faribault county local water management plan

FARIBAULT FARIBAULT FARIBAULT COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY

Planning for the Future

Prepared by the Local Water Management Plan Task Force, Faribault County Water Planner, and the

Faribault County Soil and Water Conservation District

Local Water Local Water Local Water Management PlanManagement PlanManagement Plan

200720072007———201620162016

Faribault County Local Water Management Plan Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 Purpose 4 PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 ASSESSMENT OF PRIORITY CONCERNS 6 - 8 Definition and Examples 6 Consistency With Other Plans 7 Projected Total Cost of Goals and Objectives 7 Summary of Recommendations to Other Plans 7 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR PRIORITY CONCERNS 9 - 36 1. WATER QUALITY CONCERNS 9 - 17

I. Surface Water 9 II. Ground Water 11 III. Lake Watershed Management 12 IV. Wastewater 15 V. Non Point Source Pollution 16

2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 17 - 22

I. Urban Stormwater 17 II. Urban Flood Damage Reduction 21

3. DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 22 - 25 I. Drainage Management 22 II. Agricultural Flood Damage Reduction 24

4. EROSION CONTROL CONCERNS 25 - 30

I. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation 25 II. Bank and Shoreline Erosion 26 III. Construction Site Erosion 29

5. AGRICULTURE CONCERNS 30 - 34

I. Animal Agriculture 30 II. Manure Management 32 III. Nutrient Management Planning 33

6. NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS 34 - 36

I. Natural Resources 34


ONGOING ACTIVITIES 37 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR PRIORITY CONCERNS 38 - 45 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR ONGOING ACTIVITIES 38 - 45 EXHIBITS 46 - 77 1. Faribault County 2006 List of Impaired Waters 46 2. Faribault County 2006 Impaired Waters Map 48 3. Faribault County Public Water Systems 50 4. Faribault County Surface Waters/Major Watersheds 52 5. Faribault County Community Wastewater Treatment Systems 54 6. Faribault County 12 Year Plan 56 7. Faribault County Public Drainage Systems Map 58 8. Faribault County List of Public Drainage Systems 60 9. Faribault County Land Use Map 64 10.Acronyms 66 11.Faribault County Scoping Document 67


FARIBAULT COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TASK FORCE MEMBERS:

Ronda Allis - City Administrator, Wells Bill Anderson - SWCD Supervisor Grant Bahls - Minnesota Deer Hunters Association Kevin Beekman - FSA Faribault County Executive Director Terry Bovee - MN Department of Health, Source Water Protection Unit Denny Cole - Township Officer, Pheasants Forever Lee Ganske - MN Pollution Control Agency Jerry Hildebrandt - MN Pollution Control Agency, Feedlot Compliance and Assistance Chris Hughes - MN Board of Water and Soil Resources Stein Innvaer - MN Department of Natural Resources, Section of Wildlife Ben Martig - City Administrator, Blue Earth Nate Mathews - City Administrator, Winnebago John McDonald - Faribault County Highway Engineer Jean Millman - SWCD Supervisor Jeff Nielson - MN Board of Water and Soil Resources Ralph Prescher - Citizen Billeye Rabbe - Faribault County Solid Waste Director Jim Robertson - SWCD Supervisor John Thompson - County Auditor Bill Thompson - MN Pollution Control Agency Brenda Tonn - NRCS Sharon VanKley - Blue Earth Area High School Larry Wigern - SWCD Supervisor, Septic Contractor Don Ziegler - SWCD Supervisor

FARIBAULT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: And Task Force Members

District 1 – Barb Steier (Blue Earth, Elmore, Emerald, Rome)

District 2 – Loren Lein (Jo Daviess, Pilot Grove, Verona) District 3 – Bill Groskreutz (Clark, Dunbar)

District 4 – Tom Loveall (Barber, Delavan, Lura, Prescott, Winnebago) District 5 – Tom Warmka (Brush Creek, Foster, Kiester, MN Lake, Seely, Walnut Lake)

LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN LEAD AGENCY:

Faribault County Soil and Water Conservation District

Faribault County Water Plan Coordinator / SWCD District Manager – Michele Stindtman Faribault County SWCD Assistant District Manager - Brandee Douglas


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Faribault County utilizes the local water management planning process to protect and enhance the productive resources of the county such as surface water, groundwater, and related land resources by developing and carrying out the goals, objectives and actions outlined in the Local Water Management Plan. Local water management planning also provides a means to link state goals and objectives with the goals and objectives set forth by Faribault County for managing water and related land resources throughout the county. Faribault County is located on the Minnesota – Iowa border in south central Minnesota. It is surrounded by Blue Earth County to the north, Martin County to the west, and Freeborn County to the east. Faribault County is a primarily agricultural county with a total population of 16,181, according to the 2000 Census. This is a –25% change since the first known information available in 1930, and a –32% change from the county’s all time high population of 23,941 in 1940. Estimated population for 2004 is 15,642. Based on these trends, it is anticipated that the county will continue to see a decline in population in the future. Approximately 34% of the county’s population resides in a rural setting. The largest town and county seat is the City of Blue Earth with a population of 3,621. Faribault County has a total area of 461,600 acres or approximately 720 square miles. There are approximately 415,000 acres of cultivated farmland to 45,000 acres of other land in the county. The ratio of farmland to other land is approximately 9:1, with corn and soybeans as the primary crops. Hogs are the primary livestock in the county. The native vegetation consists of tall and medium prairie grasses. Some wooded areas are along streams and lakes. The southern and western portion of Faribault County lies within the Blue Earth River Watershed, which includes 305,000 acres. In the western part of the county, regional drainage is from south to north along the Blue Earth River system, while local drainage flows eastward through Elm, Center, South, and Badger Creeks. The East Fork of the Blue Earth River and Coon Creek together drain the southeastern part of the county and join the main system in the City of Blue Earth. The north central and northeastern portions of Faribault County lie within the Le Sueur River Watershed, which includes 156,200 acres. In this area, regional drainage is from south to north along Rice Creek, Maple River and Cobb River. They flow north and eventually join the Le Sueur River, which empties into the Blue Earth River near Mankato. The very southeastern corner of Faribault County lies within the Winnebago River Watershed, and includes 400 acres. Faribault County officially began the local water management planning process in August of 1987, with the first plan adopted in 1990. A new ten year plan was approved on March 18, 1997, with the current plan set to expire in December of 2006. The Faribault County Soil and Water Conservation District continues to coordinate the planning process for the county.


PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS UTILIZING NRBG FUNDING The local water management planning process, along with additional funding, has provided Faribault County with an opportunity to address and prioritize efforts in regard to water and natural resources. The accomplishments listed in this section are only a summary, and not a complete listing of the great things that have been achieved through the combined efforts of Faribault County and its partners throughout the past 10 years. A more detailed description of accomplishments are reported on a yearly basis through eLINK, the SWCD Annual Report, and other required reporting programs. PLANNING Local Water Management Challenge Grant for Guckeen, Huntley, and Walters

Wastewater Study and Preliminary Engineer Reviews County Ditch 3 Comprehensive Drainage System Management Plan DNR Conservation Partners Grant for Bass Lake Watershed Assessment Faribault County 12 Year Septic Plan Faribault County Feedlot Program Delegation Faribault County Feedlot Ordinance Revision Fecal Coliform TMDL Project Involvement Minnesota River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Project Involvement INVENTORIES Extensive GIS information for Faribault County Faribault County Drainage System Management & Inventory Faribault County Septic Inventory Faribault County Feedlot Inventory EDUCATION AgStar “Guide to Rural Living” Grant Faribault County SWCD/P&Z Website Septic System Maintenance and Awareness Campaign Storm Drain Stenciling Campaign Nitrate Testing Clinics at County Fair Annual 5th Grade Environmental Day Camp Establishment of a Citizen Stream/Lake Monitoring Program Sponsor Yearly Community Ed Programs Yearly Septic Contractor Training Opportunities South Central Minnesota Regional Envirothon IMPLEMENTATION Best Management Practice Installation Easement Projects DNR Conservation Partners Grant for Rain Garden Establishment Blue Earth River Clean Water Partnership Grant Huntley Wastewater Project Walters Wastewater Project


ASSESSMENT OF PRIORITY CONCERNS Throughout 2005, the Faribault County Local Water Management Plan Task Force met to develop the Priority Concerns Scoping Document in accordance with changes to the Comprehensive Local Water Management Act; Statutes 103B.304-103B.355, which is included within this document as Exhibit 11. The priority concerns were selected by the Task Force after examining a complete list of concerns submitted by citizens, local and state review agencies, and review of other pertinent local, state, and regional plans. At the time the Scoping Document was submitted to BWSR for approval, it identified five priority concern areas. Upon further review and approval by the BWSR Board, Stormwater Management Concerns was further divided into Drainage Management Concerns and Stormwater Management Concerns, resulting in six priority concerns areas. It is not possible to address all concerns, however the six selected are broad enough to cover most concerns submitted, yet focused enough to achieve goals and action items with the staff and funding that is available at the time. The following priority concerns will be the foundation of the Faribault County Local Water Management Plan.

1. WATER QUALITY CONCERNS - surface water including addressing impaired waters and the development of TMDL’s by major watershed for priority pollutants; groundwater quality focusing on wellhead protection and sealing abandoned or unused wells; lake watershed management; wastewater; and targeting non point pollution sources.

2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONCERNS – including addressing urban stormwater control and treatment focused on lot size infiltration practices, low impact development, and stormwater management programs; and flood damage reduction.

3. DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT CONCERNS – including addressing drainage management focusing on public drainage systems; and flood damage reduction focusing on controlled drainage, out of county drainage inputs, water retention areas and wetland restorations.

4. EROSION CONCERNS – including prevention of soil erosion and sedimentation from runoff; streambank, ditchbank, and shoreline erosion; and construction site erosion control regulations and techniques.

5. AGRICULTURE CONCERNS – including animal agriculture; manure management planning focused on feedlots less than 1,000 animal units; and nutrient management planning.

6. NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS – including addressing wildlife habitat, native species, woodlands, water, wetlands, recreation, and other natural resource concerns.


Consistency With Other Plans The Soil and Water Conservation District currently possesses or has access to copies of several local, regional and state plans. The priority concerns that were developed for Faribault County directly reflect the goals, objectives, and actions outlined in these other related plans and documents. Projected Total Cost of Goals and Objectives These priority concerns address ongoing efforts by the elected officials, county departments, organizations, and citizens of Faribault County. They also include new and upcoming goals that will improve the natural resources within Faribault County. To fully address these priority concerns, increased funding mechanisms may need to be considered. In the past, Faribault County has been successful at receiving additional funding for innovative projects, as well as traditional cost share, easement, and incentive programs. The implementation schedule located within this document further addresses funding needs to accomplish the action items set forth by the Local Water Management Plan Task Force. A summary of the anticipated costs to fully implement the Local Water Management Plan are below. PRIORITY CONCERN ANNUAL NEED 1. Water Quality Concerns $114,050.00 2. Stormwater Management Concerns $31,850.00 3. Drainage Management Concerns $86,950.00 4. Erosion Concerns $33,750.00 5. Agricultural Concerns $47,800.00 6. Natural Resource Concerns $3,250.00 TOTAL ANNUAL NEED $317,650.00 Summary of Recommendations to Other Plans Within the action items of the six priority concern areas, the possibility of making amendments to other plans and official controls have been recommended by the Task Force. These changes are voluntary and would need to be instigated by the local officials, board representatives, or department being effected. The following were suggested considerations by the Local Water Management Plan Task Force:

1. Encourage public water suppliers to develop a wellhead protection plan. 2. Explore revisions to the Faribault County Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Plan in

regard to lakeshore protection measures and lakeshore development pressures. 3. Consider revisions to the Faribault County Zoning Ordinance on establishing a

new zoning district to address sensitive areas around lakes. 4. Encourage development of model Stormwater Management Plans for small

communities to adopt or modify.


5. Encourage Phase II Construction Stormwater Permitting be included in local building permit processes.

6. Encourage the addition of low impact development measures to city and county ordinances.

7. Explore including natural resource protection concerns, within priority areas, with the updating of county ordinances.


GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR PRIORITY CONCERNS

Following are the six priority concern areas that were established by the Local Water Management Plan Task Force, and adopted by Faribault County. This section provides an assessment of each element included in the priority concern areas, as well as the specific goals, objectives and actions that have been identified, and will be implemented throughout the upcoming ten years within Faribault County, including the Blue Earth and Le Sueur River Watersheds. PRIORITY CONCERN 1: WATER QUALITY CONCERNS – surface water including addressing impaired waters and the development of TMDL’s by major watershed for priority pollutants; groundwater quality focusing on wellhead protection and sealing abandoned or unused wells; lake watershed management; wastewater; and targeting non point pollution sources. I. SURFACE WATER Minnesota’s rivers, streams and lakes are a valuable resource for the state. Not only do they provide great natural beauty, they supply the water necessary for recreation, industry, agriculture, and aquatic life. Nearly 700 miles of open water flow through Faribault County's borders. Of this approximately 460 miles are natural flowing rivers and streams. Currently, several of these waterbodies are listed as impaired for pollutants such as ammonia, fish IBI, fecal coliform bacteria, mercury, and turbidity, and do not meet their designated uses because of pollution problems from a combination of point and nonpoint sources. A complete listing and map can be found on Exhibits 1 and 2.

An impaired water body is any water body that is not meeting the water quality standards that have been established for that water. These water bodies are either partially supporting or not supporting designated beneficial uses such as fishing or swimming. Every two years, the federal Clean Water Act requires states to publish an updated list of streams and lakes that are not meeting their designated uses because of excess pollutants. The list, known as the 303(d) list, is based on violations of water quality.

For each pollutant that causes a water body to fail to meet state water quality standards, the federal Clean Water Act requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study to be conducted. A TMDL study identifies both point and non point sources of each pollutant that fails to meet water quality standards. Water quality sampling and computer modeling determine how much each pollutant source must reduce its contribution to assure the water quality standard is met. Rivers and streams may have several TMDL’s, each one determining the limit for a different pollutant.


Upon completion of this study, a detailed implementation plan is developed. During this phase, local elected officials and staff will work toward developing effective strategies to reduce pollutant sources. However, it is important to note that much work is already underway to reduce pollutants from reaching surface waters. This work has been and will continue to progress as TMDL goal setting is completed.

GOAL 1: Address impaired surface waters within Faribault County.

Objective A: Work towards the delisting of existing impaired waters to restore streams to their designated uses.

Actions: 1. Actively participate in the development and implementation of Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans for impaired waters. 2. Provide technical assistance throughout the TMDL study and implementation

process. 3. Assist in TMDL efforts within the Blue Earth and Le Sueur Watersheds. 4. Utilize existing and future research to determine sources of impairment and

pollutant control practices to address these impairments. Objective B: Attempt to reduce the extent of impairments in surface waters by considering water quality and quantity impacts.

Actions: 1. Market available conservation, low interest loan, cost share, and incentive

programs to landowners. 2. Partner with municipalities and the county drainage authority to address water

quantity issues and explore alternatives. 3. Target subwatersheds to develop plans and address impairments. 4. Utilize Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to inventory subwatersheds

and target areas for best management practices and water retention.

Objective C: Gain a better understanding of surface water quality in Faribault County.

Actions: 1. Continue to support the MPCA’s Citizen Stream Monitoring Program

(CSMP) and Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP) to expand monitoring efforts within Faribault County.

2. Recruit additional volunteers for impaired reaches within the county. 3. Develop a yearly Citizen Stream Monitoring Newsletter to be publicized on

the Faribault SWCD website. 4. Utilize CSMP efforts to develop baseline data and determine trend

information.


5. Encourage continuing and promote new water testing stations through Clean Water Partnerships and other funding sources for a more comprehensive assessment of the county’s waters.

6. Submit water quality testing data to the MPCA through data entry into the US Environmental Protection Agency’s STORET database for use in identifying impaired waters.

II. GROUND WATER Ground water is a term used to refer to water beneath the land surface that fills the spaces in rock and sediment. For the most part, ground water comes directly from precipitation or surface water that infiltrates below the land surface. In turn, ground water flows into many streams and lakes, allowing streams to flow beyond rain and snowmelt periods and sustain lake levels during dry spells. Most commonly, we obtain ground water from wells. Faribault County’s citizens depend on ground water for drinking water. Wellhead protection efforts have begun in the county, however there are still several communities that need to develop and implement an approved wellhead protection plan. All public water systems within the county are listed in Exhibit 3. Private wells within the county also need protection from potential contamination sources. Many human activities such as urban development, industrial processing, agriculture, chemical spills and even individual wastewater treatment systems have caused ground-water contamination in areas that previously had clean, potable ground water. Abandoned or unused wells may pose a potential threat to the health, safety, and environment of Faribault County and its citizens. Unused wells provide a pathway through which contaminants at the surface may move down to the groundwater and contaminate nearby wells. Proper well abandonment is an effective means of protecting ground water from potential contamination. GOAL 2: Protect ground water based drinking water sources within Faribault County.

