Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District
Statement of Needs for the Amendment of the Watershed District Plan
Adopted by Resolution 12-13-13-02, December 11, 2013
Strategic Priorities
Since the adoption of the Plan, the following issues have emerged as higher priorities to the public
and therefore should be re-addressed:
1.) AIS Prior to the adoption of the current Plan, the District was dealing with AIS on an experimental
basis by supporting the efforts of the Big Marine Lake Owners Association in their treatment of Eurasian
milfoil. The District attempted to create a policy dealing with AIS in its plan under the “Focused
Watershed” program. Under the plan, certain costs in dealing with AIS would be allocated under “Cost
Share”, “Education”, or “Focused Plans and Projects”. The result was fragmented and costs were not
clearly defined in the Implementation Program.
Preliminary work done by a sub-committee of the Board shows the potential for a major financial
commitment to the management of the AIS problem. In addition, a conflict between Plan policies in
Section II, page 8, Policies e and f should be resolved: “e. Prevent or slow the spread of invasive species
into and within the District” and “ f. Discourage placement of chemicals into District water resources.” A
clear and reasonable program would require a transparent, public process to gauge public opinion, gain
support from other LGUs, and formalize the relationship of the Districts program with regional, State,
and Federal efforts. The District has been advised by BWSR that significant changes coming from this
process would best be accomplished through a Plan amendment.
2.) Groundwater Groundwater issues have taken on additional urgency since the development of the
Plan. The County is updating its 10 year groundwater plan and MAWD will be reviewing a position paper
to advise Districts on their groundwater policies. The legislature has made major revisions in the
balance between surface water and groundwater projects supported with the Legacy funding. The
District should re-evaluate its position in protecting ground water quantity and quality in the area and
the impact that those changes will have on programs and budget.
3.) Others?
Other Potential Revisions:
The District has completed additional studies and gained experience in certain areas that also makes it
necessary to review and revise certain areas of the current Plan:
1.) Resource Management Plans: The District has now completed a TMDL Study and Implementation
Plan for its 10 impaired lakes as well as Focused Plans for Sand and Long Lakes. Revising the individual
resource management plans to incorporate this information and the resulting revised goals will require
substantial changes and additions to many of these plans. However, the Plan anticipates these changes
with a statement found on page3 of section VI:
“Technical information (i.e. from District initiated studies and monitoring and new data from
District partners) will require frequent updating. The CMSCWD intends to post this updated information
on the District website. Technical information that results in new action items will be incorporated into
District operations through implementation of the District’s “Routine”, “Focused” or “Impaired”
watershed management strategies as appropriate. Generally, these technical updates and studies are
considered part of the normal District operations consistent with the intent of the 2010 Plan and will not
trigger a Plan amendment. This includes implementation projects resulting from “Focused” and
“Impaired” watershed management activities that include a public input process. However, when the
new technical information or study findings result in a significant policy change, or need for
implementation of a capital improvement project that is not specifically identified in the 2010 Plan, a
plan amendment is required.”
Some of the recommended activities in the TMDL and CWP implementation plans are not specifically
defined in the Plan such as sand-iron filters and septic system programs. These activities were to be
covered in the Implementation Program (IV. District Operations, page 39., 1.F. and G.) but are in conflict
with the final sentence in the section above. And although the implementation planning process had a
public involvement piece, a full discussion as part of a Plan amendment would increase transparency
and acceptance of the projects and their related costs.
2.) Focus Watershed Management: The underlying philosophy of “Focused Management” remains
valid: “(Focused Watershed Management is) a framework to monitor conditions to identify problem
areas; to notify and involve citizens and agencies in defining solutions to the problems; to design,
finance, and implement projects to solve these problems; and to evaluate the success of projects. …
(and it) recognizes the limited financial resources of the District, providing Managers a flexible
framework and criteria to effectively direct the funding of all District programs and projects to improve
and preserve water quality and to take advantage of outside funding sources as the opportunities are
presented.” (Plan Section III Pg. 3)
However, the set of three management categories defined in the “framework”(impaired, focused, and
routine) should be revised and expanded to more accurately reflect the District’s previous work and a
goal of protecting its highest quality assets. These categories could be redefined as: Protect, Improve,
Focus and Maintain. The criteria for inclusion into each category should be re-established and the
actions associated with that category, such as monitoring and re-assessment, should be re-defined.
For example, the original Plan implied a revolving “focus” on all the District’s assets that would result in
definition of goals for each lake or stream; this despite the fact that earlier studies had defined nutrient
loadings and set goals for most of the former Car-Mar District lakes. Nutrient loadings and goals should
be developed for the remaining lakes in the former Marine WMO area with the preparation of schedules
and budgets as a matter of normal functions of the District.
Our success in managing for the existing and new goals should be stressed and emphasized through our
water quality monitoring program and as a major part of the evaluation of the District’s performance.
The preservation and improvement of water quality is our mission and so we should have a specific
metric for evaluating progress in this area. As for the “Focus” designation, it should be reserved for a set
of actions to react to a defined declining trend and a narrower list of what are called “triggers” in the
Plan.
Wetlands were a major topic of the Strategic Plan( see 5. below) but this emphasis was not included in
the body of the Plan but relegated by reference to the CMSCWD Wetlands Management Plan. The
importance of wetlands can be demonstrated by establishing a monitoring plan for our quality wetlands.
The reference in Section IV pg. 39 3.,B. Implementation of Wetland Restoration Fund Projects and
related activities can expanded and stated as a priority if appropriate.
3.) Revisions/additions to Programs and budgets: Reacting to concerns over the District’s budgeting
and spending, Manager Kronmiller and the Administrator worked together to create a spread sheet
comparison of the budgets in our 2010 Implementation Plan, Section IV, Page 39, Table IV-4, our annual
budgets from 2010 through 2013 and projected into 2014 and actual annual expenditures. The changes
proposed above will certainly have impacts on budgets going forward. Once these have been reflected
in the numbers, explore reducing budgets for other areas that have been previously forecast as too
large.
Possible program changes include:
A.) BMP: Potential changes include support of uplands habitat improvement and cost share
based on amount of Phosphorus reduction, i.e. $3,000 per lb. Also, review of the assessment
tool information as a BMP criteria and a District-wide targeting method.
B.) Septic Program- part of cost share or its own program?
C.) Ag Program- same
C.) Education Program- review possible addition of Adult “Master Watershed Steward” Program.
D.) Rules- several minor revisions need to be made
4.) Revisions to Implementation Program: Explore the possibility of divding the current schedule into
on-going programs and activities and one time projects such as capital projects. Also, several possible
capital improvement projects should be reviewed for addition to the Implementation Program:
A.)Panorama Storm Water
B.)Mill Stream re-meander
C.)Bliss Stormwater Zone
D.)Ditch Swale Infiltration
E.) others?
5.) Strategic Plan In 2008, CMSCWD developed a Strategic Plan and began work on The CarnelianMarine-St. Croix Watershed District 2010 Management Plan (the Plan) which was adopted on
September 12, 2010. The strategic planning process was helpful in focusing the Board’s attention to its
priorities going into the revision of its ten year Plan. However, after the adoption of the 10 year Plan in
September of 2010 the strategic plan objectives and the process of reporting on them became
redundant in light of the annual reporting involved in evaluating the Plan. This potential plan
amendment will act as a final review of those objectives in the strategic plan and can incorporate
unfinished but still necessary work from it.