Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution 2018 (25)
Resolution No. 25 (2018) ST. C}l LINTY. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ST. CROIX COUNTY 2018-2028 LAND "4 C d ,P; 4 " - � &WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statutes § 92.10 authorizes counties to prepare and adopt a county 2 land and water resource management plan and Administrative Code ATCP 50.12 identifies required 3 plan contents; and 4 5 WHEREAS,the St.Croix County 2018-2028 Land &Water Resource Management Plan 6 identifies land and water resource management goals, objectives, and activities for 7 implementation by the St. Croix County Community Development Committee and 8 Community Development Department for the next ten years, with a work plan revision after 9 5 years; and 10 11 WHEREAS, St. Croix County's Land and Water Resource Management Plan was last updated 12 in 2013; and 13 14 WHEREAS, sustainable land use management conserves long-term soil productivity, 15 protects the quality of related natural resources,enhances water quality, prevents severe soil erosion 16 problems and promotes the economic health of the County, and 17 18 WHEREAS, St. Croix County provides technical and financial assistance to landowners for the 19 installation of Best Management Practices (BMP's)to control erosion and improve water quality;and 20 21 WHEREAS, the Resource Management Division has evaluated funding options for providing 22 financial assistance, including grant assistance from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 23 and the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), and has determined 24 that an update to the St. Croix County Land and Water Resource Management Plan is required to 25 obtain annual funding assistance; and 26 27 WHEREAS, the County desires to apply to the DATCP and the DNR for annual grants under 28 the Soil and Water Resource Management program for staffing and conservation practices, 29 Targeted Resource Management program or other grant opportunities that would support the 30 goals and objectives within the St. Croix County 2018-2028 Land &Water Resource Management 31 Plan; and 32 33 WHEREAS, St. Croix County, by its Community Development Department, assembled the 34 2018-2028 Land & Water Resource Management Plan with the assistance and oversight from a 35 diverse Advisory Committee and consultation with many agencies, farmers, and conservation and 36 agriculture organizations; and 37 38 WHEREAS, the St. Croix County 2018 -2028 Land &Water Resource Management Plan was 39 reviewed by DATCP and Department of Natural Resources staff for statutory and administrative 40 code conformance any comments and suggestions were incorporated into the document; and 41 42 WHEREAS, the St. Croix County 2018 -2028 Land &Water Resource Management Plan was 43 available on the St. Croix County website at sccwi.gov for 4 weeks and notice of a public hearing on 44 the proposed plan was provided for one month; and 45 46 WHEREAS,the Community Development Committee held a public hearing on the proposed 47 plan on July 25, 2018 and any comments were incorporated into the document; and 48 49 WHEREAS, the Community Development Committee Chair, and Community Development 50 Department staff presented the St. Croix County 2018 -2028 Land &Water Resource Management 51 Plan to the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board, at their meeting on August 7, 2018;and 52 53 WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board approved the plan, as 54 presented. 55 56 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts 57 the St.Croix County 2018-2028 Land &Water Resource Management Plan and Appendices,attached 58 dated September 4, 2018. Legal—Fiscal—Administrative Approvals: Legal Note: Fiscal Impact: -Cott . Cox, Corporate n ounsel 8/ 4/208 ern-Fe e 'or 8/10/2018 P true Th�orrr�aSorm,County Adminktra"tor 8/14/24 18 08/16/18 Community Development Committee RECOMMENDED ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... RESULT: RECOMMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Tom Coulter, Supervisor SECONDER: Judy Achterhof, Vice Chair AYES: Schachtner, Coulter, Hansen, Achterhof, Hesselink EXCUSED: District 13 09/04/18 Board of Supervisors POSTPONED Next: 10/02/18 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... RESULT: POSTPONED [13 TO 4] Next: 10/2/2018 5:00 PM MOVER: William Peavey, Supervisor SECONDER: David Peterson, Supervisor AYES: Nordstrand, Miller, Coulter, Long, Fosterling, Feidler, Ostness, Larson, Brinkman, Peterson, Anderson, Leibfried, Peavey NAYS: Ed Schachtner, Tammy Moothedan, Daniel Hansen, Judy Achterhof ABSENT: Roy Sjoberg, District 13 Vote Confirmation. � rr� SL Croix County Board of Supervisors Action: Roll Call -Vote Requirement— Majority of Supervisors Present ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .................. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Daniel Hansen, Supervisor SECONDER: David Peterson, Supervisor AYES: Schachtner, Nordstrand, Miller, Coulter, Long, Moothedan, Fosterling, Feidler, Ostness, Larson, Hansen, Brinkman, Peterson, Anderson, Achterhof, Leibfried, Peavey ABSENT: Roy Sjoberg, District 13 This Resolution was Adopted by the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors on October 2, 2018 Cindy Campbell, County Clerk STui0111011 11 C RO 001111 Land Water Resource Management Plan 2018-2028 • CROIX COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE LWRMP ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPROVED 10/2/2018 1SUPERVISORS sissilliggig ILWIRIM1112 Advisoryitt � Jill Berke, St. Croix County Board &Town of Troy Andrew Ciurro, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Charlotte Croes, Wisconsin Farmer's Union Don Demulling, Cedar Lake Dave Drewiske, Kinnickinnic River Land Trust Kim Dupre, Save Emerald Waters Dan Hansen, St. Croix County Board Dick Hesselink, FSA Committee Chair Gayle House, Squaw Lake Greg Kerr, Kerr Agronomics, Inc. Cindy Koperski, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Jeff Lueck, Kinni AG Service Buck Malick, St. Croix County Sportsman's Alliance Matt Molbach, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Andrew Norman, West Wisconsin Land Trust Mike Reiter, St. Croix County Sportsman's Alliance Linda Rutherford, Friends of Perch Lake Kasey Seibert, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Alex Smith, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Caitlin Smith, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Tom Spaniol, Town of St. Joseph & Bass Lake Rehabilitation District Ryan Sterry, University of Wisconsin Extension Chris Willger, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Dan Zerr, University of Wisconsin Extension Tom Zwald, Dairy Farmer Keith Zygowicz, USDA -- Natural Resources Conservation Service X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a Nage Community vl Ellen Denzer, Director Resource n n I ivi ioru Kyle Kulow, Conservation & Land Use Specialist Steve Olson, Conservation & Land Use Specialist Liz Usborne, Project Technician Rick Ingli, Conservation & Land Use Technician Aleisha Miller, Environmental Educator Planning ILand Information I ivi ioru Brett Budrow, Planning & Land Information Administrator Tammy Wittmer, Conservation Planner Joseph Ayers, GIS Analyst St. Croix County Community Development IPlan writingr chit ' i Harmony Environmental X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ uu Nage sissilliggig PlanSummary........................................................................................................................1 Summaryof work plan............................................................................................................4 Chapter1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................6 Plan Development Process.....................................................................................................6 PlanRequirements.................................................................................................................7 Performance Standards & Prohibitions...................................................................................7 RelatedPlans .........................................................................................................................8 St. Croix County Ordinances ................................................................................................12 Related State Regulations ....................................................................................................15 Resource Management Division Activities ............................................................................16 Additional Community Development Department Programs .................................................17 Chapter 2. Resource Assessment...........................................................................................................19 Soils & Topography ..............................................................................................................21 Groundwater.........................................................................................................................23 SurfaceWaters.....................................................................................................................33 Watershed Water Quality Conditions....................................................................................36 ImpairedWaters ...................................................................................................................38 Shorelands ...........................................................................................................................44 Wetlands ..............................................................................................................................44 Woodlands...........................................................................................................................44 Prairie & Other Grasslands...................................................................................................45 Rare or Endangered Species and Communities ...................................................................46 AgriculturalLand...................................................................................................................46 Population ............................................................................................................................52 Identification of Concerns and Priorities................................................................................57 Chapter 3. Goals, Objectives and Activities............................................................................................63 PlanGoals............................................................................................................................63 Implementation Strategies ....................................................................................................63 Information and Education Strategy......................................................................................64 GOAL1 ................................................................................................................................66 GOAL2 ................................................................................................................................70 GOAL3 ................................................................................................................................78 GOAL4 ................................................................................................................................81 GOAL5 ................................................................................................................................83 X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ uuu age Chapter 4. Plan Implementation.............................................................................................................84 Partners................................................................................................................................84 St. Croix County Partners.....................................................................................................85 WorkPlan and Timeline........................................................................................................87 Potential Funding Sources....................................................................................................87 Chapter 5. Monitoring & Evaluation........................................................................................................89 WaterQuality Monitoring ......................................................................................................89 HabitatMonitoring.................................................................................................................90 CitizenMonitoring.................................................................................................................90 Inventories............................................................................................................................91 ProjectTracking....................................................................................................................91 PlanEvaluation.....................................................................................................................91 List of Tables Table 1. Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters in St. Croix County......................................... 36 Table 2. Impaired Waters (303(d) List) in St. Croix County .................................................................... 38 Table 3. Lake St. Croix TMDL Phosphorus Load Reduction Goals ........................................................ 39 Table 4. Phosphorus Reduction Objectives and Accomplishments........................................................ 41 Table 5. Phosphorus Reduction (2011-2015)......................................................................................... 41 Table 6. Average HUC 10 Watershed Soil Loss..................................................................................... 50 Table 7. Habitat Monitoring Efforts......................................................................................................... 90 Table 8. Resource Inventories in St. Croix County................................................................................. 91 List of Figures Figure 1. St. Croix County Farmland Preservation Areas....................................................................... 10 Figure 2. St. Croix County Location ....................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3. Land Cover (from Wiscland 2, 2016)....................................................................................... 20 Figure4. General Soils Map .................................................................................................................. 22 Figure5. Bedrock Geology .................................................................................................................... 23 Figure6. Depth to Bedrock.................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7. Depth to Groundwater............................................................................................................. 25 Figure 8. Closed Depressions................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 9. Areas of Special Concern for Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility ........................ 27 X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ V a g e Issimilliggig Figure 10. Well Water Nitrate Test Results by Quarter Section (1988-2016).......................................... 29 Figure 11. Well Testing Participation Rates by quarter section......................................................... 30 Figure 12. Groundwater Susceptibility and nitrate test results above 10 ppm......................................... 31 Figure 13. Areas of High Concern for Drinking Water Quality ................................................................ 32 Figure 14. St. Croix County HUC 8 & 10 watersheds............................................................................. 34 Figure 15. St. Croix County watersheds that extend beyond state and county boundaries..................... 35 Figure 16. Acres Harvested in St. Croix County..................................................................................... 47 Figure 17. Number of Farms Harvesting Crops in St. Croix County ....................................................... 47 Figure 18. Acres of Corn, Soybeans, and Hay Harvested and CRP Acres in St. Croix County .............. 48 Figure 19. Conservation Reserve Program Acres in St. Croix County by Year....................................... 49 Figure 20. St. Croix County Average Annual Soil Loss .......................................................................... 50 Figure 21. St. Croix County Population Density (2010) .......................................................................... 52 Figure 22. Population Change by Municipality (1977 to 2017) ............................................................... 53 Figure 23. St. Croix County Historical and projected Population Growth (4 Models of projection) ......... 54 Figure 24. Number of Subdivision Lots (1999-2017).............................................................................. 55 Figure 25. Sanitary Permits issued (1996 -2017) ................................................................................... 55 Figure 26. Wells Properly Abandoned through county cost share programs from 2003-2017 ................ 61 Figure 27. St. Croix County Conservation Practices 2012-2017............................................................. 62 List of Appendices Appendix A. NR151 Memorandum of Understanding Appendix B. St. Croix County 2018 Annual Work Plan Appendix C. References Appendix D. Prioritized Recommendations from the Ground & Surface Water Quality Study Report X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ V a g e St. Croix County Land & Water Resource Management Plan PLAN SUMMARY The St. Croix County Land and Water Resource Management Plan was developed to guide the Community Development Department in its efforts to conserve natural resources while supporting sustainable economic and recreational use of these resources. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MISSION Serve the public and guide communities by balancing the use and protection of natural resources with the needs of the public to enhance the quality of life for current and future generations. Goals established in the plan will help to guide Community Development Department initiatives through the year 2028. They will also provide the basis for funding those initiatives from various private, local, state, and federal sources. The plan is organized into five sections. IIII D tIlrod t liiio Describes the plan development process and requirements, related plans and ordinances, and activities of the St. Croix County Community Department with emphasis on the Resource Management Division whose primary focus is on implementation of the Land and Water Resource Management Plan. j s ' IIIrL " Assess 111tH " IIID Provides information about soils, topography, groundwater, surface water, shorelands, wetlands, woodlands, prairies, native species, agricultural land, and population. IIIY IIIIIIII s, III J . t"J . s �. IIIA t:liii liii t,Ji es Provides a detailed implementation strategy for each of five major plan goals. For each goal and objectives activities are identified and an educational strategy is outlined. IIII: IIII . IIIA IIII Illr� IIIA IIII Illr� IIIA� . .�:liii . IIIA Discusses how various departments and agencies will work together to implement the plan. Potential funding sources are listed. A 2018 Work Plan is included in an appendix to the plan. IIY liii r liii IIIand IY a IIII a at,J:ii ° IIID IIIA Discusses methods for monitoring water quality and habitat and methods to inventory sources of pollution. It also describes how plan accomplishments will be tracked. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 1 a g e ion Public participation An advisory committee assisted with plan development. The advisory committee met three times to review plan goals and to update the implementation strategy. A St. Croix County staff working group assisted with updating resource and work planning information. The two groups reviewed and provided comments on drafts of the plan document. A public hearing was held on July 25, 2018 at the St. Croix County Government Center in Hudson. Assessment of water quality, soil erosion, i t sourceslluti W iiir a . water iiir iiir . s ° iiia . s Lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and intermittent waterways make up the surface waters of St. Croix County. There are also many artificial drainage ways where the natural water flow has been altered by human activity. Sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants are carried in runoff water from watersheds that drain to these surface water features. The county is well-drained with relatively fewer lakes and ponds than counties to its north. The surface waters of St. Croix County occupy four HUC8s (Hydrologic Unit Codes). The St. Croix River HUC8 covers the western two-thirds of the county. The Rush-Vermillion Rivers, Chippewa River, and Red Cedar River HUC8s cover the remaining third of the county. These last three mentioned are part of the Mississippi River Basin. In each of these hydrologic units, there are numerous intermittent streams or dry washes and other surface drainage features that carry water only during spring runoff or extreme storm events. The lakes, rivers, and wetlands of the county are impacted by land use practices in the watersheds that drain to them. Most of the pollutants that enter surface water resources are carried in runoff from many diffuse, or nonpoint, sources. The major pollutants of concern are sediment carried from areas with bare soil such as crop fields and construction sites, and phosphorus attached to soil particles or dissolved in runoff water from fertilized fields and lawns and livestock operations. IIL IIII IIIA iiir : liii ire IIIA a .t s The 2017 population estimate for St. Croix County was 87,828.' A little less than 50% of these people live in incorporated areas. St. Croix County is part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that had a total of 3,968,806 people in 2010. Population growth and development patterns in St. Croix County are heavily influenced by its proximity to the Twin Cities metro area. The county's population has more than doubled since 1980. The county had the fastest growth rate in the state of Wisconsin in the mid-2000s, and growth rates remained in the top seven of Wisconsin's 72 counties in 2017. Much of the county's population and historical growth in population (1970 to 2010) is concentrated in the western portions of the county closest to the Twin Cities, and higher growth is anticipated to continue in this area. Land divisions in St. Croix County were highest in 2000 and 2005, fell dramatically from 2005 to 2007, and have remained at relatively low levels through 2017. The Stillwater Bridge/St. Croix River Crossing which opened in 2017 creates uncertainty for St. Croix County. The report Community and Economic Impacts of the St. Croix River Crossing: A St. Croix Demographic Services.Wisconsin Department of Administration. age County Perspective provides information on how the crossing may affect future population growth and economic development along the Highway 64 Corridor and within greater St. Croix County. Based on projections in this study, St. County is estimated to add between 19,000 and 31,000 residents over a 25- year period (2015-2040) with highest rates of growth closest to the Twin Cities along the Highway 64 Corridor. Rapid population growth and concurrent residential, commercial, and industrial development can lead to negative environmental impacts. Surface water and groundwater can become polluted. Wildlife habitat, quality farmland, and open space are lost to development. Recreation waters can be degraded and recreational lands can be lost or negatively impacted by increased use and development. Urbanization and other human activities disrupt the natural course of water as it moves across a watershed. Removing vegetation and constructing impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, and rooftops greatly increases the amount and rate of stormwater runoff. As a result, water levels fluctuate more in streams. With less infiltration, there is decreased base flow and greater runoff during and after storms. These changes may bring flooding, increased water temperatures, decreased oxygen levels, greater channel erosion, and increased sedimentation. As stormwater runoff crosses the urbanized landscape; it picks up fertilizers, pesticides, debris, salt, oil, grease, other toxic substances, and sediments and carries them to surface waters. iir l III[t iir�. IIII uiir . iiia s Over the past three decades, the western part of St. Croix County experienced a reduction in the amount of agricultural land. The eastern half of the county is predominantly rural, and agriculture continues to be an important part of the economy and society. Despite the loss of farmland, the total number of farms in the county has not significantly changed. In the last three decades, St. Croix County has been part of a nationwide trend of larger farms. There has been a decrease in the number of dairy farms, an increase in acres of corn and soybeans, a decrease in acres of hay, an increase in the number of horses, and a recent increase in direct market and organic farming. State and national agricultural policies, purchasing habits, agricultural practices, international trade, and commodity prices have been the major reasons why St. Croix County has seen changes in the types of agriculture.2 There have also been significant declines in acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program in St. Croix County beginning around 2007. The Conservation Reserve Program requires conservation cover for contract terms of 10-15 years. By reducing water runoff and sedimentation, CRP protects ground- water and helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, ponds, and streams.3 The 2017 transect survey estimates a countywide average soil loss of 2.7 tons per acre per year. There were lower average soil losses estimated in the period from 2009-2017 (2.6 tons/acre/year) as compared with the period from 2001 to 2008 (2.9 tons/acre/year). Highest rates of erosion were found in the Big Marine Lake St. Croix River, South Fork of the Hay River, Trimbelle River, and Willow River watersheds. The following towns are part of Farmland Preservation zoning: Baldwin, Cylon, Erin Prairie, Pleasant Valley, Rush River, Somerset, Stanton, and Star Prairie. There are currently two agricultural enterprise 2 St. Croix County Agriculture and Farmland Preservation Plan. 2012. 3 http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/crpfactsheet02l3.pdf age � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim areas in St. Croix County: 1) the Squaw Lake watershed in the Town of Star Prairie, and 2) areas in the Town of Rush River.4 The county had 680 acres in farmland preservation agreements and 721 acres in Agricultural Enterprise Areas for the tax year 2017. Landowners received tax credits for 25,783 acres in farmland preservation/exclusive agriculture zoning. Growridwater IIIA " 5 ' IIIA" " 5 Groundwater supplies the majority of potable water to the residents of St. Croix County. The Prairie du Chien Group is the uppermost, saturated bedrock in much of the county and is used extensively for private residential water supplies. Much of the county is a recharge area for this shallow aquifer. The depth to groundwater below the surface of the land is generally less under topographically low areas and greater in areas of higher elevation. Groundwater can be adversely affected when contaminants are released into the aquifer or spilled upon the ground. Some factors influencing the susceptibility of an aquifer to pollution are depth to groundwater and bedrock, type of bedrock, sub-surface permeability, and the ability of the soil to attenuate or lessen the impact of pollutants. Closed depressions, especially those associated with Karst topography in St. Croix County, are extremely sensitive land features because of their close association with the groundwater. The pollutants released into or near these closed depressions are almost certain to reach groundwater. SUMMARY OF WORK PLAN The following goals were developed to address concerns identified in the planning process: Plan Goals 1. Protect and improve groundwater quality and quantity to supply clean water for consumption and other uses and recharging surface waters and wetlands. 2. Protect and enhance surface waters and wetlands to preserve and restore their water quality, ecological functions, and recreational and scenic values. 3. Protect and restore fish and wildlife habitats while enhancing water quality, recreational opportunities, and natural beauty. 4. Preserve agricultural land and improve soil health for crop and livestock production, scenic values, and wildlife habitat. 5. Develop and connect with active environmental stewards and future leaders to support and carry out the above goals. The 2018 Annual Work Plan is found in Appendix B. The work plan identifies planned activities with benchmarks and performance measures. It also includes staff hours and expected costs (including for cost sharing). Water quality cti in consultationi The Department of Natural Resources emphasizes development of reports and implementation plans for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) projects. A TMDL is a plan to reduce the amount of specific pollutants reaching an impaired lake or stream to the extent that water quality standards will be met. a https://www.sccwi.gov/413/Farmland-Preservation-Program (accessed December 2017) age TMDL reports and/or implementation plans have been completed for several of St. Croix County's impaired waters including Lake St. Croix, Squaw Lake, Cedar Lake, Lake Mallalieu and the Willow River, and the Red Cedar River. This plan adopts the goals and objectives of the TMDL plans and in lake management plans for Outstanding Resource Waters. Agricultural Performance standards The Agricultural Performance Standards will be addressed through implementation of the Agricultural Performance Standards strategy outlined in Appendix A. IIII . � .IIIr , III s s t Illr adkIIII IIID Progress tracking involves both water quality monitoring and evaluation of progress toward meeting the goals of the land and water resource management plan. Water u lit habitat monitoring Recommendations related to improving water quality data for the land and water resource management plan are stated below. • The Department of Natural Resources should invest resources in monitoring lakes, rivers, and groundwater in St. Croix County. • The Department of Natural Resources and St. Croix County should support efforts of lake groups and other organizations to pursue funding for lake and river management projects. • The Department of Natural Resources and St. Croix County should encourage and support self-help monitoring programs. State and federal agencies that emphasize fish and wildlife habitat restoration and protection have many ongoing efforts to monitor habitats and species. The Resource Management Division (RMD) of Community Development does not intend to carry out habitat monitoring activities for the implementation of this plan. Instead it will support habitat restoration efforts and utilize monitoring data from other sources. Plan evaluation Plan evaluation assesses whether the objectives and activities of the plan are being accomplished. Performance measures are listed for plan activities in the 2018 Annual Work Plan (Appendix B). Measures of plan success include resource monitoring, practice completion, assistance provided, compliance with standards, and educational activities completed. The RMD will report progress against evaluation criteria in the work plan each year. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a g c ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim Chapter 1 . Introduction Wisconsin Chapter 92 and Chapter ATCP 50.12 require counties to develop a Land and Water COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Resource Management Plan. The St. Croix County MISSION Land and Water Resource Management Plan was developed to guide the St. Croix County Community Setve the pubic and guide communities by Development Department in its efforts to conserve balancing the Use and protectlon of natural natural resources while supporting sustainable resources with the meads of the pubic to economic and recreational use of these resources. errh rrce the quality of fife to current anal Goals established in the plan will help to guide the future generations Community Development Department Resource Management Division's initiatives through the year 2028. They will also provide the basis for funding those initiatives from various private, local, state, and federal sources. The 2018 Annual Work Plan is found in Appendix B. The work plan identifies planned activities with benchmarks and performance measures. It also includes staff hours and expected costs (including for cost sharing). PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The focus of the plan update was to review implementation strategies including the strategy to implement the NR151 Agricultural Performance Standards. Two groups assisted with plan development. An advisory committee representing natural resource agencies, farmers, businesses, conservation organizations, and local government, met three times to review plan goals and update the implementation strategy. A St. Croix County staff working group assisted with „ lllllllfll l updating resource and work planning information. Bothrou s reviewed and g p provided comments on drafts of the plan document. r w Advisory Committee Meeting Dates: rl� • January 23, 2018 • February 13, 2018 ��� • March 6, 2018 Staff Meeting Date: • January 16, 2018 The plan was not intended to contain an exhaustive inventory of natural resources in St. Croix County. Instead, it drew upon existing inventory information from previously prepared documents. Resource information contained in the 2008 Land and Water Resource Management was updated as needed. age PLAN REQUIREMENTS This land and water resource management plan was developed to meet the requirements of the County Land and Water Resource Management Planning Program. ATCP 50.12 codifies specific standards for the approval of the Land and Water Resources Management Plans with most recent revisions in 2014. In NR151 the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) established agricultural and non-agricultural performance standards and prohibitions to reduce runoff and protect water quality. In ATCP 50, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) identified conservation practices that farmers must follow to meet the DNR standards. These standards require counties to consult with DNR and identify how they will assist landowners to achieve compliance with performance standards and prohibitions. Appendix A contains the Agricultural Performance Standards Implementation Strategy for St. Croix County. As a requirement of the land and water resource management planning program, the County Land and Water Conservation Committee must make a reasonable effort to notify landowners and land users if soil erosion rate determinations are made, and provide an opportunity for these individuals to comment. The Community Development Committee serves as the St. Croix County Land Conservation Committee. Erosion rates for individual fields were not assessed in the preparation of this plan. Landowners were notified of the St. Croix County Land and Water Resource Management Plan contents in the notice for the public hearing. Landowners may receive individual determinations involving conditions on their property through a) conservation plans, b) compliance status reports and c) compliance status letters authorized under the NR151 implementation strategy, and notices issued under NR151.09 or N R151.095. A public hearing was held for the St. Croix County Land and Water Resource Management Plan on July 25, 2018. Comments on the draft plan were read into the public record and incorporated into the final plan. The plan was brought before the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors at the September 2018 meeting. The land and water resource management plan must be submitted to the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection and the Department of Natural Resources for review. was submitted to the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board in August 2018. • Public Hearing Date: July 25, 2018 • County Board Approval Date: September 4, 2018 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS & PROHIBITIONS County land and water resource management plans are the local mechanism to implement the NR151 runoff standards. Through Wisconsin Act 27, the Wisconsin Legislature amended state statutes to allow county land conservation committees to develop implementation strategies for addressing local water quality priorities related to controlling erosion, sedimentation, and nonpoint source water pollution. The soil and water conservation standards for the St. Croix County Farmland Preservation Program and other county programs reflect the NR151 Agricultural Performance Standards. Updates to the land division, zoning, animal waste, and shoreland ordinances also consider the NR151 standards. In addition, several county-developed standards are part of the implementation strategy of this plan. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 7 : a g e ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim RELATED PLANS St. Croix Countyt u litProtection to , The study group met 19 times throughout 2017 to address the following goal: To provide the St. Croix County Board with sound, science-based recommendations for policies that protect the quality of groundwater supply that our County residents rely upon for personal household use and consumption. After reviewing considerable information gained through a series of presentations, the group developed core recommendations (summarized for brevity here): • Explore options for regulation of livestock operations. • Increase the number of acres in nutrient management plans (MMPs). • Revise county land use policy and zoning ordinances related to well design, well construction standards, zoning districts, lot sizes, establishing groundwater recharge zones, and higher standards for common POWTs and shared wells to protect groundwater resources. • Develop a county protocol for urgent response to actual or potential water resource pollution events that threaten human health, the environment, or natural resources. • Develop a scientifically sound drinking water well testing program to create baseline data to measure drinking water quality over time. • Identify and map environmentally sensitive areas and conduits to groundwater to improve siting of POWTS, wells, spreading, etc. • Develop a plan with cost estimates for constructing a groundwater inset model to determine the source of nitrate issues and distinguish between non-agricultural or agricultural sources of pollutants. • Establish active water quality committee to ensure that the protection of ground and surface water continues to be a priority issue actively addressed by the county. Community Development Department staff developed a report with estimates of staff time and cost estimates to implement the Ground and Surface Water Quality Study Group core recommendations (Appendix D). This report also outlines steps to implement the recommendations. These steps were considered in the actions for this Land and Water Resource Management Plan update. FarmlandtiPlan The St. Croix County Board adopted the St. Croix County AGRICULTURE VISION Agriculture and Farmland Preservation Plan in 2012. It In the year 2035, the farms and agricultural enterprises operate was written to be both the efficiently and effectively, and the farmers are good stewards of the agricultural element of St. Croix land, preserving it for future generations. St. Croix's agricultural County's Comprehensive Plan sector is particularly important to its residents. The County works to and St. Croix County's maintain farming as an occupation for families and as an active land Farmland Preservation Plan.' use. The County recognizes that agricultural land is not undeveloped land waiting for other uses, but is a valuable and productive resource that supports a healthy agricultural industry. The County's agricultural industry includes farms of all types and sizes supported by a variety of economic and land use techniques s St. Croix County Comprehensive Plan Agriculture& Farmland Preservation. 2012. 8 age Agriculture Is Goal 1: Preserve farmland to maintain and grow St. Croix County's agricultural industry and to enhance the rural landscape. Goal 2: Promote agricultural development to support St. Croix County producers, businesses, and communities. Goal 3: Guide or manage development patterns that will preserve farmland and promote agricultural development. Goal 4: Conserve availability and quality of natural resources for agriculture. Policies I I Preservation Ian Requirements: The county will establish a farmland preservation area consistent with the Chapter 91, Wisconsin Statutes and the Farmland Preservation program. The farmland preservation area will be countywide, consisting of all parcels with a LESA composite score of 118 or above that are eligible to be included based on Chapter 91 standards (Figure 1). In implementing the plan, the farmland preservation area will be land that is eligible and recommended for farmland preservation zoning or Agricultural Enterprise Areas (AEA). The delineation of the farmland preservation zoning districts to implement the plan shall be developed cooperatively between the county and towns that are willing to adopt it. The county will support local landowner petitions to establish AEAs. The county will support and encourage 3-party agreements to preserve farmland that include multiple partners such as land-trust, government, and land owner. An income tax credit is available for agricultural properties that are zoned farmland preservation/exclusive agriculture and/or if a landowner signs a long-term farmland preservation agreement and is in an Agricultural Enterprise Area. Whether under zoning or an agreement, the land owner's acreage must follow a soil conservation plan or meet state soil and water conservation requirements. In order for landowners to participate in the program, their county must adopt an agricultural or farmland preservation plan and a farmland preservation/exclusive agriculture zoning ordinance which is certified by the State of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. The following towns are part of FPP zoning: Baldwin, Cylon, Erin Prairie, Pleasant Valley, Rush River, Somerset, Stanton, and Star Prairie. There are currently two agricultural enterprise areas in St. Croix County: 1) the Squaw Lake watershed in the Town of Star Prairie, and 2) areas in the Town of Rush River.6 The county had 680 acres in farmland preservation agreements and 721 acres in Agricultural Enterprise Areas for the tax year 2017. Landowners received tax credits for 25,783 acres in farmland preservation/exclusive agriculture zoning. For the 2017 tax year, credits averaged $261 for 797 parcels in St. Croix County. This was equivalent to $1,404 for 148 participants. 6 https://www.sccwi.gov/413/Farmland-Preservation-Program (accessed December 2017) age � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim .................................... 0 LL �—U LM E L .3 w E E ■�, ,„!04 x U - u c o wCL C ' maga a �cz.m m a CL� d � � n' CI} G} .... �y a a LM Yd UOa „u o w u © Q �,.... J . �,w 'rwawawwwwr/G! ' 0 .�... .� NL- -c 2 www wwww.w waoMwwd�w iwwwwmsmwuwwwwamw'ffimuri 0 wwww LL U- y 01— to co CL LL i L m u If i u mow,���� �; O c LM E ” siw CL Sp ��//��/ ca LO LOH U) < 0 c M w n LM N —j 7 ru`uLU Li ca`y -g ■err,.. 0 u) IL 5 'E y.. i C) CL ■� m LL Yir .I. . `3: ,I. , ; r,l (u�u .a Figure 1. St. Croix County Farmland Preservation Areas gage X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ Land Use Planning The St. Croix County Board approved a comprehensive plan in November 2012. The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to create a comprehensive set of informational resources and a policy framework to assist the county and local units of government in managing development. The plan explores the physical and economic conditions of the county, identifies important development issues affecting the county, and articulates a countywide development policy to assist local and county governments in building their capacity to deal with development issues. The plan document is divided into two or more parts for each required element. Volume 1 contains the vision, goals, objectives and policies for each element with required minimum background data. Volume 2 contains all of the extensive population, demographics, policy, and data analysis required for each element.' Total Maximum Dailyis & ImplementationPlans The U.S. Clean Water Act requires that states develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for those water bodies deemed impaired, meaning they are not meeting water quality standards. Once a TMDL is established, an implementation plan needs to be developed to address the water quality impairment issues facing the water body of concern. The plan is developed to describe the management measures and regulatory approaches necessary to address the pollutant load issues 376,500 acres, or , affecting the water body, the parties responsible for such of St Croix Coun'ty management measures, the costs and sources of funds for f is covered these measures, methods to get participation from Federal EPA stakeholders, a timeline for implementation, ways to measureM ve success, and also any adaptive management techniques TMDL employed as the plan moves forward.