Objective A: Acknowledge and support public water supply wellhead protection areas within the county.

Actions: 1. Encourage community and non-community public water suppliers to develop

and implement a wellhead protection plan. 2. Provide aid to public water suppliers in efforts to locate wells. 3. Encourage private wells located within wellhead protection areas to be

addressed by the plan.


4. Assist public water suppliers with the development of maps outlining the location of wells and radius of concern.

5. Consider wellhead protection areas when making land use decisions. 6. Utilize information provided by Minnesota Department of Health in source

water assessments.

Objective B: Encourage private well protection from contamination sources.

Actions: 1. Educate homeowners, realtors, and contractors on the importance of

maintaining proper setbacks from private wells to potential contamination sources.

2. Encourage homeowners to follow well code requirements for well construction.

3. Encourage homeowners to get private wells tested on a regular basis.

Objective C: Encourage the proper sealing of unused or abandoned wells.

Actions: 1. Inventory the potential location of abandoned or unused wells utilizing

drilling and sealing records, and historical aerial photography. 2. Prioritize the sealing of unused or abandoned wells within the county. Those

that penetrate to the same aquifer used by a public water supplier should be sealed first.

3. Utilize existing and develop new cost-share programs to aid property owners with well sealing costs.

4. Explore the possibility of providing a token fund for well sealing. 5. Explore the possibility of utilizing the county’s revolving loan program for

well sealing. 6. Continue to develop and distribute educational materials to new and existing

homeowners, realtors, and bankers on the importance of disclosing and sealing unused or abandoned wells. Utilize the Faribault County “Guide to Rural Living” and SWCD website to publicize this information.

III. LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Lake resources in Faribault County include all or part of 9 lakes: Bass, Guckeen, Hart, Lura, Minnesota, Rice – Delavan Township, Rice – Foster Township, South Walnut, and North Walnut. Collectively, these lakes make up a surface area of nearly 5,000 acres. A map of Faribault County lakes, including all surface waters, can be found in Exhibit 4. Lake Name MDNR Lake # Surface Area Bass Lake 0022-74 196 acres Guckeen Lake 0022-88 28 acres Hart Lake 0022-76 ---------- Lura Lake 0007-79 110 acres (Faribault County)


Minnesota Lake 0022-33 1,915 acres Rice Lake – Delavan Twp. 0022-75 1,216 acres Rice Lake – Foster Twp. 0022-07 268 acres South Walnut Lake 0022-22 392 acres North Walnut Lake 0022-23 827 acres Faribault County has an interest in protecting not only the water contained in these lakes, but also the streams, wetlands, and watershed surrounding them. Protection of these natural resources as a whole is vital to the protection of lakes. These waters provide a vital habitat for fish and wildlife, as well as a place for people to fish, hunt, trap, boat, and swim. Substantial amounts of water are stored in these areas and it can seep into the ground to recharge ground water aquifers. Lakes can also store excess water in times of flooding and provide an important reserve of surface water during times of drought. These areas are nature's water treatment systems. They provide an ideal environment for aquatic vegetation and animal organisms to purify the water we have contaminated with suspended soil, nutrients, and other pollutants. A lake watershed management plan is a written document that lists known information about a lake, defines existing conditions and problems, and lays out instruction for short and long term management of the lake. The lake management plan provides direction for the future activities of the lake association and others concerned about the lake. It helps define a path to reach the goals set by the lake association. Lake watershed management is an important strategy utilized to protect lakes, as it focuses on both onsite and offsite best management practices, and non-structural practices. Since a lake is fed by its watershed, it is very important that restoration efforts also address the surrounding land area. Watershed management techniques rely on stewardship and cooperation of all individuals in a lake watershed. For this reason, education is a very important part of lake watershed management, as it can encourage land use practices that will preserve and protect our lakes. Currently, three lakes in Faribault County are zoned as Shoreland Residential District (R-2). These are Rice Lake – Foster Township, Minnesota Lake, and Bass Lake. Some of these lakes are currently being effected by development, while others may begin to feel developmental pressures in the near future. Other lakes zoned as Shoreland Agricultural District (A-1) may also start to see the potential for development being explored. It will be important to encourage new homeowners or developers to plan wisely before building, considering setback requirements, facilities, and minimizing waterfront alterations. Efforts will need to be done utilizing both education and potential ordinance revisions.

The DNR commissioner may also formally designate lakes for wildlife management. This designation allows the DNR to temporarily lower lake levels periodically to improve wildlife habitat and regulate motorized watercraft and recreational vehicles on the lake. Most shallow lakes beneficial for wildlife are not formally designated. Without formal designation, lowering lake levels is not allowed without permission of all the shoreland


owners. In Faribault County two lakes have been designated for the improvement of the lake for wildlife. They are Rice Lake-Winnebago and Minnesota Lake.

GOAL 3: Lake water quality improvement through improved lake watershed protection and management. Objective A: Assess developmental pressures on Faribault County lakes.

Actions: 1. Explore developmental pressures on lakes and consider changes to the

shoreline and on the landscape. 2. Explore revisions or updates to county zoning and land use ordinances in

regard to lakeshore development pressures, including setback requirements, vegetated buffers, and stormwater management.

3. Consider revising or establishing a new zoning district to address sensitive areas around lakes.

4. Encourage new homeowners or developers to plan wisely before building. 5. Educate homeowners on the impacts of development.

Objective B: Encourage the development of Lake Management Plans. Actions: 1. Prioritize county lakes by classification and need for protection. 2. Assess existing water quality and land use conditions on county lakes,

including the determination of DNR lake classifications, and obtaining information on plans, sampling, vegetation, clarity, fisheries, and water level for county wildlife lakes.

3. Address developmental pressures vs. wildlife needs for priority lakes. 4. Examine lakes from the watershed perspective, including considering

drainage inputs. 5. Utilize current and new information to update existing lake watershed

delineations.

Objective C: Work towards improved and enhanced land conservation in lake watersheds. Actions:

1. Educate homeowners on the importance of establishing and maintaining a vegetated buffer between the lawn and lake.

2. Expand information and educational opportunities on appropriate best management practices and strategies for lake protection.

3. Minimize the impact of storm water runoff to lakes. 4. Look into opportunities to store water within the watershed of a lake. 5. Explore the possibility of restoration of prairie grasses for water storage

within lake watersheds.


6. Encourage maintaining shallow water lakes with emergent vegetation for water quality enhancement.

7. Encourage the establishment of conservation easements in lake watersheds. 8. Seek additional funding for projects and technical assistance to lake watershed

management projects. IV. WASTEWATER Individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) treat and disperse relatively small volumes of wastewater from individual or small numbers of homes and commercial buildings. Over one-third of Faribault County residents rely on these systems to treat sewage from their household. Proper treatment of wastewater reduces health risks to humans and animals and prevents surface and groundwater contamination. Proper management of these systems is also crucial to ensure that new and existing onsite wastewater treatment systems continue to function properly. If these systems fail, wastewater can pool on ground surfaces or migrate to aquifers or surface waters and cause significant public health or environmental problems. Within Faribault County, eleven incorporated communities provide wastewater treatment for the remaining two-thirds of the county’s population. A list of these communities, type of treatment system, and receiving waters can be found in Exhibit 5. These communities are considered point sources of water pollution as they have distinct discharge points for treated wastewater into surface waters. In addition, two unincorporated communities within the county are currently working towards the implementation of wastewater treatment facilities. On December 14, 1999, the Faribault County Board of Commissioners passed a plan that would bring all septic systems throughout Faribault County into compliance by the year 2012. This plan, also known as the Faribault County 12 Year Plan, divided up each township uniformly with 2-4 sections per year being requested to upgrade. The plan has encouraged and educated numerous homeowners on the importance and benefit of having an in compliant system. Further information on the Faribault County 12 Year Plan can be found in Exhibit 6. GOAL 4: Manage new and existing onsite wastewater treatment systems including unincorporated areas of Faribault County. Objective A: Maintain onsite sewage treatment system programs to protect surface and ground water quality.

Actions: 1. Continue efforts toward the installation of individual sewage treatment

systems (ISTS) throughout the Faribault County 12 Year Septic Plan. 2. Promote the installation of ISTS beyond the Faribault County 12 Year Septic

Plan.


3. Continue the inspection of new onsite systems during and immediately following installation to ensure that design and siting criteria are applied appropriately.

Objective B: Establish and implement a management program to ensure that existing onsite wastewater treatment systems are operated and maintained properly to prevent the impairment or degradation of surface and ground waters.

Actions: 1. Keep an updated system inventory that provides management information

regarding type of system, location, capacity, installation date, owner, date of last inspection, and pumping record information.

2. Conduct periodic inspections to ensure existing onsite systems are functioning properly.

3. Notify homeowners every three years that pumping is required to keep their system in compliance.

4. Ensure that residuals pumped from tank are properly disposed of in a manner that does not present significant risks to surface or ground waters.

5. Continue training program for all system designers, installers, pumpers, and inspectors working in Faribault County.

6. Publicize information on the importance of ISTS maintenance in the “Guide to Rural Living” brochure on the SWCD website.

7. Provide information on management to local decision makers. GOAL 5: Assist with the management of new and existing community and industrial wastewater treatment systems. Objective A: Cooperate and partner with incorporated and unincorporated communities and industries on achieving wastewater goals.

Actions: 1. Assist with the implementation of education on the basics of wastewater,

including limits on wastewater facilities in municipalities. 2. Assist communities with the upgrade of households and businesses without

access to the Cities municipal treatment plant. 3. Continue efforts toward the upgrade of unincorporated, unsewered

communities in Faribault County. 4. Provide technical assistance and support to communities with inadequate

sewage collection and treatment. V. NON POINT SOURCE POLLUTION While Minnesota has made great progress in cleaning up point sources of pollution, the non point sources now pose a great challenge and must be controlled and prevented to reach water quality goals. Non point sources, unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, come from several sources. They are natural and man made


pollutants that rain and snow melt pick up off the land and carry to ground or surface waters. They can include excess fertilizers and other chemicals from agricultural land and residential areas, oil and grease from urban runoff, sediment from construction sites, stream banks and agricultural land, and bacteria and nutrients from livestock and faulty wastewater systems. Although it is difficult to fully assess the impacts of non point source pollution, we know that these pollutants have harmful effects on drinking and surface water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife. GOAL 6: Identify and control sources of non point source pollution. Objective A: Assess sources of non point source pollution in Faribault County.

Actions: 1. Determine, on a watershed basis, the nature, cause, and effect of non point

source pollution on surface waters. 2. Focus on the watershed scale to create solutions to problems in specific

geographic areas. 3. Identify current and apply for additional funding or programs that will address

non point pollution sources. 4. Establish a schedule for implementing measures necessary by watershed. 5. Target non point sources of pollution that are not being addressed by other

local or state plans or efforts. Objective B: Promote education and outreach efforts for implementing non point source pollution controls.

Actions: 1. Implement education programs on the nature of non point source pollution,

sources, and how citizens can play an important role by practicing conservation and changing everyday habits.

2. Promote the effective use of best management practices. 3. Improve information and education to local officials.

PRIORITY CONCERN 2: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONCERNS – including addressing urban stormwater control and treatment focused on lot size infiltration practices, low impact development, and stormwater management programs; and flood damage reduction. I. URBAN STORMWATER Lakes, rivers, forests and farms all depend on the replenishing waters of precipitation. However, when rain falls on developed urban areas, or impervious surfaces such as paved


streets, parking lots and building rooftops, it can wash away pollutants. This runoff is deposited via storm sewers into nearby lakes, creeks, and rivers. Small amounts of these materials entering a lake or river are not generally considered harmful. But when these small amounts are multiplied by thousands or tens of thousands they can cause serious water quality problems. Stormwater runoff can change both water quality and quantity affecting our water resources physically, chemically and biologically. Polluted runoff containing oil, grease, chemicals, nutrients, metals, litter and pathogens for example, can severely reduce water quality. When an urban area is developed, natural drainage patterns are also modified as runoff is channeled into road gutters, storm sewers and paved channels. The amount of rainfall that can infiltrate into the soil is reduced, which increases the volume of runoff from the watershed. Drainage modifications also increase the velocity of runoff, which decreases the time required to convey it to the outlet of the watershed. Increased volume and increased velocity of runoff results in higher peak discharges and shorter times to reach peak discharge. This causes higher flows, flooding, erosion and adverse effects on habitat in natural streams. Today, good site planning can reduce much of this excess runoff and the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems. However, challenges remain as current systems were designed where stormwater was generally regarded as the “wastewater” of the community, to be disposed of as quickly as possible with little regard for downstream consequences and local long-term hydrologic and water-quality impacts. Currently, under the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Phase II Stormwater Program, communities with a population of 10,000 or greater, or a population of 5,000 or greater with the potential to discharge into an impaired water, are required to apply for a permit to regulate discharges from a municipal separate storm sewer system. The Stormwater Program is designed to reduce the amount of sediment and pollution that enters surface and ground water from storm sewer systems to the maximum extent practicable. Stormwater discharges are regulated through the use of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Through this permit, the owner or operator is required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) that incorporates best management practices applicable to their system. All eleven of Faribault County’s incorporated communities have a population of 5,000 or less, and therefore are not required to obtain a NPDES/SDS stormwater permit. When stormwater drains off a construction site, it also carries sediment and other pollutants that can harm surface waters. To keep water resources clean the MPCA issues permits to construction site owners and their operators to prevent stormwater pollution during and after construction. Currently the Phase II Stormwater Program for Construction Activity establishes permit requirements for small construction activity which includes clearing, grading and excavating, that results in the land disturbance of


equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres. Construction activity also includes the disturbance of less than one acre of total land area that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb equal to or greater than one acre. GOAL 1: Encourage Faribault County communities to develop and implement comprehensive stormwater policies and plans for flood and pollution control purposes. Objective A: Assist and encourage non-regulated communities to develop Stormwater Management Plans.

Actions: 1. Provide information to communities on methods to reduce the effects of

stormwater runoff. 2. Encourage the development of model Stormwater Management Plans that

could be easily adopted or modified by small communities. Include information in plans on drainage, basic best management practice information (street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, leaf litter management, salt application, snow removal storage, ponds, filter strips, infiltration, etc), and plans for future improvements.

3. Provide education and training opportunities for implementation and management of stormwater best management practices.

4. Assist communities to utilize existing or pursue additional funding for the implementation of urban best management practices.

Objective B: Monitor and encourage new development to meet the requirements of the Phase II Stormwater Program for Construction Activity.

Actions: 1. Assist in the planning phases of holding Phase II Stormwater Program

workshops for local officials and contractors. 2. Encourage communities to ensure that Phase II construction stormwater

permits have been obtained, if necessary, prior to issuing a building permit. 3. Encourage communities to incorporate the Phase II construction stormwater

permit as an item to a building permit checklist. 4. Pursue additional resources to provide technical and financial assistance to

communities to assist officials, developers, and contractors in fulfilling Phase II Stormwater Program requirements.

Objective C: Encourage communities to promote or provide incentives for homeowners to implement best management practices at the lot size level.

Actions: 1. Encourage or offer incentives to residents to direct rooftop runoff to pervious


areas, such as yards, open channels or vegetated areas, and avoid routing rooftop runoff to the roadway and the storm water conveyance system.

2. Encourage or offer incentives to homeowners for on-lot infiltration practices, including reduced lot grading, rain gardens, or rain barrels, which control runoff at its source.

3. Pursue funding sources for the establishment of urban best management practices.

4. Pursue funding for technical assistance to work one on one with homeowners. 5. Encourage cities to identify stormwater control measures that could be taken

on lots smaller than one acre in sensitive areas through the building permit process.

6. Assist in educating homeowners on the proper handling and disposal of hazardous waste.

7. Provide educational opportunities on urban best management practices and their benefit through workshops, press releases, community education classes, and the County Fair.

Objective D: Encourage communities to utilize low impact development strategies.

Actions: 1. Advocate open space development that incorporates smaller lot sizes to

minimize total impervious area, reduce total construction costs, conserve natural areas, provide community recreational space and promote watershed protection.

2. Encourage the addition of low impact development measures to local city and county regulation and ordinances.

3. Encourage “common plan of development or sale” to occur prior to the start of development. This planning includes one proposed plan for a contiguous area where multiple separate disturbing activities will be taking place at different times, but under one plan.

4. Provide education opportunities to local officials, developers, and contractors on low impact development.

5. Attempt to preserve existing natural drainageways and natural vegetation on new sites.

Objective E: Reduce runoff from impervious surfaces. Actions:

1. Encourage communities to integrate stormwater management into site design. 2. Maintain existing and new stormwater holding ponds for maximum treatment

benefit. 3. Encourage the utilization of stormwater management practices including

retention, such as wet ponds and storage ponds, infiltration, such as rain gardens and infiltration basins, and stormwater wetlands.


