Enhancing the Zumbro Experience: A Watershed Colloquium
December 14, 2011: 10:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. & 6:30 – 8:45 p.m.
Cascade Meadows Wetlands & Environmental Science Center
Sponsored by Zumbro Watershed Partnership with Coming Alongside
This event served as the kick-off for a new watershed management planning process by Zumbro
Watershed Partnership (ZWP). Attendance for the daytime meeting was about 50; for the evening
meeting about 15. Soil and water conservation districts, county and city government were well
represented. Non-government representatives for agriculture, conservation and natural resources also
were present.
ZWP Planning Coordinator Norman Senjem moderated the event. His introductory presentation
highlighted how people experience the Zumbro currently – for fishing, boating, nature observation, as
flooding victims, and as residents of the vast 900,000 acre watershed. Water quality trends are positive
for suspended sediment, phosphorus, e-coli bacteria, organic oxygen-demanding substances and
ammonia. Trends are negative for nitrate nitrogen and chloride. So, water quality trends show a mixed
picture. Limited biological assessment appears positive for fish and the insects they feed on in the
Middle Fork; the South Fork will be investigated in 2012-13 by MPCA biological monitoring teams and
DNR investigators. Results of biological assessments will complement existing monitoring information.
Recent concerns focus on the severe flooding of September 2010, as well as the effect of higher stream
flows on stream channel erosion. Senjem’s presentation highlighted the water cycle and the role played
by ground cover and artificial drainage in affecting the volume of water and the speed of its delivery to
stream channels. Historical trends including agricultural and urban drainage, and the replacement of
perennial vegetation with hard surfaces and annually tilled crops, have likely contributed to higher
stream flows. However, rigorous hydrologic analysis is needed to quantify these relationships in the
Zumbro watershed.
Wendell Amstutz of Coming Alongside described the faith-based organization’s experience assisting
flood victims over the past year. This involvement led to positive relationships of trust and the
recognition for ongoing assistance and support during the long recovery process. This organization’s
interest in mitigating flood damage appears to complement ZWP’s focus on slowing river flow and
improving water quality. A third organization, Renewing the Countryside, has been active in community
economic development in the aftermath of the 2010 flood, and was invited to co-sponsor the Dec. 14
meeting, but for unknown reasons did not show up.
Following the presentation, attendees joined one of five small groups for moderated discussions
focused on peoples’ current vs. desired experience of the Zumbro. The five groups, and a synopsis of
their discussion, follows:
North Branch & Lower Main Stem Zumbro:



Divide the entire Zumbro watershed into three landscape zones for management purposes:
flatter upland portions of watersheds of small tributaries where stream gradient is low;
floodplains of the larger tributaries and main stem; an intermediate zone between these two
characterized by sloping land, higher gradient streams and, in karst topography, high potential
for gully and ravine erosion along steep slopes.
Focus implementation of soil conservation practices in the first zone, i.e., on the uplands of
tributaries and on top of bluffs. Relatively small structures and cultural practices here can
prevent runoff and erosion at its source, rather than trying to use larger erosion control & water
retention structures further down in the watershed.
Increased access to streams for fishing, boating & other forms of recreation accompanied by
public education about the natural attractions of the Zumbro River.
Western Uplands:




Divide the watershed into three parts -- east, west and middle – for management purposes.
Farming road ditches is prevalent and should be stopped, as it destroys perennial vegetation,
encroaches on vegetated water conveyances that are part of the public drainage system, and is
illegal.
ZWP should educate farmers on their conservation options before they go to the Farm Service
Agency to certify their acreage each year.
Sponsor watershed tours to encourage the public to take ownership of issues such as soil
erosion, altered hydrology and water quality.
South Fork:




Divide the watershed into landscape management regions;
Remove infrastructure from the flood plain;
Direct grant applications and funding toward predetermined priorities
Implement conservation from the top of the watershed on down.
Urban Areas:

Acknowledge the urban areas where storm water runoff is regulated, vs. urban areas where it is
not. Permit requirements for regulated areas ensure that measures to reduce runoff will be
implemented. There are no such assurances for unregulated areas, which includes most cities
excepting Rochester.



Facilitate increased interaction among government entities responsible for urban runoff
management.
Install urban prairies to act as sponges for water retention.
Focus on education & advocacy
Middle Fork/Lake Zumbro


Remember that groundwater quantity and quality are very important aspects of water
management in the Zumbro watershed;
ZWP can assume the role of obtaining grants on behalf of the watershed, rather than having
individual government and non-government organizations do so.
Summary Recommendations: The following recommendations were made by at least two of the
discussion groups. They are not listed in order of priority.
1. Continue to promote compliance with agricultural shoreland standards. Dodge County, the first
to undertake systematic compliance, has had positive responses from all but 10-20 of about 400
initial landowners who were notified of noncompliance.
2. Create three management zones for the Zumbro watershed: uplands, middle and lower. In the
upper zone, implement conservation measures to “slow the flow”, especially contour farming
and grade stabilizations. In the lower zone, deal with floodplain issues, create more public
access points. No comments on what to do in the middle zone.
3. Re-evaluate county policies on bridge and culvert construction & maintenance and road
elevation. The trend has been toward increased hydraulic capacity. To slow the flow, counties
need to consider reduced capacity bridges and culverts and higher elevation roads. Also, enforce
against farmers who cultivate land in road ditches, sometimes up to the edge of the county
road. There needs to be more cooperation between county road departments and SWCDs.
4. ZWP should have (or support) more communication with farmers, including one-on-one site
visits. Several suggestions were made. Do more resource management plans especially
regarding forestry management. Create a three page questionnaire for farmers to help them
choose needed conservation practices. Work with the USDA Farm Service Agency in each county
to introduce a conservation check-up (?) when they are certifying acreage each year. Run a
certification workshop for farm operators to teach the difference between good and bad
farming practices. Introduce or support one-stop shopping for conservation practices (example
is Roger Wilkowski’s role in the CRWP).
5. ZWP has a unique role that should complement that of counties, SWCDs and municipalities.
ZWP should ensure that the current planning process is community-driven. The plan should be
used to apply for grants on behalf of several counties in the watershed. Get farmers involved;
conduct farmer outreach.
6. Urban areas need attention, especially smaller communities lacking storm water permits. ZWP
should help to identify BMPs suitable for small towns, and then help to provide technical
assistance to implement them. A project NEMO for small communities. Focus on the
importance of trees: along boulevards, part of urban wildlife corridors along the Zumbro and its
tributaries
Individual comments:









Introduce watershed education programs for Quarry Hill Nature Center and Oxbow Park
Tour flood-control structures that work – see Crooked Creek watershed in Houston County
A good example of cross-county cooperation is the inventory of grade stabilization structures
within the Zumbro watershed, involving six counties.
Farmers can’t solve it all. Not all erosion comes from farms. Example is ravines through woods.
The fish population of the Zumbro is resilient: they came back after the 2010 flood.
Educate elected and appointed officials in small communities.
Develop a water budget for each fork of the Zumbro River.
Avoid blaming sectors for erosion or flooding. Try to include all sectors in solving problems.
Create a biking and hiking network to encourage recreation along the Zumbro.