5.9 Summary

The following tables summarize the proposed implementation action items and their relationship to 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 16.  Problems and issues identified in the Painter Creek subwatershed and actions proposed to address them.

 

Problem or Issue

Actions in Implementation Plan

Degree of Improvement

Water Quality

Painter Creek has total phosphorus and TSS concentrations that exceed the MPCA’s ecoregion guidelines.  Phosphorus loads in Painter Creek increase upstream to downstream, and dissolved oxygen can fall below the state standard during low flows.  Based on District monitoring data, it is estimated that Painter Creek contributes between one-third and one-half the total annual phosphorus load delivered to Jennings Bay. Improving Jennings Bay is dependant on reducing phosphorus load from Painter Creek. 

 

  • A phosphorus load reduction plan for Jennings Bay that sets forth actions to reduce loading to meet in-lake P concentration goals.  These actions include an enhanced regulatory program, LGU requirements to reduce phosphorus from existing development, and capital projects to reduce internal and external loads.
  • Continue monitoring Painter Creek and Jennings Bay. 
  • Implementation of all the actions in the phosphorus load reduction plan would theoretically reduce in-lake P concentrations, improve water clarity, and meet District water quality goals.
  •  

The Painter Creek Feasibility Study identified a number of potential BMPs including wetland restorations and small-event creek diversions intended to spread flow out into wetlands and floodplains to allow natural vegetative and soil processes to reduce phosphorus loads.

A series of improvements projects including wetland and stream restorations intended to work together to reduce phosphorus load from Painter Creek discharged to Jennings Bay.

Feasibility and effectiveness of wetland restorations to improve water quality would depend on outcome of Highway 26 wetland restoration demonstration project

The HHPLS did not identify specific load reductions but identified BMPs that could be considered such as enlarging or dredging existing treatment ponds.

A series of improvements projects including wetland and stream restorations intended to work together to reduce phosphorus load from Painter Creek discharged to Jennings Bay.

Feasibility and effectiveness of wetland restorations to improve water quality would depend on outcome of Highway 26 wetland restoration demonstration project

Rough fish in Katrina Lake and the creek and wetlands likely contribute to internal loading from sediments.

  • A cooperative study with Three Rivers Park District to determine feasibility of removing rough fish from Katrina.
  • A project to install a fish barrier at the mouth of Painter Creek to prevent upstream migration.

Depends on extent of problem and ability to develop cooperative or collaborative improvements.

Development, redevelopment, and reconstruction in the subwatershed will increase nutrient and TSS loads from the watershed as well as increasing the volume of stormwater runoff.

  • Rules will be amended to require more stringent pollutant load reduction on new development and redevelopment, including adding a volume management requirement.
  • Cooperatively construct regional infiltration improvements to mitigate impact of new runoff from development.

 

  • 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.

Water Quantity

Drainage is conveyed through the subwatershed through culverts and small channels to wetlands, most of which are ditched or drain to Painter Creek.  The Upper Watershed Stream Assessment identified 11 locations on the Creek with erosion or bank failure, most of them concentrated in about 1400 linear feet of that study’s Reach 1.  

Two stream restoration projects to stabilize reaches with highest concentration of erosion problems and locations at highest risk for future erosion based on HHPLS scour potential analysis.

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

The HHPLS idenitified three locations that are predicte to overtop during the 100year event.

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

Completed as LGUs complete their local plans.

The HHPLS identified the outlet of Katrina Lake and the outlet of the Highway 26 marsh as needing attention.

Maintenance projects to repair or replace the outlets.

Completion of maintenance projects would restore full operation and function.

Development, redevelopment, and reconstruction in the subwatershed may increase the volume of stormwater runoff, increasing nutrient and TSS loads conveyed downstream. 

  • Rules will be amended to require more stringent pollutant load reduction on new development and redevelopment, including adding a volume management requirement.
  • Cooperatively construct regional infiltration improvements to mitigate impact of new runoff from development.
  • 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.