II. URBAN FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION Over the past several decades the intensity and frequency of rainfall events has elevated the issue of flood damage control and stormwater management for everyone. Similar to rural communities, urban areas are experiencing pressure on their municipal storm sewer systems. Concerns also exist in some communities as cross connections allow vast amounts of storm water into sanitary systems, causing a number of problems including basement backups and the necessity to bypass from the wastewater facility. Improved water quality requires a change in thinking from viewing water as a liability that must be sent off the land and downstream as quickly as possible, to being regarded as a valuable resource and retained. This holds true for both urban and rural settings. GOAL 2: Utilize and gain an understanding of urban storm control and flood damage reduction practices. Objective A: Gain an understanding of how county drainage systems react as a stormwater outlet. Actions:

1. Encourage communities to develop, or continue, a working relationship with the County Drainage Authority.

2. Identify areas within drainage systems to establish water retention upstream of communities to lessen the volume and velocity of drainage coming into the city.

3. Utilize retention methods within cities to improve the quality and decrease the volume and velocity of drainage downstream from the community.

4. Provide opportunities for city and county officials to explore and understand the drainage law and its relevance to stormwater.

5. Utilize drained wetlands and explore additional alternatives for water storage. 6. Encourage the County Drainage Authority and city officials to annually

review urban stormwater outlets. Objective B: Encourage communities to promote or provide incentives for homeowners and businesses to implement infiltration practices. Actions:

1. Encourage cities to continue efforts to disconnect sump pumps and footing tile from the sanitary sewer system and offer alternatives to homeowners.

2. Explore impacts of the additional volume of water on the storm sewer system as residents disconnect from the sanitary sewer and re-route runoff onto impervious surfaces.

3. Encourage or offer incentives to residents to direct rooftop runoff to pervious areas, such as yards, open channels or vegetated areas, and avoid routing rooftop runoff to the roadway and the storm water conveyance system.


4. Encourage or offer incentives to homeowners for on-lot infiltration practices, including reduced lot grading, rain gardens, or rain barrels, which control runoff at its source.

PRIORITY CONCERN 3: DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT CONCERNS – including addressing drainage management focusing on public drainage systems; and flood damage reduction focusing on controlled drainage, out of county drainage inputs, water retention areas and wetland restorations.

I. DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT Minnesota is home to one of the nation’s largest systems of manmade drainage ditches. Drainage has been and remains an important, and often contentious, management issue for Faribault County and the State of Minnesota. Artificial drainage systems provide a framework for moving water across the landscape. Agricultural drainage in Faribault County consists of 111 public drainage systems and countless miles of private tile. A county map and complete list of public drainage systems, including watershed size, outlet location, date established, miles of open public ditch and tile, can be found in Exhibits 7 and 8. These systems are funded by the benefited landowners and administered by public drainage authorities, in accordance with state drainage law. In Faribault County the County Commissioners are considered the County Drainage Authority, and each represents the district to which they were elected. The costs of establishing, improving, or repairing public drainage systems are assessed in proportion to the value of drainage system benefits determined for each parcel within the drainage system. Agricultural drainage involves both open ditches and subsurface drain tiles. Artificial drainage systems are necessary to remove excess precipitation and improve the productivity of agricultural land, however they also have a direct effect on the water quality and quantity of receiving streams and lakes. These systems are capable of carrying not only vast amounts of water, but also pollutants, great distances and at faster rates than would have occurred in natural conditions. Stormwater moving through these systems increase the potential for streambank erosion and flooding. Water quality may also be degraded and impacts to plants and animals can occur. For these reasons, public drainage systems have received, and will continue to require, a considerable amount of attention by the county and drainage authority. Agricultural drainage systems in Faribault County date back to the early 1900’s and are reaching the end of their functional life span. In many cases the systems are under designed and the cost to replace them is too high. Drainage systems requiring repair can make use of technologies such as controlled drainage, wetland restorations, buffer and vegetated filter strips that can aid in flood water control and water quality improvement.


GOAL 1: Improve drainage water management practices and systems that will enhance crop production, conserve water, and reduce adverse offsite water quality and quantity impacts. Objective A: Encourage the County Drainage Authority to develop and adopt a countywide drainage system policy.

Actions: 1. Maintain and update the current mapping and data management process for

public drainage systems within Faribault County. 2. Utilize existing and new GIS data as a “pre-petition” decision making tool. 3. Establish a schedule for repair and maintenance of systems. 4. Develop a redetermination schedule for all public drainage systems. 5. Continue efforts of the county drainage committee.

Objective B: Encourage the County Drainage Authority to utilize a sustainable and economical approach when assessing public drainage systems.

Actions: 1. Consider environmental and economic benefits and concerns of the system. 2. Prioritize drainage systems on the subwatershed drainage level. 3. Prioritize drainage systems that currently impact an impaired water body. 4. Identify and pursue funding to financially support technical assistance for

drainage system management. 5. Encourage the county drainage authority to partner with other agencies for

project support and funding. 6. Provide educational opportunities to county drainage authority, staff, and

affected landowners. 7. Pursue additional education efforts and resources on controlled drainage

systems.

Objective C: Inventory and manage public drainage systems at the watershed scale.

Actions: 1. Inventory drainage systems including ditches having filter strips, potential

wetland restoration locations, and potential sites for controlled drainage and cover crops.

2. Identify areas of drainage systems that are overloaded as high priority for the creation of water storage areas.

3. Identify areas of infrastructure failure and flooding. 4. Continue to utilize the county’s tile camera to assess system conditions. 5. Manage systems at a watershed scale when repairs, maintenance or

improvements are being considered. 6. Identify areas of concern within systems, and potential solutions that aim at

water storage, pollutant trapping, and reduced maintenance.


7. Promote the installation and maintenance of buffers on drainage systems and surface tile inlets.

8. Continue to promote and pursue funding for alternatives to surface tile inlets where they would be most beneficial.

II. AGRICULTURAL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION Over the past several decades the intensity and frequency of rainfall events has elevated the issue of flood damage control and drainage management for everyone. Similar to urban communities, rural areas are experiencing pressure on their drainage systems, whether public or private tile or open ditches. This has resulted is damages to structures, infrastructure, agricultural land, and water quality. Improved water quality requires a change in thinking from viewing water as a liability that must be sent off the land and downstream as quickly as possible, to being regarded as a valuable resource and retained. This holds true for both urban and rural settings. The best way to manage water on the rural landscape is through wetland restorations. Drainage has changed the hydrology of the county, as the majority of original wetlands have been drained or filled. Restoration of wetlands and changes in land use practices and drainage policies can work together to provide a way of keeping water in place, reducing peak runoff events, recharging groundwater, slowing the movement of surface water, trapping nutrients and sediment, and providing wildlife habitat. Promotion of retention structures and conservation of water in the area where it falls provides additional stability to the hydrograph. GOAL 2: Utilize and gain an understanding of rural storm control and flood damage reduction practices. Objective A: Explore the incorporation of structures for the management of surface and subsurface drains (controlled drainage systems).

Actions: 1. Pursue educational opportunities for local officials and landowners, including

demonstration sites, on controlled drainage. 2. Partner with the Greater Blue Earth River Basin Alliance and other agencies

on efforts to pursue funding to explore controlled drainage.

Objective B: Gain a better understanding of how out of county drainage impacts the water quality and quantity of Faribault County. Actions:

1. Maintain an up to date inventory of drainage systems with out of county inputs through the current mapping and data management program.

2. Encourage drainage related issues be included in adjacent county Water Management Plans.


3. Encourage neighboring counties to notify Faribault County and communities of projects with water quality and quantity impacts.

4. Continue to pursue drainage related projects with the Greater Blue Earth River Basin Alliance and other watershed organizations.

5. Encourage opportunities to work with County Supervisors and other local officials and agencies in Iowa.

Objective C: Enhance existing and create new wetland or water retention areas for the benefits of flood reduction, infiltration, reduction of sedimentation, erosion control, nutrient reduction, sustaining biodiversity, and wildlife habitat. Actions:

1. Utilize existing and pursue new programs and funding mechanisms for the establishment of water storage or wetland restorations in high priority areas.

2. Explore the possibility of county drainage systems bearing the expense of projects for its own benefit, therefore not relying on grant funding and other entities.

3. Utilize current and new GIS data to determine potential wetland restoration sites.

4. Utilize drainage watershed management plans for public drainage systems to target areas with the most benefit to a system.

PRIORITY CONCERN 4: EROSION CONCERNS – including prevention of soil erosion and sedimentation from runoff; streambank, ditchbank, and shoreline erosion; and construction site erosion control regulations and techniques. I. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION Erosion is the loss of soil from the land. It is a process that is always occurring and is accelerated when we mistreat our landscape. The rate and extent of erosion is increased through poor cultivation practices, which leave the land unprotected and vulnerable; rain and water runoff, causing the soil to become detached; removing plant cover; and having too many animals causing overgrazing in sensitive areas. When these things happen, both agricultural areas and the natural environment contribute to pollution through sedimentation that occurs to surface waters. Soil erosion has impacts that effect both onsite (at the place where the soil is detached) and offsite (wherever the eroded soil ends up). Prevention of soil loss due to erosion is necessary to reduce sediment and other attached pollutants from reaching surface waters, helping to improve water quality downstream. Cultivated land makes up approximately 90% of the land use of Faribault County, which leaves a majority of the land throughout the county susceptible to erosion. A land use


map of the county can be found in Exhibit 9. The protection of agricultural soils from erosion also provides for the long-term productive capability of the soil resource base of the county. GOAL 1: Reduce and minimize the effects of soil erosion and sedimentation.

Objective A: Promote and market conservation programs and best management practices (BMP’s) that reduce soil erosion and sedimentation in regard to water erosion.

Actions: 1. Pursue additional cost-share and incentive funding for the establishment of

BMP’s on working lands. 2. Pursue funding, generate interest, and work with public drainage systems on

long term easement programs for marginal ag land. 3. Actively promote and demonstrate conservation tillage methods that are cost

effective and environmentally friendly. 4. Continue and accelerate technical assistance to landowners for planning and

implementing BMPs, including structural practices, fencing, alternative intakes, waterways, etc.

5. Map and identify areas throughout the county, according to slope, that should be targeted for implementation of BMP’s, and alternative cropping systems.

6. Develop and provide public outreach efforts to educate on the importance of targeting and protecting critical areas in regard to slope and distance from water bodies.

7. Provide opportunities that could facilitate a change in mindset and behavior by engaging township officials, absentee landowners, and women landowners not actively involved in agriculture.

8. Assist in new and ongoing TMDL efforts within the Blue Earth and Le Sueur Watersheds.

Objective B: Promote and market conservation programs and best management practices (BMP’s) that reduce soil erosion and sedimentation in regard to wind erosion.

Actions: 1. Promote the implementation of tree plantings and grass seeding in critical

erosion prone areas. 2. Promote conservation practices with a priority given to wind erosion reduction

through RUSLE II. 3. Actively promote and demonstrate conservation tillage methods that are cost

effective and environmentally friendly.

II. BANK AND SHORELINE EROSION Some bank and shoreline erosion is natural. However, too much erosion can pollute


water supplies, cover fish habitat, and threaten property. When a stream is healthy, it balances water flow, the sediment it can carry, and its shape and energy. Flowing water tends to move from side to side as seen in meandering streams. Stream meanders and plants growing along the banks reduce the erosive energy of a stream, and trap sediment. Any change in the watershed feeding the stream, in the floodplain, or in the stream itself can upset this delicate balance. As a result of years of land use changes, straightening of drainage ditches, and an increase in artificial drainage, increases in streambank erosion have occurred. When houses, sidewalks, and roads are built over soil, the amount of water that can enter the ground is reduced. Consequently, water runs off faster, at higher temperatures, and with more erosive energy into streams. Streams become "flashy," erosive, and floodprone. When trees and vegetation are removed next to a stream and livestock are allowed to trample banks, this exposes the soil. As a result, streambanks may erode more rapidly and slump into the water. When a winding stream or drainage ditch is straightened, the meanders that reduce the erosive power of water are removed. In the past, streams and drainage ditches were channeled to move water quickly through flood-prone or erosive areas. But instead of solving a problem, it only moved the problem downstream with even greater force. Artificial drainage systems are capable of carrying a vast amount of water at faster rates than would have occurred in natural conditions. Due to traditional stormwater and drainage practices, increasing amounts of rainwater and snow melt moving through these systems can also increase the potential for bank erosion. Bank erosion problems can occur due to the force of a stream, which occurs at high water, and is the main source of bank erosion. Concentrated water flowing over the bank during high runoff periods can also cause gullies. Woody debris can float downstream, collect, and create a bad logjam. Hazardous logjams can cause severe flooding and erosion. However, most woody debris should be left alone as they provide cover for fish, stabilize channels by trapping sediment, and increase groundwater levels. A streamside buffer of natural trees, shrubs, or grass protects land and water by slowing floodwaters, blocking flood debris from entering fields, protecting banks, filtering overland pollutants, and providing for wildlife habitat. To promote the establishment of buffers in Faribault County, a change in mindset and behavior will need to take place and a balance will need to be struck between economics and the benefits of this conservation practice. While buffers provide numerous environmental benefits, they also can significantly reduce ditch maintenance, and the associated costs to the drainage system. Currently, the requirement for grass strips along certain public drainage ditches is contained in Minnesota State Statutes, Section 103E.021. This gives the County Drainage Authority the ability to require a minimum one-rod grass buffer strip for a system in which public ditch proceedings trigger the appointment of ditch viewers. This may include ditch establishment, improvement, re-determination of benefits, and certain


repairs. Additional voluntary programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), exist for the establishment of buffers. However the majority of these easement programs are only temporary fixes, while the one-rod requirement would establish a permanent buffer. Upland management practices, such as wetland restorations, upland retention, and infiltration practices in urban areas, also benefit bank erosion by reducing the volume of water entering streams and drainage systems. As with buffers, outreach efforts will need to take place educating local officials and landowners as to the benefits these practices can provide. In addition to stream and ditchbank erosion, shoreline erosion may also occur due to similar causes such as changes in land use, development, increased artificial drainage, and recreational use of the waterbody. Practices and programs utilized to reduce shoreline erosion also include vegetated buffers between the lawn and lake, low impact development, infiltration practices reducing stormwater runoff, and upland management within a lake watershed. GOAL 2: Reduce bank erosion to protect the quality of our water resources.

Objective A: Promote implementation practices and education programs that focus on streambank protection.

Actions: 1. Utilize GIS to identify high priority areas prone to streambank sluffing. 2. Pursue additional funding for the implementation of buffer strips & other

easement programs. 3. Encourage changes in grazing management practices such as fencing or

buffers that allow streams to recover. 4. Target sites and install structural practices that meter out the volume of water

entering systems. 5. Because of cost factors, target high priority areas and pursue funding for

streambank stabilization practices. 6. Determine and implement measures that could potentially reduce the volume

of water in our streams. 7. Promote upland management and policies in both urban and rural settings,

including wetland restorations, water storage, and infiltration practices. 8. Promote programs such as the “River Friendly Farmer” program to highlight

farmers utilizing good production management practices that keep waterbodies clean.

Objective B: Promote implementation practices and education programs that focus on ditchbank protection.

Actions: 1. Encourage the County Drainage Authority to develop public ditch buffer


recommendations. 2. Encourage the re-enrollment of expiring CRP and other buffer program

acreages. 3. Explore the possibility of compensating or providing incentives to landowners

that establish buffers through the public drainage system. 4. Encourage metering of water or holding areas within a drainage watershed

through showcasing existing county projects, such as Judicial Ditch 10. 5. Explore funding opportunities to incorporate measures for protecting ditch

banks. 6. Demonstrate how conservation practices, such as buffers and retention

projects, can be cost effective for a drainage system. 7. Educate and promote programs to landowners with land adjacent to private

drainage systems. Objective C: Promote implementation practices and education programs that focus on lakeshore protection.

Actions: 1. Add information for homeowners on lakeshore development within the

Faribault County “Guide to Rural Living”. 2. Identify new development through the building permit process, and provide

homeowners with information on appropriate practices and strategies for lakeshore protection.

3. Encourage a natural vegetated buffer, low impact development, and minimizing storm water runoff to lakes.

4. Explore the possibility of revising or updating county comprehensive plans or ordinances to include lakeshore protection measures.

III. CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION During a short period of time, construction activity can contribute more sediment to streams than can be deposited naturally over several decades, causing physical and biological harm to surface waters. Many studies indicate that controlling erosion can significantly reduce the amount of sedimentation and other pollutants transported by runoff from construction sites. The Phase II Stormwater Program for Construction Activity was previously discussed specific to urban communities within Priority Concern 2, Stormwater Management Concerns. This program establishes requirements for small construction activity in which clearing, grading, and excavating is disturbing a land area of greater than one acre and less than five acres. A part of this process is to create a stormwater pollution prevention plan that explains how owners or operators will control stormwater runoff during construction. In addition to this requirement, any new construction should be informed of the need for temporary or permanent stabilization measures to minimize erosion and prevent


sediment-laden runoff from discharging into streets, gutters, ditches, streams, lakes, and wetlands. Commonly used methods, which also have minimal costs, may include temporary vegetation, mulching, silt fences, and downspout extenders. The stormwater program enforces and focuses on short-term solutions during construction projects. There is a need for additional permanent stabilization practice opportunities and information to be presented as homeowners are making long-term landscaping decisions. GOAL 3: Minimize the effects of countywide construction site erosion. Objective A: Provide education opportunities and promote countywide construction site erosion control regulations and techniques.