$ TMDL reports and plans prepared for St. Croix County waters are detailed in the Watershed WaterY Qualit Conditions section of this Land and Water Resource Management Plan. ® Croix Scenic Riverway Plans In October 2001 the National Park Service (NPS), St Croix National Scenic Riverway, completed a Cooperative Management Plan which covers the 52 mile St. Croix River segment that runs from St. Croix Falls, WI /Taylors Falls, MN to the confluence with the Mississippi. This six-year planning effort was completed in cooperation with the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources. The Watershed Stewardship Initiative is an implementation strategy for the plan intended to raise awareness among watershed residents and riverway communities about shared stewardship of the riverway and its watershed. The National Park Service prepared a Foundation Document for the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway in 2017. The document provides guidance for planning and management decisions. The core components of the foundation document include a brief description of the park as well as the park's purpose, significance, fundamental resources and values, and interpretive themes. It also includes 'The St. Croix County 2012-2035 Comprehensive Plan is found here: https://www.sccwi.gov/369/Comprehensive-Plan-Project 8 Red Cedar River Water Quality Partnership. A Water Quality Strategy for the Land and Waters of the Red Cedar River Basin. July 2015. II age special mandates and administrative commitments, an assessment of planning and data needs that identifies planning issues, planning products to be developed, and the associated studies and data required for park planning. Priority Watershed Plans St. Croix County administered the St. Croix Lakes Cluster Priority Watershed Project and participated in the Kinnickinnic Priority Watershed Project and S. Fork of the Hay River Priority Watershed Project in the past. State funding is no longer available for watershed projects. The watershed plans reported the results of water resources appraisals and pollution source inventories, included a strategy for protecting water resources, and provided financial assistance to reduce pollutant sources in the watershed. Basin litPlans The Department of Natural Resources prepared basin water quality management plans. Two river basins cross St. Croix County borders, and two plans address these basins. The State of the St. Croix Basin was completed in March 2002 and the State of the Lower Chippewa River Basin was completed in 2001. The basin plans were used as references in the preparation of previous plans. ST. CROIX COUNTY 9 Comprehensive I . -Chapter Chapter 17 of St. Croix County's Land Use and Development Code of Ordinances regulates zoning. Land disturbance restrictions, stormwater management, and erosion and sediment control plans and standards are part of the ordinance. It describes the conditions for Ag-1 Agricultural District, Ag-2 Agricultural District, Rural Residential District, and other zoning districts. St. Croix County began a 2-year process of updating its zoning ordinance in June 2017. The goals of this process are to make the ordinance consistent with current state laws and legal standards, to establish districts and regulations that fit the varied needs of towns across the county, and to make it easier for all users to understand and apply the ordinance. Most of the towns have completed comprehensive plans that describe local preferences for how land will be used. Seventeen of the county's 21 towns are under county zoning, while three have independent town zoning (Hudson, Troy, Forest) and one is unzoned (Cady).10 All cities and villages in the county have a general zoning ordinance. Shoreland Shoreland zoning provisions apply to land 1) Within 1,000 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of navigable lakes, ponds or flowages, and 2)Within three hundred (300) feet of the ordinary high-water mark of navigable rivers or streams, or to the landward side of the floodplain boundary. The county shoreland zoning ordinance provisions were revised to meet NR 115 Wisconsin Administrative Code revisions in 2014 and 2016. 9 St. Croix County Ordinances are found here: https://www.sccwi.gov/490/Ordinances 10 Zoning Ordinance Comprehensive Update. July 2017. 1 2 age Lower St. Croix Riverway Overlay The Lower St. Croix River is included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. St. Croix County has adopted regulations to protect and preserve the scenic and recreational value of the riverway. Floodplain St. Croix County has adopted and implemented floodplain regulations within the county zoning ordinance. This section applies to land in all towns. In addition, the City of Hudson and the Villages of Roberts, Wilson, and Woodville have adopted floodplain ordinances. Land Division Chapter 13 of St. Croix County's Land Use and Development Code of Ordinances regulates land divisions in the county. Land disturbance restrictions, stormwater management, and erosion and sediment control standards are part of the ordinance. All of the villages and cities have adopted local land division ordinances. The most recent amendment was in 2010. Animal Waste - Chapter 11 Chapter 11 of St. Croix County's Land Use and Development Code of Ordinances regulates animal waste storage facilities and operations, and the location, siting, design, construction, inspection, installation, management, alteration, and utilization of such facilities. The ordinance also regulates the use and application of waste from these facilities in order to prevent pollution of the county's surface and groundwater to protect public health, environment, safety, and general welfare. The ordinance was adopted in 1985 and most recently updated in 2012. It is effective in all towns. The ordinance requires a permit for animal waste storage structures. Structures must be constructed according to Natural Resource Conservation Service standards including completing and regularly updating a 590 Nutrient Management Plan. Owners/operators must comply with State Agricultural Performance Standards. .... .... .. ti G3 84wm�6a`yw wow 54Iiw. .. i..__________ -------- (35( ___f 3S_ 49 1 Manure Storage Sires rrn rarw,a �� Pro erI Afyaindaned('58) F In Use(77) Priority to Abandon(10) 12 rz ,r 12 135.........., ........... 65 ....... .............................. ._ .... ...... 1 �,l 5fi1 ry,�J 1 rv. I� �3 f 35 2.9]um `I 3 a g � � Nonmetallic Mining St. Croix g ift Non-Mietollic County's Chapter Wines between 20,06- 14, Nonmetallic Mining, of St. Croix County's Land Use and Development Code of r� Ordinances , regulates all ` " AL nonmetallic ...... �a fB� mining -- ,,a operations and sites within each town in the _,_._......, ;'s county. An , operation and 12 site restoration/ ,p revegetation plans ........... .. . ._. is required. The 1 Ilk ordinance was enacted in 2004 and amended in 2007 and 2014. Sanitary ® Chapter 12 St. Croix County's Chapter 12, Sanitary, of St. Croix County's Land Use and Development Code of Ordinances regulates proper siting, design, installation, inspection, and management of all private onsite wastewater treatment systems (POWTS) and non-sanitation systems to protect the environment and health of the citizens of St. Croix County. This ordinance is effective countywide. The ordinance was rewritten to comply with changes to state code in 2005, and amended in 2016. Citation St. Croix County's Chapter 1, Citation, of St. Croix County's Land Use and Development Code of Ordinances regulates appeals, fines, and enforcement procedures for county ordinances. Citation and enforcement authority rests with the County Zoning Office for the ordinances listed above. The Resource Management Division may provide technical assistance to meet appropriate chapter requirements, but the division does not have enforcement authority. .. age RELATED STATE REGULATIONS NR 151 Implementation and enforcement of agricultural performance standards and prohibitions are covered under this state rule. St. Croix County's implementation plan for NR151 is included in Appendix A. ATCP 50 Conservation practices that farmers must follow to meet the DNR standards of NR151 are included in this regulation. It also guides appropriate practices and cost share procedures for implementation of additional conservation practices. ATCP 50 also codified specific standards for the approval of the Land and Water Resource Management plans and requires counties to consult with DNR and identify how they will assist landowners to achieve compliance with performance standards and prohibitions. SPS 383-385 The Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) administers regulation of POWTS in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapters SPS 383-385 contain the uniform standards for Private On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (POTWS) that cannot be more restrictive at the county level. ATCP 51 Wisconsin Statute s 93.90 provides uniform regulation of the siting livestock facilities across the state. Variations that exceed state requirements are allowed but only if necessary to protect public health or safety. Local government must adopt requirements by ordinance prior to a siting application being filed. The conditions to exceed state standards must be based on "reasonable and scientifically defensible findings of facts, adopted by the political subdivision that clearly show the requirement is necessary to protect public health and safety." State permitting is "one size fits all." State policies do not account for local variations in soil conditions, geology, watershed characteristics, etc. A siting application must be approved if it complies with ATCP 51.30. An application may be denied only if there is clear and convincing evidence that it does not comply. It may also be denied if it violates existing code, such as that for floodplains, shoreland, electrical code, etc. Counties may enact regulations of livestock operations that are consistent with and do not exceed the performance standards, prohibitions, conservation and technical standards of state law without DNR and DATCP approval. Counties may enact operational regulations that exceed state standards, if such standards are approved by the DNR and DATCP and are necessary to achieve water quality standards. NR 243 NR 243 defines regulations governing discharge of pollutants to navigable waters of the state. In addition, it defines and governs standards associated with Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs- operations larger than 1000 animal units) and establishes permit requirements for these large- scale producers under Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permits. These permits address the following activities: • Manure storage • Groundwater monitoring Nutrient management to • Runoff control systems • Compost facilities. include spray irrigation X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ `I 5 a g e ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIVISION ACTIVITIES The St. Croix County Community Development Department manages and administers four divisions with seven program areas: Land and Water Conservation, Land Use Code Administration and Enforcement, Planning, Land Information and Geographic Information Services, Real Property Description, Parks, and Recycling. Although all program areas are interrelated, each program area operates under separate authority or county responsibility. Activities related to the Land and Water Resource Management Plan are managed primarily within the Resource Management Division. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT VISION t Ey 2035, St. Croix County has maintained and enhanced its Conservation natural resource base. The water quality for drinking and Responsibilities recreation is excellent. The streams, rivers and lakes are clean and vibrant with healthy fish and recreational Prepare, maintain, and implement the opportunities. The air quality is excellent in part because Land and Water Resources green energy is produced by solar, wind, and geothermal Management Plan under the authority of power. Chapter 92, Wisconsin Statutes; promote conservation of long-term soil St. Croix County has a healthy diversity of natural land productivity; protect the quality of natural resources®lakes, rivers, streams, woods, wetlands, prairie resources; enhance water quality; and ®that contribute to the quality and abundance of wildlife and focus on correction of severe soil to the beauty of the county. The County has conducted a erosion problems through programs natural resources inventory to provide a basis for exploring including watershed management of new policies such as preservation and transfer of targeted lakes and rivers, support of the development rights. The County works to maintain the lake Working Lands and Farmer Led Council and river water quality in particular in the St. Croix River, Initiatives; and promote natural resource Willow, Apple and Bass Lake watersheds, and to preserve management programs. and enhance wildlife corridors along streams and rivers and through woods and prairies. Enhancing water quality has Financial occurred by preventing contaminated runoff from Assistance agricultural lands and impervious surfaces like highways and driveways. The County has worked to give the public programs variety of federal, state, and local access to many of these natural areas for walking, nature programs encourage the installation of sturdy and quiet contemplation in coordination with the fVFZ conservation practices such as and in some gases private landowners. The County has vegetative buffers near water, wetland promoted the use of purchase of development rights restoration, prairie plantings, and through a land trust, has incentives to preserve ►riewsheds sedimentation basins. The program and open space and continues to examine new techniques encourages participation, provides as they are created. administration, and designs and inspects practices. Management plans The County has identified a network of natural resource for cropland rotations, best management corridors that provide various activities like hunting, fishing practices, and fertilizer and manure and walking when appropriate. The County has identified in applications are also prepared. Progress conjunction with these corridors a network of bike trails and toward meeting program objectives is other recreational opportunities tracked. 1 6 age Technical Review for State and LSI Regulatory Staff review and recommend approval of plans for erosion control and stormwater management. This review occurs before land division, land use, and Board of Adjustment special exception permits can be issued. Staff members review animal waste facility operations before a facility is permitted, when an animal waste storage facility is proposed, or when a complaint is received. Plans are also reviewed for the operation and reclamation of nonmetallic mines. Educational Activities Educational activities that emphasize protection of natural resources are provided countywide. Conservation field days are offered throughout the county to grades K-12. Classroom presentations are given to various grade levels upon request. The department is involved with farm city day and the county fair, and has displays at sport shows and lake fairs. Staff members also assist with a statewide conservation camp each year. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS Community Environmental Services These services include well water testing, sale of trees, prairie plants, and compost bins, and radon testing. The department also promotes the take back and disposal of medications that the St. Croix County Sheriff operates. Land Use Code Administration Administer and enforce County land use ordinances, including sanitary, animal waste, zoning, nonmetallic mining and land division, under the authority of s. 59.69, s. 59.70 (5), s. 295.13 and s. 236.45, Wisconsin Statutes and related administrative codes. Planning Prepare, maintain and implement the County Comprehensive Plan under the authority of s. 59.69 (3) and s. 66.100 1, Wisconsin Statutes. Land Information Prepare, maintain and implement a County land information plan and program, as well as serve as the designated Land Information Office for St. Croix County under the authority of s. 59.88, Wisconsin Statutes and related administrative codes. Parks Manage the County Park system of nature-based, passive outdoor recreation facilities including Glen Hills and Homestead full-service County Parks, one with overnight camping; Troy Beach and Apple River parks with limited facilities; Pine, Squaw and Bass Lake boat landings; Kinnickinnic and Stanton County forests; 7-mile off-road Wildwood Trail; management of Glen Hills PL-566 floodwater control structures and 216 miles of snowmobile trails. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ `I 7 a g e ion Real Property Description Maintain a listing of all real estate in St. Croix County for assessment and taxation of property, provide parcel information to local assessors, clerks, treasurers and the general public, as well as provide the appropriate forms for local taxation districts to carry out the assessment and taxation of real property under the authority of s.70.09, Wisconsin Statutes. Recycling Serve as the "Responsible Unit" for recycling on behalf of the County's municipalities to develop, implement and administer a comprehensive, county-wide waste reduction, reuse and recycling program and related special waste programs for waste generated in St. Croix County under the authority of Chapters 59, 144 and 159, Wisconsin Statutes and related administrative codes. 1 8 age Chapter 2. �Resource Assessment" St. Croix County is located in west central Wisconsin and is separated from Minnesota by the St. Croix River. The county is bordered by Polk County to the north, Dunn County to the east, and Pierce County to the south. St. Croix County has a combined land and water area of approximately 469,760 acres or roughly 736 square miles. County land coverage is as follows: agricultural land 41 percent, grassland 28 percent, forest land 21 percent, developed land 5 percent, and wetlands and surface water 5 percent as illustrated in Figure 3.12 The county is rectangular and is about 33 miles east to west and 24 miles north to south. w"°4w 148 rti1: rv, St.Croix County m� '7uaUsarm MinneapoNBs 27 St. 130"L + M. Paul 146 1 � rnr. ""a., Gippn Clay ��.. 223 nil. R.od, tter 72 ml Madsm 213 mi. Rlilwa ikee 280 mi. Figure 2. St. Croix County Location 11 Much of this chapter is taken from the comprehensive plan written for the St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Department by the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 12 Info was obtained from Wiscland 2, a land cover data set for the state of Wisconsin as of 2016. The dataset is primarily derived from remote sensing imagery acquired by the Landsat 5, 7, and 8 satellites between 2010 and 2014. Land cover was classified at 30 m resolution. For estimates of class and regional accuracy, and detailed information on the map production, classification scheme, and class descriptions,see the Wiscland 2 User Guide (ftp.//dnrftp01.wi.gov/geodata/metadata/WI land cover2 user e. df) `I 9 age � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim ._ �' rr-�l� � r.f ����� h � �.P� r �� .(�� r ii��°� f r/'�� �r/*„�✓�f�j J ,I��'�r'___._,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, �Ilip 6� err rrr ✓� �f���n n � II, /.' � � iri�ri man n � ir;rv� �x r, IQ�/� Irl S��!✓ a���� �y � ,.I � i, �I1D� l��r I r r n I��� �� ww I r r r r a �i���' a ��� ��� a Ir�M�� � +�y `q'�� Y��� � � �, / �l'�!��� wp p ��� ✓���� � n �m� G��Iv�ma�u ��I � G NJr ”I$ � �"vii r iWY"'1' r [',r� � 11✓ �r ✓ / J' r y {�� NNP lrk l^7rr/ err .� /° �wra '; r��0, n r N „ r �✓��.,� VMS', h � a 411's . `� ✓ vr9, PEI " � � I �� a w,7rora✓ny/�nrra��I?� � C? i /a �I � "IG �� � �r Pia�r4V /2 � "''qtr � tai � 171." r,p 1 8 d s6r.G 1 r � �" � ✓ p � y SII V 1� W r� t � a �"i✓i 1r I IB�/� �jr� r r�� � d' M� ' f T U rIe r�� �r ..Pro ➢p m .� 'r a m w p _ . 011- Figure Figure 3. Land Cover (from Wiscland 2, 2016) 2 gage X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ SOILS & TOPOGRAPHY St. Croix County has a wide variety of soils ranging from heavy, poorly drained to light and droughty. Excessively drained and well-drained soils are generally found in the western half of the county. Moderately drained and somewhat poorly drained soils predominate in the eastern half. However, both extreme soil conditions are found throughout much of the county. Widely varying soil types and complex slopes make the application of some best management practices troublesome. There are many areas of the county with poorly drained soils on relatively steep slopes combining erosion and drainage problems. The General Soils Map (Figure 4) shows the soil associations in the county. Soil associations are landscapes with distinctive patterns of soils in defined proportions. They typically consist of one or more major soils and at least one minor soil, and are named for the major soils. The map contains general soils information for the county and is not intended to provide information for site-specific applications. The county has a detailed digital soil survey available for planning or management purposes. The Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) administers the regulation of POWTS in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Statute 145 provides DSPS with the general authority to establish minimum standards to ensure buildings and facilities in the state shall be safe, sanitary and safeguard the public health. Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapters SPS 383-385 contain the uniform standards that cannot be more restrictive at the county level. Chapter SPS 383 establishes uniform standards and criteria for the design, installation, inspection, and the management of POWTS. Chapter SPS 384 governs the quality and installation of materials and equipment relating to plumbing. Chapter SPS 385 establishes minimum requirements for evaluating and reporting soil and site characteristics that may affect the treatment or dispersal of wastewater. This code relies heavily on the ability of the soil to efficiently absorb the effluent discharged from the septic system drain field. The Natural Resources Conservation Service soil interpretations for septic tank absorption fields consider the occurrence of most excessively drained soils over fractured bedrock or high water tables a limitation to septic system development because effluent can be readily transported to the groundwater in these situations. Hence, even though siting of septic systems may be allowed by state code, doing so has the potential to threaten groundwater quality in some areas. The digital soil survey indicates that 633 square miles or about 87 percent of the total land area of the county is covered by soils unsuitable for septic or conventional on-site sewage disposal systems. However, there are likely locations on many of these sites where soils can meet septic system requirements. The topography of St. Croix County ranges from gently rolling to hilly and rough. A large portion of the central part of the county is a rolling plain. Mesas of resistant rock formations in the southwestern portion of the county break up this plain. The northwestern portion and eastern fringe of the county contain the most rugged topography. I age � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim r,,,,..,...��rrrl���J�l �lyrll�l�������� � l%ll��������/l/�r/�✓ /��✓iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii � %,�///�/j// s ��I�JJ»' � X11111111// i I �4 �� ilii Jl m „ U 'W" �JIJIJJ 1�«��III Figure 4. General Soils Map 2 gage X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ GROUNDWATER Groundwater supplies the majority of potable water to the residents of St. Croix County. The principal sources of potable water supplies are the sand and gravel aquifer and the sandstone aquifer. The sand and gravel aquifer consists of unconsolidated sand and gravel in glacial drift and alluvium. These deposits occur throughout about one-fourth of the county, either at the land surface or buried under less permeable drift. The sand and gravel aquifer can yield sufficient water for private residential water supplies. The sandstone aquifer includes all dolomite and sandstone bedrock younger than the Precambrian age. Precambrian rocks generally have low permeability and mark the lower limit of groundwater movement. The bedrock geology of St. Croix County is illustrated in Figure 5 with depth to bedrock in Figure 6. The sandstone aquifer is continuous over the county and includes, from youngest to oldest rock formations, the Platteville Dolomite, the St. Peter Sandstone, the Prairie du Chien Dolomite, and Cambrian sandstones. r - Bedrock Geology, � n wcrYpMinn ,,,,,m r ,,,,,m.,,. ,, Iq ff �� t,oe�rm Fraa mrar P ,f P d GkaanGop r F m nmupsa tcrntimp �rF;,, I � 061, TramnpaVaa,:u Grtnwp 38 ✓, / .7-4 S;Iy GmrnrPo- �nii//J%� wr IM DO r i/ Moo' �� / /, /0 %� �/ / //orr ✓y f / ...........��� li 24, 1 Figure 5. Bedrock Geology X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a g e ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim i i I ,rT J Pr {ala �,.. rJI�rUD� I 63 r ' opPh Iv Bardrantlx 1� .._3 64 ,, (64) I� +ti.e �aSbeh Md ... rr ,>GLr�r,/! , d 0 � M^7� I•, s� � ,,. /i! rr� v tin o �mr 17 fo �91 M°dl �o, 9�ld ��� ra gyp „ � i �� r P � r G V ,y� aff� y i �diI11i YAW„r ,iJs Yj FYI” I J 35 �I f'hie tlYr lau.wlmnd vµw: ievilry 0.11ualYu,{ Ox o Oxt rMpy[uc:oll rv.Imuallwmnllnrr iiN"ca.rnn arn9a xbFa'_ Figure 6. Depth to Bedrock The Prairie du Chien Dolomite and the Cambrian sandstones are the major water-yielding rocks in the sandstone aquifer. The Prairie du Chien Dolomite is the uppermost, saturated bedrock in much of the county and is used extensively for private residential water supplies. Much of the county is a recharge area for this shallow aquifer. The ability of the Cambrian sandstone to store and yield water and its thickness make it the principal source of municipal water supplies. The Platteville Dolomite unit is mostly unsaturated. The St. Peter Sandstone is found in a small area and is partly saturated and yields some water to wells. The source of all groundwater recharge in St. Croix County is precipitation. Between one and ten inches of precipitation infiltrates and recharges the groundwater aquifers each year. The amount infiltrated depends mainly on the type of rock material at the land surface. The altitude of the water table ranges from more than 1,100 feet in several places in the eastern quarter of the county to just over 675 feet along the St. Croix River. The water table is under the glacial drift and within the bedrock in about half of the county. The depth to groundwater below the surface of the land is generally less under topographically low areas and greater in areas of higher elevation. Figure 7 depicts depth to groundwater in St. Croix County. 4. age -58 fE_41.9 ft 42 ft-62.9 ft r f e3 ft azo ft 124 1 ft-1687 ft t 168 a ft234.7 ft 1�124aasn-397ft J i 1a o mli f'. ,����"'��%/raj¢ i .- rr ra i re. " �// � r. l�� �l •u � ,_,,, � , Urrr- ! 6 as ' i r J IJIo// n� m/ 123 rIJJJJIfI ""P / � �k w✓� rrG r%�� J(rr/ � 4 �f�l/G�O ° ��, , Figure 7. Depth to Groundwater Municipal water systems develop wellhead protection plans to identify sources of drinking water and protect the quality and quantity of those sources. The communities of Baldwin, Hammond, Hudson, New Richmond, Roberts, Somerset, and Star Prairie have wellhead protection plans in place in St. Croix County.13 St. Croix County water withdrawal from registered wells ranked 22 out of 71 counties in Wisconsin in 2015. Registered wells withdraw water primarily for municipal and agricultural use in Wisconsin.la Groundwater can be adversely affected when contaminants are released into the aquifer or spilled upon the ground. Some factors influencing the susceptibility of an aquifer to pollution are depth to groundwater and bedrock, type of bedrock, sub-surface permeability, and the ability of the soil to attenuate or lessen the impact of pollutants. High-risk activities, such as industries using hazardous materials, pose serious threats to groundwater and should be kept out of the immediate recharge areas of public and private water supply wells. High concentrations of septic systems can pollute groundwater with nitrates. 13 This information is available on the following website: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/DrinkingWater/SourceWaterProtection.html 14 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.Wisconsin Water Use.2015 Withdrawal Summary. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a g e l "N^p ...........................q-.......................... ------------ � d (BA '"1o MIT 12 V ry 6 1? 1l �128f �a � d 3'tlMNs leaarwrr elauss wau Derdewvt Grans 3U1�4'GWDATt Dans iq;+werkRitvll t V Figure 8. Closed Depressions Leaking underground storage tanks and Baker,Hughes,Huffman and Nelson,Closed Depression Map leaching of fertilizers and pesticides from of St. Croix County,Wisconsin, 1991 agricultural fields and lawns are additional sources of contamination of groundwater. Closed depressions are Hamman features in fit. Croix County. They have formed through two quite different Closed depressions are extremely geological processes; karst development and glaciation. sensitive land features because of their karst development occurs in regions with highly soluble close association with the groundwater. bedrock and results in distinctive landforms such as The pollutants released into or near sinkholes. St. Croix County is covered by several rather closed depressions are almost certain to reach groundwater. Figure 8 shows thick, soluble carbonate units, and has particularly well® the locations of closed depressions in developed karst, especially in the eastern half of the county. the county. Figure 9 shows points Glacial action can also result in topography marked by where all three criteria of closed closed depressions known as kettles or kettleholes, kettles depressions, agricultural land cover, develop when large blocks of glacier ice are berried within and depth to bedrock less than 5 feet glacial deposits and subsequently melt. Many of the occur in the same place, denoting depressions in the western and northwestern portions of the areas of high concern for potential county are kettles that developed in the St. Croix moraine groundwater contamination after it was deposited during the Wisconsinan glaciation. susceptibility. age —St r ,ka rie Dee P r �� 46 64 63 i 66 mn a RCh, d ._....... ._ • r r�� r" 64 Gle ryr44 City 170,�� � \ v lk �� t • M � No h u son ,. 12 qq l 65 e H mim Ro arts. .r I so Hudson 35 + 12 Woo will � e � • a • I e ri • rIIs ——— .......a... ..a_....,�._ ...��,.... _.a.._....a....! ll Figure 9. Areas of Special Concern for Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 7 Nage ion Drinking In 2016, there were approximately 161 public wells in the county with 11 municipal water systems supplying water to nearly 42,000 residents. The average municipal well depth is 300 feet. Municipal and other public water systems are regulated by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and tested regularly to ensure they meet safe drinking water standards. The rest of the county's population obtains its water from private wells. It is estimated that there are around 16,000 private wells in the county with an average depth between 75-200 feet (based on an estimated 9,859 well construction logs maintained since 1988). Private wells are not required to be tested, nor any corrective action to be taken if contamination is found. Each private well owner holds the responsibility for maintaining and ensuring the safety of their well water. (St. Croix County, 2017) r I . s t,IIII II . �. .. . IIID,.. IIII:� r . .. Illy aln The groundwater/ drinking water testing program was developed to provide information and education on the use and quality of drinking water for the rural residents in St. Croix County. This program was a cooperative effort between UW Extension, St. Croix County Public Health Department, St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department/Resource Management Division, UW Stevens Point Environmental Task Force Lab, and local towns. Between 2003 and 2016, staff worked with 21 individual towns and rural residents to conduct this voluntary drinking water program. Landowners could choose to pay for three different water tests: the homeowner's test, metals test, triazine screening, or a combination of their choice. All costs for water tests were the responsibility of the landowner. Nearly 2,100 households participated. The benefits of offering a water testing program at the town level include 1) reduced costs for sample analysis and 2) a larger sample population to monitor and document trends in water quality. The organized water testing program has been very popular with high participation rates. However, lab services with the UW-Stevens Point lab are in high demand, and the county wasn't able to offer the program in 2017 or 2018. Private well water testing is also promoted through the septic system maintenance program where approximately 10,000 households are targeted annually. Through a direct mailing, homeowners are encouraged to have their well water tested by a certified laboratory. Water sample kits are offered in three office locations throughout the county. Although the laboratory data is not always available to the county, it is a great opportunity to remind homeowners of their individual responsibility of ensuring their water is safe to drink. 8 age IIL�.� aIIII iii t . iiir a r ilii iii ilii iii g Ili VIVA IIIIIIIIIIIVU aVW �`. �� ' In 2017, the uu� omit wy Groundwater Quality ' Study Group recommended � muu>� OU� Ufi Nil ,"'t cv establishing a water quality dataset from arm uuu,ooi���imu M:r 43 existing data to serve a mil Baa, �i� /i oouiam mm 4RIf �muu mn� as a baseline for as � a emummmo � ° w� ongoing comparison. ��,F aU ���� C rM ( A a M n Staff implemented �„ WAIT their recommendation by synthesizing the county's digital records with those kept by the Wisconsin NO muo ° DNR and the a umu111111ftUniversity of WIsconsln Stevens a� mmi ild Nil; m %u,; p �l,N i iu Point. Of WeIIS tested between 1988 and 2016 4,267 nitrate YY A 10 O � o" 1111i� mil if „ tests associated with i UN rnLi 3,170 well addresses amY�� r omi � � were mapped in the V� i 1Jym� ��U ou ���� � iuu� mu V m ui. county's GIS. This uuumm Y;im uom pC f d i� � muu , � mmumo lQ � �aw ill represents �,x mmiooi it ��mu uouuuuim m u } mmm(i IIIII� Dim moi , —� ����� ,;m ������ approximately two thirds of available Hit digital data in the same period. In addition 1,000 lot X Mil u'm detailed construction �1HJ11111� logs featuring well r depth, casing depth �d 'p, In and geology reports Zink to the ua umm aaf Y 1 pi ° i�� iy dataset. Figure 10 ba micpq 0 mo �'° omu au �n m�ii Ia �tpoi�� summarizes the M FOR, � a mu 01°,uuu �� ra V11P county's baseline data wwomdoo��imo mi, �; overtime. omr mmi mm a Y uod mmw �i3 ray r�; �a Diol Ulla a}� °� uuu aiooi �NiwuwPlyNmmouur �@ uw!vIf r� JUV 0 Figure 10. Well Water Nitrate Test Results by Quarter Section (1988-2016) X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a g e ion A sample of 929 before and after c 0 LO d comparisons in 511 LO LO h „ .2CN quarter sections with ( o testing averages in 0 �; � � 'a 0 P � � consecutive periods Q '' ' o suggest that, since 1988, groundwater �- nitrate concentrations increased in more b places in the county than they decreased. ���,�, Specifically, 57% of � ""'' r� ° ��� imiinr� �r�tun�d�utire ', !t'+A �d Gl�w'rru�mmi�hAdl�nut �i�2iauun rreliu� tllJ�nw�Yavl rlyrrr�n�immrW�7^m'�aw?�ra�?'y71Pite�4 all comparisons indicated an increase tit while the remaining 44% indicated a ". i2 decrease. While this data alludes to a generalized directional trend, Emil t1i y. each well varies independently across omo a i+nrlau�++�Y��rr�a��rW+� multiple variables IN (nitrates, bacteria, � pathogens, metals, ° etc.) in often- '� � . w unsuspected ways. u This reaffirms the need for homeowners e � to test their well water . �j'ri irr tom��i�rrr�a����n1Wapi�„�+,�mmu�rnr�rnl��n�'+y�di+�iu�sul�ylyi� w "a d� frequently. ry � arra � invawi�� miuir�fe� The drinking water program has provided residents and policy makers with valuable ' information. Figure 11 illustrates the completeness of the � mu ml tiro '' ii information. The excellent coverage in the town of Warren stands out largely due 'Y °���V��MA� to the 2008 town lead well testing effort. Figure 11. Well Testing Participation Rates by quarter section 0 age The town's careful I�IIQII�I� �1 % � 3 odocumentation of their a W c„_ results, including well v , a C� addresses, allowed the county to successful) V a II incorporate them into ga .20 a the GIS database. u v W Town led initiatives u r with county support 1170 113; 14 may be an excellent r� , „////� model for improving the coverage of the !' � X11 / � "ge/ Y�; �' % � county's drinking water p, J JAMA Nrau» testing program. a f � While the knowledge the county gains over � / iii • '� time helps inform the public after the fact, ��f mitigating health risks / ' ' e through prevention may be more effective. j Current data suggests that one method of prevention, well 0 l" construction quality, may be one of the 0 many variables % r y influencing the risk of well contamination. �' ° Expressly, wells with a l ��� • i, ��o �� known construction log that have had a least p . one test above the 1 0 Ali/r/,/ rrrrrrrrr r �, ppm nitrate health / /riiii�/, "f ' • %%�'/iii% au ////� standard have an ����� average casing depth / //////%// ���+�,,, rill i /N➢i I /lir o/% p of 75 feet 56/o of a 0, %, which have their casing end in limestone. / ( �NOW��//iii '%/%/1. Figure 12. Groundwater Susceptibility and nitrate test results above 10 X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 1 a g e ion By comparison, 35% of wells without a test above the health standard have their casing end in limestone. These have an average casing depth of 119 feet. Figure 12 displays general groundwater pollution susceptibility and the location of nitrate tests above the health standard. Figure 13 shows where points from the analysis in figure 9, where closed depressions, bedrock less than 5ft, and agricultural land cover all intersect, also occur within half a mile of well test nitrogen levels greater than 10 ppm. The resulting locations are areas of high concern for drinking water quality degradation. { � eer r 1 1 ti� 65 46 � 35 with and -' (6D4 s s r 64 r ; l 128 35 63 C 170, f ty >, l 128 No n Mu n 72 �. v 35 M� 65 mmui 12 1ud n f e ., h r ilson 9 12 35. i In yV 128 R °r r F v r 35' ki This map shown the inler,—Yibn afi Closed Depressions(U werifed),14nfrocCc Lens than 5ft,and Agland I dl;ne within i 7r2 anile ofN tate I gresner Chan 10 pilin. Figure 13. Areas of High Concern for Drinking Water Quality 2 age SURFACE WATERS Lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and intermittent waterways make up the surface waters of St. Croix County. There are also many artificial drainage ways where the natural water flow has been altered by human activity. Sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants are carried in runoff water from watersheds that drain to these surface water features. The county is well-drained with relatively fewer lakes and ponds than counties to its north. The surface waters of St. Croix County occupy four HUC8s (Hydrologic Unit Codes) as illustrated in Figure 14. The St. Croix River HUC8 covers the western two-thirds of the county. The Rush-Vermillion Rivers, Chippewa River, and Red Cedar River HUC8s cover the remaining third of the county. All of the above are part of the Mississippi River Basin. The Balsam Branch-Apple River, Big Marine Lake-St. Croix River, Willow River, Lake St. Croix and Kinnickinnic River watersheds (HUC1Os) are located within the St. Croix River HUC8. The Trimbelle River and Rush River HUC10s are within the Rush-Vermillion Rivers HUC8. The South Fork of the Hay River and the Lake Menomin-Red Cedar River HUC10 are part of the Red Cedar River HUC8. The Eau Galle River HUC10 is within the Lower Chippewa River HUC8. In each of these hydrologic units, there are numerous intermittent streams or dry washes and other surface drainage features that carry water only during spring runoff or extreme storm events. At 9,336 acres, the Minnesota-Wisconsin boundary water of Lake St. Croix is the lake with the largest surface acreage in St. Croix County. About half of this lake is within Wisconsin's borders. Bass Lake is the largest inland lake at 293 acres. Perch Lake is the deepest with a maximum depth of 63 feet. The stream with the greatest gradient is Spring Brook with a drop of 85 feet per mile, and the stream with the lowest gradient is the St. Croix River with a drop of 0.2 foot per mile. The St. Croix River is the most significant surface water feature in the county. The segment of the river adjacent to St. Croix County is part of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway designated by Congress. The National Park Service and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources are responsible for working with local jurisdictions to manage the riverway in a manner consistent with the National Wild and Scenic River Act and the federal Lower St. Croix River Act. St. Croix County enforces zoning provisions in the riverway district consistent with federal and state law and regulations. Portions of the St. Croix River and the Kinnickinnic River have been designated as Outstanding Resource Waters by the Department of Natural Resources. Bass Lake and Perch Lake are also designated as Outstanding Resource Waters. Portions of the St. Croix, Apple and Willow Rivers, and Parker Creek and the entire length of Cady Creek are designated as Exceptional Resource Waters. Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters are protected through Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulation. These waters may not be lowered in quality due to DNR permitted activities, such as wastewater treatment plants. (NR 102.10 and 102.11) The lakes, rivers, and wetlands of the county are impacted by land use practices in the watersheds that drain to them. Most of the pollutants that enter surface water resources are carried in runoff from many diffuse, or nonpoint, sources. The major pollutants of concern are sediment carried from areas with bare soil such as crop fields and construction sites, and phosphorus attached to soil particles or dissolved in runoff water from fertilized fields and lawns and livestock operations. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a g e ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim E Ea C�NII���lI� u' rnral�� ro d o . `: �m J � � U b 'act --------------- 05, L Al �mwrAmmrnr � �ruunW �Ium�rA9� ��r�i�kirilr�, ��Ii�fll� � !� a�rmu�y, �� "�hlarvlUr�niv�ouru�r✓Niwir�!YdAmrrrq��lty OruNniwamie��awiurai�fWlfiin A!nrinniiNarm �VIgY I. WhiU>Jw;�ll�� trvrcarv�hvrrmr¢ �'ll��rxrnurr¢vr�m�rr�uv✓uimrUmriu�rurl(.�:..... uuu�umror�„<!� IIIu�1,u,m ��uuuf�u;u�� 11IN�a Figure 15. St. Croix County watersheds that extend beyond state and county boundaries X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ gage ion WATERSHED WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS Outstanding c ti I Resource Waters Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters are the focus for protection-oriented projects. A list of these water resources is provided below in Table 1. uuuuiuuiiiu�uu VujVu liiiiuuiuiiuiii a u�uuilluui luuuui l uMluuuiiuuiui�ui�u u'uii WBIC ORW/ERW Start Mile End Mile Watersheds 2614000 ERW 51.34 53.61 SC04 2450500 ORW null null SCO2 2058000 ERW 1.01 9.34 LC03 2601800 ORW 12.47 31.02 SC01 uull � 2601500 ERW null null SC01, SCO2 2604700 ERW 0 0.53 SC01 2488300 ORW null null SCO2 2601400 ORW 17.43 44.29 SCO2, SC04, SC08 2601400 ERW 0 17.43 SC01, SCO2 2606900 ERW 0.2 1.32 SCO2 2606900 ERW 0 0.17 SCO2 2606900 ERW 0 0.07 SCO2 uu 2606900 ERW 0 1.3 SCO2 ss Lake Management Plan" The St. Croix County Community Development Department initiated the Bass Lake Management Plan. Staff from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, St. Croix County, and UW Stevens Point provided guidance for plan development. The Bass Lake Rehabilitation District, the Town of St. Joseph, and the St. Croix County Sportsmen's Alliance also partnered in plan development. Bass Lake is highly valued public water resource designated as a state Outstanding Resource Water. The plan presents information about Bass Lake water quality, fisheries, and aquatic plants. A social science assessment and a lake water quality model were completed as part of the planning process. The plan implementation period is from 2017 through 2026. Plan goals address water quality protection, aquatic plant life and fishery, shoreland habitats, invasive species and recreational opportunities. 15 Bass Lake Management Plan. December 2016. a g c � IIID s s IIII..... . Water ia a. [t � ,J & • Reduce phosphorus loading to Bass Lake. • TP In-lake TP: 15 ug/L (Growing Season Mean-GSM). • In-lake Chla: 3.5 ug/L (July 15 —Sept. 15) • Sixty percent shoreland owners will reduce stormwater runoff to background levels. Perch Lake Management Plan" The Perch Lake Management Plan was also initiated by the St. Croix County Community Development Department with guidance from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Lake and community residents representing a variety of groups, local governments, and business made up the advisory committee. Staff from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and St. Croix County provided guidance for plan development. The advisory committee included representation from St. Croix County, the Town of St. Joseph, lake residents, Friends of Perch Lake, and the St. Croix County Sportsmen's Alliance. Perch Lake is a small lake with exceptional water quality. It is a state Outstanding Resource Water with a 2-story fishery. St. Croix County's Homestead Park encompasses over half of its shoreline and about one third of the lake's watershed. Additional visitors reach the lake via a public boat landing on the south end. There are only about ten residences around the lake. The plan presents information about Perch Lake water quality, fisheries, and aquatic plants. A public opinion survey and a lake water quality model were completed as part of the planning process. The planning period is from 2017 through 2026. Plan goals address protection and improvement of water quality, aquatic and shoreline habitat, natural scenic beauty; aquatic invasive species prevention and control; and balancing recreational use with environmental projection. IIII iia IIID IIII..... IID Water ilij . ti . s • Allow no net degradation of Perch Lake water quality as measured by no increases in total phosphorus and algae growth. A comprehensive record of in lake phosphorus and chlorophyll is not available for Perch Lake. 2015/16 mean summer surface TP was 6.6ug/L. • Minimize runoff and erosion that carry nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants to the lake. 16 Perch Lake Management Plan. October 2016. 7 : age � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim I MPAI RED WATERS St. Croix County water quality priorities are driven in part by a focus on impaired waters through implementation of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans and projects. Impaired waters, also known as 303(d) listed waters, are compiled in a 2018 draft list by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The list, required by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act, identifies water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. The Department of Natural Resources uses the 303(d) list as the basis for establishing strategies to improve water bodies using total maximum daily loads. TMDL reports and/or implementation plans have been completed for several of St. Croix County's impaired waters including Lake St. Croix, Squaw Lake, Cedar Lake, Lake Mallalieu and the Willow River, and the Red Cedar River. III Vumm uoum m Vuum uuuuu m m m�m�m slm umml m m Vuum uuuou IIIIIIIIIIIII Illlmlll�llllll Vuum m mm� h. m Vm umml V..Nuum. uuuu u�i IIIIoVuu�� m m�m uuuu Vuu m lVmmu m�IVm m mmVm IVuuu uuuu Vmmu m�Vl um. 