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 numerous wetlands with high to exceptional vegetative diversity, fish and wildlife habitat and aesthetic values that should 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.
  • Rules will be amended to establish management standards based on management classification for impacts to wetlands from development and redevelopment.
  • Ongoing effort that is dependant on property owner willingness to pursue conservation, District budget and staff capacity, and LGU plan completion.
  • 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.

Degraded wetlands with high to moderate restoration potential should be considered for protection and restoration.

  • Several wetland restorations are identified as part of the series of Feasibility Study improvements and included in the CIP.
  • 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 Jennings Bay.   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 characterized by large open areas of forest, grasslands, and wetlands punctuated by low density development.  Intensive uses are concentrated along the US Highway 12 corridor.  The Baker Park Reserve includes large areas of minimally disturbed wetland and woodland, including tamarack forest.

 

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.

No fish or aquatic vegetation surveys have been completed on Katrina Lake, and there is no public access.

  • Cooperative project with Three Rivers to study feasibility of removing rough fish from Katrina.
  • Due to its sensitive nature as a waterfowl breeding area, no public access is anticipated.

Removal of rough fish may reduce nutrient and sediment loading discharged from Katrina Lake downstream.

Macroinvertebrate communities are limited by its low gradient, frequent wetland reaches, water quality and lack of habitat.

 

Stream restoration projects on two reaches to stabilize streambanks and improve habitat

Depends on response of natural community to habitat improvement.

The Painter Creek Feasibility Study identified a corridor of wetlands, uplands, floodplain, and steep slopes that could be considered for conservation to improve Painter Creek water quality and ecological integrity.

Key Conservation Areas identified that include this corridor.  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.

Groundwater

Most of the major wetlands in the subwatershed were identified in the FAW as combination recharge-discharge wetlands.  Several recharge wetlands are located in upper subwatershed in the Baker Park Reserve.  As development occurs it will be critical to maintain runoff and infiltration rates to help maintain hydrology to these wetlands.

 

  • 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.

There are a number of areas in the subwatershed that are very highly or highly sensitive to aquifer impacts, especially the wetlands in the Painter 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 and associated Drinking Water Sensitivity Management Areas have been identified for the cities of Long Lake and Plymouth within this subwatershed. 

 

  • 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

Groundwater hydrology is an important component in the base flow for area streams.  Protecting existing groundwater flow regimes must remain a priority.

  • 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.
  • Identify baseflow in Long Lake Creek and monitor for trends.
  • Infiltration on site will assist in preventing further modification of surficial groundwater recharge and help to maintain wetland hydrologic regimes.
  • Implementation of monitoring network will fill data gap and allow for identification of trends
  • Identification of baseflow will fill  data gap, allow for identification of trends, and improve understanding of hydrology and hydraulics of  Long Lake Creek

Table 17.  Summary of metrics to be used in evaluating progress toward Painter Creek subwatershed goals.

Objective

Metric

Existing

Desired

Location

Water Quality

Phosphorus Loading (lbs annually)

5,208

1,900

Jennings Bay

Water Quantity

Volume Reduction (Acre-feet)

 

354

Watershed-wide

1.5 year discharge (cfs)

122.1

122.1

Watershed-wide

100 year discharge (csf)

365.6

365.6

Watershed-wide

Ecologic Integrity

Index of Biotic Integrity

6.96

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Painter Creek Reach 9

5.97-6.67

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Painter Creek Reach 8

5.96

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Painter Creek Reach 7

7.43

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Painter Creek Reach 6

6.07

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Painter Creek Reach 5

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Painter Creek Reach 4

6.02

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Painter Creek Reach 3

N/A

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Painter Creek Reach 2

4.5-6.03

(F-IBI)

Above MPCA impairment threshold

Painter Creek Reach 1

Stream Visual Assessment Protocol

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Painter Creek Reach 9

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Painter Creek Reach 8

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Painter Creek Reach 7

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Painter Creek Reach 6

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Painter Creek Reach 5

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Painter Creek Reach 4

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Painter Creek Reach 3

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Painter Creek Reach 2

N/A

5.0 or 1+ existing

Painter Creek Reach 1

Wetlands

Wetland Acreage

2,920.8

2,920.8 or greater

Watershed-wide

1,307.7

1,307.7 or greater

Preserve

362.7

362.7 or greater

Manage 1

696.6

696.6 or greater

Manage 2

388.1

388.1 or greater

Manage 3

Table 18.  Summary of Painter Creek subwatershed implementation program.