Actions: 1. Develop countywide standards for storm water management and construction

site erosion for all general and plat development plans within the county. 2. Provide educational opportunities to both incorporated and unincorporated

areas to learn more about erosion and sediment control regulations and techniques available from the MPCA and Minnesota Erosion Control Association (MECA).

3. Include the Phase II construction stormwater permit as an item to the county building permit to reach private homeowner construction projects.

4. Include information on sediment and erosion control techniques for new homeowners on the Faribault County “Guide to Rural Living” website.

5. Include information on sediment and erosion control techniques for new homeowners in a fact sheet to be distributed through the building permit process.

PRIORITY CONCERN 5: AGRICULTURE CONCERNS – including animal agriculture; manure management planning focused on feedlots less than 1,000 animal units; and nutrient management planning. I. ANIMAL AGRICULTURE Faribault County has over 450 registered feedlots ranging in size from small farms to large scale livestock operations. Animal agriculture is a major part of the economy of Faribault County and many organizations and programs work with livestock producers to ensure that we continue to have a healthy livestock industry and a healthy natural environment. Minnesota's regulatory feedlot program is conducted through a cooperative arrangement between the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and County Government.


This cooperative program is known as "county delegation" or the "county feedlot program,” and is established by the transfer of regulatory authority from the MPCA to the county. Faribault County is a delegated county for the feedlot program, and as such has the responsibility for implementing state feedlot regulations including registration, permitting, inspections, education and assistance, and complaint follow up for feedlots less than 1,000 animal units (AU). In recent years, revised feedlot rules have eliminated the need for many smaller sized sites to have a feedlot permit. In the State of Minnesota, all feedlots capable of holding 50 AU or greater, or 10 AU in shoreland, are required to be permitted. One of the primary concerns about feedlots in protecting the water quality of our agricultural areas is ensuring that manure on a feedlot or manure storage area does not run into surface or groundwater. For this reason, Faribault County works with producers to ensure that livestock facilities are environmentally safe and that they comply with environmental regulations. GOAL 1: Proper management and understanding of animal agriculture.

Objective A: Provide assistance to producers to reduce water quality concerns related to animal agriculture.

Actions: 1. Provide technical and financial assistance, if available, to assist producers in

adopting BMP’s to reduce the impacts of manure runoff. 2. Seek additional funding to mitigate or eliminate pollution from feedlots and

animal manure. 3. Promote existing funding sources such as EQIP, cost share, and AgBMP loan

dollars. 4. Utilize Grazing Management to reduce the physical disturbance and direct

loading of animal waste and sediment caused by livestock. 5. Provide outreach and education to livestock producers that are currently under

the threshold of needing a feedlot permit. 6. Provide outreach and education to new owners of new or existing feedlot

sites, and absentee landowners. 7. Reach new owners of sites with a fact sheet through the building permit

process, “Guide to Rural Living” website, and through FSA. 8. Encourage producer groups and agencies to provide training opportunities for

producers on new technologies available. 9. Utilize GIS to identify environmentally sensitive areas near construction sites

of feedlot facilities. 10. Involve livestock producers and producer organizations with the Blue Earth

Basin Fecal Coliform TMDL.

Objective B: Provide and promote education on the benefits of animal agriculture.


Actions: 1. Encourage livestock producers, ag and producer groups to educate the non-

livestock producers on the benefits of animal agriculture. 2. Encourage continued discussions and education on new sitings of feedlots. 3. Encourage new and existing livestock producers to practice “good neighbor”

policies.

II. MANURE MANAGEMENT Another primary concern about feedlots in protecting water quality in our agricultural areas is ensuring that nutrient rich manure is applied at a rate, time and method that prevents nutrients and other possible contaminants from entering streams, lakes, wetlands, and ground water. Runoff from land application areas, pastures, and feedlots has the potential to be a significant source of fecal coliform bacteria and other pollutants. Livestock manure is a valuable resource if managed properly. Land application removes livestock manure from feedlots and fertilizes crops. There are many ways to ensure that land applied manure does not run off into waters and is not overapplied beyond crop nutrient needs. Manure management plans are required when producers need to apply for a feedlot permit, or when a facility has 300 or more animal units and does not use a licensed commercial applicator for manure application. Manure management plans help ensure that application rates do not exceed crop nutrient needs, and that setbacks from surface waters, wetlands, drainage ditches, and drain tile intakes are observed. The application of manure and nutrients at University of Minnesota recommended rates will also save money for the producer and will help to reduce the risk of nutrients being lost and transported to surface waters. GOAL 2: Work with livestock producers on the benefits of manure management planning.

Objective A: Encourage the development and updating of manure management plans.

Actions: 1. Promote the economic benefit of manure management planning. 2. Ensure feedlots with 300 to 1,000 AU have developed and are utilizing a

current manure management plan. 3. Increase efforts on feedlots less than 300 AU not required under current

statute to have a manure management plan. 4. Review plans with producers through site visits every four years. 5. Seek additional resources to accomplish planning efforts. 6. Provide opportunities and incentives to operators for preparing plans, and

promote existing programs such as EQIP. 7. Utilize the MPCA and University of Minnesota - Extension planning software

as a tool for operators.


8. Explore holding workshops for producers utilizing school computer labs. 9. Partner with MPCA to distribute and provide training for their newly

developed program on manure management planning for smaller sites. Objective B: Provide education on proper setbacks from sensitive areas.

Actions: 1. Utilize GIS to identify environmentally sensitive areas for manure application. 2. Educate producers on existing setbacks from sensitive areas, including open

tile intakes, wetlands, drainage ditches, steeply sloping land, and road ditches. 3. Incorporate and encourage vegetated buffers in regard to runoff.

Objective C: Encourage the proper crediting of manure nutrients.

Actions: 1. Provide education on correct application rates, soil testing, and grid sampling. 2. Support the utilization of manure as a valuable resource. 3. Educate producers on utilizing manure better and the incentives of selling

manure if there is not enough capacity. 4. Encourage producer groups or agencies to hold field days on demonstration

plots and calibration of equipment. 5. Promote and provide education on the University of Minnesota guidelines,

which vary by soil type, yield, manure application, etc. 6. Work with FSA to incorporate education opportunities through newsletters. 7. Encourage producers to get records written down and documented.

III. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING Nutrient management is the control of crop fertility management and other production practices for efficient crop growth and water quality protection. Nutrient management plans for site specific situations minimize undesired environmental effects while optimizing farm profits and production.

Nutrient management planning is a best management practice. It is basically knowing what you have, knowing what you need, managing wisely, and documenting your management. Nutrient management plans must be site specific. They are tailored to the soils, landscapes, and management of a particular farm.

Faribault County would like to encourage these plans to be based on University of Minnesota recommended rates, timing, and method of nutrient application, and address management of sensitive features in or near fields, like coarse-textured soils, streams, and open tile intakes.

GOAL 3: Promote wise use of nutrients for optimum economic benefit to the producer while minimizing impacts on the environment.


Objective A: Provide education and information on proper application rates.

Actions: 1. Work with ag suppliers and producers on following the University of

Minnesota application rates, which sometimes differ from agronomist rates in plans.

2. Develop test plots and organize a field day to review results and promote proper nutrient management.

3. Promote EQIP, CWP, and other grant incentives for producers entering a nutrient management contract.

4. Incorporate information on U of M rates within FSA newsletters and radio broadcasts.

5. Educate those writing plans on rates eligible for programs. 6. Explore the possibility of holding classes or workshops for ag suppliers. 7. Encourage soil sampling to utilize as base data.

PRIORITY CONCERN 6: NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS - Including addressing wildlife habitat, native species, woodlands, water, wetlands, recreation, and other natural resource concerns. I. NATURAL RESOURCES Several public and privately owned natural resource areas exist within Faribault County including easement areas, wildlife management areas, aquatic management areas, and waterfowl production areas. Many of these areas are located on formerly marginal cropland adjacent to watercourses as well as drained wetlands. They serve the purpose of taking marginal land out of production to reduce flooding, improve water quality, and increase wildlife habitat. Habitat is a combination of environmental factors that provides food, water, cover and space that living things needs to survive and reproduce. Destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat is the driving force behind today's decline in species and biodiversity. Impacts to habitat can be caused directly or indirectly by human activities. Wetlands benefit people as well as wildlife. As previously discussed, wetlands can control erosion and prevent flooding by holding water and reducing runoff. Wetlands also provide crucial habitat for many types of wildlife including ducks, pheasants, and deer. Protecting wetlands ensures these habitats, wildlife, and benefits will be there for future generations. Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) are wetlands, uplands, or woods owned and managed for wildlife by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). These areas provide recreational opportunities such as hunting and wildlife viewing. The following is a complete list of WMA’s for Faribault County.


Name Area Nearest Town Charlotte Hynes WMA 72 Acres Winnebago Lake Guckeen WMA 146 Acres Guckeen Lane WMA 60 Acres Guckeen Rice Lake WMA 136 Acres Winnebago Save the Wetlands WMA 100 Acres Alden Smith WMA 337 Acres Delavan Stokman WMA 456 Acres Minnesota Lake Walnut Lake WMA 2,516 Acres Wells Wells WMA 27 Acres Wells

Modeled after wildlife management areas, Aquatic Management Areas (AMA) are purchased from willing sellers to protect the environmentally vital shoreline and littoral (shallow water) edge of lakes, streams and rivers. Once purchased, the area is protected from development, pollution, and other damage. Faribault County includes one AMA. The Blue Earth AMA is located in Winnebago Township, Sections 21 and 28, and contains 294 acres.

In addition, Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) are public lands purchased by the Federal government for the purpose of increasing the production of migratory birds, especially waterfowl. However, these areas also benefit non-game wildlife species. Five WPA’s are located within Faribault County and include the Kiester WPA, Lura Lake WPA, Maple River WPA, Pilot Grove Lake WPA, and Prescott WPA. GOAL 1: Identify, preserve, enhance, and promote the natural resources of Faribault County.

Objective A: Identify natural resource areas within the county.

Actions: 1. Utilize GIS to create a map of existing areas currently protected through an

easement or program. 2. Identify priority natural resource areas with the potential for land use changes,

including development pressures and impacts. 3. Explore the potential of including natural resource protection concerns, within

priority areas, in conjunction with the writing and/or updating of ordinances. Objective B: Promote and market conservation programs and efforts.

Actions: 1. Collaborate with agency and conservation group partners to share information

gathered through the mapping and develop a marketing plan. 2. Promote outdoor recreational activities through the mapping process. 3. Partner with agencies and conservation groups to promote prairie

reconstruction and restoration efforts.


4. Promote existing programs that provide funding for the establishment of native species.

5. Promote the establishment of habitat corridors following watercourses. Objective C: Provide education on better managing the natural resources of the county. Actions:

1. Encourage the use of native species in project construction and provide education on their multiple benefits.

2. Work with partner agencies to provide education on better managing forests and woodlands.

3. Provide education on the negative environmental impacts to riparian and other sensitive areas from off road vehicles.

4. Provide education on the negative impacts of development near sensitive natural resource areas.

5. Work with townships and rural landowners on the importance of timed mowing of road ditches to ensure wildlife habitat protection.

6. Provide educational materials or workshops for homeowners to promote the concept of “Backyard Conservation” practices.


ONGOING ACTIVITIES

The local water management planning process has provided Faribault County with an opportunity to be involved in several diverse activities and programs outside of the goals and objectives defined in the Local Water Management Plan. The following is a partial listing of additional ongoing programs the Soil and Water Conservation District has a strong involvement or administrative role.

?? Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) ?? State Cost Share Program ?? Conservation Easements ?? State Revolving Fund (SRF) ?? Farm Bill Technician ?? Rain Gauge Network ?? Tree Program ?? Planning and Zoning ?? Faribault County Feedlot Program Delegation ?? ISTS Ordinance and Licensed ISTS Inspector ?? Building Permits ?? Tile Camera ?? Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ?? Classroom, Youth, and Adult Education Programs ?? Blue Earth River Clean Water Partnership (CWP) ?? Maple River Clean Water Partnership (CWP) ?? Greater Blue Earth River Basin Alliance

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR PRIORITY CONCERNS &

ONGOING ACTIVITIES Faribault County has established an implementation schedule that prioritizes and outlines a timeframe and appropriate funding necessary for completing the goals, objectives, and actions identified throughout this plan. This schedule also recognizes the lead and supporting agencies responsible for overseeing the implementation activities. This plan is written as a ten year plan, and recognizes that it will be necessary to review its contents and implementation schedule during year five. The Implementation Schedule on the following pages correlates with the goals, objectives, and actions identified in the Local Water Management Plan. Those actions which are ongoing, are identified as such in the Priority Column. The year in which the activity is expected to occur is highlighted, with most action items considered ongoing throughout the ten year period. These actions pertain to both the Le Sueur and Blue Earth River Watersheds within Faribault County.

Annual Funding Lead Agency,Priority 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Needed Supporting Agencies

1. WATER QUALITY CONCERNS 114,050.00 I. SURFACE WATER 9,100.00GOAL 1. Address impaired surface waters with Faribault Co.Objective A. Work toward delisting existing impaired waters High

1. Participate in TMDL plan development and implementation Ongoing 2,500.00 WP, SWCD, Cities, Co

2. Provide technical assistance throughout TMDL study Ongoing 1,500.00 WP, SWCD, Cities, Co

3. Assist in TMDL efforts within Blue Earth and Le Sueur WS Ongoing 500.00 WP, SWCD, Cities, Co

4. Determine sources of impairment and practices to address High 500.00 WP, SWCD, Cities, Co

Objective B. Consider water quantity and quality impacts High

1. Market available programs to landowners Ongoing 1,000.00 SWCD

2. Partner with municipalities and drainage authority High 250.00 SWCD, Cities, DA

3. Target subwatersheds to develop plans High 250.00 SWCD, Cities, DA

4. Utilize GIS to inventory watersheds and target areas High 350.00 SWCD, Cities, DA

Objective C. Gain a better understanding of water quality High

1. Continue to support the CSMP and CLMP Ongoing 350.00 WP, SWCD

2. Recruit additional volunteers for impaired reaches Medium 100.00 WP, SWCD

3. Develop yearly CSMP newsletter Ongoing 800.00 WP, SWCD

4. Develop baseline data and determine trend information Medium 100.00 WP, SWCD

5. Encourage new water testing stations High 100.00 WP, SWCD

6. Submit water testing data through STORET database Ongoing 800.00 WP, SWCD

II. GROUNDWATER 10,150.00GOAL 2. Protect ground water based drinking water sourcesObjective A. Support wellhead protection areas Medium1. Encourage development of wellhead protection plans Medium 1,000.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

2. Provide aid in efforts to locate wells Medium 150.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

3. Encourage addressing private wells within wellhead area Medium 250.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

4. Assist in developing maps outlining the radius of concern Medium 150.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

5. Consider wellhead protection areas in land use decisions High 100.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

6. Utilize source water assessment information from the MDH Medium 100.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

Objective B. Encourage private well protection Medium1. Educate on proper setbacks from contamination sources Medium 150.00 SWCD

2. Follow well code requirements for well construction Medium 100.00 SWCD

3. Encourage private well testing on a regular basis Medium 100.00 SWCD

Objective C. Encourage proper sealing of abandoned wells High1. Inventory potential location of abandoned wells Medium 750.00 SWCD

2007 - 2016IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR PRIORITY CONCERNS & ONGOING ACTIVITIESFARIBAULT COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN


2. Prioritize sealing of abandoned wells High 100.00 SWCD

3. Utilize cost-share programs for sealing costs Ongoing 6,500.00 SWCD

4. Explore providing a token fund for well sealing Medium 100.00 SWCD

5. Explore utilizing county loan program for well sealing High 100.00 WP, SWCD, Co

6. Develop and distribute educational materials Medium 500.00 SWCD

III. LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 11,800.00GOAL 3. Improve lake watershed protection and managementObjective A. Assess developmental pressures High1. Explore developmental pressures on lakes High 1,500.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP, Co

2. Explore revisions to county zoning ordinances High 1,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP, Co

3. Consider establishing a new district for sensitive areas High 500.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP, Co

4. Encourage homeowners to plan wisely before building High 500.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP, Co

5. Educate homeowners on the impacts of development High 500.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP, Co

Objective B. Development of lake management plans High1. Prioritize county lakes by classification and need High 500.00 WP, SWCD

2. Assess existing quality and land use conditions on lakes Medium 1,000.00 WP, SWCD

3. Address development pressures vs. wildlife needs High 350.00 WP, SWCD

4. Examine lakes from a watershed perspective High 1,000.00 WP, SWCD

5. Update existing lake watershed delineations Medium 2,000.00 SWCD

Objective C. Improved conservation in lake watersheds High1. Educate homeowners on establishing a vegetated buffer High 500.00 SWCD

