Watershed Management Plan - Cormorant Lakes Watershed District

Transcription

Cormorant Lakes Watershed District
Watershed Management Plan
2012-2022
This page intentionally left blank.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Cormorant Lakes Watershed District would like to recognize the members of the Advisory Committee
who were appointed to guide the development of the Watershed Management Plan. The CLWD looks
forward to cooperatively working with all of its stakeholders in the implementation of this Plan.
BOARD OF MANAGERS
Ellis Peterson
Jeff Moritz
Jody Beaudine
Gene Olson
Orvis Olson
OTHERS WHO WORK WITH THE DISTRICT
Duane Henrickson ~ Adminstration Advisor
Sherwood Olson ~ Administrator
Sheldon Struble ~ Inspector
Duane Erickson ~ Inspector
Erik Jones ~ Engineer
Rick St-Germain - Engineer
Terry Karkela ~ Attorney
Moriya Rufer ~ Water Quality Consultant
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Member
Benneth Braseth
Jay Carlson
Tim Erickson
Sean Felker
Brad Grant
Lyle Hansen
Joe Herbst
Jim Kaiser
Tim James
Lloyd Kohler
Joe Lightowler
Brad Lindstrom
George Minerich
Maggie Metcalf
Barry Nelson
Duane Olson
Chad Severts
Jim Wolters
Merle Zimmerman
Representing
Upper Cormorant Lake
Big Cormorant Lake
Cormorant Township
Audubon Township
Becker Soil and Water Conservation District
Big Cormorant Lake – Wermager Beach
Bijou Lake
Watershed Advisory Board
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Big Cormorant Lake – Blue Water Bay
Lake Eunice Township, Big Cormorant Lake Assoc.
Lake Park Township
Minnesota Department of Health
Watershed Advisory Board, Middle Cormorant
Becker County
Watershed Advisory Board, Nelson Lake, Larson Lake
Minnesota Board of Soil & Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Big Cormorant Lake Board
Common Acronyms
BMP
Best Management Practice
BWSR
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
CLWD
DNR
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
ISTS
Individual Sewage Treatment System
HUC
Hydrologic Unit Code
LA
Lake Association
LGU
Local Governmental Unit
MDA
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
MDH
Minnesota Department of Health
MPCA
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
OHWL
Ordinary High Water Level
SWCD
Soil and Water Conservation District
TSI
Tropic State Index
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
WMA
Wildlife Management Area
WPA
Waterfowl Production Area
Watershed Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Introduction to the CLWD........................................................................................................................ 1
Original Purpose and Goals ...................................................................................................................... 1
Watershed Rules ....................................................................................................................................... 3
CLWD Evolution ..................................................................................................................................... 3
District’s Mission ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Minnesota Statutory Authority ................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 2: Description of the CLWD
A. Watershed Setting..................................................................................................................................... 5
Location and size ............................................................................................................................... 5
Water flowage .................................................................................................................................... 6
Political units within the CLWD........................................................................................................ 6
Population characteristics .................................................................................................................. 8
The economy...................................................................................................................................... 8
B. Physical Features ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Climate ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Topography ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Geology .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Land use ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Public & private land ownership........................................................................................................ 14
C. Water Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Sub-watersheds .................................................................................................................................. 15
Rivers and natural streams ................................................................................................................. 15
Lakes .................................................................................................................................................. 15
Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Artificial drainage systems ................................................................................................................ 17
Water management structures ............................................................................................................ 17
D. Existing Programs .................................................................................................................................... 17
Local .................................................................................................................................................. 17
State ................................................................................................................................................... 18
Federal ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Private ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Chapter 3: Assessment of Resources
A. Water Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Lake water quality.............................................................................................................................. 21
Ecoregion comparisons ...................................................................................................................... 23
Impaired waters.................................................................................................................................. 25
CWLD Plan, 2012-2022
Table of Contents
i
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
MPCA watershed assessment schedule ............................................................................................. 25
Fisheries assessments ......................................................................................................................... 26
Shoreline Development ............................................................................................................................ 29
Shoreline inventory ............................................................................................................................ 29
Building pressure ............................................................................................................................... 30
Land use changes ............................................................................................................................... 31
Subsurface sewage treatment ............................................................................................................. 33
Watershed Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 33
Erosion risk ........................................................................................................................................ 33
Erosion potential priority area identification ..................................................................................... 35
Aquatic Invasive Species.......................................................................................................................... 39
Species present in CLWD .................................................................................................................. 39
Infestation risks .................................................................................................................................. 39
Watershed Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 40
Water levels ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Tree loss ............................................................................................................................................. 41
Habitat Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 41
High quality habitat............................................................................................................................ 41
Potential areas for protection ............................................................................................................. 42
Chapter4: Priority Issues
A. Public Meeting ......................................................................................................................................... 45
B. Discussion of Issues ................................................................................................................................. 45
Chapter 5: Implementation Plan
A. Goals, Objectives, and Initiatives Defined ............................................................................................... 47
B. Initiative Formation .................................................................................................................................. 47
C. Implementation Plan................................................................................................................................. 48
Chapter 6: Administration
A.
B.
C.
D.
Plan Schedule ........................................................................................................................................... 57
Plan Coordination ..................................................................................................................................... 57
Intergovernmental Conflict Resolution .................................................................................................... 57
Available Funding Mechanisms ............................................................................................................... 57
Ad valorem tax levies ........................................................................................................................ 57
Watershed Management Districts ...................................................................................................... 57
Project Assessments ........................................................................................................................... 57
Grants ................................................................................................................................................. 57
E. Plan Amendment Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 58
F. Plan Evaluation......................................................................................................................................... 59
G. District Policies ........................................................................................................................................ 59
Appendices
A. Watershed Rules and Regulations ............................................................................................................ 61
B. Erosion Potential Analysis for the Watershed .......................................................................................... 75
C. Public Informational Meeting Comments ................................................................................................ 81
D. 60-day Review Period Comments and District Responses ...................................................................... 85
Table of Contents
ii
A.
INTRODUCTION TO THE CLWD
The Cormorant Lakes Watershed District (CLWD) was formed and approved by the State of Minnesota
Water Resources Board on August 22, 1966. The CLWD lies near the southwest corner of Becker
County and covers approximately 20,320 acres of land, small lakes and sloughs and approximately 7,922
acres of open water.
Office
The CLWD’s office is located at the Cormorant Community Center, 10929 County Highway 5, Pelican
Rapids, MN, 56572. Main email: [email protected].
Meetings
The CLWD conducts regular monthly meeting on the first Monday of each month starting at 7:00pm.
During the summer months mid-month inspection meetings are held usually on the 3rd Monday of each
month. If a meeting date falls on a legal holiday the meeting will be rescheduled. The time and date of
the rescheduled meeting will be posted on the Cormorant Community Center Posting Board at least 3
days prior to the meeting. Call the Administrator or any of the managers to confirm meeting times and
dates.
B.
ORIGINAL PURPOSE AND GOALS
The original watershed management plan of the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District, dated March 7,
1968, established a number of goals with the overall objective of resource conservation. These goals are
as follows.
1968 Original Goals
1) Control or alleviation of damage by floodwaters through the operation of a controlled outlet.
2) Improvement of stream channels for navigation, and any other public purpose.
3) Regulating the level and flow of streams and lakes and conserving the waters thereof.
4) Providing and conserving a high quality water supply for residential, recreational, agricultural, or
other public uses.
5) Imposition of preventive or remedial measures for the control or alleviation of land and soil erosion
and siltation of water courses or bodies of water affected thereby.
6) Regulating improvements by riparian landowners of the beds, banks, and shores of lakes, streams,
and marshes by permit or otherwise in order to preserve the same for beneficial use.
1
7) Cooperate with Local, County, State, and Federal agencies concerning bridges, culverts, crossings,
ditches and other matters that may affect transportation within the CLWD.
8) To monitor development of agricultural irrigation, and to respond to these developments in the best
interests of the CLWD.
9) To monitor climatic events such as droughts, periods of excess rainfall and floods, and to react to
these events in the best interest of the CLWD.
10) To monitor the developments in weather modification as it applies to the CLWD, and to respond to
these developments in the best interest of the CLWD.
11) To acquire and maintain rainfall and lake level records for lakes within the CLWD.
12) To do any and all things necessary and proper to accomplish anyone or more of the general objectives
for which the CLWD has been established.
1999 Goals
The plan was last updated in 1999, and included the following goals.
1) Insure an adequate supply of high-quality surface and groundwater for public and recreational use in
drought cycles.
2) The control or alleviation of damage by floodwaters and continue efforts to develop a permanent
operating plan for the outlet.
3) Maintain or improve water quality of all surface water and groundwater resources within the CLWD.
4) The CLWD will support all viable projects for reducing erosion that may impact water quality.
5) The CLWD will implement and monitor a program of erosion control and sedimentation management
within all non-judicial ditch systems under its jurisdiction.
6) All subwatersheds of the CLWD will be inventoried and evaluated for erosion potential and control.
7) The CLWD will promote the enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat where it is determined to be in
the best interest of the public and landowners of the CLWD.
8) Promote recreational opportunities wherever possible within projects of the CLWD.
9) All initiatives of the CLWD should utilize potential cooperative efforts with the appropriate Federal,
State, County, Township, School Districts and local governments.
10) The CLWD shall seek to inform and educate residents, non-residents and visitors within its
jurisdiction of all its ongoing activities and projects.
2
11) The CLWD shall continue to inform and educate the public "Within its jurisdiction of the benefits of
the conservation of water and soil in the preservation and enhancement of our natural resources”.
Past Goals as related to today
The goals from 1968 and 1999 include many of the same issues facing the watershed today. Some of the
original goals have been met, such as operating a controlled outlet, improvement of stream channels via
new culverts, regulating riparian changes by landowners through permits, maintain lake level records, and
educating watershed residents. Other goals are still in progress such as inventorying and evaluating
subwatersheds, reducing erosion and maintaining and improving water quality. The watershed’s new
goals (Chapter 5) re-state the issues and priorities of the watershed for the next decade.
C.
WATERSHED RULES
The CLWD’s rules can be found in Appendix A. The watershed rules are updated as new issues arise.
One of the main changes in the CLWD that has had to be addressed is the rebuilding of existing cottages
into large homes, which changes the runoff on the property.
D.
CLWD EVOLUTION
The legal boundaries of the CLWD have remained unchanged since formation in 1966. However,
dramatic changes in the Becker County Zoning Ordinances that include Shore land Management Plans,
increased regulation by the State of Minnesota by and through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Environmental Quality Board, State Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Department of Natural
Resources, the Wetland Conservation Act and zoning authority exercised by local units of governments
such as Townships, the federal government acting through the United States Department of Agriculture
and the Army Corps of Engineers, have created an awareness that maintenance of the highest standards of
water quality is a shared concern. Protection of water quality requires cooperation and communication
with diverse units of government including local, state and federal agencies.
E.
DISTRICT’S MISSION
The primary mission of CLWD is to protect and enhance the quality of waters within its jurisdiction; to
ensure that appropriate decisions are made concerning the management of streams, wetlands, lakes,
groundwater, and related land resources which impact these waters; and to accomplish the purposes for
which a watershed district is established.
F.
MINNESOTA STATUTORY AUTHORITY
As part of the body of laws of the State of Minnesota that comprise the water policy of the State,
Minnesota Statute 103D.405, requires a watershed district to update the overall Water Management Plan
every 10 years to reflect upon and examine past efforts and to focus on the needs and challenges of the
future to allow the Managers to accept and perform their responsibilities entrusted by the public to protect
and preserve the environment for future generations.
3
This page was intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2: Description of the District
4
Chapter 2: Description of the CLWD
A.
WATERSHED SETTING
Location and Size
The CLWD is located in the Otter Tail River Major Watershed. The Otter Tail River Watershed
represents an area of about 1,920 square miles, including areas of substantial portions of Otter Tail,
Becker and Wilkin counties, and very small portions of Clay and Clearwater counties (Figure 1).
The watershed is a drainage basin of the Red River and the major tributaries of the watershed are the
Ottertail and Pelican Rivers. Where the Otter Tail River joins the Bois de Sioux River is considered to be
the headwaters of the Red River. The majority of the lakes in the Red River Basin are found in the Otter
Tail River watershed.
Figure 1. Watershed location of CLWD.
5
The CLWD lies near the southwest corner of Becker County. (Figure 1). It covers approximately 20,320
acres of land, small lakes and sloughs and approximately 7,922 acres of open water. Its boundaries are as
described in the Minnesota Water Resources Board's Order dated August 22, 1966, establishing the
CLWD as amended. Within the CLWD there are many small to medium sized farms, as well as many
small lots and home sites located around the various lakeshores. The public, through Federal, State,
County and Township governments, own a few small tracts, mainly as accesses to the lakes and wildlife
areas. The CLWD is accessible from all directions via gravel and blacktop roads and land transportation
within the CLWD is adequate by a network of County and Township roads. There are no railroads within
the CLWD.
Water Flowage
Water flowage in the CLWD starts at Bijou Lake near the northern border, and continues through Upper
Cormorant, Nelson Lake, Middle Cormorant and Big Cormorant. The natural ground water flowage out
of Big Cormorant is to the south via Pelican Lake and the Pelican River and the Ottertail River to the Red
River of the North. Surface water also flows to Pelican Lake through Spring Creek. Additional flowage
systems are; from Fig and Bergeson lakes into Rossman Lake, then into Upper Cormorant Lake; from
Dahlberg lake to Leif Lake then into Big Cormorant. Sub-watershed systems feed into all of the major
lakes from the surrounding territory.
Political Units within the CLWD










Becker County Board of Commissioners
Becker County Soil and Water Conservation
Lake Eunice Township
Cormorant Township
Audubon Township
Lake Park Township
Lake Park School District
Audubon School District
Pelican Rapids School District
Non-Profit Lake Associations
o Big Cormorant Lake Association
o Middle Cormorant Lake Association
o Upper Cormorant Lake Association
o Rossman, Nelson, Larson Lakes Association
o Bijou Lake Association
o Leif Lake Association
6
Figure 2. Map of the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
7
Population Characteristics
In the 1999 CLWD Watershed Plan, the CLWD population was estimated at 2,300. Census data are not
separately available for the Watershed District, but its population history can be represented by changes
which have taken place in the four townships that comprise most of the CLWD’s territory. In 2006, the
total population of the four townships was 3,366. Extrapolation data were obtained from the Minnesota
State Demography Office (Figure 3). The data show that population in Lake Eunice and Cormorant
Townships are expected to grow in the future, while Audubon and Lake Park Townships remain even.
Within the CLWD there are many small to medium sized farms, as well as many small lots and home
sites located around the various lakeshores. Most of the increase in population has occurred around
lakeshores in the CLWD.
Population Estimatation for Townships in CLWD
2500
Population
2000
1500
Audubon township
1000
Cormorant township
Lake Eunice township
500
Lake Park township
0
2006
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Year
Figure 3. Population extrapolation estimates for townships in the CLWD from 2006-2035. Source:
http://www.demography.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=19332
The Economy
The most significant land use within the Watershed District continues to be agriculture. Since the
formation of the CLWD in 1966, there has been a decline in the number of resorts. However, there has
been a significant increase in the number of year round residents on the lakes within the CLWD. The few
non-agricultural businesses within the CLWD are primarily service oriented to visitors of the lake area
and permanent residents. There is no manufacturing or heavy industry within the CLWD.
B.
PHYSICAL FEATURES
Climate
The climate of the area has warm summers and cold winters (Figure 4). Because of its location on the
continent, Minnesota is subject to large swings in both temperature and precipitation (Figures 4-5).
8
In the winter, the lakes in the CLWD freeze over. The ice-on season averages 153 days, although it is
highly variable from year to year. This winter freezing has a major effect on the lakes’ biology.
The Detroit Lakes area averages about 24 inches of precipitation annually. The majority of the
precipitation occurs in the summer months. Western Becker County has been in a trend of rising water
levels since the region entered a wet cycle in the early 1990s.
Monthly Temperature Range
Average High
Average Low
100
Temperature (F)
80
69
60
55
40
37
24
20
16
0
‐4
80
76
79
69
58
53
57
56
47
44
36
31
35
20 21
17
4
3
‐20
Figure 4. Monthly temperature range for Detroit Lakes, MN.
Average Precipitiation
5
4.41
Precipitation (inches)
4.5
4.03
4
3.67
3.5
2.97
3
3.02
2.5
2.5
2
1.54
1.5
1
1.15
0.76
0.57
1.1
0.64
0.5
0
Figure 5. Monthly precipitation range for Detroit Lakes, MN.
9
Topography
In terms of environmental quality, agriculture, and hydrology, understanding the topography of an area
enables the understanding of watershed boundaries, drainage characteristics, water movement, and
impacts on water quality. Elevations within the CLWD range from approximately 1,325 to 1,494 feet
above sea level (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Elevation of the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
10
Geology
Geology in the CLWD can be
described as bedrock consisting of
slates, granites, minor intrusives and
greenstones in part overlain by
Cretaceous sediments that include
sandstones and shales (Figure 7).
These rocks are covered by 300 to
500 feet of glacial deposits
consisting of clay, loam till, sandy
till and sands and gravels. Some
shallow to deep peats and mucks are
found in the depression areas
throughout the watershed.
The Cormorant lakes were formed
by the last retreating glacier of the
Red River Lobe about 10,000 years
ago. As ice chunks broke off from
the retreating glacier, they melted in
place to form kettle lakes.
Figure 7. Geology of the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District left over
from the retreating glaciers.
Soils
Soil textures in the CLWD comprise
course-loamy, fine, fine-loamy and
sandy types (Figure 8). Soils can
affect many aspects of water
flowage in the CLWD. Sandy soils
are usually well-drained. Loamy
soil is composed of sand, silt and
clay and generally contains more
nutrients and humus than sandy
soils. Loams are gritty, moist and
retain water easily.
Figure 8. Soil textures in the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
11
Land Use
Land Use in the CLWD is mainly agriculture (42.6%) and open water (32.4%) (Figure 9). Land use data
was derived from the Minnesota 2000 Level 1 Landsat Landcover Classification scheme developed by the
University of Minnesota’s Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis Laboratory and is depicted in Figure
9. The landcover type was derived via multitemporal, multispectral supervised image classification of
satellite imagery acquired by the Landsat TM and Landsat ETM+ satellites. The following is a
description of the seven level one landcover classes:

Urban/Developed - An area containing any amount of impervious cover of man-made
solid materials or compacted soils including areas with interspersed vegetation.
Examples: parking lots, shopping malls, warehouses, industrial parks, highways, sparse
development, single family residential developments, single lane roads, and mines.

