5.9 Summary

The following tables summarize the proposed implementation action items and their relationship to overall District the problems and issues identified in Section 3.0 above, the metrics by which the District will be evaluating progress toward resolving those issues and problems, the estimated District cost of implementing these actions, and anticipated implementation schedule.

Table 25.  Problems and issues identified in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed and actions proposed to address them.

 

Problem or Issue

Actions in Implementation Plan

Degree of Improvement

Water Quality

The water quality in Minnehaha Creek as measured by total phosphorus and TSS concentrations is comparable to the MPCA’s ecoregion guidelines.  Phosphorus and sediment loads in Minnehaha Creek increase upstream to downstream, although the impoundments at the major grade controls act as settling basins and trap some of the pollutants and sediment.  Average chloride concentrations are generally lower than state standards, and dissolved oxygen concentrations are generally sustained at levels sufficient to maintain aquatic life.  Monitoring for e. coli bacteria shows increasing concentrations from upstream to downstream at levels sometimes exceeding state standards.

  • A series of stream restoration projects to stabilize streambanks to reduce pollutant loading from bank erosion, improve buffers, and increase habitat
  • Actions to increase infiltration in the subwatershed to reduce pollutant loading conveyed from stormwater runoff
  • Continued monitoring of Minnehaha Creek for various parameters including bacteria
  • A diagnostic study of Minnehaha Creek to evaluate potential to improve water quality and ecologic integrity through in-stream and near-stream restorations 

Implementation of actions in this Plan would maintain or improve water quality and ecologic integrity in Minnehaha Creek

Six lakes in the subwatershed have been designated Impaired Waters on the state’s 303(d) list due to an excess of nutrients.  The District has petitioned to remove two of those lakes.  The District is preparing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies, including plans to reduce phosphorus loads into the lakes, for Nokomis, Diamond, Hiawatha, and Powderhorn Lakes.

  • The draft TMDLs identify potential improvement projects that have been incorporated into this Plan.
  • Continue monitoring the lakes to assess progress. 

Implementation of all the actions in the phosphorus load reduction plans for the lakes would theoretically reduce in-lake P concentrations, improve water clarity, and meet District goals and state and federal water quality standards.

 

The HHPLS established and the Lake Hiawatha TMDL assumes an in-creek total phosphorus concentration goal of 80 ug/L.   The HHPLS estimated that achieving this goal would require a 15 percent reduction in phosphorus loading to the creek from the entire subwatershed, excluding the Chain of Lakes and Lake Nokomis lakesheds.  However, not enough is known about in-stream processes and sources to partition that load reduction between loading from runoff and loading from in-stream sources such as streambank erosion, internal loading, riparian wetlands, etc.

  • Rules will be amended to require more stringent pollutant load reduction on new development and redevelopment, including adding an abstraction requirement to reduce pollutant loading from runoff.
  • Cooperatively construct regional infiltration improvements to mitigate impact of new runoff from development and to reduce pollutant loading from existing development.
  • A diagnostic study of Minnehaha Creek to evaluate potential to improve water quality and ecologic integrity through in-stream and near-stream restorations. 
  • Implementation of actions in this Plan would maintain or improve water quality and ecologic integrity in Minnehaha Creek and theoretically reduce pollutant loading conveyed to Lake Hiawatha from the creek, improving its water quality.
  • Would depend on ability of developers to incorporate adequate BMPs on their projects and properly maintain them to sustain removal efficiencies.
  • Depends on ability to develop cooperative or collaborative improvements.
 

Development in the subwatershed has resulted in increased stormwater volumes conveying nutrients and sediment to the lakes and to Minnehaha Creek.  Significant efforts and investments by the District and the local governments have been made to improve water quality in the lakes through improvement projects, restorations, and nonstructural BMPs such as education and street sweeping.  As a result Brownie Lake, Cedar Lake, Lake of the Isles, and Lake Calhoun meet or exceed their water quality goals.

Rules will be amended to require more stringent pollutant load reduction on new development and redevelopment, including adding an abstraction requirement to reduce pollutant loading from runoff.

 

  • Implementation of actions in this Plan would maintain or improve water quality and ecologic integrity in Minnehaha Creek and the lakes that currently meet or exceed their water quality goals.
  • Would depend on ability of developers to incorporate adequate BMPs on their projects and properly maintain them to sustain removal efficiencies.
  • Depends on ability to develop cooperative or collaborative improvements.

Development, redevelopment, and reconstruction in the subwatershed may provide opportunities to obtain a net decrease in volume of stormwater runoff, nutrient, and TSS loads.