2. Educational opportunities on BMPs for lake protection High 500.00 SWCD

3. Minimize the impact of storm water runoff to lakes High 500.00 SWCD

4. Opportunities to store water within lake watershed High 500.00 SWCD

5. Restoration of prairie grasses for water storage High 250.00 SWCD

6. Maintain shallow water lakes with emergent vegetation High 100.00 SWCD

7. Encourage establishment of easements in lake watersheds High 500.00 SWCD

8. Seek additional funding on lake watershed projects High 100.00 SWCD

IV. WASTEWATER 67,000.00GOAL 4. Manage new and existing onsite treatment systemsObjective A. Maintain onsite treatment programs High1. Continue ISTS installation efforts through 12 Year Plan Ongoing 5,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP

2. Promote ISTS installation beyond 12 Year Plan High 2,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP

3. Continue ISTS inspections throughout installation Ongoing 30,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP

Objective B. Establish an ISTS management program High1. Keep an updated system inventory of ISTS installation Ongoing 4,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP

2. Conduct periodic inspections of existing systems Ongoing 5,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP

3. Notify homeowners of pumping requirements every 3 years Ongoing 2,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP

4. Ensure proper disposal of residuals pumped from tank Medium 500.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP


5. Continue training program for designers and installers Ongoing 1,500.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP

6. Publicize ISTS maintenance information High 2,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP

7. Provide information to local decision makers High 1,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP

GOAL 5. Assist with community treatment systemsObjective A. Cooperate with communities and industries High1. Assist with wastewater education Medium 1,000.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

2. Assist communities with unsewered households Medium 3,000.00 Cities, P&Z, SWCD, WP

3. Continue efforts with unincorporated communities Ongoing 7,500.00 P&Z, SWCD, WP, Co

4. Provide technical assistance to communities Ongoing 2,500.00 Cities, P&Z, SWCD, WP

V. NON POINT SOURCE POLLUTION 16,000.00GOAL 6. Identify sources of non point source pollutionObjective A. Assess sources of non point source pollution High1. Determine the nature, cause, and effects of pollution High 2,500.00 SWCD, WP

2. Create sollutions to problems on a watershed scale High 2,500.00 SWCD, WP

3. Identify current and apply for additional funding Ongoing 2,500.00 SWCD, WP

4. Establish an implementation schedule by watershed High 2,500.00 SWCD, WP

5. Target sources not being addressed by other plans High 1,000.00 SWCD, WP

Objective B. Promote education and outreach Medium1. Implement education programs Medium 1,500.00 SWCD, WP

2. Promote the effective use of BMP's Medium 2,500.00 SWCD, WP

3. Improve information and education to local officials Medium 1,000.00 SWCD, WP

2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 31,850.00 I. URBAN STORMWATER 17,850.00GOAL 1. Communities develop stormwater policies and plansObjective A. Develop stormwater management plans High1. Provide information on methods to reduce effects of runoff High 1,000.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

2. Develop a model stormwater management plan High 2,500.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

3. Provide education and training for stormwater BMPs High 1,000.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

4. Pursue funding for urban BMPs High 1,000.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

Objective B. New development meet Phase II requirements Medium1. Hold Phase II stormwater program workshops Medium 1,500.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

2. Ensure Phase II building permits have been obtained Medium 200.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

3. Incorporate Phase II permit on building permit checklist Medium 200.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

4. Pursue additional resources for assistance Medium 500.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

Objective C. Promote homeowners to implement BMPs High1. Encourage homeowners to direct runoff to pervious areas High 1,000.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

2. Encourage on-lot infiltration practices High 1,000.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

3. Pursue funding for establishment of urban BMPs High 500.00 WP, SWCD, Cities


4. Pursue funding to work one-on-one with homeowners High 500.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

5. Identify stormwater control measures on lots <1 acre High 250.00 WP, SWCD, Cities

6. Educate homeowners on proper disposal of hazardous waste High 5,000.00 SW, SWCD

7. Provide education on urban BMPs and their benefits High 500.00 SW, SWCD

Objective D. Utilize low impact development strategies Medium1. Advocate open space development Medium 250.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

2. Add low impact development measures to ordinances Medium 100.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

3. Encourage "common plan of development or sale" Medium 100.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

4. Provide educational opportunities to officials Medium 100.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

5. Preserve existing natural drainageways and vegetation Medium 100.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

Objective E. Reduce runoff from impervious surfaces High1. Integrate stormwater management into site design High 100.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

2. Maintain stormwater holding ponds Medium 200.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

3. Utilize stormwater retention practices High 250.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

II. URBAN FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION 14,000.00GOAL 2. Utilize storm and flood damage reduction practicesObjective A. Understand drainage & stormwater outlets High1. Develop a working relationship with Drainage Authority High 500.00 Cities, DA, Co, SWCD, WP

2. Identify areas of water retention upstream of communities High 2,500.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

3. Utilize retention methods within cities High 2,500.00 Cities, DA, Co, SWCD, WP

4. Understand the drainage law's revelance to stormwater High 1,500.00 Cities, DA, Co, SWCD, WP

5. Utilize drained wetlands and water storage alternatives High 2,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

6. Drainage Authority and city annually review outlets High 1,500.00 DA, Cities

Objective B. Promote implementation of infiltration practices High1. Efforts to disconnect sump pumps and footing tile Ongoing 1,000.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

2. Explore impacts of additional volume of water as a result High 500.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

3. Encourage directing runoff to pervious areas High 1,000.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

4. Encourage on-lot infiltration practices High 1,000.00 Cities, SWCD, WP

3. DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 86,950.00 I. DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT 70,000.00GOAL 1. Improve drainage management practicesObjective A. Adopt a countywide drainage system policy High1. Maintain mapping and data management process Ongoing 5,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

2. Utilize GIS data as a pre-petition decision making tool High 1,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

3. Establish a schedule for repair and maintenance High 5,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

4. Develop a redetermination schedule for all systems High 5,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

5. Continue efforts of the county drainage committee Ongoing 5,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

Objective B. Utilize a sustainable and economical approach High


1. Consider environmental and economic benefits High 2,500.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

2. Prioritize drainage systems on a subwatershed level High 2,500.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

3. Prioritize systems that impact an impaired water body High 2,500.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

4. Pursue funding to support technical assistance High 1,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

5. Partner with other agencies for support and funding High 500.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

6. Provide educational opportunities High 2,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

7. Puruse efforts on controlled drainage systems Medium 1,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

Objective C. Manage drainage systems at a watershed scale High1. Inventory drainage systems High 5,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

2. Identify overloaded areas of drainage systems High 5,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

3. Identify areas of infrastructure failure and flooding High 5,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

4. Utilize the county tile camera to assess conditions High 7,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

5. Manage at a watershed scale for repairs and improvements High 4,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

6. Identify areas of concern within systems High 3,500.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

7. Promote the installation of buffers on drainage systems High 5,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

8. Pursue funding for alternative intakes High 2,500.00 SWCD

II. AGRICULTURAL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION 16,950.00GOAL 2. Utilize storm and flood damage reduction practicesObjective A. Explore controlled drainage systems Medium1. Pursue educational opportunities Medium 500.00 WP, SWCD

2. Partner with other agencies on efforts to pursue funding Medium 500.00 WP, SWCD

Objective B. Understand county drainage impacts High1. Maintain and up to date inventory of drainage systems Ongoing 1,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

2. Encourage drainage issues be addressed in county LWMPs High 200.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

3. Work with neighboring counties on impacts High 250.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

4. Pursue drainage projects with other organizations High 3,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

5. Encourage opportunities to work with Iowa High 1,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

Objective C. Enhance wetland and water retention areas High1. Pursue funding for water storage or wetland restorations High 3,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

2. Explore drainage systems bearing project expense High 1,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

3. Utilize GIS data to determine potential restoration sites High 1,500.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

4. Utilize drainage management plans to target areas High 5,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

4. EROSION CONCERNS 33,750.00 I. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION 17,500.00GOAL 1. Reduce and minimize the effects of soil erosionObjective A. Promote programs in regard to water erosion High1. Pursue funding for the establishment of BMPs Ongoing 500.00 SWCD

2. Work on long term easement programs for marginal ag land High 500.00 DA, Co, SWCD

3. Promote and demonstrate conservation tillage methods High 500.00 SWCDFaribault County Local Water Management Plan Page 42

4. Continue and accelerate technical assistance Ongoing 10,000.00 SWCD, NRCS

5. Map and target areas according to slope for BMPs High 1,000.00 SWCD

6. Provide outreach efforts on protecting critical areas High 2,500.00 SWCD

7. Work to facilitate a change in mindset and behavior Medium 500.00 SWCD

8. Assist in TMDL efforts within the Blue Earth and Le Sueur Ongoing 500.00 WP, SWCD

Objective B. Promote programs in regard to wind erosion Medium1. Promote tree plantings and grass seeding in critical areas Medium 500.00 SWCD

2. Promote practices with priority to wind erosion reduction Medium 500.00 SWCD

3. Promote and demonstrate conservation tillage High 500.00 SWCD

II. BANK AND SHORELINE EROSION 13,700.00GOAL 2. Reduce bank erosion to protect water qualityObjective A. Promote practices on streambank protection High1. Utilize GIS to identify high priority areas Medium 500.00 SWCD, WP

2. Pursue funding for buffer strips and other programs High 250.00 SWCD, WP

3. Encourage changes in grazing management practices Medium 250.00 SWCD, WP

4. Install practices that meter out the volume of water High 1,000.00 SWCD, WP

5. Target high priority areas for streambank stabilization Medium 1,000.00 SWCD, WP

6. Determine measures to reduce the volume of water High 1,500.00 SWCD, WP

7. Promote upland management and policies High 1,500.00 SWCD, WP

8. Promote programs to highlight those utilizing good practices Medium 100.00 Extension, SWCD

Objective B. Promote practices on ditchbank protection High1. Encourage development of buffer recommendations High 500.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

2. Encourage re-enrollment of expiring CRP High 2,500.00 FSA, SWCD

3. Explore establishing buffers through drainage system High 750.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

4. Encourage holding areas with drainage systems High 1,000.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

5. Explore funding for protecting ditch banks High 100.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

6. Demonstrate how BMPs can be cost effective High 250.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

7. Educate landowners adjacent to drainage systems Medium 250.00 DA, Co, SWCD, WP

Objective C. Promote practices on lakeshore protection High1. Add information on lakeshore development to "Guide" Medium 1,000.00 SWCD, P&Z, WP

2. Provide homeowners with strategies on lakeshore protection Medium 500.00 SWCD, P&Z, WP

3. Encourage a vegetated buffer and low impact development Medium 250.00 SWCD, P&Z, WP

4. Explore revising ordinance to include lakeshore protection Medium 500.00 P&Z, Co, SWCD, WP

III. CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION 2,550.00GOAL 3. Minimize effects of construction site erosionObjective A. Construction site erosion control techniques Medium1. Develop standards for all development plans Medium 200.00 SWCD, WP, Cities

2. Provide opportunities on erosion and sediment control Medium 1,000.00 SWCD, WP, Cities

3. Include Phase II permit on county building permit Medium 100.00 P&Z, SWCD


4. Include erosion control techniques on website Medium 750.00 SWCD

5. Distribute erosion control techniques through permit process Medium 500.00 SWCD

5. AGRICULTURE CONCERNS 47,800.00 I. ANIMAL AGRICULTURE 24,400.00GOAL 1. Proper management of animal agricultureObjective A. Provide assistance to producers High1. Provide assistance to producers in adopting BMPs Ongoing 500.00 P&Z, SWCD, NRCS

2. Seek additional funding to eliminate pollution from feedlots High 20,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, NRCS

3. Promote existing funding sources Ongoing 1,000.00 P&Z, SWCD, NRCS

4. Utilize grazing management Medium 200.00 P&Z, SWCD, NRCS

5. Provide outreach to feedlots under threshold of permitting Medium 500.00 P&Z, SWCD

6. Provide outreach to new owners of new or existing sites High 500.00 P&Z, SWCD

7. Reach new owners of sites with a fact sheet Medium 500.00 P&Z, SWCD

8. Encourage producer groups to provide training opportunities Medium 250.00 P&Z, SWCD

9. Utilize GIS to identify environmentally sensitive areas Medium 250.00 P&Z, SWCD

10. Involve livestock producers with the BE Basin Fecal TMDL High 250.00 P&Z, SWCD

Objective B. Provide education on the benefits of agriculture Medium1. Encourage producers to educate non-livestock producers Medium 100.00 P&Z, SWCD

2. Encourage discussions and education on new sitings Medium 250.00 P&Z, SWCD

3. Encourage producers to practice good neighbor policies Medium 100.00 P&Z, SWCD

II. MANURE MANAGEMENT 18,650.00GOAL 2. Work on the benefit of manure management planningObjective A. Encourage the development of plans High1. Promote the economic benefit of manure management planning High 500.00 P&Z, SWCD

2. Ensure feedlots with 300 - 1000AU are utilizing a plan Ongoing 2,500.00 P&Z, SWCD

3. Increase efforts on feedlots <300AU to have a plan Medium 1,000.00 P&Z, SWCD

4. Review plans with producers through site visits every 4 years Ongoing 10,000.00 P&Z, SWCD

5. Seek additional resources to accomplish planning efforts Medium 250.00 P&Z, SWCD

6. Provide opportunities for preparing plans High 500.00 NRCS, P&Z, SWCD

7. Utilize MPCA and UofM planning software as a tool High 250.00 P&Z, SWCD

8. Explore holding workshops for producers High 750.00 P&Z, SWCD

9. Partner with MPCA to provide training for smaller sites Medium 500.00 P&Z, SWCD

Objective B. Provide education on proper setbacks High1. Utilize GIS to identify environmentally sensitive areas High 250.00 P&Z, SWCD

2. Educate producers on existing setbacks from sensitive areas Ongoing 250.00 P&Z, SWCD

3. Incorporate and encourage vegetated buffers for runoff High 100.00 P&Z, SWCD

Objective C. Encourage proper crediting of manure nutrients High1. Provide education on correct application rates High 500.00 P&Z, SWCD


2. Support the utilization of manure as a valuable resource Medium 100.00 P&Z, SWCD

3. Education on utilizing manure better and incentives of selling Medium 100.00 P&Z, SWCD

4. Encourage producer groups to hold field days Medium 100.00 P&Z, SWCD

5. Promote education of UofM guidelines High 250.00 P&Z, SWCD

6. Work with FSA to incorporate education through newsletters Medium 250.00 P&Z, SWCD, FSA

7. Encourage producers to get records documented High 500.00 P&Z, SWCD

III. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING 4,750.00GOAL 3. Promote the wise use of nutrientsObjective A. Provide education on proper application rates High1. Work with ag suppliers of UofM application rates High 500.00 SWCD

2. Develop test plots and organize field days to review results Medium 1,000.00 SWCD

3. Promote incentives for entering a nutrient mgmt contract High 1,000.00 SWCD, NRCS

4. Incorporate information on UofM rates within FSA newsletter High 500.00 SWCD, FSA

5. Educate those writing plans on rates eligible for programs Medium 500.00 SWCD, NRCS

6. Explore holding classes or workshops for ag suppliers Medium 1,000.00 SWCD

7. Encourage soil sampling to utilize as base data Medium 250.00 SWCD

6. NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS 3,250.00 I. NATURAL RESOURCES 3,250.00GOAL 1. Identify, preserve & promote natural resourcesObjective A. Identify natural resources within the county Medium1. Utilize GIS to create a map of existing protected areas Medium 750.00 SWCD, WP

2. Identify priority areas with the potential for land use change Medium 500.00 SWCD, WP

3. Explore including natural resource concerns within ordinance Medium 250.00 P&Z, WP, SWCD, Co

Objective B. Promote and market conservation efforts Medium1. Develop a marketing plan for protected areas Medium 100.00 SWCD

2. Promote outdoor recreational activities through map Medium 200.00 SWCD

3. Promote prairie reconstruction and restoration efforts Medium 100.00 SWCD

4. Promote programs for the establishment of native species Medium 100.00 SWCD

5. Promote the establishment of habitat corridors Medium 100.00 SWCD

Objective C. Provide education on better managing resources Medium1. Encourage the use of native species in construction Medium 100.00 SWCD

2. Provide education on better managing forests and woodlands Medium 100.00 SWCD

3. Provide education on negative impacts of off road vehicles Medium 100.00 SWCD

4. Provide education on impacts of development Medium 250.00 SWCD

5. Work with townships on the importance of timed mowing Medium 100.00 SWCD

6. Promote the use of backyard conservation practices Medium 500.00 SWCD

TOTAL ANNUAL NEED 317,650.00



Exhibit 1. Faribault County 2006 List of Impaired Waters

Reach Description

Yr Listed River ID#

DNR Lake ID# Affected Use

Pollutant or Stressor

TMDL Plan

Target Start

TMDL Plan Target

CompletionCate- gory*

Blue Earth River, East Branch Headwaters to Brush Cr 04 07020009-554 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2012 2017 5CBlue Earth River, East Branch Brush Cr to Blue Earth R 04 07020009-553 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2012 2017 5CBlue Earth River W Br Blue Earth R to Coon Cr 94 07020009-504 Aquatic recreation Fecal coliform 2004 2008 5ABlue Earth River W Br Blue Earth R to Coon Cr 04 07020009-504 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2012 2017 5A