'IIIIh�'r IIII Watershed Impact Type -';Pollutant Year Listed) wliw uuw ww luu�m luumo mIVuu �lluuuuu m�uu Vuuuuo m mllml� Apple River Excess algae TP 2012 lli�lllµ (IIIIIIIIIIIII Apple River Excess algae, pH - TP 1998 Willow Fiver Excess algae TP 2004 Willow River Pathogens (beach) 2012 rlllllllllll�lll( Ililq IIIIwlla. II III Willow River Degraded biological community 2018 (draft) Willow River BoOwDdissolved oxygen —TP, 1998 IIIIIIIIIII�IIIti��� IIYI�(yIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � Illall���� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Knnickihnic River Excess algae, pH -TP 1998 III Kinnickinnic River Excess algae- nutrients 2002 IIIIIIIIIIIII;°°��IIIIIr��"' IIIII!I 'IIIII%�'r IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Knnickihnic River Excess algae-TP 2016 illlllaµ Ilwlr� III �m mI St. Croix Excess algae - TP 2008 Illllllllllllll�����w II ullll���w����IIIII���I SII I�I�������II�II��Illl���w���� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII St. Croix PCB in fish 1998 wu IIIIIIIIIIIII������IIII � � Illl����w�� �������I���� �II ��������u�lll����lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll � �I�1°'�I!!!! � '��"'I����w IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5: Eork'Hay River Mercury in fish` 1998 Illllllllllll����l�����w�II�����I���������������������uillll���� Ill������w����������II�����IIIII�������IIIII��II�����������������I���������II��� ����������������II����������wl��� '�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII ! m Iw II 'll������ "' I a������ Eau Calle River Habitat, temperature'- sediment 1998 TP = Total Phosphorus BOD = Biological Oxygen Demand 8 age Lake t® Croix The Lake St. Croix TMDL was completed in 2012 and approved by EPA in August 2012. A phosphorus load Prog, SI R port reduction of 27 percent from mid 1990s phosphorus , loads is needed to meet the Lake St. Croix in-lake total phosphorus water quality standard of 40 pg/L. Phosphorus load reduction goals vary by watershed. For the Willow River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, the phosphorus reduction goal is 37%. For the Apple River, the phosphorus reduction goal is 34%. '`` The Lake St. Croix TMDL Implementation Plan was t �xra9 completed in 2013. The plan relies on civic engagement as a key strategy for TMDL implementation. It also establishes phosphorus reduction goals by county. For all of St. Croix County, the Lake St. Croix TMDL " phosphorus load reduction is 37%. This requires 49,000 lbs./yr. of reduction from the estimated TMDL baseline load of 133,000 lbs./yr. in the early 1990s. St. Croix County's required reduction ranks 2nd largest among the 19 counties in the basin. To achieve the St. Croix Basin Partners' goal of 20% Reduction by 2020, St. Croix County needs to reduce loading by 36,000 lbs./yr. by the year 2020. To attain this goal, activities must be implemented that achieve an average annual rate of phosphorus reduction of 1,200 lbs./yr. over 30 years, or 3,600 lbs./yr. over 10 years. III a,,,, II°uo IVIII °°°m m °m I I �IIIIII III I II IIIIIIIII °11 � � w IIIIIII�IwIII��I w �s k IIIIIIW uuu mIU�s� � �s �sII�III"II�� w � �s mIU �s u Vmmu imu a Vum a uuuum IIII Illllillllulm IVum luumo uuu lVumo a lum a u�lm uu�Vi�lllu uuumuuuum a u�llu Ilam loom.Mm i lum a uuuVi loom uuuuu Vuuulllllllumu uuM Vi�IVu IVum IuuM uuuVi IVum uu a lum�u�llu�llluum Vuuul luuuu a IVum Overall Overall Reduction by Annual Reduction Progress % Goal Reduction 2020 Rate—30 years through 2017 37% 49,000 lbs. 36,000 1,200 lbs. 22,400 Squaw IIII.....aIke ...I...,IIM D ..... A total maximum daily load (TMDL) was developed for Squaw Lake in St. Croix County in August 2000. A site-specific phosphorus concentration goal of 130 micrograms per liter was identified for Squaw Lake as part of this process. Squaw Lake is part of the Apple River watershed within the St. Croix basin. Squaw Lake Water Quality Objectives • Summer Total Phosphorus: 100 ug/L to 30 ug/L • Chlorophyll A: 17 ug/L • Infiltrate 300 acre feet of runoff • Infiltrate 400 acre feet of runoff from frozen ground • Initiate an alum treatment following capture of 300 ac. ft. of runoff • Install shoreland owner rain gardens. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a g e ion a iiir IIII.....aIke ...I...,IIP IIL.. IIII..... A TMDL was developed for Cedar Lake in 2003. A Lake Management Plan followed in 2013 with an update in 2017." These plans have not been reviewed to assess if they meet requirements of nine-key element plans, although Cedar Lake is within the Apple River watershed which is included in the Lake St. Croix TMDL. Cedar Creek, the outflow of Cedar Lake, flows directly to the Apple River. Cedar Lake Water Quality Objectives • Summer Total Phosphorus: < 40 ug/L • Decrease internal sediment loading by 90% (through an alum treatment) • Decrease watershed loading by 30% (through Horse Creek Farmer-Led Council, BMPs, residential BMPs, etc.) IIIL a IIID . IIP a IIII IIII�. IIII l . Wddbw l l it I M L.. IIII..... St. Croix County and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources prepared a draft TMDL Implementation report for Lake Mallalieu and the Willow River in 2011. The Willow River watershed is part of the St. Croix basin. The need for substantial reduction in sediment and phosphorus loads throughout the watershed (a 65% overall reduction goal specifically) is identified as the Lake Mallalieu/Willow River TMDL's highest priority. The TMDL report for Lake Mallalieu and the Willow River also describes aquatic and habitat impairments as a result of excessive sediment and phosphorus delivery. High Priority Implementation Activities • SNAP based Nutrient Management Planning for 100% of the agricultural producers in top priority hydrologic units • Urban BMPs: rain gardens and rain barrels, structural practices • Rural BMPs: conservation tillage, cover crops, grassed waterway installation, manure management and grade stabilization • Adopt and enforce comprehensive storm water management ordinances • Restore native shoreline vegetation around Lake Mallalieu • Establish and preserve vegetative buffer strips along the Willow River and its tributaries • Preserve land for surface and groundwater protection • Improve wastewater treatment IIID liii in in liiic ID liii in in liii IIII iiir liii ° iiir liii t y W a it . iiia IIID The Kinnickinnic River Priority Watershed Project Community Report documented and communicated priority watershed project results. The watershed project ran from 1999 through 2010. The project supported staffing and installation of best management practices to meet watershed goals in the rural areas of Pierce and St. Croix County. Practices were also installed with watershed funding within the city of River Falls. The watershed project tracked some reductions in inventoried sediment and phosphorus loads in St. Croix and Pierce County although except for phosphorus reductions from barnyards, a tracking methodology was not defined and standardized. Practices installed since 2011 have resulted in additional phosphorus reductions in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. "Cedar Lake Management Plan. 2017. 18 KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT 1999-2010.Community Report.Kinnickinnic River Land Trust.2016. 4 0 age Inventoried Planned Reduction St. Croix Pierce TOTAL Lead Reduction Goal Reduction Reduction Tracked �jj (lb./yr) (%)' (lb./yr.) Tracked Tracked. Reduction (Ib./yr.) (Ib...../yr.) (Ib./yr;) IIIIIIIIIIIII w t iti Iwm tlll 3,885 35 1,360 1,865 246 2,111 1 Barnyard changes account for some barnyards no longer present and others not originally included in the inventory. i I ll �uuu�u u�iuui a I�iiuu a ullllll�u I�uui�uuui II u)u I�uuu�ul�iiuu ullllllll�iu uuui�iuu�u luuu�u I�uui uu a�uui ii)u�uuu uuu a ulllllllllll ullfuuuui I�iiu a �uu St. Croix Reduction Pierce Reduction TOTAL Tracked Reduction III Tracked (Ib./yr.) Tracked (Ib./yr.) (Ib./yr.) IIIII,e , ulill�lullill�l'I 131.6 NA 131.6 Illllllll Viiuom filum luu ��I''�� ,��� mIp���ii�ummllu�m Vuuom�h IIIVm�a mi mol a mi�i i��I Vu a umnlu Ili II �..i IIIIIIIIIVum 350.3 NA 350.3 m Ilydi Il m� � 481.9 NA 481.9 Red Cedar River L' In 2012, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Red Cedar River Water approved the total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) developed Quality Partnership is a Civic by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Organizing entity that works for the for Lakes Tainter and common good of water quality Menomin, two impounded lakes formed by dams located within the Red Cedar River Basin on the lower Red Cedar River. The TMDL describes the through the practice of Civic extent of the phosphorus issue in the watershed and Governance; whereby the partners prescribes levels to which phosphorus inputs to Lakes develop the civic imagination, and Tainter and Menomin need to be decreased in order to significantly improve water quality. The Tainter/Menomin organize the civic infrastructure TMDL is based on research done mostly in the 1990s and needed to produce sustainable identifies site-specific phosphorus water quality goals for water quality, while coordinating each lake. Meeting these goals equates to 61% less the implementation of water quality phosphorus concentration in Tainter Lake and 54% less strategies for the Basin. phosphorus concentration in Lake Menomin. 19 Red Cedar River Water Quality Partnership. A Water Quality Strategy for the Land and Waters of the Red Cedar River Basin. July 2015. . I age � � Taunter Lake TIVIIDL GoaVs • Total phosphorus (mg/L): 59 • Chlorophyll-a (mg/L): 25 • Secchi depth (m): 1.6 • Percent time >30 mg/L chla 28% Lake Menornin TMIDL GoaVs • Total phosphorus (mg/L): 57 • Chlorophyll-a (mg/L): 25 • Secchi depth (m): 2.0 • Percent time >30mg/L chla 28% Interim phosphorus reduction goal (10 years): 40% reduction from all nonpoint sources. The implementation plan examines a variety of best A Wates'Quality Strategy management practices to assess cost and potential for the hand and Waters of the effectiveness to achieve the nonpoint source Rea'Cedar River Basi reduction goal. Education, outreach, and civic engagement/governance are emphasized in plan A implementation in hopes of achieving phosphorus Prodwccd by the reductions more economically than with traditional Red Cedar RlwerfterQuuhtyPautmea help cost share programs. The EPA approved the Red bly ME Cedar Implementation plan in 2016. Additional St. Croixt lit Priorities It s h It ilii " "t . l iiia . . . ... II �. �.. iiia iiia�: lilt�. iiia lilt �: iiia �. lilt iiia�. St Croix County was awarded a $385,000 Large Scale Non-TMDL Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) Grant in 2017 for the Rush River watershed. The Rush River is a Class 11 cold water trout stream with agriculture the major land use affecting surface waters in the watershed. The Rush River drains directly into Lake Pepin, a 303(d) listed impaired drainage lake in the Mississippi River. According to a Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL) analysis, land use in the Rush River watershed contributes 68,708.2 lbs./year of phosphorus (P) and 17,731.0 tons/year of sediment. Cropland is responsible for 82% of the P loading and 85% of the sediment loading. Comparing the original r prairie and forest land cover to the current land use shows a significant conversion to cropland and pasture. T This conversion is responsible for lower infiltration rates and therefore larger volumes and velocities of runoff, leading to dramatic upland soil and in-stream erosion, sediment and nutrient loading to surface waters, and decreased groundwater recharge quality. 4 2 ago The Rush River headwaters start just above the city of Baldwin where the channel is normally a dry run except during storm runoff. The storm runoff tends to be severe and highly turbid and is exacerbated due to the cropping of clay soils. South of Baldwin, sinkholes in the riverbed cause the flow to disappear underground. This direct connection between ground and surface water is potentially very hazardous to groundwater quality, especially in a heavy agricultural land use area. The grant will be used to fund best management practices (BMPs) to control nonpoint source pollution as well as support the staff time required to implement the BMPs. IIII a iii liii IIII III iiir l' iiia a�, . iiia iiir iiia iir...IIIL.... . The Dry Run Watershed Farmer-Led Council began in 2013 as a collaboration Farmebetween farmers, county staff, UW—Extension, and state government agencies to r iwHE I � uL improve water quality. The council receives an annual pool of funding from two sources, the Minneapolis-based McKnight Foundation and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP), with which they design a conservation incentives program that achieves water-quality goals. The farmers themselves determine the best paths to conservation success within their watershed, and recruit and encourage other farmers to participate. St. Croix County Resource Management Division staff work closely with the farmer council to provide technical assistance, facilitation, resource information and education, as well as monitor the project's outcomes. This project combines the considerable strengths of the partners with current watershed management TMDL goals in a groundbreaking collaborative. Conceptually, it draws from research and resources on Civic Organizing, Iowa State University's sociological work on farmer-led, performance-based watershed projects, and the concept of landscape disproportionality analysis from the University of Wisconsin. With water quality improvement as their focus, the council identified grassed waterways, cover crops, and soil testing as priorities to incentivize. The council also became an important partner in St. Croix county staff efforts to implement a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation "Conservation Partners Grant," leveraging their financial resources with federally granted dollars. Two council members took part in a streambank restoration on Dry Run Creek. The streambank work was used as a demonstration, where other landowners and council members were invited to the site to discuss erosion abatement procedures and general maintenance of shorelines. As a result of the council exploring the Ag Solver Program, a general watershed wide meeting was held on this precision agriculture tool that shifts the focus from increasing yield to increasing profit. Generally, the software shows how enrolling marginal land in conservation programs can actually increase farm profitability. In the near future, the council plans on holding additional informational meetings. iiir . . IIID Water QuaIh[tyIIII� r�:iiia a IIID liil IIIA Wilson Creek, whose headwaters start in the Village of Wilson on the eastern boarder of St. Croix County, is a 303d listed impaired waterbody for exceeding total phosphorus. The watershed is part of the Red Cedar River basin but was excluded from the TMDL. Because of Wilson Creek being excluded from resources available through the TMDL despite its impairment status, a group was formed to help this trout stream. The Wilson & Annis Creek Watershed Partnership (WACWP) is a coalition of community members who guide the implementation of an initiative to improve water quality and habitat in the Wilson and Annis Creek watersheds. Members of WACWP include St. Croix County Resource Management Division, Dunn County Land and Water Conservation Division, private landowners, non-profit groups, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the United States Department of Agriculture's Natural X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 4 3 a g e ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Agricultural conservation practices are funded through NRCS's National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) program, which focuses Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) dollars into certain high-priority watersheds. Stream habitat improvement projects are supported through various grants, private land easements, trout stamp dollars, and volunteer hours. SHORELANDS Lands within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water mark of navigable lakes ponds, or flowages and within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark of navigable rivers or streams or landward edge of the floodplain (whichever is greater) are designated as shorelands. Vegetation in the shorelands can provide a natural buffer which helps protect surface waters from overland runoff and contaminants. If shorelands are disturbed, their ability to slow runoff and filter contaminants is reduced. Shorelands also provide critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals and enhance the aesthetic quality of water bodies. Wisconsin requires counties to protect and prevent the loss and erosion of these valuable resources by adopting and enforcing a shoreland ordinance. The authority to enact and enforce this provision comes from Chapter 59.69 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR115 dictates the shoreland management program. WETLANDS A wetland is defined by state statute as "an area where water is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to be capable of supporting aquatic or hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation and which has soils indicative of wet conditions." Wetlands may be seasonal or permanent and include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands can make lakes, rivers, and streams cleaner and drinking water safer. They provide valuable habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial animals and vegetation. In addition, some wetlands replenish groundwater supplies. Groundwater is also commonly discharged from wetlands. This discharge water can be important in maintaining stream flows, especially during dry months. Groundwater discharged through wetlands can contribute to high quality water in lakes and streams. Draining and filling of wetlands or development near wetlands can remove these natural functions and values. All construction projects involving wetlands should be reviewed according to local, state, and federal regulations before they begin. Particular attention must be given to wetlands within shorelands to ensure protection from development. The St. Croix County shoreland zoning ordinance restricts development of wetlands five acres and greater within the shoreland zone. The federal government and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) restrict development in wetlands through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and NR103, respectively. DNR has an inventory of wetlands of two acres and larger. However, all wetlands meeting the state definition are subject to DNR regulations. Federal regulations may apply in addition to or instead of state regulations. WOODLANDS Woodlands provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals, as well as adding scenic beauty to the landscape. Large continuous blocks of forested land are important habitat for a variety of plants and animals. Woodlands managed according to approved forest management practices can support varying . .. a 3 c and sometimes complementary objectives, such as timber production and wildlife habitat. Development can destroy the capacity of woodlands to provide wood products, habitat, and scenic beauty. The value of woodlands for habitat, production, and scenery should be considered before woodlands are converted to other uses. DNR manages three forestry tax law programs that provide tax incentives to encourage managing private forestlands for forest crop production while recognizing a variety of other objectives. St. Croix County has 14,921 acres enrolled in Managed Forest Law programs as of 2017. 12,816 acres are closed to public access, and 2,105 acres have open public access. PRAIRIE & OTHER GRASSLANDS Much of St. Croix County was originally covered by prairie. However, little native prairie remains today. Prairies vary due to soils and climates, but all are dominated by grasses and sedges. Prairies are home to a rich diversity of plants and animals. Native prairies are a threatened plant community in Wisconsin. Tallgrass prairies are among the most decimated and threatened natural communities in the Midwest and the world. Of the 2.1 million acres (6% of state land area) that were native prairie when Europeans arrived 150 years ago, less than 10,000 acres of varying quality (<1 % of state land area) native prairie remains today. Most native prairies found today in Wisconsin are small remnants that are less than 10 acres in size.20 The drastic changes in prairie habitat over the past 150 years have had negative impacts on many plants and animals. Many species of plants associated with Wisconsin prairies are endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Two species are known to no longer exist in the state. Many grassland birds face similar outcomes. The list of special concern species is growing, and birds once considered common in the state, such as several species of sparrows and the meadowlark, are declining drastically. Although the majority of prairie mammals have been able to adapt to the loss of prairie habitat, some are threatened by agricultural practices and development. Prairie-associated reptiles and amphibians have been affected as well. About half have apparently adapted to the loss of prairie. Three reptiles found in prairies are on the state's endangered species list, one is listed as threatened, and two are of special concern. Little is known about the invertebrates of Wisconsin's native prairies with the exception of a few well-recognized and studied species such as the Karner blue butterfly. There are few high-quality prairie remnants remaining. However, it will take more than the preservation of these remnants to recover or retain the biodiversity this ecosystem can offer. Degraded areas that were once prairie can often be restored with moderate effort to yield a habitat suitable for most of the associated plant and animal species. Even certain managed agricultural and livestock practices can accommodate the maintenance of the open habitats needed by many grassland species. SavannaOak Oak savanna was originally present in St. Croix County. Wildfire and possibly bison and elk maintained these grasslands with scattered oaks. Only scant remnants of the ecosystem exist today. Oak savannas were home to an abundant variety of plants and animals, and were probably optimum habitat for many game species and songbirds. However, oak savanna is presently one of the most zo http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Endangered Resources/Communities.asp?mode=group&Type=Grassland 4 5 age � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim threatened plant communities in the world. Less than 500 acres of oak savanna are listed in Wisconsin's Natural Heritage Inventory. There is no inventory of oak savanna remnants in St. Croix County. However, some of the identified grasslands have the potential for savanna restoration. RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES AND COMMUNITIES The DNR Bureau of Endangered Resources maintains databases of endangered plants and animals. The Bureau urges that special notice be taken to protect any and all endangered resources from development. Rare or endangered species and communities are generally very sensitive to encroachment of development and changes in their surroundings. Development on or near the locations of rare or endangered species can threaten their survival. Rare, threatened and endangered species and natural communities in St. Croix County are available listed by township on the WDNR natural heritage inventory web pages.21 AGRICULTURAL LAND Over the past three decades, the western part of St. Croix County experienced a reduction in the amount of agricultural land. The eastern half of the county is predominantly rural, and agriculture continues to be an important part of the economy and society. Despite the loss of farmland, the total number of farms in the county has not significantly changed. In the last three decades, St. Croix County has been part of a nationwide trend of larger farms. There has been a decrease in the number of dairy farms, an increase in acres of corn and soybeans, a decrease in acres of hay, an increase in the number of horses, and a recent increase in direct market and organic farming. State and national agricultural policies, purchasing habits, agricultural practices, international trade, and commodity prices have been the major reasons why St. Croix County has seen changes in the types of agriculture.zz I e Large Animal operations 500-N9 Aromw units( ) 7 1000Aniirrm i tin its(T) G s ® r Ohl I s 21 http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/nhi/ 22 St. Croix County Agriculture and Farmland Preservation Plan. 2012. 4 6 age Acres Harvested 186,000 184,000 182,000 C 180,000 e 178,000 176,000 174,000 17e000 Isar 2002 Harvested in poor County Farm Numbers 2012 Figure 16 Acres xac� z 1400 Figure 7. Inar reported xed n �iv nn iss7ana zaoz) '�County Figure 16 through Figure 18 which include data from the USDA Census of Agriculture illustrate the trends discussed above. Trends are toward increasing acres planted to row crops such as corn and soybeans and decreasing acres planted to hay and silage. Land in row crops tend to have higher erosion rates than land planted to hay and other grasses planted for grain because of reduced soil cover. Acres in Crops and CRP 90000 80000 70000 .... ° ^°°..... .... .... .... 60000 .... 50000 Corn oi,... 0000 Soybeans 40000 �„�;i„,�,,,,,,.Hay,etc. 30000 _ CRP 20000 10000 p 1997 2002 2007 2012 Figure 18. Acres of Corn, Soybeans, and Hay Harvested and CRP Acres in St. Croix County 4 8 a g c There have also been significant declines in acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program in St. Croix County beginning around 2007 (Figure 19). The Conservation Reserve Program requires conservation cover for contract terms of 10-15 years. By reducing water runoff and sedimentation, CRP protects groundwater and helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, ponds, and stream S.23 St. Croix County CRP Acres 50000 ... 45000 40000 ... 35000 ... 30000 25000 ... 20000 ... 15000 ; 10000 ... 5000 0 lD r� 00 M O —A N M t11 lD r� 00 M O —A N M Ln lD t" 00 M O N M 00 00 00 00 dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl O O O O O O O O O O � � � � � dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure 19. Conservation Reserve Program Acres in St. Croix County by Year A transect survey of cropland cover and practices is conducted annually according to standard methods. This inventory, begun in 1999, provides information about erosion rates from cropland and assists in targeting areas for conservation practices. The 2017 transect survey estimates a countywide average soil loss of 2.7 tons per acre per year. There were lower average soil losses estimated in the period from 2009-2017 (2.6 tons/acre/year) as compared with the period from 2001 to 2008 (2.9 tons/acre/year). Average soil erosion rates by watershed are presented in Table 6. Highest rates of erosion were found in the Big Marine Lake St. Croix River, South Fork of the Hay River Trimbelle River, and Willow River watersheds. The soil and water conservation standard for the St. Croix County Farmland Preservation Program and other county programs is for each crop field to achieve a soil loss at or below the tolerable soil loss rate. The weighted average tolerable soil loss for St. Croix County is 4.4 tons per acre. The tolerable soil loss rate, commonly referred to as "T," is defined as the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion for each soil type that will permit a high level of crop productivity to be sustained economically and indefinitely (ATCP 50.01(16)). 23 http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/crpfactsheet0213.pdf 4 9 age � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim mm li a.Vuuum�V��lll�illml Ileum uuum leu �Vm�um umml um uuuu um�m IVuuu Vuumml IVuuu ul�ul� uuuu ul umml uuuu m Vuum IVuuu m u�IIVm Vm IVumi m VI ml���^�w mm� uum mm�mm� IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIII ILIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIII VIIIIIII�II IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIImOiiiii�.,.. 2.8 �•..� IIIIIVu���•,^. a d;;;. .. IIVuw�•`•. u,.... 3.2 2.5 2.7 1.5 1.5 2.5 4.1 6.1 3.0 3.50 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.00 2.80 ,90.... 2.90 .... 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.60 2.50 2.50 2. b..... 2.80 2. b .... 2.20 a� a 2.00 C. EA c 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 al c, 111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MAN A 111111111111111111", ME 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Figure 20. St. Croix County Average Annual Soil Loss gage X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ The Erosion Vulnerability Assessment for Agricultural Lands (EVAAL) tool is a GIS model that highlights areas that are highly susceptible to soil erosion. EVAAL analysis was conducted for the Willow River and the results can be accessed through the online story map page. The county may use this data during plan implementation to identify priority areas for implementing conservation practices for improving surface water quality. MEN I IN iii III iii ill!1 DNA Welcome • p , R 1 9 II ezi a nWnnsn aw owa E v a u v i iwnai r !'w 1 � aMi�4�M���ialrt�q f `%+d umm tEau s .. � wr rci u, e r a v a eua ai�a�aaru iv f i o / v� Ai V(WH a a s M M' M P d Yf A� '� �ea�„vrem emosvno'�s�smar awrv�atsmmt rn.�ia ,;.waysnea bow b� ,. f/ela,✓�,a.. //� bra h! 1C, m� e wa�on�i arce mm�,aea ro��o.ng�i��, r m ev i https:Hmsa-ps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=905586554cb64f9a8l 01 dbc33232d34b 5 1 ac ��� � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim POPULATION The 2017 population estimate for St. Croix County is 87,828.24A little less than 50% of these people live in incorporated areas. St. Croix County is part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that had a total of 3,968,806 people in 2010. Population growth and development patterns in St. Croix County are heavily influenced by its proximity to the Twin Cities metro area. The county's population has more than doubled since 1980. The county had the fastest growth rate in the state of Wisconsin in the mid-2000s, and growth rates remain in the top seven of Wisconsin's 72 counties in 2017. Much of the county's population and growth in population is concentrated in the western portions of the county closest to the Twin Cities.zs Figure 21 illustrates population density from the 2010 US Census. Figure 22 depicts how cities, villages, and towns have changed in population from 1970 to 2010. Larger population gains occurred in the western half of St. Croix County. Towns in the eastern half of the county experienced a growth of no more than 499 people. The Towns of Forest and Stanton and the Village of Deer Park lost population during this 40-year timeframe.26 I � p Population Density '' � ,.r.. Population per Seq..Mile p..25. 2S-5D75-100 s d1... . 1150 200 II(IU(U1111111111�500.1000 +200 12 5!)i I 5n E6 20 1 Au,pdo�d Cae vp aPf a esr ats us g Cw..2060 C,onnu,u&Lock Gvn 11 u 1 Figure 21. St. Croix County Population Density (2010) 24 Demographic Services.Wisconsin Department of Administration. 25 Demographic Services.Wisconsin Department of Administration. 26 St. Croix County Comprehensive Plan Agriculture and Farmland Preservation Plan.2012. age ;6 aJ Populaftarr Change �Y81p � -253 x'27 -d7 .253-20 1-19 153 934 83,5-2167 2565 / '� ..,,w�( 1uVV VV�VVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVViVViViVVV VV�V�VVVVw�l iqi, 2:168-7'775 ) muuu Buu fi4.g is uuuum uuuuuuum�u uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum i�uuuuuuuuuuu�i°i. �; oioum i m I i i m i i uuuum uuuuuuuuum uumiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum uuuuuumiuuuuum i imi mmmmmm 255 ,l / �� i uiiiuuuuui���iii i i u uuuumiu2u iu8i4muuuum 13 R 20 331 170 177%1 921 %�lrllll� 12 umu r i �V VVV V 7a 9 960 i Nuu¢ r, 1� Y T8 %i 401 N 32 b2 13 63 � 2002� a �.Uy'���k�rr�aaa�r��rNrawr�s� 5au1-WN—&,DOA EA.. 1977.2017 Figure 22. Population Change by Municipality (1977 to 2017) The Stillwater Bridge/St. Croix River Crossing which opened in 2017 creates uncertainty for St. Croix County. The report Community and Economic Impacts of the St. Croix River Crossing: A St. Croix County Perspective provides information on how the crossing may affect future population growth and economic development along the Highway 64 Corridor and within greater St. Croix County. The study analyzes impacts to the corridor communities in western St. Croix County separately from the rest of the county. These % / „..,,,communities include: the % Towns of St. Joseph, fill,,,r/i/ ,rill/rill ,A/m/ iiii/�,,, Somerset, Richmond and Star Prairie the City of New Richmond and the Villages of North Hudson, Somerset, and Star Vit" Prairie. Precise future ' impacts from the St. Croix River Crossing are difficult to predict but, the river ;y crossing study makes several key findings. A X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a g e COMMUNITY ANDC N IC IMPACTS Under several different OF THE ST. CRoix RIVEROI : scenarios, population Y FINDINGS RE:POPULATION projections show growth for St. Croix County and the 1 -Infrastructure improvements can be seen as a catalyst for change, but combined corridor are neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee economic and population communities for the period growth rates in surrounding areas. Infrastructure quality is important, but is between 2015 and 2040. just one of many potential factors that drive a region's development. Based on these projections, #2 - Population growth trends in the county and metro area are changing. St. County is estimated to add These growth trends are influenced by several larger demographic and between 19,000 and 31,000 economic shifts. The trends suggest that it is less likely that St. Croix residents over this 25-year County will return to the growth rates experienced in the 1990s and 2000s, period Figure 23). Corridor even with the improved crossing. communities are projected to #3 - Despite projected slower growth rates, the population in St. Croix add between 6,100 and County and Corridor communities likely will continue to grown pending a 10,300 residents. Using a dramatic change in the regional or national economy. household size of 2.5 people, #4 - Population projections are not absolute, but should instead provide county housing units could guidance for policy development. increase by a range of 7,600 to 12,400 from 2015 to 2040. 180000 Model 1 160000 ollll�lllllllll lllllIIIIIIIINOff i ci al tate 140000 Model 4 120001 100 000 �« � H istc ry 80000 T Model 2 60000 1 Model 40000 20000 1990 1995 2000 2015 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Figure 23. St. Croix County Historical and projected Population Growth (4 Models of projection) 27 27 Gillaspy Demographics. Presentation 2014. 4. age NUrindiaeir of Major andll Ihlltlircr SL.Ilbtativls'iwi Lots Mn Saint C,ror x COUnty furry)1.997 2017 1400 1.200 1000 41ctt7 "I(YD 0ca1 1999 2000 2(Y.)1 2002 2003 2(Y.)1 2005 2006 2007 2 Y)R 2GJ9 2010 2011E 2012 013 2014 2015 MI 6 201'7 fA ti Su6d ,I Lots ',Mzjor Y 1 ...iron Lot', ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 24. Number of Subdivision Lots (1999-2017) Land divisions in St. Croix County were highest in 2000 and 2005, fell dramatically from 2005 to 2007, and have remained at relatively low levels through 2017 as shown in Figure 24. Sanitary permits provide another indication of new construction in rural areas not served by sewer systems in St. Croix County. After a decline in new construction beginning in about 2004 and reaching lowest levels in 2007-2012, construction has increased slightly through 2017 (Figure 25). St. Croix County, WI, (Rural 'Sanitary Permits Issued by Year 1000 876 700 8 815 37 800 777783 737 700 648 680 667 662 622 a 600 564 572 u 5015 Ogg 500 5o0 465 440 r 426 7 400 371 377 357 374 r a 332 350 300253 281 264 28 241 258 207 225 187 200 182 167 158 181 178 2 2 2 3 3 1 133 I 130 jo�jjj 1 3 7� 8 6100 j 0 1776 1777 1778 1777 20001 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2007 2010 20111 20112 2013 2014 20115 20116 20117 1111 Nllew C®instiruietiDin ouu Replacements 11111E Total Issued Figure 25. Sanitary Permits issued (1996 -2017) X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 55 a5c ion Population growth and concurrent residential and commercial development can lead to negative environmental impacts. Surface water and groundwater can become polluted. Wildlife habitat, quality farmland, and open space can be lost to development. Recreation waters can be degraded and recreational lands lost or negatively impacted by increased use. During home and road construction, when the protective cover of vegetation is removed, there are dramatic increases in the rates of soil loss and resulting sedimentation of water resources. Poor road construction can lead to ongoing erosion problems. Urbanization and other human activities disrupt the natural course of water as it moves across a watershed. Removing vegetation and constructing impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, and rooftops greatly increases the amount and rate of stormwater runoff. As a result, water levels fluctuate more in streams. With less infiltration, there is decreased base flow and greater runoff during and after storms. These changes may bring flooding, increased water temperatures, decreased oxygen levels, greater channel erosion, and increased sedimentation. As stormwater runoff crosses the urbanized landscape; it picks up fertilizers, pesticides, debris, salt, oil, grease, other toxic substances, and sediments and carries them to surface waters. age IDENTIFICATION OF CONCERNS AND PRIORITIES The 2017/18 plan update focused on update of resource information, review of the goals and objectives, accomplishments to date, and implementation of activities. The Advisory Committee and county staff working group reviewed goals and objectives and identified current concerns and priorities for the future. Accomplishments for each goal from the 2008 plan are summarized below with a focus on the most recent five years of plan implementation. ® Croix Countycclis is ( ) ro Jt ....... Illy a c kIIII IIID St. Croix County uses several tools that are helpful for establishing priorities, managing programs, and tracking project status. The Transcendent program provides broad-scale, parcel-level tracking with functions such as tracking notes for landowner site visits and production of Certificates of Compliance. GIS tracking systems are used to create detailed reports and representative maps. GIS shapefiles and feature classes track the locations of agricultural BMPs. For example, a GIS shapefile is used to track the location, acreage, and operator information for crop fields that are operated under a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP). Results of BMP tracking from 2012 —2017 are illustrated in Figure 27. A parcel-based GIS geodatabase is used to monitor NR151 compliance for Farmland Preservation Program participants. This FPP layer can also produce maps to aid in landowner understanding of program requirements and benefits. Digital Producer File Folders store items associated with a given landowner such as engineering documents, NMP files, FPP certificates, photos, notes, etc. SnapPlus & SnapMaps are tools used to produce reports and create maps relating to our annual Transect Survey and corresponding soil erosion data. IIII° IIII " IIID GoaIIIIs IIID° IIII " III ) I. Protect and improve groundwater quality and quantity to supply clean water for drinking and recharging surface waters and wetlands. 11. Protect and enhance surface waters and wetlands to preserve and restore their water quality, ecological functions, and recreational and scenic values. 111. Protect and restore fish and wildlife habitats while enhancing water quality, recreational opportunities, and natural beauty. IV. Preserve agricultural land and soils for crop and livestock production, scenic values, and wildlife habitat. The figures that follow illustrate St. Croix County project accomplishments from a typical year (2016) and a selection of annual accomplishments under each plan goal. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 7 a g e ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim Land and Waters v ti cclis is ( ) F- -1 '40,�".L -------------------------------------I r g .� Imro ,w ni Collabloratio 359 acres r73 Projects Coveir Crop well Establishment 6 'IF244 119 s M i a • • Farmilaind Preservation Program, (FLP) Contracts Acr�es FLP J H✓ / � r a5 ���`� � IIII iiir '..j . t IIIA IIII liii IIID iii ., GoaIIII IIII : and improve groundwater t quality and quantity to supply clean water for drinking and rechargingsurface waters and wetlands. Implement Transcendent Technologies tracking software system that tracks all perinits and c:ocle Conducted enforcement Ground and Drinking'Waiter actions for septic: Surface's niter Tests for towns systems StUdy Group 1 Completed three 60,000 lbs. of well and four hazardous waste animal waste collected at storage structure Clean Sweep abandonments event IIII iiir .. . . IIIA IIII liii IIID iii ., GoaIIII IIII IIII : t and enhance theirand wetlands to preserve and restore i . , ecological functions, and recreational and scenic Nutrient Exceeded Management Phosphorus, Farmer EducatiorI Nitrogen,and Lake Mlallaliieu Course where sediment Lake participants reduction goals Management generate a 590 in National Fish Plan,andl Willow nrutriient and Wildlife River TMDL management Foundation grant Implementation plan for their final report plans completed. operation deliverables. 14111 41111 4101 � V 141111 Awarded Lake Received Planning Grant to �300,000 update the Bass Targeted Runoff Lake Management Mlanagerrnerit (TRM)Grant for Plan and develop Rush River a new watershed Watershed management plan for Perch, Lake. 5 C:) aSG � � IIII iiir .. . . IIIA IIII liii IIID iii ., IIIIIIII IIII IIII : t fish and wildlife quality,habitats while enhancing water. and natural . Couunty Tree Prograrn Land Acquisition results in the sale of adjacent to County 14,000 trees aindConstructed 15 fish Park for prairie shrubs,aind',26 native cinlbs at Bass Lake aind'', restoration aided b plant flats 1.5 at Glen Lake Hwy 64 funding # #11 to Peirformed 3"Invasive Restored 2,5,00 ft.of P'Naurt Management trout stream with Pia uis"for landowners, paitners Daft and TLV, Implemented stabilized 500 feet off Ibiologicall control eroding creek bank,. program for Pu:rpde converted',cropland to Loosestri'fe,hosted 5.5 aches of pollinator workshop,on habitat and 7.7 acres Knotweed,and of riparian corridor worked with County through Conservation Highway Department Reseirve Enhancement on invasive species, Program control IIII iiir .. III IIII liii IIID iiiiii II � agricultural it for crop and livestock production, scenic values, and wildlifehabitat. Grant awarded' to start Farmer Led Council in Dry Run Creek 100 Farmland' watershed Preservation Are featured which funds Program and speak can grass contracts, conservation at waterways,soil equalling over a stop on the testiing, and 20,000 acres Discovery Farms cover crops enrolllled Water tour Oil 4111 Oil 1411 1611 Comprehensive More than Revision to 2,000 people Chapter 17,AG- attend' Farm 1,&AG-2 Ciity Day Agricultural Districts concluded . II at _._........................................................... - _ m ....... ... - -- � YVd'12 s 466 63 64 63 6Vdi 4 .p ^�64% J j 4 63 126 f! ,V�'•�J. � ``510® a 0 000 A V ( ® q ya A ® 0 e ! a 170,I N Xu qp ♦ 9 � � � '� ® y 3 ` n 35 0 NN . OFA ^:. pp,, X29 X35 ........,,............... , /' ,,,,,,, ,,,, V Iley Figure 26. Wells Properly Abandoned through county cost share programs from 2003-2017 X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ gage ion Null% 6r W �. U X �1 0 � X XE `' X IY.0 5 Y m .IM u X o IIIgR XE uuu � I� p � w i 7 IVB WIWtlIB 199 _ m i � � IIII u o rn X VIS � X a X U 4 &0 N v ro h 110 a Op o n. lap W� a � 'x""10 w*uuu b /i"'S COum dG X J Z K .. Z LL Z < Z h L,j !2 ry C9 Y `r : L LLI O W Zd < 0 � O UC7 � < WZ Z � Q q : Z U Z2E '0 U W 0 Q J � LLJ �^^ � M..d 11J W Cr — (n fn J U) 61J ry L'Y H n J Z < ia'S a7 rW [KJ f'— w > R) X CCQ eI1CY1 � , KL [- Ujm U O JZ< cnC( ca Q. W0 © .mow 0� CD cn¢ w utC U a z c z2CL r- 0 0 % F-1 < ,'N 0 rl- 0 &a Figure 27. St. Croix County Conservation Practices 2012-2017 2 gage X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ Chapter 3. Goals, Objectives and Activities The goals established in this plan represent priorities for land and water resource management in St. Croix County. The advisory committee reviewed and updated the goals in 2018. It is acknowledged that no one goal is prioritized over another. Instead, there is a continual need to seek balance in the attention given to implementing activities under each goal and the sometimes competing interests that may occur with implementation of the activities. PLAN GOALS 1. Protect and improve groundwater quality and quantity to supply clean water for consumption and other uses and recharging surface waters and wetlands. 2. Protect and enhance surface waters and wetlands to preserve and restore their water quality, ecological functions, and recreational and scenic values. 3. Protect and restore fish and wildlife habitats while enhancing water quality, recreational opportunities, and natural beauty. 4. Preserve agricultural land and improve soil health for crop and livestock production, scenic values, and wildlife habitat. 5. Develop and connect with active environmental stewards and future leaders to support and carry out the above goals. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES An implementation strategy is provided for each goal in the following section. The objectives are the detailed and measurable steps toward reaching each goal. Activities are the means for reaching the objectives. Priority activities are shown in bold lettering. The objectives that correlate with each activity are identified in parenthesis following the activity. Implementation of activities to be completed in 2018 is detailed in the work plan in Appendix B. There is also a list of activities to be carried out primarily by partners or considered at a later date. Additional lower priority activities were considered, but eliminated from the plan because of resource constraints. An information and education strategy is included for each goal. OVERALL ACTIVITIES 1. Coordinate Community Development Department, primarily Resource Management Division (RMD), activities with other county departments, nonprofit and other non- governmental organizations, neighboring counties, and state and federal agency partners. 2. Utilize existing resource plan goals and priorities in county decision-making processes. 3. Implement changing state and federal regulations locally. 4. Provide input to federal and state policies and programs. 5. Provide software, hardware, staff training, and data for an integrated geographic information system (GIS). Map and house this data appropriately. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a g c ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim INFORMATION AND EDUCATION STRATEGY Information and education activities will be critical to reaching each plan goal. An information and education strategy is outlined in the boxes following the objectives and other activities for each goal statement. In the information and education strategy, target audiences and key messages are identified, and the recommended activities to deliver those messages are listed. New messages and activities may be developed as the plan is implemented. Initial implementation of the information and education strategy is outlined in the one-year work plan. The strategy will be evaluated and modified along with other components of the work plan each year. Targeted information and education activities are used for each of the plan goals. Educational tools that are common to more than one program are listed below. A given educational strategy may use several of these educational tools. Citizen engagement and governance are important components of implementation of this plan. More information about St. Croix County's strategy is found under Goal V. General recommendations for the educational • A part-time environmental education/volunteer coordinator gives focus to and coordinates natural resource educational efforts in St. Croix County. • Staff that deal directly with the public by answering the telephone or greeting clients are trained to distribute appropriate educational materials and refer clients to the appropriate staff person, department, or agency. • Outreach to the public about the skills and resources available through the Resource Management Division (RMD) helps the department carry out its mission effectively. Common Educational Tools IIP . lii4 • Newspaper articles, conservation columns and public service announcements • Newsletter articles: Public Health, Aging and Disability Resource Center, Sportsmen's Alliance, lake districts, Farm Bureau • County intranet • County internet • Social media, podcasts, email • Advertising campaigns- newspaper, radio (River Falls-WEVR, Baldwin -95.7), cable • Direct mail YovtIh I t,l ° iii • School presentations/classroom activities • Field trips • Service learning days • Conservation speech contest • Conservation poster contest • Envirothon 4 a g c IIII t Educat,Jan • Staff presentations/seminars • Workshops • Tours and demonstrations of best management practices • "Coffee and Conversation" or"Lunch and Learn" - casual conversations with conservation partners • Displays at events: e.g., county fair, farm city day, sport shows, Garden U, art fair, hot air balloon festival, Earth Day • Clearinghouse for information/brochures • One-on-one contacts iiia n ° iiiaIII a t,J:ii ° iiia a IIII t iir t a l . iiia . s Each of the first four goals has targeted audiences for message delivery. Where audiences are common to more than one goal, they are listed below. • Agricultural landowners • Residential landowners • Agricultural service providers • General public • City, town, village, and county officials • Developers, builders, surveyors, etc. • Youth: schools, organizations • Adult organizations: sportsmen's groups, gardening, non-profit organizations • Faith organizations X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a g c ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim GOAL I Protect and improve groundwaterlit tit to supply clean consumption uses and recharging surfacetl III J . .t'J . s 1.1 Quality drinking water is available to residents of St. Croix County. 1.2 Groundwater is protected from contaminated surface water. 1.3 Groundwater is conserved so that adequate supplies of groundwater are available. 1.4 RMD conservation practices are designed to protect groundwater quality and quantity. 1.5 Land surface infiltration capacity is conserved or enhanced to preserve natural recharge of groundwater supplies. 1.6 Groundwater data is expanded, updated, and utilized for decision making. IIII Illy IIII Illy IIII.. s..: IIID a D t IIII: Ilr a .t:l Nutrient and pest management plans (includes a conservation plan) Riparian and wetland buffers Filling and sealing of unused/abandoned wells BMPs that infiltrate stormwater Illy Illr . IIID. Growridwater GeograIpIhliicIIII Illy liii r liii :l Towns of Richmond, Erin Prairie, Hammond High nitrate test results Urban development nearby High groundwater susceptibility Dry-run Farmer Led Council - Active citizens - Field tests - River sampling data t'IIII III"t'IIII . S21 Technical cassistance 1. Implement best management practices by providing technical assistance and promoting and administering federal, state, and county cost share programs. (Objectives A, B, C, D, E) a. Increase the number of acres in nutrient management plans. b. Increase enrollment in Farmland Preservation Zoning. 28 Advisory committee top priorities are listed in bold. age c. Monitor installed best management practices emphasizing compliance checks for nutrient management. Enforcement compliance 2. Evaluate parcels, notify regarding compliance status, offer cost sharing, provide technical assistance, and participate in enforcement actions to implement the NR151 Agricultural Performance Standards in accordance with the priority farm strategy. The Agricultural Performance Standards Memorandum of Understanding is included in Appendix A. ( A, B, C, D) 3. Review stormwater design, maintenance plans, and land use permits for groundwater concerns under the land division and the zoning ordinances. (A, B, C, E) 4. Review nonmetallic mining operation and reclamation plans. Participate in revisions to the ordinance as needed. (B, E) 5. Revise the county's land use, agricultural operations, and zoning ordinances to protect groundwater resources.29 (A— F) 6. Update county construction site erosion control and stormwater ordinance. Consider infiltration/impervious surface standards to maintain groundwater recharge. (A— F) Policies c 7. Develop a county protocol for urgent response to actual or potential water resource pollution events that threaten human health, the environment, or natural resources. (B) Evaluation/Monitoring 8. Develop a scientifically sound drinking water well testing program to create baseline data to measure drinking water quality over time (F), including: ■ Repeat testing of rural wells every five years for consistent recording of pertinent data ■ Recommended to test 1,000 wells every five years,which is 6 percent of all wells in St. Croix County (^'16,000) ■ Maintain and improve the county database of all well construction records and water test information ■ Increase participation in the existing drinking water well testing program ■ Offer free water quality screening to increase education and participation ■ Develop a public health certified lab to test bacteria & nitrates. Additional Activities These activities are either not scheduled for immediate implementation or would likely be carried out primarily by partner groups. 9. Identify and map environmentally sensitive areas and conduits to groundwater to improve siting of POWTS, wells, spreading, etc. (A, B, D, F) 29 More detailed recommendations are found in the St. Croix County Groundwater Study(2017) https://www.sccwi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2378 7 age � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim 10. Develop a plan with cost estimates for constructing another inset model (to the USGS groundwater model) for areas of interest and concern. Conduct research to determine the source of nitrate issues, distinguishing between non-agricultural or agricultural sources. (F) • Research source of nitrate issues • Input and model data • Analyze nitrate source results 11. Combine groundwater data from various agencies and incorporate into GIS layers. Evaluate groundwater quality and track inventory results by aquifer. (F) 12. Use groundwater data to analyze the effectiveness of various land uses and conservation practices in the protection of groundwater quality and quantity. (D, F) 13. Develop a county groundwater management plan or complete elements of the plan which might include the following: (A— F) ■ assess and map the location of groundwater recharge areas ■ establish wellhead protection areas ■ identify and encourage groundwater conservation measures ■ provide opportunities for regional stormwater infiltration ponds ■ plan for regional water-supply needs ■ assist in the implementation of municipal wellhead protection plans ■ implement groundwater/wellhead protection in local ordinances ■ encourage and cost-share for the proper fill and sealing of wells. ■ require the fill and sealing of any unused wells at time of property sale. ■ establish special stormwater requirements for high-risk industries (as allowed in NR151). (A, B, C, E, F) 14. Promote partner programs that increase infiltration of runoff water. These include but are not limited to, CRP, EQUIP, WRE, CREP, SAFE, and Partners for Fish and Wildlife. These and other partner programs and funding sources are listed in following pages. (E) 8 age GROUNDWATER I DUCATIONAL STRATEGY Audiences Private well owners Public well owners: golf courses, parks, schools, campgrounds, trailer parks Private and public well operators: city and village workers Well drillers, plumbers Realtors and appraisers Chemical suppliers Messages 1. We all drink groundwater in St. Croix County. 2. Groundwater health hazards include: nitrates, volatile organic compounds, and bacteria. 3. Septic systems need regular maintenance (pumping). 4. Groundwater is a limited resource; conserve groundwater. 5. Encourage infiltration to maintain groundwater level. 6. Groundwater recharges surface water. 7. Wetlands protect groundwater. They should be protected and restored. 8. St. Croix County's geology and soils make most of the county a recharge area. Don't dump oil, anti-freeze, or other hazardous liquids on the ground. 9. Landscaping alternatives to large, manicured lawns protect groundwater. There are fewer chemical applications, less fuel consumed and more precipitation infiltrating to recharge groundwater. These methods also save time. 10. Fertilizers contain nitrate. Nitrate in groundwater can cause health problems. 11. To protect groundwater use proper chemical application amounts and techniques: read labels, follow directions, measure properly, and dispose of containers correctly. 12. Use environmentally friendly alternatives to chemicals, pesticides, etc. 13. Avoid over-watering after applying chemicals. This forced leaching can push the chemicals into groundwater. 14. Sinkholes are direct conduits to groundwater and need to be protected from runoff. 15. Abandoned wells are direct conduits to groundwater. They need to be appropriately filled and sealed. 16. Nutrient management plans are required for municipalities and private sites with more than five acres of turf. 17. Promote low impact development such as conservation design land divisions. Tools/Activities Interactive groundwater model for presentations Septic system maintenance reminder postcards Individual well tests supported with groundwater information Groundwater information distributed with land use permits Increase promotion of cost sharing for filling and sealing wells Clean Sweep programs 6 9gage � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim GOAL 2 Protect and enhance surfacet tl to preserve and theirrestore lit , ecological functions, recreational and is values. III J . .t'J . s 2.1 Maintain/improve the water quality and clarity of St. Croix County lakes and streams. - Reduce phosphorus loading by 20% in the portions of the St. Croix River Basin within St. Croix County. - Achieve established water quality objectives for additional TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) and ORW (Outstanding Resource) water bodies such as: Willow/Lake Mallalieu (TMDL) Bass Lake (ORW) Squaw Lake (TMDL) Perch Lake (ORW) Cedar Lake (TMDL) 2.2 Land infiltration capacity is conserved and/or enhanced to maintain surface water quality. 2.3 Conserve and/or enhance warm and cold water fisheries. 2.4 Restore and/or conserve ecological functions of wetlands, forest, and riparian buffers. 2.5 Maintain and enhance recreational and scenic values associated with surface waters and wetlands. 2.6 Establish water quality goals and implement best management practices using watershed- based management. 2.7 Prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species within surface waters and uplands. 7 0 : age OverView of IIIA IIIA lir . a IIID toMit 151 1 lir Viii IIII t lir�. IIII IIII r r iiir a t�. iiia �. iiir s The specific roles and responsibilities of St. Croix County and state agencies in implementing these standards are outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the County and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. This agreement will be used to assure compliance with all the agricultural nonpoint performance standards and prohibitions. A copy of the MOU is provided as Appendix A. Under this program approach, the St. Croix County Community Development Department Resource Management Division (RMD) will conduct status reviews of cropland and animal production areas for compliance with NR151 Agricultural Performance Standards and Prohibitions as part of existing cost sharing and permitting programs. In conducting the evaluation, the RMD will determine which of the state standards apply to parcels being evaluated and determine the extent of compliance for each of the applicable standards. While conducting status reviews, staff use a flow-chart type checklist as a tool to determine compliance with applicable NR151 conservation performance standards. The information from the status review form is used to document the compliance status of landowners. The status review results are then uploaded in the county's GIS tracking system so staff can track, monitor, and create reports pertaining to overall NR151 compliance throughout the county. Upon completion of the evaluation, the RMD will review the results with the landowner and provide the opportunity for review, comment, and appeal. In circumstances where full compliance has not yet been achieved, the RMD will work with the landowner to secure technical assistance and cost-share funding available to pursue compliance. Farms subject to regulatory enforcement of the state standards include: 1. Operations which require permits under the St. Croix County Animal Waste Management Ordinance to install or alter manure storage facilities. 2. Operations enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program. 3. Livestock operations which are new or expanding and which require zoning or special exception permits for livestock expansion through the (St. Croix County Land Use and Development Code of Ordinances (Chapter 17). 4. Operations which are subject to state jurisdiction under WI Stats. 281 and Wis. Administrative Rules NR243 or NR151 that are found to be out of compliance with the NR151 agricultural standards, as determined by a site evaluation conducted as part of routine permit monitoring or in response to a public complaint. r Viii lir i IIII . iiir iiir ni s Currently there is high demand for administrative, technical, cost-sharing, and regulatory services administered through the Community Development Committee. To most efficiently and cost effectively meet these demands, the priority categories of farms and water resource areas where efforts will be most focused are identified below. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 7 1 : a g e ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim FARMLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM and NR 151 - CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS' 1) Landowners with Cropland or Pasture: a Cropland and Pasture Sail Erosion Colntroll 0 Maintain soiill erosion rates at or below Tolerablle level, "T" ❑ Control gully erosion a Cropland and*Pasture Nutrient Malnagement Annually develop and follow a Nutrient Management plan that meets Natulrall Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)Standard 590 on cropland). • *On pasture land) if: ❑ Receives mechanical)applications of nutrients,and/or ❑ Is stacked at>1 animal unit per acre during the grazing season • Average rotational phosphoruls index(PI)of 6 or less,and annual PI of 12 or less,on alll cropland,pasture land,and winter grazing areas • Tillage Setback • No tillage within 5"(up to 20')from surface water 20 Landowners with Livestock,Livestock Facilities,or Manure: o Manure Storage Facilities o New Construction and Alterations must meet NRCS Standard 31.3. o Manure storage facilities must be closed within 2 years of abandonment according to NRCS Standard 360. a Manure storage facilities that are failing or leaking must be upgraded, replaced,or closed). (Note:These activities all require an Animal Waste,Storage Facilities Permit from St.Crolix CountyCorrtinnunity Development Department p'uor to Ineg,innlin3 worlk.) to Cllealn Water Diversion 0 Divert runoff away from feedlots, manure storage, and barnyards. Applies to: ❑ Livestock Producers within 'Water Quality Management Areas (WQMAs). (v4fQMAs are areas within 300'oftiiver or streant� areas.vwlithin 1000'of lake,fllowage©r ponds and butes susceptible to grotundvwater contandiriatioon or pnotentiial direct condulit to grc a rnclwater.) • Process Wastewater Management • No significant discharge to waters of the State. Applies to:feed leachate, milking' center waste,wash water,watering system spillage or overflow, etc. • Manure Management Prohibitions o All Livestock Producers ❑ No overflow of manure storage facilities ❑ No unconfined manure piles in WC,MAs(see above for definition) ❑ No direct runoff from feedlots,stored manure, and barnyards to waters of the State ❑ No unlimited livestock access to waters of the State where sod or vegetative cover cannot be maintained) Footnotes:`Inforrmationall SUMMary only. See wII Administrative Codes ATcP 50 and N,.p.151 for complete codesand details.. •=new"2012°"standards) gwrnd—di 9�ns"reu.9/18,1/11,s/iv,7115,7/14,9114,21/L4,11/15), 7 2 age High Priority for Services • St. Croix County farms located within the St. Croix River Basin, for practices that meet or exceed the performance standards for nutrient management, in order to achieve the basin nutrient reduction goal. • Farms located within watersheds of impaired waters where TMDL reports or implementation plans have been or are being prepared, with highest priority for practices that address the identified impairments. Impaired waters in St. Croix County that meet these criteria at this time include the Willow River (Lake Mallalieu), Cedar Lake, Red Cedar River, and Squaw Lake. For these waters, excessive nutrients are the primary pollutant. • Status reviews for compliance with NR151 Standards for farms located in the county that are in cost sharing, permitting, or other programs that require compliance with one or more of the state standards: o Animal Waste Management Ordinance o Livestock Siting Special Exception permits o Farmland Preservation Program participants o Participants in other voluntary cost sharing programs (DNR, SWRM, DATCP SEG, TRM, or other programs) • In responding to public complaints or staff observations, highest priority is assigned to: o Sites or farms identified above as high priority for services o Sites or farms where there is an immediate threat to fish, wildlife, and habitat o Sites or farms where resource impacts are severe, and compliance can be achieved cost- effectively • Technical and administrative support for local units of government undertaking initiatives to improve water quality. Medium Priority for Services • Farms located within watersheds of ORW or ERW waters. • Farms located within watersheds of impaired waters where TMDL reports or implementation plans are not yet being prepared. • In responding to public complaints or staff observations, medium priority is assigned to: o Sites or farms identified above as medium priority for services o Sites or farms where impacts are less severe and/or achieving compliance is just moderately cost-effective. X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 7 3 a g e ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim Low Priority for Services • All other operations NR1 1 Non-Agricultural Performance Standards Construction Sites >1 acre ® must control 00% of sediment load from sites tormwater management plans and practices on developed sites (>1 acre) must meet standards for: Total suspended solids Peak discharge rate Infiltration Riparian buffers Developed urban areas (>1000persons/square mile) must address the following: Public education Yard waste management Nutrient management Reduction of suspended solid 1114.E lilt ilii . . ri . iiia t I: lir�. .t:till IIP S 30 lilt ilii�: : . �.�: iiia�. BMPs to reduce agricultural soil erosion: grassed waterways, cover crops, no-till, clean water diversions, etc. Riparian and wetland buffers Nutrient management plans sir iiir . iiia it a IIIA IIID till IIII: lir till ° lir lii[t Willow River Watershed (TMDL Implementation) is . �ir�. IIIIt,J lii[t,Jlii . S31 Technical cassistance 1. Implement best management practices by providing technical assistance and promoting and administering federal, state, and county cost share conservation programs. (Objectives A - G) a. Monitor and track conservation plans and practices and assess resource needs. (F) 2. Provide training for farmer developed nutrient management plans. (A) Enforcement compliance 3. Evaluate land parcels, notify landowners of compliance status, offer cost sharing, provide technical assistance, and participate in enforcement actions to implement the NR151 Agricultural Performance Standards in accordance with the priority farm strategy. The Agricultural Performance Standards Memorandum of Understanding is included in Appendix A. (Objectives A, C, D, F) 30 Advisory committee top priorities are listed in bold. 31 Note that activities in bold lettering are advisory committee priorities for implementation. 7 4. II Nage 4. Update and implement county animal waste ordinance and agricultural facility regulations as needed or required by state statute or regulation. (A, C) 5. Update and implement county stormwater and construction site erosion control and land division ordinances, and provide floodplain review. a. Continue long-term monitoring and enforcement for maintenance of stormwater facilities. b. Consider techniques and standards to address thermal pollution of cold water streams. (A-F) c. Encourage conservation design land divisions to maintain open space. (A— E) Evaluation/Monitoring 6. Complete transect survey for soil loss. (A) Additional Activities These activities are either not scheduled for immediate implementation or would likely be carried out primarily by partner groups. 7. Provide technical assistance and promote cooperative projects between the county, private non-profit conservation organizations, lake associations and districts, and the state and federal government partners. (A - G) 8. Encourage preservation of riparian and other resource areas through conservation easements and land acquisition. (A - G) 9. Develop stormwater management plan and/or complete plan elements listed below: ■ Map land uses and model pollutant loading ■ Recommend appropriate stormwater management methods ■ Provide homeowner education ■ Encourage woodland owners and forestry service providers to conduct forest management according to DNR recommendations and guidelines. (A-E) 10. Conduct ongoing inventories to identify sensitive areas such as dry runs, small wetlands, and other waterbodies to provide information for land division ordinance plan review, stormwater planning, and land use permit review. (A - F) X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 7 5 a g e AGRICULTURAL EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY GY Additional Audiences Absentee landowners & renters Women Caring for the Land Messages 1. Agricultural Performance Standards are outlined in Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR151 which establishes expectations for compliance and consequences for non-compliance. 2. Statewide standards are in place to protect soil health and surface water and groundwater quality. 3. Cost sharing is available to implement state performance standards. 4. Farmers are carrying out conservation efforts. 5. Sustainable agriculture practices help your business and protect natural resources. 6. Soil is an important resource. Protect your soil health. 7. Follow UWEX recommendations and nutrient management standards for phosphorus crop requirements. 8. Keep nutrients where they are beneficial. 9. Excess nutrients may adversely impact water quality. 10. Soil erosion may adversely impact surface water and wetlands. 11. Winter spreading of manure can cause surface water and groundwater pollution. 12. Wetlands should be protected. 13. Wetlands protect surface water and groundwater, control flooding, and provide wildlife habitat. 14. Buffer strips protect surface water: lakes, streams, and wetlands. 15. Rotational grazing is economically viable and benefits herd health and the environment. 16. Alternative waste treatment systems are under development. Tools/Activities Distribute information prepared by DNR regarding NR151 One-on-one work with farm operators (e.g., conservation planning, nutrient management plans) Spring and fall radio spots on managing nutrients, winter spreading Signage at manure application sites Farmer training: soil health, nutrient/manure management, conservation practices Tours of local conservation successes Native tree and plant sale 7 6 age X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ NON-AGRICULTURAL AL DUCATIONAL STRATEGY Additional Audience Elected officials (including towns) UDC construction inspectors Lake associations and districts Homeowner's associations Realtors and appraisers Tourism businesses Forestry service providers Golf course owners and managers Messages 1. Surface water quality depends on upland land use. 2. The St. Croix River Basin has a 20% phosphorus reduction goal. 3. Everyone is connected to surface water by ditches or storm drains. 4. Lawn care chemicals can negatively impact surface water. 5. Nutrients adversely impact water quality by causing algae blooms that affect the water appearance, aquatic species, and cause odors. 6. Residential sources of nutrients include septic systems and fertilizers. 7. Inhibit algae growth by decreasing phosphorus runoff. 8. Non-Agricultural Performance Standards are outlined in Wisconsin Administrative Code NR151. Establish expectations for compliance and consequences for non-compliance. 9. Construction site erosion control is required and critical for protection of water resources. 10. Impervious surfaces increase runoff and water pollution. 11. Practices like porous surfacing, rain gardens, infiltration basins allow infiltration and improve nearby surface water quality and prevent flooding. 12. Describe the difference between a 25 year and 100 year storm event. 13. Designing and planning for the 100 year storm event provides a greater level of safety. 14. Wetlands protect surface water and groundwater, control flooding and provide wildlife habitat. 15. Protection of wetlands and shoreland vegetation is preferable to restoration. 16. Describe conservation practices: vegetative buffers for lakes, streams and wetlands. 17. Encourage town and other municipal road departments to use the WI County Highway Association's Standard Erosion Control Plan. 18. Tourism is good for the local economy. 19. Aquatic invasive species threaten to take over native species habitat and create nuisance conditions. Aquatic plants can be spread by boats and trailers into lakes and streams. Inspect boats and trailers to prevent transporting invasive species. 20. Protect sensitive trout resources and the cold water ecosystem - Trout need cold water 21. Home values drop as water quality diminishes. Additional Tool/Activities Presentations at town meetings: e.g., stormwater management planning Support volunteer monitoring efforts: Water Action Volunteers, Citizen Lakes Monitoring Workshops: e.g., erosion control, rain gardens, invasive species management Compost bin distribution Demonstration projects Clean Boats/Clean Waters program Native tree and plant sale X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ / ./ Nage ion ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim GOAL 3 Protect and restorefish i l l i habitats while enhancing water quality, ti I opportunities, natural beauty. III J . .t'J . s 3.1 Preserve remnants of native habitats, reduce fragmentation, and restore habitat areas. 3.2 Protect agricultural lands adjacent to priority habitat areas from development. 3.3 Preserve and restore shoreland, wetland, and aquatic habitat. 3.4 Control and eradicate invasive species. 3.5 Encourage native species diversity. 3.6 Establish county land management practices as models for habitat protection. 3.7 Encourage sustainable forestry practices. : IIII lilt ilii . � ,.. iiia n t IIII: lir�. .t:Ilii lilt ilii.. �..: iiia�. • Riparian buffers • Streambank restoration sir iiir . iiia it a IIIA IIID Ilii IIII lilt Ilii r Ilii :l • Twin Lakes— Clapp • Erin Prairie o Prevalent row crop • Casey Lake o Bird conservation area • New Richmond o Adaptive management project— funding for CRP and conservation BMPs o Nutrient trading o Coordinates with other goal priority areas 73 age Act liii liii it liii es`k Technical and fincassistance and Partnerships 1. Provide technical assistance and participate in cooperative projects between the county, private non-profit conservation organizations, and the state and federal government for habitat restoration and land protection. These projects may include wetland, forest, prairie, and stream and lake restoration projects. (Objectives A— G) 2. Promote and coordinate land management activities of priority focus areas such as the Western Prairie Habitat Restoration Area and other private, local, state, and federal habitat protection and restoration programs. (A— E) 3. Sell native trees, shrubs, and prairie plants. (A, C, D) 4. Provide input for management policies and practices on county-owned and managed lands (including road rights-of way) to ensure prairie remnants, forests, and other natural communities are preserved and managed in a sustainable manner. Review county-owned land management policies periodically. (F) Enforcement compliance 5. Monitor county-held conservation easements annually and enforce them as needed. (A, B, C, E, G) Additional Activities These activities are either not scheduled for immediate implementation or would likely be carried out primarily by partner groups. 6. Assess the interest in a local purchase and/or transfer of development rights program for preservation of undeveloped natural and agricultural lands and then study how to implement a program at the town or county level. (A, B, C, E, G) 7. Review and update county cost-sharing practices and standards to support habitat improvements. (A — G) 8. Refer woodland owners and forestry service providers to DNR foresters for forest tax law information, technical assistance, forest management planning, and cost share opportunities.(G) 9. Assist with inventory and update of environmental corridors, environmentally sensitive areas, and quality habitats such as native community remnants as information is available. (A, B, C, E) 32 Note that activities in bold lettering are priority activities for implementation. 7 9 age � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim HABITAT EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY Additional Audiences Absentee landowners & renters Women for the Land Aquatic Habitat Messages 1. Shoreline and aquatic habitats are home to a diverse variety of creatures; if we preserve their homes, we can enjoy their presence. 2. Shoreline regulations are in place to protect habitat for fish and wildlife, stabilize the shoreline, and limit visual impacts of development. 3. Aquatic habitat is destroyed by sediment carried in runoff. 4. Technical assistance is available to restore shoreline habitat. Upland Habitat Messages 1. Prairie and woodland were historically prevalent in St. Croix County and are important wildlife areas. 2. Prairies provide habitat for threatened songbirds and mammals. 3. Undeveloped land and native plant species provide many benefits including diverse wildlife, surface and groundwater quality, soil erosion control, recreation, economic, and natural beauty. 4. Rotational grazing provides quality pasture, healthy cattle, and enhances wildlife habitat. 5. Agricultural land adjacent to natural habitat areas enhances wildlife and recreational benefits. 6. Blocks of wooded and grassland habitat are better than small, scattered, fragmented pieces. These contiguous wildland corridors are essential to sustain healthy wildlife. 7. Wisconsin Managed Forest Law program offers sustainable forestry alternatives to agricultural land owners. Forest management can complement farming operations or replace grazing or cultivation of less productive land. 8. Invasive species threaten to take over native species habitat and create nuisance conditions. Activities Encourage use of conservation easements and other land protection tools. Encourage habitat protection in land division review (conservation design development) Promote available government programs such as CRP, CREP, SAFE, FRPP, MFL, WFLGP, and WRP. Provide technical assistance to landowners of small tracts. Encourage landowners to preserve native plant remnant communities. Support and promote a model "green development." Include consideration of habitat, fill and seal wells, POWTS, recycling, composting, low-impact lawns, etc. Promotion of public access on private lands (similar to DNR Project Respect) School involvement (e.g., trees, prairies, wetlands, New Richmond schools environmental learning center) Host landowner invasive species control workshop Provide invasive species control guidance to Highway Department. Native tree and plant sale 8 . gage X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ GOAL 4 Preserve agricultural land and improve , iI health , crop and livestock production, scenic values, wildlife i t® b J . .t'J . s 4.1 Preserve potentially productive agricultural land. 4.2 Discourage development of prime agricultural land. 4.3 Maintain agricultural land adjacent to designated habitat areas. 4.4 Encourage preservation of scenic and open space areas. 4.5 Maintain soil health through appropriate agricultural practices. wir iiir . iiia GeograIpIhliicIIII iiir liii r liii :l Towns (to encourage agricultural preservation zoning): Emerald, Richmond, Warren, Hammond t,IIII IIII t,IIII s` Technicalc 1. Implement the Farmland Preservation Program using conservation planning and soil erosion control practices. (A— E) 2. Encourage implementation of BMPs and sustainable farming practices to maintain soil health. (E) 3. Compensate farmers for wildlife damage to crops. (C) Partnerships 4. Partner with other agencies and organizations to protect agricultural land from development. This activity includes working with local land trusts in purchase of development rights (PDR) initiatives and seeking alternative federal, state, and local funding sources to purchase development rights. (A— D) 5. Assist and provide resource information to protect agricultural land as part of town comprehensive land use planning including identification of Agricultural Enterprise Areas. (A— D) Additional Activities These activities are either not scheduled for immediate implementation or would likely be carried out primarily by partner groups. 6. Assess the interest in a local purchase and/or transfer of development rights program for preservation of undeveloped natural and agricultural lands and then study how to implement a program at the town or county level. (Objectives A — D). 33 Note that activities in bold lettering are priority activities for implementation. 3I age � � AGRICULTURAL LAND EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY GY Additional Audiences Absentee landowners & renters Women for the Land Messages 1. Farming is an important part of St. Croix County's economy. 2. Agricultural land demands fewer services than residential or commercial land. 3. Tools are available to protect farmland. 4. Protecting agricultural land can protect open spaces. 5. Agricultural land can provide wildlife habitat. 6. Protecting farmland promotes good land use planning. 7. BMPs can improve economic productivity while maximizing erosion control. Tools/Activities Encourage protection of agricultural land in conservation design developments. Volunteer training to promote federal and state conservation programs Partnerships between sports groups, conservation organizations and farmers Field days which welcome non-agricultural groups to tour agricultural operations Training courses for teachers Native tree and plant sale 8 ' a g c GOAL 5 Develop connect with , activei I stewards future leaders to supportt the aboveI ® b J t'J s 5.1 Increase citizen involvement and expand partnership capacity by adopting the following Civic Governance standards as a means to improved water quality. a. All those impacted by the problem are stakeholders and help define the problem in light of civic principles34 and the realities of their situations. b. All stakeholders are accountable for contributing resources (leadership/time, knowledge, constituencies and dollars) to solve the problem. c. All stakeholders engage in decision-making and policy-making that contributes to the common good. d. All stakeholders implement policies grounded in civic principles in the places where they have the authority to act. 5.2 Support and promote new and existing partnerships by working to help build the civic infrastructures necessary for complex problem solving. 5.3 Market departmental goals and objectives through social media, mailings (conventional media), and/or one-on-one contacts with key stakeholders. Promote the economic value of water quality improvements by making a case for a need to invest in the future of our resources. "`IIII III"tIIIIe 5 1. Encourage acceptance and expansion of Farmer Led Councils within TMDL watersheds. 2. Continue staff engagement with civic governance training opportunities. 3. Support existing partnerships with conservation organizations by having a presence at meetings, group functions, and educational activities. 4. Promote departmental conservation efforts through newspapers, newsletters, and other publications. 5. Make staff available for one-on-one contacts with stakeholders (landowners). IIII a rt nr IIID liil IIIA s 6. Partner with local, state, and federal units of government to protect water resources and to enhance and protect wildlife habitat. 7. Continue to develop Farmer Led Councils. 8. Develop partnerships with agricultural businesses and the private sector. 34 The Civic Principles are: Human Capacity(to govern for the common good), Democracy(a system of governance that requires citizens to govern for the common good),Active Citizenship(role that obligates all stakeholders to govern for the common good), Political Competence (mindset and skill needed to carry out obligation of active citizenship), and Institutional Efficacy(societal structure needed to sustain democracy and develop active citizenship) 3 3 age � � ''i liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim Chapter 4. Plan Implementation The land and water resource management plan is a ten-year strategic plan for the St. Croix County Community Development Department, primarily providing direction to the Resource Management Division (RMD). Although the plan is developed to guide the RMD, cooperation of natural resource agency and organization partners will be sought in its implementation. PARTNERS The Resource Management Division staff frequently work together with other departments and agencies to carry out plan activities. One way this occurs is through promotion of available federal, state, and local programs. For example, the RMD promotes the Farm Service Agency's State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement program (SAFE) to encourage restoration of prairie habitat, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to implement agricultural best management practices. Initiatives with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Natural Resources restore prairie and wetland habitat and enhance stream habitat. Good communication enhances coordination of activities. The RMD will seek to improve communication by undertaking the following activities: Identify RMD programs and cooperating/interested agencies. Establish coordination based upon specific priority programs. Provide cross education to increase the understanding of various programs, agency roles, and terminology. Schedule presentations about programs on a regular basis including at town board, lake organization, and farmer organization meetings • Distribute packets of resource materials • Videotape and provide RSS feed of Community Development Committee (CDC) meetings and provide for video, agenda presentation materials and minutes on St. Croix County web site • Utilize TMDL implementation teams to provide updates on various programs. Support staff time allocated to sharing information. Stress the importance of active communication and working together. Additional Partner Activities Coordinate a community calendar of partner events Assist in grant writing Participate as active members in partner conservation and government organization meetings Support conservation partner workshops, training, and events 4 a g c ST. CROIX COUNTY PARTNERS Federal ➢ Environmental Protection Agency ➢ Natural Resources Conservation Service ➢ National Park Service ➢ US Fish and Wildlife Service ➢ US Geological Survey State ➢ Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection ➢ University of Wisconsin - Extension ➢ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ➢ WI Tax Law—Tax 18 list of partners Local ➢ Adjacent counties ➢ Cities and towns ➢ Lake districts ➢ St. Croix/Red Cedar Cooperative Weed Management Area Business ➢ Crop consultants ➢ Title companies ➢ Well drillers ➢ Banks/financial institutions o Ag Star o Bremer Bank o Westconsin Credit Union o Royal Credit Union o Farm Service Agency ➢ Implement dealers o Frontier Ag & Turf, Value Implement ➢ Crop suppliers o Synergy Coop o Countryside Coop ➢ Utility companies o St. Croix Electric Nonprofit I Organizations ➢ St. Croix River Association ➢ St. Croix Basin Team ➢ Green Fire (retired group of DNR employees) ➢ Sustain Rural WI Network (and other advocacy groups) ➢ Friends groups ➢ Tropical Wings ➢ St. Croix Bike & Pedestrian Trails Coalition ➢ Snowmobile clubs X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ a g c ion ➢ Garden clubs ➢ Lake associations ➢ Farmer-led councils ➢ WI Land and Water Association Agriculture Organizations ➢ Farm Bureau ➢ Farmers Union ➢ Corn Growers Association (national and state) ➢ Soybean Growers Association (national and state) ➢ Soybean Board ➢ Cattlemen's Association ➢ New Richmond High School SOAR (Student Opportunities with Agricultural Resources) Educational Center Land Trusts ➢ Kinnickinnic River Land Trust ➢ West Wisconsin Land Trust ➢ Star Prairie Land Preservation Trust ➢ Standing Cedars Land Trust Sportsmen's Ili c cit r clubs ➢ Ducks Unlimited ➢ Kinni Bass Masters ➢ Pheasants Forever ➢ Trout Unlimited ➢ Wisconsin Waterfowler's Association ➢ Hudson Rod Gun Archery Club ➢ National Wild Turkey Federation Schools ( <m ) and Universities ➢ St. Croix Research Station — SWAT ➢ University of Wisconsin River Falls Others ➢ Kinni Partnership ➢ Western WI Conservation Council - groundwater study ➢ Venison Donation Program a g c WORK PLAN AND TIMELINE A 2018 year work plan to implement the objectives contained in this document is included in Appendix B. The work plan identifies planned activities with benchmarks and performance measures. It also includes staff hours and expected costs (including for cost sharing). The document will be updated each year both as a year-end report and a plan for the upcoming year. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES The St. Croix County Land and Water Resource Management Plan is a document that can be used by all of the partners that work to protect natural resources in St. Croix County. A combination of private, local, state, and federal funding sources will be sought to implement the priorities of the plan. As funding opportunities arise, the plan goals and objectives will be referenced to develop project applications. A partial list of potential funding sources is outlined below. The lead agency to pursue funding will depend upon the individual activity being pursued. Local residents, staff, and elected officials should also use their influence to structure the development of state and federal grant programs whenever possible. Private Sours o Private Foundations • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation • McKnight Foundation • Excel Energy Foundation o Individual Contributions o Volunteer Hours o Lake Associations and Districts o Conservation Organizations (see partner list) LSI Government Sources o St. Croix County Department budgets o Cities with Adaptive Management/Pollutant Trading budgets (Hudson, New Richmond, etc.) State GV i Sources o Department of Natural Resources • Targeted Runoff Management • Stewardship Grants • Lakes Planning Grants • Lakes Protection Grants • Aquatic Invasive Species Grants • River and Stream Planning and Protection Grants o DNR Wildlife Sources • Pheasant Stamp • Segregated Funds (general license) • Wisconsin Waterfowl Stamp • Turkey Stamp X11111111111111111111111`\\\\ 7 a g c ion • Trout Stamp (Inland) o Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection • Annual Joint Allocation Plan (SWRM — DNR/DATCP) • Nutrient Management Farmer Education Grants (NMFE) • Farmer-Led/Producer-Led Grants o Department of Transportation (mitigation funds) o University of Wisconsin Extension o Wisconsin Environmental Education Board Grants Programs o Cooperative Educational Services Administration o Wisconsin Geologic and Natural History Survey o Wisconsin Groundwater Resource Center Federal Sources o United States Department of Agriculture • Farm Service Agency ➢ Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) ➢ Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) ➢ State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) • Rural Development Administration • Natural Resources Conservation Service ➢ Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) ➢ Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) ➢ National Water Quality Initiative ➢ Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) • Environmental Protection Agency ➢ Environmental Education Grants ➢ 319 (Clean Water Act) Grants (passed through via WDNR grants) ➢ Five Star Grants • U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ➢ North American Waterfowl Conservation Act (NAWCA) ➢ Partners for Fish and Wildlife • National Park Service 83 age Chapter 5. Monitoring & Evaluation This chapter addresses both water quality and habitat monitoring for evaluation of progress toward meeting plan goals and tracking of plan activities. Although they are interrelated, each has a distinct function. WATER QUALITY MONITORING Recommendations related to improving water quality data for the land and water resource management plan are stated below. • The Department of Natural Resources should invest resources in monitoring lakes, rivers, and groundwater in St. Croix County in accordance with DNR's Water Resources Monitoring Strategy. • The Department of Natural Resources and St. Croix County should support efforts of lake groups and other organizations to pursue funding for lake and river management projects. • The Department of Natural Resources and St. Croix County should encourage and support self-help monitoring programs. A partial list of current efforts to monitor water resources is included below. uIuui�I uuuu uI Iuuiul uI uI uul�uul uui�I uuI uuiul uI� Iluuuuuulluuuuu uliul uI ullVuu���� ulMhul�ulluul ul�ul ullVuu uu uI uI ul�ul��������� uuuul udIllVullluuuu ul�duul lout "a uulmul m�m�m Resource Responsible Agency Lakes DNR Lakes Organizations Illluuuo Iluuu a�u ul�lllllllli�i Illiuuii a Imm uuuuuilluuioiulllllu Iluuii lium ulllun�lu Illuu u��u a uullluu u�u�u�{uIY��° es g ouuMnmliuui aiiiiilauilmuu�uu�uaI IIIIII ummhauuivau�um Lakes DNR, Lake's Organizations III mu 4u luulluu ui III�6lul°r Illlll llllill l Lakes/Streams DNR, USGS, RMD Illlluuuu uu Illiliil I�lu�u a Illuu luilmu a ulu�u Ilei I�µ w DNR Lakes/ Lakes/Streams u�umluluull u6m uumu ul� II S , USGS llllllol�llllll Iluui IIII a q w q q wV. Lakes/Streams DNR uuuuiu�ullluuuu luuuuuu uuuou a urIIIVu uuu uuuu loom loom uuuu u�u�u mini u�{u lou uuu �IIIrImII IIIIIIro' Illllu l lhI Illllllll{II Groundwater RMD, County Public Health IIII uuil�u uuliliiu a III urVu utluu�iIIIIVItIu�u II w ml�llll�lll{Illlllllllll�ir I�I�ir I Rivers/Streams RMD, UWEX ss A YSI in situ data sonde is available to assist with surface (and potentially)groundwater monitoring. a g c � � HABITAT MONITORING State and federal agencies that emphasize fish and wildlife habitat restoration and protection have many ongoing efforts to monitor habitats and species. Some of these efforts are listed below. The RMD does not intend to carry out habitat monitoring activities for the implementation of this plan. Instead it will support habitat restoration efforts and utilize monitoring data from other sources. �m uumm uoum m umim m m mem uumm uuuu m�lum uuimi um m�m�m Vuu m�m m�lum um m�m m�m.