Agriculture - An area where the primary cover type during the growing season is an
agricultural covertype including row crops, forage crops and small grains. Examples:
corn, soybeans, alfalfa, oats, wheat and barley.

Grassland - An upland area covered by cultivated or non-cultivated herbaceous
vegetation predominated by grasses, grass-like plants and forbs. Includes nonagricultural upland vegetation dominated by short manicured grasses and forbs as well
as non-cultivated herbaceous upland vegetation dominated by native grasses and
forbs. Examples: golf courses, lawns, athletic fields, dry prairies and pastures.

Forest - An upland area of land covered with woody perennial plants, the tree reaching
a mature height of at least 6 feet tall with a definite crown. To be considered a forested
cover type the stand must have a combined species minimum of 3 cords/acre or 1,251
bd ft/acre or 251 stems/acre depending on size class (MNCSA Standards). Examples:
white pine, red pine, oak, mixed conifer and mixed deciduous.

Water - An area of open water with none or very little above surface vegetation.
Examples: lakes, streams, rivers and open wetlands.

Wetland - A lowland area with a cover of persistent and non-persistent herbaceous
plants standing above the surface of wet soil or water. Examples: cattails, marcs
grass, sedges and peat.

Shrubland - An upland or lowland area with vegetation that has a persistent woody
stem, generally with several basal shoots, low growth of less than 20 feet in height.
Area has less than 251 stems/acre of commercial tree species, the shrub species are
fairly uniformly distributed throughout and the density of the coverage is moderate to
high. Examples: alder, willow, buckthorn, hazel, sumac, and scrub oak.
12
Figure 9. Land use classification in the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
Table 1. Land use area in the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
Land Use
District Area (acres)
Percent of District Area (%)
Urban/Developed
Agriculture
Grassland
Forest
Water
Wetland
Shrubland
1,250
10,054
284
3,321
7,641
1,026
20
5.3
42.6
1.2
14.1
32.4
4.3
0.1
Total
23,596
100
13
Public & Private Land Ownership
The majority of the land within the CLWD is privately owned, with approximately 539 acres of public
land owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and approximately 479 acres of public land owned by
the Minnesota DNR (Figure 10). There are also about 450 acres under a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
perpetual conservation easement that is not depicted in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Land ownership in the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
14
C.
WATER RESOURCES
Major Sub-watersheds of the CLWD
The CLWD has two major subwatersheds: Spring
Creek (56006) and Middle Cormorant Lake (56080)
(Figure 11). Water flows from Middle Cormorant
Lake Watershed to Spring Creek Watershed and exits
the CLWD at the Big Cormorant Lake outlet control
structure.
Rivers and natural streams
There are no large rivers in the CLWD; however, a
stream flows out of Bijou Lake into Upper Cormorant
Lake. In addition, Spring Creek exits the south end of
Big Cormorant Lake and flows into Pelican Lake.
Lakes
Figure 11. Major subwatersheds of the Cormorant Lakes
Watershed District.
The CLWD consists of the following lakes and their
established ordinary high water level (Table 2). Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 1030.005 subd. (14) the
ordinary high water level is defined as: 1) the boundary of water basins, watercourses, public waters, and
public waters wetlands; 2) an elevation delineating the highest water level that has been maintained for a
sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly the point where the natural
vegetation changes from predominately aquatic to predominately terrestrial.
Table 2. CLWD lakes and corresponding ordinary high water levels.
Lake
Bijou
Upper Cormorant
Nelson
Rossman (Erickson)
Middle Cormorant
Big Cormorant
Lief (Leaf)
Tub
Pump
Shoe
Fig
Bergeson
Peach
Pete
Larson
Eilertson
Elevation (ft)
1,369.5
1,354
1,354
1,354.3
1,354
1,354.6
1,354.6
Not established
Not established
Not established
Not established
1,363.3
Not established
Not established
Not established
Not established
15
Wetlands
In addition to the above listed lakes, there are many sloughs, wetlands, water courses and basins that
comprise subwatersheds that contribute to the major watersheds (Figure 12). These wetlands are
important for water storage, water filtration and fish and wildlife habitat. Some of the wetlands in the
CLWD have been ditched or partially drained (Figure 13). These areas could be targeted for restoration.
Figure 12. Designated wetlands in the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
Figure 13. Partially drained or ditched wetlands in the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
16
Artificial drainage systems
There are no judicial ditches located within the
Watershed District. Private ditches may be present, and
need inventorying, which can be done in cooperation with
the Becker Soil and Water Conservation District.
Water management structures
There is an outlet control structure at the Spring Creek
outlet from Big Cormorant Lake (Figure 14). The
structure is controlled by the CLWD.
D.
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
Figure 14. Big Cormorant Outlet water control structure
location.
Local Government
Counties. The CLWD is located entirely within Becker County. Becker County has its own
Comprehensive Water Plan, completed in accordance with Chapter 103B of the Minnesota Statutes. The
Becker County Comprehensive Water Management Plans must be updated every five years in
accordance with current Minnesota legislative requirements. It is also a requirement that the
comprehensive water plans be consistent with watershed management plans covering the same
geographic area. Becker County regulates shore land zoning ordinances for the control of development
activity along the shorelines of lakes and streams, sub-surface sewage treatment systems, and the
established 100-year flood plains.
Townships. Each Township within the watershed district has the authority under Minnesota Law to
establish ordinances necessary for the administration of the Township. In some cases, these ordinances
relate to water management activities, especially drainage along or through township road systems.
Municipalities. There are no existing municipal governments in the CLWD which has been incorporated
under Minnesota Law, having the authority to establish ordinances and conduct zoning activities within
their territorial limits.
Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The Becker County. Soil and Water Conservation District
(SWCD) is established under Chapter 103C of the Minnesota Statutes. The purpose of the SWCD is to
promote programs and policies which can conserve the soil and water resources within their territorial
limits. They are particularly concerned with erosion of soil due to wind and water. Therefore, SWCDs
frequently are involved with the implementation of practices that effectively reduce or prevent erosion,
sedimentation, siltation, and agriculturally-related pollution in order to preserve water and soil as natural
resources. Watershed Districts in Minnesota may act as local sponsors for many types of water
management projects, including: grassed waterways, drainage ditches, erosion control structures, and
other water-related projects. The SWCDs receive a great deal of technical assistance from the United
17
States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Adjacent Watershed Districts. The CLWD is bounded to the north and west by the Buffalo Red River
Watershed District and the Pelican River Watershed District to the northeast. To the east of the
Watershed District is Becker County Judicial Ditch #20. Becker County is the drainage authority under
Minnesota law for Judicial Ditch #20. The CLWD may be involved in joint activities with its
neighboring watershed districts to coordinate water-related problems which affect both districts.
State Government
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. BWSR's duties include oversight programs and funding
of State Soil and Water Conservation Districts, formation and guidance of Watershed Districts, the
direction and assistance to counties in developing their Comprehensive Water Plans. A major activity of
this Board is the development of policy toward the guidance of the development of legislative initiatives
involving natural resources enhancement. The BWSR has no regulatory authority. However, it does
review and approve water management plans and project activity of watershed districts and soil and
water conservation districts. In addition, BWSR provides grant opportunities to LGUs to do water and
land protection and restoration projects.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
has both regulatory and an enforcement authority over natural resource programs of the state. The
principal divisions of DNR include the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, the Division of
Forestry, and the Division of Fish and Wildlife, the Division of Lands and Minerals, the Division of
Enforcement and the Division of Parks and Trails. The DNR has permit authority over watershed district
projects which impact the Protected Waters jurisdiction of the state. The DNR is also actively involved
in helping local units of the government administer floodplain management ordinances and standards.
The CLWD frequently cooperates with the DNR in the development and implementation of water
management projects which enhance wetlands, wildlife habitat and improve water quality.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has both
regulatory and enforcement authority relative to potential actions which could affect the quality of the
ground waters and surface waters of the state. Since many of the CLWD's projects involve water quality
considerations, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency becomes an active participant in these projects.
The MPCA is the main agency assessing water quality and implementing Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) studies where needed. The MPCA also is involved with other governmental units, such as
Becker County and Townships, in the construction and operation of private septic systems and feedlots
that may impact water quality.
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has final
authority on permits involving a wide range of construction activity throughout the state. The Board is
comprised of the commissioners of state agencies, the chairmen of state boards, and five citizens. The
EQB bases its decisions on formal environmental assessments or environmental impact statements
written for specific project proposals.
18
Minnesota Department of Health. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has permit authority and
regulatory authority for monitoring water supply facilities. These facilities include water wells, surface
water intakes, water treatment, and water distribution for public use.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Several County and State Aid highway systems are
administered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation within watershed district boundaries.
CLWD projects requiring structures through MDOT regulated highways require coordination and
approval by the MDOT. In a similar fashion, MDOT activities relating to improvements of their highway
systems usually require a permit from the watershed district. The CLWD has executed a memorandum of
understanding with MDOT to provide early notification and input for projects planned within the
CLWD.
Federal Government
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has permit and regulatory authority
over some projects of the CLWD. In addition the Corps of Engineers has been actively involved in
project development and construction in other watershed districts.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Two major agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture have had a
great deal of impact on the activities of the CLWD. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
has traditionally provided technical advice and engineering design services to the local Soil and Water
Conservation District within the CLWD.
Under the Food Security Act of 1985, the USDA, through the ASCS and the SCS, administers rules
which, if violated, will result in the denial of agricultural subsidies and other governmental benefits. The
Managers believe the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has had a favorable impact on water quality.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been actively involved
in the restoration of wetlands previously drained on agricultural land and now in the Conservation
Reserve Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USFWS has developed wetland projects
which beneficially affect the water management activities of the CLWD. In constructing these wetland
projects, the USFWS is required to obtain a permit from the CLWD before progressing, if the project is
located within the territorial jurisdiction of the CLWD.
Private Organizations
Ducks Unlimited (DU) is primarily involved in the design, construction, and funding of projects
enhancing duck habitat. The CLWD is interested in cooperating with Ducks Unlimited in the
development and funding of multipurpose projects for duck habitat and flood control.
Miscellaneous Wildlife, Conservation Lake Associations, and Sportsmen's Organizations. Within the
CLWD, there are numerous sportsmen's clubs and wildlife preservation groups. These organizations
sponsor a wide variety of environmentally positive initiatives, including wildlife habitat, wetland
development, and other activities which are beneficial to and consistent with the goals of the Cormorant
19
Lakes Watershed CLWD. The CLWD has an ongoing policy of cooperating with these groups in the
development of projects of mutual benefit.
20
A.
WATER RESOURCES
A complete assessment of water quality in Big Cormorant, Upper Cormorant and Middle Cormorant
Lakes is scheduled to be completed by RMB Environmental Laboratories in the winter of 2011. The
results from these reports will be added as a future appendix to this plan, and will help guide the CLWD
in future projects.
Lake Water Quality
Trophic State Index (TSI)
is a standard measure or
means for calculating the
trophic status, or
productivity, of a lake.
More specifically, it is the
total weight of living
biological material
(biomass) in a waterbody
at a specific location and
time.
Phosphorus (nutrients),
chlorophyll a (algae
concentration) and Secchi
depth (transparency) are
related. As phosphorus
increases, there is more
food available for algae,
resulting in increased algal
concentrations. When
algal concentrations
increase, the water
becomes less transparent
and the Secchi depth
decreases.
Figure 15. Trophic states of CLWD lakes.
Trophic states are defined divisions of a continuum in water quality. The continuum is total phosphorus
concentration, chlorophyll a concentration and Secchi depth. Scientists define certain ranges in the above
lake measures as different trophic states so they can be easily referred to.
The CLWD lakes fall into the mesotrophic and eutrophic categories (Table 3, Figure 15). See the next
page for a description of each category.
21
Table 3. Trophic state and trophic state index for lakes in the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
Lake
Big Cormorant
Mean TSI
41
Trophic State
Mesotrophic
Mean TSI
Secchi
36
Mean TSI
phosphorus
45
Mean TSI
chlorophyll a
41
Middle Cormorant
46
Mesotrophic
43
47
47
Nelson
48
Mesotrophic
48
49
47
Upper Cormorant
50
Eutrophic
48
52
51
Leif
53
Eutrophic
51
53
54
Bijou
54
Eutrophic
51
56
55
Rossman
55
Eutrophic
53
58
54
Table 4. Explanation of the trophic state index and lake conditions. Modified from: Carlson, R.E. 1997. A trophic
state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 22:361-369.
Eutrophication
TSI
Attributes
Fisheries & Recreation
<30
Oligotrophy: Clear water, oxygen
throughout the year at the bottom of the lake,
very deep cold water.
Trout fisheries dominate.
30-40
Bottom of shallower lakes may become
anoxic (no oxygen).
Trout fisheries in deep lakes only. Walleye,
Cisco present.
40-50
Mesotrophy: Water moderately clear most of
the summer. May be "greener" in late
summer.
No oxygen at the bottom of the lake results in
loss of trout. Walleye may predominate.
50-60
Eutrophy: Algae and aquatic plant problems
possible. "Green" water most of the year.
Warm-water fisheries only. Bass may
dominate.
60-70
Blue-green algae dominate, algal scums and
aquatic plant problems.
Dense algae and aquatic plants. Low water
clarity may discourage swimming and boating.
70-80
Hypereutrophy: Dense algae and aquatic
plants.
Water is not suitable for recreation.
>80
Algal scums, few aquatic plants.
Rough fish (carp) dominate; summer fish kills
possible.
22
Ecoregion Comparisons
Minnesota is divided into 7 ecoregions based on land use,
vegetation, precipitation and geology. The MPCA has
developed a way to determine the "average range" of
water quality expected for lakes in each ecoregion. The
MPCA evaluated the lake water quality for reference
lakes. These reference lakes are not considered pristine,
but are considered to have little human impact and
therefore are representative of the typical lakes within the
ecoregion. The "average range" refers to the 25th - 75th
percentile range for data within each ecoregion.
Western Becker County is in the Central Hardwood
Forest Ecoregion (Figure 16). This ecoregion is an area
of transition between the forested areas to the north and
east and the agricultural areas to the south and west. The
Figure 16. Minnesota Ecoregions.
terrain varies from rolling hills to smaller plains. Upland
areas are forested by hardwoods and conifers. Plains include livestock pastures, hay fields and row crops
such as potatoes, beans, peas and corn.
The ecoregion contains many lakes, and water clarity and nutrient levels are moderate. Land surrounding
many of these lakes has been developed for housing and recreation, and the densely populated
metropolitan area dominates the eastern portion of this region. Water quality problems that face many of
the water bodies in this area are associated with contaminated runoff from paved surfaces and lawns.
All of the lakes in the CLWD are within the ecoregion averages (Table 5). Big Cormorant Lake is better
than the expected average. See the table on the next page for details.
23
Table 5. CLWD lakes compared to the ecoregion average range.
Ecoregion:
Total
Phosphorus
(ug/l)
Chlorophyll a
(ug/l)
Secchi
Water Clarity
(ft)
North
Central
Hardwood
Forest
Leif Lake
Big
Cormorant
202 (Main)
Big
Cormorant
204
(south bay)
Rossman
Upper
Cormorant
Nelson
Middle
Cormorant
Bijou