Blue Earth River W Br Blue Earth R to Coon Cr 98 07020009-504Aquatic

consumption Mercury FCA 1999 2011 5ABlue Earth River W Br Blue Earth R to Coon Cr 02 07020009-504 Aquatic life Turbidity 2005 2009 5A

Blue Earth River Coon Cr to Badger Cr 04 07020009-518Aquatic

consumption Mercury FCA 2004 2017 5C

Blue Earth River Badger Cr to E Br Blue Earth R 04 07020009-565Aquatic

consumption Mercury FCA 2004 2017 5CBlue Earth River E Br Blue Earth R to South Cr 02 07020009-508 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2007 2015 5A

Blue Earth River E Br Blue Earth R to South Cr 98 07020009-508Aquatic

consumption Mercury FCA 1999 2011 5ABlue Earth River E Br Blue Earth R to South Cr 02 07020009-508 Aquatic life Turbidity 2005 2009 5ABlue Earth River South Cr to Center Cr 04 07020009-516 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2012 2017 5A

Blue Earth River South Cr to Center Cr 98 07020009-516Aquatic

consumption Mercury FCA 1999 2011 5A

Blue Earth River Center Cr to Elm Cr 98 07020009-514Aquatic

consumption Mercury FCA 1999 2011 5CBlue Earth River Elm Cr to Willow Cr 02 07020009-515 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2007 2015 5A

Blue Earth River Elm Cr to Willow Cr 98 07020009-515Aquatic

consumption Mercury FCA 1999 2011 5ABlue Earth River Elm Cr to Willow Cr 02 07020009-515 Aquatic life Turbidity 2005 2009 5ABrush Creek Headwaters to E Br Blue Earth R 04 07020009-555 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2012 2017 5CCenter Creek Lily Cr to Blue Earth R 96 07020009-503 Aquatic life Ammonia 2004 2007 5ACenter Creek Lily Cr to Blue Earth R 96 07020009-503 Aquatic recreation Fecal coliform 2004 2008 5ACenter Creek Lily Cr to Blue Earth R 02 07020009-503 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2008 2015 5ACenter Creek Lily Cr to Blue Earth R 02 07020009-503 Aquatic life Turbidity 2005 2009 5A

Cobb River T104 R23W S34 south line to Little Cobb R 04 07020011-568 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2012 2017 5CElm Creek Cedar Cr to Blue Earth R 96 07020009-502 Aquatic recreation Fecal coliform 2004 2008 5AElm Creek Cedar Cr to Blue Earth R 06 07020009-502 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2012 2017 5AElm Creek Cedar Cr to Blue Earth R 96 07020009-502 Aquatic life Turbidity 2005 2009 5ARice Creek Headwaters to Maple R 06 07020011-531 Aquatic life Fish IBI 2012 2017 5CLura Lake or Reservoir 02 07-0079-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2007 2011 5A

Lura Lake or Reservoir 02 07-0079-00Aquatic

consumption Mercury FCA 2002 2015 5A

Bass Lake or Reservoir 98 22-0074-00Aquatic

consumption Mercury FCA 1999 2011 5C

*Category:

Abbreviations:Br BranchCr CreekDNR MN Department of Natural ResourcesFCA Fish Consumption AdvisoryIBI Index of Biotic IntegrityID# Assessment Unit Identification numberR River

5A: Impaired by multiple pollutants and no TMDL study plans are approved by EPA5B: Impaired by multiple pollutants and at least one TMDL study plan is approved by EPA5C: Impaired by one pollutant and no TMDL study plan is approved by EPA

FARIBAULT COUNTY 2006 LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS (approved by U.S. EPA on June 1, 2006)


Exhibit 2. Faribault County 2006 Impaired Waters Map

MAP KEY

DEFINITIONS OF IMPAIRMENTS

A = AmmoniaB-F = Fish IBIFC = Fecal Coliform BacteriaHg = MercuryT = Turbidity

INDEX MAPSTATE OF MINNESOTA

FARIBAULT COUNTY, MINNESOTA2006 LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS

PER SECTION 303(d) CLEAN WATER ACT

# Unincorporated Community

Municipality

Lake

Minor Stream

Impaired Reaches

Major Stream

#

#

#

#

MINNESOTA LAKE

WINNEBAGO DELAVAN EASTONWELLS

BLUE EARTH

WALTERSFROST

BRICELYN

KIESTER

ELMORE

BRUSH CREEK

PILOT GROVE

GUCKEEN

HUNTLEY

%g2 2

%g1 0 9

%g1 0 9

%g1 0 9

%g2 5 4

%g2 5 3

%g2 2

"!2

"!1 8

"!1 5

"!1 3"!1 7

"!4 6"!3 6

"!1

"!2

"!9

"!6

"!9

"!4"!1 8

"!1 0 1

"!4

"!6

"!8"!5

"!1

"!6 3

"!1 0 5

"!1 0 7

"!1 1 0

"!1 1 6

"!2 5

"!1 9

"!1 0 2

"!9

"!1 0 6

"!2

"!1 0 2

"!4

"!1 3 "!1 0 9

"!1 6"!1 6

"!1 7

"!1 7

"!2

"!2 1 9 "!1 1 1

"!2 1

"!2

"!2 3

"!1 1 7

"!2

"!1 2 6

"!1 2 1

"!2

"!3 1

"!2 8

"!3 0

"!3 0

"!3 1

"!3 3

"!3 2

"!3 2

"!3 2

"!1 1 9

"!2 4

"!1 2 0

"!2 7

"!2 7

"!2 9

"!3 4 "!3 4

"!1 2 3

"!2 0 "!3 2 "!1 2 2 "!6 7 "!3 5

"!3 5"!2 1

"!1 1 5"!1 9

"!1 9

"!1 9

"!2 2 1

"!1 2 4

"!1 1 3

"!1 7

"!1 0 8

"!1 0 9

"!4 6"!4 0

"!1 4

"!7

"!1 2

"!1 0

"!8

"!1 6

"!6

"!1 0 3

"!1 1

"!4 4

"!1 3

"!1 8

%g1 0 9

"!2 1

"!2 2

"!1 1 8

"!1 1 2

"!1 1

"!1 1 3

Ba

dger

Creek

L it t le

South

CenterCreek

Elm Creek

Blu

e

CoonCreek

Brush

Creek

EastBranch B

lue

FosterCree k

River

Rice

Cre

e k

Cobb

River

R iceLa

ke

MinnesotaLake

"!1 1 1

C reek

CreekBadger

Wes

t Br anchB

lue

Earth

Rive

r

Mid

d le

B

ranc

h

Eart h

River

E

arth

R ive r

Ma p le

C reekLakeBass

Walnut

Lake

"!1 5

RiceLake

LuraLake

Winnebago CityDelavan Lura

Minnesota LakeDunbar

VeronaPrescott Barber Walnut Lake Clark

Jo Daviess Blue Earth CityEmerald Brush Creek Foster

Pilot Grove Elmore Rome SeelyKiester

.-,90

.-,90

(/1 6 9

(/16 9

B-F, Hg, T

Hg

B-F, Hg

B-F, Hg, T

Hg

B-F, FC, Hg, T

B-F, FC, T

A, B-F, FC, T

B-F

B-F

B-F

B-F

B-F

LE SUEUR RIVER WATERSHED

BLUE EARTH RIVER WATERSHED

Hg

Hg, Nutrients

3 0 3 Miles

8


Exhibit 3. Faribault County Public Water Systems

PWS Name ID Address CityBasey United Methodist Church 5220021 Highway 14, 31058 - 124th Street Winnebago Bass Lake Community Church 5220048 23450 - 400th Avenue Winnebago Bethany Lutheran Church 5220034 48332 - 40th Street Frost (Rome Twp) Blue Earth 1220001 125 East Seventh Street Blue Earth Bricelyn 1220002 Bricelyn Community Covenant Church 5220049 County Road 10 Huntley Corn Plus Cooperative 5220065 East Highway 109 Winnebago Darling International 5220064 900 - 382nd Avenue Blue Earth Delavan 1220003 209 East Second Street Delavan Dell Lutheran Church 5220036 St Highway 254 and Cty Rd 114 E. 1 Mile Frost Derby Inn (Guckeen) 5220061 32041 - 115th Street Blue Earth Easton 1220005 Easton Elmore 1220004 Elmore Frost 1220007 250 Main Street Frost Goemann's Station 5220040 County Highway 16 and State Highway 22 Wells Huntley Well Corporation 1220012 Huntley Immanuel Lutheran Church 5220047 43103 - 120th Street Blue Earth Immanuel United Methodist Church 5220035 County Road 16 & 13 Blue Earth Kiester 1220008 Kiester Kim's Cuisine 5220063 23867 - 510th Avenue Minnesota Lake Minnesota Regular Baptist Camp 5220043 39725 - 225th Street Winnebago North Blue Earth Lutheran Church 5220026 50962 - 100th Street Bricelyn Our Lady of Ransom 5220015 11347 - 323rd Avenue Blue Earth Pihls Park 5220025 10757 - 570th Avenue Wells Riverside Town and Country 5220020 36259 - 150th Street Winnebago Seneca Food Corporation 5220003 710 East Seventh Street Blue Earth South Blue Earth Lutheran Church 5220037 49343 - 50th Street Bricelyn St. John's Lutheran Church 5220044 County Road 2, 6 miles NE of Elmore Elmore St. Paul's United Church of Christ 5220016 2 miles south, 1.5 miles east of MN Lake Minnesota Lake Walters 1220009 Walters Wells 1220010 101 First Street SE Wells Wells Dairy Queen 5220062 210 Third Street NW Wells Winnebago 1220011 317 Main Street South Winnebago Woods Lake Park 5220045 3451 - 380th Avenue Elmore

FARIBAULT COUNTY PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS (Minnesota Department of Health)


Exhibit 4. Faribault County Surface Waters and Major Watersheds

#

#

#

#

WINNEBAGO

BLUE EARTH

ELMORE

FROST

BRICELYN

KIESTER

WALTERS

DELAVAN EASTON

WELLS

MINNESOTA LAKE



.-,90

.-,90

(/169

(/16 9

%g2 5 4%g25 3

%g22

%g10 9

%g22

%g1 0 9

Elm Creek

Center

Creek

South

Creek

Little

Badge rCreek

Badge

r

Creek

We st

Branch

Riv

er

Blue

Ear

th

Mid

d le

Bra

n ch

GUCKEEN

HUNTLEY

BRUSH CREEK

Blue

Ear

t hR

iver

Coon

Creek

Br us h

Creek

East

Branch

Blue

EarthRiver

Foste

r

Creek

Rice

Cre

ek

Maple

River

CobbCreek

River

Rice

Lak

e

Bass

Lake

HartLake

Guckeen Lake

Lura LakeMinnesota

Lake

Rice

Lake

North Walnut

Lake

SouthW

alnut Lake

PILOT GROVE

Winnebago City Delavan Lura Minnesota Lake Dunbar

VeronaPrescott Barber Walnut Lake Clark

Jo Daviess Blue Earth City Emerald Brush Creek Foster

Pilot Grove Elmore Rome Seely Kiester

WINNEBAGORIVER

WATERSHED

#

NWI (National Wetlands Inventory)Emergent

Forested

Open Water

Riverine

Scrub-Shrub

Major River

MAP KEY

Stream

Lake

Watershed

FARIBAULT COUNTY, MINNESOTASURFACE WATERS AND MAJOR WATERSHEDS

3 0 3 Miles

8



Exhibit 5. Faribault County Community Wastewater Treatment Systems

Incorporated Community Type Treatment Receiving WatersBlue Earth WTP Mechanical Blue Earth RiverBricelyn WWTF Stabilization Ponds CD 38 to Brush CreekDelavan WWTF Stabilization Ponds JD 1 to Rice CreekEaston (Tri-City Sewer) WWTF Stabilization Ponds Connected to Wells WWTFElmore WWTF Stabilization Ponds CD 41 to Middle Branch Blue Earth RiverFrost WWTF Stabilization Ponds CD 44 to East Branch Blue Earth RiverKiester WWTF Stabilization Ponds Brush CreekMinnesota Lake (Tri-City Sewer) WWTF Stabilization Ponds Connected to Wells WWTFWalters* Unsewered Unnamed Stream to East Branch Blue Earth RiverWells (Tri-City Sewer) WWTF Stabilization Ponds CD 87 to Unnamed Stream to Maple RiverWinnebago WTP Mechanical Blue Earth River

Unincorporated CommunityGuckeen* Unsewered JD 4 to Little Badger CreekHuntley* Unsewered JD 26&27 to Center Creek

Abbreviations:CDJDWTPWWTF

Water Treatment PlantWastewater Treatment Facility

FARIBAULT COUNTY COMMUNITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

*Communities currently working toward the upgrade of their wastewater treatment facilities

County DitchJudicial Ditch


Exhibit 6. Faribault County 12 Year Plan

FARIBAULT COUNTYSEPTIC UPGRADE PLAN FOR ALL

NON-SHORELAND RESIDENTSYEARS 2001-2012

FARIBAULT COUNTY

Septic Upgrades for RuralCommunities:

Bass Lake* Riverside Heights*Brush CreekHuntley**Guckeen**Pilot Grove

* Community is complete** Community is in process

All non-conforming septic systems throughout

Faribault County will be requested to upgrade

their systems by the end of the year 2012. Each

township is divided up uniformly and will be

requested to upgrade according to the above map.

Example: All residents in Sections 1-3

throughout the county will be requested

to upgrade by the end of the year 2001.

A non-conforming system COULD be:

* Discharging sewage on the ground.

* Discharging sewage to draintile or surface water.

* Sewage backed up into dwelling.

* The potential to immediately and adversely

impact or threaten public health or safety.

* Less than 2 feet of vertical separation between

system bottom and saturated soil or bedrock.

* A seepage pit, cesspool, drywell, or leaching pit.

Sec. 6 Sec. 5 Sec. 4 Sec. 1Sec. 3 Sec. 2

Sec. 7 Sec. 8 Sec. 9 Sec. 10 Sec. 11 Sec. 12





Yr. 2002 Yr. 2002 Yr. 2002 Yr. 2001Yr. 2001 Yr. 2001

Yr. 2003 Yr. 2003 Yr. 2004 Yr. 2004 Yr. 2004 Yr. 2005

Yr. 2007 Yr. 2006 Yr. 2006 Yr. 2006 Yr. 2005 Yr. 2005

Yr. 2007 Yr. 2007 Yr. 2008 Yr. 2008 Yr. 2008 Yr. 2009

Yr. 2010 Yr. 2010 Yr. 2010 Yr. 2009Yr. 2009 Yr. 2009

Yr. 2011 Yr. 2011 Yr. 2011 Yr. 2012Yr. 2011 Yr. 2012


Exhibit 7. Faribault County Public Drainage Systems Map

WINNEBAGO

BLUE EARTH

ELMORE

FROST

BRICELYN

KIESTER

WALTERS

DELAVAN EASTON

WELLS

MINNESOTA LAKE

JD13

JC301

JD7

CD72

CD20

JD14

CD3

JD2

JD1

CD14

CD86

JD9

CD44

CD8

CD31

JD6

CD5

CD25

CD7

CD37

CD17

CD79CD26

CD41

CD43

JD12

CD21

JD4

JD10

CD9

CD55

CD15

CD64

JD17

CD42

JD11

JD19

CD77

CD23

JD8

CD35

CD60

CD52

CD87

CD50

JC202

CD83

CD45

JD24

CD80

CD16A

CD92

JC201N

JD49

CD32

CD73

CD68

CD90

CD46

CD10

CD28CD69

JD25

CD18

CD24

JD21JD22

CD22

CD11

CD65

CD39

CD19

CD34

CD58

CD78

CD36S

CD29

CD27

CD70

CD62

CD74

CD85

CD12

JD20

CD38S

CD49

CD63

CD30

CD40

JD16

CD56

CD38N

CD13

JC201S

CD89

JD27

CD53CD33

CD36N

CD102

JD26

CD84CD67

CD81

CD47

CD59

CD54

CD95

JD12

JD2

NWI (National Wetlands Inventory)Emergent

Forested

Open Water

Riverine

Scrub-Shrub

Major RiverMAP KEY

Stream

Public Open Ditch

Public Tile Ditch

Public Ditch Subwatershed

Major Watershed

FARIBAULT COUNTY, MINNESOTAPUBLIC DRAINAGE SYSTEMS


3 0 3 Miles

8


Exhibit 8. Faribault County List of Public Drainage Systems

OUTLET LOCATION DATE WATERSHED MILES OF MILES OFDITCH NAME TOWNSHIP SEC WATER BODY1 ESTABLISHED ACRES1,2 OPEN DITCH1,2 TILE1,2

