ownership, in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 429.071, Subd. 4.

WHEREAS, the special assessment shall be certified to the County Auditor and entered onto the tax lists for the year. The annual installment and interest shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as real property taxes. For disbursements made by November 15th, the first annual installment is due with property taxes payable in the next tax year. For disbursements made from November 16th-December 31st, the first annual installment is due with property taxes in the year after next. The special assessment, with accruing interest, is a lien upon the benefited property until paid.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Washington County Board of Commissioners authorizes the County Auditor and the Department of Property Records & Taxpayer Services to extend the proposed special assessment plus interest on the properties set forth and listed below in this resolution.

Company Name: K & H Investments, LLCParcel: 03.028.21.21.0110Location: 9470 Hudson Road Woodbury, MN 55125Project Type: 40 KW Roof-Top Solar ArrayAmount: $153,550Term and Rate: 15 Years at 5%Interest Accrual Date: 1/1/2021Estimated Annual Energy Savings: $7,930.00

J. Approval to set a Public Hearing on December 15, 2020, to consider adoption of a resolution to sell parkland.

K. Approval of Resolution No. 2020-134 as follows:

RESOLUTION TO QUIT CLAIM INTERESTIN EXCESS LANDS NO LONGER NEEDED FOR HIGHWAY

PURPOSES FOR COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 38

WHEREAS, Washington County (County) has jurisdiction and ownership of a portion of County State Aid Highway 38 (CSAH 38) a/k/a Maxwell Avenue in the City of Newport; and

WHEREAS, as part of the completion of the Wakota Bridge project, the City of Newport (City) received land adjacent to CSAH 38 as part of a turnback from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT); and,

5 | N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0

WHEREAS, the City made a request of the County to transfer County’s interest in a portion of CSAH 38 right-of-way adjacent to the City property considered to be excess land no longer need for highway purposes; and,

WHEREAS, upon review of this request, County determined that a portion of CSAH 38 is considered excess right-of-way no longer needed for the maintenance or operation of CSAH 38; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 373.01 subd. 1(a)(4), County will sell to City the excess right-of-way no longer needed for highway purposes as it pertains to CSAH 38; and,

WHEREAS, County will quit claim this excess land to the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Washington County Board of Commissioners hereby quit claims its interest in the following described land on attached Exhibit A that is considered excess right-of-way no longer needed for highway purposes as it pertains to CSAH 38 to the City of Newport.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board of Commissioners hereby authorize its Board Chair and Administrator to execute on behalf of the County the Quit Claim Deed necessary to transfer the excess land and any other documents necessary for the completion of this transaction.

L. Approval of Amendment No. 4 for Contract No. 11016, with SRF Consulting Inc. to complete final design, project coordination, and construction support assistance for the County State Aid Highway 15 and Trunk Highway 36 Interchange project in the amount of $338,838.

M. Approval of an application for federal assistance from the Office of National Drug Control Policy for federal grant funding in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program.

The motion was adopted 5-0 with a Roll Call vote as follows: Ayes, Commissioners Weik, Kriesel, Johnson, Karwoski, and Miron. Nays, none.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Resolution for Veterans’ Homelessness Efforts

Community Services Adult Services Division Manager Kathy Mickelson reported that the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Veterans Affairs confirmed that the Dakota, Anoka, Washington, Scott, Carver Counties/Suburban Metro Area Continuum of Care (CoC) has effectively ended homelessness among Veterans.

6 | N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0

Effectively ending homelessness means that there is no waitlist for Veterans that may lose housing and this is also referred to as "functional zero." The infrastructure and systems the region has built will ensure that any Veteran experiencing homelessness in the region will get the support needed quickly to obtain a permanent home.

The Washington County Community Services Homeless Outreach Services Team (HOST) and the Veteran Services Division have been an instrumental part of achieving this designation through timely engagement and strong dedication to ensuring access to services and supports. This is an impressive milestone for this region, particularly during this challenging time of the COVID-19 pandemic. The region is 6th out of 10 jurisdictions in the State of Minnesota to achieve this milestone. Ms. Mickelson presented a resolution of congratulations on the integral hard work.

Commissioner Kriesel moved to approve Resolution No. 2020-135 as follows:

CONSIDERABLE ACTION TAKEN TOWARD ENDING VETERANS’ HOMELESSNESS

WHEREAS, the Washington County Community Services Department has participated in the regional efforts of the Suburban Metro Area Continuum of Care (CoC) to end Veterans homelessness; and

WHEREAS, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Veterans Affairs are pleased to confirm that the Dakota, Anoka, Washington, Scott, Carver Counties CoC/Suburban Metro Area CoC has effectively ended homelessness among Veterans; and

WHEREAS, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) is confident that the infrastructure and systems the CoC has built will ensure that any Veteran experiencing homelessness in the region will get the support they need to quickly obtain a permanent home; and

WHEREAS, the Washington County Community Services Homeless Outreach Services Team, in coordination with the Veteran Services Division, has worked tirelessly to establish the infrastructure and support system that has helped the region ensure every Veteran experiencing homelessness gets the support they need and deserve; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board of Commissioners congratulates the Suburban Metro Area Continuum of Care and the Washington County Community Services Department on its honorable efforts to end homelessness among Veterans in our community.

7 | N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0

Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion and it was adopted 5-0 with a Roll Call vote as follows: Ayes, Commissioners Weik, Kriesel, Johnson, Karwoski, and Miron. Nays, none.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Approval of Contract Amendment with Collier IT

Information Technology Director Renee Heinbuch presented an amendment to Contract No. 11552 with Collier IT in the amount of $168,000. Oracle JD Edwards Enterprise One (E1) supports the enterprise financials for Washington County. This software is provided by Oracle and is licensed by the size of the county budget. Oracle selectively audited the county and discovered it is currently licensed for a budget of $145,000,000. The funding of $168,000 is being requested to cover a one-time true-up of the licensing to match the 2019 operating budget of $193,000,000. There is also an annual maintenance and support fee for the E1 financial system. This fee will increase from approximately $154k to $190k as part of the 2021 budgeting process, in response to the same change in the county operating budget.

Commissioner Kriesel moved to approve Amendment No. 2 for Contract No. 11552, between Collier IT and Washington County in the amount of $168,000. Commissioner Weik seconded the motion and it was adopted 5-0 with a Roll Call vote as follows: Ayes, Commissioners Weik, Kriesel, Johnson, Karwoski, and Miron. Nays, none.

PUBLIC WORKS

Awards Recognition of Public Works Staff

Public Works Director Don Theisen recognized two awards presented to staff in the Public Works Department.

Wayne Sandberg, Deputy Director/County Engineer, received the Minnesota County Engineers Association (MCEA) 2019 Outstanding Minnesota County Engineer of the Year Award. MCEA members are county engineers from each of Minnesota's 87 counties that work to promote their profession and uphold the engineering code of ethics. Mr. Sandberg served as the MCEA President in 2019 and has been an active member serving and promoting MCEA for several years.

Jodi Teich, Stearns County Engineer and 2020 President of MCEA, was present via WebEx to recognize and congratulate Mr. Sandberg. Ms. Teich reported that Mr. Sandberg had been presented the award at the MCEA Annual Conference in January 2020. Mr. Sandberg has been a leader in the MCEA, mentoring new members and advocating for transportation across the state. Mr. Sandberg’s efforts certainly reach outside of the county borders and Ms. Teich stated she is proud to call Mr. Sandberg a peer. Ms. Teich expressed her appreciation for Washington County’s support of Mr. Sandberg’s leadership in the MCEA. The county’s support makes Mr. Sandberg’s contributions to county engineering and the entire transportation industry possible.

Nicki Castro, Contact Specialist, received the Minnesota National Institute of Government Purchasing (MN NIGP) 2019 Procurement Professional of the Year Award. MN NIGP is a

8 | N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0

professional organization dedicated to promoting professionalism in procurement and contracting for public agencies through the State of Minnesota. In awarding the Procurement Professional of the Year, the association evaluates the nominees work in five categories: contributions to the procurement field, contributions to their organization, contributions to the MN NIGP, work toward professional certifications, and contributions to the national organization. Ms. Castro is a Certified Public Procurement Buyer and has served on the MN NIGP Board of Directors since 2018.

Mr. Theisen recognized and congratulated Ms. Castro on her award. Ms. Castro processes hundreds of agreements and contracts for Public Works projects that are approved by the County Board. Ms. Castro implemented and designed a central purchasing program, which met one of the County Board goals of using government contracts to get the best prices possible for items. This streamlined the purchasing process. Mr. Theisen stated that Ms. Castro is a great ambassador for the county across the state, and serves as the Education Chair for MN NIGP. Ms. Castro is a Subject Matter Expert for county purchasing and contracts and provides transparent stewardship of the taxpayer dollars.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

Deputy County Administrator Jennifer Wagenius reported that the county is nearing the deadline of the CARES Act spending timeline. Staff is very busy finalizing actions that were authorized by the board, and is on track to meet those deadlines.

Ms. Wagenius reported the Canvass Board met last week to certify general election results. As part of that process, the Canvass Board drew four precincts by lot to be hand-counted. Ms. Wagenius was pleased to report that the post-election audit occurred yesterday, and after hand-counting all four of those precincts, it was validated that the equipment worked exactly as expected.

COMMISSIONER REPORTS

Commissioners reported on meetings and other events that they attended. Please see archived web streaming of the board meeting for full commissioner reports at www.co.washington.mn.us, under “County Board.”

BOARD CORRESPONDENCE

Board correspondence was received and placed on file.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn. Commissioner Weik seconded the motion and it was adopted 5-0 with a Roll Call vote as follows: Ayes, Commissioners Weik, Kriesel, Johnson, Karwoski, and Miron. Nays, none. The County Board meeting adjourned at 10:24 a.m.

9 | N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 2 0

BOARD WORKSHOP – PROPERTY RECORDS AND TAXPAYER SERVICES

The Board met in workshop session to discuss proposed 2021 property taxes. Present for the workshop were Commissioners Miron, Karwoski, Kriesel, Johnson, and Weik. Also present were Kevin Corbid, Jan Lucke, Jennifer Wagenius, and county staff.

BOARD WORKSHOP – ADMINISTRATION

The Board met in workshop session to review the 2021 proposed Washington County budget. Present for the workshop were Commissioners Miron, Karwoski, Kriesel, Johnson, and Weik. Also present were Kevin Corbid, Jan Lucke, Jennifer Wagenius, and county staff.

Attest:

Kevin CorbidCounty Administrator

Fran MironCounty Board Chair

Holiday Station Store Denmark Township

Government Center • 14949 62nd Street North • P. O. Box 6 • Stillwater, MN 55082-0006Telephone: 651-430-6001 • Fax: 651-430-6017 • TTY: 651-430-6246

www.co.washington.mn.usWashington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer


Stan Karwoski, District 2Gary Kriesel, District 3


Minnesota Pollution Control AgencyMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesCo-Trustees of the 3M Settlement

December 1, 2020

Dear co-trustees,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan. Washington County recognizes that water, and specifically groundwater, is one of its most valuable natural resources. High quality drinking water, healthy streams and lakes, and economic vitality all depend on protecting and conserving groundwater resources. Groundwater provides 100 percent of our water supply, and we face serious groundwater quality issues due to our unique geologic conditions and history of groundwater contamination.

The county has and continues to play a leadership role with relation to groundwater, through the groundwater planning authority granted to metro counties under Minnesota State Statute 103B.255. We appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the 3M Settlement process and the various work groups. The county looks forward to continued involvement in the process as you near a final plan to provide clean, safe and sustainable drinking water for east metro residents.

Please find our comments on the draft plan on the following page. If you have additional questions, please contact Lowell Johnson at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Fran Miron, ChairWashington County Board of Commissioners

CC:Washington County CommissionersKevin Corbid, County AdministratorLowell Johnson, Director, Department of Public Health & EnvironmentDave Brummel, Deputy Director, Department of Public Health & EnvironmentStephanie Souter, Supervisor, Department of Public Health and Environment

The county is encouraged that all three options put forth by the co-trustees include treatment of PFAS to a lower health index then the current value of 1. This provides resiliency for affected communities and assurance that settlement funds will be available to treat drinking water, should the health index be lowered further.

The county would suggest that the state provide additional information on the decisions related to operation and maintenance (O&M) costs into the future, and the difference between the time lengths for public systems versus private wells. Consider providing an example that shows projected costs per household, for an average rate payer in a public system, once the 40 years is passed, versus the costs that would be borne by a household that needs to change out a private well Point of Entry System, past the 100 year mark. We understand the states reasoning but seeing details and projected costs that might be borne by residents would be helpful. We understand that some of our communities are concerned about the time differences put forth in the draft conceptual plan.

The county recognizes the importance, and advocates for the setting aside funds for “drinking water protection” and “sustainability and conservation” to the extent possible. We understand these issues are included as part of priority 1. The county has many similar goals in both our Comprehensive Plan, and our county Groundwater Plan, which has the goal to “manage the quality and quantity of groundwater in Washington County to protect health and ensure sufficient supplies of clean water to support human uses and natural ecosystems.” We have specific strategies related to water conservation/efficiency, and source water protection. We would ask that the state provide additional details about each of these funding categories in the final document. This would include more information on the types of projects that would be considered, as well as the local entities that might be eligible to seek these funds. The co-trustees should also consider whether the funding in these categories should have some flexibility built in, and perhaps consider delaying spending until more is understood about needs for drinking water systems. The co-trustees may also consider reducing the amount of funds in these categories and putting them towards future contingency, at least until it’s been determined what the drinking water system needs are.

In addition, the county would like to reiterate to the co-trustees that funds related to priority 2, for natural resource enhancements, be held off until such a time when all parties feel confident that priority 1 will be achieved.

As the final plan moves forward, the county, and in particular our Public Works Department, needs to be consulted with respect to plans for placement of any infrastructure on county property or right of way.

Finally, we encourage the state to make sure the selected options are fully supported by the impacted communities. This includes ensuring that residents throughout the east metro have access to the same, clean drinking water.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSWASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.

DATE December 1, 2020 DEPARTMENT Public Health and EnvironmentMOTIONBY COMMISSIONER

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER

RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND CONTINUE IMPLEMENTATION OFTHE STATE’S AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES PREVENTION AID PROGRAM

WHEREAS, aquatic invasive species (AIS) are non-native aquatic organisms that invade water beyond their natural and historical range and have long-term implications for our environment, economy and human health; and

WHEREAS, the majority of AIS infestations in Minnesota are caused by the unintentional transfer of AIS through boats, trailers, live wells, bilge water, bait buckets, ballast water from barges, boat lifts, docks and other recreational equipment; and

WHEREAS, 24 lakes and 2 rivers in Washington County are now on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Infested Waters List including those affected by Eurasian watermilfoil (Alice, Big Marine, Bone, Camp Galilee, Clear, Colby, DeMontreville, Elmo, Forest, Goose, Horseshoe, Jane, four Long lakes, Mud, Olson, Powers, Sunfish, Sunnybrook, Sunset, White Bear, and Wilmes lakes; Mississippi and St. Croix rivers), flowering rush (Forest Lake, Mississippi River), zebra mussels (Bone, Forest and White Bear lakes; Mississippi and St. Croix rivers); and bighead, grass and silver carp (Mississippi River); and

WHEREAS, Washington County’s Battle Creek, Big Carnelian, Oneka, Square, Tanners, and other lakes are not yet affected by AIS; and

WHEREAS, a Minnesota State Management Plan for Invasive Species was completed in 2009 outlining effective and known strategies for addressing AIS in Minnesota; and

WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Legislature passed MN Statute 477A.19 Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Aid in 2014 providing counties with $10 million annually with the amount designated for each county based on the number of watercraft trailer launches and watercraft trailer parking spaces; and

WHEREAS, the AIS Prevention Aid results in a 2021 allocation of $135,409 (based on 24 watercraft trailer launches x $2,228 per launch) plus (354 watercraft trailer parking spaces x $231 per space); and

WHEREAS, acceptance of this funding requires Washington County to establish, by resolution or through adoption of a plan, guidelines for the use of the proceeds which are to prevent the introduction or limit the spread of aquatic invasive species at all access sites within the county; and

WHEREAS, the county may appropriate the proceeds directly or may use any portion of the proceeds to provide funding for a joint powers board or cooperative agreement with another political subdivision, a soil and water conservation district in the county, a watershed district in the county, or a lake association located in the county; and

WHEREAS, Washington County plans to run a competitive grant program to award funds to entities focusing on prevention projects within the scope of activities described in the State’s AIS framework; and

WHEREAS, Washington County plans to utilize a portion of the funds available to partner with the Washington Conservation District for the provision of countywide activities to prevent the spread of AIS including watercraft inspections, public awareness, and monitoring of projects that may be funded through the grant; and

WHEREAS, the County must submit a copy of its resolution or plan to the Department of Natural Resources by December 31, 2020.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners of Washington County, Minnesota accepts and will continue to implement the state’s Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Aid; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board of Commissioners will submit this resolution to the DNR for acceptance pursuant to applicable Minnesota laws and rules.