  • Rules will be amended to require more stringent pollutant load reduction on new development and redevelopment, including adding a volume management requirement.
  • Would depend on ability of developers to incorporate adequate BMPs on their projects and properly maintain them to sustain removal efficiencies.
  • Cooperatively construct regional infiltration improvements to mitigate impact of new runoff from development.
  • Depends on ability to develop cooperative or collaborative improvements.
 
   

Water Quantity

Drainage is conveyed through the subwatershed through a network of storm sewers, ditches, wetlands and lakes that discharge to Minnehaha Creek.  The Minnehaha Creek Stream Assessment identified 35 locations on the creek with significant erosion or bank failure, and numerous locations with less severe erosion.   Channel bank stability is stressed by “flashy” storm discharges which produce high velocities and rapid increases and decreases in stage coupled with poor riparian zone management and numerous storm sewer outfalls.

  • A series of stream restoration projects to stabilize streambanks to reduce pollutant loading from bank erosion, improve buffers, and increase habitat.
  • A program to collaboratively construct spot repairs on reaches where full-scale restoration is not planned at this time.

 

Completion of projects would repair existing erosion and stabilize the creek where it is most at risk for future erosion.

Development of the subwatershed has resulted in increased stormwater volumes and flow peaks and reduced infiltration and base flow in Minnehaha Creek.  Development, redevelopment, and reconstruction in the subwatershed may provide opportunities to achieve a net decrease in volume of stormwater runoff, nutrient and TSS loads conveyed to those water resources.

  • Rules will be amended to require more stringent pollutant load reduction on new development and redevelopment, including adding a volume management requirement.
  • Would depend on ability of developers to incorporate adequate BMPs on their projects and properly maintain them to sustain removal efficiencies.
  • Cooperatively construct regional infiltration improvements to mitigate impact of new runoff from development.
  • Depends on ability to develop cooperative or collaborative improvements.
 
   

Limitations on discharges from the Grays Bay dam, reduced infiltration and baseflow, multiple impoundments on the creek, and channel overwidening to accommodate high flows leads to extended periods when the flows and depths in the creek channel are insufficient for recreation and severely stress aquatic life.

  • A stream diagnostic and biotic integrity TMDL to identify stressors and the most effective ways to reduce and mitigate for them
  • A series of stream restoration projects to stabilize streambanks to reduce pollutant loading from bank erosion, improve buffers, and increase habitat.
  • A program to collaboratively construct spot repairs on reaches where full-scale restoration is not planned at this time.

 

Completion of projects would repair existing erosion and stabilize the creek where it is most at risk for future erosion, and improve habitat to reduce low-flow stress on aquatic life.

Several landlocked subwatershed units and individual subbasins are present in the subwatershed, primarily in Minnetonka and St. Louis Park.  As identified in the HHPLS, several of these subwatersheds or basins are being considered by the cities for outletting, altering local hydrology and potentially creating downstream volume or water quality impacts.  Within these landlocked basins, any future development or redevelopment should minimize creation of new stormwater volumes.

Cities are prohibited from adding outlets to landlocked basins, and must provide for adequate storage and volume control.

 

Completed as LGUs complete their local plans.

 

Impoundments and grade control structures along the creek cause sediment to be deposited and accumulate, limiting habitat values.

A diagnostic study of Minnehaha Creek to evaluate potential to improve water quality and ecologic integrity through in-stream and near-stream restorations.

Implementation of actions in this Plan would maintain or improve water quality and ecologic integrity in Minnehaha Creek

The HHPLS identified multiple locations within the subwatershed that are predicted to overtop during the 100 year event, including city streets, trails, and driveways.

LGUs directed to evaluate these locations as part of their local water management planning.

Completed as LGUs complete their local plans.

The HHPLS identified several locations where for both existing and future conditions, higher velocities than desired may result in erosion at outlets or culverts.  

LGUs directed to evaluate these locations as part of their local water management planning.

Completed as LGUs complete their local plans.

Wetlands

The subwatershed includes several wetlands with high to exceptional vegetative diversity, fish and wildlife habitat and aesthetic values that need to be protected.

  • Key Conservation Areas identified that include high-value wetlands.  Some of these areas are identified as District priorities for continued implementation of the Land Conservation Program, and thus the District would proactively look for opportunities to conserve these resources. The Capital Improvement Program includes funds for Land Conservation Activities.   In all key areas, LGUs are required to include in their local plans strategies for conserving these values.
  • Ongoing effort that is dependant on property owner willingness to pursue conservation, District budget and staff capacity, and LGU plan completion.
  • Rules will be amended to establish management standards based on management classification for impacts to wetlands from development and redevelopment.
  • Implementation of revised rules would help minimize future impacts to the highest-value wetlands while still providing a measure of protection to those that provide mainly downstream resource protection.
 