CD3 Lura 4 Unnamed Stream to Maple River 6/10/1904 8,382.11 15.18 0.00CD5 Emerald 18 East Branch Blue Earth River 8/19/1904 5,123.08 7.46 0.00CD7 Lura 23 CD3 9/15/1909 4,780.76 7.36 2.78CD8 Blue Earth 22 Unnamed Stream to East Branch BE River 9/2/1910 5,255.83 8.65 13.27CD9 Delavan 14 Unnamed Stream to Rice Creek 8/31/1910 2,487.81 2.05 6.56CD10 Barber 24 CD3 8/1/1912 1,308.02 1.31 2.94CD11 Barber 16 CD7 8/1/1912 974.81 0.00 2.91CD12 Pilot Grove 12 JD7 8/30/1912 672.87 0.00 7.39CD13 Rome 25 JD13/Coon Creek 9/26/1912 470.85 0.00 2.63CD14 Blue Earth 22 East Branch Blue Earth River 4/30/1913 8,497.50 7.05 23.79CD15 Kiester 26 Brush Creek 7/23/1913 2,846.01 1.58 10.07CD16 Barber 1 CD3 6/16/1913 2,133.13 0.00 6.50CD17 Prescott 31 Blue Earth River 11/8/1913 5,549.00 2.05 20.73CD18 Seely 25 Unnamed Stream to CD72 10/25/1913 1,201.58 0.00 5.11CD19 Barber 16 CD7 11/13/1913 954.08 0.00 4.25CD20 Barber 1 CD3 9/28/1914 12,846.17 4.58 32.97CD21 Verona 36 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 9/5/1914 3,435.44 0.00 10.96CD22 Rome 20 JD13 6/16/1914 992.43 0.00 7.49CD23 Blue Earth County JD24 10/9/1914 2,157.49 2.09 6.10CD24 Winnebago 10 Blue Earth River 10/9/1914 1,193.15 0.45 3.08CD25 Emerald 2 CD5 10/9/1914 6,356.80 3.72 22.03CD26 Blue Earth 24 Unnamed Stream to East Branch BE River 4/30/1915 4,319.27 1.74 9.40CD27 Blue Earth 33 Coon Creek 2/16/1915 742.18 0.00 3.42CD28 Seely 2 Brush Creek 11/11/1914 1,287.02 0.00 5.10CD29 Verona 23 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 5/6/1915 760.23 0.00 2.75CD30 Prescott 19 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 5/6/1915 585.14 0.00 2.09CD31 Elmore 10 JD13/Coon Creek 6/14/1915 6,559.06 8.18 7.82CD32 Pilot Grove 36 West Branch Blue Earth River 9/30/1915 1,541.87 0.00 6.37CD33 Jo Daviess 23 Badger Creek 8/24/1915 386.33 0.00 2.22CD34 Seely 36 Unnamed Stream to CD72 5/11/1916 944.68 0.47 4.65CD35 Rome 13 JD13 10/13/1915 2,056.28 0.00 6.69CD36 Elmore 20 Unnamed Stream to Middle Branch BE River 10/12/1915 1,483.36 0.00 7.80CD37 Emerald 14 East Branch Blue Earth River 2/4/1916 5,815.07 3.23 20.86CD38 Seely 12 CD72/Brush Creek 10/13/1915 1,444.80 0.00 6.70CD39 Rome 8 JD13/Coon Creek 10/20/1915 966.51 0.00 2.71CD40 Emerald 23 Unnamed Stream to East Branch BE River 10/19/1915 537.71 0.00 2.59CD41 Elmore 29 Middle Branch Blue Earth River 12/18/1916 3,704.48 5.42 6.38CD42 Rome 4 CD8 1/27/1916 2,499.65 0.00 10.42CD43 Lura 16 CD3 2/9/1916 3,606.21 0.06 11.16

OUTLET LOCATION



OUTLET LOCATION

CD44 Emerald 36 East Branch Blue Earth River 11/22/1916 7,098.85 7.52 19.14CD45 Emerald 20 CD26 2/24/1916 1,831.47 1.85 7.21CD46 Emerald 23 Unnamed Stream to East Branch BE River 6/10/1916 1,347.53 0.19 7.68CD47 Elmore 33 CD41 12/18/1916 243.90 0.00 1.13CD49 Blue Earth 28 Coon Creek 7/29/1916 608.43 0.00 1.16CD50 Verona 28 Unnamed Stream to South Creek 1/17/1917 1,904.40 0.00 6.34CD52 Elmore 6 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 11/15/1919 1,974.30 0.00 7.80CD53 Emerald 23 East Branch Blue Earth River 9/26/1916 422.56 0.00 2.48CD54 Emerald 16 East Branch Blue Earth River 10/31/1916 201.15 0.00 1.40CD55 Emerald 23 East Branch Blue Earth River 7/20/1920 2,927.75 4.48 5.40CD56 Barber 9 CD7 1/17/1917 480.50 0.00 1.53CD58 Brush Creek 27 East Branch Blue Earth River 1/17/1917 929.01 0.00 3.09CD59 Emerald 25 East Branch Blue Earth River 1/17/1917 228.59 0.00 1.65CD60 Jo Daviess 1 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 11/27/1917 2,054.89 2.57 5.63CD62 Prescott 30 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 9/8/1919 732.53 0.00 3.20CD63 Prescott 6 Terhunes Slough 9/8/1919 586.75 0.00 1.93CD64 Seely 12 CD 72/Brush Creek 3/6/1923 2,554.37 2.06 11.32CD65 Jo Daviess 13 Badger Creek 3/29/1920 972.92 0.00 3.08CD67 Verona 3 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 6/4/1922 280.77 0.00 3.61CD68 Barber 35 CD5 12/7/1938 1,493.24 0.00 4.47CD69 Brush Creek 35 East Branch Blue Earth River 8/9/1946 1,222.97 0.00 5.45CD70 Walnut Lake 19 CD3 7/2/1948 733.11 0.25 2.74CD72 Seely 1 Brush Creek 5/20/1948 14,614.29 3.02 0.00CD73 Lura 10 Maple River 5/10/1948 1,525.00 2.30 0.21CD74 Brush Creek 31 Unnamed Stream to East Branch BE River 8/10/1948 716.07 0.82 3.14CD77 Minnesota Lake 22 Maple River 12/27/1954 2,298.54 3.96 0.00CD78 Seely 28 JD13/Coon Creek 6/10/1957 879.93 2.72 0.00CD79 Brush Creek 25 East Branch Blue Earth River 2/20/1956 5,099.79 0.28 5.69CD80 Blue Earth 33 Coon Creek 8/18/1958 1,763.33 2.71 1.55CD81 Blue Earth 16 East Branch Blue Earth River 7/16/1956 252.42 0.00 1.10CD83 Dunbar 20 Unnamed Stream to CD86 2/18/1960 1,837.02 2.19 1.05CD84 Verona 2 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 6/14/1960 297.97 0.00 2.29CD85 Minnesota Lake 14 Unnamed Stream to Maple River 2/21/1961 712.86 2.38 0.00CD86 Minnesota Lake 14 CD85 5/3/1961 8,541.06 1.74 0.00CD87 Clark 6 Unnamed Stream to Maple River 9/25/1963 1,915.67 1.86 1.53CD89 Lura 16 CD3 9/22/1965 453.38 0.00 2.40CD90 Clark 7 Unnamed Stream to Maple River 11/4/1969 1,426.84 0.23 3.40CD92 Elmore 10 CD31 11/4/1969 1,616.36 2.36 1.03CD95 Blue Earth County Maple River 4,756.00 6.92 2.17



OUTLET LOCATION

CD102 Kossuth County 7/26/1948 405.09 1.57 0.36JCD1BE&F Blue Earth County 2/16/1972JC201F&M Winnebago Blue Earth River 5/1/1973 2,857.83 0.00 13.35JC202F&M Jo Daviess 17 JD12M&F/Little Badger Creek 11/20/1973 3,605.87 6.46 8.62JC301F&F (CD1) Clark 32 Foster Creek 9/20/1977 28,672.98 13.68 0.57JD1F Delavan 23 Rice Creek 9/17/1912 6,940.57 8.46 10.93JD2F Prescott 12 Rice Creek 3/5/1912 7,115.78 2.63 23.14JD2M&F Jo Daviess 17 JD12M&F/Little Badger Creek 5/5/1908 6,805.55 12.17 3.14JD4F&M Jo Daviess 18 JD2/Little Badger Creek 12/23/1912 2,984.93 1.38 13.49JD6F Emerald 8 CD5 1/24/1913 4,428.34 7.00 13.85JD7M&F Elmore 7 West Branch Blue Earth River 10/18/1910 15,751.79 19.76 47.45JD8M&F Verona 9 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 11/18/1914 1,465.68 0.00 6.02JD9F&BE Lura 4 CD3 9/17/1915 6,639.33 12.22 16.51JD10F Delavan 32 Rice Lake 9/17/1915 2,919.36 0.78 8.78JD11F&BE Blue Earth County JD49 5/22/1916 3,321.53 0.00 11.66JD12F&BE Blue Earth County JD49 5/20/1916 2,601.26 0.00 11.96JD12M&F Jo Daviess 22 Little Badger Creek 2/2/1912 3,171.77 2.99 4.65JD13F Elmore 10 CD80 12/8/1916 19,561.89 27.33 42.12JD14F&F Clark 25 Foster Creek 12/8/1916 6,942.82 3.27 20.41JD14M&F Jo Daviess 26 Badger Creek 8/5/1911 25,277.76 29.59 93.10JD16F&BE Lura 2 Maple River 8/19/1916 619.16 0.00 2.89JD17F Winnebago 36 Unnamed Stream 3/11/1918 2,229.22 0.00 8.20JD19F Jo Daviess 34 JD 14/Badger Creek 5/30/1920 2,056.27 3.29 4.40JD20F Jo Daviess 26 JD14/Badger Creek 12/12/1931 593.04 0.00 2.58JD21F Verona 26 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 2/4/1944 966.62 0.00 3.51JD22F Verona 23 Unnamed Stream to Blue Earth River 5/27/1950 888.99 0.00 5.19JD24BE&F&M Blue Earth County CD89 (BE County) 1/29/1919 5,905.41 3.87 11.90JD25F&M Winnebago 32 Unnamed Stream to Elm Creek 6/10/1950 1,165.02 0.07 6.21JD25F&F Freeborn County CD5 (Freeborn County) 2/17/1976 9,000.06 11.17 0.00JD26F&M Verona 17 Center Creek 3/21/1953 445.24 0.00 2.70JD27F&M Verona 17 Unnamed Stream to Center Creek 4/9/1959 899.55 0.00 4.45JD49F&BE Blue Earth County Unnamed Stream to Maple River 11/27/1957 7,102.63 6.06 2.15JD116M&F&BE Martin County 4/27/1949 5,387.11 7.66 12.82

385,123.74 316.45 860.81

2Reflects the entire drainage watershed, which includes areas outside of Faribault County

1Data extracted from the 13 County ArcView GIS



Exhibit 9. Faribault County Land Use Map

Winnebago City Delavan Lura Minnesota Lake Dunbar

Verona Prescott Barber Walnut Lake Clark

Jo Daviess Blue Earth City Emerald Brush Creek Foster

Pilot Grove Elmore Rome Seely Kiester

MINNESOTA LAKE

WINNEBAGO DELAVAN EASTON

WELLS

WALTERS

FROST

BRICELYN

KIESTER

ELMORE

BLUE EARTH



WINNEBAGORIVER

WATERSHED

#

FARIBAULT COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1989 LAND USE


Cultivated Land (89.9%)

Deciduous Forest (3.3%)

Farmsteads and Rural Residences (1.3%)

Grassland (2.8%)

Grassland-Shrub-Tree (Deciduous)

Other Rural Developments

Rural Residential Development Complex

Urban and Industrial (0.8%)

Water (0.6%)

Wetlands (0.9%)

4 0 4 Miles

8 MAP KEY


Exhibit 10. Acronyms AMA Aquatic Management Area AU Animal Unit BMP Best Management Practice BWSR Board of Water and Soil Resources CLMP Citizen Lake Monitoring Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program CSMP Citizen Stream Monitoring Program CWP Clean Water Partnership DA Drainage Authority DNR Department of Natural Resources EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program FSA Farm Service Agency GIS Geographic Information Systems IBI Index of Biotic Integrity ISTS Individual Sewage Treatment System MDH Minnesota Department of Health MECA Minnesota Erosion Control Association MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service P&Z Planning and Zoning RUSLE II Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation SDS State Disposal System SRF State Revolving Fund STORET STOrage and RETrieval SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load U of M University of Minnesota WCA Wetland Conservation Act WMA Wildlife Management Areas WP Water Planner WPA Waterfowl Production Area


Exhibit 11. Faribault County Scoping Document

FARIBAULT COUNTY

PRIORITY CONCERNS SCOPING DOCUMENT

Lake of the Woods

Kitt son Roseau

Koochiching

Mars hall

BeltramiCook

Polk

Pennington

LakeClearwater

Red Lake

ItascaNorman

Mahnomen

Hubbard

Clay Becker

Wadena Carlton

Otter TailWilkin

PineTodd

KanabecGrant Douglas

Tr averse BentonStevens StearnsPope

IsantiChis ago

Big StoneSherburne

SwiftKandiyohi

WrightAnoka

MeekerLac Q ui P arle

Was hingtonHennepinChippewa Ramsey

McLeod CarverYellow MedicineDakota

Renville

SibleyRedwood

GoodhueLincoln Lyon

Brow nNicollet

Wabasha

Blue EarthPipestone Murray Cottonwood

WinonaSteele Dodge Olms tedWatonwan

Rock Nobles Jackson Martin HoustonFar ibault FillmoreFreeborn Mower

Scot t

Le Sueur Rice

Was eca

Cass

AitkinCrow Wing

MorrisonMille Lacs

Saint Louis

MINNESOTA LAKE

WINNEBAGO DELAVAN EASTON

WELLS

WALTERSFROST

BRICELYN

KIESTERELM ORE

BLUE EARTH

Win neba go City Dela van Lura Min nesota Lake Dun bar

Vero na Prescott BarberWal nut Lake Clark

Jo Da viessBlu e Ea rth City

Emerald Bru sh Creek Foster

Pilot Grove Elmore Rome SeelyKiester

B

l ue E a r t h R i v er Wa t e r s h e d

Le

S u e u r R i v e r Wa t

ers

h e d

#

#

FARIBAULT COUNTY

A precursor to the

FARIBAULT COUNTY

LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

December 29, 2005


The following Priority Concerns Scoping Document for the Faribault County Local Water Management Plan was developed in accordance with changes to the Comprehensive Local Water Management Act; Statutes: 103B.301-.335. This document lists the priority concerns selected by the Faribault County Local Water Management Advisory Board along with a detailed account of how these concerns were identified and selected. A. INTRODUCTION Faribault County is located on the Minnesota – Iowa border in south central Minnesota. It is surrounded by Blue Earth County to the north, Martin County to the west, and Freeborn County to the east. Faribault County is a primarily agricultural county with a total population of 16,181, according to the 2000 Census. This is a –25% change since the first known information available in 1930, and a –32% change from the county’s all time high population of 23,941 in 1940. Estimated population for 2004 is 15,642. Based on these trends, it is anticipated that the county will continue to see a decline in population in the future. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, average farm size in 2002 was 475 acres, up from 408 acres in 1992. The average age of farmers also went up from 49 in 1992 to 52.5 in 2002. These trends show that farms are getting larger and young people are not returning to the farm to take over operations. Approximately 34% of the county’s population reside in a rural setting. The largest town and county seat is the City of Blue Earth with a population of 3,621. Faribault County has a total area of 461,600 acres or approximately 720 square miles. There are approximately 415,000 acres of cultivated farmland to 45,000 acres of other land in the county. The ratio of farmland to other land is approximately 9:1, with corn and soybeans as the primary crops. Hogs are the primary livestock in the county. The native vegetation consists of tall and medium prairie grasses. Some wooded areas are along streams and lakes. Faribault County is drained by the Blue Earth River system. In the western part of the county, water flows eastward through Elm, Center, South, and Badger Creeks. The East Fork of the Blue Earth River drains the southeastern part of the county and joins the main system in the City of Blue Earth. The Cobb and Maple Rivers drain the northeastern part of the county. They flow north and join the Le Sueur River, which empties into the Blue Earth River near Mankato. Faribault County officially began the Comprehensive Water Management Planning process in August of 1987 when the Faribault County Board of Commissioners authorized the development of a county Comprehensive Water Management Plan. The Faribault County Soil and Water Conservation District was appointed as the coordinating agency for implementation of the plan. The first Faribault County Water Management Plan was adopted by the Faribault County Board of Commissioners on August 22, 1990 and was a five year plan. A one year extension was granted for the revision and update of the original water plan. A new ten year plan was started in 1995 and was approved by the County Board of Commissioners on March 18, 1997. The current ten year plan is set to expire in December of 2006.