°: uuuu�mli um m um uuoo Resource Responsible Agency Restored wetlands USFWS, DNR Rare, Threatened, and endangered plant and animal DNR species Christmas bird count Audubon andhill crane Intl.,Crane Foundation Frog and Toad Survey DNR Breeding bird,survey DNR Deer Count DNR Woodcock/grouse survey DNR Pheasant Sportsmen's Alliance/DNR Alliance/DNR Breeding waterfowl survey USFWS Monarch habitat use/suitability study USFWS, UW, Monarch Joint Venture, USGS CITIZEN MONITORING Volunteer citizen monitoring will be encouraged to assist in evaluating progress toward goals and objectives and to increase public involvement. Participation in the Department of Natural Resources Self Help Lakes Monitoring Program will be encouraged to monitor progress toward improving lake water quality. Bass Lake, Lake Mallalieu, Perch Lake, Squaw Lake and Cedar Lake currently have active volunteers. Citizen monitoring is supported by the Kinnickinnic River Land Trust, Kinnickinnic River Priority Watershed project, University of Wisconsin River Falls, Water Action Volunteers, and Trout Unlimited. . a g c INVENTORIES Inventories track changes in land use or land management practices that affect water quality or habitat. Several methods are currently used by resource agencies to track these changes. uluui�l uuuu ul luuiul luuiu ul udllVul uuuu uuu uuuu uul�u ul uu�luuuu ul uljul uu luuuul uljul uulluuuu ul�ulluuuul uuu ul Iu�IVu uul�1 uulul Iluul�uul�lluul ul u�uu Iluul�uluul uuuuu Iu�IVulVuu I��I u�uIVu luliu' I ul�Vl uuum�lug ul�m�u colli'uuul�Vl ml�ill uum Resource/Source Responsible AgE.'C1Cj/' II'''' 11oIIIIM(IIIIIIIIIII1111II Barnyards RMD �llu Vuim inion IIS uu lug Vmml o VI IVum Cropland RMD puuu Ag Practice Pollutant RMD WIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Vdlllll IIIII�I lillil Reduction WIIIIIIII� III 111111 Ag Practice Pollutant Reduction RMD IIII 1111111 IIIIIIII m IIIIIIIIII�IIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIII II IIIIIIIIII Ilmllll Closed & Sealed Wells RMD/DNR IIuIIIIIIIImrIIIIIIIIIIIIIImIdI Animal Waste Facilities Community Development/RMD VIII IIIIIIIIIIII��IIIII IIIIIIII IlllllV�llllllllll�llllllllll�llil Nonmetallic Mines Community Develo me nt/RMD/DNR IIuIIIII IlllilolluullllllillilillIlllulllimll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 6111 uIIIIIIuII IIIIIIIIIrIIIIIIifI16lIIII Groundwater Community Development/RMD �rmIIIIi °I111IIrmf�Vlllllr°r'Irlullllllmlllllulllllllrr Land Use Community Development/NRCS mil mm�� a uili Land Cover Community Development/DNR uuuuu I uu u�llu IIIIIIIIII IVu mu m IVUIII IIIIIIII' uum � w Cropland FSA Illluuum IiVmu u�VuOum a noun uum PROJECT TRACKING St. Croix County uses several tools that are helpful for establishing priorities, managing programs, and tracking project status. The Transcendent program provides broad-scale, parcel-level tracking with functions such as tracking notes for landowner site visits and production of Certificates of Compliance. GIS tracking systems are used to create detailed reports and representative maps. GIS shapefiles and feature classes track the locations of agricultural BMPs. For example, a GIS shapefile is used to track the location, acreage, and operator information for crop fields that are operated under a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP). A parcel-based GIS geodatabase is used to monitor NR151 compliance for Farmland Preservation Program Participants. This FPP layer can also produce maps to aid in landowner understanding of program requirements and benefits. Digital Producer File Folders store items associated with a given landowner such as engineering documents, NMP files, FPP certificates, photos, notes, etc. SnapPlus & SnapMaps are tools used to produce reports and create maps relating to our annual Transect Survey and corresponding soil erosion data. PLAN EVALUATION Plan evaluation assesses whether the objectives and activities of the plan are being accomplished. Performance measures are listed for each plan activity in the 2018 work plan in Appendix B. The RMD will report work plan progress each year. I age � � Measures of success and/or evaluation methods are relatively straightforward for most of the objectives. However, evaluating the success of the information and education objectives poses special challenges. It is often difficult to economically measure if an educational technique is effective. Did a particular event such as a workshop change an attitude or behavior; did information in a brochure or video lead to the change; or did an individual act independently of the information and education program? Measures of success will vary by activity. Most activities are geared toward meeting objectives in a few general categories: • promoting the availability of financial and technical assistance; • teaching best management practice techniques; • increasing understanding about the importance of protecting natural resources; • convincing people to change behaviors to protect natural resources; and • increasing citizen engagement. The first two categories are relatively easy to evaluate. Effectiveness of promotional techniques will be tracked by simply asking people how they heard about the program when they sign up for an activity or inquire about a management practice. Knowledge of management techniques gained from workshops and other activities will be evaluated with questionnaires prior to and after events. Assessing understanding and behavioral change that result from educational activities is more difficult. Activities in these categories usually seek to reach a relatively broad audience, and many factors influence an individual's values and behaviors. 9 ' a ? c APPENDIX A APPENDIX A NR151 MOU A Memorandum of Understanding between the St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department and the Department of Natural Resources for the Implementation of the Agricultural Performance Standards and Prohibitions under NR151 January 12, 2005 (As amended July 2006) Prepared by Bob Heise, Director, Land and Water Conservation and Parks Departments St. Croix County Land Conservation Committee Karen Voss, DNR Planner Dan Simonson, DNR Planner John Pfender, DNR Planner A-1 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU A-2 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU Table of Contents GLOSSARY FOR ST. CROIX COUNTY AND DNR NR151 IMPLEMENTATION MOU.....................5 DNR AND ST. CROIX CO. LWCD NR151 MOU.....................................................................................7 Purpose......................................................................................................................................................7 Component 1: Plan the Implementation Approach...................................................................................7 Component 2: Define Level of Agencies' Commitment to NR151 Workload.........................................8 Component 3: Conduct information and education activities...................................................................9 Component 4a: Determine current compliance through records review.................................................10 Component 4b: Determine Compliance through On-Site Evaluation.....................................................12 Component 5: Prepare Compliance Status Report and Inform Landowners of Compliance Status.......13 Component 6A: Secure Funding and Technical Assistance —Voluntary Cost-Share Component.........15 Component 6B: Option to Issue Non-Voluntary NR151 Notice of Cost-Share and/or Noncompliance 16 Component 7: Administer Funding and Technical Assistance...............................................................17 Component8: Enforcement....................................................................................................................18 Component 9. Ongoing Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................19 Component 10: Annual Reporting..........................................................................................................20 APPENDIX A - ST. CROIX CO. LWCD IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR NR151 AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS............................................................. APPENDIX B -WORKING WITH LANDOWNERS TO IMPLEMENT AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER NR151. (FROM CHIPPEWA CO UNT Y MO O.............................................................................................................................................. APPENDIX C— ST. CROIX COUNTY MINIMUM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS NR151 COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT.................................................................................................. A-3 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU A-4 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU Glossary for St. Croix County and DNR NR151 Implementation MOU Compliance Status Report(CSR): A document that is prepared by St. Croix County, that contains detailed information for each practice and facility where an on-site evaluation (field inspection) or records review has been conducted(See Appendix Q. The CSR will include the compliance status and basis for the compliance determination, such as field inspection or records review. The following information was identified by the Chippewa County NR151 MOU to be included in the Compliance Status Report: a. Parcel status (new versus existing) b. The current compliance status of individual tax parcels with reference to each of the performance standards and prohibitions. c. Corrective measure options and rough cost estimates to comply with each of the performance standards and prohibitions for which a parcel is not in compliance. d. Status of eligibility(costs eligible) for public cost sharing. e. Grant funding sources and technical assistance available from Federal, State, and local sources, and third party service providers. f. An explanation of conditions that apply if public cost share funds are used. g. Signature lines indicating landowner agreement or disagreement with report findings. h. The purpose of the report, the implications for achieving and maintaining compliance. i. Process and procedures to discuss evaluation results with county and or state. j. If appropriate, a copy of performance standards and prohibitions and technical design standards. Cost-share agreement and supplemental form for NR151. This document package is to be developed by the DNR. The cost-share agreement offers funding to comply with performance standards and prohibitions. The supplemental form includes a compliance schedule to achieve compliance, requirements to maintain compliance in perpetuity and appeals procedures. Together, the agreement and form meet the requirements of s.NR 151.09 and NR 151.095." On-site evaluation: A process,to be established by the St. Croix County LWCD, for conducting on-site evaluations for the purpose of making a determination of parcel compliance with agricultural performance standards and manure management prohibitions. On-site evaluation form: A standardized form that is developed by St. Croix County for use by county staff, for the purpose of conducting consistent and complete on-site evaluations. The on-site evaluation form should be designed to record all the information necessary to complete the Compliance Status Report. Records review: A process, to be established by the St. Croix County LWCD, for checking information contained in existing files for the purpose of making a preliminary determination of parcel compliance with agricultural performance standards and manure management prohibitions. Similar terms that should be consistent:Records inventory, records evaluation Records review form: A standardized form that is developed by St. Croix County for use by county staff for the purpose of conducting and recording the results of consistent and complete records reviews. Statewide Implementation Strategy: This is the Draft Implementation Strategy for NR151 Agricultural Nonpoint Performance Standards, located in Appendix E-3 of the Draft Land and Water Resource Management Plan Guidelines, 2003. St. Croix County intends to implement select portions of the administrative rules and components of the Statewide Implementation Strategy, as specified in their Land and Water Resources Management Plan and this MOU. A-5 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU A-6 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU DNR and St. Croix Co. LWCD NR151 MOU Purpose This MOU has been developed by the St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Committee (LWCC) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to clarify their respective roles and responsibilities as needed to implement and enforce agricultural nonpoint pollution performance standards and prohibitions established in ch.NR 151,Wis. Adm. Code. • This agreement defines the commitment of each party to conduct administrative tasks that have been defined by Wisconsin conservation agencies as standardized components of a program delivery system. The standardized components are in a guidance document titled Implementation Strath for NR 151 Agricultural Performance Standards and Prohibitions.36 (hereafter referred to as the Statewide Implementation Strategy). Specifically, this agreement clarifies how the DNR and the County will: • Systematically evaluate and define the level of agency commitment to the NR 151 workload using a county-sponsored annual needs assessment and interagency work planning process. • Conduct information and education activities. • Systematically select and evaluate parcels to determine compliance with standards and prohibitions. • Prepare compliance reports and notify landowners of compliance status. • Provide technical assistance and cost-sharing funding as needed to allow landowners to meet performance standards and prohibitions. • Issue notice letters under NR 151.09 and NR 151.095 as appropriate. • Monitor compliance. • Conduct enforcement activities. • Develop annual reports. Component 1: Plan the Implementation Approach The Parties Agree: 1. The Statewide Implementation Strategy provides a structural framework that can be used to discuss and plan how the parties will cooperate to implement the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 2. This memorandum of understanding and the County Land and Water Plan can be used as the means to document procedures for implementing NR 151. 36 This document was prepared jointly by the Wisconsin DNR, Wisconsin DA TCP, the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association and the Wisconsin Association of Land Conservation Employees(April 2002). It was approved by the Wisconsin Land Conservation Board as Appendix E to the Land and Water Resources Management Plan Guidelines. The document can be found at http://dnr.wi.govlorg/water/nps/rules/NRI5]strategy.him. A-7 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU 3. Guidance prepared by DNR and incorporated as Appendix B to this agreement (Working with Landowners to Implement Agricultural Performance Standards &Prohibitions Under NR 151),is useful for making formal correspondence with landowners concerning compliance issues. 4. NR 151.004 contains a process for developing targeted performance standards where implementation of statewide performance standards and prohibitions may not be sufficient to meet water quality standards. 5. Sections NR151.09,NR 151.095, ATCP 50.04 and ATCP 50.08 require agricultural landowners and operators to meet agricultural nonpoint performance standards and manure management prohibitions. These requirements are contingent upon sufficient cost sharing for existing facilities and practices. St. Croix County will: 1. Use this memorandum of understanding to implement select portions of the administrative rules and components of the Statewide Implementation Strategy, as defined in this agreement. 2. Focus NR 151 implementation activities initially on targeted watershed areas. 3. Cooperate with DNR to identify priority areas where the county may apply for funding under the Targeted Runoff Management Program to alleviate violations of performance standards and prohibitions that result in significant pollutant loadings or impacts to waters of the State. 4. Where appropriate, cooperate with DNR in identifying the need for targeted performance standards. DNR will: 1. Use this memorandum of understanding to coordinate implementation of agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 2. Implement select portions of the administrative rules and components of the State-wide Implementation Strategy, as defined in this agreement. 3. Assign an agency representative to actively participate in the County Land and Water Resource Management planning process and provide input into the development of the County strategy to implement agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 4. Work jointly with St. Croix County to set mutual priorities for implementing agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 5. Provide St. Croix County with guidance needed to fulfill its agreed-upon roles and responsibilities to implement portions of NR 151. 6. Where appropriate, cooperate with St. Croix County in identifying the need for targeted performance standards. Component 2: Define Level of Agencies' Commitment to NR151 Workload The parties agree: 1. There must be a mutual understanding of each agency's responsibilities and level of commitment in carrying out implementation of agricultural performance standards and prohibitions,including implementation and enforcement activities identified under NR151.09 and NR151.095. A-8 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU 2. The extent of each agency's commitment is dependent upon the availability of public funds and agency priorities and,therefore,may be expected to change through time. St. Croix County will: 1. Meet annually with the Department to review this Memorandum of Understanding and the associated work load commitment. DNR will: 1. Meet annually with St. Croix County to review this Memorandum of Understanding and the associated workload. 2. Notify St. Croix County of any significant changes in workload capability. 3. To the extent staffing limitations allow,involve the DNR Environmental Enforcement staff in development of NR151 enforcement processes and guidance. Component 3: Conduct information and education activities The Parties Agree: 1. A structured information and educational program is a critical component of an agricultural nonpoint source pollution control program. 2. An effective educational program will meet the following objectives: a. Educate landowners about Wisconsin's agricultural performance standards and prohibitions, applicable conservation practices, and cost share grant opportunities; b. Promote implementation of conservation practices necessary to meet performance standards and prohibitions; c. Inform landowners about procedures and agency roles to be used statewide and locally for ensuring compliance with the performance standards and prohibitions; and d. Establish expectations for compliance and consequences for non-compliance. St. Croix County will: 1. The LWCD will implement a local information and education strategy as outlined in the Land and Water Resource Management Plan, to support NR151 implementation. 2. The LWCD will distribute information and educational material prepared by the DNR. The information may be distributed via news media,newsletters,public information meetings, and one- on-one contacts. A-9 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU DNR will: 1. Work with UW-Extension,DATCP and others to identify and develop I&E materials and activities needed on a statewide basis and to make these materials available to St. Croix County for use and dissemination. 2. Provide input into the St. Croix County information and education program. 3. Assist St. Croix County and the Basin Educator,where possible,with implementation of the Information and Education program. Component 4a: Determine current compliance through records review The parties agree: 1. A significant public investment has been made (through the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program, the Wisconsin Soil and Water Resource Management Program, and the St. Croix County Land Conservation Program) to assist owners of croplands and livestock facilities to install best management practices to control agricultural nonpoint source pollution. As a result of this conservation work, there are many croplands and livestock facilities that fully or partially comply with the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 2. Sections NR151.09(3)(b) and NR 151.095(4)(b)require existing cropland practices and livestock facilities that achieve compliance with performance standards and prohibitions to remain in compliance regardless of public cost share. 3. Sections NR 151.09(3)(d) and NR 151.095(4)(d)require new cropland practices and livestock facilities to comply with performance standards and prohibitions regardless of cost share. 4. To establish a baseline for program implementation,it is in the public's interest that documentation be made of the location of cropland practices and livestock facilities that were in compliance as of October 1, 2002, and to inform the landowners,in writing, of the compliance determination and the requirements to maintain compliance. 5. State cost-share agreements, subject to contractual obligations of active operation and maintenance plans on or after October 1,2002, can be used to document the extent of current compliance achieved through previous public investments. 6. St. Croix County will use the tax parcel as the basic geographic unit for evaluating and reporting compliance. Where a tax parcel contains more than one livestock facility or cropland practice, the evaluation and reporting system will contain information to distinguish between facilities and practices based on whether they are new, existing,in compliance and out of compliance. 7. The information in landowner files may not be up-to-date. An on site evaluation may be necessary to determine the accuracy of file information. St. Croix County will: 1. Work towards developing a geographic database to input conservation plans,practices, and resource needs and compliance status determinations. A-10 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU 2. Conduct a records review of farms in priority areas and/or priority farms, as shown in Table A-1 of Appendix A. This table comes from the St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department Natural Resource Management Plan, October 2003. 3. Initially select parcels for records review from within the KNC, SCL and SFH priority watersheds. 4. Include in the records review parcels which have priority watershed cost share agreements that were in the operation and maintenance period as of October 1, 2002, and which provided cost sharing for practices that address agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. From the records review, determine whether these practices are clearly in compliance, or whether they have records that are inconclusive and warrant an on-site evaluation to determine compliance, as described in Component 4b. 5. From the records review,make a preliminary determination as to the location of cropland practices and livestock facilities that were clearly in compliance with all performance standards and prohibitions applicable to the parcel. Document compliance that is a result of: a. Installed or implemented BMPs under an existing state or federal cost share agreement; and/or b. Maintaining compliance with state or county animal waste regulations (e.g.NR 243, WPDES, or SWRM programs). 6. From the records review,identify the location of parcels and operations that are inconclusive and warrant an on-site evaluation to determine compliance, as described in Component 4b. 7. Utilize county-developed standardized records review forms to document all record reviews. Document compliance using a county-developed standardized Compliance Status Report form (CSR) in accordance with Component 5 of this MOU document. The DNR will: 1. Evaluate St. Croix County records review forms and Compliance Status Report forms for consistency with status determination and notification requirements under NR 151.09 and NR 151.095. The County CSR is included as Appendix C. 2. Provide information to St. Croix County from the DNR CAOS database (which tracks cost share agreements) as it pertains to KNC, SCL or SFH Priority Watershed and Targeted Runoff Management project cost-share contracts. 3. For large scale livestock operations WPDES permitted facilities: a. Compile records of existing WPDES permits for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) and evaluate these records to determine compliance with NR 151 agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. b. When coverage applies, and at the time of permit modifications or reissuances,incorporate into WPDES permits standards and prohibitions that equal or exceed the requirements of NRI 51. (Note: The WPDES permit does not cover cropped fields where manure is not applied) c. Adhere to the permit compliance strategy and make available to the County copies of inspection records and inspection letters sent to the facility. Make available to the County copies of portions of the WPDES permit application that describes a facility's manure storage, animal yards, and locations. d. Make available annually to the County,by June 30', an updated Nutrient Management Plan for each WPDES permitted facility where applicable. The plan will include current soil samples, spreading reports and a Nutrient Management Plan checklist. e. Make available to the County all draft and issued WPDES permits for their review. A-11 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU Note: St. Croix County requests that the DNR will work towards incorporating UW-Extension recommendations with respect to phosphorus and other nutrients into WPDES permits. Component 4b: Determine Compliance through On-Site Evaluation The parties agree: 1. On-site evaluations are often necessary to document current resource conditions and current management practices, as a basis for determining compliance. 2. The accuracy of on-site evaluations will be enhanced if formal evaluation procedures and protocol are established, and standardized on-site evaluation forms are adopted. 3. Greater consistency in conducting on-site evaluations can be achieved if a structured training program is established to educate staff about the standards, evaluation procedures, and requirements for program documentation. 4. The process for responding to public animal waste complaints,is spelled out in NR243.24, and is routinely administered through the cooperation of the DNR and the LWCD. 5. New or expanding livestock facilities subject to regulations under NR 243 or the St. Croix County Manure Storage Ordinance will be evaluated for compliance with performance standards and prohibitions. The on-site evaluation and Compliance Status Report should be completed prior to issuance of the state or county permits. St. Croix County will: 1. Following the records review process as specified in Component 4a, compile a list of parcels and operations that have records that are inconclusive and warrant an on-site evaluation to determine compliance. 2. From this list,highest priority parcels for on-site evaluations will be a. From within the KNC, SCL and SFH priority watersheds. b. In priority areas and/or priority farms, as shown in Table A-1 of Appendix A, (indicated with "HHP"in the table). c. All parcels with new cost-share agreements signed after January 1, 2004. d. All parcels with priority watershed cost share agreements that were in the operation and maintenance period as of October 1,2002, and which provided cost sharing for practices that address agricultural performance standards and prohibitions 3. Additional sites in highest priority areas, as identified in Table A-1 of Appendix A, and identified through public complaints or staff observations may also be included in on-site evaluations. 4. Contact owners of selected parcels and schedule site evaluations. 5. Utilize county-developed standardized on-site evaluation forms to document all on-site evaluations. Document compliance using a county-developed standardized Compliance Status Report form (CSR) in accordance with Component 5 of this MOU document(see Appendix Q. A-12 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU DNR will: 1. Review St. Croix County on-site evaluation forms and CSR forms for consistency with status determination and notification requirements under NR 151.09 and NR 151.095. 2. Provide a structured training framework and training opportunities to educate DNR and County staff about the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions,procedures for making compliance determinations,policy aspects of program administration and proper documentation. 3. Assist in the identification of environmental models, site evaluation forms, and other assessment tools used to evaluate compliance. Assist in providing training. 4. As part of the County LWCC's annual work planning process have the opportunity to provide: a. The location of livestock facilities and cropland parcels where,if standards are not implemented, there is a high potential for nonpoint discharge that may adversely impact waters of the state. b. A request to the County for an onsite evaluation and report to determine and document the extent of current compliance. 5. Assist in making compliance status determinations for high priority or potentially controversial situations, such as those that may require notification. Component 5: Prepare Compliance Status Report and Inform Landowners of Compliance Status The parties agree: 1. To be valid, the results of a record review and/or on-site compliance evaluation must be documented and be based upon confirmed facts. 2. A standardized report format will allow for the systematic collection and reporting of evaluation results and will provide consistency through time. 3. A local process,independent of a formal administrative appeal under chapter 227, Wis. Stats., can be used to provide for a structured review of any local decision pertaining to an initial finding of compliance or other decision involving the interpretation of NR 151. 4. Site evaluation forms, compliance status reports (CSR's)and associated correspondence are public records that should be retained by a custodial agency. 5. The CSR is a document that can be used to inform the landowner about the compliance status of his/her operation, seek confirmation of information used to determine current compliance, and,if necessary,resolve disagreements regarding compliance status. 6. The CSR provides important baseline information needed to secure and allocate funding and technical assistance to address on-farm conservation needs. 7. A geographic data base and record keeping system is necessary to provide ready access to compliance reports completed over time. St. Croix County will: 1. Establish a local process to provide for reconsideration of local administrative decisions regarding A-13 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU findings of compliance as established in a compliance status report(CSR). The LWCC will be the administrative body that reconsiders decisions made by County staff in implementing NR 151. 2. Following completion of the record reviews and site evaluations,prepare CSR's of the evaluated parcels. At a minimum, a CSR will convey the following information: a. The status of cropping practices or livestock operations based on whether they are "new" (not in existence on the effective date of the rule) or "existing". b. Current status of compliance of individual parcels with each of the performance standards and prohibitions. c. Corrective measure options and rough cost estimates to comply with each of the performance standards and prohibitions. d. Status of eligibility for public cost sharing. e. Grant funding sources and technical assistance available from Federal, State and local sources, and third party service providers. f. An explanation of conditions that apply if public cost share funds are used. (Ifpublic funds are used, applicable technical standards must be met) g. Signature lines indicating landowner agreement or disagreement with report findings. h. Process and procedures to contest evaluation results to county and/or state. i. (Optional) A copy of performance standards and prohibitions and technical design standards. 3. Provide a copy of the CSR and an accompanying informational status letter Type A or Type B to the landowner. Appendix B describes this administrative process and the contents of informational status letter Types A and B. 4. If the landowner disagrees with the facts and findings of the CSR, gather additional information and/or provide the landowner with written procedures and a timeframe to pursue reconsideration of local decisions. 5. Where livestock facilities or cropping practices are not in compliance, assess the relative pollution threat associated with the noncompliance and make a determination regarding the allocation of staff and financial resources under Component 6 of this agreement. 6. Keep and maintain public records, as the custodial authority, following requirements of the Wisconsin Open Records Law 7. Work toward developing a geographically based record keeping system and database to track site evaluations, CSR's and informational status letters issued, CSR appeals, etc. 8. Work toward developing a process for informing landowners of compliance status at the time of property ownership changes. The DNR will: 1. Co-sign informational status letters Type A and Type B,if requested by the County,where the Department concurs with the County's CSR findings. 2. Provide support to St. Croix County in explaining compliance determinations that DNR assisted in developing. A-14 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU Component 6A: Secure Funding and Technical Assistance- Voluntary Cost- Share Component The parties agree: 1. Previous commitments for cost-share funding have been made through cost-share agreements signed under the Kinnickinnic River, South Fork Hay River and St. Croix Co. Lakes Priority Watershed Projects. 2. Section 281.16(3),Wis. Stats., and sections NR151.09(3)(c), and NR151.095(4)(d)prohibit the State or municipalities from requiring that"existing"practices and facilities ,which were not in compliance with the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions on the effective date of the rule, to come into compliance through State regulation or local ordinance unless public cost share funds are provided for eligible costs. 3. NR151.09(3) and NR151.095(4)identify compliance requirements for owners and operators of cropland practices and livestock facilities based on whether the practices and facilities are determined to be "existing"or"new", and whether cost sharing is required and made available. 4. The CSR and accompanying Status Letter(see Glossary and Appendix B) are important informational documents that explain the obligations of accepting cost sharing for practices that bring livestock facilities or cropland into compliance with applicable performance standards and prohibitions. 5. NR151 defines cost share availability requirements for funding administered by DNR under 281.65, Stats. ATCP 50 defines cost-share availability from any other source. These requirements must be clearly understood to ensure that DNR and County staffs make proper determinations of cost-share availability. 6. Cost-share funds to pursue compliance may be available from a combination of public and private non-profit grant sources,including: the Priority Watershed Program, the DATCP Soil and Water Management Program (SWRM),the DNR Targeted Runoff Management Program(TRM),USDA cost-share and land set-aside programs and nonprofit organizations. 7. Developing cost-share funding proposals and grant contracts requires significant knowledge of multiple grant programs, administrative rules, and contracting requirements. St. Croix County will: 1. Prioritize parcels identified as noncompliant through the CSR process,based on the relative pollution threat associated with the noncompliance.Utilize Table A-1 of Appendix A in developing a prioritized list. 2. If feasible, seek additional cost-share funds through the DNR TRM grant program or other State or Federal funding programs. 3. Encourage and receive requests for voluntary cost-sharing and/or technical assistance from landowners. 4. Confirm cost-share grant eligibility and availability of cost-share &technical assistance. 5. When administering state or local cost-share agreements where there is high likelihood that practices will be installed and/or non-compliance is of a nature that enforcement would not be pursued,utilize, when available, a DNR-developed cost-share agreement. A-15 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU 6. When administering state or local cost-share agreements that involve high cost practices and/or are high priority for compliance, consider and discuss with the Department the need for issuance of notification, as described in Appendix B. The DNR will: 1. Provide cost sharing (if available) through the Priority Watershed or Targeted Runoff Management grant programs where there is voluntary compliance and cost sharing is required. 2. With DATCP, seek to secure sources of funding to reimburse the County for its administrative and technical services. 3. Develop a Cost Share Agreement and supplemental form for NR151. The supplemental form informs landowners of their NR151 obligations as a condition of accepting cost sharing, and stipulates that the affected cropland practices and livestock facilities will maintain or be brought into compliance with applicable performance standards and prohibitions, as enumerated in the compliance status report. Component 6B: Option to Issue Non-Voluntary NR151 Notice of Cost-Share and/or Noncompliance The parties agree: 1. Chapter NR 151.09 and NR 151.095 set forth notification requirements that must be met before DNR can initiate enforcement action under Ch. 281, Stats., for non-compliance with performance standards and prohibitions. This includes provision of a notification to the landowner at the time that cost sharing is made available, or in cases when cost share is not required,when the compliance achievement period starts. 2. Notification requirements and cost-share availability requirements vary depending upon the legal authority that is used to enforce the standards and the source of funding. These requirements are documented in Appendix B. 3. Developing and issuing notices of cost sharing under the non-voluntary NR151 option is a joint responsibility of St. Croix County and DNR. St. Croix County will: 1. If a landowner chooses not to voluntarily apply for public funding to install or implement corrective measures that entail eligible costs, or not to voluntarily install or implement corrective measures that do not entail eligible cost,issue landowner notification per NR 151.09(5-6) and/or 151.095(6-7). LWCD will issue this notice jointly with DNR. a. If eligible costs are involved, this notification shall include an offer of cost sharing. b. If no eligible costs are involved, or if cost sharing is already available, the notification will not include an offer of cost sharing. 2. Develop and cosign(if desired and appropriate)notices (letter types C and D). Provide draft notices to DNR regional staff for completion and DNR signature. Appendix B includes standard notification letters types C and D. A-16 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU DNR will: 1. Co-sign (if requested) and issue notices (Letter types C& D) to landowners under NRI 51.09 and NR151.095,provided the DNR concurs with the County's findings. Component 7: Administer Funding and Technical Assistance The Parties agree: 1. If public cost share funds are offered to install conservation practices, through either the voluntary or non-voluntary option, a cost share agreement must be developed and public funds must be accounted for. 2. The successful completion of the conservation planning, contracting, and engineering process requires a broad range of skills and services in the fields of agronomy, engineering, and public administration. 3. The DNR, DATCP and County have, through the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program and the Soil and Water Management Program recruited, supported and maintained a technical delivery staff with proven expertise in administering a nonpoint pollution abatement program for the purpose of meeting agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. St. Croix County will: 1. Establish and administer a budget and accounting system to receive and disperse state funds administered by the County on behalf of the State. 2. Employ or contract professional staff to develop and administer cost share contracts on behalf of state and federal agencies. 3. Employ or contract a certified agronomist or conservation planner, to provide conservation planning services to landowners, and to review the adequacy of conservation plans prepared by private service providers or federal agency staff. 4. Utilize,if available, a DNR-developed cost share agreement and supplemental form for NR 151 as described in Component 6a and as defined in the Glossary. 5. Keep and maintain public records, as the custodial authority, following requirements of the Wisconsin Open Records Law. 6. Upon completion of BMP's implemented through the NRI 51 cost share agreement, conduct an on- site evaluation of the operation to document compliance with the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 7. If the site is compliant,prepare and issue a document that verifies satisfactory compliance with applicable performance standards. See "Satisfaction Letter Type E"in Appendix B. 8. If site is non-compliant, determine whether non-compliance is weather-related,is the fault of the landowner, or whether there has been a willful breach of contract.Nonregulatory remedies, or enforcement action taken by the County will be determined by the Land Conservation Committee, and will be based on the cause of the non-compliance. A-17 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU The DNR will: 1. With DATCP, seek to secure sources of funding to reimburse the County for its administrative and technical services. 2. Conduct program reviews to verify that cost share funding and conservation services have been administered in accordance with appropriate state administrative rules. 3. Co-sign,if requested, a document that verifies satisfactory compliance with applicable performance standards. The "Satisfaction Letter Type E" (Appendix B)may be used for this purpose. Component 8: Enforcement The parties agree: 1. DNR and St. Croix County will use voluntary means, to the extent practical,to achieve compliance with performance standards and prohibitions,but may use enforcement when necessary to meet requirements of ch. 281, Stats., and NR151. 2. Each party has independent authority to enforce standards and reserves the right to exercise that authority without permission of the other. 3. To be effective, the public and affected landowners must perceive enforcement as a necessary option,pursued jointly by the parties, after voluntary measures to achieve compliance have failed. 4. The County has authority to enforce performance standards and prohibitions through local ordinances. The County will rely on DNR to use the state's enforcement authority for cropland practices and livestock facilities that are not covered by local ordinances. 5. DNR has authority to enforce performance standards and prohibitions through a number of statutory options. These include,but are not limited to: a. Referral by DNR to the Wisconsin Department of Justice to seek relief under s.281.98, Wis. Stats. b. Use of enforcement procedures under NR 243 and s. 283.89, Stats., to obtain compliance with performance standards and prohibitions or to resolve a water quality problem. c. Use of other state laws,including citation authority under s. 29.601, Wis. Stats. 6. To be effective, enforcement procedures must be well-coordinated and documented between DNR and St. Croix County, and must be supported by both parties. 7. NR 151.09 and NR 151.095 establish the procedures that must be followed as pre-requisites to enforcement when DNR funds are used or when DNR pursues enforcement under s. 281.98,Wis. Stats. 8. Formal enforcement procedures will generally begin with the issuance of a Notice of Violation. Grounds for issuing a Notice of Violation letter is non-compliance by the landowner or operator with the notice issued under NR 151.09(5),NR 151.09(6),NR 151.095(6), or NR 151.095(7) and as spelled out in Components 6a and 6b of this agreement. St. Croix County will: 1. Enforce the performance standards and prohibitions contained within its local ordinances, and support DNR's lead role in enforcing standards and prohibitions at sites that are not covered by A-18 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU County ordinances. 2. Identify cases where landowners do not follow the requirements of their noncompliance notices and provide this information to the DNR. 3. Participate in DNR enforcement conferences. 4. Provide background information to DNR needed for WPDES permits or to develop referral packages to the Wisconsin Department of Justice. 5. Provide testimony, documents or other technical support for enforcement cases. 6. In circumstances where the County has issued permits or is pursuing legal actions under other authority, ensure that appropriate information concerning those permits or enforcement activity is transmitted to DNR. DNR will: 1. Take the lead role in initiating enforcement action for cropland practices and livestock facilities that are not covered by County ordinances,including issuing notices of violation. 2. Ensure that appropriate information concerning enforcement activity by the Department is transmitted to the County. 3. Schedule and conduct enforcement conferences if appropriate. 4. If a point source discharge exists,issue a WPDES permit or take enforcement action under NR 243 and ch.283, Stats.,if consistent with regional and statewide permitting priorities. 5. Determine compliance with permits if consistent with regional and statewide compliance activities. 6. Prepare referral packages to Attorney General's Office if non-compliance continues and referral is approved by the DNR Secretary's Office. Component 9. Ongoing Compliance Monitoring The parties agree: 1. NR151.09(3)(b) and NR151.095(4)(b)require that existing cropland practices and livestock facilities, which are in compliance on or after October 1, 2002,remain in compliance without the offer of cost share. 2. Ongoing agricultural operations continually change in response to market forces, changes in technology, and changes in land ownership. 3. Periodic compliance evaluations benefit owners and operators, as they make routine business decisions,including capital investments, land rental, and land sales. 