   

Most of the wetlands in the subwatershed have been impacted by development, as indicated by the lack of wetlands with exceptional to high vegetative diversity given the size of the subwatershed.   Degraded wetlands with high to moderate restoration potential should be considered for protection and restoration.

  • Wetland restorations will be evaluated as part of the creek diagnostic
  • Wetlands identified as being of high to moderate wetland potential would be managed according to a Manage 1 wetland classification if they have been assessed as a Manage 2 or 3.   This would minimize further degradation that might make future restoration more difficult or costly.

An initial effort that identifies for restoration those wetlands that would result in improvement to water quality in the lakes.   This would begin to mitigate wetland losses from past development and help to increase the quantity and quality of wetlands present.

Ecological Integrity

Most of the subwatershed is fully developed at urban and suburban densities, with opportunities for the conservation of ecological integrity being primarily within the creek corridor or some larger wetland complexes.

 

Key Conservation Areas identified that include high-value wetlands.  Some of these areas are identified as District priorities for continued implementation of the Land Conservation Program, and thus the District would proactively look for opportunities to conserve these resources. The Capital Improvement Program includes funds for Land Conservation Activities.   In all key areas, LGUs are required to include in their local plans strategies for conserving these values.

Ongoing effort that is dependant on property owner willingness to pursue conservation, District budget and staff capacity, and LGU plan completion.

Fish surveys have been completed by the DNR on the major lakes in the subwatershed, and the fisheries are actively managed through stocking.

  • Continue to work cooperatively with the DNR, MPRB, and Three Rivers on fisheries issues.
  • Support the fisheries through the improvement of water quality.

Depends on response of natural community to habitat improvement.

A fish survey conducted by the DNR on Minnehaha Creek found mostly lake species with few adults, indicating a lack of suitable habitat and few refuges for overwintering and low flow periods.

  • Support the DNR in its management efforts. 
  • Evaluate milfoil management as part of internal load management diagnostic and feasibility study.
  • A stream diagnostic and biotic integrity TMDL to identify stressors and the most effective ways to reduce and mitigate for them

 

Depends on the extent of infestation.  If control of milfoil and other invasive aquatic vegetation will help achieve internal phosphorus load reduction goals, then a significant improvement can be had through chemical or other control.  If control would not benefit lake water quality, then there would be no improvement.

Macroinvertebrate communities in Minnehaha Creek are limited by frequent wetland and impounded reaches, water quality, and lack of habitat.

  • A stream diagnostic and biotic integrity TMDL to identify stressors and the most effective ways to reduce and mitigate for them.
  • A series of stream restoration projects to stabilize streambanks to reduce pollutant loading from bank erosion, improve buffers, and increase habitat.

 

Depends on response of natural community to habitat improvement.

Eurasian watermilfoil is present in many of the lakes, and the Minneapolis Park Board performs weed cutting on the Chain of Lakes to better support swimming and boating.

  • Support the DNR and MPRB in their management efforts. 
  • Evaluate milfoil management as part of internal load management diagnostic and feasibility study.

Depends on the extent of infestation.  If control of milfoil and other invasive aquatic vegetation will help achieve internal phosphorus load reduction goals, then a significant improvement can be had through chemical or other control.  If control would not benefit lake water quality, then there would be no improvement.

Groundwater

Development of the subwatershed has resulted in increased stormwater volumes and flow peaks and reduced infiltration and base flow in Minnehaha Creek.  Development, redevelopment, and reconstruction in the subwatershed may provide opportunities to decrease stormwater runoff volumes and increase infiltration

  • Amend rules to require infiltration or abstraction of the first one inch of rainfall on new permitted development and redevelopment.
  • Infiltration on site will assist in preventing further modification of surficial groundwater recharge and help to maintain wetland hydrologic regimes.
  • Identify a network of surficial aquifer monitoring wells across the watershed, monitor groundwater levels and quality.
  • Implementation of monitoring network will fill data gap and allow for identification of trends.
  • Identify baseflow in Minnehaha Creek and monitor for trends.
  • Identification of baseflow will fill  data gap, allow for identification of trends, and improve understanding of hydrology and hydraulics of Minnehaha Creek.
 
   
   

Ongoing flow monitoring in Minnehaha Creek suggests that some reaches of the creek are losing flow to groundwater, possibly contributing to periods of low or intermittent flow.