ATTEST:

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

COUNTY BOARD CHAIR

WEIKKARWOSKIKRIESELJOHNSONMIRON

YES

____

NO

____

Updated: January 2020


DATE December 1, 2020 DEPARTMENT Public WorksMOTIONBY COMMISSIONER


RESOLUTION TO APPROVE WASHINGTON COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 181 - HARDWOOD CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL

WHEREAS, the Washington County Board of Commissioners approved the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail Master Plan by Resolution No. 2013-060, May 21, 2013; and,

WHEREAS, the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail Master Plan allows the 12 mile long route to be designated as a regional trail beginning with its connection to the Sunrise Prairie Trail in Chisago County on the north end in Forest Lake and continuing south to connect into Bald Eagle-Otter Lakes Regional Park and ultimately the larger Ramsey County regional trail system; and,

WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that the location of the right of way boundaries of the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail are well known and identifiable to adjacent land owners and the public; and,

WHEREAS, MN 505.1792 provides the County authority to create and record right of way plats to give supplemental information to the public as to the location of transportation corridors; and,

WHEREAS, the right of way plat “Washington County Right Of Way Plat No. 181- Hardwood Creek Trail” was created by County officers in compliance with the requirements of MN 505.1792 sub.2; and,

WHEREAS, Washington County Right Of Way Plat No. 181- Hardwood Creek Trail covers the completed section of the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail from the centerline of 240th St. NW in Forest Lake south to the north right of way line of 140th St. N. in Hugo.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Washington County Board of Commissioners approves Washington County Right Of Way Plat No. 181- Hardwood Creek Trail.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said Washington County Right Of Way Plat No. 181- Hardwood Creek Trail shall be entered into record as provided by MN 505.1792.

ATTEST:


COUNTY BOARD CHAIR

MIRONKARWOSKIKRIESELJOHNSONWEIK

YES

____

NO

____





RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA RECREATION AND PARK FOUNDATION SUPPORTING IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW PARK PROGRAM

INITIATIVES

WHEREAS, Minnesota Recreation and Park Foundation supports park and recreation organizations as they strive to provide services to their communities. The grant-making focus is to spur innovation in parks and recreation services at a local, regional, or state-wide level; and,

WHEREAS, the Parks Division is key provider of park and recreation services to Washington County; and,

WHEREAS, the Parks Division is exploring options to expand services as park usage continues to rise; and,

WHEREAS, outdoor programs continue to see rise in attendance; and,

WHEREAS, disc golf is an often requested park amenity on user surveys; and,

WHEREAS, Washington County is proposing to submit a grant funding request to the Minnesota Recreation and Park Foundation to fund the purchase of portable disc golf equipment totaling $3,618 through 2020 and 2021.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Washington County Board of Commissioners authorizes submittal of the application listed above for funding under the 2020 Minnesota Park and Recreation Foundation New Initiative Grant.

ATTEST:


COUNTY BOARD CHAIR


YES

____

NO

____

11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246


Public Works Department

Donald J. Theisen, P.E.Director

Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E. Deputy Director/County Engineer

Washington County Parks MRPF New Initiative Grant Application

Section 1 - Program Name

Portable Frisbee Disc- Golf

Section 2 - Contact info

Alex [email protected](651) 430-4364

Section 3 - Innovative Approach

Washington County Parks would like to offer an additional amenity in the opportunity to play frisbee disc-golf for Washington County Park users. The request for a portable or mobile disc-golf course would give the Parks division the flexibility to use the equipment in a variety of ways throughout the park system. Parks staff would be able to set up a 9-hole course at either of Washington County’s two campgrounds, or take it to outreach or special events. A portable disc-golf course could also be used for programming at day camps, it could be set up in ways to highlight less utilized areas of the parks, or could be used as a tool to attract new park users into the regional system. The portable baskets could also be sold as an added amenity to pavilion rentals and/or group campers in a way to provide more value and variety to how people use the parks while adding a new revenue stream for the organization.

Section 4 - Community need/ support

There are limited disc-golf courses within Washington County and the Parks division has received public feedback through park use surveys, social media comments, and in-person conversations for several years that a disc-golf course would be very well received among park users. Also, because of the global pandemic and COVID-19 responses, parks in Washington County have seen a dramatic increase in visitor numbers and Parks staff are working on new efforts to increase the amount of amenities and recreational opportunities that are available to park visitors. When in use for events or stand-alone pop-up programs, the portable disc-golf course would be included with the fee of their vehicle permit and pose no additional charge to park users for equity purposes. Washington County Parks is being proactive with innovative passive-programming due to the pandemic and adding a mobile disc-golf course is another opportunity for park users to enjoy the parks and the great outdoors while avoiding large crowds and participating in safe social distancing.

Section 5 - Requested Funds

Washington County Parks is requesting funding for purchase of equipment to set up a 9-hole portable disc-golf course for park users and to use the equipment at other pop-up programs. The baskets being purchased are collapsible and come with bags for easy storage and transportation. Washington County Parks is requesting $3,618 from The Minnesota Recreation and Park Foundation’s New Initiative Grant Program. The breakdown of the equipment needed for this additional amenity is as follows;

• $2,115 for portable disc-golf baskets (11 baskets at $175) includes shippingo We are planning for a 9-hole course and would like to purchase an

additional 2 baskets for replacement in case of damage or theft and to allow greater flexibility in accommodating multiple use requests simultaneously.

• $1,360 for tee-box mats and shipping (110 ft. at $9)o It is recommended that each tee box has a mat of 10 feet.

• $150 for disc-golf frisbies (5 sets at $26)• $18 for soccer cones to mark of tee boxes

Section 6 – Budget

Washington County Parks would be using the mobile disc-golf program for public engagement and to offer an additional amenity for park users and encourage variety in park use. There would be no direct revenue generated from the public event and pop-up use from the portable disc-golf course. As an add-on option for pavilion reservation or group camping there would be a fee to the user and some direct revenue. Parks staff also anticipates an increase in indirect revenue from the additional sale of vehicle entrance permits to use the disc-golf course.

Expenses incurred for repair and replacement of equipment moving forward would be included in the Parks program supply budget. Staff anticipates the need to replace several sets of discs every season ($26/set) as well as the need to replace parts or entire baskets as use increases.

Washington County Parks will also dedicate storage space for this equipment and will incur expenses from the transportation of equipment from site to site as well as the staff hours that go into the set-up/tear down and transportation. Staff time to set up a 9-hole course is estimated to be 3 staff hours for full course set up and 3 staff hours for tear down at an average hourly wage of $20/hr for a total staff cost of $120 for each use as a passive amenity. For any active programming using the equipment the staff hours and cost will go up depending on the number of staff required and length of event.

Section 7 – Program Replication

After the portable disc-golf course has shown to be successful, other agencies or organizations could easily replicate the program. Even if the entity doesn’t have the storage to house a 9-hole course, agencies could purchase equipment on a smaller scale for outreach events, or pavilion rentals in order to scale our model to fit their needs. Washington County Parks would provide feedback to any agencies looking to re-create this program including transportation method, set-up procedures, security, optimal storage, and any updates to procedures or policies that have been put in place since implementation. Since a portable disc-gold course could be tailored to fit existing parks and facilities, replicating Washington County’s model could be doable on almost any scale.

Section 8 – Evaluation

This program will be evaluated similarly to other amenities within the parks and will be included in the annual park user satisfaction surveys. Feedback for evaluation will also be gathered from social media responses, general park inquires/communications, and in-person visitor contact.

When the mobile disc-golf baskets are at outreach events or smaller pop-up programming, this will be evaluated by public feedback and staff observations when being used by the public. For any use attached to pavilion or group camp reservations, the equipment will be included on those specific user surveys as well.

Section 9 – Sustainability

Sustaining this program in Washington County Parks will revolve around the upkeep, security and maintenance of equipment and marketing efforts. After initial purchase any funds needed for repairs, maintenance, or replacement pieces will be taken out of the parks programming budget and funds will be allocated to this program in future budgets. Enough growth in demand could lead to purchasing of additional equipment by the County to meet new demand, expand availability and reduce stress/wear on equipment by spreading use across increased supply.

Section 10 - Statement of Match

If funds are granted, Washington County Parks will match the requested $3,618 with resources including staff time to set up and break down a 9-hole course, transporting to different parks within Washington County, general maintenance, and storing equipment. Washington County will also budget for replacing discs/supplies and create new programs around the equipment.


BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSWASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 13814



AGREEMENT NO. LUP 8204-0073WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FOR A NON-MOTORIZED RECREATIONAL TRAIL IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 AT MANNING AVENUE

WHEREAS, Washington County plans to construct a non-motorized recreational trail in the right-of way of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 as part of the TH 36 & County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 15 N (Manning Avenue) Interchange Project; and

WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation requires a Limited Use Permit for the construction and utilization of said pedestrian trail; and

WHEREAS, Washington County will enter into Agreement No. LUP# 8204-0073 allowing Washington County to construct, maintain, and operate a proposed trail on Manning Avenue within MnDOT owned right-of-way on Trunk Highway 36.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board hereby enters into a Limited Use Permit with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes:

To construct, operate and maintain a non-motorized recreational trail within the right- of- way of Trunk Highway 36 of the State of Minnesota. Washington County shall construct, operate and maintain said trail in accordance with the Limited Use Permit granted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chair and the Administrator are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the County to execute and enter into the Limited Use Permit and any amendments to the permit.

ATTEST:


COUNTY BOARD CHAIR


YES NO



DATE December 1, 2020 DEPARTMENT Sheriff’s OfficeMOTIONBY COMMISSIONER


APPROVAL OF TWO SERVICE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Washington County Sheriff’s Office is authorized to enter into two service agreements with Motorola Solutions, Inc. for the repair and maintenance of the 800 MHz Radio System.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Washington County Sheriff, Dan Starry, is hereby authorized to execute and sign this agreement and any amendments thereto, as are necessary to implement this agreement on behalf of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office.

ATTEST:


COUNTY BOARD CHAIR


YES

____

NO

____




RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW FROM LOWER ST. CROIX ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR) has developed policies for coordination and development of comprehensive watershed management plans, also known as One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P), consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.801, Comprehensive Watershed Management Planning Program; and

WHEREAS, by Washington County Resolution 2017-115, adopted February 21, 2017, the Washington County Board of Commissioners entered into a cooperative effort, along with the other counties, soil and water conservation districts, and watershed management organizations within the Lower St. Croix Planning Boundary, as delineated in the One Watershed, One Plan Suggested Boundary Map (together, the “Parties”), to develop a coordinated, watershed-scale implementation framework for this area; and

WHEREAS, by Washington County Resolution 2018-118, adopted March 13, 2018, the Washington County Board of Commissioners entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the same parties to establish a structure and procedural steps for plan development in the Lower St. Croix Planning Boundary; and directed staff to participate in the planning process, and appointed Commissioner Fran Miron to the Policy Committee; and

WHEREAS, a draft Lower St. Croix Watershed Comprehensive Management Plan has been developed over an 18-month period to meet standards set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.801 and includes implementation programs and priority activities for the entire watershed area with the mission to guide protection and restoration of priority natural resources over the next ten years Watershed and the collaborative submitted a draft Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan to the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources (BSWR) for State approval; and

WHEREAS, on October 28, 2020, BWSR announced its approval of the Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan, requiring the governing boards of the partnering organizations to make additional authorizations and approvals to move forward the important work of implementing Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on behalf Washington County, Washington County withdraws from the Lower St. Croix Watershed Memorandum of Agreement and directs the Department of Public Health and Environment to take all steps necessary to terminate and wind down the rights and obligations of Washington County, including, but not limited to, giving notice of withdrawal to the partner organizations within 30 days of this resolution.

ATTEST:


COUNTY BOARD CHAIR


YES

____

NO

____




RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN AND TO

APPOINT A POLICY COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE






NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 471.59, the Washington County Board authorizes and agrees to enter into the Joint Powers Agreement for the collaborative implementation of the Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the terms of said Joint Powers Agreement, the Washington County Board appoints Commissioner Fran Miron, to serve as standing representative of Washington County on the Policy Committee as provided in the Joint Powers Agreement; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board of Commissioners shall appoint a potential alternate; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board authorizes and directs the Department of Public Health and Environment to carry-out all duties and obligations required of Washington County under the Joint Powers Agreement, including, but not limited to, designating Washington County staff to serve on the Advisory Committee under the Joint Powers Agreement.

ATTEST:


COUNTY BOARD CHAIR


YES

____

NO

____




RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN AS A SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT TO THE COUNTY’S

GROUNDWATER PLAN






NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board hereby adopts the Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan and such plan shall be a supplementary document to the Washington County Groundwater Plan for the area of Washington County identified within the Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board authorizes the implementation of the Lower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan for the area of Washington County identified within said plan and directs the Department of Public Health and Environment to administer the implementation of such portion of the plan on behalf of Washington County; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board authorizes and directs the Department of Public Health and Environment to execute all obligations and implement all the duties in the Plan required of Washington County under the Joint Powers Agreement.

ATTEST:


COUNTY BOARD CHAIR


YES

____

NO

____

28, 2020

Lower St. Croix River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan

LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN 28, 2020 2 LOLOWEWERR STST. CCROROIXIX CCOMOMPRPREHEHENENSISIVEVE WWATATERERSHSHEDED PPLALANN 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.

LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN 28, 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 ....................................................................................................................... 39 A. Areas of Work ............................................................................................................................................ 39

i. Agricultural Lands .................................................................................................................................. 40

ii. Developed and Developing Lands ......................................................................................................... 41 iii. Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................................................... 42

iv. Prioritization and Analysis, Existing Monitoring ................................................................................... 43 B. Building Social Capacity ............................................................................................................................. 44

C. Shared Services ......................................................................................................................................... 46 i. Agricultural Lands .................................................................................................................................. 46

ii. Developed and Developing Lands ......................................................................................................... 47

iii. Education and Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 47 D. Incentive Programs ................................................................................................................................... 47

E. Operation and Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 48


F. Extreme Weather and Water Storage Goals ............................................................................................. 49

G. Regulation and Enforcement .................................................................................................................... 50 i. Watershed District Regulation .............................................................................................................. 50

ii. Comprehensive or Land Use Plans ........................................................................................................ 51 iii. County, State and Local Regulations ..................................................................................................... 51

V. Implementation Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 57 A. Using the Implementation Table ............................................................................................................... 57

B. 2021 – 2030 Implementation Table: Table 5-1 ......................................................................................... 61

VI. Funding Sources and Prioritizing Watershed Based Implementation Funds ........................................... 89 A. Federal Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................... 89

B. State Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................... 90 C. Local Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................... 90

D. Other Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................. 90 E. Prioritizing Watershed Based Implementation Funds .............................................................................. 91

VII. Work Planning and Targeting Implementation ........................................................................................ 93 A. Work Planning ........................................................................................................................................... 93

B. Targeting and Prioritizing Specific Projects ............................................................................................... 94

VIII. Local Implementation Programs ............................................................................................................ 101 IX. Plan Administration and Collaboration .................................................................................................. 103

A. Formal Agreements ................................................................................................................................. 103 B. Decision Making, Staffing, and Collaboration ......................................................................................... 104

i. Policy Committee ................................................................................................................................ 104 ii. Steering Committee ............................................................................................................................ 104

iii. Advisory Committee ............................................................................................................................ 104

iv. Collaboration on Grants and with Other Units of Government .......................................................... 105 C. Adaptive Management ............................................................................................................................ 106

D. Evaluation and Reporting ........................................................................................................................ 106 i. Watershed Based Funding Assurance Measures ................................................................................ 107

ii. Annual Accomplishment Reporting .................................................................................................... 108 iii. Biennial Partnership and Work Plan Evaluation ................................................................................. 108

iv. Five-Year Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 109 E. Plan Updates and Amendments .............................................................................................................. 109

X. References .............................................................................................................................................. 111


Figures Figure 1-1 Waterbodies and Jurisdictions in Lower St. Croix Watershed…………………………………………………20 Figure 1-2 Landcover in Lower St. Croix Watershed …………………………………………………………………..…………..21 Figure 1-3 Groundwater Pollution Sensitivity of Near Surface Materials in Lower St. Croix Watershed .…22

Figure 2-1 The Path to Identifying Priority Issues, Resources, and Desired Future Conditions …………..……24