4. Routine compliance monitoring benefits the general public by verifying that compliance is maintained. St. Croix County will: 1. Conduct routine compliance monitoring for operations that have received a letter indicating compliance (Appendix B, Letter Types A, B or E). The extent of monitoring will be proportional to the amount of State funding allocated to support this effort. A-19 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU 2. Under the monitoring system: a. Conduct an annual reporting and self-certification program for operations that have an active State cost share contract subject to a 10-year Operation and Maintenance Plan. b. Conduct an annual educational mailing for operations that are in compliance. 3. Respond to public complaints, conduct site evaluations and make compliance determinations following procedures established in Components 4 and 5. DNR will: 1. Be responsible for compliance monitoring on large-scale livestock operations WPDES permitted facilities. Component 10: Annual Reporting The parties agree: 1. Annual reports should track progress toward implementing the NR151 agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 2. The County's record-keeping system must systematically capture information needed for an annual report. 3. To assure effective recording keeping, State agencies must pre-identify their data needs. St. Croix County will: 1. Provide a compliance status summary annually by April 15, on reporting forms provided by DNR . 2. Work toward developing mapping capabilities to show the locations of cropland parcels and livestock operations that have been evaluated, and the compliance status of these lands and operations. DNR will: 1. Develop an annual reporting form for the county to use to report progress on the implementation strategy for NR151. The annual report may include a summary for(1) the county, (2) each watershed and (3) each standard or prohibition. 2. Provide an electronic annual reporting form to the County at least three months prior to the reporting deadline (and as early as possible in advance of the deadline). 3. Work with DATCP to prepare an annual statewide report that documents the status of program implementation. Make this report available to the Land and Water Conservation Board, DNR Board, Agricultural Board,Wisconsin Legislature and other interested parties. Note:DNR intends to develop this report jointly with DATCP. A-20 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B ST. C11 1 X COIJ N Y 2018 ANNUAL WORK PLAN LOCALLY-IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES Table 1: Planned activities and performance measures by category CATEGORY PLANNED ACTIVITIES WITH BENCHMARKS PERFORMANCE MEA' (goal and objective from LWRM plan can If applicable identify focus areas,e.g.HUC 12 (examples in ito be added in each category) watershed code (examples of types of"planned activities"in italics • Cropland Cropland, soil health and/Or NMplan development(500acres) Plan numbers and acres nutrient management NMplanning and training workshop(1) Type and units of practices) installed Grassed Waterways (1 S) Amount of cost-share dollars spent FPP compliance reviews (130) #lbs of sediment reduced(using any a1 Regional biogas and nutrient recovery facility(1) #lbs ofP reduced(using any approveG #acres of cropland in compliance with • Livestock Livestock Clean water diversion(1) Type and units of practices) installed Waste facility closure(3) Amount of cost-share dollars spent Permit waste storage facility(1) #lbs of sediment reduced(using any a1 Livestockfacility siting applications (1) #lbs ofP reduced(using any approveG #olf livestock.facilities in compliance v • Water quali Water quality/quantity Other than Shoreland protection (500 ft) Type and units of practices) installed activities already listed in Other Well decommissioning(8) Amount of cost-share dollars spent categories) Critical area planting(5) #lbs of sediment reduced(using any a1 Karst sinkhole treatment(1) #lbs ofP reduced(using any approveG Milking center waste system(]) Residential well water screening program 100 • Forestry Forestry Native tree and shrub sale(]7,000) Number sold • Invas ive Invasive Species Public inquiries and educational efforts (30) Number of contacts handled • Wildlife Wildlife-Wetlands-Habitat(Other Wildlife damage program funding(20) Number of claims funded than forestry Or invasive species) Native prairie plant sales (15) Number of plant plug flats sold • Urban Urban issues Stormwater and erosion control permits(60) Number of sites visited Stormwater and erosion control reviews (150) Number of plans reviews Number ofpermits issued B-1 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU Number of compliance issues resolved • Watershed Watershed strategies e St. Croix TMDL implementation (4 mtg's) Number of meetings attended/presentai Run Creek Producer-Led project (5 mtg's) Modeling completed is Governance (12 mtg's) Number of partner contacts made son Annis Creek National Water Quality Initiative Information system/tracking developed (4mtg's) Number of partnership development ac geted Runoff Management Grant project area meeting. • Other Other PL 566 inspections (43) Number of plans reviewed -metallic mining and reclamation inspection(20) Number of inspections Permits and Ordinances Plans/application reviews Permits anticipated to be issued anticipated Feedlot permits 2 1 Manure storage construction and transfer systems 2 1 Manure storage closure 3 3 Livestock facility siting 1 1 Nonmetallic/frac sand mining 7 5 Stormwater and construction site erosion control 75 60 Shoreland zoning 50 45 A-2 APPENDIX B T. CI 1 X C IJ N Y 2018 ANNUAL WORK PLAN LOCALLY-IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES Table 3: Planned inspections Inspections Number of inspection planned Total Farm Inspections 150 For FPP 130 For NR 151 20 Animal waste ordinance 5 Livestock facility siting 3 Stormwater and construction site erosion control 130 Nonmetallic mining 7 PL 566 Dam inspections 43 Transect survey for soil loss 1010 Transect survey for cover crops 1010 Table 4: Planned outreach and education activities Activity Number Tours 3 Field days 4 Trainin s/worksho s 7 School-age programs(camps,field days,classroom) 70 Newsletters 3 Social media posts 24 News release/story 6 Table 5: Staff Hours and Expected Costs staff can be combined or listed individual) Staff/Support Hours Costs Conservation and Land Use Specialist 2080 $94,953 Conservation and Land Use Specialist 2080 $94,953 Land Use Technician 2080 $74,502 Land Use Technician 1456 $51,376 Conservation and Land Use Planner 1040 $49,953 Support Staff 416 $29,679 Cost Sharing Bonding 640 $30,000 SEG 150 $15,000 County Cost-share 500 $40,000 TRM 1280 $160,000 Conservation Aids 30 $2,000 B-3 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C. REFERENCES Background, Main Findings, and Recommendations Report for the Protection of Surface and Groundwater Quality in St. Croix County. St. Croix County Surface and Groundwater Quality Protection Study Group. October 2017 Bass Lake Management Plan. St. Croix County Community Development Department and Bass Lake Rehabilitation District. December 2016. Cedar Lake Management Plan. Cedar Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District.2017. Cedar Lake Phosphorus TMDL Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.2003. Community and Economic Impacts of the St. Croix River Crossing A St. Croix County Perspective. University of Wisconsin—Extension Center for Community and Economic Development with contributions from Gillaspy Demographics. Foundation Document for the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. National Park Service. 2017. Ground-water flow and quality in Wisconsin's shallow aquifer system. Kammerer,P.A. Jr. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Investigations Report 90-4171. Heritage Areas of St. Croix County. Wisconsin Heritage Areas Program. UW-Extension. 1976. Kinnickinnic River Watershed Project 1999-2010. Community Report. Kinnickinnic River Land Trust. 2016. Lower St. Croix River National Scenic Riverway Cooperative Management Plan. National Park Service. 2001. National Resource Inventory. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1992. New Approaches to the Farmland Preservation Program. Working Lands Commission Study Paper. DATCP. 2005. Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the St. Croix County Lakes Cluster Priority Watershed Project. April 1997. Nonpo int Source Control Plan for the Kinnickinnic River Priority Watershed Project. April 1999. Perch Lake Forest&Prairie Stewardship Plan. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. April 2002. Perch Lake Management Plan. St. Croix County Community Development Department. October 2016. Pollution Reduction Incentive Program: A Runoff Management Plan for the South Fork of the Hay River Priority Watershed Project. November 1997. Red Cedar River Water Quality Partnership. A Water Quality Strategyfor the Land and Waters of the Red Cedar River Basin. July 2015. Addendum to the Implementation Plan for the Lake St. Croix Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load. 2014. C-1 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU St. Croix County Agriculture and Farmland Preservation Plan. 2012. St. Croix County 2012-2035 Comprehensive Plan. Adopted November 2012 Amended December 2017. St. Croix County Parks and Recreation Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.2008. St. Croix County Development Management Plan . West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, St. Croix County Planning Department,University of Wisconsin-Extension. 2000. St. Croix County Outdoor Recreation Plan. St. Croix County Parks Department and St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Department. 2006. St. Croix County Resource Management Plan Public Survey. St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department and University of Wisconsin Extension. 1999. St. Croix County Soil Erosion Control Plan. West Central Regional Planning Commission. October 1988. St. Croix County Soil and Water Conservation District. Resource Conservation Program. October 1978. St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance Comprehensive Update. July 2017. St. Croix Economic Profile. St. Croix Economic Development Corporation. 2008. St. Croix Lakes Cluster Watershed. Protecting Water Quality And Your Lake. Combined St. Croix County Lakes Cluster Watershed Results. Fall 1998. The State of the Lower Chippewa Basin. Department of Natural Resources. 2001. The State of the St. Croix Basin. Department of Natural Resources. March 2002. TMDL Implementation report for Lake Mallalieu and the Willow River (draft). St. Croix County and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Squaw Lake TMDL Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Stewardship of the Lower St. Croix River and its Watershed. Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Commission. November 1993. Water Quality in the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, Wisconsin. U.S. Geological Survey. D. Graczyk. 1986. Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4319. Western Prairie Habitat Restoration Area Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement. Department of Natural Resources. 1998. Wisconsin Population 2030. A Report on Projected State, County and Municipal Populations and Households for the Period 2000 2030. Demographic Services Center.Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2004. Wisconsin Water Use. 2015 Withdrawal Summary. Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources 2 a 2 e S e �nD t e in llb e ' 4 1 2 () 1 8 C o s in t y :3 o a uIT APPENDIX D Draft Report for CDD/HHS 8-8-2018 Prioritized Recommendations from the Ground & Surface Water Quality Study Report ............... r ^' ne,... �wfmrtmW�Uf✓row:m,.ai rr�rvMs;r..w.w«.mmwnweww.wrrw+a���W "Iro, i UZI, C"'ocul f M' 1/ X ti rd JO a,. IM, funf✓e AfNP 406 ufwr o'mt G J'�roba.... fA f urJ�Uwurt �' T. C R 0" 2a APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Idblf-, (#"'Cbnterits ________________________________________________________________._________ -------------------------------------- �� ---------------------------------------.O BL --------------------9 C. ------------------------------------.9 DL --------------------------------------�9 E. ---------------------------------------------. 1U --------------------------------------. 1U A. Sinkhole identification and Ai..h F�esolUtion Land Cover �NAI --------------------' 1U BL ---------------------------------------- 11 --------------- 1Z DL ---' 1Z f� ---------------------------------. 1Z f� ---------------------------------------------. 1Z -------' 13 -------. 13 fL --------------------- 13 ----------------------------------' 13 DL ---------------------------------------------. 13 i1rior.i 4. increase the nUmber of acres in nUtrient r 1 .5 LH s) ................................................. 14 --' 14 14 B` ---------------------------. 14 C. . 14 DL ----------------------' 1S f� ------------------� 1S f� ---------------------------------------------. 1S Draft Report for CDD/HHS 8-8-2018 f'r°iori1:: 6 ���I�r°r ��1::i�ns r°r.:.�r°r,.�iir.:. 1::17r r°r.:.��1�1::i�ir �f liur�l::�c:lc��r^r�1::i�ir� �irr,.� lic:rir�iir.:. fir°f�c:ilil:: si1::ii�r.:. for. .....................................1..........................................1.....................................................f................................. ......................................... ..................................................................................................................................I......................................................................................................................................f.r............................................................. .............................. ...................... i~r 2.i.n:. rrn [].it rin.....of livestocko�rr°�1::i�ir�fir°1::17r ���r°���r �f �r°ot.ec;1::iir.:. v�f..A ° i,'eSOLJr°ces................................ 16 ..................... .................................................................. .......................................................................................I...........................................................................................................I....................................................................I....................................................... ............................................................................................................ O. �o.:.!"iCL1tU.IeC::� rr° 1::i it C::�r°r,.�ii�ance Co.U.nt vid..^ Ex.is:iir.:. 17 �1::rr . . VVf..A .�tora.:.r^ .VV-.A ....................................................................1...................................................................................................................................................................................".......................................................................................... ............................1.......................................................................................................................... .................................................................. �...Jtilization ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 ............................................................... a �itiir.:. ILic:rnsi.�r.:. Orr,.�ii�anc:r�....... OL.nt v�ir,.�r�....... Er,.�il::iir.:. f..A � ��c��i]rr,.jii�r.:. ha�1::er 17 Z�iriir.:. ............................ 16 ......................... ..................................................... ......................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... ............................1................................................................................. . C. SUrn!..�:�. .!::�....�".f....Costs........................................................................................................................................ 16 Prioril:: 7. Establish active water r,. Uali:: c:orr�rr�i1::1:ee to r^nSLji,'e that the �r°2t.ec;tio.r �f .:.r°���irr,.� 9irr,.� �Ur.face v�ater. .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................I................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................... c,..onl:ii� jes to be a �r°ior°i1:: iSsU � actively�r,.�r,.�r°r��r r,.� k� the O��i�r1:: ......................................................................... 17 1..................................... ................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................. .... 4a APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT lroiectr 1riori ization CDD reviewed and prioritized the water quality study Fimquuure t—The Actii n Priority(Matrix report recommendations according to the over-arching goal of the Groundwater Study Group, "To provide the St. Croix County Board with sound science-based High recommendations for policies that protect the quality of groundwater supply that our County residents rely upon for personal household use and consumption." CDD prioritized the recommendations according to the above goal and the adjacent Action Priority Matrix.The priorities were scored by impact and effort involved. Effort involved includes estimated project cost. The short-term immediate priorities are specific to advancing the understanding of groundwater quality changes; sources of nitrate pollution,whether human, animal, or commercial fertilizer; groundwater flow in Low karst aquifers and mapping of environmentally Low Ef ort High sensitive areas in order to make science-based recommendations for policies that protect groundwater.These priority recommendations include groundwater staff, water quality tests, consultant fees for remote sensing and study of karst aquifers and calibration of the groundwater flow model, and mapping of sensitive groundwater recharge areas. Without this information, it will be difficult to determine the benefits of policy changes implemented through the long-term recommendations. The short-term immediate priorities include the reclassification of an existing CDD administrative assistant position to Water Resources/ Marketing Specialist. It is anticipated that this position would dedicate about 60% of their time to groundwater related activities.The position will be the project coordinator for the drinking- water well-testing program and be responsible for coordinating resources to accomplish the tasks associated with the priority recommendations.The position will be the point of contact for groundwater education, outreach and emergency response. The long-term recommendations include new ordinances and revisions to existing ordinances. County Board efforts to advocate at the state level for changes to statute and administrative rule to allow the county to regulate beyond the state minimum standards would likely be both short-term and long-term. Changes to statute and administrative rule could include: • Allow counties to obtain private water sample test results for the protection of public health • Changes to NR 151, to include St. Croix County karst aquifer bedrock in performance standards that exceed general state standards, similar to the changes for karst Silurian bedrock • Require nitrate removal systems for POWTS in karst aquifers through revisions in state statute and Administrative Code DSPS 383. • Increase well casing and grouting standards for wells in karst aquifers through revisions in state statute and Administrative Code NR811 and 812. • Require water treatment systems, reverse osmosis, nitrate removal, and UV treatment for bacteria in karst aquifers and areas with high test results for new construction and replacement through revisions in state statute and Wisconsin Uniform Building Code. D-5 Draft Report for CDD/HHS 8-8-2018 Implementation of rule changes and ordinances could require additional county staff. The document table of contents outlines the priority of tasks and projects as determined by CDD staff.The chart below lists CDD priority recommendations and a proposed timeline.The priorities are separated into short-term or immediate recommendations and long-term recommendations. For purposes of these recommendations one CDD full time employee salary and benefits is estimated to cost$90,000, one Corporation Counsel employee salary and benefits is estimated to cost &130,000 6 a APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Timeline Project Priority Order # Resource Estimated Costs 2018-2019 Sinkhole Mapping J 2.A Consultant $21,000 Funded l Reclassification of Existing —0.6 FTE$53,000 annually 2018 Position 0.6 FTE of position 3.A 1.0 FTE Co Staff $13,000 annual budget Water Resources increase over existing Water Quality Screening 2019-2029 1.0 Co.Staff Clinic 2019-2029 Baseline Water Quality 1.A Tests $10,000 annually Analysis 2020 Nitrate Source Analysis 1.13 Tests $22,000 Emergency Response 2018-2019 Protocol to Potential 3.6 Co.Staff Pollution Events Emergency Response Bacteria 2018-2019 3.0 Co.Staff Testing Policies 2019 EVAAL Study Kinnickinnic 2.E Consultant $12,000 Watershed Karst Aquifers Groundwater Flow Model,Groundwater 2.B, 2020-2022 Recharge and 2.C, Consultant $75,000-$150,000 Environmentally Sensitive 2.D Areas Mapping Total Annual Cost Water Resource Staff, $63,000 annually Baseline Testing Total One-Time $55,000-$200,000 Projects Timeline Project Priority Order # Resource Estimated Costs Ongoing Increase Acres in NMP 4 1 New FTE $90,000 annually Revise Land Use Policy Research Mid 2024 Zoning Ordinances $180,000 annually Agricultural Shoreland 1 New FTE Ag Implementation 2025 5 $8,000 ordinance Management Ordinance 1 New FTE Well County Administration of development State Well Code Research mid 2024 Livestock Operations and 1 New FTE Ag $220,000 annually Implementation 2025 Licensing Ordinance(s) 6 1 New FTE Legal $20,000-$30,000 ordinance development Total Annual Cost 5 New FTE $490,000 annually Total One-Time Ordinance Projects Development $28,000-$38,000 D-7 Draft Report for CDD/HHS 8-8-2018 1'riority 1. Devekj) a scient ifimlly sound drinking water, ivefl testirig program to opand baseline data in order, to rneasure drinking' water quality over tirrie. Baseline Water Quality Testing The Community Development Department (CDD) and Public Health will partner to develop a scientifically sound drinking water well testing program to expand baseline data in order to measure changes in drinking water quality over time.The program will focus on measuring nitrates and bacteria.The results will educate and assist rural homeowners and policy makers in developing informed decisions regarding private wells, water treatment, land use, and regulation. Public Health has contacted the Eau Claire City-County Health Department Lab.The Eau Claire Lab can accommodate 200 tests per year @ —$50 per test for Nitrates and bacteria.The sample number and test schedule will need to be determined with the Eau Claire lab to avoid staffing concerns and conflict with other tests. CDD will use its existing well and drinking-water testing program database to identify potential well owners.These wells will have a Wisconsin Unique Well ID, construction log, and have an accurate spatial location suitable for this program.We will consult with Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey and United States Geological Survey geologists on best locations for these wells. CDD will contact the identified well owners to provide information to them regarding the long-term testing program, data use, and testing procedure. The program will strive to test 200 wells each year,for five years, for 1,000 individual wells tested at the end of five years. One thousand wells is 6%of the existing 16,000 wells in St. Croix County. In the 6t"year,the cycle will begin again with tests on the first 200.The 1,000 wells tested in five years shall be spatially located to provide countywide coverage of well tests. Private well drinking water testing often occurs as part of real estate property transfer and home inspections. This well testing data would add significantly to the county baseline data and allow drinking water quality trends and geographic areas of concern to be identified more quickly. Currently, water test samples are sent to the person requesting the inspection. Advocating at the state level to allow counties to receive private water sample test results would need to be pursued by the County Board. The baseline water quality test program may not be the appropriate testing program for bacteria. Bacteria in groundwater and wells is temporal in nature, and is highly dependent on snow cover, snowmelt, rain events, and manure spreading activities. It will need to be determined how many tests the Eau Claire lab can perform when bacteria may be present in samples. A separate bacteria-testing program should be developed to respond to brown water events. 8 a APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT irn eIIII liii i,'i August 2018: Arrange a meeting between Eau Claire City/County Health Department Environmental Health, St. Croix County Community Development, St. Croix County Public Health to share goals of project, discuss timeline and logistics. September-October 2018: Meet with Community Development to identify dates for nitrate screening event(s), develop plan for outreach to private well owners, and identify educational materials. November—December 2018: Outreach to private well owners. February—April 2019: Collect water samples (65 samples in February, 65 samples in March, 70 samples in April). Well owners will receive their own results and be provided with guidance and education if results are abnormal. May—June 2019: Compile data and create database. Share results with stakeholders. July 2019: Develop plan for sustainability of project. Nitrate Source Analysis Of Drinking Water Wells With Nigh Nitrates. In areas of the county with high nitrates, perform a nitrate-source analysis on a representative sample of drinking water wells. A nitrate source analysis can determine whether the source of nitrates is human, animal, or commercial fertilizer.The increase of rural homes and rural residential subdivisions with septic systems, CAFO's, and the increase of row crops can all impact nitrates in groundwater. A source analysis can determine how each of these sources impact nitrates in groundwater. A source analysis can inform groundwater protection policies by focusing on sources of greatest concern. A nitrate source analysis is—$220/sample. A county-wide nitrate source analysis study should sample 100 drinking water wells.The projected cost for this project is $22,000. Frei Water Quality Screening Clinics CDD is developing the framework for hosting free drinking water quality screening clinics. CDD has purchased an YSI ProDSS Multiparameter Water Quality Meter. County staff will use the meter at water quality screening clinics. Nitrates will be tested for anyone who brings in a water sample. Groundwater and well education materials will be available for well owners. Water test kits for Eau Claire, Stevens Point or Colfax labs may be available for well owners whose screening results indicate the need for further nitrate testing. Screening results will be captured using a CDD IPad and immediately entered into the CDD well testing database by the well owner if the owner so chooses. If the well owner does not want their test results shared,the results will not be entered into the database. Well owners could also bring in prior well test results to add to the CDD database. The goal(s) of the water quality screening clinics are: • Increase participation in drinking water well testing. • Offer free water quality screening and use as an education opportunity. • Help rural homeowner make informed decisions about their drinking water quality. • Add to our drinking water test database to determine if more thorough baseline testing is required. Drinking ter Quality Mapping St. Croix County staff will develop a series of maps using the water quality testing results and the water quality screening results to display St. Croix County water quality trends related to nitrates and any changes detected in D-9 Draft Report for CDD/HHS 8-8-2018 the level of nitrates.These maps will be hosted and displayed on the county website supported through existing staff and land information budgets. Summary of Costs Baseline Water Quality Analysis 200/year $10,000 per year (Nitrates and bacteria) $50/test 1,000/5 years $50,000 over 5 years *Repeat Same Wells Once every 5-years *Repeat $100,000 over 10 years Baseline water quality testing program Water Quality Screening 0.5 FTE existing staff $45,000 GW-Staff&GIS-Staff$40/hr Nitrate Source Analysis $220/sample 100 samples $22,000 Mobile Water Quality Screening Lab CDD Purchased 2017 $8,773 Grant Funded Equipment .. . . . .$55,000/year TOTALS $22,000 One time Nitrate Source Analysis flriorfty,2. Identifyand rnap environmentally en sensitive amas, and conduits it o groundwater n ater ter irnprr urr sit'i ug ` 101AIR , u efis, rrurrruurre spreading etc. A. Sinkhole Identification & Nigh Resolution Lard Cover Mapping This project will create a high-resolution land cover classification and map sinkhole locations for St Croix County, WI.The project will employ an object-based image analysis and sinkhole mapping approach using leaf-off imagery, leaf-on imagery, and LiDAR data, acquired in 2014 and 2015 with ancillary vector datasets to map land cover classes and sinkholes.The land cover classes mapped will include tree canopy, shrub, grassland, agriculture, wetland, barren, impervious, and water.The resulting land cover classification will be used with lidar-derived surface and topographic models to map sinkhole locations.The results of these analyses will include map layers and documents with land cover classes and sinkhole locations for the extent of the county. These analyses will be summarized by geographies such as parcel boundaries as defined by St Croix County. The deliverables for this project are as follows: • Lidar-derived surface models: normalized digital surface model (nDSM), normalized digital terrain model (nDTM), canopy height model (CHM), topographic position index(TPI), and any other surface models used for sinkhole mapping. • 8-class, high-resolution (1m) land cover layer • Sinkhole layers with the location and extent of each sinkhole. • Report and map layers summarizing methods, analyses, and results. • Metadata for each layer. 10 a APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT IIS `a""i�� i,fi,, wk?h.,i°` w .YMp i�^"�eYi'eMS r W w �`,4,k/��x di V, A dJ!^'7; ✓ 6 ✓� !p ✓,0✓�r ✓4U;� w i j�PM',��1I n r,!;%. C ° t `44����iwk�(f U ;;mf inq���' x�`,�r���i, l✓/,✓,� r✓n k ,r ;, '� �Y�x,IIQ !j 1 (�1✓r � Udi` JirA) iir r a gay, ( "* "� ✓Wp '�' dNY Nrr �r r' r� w � r au n l I �xr J�✓^ � f 1 �>*/ �yY r/J>'u �C J�j �Py � �'��' �� / /l i ✓n rye , � s � r'��,�/ u� �a z�i�� �/'' C� r i 'iil� x r^� lr %' 2 h m ✓ i ' kr fWWIIw // � :�iY �p �: ✓ ��i r✓ -r mri rw'ry `1x m / J,,y%f I r 7r✓i a A ✓rV, r The land cover and sinkhole mapping from this remote sensing project will be used to identify environmentally sensitive areas and conduits to groundwater. Sinkhole locations will be provided to the state for inclusion in SnapPlus and incorporated into farm nutrient management plans St. Croix County is collaborating with USFWS-St. Croix Wetland Management District on this project. St. Croix County's projected cost is$20,950. The funding is available and the project is moving forward. Map Karst Surface Features Starting with the sinkhole data from the sinkhole identification project, begin to collect other surface data related to karst topography and develop a GIS database of sinkholes, springs, and stream sinks.The St. Croix County Karst Feature dataset will be continuously updated as more karst related surface features are identified. Groundwater flow through local karst aquifers, in central St. Croix County is not well simulated in the USGS Groundwater Flow Model.The groundwater flow model final report suggests that simulation of groundwater flow through the karst aquifer in St. Croix County would most likely be improved with further karst investigation. The karst surface features will be used in the study of local karst aquifers to provide data to likely improve the groundwater flow model. The karst feature map may be used to regulate land use in order to protect groundwater resources. D-11 Draft Report for CDD/HHS 8-8-2018 Update Hydrologic Data & Calibrate the USGS Groundwater Flow Model In 2009 the US Geological Survey(USGS) published a regional three-dimensional groundwater-flow model and three associated demonstration inset models.The model(s) simulate the groundwater-flow system in the three- county area that includes St. Croix, Polk and Pierce counties.The model was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the three county governments.The objectives of the regional model of Pierce, Polk, and St. Croix counties were to improve understanding of the groundwater flow system and to develop a tool suitable for evaluating the effects of potential water-management programs. However, these models could be enhanced to address specific questions through the collection or compilation of additional hydrologic data and by calibration of the models to address the stated purpose. Simulation of groundwater flow through karst aquifers in the St. Croix County model would most likely be improved with data from karst mapping and better understanding of local groundwater flow in karst aquifers. This project incorporates the karst feature mapping and other enhanced data collection into a more highly calibrated groundwater flow model calibrated to answer specific questions. Due to the nature of underground karst features it is unlikely the groundwater flow model will be precise enough to answer where does a pollutant in a well originate from. This project requires technical assistance from the USGS and Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey (WGNHS).The estimated cost for completing further study of groundwater flow in karst aquifers and calibrating the groundwater flow model is$75,000 to $150,000 depending on the parameters of the study. Identify Groundwater Recharge Areas & other groundwater environmentally sensitive areas. The karst feature dataset, soils, depth to bedrock,wetlands, groundwater flow model and any other important environmental data layer will be used to create a groundwater recharge area map and groundwater sensitivity map. The groundwater recharge map may be used to regulate land use. EVAAL Study for Kinnickinnic Watershed The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Water Quality has developed the Erosion Vulnerability Assessment for Agricultural Lands (EVAAL)toolset to assist watershed managers in prioritizing areas within a watershed which may be vulnerable to water erosion (and thus increased nutrient export) and therefore may contribute to downstream surface water quality problems. It evaluates locations of relative vulnerability to sheet, rill and gully erosion using information about topography, soils, rainfall and land cover. This tool enables watershed managers to prioritize and focus field-scale data collection efforts, thus saving time and money while increasing the probability of locating fields with high sediment and nutrient export for implementation of best management practices (BMPs). MSA Professional Services completed an EVAAL analysis for the Willow River Watershed as part of the Highway 64 Communities Stormwater-Wastewater study activities. Watershed managers in the implementation of the Willow and St. Croix River TMDL may use the analysis. MSA has provided a cost estimate of$12,000 for completing EVAAL analysis for the Kinnickinnic River Watershed. Summary of Costs III IIIIIIIII VIII III�III 1111III 1111111 III 1111111(IIIIIIIII IIII III 1111111 III�III IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII ul ullll III�III Viiiiliu IIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIlII 111111 11111111111 III�III IIIIIIIIIII�III�III IIIIIIIIIII IIII VIII III IIIIIII 1111111 IIIIIIIII III�II IIII�III III Viiiiliu IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII III III 1111111�III�III IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII(IIIIIIIIIII 111111 III III�II IIIIIIII 12 a APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Sinkhole Identification and High Resolution Land Cover Mapping Consultant $21,000 Funded Groundwater Flow Model Consultant $75,000 Local Groundwater Flow in Karst Aquifers Identify and Map Groundwater Recharge Area Consultant $75,000 EVAAL Study for Kinnickinnic Watershed Consultant $12,000 TOTALS $183,000 1' ^o `ty.3. Groundwater & SWater Protection, C6ordiriation Education, �� �) �� �utreuch A. Create and support necessary staff positions to carry out the priority recommendations. CDD is requesting to reclassify an existing staff position as Water Resources/Marketing Specialist.The position will be the project coordinator for the drinking water well testing program and be responsible for coordinating resources to accomplish the tasks associated with the priority recommendations.The position will be the point ofcontact for groundwater education, outreach and emergency response. Reclassification ofthe existing position will be an increase of approximately$13,000 for salary and benefits. B. []eVe|Op a county protocol for urgent response to actual OF potential VVateFFesOUFCe pollution events that threaten human health, the environment, OF natural resources. CDD is proposing to use the SCC-Alert System to notify residents ofpotential water resource pollution events. SCC-Alert is a free to user mass alert system offered by St. Croix County Emergency Support Services. Alerts can be sent to residents based on geographic location.The service will be publicized to local residents residing in locations susceptible towater resource pollution events.The user must register themselves to receive the alerts. Protocol will be established to determine what constitutes awater resource pollution event. C. Emergency Response Bacteria Testing Public Health and CDD will create an emergency response drinking water well testing program for bacteria in response tobrown-water events. D. SU0000aFV Of Costs CDD Sta 0.6 FTE -$53,000 ff annually Emergency Response Ba t r event $300 per event t $15/tes 20 tests pe Variable According to Weather O-13 Draft Report for CDD/HHS 8-8-2018 :'f.iof"'ity 4. Increase ' 'he number der Yo; in nutrientrrianagernent plans (NMRs) The steps to increase the number of acres in nutrient management plan include: • Increase enrollment in Farmland Preservation Zoning thereby requiring NMPs. • Continually educate and encourage producers to create nutrient management plans. • Increased participation in NMP program will require increase of cost share dollars. The primary resource required to implement the above steps,to increase enrollment in Farmland Preservation Zoning, is additional land &water conservation staff. Increase of land enrolled in Farmland Preservation Zoning is dependent on more agricultural towns choosing Farmland Preservation Zoning. Staff would be responsible for technical assistance to producers, education, and implementing BMP's. ""R"M71 Technical Assistance to Producers 1 New FTE $90,000 annually Priority 5. Revisethe Courity-'s lurid use policy arid zorfing ordinances t,o pi otect gr-oundwater msourc� Vis. A. Separate incompatible land usesand/or varying lot size requirements in environmentally lly sensitive area. As an example, the comprehensive revision zoning ordinance project proposes to split the existing Rural Residential District into two districts, reflecting major plat subdivision based rural development and scattered isolated rural residential development at a lower density.The separation of these uses will minimize land use conflicts and reduce the potential for and exposure to groundwater contamination through lower residential density development in some areas of the county where zoning and town future land use desires allow. The identification of environmentally sensitive areas and important groundwater recharge areas in karst aquifers will play a future role in determining, landuse,future residential density and lot size. B. Update county soil and erosion control ordinances. St. Croix County is in the process of updating these ordinances.The county must meet statutory and administrative rule standards and in most cases cannot regulate beyond state standards. Changes to legislation and administrative rule may be required for the county to regulate beyond state standards. Advocating at the state level to allow local regulation to exceed state standards would need to be pursued by the County Board. Of particular interest is NR 151 Runoff Management. NR 151 contains performance standards for Silurian Bedrock that exceed general state standards. Silurian Bedrock is the type of karst found in eastern Wisconsin at shallow depth to bedrock.Advocating at the state level to include all karst areas for higher performance standards would need to be pursued by the county board. Encourage common POVVTS and shared wells constructed to a higher standard. Review conservation design subdivision standards, work to incentivize the use of common POWTS and common wells to achieve a higher level of construction and treatment. Individual POWTS and wells in the county should also be encouraged to be constructed to a higher standard. 14 a APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Nitrate removal technology for private onsite wastewater treatment system (POWTS) effluent does exist. However, the County cannot regulate beyond state minimum standards. Advocating at the state level to allow local regulation to require POWTS to treat nitrates to a higher standard would need to be pursued by the County Board.The installation of nitrate treatment on POWTS would add $7,000-$10,000 to the installation of a POWTS. Adoption Of Agricultural ShOrel nd Management Ordinance Agricultural activities conducted in close proximity to surface waters can pollute local surface and ground water resources. When not properly managed activities such as, fertilizer and pesticide use, tillage, irrigation, drain tile, riparian grazing, confined feeding operations, and manure management can impact water quality. Contaminated water can adversely affect human and animal health through exposure to chemicals, bacteria, viruses and sediment. An agricultural shoreland management ordinance would complement the County's Shoreland and Floodplain Overlay Zoning Ordinances, to regulate activities within designated agricultural shoreland corridors. These corridors would include areas within 35 feet of the edge of a sinkhole, centerline of an intermittent stream,top of either bank of a perennial stream or river, or the ordinary high water mark of any pond or lake. The review of applicability and cost benefit of implementing these regulations will not occur until mid-year 2022. Additional CDD Staff would be required for administering the agricultural shoreland management ordinance. 'Opt Ountydr inistr tion Of Private Well Code under NR 845.05 Explore options for adopting each of five levels of authority for regulating well design and construction, as specified in NR 845.05; and, exploring options to update well construction standards, including casing, depth, grouting and well casing down to water source, as well as improving data quality. Well construction standards are set by the state in NR 845.05. In most cases the county cannot regulate beyond the state minimum standards. Advocating at the state level for higher well construction standards for well casing and grouting would need to be pursued by the county board. Drinking water treatment systems are also an alternative.Water treatment systems with reverse osmosis, nitrate removal and UV bacteria treatment are available and should be encouraged. Advocating at the state level for construction standards to include these water treatment systems would need to be pursued by the county board. Tasks associated with county administration of private well code: • Scoping meetings with Public Health, HHS, CDD, CDC and Corporation Counsel • Drafting &Adoption • 50 Hours of various staff time • Implementation and Enforcement The review of applicability and cost benefit of implementing these regulations will not occur until mid-year 2024. Additional Public Health or CDD Staff would be required for administering the private well code. Summary Of Costs mIVm uum Vu m uuuo Vuu IIIIIIIIV�Ilam Vmmu m�m Vu uuuuuuVumVu m�u uuum IIIIIIIIIIO Vumo Ium m�IVuu m�i IVuu m Vuuu Vumo D-15 Draft Report for CDD/HHS 8-8-2018 Agricultural Shoreland Management I New IFTE $90,000 annually Ordinance Enforcement Administration of Well Code I New IFTE $90,000 annually TOTALS 2 New IFTE $180,000 annually Ordinance Development $8,000 Flriority 6, Explore� options regathe regulation (#"'fivestock operations and `t��ifj� fo siting ffir ongo`rig rnorfito `ng pfoperutions,ffir*he �� of protecting ��t��r��ur�s. " " �� � _ _ = _ A. Agriculture Operations Ordinance — County-wide — Existing Chapter I I Waste Storage & Waste Utilization * Evaluate existing ordinance and alternatives, Recommend Edits and Expansion, Legal Review, Public Information Meeting * Regulate spreading and setback requirements * Regulate based onKarst Topography * Regulate winter spreading based onTMDL * Regulate based on storage capacity * Set a manure tank cubic feet capacity requirement.Therefore, if a manure tank were above this cubic foot capacity threshold then a permit would be required.This would provide more clarity on when permits are needed. * Increase the application fee and/or create anapplication fee system based off the number ofanimal units owned bythe permit applicant. B. Siting Licensing Ordinance — /~OUntV-VVide — Editing and Expanding Chapter 17 Zoning * Evaluate existing ordinance and alternatives, Recommend Edits and Expansion, Legal Review, Public Information Meeting * >1Animal Unit/Acre and >SUUAnimal Unit * Annual Compliance Review * Limit zoning districts (Rural Residentia|,Ag1 &AgZ) The review of the applicability and cost benefit of implementation of these regulations will not occur until mid- yearZUZ4. C. SU0000aFV Of Costs These ordinances will require additional implementation and enforcement activities involving Community Development and Corporation Counsel staff. 1c n Developmen 16 a g e APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT J 1 New FTE Legal TOTALS . . . . .$2461600' '—' '$250,000. . . . flriorhy 7, 1 actjw, wat�,'r,quality corninit tee t,o ensure that the protection of"ground and Surface watei continue; to be a priorhy issue actively addr (!