23 –50
32.6
20.3
15.3
45.5
29.7
23.6
22.1
38.3
5 – 22
12.1
3.6
3.7
14.6
11.2
7.6
6.5
14.1
4.92 – 10.5
6
17.4
15.1
5.3
8.2
7.6
10.2
6.2
Within
ecoregion
average for all
three
parameters
Better than
ecoregion
average for
phosphorus
and within
average for
other
parameters
Within
ecoregion
average for all
three
parameters
Discussion
Within
ecoregion
average for all
three
parameters
Better than
ecoregion
average for all
three
parameters
Better than
ecoregion
average for all
three
parameter
Within
ecoregion
average for all
three
parameters
Within
ecoregion
average for all
three
parameters
Ecoregion averages are the interquartile range (25th-75th) percentile for Ecoregion Reference Lakes, MPCA
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/environmental-data/eda-environmental-data-access/eda-surface-water-searches/eda-guide-to-typical-minnesota-water-qualityconditions.html
24
Impaired Waters
The Clean Water Act requires states to publish a list every two years (even years) of the lakes not meeting certain
water quality standards. This list is called the Impaired Waters List, and currently the 2010 version is in draft
form. Data for each lake are assessed and tied to a designated use. For lakes, the most common types of
impairment are mercury in fish tissue for the use of aquatic consumption (fish) and excess phosphorus for the use
of aquatic recreation.
Eutrophication
The standard for excess phosphorus impairment in the western half of Becker County (North Central Hardwood
Forest Ecoregion) is 45 ppb (ug/L) total phosphorus. To be considered impaired for phosphorus, a lake must have
at least 10 data points of each phosphorus, chlorophyll-a and secchi disk in the past 10 years over these standards.
Each lake is carefully considered by the MPCA and the data quality is checked. No lakes in the CLWD are
considered impaired for phosphorus as of 2010.
Mercury
For excess mercury in fish tissue, the MPCA says "A water body will be considered impaired when the
recommended fish consumption frequency is less than one meal per week for any member of the population."
Mercury is a different type of pollutant in that most of it comes from outside Minnesota and is deposited here
from the air. Approximately 30% of the mercury deposited by air in Minnesota originates from natural sources,
such as volcanoes; 60% of mercury comes from human activities outside the state such as coal-fired power plants
and mining. The remaining 10% originates in the state.
Big Cormorant and Leif Lakes are considered impaired for mercury. They are part of the 2008 Mercury TMDL.
TMDL stands for Total Maximum Daily Load. A TMDL defines how much of a pollutant can be in the water and
still allow the lake to meet designated uses such as fish consumption and aquatic recreation. The long-term goal
of the Mercury TMDL is for the fish to meet water quality standards; the approach for Minnesota’s share is mass
reductions from state mercury sources. This Mercury TMDL establishes that there needs to be a 93% reduction in
state emissions from 1990 for the state to meet its share. Water point sources will be required to stay below 1
percent of the total load to the state and all but the smallest dischargers will be required to develop mercury
minimization plans. Air sources of mercury will have a 93% emission reduction goal from 1990 levels. Air
sources will be divided into three sectors: products, energy, and mining. To read more about the Mercury TMDL,
please visit the MCPA website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-andprograms/minnesotas-impaired-waters-and-tmdls/tmdl-projects/special-projects/statewide-mercury-tmdlpollutant-reduction-plan.html.
It is important to note that just because a lake is not named on list that it is impaired for mercury, does not mean
that it is safe to eat unlimited amounts of fish. It may just mean that it hasn't been tested yet. For fish consumption
advice, please visit: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/fish/index.html.
MPCA Watershed Assessment Schedule
CLWD is in the Otter Tail River Major Watershed (for more details, see page 5). This watershed is scheduled for
assessment in 2016. In 2016, the MPCA will do a complete study of the surface water quality of the watershed
and determine if any Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) projects are needed. Information from this assessment
will be included in a future appendix to this plan.
25
Fisheries Assessments
Big Cormorant Status of the Fishery (as of 08/04/2008)
Big Cormorant is regarded as an excellent natural prairie walleye lake. At 3,421 acres, it is the second largest lake
in Becker County. Its relatively close proximity to the Fargo-Moorhead area results in heavy angling pressure and
shoreline development.
High water levels during the late 1990's resulted not only in changes to the shoreline and low-lying homes and
cabins, but also in changes to the fish community. The recently high water levels opened up additional northern
pike spawning habitat and the lake's pike population is still responding. The catch rate of pike reached its
historical high in 2008 at 9.5 pike per gill net. The lake's historic average is 3.5 pike per set. The high water
effects on the pike population is illustrated in the fact that in seven surveys prior to 2002, the average catch rate of
northern pike was just 1.8 per set. Increases in numbers of small pike often result in decreases in yellow perch, the
primary forage fish for walleye and northern pike in most lakes. This is what appears to be occurring in Big
Cormorant since yellow perch catches have remained substantially lower than normal since 2002.
Fortunately, the walleye population does not appear to have been adversely affected by the abnormally high
northern pike numbers. The 2008 walleye catch rate was higher than the lake's historical average at 30.1 walleyes
per experimental gill net. Sampled walleyes averaged approximately 14 inches in length and 1.2 pounds in weight
in 2008. Cormorant Lake is an excellent natural walleye lake with two strong year classes poised to enter the
current fishery. The 2005 and 2006 year classes both made up significant portions of the walleye sample in 2008.
In addition to the periodic, mid-summer test netting, the DNR began annual, fall electrofishing for young-of-theyear walleyes in Big Cormorant in 2000. These studies indicated that year classes from the years 2000 and 2004
were weak and those from 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007 were relatively strong. Age class frequencies from
mid-summer test netting in 2008 appear to show similar findings. This means that fall electrofishing data can
probably be used as a reliable indicator of year class strengths in Big Cormorant. While fish from the 2007 and
2008 year classes were too small to be completely vulnerable to sampling gear in summer, fall electrofishing
yielded catch rates of 38 and 32 young walleyes per hour, respectively. Fall electrofishing catch rates over 30
young-of-the-year walleyes per hour are considered relatively strong and this bodes well for near future walleye
angling in Big Cormorant.
Smallmouth bass are another target species present in good numbers. Smallmouth bass and bluegill catches were
higher in 2008 than those reported in any of the nine previous surveys since 1954. Black crappies and largemouth
bass can also be found in moderate numbers.
Big Cormorant Lake is scheduled to be surveyed again in 2011.
26
Middle Cormorant Status of the Fishery (as of 08/02/2010)
This lake is ecologically well suited to largemouth bass, panfish, and northern pike. Good walleye spawning
habitat is scarce in Middle Cormorant, but immigration is possible from the other connected lakes. The modest
walleye fishery is sustained by a combination of immigration and regular stocking.
Walleyes sampled in 2010 averaged a healthy 1.8 pounds each. Northern pike were small and more abundant with
an average weight of 2.1 pounds but some pike over 30 inches were also found.
Bluegill test net catches were up from the 2004 study but still within the normal range for similar lakes. The
numbers of large bluegill (over 8.0 inches) in Middle Cormorant were much fewer in assessments since 1983 than
in those conducted during the 1960's and 1970's. A few have shown up in the two most recent surveys, but big
bluegills are still rare. It is believed that angler exploitation is the primary factor. What appears to be happening is
common in many bluegill lakes. As soon as bluegills reach sizes acceptable to anglers, they are being harvested.
Thus, only smaller fish remain. If there is public support, special regulations may hold potential in this lake for
increasing the number of larger bluegills.
The diverse fish community in Middle Cormorant currently reflects relatively good water quality. There are very
few black bullheads. There is an average population of larger than normal walleyes in the lake compared to
ecologically similar lakes. There are good numbers of small northern pike and bluegill. Anglers can help increase
the average size of these species by releasing bluegills over seven inches and northern pike over 24 inches. Other
fish species found in this lake include black crappie, yellow perch, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead, hybrid
sunfish, pumpkinseed sunfish, white sucker, carp, and rock bass. Smallmouth bass have also been found during
past studies but none were caught in 2010. This species is known to inhabit Big Cormorant which is the next lake
downstream in the chain.
Upper Cormorant Status of the Fishery (as of 08/13/2007)
Upper Cormorant is a popular, all-around fishing lake located in southwestern Becker County. Two narrow
channels that may not be navigable during lower water years connect Upper Cormorant Lake with Rossman Lake
and Nelson Lake to the east. Upper Cormorant has a diverse fish community that offers anglers a variety of
fishing opportunities.
Top predators include northern pike, walleye, and largemouth bass. Pike were present in numbers typical for this
lake. Although northern pike growth rates are good in Upper Cormorant, few large pike were found. Half the
sampled pike were attributed to the 2005 year-class (age two). Test net catches of walleye were near the lake's
historic average at 6.2 per set in 2007. The average weight of a sampled walleye was 1.7 pounds. Walleye
fingerlings are stocked in this lake annually to supplement very limited natural reproduction.
Bluegills and black crappies are also common. Although bluegills are somewhat slow growing in this lake, there
were enough older fish present to provide opportunities to catch good numbers of bluegills over seven inches in
length. The black crappie sample was comprised of fish from several year classes, but age four crappies made up
one-third of sampled fish. The average size of Upper Cormorant crappies was 9.6 inches or about a half pound.
27
Rossman Lake Status of the Fishery (as of 06/21/1993)
Rossman (Erickson) Lake has a tendency to partially winterkill during some winters. Algal blooms and low water
clarity often make mid-summer angling difficult. Fish populations are somewhat indicative of a winterkill lake
with high populations of black bullhead, northern pike, and bluegill. Northern pike tend to be somewhat small;
average length is just 18.5". Bluegill, on the other hand, are relatively large in size. Over 60% of them are longer
than six inches and nearly 10% are over eight inches long. Black crappie, yellow perch, and largemouth bass are
all present in low to normal abundance and average size. Carp numbers seem to have leveled off during the past
10 years. The large carp now present (average weight is nearly 7 lbs.) may be less harmful to the lake than an
abundance of smaller ones. Walleye probably succumbed to winterkill during 1993 since none were caught in test
nets.
Leif Lake Status of the Fishery (as of 08/18/2008)
Leif Lake is primarily suited for northern pike, bass, and panfish and these are generally the fish species most
anglers target in this lake. A few walleyes are present in the fishery, as well. Three-fourths of the walleyes
sampled in 2008 were either immigrants from Big Cormorant or naturally reproduced because none were stocked
between 1984 and 2005. Walleye stocking was resumed in 2006 and the current plan calls for biennial stocking to
continue. It remains to be seen if stocking will be effective at increasing walleye catches in Leif Lake. Walleyes
sampled in test nets in 2008 averaged 17.3 inches in length with an average weight just under two pounds.
Walleyes do not grow rapidly in this lake, likely because of the historically low numbers of yellow perch. Yellow
perch are a primary forage for walleye, northern pike, and largemouth bass in most Minnesota lakes and an
important part of the fish community.
Bluegills and other sunfishes were the most abundant species in test net catches. Average sizes of these fish have
decreased over the past few decades and the average length of sampled bluegill was just 5.0 inches in 2008. No
bluegills larger than 8.0 inches have been found in test nets since the 1998 survey. Interestingly, over half the
bluegills sampled in 1967 (the initial survey) were longer than eight inches. Fishing harvest is likely responsible
for the recent decrease in bluegill sizes. Anglers tend to keep bluegills longer than about 6.5 to 7.0 inches and
throw back smaller ones. This would explain the sharp cutoff of larger bluegills in Leif Lake. It takes about eight
or nine years for bluegills to reach lengths over eight inches in Leif Lake.
Largemouth bass and black crappies were also found in moderate numbers in 2008. Crappies were generally small
and young.
Bijou Lake Status of the Fishery (as of 06/05/2006)
Beseau Lake has a history of providing fair to good fishing for panfish, bass, northern pike, and walleye between
winterkills. Severe winterkills have not been frequent in this lake. However, it did experience heavy fish mortality
in 1994, moderate mortality in 2001, and very light mortality in 2004. The 2001 kill occurred despite the
operation of an aeration system by the lake association in cooperation with the Cormorant Lakes Sportsmen's
Club.
Even though walleyes have been stocked regularly for over two decades, and sporadically since 1916, test net
catches have consistently remained quite low in this lake. The gill net catch rate in 2006 was 1.2 walleyes per set.
Although walleyes were not abundant, they were relatively large with an average length of 21.8 inches and
average weight of 3.8 pounds.
Bijou Lake is scheduled to be surveyed again in 2011.
28
Northern pike and black crappie have survived in this lake without stocking. Catch rates for both were slightly
above the lake's historical averages in 2006. Pike averaged about 2.5 pounds in weight and 22.9 inches in length,
though fish over 30 inches were sampled. Crappies were generally young and small, but a few larger individuals
were found and there is a strong 2003 year class that should provide good fishing in coming years if no winterkill
occurs.
Increasing numbers of black bullheads may be an indicator of declining water quality in Bijou Lake. One data
point is not sufficient to draw any firm conclusions, but does illustrate the need to be vigilant. In six lake studies
from 1964 through 2001, black bullhead catches had never risen higher than 18.4 per trap net. In 2006, catch rates
rose to 166.9 black bullheads per trap net. It behooves lakeshore owners and all watershed dwellers to be good
land stewards in order to slow the aging process in this lake that is already marginal for supporting a fish
community.
B.
SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT
Shoreline Inventory
Description
There are two main benefits to maintaining a natural shoreline: to slow runoff and filter nutrients that might
otherwise reach your lake, and to maintain a healthy habitat for fish, birds, insects and other animals that live in
and around the lake. A natural shoreline can also increase privacy, increase property value, enhance aesthetics,
and deter nuisance geese.
A photographic inventory of each lake in the CLWD’s shoreline was conducted in the summer of 2004. The
objectives of the survey were to characterize existing shoreland conditions which will serve as a benchmark for
future comparisons.
Each parcel on the lake was photographed and rated for the following items: boats, personal watercraft,
weedrollers, sand blankets, retaining walls, paved, storage sheds, vegetation alteration, land alteration and littoral
zone alteration. In addition, each parcel was rated as to whether it was in a natural state or not. The results for
each lake are in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Natural shoreline acreage comparison for the CLWD lakes.
Lake
Big Cormorant
Middle Cormorant
Leaf
Nelson
Rossman
Upper Cormorant
Bijou
Percentage of shoreline acreage in a natural state
23.33%
27.66%
47.0%
62.72%
64.27%
66.91%
71.16%
Assessment
Usually, the more developed a lake is, the less shoreline acreage is in a natural state. This trend is shown in the
results in Table 6. Big Cormorant and Middle Cormorant have a very small percentage of their shoreland acreage
in a natural state, yet each lake has room for improvement. For full results from each lake, please contact the
CLWD.
29
In the next five to ten years proactive volunteer native landscaping could improve the natural aspects of lakeshore
parcels. Improving the percentage of naturally landscaped parcels will improve water quality and fish and
wildlife habitat in CLWD lakes. To promote shoreline restoration, the CLWD will refer property owners to the
Becker Soil and Water Conservation District and their cost share programs. In addition, the CLWD could provide
cost-share funding for restoration projects, or apply for Shoreline Habitat Restoration Grants from the DNR to
provide financial assistance to property owners interested in restoring their shoreline.
Building Pressure
Building Permits
Because the CLWD is mainly made up of lakes (32.4%) there is a fair amount of building pressure around the
lakes. What used to be seasonal cabins are now being expanded to large year-round homes. In 2010, 112
building permits were paid for and released in the CLWD. Through July 2011, 85 permits have been released.
The permit requests are mainly for decks, storage sheds, and new homes.
Impervious Surface
Another way to track building pressure is through changes in impervious surface. Most changes in impervious
surface have occurred around the lakeshore. The lakes where most change occurred between 1990-2000 were
Middle Cormorant and Big Cormorant (Figure 17). These results match the shoreline inventory results that
showed Big and Middle Cormorant Lakes to have the least percentage of natural shoreline.
Figure 17. Land use change in the CLWD from 1990-2000 (UMN LandSat).
Assessment