Figure 4-1 Community Capacity ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..45

Figure 5-1 Vulnerable Groundwater in Agricultural Areas ………………………………………………………………………84 Figure 5-2 Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams……………………………………………………………………………….85 Figure 5-3 Regionally Significant Lakes ……………………………………………………………………………………………………86 Figure 5-4 Regionally Significant Lakes for Internal Loading Analyses ……………………………………………..……..87 Figure 5-5 High Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration ………………………………………………………………………….88

Figure 7-1 Completed Subwatershed Analyses and Gully Inventories ………………………………………………..…100

Tables Table 1-1 10-year Implementation Costs for Activities Considered Highest Priority for WBIFs …………….. 16 Table 1-2 LSC Partnership Committees and Functions …………………………………………………………………………..17

Table 2-1 Avenues of Stakeholder Input …………………………………………………………………………………………….. .26 Table 2-2 Resource Areas, Description of Relevance, Threatened Uses …………………………………………………28 Table 2-3 Desired Future Conditions (DFC) and Issues Statements for Each Resource Area …………………..31

Table 3-1 Issues & Goals by Resource Area with Reference to Related Outputs and Priority Locations… 34

Table 5-1 Part A. Implementation Actions for Agricultural Lands …………………………………………………………..61 Table 5-1 Part B. Implementation for Developed and Developing Lands ……………………………………………….65 Table 5-1 Part C. Implementation for Ecosystem Services …………………………………………………………………….70 Table 5-1 Part D. Implementation for Prioritization and Analysis: Issues, Goals, Actions, Measurable

Outputs, and Priority Locations ………………………………………………………………………………………..……76 Table 5-2 Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams for Pollutant Reductions ……………………………………….81 Table 5-3 Regionally Significant Lakes for Pollutant Reductions and Protections …………………………………..82 Table 5-4 Regionally Significant Lakes for Internal Loading Analyses …………………………………………………….83

Table 7-1 Completed Subwatershed Assessments and Inventories ……………………………………………………….96

Table 9-1 Evaluation and Assessment Schedule ………………………………………………………………………………….107

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 Local Priorities


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 comprised 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


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 MembersAnoka County, Ramsey County, Ramsey SWCD, and Valley Branch WD were invited but chose not to participate on the Policy Committee.


ii. Acronyms1W1P – 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

LCCMR – Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources

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


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

USACE – United States Army Corp of Engineers

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


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 (SWCD), 2 watershed management organizations (WMO), and 4 watershed districts (WD). Partners included Anoka SCWD, Brown’s Creek WD, Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix WD, Chisago County, Chisago SWCD, Comfort Lake-Forest Lake WD, Isanti County, Isanti SWCD, Middle St. Croix WMO, Pine County, Pine SWCD, South Washington WD, Sunrise River WMO, Washington County, and Washington Conservation District. 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.


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 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 (77.8 sq. mi.), Chisago (432.8 sq. mi), Isanti (65.9 sq. mi), Anoka (56.7 sq. mi), and Washington Counties (280.0 sq. mi). 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 the 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 (below Taylors Falls dam) 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 St. Croix River shoreline in the Lower St. Croix 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

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


parts of the watershed. Most of these lakes are linked through a chain of small connector waterways, and several are connected by buried bedrock valleys with significant groundwater flowing through them. 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, 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. Within the Sunrise River Watershed, the 24,000-acre Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area includes 20 actively managed pools. 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 several cold water creeks: 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.


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 needsRivers and Streams – water quality, ecosystem quality, altered hydrologyLakes – water quality, ecosystem quality, water levels, data needsWetlands – quality, quantity, data needsUplands – habitat loss, encroachment, degradationSt. 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 1,363 pounds total phosphorus in regionally significant lakes (Table 5-3); and 4,140 pounds total phosphorus in key subwatersheds draining to the St. Croix River (Table 5-2) by the end of the 10-year period.

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 totalphosphorus in Lake St. Croix (Chisago County, MPCA, USACE, 2013)Subwatersheds of tributaries draining directly to the St. Croix River (downstream of lakes, impoundments, orlarge wetland complexes)


Thirty-one regionally significant lakes including those in need of restoration and others in need of protectionAreas where groundwater is sensitive to pollutionLands 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 to 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


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/protection activities)25% Prioritization and Analysis5% Administration

Priority Activities slated for funding from WBIFs include:

Sharing services to increase engagement with landowners by hiring or contracting with an agriculturalconservationist and agronomistSharing services to improve social capacity and increase education and engagement programs byexpanding the East Metro Water Resources Education Program (EMWREP)Sharing services to provide education and ordinance development on Minimal Impact Design StandardsConduct subwatershed analyses and other prioritization methods to target best management practices(BMPs) within priority subwatershedsProviding financial and technical assistance for installing, implementing, or retrofitting targeted BMPsProviding financial assistance to upgrade SSTSProviding education, financial, and technical assistance for restoring shorelines along priority lakesImproving ditch maintenance practices to reduce impacts on water resourcesProviding cost share for land restoration or easement establishment in critical habitat areasRestoring or creating wetlandsStudying and addressing 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-yearEstimated Cost

10-year EstimatedLocal Funds

10-year ExistingStable ExternalFunding

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


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 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. Plan amendments may be needed if priority locations change due to additional knowledge (see Section IX.E.). Evaluation and reporting (see Section IX.D.) 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 at least twiceannually

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


Committee Membership Function

Steering Committee (SC)

-Meets monthly or asneeded

Staff of LSC Partners including:

County water planners

WD/WMO administrators, staff

SWCD managers, staff

(BWSR staff will be invited to SC meetings)

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 and asneeded

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 ManagementOrganizations

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 reviewand discuss possible projects and programs for use of Watershed Based Implementation Funds (WBIFs) in thenext fiscal year. Each LSC Partner will bring information and analyses related to their proposed project, “set” ofprojects (such as projects identified in a subwatershed analysis), or program. Only activities that meet all of thefollowing “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 theImplementation 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 theImplementation Table (Table 5-1).

3. An analysis is complete and/or data are gathered to target and prioritize specific projects where they willhave most benefit using specific analyses components; or the project is outside an area with a completedprioritization but has a similar cost/benefit as a previously analyzed project and benefits the same waterresource as the completed analysis.

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 will be adopted by some counties and soil and water conservation districts (SWCD) as their sole water plan for areas within the LSC Watershed. This is the case for Chisago County, Chisago SWCD, Isanti County, Isanti SWCD, Pine County, Pine SWCD, and Washington Conservation District. Since this Plan does not cover all local priorities and planned activities for Chisago County, additional content specific to Chisago County is provided in Appendix D.

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 Saint

Croix

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

Lindstrom

Pine

Cou

nty

Kana

bec C

ount

y

Pine CountyChisago County

Kanabec CountyIsanti County

Isanti CountyChisago County

Isanti CountyAnoka County

Chisago CountyWashington County

Anok

a Co

unty

Was

hing

ton

Coun

ty

Anoka County

Hennepin County Anoka CountyRamsey County

Was

hing

ton

Coun

tyRa

mse

y Co

unty

Wa s

hing

ton

Coun

tyDa

kota

Cou

nty

Hennepin CountyRam

sey County

Hennepin County

Dako

ta C

ount

ySc

ott C

ount

y

Mud Lake

Green Lake

LinwoodLake

West RushLake

ChisagoLake

East RushLake

CoonLake

SunriseLake

ForestLake

GooseLake

Big MarineLake

Big CarnelianLake

St. C

roix

Riv

er

Ceda

r Creek

Bea v er Creek

Rum River

RiceC

reek

Minnes

ota

Rive

r

Mississip

pi River

Brow

n's Creek

Sunrise River

Snake River

Vermillio

nRiver

Valley Creek

Sunrise River North Branch

GooseCree

k

Rock Creek

Rush Creek

MIDDLEST.

CROIX

COMFORT LAKEFOREST LAKE

RICE CREEK

SUNRISE RIVER

RAMSEY-WASHINGTONMETRO

SOUTHWASHINGTON

VALLEY BRANCH

BROWNSCREEK

CARNELIAN-MARINE-ST.CROIX

K

Burn

ett C

ount

yPo

lk C

ount

yPolk County

St 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. CroixPWI

Lake, Pond or

River or StreamWatershed Districts (WD) andWatershed ManagementOrganizations (WMO)

Brown's CreekCarnelian-Marine-St. CroixWD

Comfort Lake Forest LakeWDMiddle St. Croix

South Washington

Sunrise RiverValley Branch

Chisago Lakes LakeImprovement DistrictMunicipal

County

MN

MN DNR Watersheds - DNR Level 04 -HUC 08 - Majors 2009. MN DNRHydrography 2015. MN Public WaterInventory Watercourses 2008.

Pine

Cou

nty

Kana

bec C

ount

y






Anok

a Co

unty

Was

hing

ton

Coun

ty

Anoka County


Was

hing

ton

Coun

tyRa

mse

y Co

unty

Wa s

hing

ton

Coun

tyDa

kota

Cou

nty

Hennepin CountyRam

sey County

Hennepin County

Dako

ta C

ount

ySc

ott C

ount

y

Burn

ett C

ount

yPo

lk C

ount

yPolk County

St Croix 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 RIVER

WATERSHEDFIGURE 1-2

0 5

Miles

!;N

Lower St. Croix Watershed

County BoundaryLandcover

Emergent Wetlands

Forested/Shrub WetlandsOpen Water

Extraction

Coniferous ForestDeciduous Forest

Mixed Forest

Grassland/Managed GrassHay/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

Cou

nty

Kana

bec C

ount

y






Anok

a Co

unty

Was

hing

ton

Coun

ty

Anoka County


Was

hing

ton

Coun

tyRa

mse

y Co

unty

Wa s

hing

ton

Coun

tyDa

kota

Cou

nty

Hennepin CountyRam

sey County

Hennepin County

Dako

ta C

ount

ySc

ott C

ount

y

Burn

ett C

ount

yPo

lk C

ount

yPolk County

St Croix 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 NEAR

SURFACE MATERIALS IN THEST. CROIX RIVER

WATERSHEDFIGURE 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 Materials

KarstHigh

Moderate

LowVery low

Bedrock at or near surface

WaterCounty Boundary


II. Identification and Prioritization of ResourceAreas 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

Million gallons per year (MGY) groundwater used for consumption: 3,700

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)


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

Stakeholder 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 +


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 by 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-


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 ofgovernment and with the public.Most people view the St. Croix River as our highest priority regional water resource, but think that lakesare very important as well.Stakeholders expressed a strong desire to protect existing high-quality natural resources, in addition torestoring impaired rivers and lakes.Key concerns include runoff pollution (especially from agricultural areas), groundwater pollution, andaquatic invasive species.There is a desire for more public education, as well as outreach and support to help farmers and localcommunities 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 ofNatural Resources

MN Department ofHealth

MN Department ofAgriculture

MN Pollution ControlAgency

Metropolitan Council

Lake St. Croix Boat Tour- July 12, 2018- 110 participants:Metro WatershedPartners members

St. Croix River Boat Tour -August 27, 2018

- 50 participants: LSCPolicy and AdvisoryCmte members, localofficials, individuals

Northern Area Workshop-September 26, 2018

- 40 participants: arearesidents and localofficials

12 in-person andphone interviews387 surveyscompleted out ofapproximately1,000 directrequests, 38%response rateAgricultural InputSession -February 2, 2019

- 45 participants

Posted on 1W1PwebsiteLink emailed to 150lake association repsLink emailed tonumerous otherstakeholders in basinLink included inWashington Co.newsletterLink included inarticles in StillwaterGazette, Valley LifeeditionSurvey open Sept 1 -Oct 31, 201886 responses


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, along with the Watershed Study Report for the Sunrise River Watershed, MN (Chisago County, MPCA, USACE, 2013) 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 this 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 existin the watershed and need protection.Reducing non-point source pollution from agricultural areas is critical to improving conditions in localwater resources and the St. Croix River.Standards and requirements are needed for development and redevelopment to reduce the impact onnatural resources, preferably the Minnesota Minimal Impact Design Standards.


Groundwater quality and quantity are critical issues to consider in the development of the Plan.

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 waterIrrigationBase flows forhabitat andrecreation

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 with springs and seeps, 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.

AestheticsRecreationHabitatFishingDrainage


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.

AestheticsRecreationHabitatFishingProperty 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.

HabitatFlood controlFiltrationAestheticsRecreationWild riceproduction

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.

HabitatAestheticsRecreationFiltration

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. The St. Croix River is a regionally significant big river with a Wild and Scenic River designation and Lake St. Croix is classified as a recreational lake. Recreation, transportation, habitat, and a migratory flyway are among the more important uses of the river.

FlywayRecreationHabitatEconomicviability

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 toaddress issuesAbility to fundprojectsRelationshipsPolitical willHistoricknowledge


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


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 contamination2. Groundwater quantity is impacted by consumption and reduced recharge areas3. 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 protection2. Lake ecosystems are degraded or threatened by land use, invasive species, climate change, and

high impact recreation3. Variable lake levels impact shoreland and homes4. 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 change2. River and stream ecosystems are degraded by land use, invasive species, and climate change3. 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 species2. Wetland quantity is impacted by land use pressure, climate change, loss of groundwater recharge,

and lack of restoration efforts3. Data are lacking to fully understand wetland resources


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 health2. Maintaining habitat with ongoing pressures from land use changes requires restoration and

new habitat creation3. 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 use2. Ecosystems and endangered species are degraded or threatened by invasive species, shoreland

practices, development, climate change, and recreation3. Extreme fluctuations in St. Croix River levels impact shoreland, vegetation, sediment load to Lake St.Croix, endangered species, commerce, and recreation4. Monitoring, modeling, and assessment data are needed to target implementation activities and track

changes in water quality and biotaSOCIAL 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 andrestore natural resources

2. Distributed and overlapping jurisdictions can be challenging and will require collaboration andstakeholder engagement

3. The scale of effort needed to protect and restore natural resources is economically difficult


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” or “basin wide” meaning the activity is slated to happen throughout the LSC 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.

Regionally significant lakes (Table 5-3 and Figure 5-3) were identified through an iterative process by the Advisory Committee. For each lake in their jurisdiction, local experts assigned a priority score (A, B, C) regarding the level of impact to the lake from cropping practices, the level of impact from other agricultural practices, the level of impact from urban/suburban development, and degree to which protection strategies and sustainable development is needed for the lake.

Due to the high number of lakes existing across the watershed, the priority levels were used to develop a manageable number of lakes where the LSC Partnership should focus efforts. Lakes scoring the highest priority level where both cropping and other agricultural best practices are needed, were identified as being regionally


significant and denoted as those needing “Ag BMPs” in Table 5-3. Similarly, lakes scoring the highest priority level for having urban impacts and needing sustainable development were identified as being regionally significant and denoted as those needing “Urban BMPs” in Table 5-3.

Regionally significant streams (Table 5-2 and Figure 5-2) were identified as those contributing the highest amount of total phosphorus in the Lake St. Croix Total Maximum Daily Load Study (MPCA, 2012).

The term “regionally significant” was assigned to note that the LSC Partnership will be working on these lakes as a regional collaboration. The term does not exclude individual entities from assigning significance or prioritization to these or other waterbodies in their jurisdiction

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. As noted within Table 5-1, regionally significant rivers and streams and regionally significant lakes are listed in Tables 5-2 and 5-3, respectively.

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.

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

1st Column, Table 5-1 1. Groundwater quality is

impacted by land use andcontamination

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 isimpacted by consumption andreduced recharge areas

2A. Reduce or maintain groundwater consumption despite continued growth

4

2B. Increase infiltration and recharge in rural and urban areas

1, 11, 12, 17

3. Data are lacking to fullyunderstand groundwaterresources

3A. Gather data needed to understand groundwater resources

44, 45, 46, 47


Rivers & Streams (R&S) Issue Goal Related Outputs &

Priority Locations 1st Column, Table 5-1

1. River and stream quality isimpacted by land use,contamination, and climatechange

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, 11, 14, 55

1B. Maintain naturally reproducing trout populations. 27 1C. Prevent degradation of water resources due to improper ditch maintenance through legal framework.

7

2. River and stream ecosystemsare degraded by land use,invasive species, and climatechange

2A. Protect and improve in-stream and riparian ecosystems and biota.