�,d by the County. CDD and HHS believe that the respective committees fulfil this role.The committees should schedule quarterly joint meetings or work sessions to address groundwater and surface water issues. D-17 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU A Memorandum of Understanding between the St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department and the Department of Natural Resources for the Implementation of the Agricultural Performance Standards and Prohibitions under NR151 January 12, 2005 (As amended July 2006) Prepared by Bob Heise, Director, Land and Water Conservation and Parks Departments St. Croix County Land Conservation Committee Karen Voss, DNR Planner Dan Simonson, DNR Planner John Pfender, DNR Planner A-1 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU A-2 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU Table of Contents GLOSSARY FOR ST. CROIX COUNTY AND DNR NR151 IMPLEMENTATION MOU.....................5 DNR AND ST. CROIX CO. LWCD NR151 MOU.....................................................................................7 Purpose......................................................................................................................................................7 Component 1: Plan the Implementation Approach...................................................................................7 Component 2: Define Level of Agencies' Commitment to NR151 Workload.........................................8 Component 3: Conduct information and education activities...................................................................9 Component 4a: Determine current compliance through records review.................................................10 Component 4b: Determine Compliance through On-Site Evaluation.....................................................12 Component 5: Prepare Compliance Status Report and Inform Landowners of Compliance Status.......13 Component 6A: Secure Funding and Technical Assistance —Voluntary Cost-Share Component.........15 Component 6B: Option to Issue Non-Voluntary NR151 Notice of Cost-Share and/or Noncompliance 16 Component 7: Administer Funding and Technical Assistance...............................................................17 Component8: Enforcement....................................................................................................................18 Component 9. Ongoing Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................19 Component 10: Annual Reporting..........................................................................................................20 APPENDIX A - ST. CROIX CO. LWCD IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR NR151 AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS............................................................. APPENDIX B -WORKING WITH LANDOWNERS TO IMPLEMENT AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER NR151. (FROM CHIPPEWA COUNTY MO O.............................................................................................................................................. APPENDIX C— ST. CROIX COUNTY MINIMUM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS NR151 COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT.................................................................................................. A-3 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU A-4 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU Glossary for St. Croix County and DNR NR151 Implementation MOU Compliance Status Report(CSR): A document that is prepared by St. Croix County, that contains detailed information for each practice and facility where an on-site evaluation (field inspection) or records review has been conducted(See Appendix Q. The CSR will include the compliance status and basis for the compliance determination, such as field inspection or records review. The following information was identified by the Chippewa County NR151 MOU to be included in the Compliance Status Report: a. Parcel status (new versus existing) b. The current compliance status of individual tax parcels with reference to each of the performance standards and prohibitions. c. Corrective measure options and rough cost estimates to comply with each of the performance standards and prohibitions for which a parcel is not in compliance. d. Status of eligibility(costs eligible) for public cost sharing. e. Grant funding sources and technical assistance available from Federal, State, and local sources, and third party service providers. f. An explanation of conditions that apply if public cost share funds are used. g. Signature lines indicating landowner agreement or disagreement with report findings. h. The purpose of the report, the implications for achieving and maintaining compliance. i. Process and procedures to discuss evaluation results with county and or state. j. If appropriate, a copy of performance standards and prohibitions and technical design standards. Cost-share agreement and supplemental form for NR151. This document package is to be developed by the DNR. The cost-share agreement offers funding to comply with performance standards and prohibitions. The supplemental form includes a compliance schedule to achieve compliance, requirements to maintain compliance in perpetuity and appeals procedures. Together, the agreement and form meet the requirements of s.NR 151.09 and NR 151.095." On-site evaluation: A process,to be established by the St. Croix County LWCD, for conducting on-site evaluations for the purpose of making a determination of parcel compliance with agricultural performance standards and manure management prohibitions. On-site evaluation form: A standardized form that is developed by St. Croix County for use by county staff, for the purpose of conducting consistent and complete on-site evaluations. The on-site evaluation form should be designed to record all the information necessary to complete the Compliance Status Report. Records review: A process, to be established by the St. Croix County LWCD, for checking information contained in existing files for the purpose of making a preliminary determination of parcel compliance with agricultural performance standards and manure management prohibitions. Similar terms that should be consistent:Records inventory, records evaluation Records review form: A standardized form that is developed by St. Croix County for use by county staff for the purpose of conducting and recording the results of consistent and complete records reviews. Statewide Implementation Strategy: This is the Draft Implementation Strategy for NR151 Agricultural Nonpoint Performance Standards, located in Appendix E-3 of the Draft Land and Water Resource Management Plan Guidelines, 2003. St. Croix County intends to implement select portions of the administrative rules and components of the Statewide Implementation Strategy, as specified in their Land and Water Resources Management Plan and this MOU. A-5 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU A-6 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU DNR and St. Croix Co. LWCD NR151 MOU Purpose This MOU has been developed by the St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Committee (LWCC) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to clarify their respective roles and responsibilities as needed to implement and enforce agricultural nonpoint pollution performance standards and prohibitions established in ch.NR 151,Wis. Adm. Code. • This agreement defines the commitment of each party to conduct administrative tasks that have been defined by Wisconsin conservation agencies as standardized components of a program delivery system. The standardized components are in a guidance document titled Implementation Strath for NR 151 Agricultural Performance Standards and Prohibitions.36 (hereafter referred to as the Statewide Implementation Strategy). Specifically, this agreement clarifies how the DNR and the County will: • Systematically evaluate and define the level of agency commitment to the NR 151 workload using a county-sponsored annual needs assessment and interagency work planning process. • Conduct information and education activities. • Systematically select and evaluate parcels to determine compliance with standards and prohibitions. • Prepare compliance reports and notify landowners of compliance status. • Provide technical assistance and cost-sharing funding as needed to allow landowners to meet performance standards and prohibitions. • Issue notice letters under NR 151.09 and NR 151.095 as appropriate. • Monitor compliance. • Conduct enforcement activities. • Develop annual reports. Component 1: Plan the Implementation Approach The Parties Agree: I. The Statewide Implementation Strategy provides a structural framework that can be used to discuss and plan how the parties will cooperate to implement the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 2. This memorandum of understanding and the County Land and Water Plan can be used as the means to document procedures for implementing NR 151. s6 This document was prepared jointly by the Wisconsin DNR, Wisconsin DA TCP, the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association and the Wisconsin Association ofLand Conservation Employees(April 2002). It was approved by the Wisconsin Land Conservation Board as Appendix E to the Land and Water Resources Management Plan Guidelines. The document can be found at http://dnr.wi.govlorg/water/nps/rules/NRI5]strategy.him. A-7 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU 3. Guidance prepared by DNR and incorporated as Appendix B to this agreement (Working with Landowners to Implement Agricultural Performance Standards &Prohibitions Under NR 151),is useful for making formal correspondence with landowners concerning compliance issues. 4. NR 151.004 contains a process for developing targeted performance standards where implementation of statewide performance standards and prohibitions may not be sufficient to meet water quality standards. 5. Sections NR151.09,NR 151.095, ATCP 50.04 and ATCP 50.08 require agricultural landowners and operators to meet agricultural nonpoint performance standards and manure management prohibitions. These requirements are contingent upon sufficient cost sharing for existing facilities and practices. St. Croix County will: 1. Use this memorandum of understanding to implement select portions of the administrative rules and components of the Statewide Implementation Strategy, as defined in this agreement. 2. Focus NR 151 implementation activities initially on targeted watershed areas. 3. Cooperate with DNR to identify priority areas where the county may apply for funding under the Targeted Runoff Management Program to alleviate violations of performance standards and prohibitions that result in significant pollutant loadings or impacts to waters of the State. 4. Where appropriate, cooperate with DNR in identifying the need for targeted performance standards. DNR will: 1. Use this memorandum of understanding to coordinate implementation of agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 2. Implement select portions of the administrative rules and components of the State-wide Implementation Strategy, as defined in this agreement. 3. Assign an agency representative to actively participate in the County Land and Water Resource Management planning process and provide input into the development of the County strategy to implement agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 4. Work jointly with St. Croix County to set mutual priorities for implementing agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 5. Provide St. Croix County with guidance needed to fulfill its agreed-upon roles and responsibilities to implement portions of NR 151. 6. Where appropriate, cooperate with St. Croix County in identifying the need for targeted performance standards. Component 2: Define Level of Agencies' Commitment to NR151 Workload The parties agree: 1. There must be a mutual understanding of each agency's responsibilities and level of commitment in carrying out implementation of agricultural performance standards and prohibitions,including implementation and enforcement activities identified under NR151.09 and NR151.095. A-8 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU 2. The extent of each agency's commitment is dependent upon the availability of public funds and agency priorities and,therefore,may be expected to change through time. St. Croix County will: 1. Meet annually with the Department to review this Memorandum of Understanding and the associated work load commitment. DNR will: 1. Meet annually with St. Croix County to review this Memorandum of Understanding and the associated workload. 2. Notify St. Croix County of any significant changes in workload capability. 3. To the extent staffing limitations allow,involve the DNR Environmental Enforcement staff in development of NR151 enforcement processes and guidance. Component 3: Conduct information and education activities The Parties Agree: 1. A structured information and educational program is a critical component of an agricultural nonpoint source pollution control program. 2. An effective educational program will meet the following objectives: a. Educate landowners about Wisconsin's agricultural performance standards and prohibitions, applicable conservation practices, and cost share grant opportunities; b. Promote implementation of conservation practices necessary to meet performance standards and prohibitions; c. Inform landowners about procedures and agency roles to be used statewide and locally for ensuring compliance with the performance standards and prohibitions; and d. Establish expectations for compliance and consequences for non-compliance. St. Croix County will: 1. The LWCD will implement a local information and education strategy as outlined in the Land and Water Resource Management Plan, to support NR151 implementation. 2. The LWCD will distribute information and educational material prepared by the DNR. The information may be distributed via news media,newsletters,public information meetings, and one- on-one contacts. A-9 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU DNR will: 1. Work with UW-Extension,DATCP and others to identify and develop I&E materials and activities needed on a statewide basis and to make these materials available to St. Croix County for use and dissemination. 2. Provide input into the St. Croix County information and education program. 3. Assist St. Croix County and the Basin Educator,where possible,with implementation of the Information and Education program. Component 4a: Determine current compliance through records review The parties agree: 1. A significant public investment has been made (through the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program, the Wisconsin Soil and Water Resource Management Program, and the St. Croix County Land Conservation Program) to assist owners of croplands and livestock facilities to install best management practices to control agricultural nonpoint source pollution. As a result of this conservation work, there are many croplands and livestock facilities that fully or partially comply with the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 2. Sections NR151.09(3)(b) and NR 151.095(4)(b)require existing cropland practices and livestock facilities that achieve compliance with performance standards and prohibitions to remain in compliance regardless of public cost share. 3. Sections NR 151.09(3)(d) and NR 151.095(4)(d)require new cropland practices and livestock facilities to comply with performance standards and prohibitions regardless of cost share. 4. To establish a baseline for program implementation, it is in the public's interest that documentation be made of the location of cropland practices and livestock facilities that were in compliance as of October 1, 2002, and to inform the landowners,in writing, of the compliance determination and the requirements to maintain compliance. 5. State cost-share agreements, subject to contractual obligations of active operation and maintenance plans on or after October 1,2002, can be used to document the extent of current compliance achieved through previous public investments. 6. St. Croix County will use the tax parcel as the basic geographic unit for evaluating and reporting compliance. Where a tax parcel contains more than one livestock facility or cropland practice, the evaluation and reporting system will contain information to distinguish between facilities and practices based on whether they are new, existing,in compliance and out of compliance. 7. The information in landowner files may not be up-to-date. An on site evaluation may be necessary to determine the accuracy of file information. St. Croix County will: 1. Work towards developing a geographic database to input conservation plans,practices, and resource needs and compliance status determinations. A-10 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU 2. Conduct a records review of farms in priority areas and/or priority farms, as shown in Table A-1 of Appendix A. This table comes from the St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department Natural Resource Management Plan, October 2003. 3. Initially select parcels for records review from within the KNC, SCL and SFH priority watersheds. 4. Include in the records review parcels which have priority watershed cost share agreements that were in the operation and maintenance period as of October 1, 2002, and which provided cost sharing for practices that address agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. From the records review, determine whether these practices are clearly in compliance, or whether they have records that are inconclusive and warrant an on-site evaluation to determine compliance, as described in Component 4b. 5. From the records review,make a preliminary determination as to the location of cropland practices and livestock facilities that were clearly in compliance with all performance standards and prohibitions applicable to the parcel. Document compliance that is a result of: a. Installed or implemented BMPs under an existing state or federal cost share agreement; and/or b. Maintaining compliance with state or county animal waste regulations (e.g.NR 243, WPDES, or SWRM programs). 6. From the records review,identify the location of parcels and operations that are inconclusive and warrant an on-site evaluation to determine compliance, as described in Component 4b. 7. Utilize county-developed standardized records review forms to document all record reviews. Document compliance using a county-developed standardized Compliance Status Report form (CSR) in accordance with Component 5 of this MOU document. The DNR will: 1. Evaluate St. Croix County records review forms and Compliance Status Report forms for consistency with status determination and notification requirements under NR 151.09 and NR 151.095. The County CSR is included as Appendix C. 2. Provide information to St. Croix County from the DNR CAOS database (which tracks cost share agreements) as it pertains to KNC, SCL or SFH Priority Watershed and Targeted Runoff Management project cost-share contracts. 3. For large scale livestock operations WPDES permitted facilities: a. Compile records of existing WPDES permits for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) and evaluate these records to determine compliance with NR 151 agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. b. When coverage applies, and at the time of permit modifications or reissuances,incorporate into WPDES permits standards and prohibitions that equal or exceed the requirements of NRI 51. (Note: The WPDES permit does not cover cropped fields where manure is not applied) c. Adhere to the permit compliance strategy and make available to the County copies of inspection records and inspection letters sent to the facility. Make available to the County copies of portions of the WPDES permit application that describes a facility's manure storage, animal yards, and locations. d. Make available annually to the County,by June 30', an updated Nutrient Management Plan for each WPDES permitted facility where applicable. The plan will include current soil samples, spreading reports and a Nutrient Management Plan checklist. e. Make available to the County all draft and issued WPDES permits for their review. A-11 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU Note: St. Croix County requests that the DNR will work towards incorporating UW-Extension recommendations with respect to phosphorus and other nutrients into WPDES permits. Component 4b: Determine Compliance through On-Site Evaluation The parties agree: 1. On-site evaluations are often necessary to document current resource conditions and current management practices, as a basis for determining compliance. 2. The accuracy of on-site evaluations will be enhanced if formal evaluation procedures and protocol are established, and standardized on-site evaluation forms are adopted. 3. Greater consistency in conducting on-site evaluations can be achieved if a structured training program is established to educate staff about the standards, evaluation procedures, and requirements for program documentation. 4. The process for responding to public animal waste complaints,is spelled out in NR243.24, and is routinely administered through the cooperation of the DNR and the LWCD. 5. New or expanding livestock facilities subject to regulations under NR 243 or the St. Croix County Manure Storage Ordinance will be evaluated for compliance with performance standards and prohibitions. The on-site evaluation and Compliance Status Report should be completed prior to issuance of the state or county permits. St. Croix County will: 1. Following the records review process as specified in Component 4a, compile a list of parcels and operations that have records that are inconclusive and warrant an on-site evaluation to determine compliance. 2. From this list,highest priority parcels for on-site evaluations will be a. From within the KNC, SCL and SFH priority watersheds. b. In priority areas and/or priority farms, as shown in Table A-1 of Appendix A, (indicated with "HHP"in the table). c. All parcels with new cost-share agreements signed after January 1, 2004. d. All parcels with priority watershed cost share agreements that were in the operation and maintenance period as of October 1, 2002, and which provided cost sharing for practices that address agricultural performance standards and prohibitions 3. Additional sites in highest priority areas, as identified in Table A-1 of Appendix A, and identified through public complaints or staff observations may also be included in on-site evaluations. 4. Contact owners of selected parcels and schedule site evaluations. 5. Utilize county-developed standardized on-site evaluation forms to document all on-site evaluations. Document compliance using a county-developed standardized Compliance Status Report form (CSR) in accordance with Component 5 of this MOU document(see Appendix Q. A-12 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU DNR will: 1. Review St. Croix County on-site evaluation forms and CSR forms for consistency with status determination and notification requirements under NR 151.09 and NR 151.095. 2. Provide a structured training framework and training opportunities to educate DNR and County staff about the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions,procedures for making compliance determinations,policy aspects of program administration and proper documentation. 3. Assist in the identification of environmental models, site evaluation forms, and other assessment tools used to evaluate compliance. Assist in providing training. 4. As part of the County LWCC's annual work planning process have the opportunity to provide: a. The location of livestock facilities and cropland parcels where,if standards are not implemented, there is a high potential for nonpoint discharge that may adversely impact waters of the state. b. A request to the County for an onsite evaluation and report to determine and document the extent of current compliance. 5. Assist in making compliance status determinations for high priority or potentially controversial situations, such as those that may require notification. Component 5: Prepare Compliance Status Report and Inform Landowners of Compliance Status The parties agree: 1. To be valid, the results of a record review and/or on-site compliance evaluation must be documented and be based upon confirmed facts. 2. A standardized report format will allow for the systematic collection and reporting of evaluation results and will provide consistency through time. 3. A local process,independent of a formal administrative appeal under chapter 227, Wis. Stats., can be used to provide for a structured review of any local decision pertaining to an initial finding of compliance or other decision involving the interpretation of NR 151. 4. Site evaluation forms, compliance status reports (CSR's) and associated correspondence are public records that should be retained by a custodial agency. 5. The CSR is a document that can be used to inform the landowner about the compliance status of his/her operation, seek confirmation of information used to determine current compliance, and,if necessary,resolve disagreements regarding compliance status. 6. The CSR provides important baseline information needed to secure and allocate funding and technical assistance to address on-farm conservation needs. 7. A geographic data base and record keeping system is necessary to provide ready access to compliance reports completed over time. St. Croix County will: 1. Establish a local process to provide for reconsideration of local administrative decisions regarding A-13 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU findings of compliance as established in a compliance status report(CSR). The LWCC will be the administrative body that reconsiders decisions made by County staff in implementing NR 151. 2. Following completion of the record reviews and site evaluations,prepare CSR's of the evaluated parcels. At a minimum, a CSR will convey the following information: a. The status of cropping practices or livestock operations based on whether they are "new" (not in existence on the effective date of the rule) or "existing". b. Current status of compliance of individual parcels with each of the performance standards and prohibitions. c. Corrective measure options and rough cost estimates to comply with each of the performance standards and prohibitions. d. Status of eligibility for public cost sharing. e. Grant funding sources and technical assistance available from Federal, State and local sources, and third party service providers. f. An explanation of conditions that apply if public cost share funds are used. (Ifpublic funds are used, applicable technical standards must be met) g. Signature lines indicating landowner agreement or disagreement with report findings. h. Process and procedures to contest evaluation results to county and/or state. i. (Optional) A copy of performance standards and prohibitions and technical design standards. 3. Provide a copy of the CSR and an accompanying informational status letter Type A or Type B to the landowner. Appendix B describes this administrative process and the contents of informational status letter Types A and B. 4. If the landowner disagrees with the facts and findings of the CSR, gather additional information and/or provide the landowner with written procedures and a timeframe to pursue reconsideration of local decisions. 5. Where livestock facilities or cropping practices are not in compliance, assess the relative pollution threat associated with the noncompliance and make a determination regarding the allocation of staff and financial resources under Component 6 of this agreement. 6. Keep and maintain public records, as the custodial authority, following requirements of the Wisconsin Open Records Law 7. Work toward developing a geographically based record keeping system and database to track site evaluations, CSR's and informational status letters issued, CSR appeals, etc. 8. Work toward developing a process for informing landowners of compliance status at the time of property ownership changes. The DNR will: 1. Co-sign informational status letters Type A and Type B,if requested by the County,where the Department concurs with the County's CSR findings. 2. Provide support to St. Croix County in explaining compliance determinations that DNR assisted in developing. A-14 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU Component 6A: Secure Funding and Technical Assistance- Voluntary Cost- Share Component The parties agree: 1. Previous commitments for cost-share funding have been made through cost-share agreements signed under the Kinnickinnic River, South Fork Hay River and St. Croix Co. Lakes Priority Watershed Projects. 2. Section 281.16(3),Wis. Stats., and sections NR151.09(3)(c), and NR151.095(4)(d)prohibit the State or municipalities from requiring that"existing"practices and facilities ,which were not in compliance with the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions on the effective date of the rule, to come into compliance through State regulation or local ordinance unless public cost share funds are provided for eligible costs. 3. NR151.09(3) and NR151.095(4)identify compliance requirements for owners and operators of cropland practices and livestock facilities based on whether the practices and facilities are determined to be "existing"or"new", and whether cost sharing is required and made available. 4. The CSR and accompanying Status Letter(see Glossary and Appendix B) are important informational documents that explain the obligations of accepting cost sharing for practices that bring livestock facilities or cropland into compliance with applicable performance standards and prohibitions. 5. NR151 defines cost share availability requirements for funding administered by DNR under 281.65, Stats. ATCP 50 defines cost-share availability from any other source. These requirements must be clearly understood to ensure that DNR and County staffs make proper determinations of cost-share availability. 6. Cost-share funds to pursue compliance may be available from a combination of public and private non-profit grant sources,including: the Priority Watershed Program, the DATCP Soil and Water Management Program (SWRM),the DNR Targeted Runoff Management Program (TRM),USDA cost-share and land set-aside programs and nonprofit organizations. 7. Developing cost-share funding proposals and grant contracts requires significant knowledge of multiple grant programs, administrative rules, and contracting requirements. St. Croix County will: 1. Prioritize parcels identified as noncompliant through the CSR process,based on the relative pollution threat associated with the noncompliance.Utilize Table A-1 of Appendix A in developing a prioritized list. 2. If feasible, seek additional cost-share funds through the DNR TRM grant program or other State or Federal funding programs. 3. Encourage and receive requests for voluntary cost-sharing and/or technical assistance from landowners. 4. Confirm cost-share grant eligibility and availability of cost-share &technical assistance. 5. When administering state or local cost-share agreements where there is high likelihood that practices will be installed and/or non-compliance is of a nature that enforcement would not be pursued,utilize, when available, a DNR-developed cost-share agreement. A-15 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU 6. When administering state or local cost-share agreements that involve high cost practices and/or are high priority for compliance, consider and discuss with the Department the need for issuance of notification, as described in Appendix B. The DNR will: 1. Provide cost sharing (if available) through the Priority Watershed or Targeted Runoff Management grant programs where there is voluntary compliance and cost sharing is required. 2. With DATCP, seek to secure sources of funding to reimburse the County for its administrative and technical services. 3. Develop a Cost Share Agreement and supplemental form for NR151. The supplemental form informs landowners of their NR151 obligations as a condition of accepting cost sharing, and stipulates that the affected cropland practices and livestock facilities will maintain or be brought into compliance with applicable performance standards and prohibitions, as enumerated in the compliance status report. Component 6B: Option to Issue Non-Voluntary NR151 Notice of Cost-Share and/or Noncompliance The parties agree: 1. Chapter NR 151.09 and NR 151.095 set forth notification requirements that must be met before DNR can initiate enforcement action under Ch. 281, Stats., for non-compliance with performance standards and prohibitions. This includes provision of a notification to the landowner at the time that cost sharing is made available, or in cases when cost share is not required,when the compliance achievement period starts. 2. Notification requirements and cost-share availability requirements vary depending upon the legal authority that is used to enforce the standards and the source of funding. These requirements are documented in Appendix B. 3. Developing and issuing notices of cost sharing under the non-voluntary NR151 option is a joint responsibility of St. Croix County and DNR. St. Croix County will: 1. If a landowner chooses not to voluntarily apply for public funding to install or implement corrective measures that entail eligible costs, or not to voluntarily install or implement corrective measures that do not entail eligible cost,issue landowner notification per NR 151.09(5-6) and/or 151.095(6-7). LWCD will issue this notice jointly with DNR. a. If eligible costs are involved, this notification shall include an offer of cost sharing. b. If no eligible costs are involved, or if cost sharing is already available, the notification will not include an offer of cost sharing. 2. Develop and cosign(if desired and appropriate)notices (letter types C and D). Provide draft notices to DNR regional staff for completion and DNR signature. Appendix B includes standard notification letters types C and D. A-16 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU DNR will: 1. Co-sign (if requested) and issue notices (Letter types C&D) to landowners under NRI 51.09 and NR151.095,provided the DNR concurs with the County's findings. Component 7: Administer Funding and Technical Assistance The Parties agree: 1. If public cost share funds are offered to install conservation practices, through either the voluntary or non-voluntary option, a cost share agreement must be developed and public funds must be accounted for. 2. The successful completion of the conservation planning, contracting, and engineering process requires a broad range of skills and services in the fields of agronomy, engineering, and public administration. 3. The DNR, DATCP and County have, through the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program and the Soil and Water Management Program recruited, supported and maintained a technical delivery staff with proven expertise in administering a nonpoint pollution abatement program for the purpose of meeting agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. St. Croix County will: 1. Establish and administer a budget and accounting system to receive and disperse state funds administered by the County on behalf of the State. 2. Employ or contract professional staff to develop and administer cost share contracts on behalf of state and federal agencies. 3. Employ or contract a certified agronomist or conservation planner, to provide conservation planning services to landowners, and to review the adequacy of conservation plans prepared by private service providers or federal agency staff. 4. Utilize,if available, a DNR-developed cost share agreement and supplemental form for NRI 51 as described in Component 6a and as defined in the Glossary. 5. Keep and maintain public records, as the custodial authority, following requirements of the Wisconsin Open Records Law. 6. Upon completion of BMP's implemented through the NRI 51 cost share agreement, conduct an on- site evaluation of the operation to document compliance with the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 7. If the site is compliant,prepare and issue a document that verifies satisfactory compliance with applicable performance standards. See "Satisfaction Letter Type E"in Appendix B. 8. If site is non-compliant, determine whether non-compliance is weather-related,is the fault of the landowner, or whether there has been a willful breach of contract.Nonregulatory remedies, or enforcement action taken by the County will be determined by the Land Conservation Committee, and will be based on the cause of the non-compliance. A-17 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU The DNR will: 1. With DATCP, seek to secure sources of funding to reimburse the County for its administrative and technical services. 2. Conduct program reviews to verify that cost share funding and conservation services have been administered in accordance with appropriate state administrative rules. 3. Co-sign,if requested, a document that verifies satisfactory compliance with applicable performance standards. The "Satisfaction Letter Type E" (Appendix B)may be used for this purpose. Component 8: Enforcement The parties agree: 1. DNR and St. Croix County will use voluntary means, to the extent practical, to achieve compliance with performance standards and prohibitions,but may use enforcement when necessary to meet requirements of ch. 281, Stats., and NR151. 2. Each party has independent authority to enforce standards and reserves the right to exercise that authority without permission of the other. 3. To be effective, the public and affected landowners must perceive enforcement as a necessary option,pursued jointly by the parties, after voluntary measures to achieve compliance have failed. 4. The County has authority to enforce performance standards and prohibitions through local ordinances. The County will rely on DNR to use the state's enforcement authority for cropland practices and livestock facilities that are not covered by local ordinances. 5. DNR has authority to enforce performance standards and prohibitions through a number of statutory options. These include,but are not limited to: a. Referral by DNR to the Wisconsin Department of Justice to seek relief under s.281.98, Wis. Stats. b. Use of enforcement procedures under NR 243 and s. 283.89, Stats., to obtain compliance with performance standards and prohibitions or to resolve a water quality problem. c. Use of other state laws,including citation authority under s. 29.601, Wis. Stats. 6. To be effective, enforcement procedures must be well-coordinated and documented between DNR and St. Croix County, and must be supported by both parties. 7. NR 151.09 and NR 151.095 establish the procedures that must be followed as pre-requisites to enforcement when DNR funds are used or when DNR pursues enforcement under s. 281.98,Wis. Stats. 8. Formal enforcement procedures will generally begin with the issuance of a Notice of Violation. Grounds for issuing a Notice of Violation letter is non-compliance by the landowner or operator with the notice issued under NR 151.09(5),NR 151.09(6),NR 151.095(6), or NR 151.095(7) and as spelled out in Components 6a and 6b of this agreement. St. Croix County will: 1. Enforce the performance standards and prohibitions contained within its local ordinances, and support DNR's lead role in enforcing standards and prohibitions at sites that are not covered by A-18 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU County ordinances. 2. Identify cases where landowners do not follow the requirements of their noncompliance notices and provide this information to the DNR. 3. Participate in DNR enforcement conferences. 4. Provide background information to DNR needed for WPDES permits or to develop referral packages to the Wisconsin Department of Justice. 5. Provide testimony, documents or other technical support for enforcement cases. 6. In circumstances where the County has issued permits or is pursuing legal actions under other authority, ensure that appropriate information concerning those permits or enforcement activity is transmitted to DNR. DNR will: 1. Take the lead role in initiating enforcement action for cropland practices and livestock facilities that are not covered by County ordinances,including issuing notices of violation. 2. Ensure that appropriate information concerning enforcement activity by the Department is transmitted to the County. 3. Schedule and conduct enforcement conferences if appropriate. 4. If a point source discharge exists,issue a WPDES permit or take enforcement action under NR 243 and ch. 283, Stats.,if consistent with regional and statewide permitting priorities. 5. Determine compliance with permits if consistent with regional and statewide compliance activities. 6. Prepare referral packages to Attorney General's Office if non-compliance continues and referral is approved by the DNR Secretary's Office. Component 9. Ongoing Compliance Monitoring The parties agree: 1. NR151.09(3)(b) and NR151.095(4)(b)require that existing cropland practices and livestock facilities, which are in compliance on or after October 1, 2002,remain in compliance without the offer of cost share. 2. Ongoing agricultural operations continually change in response to market forces, changes in technology, and changes in land ownership. 3. Periodic compliance evaluations benefit owners and operators, as they make routine business decisions,including capital investments, land rental, and land sales. 4. Routine compliance monitoring benefits the general public by verifying that compliance is maintained. St. Croix County will: 1. Conduct routine compliance monitoring for operations that have received a letter indicating compliance (Appendix B, Letter Types A, B or E). The extent of monitoring will be proportional to the amount of State funding allocated to support this effort. A-19 APPENDIX A NR151 MOU 2. Under the monitoring system: a. Conduct an annual reporting and self-certification program for operations that have an active State cost share contract subject to a 10-year Operation and Maintenance Plan. b. Conduct an annual educational mailing for operations that are in compliance. 3. Respond to public complaints, conduct site evaluations and make compliance determinations following procedures established in Components 4 and 5. DNR will: 1. Be responsible for compliance monitoring on large-scale livestock operations WPDES permitted facilities. Component 10: Annual Reporting The parties agree: 1. Annual reports should track progress toward implementing the NR151 agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. 2. The County's record-keeping system must systematically capture information needed for an annual report. 3. To assure effective recording keeping, State agencies must pre-identify their data needs. St. Croix County will: 1. Provide a compliance status summary annually by April 15, on reporting forms provided by DNR . 2. Work toward developing mapping capabilities to show the locations of cropland parcels and livestock operations that have been evaluated, and the compliance status of these lands and operations. DNR will: 1. Develop an annual reporting form for the county to use to report progress on the implementation strategy for NR151. The annual report may include a summary for(1) the county, (2) each watershed and (3) each standard or prohibition. 2. Provide an electronic annual reporting form to the County at least three months prior to the reporting deadline (and as early as possible in advance of the deadline). 3. Work with DATCP to prepare an annual statewide report that documents the status of program implementation. Make this report available to the Land and Water Conservation Board, DNR Board, Agricultural Board,Wisconsin Legislature and other interested parties. Note:DNR intends to develop this report jointly with DATCP. A-20 APPENDIX B ST. C11 1 X COIJ N Y 2018 ANNUAL WORK PLAN LOCALLY-IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES Table 1: Planned activities and performance measures by category CATEGORY PLANNED ACTIVITIES WITH BENCHMARKS PERFORMANCE MEA' (goal and objective from LWRM plan can If applicable identify focus areas,e.g.HUC 12 (examples in ito be added in each category) watershed code (examples of types of"planned activities"in italics) • Cropland Cropland, soil health and/Or NMplan development(500acres) Plan numbers and acres nutrient management NMplanning and training workshop(1) Type and units of practices) installed Grassed Waterways (1 S) Amount of cost-share dollars spent FPP compliance reviews (130) #lbs of sediment reduced(using any a1 Regional biogas and nutrient recovery facility(1) #lbs ofP reduced(using any approveG #acres of cropland in compliance with • Livestock Livestock Clean water diversion (1) Type and units of practices) installed Waste facility closure(3) Amount of cost-share dollars spent Permit waste storage facility(1) #lbs of sediment reduced(using any a1 Livestockfacility siting applications (1) #lbs ofP reduced(using any approveG #of livestock facilities in compliance v • Water quality Water quality/quantity Other than Shoreland protection (500 ft) Type and units of practices) installed activities already listed in Other Well decommissioning(8) Amount of cost-share dollars spent categories) Critical area planting(5) #lbs of sediment reduced(using any a1 Karst sinkhole treatment(1) #lbs ofP reduced(using any approveG Milking center waste system(]) Residential well water screening program (100) • Forestry Forestry Native tree and shrub sale(]7,000) Number sold • Invas ive Invasive species Public inquiries and educational efforts (30) Number of contacts handled • Wildlife Wildlife-Wetlands-Habitat other Wildlife damage program funding(20) Number of claims funded than forestry Or invasive species) Native prairie plant sales (15) Number of plant plug flats sold • Urban Urban issues Stormwater and erosion control permits(60) Number of sites visited Stormwater and erosion control reviews (150) Number of plans reviews Number ofpermits issued B-1 APPENDIX B T. CI 1 X COIJ N Y 2018 ANNUAL WORK PLAN LOCALLY-IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES Number of compliance issues resolved • Watershed Watershed strategies e St. Croix TMDL implementation (4 mtg's) Number of meetings attended/presentai Run Creek Producer-Led project (5 mtg's) Modeling completed is Governance (12 mtg's) Number of partner contacts made son Annis Creek National Water Quality Initiative Information system/tracking developed (4mtg's) Number of partnership development ac geted Runoff Management Grant project area meeting. • Other Other PL 566 inspections (43) Number of plans reviewed -metallic mining and reclamation inspection(20) Number of inspections Permits and Ordinances Plans/application reviews Permits anticipated to be issued anticipated Feedlot permits 2 1 Manure storage construction and transfer systems 2 1 Manure storage closure 3 3 Livestock facility siting 1 1 Nonmetallic/frac sand mining 7 5 Stormwater and construction site erosion control 75 60 Shoreland zoning 50 45 B-2 APPENDIX B T. CI 1 X C IJ N Y 2018 ANNUAL WORK PLAN LOCALLY-IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES Table 3: Planned inspections Inspections Number of inspection planned Total Farm Inspections 150 For FPP 130 For NR 151 20 Animal waste ordinance 5 Livestock facility siting 3 Stormwater and construction site erosion control 130 Nonmetallic mining 7 PL 566 Dam inspections 43 Transect survey for soil loss 1010 Transect survey for cover crops 1010 Table 4: Planned outreach and education activities Activity Number Tours 3 Field days 4 Trainings/workshops 7 School-age programs(camps,field days,classroom) 70 Newsletters 3 Social media posts 24 News release/story 6 Table 5: Staff Hours and Expected Costs staff can be combined or listed individually Staff/Support Hours Costs Conservation and Land Use Specialist 2080 $94,953 Conservation and Land Use Specialist 2080 $94,953 Land Use Technician 2080 $74,502 Land Use Technician 1456 $51,376 Conservation and Land Use Planner 1040 $49,953 Support Staff 416 $29,679 Cost Sharing Bonding 640 $30,000 SEG 150 $15,000 County Cost-share 500 $40,000 TRM 1280 $160,000 Conservation Aids 30 $2,000 B-3 APPENDIX C. REFERENCES Background, Main Findings, and Recommendations Report for the Protection of Surface and Groundwater Quality in St. Croix County. St. Croix County Surface and Groundwater Quality Protection Study Group. October 2017 Bass Lake Management Plan. St. Croix County Community Development Department and Bass Lake Rehabilitation District. December 2016. Cedar Lake Management Plan. Cedar Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District.2017. Cedar Lake Phosphorus TMDL Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.2003. Community and Economic Impacts of the St. Croix River Crossing A St. Croix County Perspective. University of Wisconsin—Extension Center for Community and Economic Development with contributions from Gillaspy Demographics. Foundation Document for the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. National Park Service. 