The CLWD works with Becker County Planning and Zoning to regulate development through the issue of
building permits. In the Becker County ordinance, impervious surface is not allowed to exceed 25% of any
residential lot. On substandard size lots, impervious surface coverage over 15% must be offset with mitigation.
Impervious surface includes structures or anything that reduces or prevents the infiltration of water, such as:
driveways (asphalt / class 5); parking areas; concrete; impervious pavers; walks; decks; patios; houses; garages,
30
etc. Mitigation options include reducing impervious surface coverage, stormwater management, installation of a
shoreline berm or buffer.
The CLWD’s rules are more restrictive than Becker County’s rules for properties in the shore impact zone. The
CLWD requires permits for additional items, such as alterations to land, impervious surface, or vegetation in the
Shore Impact Zone, Bluff Impact Zone, or steep slopes in a Shoreland Zone (see Appendix A). The CLWD
managers meet on-site with the county when inspecting new projects.
The CLWD will continue to work with Becker County to enforce the zoning ordinances.
Land Use Changes
The catchment of a lake is the land area that drains into that lake. In comparing land use changes from 1990-2000
in the catchments of each of the CLWD’s lakes, one can see the transition from agriculture, grass/shrub/wetland,
to forest and urban acreages (Tables 7-13).
It is important to watch the urban development so that it does not impact the water quality of District lakes. The
CLWD will work with Becker County to educate and enforce the zoning ordinances.
Table 7. Land use changes in the Leif Lake catchment.
1990
Land Cover
Acres
Agriculture
Grass/Shrub/Wetland
Forest
Water
Urban
1,697
223
216
730
156
Percent
56.08
7.37
7.14
24.12
5.16
2000
Acres
Percent
1,547
179
400
698
198
51.12
5.92
13.22
23.07
6.54
1990 to 2000
Percent Change
9% Decrease
20% Decrease
85% Increase
4% Decrease
27% Increase
Table 8. Land use changes in the Bijou Lake catchment.
1990
Land Cover
Acres
Agriculture
Grass/Shrub/Wetland
Forest
Water
Urban
691
44
164
295
53
Percent
55.46
3.53
13.16
23.68
4.25
2000
Acres
Percent
621
82
220
264
60
49.84
6.58
17.66
21.19
4.82
1990 to 2000
Percent Change
10% Decrease
86% Increase
34% Increase
11% Decrease
13% Increase
Table 9. Land use changes in the Upper Cormorant Lake catchment.
1990
Land Cover
Acres
Agriculture
Grass/Shrub/Wetland
Forest
Water
Urban
1870
479
450
991
139
Percent
47.62
12.20
11.46
25.24
3.54
2000
Acres
1633
441
663
1019
172
Percent
41.58
11.23
16.88
25.95
4.38
1990 to 2000
Percent Change
13% Decrease
8% Decrease
47% Increase
3% Increase
24% Increase
31
Table 10. Land use changes in the Rossman Lake catchment
1990
Land Cover
Acres
Agriculture
Grass/Shrub/Wetland
Forest
Water
Urban
1313
195
208
454
68
2000
Percent
Acres
58.67
8.71
9.29
20.29
3.04
1204
153
333
469
79
Percent
53.80
6.84
14.88
20.96
3.53
1990 to 2000
Percent Change
8% Decrease
22% Decrease
60% Increase
3% Increase
16% Increase
Table 11. Land use changes in the Middle Cormorant Lake catchment.
1990
Land Cover
Acres
Agriculture
Grass/Shrub/Wetland
Forest
Water
Urban
456
91
127
443
49
2000
Percent
Acres
39.21
7.82
10.92
38.09
4.21
415
48
168
445
89
Percent
35.68
4.13
14.45
38.26
7.65
1990 to 2000
Percent Change
9% Decrease
47% Decrease
32% Increase
No Change
82% Increase
Table 12. Land use changes in the Big Cormorant Lake catchment
Land Cover
1990
Acres
Percent
2000
Acres
Percent
Agriculture
Grass/Shrub/Wetland
Forest
Water
Urban
2598
537
596
3929
311
2348
231
890
4044
458
32.60
6.74
7.48
49.30
3.90
29.46
2.90
11.17
50.74
5.75
1990 to 2000
Percent Change
10% Decrease
57% Decrease
49% Increase
3% Increase
47% Increase
Table 13. Land use changes in the Nelson Lake catchment.
1990
Land Cover
Acres
Agriculture
Grass/Shrub/Wetland
Forest
Water
Urban
645
152
135
490
49
Percent
43.76
10.31
9.16
33.24
3.32
2000
Acres
618
61
237
491
65
Percent
41.93
4.14
16.08
33.31
4.41
1990 to 2000
Percent Change
4% Decrease
60% Decrease
76% Increase
No Change
33% Increase
32
Subsurface Sewage Treatment
Description
Becker County has a subsurface sewage treatment (SSTS) inspection program for lakes. All parcels that have a
residence should have a Certificate of Compliance for their septic system on file in the Zoning Office. A
Certificate of Compliance on new installations is valid for five (5) years and re-certifications are valid for three
(3) years. For the purpose of septic system inventory projects, a property must have a certificate of compliance
that has been issued within the past ten (10) years. Certificates are required for building projects as well.
Each year, the county pulls the septic system records on approximately three lakes and determines which lakes
have up-to-date certificates of compliance, which lakes have outdated certificates of compliance, and which lakes
do not have certificates of compliance. The county program is on a 10 year rotation with the goal being to inspect
every lake once in a decade.
Assessment
Upper Cormorant Lake completed the county inspection program in 2008. There were 202 parcels included in the
study and 149 (74%) needed additional information or a new inspection. The deadline for response was
September 30, 2009. By the deadline, all but three parcels were in compliance. In July 2011, only two parcels
remain non-compliant. One of these parcels is under water with no pending action. The other remains an open
item.
Rossman (aka Erickson) Lake completed the county inspection program in 2010. There were 71 parcels included
in the study and 37 (52%) needed additional information or a new inspection. The deadline for compliance is
September 30, 2011.
It is clear from the two lakes that participated in the compliance program above, that many parcels have out-ofdate certificates of compliance or are non-compliant. This is troubling for water quality in the CLWD. The
CLWD will work with the Lake Associations to educate property owners about the county’s inspection schedule
and encourage landowners to be proactive and have their systems inspected before the county requires it.
C.
WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Soil Erosion Risk
Figure 18 shows the potential soil erosion risk in the CLWD. Larger values indicate soils that have a higher
potential to erode if no conservation practices were in place and overland sheet or rill runoff was present.
Individual subwatersheds are currently being inventoried (2011) and assessed by the CLWD Engineer for erosion
risk at a more finite level. The results from this assessment will be taken into account for future management.
In addition, the high erosion risk areas in Figure 18, could be shared with the Becker SWCD to work together to
plant and/or better stabilize these areas to prevent future erosion.
33
Figure 18. Potential erosion risk in areas in CLWD.
34
Erosion Potential Priority Area Identification
The District Engineer, Erik Jones (Houston Engineering, Inc.), evaluated the watershed for erosion potential.
Drainage area determination and a terrain analysis was required to determine the erosion potential within the
smaller catchments of the Watershed District. This evaluation resulted in maps showing overland flow paths and
overland pour points along with a rating of severity. The maps have been downsized to fit into this report. For a
larger version of the map, please see the CLWD website: www.cormorantwatershed.org. In addition, for a
detailed summary of this erosivity analysis see Appendix B.
Drainage Area: Figure 19 shows the local drainage area of the watershed for each large lake within the CLWD,
distinguishing between the contributing watershed and non-contributing watershed. For example, the local
drainage area for Big Cormorant Lake is 12.52 square miles of which 9.92 square miles is directly contributing
via runoff and 2.60 square miles is non-contributing based on surface runoff. To get the total cumulative drainage
area to Big Cormorant Lake, the drainage areas of the upstream lakes would need to be added to the local
drainage area for the lake. It is helpful to distinguish between the contributing watershed and the non-contributing
watershed when planning improvement projects around the lakes.
Table. 14. Watershed areas for CLWD lakes.
Lake
Total Local Watershed Area
(sq. mi.)
Bijou
1.98
Upper Cormorant
7.96
Rossman
3.37
Middle Cormorant
5.34
Big Cormorant
12.52
Leif/Leaf
4.88
Contributing (sq. mi.)
Non-contributing (sq. mi.)
1.88
4.63
2.86
2.49
9.92
4.41
0.09
3.33
0.51
2.85
2.6
0.47
Erosion Potential for Lakes: Figures 20-21 show the erosion potential for the CLWD lakes. Areas with high
erosivity scores to their pour points into the lakes show up as red triangles and areas with lower erosion potential
values show up as green. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and Stream Power Index (SPI)
values are also summarized along the runoff flow paths. Again, areas of concern show up with redder colored
lines while lower concern areas are color-coded with green lines. The red flow paths and triangles indicate the
highest erosion and sediment delivery potential. These areas should be first priority for ground truthing and then
targeting with implementation projects.
These maps will be used to prioritize areas for implementation projects such as sediment basins, grassed
waterways, shoreline restoration, wetland restoration, and possibly structural measures such as riprap armoring in
severe erosion locations. Having priority areas already identified will also position the CLWD well for receiving
grant funding for implementation projects.
The next step in evaluating the watershed for potential sediment control projects is to ground-truth the areas with
red flow paths and red pourpoints to verify the GIS model.
35
Figure 19. Drainage area for each lake highlighting the contributing areas and non-contributing areas to each lake.
36
Figure 20. Erosion potential for the western portion of the CLWD.
37
Figure 21. Erosion potential for the eastern portion of the CLWD.
38
D.
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
Species present in the CLWD
Currently, Curly-leaf pondweed is the only invasive species present in the CLWD (Figure 19). Curly-leaf
pondweed was discovered in Upper Cormorant Lake in 2006. In 2008, the Upper Cormorant Lake Association
partnered with the CLWD to apply for a DNR grant that assists with the cost of chemically treating the curly-leaf
pondweed. This program has been a success; Upper Cormorant Lake has been treated from 2009-2011 and the
density of curly-leaf pondweed has decreased significantly. This program is expected to be ongoing as it is nearly
impossible to completely eradicate invasive species from a lake.
Curly-leaf pondweed has also been identified in Middle Cormorant Lake; however, it was determined to be a
limited infestation. No herbicidal treatment is occurring in Middle Cormorant Lake presently (through 2011).
Infestation risks
There are many invasive species in close proximity to the CLWD including Zebra mussels and Eurasian
flowering rush (Figure 19). The CLWD feels that currently the largest threat is the Zebra mussels in Pelican
Lake. Because Big Cormorant and Pelican Lakes are only a couple miles apart, many boats and sail boats go
back and forth between the lakes. Zebra mussel veligers (larvae) can be unknowingly transported between lakes
in water at the bottom of a boat, a live well, minnow buckets and by docks, swim platforms, boat lifts and aquatic
vegetation.
Eurasian flowering rush is established in the Detroit Lake chain including Detroit, Muskrat, Sallie, Melissa and
Mill Lakes (Figure 22). The only way Eurasian flowering rush could spread to the Cormorant lakes would be if
someone transported a plant fragment. This is less likely if boaters inspect their boats and trailers for plant
fragments after leaving lakes.
Big Cormorant Lake has participated in the DNR Boat Access Inspection Program from 2010-2011, where DNR
interns have been posted at the lake accesses and inspected and interviewed boaters entering and leaving the lake.
This program will help with education and with invasive species prevention.
There are a number of invasive species in Minnesota and at our doorstep that are potential threats to the
Cormorant Chain of Lakes. Those that are in Minnesota, but not in Becker County yet include Eurasian
watermilfoil, Faucet snails, and Spiny water flea. Invasive species that are present in the Great Lakes but not
Minnesota yet include Quagga mussels, Bighead and Silver carp (as of 2011). Prevention practices must be put in
place at all lakes to prevent the continued spread of invasive species.
To view the most up-to-date infested waters list, learn about invasive species and related laws, and the latest
statewide news on invasive species, visit the DNR’s website:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/index_aquatic.html.
39
Figure 22. Map of infested waters surrounding the Cormorant Lakes.
E.
WATERSHED HYDROLOGY
Water levels
Historic records show that lake levels rose early in the 20th century, were stable during the middle of the century
and then substantially increased in the 1990s through 2000s. Northwest Minnesota has experienced above
average precipitation for the past 15 years. This has a cumulative effect in lakes and the water table. In the
1990s, the Cormorant Lakes experienced historically high water. At the time, many properties were damaged or
destroyed. Over the years, people have adjusted to the higher water levels and there is a lot of riprap around the
lake.
In 1997, Houston Engineering installed a control structure at the outlet of Big Cormorant Lake. This structure has
helped regulate water levels, and water levels haven’t been 2 feet over the ordinary high water since then.
40
The ordinary high water (OHW) marks were set by the DNR. In the 1970s, Big Cormorant was set at 1354.6
because that was determined to be the least damaging to riparian properties. The OHW have been confusing to
area residents because each lake is slightly different (see Table 2 on page 15). The CLWD would like to work
with the DNR better explain the existing OHW benchmarks.
The DNR responded (12/1/2011) that DNR Ecological Waters staff has reviewed DNR records and determined
that downstream waters were surveyed in 1998, but no official OHW was obtained and no information is
available on the culverts between Big and Middle Cormorant (or any solid survey for lakes connected in that
area). They plan to revise the outlets and benchmarks for Upper Cormorant, Middle Cormorant, Big Cormorant,
and possibly Nelson and unnamed (3-752) if connections are found. The DNR Area Hydrologist will share the
revised information with CLWD when it becomes available.
Tree loss in the shoreline zone
Description
Before humans settled northern Minnesota, many of the lakes had trees along the shoreline. When we started
building cabins and houses, we removed many of the trees and replaced the area with manicured lawns. Many of
the new seedlings under existing trees get mowed over now, and many of our mature trees are dying due to age or
disease. In the next few decades, if the mature trees are gone, there will be no young trees to replace them.
Trees are important for many reasons. First, they are an excellent inexpensive and attractive way to control runoff
and erosion. Roots hold soil and help stabilize slopes. Rain and high water can cause runoff and erosion into the
lake that carries with it nutrients and pollutants. The nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) feed algae and pollutants
can affect water quality and habitat quality. When a lake lot has a lot of paved area (impervious surface) and
groomed lawn, the rain runs right into the lake instead of absorbing into the ground. A natural buffer of native
plants, shrubs and trees can filter and absorb this runoff so that it doesn't impact the lake.
Trees are also important to maintain a healthy habitat for fish, birds, insects and other animals that live in and
around the lake. Trees that hang over the water provide shade for fish and other aquatic animals and protection for
animals living along the shoreline. Having trees in your yard will also attract songbirds. A natural shoreline can
increase privacy, increase property value, enhance aesthetics, and deter nuisance geese. Geese love a freshly
mowed lawn.
Assessment
The CLWD is concerned about the loss of trees in the shoreland zone. To try and protect the trees that are still
present, the CLWD requires a permit to remove a tree in the shore impact zone. The CLWD also promotes
shoreline restoration projects that will plant additional young trees to the shore impact zone.
F.
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
High quality habitat
Figure 23 shows the potential high quality habitat areas in the CLWD. This map was created as part of
Minnesota’s Statewide Conservation and Preservation plan. The positive components to habitat quality included
41
features such as known occurrences of rare species, sites of biodiversity significance, or high levels of game
species abundance. Negative influences on natural resources included such information as human development,
land use, and road density. By acquiring and objectively processing information related to these components, it
was possible to rank areas in Minnesota according to their conservation priority. The areas of high quality habitat
can be looked at to see if they match up with any undeveloped properties to become an AMA (see below) or gain
a conservation easement.
Potential areas for protection
The DNR have two types of protection for areas of habitat: Aquatic Management Areas (AMA) and Wildlife
Management Areas (WMA). The DNR are always looking for potential AMA and WMA sites, which are critical
fish and/or wildlife habitat (i.e. bulrush beds, vegetated bays, shallow lakes, etc) to protect along lakes, primarily
from development. AMAs and WMAs are generally designated on undeveloped property. Through the lake and
lakeshed assessment that RMB Environmental Laboratories will be doing for Big, Middle and Upper Cormorant
Lakes in 2011, potential sites for AMAs or WMAs will be identified. When any of the properties in this area
come up for sale, the CLWD will inform their local fisheries manager so they can evaluate the site for potential
purchase and AMA/WMA designation.
42
Figure 23. Potential high quality habitat areas in the CLWD.
43
Chapter 4: Priority Issues
44
A.
PUBLIC MEETING
Chapter 4 presents the priority issues of the CLWD, which were generated at a public meeting on August 16,
2010. At this meeting, participants first brainstormed problems/concerns/opportunities facing the CLWD in a
facilitated process. Then, each person ranked their top 3 issues they feel need to be addressed in the Cormorant
Watershed Plan update. These issues were used to guide the development of the Implementation Plan in Chapter
4. The three top-ranked issues were:



Septic inspections around lakes
Shoreline issues
Manage water outflow from District when desirable/permitted
Other issues that received multiple votes were:





Enforcement
Better protection for Natural Environment Lakes
Confusing ordinary high water (OHW) marks for District lakes
Inventory of pollution sources
Invasive species
After the public meeting, the Advisory Committee for the watershed plan update met to flesh out the issues and
determine how to address them in the CLWD Plan. Discussion of these issues is presented below.
B.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
Septic inspections around lakes. This issue is focused on the impact of improperly maintained septic systems on
lake water quality. The CLWD does not have jurisdiction over septic systems, but it should work with Becker
County during any ordinance revisions and communicate the concerns of its constituents. Currently (2011), the
county does not require point-of-sale septic inspections. In 2011, revisions were made to the Becker County
program for entire lake septic inspections. The county hopes to pull the septic system records for each
recreational development and general development lake every 10 years and get the certificates of compliance on
these lakes up to date. This program is already benefitting the CLWD as Upper Cormorant and Rossman Lakes
have already been evaluated. See page 33 for the results and current status of septic systems in the CLWD.
Shoreline issues. There were many issues raised under the topic of shoreline issues including, lawn runoff,
erosion control, ice berms, erosion on steep banks, buffer strips, and trees in the shore impact zone. These issues
affect the water quality of CLWD lakes. The CLWD should address these issues through rules, education, and
grant programs. See page 29 for assessment of current shoreline status and programs.
Manage water outflow from District when desirable/permitted. This issue has been ongoing for the CLWD and
it’s downstream neighbors. The pour point of the CLWD, the Spring Creek outlet of Big Cormorant Lake, has a
control structure. The outflow of water at this point is regulated by an agreement with Pelican Lake and the DNR.
45
In times of high water, the CLWD would like to be able to increase the outflow to relieve shoreline flooding. As
of 2011, the CLWD is negotiating a new agreement with Pelican Lake.
Enforcement. These issues include the enforcement of CLWD rules and the DNR Conservation Officer
enforcement of state rules. The CLWD should work to enforce District rules and communicate with the DNR
Conservation Officer to enforce state rules.
Better protection for Natural Environment Lakes. The CLWD has numerous shallow lakes and wetlands that
are valuable for habitat and water storage. These areas should be targeted for protection through conservation
easements or aquatic management areas (AMAs). See page 37 for assessment of high quality habitat areas.
Confusing ordinary high water (OHW) marks for District lakes. The OHW marks are set by the DNR. The
Cormorant Lakes form a connected chain, and the OHW marks for each lake are confusing to the CLWD. The
CLWD should work with the DNR to better define these benchmarks. See page 36 for assessment of OHW
issues.
Inventory of pollution sources. This issue includes inventorying groundwater pollution sources such as
abandoned wells, above ground and below ground storage tanks, and surface water pollution sources such as open
loop geothermal heating discharge, and phosphorus and sediment runoff. The CLWD should inventory these
sources so they can mitigate any pressing impacts to water quality. Two studies are currently being conducted in
this area: the lake and lakeshed assessment for Big, Middle and Upper Cormorant Lakes by RMB Environmental
Laboratories, and minor watershed mapping by the CLWD engineer. The results from these studies will be
helpful in guiding CLWD management of water and land resources.
Invasive species. Invasive species are a pressing issue for the CLWD and for all lakes in Minnesota. Currently
(2011), the only aquatic invasive species present in the CLWD is Curly-leaf pondweed in Upper Cormorant Lake.
However, the CLWD is surrounded by other invasive species such as Zebra mussels in Pelican Lake and Eurasian
Flowering Rush in Detroit, Melissa and Sallie Lakes. The CLWD should work with the Becker County AIS Task
Force, Cormorant Chain Lake Associations and other area Lake Associations to prevent invasive species spread to
District Lakes. See page 35 for assessment of aquatic invasive species risk.
46
Chapter 5: Implementation Plan
Chapter 5 contains the CLWD’s Implementation Plan. This Plan identifies the goals, objectives, and initiatives
that will guide the CLWD in water resource management over the next ten years (2012-2022).
A.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND INITIATIVES DEFINED
The Implementation Plan consists of goals, objectives, and initiatives that were developed with input from the
Board of Managers and Advisory Committee. The following provides a definition of each of these
components:
Goal: A goal is an idealistic statement intended to be attained at some undetermined future date. Goals are
purposely general in nature.
Objective: An objective is an action-oriented statement that supports the completion of a goal. There may
be more than one objective per goal.
Initiative: An initiative is a specific action that will be taken in order to achieve a goal and objective.
B.
INITIATIVE INFORMATION
Each initiative identified in the Implementation Plan has been assigned specific information on the proposed
timeframe and coordinating agency(s). Collectively, this information will be used to achieve the goals and
objectives set forth in the Plan. A description of these categories is provided below.
Proposed Timeframe: Provides an approximate timeframe, from 2012 to 2022, when the initiative will
be initiated and completed.
Coordinating Agency(s): Entails who potentially will be involved in the implementation of the initiative.
An *Asterisk indicates lead responsibility. A listing of the most common coordinating agencies and their
respective acronyms is provided below.
County (Becker County)
CLWD (Cormorant Lakes Watershed District)
DNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)
LA (Lake Association)
PGOLID (Pelican Group of Lakes Improvement District)
PRWD (Pelican River Watershed District)
SWCD (Becker Soil and Water Conservation District)
Chapter 5. Implementation Plan
47
Watershed Management Plan (2012-2022)
Implementation Plan
WATER RESOURCES & SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT
GOAL 1: MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE WATER QUALITY OF SURFACEWATERS THROUGH
VARIOUS NONDEGREDATION PROGRAMS AND STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES.
Objective A. Monitor the water quality of CLWD lakes.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
Coordinating Agency(s)
*Lead
Continue to monitor district lakes using
volunteers that live on the lakes.
Every summer, MaySeptember
*CLWD, LA
Analysis water quality data and
recommendations.
Annual or as needed
*CLWD, RMB Lab
Recognize lake volunteers on website.
Every summer
*CLWD, LA
This objective addresses the following issues:
Chapter 3 assessment issues: water resources
Chapter 4 priority issues: inventory of pollution sources
Objective B. Protect or restore wetlands, lakes and ponds.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Continue District inspections of wetlands and
bring violations to SWCD
Ongoing
CLWD, *SWCD
Look into grant funding opportunities for water
quality projects.
Ongoing
CLWD, *SWCD, COLA
Chapter 4 priority issues: enforcement, better protection
for natural environment lakes.
48
Objective C. Gain an understanding of nutrient movement and pollution sources in the CLWD.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Conduct a nutrient budget study with future
goals for nutrient reductions.
2012
CLWD, *Engineer
Identify priority sub-watersheds for best
management practices implementation.
2011-2012
CLWD, *Engineer
Investigate point source runoff and nutrient
sources to see if it leads to degradation (using
flyover info, LiDAR, and ground truthing).
Ongoing
CLWD, *Engineer
Chapter 4 priority issues: inventory of pollution sources
Objective D. Protect the lakes during building projects.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Continue permitting program for building
projects near water bodies.
ongoing
*CLWD
Urge county to develop a storm water
management plan for the building permitting
process.
2016-2021
CLWD,*County
Chapter 3 assessment issues: shoreline development
Chapter 4 priority issues: enforcement
49
Objective E. Educate/promote riparian owners about the value of buffer strips, shoreland protection and
restoration.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Conduct shoreline inventory of district lakes.
3-4 year cycle
*CLWD
Work with lake associations to partner in
promoting shoreline protection/restoration
projects.
Annually at meeting
*CLWD, SWCD, DNR, LAs
Urge county in the establishment of a shoreline
specialist position.
2011-2012
*SWCD, CLWD, County
Look into grant funding sources for shoreline
restoration projects.
Ongoing
*CLWD, SWCD
Chapter 4 priority issues: shoreline issues
Objective F. Communicate concerns about septic systems and holding tanks to the county
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Pursue the county to enhance their septic
inspections/enforcements.
2011-2012
CLWD, *County
Chapter 4 priority issues: septic systems around lakes
50
GOAL 2: PROMOTE AWARENESS OF GROUNDWATER RESOURCES AND NECESSARY
STEPS TO PROTECT IT.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Keep current on available information about
the impact of open loop geothermal systems on
lakes.
As information becomes
available.
CLWD, DNR, MPCA, County
Review available information about abandoned
wells, above ground and below ground storage
tanks and make sure they are not impacting
water quality.
2011-2012
CLWD, MPCA, *SWCD,
County
This goal addresses the following issues:
Chapter 4 priority issues: inventory of pollution sources,
enforcement
WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
GOAL 3: MANAGE OR MINIMIZE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION.
Objective A. Maintain current rules and look into any new rules as needed.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Meet with county and Pelican River Watershed
District to learn about erosion control
enforcement.
2012-2013
*CLWD, PRWD, County
Evaluate current rules and determine which are
working and which need revision
2012-2015
*CLWD
Chapter 3 assessment issues: watershed assessment
Chapter 4 priority issues: enforcement
51
Objective B. Work with county zoning and property owners on erosion control methods
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Promoting best management practices on
agricultural and residential land.
Ongoing
*CLWD
Identify areas with high erosion potential.
Part of engineer studies
CLWD, *Engineer
Pursue outside funding for BMP
implementation in non-construction priority
areas.
As need arises
CLWD, *SWCD
Continuing education for erosion control
measures.
Ongoing
*CLWD
Objective C. Stormwater management on private and public properties
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Promote rain gardens.
Ongoing
CLWD, *SWCD
Look into sediment basins.
As need arises
CLWD, *Engineer
52
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
GOAL 4: WORK TO HELP PREVENT THE SPREAD OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES AND
MANAGE THOSE THAT ARE PRESENT IN DISTRICT LAKES.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Support and coordinate with lake associations
in invasive species education and species
identification.
Ongoing
*CLWD, LAs, County AIS
Task Force
Facilitate invasive species monitoring program
in District with Lake Associations.
Ongoing
*CLWD, LAs, County AIS
Task Force
Relay invasive species concerns to legislators
and DNR.
Ongoing
*DNR, CLWD, LA
Work with the DNR to train an invasive
species task force on identifying invasive
species.
Ongoing
CLWD,*DNR, LA, County
AIS Task Force
Educate public about invasive species
prevention.
Ongoing
CLWD, LA, *DNR, County
AIS Task Force
This goal addresses the following issues:
Chapter 3 assessment issues: aquatic invasive species
Chapter 4 priority issues: invasive species
53
WATERSHED HYDROLOGY
GOAL 5: ALLEVIATE DAMAGE (INCLUDING PROPERTY DAMAGE AND SHORELINE
DAMAGE) BY HIGH WATER WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
Objective A. Implement seasonal water level management while prioritizing property and environmental
damage versus recreational opportunities.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Delineate subwatersheds and channels.
2011
CLWD, *Engineer
Investigate outlet controls for highwater
waterbodies (an example: lake 603).
As the need arises
CLWD, *Engineer
Determine water budget of watershed.
2011-2012
CLWD, *Engineer
Look into creating springtime storage.
If possible and beneficial
CLWD, *Engineer
Chapter 3 assessment issues: watershed hydrology
Chapter 4 priority issues: confusing OHW marks, increase
water outflow from district
GOAL 6: MAINTAIN CHANNELS AND WATER FLOW ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED LEVELS.
Objective A. Negotiate with downstream lakes on structure control water discharge.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Complete agreement with Pelican Lake on
water discharge from Big Cormorant control
structure.
2011-2012
*CLWD, PGOLID
Obtain necessary DNR permits/buy-in for
water discharge from Big Cormorant control
structure.
2011-2012
*CLWD, DNR, PGOLID
Chapter 4 priority issues: increase water outflow from
district
54
Objective B. Manage the waters within the CLWD to help maintain normal water levels both upstream and
downstream.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Investigate crossing improvements in support
of water quantity management.
As need arises
*CLWD
District engineer work with DNR Eco-water
resources survey crew to re-affirm OHW
benchmarks.
2011-2012
CLWD, *DNR
Chapter 4 priority issues: confusing OHW marks
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
GOAL 7: PREVENT UNNECESSARY DESTRUCTION AND MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE HABITAT
FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE ON WATER QUALITY AND WATER QUANTITY PROJECTS.
Objective A. Coordinate projects to improve habitat.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Identify potential acquisition sites for DNR
Aquatic Management Area (AMA) program
for shoreline protection (easements and/or land
sale).
Ongoing
*CLWD, DNR
Team with Cormorant Sportsmen’s Club and
other groups to pursue habitat grants and
projects.
As projects arise.
*CLWD, LA, Club
Chapter 3 assessment issues: habitat assessment
Chapter 4 priority issues: better protection for natural
environment lakes.
55
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
GOAL 8: INFORM AND HELP EDUCATE ABOUT WATERSHED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS.
Initiative
Proposed Timeframe
*Lead
Public awareness of the website
Ongoing
*CLWD
Attend Lake Association meetings to discuss
watershed policies and programs.
Biannual
*CLWD, LAs
Hold an annual public meeting for the
watershed.
Biannual
*CLWD, LAs
Collaborate in the production, funding and
distribution of the Becker County Shoreline
Guide.
As production happens
CLWD, COLA, *County
Put together an online newsletter.
Once or twice a year.
*CLWD
56
Chapter 6. Administration
A.
PLAN SCHEDULE
The Implementation of this Plan will commence with its adoption by the Board of Managers and final approval
from BWSR. The Plan will remain in effect for a ten-year period, which is specified as 2012 to 2022.
B.
PLAN COORDINATION
Water resource management in the CLWD involves many stakeholders. To effectively achieve the goals and
objectives set forth in this Plan, a well-coordinated effort will be needed. The CLWD will ensure coordination of
this Plan through its Board of Managers and Advisory Committee.
C.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION
During the development of this Plan, no intergovernmental conflicts arose. In the event of such a conflict, the
Board of Managers and Advisory Committee shall intervene and resolve the conflict. If the conflict is unable to
be resolved, the Board of Managers shall petition the BWSR for a contested case hearing.
D.
AVAILABLE FUNDING MECHANISMS
The CLWD is allowed to establish a number of funds for the purpose of carrying out its powers and duties. A
description of these mechanisms is below.
Ad valorem tax levies
The phrase “Ad valorem” refers to a tax that is collected over the entire taxing district and is based on property
value, rather than benefits. For example, if the CLWD were to collect $100,000 through an ad valorem tax, the
Board of Managers would provide a certified levy to the county auditors who would calculate the tax rate
necessary to generate that amount based on the total value of real property within the CLWD. This tax rate would
then be used to determine the tax for individual properties by maintaining the same proportion of tax to value for
all properties within the CLWD.
Watershed Management Districts
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D.729 permits the establishment of one or more water management districts
within the territory of the CLWD to ensure that adequate financial resources are available to address resource
concerns in all areas. The cost of actions or projects funded within each management district could be paid, in
whole or in part, through the collection of water management charges. The water management charges could be
apportioned among the landowners within the management district on the basis of their relative contribution of
stormwater runoff, sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants. Rates may differ on the basis of the amount of land,
type of land cover, and type of land use.
57
Project Assessments
The Board of Managers may assess the cost of a project or the cost to maintain or repair an existing project to the
property owners whose property is benefitted by the project, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
Grant Funding
The Managers believe it is their duty to explore grants and all possible funding alternatives that may exist to
reduce assessments that may be levied upon property owners to finance the cost of petitioned projects.
E.
PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURE
The CLWD will amend this plan if a new and unforeseen issue arises that needs to be dealt with, and which
requires new policies and/or programs. The CLWD must prepare Plan amendments in accordance with M.S.
Chapter 103D.411. In general, the following steps are required:
1.
After the Plan amendment is prepared, the CLWD must initiate the amendment procedure by submitting a
petition along with a copy of the proposed amendment to the BWSR.
2.
At the same time that the CLWD sends the proposed Plan amendment to the BWSR, it must also send a copy
of the amendment to the DNR, Division of Waters Director, as well as the county boards, county auditors,
cities, and soil and water conservation districts within its territory. Although not required, the proposed
amendment should also be sent to the MPCA Regional Director.
3.
Within sixty (60) days of receiving the proposed amendment, the DNR, Division of Waters Director must
review and make recommendations on the proposed amendment. The Director must send the
recommendations to the CLWD.
4.
Within forty-five (45) days of receiving the Director’s recommendations, the BWSR must give notice and
hold a hearing on the proposed amendment. If the BWSR determines the proposed amendment to be noncontroversial it may provide notice to that effect. If a non-controversial procedure is used, a hearing will be
held only if one or more persons request a hearing on the proposed amendment.
5.
After the hearing, the BWSR may, by order, approve or prescribe changes in the amendment. The
amendment becomes part of the Plan after it is adopted by the Board of Managers. The BWSR is responsible
for notification of the approved amendment.
58
F.
PLAN EVALUATION
To successfully implement this Plan, periodic review will be necessary. The Board of Managers and Advisory
Committee shall review the Plan at least once every two years in order to ensure that the CLWD’s goals and
objectives remain both accurate and constructive. The Plan can be amended in order to address changing needs,
priorities, and conditions.
G.
POLICIES
The policies adopted by the CLWD Board of Managers are described below. Since the content of the revised
Water Management Plan is intended to support and justify the Board's policies and activities, it is appropriate to
summarize these policies as follows.
Petition Projects
The CLWD has and will continue to assist the landowners and other interested parties within the CLWD in
actively pursuing projects through the petition procedure.
Majority Resolution of the Board
The Board of Managers, in concert with their consultants, will continue to actively pursue possible alternatives to
flood damage reduction through technical investigations and to maximize the use of public information. The
Board will also continue to use the resolution procedure to initiate such projects, if needed.
Miscellaneous Studies and Investigations
The CLWD will established a fund entitled "Survey and Data Acquisition" account and conduct the necessary
technical investigations and surveys for water-related problems brought to the attention of the Board of
Managers.
Rules and Regulations of the CLWD
The CLWD will continue to enforce its rules and regulations as a matter of policy. The CLWD Rules and
Regulations can be found in Appendix A.
Permits
The CLWD will continue to use the permit system to enforce its adopted rules and regulations. It is also a policy
of the CLWD to assist permit applicants with technical advice so that project function may be accomplished in
the most environmentally acceptable manner.
Technical Assistance Programs
The Board will continue to provide needed technical assistance and consultation to landowners, governmental
units, and other entities within the jurisdiction of the CLWD.
Public Information and Education Programs
The CLWD will continue to publicize its activities and other water related information so that its constituent
public is educated in water issues to the maximum extent possible.
59
Intergovernmental Coordination and Cooperation
The Watershed District views intergovernmental coordination and cooperation as an absolute necessity in order
to perform its required functions. The Board will continue to foster an environment which enhances coordination
and cooperation to the maximum extent possible.
60
Appendix A. Watershed Management Rules
Section 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Statutory Authority to Adopt Rules
According to Minnesota Statutes (M.S.) Section 10311341, subdivision 1, the managers must adopt rules to
accomplish the purposes of this chapter and to implement the powers of the managers.
1 .2 Short Title
These rules shall be known and may be cited as the “Cormorant Lakes Watershed District Rules." The address of
the CLWDs office is 10929 County Highway #5, Pelican Rapids, Minnesota 56572.
1.3 Inconsistent Provisions
If any rule or rules herein contained are inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter 103D or other applicable laws
of the State of Minnesota, the provisions of Chapter or other applicable law shall govern.
1.4 Severability
The provisions of these rules shall be severable and the invalidity of any section, subdivision or any other part
thereof shall not make invalid any other section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, subdivision or any other
part thereof.
Section 2.0 Policy Statement
2.1 General Policy
These rules shall be adopted by the Board of Managers of the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District to effectuate
the purposes of M.S. Chapter 103D and the powers of the Board of Managers therein prescribed, it is the intention
of the Board of Managers that its rules conform to the legislative policy of M.S, Chapter 103D.
It is the Managers’ intention to use these rules as a tool to carry out the Districts mission to enhance the quality of
water in the lakes and water of the state within its jurisdiction. lt is understood that to accomplish this, the District
must ensure that appropriate decisions are made .concerning the management of streams, wetlands, lakes,
groundwater, and related land resources which directly affect these lakes. The Managers’ further intent is to
accomplish this mission in a manner that is most beneficial to the general welfare of present and future residents
of the District and to minimize adverse environmental impacts upon the water resources of the District.
Specifically, the District seeks to minimize increased discharges or nutrients to the waters of the District by
exercising control over development and to regulate improvements by riparian property owners of the beaches,
banks, and shores of lakes, streams, and wetlands for preservation and beneficial public use.
The rules stated below shall be followed by any persons, corporations, firms, state, county or municipal
governments, and other government agencies undertaking revision of their existing rules, plans or statutes, or
undertaking certain land use modification or land development activities within the District.
Section 3.0 Definitions
For the purposes of these Rules, certain words and terms are defined below. ln the absence of a definition, the
definitions established for the State of Minnesota by statute or by case law shall apply to these Rules unless
clearly in conflict, clearly inapplicable, or unless the context makes such meaning repugnant thereto. Certain
terms or words used herein shall be interpreted as follows: the word "shall" is mandatory, not permissive. All
distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured horizontally.
Appendix A. Watershed Rules
61
ALTERATIONS TO LAND means grading, excavation, or movement of soil or vegetative material.
APPROPRIATE REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL OR REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL means a