26, 38, 40

2B. Prevent the dispersion, promote/support the containment, control, and eradication of invasive species

32, 33

3. Altered hydrology and changesin precipitation impact riversand streams

3A. Manage basin to mimic natural hydrologic conditions and adapt to future conditions

5, 12, 26

Lakes (LK) Issue Goal Related Outputs &


1. Lake water quality is degraded,threatened, or in need ofprotection

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, 54

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, 41, 54

1C. Address non-compliant subsurface sewage treatment systems that pose a threat to lakes

9, 20

1D. Address internal loading in impaired lakes 37, 49 2. Lake ecosystems are degraded

or threatened by land use,invasive species, climatechange, and high impactrecreation

2A. Protect sensitive lakes 3, 24, 40 2B. Improve shorelines to protect and improve habitat and water quality

21, 38

2C. Prevent the dispersion, promote/support the containment, control, and eradication of invasive species

31 - 34

3. Variable lake levels impactshoreland and homes

3A. Minimize damage to shoreland property caused by high water

36

4. Data are lacking to fullyunderstand lake conditions,threats, and trends

4A. Gather data needed to understand lake conditions and threats

50 - 54


Wetlands (WTL) Issue Goal Related Outputs &


1. Wetland quality is impacted byland use and invasive species

1A. Protect high quality wetlands by maintaining wetland functions and values

22

1B. Protect wetlands from drainage 6, 29 1C. Limit the spread of invasive phragmites (Common Reed)

35

2. Wetland quantity is impactedby land use pressure, climatechange, loss of groundwaterrecharge, and lack ofrestoration efforts

2A. Ensure no net loss of wetlands within basin 28, 29 2B. Increase wetland acreage in basin through creation and restoration

28, 30

3. Data are lacking to fullyunderstand 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 62, 63 3E. Gather additional data needed for wetland inventories or evaluations

61, 64

Upland Habitat (UP) Issue Goal Related Outputs &


1. Loss of habitat due to land usechanges threatens overallecological health; Existinghabitat is at risk of degradation

1A. Protect upland and existing riparian habitat from degradation by enforcing ordinances or higher standards.

38, 59

1B. Protect and restore high quality native plant communities that support Species of Greatest Conservation Need

40

1C. Identify, protect, and restore upland habitat that is degraded to expand corridors, connect critical habitat areas and promote resiliency.

39, 41

1D. Manage climate adaptation through protection and creation of a resilient and diverse landscape

39

1E. Eradicate and manage invasive species populations

60

1F. Maintain and restore quality habitat as land develops

23

2. Maintaining habitat withongoing pressures fromexisting land use and land usechanges requires restorationand new habitat creation

2A. Implement lakeshore/upland restorations on eroded slopes.

21, 58

2B. Expand Private forest management plans to protect forested habitat

43

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.

42


St. Croix River & Lake St. Croix (STC) Issue Goal Related Outputs &


1. Water quality in the St. CroixRiver and in Lake St. Croix isdegraded or threatened byland 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

44

1B. Maintain an improving trend for total phosphorus and total suspended solids in the St. Croix River

2, 14, 25, 26

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 endangeredspecies are degraded orthreatened by aquatic invasivespecies, climate change, andrecreation

2A. Prevent the dispersion, promote/support the containment, control, and eradicate invasive species in the St. Croix River.

31-33

2B. Increase or maintain habitat within the St. Croix River for species on federal & state Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species List

51, 59

3. Extreme fluctuations in St.Croix River levels impactshoreland, 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, 25, 57

4. Monitoring, modeling, andassessment data are needed totarget implementationactivities and track changes inwater 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.

25, 51, 56, 59


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.







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 an 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 for targeting will use the prioritization process described in Section VII.B.

Develop and implement a 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


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 a shared education and outreach program across the 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

Before installing outlet directing discharge of a eutrophic natural waterbody to St. Croix River, perform analysis and implement measures so waterbody meets state standards for nutrients (e.g., alum treatment, treatment of water within conveyance system, etc.)


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


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 are 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 and the St. Croix Basin Team 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.


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 resourcesDistributed and overlapping jurisdictions can be challenging and will require collaboration and stakeholderengagementThe 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.


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


C. Shared ServicesPerhaps 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 LandsThe 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. Engagement with farmers and the agricultural community will be an important part of the work of this position in order to build relationships and trust. This position will work to demonstrate practices that work for their particular area and will connect agronomic advice with federal, state and local programming and funding. 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

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 resourceinventories and assessments to promoteand implement best managementpractices (BMPs)Incorporates economic data intoassessments and management plans todetermine most cost-effective practicesand impacts on productionDevelops comprehensive natural resourcemanagement plans with agriculturallandownersRelays information on federal, state andlocal cost share and incentive programs tolandownersDevelops and implements outreach inclose collaboration with partner SWCDs toensure seamless implementation oftechnical assistance and cost sharedeliveryAdvises and understands the installationand maintenance of conservation BMPsUnderstands and promotes precisionagriculture, GIS tools, and technology indeveloping innovative solutions to thecomplex issues associated with naturalresources management, including nutrientmanagementPerforms technical work according to theNRCS Field Office Technical Guide,independently with minimal supervisionWorks with units of government andprivate industry for planning purposes inland use and conservation of naturalresources


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).

ii. Developed and Developing LandsThe 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 OutreachThe 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 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 Section 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 croplandand marginal pasture into conservation habitat areas with 15-year easements; includes the ContinuousConservation Reserve ProgramEnvironmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) – Provides cost share for agricultural lands forconservation improvementsConservation Stewardship Program (CSP) - Provides an incentive payment to landowners for theirexisting conservation efforts while encouraging landowners to improve their conservation performanceby installing and adopting additional activities, and improving, maintaining, and managing existingactivities 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. The following references may be used to perform BMP maintenance:

Minnesota Department of Transportation’s TRS1801 paper on Standards and Procedures to EnsurePerformance of Infiltration Basins

Minnesota Stormwater Manual

BWSR guidance for implementing practices.

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 conditionsMinimize damage to shoreland property caused by high waterGather data needed to understand lake conditions and threatsManage 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.

G. Regulation and Enforcement

The enforcement of existing regulations and new regulations resulting from this Plan’s implementation is critical to the 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.

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. Regulatory work is also carried out through the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Program administered by local cities, townships and counties. 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 thedrainage 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 pumpingmachinery 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 Multipurpose 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.

Local Implementation of Buffer Law

Minnesota’s Buffer Law (Minnesota Statute, section 103F.48) requires a 50-foot average width, 30-foot minimum width, perennial vegetated buffer along public waters (lakes, rivers and streams) and a 16.5-foot perennial vegetated buffer along public ditches. The Law also allows for alternative practices that provide a comparable water quality benefit as a full width buffer, where applicable. These buffers and alternative practices help filter out phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment; stabilize banks; reduce erosion; and provide other environmental benefits. Soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) are charged with determining compliance and assisting landowners with implementation of the required buffers. Counties or watershed districts can elect enforcement responsibilities for the Buffer Law. Otherwise enforcement defaults to BWSR. All the counties in the LSC Watershed have elected to enforce the Buffer Law. The compliance deadline for public waters was November 1, 2017 and November 1, 2018 for public ditches. As of 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.

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. Analysis by the MnDNR calculated 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. Based on this calculation, this plan includes a 10-year water storage goal of 0.16 inches or 7,900 acre-feet across the entire watershed. This Plan includes multiple activities that will help reach this water storage goal including the adoption of stormwater infiltration requirements (MIDS), wetland creation and restoration, and improved soil health. (See Section IV.F. 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, andestablishment 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 local government units or a specific 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.

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 projects thatwill provide enhanced protection for Minnesota’s water resources

2. New credit calculations that will standardize the use of a range of innovative structural stormwatertechniques

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 feedlots 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 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 tofocus on researching the level of connection between surface water and groundwater, identifyinggroundwater recharge and discharge zones, and developing policies and rules to protect and holisticallymanage water resources,” (Washington County, 2014).

Emerging contaminants, including PFAS, are a primary issue addressed Washington County’s Groundwater Plan. There is widespread PFAS contamination in the southern half of Washington County, present in both the Lower St Croix, and the East Mississippi watershed areas. This contamination results from four sources located in Washington County. Due to the local nature of the issue (only in Washington County) this plan does not specifically address existing PFAS contamination. In addition to being featured in the county’s Groundwater Plan, as a result of the 3M Settlement reached in 2018, the state is leading an effort to develop a Conceptual Drinking Water Supply Plan for PFAS-affected communities in both Washington and Ramsey Counties. Later stages of that work may include projects related to recharge, water conservation, and recreation.

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.

Groundwater protection is also the focus of Minnesota’s Groundwater Protection Rule (GPR) (effective June 24, 2019). The GPR will reduce the risk of nitrate from fertilizer impacting groundwater in areas of the state where soils are prone to leaching and where drinking water supplies are threatened. Beginning in 2020, the GPR prohibits fall application of nitrogen fertilizer on agricultural fields in vulnerable areas, including some areas in the LSC Watershed.


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 features 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.







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 Regionally Significant Lakes for Internal Loading Analysis Figure 5-5: 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 shoreline projects or miles of shoreline, 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.


10-Year Estimated Local Funds: This column shows funds consistently being spent by LSC Partners on thisactivity on a 10-year basis (prorated to their area in the LSC Watershed). These funds are derived only fromlocal funding sources such as property taxes. These funds may be passed along to other LSC Partners; they donot include contributions from other LSC partners, even if consistent. (e.g. Washington Co. contributes fundingto the Washington Conservation District (WCD) for various activities. This cost would be captured as localfunds by Washington County and not by the WCD.) This column includes one row for each county to indicatethe 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 theLSC Watershed). These funds do not include consistent funding from other LSC Partners as those funds arecaptured with “estimated local funds.” This column includes one row for each county to indicate theapproximate 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 be 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 due to the significant pollution contributions from the entire subwatershed and the complex nature of wetlands, impoundments, and connected drainage areas throughout the subwatershed.)

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.

LOWER ST. CROIX COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN28, 2020 61

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 LandsYears1 2

Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost

10 yearEstimatedLocal Funds

10 yearExisting Stable

ExternalFunding

Add’tExternalFundsNeeded

Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

Implementation Actions Estimated Costs

(A) Shared Services: Hire or contract with agricultural conservationist and agronomist for basinwide assistance with agronomy, outreach, and technical assistance to agricultural producersincluding conservation planning and nutrient management plans. [Approximately 80% of thisposition’s time will be directly working with agricultural producers in the LSC Watershed toidentify economical farming practices with water quality benefits to make them a routine part offarm operations. A target is to interact with operators of >3,000 acres. 20% of the position willbe 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 LSCPartnership

BWSRMDANRCSU of MExt

(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 SectionVII.B.

$690,000 $940,000 $1,190,000 $1,190,000 $1,190,000 $5,200,000 A $20,000 A $4,335,000 SWCDWMOWDCLLID

BWSRNRCSMDAMDH

C $200,000 C $200,000I I $40,000P $5,000 PW $250,000 W $150,000

$475,000 $390,000(C) Provide conservation planning, technical assistance and education on agricultural bestmanagement practices through existing local staff and local initiatives

$547,800 $547,800 $547,800 $547,800 $547,800 $2,739,000 A A $0 SWCDWMOWD

BWSRNRCSMDAU of MExt

C C $500,000I I $24,000P $15,000 PW $1,700,000 W $500,000

$1,715,000 $ 1,024,000Priority Location Measurable Output Output by Biennium

1.GWQuality(Table 3 1GW1A,2B)

Basin Wide Priority Agricultural lands where:1) DWSMA vulnerability is moderate, high, orvery high; or2) Pollution sensitivity to wells is high or veryhigh; or3) Pollution sensitivity to near surface materials iskarst or high; or4) Well testing show 5 mg/L nitrateSee Figure 5 1

Install BMPs on 2,200 acres that improve soilhealth and/or reduce nitrogen and pesticidepollution to groundwater

300 ac 400 ac 500 ac 500 ac 500 ac

2.Rivers &Streams +St. CroixRiver WQ

(Table 3 1R&S 1A;STC 1B, C)

Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams:- All streams and tributaries in Sunrise River

Watershed (whole watershed regardless ofdirect drainage)

- Direct drainage areas to St. Croix Riverthrough Rock, Rush, Goose, Lawrence, andBrowns Creeks and Trout Brook and othersmall streams shown in Figure 5 2

See Table 5 2 for streams and total phosphorusreduction 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. 30BMPs)







Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

3.Lake WQfrom ag(Table 3 1LK1A, 2A)

Regionally Significant Lakes for Agricultural BMPsSee Table 5 3 for lakes and total phosphorusreduction goals; see Figure 5 3 for map

Install conservation BMPs, near sensitivelakes or in direct lake catchments to reduceTP by 1,275 lbs (estimated 15 lbs/BMP) andto reduce TSS, bacteria, and nitrogen assecondary benefit

150 lbs TP(approx.300ac and/or10 BMPs)

225 lbs TP(approx.400 acand/or 15BMPs)




Implementation Actions Estimated Costs

(C) Contact highest agricultural groundwater consumers; provide cost share or technicalassistance to install smart irrigation technologies

$0 $145,000 $145,000 $145,000 $145,000 $580,000 $0 $0 $580,000 COsSWCDWDWMO

MDAMDNRU of MExt

Priority Location Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium4.GWQuantity(Table 3 1GW2A)

All agricultural irrigators; highest priority given tohighest consumers [For context: Active water usepermits from MPARS database 2018: 100agricultural irrigators; 157 Water Supply Wells;37 Non crop irrigators. Total = 294. 100 of thoseused >1MG in 2018.]

Install or retrofit smart technology on 40irrigation 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 Noadditionalfundingneeds

expected

COsSWCDWDWMO

BWSR

NRCS

Priority Location Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium

5.River &StreamFlows(Table 3 1R&S 3A)

Basin wide Identify and map 100% of private ditches aspart of developing Conservation Plans

Maps created during all applicable landowner interactions

Implementation Actions Estimated Costs(C) Incorporate policy to review 100% of drainage projects for possible impacts to wetlandquality; promote Multipurpose Drainage Management techniques on ditch maintenanceactivities.

$34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $170,000 A A $50,000 $0( $244,000)

SWCDWDWMOChisago CO

BWSRMDANRCS

C $70,000 C $70,000I $16,500 I $7,500P PW $100,000 W $100,000

$186,500 $227,500



Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

(B) Develop and implement plan for management and maintenance of ditch system including asystem and protocol for establishing BMPs within easement right of ways of existing publicditches.

$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 COsSWCDWDWMOCLLID

BWSRMDANRCS

(C) Provide training for local staff on topics related to drainage management, wetlandmanagement, and related areas

$1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 All BWSRMDAU of M


6.Drainageimpacts onwetlands(Table 3 1WTL 1B)

All public and private ditches Review 100% of drainage projects forpossible impacts to wetland quality

All active and proposed projects reviewed

7.Drainageimpact onrivers &streams(Table 3 1R&S 1C)

Judicial and public ditches Maintain or improve downstream waterquality 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 noncompliant 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 COsSWCDWDWMOCLLID

BWSRMDHMDAMPCAU of MExt

C C $240,000I $2,700 I $35,870P $15,000 PW $195,000 W $100,000

$212,700 $450,870Priority Location Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium

8.GW qualityfromcontaminants(Table 3 1GW1B)

Priority areas:Where pollution sensitivity to near surfacematerials is high, or in karst areas, or wherebedrock is at or near the surface; see Figure 1 3for map

Secondary priority:Basin wide

Upgrade 100 non conforming or noncompliant SSTS to properly functioning,compliant systems. [For context: Estimated4,202 SSTS basin wide failing to protect GW.Source: SSTS Annual Report 2018 (MPCA,Aug 2019) Number of SSTS per county * % ofcounty in LSC * estimated 15% of SSTS failingto protect groundwater statewide]

20 systems 20 systems 20 systems 20 systems 20 systems



Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

9.Lakeimpactsfrom SSTS(Table 3 1LK 1C)

Basin wide:Shorelands adjacent to nutrient impaired lakesChisago Co:Countywide

Basin wide: Decrease non compliant andnon conforming SSTS in shorelands adjacentto nutrient impaired lakesChisago Co: Decrease non compliant andnon conforming SSTS in all areas by 50% andin shorelands adjacent to nutrient impairedlakes by 80%

[For context: Estimated 5,323 non compliantSSTS basin wide. Source: SSTS Annual Report2018 (MPCA, Aug 2019): Number of SSTS percounty * % of county in LSC * estimated 19%of SSTS non compliant statewide]

20 systems 20 systems 20 systems 20 systems 20 systems

10.GW qualityfromcontaminants(Table 3 1GW1B)

Basin wide Properly seal or floodproof 100% of knownor discovered abandoned wells or wells atrisk of flooding

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 $450,870 $2,206,430*

TOTAL “C” Local Priorities $3,494,000 $1,901,500 $1,251,500 $341,000

TABLE 5 1, Part A: GRAND TOTAL $12,694,000 $2,589,200 $2,092,370 $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.