 

  • Amend rules to require infiltration or abstraction of the first one inch of rainfall on new permitted development and redevelopment.
  • A stream diagnostic and biotic integrity TMDL to identify stressors and the most effective ways to reduce and mitigate for them

Depends on outcome of study and recommendations

Seeps and springs are present in the subwatershed, mainly in the limestone cliffs of the Gorge.  The most prominent spring is Camp Coldwater Spring.  Hydrologic analysis and monitoring conducted at the time the Minnesota Department of Transportation proposed to construct a new highway interchange nearby indicate this historic spring is sensitive to impacts in its groundwatershed

  • Amend rules to require pretreatment of stormwater discharged to wetlands or infiltration areas in the areas of high aquifer sensitivity.
  • Establish a new District rule that requires an additional level of analysis and review of permitted development and redevelopment where there is a potential for development to adversely impact groundwater connected to a surface water feature.

Will help minimize future impacts to groundwater and provide for proactive management rather than reactive

The extensive wetlands in the upper subwatershed were identified in the FAW as either discharge wetlands or combination recharge-discharge wetlands.  It will be critical to maintain or increase infiltration rates in the upper subwatershed to help maintain hydrology to these wetlands.  Wetlands in the lower subwatershed are mainly recharge or combination wetlands.  The hydrology of these wetlands depends on maintaining local flow patterns and rates

  • Amend rules to require infiltration or abstraction of the first one inch of rainfall on new permitted development and redevelopment.
  • Identify a network of surficial aquifer monitoring wells across the watershed, monitor groundwater levels and quality.
  • Promote Better Site Design (Low Impact Development) principles for new development that mimic predevelopment hydrologic regime.

 

Infiltration on site will assist in preventing further modification of surficial groundwater recharge and help to maintain wetland hydrologic regimes.

Much of the subwatershed is very highly or highly sensitive to aquifer impacts, including the Minnehaha Creek corridor

  • Amend rules to require pretreatment of stormwater discharged to wetlands or infiltration areas in the areas of high aquifer sensitivity.
  • Establish a new District rule that requires an additional level of analysis and review of permitted development and redevelopment where there is a potential for development to adversely impact groundwater connected to a surface water feature.

Will help minimize future impacts to groundwater and provide for proactive management rather than reactive

Wellhead Protection Areas have been identified for the cities of Edina, Minnetonka and St. Louis Park within this subwatershed.  Stormwater management within those areas should be coordinated with wellhead protection plans

  • Stormwater and groundwater management within those areas will be coordinated with wellhead protection plans.
  • Will help minimize future impacts to drinking water and provide for proactive management rather than reactive
 

Table 26.  Summary of metrics to be used in evaluating progress toward Minnehaha Creek subwatershed goals.

Objective

Metric

Existing

Desired

Location

Water Quality

Phosphorus Loading (lbs annually)

665

(Ultimate)

562

Lake Harriet

Phosphorus Loading (lbs annually)

908

(Ultimate)

599

Lake Nokomis

Phosphorus Loading (lbs annually)

11,126

(Ultimate)

10,038

Lake Hiawatha

Phosphorus Loading (lbs annually)

486

(Ultimate)

265

Diamond Lake

Phosphorus Loading (lbs annually)

267

(Ultimate)

90

Powderhorn Lake

Water Quantity

Volume Reduction (Acre-feet)

 

1,298

Watershed-wide

1.5 year discharge (cfs)

219.7

219.7

Watershed-wide

100 year discharge (cfs)

676.2

676.2

Watershed-wide

Ecologic Integrity

Index of Biotic Integrity

3.51

 (F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 30

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 29

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 28

 N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 27

 3.76

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 26

 N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 25

 N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 24

 N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 23

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 22

 4.78

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 21

 5.39

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 20

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 19

 N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 18

 N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 17

 4.88

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 16

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 15

 5.56

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 14

 4.00

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 13

 5.31

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 12

 5.13

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 11

 3.96

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 10

 5.08

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 9

 4.24

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 8

 N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 7

 N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 6

 N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 5

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 4

 N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 3

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 2

 4.26

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Minnehaha Creek Reach 1

Stream Visual Assessment Protocol

6.3

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 30

4.8

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 29

7.0

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 28

7.5

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 27

6.3

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 26

6.4

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 25

2.0

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 24

4.1

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 23

6.1

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 22

7.0

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 21

2.0

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 20

6.1

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 19

6.0

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 18

2.0

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 17

5.8

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 16

5.8

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 15

5.6

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 14

7.1

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 13

3.8

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 12

5.7

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 11

6.9

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 10

5.1

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 9

5.1

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 8

4.0

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 7

2.0

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 6

3.0

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 5

4.7

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 4

2.0

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 3

4.3

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 2

7.6

5.0 or 1+ existing

Minnehaha Creek Reach 1

 

Key Conservation Areas conserved (acres)

 

98

Watershed-wide

Wetlands

Wetland Acreage

3,874.0

3,874.0 or greater

Watershed-wide

1,035.3

1,035.3 or greater

Preserve

575.6

575.6 or greater

Manage 1

314.7

314.7 or greater

Manage 2

735.5

735.5 or greater

Manage 3

Table 27.  Summary of Minnehaha Creek subwatershed implementation program.