professional registered in the state of Minnesota with the necessary expertise in the fields of hydrology,
drainage, flood control, erosion and sediment control, and stormwater pollution control to design and certify
stormwater management devices and plans, erosion prevention and sediment control plans, and shoreland
alterations including retaining walls. Examples of registered professionals may include professional
engineers, professional landscape architects, professional geologists, and professional soil engineers who
have the referenced skills.
BLUFF means a topographic feature such as hill, cliff, or embankment located in a shoreland area and
draining to a water body, having a slope rising at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the
water body, and where the grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to any point 25 feet or more above the
ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater.
BLUFF IMPACT ZONE means a bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff.
BOARD OF MANAGERS means the Managers of the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
BWSR means Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.
DETENTlON SYSTEM means a structure or facility, which collects and stores runoff on a temporan/ basis
with a subsequent gradual release of stormwater at a controlled rate. A detention basin may retain some
water.
DE-WATERING means discharge of appropriated surface or ground water.
DISCHARGE means the disposal, conveyance, channeling of runoff or drainage of water or material,
including, but not limited to stormwater and snow melt.
DISTRICT means the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
EROSION means the wearing away of soil by rainfall, surface water runoff, wind, or ice-movement.
FlLL means soil, sand, gravel, clay or any other material which is placed on land or in waters of the state.
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AREA means area in which surface water accumulates and is conveyed to
groundwater aquifers.
ICE RIDGE means the ridge, comprised of soil, sand and/or gravel, often found in the shore impact zone
near the ordinary high water mark of lakes, and caused by wind driven ice or ice expansion.
ICE RIDGE MODIFICATION means the removal, excavation, alteration, of material or vegetation on an
Ice-ridge.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE means a constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water
into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than
prior to development. Examples include, but are not Iimited to, rooftops, sidewalks, patios, roads, streets,
driveways, and parking lots constructed of concrete, asphalt, paving stones and bricks, or compacted soils
(including “class 5”).
62
LATERAL means any constructed waterway or drain, which conveys water to a public ditch.
LOADS means a quantity of sediment or nutrients, expressed by weight, and carried by, or dissolved in,
discharge.
MANAGERS means the Board of Managers of the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
MPCA means Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
NATURAL VEGETATION DISTURBANCE means the removal or destruction of established vegetation
species.
NRCS means U.S.- Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service Agency. '
ON-SITE means within the contiguous contines of an ownership parcel.
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHWL) means the boundary of public waters and wetlands which is
an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to
leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly the point where the natural vegetation changes from
predominantly aquatic to predominately terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the
elevation of the top of the bank of the channel.
POINT DISCHARGE means discharge from a specific outlet, such as storm sewer, pipe, culvert, or ditch.
PROPERTY OWNER means the party possessing the title of the land on which the activity will occur; or if
the activity is for a lease holder, the party identified as the lease holder; or the contracting government
agency responsible for the activity.
RECONSTRUCTION includes, but is not limited to, changing drainage, re-grading, changing cross sections
or vegetation removal; reconstruction does not include seal-coating or overlays of roads, streets, highways,
driveways or parking lots, right-of-way maintenance, or road repairs resulting from maintenance or repair of
sanitary or water supply system.
RETAINING WALL means a structure intended to maintain a grade differential of six inches or more.
RETENTION SYSTEM means a structure or facility which accumulates a specified amount of stormwater or
runoff.
RUNOFF means water, including nutrients, pollutants and sediments carried by water, discharged from land
surface.
SEDIMENT means mineral or organic particulate matter that has been carried from its point of origin by
water or wind.
SHORE IMPACT ZONE means land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a
line parallel to and 1/2 the setback from it (as defined by applicable county or municipal zoning ordinances),
except that on property used for agricultural purposes the shore impact zone boundary is a line parallel to and
50 feet from the ordinary high water level. ln no instance shall the shore impact zone be less than (50) feet
from the ordinary high water level.
63
SHORELAND (SHORELAND DISTRICT OR SHORELAND ZONE) means land located within 1000 feet
of the ordinary high water mark of a lake, pond, or 300 feet from a river or stream, as defined in the Becker
County Zoning Ordinance.
SLOPE INSTABILITY means a condition in which slope has exhibited sloughing or slumping or other
failure to maintain natural grades, or is determined by an appropriate registered professional to have the
potential for failure.
STABILIZATIGN means covering an exposed ground surface by sod, erosion control blanket, rip rap or
other material that prevents erosion. A surface is not considered stabilized by simply sowing grass seed.
STEEP SLOPE means steep slopes, that are not bluffs, are lands having average slopes more than 12 percent,
as measured over distances of 50 feet measured horizontally.
STORM SEWER means a system of pipe installed for the specific purpose of transporting surface and/or
underground waters from one location to another and said system need not be continuously constructed only
of pipe, but may include reaches of flumes, spillways, or open channels.
STORMWATER means precipitation runoff, snow melt runoff, or any other surface runoff and drainage.
STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE means constructed measures to collect, convey, or treat stormwater.
STORMWATER TREATMENT DEVICE means a facility designed to retain or detain stormwater, or to
lower its sediment or nutrient content.
RELIEF means a modification or variation of the provisions of the Rules, as applied to a specific piece of
property.
VEGETATION means brush, shrubs, grass, or trees.
WATERCOURSE means a channel having definable beds and banks capable of conducting confined runoff
from adjacent lands. During floods, water may leave the confining beds and banks, but under low and normal
flows water stays within the channel. A watercourse may be perennial or intermittent, natural or man-made.
Ditches and streams are examples of watercourses.
WATERS OF THE STATE means all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells,
springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems, and all other bodies or accumulations of
water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow
through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof.
WATERSHED DISTRICT means the legally established agency named and referred to as the Cormorant
Lakes Watershed District, when the word "District", it shall mean the land contained within the boundary of
the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District.
WETLAND means all wetlands as defined in Minnesota Statutes.
64
Section 4.0 Water Quality Protection and Enhancement
4.1 Thresholds for Permits
Permits are required for any of the following actions within the boundaries of the Cormorant Lakes Watershed
District:
a. alterations to land, impervious surface, or vegetation in Shore Impact Zone or Bluff Impact Zones, or
steep slopes in a Shoreland Zone;
b. additions to impervious surface resulting in total impervious surface (new and existing) in excess of 25%
of lot area, or 10,000 square feet in the shoreland zone, or 1 acre elsewhere for any property draining to
waters of the state, or draining to an existing storm sewer or stormwater treatment facility;
c. construction or re-construction of a private or public highway, road, street, parking lot, or public water
access;
d. subdivisions, plats, developments based upon certified surveys or planned unit developments;
e. changes to stormwater infrastructure, including streets and public parking, inlets to waters of the state,
bridges, or culverts;
f. de-watering of groundwater or surface water including sump pumps, heating and air conditioning
systems, well cleaning resulting in discharges into public waters of the state; no permit shall be issued to
allow a direct discharge into the waters of the state within the shore impact zone. An expedited permit
may be granted for temporary de-watering provided adequate erosion control methods are in place and
does not result in a direct discharge into waters of the state.
g. installation, repair, replacement or removal of rip-rap or beach sand blanket in the shore impact zone;
h. installation, repair, replacement or removal of retaining walls in the shore or bluff impact zone.
i. the removal, construction or modification of an ice ridge formed at the edge of a public water.
j. No person shall alter or fill land below the OHWL flood elevation of any wetland or public water or
wetland without first securing a permit from the District. An expedited administrative permit is required
for 1" or less of fill within the shore impact zone in preparation for sodding or seeding purposes. A
Becker County land alteration permit and a CLWD permit is required for any fill in the shore impact
zone exceeding 1" in depth.
k. Operating equipment for land alteration purposes in the shore impact zone.
l. Normal agricultural practice shall be excluded from regulations, unless such agricultural practice
adversely affects the water quality of the district, at which time a permit will be required.
4.2 Approval of Permits
Permits will be granted for actions in 4.1 which meet all of the following conditions:
a. Actions will not result in increases in stormwater discharge rates to adjoining properties or to waters of
the state for the 5-year, 24-hour rainfall events.
b. All actions must utilize standards and procedures for controlling runoff rates, nutrients, and sediments as
described in the “Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas” manual (MPCA, 2000) as revised. lf a facility
or measure is not addressed in that manual, other resources as possible references include but may not be
limited to; "BWSR Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook” as
revised, the NRCS “Slope Protection for Dams and Lakeshores, Minnesota Technical Release 2”
(October 1 997) as revised, “Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual, Met Council, 2001 ", or “Storm
Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992", as revised. ,
c. Actions in Section 4.1 b, c, d and e must be accompanied by a stormwater management plan, and for
areas that are changed incorporate retention of the stormwater runoff generated by the 5 year 24 hour
rainfall event on site. An alternative standard would be to show a minimum of 90% removal of total
suspended solids and a 50% or higher total phosphorus removal for a rainfall event using the Wa|ker’s
Pond Net model or other equivalent models. ln either case, a maintenance schedule for the provisions
must be provided.
65
d. Actions involving ice ridges are allowed only for purposes of repairing current year shoreline damage; no
ice ridge modifications which result in an increase of runoff to a lake or natural vegetation disturbance are
allowed, except that a 4 foot wide walkway may be constructed across a permanent ice ridge after a
permit is obtained from the CLWD, following the general permit from the DNR, using the DNR existing
guidelines for ice ridge modification. The completion date for a permit to remove an ice ridge may be
extended by the District, if the existing lake elevation would prohibit a practicable repair during the
current year.
e. Actions involving the stabilization of shorelines or stream banks, or installation of beach sand blankets
must use fill or material that is non-polluting under any foreseeable circumstances. For rip-rap, under
normal conditions, no rip-rap or filter materials should be placed more than six feet waten/vard of the
shoreline measured from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level elevation. The encroachment into the
water is the minimum amount necessary to provide protection and does not unduly interfere with the flow
of water.
f. Retaining walls in the shore impact zone are allowed only for the purposes of correcting existing slope
instability or erosion; the base of such walls must be above the highest known water level. Retaining wall
design plans must comply with accepted engineering principles and submit an analysis which shows that
the wall will withstand expected ice and wave action, and earth pressure.
g. A complete permit application which includes all required exhibits shall be received by the District at
least 30 full days prior to the scheduled meeting date of the Board of Managers. Late submittals or
submittals with incomplete exhibits will be scheduled to a subsequent meeting date.
h. Permit applications tabled at a board meeting due to revisions needed for compliance with District rules
will be addressed at the next board meeting if the revisions are submitted within 5 working days of being
tabled.
i. Regular Board meetings of the Board of Managers are conducted on the first Monday of each month at
7:00 pm., and are held at the Cormorant Townhall, Cormorant Village, 10929 County Highway #5,
Pelican Rapids, Minnesota 56572, unless otherwise noticed. Special meetings will be subject to posted
notice.
j. A permit issued snail be posted on the premises prior to commencement of the project and remain posted
until the project has been inspected and approved by the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District Staff.
4.3 Permit Application Requirements
a. No action, works, or use requiring a permit shall be commenced prior to issuance of the permit, except for
emergency repairs necessitated by storms, floods, or water, electrical and sewage system failures. The
District should be notified of such repairs as soon as practicable.
b. Application forms and instructions will be available from the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District office
and the Becker County Zoning office. Permit applications must be complete in order to be considered by
the District.
c. Permits are valid for up to a twelve (12) month period from the date of issuance unless otherwise
suspended or revoked. To extend a permit, the property owner must apply to the District in writing stating
the reasons for the requested extension. Any plan changes, and related project documents must also be
included in the extension application. The District must receive this application at least thirty days prior to
the permit’s expiration date.
d. Nothing in these Rules shall limit the District from requiring a design certification by a licensed engineer
or licensed landscape architect, or other appropriate professional, when deemed necessary and appropriate
by the Managers or Administrator in order to ensure compliance with the Rules.
e. For any proposed land alteration project in the shore impact zone or a bluff impact zone, an applicant
must provide a design, site drawing and proposed construction plan, approved by a certified engineer or
landscape architect as required by the Becker County Zoning Ordinance Section 12, Subdivision 7. A
copy of said design and drawing must be attached to the application submitted to the Cormorant Lakes
Watershed District thirty (30) days prior to approval being received from the County to allow comments
by the CLWD as may be appropriate. Nothing in this regulation shall limit the CLWD from requiring a
66
design certification by a licensed engineer or landscape architect, or other appropriate professional, when
deemed necessary and appropriate by the managers to provide sediment control, pollution control, run off,
erosion or drainage.
f. All new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional structures and alterations to existing
structures shall be constructed such that all finished floor elevations are at a minimum of 18 inches above
highest recorded water level. For Big Cormorant Lake, the highest recorded lake level elevation shall be
1,356.2 feet. The Applicant shall bear the burden of establishing the proposed elevation of the structure.
The CLWD shall place a monument establishing the OHWL on each lake within the District, that has an
established OHWL by the DNR.
g. A CLWD permit shall not be construed as a valid permit required from any state, county, township or
other regulatory agency as may be required such as State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Becker County, Township, Soil and Water Conservation
District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
4.4 Sureties
a. The District may require a performance bond, letter of credit or other surety in a form approved bythe
District for an activity regulated under these Rules. A commercial surety shall be from an issuer licensed
and doing business in Minnesota. The surety shall be submitted by the property owner but the surety
principal may be either the property owner or the individual or entity undertaking the proposed activity.
b. The surety shall be in favor of the District and conditioned on the applicants performance of the activities
authorized in the permit in compliance with all applicable laws, including the Districts Rules, the terms
and conditions of the permit and payment when due of any fees or other charges authorized by law,
including the District’s Rules. The surety shall state that in the event the conditions of the surety are not
met, the District may make a claim against it,
c. The surety must be valid and in force for at least an eighteen (18) month period and shall contain a
provision that it may not be canceled or released except pursuant to the terms in 4.13(e) herein.
d. The amount of the surety shall be set by the Board of Managers by resolution as the amount the Board
deems necessary to cover the following potential liabilities to the District:
1) Application, field inspection, monitoring and related fees authorized under Minnesota Statute
1030.345;
2) The cost of maintaining and implementing protective measures set forth in or incorporated into the
permit; and
3) The cost of remedying damage resulting from permit noncompliance or for which the property owner
otherwise is responsible.
e. On written notification of completion of a project, the District will inspect the project to determine if the
project is constructed in accordance with the terms of the permit and District Rules. lf the project is
completed in accordance with the terms of the permit and District Rules and there is no outstanding
balance for unpaid inspection fees, attorneys fees, engineers costs, contract labor on materials ordered and
installed by the District, the District will release the surety if one was required in Section 4.4(a_).
f. Governmental agencies are exempt from surety requirements.
g. The Cormorant Lakes Watershed District, in the sole discretion of the Board Managers, may accept a
personal surety from a landowner with an accompanying financial statement.
4.5 Upgrade of Existing Stormwater Discharges
The Managers may require a person or government to provide a treatment plan for point discharges of stormwater
containing annual loads in excess of 10 pounds of phosphorus or 2000 pounds of sediment to waters of the state.
Such a plan must be implemented within one (1) year of notification by the District.
4.6 Maintenance of Stormwater Treatment Devices
The owners of property on which a stormwater treatment device has been constructed must maintain that device
so that its function is not diminished. if a stormwater treatment device is not maintained by the owner, the District
67
shall have the authority to order ail necessary emergency repairs and assess all costs to the record owners of the
property.
Section 5.0 Dredging
5.1 Policy
lt is the policy of the Board of Managers to preserve the natural appearance of shoreline areas, recreational,
wildlife and fisheries resources of surface waters, and surface water quality.
5.2 Regulations
No person shall dredge in the beds, banks or shores of any protected water or wetland in the District without first
securing a permit from the District and the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and posting a
bond or letter of credit pursuant to Regulation 4.4(a).
5.3 General Standards
Ali permitted dredging shall comply with the following standards:
a. The disposal site must be identified and found not to be below the OHWL of a public water or public
water wetland, wetland subject to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, or floodplain and not prone to
erosion.
b. ln cases of an identifiable source of sediment under the control of the applicant, the plan shall include
remedial action to minimize deposition of sediment into a Water body or off-site.
c. Prior to review by the District, ail dredging proposals that involve docking shall be submitted to and
approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
d. The proposed project shall represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to all
other reasonable alternatives such as dock extensions, aquatic nuisance plant removal without dredging,
beach sand blankets, excavation above the bed of public water, less extensive dredging in another area of
the public water, or management of an alternative water body for the intended purpose.
e. The dredging shall be limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for achieving the stated purpose.
f. lf the dredging will be accomplished by means of hydraulic dredging the following additional standards
will apply: the disposal site shall have a minimum storage capacity equal to four times the calculated
volume of solid material to be removed, a minimum free board between the top of the projected water
surface elevation and the top of the dike of one foot, if no outlet from the disposal is proposed.
g. All permit applications must be accompanied by design information by a certified civil engineer.
Section 6.0 Shoreline & Stream bank Improvement
6.1 Policy
It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
a. Assure that improvement of shoreline and stream bank areas to prevent erosion and to enhance water
quality complies with accepted engineering principles in conformity with Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) construction guidelines, and
b. Preserve the natural appearance of shoreline and stream bank areas.
6.2 Regulations a. No person shall construct a shoreline or stream bank improvement, such as rip rap or to prevent erosion,
or for any other purpose, such as boat ramps and sand blankets, without first securing a permit from the
District. Any retaining wall shall require a conditional use permit to be issued by Becker County and it is
the expressed policy of the District to discourage the development of retaining walls that abut any lake or
stream.
68
b. An expedited administrative permit may be issued for routine rip rap projects that conform with the
requirements set forth in paragraph 4.2(e) of this Rule.
c. An expedited administrative permit may be issued for routine sand blanket projects that conform with the
requirements set forth in paragraph 4.2(e) of this Rule.
d. The District may issue an expedited permit for activity limited to Section 6.2(b), 62(0), 4.1(f), 4.1 (j) and
8 without inspection to a contractor that has posted a cash bond or personal surety with the CLWD
Administrator in the sum of $1,000.00 prior to May 1, of each construction year. The contractor must also
attend a CLWD training seminar for contractors, The contractor must advise a manager of the scope of
the project before the work is commenced. The CLWD reserves the right to terminate the contractor’s
privilege to obtain an expedited permit without inspection for any or no reason. The purpose of the surety
bond is to provide funds to restore the activity to the pre-permit condition for any activity completed that
is not in compliance with all CLWD regulations.
6.3 Criteria For Rip Rap Placement
Rip rap placement shall comply with the following criteria:
a. General standards:
1) Clean rip rap material should be durable, natural stone and of a gradation thatwlll result in stable
shoreline embankment.
2) The finished slope of the rock fragments, boulders and/or cobbles should not be deeper than a
ratio of 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (3:1) under normal conditions. Steeper lopes will
generally require larger sized rip rap. The minimum finished slope shall be no steeper than 2:1
(horizontal to vertical). Any rock/boulder stabilization project with a proposed finished slope
steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions for
retaining walls.
3) No rip rap or filter material should be placed more than 6 feet water ward of the shoreline
measured from the ordinary high water level (OHW) elevation under normal conditions. The
encroachment into the water is the minimum amount necessary to provide protection and does not
unduly interfere with the flow of water.
4) No existing rip rap may be removed without a permit.
Section 7.0 Stream and Lake Crossings
7.1 Policy
It is the policy of the Board of Managers to discourage the use of lakebeds and beds of waterbodies for the
placement of roads, highways, and utilities.
7.2 Regulation
No person shall use the beds of any waters of the state within the District for the placement of roads, highways