Table 5 1 Part B. Implementation for Developed and Developing LandsTable 5 1 Part B: Implementation for Developed and Developing Lands Years

1 2Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost

10 yrEstimatedLocal Funds


ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

Implementation Actions Estimated Costs(A) Shared Service: Provide outreach, education and ordinance development on Minimal ImpactDesign 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 SWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

MPCAU of MExtSCRA

C CI IP PW $300,000 W $50,000

$300,000 $50,000(A) Shared Services Educator: Facilitate shared education and outreach program across basin toprovide education; engage residents, businesses, and local officials; and promote and marketprograms and practices. [80% = develop, distribute and implement outreach programs thatresult in behavioral changes achieving water quality benefits; 10% = AIS prevention outreach andeducation; 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 COsSWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

BWSRMDHMPCAMetCouncilSCRA

(A) Provide cost share for and actively promote installing, implementing, or retrofitting bestmanagement practices and green infrastructure on developed or developing lands. Projects tobe chosen through targeting and prioritization process described in Section VII.B. [44 projects/2years/$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 COsSWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

BWSRMPCAMetCouncilU of MExt

C $200,000 C $200,000I I $40,000P PW $2,475,000 W $150,000

$2,695,000 $390,000(C) Provide project reviews and technical assistance on stormwater management and urban bestmanagement practices through local staff and local initiatives including evaluating small stormvolume 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 COsSWCDsWDsWMOs

BWSRMPCAMetCouncil

C C $500,000I IP PW $1,998,000 W

$2,008,000 $500,000(C)Work with State agencies and organizations to update Minimal Impact Design Standards toaccount 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 Noadditionalfundingneeds

expected

SWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

MPCAU of MExtSCRA


11.GWrecharge &infiltration(Table 3 1GW 2B) +Lake &streamWQ(Table 3 1LK1B, R&S1A)

Basin wide[Estimated 40 communities in basin withoutMIDS or similar standards]

Implement Minimal Impact Design Standards ormore restrictive in 20 communities; includingclimate resiliency provisions or standards

10 LGUs 10 LGUs


Table 5 1 Part B: Implementation for Developed and Developing Lands Years1 2

Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

12. GWrecharge &streamflow(Table 3 1GW 2B,R&S 3A)

In critical groundwater recharge areas asidentified in existing or future maps orstudies

Retrofit 20 existing developments withinfiltration, recharge and reuse projects

4 projects 4 projects 4 projects 4 projects 4 projects

13.St. CroixRiver flows(Table 3 1STC 3A)

Direct catchments to the St. Croix River andLake St. Croix

Evaluate and update small storm volume controland large storm rate control ordinances in 4communities

2 LGUs 2 LGUs

14.St. CroixRiver +Rivers &streamsWQ(Table 3 1STC 1B;R&S 1A)

Regionally Significant Rivers and Streams:- All streams and tributaries in Sunrise

River Watershed (whole watershedregardless of direct drainage)

- Direct drainage areas to St. Croix Riverthrough Rock, Rush, Goose, Lawrence,and Browns Creeks and Trout Brook andother small streams shown in Figure 5 2

See Table 5 2 for streams and totalphosphorus reduction goals; See Figure 5 2

Reduce TP by 100 lbs. (approximately 100 BMPs)and reduce TSS, bacteria, and nitrogen assecondary benefit [Assume 1 lb/BMP; typicalreduction for raingarden or similar BMP]






15.Lake WQ(Table 3 1LK 1B)

Regionally Significant Lakes for Urban BMPsSee Table 5 3 for lakes and total phosphorusreduction goals; See Figure 5 3

Reduce TP by 100 lbs. (approximately 100 BMPs)and reduce TSS, bacteria, and nitrogen assecondary benefit [Assume 1 lb/BMP; typicalreduction for raingarden or similar BMP]






16.St. CroixRiverchlorides(Table 3 1STC 1D)

Basin wide 75% of all cities have staff certified in MPCA’sLevel 1 and Level 2 Smart Salting Training

Total of15% of cities

Total of30% ofcities




Implementation Action Estimated Costs(C) Contact highest urban/suburban groundwater consumers; provide cost share to install smartirrigation technologies

$0 $290,000 $290,000 $0 $0 $580,000 A A $10,000 $470,000 COsSWCDsWDsWMOs

MDNRU of MExt

C CI IP PW $100,000 W

$100,000 $10,000



Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

Priority Location Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium17. GWquantity(Table 3 1GW 2A)

All irrigators; highest priority given tohighest consumers and communities withhighest residential usage

Install or retrofit smart technology on 40irrigation systems

20 systems 20 systems

Implementation Action Estimated Costs(C) Coordinate with State agencies and officials to identify and report hazardous wastegenerators

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Noadditionalfundingneedsexpected

COs MDHMPCA


18. GWcontaminants(Table 3 1GW 1B)

Basin wide all currently unlicensed facilitiesand 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 tohomeowners to upgrade non conforming and non compliant SSTS

[Activity and costs included in Table 5 1, Part A] COsSWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

BWSRMDHMPCAU of MExt


19. GWcontaminants(Table 3 1GW 1B)

Priority areas: Where pollution sensitivity tonear surface materials is high, or in karstareas, or where bedrock is at or near thesurfaceSecondary priority: Basin wide

Upgrade non conforming or non compliant SSTSto properly functioning, compliant systems. [SeeLine 8 of this table for context.]

[Covered under Table 5 1, Part A #8]

20.Lakeimpactsfrom SSTS(Table 3 1LK 1C)

Basin wide:Shorelands adjacent to nutrient impairedlakesChisago Co:Countywide

Basin wide: Decrease non compliant and nonconforming SSTS in shorelands adjacent tonutrient impaired lakesChisago Co: Decrease non compliant and nonconforming SSTS in all areas by 50% and inshorelands adjacent to nutrient impaired lakesby 80% [See Line 10 of this table for context.]

[Covered under Table 5 1, Part A #9]

Implementation Action Estimated Costs(A) Provide outreach & education to lake associations and lake groups or shoreline owners topromote shoreline restoration projects. Provide cost share for shoreline habitat improvementprojects [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)

COsSWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

BWSRSCRAMPCAMDNRU of MExt

C $200,000 C $100,000I $10,000 I $25,000P $5,000 PW $320,000 W $150,000

$574,000 $275,000



Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency


21.Lakeshorelines(Table 3 1LK 2B &UP 2A)

Regionally Significant Lakes for Protectionand Sustainable Development: Table 5 3and Figure 5 3

Install 100 shoreline restoration projects

[100% of lakeshore owners with alteredshorelines are provided information onrestoration 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 andcoordinate land acquisition, conservation easements, land protection, and wetland buffer zoningwhen land is developing

(Both MIDs and EMWREP + local staff can help with education.)

Costs included with local staff plus outreach and education activitiesalready listed.

$0 Existing staffand proposedprograms

Existing staffand proposedprograms

Noadditionalfundingneedsexpected

COsSWCDsWDsWMOs

MDNR


22. Protectwetlands(Table 3 1WTL 1A)

Basin wide during land use change oralteration, development or redevelopment

Increase by 5 the number of LGUs with adoptedwetland protections including bufferrequirements and setbacks for permanentstructures

1 LGU 1 LGU 1 LGU 1 LGU 1 LGU

23.Maintain &restorehabitat(Table 3 1UP 1F)

Land with priority habitats and corridorconnections

10% of land in new developments is dedicated towildlife habitat [significant new areas of landconversion from vacant or rural land toresidential, commercial/industrial, institutional,or transportation]

10% of landin new dev.

10% ofland in newdevelop



10% of landin newdevelop

24.Sensitivelakeprotection(Table 3 1LK 2A)

Regionally Significant Lakes for Protectionand Sustainable Development: Table 5 3and Figure 5 3

Implement sustainable development and landpreservation programs in lakesheds of prioritylakes through 10 easements or acquisitions

2 easementsoracquisitions

2easementsoracquisition




Implementation Action Estimated Costs(B) Before installing outlet directing discharge of a eutrophic natural waterbody to St. CroixRiver, perform analysis and implement measures so waterbody meets state standards fornutrients (e.g., alum treatment, treatment of water within conveyance system, etc.)

(Est. $100,000/analysis + $250,000/implementation; assumes 50% cost share from USACE foranalyses as stable external funds)

$700,000 $350,000 $1,050,000 $525,000 $150,000 $375,000 VBWDBCWDWashCo

USACEMPCADNR



Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency


25.Landlockedbasinimpact onRiver(Table 3 1STC 1B, 3A,4C

Eutrophic natural landlocked basins to bedischarged to St. Croix River

Perform analysis and implement measures tomeet state standards for nutrients on 3waterbodies

2 basins 1 basin

TOTAL “A” High Priorities for WBIF $4,800,000 $3,569,000 $715,000 $516,000*TOTAL “B” Secondary Priorities for WBIF $1,050,000 $525,000 $150,000 $375,000

TOTAL “C” Local Priorities $3,088,000 $2,108,000 $510,000 $470,000

TABLE 5 1, Part B: GRAND TOTAL $8,938,000 $6,202,000 $1,375,000 $1,361,000*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.


Table 5 1 Part C. Implementation for Ecosystem ServicesTable 5 1 Part C: Implementation for Ecosystem Services Years

1 2Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost


10 yearExistingStableExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

Implementation Actions Estimated Costs(B) Perform one large stream restoration project including bank stabilization, in channel work orimproving floodplain connectivity once every two years. Determine sediment reduction perproject during feasibility and design.

$350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $1,750,000 $0 $0 $1,750,000 COsSWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

MDNRBWSRMPCA

(B) Perform culvert inventory: redesign and restore as road projects are completed to helpmanage to natural hydrologic conditions through use of MnDNR Geomorphic Approach toinfrastructure Design at Road Watercourse Intersections

$100,000(inventory)

$100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 COsSWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

MDNR

(B) In watersheds of trout streams promote infiltration, reduction of impervious surfaces, and nonet gain in impervious surfaces

Costs included with existing programs and activities already listed No additionalfundingneeds

expectedPriority Location Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium

26.Rivers &Streamsecosystems & flow(Table 3 1R&S 2A,3A, STC1B)

St. Croix River and Lake St. Croix directdrainage tributaries

Reduce TP loading and TSS loading by 425 lbsand 1,085 tons, respectively. Implement 5stream restoration projects to restore andimprove stream corridors, instream habitat, andriparian area stability [Average TPreduction/restoration = 85 lbs; Average TSSreduction/restoration = 217 tons]

1 streamrestoproject





27.Troutpopulations(Table 3 1R&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 streamrestorations, BMP installations, and enforcementof development standards

Year 3: Allstreamstrout YOYrecruitment,survival ofpreviousyear class



Implementation Actions Estimated Costs(A) Identify wetland restoration opportunities and work with landowners (including institutionsand 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 COsSWCDsWDsWMOs

BWSRMDNRC $70,000 C $70,000

I I $25,000P PW $500,000 W $50,000

$570,000 $155,000


Table 5 1 Part C: Implementation for Ecosystem Services Years1 2

Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost




Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

(C) Incorporate policy to develop ditch maintenance evaluation panel and implementconservation and/or multipurpose drainage management practices

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No additionalfundingneeds

expected

COsSWCD


28.Wetlandquantity(Table 3 1WTL 2A,2B)

1. In highest priority catchments (red, yellowand green areas) within BWSR’sCompensation Planning Framework prioritycatchments in the Lower St. Croix RiverWatershed (Figure 5 5)2. In locations where studies or mapping toolsfind that restoration will have significantpositive impact on natural resources.

Create or restore 1,000 acres of historic wetlandslost to land use changes

200 acrescreated orrestored





29.Wetlandloss(Table 3 1WTL 2A,1B)

Judicial and public ditches Mitigate loss of wetland acres resulting fromditch maintenance activities

No netwetland loss

No netwetlandloss

No netwetlandloss

No netwetlandloss

No netwetlandloss

30.Wetlandquantity(Table 3 1WTL 2B)

Basin wide Create and maintain 2 new BWSR and USACEapproved 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; installdecontamination 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 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOs

MDNRSCRAMAISRC

C $610,000 C $1,470,000I IP PW $934,400 W

$1,544,400 $1,547,000(C)Work with lake groups and associations on AIS prevention outreach and education [Fundsneeded 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 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

MDNRSCRAMAISRC

C $10,000 CI I $15,000P PW $350,000 W

$370,000 $15,000(C) Partner with St. Croix River Association and MN AIS Research Center (MAISRC) to identify andimplement AIS prevention measures including following MAISRC recommendations for invasivephragmites control

$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 A A $20,000 $392,500 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOCLLID

MDNRSCRAMAISRC

C $30,000 CI $7,500 IP PW $50,000 W

$87,500 $20,000



Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost




Imp.Entity

SupportAgency


31.AIS inLakes &St. CroixRiver(Table 3 1LK 2C; STC2A)

High traffic boat launches on St. Croix Riverand Lake St. Croix

Increase watercraft inspection hours by 25% Increasehours by 5%

Increasehours by5%

Increasehours by5%

Increasehours by5%

Increasehours by5%

32.AIS(Table 3 1LK 2C; STC2A; R&S2B)

Within 15 miles of all public boat launches onzebra mussel infested lakes and rivers

Provide AIS decontamination station 2 new decon stations 2 new decon stations

33.AIS signs(Table 3 1LK 2C; STC2A; R&S2B)

Basin wide Install AIS informational signage at 20 boatlaunches and marinas

4 newlaunches w/signage

4 newlaunchesw/ signage




34.AIS inLakes(Table 3 1LK 2C)

Lakes in Chisago Co. and Isanti Co. with publicaccess

Develop 1 comprehensive AIS rapid responseplan for lakes

1 comprehensive AIS rapid response plan developed

35.Phragmites(Table 3 1WTL 1C)

In order of priority1. Chisago Lakes LID2. Carlos Avery WMA3. Elsewhere in Chisago Co and Isanti Co4. Headwaters of North Branch & WestBranch Sunrise River

Reduce the size and number of invasivephragmites locations as reported on EddMaps by50% or 45 infestation areas. Stabilize anderadicate those small infestataions less than1,000 – 2,000 sq. ft. through rapid responseplans, where available

Reduce by 9infestations

Reduce by9infestation




Implementation Actions Estimated Costs(C) Develop resiliency plans or responses, such as a Slow No Wake Ordinance or Channel andWeir Operations and Maintenance Plans, to address vulnerable properties

$20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 A A $40,000 SWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

MDNRSCRAC C

I IP P

W $60,000 W$60,000 $0



Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost




Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

Priority Location Measurable Output

36.Lakelevels(Table 3 1LK 3A)

Chisago Co. Lakes = Chisago Lakes Chain ofLakes (Chisago, South Lindstrom, NorthLindstrom, Green, Little Green, North Center,South Center), Fish, Horseshoe, LittleHorseshoe, Sunrise

Develop resiliency plans or responses, such as aSlow No Wake Ordinance or Channel and WeirOperations and Maintenance Plans, to addressvulnerable properties

Review and modify existing plans

Implementation Actions Estimated Costs(A) Perform alum treatment, carp management, or other methods identified in feasibility studiesto reduce internal loading

$0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $600,000 A$10,000 A $340,000 SWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

MPCABWSRMDNR

C CI IP P

W $250,000 W$260,000 $0


37.Internalloading(Table 3 1LK 1D)

In lakes where internal loading is estimatedto be a significant contributor to degradedwater quality and where not addressing theinternal loading would result in sustaineddegradation(See Internal Loading Lakes Table 5 4)

Address source of internal loading 3 in lakes 1 studyimplemented

1 studyimplemented

1 studyimplemented

Implementation Actions Estimated Costs(A)Work with LGUs to set shoreline "view corridors" to 25% of lot width or maximum 35' widthand maximum vegetation clearing standards or adopt innovative shoreland standards to protectbuffers, native ecosystems, and habitat corridors. Seehttps://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 [education & outreach])

$40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $120,000 A A $118,500 COsSWCDsWDsWMOs

MDNRC C

I $1,500 IP PW W

$1,500 $0Priority Location Measurable Output Outputs by Biennium

38.Shoreland(Table 3 1UP 1A,R&S 2A,LK 2B)

Basin wide Increase the number of LGUs (includingcounties) by 2 that adopt innovative shorelandstandards

1 new LGUw/ adoptedstandards

1 new LGUw/ adoptedstandards



Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost




Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

Implementation Actions Estimated Costs(C)Work with developers/contractors and landowners to develop diverse landscape plans, multidimensional buffers, and living fences for developments

$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 COsSWCDsWDsWMOs

BWSRMDNRMPCAU of MExtSCRA


39.Resilientlands(Table 3 1UP 1C,1D)

Private lands in priority corridors and criticalhabitat areas and large scale developmentswith land use change

Increase in the number of diverse landscapedesigns 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 StewardshipPlans (using Landscape Stewardship Planning Model) and Private Forest Management Plans (orWoodland Stewardship Plans). Coordinate or assist with negotiations, grant applications, andproject 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 COsSWCDsWDsWMOsCLLID

MDNRMPCAC C

I $20,000 IP $100,000 PW $20,000 W $90,000

$140,000 $90,000(A) Provide cost share to landowners for land restoration or easement establishment or localmatching funds for acquisition grant programs

$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 A A $400,000 COsSWCDsWDsWMOs

NRCSMDNRBWSRMPCASCRA

C CI IP P

W $600,000 W$600,000 $0


40.Landprotection(Table 3 1UP 1B;R&S2A; LK 2A)

First priority: Areas near already protectedlands (public or private), tributaries nearimpaired waters, areas where knownendangered species are present andidentified biologically significant natural areasas identified by MLCCS mappingSecond priority: Basin wide

At least 1000 acres protected through acquisitionand easements.