Item

Description

Estimated Cost

Schedule

Section 3.0 Problems Addressed

MCWD Capital Projects

1

Hwy 26 (Pond 637) wetland restoration

$137,300

2007

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5, 3.2.4, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.5.1

2

PC-6 & 7 Pond

$358,500

2014

Same

3

South Katrina Marsh improvements

$359,600

2015

Same

4

Additional PC-13 storage, stabilize stream

$137,800

2012

Same

5

“Potato Farm” wetland improvements

$513,400

2010

Same

6

Treatment at Painter Marsh inflow, Painter Marsh restoration

$1,077,000

2009

Same

7

Wetland corridor improvements

$397,500

2010

Same

8

PC-25 wetland treatment

$214,500

2015

Same

9

Carp gate at creek mouth

$59,800

2014

Same

10

Internal load reduction project, Jennings Bay

$291,700

2012

Same

11

Jennings Bay wet detention pond

$1,995,200

2016

Same

12

Painter Creek Phase I stream restoration

$844,600

2011

3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.3, 3.4.4

13

Painter Creek Phase II stream restoration

$574,300

2012

3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.3, 3.4.4

14

Regional infiltration

$196,900

2011

3.1.1, 3.1.5, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.4.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.4

$204,900

2013

$218,400

2009

$295,100

2015

$337,600

2014

15

South Katrina Marsh outlet reconstruction

$60,900

2015

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5, 3.2.4, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.5.1

16

Painter Marsh outlet reconstruction

$81,200

2009

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5, 3.2.4, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.5.1

17

Painter Drive culvert reconstruction

$104,000

2007

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5, 3.2.4, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.5.1

MCWD Data Acquisition/Study

1

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

Part of watershed-wide study

2008

3.1.1, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3

2

Identify keystone, umbrella, and indicator species, evaluate habitat, and develop conservation strategies

Part of watershed-wide study

2010 and ongoing

3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3

MCWD Land Conservation Program

1

Undertake land conservation efforts in accordance with Figure 19

$8,022,000

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.2, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.2.3, 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 - 3.1.3, 3.1.5

2

Amend District Rules to require abstraction of 1” of rainfall from new development and redevelopment

Part of watershed-wide effort

2007-2009

3.1.1 - 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3

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, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2,

MCWD Hydrodata Program

1

Monitor Painter Creek

Part of watershed-wide hydrologic data program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.4, 3.5.1

2

Monitor macroinvertebrates in Painter Creek every three years

Part of watershed-wide hydrologic data program

2009, 2013

 

3

Identify base level flow in Painter Creek

Part of watershed-wide study

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.4.3, 3.5.1

4

Identify shallow wells to monitor groundwater levels

Part of watershed-wide study

2008 and ongoing

3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.5.1

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 educational opportunities for LGU staff, developers, elected and appointed officials and other interested parties

Part of watershed-wide education program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1- 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.1 - 3.2.5, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3

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

3.1.1,3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3

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, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.5.1

MCWD Operations and Maintenance

1

Inspect Painter Creek at least annually

Part of watershed-wide program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.4.3

2

Monitor high vegetative-diversity wetlands for exotic species

Part of watershed-wide program

Part of ongoing watershed-wide program

2.3.1

3

Maintain 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, 3.1.5

Collaborative Projects

1

Rough fish/internal load analysis for Katrina Lake with Three Rivers Park District

$5,000

2008

3.1.2, 3.1.2, 3.1,4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2,