and utilities without first securing a permit from the District. Utility service providers shall be exempt from permit
requirements if the utilities are placed within the public right of way and are consistent with recorded easements
or dedications of public right of way.
7.3 Criteria
Use of the bed:
a. Shall meet a demonstrated public benefit, and
b. Shall regain adequate hydraulic capacity, and
c. Shall retain adequate navigational capacity, and
d. Shall not adversely affect water quality, and
e. Shall represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to all other reasonable
alternatives.
69
7.4 Required Exhibits
The following exhibits shall accompany the permit application. One set -full size, one set - reduced to 11" x 17."
a. Construction plans and specifications.
b. Analysis prepared by a professional civil engineer or qualified hydrologist showing the effect of the
project on hydraulic capacity and water quality.
c. An erosion control and restoration plan.
Section 8.0 Trees
An administrative expedited permit shall be required to remove any tree or root system, whether said tree is
living, dead or diseased, within the shore impact zone. Any unauthorized removal shall result in a $250.00 per
tree restoration assessment and the District shall require the property owner to plant replacement trees in a
number, kind and quality to be determined by the discretion of the Board on a case by case basis for all trees
removed without CLWD authorization. Tree removal contractors shall be jointly liable with the property owners
for unauthorized removal of trees. To be subject to CLWD regulations, a tree must have a two (2) inch diameter at
four (4) feet above ground level. This regulation may be enforced by any method set forth in Section 10.1 of these
rules. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the emergency removal of trees or limbs to prevent loss of life or
damage to property. A permit is required for any tree that is removed by chainsaw or other means that results in
the tree, whether living, dead or diseased, falling on the ice. The permit shall require the owner or the owners
agent to remove all debris and waste material from the ice in a timely manner.
Section 9.0 Governmental Responsibilities
9.1 Notification and Review
All township, municipal, county and state governments shall provide copies of plans or documents for proposed
actions which may impact the waters of the state to the legal address of the District at least 30 calendar days
before the first public hearing date for review and comment, or before rendering a decision on the proposed
action, whichever is earlier. The Board of Managers shall review such changes in light of the foregoing Water
Quality Protection and Enhancement Rules (Section 4.0) to ensure that such changes contain provisions for
maintaining or enhancing water quality. The following are specific cases in which such notification and review
are required:
a. Proposed ordinances involving land use, storm water, or wetlands;
b. Proposed public works including modifications of existing roadway, storm collection or treatment
systems, sewage collection and treatment systems, or plans for such projects;
c. Requests for zoning changes, divisions of riparian lots, subdivisions, plats, variances, conditional use
permits, and planned unit developments, to be authorized under county or municipal zoning ordinances;
d. Requests for permits involving construction or other modifications in a shoreland zone.
Section 10.0 Enforcement Powers of Board of Managers
10.1 Enforcement These Rules, and other applicable statutes, affecting water quality within the District and any stop work order
issued by the District may be enforced by local law enforcement officials or by all appropriate legal action,
including, but not limited to temporary restraining orders, injunctions, actions to compel compliance with these
rules, restoration, misdemeanor prosecution, abatement, costs and damages. Costs, fees and expenses incurred by
the District in enforcing these rules, including activity commenced without a permit, including but not limited to
engineering, attorneys’ fees and emergency erosion control costs, shall be assessed against and paid by any
person, landowner, entity, contractor or governmental subdivision found to be in violation of these rules.
70
10.2 Contractor's Liability
Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association or other entity contracting to perform services
regulated by these Rules shall be responsible for ascertaining that all permits have been obtained and that the
work performed complies with all requirements of these Rules. Contractors and landowners in violation of these
Rules shall be jointly and individually subject to all methods of enforcement as provided above, including
criminal prosecution.
10.3 Administrative Stop Work Order.
The District and their designated agents, staff, and professionals, as a condition to granting a permit, may inspect
the premises at any time and issue a cease and desist order when it finds that a proposed or initiated project
presents a serious threat of soil erosion, sedimentation, or an adverse effect upon water quality or violates any rule
or condition of the permit issued by the District. Failure of the owner or contractor to comply with a cease and
desist order shall constitute grounds for immediate revocation of any permit, and shall require the permit holder to
pay all costs of restoration, emergency erosion control measures and attorney fees reasonably incurred to restore
work done in violation of the permit to the pre-permit condition in the minimum amount of $150.00. The District
may also issue an administrative stop order for work performed without a permit.
Section 11.0 Adoption, Amendment, and Effective Date
These Rules of the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District shall be adopted or amended in accordance with M.S.
Chapter 103D. Upon adoption, Rules and Amendments of the Rules previously approved by the Board of
Managers are hereby rescinded. These Rules are effective upon adoption in accordance with M.S. Chapter 103D.
Section 12.0 Variances
12.1 Variances Authorized
The Board of Managers may hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of these rules in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under
consideration. The Board of Managers may grant variances in conformance with the definitions found at
Minnesota Statute 394.27(7), where it is demonstrated that such action will be keeping with the spirit and intent of
these rules.
12.2 Standard
In order to grant a variance, the Board of Managers shall determine that the special conditions which apply to the
structure or land in question do not apply generally to other land or structures in the District, that the granting of
such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, and that the variance will not impair or be
contrary to the intent of these rules. A hardship cannot be created by the landowner, the landowners agent or
representative, or a contractor, and must be unique to the property. Economic hardship shall not be considered
grounds for issuing a variance. A variance granted because of a physical disability shall be personal to the
applicant and the District shall make every effort to insure the variance is temporary in nature and any structures
erected pursuant to the variance will be removed within sixty (60) days after the individual requesting the
variance no longer resides or uses the premises.
12.3 Term
A variance shall become void after one year after it is granted if not used, unless an extension in writing is granted
by the CLWD Board.
71
12.4 Violation
A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a violation of the District rules and shall automatically
terminate the variance.
Section 13.0 Fees Charged in Certain Cases
13.1 Policy
The Board finds that:
a. Public awareness of and compliance with the permitting process will be served by a policy of not
charging a permit application fee. By encouraging applicants to seek permits for potential projects, the
public benefits by reduced inspection and enforcement costs.
b. From time to time persons perform work requiring a permit from the District without a permit, and
persons perform work in violation of an issued District permit. The Board finds that its cost of
engineering, inspection, analysis, attorney fees and temporary erosion control measures in such cases
exceeds those where the applicant has complied with District requirements. The Board further concludes
that its annual tax levy should not be used to pay such costs which are incurred because of a failure to
meet District requirements. Therefore, the Board adopts a rule charging fees to the responsible persons in
such cases. In these cases, the applicant or person responsible for the violation shall pay to the District a
fee equal to the District’s actual costs of field inspection of the work, including mileage for the District
staff, investigation of the area affected by the work, analysis of the work, emergency erosion control
measures, services of a consultant, including engineering and legal consultants, and any subsequent
monitoring of the work, which in the case of a violation are incurred after notice of violation from the
District; inspection fees shall be at least $75.00 per inspection, as may be established from time to time by
the CLWD.
c. It is in the public interest that certain projects, involving larger scale development in sensitive locations,
be inspected by District staff to provide the Board sufficient information to evaluate compliance with
District rules and applicable laws.
d. For commercial, residential developments, or restoration projects, a field inspection fee for permits
required under 4.1, based upon the actual hourly rates of District staff or consultants may be charged in
order to cover actual costs related to investigation of the area affected by the proposed activity, analysis of
the proposed activity, services of a consultant, and any required subsequent monitoring of the proposed
activity. The fee may be assessed for actual costs of enforcement of permit violations.
e. Government agencies are exempt from fees.
f. Failure to erect or maintain temporary erosion control measures as directed by the District shall result in
the District ordering the work done. The record legal owner shall pay to the District $100.00 plus the
actual costs of the installation. The District may erect temporary erosion control devices in emergency
circumstances anywhere within the District.
g. No permit fee will be assessed by the CLWD when an application is submitted in a timely manner as set
forth in the rules. The District may, in its discretion, waive enforcement of fees.
Section 14.0 Refuse, Temporary Buildings
14.1 Refuse
To preserve and protect water quality, no refuse, garbage, vehicles or obnoxious materials shall be deposited in, or
within the shore impact zone, of any public waters in said District, or placed in any location where the same
would by natural runoff or overflow drain into and be cast upon the public waters.
72
14.2 Temporary Buildings
No permanent or temporary storage building, ice house, shed or any other structures may be located within the
shore impact zone without a CLWD permit to prevent runoff or discharge into the public water and without first
obtaining a conditional use permit from Becker County.
Section 15.0 New Subidvisions, Plat, Tract or Planned Unit Developments
It shall be compulsory to include an owner’s affidavit on each new plat within the shore land district, or in the
absence of such plat, it shall be included in the owner’s restrictive covenants, contained in any deed of
conveyance to with: “The undersigned owner or owners acknowledge that this land is in the Cormorant Lakes
Watershed District and all purchasers and assigns hereafter are given notice that all properties and improvements
made thereon are subject to the regulations, requirements and permit obligations fo the said district and must be
adhered to.” A storm water runoff plan prepared by a licensed engineer or licensed landscape architect, or other
appropriate professional, shall be required for any portion of a proposed new subdivision, plat, tract or planned
unit developments that are located within 1,000 feet of a lake. The CLWD may require a storm water runoff plan
prepared by a licensed engineer for any new proposed subdivision, plat, tract or planned unit developments that
are located outside 1,000 feet from the public waters of the state. The owner shall submit a draft of the
preliminary plat, proposed subdivision tract or planned unit development forty-five (45) days in advance of
presentation to the Becker County Planning Commission, to the District to allow a period of review and comment
before any formal action is taken by the Becker County Planning Commission. The developer shall request a
preliminary inspection of the final plat and submit the final plat to the CLWD forty-five (45) days prior to
submission the Becker County Planning Commission to allow a period of review and comment before final action
is taken by the Becker County Planning Commission.
Section 16.0
No fertilizer containing phosphorus may be applied in the shore impact zone. A permit shall be required for any
phosphorus fertilizer applied outside the shore impact zone that is causing an adverse impairment to any waters of
the state located within the District.
Board of Managers
____________________________________
Jeff Moritz, Manager
____________________________________
Jody Beaudine, Manager
____________________________________
Ellis Peterson, Manager
73
Appendix B. Public Meeting Issues
74
Appendix B. Erosion Potential Analysis for the Watershed
Erosion Potential
The District Engineer, Erik Jones (Houston Engineering, Inc.), evaluated the watershed for erosion
potential. Drainage area determination and a terrain analysis was required to determine the erosion
potential within the smaller catchments of the Watershed District.
Drainage Area: An advanced terrain analysis was completed of the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District
for delineation of subwatersheds within the Cormorant Lakes Watershed District. Delineation of the
subwatersheds with in the District began with the creation of a hydrologically correct Digital Elevation
Model (DEM) using the best available LiDAR ground elevation data. The best available LiDAR data was
obtained from the International Water Institute. LiDAR was collected in 2008 and 2009 in the CLWD. A
hydrologically correct DEM has been corrected to incorporate culverts and other features that permit the
transmission of surface runoff that are not picked up with the LiDAR. This DEM was completed on the
entire Cormorant Lakes Watershed District. Based on the hydologically correct DEM, the subwatersheds
of the various lakes within the District were determined.
Large portions of the drainage areas are non-contributing based on surface flow. For the purposes of this
study, non-contributing areas are defined as areas that contain the 10-year recurrence, 24-hour duration
runoff event, as defined by Technical Paper No. 40: Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States. A 10year, 24-hour rainfall event corresponds to 3.64 inches of rain. The determination of contributing versus
non-contributing areas was done using a series of GIS processes in which the available storage of a
depressed area is compared to the runoff volume generated from the contributing watershed of the
depressed area. This is an iterative process in which the excess runoff of contributing areas is
accumulated with downstream non-contributing areas until no excess runoff is produced. The output of
this process is the identification of non-contributing areas. For the accounting of all areas within the
CLWD, the subwatershed boundaries were determined based on where non-contributing areas would
surface drain first given sufficient runoff to spillout.
Figure 19 shows the local drainage area of the watershed for each large lake within the CLWD,
distinguishing between the contributing watershed and non-contributing watershed. For example, the
local drainage area for Big Cormorant Lake is 12.52 square miles of which 9.92 square miles is directly
contributing via runoff and 2.60 square miles is non-contributing based on surface runoff. To get the total
cumulative drainage area to Big Cormorant Lake, the drainage areas of the upstream lakes would need to
be added to the local drainage area for the lake. It is helpful to distinguish between the contributing
watershed and the non-contributing watershed when planning improvement projects around the lakes.
75
Identification of Potential Lake Sediment Loading Sources: Once contributing drainage areas were
determined and a hydrologically correct DEM was established, the more specialized RUSLE and SPI
analyses were completed to identify sources of sediment load to the lakes and waterbodies within the
CLWD.
RUSLE Analysis: The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) accounts for land cover,
soil types, topography, and management practices to determine an average annual sediment load
as a result of rill and interrill flow. RULSE has traditionally been applied as a means to quantify
benefits for individual projects. For the purposes of this project, RUSLE has been applied in a
spatial setting using GIS data. The data below summarizes the development of input variables and
application RUSLE in a spatial GIS setting.
RUSLE requires several parameters to be developed, and then multiplied to form the estimated
annual sediment load. Several of the input variables were derived from the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) 2010 Cropland Data Layer. Below is a summary of the input variables
and how they were developed for this project:
1. Support Practice Factor (P-value) – The P-value accounts for the impact of support practices on
erosion rates. Examples of support practices include contour farming, cross-slope farming, and
buffer strips. For the purposes of this analysis, variations in the P-value were not accounted for.
Currently, there is not sufficient information to derive P-values at the scale required for this
analysis. Users of the data may apply the appropriate P-value to the results to account for site
conditions.
2. Cover and Management Factor (C-value) – The C-value accounts for land cover characteristics
on erosion rates. C-values were derived using 2010 NASS land cover data. Table 15 summarizes
2010 NASS land cover classification and the corresponding C-value.
3. Rainfall and Runoff Factor (R-value) – The R-value accounts for meteorological characteristics
of the watershed on erosion rates. The NRCS Minnesota Field Guide has already accounted for
this factor on a county basis. Values for Clay, Otter Tail, and Wilkin County for each respective
area were used.
4. Soil Erodibility Factor (Kw-value) – This value is attributed in the SSURGO Soils Database, and
accounts for the effects of soil characteristics on erosion rates. Kw-values used for this analysis
were extracted directly from the SSURGO Soils Database.
5. Slope Length Factor (LS-value) – The LS-value accounts for physical characteristics of the
landscape on erosion rates. The USDA’s Agricultural Handbook No. 703 summarizes the
methodology to derive the LS-value. Length and the slope data was derived from the DEM. Both
of these values were applied to methodology specified in the USDA’s Agricultural Handbook No.
703 to calculate the LS-values for the project watershed.
76
Table 15: Summary of 2010 NASS Cropland Data Layer
2010 NASS
Classification
Cover and
Management
Factor
Corn
Soybeans
Sunflower
Barley
Spring Wheat
Winter Wheat
Rye
Oats
Alfalfa
Other Hay
Sugarbeets
Dry Beans
Potatoes
Other Crops
Clover/Wildflowers
Sod/Grass Seed
Fallow/Idle Cropland
Pasture/Grass
Woodland
Wetlands
Open Water
Developed/Open
Developed/Low
Developed/Medium
Developed/High
Barren
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrubland
Grassland Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Woody Wetlands
Herbaceous Wetlands
Vetch
Dbl. Crop
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.100
0.100
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.005
0.100
0.200
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.200
0.200
The C-value was generalized because of the scale of the project watershed. Since future crop
rotations are unknown and outputs of this project are planned to be used for future
implementation, C-values for agricultural areas were generalized under the assumption that row
crops will be rotated with other row crops. These types of crops were given a common C-value.
Other crops and land covers were given the appropriate C-value. Because of this generalization, it
is recommended that the RUSLE analysis is used to provide results for comparison to other areas
for prioritization.
77
Once all of the required input variables were derived for RUSLE, the values were multiplied to
determine the total sediment loads. Only areas of the watershed that are estimated to exhibit rill
and interrill flow types were considered for the analysis. The DEM was used to estimate areas of
rill and interrill flow based on an upstream flow length less than 500 feet. In order to determine
the amount of sediment from each grid cell that reaches the overland pour point into in-channel
areas, a Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) was applied as defined based on the Minnesota
Phosphorus Index (MN P-Index). This relates the flow length between the source of sediment
loading and the point of interest. In this case, the point of interest is defined as the overland pour
point. The flow length component of the SDR relationship was derived from the DEM. The SDR
was applied to the total sediment loss per grid cell to determine how much of the total sediment
loss within a grid cell reaches the receiving lake or in-channel area.
Values were accumulated downstream to create a raster dataset that summarizes the total
sediment load passing through each grid cell that reaches the pour point. This allowed for the
total sediment load for each overland catchment area to be determined.
Total effective RUSLE sediment load passing through each grid cell were then scored by ranking
each value against all other grid cell values in the project watershed using a cumulative lognormal distribution. Because total effective sediment loading for overland sheet flow areas is
minimal, areas where the upstream flow length is less than 300 feet were eliminated. This
provided a wider range of ranked values for overland channelized areas. Since RUSLE is a
method for determining the potential for surface water erosion occurring in overland flow areas,
in-channel areas as were also removed.
Stream Power Index: The Stream Power Index (SPI) method accounts for the physical
characteristics of the landscape to quantify the likelihood of surface water erosion. SPI
methodology consists of multiplying the slope of a point in the watershed by the contributing area
to that same point. The higher the value, the greater the probability that surface water erosion will
occur at that location.
SPI was applied to the entire Watershed District using GIS raster data. Slope and contributing
drainage area was derived from the DEM. These two values were then multiplied to determine
SPI for the watershed for each 3 meter by 3 meter area within the CLWD. Because the likelihood
of gully erosion is generally low where rill and interrill flow occurs, areas where the upstream
flow length is less than 300 feet were eliminated. Since SPI is a method for determining the
potential for surface water erosion for overland flow, in-channel areas as described were also
removed. Raw SPI values were then scored by ranking each value against all other values in the
CLWD using a cumulative log-normal distribution.
Terrain Analysis Summary - Watershed Scoring
The ranked values of RUSLE and SPI were combined to create a scoring system for the entire CLWD
watershed. This scoring system is on a scale of 100, with 100 being highest priority. The scoring system
assumes an equal weight for SPI and RUSLE. SPI provides an index of erosion at the location, while
RUSLE provides an index of the erosion for the upstream watershed. High scores correlate to areas where
a high likelihood of erosion exists at that location as well as from the upstream contributing area. The
Erosivity Score maps (Figures 20 and 21) illustrate the mean score for overland catchments within the
78
contributing drainage area of the CLWD. Areas with high erosivity scores to their pour points into the
lakes show up as red triangles and areas with lower erosion potential values show up as green. The
RUSLE and SPI values are also summarized along the runoff flow paths. Again, areas of concern show
up with redder colored lines while lower concern areas are color coded with green lines. The red flow
paths and triangles indicate show the highest erosion and sediment delivery potential. These areas should
be first priority for ground truthing and then targeting with implementation projects. The maps have been
downsized to fit into this report. For a larger version of the map, please see the CLWD website:
www.cormorantwatershed.org.
These maps will be used to prioritize areas for implementation projects such as sediment basins, grassed
waterways, shoreline restoration, wetland restoration, and possibly structural measures such as riprap
armoring in severe erosion locations. Having priority areas already identified will also position the
CLWD well for receiving grant funding for implementation projects.
The next step in evaluating the watershed for potential sediment control projects is to ground-truth the
areas with red flow paths and red pourpoints to verify the GIS model.
79
80
Appendix C. Prioritized Issues from Public Meeting
SUMMARY
A public meeting was held at the Cormorant Community Center on Monday, August 16, 2010 at 7:00pm.
At this meeting, participants first brainstormed problems/concerns/opportunities for each category below
in a facilitated process. Then, each person ranked their top 3 issues they feel need to be addressed in the
Cormorant Watershed Plan update.
The three top-ranked issues were:



Shoreline issues (55 votes)
Septic inspections around lakes (33 votes)
Manage water outflow from District when desirable/permitted (20 votes)
ISSUES WITH VOTES IN PARENTHESES
a. Water Quantity
Issues from Public Meeting:
 Water outflow restrictions (Increase water outflow from District when
desirable/permitted) (20)
 Restricting flow of feeder ponds (5)
 Floating bogs with high water (1)
 Confusing Ordinary High Water marks (6)
b. Water Quality
Issues from Public Meeting:
 Point source pollution
o Sewer inspections on real estate transfers and around lakes (33)
o County sewer inspection requirements
 Non point source pollution
o Shoreline issues (55 total from below)
 Shoreline restoration (19)
 Erosion control for construction (10)
 Lawn runoff (9)
 Green urban lawns on lakeshore (8)
 Shoreline with bare dirt on steep banks (3)
 Tree loss in shore impact zone
81




 Need vegetative buffer strips upland, transitional and aquatic (3)
 Look into creation of berms (3)
 Sand blankets
o Pharmaceuticals in water
Groundwater pollution
o Groundwater heat pump discharge regulation (lake and non-lake) (1)
o Abandoned wells
o Underground storage tanks
Watershed pollution targets
o Water quality monitoring plan (4)
o Monitor lake connections
o Inventory of pollution sources (5)
Enforcement (6)
Invasive species (3)
o Lake accesses
o Herbicide use in lake
o Prevention
c. Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Issues from Public Meeting
 Need good bait habitat (1)
 Need good pond habitat
 Need good duck habitat
 Better protection for natural environment lakes (6)
 Re-establish emergent vegetation beds (high water)
 Lake stocking plan (4)
 Nuisance wildlife management
 Need good vegetation in lakes for fish
d. Water Based Recreational Opportunities
 Middle Cormorant public beach improvement (1)
 Access at SE of Middle Cormorant (winter) (7)
 High water – recreation vs. property damage
 Upstream channel closures with zebra mussels
 No wake zones – promote 4 cycle vs 2 cycle motors (5)
 Channels getting wider (3)
 Upstream channel closures with Zebra mussels
 Access inspections report (5)
82
e. Unique Water and Land Related Resources
 Wild rice protection (1)
f.
Miscellaneous
 Communication with/between governmental bodies
 Lake Associations interactions with district and each other
 Enforcement of rules
 Grant dollars/matching funds
83
Appendix C. Plan Comments and Responses
84
Appendix D. 60-Day Review Period Comments and District Responses
Appendix C. Plan Comments and Responses
85

Watershed Management Plan - Cormorant Lakes Watershed District

Transcription

Similar documents

Watershed Committee of the Ozarks

Fitger`s Lake View Office

December 2013 edition - Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Council

Lake Titicaca

Captain Geech

Red Hill Lakefront Retreat - CaliforniaOutdoorProperties.com

51 North Ryan Flier

Just Listed

Presented by:

Welcome to KQDS online