200 acresprotected

200 acresprotected

200 acresprotected

200 acresprotected

200 acresprotected



Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost




Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

41.Landprotection(Table 3 1UP 1C, LK1B)

First priority: Areas where upland habitat isfractured and shoreline areas where there ishigh to moderate development or land underfuture development pressure

Second priority: Basin wide

Create 20 new Landscape Stewardship Plans 4 new plans 4 newplans

4 newplans

4 newplans

4 newplans

42.Habitatimprove(Table 3 1UP 2C)

Basin wide based on prioritized mappingincluding MLCCS maps and other criticalhabitat mapping

1,000 new acres managed for better habitat, oras recommended in Landscape StewardshipPlans

200 newacresmanaged

200 newacresmanaged

200 newacresmanaged

200 newacresmanaged

200 newacresmanaged

43.Protectedlands(Table 3 1UP 2B)

Areas located along bluffland or adjacent topublicly owned forest land such as state parksand trails

Increase acres under private Forest ManagementPlans or Woodland Stewardship Plans by 20% [23plans over 10 years]

4 new plansdeveloped

4 newplansdeveloped

4 newplansdeveloped

4 newplansdeveloped

7 newplansdeveloped

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 5 1, Part 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.


Table 5 1 Part D. Implementation for Prioritization and Analysis: Issues, Goals, Actions, Measurable Outputs, and Priority LocationsTable 5 1 Part D. Implementation for Prioritization and Analysis

Goals &Issues

Table 3 1

Priority Locations Measurable Outputs Implementation Actions Years1 2

Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

44 STC1A

Basin wide Evaluate the water qualitymetrics, set reportingstandards, report on goalprogress for the St. CroixRiver

Identify, appoint, and empower entityor person to lead/evaluate the waterquality metrics, set reportingstandards, report on goal progress.

$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 TBD MPCAMetCouncilSCRA

45 GW3A

Order of Priority:1) Surrounding knowncontamination sites wheredata are lacking2) DWSMAs3) Townships without nitratetesting4) Basin wide

Pollution sources (includingmines), areas aroundchemical contaminationsites, vulnerable areas, andsurface water GWinteractions are studied andmapped

Work with State agencies andMetropolitan Council to study andmap pollution sources (includingmines), areas around chemicalcontamination sites, vulnerable areas,and surface water GW interactions

$0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Counties MDHMDAMPCAMDNRMetCouncil

46 GW3A

Basin wide 100% of recharge areas andgroundwatersheds of GWdependent natural resourcesare mapped

Support agencies such as DNR andMet Council in mapping rechargeareas and groundwatersheds of GWdependent natural resources

$0 $40,000 $40,000 $10,000 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $90,000 Counties MDHMPCAMDNRMetCouncil

47 GW3A

Basin wide where needed Complete at least onecounty groundwater plan

Build on existing GRAPS to developgroundwater plans that lay outtechnical framework, issues, policiesand implementation actions for theprotection and conservation ofgroundwater resources.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Counties MDHMPCAMetCouncil

48 GW3A

Maintain basin wide; expandin Isanti and Pine Co.1) DWSMAs2) Groundwatersheds ofGW dependent naturalresources

Maintain existing or increasenumber of new observationwells

Work with MnDNR to maintain andexpand observation well program

$83,730 $83,730 $83,730 $83,730 $83,730 $418,650 A A $0 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOSCLLID

MDNRC C $13,000I $650 IP PW $405,000 W

$405,650 $13,000

49 LK1D

Regionally Significant Lakesfor Internal Loading AnalysesTable 5 4

Calculate internal loading ofphosphorus

Calculate internal loading ofphosphorus on 15 lakes @ $25,000each

$75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000 A A $125,000 SWCDsWDsWMOSCLLID

MPCAC CI IP PW $250,000 W

$250,000 $0


Table 5 1 Part D. Implementation for Prioritization and Analysis

Goals &Issues

Table 3 1


Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

50 LK4A

Anoka Co. Lakes = Pet, Rice,South Coon, Skunk,TamarackChisago Co. Lakes = Sunrise,Little HorseshoeIsanti Co. Lakes = Hoffman,Horseleg, Horseshoe, Upperand Lower birch, East andWest Twin, Tamarack (300001 00), Long (30 000200,) Big Pine (30 0015 00),Grass (30 0017 00),Splittstoeser (30 00041 00)

Baseline data such astransparency, totalphosphorus and chlorophylla are collected

Develop monitoring plan and collectdata using available means such asvolunteers, Met Council's CAMP,MPCA's citizen monitoring program,MPCA's Intensive watershedmonitoring program, SWCDs,counties, parks departments, lakeassociations, etc.

Anoka Co annual costs (5 lakes *$2,100/lake) = $10,500Chisago Co annual costs (2 lakes) =$1,200Isanti 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 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOSCLLID

MPCAMetCouncilUSGSSCRA

C C

I I

P: N/A P

W: N/A W

$4,500 $0

51 LK4ASTC2B,4C

Basin wide Participate in studies and/orstay informed of latestscience to assess the impactof a changing climate onlakes and the St. Croix River

Use latest climate science toimplement adaptive management

Included in existing work $0 $0 $0 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOSCLLID

MPCAMDNRMetCouncilSCRASt. Cr ResStation

52 LK4A

Chisago Chain of Lakes 100% of lakes prone toanthropogenic water levelvariation are identified

Manage the channel and weir systemwith an approved operation andmaintenance plan.

$72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $360,000 A A $0 CLLID MDNRC $250,000 CI IP PW $110,000 W

$360,000 $053 LK

4ABasin wide 100% of lakes prone to direct

anthropogenic water levelvariation are identified

Participate in DNR lake levelmonitoring program to routinelycollect lake level data

$26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $130,000 A $10,000 A $0 SWCDsWDsWMOSCLLID

MDNRC $81,000 CI IP PW $39,000 W

$130,000 $054 LK

1A,1B,4A

Subwatersheds of RegionallySignificant LakesTable 5 3 and Figure 5 3

20 subwatershed projecttargeting analyses arecompleted (estimated$10,000 $50,000/SWA or$30,000 ave)

Conduct analyses to identify andprioritize water quality improvementprojects within a prioritysubwatershed. Methods and analysescan include site or field scalesubwatershed analyses, diagnosticmonitoring, 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 $928,000 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOSCLLID

BWSRMPCAMDNRMDA

C C $60,000I IP PW $152,000 W

$162,000 $110,000



Goals &Issues

Table 3 1


Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

55 R&S1A,STC4B

Regionally Significant Riversand Streams:- Streams and tributaries

in Sunrise R. Watershed- Direct drainage areas to

St. Croix River throughRock, Rush, Goose, andBrowns Creeks andTrout Brook and othersmall streams as shownin Table 5 2 and Figure5 2.

20 subwatershed projecttargeting analyses arecompleted (estimated$10,000 $50,000/SWA or$30,000 ave)

mapping, modeling, cost benefitanalyses, or other data driventargeting 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)

56 STC4A,4C

Tributaries to the St. Croix Coordinated hydrologic,chemical, and biologicalmonitoring of the St. CroixRiver and its tributaries;nutrient loading data ofmajor tributaries to the St.Croix River is evaluated.

Operate up to 10 new monitoringstations that lack data (quality andquantity) to evaluate progress towardachieving the TMDL and to identifypriority subwatersheds. @$10,000/year/station

$100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $900,000 A A $800,000 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOSCLLID

MPCASCRAMetCouncilUSGSSt. Cr ResStationBasinTeam

C CI IP PW $100,000 W

$100,000 $0

57 STC3A

Land use authorities in theSt. Croix Riverway.

Evaluate the floodplain andzoning ordinances forconsistency andeffectiveness in protectingthe floodplain function andpreventing flood damages.Include impacts of variancesin the evaluation.

Work with land use authorities alongSt. Croix River and MnDNR AreaHydrologists to evaluate floodplainand zoning ordinances and updatewhere appropriate.

$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 A A $150,000 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOS

MDNRSCRAC $50,000 C $50,000

I IP PW W

$50,000 $50,000

58 STC4B&UP2A

Intermittent and perennialtributaries and watercoursesflowing directly to St. CroixRiver

Inventory and prioritizeactive erosion sites.

Identify, evaluate, and rank activegullies directly discharging into the St.Croix or its tributaries [LIDAR toidentify gully locations; RUSLE &BWSR pollution reduction calculatorto determine pollution reductionnumbers]


MDNRBWSRC C $25,000

I IP PW W

$0 $25,000

59 STC2B,4CUP1A

Basin wide Map priority restoration andprotection areas foracquisition, easements, andvoluntary stewardship

Complete level 4/5 MLCCS basin wide.Expand the Washington CountyNatural Resource Framework and usetheir 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 CountiesSWCDs

MDNRBWSRMPCA



Goals &Issues

Table 3 1


Years3 4

Years5 6

Years7 8

Years9 10

10 yearEstimated

Cost



ExternalFunding


Imp.Entity

SupportAgency

60 UP1E

First priority: Public lands ornear public lands; areas maybe further prioritized thrucooperative weed mgmtarea

Second priority: Basin wide

Map and target "eradicateand control list" invasivespecies populations for eachcounty

Contact 50% of landownersfor species on restricted list

Implement a cooperative weedmanagement area (including MNDOTwhen possible) and promoteassociated implementation strategies.

$0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $200,000 A A $32,000 $163,500 CounitesCLLID

MnDOTMDNRMDAMAISRC

C CI $4,500 IP PW W

$4,500 $32,00061 WTL

3EPine County Complete soil survey Complete soil survey as developed by

NRCS, USDA & shown in Soil SurveyGeographic (SSURGO) Database

To be completed by NRCS $0 $0 Unknown NRCS PineCounty

62 WTL3D

Wetlands upstream ofnutrient impaired streamsand lakes

Monitor 10 identifiedwetlands for nutrient andvolume contribution toimpaired lakes and streams

Use subwatershed analyses ormonitoring/modeling data to identifydegraded wetlands with the potentialof contributing high nutrient loads todownstream resources.


BWSRC CI IP PW $450,000 W

$450,000 $063 WTL

3DBasin wide Identify 5 degraded wetlands

with best restorationpotential in each HUC 10

Use existing Restorable WetlandPrioritization Tool to focus effort

To be completed in conjunction with existing activities $0 $0 $0 $0 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOS

BWSR

64 WTL3E &1D

1st priority: Public ditches inIsanti Co.2nd priority: Basin wide

Obtain Nutrient LoadingData in basins/wetlands nearDitch outlets to identifyareas for ditchimprovements to filterrunoff

Collect water quality data near ditchoutlets 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 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOSCLLID

MPCAC CI IP PW W

$4,000 $4,00065 WTL

3A,3B,3C

1st Priority: Isanti County2nd Priority: Basin wide

Create wetland inventorybased on MLCCS, andfunction and valueassessment and/or floristicquality assessment

Increase by 5 the number of LGUswith policies requiring wetlandfunction and value assessments withproject proposals such asdevelopments or ditch work.

$20,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $120,000 A A $0( $20,000)

CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOSCLLID

BWSRMPCAC $70,000 C $70,000

I IP PW W

$70,000 $70,00066 WTL

3BPine County and IsantiCounty

An inventory and map of allareas of wetland loss andhistoric wetlands is locallyverified

Verify recently completed inventoryand map % of areas of wetland lossand historic wetlands

$12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $60,000 CountiesSWCDsWDsWMOS

BWSRMDNR

TABLE 5 1, Part D: GRAND TOTAL $6,532,250 $3,338,650 $304,000 $4,237,600*

*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


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)1

10-year TP Reduction Goal(lbs/yr)2

Sunrise River and Tributaries 18,306 2,256 Lawrence Creek3 1,177 118 Browns Creek4 848 85 Trout Brook3 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 37,143 4,140 (1) Table B-7, 2012 Lake St. Croix Total Maximum Daily Load Study(2) 10% per stream + 425 lbs for stream restoration projects in Sunrise River Watershed(3) According to Lake St. Croix TMDL: Actual phosphorus load reduction goals in Lawrence Creek, and Trout Brookmay be smaller than shown (possibly even zero) due to substantial landlocked portions resulting in smallerdrainage areas than those used to calculate load reductions.(4) Browns Creek reduction goal based on Implementation Plan for Lake St. Croix Nutrient TMDL (2013), App B.


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 TPReductionGoal lbs/yr(5%/lake)

County

2002600 Linwood X X X 341 17.05 Anoka 2003400 Martin X X 2,973 148.65 Anoka 13004200 Birch X X Not available Chisago 13000100 Blooms* X X Not available Chisago 1300120 Chisago X X X 143 7.15 Chisago 13006800 Fish* X X X 8 0.40 Chisago 13008301/ 13008302

Goose (North & South)

X X X 4,935 246.75 Chisago

13004102 / 13004101

Green/ Little Green

X X 33 1.65 Chisago

13003300 Little X X 2,657 132.85 Chisago 13003201 North Center Lk X X X 1,108 55.40 Chisago 13003500 North Lindstrom X X X 59 2.95 Chisago 13006901/ 13006902

Rush (East* & West)

X X 6,663 333.15 Chisago

13002700 South Center X X X 1,260 63.00 Chisago 13002800 South Lindstrom X X 107 5.35 Chisago 30000800 Hoffman* X Protection Strategies Only Isanti 30001200 Horseleg* X X 1 0.05 Isanti 30000300 Horseshoe* X Protection Strategies Only Isanti 30000700 Lower Birch* X Protection Strategies Only Isanti 58011700 Rock X 6,641 332.05 Pine 82004900 Big Carnelian X X X 53 2.65 Washington 82005204 Big Marine* X X X 35 1.75 Washington 82004500 Clear* X Protection Strategies Only Washington 82003400 East Boot* X Protection Strategies Only Washington 82000400 Edith X X 6 0.30 Washington 82010600 Elmo X X 56 2.80 Washington 82015900 Forest X X 72 4.00 Washington 82010400 Jane X Protection Strategies Only Washington 82001400 Little Carnelian* X X 29 1.45 Washington 82002500 Louise X 58 2.90 Washington 82003300 Mays* X Protection Strategies Only Washington 82002000 McKusick X 5 0.25 Washington 82004600 Square X X X 9 0.45 Washington 82003100 Terrapin* X Protection Strategies Only Washington *Groundwater Dependent Lakes** TP reduction goal from TMDLs or MPCA’s Lakes ofPhosphorus Sensitivity Significance dataset

TOTAL lbs/yr 27,252 1,363


Table 5-4. Regionally Significant Lakes for Internal Loading Analyses

Lake ID Name Internal Loading Analysis Needed*

County

2002600 Linwood A Anoka 2003400 Martin 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 62000100 Silver A Washington 82013500 Unnamed (Echo) A Washington 82007700 Unnamed (Goggins) A Washington * “A” lakes are a higher priority than “B” lakes

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Shafer

Marineon Saint

Croix

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

Lindstrom

Pine

Cou

nty

Kana

bec C

ount

y






Anok

a Co

unty

Was

hing

ton

Coun

ty

Anoka County


Was

hing

ton

Coun

tyRa

mse

y Co

unty

Wa s

hing

ton

Coun

tyDa

kota

Cou

nty

Hennepin CountyRam

sey County

Hennepin County

Dako

ta C

ount

ySc

ott C

ount

y

Burn

ett C

ount

yPo

lk C

ount

yPolk County

St Croix County


WISCONSIN

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-25 14:38 File: I:\Projects\23\13\1011\Maps\Reports\1W1P_2020Update\Figure 5-1 Vulnerable Groundwater in Agricultural Areas.mxd User: RCS2