Item

Description

Estimated Cost

Schedule

Section 3.0

MCWD Capital Projects

1

Stream restorations

$944,100

2014

3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3,3.2.5, 3.3.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4

$451,000

2015

$654,800

2012

$967,600

2007

$877,700

2015

$1,380,100

2016

$896,000

2012

$1,203,400

2010

2

Minnehaha Falls Glen Restoration

$1,795,300

2008

 

3

Lake Nokomis internal load management

$342,100

2007

3.2.5

4

Regional infiltration

$410,100

2013

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4

$485,400

2012

$3,533,000

2009

$2,440,600

2011

$2,299,800

2008

$2,221,500

2013

$1,051,900

2015

$915,400

2012

$435,200

2016

$1,504,500

2014

MCWD Data Acquisition/Study

1

Minnehaha Creek Subwatershed Volume and Load Reduction Study

$200,000

 

2008

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.7, 3.3.3, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.5.1

2

Develop infiltration/filtration strategies appropriate to wellhead protection areas and areas of groundwater sensitivity

Part of watershed-wide study

2008

3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4

3

Identify key indicator species, evaluate habitat, and develop conservation strategies

Part of watershed-wide study

2010 and ongoing

3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4

MCWD Land Conservation Program

1

Undertake land conservation efforts in accordance with Figure 19

$4,215,000

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.5.1

MCWD Regulatory Program

1

Amend District Rules to increase stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment

Part of watershed-wide effort

2007-2009

3.1.1 - 3.1.4, 3.4.4

2

Amend District Rules to require abstraction of 1” of rainfall on permitted development and redevelopment

Part of watershed-wide effort

2007-2009

3.1.1 - 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.5.4,

3

Amend District Rules to adopt wetland management rules based on wetland management classification

Part of watershed-wide effort

2007-2009

3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.4

MCWD Hydrodata Program

1

Monitor Minnehaha Creek

Part of watershed-wide hydrologic data program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.2

2

Monitor macroinvertebrates in Minnehaha Creek every five years

Part of watershed-wide hydrologic data program

2008, 2012

3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4

3

Identify base level flow in Minnehaha Creek

Part of watershed-wide study

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.2

4

Identify shallow wells to monitor groundwater levels

Part of watershed-wide study

2008

3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.3, 3.3.2, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4

MCWD Education/Communication Program

1

Provide targeted education materials to key stakeholder groups to meet objectives of plan

Part of watershed-wide education program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

All

2

Provide workshops, seminars, and brown bags for LGU staff, developers, and other interested parties

Part of watershed-wide education program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1- 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.5.1 -3.5.4

3

Develop and distribute model ordinances and design standards that incorporate low impact design principles

Part of watershed-wide education program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.2-3.1.4, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.4

4

Develop a small grant program to provide financial assistance to property owners desiring to implement BMPs on their property

Part of watershed-wide program

2008 and ongoing

3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.4

MCWD Operations and Maintenance

1

Inspect Minnehaha Creek erosion-prone areas at least annually

Part of watershed-wide program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.7, 3.4.4

2

Monitor high vegetative-diversity wetlands for exotic species

Part of watershed-wide program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.3.1

3

Inspect detention ponds to sustain removal efficiency

Incorporate into life-cycle cost of project

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3

Collaborative Projects

1

Work in partnership with MPRB to develop and implement lake aquatic management plans

Ongoing activity

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.2, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.5

2

Work in partnership with Creek riparian communities to improve riparian zone vegetation management

Ongoing activity

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4

3

Browndale Dam Scour Repair

$50,500

2008

Same

4

Work in partnership with Creek riparian communities and other agencies and utilities to repair streambank erosion and stabilize outfalls and other infrastructure: establish annual fund

$100,000 annually

2008 and ongoing

Same

5

Work in partnership with MPRB to investigate and implement potential capital improvements identified in the lake TMDLs

To be developed in the Lake TMDL Implementation Plan

As noted in the CIP

3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.5

6

Collaborate with the MPRB to evaluate feasibility of internal load controls on  Nokomis, Powderhorn, and Diamond Lakes

To be developed in the Lake TMDL Implementation Plan

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.2, 3.4.2, 3.4.5