B. LIST OF PRIORITY CONCERNS A priority concern is an issue, resource, subwatershed, or demographic area that has been identified as a priority by the plan authority. 1. Water Quality Concerns - including addressing impaired waters (TMDL’s) by major watershed for priority pollutants; groundwater quality focusing on wellhead protection and sealing abandoned or unused wells; lake watershed management; and targeting non-point pollution sources. 2. Stormwater Management Concerns – including addressing urban stormwater control and treatment; drainage management focusing on public drainage systems; and flood damage reduction focusing on controlled drainage, out of county drainage inputs, water retention areas and wetland restorations. 3. Erosion Concerns – including prevention of soil erosion and sedimentation from runoff and stream banks; and construction site erosion control regulations and techniques. 4. Agriculture Concerns – including animal agriculture; land application of manure and setbacks from sensitive features; crediting of manure nutrients; and nutrient management planning. 5. Natural Resource Concerns – including identifying and targeting natural corridors to be enhanced and protected; increased wetland resources; and preserving the natural resources of the county. C. PRIORITY CONCERN IDENTIFICATION The following outlines the process that Faribault County utilized to gather input for developing the priority concerns. July 19, 2005: Faribault County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution to update the Faribault County Comprehensive Water Management Plan. September 19, 2005: A notice of Decision to Revise and Update the Local Water Management Plan and invitation to submit Priority Concerns Input, water related land resources plans, and official controls were sent to local units of government, adjacent counties, and state review agencies including: Faribault County Cities, Townships, adjoining County Water Planners and SWCD’s, the Greater Blue Earth River Basin Alliance, Minnesota River Board, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Quality Board, Health Department, Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Board of Water and Soil Resources. September 26, 2005: Sent out a letter to the Advisory Task Force notifying them of the revision and update of the Local Water Management Plan. September 29, 2005: The Local Water Management Plan Citizen Survey was sent out to 140 citizens within the county and information on completing a web survey was also on the KBEW radio station. This survey went to a broad group of citizens including sportsman’s groups, elected officials, citizen stream monitors, rain gauge cooperators, conservation program participants, business people, Faribault County Rural Response Team, Planning Commission, etc. November 15, 2005: The Faribault County Local Water Management Advisory Task Force met to discuss the water plan update process, their role, and review and discuss the list of priority concerns


that had been received from citizens, local government units, and state agencies. After review and discussion, the task force selected the top five concerns to address in the Local Water Management Plan update. December 5, 2005: Official notice of the public meeting to comment on selected priority concerns was placed as a legal advertisement in the Faribault County Register. December 20, 2005: A public meeting was held in the Commissioner Meeting Room at the Faribault County Courthouse in Blue Earth. Summary of Proceedings (December 20, 2005 Public Meeting): A public meeting to hear input on the selected priority concerns of the Faribault County Local Water Management Plan was held on December 20, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. in the Commissioner Meeting Room at the Faribault County Courthouse in Blue Earth. Those attending the meeting were: Barb Steier, County Commissioner Tom Warmka, County Commissioner Tom Loveall, County Commissioner Loren Lein, County Commissioner Bill Groskreutz, County Commissioner Brian Roverud, County Attorney John Thompson, County Auditor Kyle MacArthur, Faribault County Register Megan Fedderson, Fairmont Sentinel Milton Steele, Citizen Michele Stindtman, Water Plan Coordinator/SWCD Manager Brandee Douglas, SWCD Assistant Manager The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Loveall. Michele Stindtman began the meeting with a summary of the Water Planning Process and an overview of the Local Water Management Advisory Task Force meeting. The top five priority concerns selected by the Advisory Task Force for the county were presented and discussed. Once these items are expanded, and goals and action items developed, these priority concerns should cover nearly all public comment received through the citizen surveys and state review agency input. It was the consensus of the group that these concerns were the top priorities for the county and would be submitted to state review agencies in the Scoping Document. Stindtman asked for any additional comment on the Local Water Management Plan or the selected priority concerns. No public comment was made. Citizen Input: Faribault County Local Water Management Plan Citizen Survey Results: The SWCD received a total of 57 citizen surveys back by the deadline. They could either be mailed back to the office or submitted electronically through the SWCD Website. Although a full report of the findings appears below, a summary of the results is as follows:


Check five of the following issues that you believe have the greatest impact on water quality in Faribault County (out of 10). 1. (tie) Soil Erosion and Runoff 1. (tie) Drainage and Flooding 3. Pesticide and Fertilizer Use 4. Urban Impacts / Stormwater 5. Livestock Waste Within the following major issues, check ten items that you feel are a top priority (out of 45). 1. Cross connections between wastewater and stormwater systems 2. Upgrading failing septic systems 3. Establishment of water retention areas / upland storage 4. (tie) Establishment of buffer strips along open ditches 4. (tie) Increased wetland restorations, which store and filter water 6. (tie) Upgrading of public drainage systems (improvements) 6. (tie) Increased information for homeowners through internet, newsletters, brochures, etc. 8. Over application of lawn and garden chemicals 9. (tie) Increased funding for conservation practices (waterways, terraces, sediment basins, etc.) 9. (tie) Abandoned wells that funnel contaminants into the aquifer Full Local Water Management Plan Citizen Survey Results:

FARIBAULT COUNTY CITIZEN SURVEY OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES TOTAL

CHECK 5 OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WITH THE GREATEST IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY Soil Erosion and Runoff 45 Drainage and Flooding 45 Livestock Waste 24 Human Wastewater 23 Solid Waste / Hazardous Waste 22 Urban Impacts / Stormwater 30 Pesticide and Fertilizer Use 33 Drinking Water Quality 17 Protection of Sensitive Areas 18 Need for Additional Environmental Education / Outreach 13 Other 3 Promoting Low Impact Development as Urban Areas Expand 1 Cities Bypassing into Rivers when there is High Water 1 Need for Storm Settling and Holding Areas 1

WITHIN THESE ISSUES, CHECK 10 ITEMS THAT YOU FEEL ARE A TOP PRIORITY Soil Erosion and Runoff Streambank Erosion 16 Increased promotion of conservation practices / programs 15 Increased funding for conservation practices (waterways, terraces, sediment basins, etc) 18 Improve crop residue management 7 Increased low interest loan money for reduced tillage equipment 1 Tile intake alternatives (rock tile inlets, grass buffering of intakes) 15


Drainage and Flooding Establishment of water retention areas / upland storage 25 Establishment of buffer strips along open ditches 22 Keeping channels free of obstructions that hinder flow 12 Wetland Restorations 14 Upgrading of public drainage systems (improvements) 21

Livestock Waste Runoff from feedlots 10 Runoff from fields in which manure is spread 16 Over application of manure / need for manure management plans 15 Dead animal disposal 5 Stricter setbacks for the application of manure adjacent to surface waters 12

Human Wastewater Upgrading failing septic systems 26 Poor operation and maintenance of upgraded systems by homeowners (not pumping, etc) 7 Education for homeowners on proper operation and maintenance 16

Solid Waste / Hazardous Waste Poor recycling practices by homeowners and businesses 14 Improper disposal of hazardous waste (including appliances, tires, etc) 12 Backyard burn barrels that release dioxin into the air 3 Increased education on recycling programs 9 Establishment of a County Recycling Center (appliances, concrete, tires, etc) 16 Need to provide better access to recycling programs for rural residents 8 What to do / who to call if a hazardous spill occurs or is observed 2

Urban Impacts / Stormwater Low impact development (reducing hard surfaces, treating stormwater where it falls) 5 Cross connections between wastewater and stormwater systems 29 Households in city limits not connected to city sewer 10 Runoff from construction sites 3 Runoff from impervious surfaces - stormwater (lawn chemicals, road salt, auto fluids) 17

Pesticide and Fertilizer Use Over application of agricultural chemicals 9 Over application of lawn and garden chemicals 20 Increased education for producers through Field Days / Test Plots 12

Drinking Water Quality Coliform bacteria in wells that make the water unsafe to drink 9 Nitrate – nitrogen in wells over the drinking water standard 5 Abandoned wells that funnel contaminants into the aquifer 18 Need for additional testing of private wells 14

Protection of Sensitive Areas Increased wetland restorations, which store and filter water 22 Protecting shoreland areas from over development (lakes and rivers) 13


Promotion of set-aside programs for riparian agricultural fields 15 Need to utilize natural resource information in land use decisions 6

Need for Additional Environmental Education / Outreach Increased use of field days / test plots / tours for producers 6 Increased education in schools 10 Increased information for homeowners through internet, newsletters, brochures, etc 21

Additional Comments or Concerns 10 Increased education should include programs for the entire county, not just Blue Earth 1 Improper disposal of waste in township ditches 1 Weekly gargabe pickup for rural residences 1 Industrial waste and pollution from wastewater 1 Need better info from MPCA on water testing 1 Better eng plans for impr, outlet cap, downstream impact, upland water retention, meter flow 1 Releasing from municipal lagoons results in additional flooding, is water sampled? 1 Need to clean snags & trees from river. If river is too full, tiles will not work properly. 1 Probably won't clean up sediment in rivers that flow through dirt beds which continually erode. 1 Concerned with residential and commercial not connected to wastewater treatment system. 1

Local, State, and Federal Agency written responses received: City of Winnebago, submitted by Nate Mathews, City Administrator Concern 1. County Ditches/Storm Ditches/Judicial Ditches within City Limits. Concern 2. Farm tile draining to the river. Concern 3. Septic System Compliance. City of Wells, submitted by Ronda Allis, City Administrator Concern 1. Storm water entering the City of Wells from the south. ?? Inadequate tile serving the agricultural land and cities stormwater. ??Storm water detention ponds to better control water entering the city.

MN Department of Health, submitted by Terry Bovee, Source Water Protection Unit, Mankato Concern 1. Protect ground water-based drinking water sources within Faribault County. ??All public water suppliers should develop and implement a wellhead protection plan. ??List all public water suppliers in the Water Management Plan. ??Consider wellhead protection areas when making land use decisions. ??Maintain proper setbacks from contamination sources for private wells.

Concern 2. Well sealing of unused or abandoned wells. ?? Inventory where unused or abandoned wells may be located. ??Cost share the sealing of unused or abandoned wells. ??P&Z require well sealing where appropriate in land use decisions.

Board of Water and Soil Resources, submitted by Chris Hughes Concern 1. Prevention of erosion of agriculture soils. ??Utilize appropriate tillage methods, promote and demonstrate conservation tillage. ??Promote and market conservation programs.


??Develop county wide standards for storm water management and construction site erosion/sedimentation for all development plans.

??Work with cities on erosion and sediment control regulations and techniques. ??Work to reenroll expiring CRP acres. ??Alternative crops, buffer strips, wetland restorations, engineered practices, etc.

Concern 2. Drainage System Management Plan. ??Maintain mapping and data management process. ?? Inventory systems for filter strips, potential wetland locations and controlled drainage. ?? Identify overloaded areas for the creation of water storage areas. ??Overview the economic benefits and concerns of the systems. ??Establish a schedule for repair and maintenance, and to redetermine benefits.

Concern 3. Maintain, enhance, and increase wetland resources and natural corridors. ??Complete a drained wetland inventory and identify priority areas for restoration. ??Promote and market wetland preservation and restoration programs. ?? Identify and target natural corridors to be enhanced and protected.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, submitted by Lisa Thorvig, Assistant Commissioner Concern 1. Impaired Waters/Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). ?? Identify the county’s priority to addressing impaired waters and the development of TMDLs. ??Provide plans for monitoring unmonitored waters. ??Describe actions the county will take to reduce pollutants causing impairments.

Concern 2. Stormwater Management: Rural/Agricultural Drainage, Urban and Suburban Stormwater Runoff Management. ??Assess the environmental impacts of public drainage system changes. ??Assess and utilize portions of the drainage code (environmental considerations, impounding

or diverting water, restoration of wetlands, outlet for municipality, etc). ??Buffers on open ditches and surface tile inlets, upland management. ??Controlled drainage practices, crop residue management, structural practices. ??Cities plan for retrofits for stormwater control and treatment. ?? Implementation of rain gardens to promote infiltration. ??Compliance with construction stormwater permit process and rules.

Concern 3. Animal Agriculture, Feedlots, and Manure Management. ??Manure management plans and open lot agreements. ??Benefits of animal agriculture.

Concern 4. Involvement in Watershed Initiatives. Concern 5. Lake Water Quality Improvement through Improved Lake Watershed Management. ??Buffer strips, shoreland improvements, ISTS upgrades, lake monitoring, etc.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, submitted by Cheryl Heide, Regional Director Concern 1. Holding Water on the Landscape – Hydrograph Restoration. ??Restoring of wetlands, changes in land use practices and drainage policy. ??Promotion of road retention structures, including downsizing bridges and culverts. ??Construction of water retarding structures that are not barriers to fish movement.

Concern 2. Creation of Buffers on Ditches, Streams and Rivers. ?? Increased and improved riparian corridors that provide for wildlife habitat, stabilize banks,

and capture water runoff and nutrients. ?? Implementation of Riparian Buffers at widths of 33-66 feet.


Concern 3. Fish Passage. ??Elimination of unintentional fish barriers to increase diversity and habitat.

Additional Concerns and Comments. ??Survey the county for natural features that are rare or of biological or ecological

significance. ??Logging along the Blue Earth River corridor and the threat to Bald Eagles. ??Protecting Minnesota Lake, which hosts a large and diverse waterbird colony and abundant

waterfowl, from the influences of the surrounding landscape, primarily agricultural. Other stakeholder written comments: Other than the comment section of the Local Water Management Plan Citizen Survey, no additional written comments were received from stakeholders. D. PRIORITY CONCERN SELECTION A priority concern is an issue, resource, subwatershed, or demographic area that has been identified as a priority by the plan authority. The following five Priority Concerns were selected by the Task Force after examining the list of concerns submitted by the citizens, local and state agencies, and will be the foundation of the Faribault County Local Water Management Plan. It is not possible to address all concerns, however the five selected are broad enough to cover most concerns submitted, yet focused enough to achieve goals and action items with the staff and funding that is available at the time. 1. Water Quality Concerns - including addressing impaired waters (TMDL’s) by major watershed for priority pollutants; groundwater quality focusing on wellhead protection and sealing abandoned or unused wells; lake watershed management; and targeting non-point pollution sources. 2. Stormwater Management Concerns – including addressing urban stormwater control and treatment; drainage management focusing on public drainage systems; and flood damage reduction focusing on controlled drainage, out of county drainage inputs, water retention areas and wetland restorations. 3. Erosion Concerns – including prevention of soil erosion and sedimentation from runoff and stream banks; and construction site erosion control regulations and techniques. 4. Agriculture Concerns – including animal agriculture; land application of manure and setbacks from sensitive features; crediting of manure nutrients; and nutrient management planning. 5. Natural Resource Concerns – including identifying and targeting natural corridors to be enhanced and protected; increased wetland resources; and preserving the natural resources of the county. Existing water resource plans and official controls received: No plans or official controls were received from any of the state review agencies or local units of government.


Identification of related plans priority concerns: The Soil and Water Conservation District currently possesses or has access to copies of several local, regional and state plans. The priority concerns that were developed for Faribault County directly reflect the goals, objectives, and actions outlined in these other related plans and documents. These include: the Diagnostic Study and Implementation Plan for the Blue Earth and Le Sueur River Watersheds, Faribault County Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, adjoining county’s Local Water Management Plans, Greater Blue Earth River Basin plans, existing Clean Water Partnership plans, Minnesota River Basin plans, Lower Minnesota River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Implementation Plan, the Blue Earth River Basin Fecal TMDL, etc. E. PRIORITY CONCERNS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE PLAN Additional concerns that were submitted, but not included in the Local Water Management Priority Concerns Scoping Document, are those that are already or may potentially be addressed by other entities and groups, which work closely with the Soil and Water Conservation District. For example, several communities within the county have already begun the process of working on the problem of cross connections within city limits. They have established Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Programs and have forced residents to disconnect sump pumps draining into the wastewater system, are also inspecting homes in problems areas of town, etc. Several cities have also begun the process of addressing homes within city limits not connected to the cities wastewater treatment system and in some cases have extended lines to these areas. Other issues brought forward by cities and private citizens were related to a very specific problem and will be addressed at a later time perhaps as an action item within the established priority concern areas. Future Steps that will be taken: While the county is waiting for approval of this document from the Board of Water and Soil Resources, Faribault County will be working to define goals, objectives and actions that will address each of the 5 priority concerns. Upon approval of this document, the county will follow the timeline that has been established for completion of the final Water Resources Management Plan. As required by Minnesota Statute, a public hearing will be held to validate the focus of the final plan. The plan will then be submitted to the state for final approval. When the plan is approved at the state level, it will be presented and adopted by the Faribault County Board of Commissioners, and the implementation of the plan will begin.

faribault county local water management plan

Documents