VULNERABLEGROUNDWATER

IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS

FIGURE 5-1

0 5

Miles

!;N

Lower St. Croix Watershed!( Wells ≥ 5 mg/L Nitrate

Priority Location #1

PWI WatercourseLake, Pond or Reservoir

Municipal Boundary

County Boundary

Lawrence Creek

Pine

Cou

nty

Kana

bec C

ount

y






Anok

a Co

unty

Was

hing

ton

Coun

ty

Anoka County


Was

hing

ton

Coun

tyRa

mse

y Co

unty

Wa s

hing

ton

Coun

tyDa

kota

Cou

nty

Hennepin CountyRam

sey County

Hennepin County

Dako

ta C

ount

ySc

ott C

ount

y

Goose Creek

Sunrise

River, North Branch

Sunr

iseRi

ver

Sunrise

River, South Branch

Rush Creek

Trout Brook

Brown's Creek

SunriseRiver, W e st Branch

Rock Creek

Burn

ett C

ount

yPo

lk C

ount

yPolk County

St Croix 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 WatershedRegionally SignificantRivers and Streams forPriority Locations 2 and 14(Tables 5-1 and 5-2)Regionally SignificantSmall Unnamed StreamsPriority Locations 2 and 14(Tables 5-1 and 5-2)PWI WatercourseLake, Pond or Reservoir

County Boundary

Jane

Forest

Pine

Co

Kana

bec


anabec CountyIsanti County




Anok

a Co

unty

Was

hing

ton

Coun

ty

Anoka County


Was

hing

ton

Coun

tyRa

mse

y Co

unty

Wa s

hin g

ton

C oun

tyDa

kota

Cou

nty

Hennepin CountyRam

sey County

Hennepin County

ta C

ount

yt C

ount

y

McKusick

Louise

South Center

Rock

South Lindstrom

Mays

LittleCarnelian

Square

Big Marine

Edith

Terrapin

Horseshoe

Clear

Elmo

Horseshoe

Big Carnelian

East Boot

Horseleg

Lower BirchHorseshoe

Hoffman

BloomsGreen

Little Green

NorthCenterLake

Martin

Linwood

West Rush East Rush

North LindstromLittle

Chisago

Birch

Goose(South Bay)

Goose(North Bay)

Fish

Fish

Burnett CountyPolk County

Polk CountySt Croix 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


Regionally Significant Lakes

For Priority Locations 3 and 15

(Tables 5-1 and 5-3)

Agricultural BMPs NeededUrban BMPs NeededAgricultural and UrbanBMPs Needed

Protection & SustainableDevelopment Needed

PWI WatercourseLake, Pond or Reservoir

County Boundary

!

Silver

Pine

Cou

nty

Kana

bec C

ount

y






Anok

a Co

unty

Was

hing

ton

Coun

ty

Anoka County


Was

hing

ton

Coun

tyRa

mse

y Co

unty

Wa s

hing

ton

Coun

tyDa

kota

Cou

nty

Hennepin CountyRam

sey County

Hennepin County

Dako

ta C

ount

ySc

ott C

ount

y! 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

Burn

ett C

ount

yPo

lk C

ount

yPolk County

St Croix 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 LAKES

FOR INTERNALLOADING ANALYSES

FIGURE 5-4

0 5

Miles

!;N


Regionally SignificantLakes for internal loadinganalysis; priority locations 36and 48 (Tables 5-1 and 5-4)

PWI Watercourse

Lake, Pond or ReservoirCounty Boundary

Pine

Cou

nty

Kana

bec C

ount

y






Anok

a Co

unty

Was

hing

ton

Coun

ty

Anoka County


Was

hing

ton

Coun

tyRa

mse

y Co

unty

Wa s

hing

ton

Coun

tyDa

kota

Cou

nty

Hennepin CountyRam

sey County

Hennepin County

Dako

ta C

ount

ySc

ott C

ount

y

Burn

ett C

ount

yPo

lk C

ount

yPolk County

St Croix 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 WatershedPWI Watercourse

Lake, Pond or Reservoir

High Priotiy Areas forWetland Restoration (allcolors)(All red, yellow, and green areasare high priority for this Plan;colors denote BWSR prioritylevel)

Highest Priority Areas

Medium Priority AreasLow Priority Areas

County Boundary


VI. Funding Sources and Prioritizing Watershed BasedImplementation 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.


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, MDA, MnDNR, and MDH. Watershed Based Implementation Funding will be a key grant program for implementation of projects identified in this Plan, however, there are additional state funding sources that may used for plan implementation. 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 (which includes Watershed Based Implementation Funding), Outdoor Heritage Fund, and Parks & Trails Fund. SWCD Local Capacity Service grants originating from the Clean Water Fund are non-competitive funds from BWSR to help build the capacity of local soil and water conservation districts in the areas of soil erosion, riparian zone management, water storage and treatment, and excess nutrients. The State’s zero-interest Clean Water Partnership (CWP) loan program presents another option for obtaining advance funding for implementation, and there are small grants available to landowners certified through the Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program. 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 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. In general, WBIFs are expected to be allocated across program areas with a distribution similar to:

70% Implementation 25% shared services45% best management practices, restoration and protection 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.

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.


VII. Work Planning and TargetingImplementation

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.E.)Commitments from previous yearsImplementation of planned activities previously delayedStaff capacityFunding availability and/or partnering/cost share opportunitiesConsistency with Plan goalsDistribution of activities across resource areasFeasibility 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 funding from other sources including state, federal, or other funds 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.


B. Targeting and Prioritizing Specific Projects

Implementation of projects and programs in the LSC Watershed will be prioritized, targeted, and measurable to ensure that investments are being spent on the best activities to address priority issues in priority locations. The PTM process (prioritized-targeted-measurable) includes the following steps:

1. Define the pollution reduction goal

2. Conduct necessary analyses to identify major sources of pollution

3. Identify high impact, cost effective projects or programs to address the pollution source.

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.

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**Final Policy committee Responsibilities will be in accordance with the LSC Partnershipimplementation agreement.


Gatekeeper Criteria:

1. The proposed projects or program is located in a priority location forthe specific activity as listed in the Implementation Table (Table 5-1).

2. The activity is listed as a high or medium priority for Watershed BasedImplementation Funds (assigned an “A” or “B” in the ImplementationTable (Table 5-1)

3. An analysis is complete and/or data are gathered to target andprioritize specific projects where they will have most benefit using theanalyses components below*; or the project is outside an area with acompleted prioritization but has a similar cost benefit as a previouslyanalyzed project and benefits the same water resource as thecompleted analysis. **

*Minimum components of targeting and prioritizing analyses(e.g., SWA (see sidebar), diagnostic study, feasibility study):

Spatial analysis that includes pollutant delivery evaluation tothe targeted waterbodyDesktop analysis that includes historical aerial photo reviewWater quality modeling or monitoring for load reductionanalysisField evaluation for BMP feasibility and potentialCost benefit analysis completed in two ways. First, based onamount of WBIFs/pound total phosphorus removed, andsecond based on the total project cost/pound totalphosphorus removed, both annualized for the anticipated lifeof the project based on accepted standards (The firstcalculation would be important if a project includes significantfunding partners. For instance, in the case of some very largeprojects, such as urban retrofits, a private entity or localgovernment may contribute significant funds. In those cases,the cost benefit to state taxpayers contributing to WBIFswould be much lower than the cost benefit of the totalproject.)

** It is acknowledged it will take many years to conduct analyses like SWAs across the entire LSC Watershed. During that time, a low cost, high ranking voluntary project may be identified with a large benefit to water quality. Local staff experience indicates that there are often high value, voluntary water quality improvement projects outside of an area with a SWA. In these cases, a model is used to estimate the pollutant load reduction and staff work with the landowner to develop a project plan and cost estimate. The clause in this gatekeeper criteria allows the project to be evaluated along with other projects from areas where SWAs have been completed.

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)


Already completed subwatershed analyses and areas where actively eroding gullies have been inventoried are shown in Figure 7-1 and listed in Table 7-1. Projects identified in these assessments may be implemented through this Plan.

Table 7-1. Completed Subwatershed Assessments and Inventories Title Description Author and Link

Lower Sunrise River Gully Stabilization Inventory, 2016

Inventory of erosion of the Sunrise River and major tributaries from Kost Dam to the Confluence with the St. Croix River

Chisago SWCD chisagoswcd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Lower-Sunrise-River-Gully-Stabilization-InventoryWEB.pdf

St. Croix River Escarpment Gully Inventory, 2011

Inventory of actively eroding gullies along 15 miles of the St. Croix River escarpment in Chisago County

Chisago SWCD https://chisagoswcd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Final-Report.pdf

Chisago Lakes Chain of Lakes - City of Lindstrom

Stormwater RetrofitAssessment, 2010

- City of Center CityStormwater RetrofitAssessment, 2011

- City of Chisago CityStormwater RetrofitAssessment, 2011

- Rural SubwatershedAssessment, North andSouth Center Lake, 2014

- Rural SubwatershedAssessment, Chisago Lake,2014

- Rural SubwatershedAssessment, North andSouth Lindstrom Lakes andGreen Lake, 2014

- Rural SubwatershedAssessment, South CenterLake, 2014

Urban: Recommends catchments for placement of BMP retrofits based on the development of catchment-specific conceptual stormwater treatment BMPs that either supplement existing stormwater infrastructure or provide quality and volume treatment where none currently exists

Rural: Identifies potential BMPs including water and sediment control basins, rock-lined channels, grassed waterways, filter strips, and others. Projects modeled for estimated pollution reduction and project cost

Chisago SWCD with assistance from Metro Conservation Districts

Example here: chisagoswcd.org/assessments/

Request additional information from Chisago SWCD

Rush Lake Watershed Rural Subwatershed Assessment, 2015

Rural: Identifies potential BMPs including water and sediment control basins, rock-lined channels, grassed waterways, filter strips, and others. Projects modeled for estimated pollution reduction and project cost

Chisago SWCD with assistance from Metro Conservation Districts

chisagoswcd.org/assessments/

Rush Creek Assessment, 2014 Identifies potential BMPs for 51 individual catchments including water and sediment control basins, rock-lined channels, grassed

Chisago SWCD, LCCMR WCD, SCRA chisagoswcd.org/assessments/


waterways, filter strips, and others. Projects modeled for estimated pollution reduction and project cost

Coon Lake Stormwater Retrofit Analysis

Shoreline and Rural: Identifies potential BMPs including shoreline stabilization, rain gardens, water and sediment control basins, rock-lined channels, grassed waterways, filter strips, etc. Projects modeled for estimated pollution reduction and project cost.

Anoka Conservation District, Sunrise River WMO www.anokaswcd.org/images/AnokaSWCD/Reports/CoonLake_SRA_withAppendices.pdf

Martin Lake SWA Urban and Shoreline: Variety of stormwater retrofit approaches were identified including maintenance of, or alterations to, existing stormwater treatment practices; residential curb-cut rain gardens; swales with check dams; street sweeping; lakeshore restorations. Projects modeled for estimated pollution reduction and project cost.

Anoka Conservation District, Sunrise River WMO, Martin Lakes Association, Linwood Township www.anokaswcd.org/images/AnokaSWCD/Reports/MartinLakeSWAssmtRptAppendixA.pdf

Forest Lake North Subwatershed Assessment

Urban and Shoreline: Variety of stormwater retrofit approaches were identified including maintenance of, or alterations to, existing stormwater treatment practices; residential curb-cut rain gardens; swales with check dams; street sweeping; lakeshore restorations. Projects modeled for estimated pollution reduction and project cost.

Washington Conservation District, CLFLWD www.metrotsa4.org/swa

Forest Lake South Subwatershed Assessment



Bone Lake Subwatershed Assessment

Rural: Identifies potential BMPs including wetland enhancements, water and sediment control basins, rock-lined channels, grassed waterways, filter strips, and others. Projects modeled for estimated pollution reduction and project cost.


Seven Lakes Subwatershed Assessment

Shoreline and Rural: Identifies potential BMPs including shoreline stabilization, rainwater gardens, water and sediment control basins, rock-lined channels, grassed waterways, filter strips, and others. Projects modeled for estimated pollution reduction and project cost.

Washington Conservation District, Carnelian Marine St Croix WD www.metrotsa4.org/swa

St. Croix River Direct Subwatershed Assessment

Urban and Shoreline: Variety of stormwater retrofit approaches were identified including maintenance of, or alterations to, existing stormwater treatment practices; residential curb-cut rain gardens; swales with check dams;

Washington Conservation District, Middle St Croix WMO www.metrotsa4.org/swa


street sweeping; lakeshore restorations. Projects modeled for estimated pollution reduction and project cost.

McKusick Lake Subwatershed Assessment



Lily Lake Subwatershed Assessment



Perro Creek Subwatershed Assessment

Urban and Streambank: Variety of stormwater retrofit approaches were identified including maintenance of, or alterations to, existing stormwater treatment practices; residential curb-cut rain gardens; swales with check dams; street sweeping; stream restorations. Projects modeled for estimated pollution reduction and project cost.


St Croix River Direct PII Subwatershed Assessment



Top50P! Subwatershed Assessment

One of the first Rural SWAs. Identifies and ranks the Top 50 potential BMPs to reduce Phosphorus loads to the St. Croix from the rural portion of Washington County, south of I94.

Washington Conservation District, Middle St. Croix WMO, Valley Branch WD, South Washington WD www.metrotsa4.org/swa

DeMontreville Lake Subwatershed Assessment


Washington Conservation District, Valley Branch WD www.metrotsa4.org/swa


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 totalphosphorus (particulate and dissolved)Agricultural runoff BMPs: PTMApp, SWMM, RUSLE2, Simple method, ACPF or BWSR PollutantReduction EstimatorGully stabilization BMPs or streambank/shoreline restoration BMPs: BWSR Pollutant ReductionEstimator or an alternate method agreed to by the Steering CommitteeWetland Restoration for Pollutant Reduction: Estimation via outflow monitoring or other methodsagreed to by the Steering CommitteeIn-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.

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 benefitProximity to stream or riverReduction of total phosphorus in highest priority lakes on Minnesota’s Lake Phosphorus SensitivitySignificance ListMultiple benefits such as groundwater protection, flood reduction, habitat improvements, andeducational opportunitiesProject readiness and urgencyPartnerships 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 be incorporated into the Plan as explained in Section IX.E.

Chisago LakesChain of Lakes

!Sunrise River System

SevenLakes

Pine

Cou

nty

Kana

bec C

ount

y






Anok

a Co

unty

Was

hing

ton

Coun

ty

Anoka County


Was

hing

ton

Coun

tyRa

mse

y Co

unty

Wa s

hing

ton

Coun

tyDa

kota

Cou

nty

Hennepin CountyRam

sey County

Hennepin County

Dako

ta C

ount

ySc

ott C

ount

y

!Coon Lake

!

Martin Lake

!

St Croix RiverDirect Phase II

Rush Lake andRush Creek

Top50P!

BoneLake

SevenLakes

!

LakeDeMontreville

!

ForestLake North

!

Lily Lake

!McKusick

Lake

!

Perro Creek

!

St. CroixRiver Direct

ForestLake South

Burn

ett C

ount

yPo

lk C

ount

yPolk County

St Croix County


St. Croix River Escarpment

WISCONSIN

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

!;N


Escarpment and streamswith completed inventoryof actively eroding gulliesCompleted SubwatershedAnalysis

Municipal BoundaryCounty Boundary

0 5

Miles


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 will 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 County, Chisago SWCD, Isanti County, Isanti SWCD, Pine County, Pine SWCD, and Washington Conservation District. This plan does not cover all local priorities and planned activities for Chisago County. See Appendix D for Chisago County Local Priorities.

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 Valley Branch WD: www.vbwd.org


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 at least twice annually. Additional legal provisions and details for the operation of the LSC Partnership will be developed within the joint powers collaboration agreement or the bylaws.


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, or as needed to review past progress and future planned activities and shall consider recommendations from the Steering Committee on budgets, staffing, administration, work plans, grant applications, proposed plan amendments or changes to the plan, 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). The Policy Committee will carry out the plan amendment procedure as noted in Section IX.E. 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. BWSR staff will be invited to attend Steering Committee meetings.

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.D.

iii. Advisory Committee

The LSC Partnership will seek the input from an Advisory Committee through at least one meeting per year and otherwise as needed 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 attend meetings, as warranted. These groups might include the St. Croix River Association, St. Croix Watershed Research Station, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, National Park Service, 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.


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 in making progress toward goals.

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. Plan amendments may be needed if priority locations change due to additional knowledge (see Section IX.E.) Evaluation and reporting (see Section IX.D.) 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.

In order to communicate implementation progress and results with stakeholders and the public, the LSC Partnership will perform some or all of the following activities:

1. Maintain a Lower St. Croix Watershed website includingLower St. Croix Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan and plan amendmentsAnnual accomplishment reportsPolicy Committee meeting information including calendar/schedule, agendas and minutesLink to Lower St. Croix Interactive Map

Implement

Monitor

Evaluate

Adjust


Photos and updatesProject factsheetsLinks to websites of partners

2. Provide reports on LSC Partnership activities and progress through existing and future education andoutreach efforts such as events and publications

3. Host a five-year “check-in” stakeholder event with the participants and invitees of the initial andfollow up stakeholder events held during the plan development process

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 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; and4) Non-state funds are 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 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.

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.

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.

E. Plan 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 expire ten years from the date of BWSR approval.

Plan amendments may be proposed by any stakeholder, 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. Once the Partnership has determined that changes to the Plan are needed, they will consult with their BWSR Representative, as early as possible in the process, to determine if the change will require an amendment and if so what the review and approval procedures will be.

In recognizing the need to maintain flexibility during implementation, the following situations do not require an amendment to the Plan

Differences in estimated costs between activity costs listed in the annual work plan and estimated activity cost included in Table 5-1.

Altering the timeline included in Table 5-1, as needed to accommodate development of theannual work plan and biennial budget request.

Including new or updated monitoring data, subwatershed analyses, feasibility studies, modelresults, targeting process or scoring (Section VII. B.), subwatershed analysis protocol, or othertechnical information

Formatting or reorganizing the Plan


Revising a procedure meant to streamline administration of the Plan as consistent with the LSCPartnership implementation agreement and bylaws

The LSC Partnership will coordinate with BWSR staff to determine the need and process for a Plan amendment. The LSC Partnership will also work with BSWR to identify an appropriate public input process for the amendment based on current BWSR guidance and governing statutes.

A process will be included in the bylaws of the Joint Powers Collaboration to address instances of proposed amendments to Appendix D: Chisago County Local Priorities.

If the Policy Committee, in coordination with BWSR, determines that a Plan amendment is needed, the LSC Partnership will submit the proposed amendment to the all cities, townships, counties, watershed organizations, and SWCDs within the Plan boundary; the Metropolitan Council; and applicable state review agencies (BWSR, MDA, MDH, MnDNR, and MPCA) and will follow the review process as determined by BWSR.

Draft Plan amendments presented to the Policy Committee and submitted to local authorities and review agencies 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 a revision to the Plan is proposed by an LSC Partner or stakeholder but does not require a Plan amendment (such as the addition of completed subwatershed analyses), the proposed revision will be considered for approval by the Policy Committee after review and comment or review and recommendation by the Steering Committee. Revisions approved by the Policy Committee will be incorporated into the Plan and distributed to Plan holders as noted below.

The LSC Partnership will maintain a distribution list for copies of the Plan. Within 30 days of adopting an amendment or making a revision to the Plan that does not require an amendment, will distribute copies of the revised Plan to the distribution list. Electronic copies of amendment and plan revisions will be provided or documents made available for public access on the LSC Partnership website. Printed copies will be made available upon written request.


X. References

Chisago County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2013) Watershed Study Report for the Sunrise River Watershed, MN.

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.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2013) Implementation Plan for Lake St. Croix Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load.

Washington County (2014) Washington County Groundwater Plan 2014 – 2024.


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 Local Priorities





RESOLUTION TO WAIVE LATE FEES AND CHANGE APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR 2021 HEALTH LICENSES

STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON

WHEREAS, Washington County Ordinances #145 Food Code, #181 Lodging Establishments, #183 Public Pools, and #147 Recreational Camping Areas and Youth Camps are administered by the Department of Public Health and Environment and require establishments to obtain an annual license and payment of a license fee as adopted by the County Board of Commissioners; and

WHEREAS, Washington County Ordinances #145, #181, # 183, and #147 state that late application penalty fees shall be assessed as described in the Washington County Administrative Ordinance #149 or as listed in each ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the response to the COVID pandemic has included Governor Executive Orders to protect public health which have had an unprecedented and unexpected impact to the business activity of licensed food service establishments, lodging establishments, public pools, recreational camping areas and youth camps; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Public Health and Environment has received inquiries from licensed establishments about waiving late fees for 2021 licenses; and

WHEREAS, the Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment recommends waiving late fees for 2021 licenses issued under Washington County Ordinances #145, #181, # 183, and #147.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the County Board of Commissioners directs the Department of Public Health and Environment to waive late fees for health licenses as outlined above to recognize the impact from the COVID-19 pandemic and provide financial relief.

ATTEST:


COUNTY BOARD CHAIR


YES

____

NO

____

Government Center • 14949 62nd Street North • P. O. Box 6 • Stillwater, MN 55082-0006Telephone: 651-430-6001 • Fax: 651-430-6017 • TTY: 651-430-6246



Stan Karwoski, District 2Gary Kriesel, District 3


County Board update COVID-19 – December 1, 2020

1. HealthPartners Health Insurance Rebate

HealthPartners announced a one-time 25% premium credit for all fully insured group plans for the month of December 2020. For Washington County, this credit equates to about $342,000 in total (based on retiree and active employee costs). The county pays about 82% of premium costs on behalf of active employees and more for retirees. The requirements indicate that the portion of the rebate that are employee contributions be given back to the plan participants in the form of a direct payment, credit or a new benefit offering. Human Resources and Administration are recommending a credit to employees versus a direct payment so as not to incur taxes on this dollar amount for the employees. If approved by the board, employees will see this one-time reduction in premium contribution on their last paycheck in December. The credit for an employee will be based on the employee’s medical plan option and benefit level. For example, an employee with single coverage in the $35 co-pay plan would see a credit of roughly $20.00 (Monthly premium of $79.99) and an employee with family coverage in the $2800 High Deductible plan would receive a credit of roughly $92 (monthly premium of $370.29). The largest credit would be for employees who have family coverage in the $35 copay plan, with a monthly premium of roughly $752 generating a credit of $188.

Potential motion for consideration:

I move to approve a credit equal to 25% of the employee paid December premiums for health insurance be provided to active employees and retirees.

2. Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF) returned by cities and townships

The State of Minnesota provided coronavirus relief funds to cities and townships to pay for eligible pandemic related costs. Cities and townships had until November 15, 2020 to spend their funds. If not expended, the funds must be transferred to the county. Any funds returned to the county must be expended by December 1, 2020 along with the county’s CRF allocation. Any county funds not expended by December 1, 2020 must be returned to the state.

The following is a list of cities and townships that returned funds to the county and the amount:

2

City/Township Amount

City of Lake Elmo $ 42,655.51City of Grant $ 237,320.28City of Scandia $ 31,088.00Grey Cloud Island Township $ 5,865.35Town of May $ 53,031.20Town of Baytown $ 39,946.36West Lakeland Township $ 97,192.94Stillwater Township $ 47,970.23

3. Small business assistance

Washington County undertook three separate application periods to provide grants to businesses impacted by the pandemic. The county program included both home-based businesses and those with employees. Businesses with up to $5 million in annual revenue and fewer than 50 employees were eligible. To be eligible a business must have incurred increased costs because of the pandemic or a loss of revenue.

A summary of the businesses that were assisted through this program will be shared with the board.

4. Coronavirus Relief Fund Spending Update

The deadline for the county to expend its coronavirus relief funds is December 1, 2020. While it will take a few days to gather the final amounts on some projects below is a report of general spending amounts by category:

Category AmountSmall Business Assistance $6.5 millionRental, Mortgage Assistance and basic needs $4.4 millionAssistance to hospitals/health care providers $715,000Assistance to public schools $3 millionPublic health direct costs for testing/tracing $600,000Internet access and computer access through libraries $520,000Public Service/Equipment Modification $2.5 millionSupport for telework/remote working $1.6 millionPayroll for public health and public safety $11 millionSubstantially redirected personnel costs $1 millionFederally required employee benefit costs $200,000

3

Federal guidance allows the county to use funds to pay for certain public health and public safety staff. The guidance has provided an opportunity for local governments to avoid laying off these types of employees during the middle of a pandemic response. By covering these expenses, the county will be able to utilize savings in its budget to continue our pandemic response into 2021. I anticipate this amount being around $10 million. The county board will be able to determine how to utilize these funds moving forward. Options may include:

• Costs for vaccine distribution• Continued COVID -19 testing costs• Continued costs for contact tracing• Small business assistance• Non-profit assistance• Rental and mortgage assistance for those with job losses/income declines• Costs for sheltering homeless individuals and families• PPE, safety measures for county facilities and programs.

Public Budget Meeting2021 Proposed Budget

December 1, 2020

•Highest bond credit ratings (AAA) from Standard and Poor’s & Moody’s

•Multi‐year winner of Government Finance Officers Association Budget & Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)

• Imposed Levy and Expenditure Targets

County Fiscal Position

2

AAA

•Decreasing tax rate; increasing tax base

•Drop in excess interest earnings•Stable Fund balance that meets county policy

•Growing trust account to fund post retirement health care costs

•Continued response to rising service demands from a county that continues to grow and develop

County Fiscal Position

2021 General HighlightsCounty Tax Levy

Net Levy $114.5 million No Change 0%LWLP $1.2 million Decrease <0.31%>RRA $660,000 No Change 0%

County Tax Rate (Net Tax Capacity)27.288% Decrease < 5.7%>

County Tax Impact (median valued home)Net Levy <$28> Decrease <3.4%>LWLP $0 No Change 0%RRA $0 No Change 0%

4

2021 General HighlightsNon‐Levy Revenues (excludes Gold Line Transit Project)

$115.8 million Increase 7.82%

Operating Expenditures (excludes debt and capital)$195.3 million Increase 0.24%

Gold Line Transit Project Expenditures$24.9 million Decrease <7.34%>

Capital Expenditures $48.4 million Increase 21.70%

5

• Impact of COVID ‐19 on county revenue

•Open Employee Labor Agreements for 2021

•Minimize the need for levy increase

• Lower amounts of one‐time revenue from reduced interest earnings

2021 Budget Uncertainty

6

• Increases in Key Long‐term Items Funded:

• Rent• Debt service• Employer share of Health insurance

• Stepping Up and Opioid Programs continued

•New Positions• Most non‐levy funded• One key position included with new levy

2021 Key Budget Components

7

• One‐time funding used for key technology infrastructure improvements

• Sheriff’s Records Management System

• HRIS system managed services• E1 Managed Services

• One‐time funds used to replace levy or county program aid for ongoing needs

• Parks capital program• Technology fund

• Reduced funding for Capital Program• Reduced revenue from state sources

2021 Key Budget Components

8

•2020 Actuarial Report identified strong trust fund balance

•2021 budget Employer Liability Account percentage charged to departments remains flat

•2021 costs for current retirees fully funded in operating budget

•Market value of trust fund exceeds $68.5 million

Other Post Employment Benefits

9

Summary• Over $4 million to improve pavements• Over $28 million for reconstruction• Designing and developing the projects of the future

Construction• CSAH 15 & TH 36 Interchange • CSAH 14 & I‐694 Signal and Trail • Traffic Signal Communication Upgrades• CSAH 19 ‐ Dale Road to CSAH 18

In Design in 2021• CSAH 33 – CSAH 32 to CSAH 2 – Pedestrian, Drainage,

Pavement, and Safety Improvements (Forest Lake)• CSAH 15 – CSAH 10 to CSAH 14 ‐ 4 Lane Expansion (West

Lakeland & Lake Elmo)• CSAH 3 – CSAH 7 to CSAH 4– Evaluate Improvements to

Alignment, Shoulders, and Drainage (May Township)

Capital Road & Bridge Projects

10

•Revenue and costs identified in the adopted budget

•Completing project development; entering design

Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit

11

Program Amount

Gold Line Project Development Phase $24,950,200

• Tschida, Hugo• Goodwin, Stillwater• Stanton, Afton• Guarnera, May Township• Rowe Trust Property, St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park• Kulvich, Gray Cloud Island Regional Park

Projects Most Recently Completed Using LWLP Funds

12

Current budget includes 0% general adjustment, 0% range movement for 2021

2021 Health Insurance:•Health insurance renewal quote at 7.2%

• 2020‐2022 three year contract with HealthPartners; 12% rate cap for 2021 and 2022

• Experiencing continued migration to the high deductible plans

13

EmployeeCompensation

2021 Recommended New PositionsLevy Funded Positions

Department FTE Title Cost

Sheriffs Department 1.0 IT Business Analyst $89,100

Administration (1.0) Planner ($72,500)

14

Non‐Levy Funded PositionsDepartment FTE Title Cost

Community Services 0.1 Adult Protection Investigator $8,000

Community Services 1.0 Adult Protection Investigator $86,000

Community Services 1.0 Eligibility Specialist $71,700

Community Services 1.0 Case Aide $73,200

Community Services 1.0 Child Protection Social Worker I $86,000

Community Services 1.0 Stepping Up Social Worker I $85,000

Community Services 1.0 Stepping Up Social Worker Sr Clinical $99,200

Public Health & Environment 1.0 Nursing Supervisor $105,700

Employees per 1,000 Capita

4.8 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.9

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

15

Budget Summary

Revenue 2020 2021 % Change

County Net Levy $114,510,700 $114,510,700 0%

Non‐Levy Revenue $107,419,300 $115,821,000 7.82%

16

Expenditures 2020 2021 % Change

Client/Citizen Related Support $18,080,600 $16,540,100 (8.52%)

Personnel Services $133,392,300 $134,968,800 1.18%

Services & Charges $34,582,500 $34,363,600 (0.63%)

Materials & Supplies $8,785,800 $9,433,100 7.37%

2021 Proposed Net Levy per Capita Ranges

17

$300 $400 $500 $700

$4435‐County Average


$391Anoka

$436Washington

$491Scott

$564Carver

$598Ramsey

$600

$334Dakota

$679Hennepin

Excludes Regional Rail , Land & Water Legacy, and County Program Aid

County Tax Rates

18

30.44%29.98%

29.68%

28.94%

27.29%

25%

26%

27%

28%

29%

30%

31%

2021 Proposed Tax Rate Ranges

19

24% 26% 28% 34%

29.41%5‐County Average

33.27%7‐County Average

31.32%Anoka

27.29%Washington

31.18%Scott

34.63%Carver

38.08%Hennepin

32%

22.65%Dakota

30% 36% 40%38%

47.71%Ramsey

48% 50%22%

‐10.0%

‐5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

‐10.0%

‐5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

Local Tax Base Grow

th

Net Levy Increase

Net Levy Increase Tax Base Growth

20

*Excludes Regional Rail and Land & Water Legacy levies

Net Levy* & Local Tax Base Growth

21

History of Levy and Tax Impacts

Year CountyTax Rate

% Levy Increase

% Change Estimated Market Value

$ Amount of New

Construction

Median Value Change

ResidentialHstd Property

Tax Impact on Median Valued

Home

2017 30.44% 3.49% 2.9% $363.0 million 1.1% $7

2018 29.98% 6.69% 7.1% $424.8 million 4.9% $35

2019 29.68% 5.47% 6.6% $537.5 million 5.7% $35

2020 28.94% 5.94% 8.1% $662.2 million 6.2% $33

2021 27.29% (proposed)

0.00% 5.1% $620.2 million 2.2% ($28)

Estimated Impact of Levy IncreaseResidential Homestead Taxpayers

22

Home Valued at $307,500 for Pay 2021(assuming a 2.2% value increase from 2020 to 2021)

2021Net LevyChange

Actual Pay2020

Estimated Pay2021

Impact2020 - 2021

GeneralLWLP

RRA

Total

0.0%<0.31%>

0.0%

$841$ 10$ 5

$856

$813$ 10$ 5

$828

<$28>$ 0$ 0

<$ 28>(-3.4%)

2021 Average County Tax*on $307,500 home

23

$600 $700



$933Anoka

$823Washington

$929Scott

$1,031Carver

$1,134Hennepin

$800

$675Dakota

$900 $1,000 $1,100 $1,400 $1,500

$1,421Ramsey

*Excludes Regional Rail Authority levy

2021 Budget Schedule

24

• March 17 Budget workshop with County Board

• March ‐ June Departments complete budget estimates

• June ‐ July Budget hearings with Administration

• August 4 Present proposed 2021 budget

• August ‐ September Departmental budget workshops*

• September 15 Set 2021 preliminary levy

• October 20 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) workshop

• November 17 Budget workshop with County Board*

• December 1 Public Budget Hearing (after 6 p.m.)

• December 15 Adopt 2021 final levy, budget, and CIP*Public is welcome to attend all departmental budget workshops

agenda 127( &+$1*( ,1 7,0( december 1, 2020 - 4:00 pm

Documents