2017. Ground-water flow and quality in Wisconsin's shallow aquifer system. Kammerer,P.A. Jr. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Investigations Report 90-4171. Heritage Areas of St. Croix County. Wisconsin Heritage Areas Program. UW-Extension. 1976. Kinnickinnic River Watershed Project 1999-2010. Community Report. Kinnickinnic River Land Trust. 2016. Lower St. Croix River National Scenic Riverway Cooperative Management Plan. National Park Service. 2001. National Resource Inventory. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1992. New Approaches to the Farmland Preservation Program. Working Lands Commission Study Paper. DATCP. 2005. Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the St. Croix County Lakes Cluster Priority Watershed Project. April 1997. Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the Kinnickinnic River Priority Watershed Project. April 1999. Perch Lake Forest&Prairie Stewardship Plan. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. April 2002. Perch Lake Management Plan. St. Croix County Community Development Department. October 2016. Pollution Reduction Incentive Program: A Runoff Management Plan for the South Fork of the Hay River Priority Watershed Project. November 1997. Red Cedar River Water Quality Partnership. A Water Quality Strategyfor the Land and Waters of the Red Cedar River Basin. July 2015. Addendum to the Implementation Plan for the Lake St. Croix Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load. 2014. C-1 APPENDIX C. REFERENCES St. Croix County Agriculture and Farmland Preservation Plan. 2012. St. Croix County 2012-2035 Comprehensive Plan. Adopted November 2012 Amended December 2017. St. Croix County Parks and Recreation Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.2008. St. Croix County Development Management Plan . West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, St. Croix County Planning Department,University of Wisconsin-Extension. 2000. St. Croix County Outdoor Recreation Plan. St. Croix County Parks Department and St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Department. 2006. St. Croix County Resource Management Plan Public Survey. St. Croix County Land and Water Conservation Department and University of Wisconsin Extension. 1999. St. Croix County Soil Erosion Control Plan. West Central Regional Planning Commission. October 1988. St. Croix County Soil and Water Conservation District. Resource Conservation Program. October 1978. St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance Comprehensive Update. July 2017. St. Croix Economic Profile. St. Croix Economic Development Corporation. 2008. St. Croix Lakes Cluster Watershed. Protecting Water Quality And Your Lake. Combined St. Croix County Lakes Cluster Watershed Results. Fall 1998. The State of the Lower Chippewa Basin. Department of Natural Resources. 2001. The State of the St. Croix Basin. Department of Natural Resources. March 2002. TMDL Implementation report for Lake Mallalieu and the Willow River (draft). St. Croix County and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Squaw Lake TMDL Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Stewardship of the Lower St. Croix River and its Watershed. Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Commission. November 1993. Water Quality in the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, Wisconsin. U.S. Geological Survey. D. Graczyk. 1986. Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4319. Western Prairie Habitat Restoration Area Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement. Department of Natural Resources. 1998. Wisconsin Population 2030. A Report on Projected State, County and Municipal Populations and Households for the Period 2000 2030. Demographic Services Center.Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2004. Wisconsin Water Use. 2015 Withdrawal Summary. Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources C-2 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Prioritized Recommendations from the Ground & Surface Water Quality Study Report ............. .. (>,oix Gcwnty "on,t m'� tiro xva oa MA 41 D-2 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATERRECREPORT Idblf-, pf Cmnterits ------------------------------------------------'- i1rior.i 1 , , i .. jentifically �,.J..!I.n.ki.n...........water well te.s in I.,)- F 1 pnd baseline data in order to Ij -------------------------------------.O �� ---------------------------------------�O B. --------------------9 ------------------------------------.9 2.., --------------------------------------.9 f� ---------------------------------------------. 1U --------------------------------------. 1U --------------------' 1U fL ---------------------------------------- 11 --------------- 1Z CL ---' 1Z f� ---------------------------------. 1Z f� ---------------------------------------------. 13 -------' 13 A. -------. 13 fL --------------------- 13 ----------------------------------' 13 CL ---------------------------------------------. 14 ................................................. 14 --' 14 incorn..1, ptible land Uses and or v !ling!.2: .........�j.!..!,,ernents in envii nenta.1.1y p,..l sitive a i ea.14 fL ---------------------------. 15 C. ------------. 15 2., ----------------------' 15 ......................................................... 15 f� . 16 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATERRECREPORT ----------. 16 11t8Jz atj o�............................................................................................................................................................ 16 fL ---------. 17 C. ---------------------------------------------. 17 ------------------------ 17 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT lroiectr 1riori ization CDD reviewed and prioritized the water quality study Fimquuure t—The Actii n Priority(Matrix report recommendations according to the over-arching goal of the Groundwater Study Group, "To provide the St. Croix County Board with sound science-based High recommendations for policies that protect the quality of groundwater supply that our County residents rely upon for personal household use and consumption." CDD prioritized the recommendations according to the above goal and the adjacent Action Priority Matrix.The priorities were scored by impact and effort involved. Effort involved includes estimated project cost. The short-term immediate priorities are specific to advancing the understanding of groundwater quality changes; sources of nitrate pollution,whether human, animal, or commercial fertilizer; groundwater flow in Low karst aquifers and mapping of environmentally Low Ef ort High sensitive areas in order to make science-based recommendations for policies that protect groundwater.These priority recommendations include groundwater staff, water quality tests, consultant fees for remote sensing and study of karst aquifers and calibration of the groundwater flow model, and mapping of sensitive groundwater recharge areas. Without this information, it will be difficult to determine the benefits of policy changes implemented through the long-term recommendations. The short-term immediate priorities include the reclassification of an existing CDD administrative assistant position to Water Resources/ Marketing Specialist. It is anticipated that this position would dedicate about 60% of their time to groundwater related activities.The position will be the project coordinator for the drinking- water well-testing program and be responsible for coordinating resources to accomplish the tasks associated with the priority recommendations.The position will be the point of contact for groundwater education, outreach and emergency response. The long-term recommendations include new ordinances and revisions to existing ordinances. County Board efforts to advocate at the state level for changes to statute and administrative rule to allow the county to regulate beyond the state minimum standards would likely be both short-term and long-term. Changes to statute and administrative rule could include: • Allow counties to obtain private water sample test results for the protection of public health • Changes to NR 151, to include St. Croix County karst aquifer bedrock in performance standards that exceed general state standards, similar to the changes for karst Silurian bedrock • Require nitrate removal systems for POWTS in karst aquifers through revisions in state statute and Administrative Code DSPS 383. • Increase well casing and grouting standards for wells in karst aquifers through revisions in state statute and Administrative Code NR811 and 812. • Require water treatment systems, reverse osmosis, nitrate removal, and UV treatment for bacteria in karst aquifers and areas with high test results for new construction and replacement through revisions in state statute and Wisconsin Uniform Building Code. D-5 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Implementation of rule changes and ordinances could require additional county staff. The document table of contents outlines the priority of tasks and projects as determined by CDD staff.The chart below lists CDD priority recommendations and a proposed timeline.The priorities are separated into short-term or immediate recommendations and long-term recommendations. For purposes of these recommendations one CDD full time employee salary and benefits is estimated to cost$90,000, one Corporation Counsel employee salary and benefits is estimated to cost &130,000 D-6 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Timeline Project Priority Order # Resource Estimated Costs 2018-2019 Sinkhole Mapping J 2.A Consultant $21,000 Funded l Reclassification of Existing —0.6 FTE$53,000 annually 2018 Position 0.6 FTE of position 3.A 1.0 FTE Co Staff $13,000 annual budget Water Resources increase over existing Water Quality Screening 2019-2029 1.0 Co.Staff Clinic 2019-2029 Baseline Water Quality 1.A Tests $10,000 annually Analysis 2020 Nitrate Source Analysis 1.13 Tests $22,000 Emergency Response 2018-2019 Protocol to Potential 3.6 Co.Staff Pollution Events Emergency Response Bacteria 2018-2019 3.0 Co.Staff Testing Policies 2019 EVAAL Study Kinnickinnic 2.E Consultant $12,000 Watershed Karst Aquifers Groundwater Flow Model,Groundwater 2.B, 2020-2022 Recharge and 2.C, Consultant $75,000-$150,000 Environmentally Sensitive 2.D Areas Mapping Total Annual Cost Water Resource Staff, $63,000 annually Baseline Testing Total One-Time $55,000-$200,000 Projects Timeline Project Priority Order # Resource Estimated Costs Ongoing Increase Acres in NMP 4 1 New FTE $90,000 annually Revise Land Use Policy Research Mid 2024 Zoning Ordinances $180,000 annually Agricultural Shoreland 1 New FTE Ag Implementation 2025 5 $8,000 ordinance Management Ordinance 1 New FTE Well County Administration of development State Well Code Research mid 2024 Livestock Operations and 1 New FTE Ag $220,000 annually Implementation 2025 Licensing Ordinance(s) 6 1 New FTE Legal $20,000-$30,000 ordinance development Total Annual Cost 5 New FTE $490,000 annually Total One-Time Ordinance Projects Development $28,000-$38,000 D-7 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT lriorhy .1. Develop a uukmtiff" . � f � � � water i -testing prograrn tr expand brisefine drito in u° rrkr to measure r drinking water,quality ovef time. Baseline Water Quality Testing The Community Development Department (CDD) and Public Health will partner to develop a scientifically sound drinking water well testing program to expand baseline data in order to measure changes in drinking water quality over time.The program will focus on measuring nitrates and bacteria.The results will educate and assist rural homeowners and policy makers in developing informed decisions regarding private wells, water treatment, land use, and regulation. Public Health has contacted the Eau Claire City-County Health Department Lab.The Eau Claire Lab can accommodate 200 tests per year @ —$50 per test for Nitrates and bacteria.The sample number and test schedule will need to be determined with the Eau Claire lab to avoid staffing concerns and conflict with other tests. CDD will use its existing well and drinking-water testing program database to identify potential well owners.These wells will have a Wisconsin Unique Well ID, construction log, and have an accurate spatial location suitable for this program.We will consult with Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey and United States Geological Survey geologists on best locations for these wells. CDD will contact the identified well owners to provide information to them regarding the long-term testing program, data use, and testing procedure. The program will strive to test 200 wells each year, for five years, for 1,000 individual wells tested at the end of five years. One thousand wells is 6%of the existing 16,000 wells in St. Croix County. In the 6t"year,the cycle will begin again with tests on the first 200.The 1,000 wells tested in five years shall be spatially located to provide countywide coverage of well tests. Private well drinking water testing often occurs as part of real estate property transfer and home inspections. This well testing data would add significantly to the county baseline data and allow drinking water quality trends and geographic areas of concern to be identified more quickly. Currently, water test samples are sent to the person requesting the inspection. Advocating at the state level to allow counties to receive private water sample test results would need to be pursued by the County Board. The baseline water quality test program may not be the appropriate testing program for bacteria. Bacteria in groundwater and wells is temporal in nature, and is highly dependent on snow cover, snowmelt, rain events, and manure spreading activities. It will need to be determined how many tests the Eau Claire lab can perform when bacteria may be present in samples. A separate bacteria-testing program should be developed to respond to brown water events. D-8 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT irn eIIII liii i,'i August 2018: Arrange a meeting between Eau Claire City/County Health Department Environmental Health, St. Croix County Community Development, St. Croix County Public Health to share goals of project, discuss timeline and logistics. September-October 2018: Meet with Community Development to identify dates for nitrate screening event(s), develop plan for outreach to private well owners, and identify educational materials. November—December 2018: Outreach to private well owners. February—April 2019: Collect water samples (65 samples in February, 65 samples in March, 70 samples in April). Well owners will receive their own results and be provided with guidance and education if results are abnormal. May—June 2019: Compile data and create database. Share results with stakeholders. July 2019: Develop plan for sustainability of project. Nitrate Source Analysis Of Drinking Water Wells With Nigh Nitrates. In areas of the county with high nitrates, perform a nitrate-source analysis on a representative sample of drinking water wells. A nitrate source analysis can determine whether the source of nitrates is human, animal, or commercial fertilizer.The increase of rural homes and rural residential subdivisions with septic systems, CAFO's, and the increase of row crops can all impact nitrates in groundwater. A source analysis can determine how each of these sources impact nitrates in groundwater. A source analysis can inform groundwater protection policies by focusing on sources of greatest concern. A nitrate source analysis is—$220/sample. A county-wide nitrate source analysis study should sample 100 drinking water wells.The projected cost for this project is $22,000. Frei Water Quality Screening Clinics CDD is developing the framework for hosting free drinking water quality screening clinics. CDD has purchased an YSI ProDSS Multiparameter Water Quality Meter. County staff will use the meter at water quality screening clinics. Nitrates will be tested for anyone who brings in a water sample. Groundwater and well education materials will be available for well owners. Water test kits for Eau Claire, Stevens Point or Colfax labs may be available for well owners whose screening results indicate the need for further nitrate testing. Screening results will be captured using a CDD IPad and immediately entered into the CDD well testing database by the well owner if the owner so chooses. If the well owner does not want their test results shared,the results will not be entered into the database. Well owners could also bring in prior well test results to add to the CDD database. The goal(s) of the water quality screening clinics are: • Increase participation in drinking water well testing. • Offer free water quality screening and use as an education opportunity. • Help rural homeowner make informed decisions about their drinking water quality. • Add to our drinking water test database to determine if more thorough baseline testing is required. Drinking ter Quality Mapping St. Croix County staff will develop a series of maps using the water quality testing results and the water quality screening results to display St. Croix County water quality trends related to nitrates and any changes detected in D-9 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT the level of nitrates.These maps will be hosted and displayed on the county website supported through existing staff and land information budgets. Summary of Costs Baseline Water Quality Analysis 200/year $10,000 per year (Nitrates and bacteria) $50/test 1,000/5 years $50,000 over 5 years *Repeat Same Wells Once every 5-years *Repeat $100,000 over 10 years Baseline water quality testing program Water Quality Screening 0.5 FTE existing staff $45,000 GW-Staff&GIS-Staff$40/hr Nitrate Source Analysis $220/sample 100 samples $22,000 Mobile Water Quality Screening Lab CDD Purchased 2017 $8,773 Grant Funded Equipment .. . . . .$55,000/year TOTALS $22,000 One time Nitrate Source Analysis flriorfty,2. Identifyand rnap environmentally en sensitive amas, and conduits it tri 'rr ,orad ( '.ter, ,o improvesiti � ' f � °1 " rr'ur rnire spreading, tc. A. Sinkhole Identification & High Resolution Lard Cover Mapping This project will create a high-resolution land cover classification and map sinkhole locations for St Croix County, WI.The project will employ an object-based image analysis and sinkhole mapping approach using leaf-off imagery, leaf-on imagery, and LiDAR data, acquired in 2014 and 2015 with ancillary vector datasets to map land cover classes and sinkholes.The land cover classes mapped will include tree canopy, shrub, grassland, agriculture, wetland, barren, impervious, and water.The resulting land cover classification will be used with lidar-derived surface and topographic models to map sinkhole locations.The results of these analyses will include map layers and documents with land cover classes and sinkhole locations for the extent of the county. These analyses will be summarized by geographies such as parcel boundaries as defined by St Croix County. The deliverables for this project are as follows: • Lidar-derived surface models: normalized digital surface model (nDSM), normalized digital terrain model (nDTM), canopy height model (CHM), topographic position index(TPI), and any other surface models used for sinkhole mapping. • 8-class, high-resolution (1m) land cover layer • Sinkhole layers with the location and extent of each sinkhole. • Report and map layers summarizing methods, analyses, and results. • Metadata for each layer. D-10 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT �� `a""i�� i,fi,, ✓?h.,i°` w .YMp i�^yl✓r✓eM�£ ✓ �`,4,k/��x di V, A dJl'7 y ✓✓ 6 ✓� !p n,0✓�r ✓4U;� i j�P,��1 � n✓,%;%. C ° t `44�1��i����U ;;mf inq���' �`,�r���i, 1✓/,✓,� l✓n k ,r ;, '����x,IIQ !j �(��r r��✓� U"i` jJ�✓ 'm," �'�rc�V�J�/� ���,% JirA) iir a gay, ( "* "� ✓Wp '�' dN�Nr �r � � � � r au n l � �� ��✓^ � f 1 ��/ �y�r/fY' �C J�j I�Py � �'��' �� / Jl i � �� v✓r� r � ��� iagr �✓ ✓/�r1rUY�✓ice � � �i � , ✓ /� �� � ;� , �� / �r iii ✓n rye , � s � r'��,�/ u� �a z�i�� ✓ m % 1 i wA r1 /i �u r �Udm,�� �/' C� � i 'iil� y r^� lr %' 2 h m ✓ i � G � fWWIIw I r 7r✓i a A r The land cover and sinkhole mapping from this remote sensing project will be used to identify environmentally sensitive areas and conduits to groundwater. Sinkhole locations will be provided to the state for inclusion in SnapPlus and incorporated into farm nutrient management plans St. Croix County is collaborating with USFWS-St. Croix Wetland Management District on this project. St. Croix County's projected cost is$20,950. The funding is available and the project is moving forward. Map Karst Surface Features Starting with the sinkhole data from the sinkhole identification project, begin to collect other surface data related to karst topography and develop a GIS database of sinkholes, springs, and stream sinks.The St. Croix County Karst Feature dataset will be continuously updated as more karst related surface features are identified. Groundwater flow through local karst aquifers, in central St. Croix County is not well simulated in the USGS Groundwater Flow Model.The groundwater flow model final report suggests that simulation of groundwater flow through the karst aquifer in St. Croix County would most likely be improved with further karst investigation. The karst surface features will be used in the study of local karst aquifers to provide data to likely improve the groundwater flow model. The karst feature map may be used to regulate land use in order to protect groundwater resources. D-11 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Update Hydrologic Data & Calibrate the USGS Groundwater Flow Model In 2009 the US Geological Survey(USGS) published a regional three-dimensional groundwater-flow model and three associated demonstration inset models.The model(s) simulate the groundwater-flow system in the three- county area that includes St. Croix, Polk and Pierce counties.The model was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the three county governments.The objectives of the regional model of Pierce, Polk, and St. Croix counties were to improve understanding of the groundwater flow system and to develop a tool suitable for evaluating the effects of potential water-management programs. However, these models could be enhanced to address specific questions through the collection or compilation of additional hydrologic data and by calibration of the models to address the stated purpose. Simulation of groundwater flow through karst aquifers in the St. Croix County model would most likely be improved with data from karst mapping and better understanding of local groundwater flow in karst aquifers. This project incorporates the karst feature mapping and other enhanced data collection into a more highly calibrated groundwater flow model calibrated to answer specific questions. Due to the nature of underground karst features it is unlikely the groundwater flow model will be precise enough to answer where does a pollutant in a well originate from. This project requires technical assistance from the USGS and Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey (WGNHS).The estimated cost for completing further study of groundwater flow in karst aquifers and calibrating the groundwater flow model is$75,000 to $150,000 depending on the parameters of the study. Identify Groundwater Recharge Areas & other groundwater environmentally sensitive areas. The karst feature dataset, soils, depth to bedrock,wetlands, groundwater flow model and any other important environmental data layer will be used to create a groundwater recharge area map and groundwater sensitivity map. The groundwater recharge map may be used to regulate land use. EVAAL Study for Kinnickinnic Watershed The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Water Quality has developed the Erosion Vulnerability Assessment for Agricultural Lands (EVAAL)toolset to assist watershed managers in prioritizing areas within a watershed which may be vulnerable to water erosion (and thus increased nutrient export) and therefore may contribute to downstream surface water quality problems. It evaluates locations of relative vulnerability to sheet, rill and gully erosion using information about topography, soils, rainfall and land cover. This tool enables watershed managers to prioritize and focus field-scale data collection efforts, thus saving time and money while increasing the probability of locating fields with high sediment and nutrient export for implementation of best management practices (BMPs). MSA Professional Services completed an EVAAL analysis for the Willow River Watershed as part of the Highway 64 Communities Stormwater-Wastewater study activities. Watershed managers in the implementation of the Willow and St. Croix River TMDL may use the analysis. MSA has provided a cost estimate of$12,000 for completing EVAAL analysis for the Kinnickinnic River Watershed. D-12 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Summary of Costs ���' � Sinkhole Identification and High Resolution Land Cover Mapping Consultant $21,000 Funded Groundwater Flow Model Local Groundwater Flow in Karst Aquifers Consultant $75,000 Identify and Map Groundwater Recharge Area Consultant $75,000 EVAAL Study for Kinnickinnic Watershed 1 Consultant $12,000 TOTALS $183,000 11riority m G W "u ..rrme Wat,er 11rotection, Coordination, Education, (")iArreach A. Create and support necessary staff positions to carry out the priority recommendations. CDD is requesting to reclassify an existing staff position as Water Resources/Marketing Specialist.The position will be the project coordinator for the drinking water well testing program and be responsible for coordinating resources to accomplish the tasks associated with the priority recommendations.The position will be the point of contact for groundwater education, outreach and emergency response. Reclassification of the existing position will be an increase of approximately$13,000 for salary and benefits. B. Develop a county protocol for urgent response to actual or potential Water-resource pollution events that threaten humin health, the environment, or natural resources. CDD is proposing to use the SCC-Alert System to notify residents of potential water resource pollution events. SCC-Alert is a free to user mass alert system offered by St. Croix County Emergency Support Services. Alerts can be sent to residents based on geographic location.The service will be publicized to local residents residing in locations susceptible to water resource pollution events.The user must register themselves to receive the alerts. Protocol will be established to determine what constitutes a water resource pollution event. C. Emergency Response Bacteria Testing Public Health and CDD will create an emergency response drinking water well testing program for bacteria in response to brown-water events. D-13 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT D. Summary of Costs CDD Staff 0.6 FTE "'$53,000 annually Emergency Response Bacteria Testing Variable According to Weather $15/test 20 tests per event $300 per event :'f.iof"'ity 4. Ir"icf"eme t'h " number ber Yes in nutrient fn anagernent plans P The steps to increase the number of acres in nutrient management plan include: • Increase enrollment in Farmland Preservation Zoning thereby requiring NMPs. • Continually educate and encourage producers to create nutrient management plans. • Increased participation in NMP program will require increase of cost share dollars. The primary resource required to implement the above steps,to increase enrollment in Farmland Preservation Zoning, is additional land &water conservation staff. Increase of land enrolled in Farmland Preservation Zoning is dependent on more agricultural towns choosing Farmland Preservation Zoning. Staff would be responsible for technical assistance to producers, education, and implementing BMP's. Technical Assistance to Producers 1 New FTE $90,000 annually Priority 5. Revisethe Courity-'s lurid use policy arid zorfing ordinances t,o pi otect groundwater"ater"r"esouf"' 'es. A. Separate incompatible land uses and/or varying lot size requirements in environmentally sensitive area. As an example, the comprehensive revision zoning ordinance project proposes to split the existing Rural Residential District into two districts, reflecting major plat subdivision based rural development and scattered isolated rural residential development at a lower density.The separation of these uses will minimize land use conflicts and reduce the potential for and exposure to groundwater contamination through lower residential density development in some areas of the county where zoning and town future land use desires allow. The identification of environmentally sensitive areas and important groundwater recharge areas in karst aquifers will play a future role in determining, landuse, future residential density and lot size. D-14 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT B. Update county soil and erosion control ordinances. St. Croix County is in the process of updating these ordinances.The county must meet statutory and administrative rule standards and in most cases cannot regulate beyond state standards. Changes to legislation and administrative rule may be required for the county to regulate beyond state standards. Advocating at the state level to allow local regulation to exceed state standards would need to be pursued by the County Board. Of particular interest is NR 151 Runoff Management. NR 151 contains performance standards for Silurian Bedrock that exceed general state standards. Silurian Bedrock is the type of karst found in eastern Wisconsin at shallow depth to bedrock.Advocating at the state level to include all karst areas for higher performance standards would need to be pursued by the county board. Encourage common POWTS and shared wells constructed to a higher Review conservation design subdivision standards, work to incentivize the use of common POWTS and common wells to achieve a higher level of construction and treatment. Individual POWTS and wells in the county should also be encouraged to be constructed to a higher standard. Nitrate removal technology for private onsite wastewater treatment system (POWTS) effluent does exist. However, the County cannot regulate beyond state minimum standards. Advocating at the state level to allow local regulation to require POWTS to treat nitrates to a higher standard would need to be pursued by the County Board.The installation of nitrate treatment on POWTS would add $7,000-$10,000 to the installation of a POWTS. Adoption Of Agricultural ShOrel nd Management Ordinance Agricultural activities conducted in close proximity to surface waters can pollute local surface and ground water resources. When not properly managed activities such as, fertilizer and pesticide use, tillage, irrigation, drain tile, riparian grazing, confined feeding operations, and manure management can impact water quality. Contaminated water can adversely affect human and animal health through exposure to chemicals, bacteria, viruses and sediment. An agricultural shoreland management ordinance would complement the County's Shoreland and Floodplain Overlay Zoning Ordinances, to regulate activities within designated agricultural shoreland corridors. These corridors would include areas within 35 feet of the edge of a sinkhole, centerline of an intermittent stream, top of either bank of a perennial stream or river, or the ordinary high water mark of any pond or lake. The review of applicability and cost benefit of implementing these regulations will not occur until mid-year 2022. Additional CDD Staff would be required for administering the agricultural shoreland management ordinance. 'Opt Ountydr inistr tion Of Private Well Code under NR 845.05 Explore options for adopting each of five levels of authority for regulating well design and construction, as specified in NR 845.05; and, exploring options to update well construction standards, including casing, depth, grouting and well casing down to water source, as well as improving data quality. Well construction standards are set by the state in NR 845.05. In most cases the county cannot regulate beyond the state minimum standards. Advocating at the state level for higher well construction standards for well casing and grouting would need to be pursued by the county board. D-15 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Drinking water treatment systems are also an alternative.Water treatment systems with reverse osmosis, nitrate removal and UV bacteria treatment are available and should be encouraged. Advocating at the state level for construction standards to include these water treatment systems would need to be pursued by the county board. Tasks associated with county administration of private well code: • Scoping meetings with Public Health, HHS, CDD, CDC and Corporation Counsel • Drafting &Adoption • 50 Hours of various staff time • Implementation and Enforcement The review of applicability and cost benefit of implementing these regulations will not occur until mid-year 2024. Additional Public Health or CDD Staff would be required for administering the private well code. Summary Of Costs I". WW Revise Policy and Ordinances 200 hoursover 18 mo. $8,000 Existing Staff Agricultural Shoreland Management l 1 New FTE $90,000 annually Ordinance Enforcement Administration of Well Code 1 New FTE $90,000 annually TOTALS 2 New FTE $180,000 annually Ordinance Development $8,000 1riori ,. ;I . ` Vorz"' Options mg rdin f the regulation labor ,, fivestock operations an uu.�r;�m rr ongoingongoingrururrrurmonitoring r iururrrr rrrrurrrirurr°im .. �rr the , uruu siting r purpose of protecting water,resources. Agriculture Operations Ordinance - County-wide - Existing Chapter 1 1 Waste Storage & Waste Utilization • Evaluate existing ordinance and alternatives, Recommend Edits and Expansion, Legal Review, Public Information Meeting • Regulate spreading and setback requirements • Regulate based on Karst Topography • Regulate winter spreading based on TMDL • Regulate based on storage capacity • Set a manure tank cubic feet capacity requirement.Therefore, if a manure tank were above this cubic foot capacity threshold then a permit would be required.This would provide more clarity on when permits are needed. • Increase the application fee and/or create an application fee system based off the number of animal units owned by the permit applicant. D-16 APPENDIX D GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT B. Siting Licensing Ordinance - County-vide - Editing and Expanding Chapter 17 Zoning • Evaluate existing ordinance and alternatives, Recommend Edits and Expansion, Legal Review, Public Information Meeting • >1 Animal Unit/Acre and >500 Animal Unit • Annual Compliance Review • Limit zoning districts (Rural Residential,Ag1 &Ag2) The review of the applicability and cost benefit of implementation of these regulations will not occur until mid- year 2024. C. Summary of Costs These ordinances will require additional implementation and enforcement activities involving Community Development and Corporation Counsel staff. Operations&Licensing Ordinance Development 500-750 hours over 6 mo. $20,000-30,000 1 New FTE CDD Implementation &Enforcement New Staff $220,000 annually 1 New FTE Legal TOTALS.... $240,000—$250,000 11riority 7, 1:„ ` fir, ctiv a water quality alit core mitt uru t,o resume that the protection ground and surface rrrr a ater continues uu e ..r be a priorityissue acliwly rr ( rrusuue the Cr)u n y. CDD and HHS believe that the respective committees fulfil this role.The committees should schedule quarterly joint meetings or work sessions to address groundwater and surface water issues. D-17 ARM-LWR-167(August,2017) JRW Wisconsin Dept.of Agriculture,Trade and Consumer Protection Land and Water Resource Agricultural Resource Management Division 2811 Agriculture Drive,PO Box 8911 Management (LWRM) Madison WI 53708-8911 Phone: (608)224-4608 �rscwasn� LWRM Plan Review Checklist Wis.Stats. §92.10& Wis.Adm. Code §ATCP 50.12. County: St. Croix Date Plan Submitted for Review: 4/6/2018 I.ADVISORY COMMITTEE Yes NO Page 1. Did the county convene a local advisory committee that included a broad spectrum of public interests and perspectives (such as affected landowners, ® ❑ 2, 6, partner organizations, government officials, educational institutions) 53 11.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COUNTY BOARD APPROVAL Date(s) 1. Provide the dates that the local advisory committee met to discuss the development of the 1/23/18, LWRM plan and the county plan of work 2/13/18, 3/6/18 2. Provide the date the county held a public hearing on the LWRM plan' 6/21/18 3. Provide the date of county board approval of the plan, or the date the county board is g/4/18 expected to approve the plan after the LWCB makes its recommendation.2 III.RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES Yes NO Page 1. Does the plan include the following information as part of a county-wide resource assessment: a. Soil erosion conditions in the county', including: i. identification of areas within county that have high erosion rates or other ® ❑ 44,45 soil erosion problems that merit action within the next 10 years b. Water quality conditions of watersheds in the county', including: i. location of watershed areas, showing their geographic boundaries ❑ ❑ 30-32 ii. identification of the causes and sources of the water quality impairments ❑ ❑ 25-27, and pollutant sources 35-38 Appropriate notice must be provided for the required public hearing.The public hearing notice serves to notify landowners and land users of the results of any determinations concerning soil erosion rates and nonpoint source water pollution,and provides an opportunity for landowners and land users input on the county's plan.Individual notice to landowners is required if the landowners are referenced directly in the LWRM plan.DATCP may request verification that appropriate notice was provided. Z The county board may approve the county LWRM plan after the department approves the plan.The plan approved by the county board must be the same plan approved by the department.If the department requires changes to a plan previously approved by the county board,the department's approval does not take effect until the county board approves the modified plan. s Counties should support their analysis of soil and water conditions by referencing relevant land use and natural resource information,including the distribution of major soil types and surface topographic features,and land use categories and their distribution. Sec.ATCP 50.12(3)(b)requires that a county assemble relevant data,including relevant land use,natural resource,water quality and soil data. ARM-LWR-167(August,2017) iii. identification of areas within the county that have water quality problems ® ❑ 29, 35- that merit action within the next 10 years. 38 2. Does the LWRM plan address objectives by including the following: a. specific water quality objectives identified for each watershed based upon ® ❑ 35-38 the resource assessment, if available b. pollutant load reduction targets for the watersheds, if available ® ❑ 35-38 Other comments: IV. DNR CONSULTATION Yes No Page 1. Did the county consult with DNR'to obtain water quality assessments, if i, 35- available; to identify key water quality problem areas;to determine water 38, 67- quality objectives; and to identify pollutant load reduction targets, if any; and ® ❑ 68 to review NR 151 implementation Appen dix A Other comments: V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Yes No Page 1. Does the LWRM plan include the following implementation components: a. A voluntary implementation strategy to encourage adoption of farm 62, 64, conservation practices 65, 68, ® ❑ 70-72, 76, 77, 79, 80 b. State and local regulations used to implement the plan ❑ ❑ 7-10, 12-14 c. Compliance procedures that apply for failure to implement the en conservation practices in ATCP 50, ch. NR 151 and related local ❑ 1:1dix A regulations ix A d. Relevant conservation practices to achieve compliance with performance standards and prohibitions and to address identified water quality and ❑ ❑ 71 erosion problems e. A system for meeting county responsibilities to monitor the compliance 7 g of participants in the farmland preservation program ❑ ❑ 53 67 87 4 While requirements for DNR consultation may be satisfied by including relevant DNR representatives on the advisory committee,counties may also need to interact with DNR staff in central or regional offices to meet all of the consultation requirements.DNR may point counties to other resources to obtain information including consultants who can calculate pollutant load reduction targets. 2 ARM-LWR-167(August,2017) 2. Does the LWRM plan (or accompanying work plan) estimate: a. expected costs of implementing the plan including cost-sharing for 2018 conservation practices needed to achieve plan objectives workpl b. the staff time needed to provide technical assistance and education and ® ❑ an outreach to implement the plan. ❑ ❑ 2018 workpl an 3. Does the LWRM plan describe a priority farm strategy designed to make en reasonable progress in implementing state performance standards and ❑ 1:1dix A ix A conservation practices on farms appropriately classified as a priority Other comments: VI.OUTREACH AND PARTNERING Yes NO Page 1. Does the LWRM plan describe a strategy to provide information and 60-61, education on soil and water resource management, conservation practices ❑ ❑ 65, and available cost-share funding 72-73, 80 2. Does the LWRM plan describe coordination activities with local, state and 64, 71, federal agencies? ❑ ❑ 75, 77, 79-82 Other comments: VI I.WORK PLANNING AND PROGRESS MONITORING Yes NO Page 1. Does the county's most recent annual work plans do both of the following: a. Provide measurable performance benchmarks ❑ ❑ NA b. Identify priorities ❑ ❑ NA 2. Does the LWRM plan describe a strategy and framework for monitoring 85-87, county progress implementing its plan including methodology to track and ❑ ❑ workpl measure progress in meeting performance benchmarks and plan objectives ans Other comments: VI 11. EPA SECTION 319 CONSIDERATIONS 1. IS THE COUNTY WORKING WITH DNR TO SEEK EPA APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN AS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF A 9 KEY ELEMENT PLAN UNDER SECTION 319 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT: No 5 Counties must submit annual work plan by no later than April 15th of every year to meet the requirement in s.ATCP 50.12(2)(i)for counties to have multi-year work plans. 3 ARM-LWR-167(August,2017) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the above-referenced county LWRM plan based on the criteria required in s.ATCP 50.12,Wis.Admin.Code,and s.92.10,Stats.,and has determined that the plan meets the criteria for DATCP approval of this plan. This checklist review is prepared to enable the LWCB to make recommendations regarding plan approval,and for DATCP to make its final decision regarding plan approval. Staff Signature: Date: 4 Published under s.35.93,Wis.Stats.,by the Legislative Reference Bureau. ATCP 50.08 WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 334 Subchapter III—County Soil and Water Program Note: The identification of priority farms may vary between counties,depending on local conditions,strategies,and information. A county should focus on identify- ing or working with the following farms,or other categories of farms that the county ATCP 50.10 County program; general. (1) PROGRAM identifies in its plan: ELEMENTS. Every county land conservation committee shall •Farms subject to a DNR notice of intent under s.28ll.20,Stats.,or notice of dis- charge under ch.283,Stats. establish and maintain a county SOIL and Water conservation pro- •Farms located in watersheds draining to waters that DNR has listed pursuant to gram. The program shall include all of the following elements: 33 USC ll3l3. This is also known as the"303(4)list of impaired waters." (a) A county land and water resource management plan under •Farms that have large numbers of livestock,or significant problems with manure management. s.ACCP 50.12,and a program to implement that plan. .Farms making clearly excessive nutrient applications. (b) A program to implement soil and water conservation stan- .Farms with clearly excessive rates of cropland erosion. dards. (g) County strategies to encourage voluntary implementation Note: A county's land and water resource management plan under s.ATCP 50.ll 2 of conservation practices under s. ACCP 50.04. A county shall should identify the county's strategy to implement the farm conservation practices required under s.ATCP 50.04, Under s.ATCP 50.l0,a county is required to monitor- estimate the amount of information and education,cost—sharing and ensure compliance with conservation standards for lands covered by the farm- and other financial assistance,and technical assistance needed to land preservation program under ch.9ll,Stats. See s.ATCP 50.114 and subch.VII implement its plan. related to county ordinances. (c) A program to prepare and submit annual reports under s. (h) Compliance procedures, including notice, hearing, ACCP 50.1 S and annual grant applications under s.ACCP 50.20. enforcement and appeal procedures,that will apply if the county takes action against a landowner for failure to implement con- (d) A program to receive,distribute,and account for soil and servation practices required under this chapter, ch. NR 151, or water resource management grants under this chapter. related local regulations. (e) A procedure to ensure that conservation practices funded Note: See ss.ATCP 50.04 to 50.08 and subch.VII. under this chapter are designed and installed according to this (i) The county's multi–year workplan to implement the farm chapter. conservation practices under s. ACCP 50.04, and achieve com- (f) An accounting and recordkeeping system under s. ACCP pliance with performance standards under ch.NR 151. The plan 50.22. shall identify priorities, benchmarks for performance, and (g) An information and education program to promote effec- expected costs,including an estimate of costs to implement con- tive soil and water resource management. servation practices to achieve the objectives identified in par.(c). (h)h Other program elements,if any,required under this chap- Note: The county workplan under par.(i)should be based on a reasonable assess- p c y q p ment of available funding and resources. ter' 0) The measurable annual and multi–year benchmarks the (2) COORDINATION. A county land conservation committee county will utilize to periodically monitor and measure its prog- shall,to the extent practicable,coordinate the program elements ress in meeting performance targets and achieving plan goals and under sub.(1)with each other and with all of the following: objectives under the workplan in par.(i). (a) The county's land information and modernization program Om) How a county will meet its responsibilities for monitoring under ss. 16.967 and 59.72(3),Stats. conservation compliance of landowners claiming farmland pres- (b) The related activities of NRCS, state agencies.and other ervation tax credits. governmental entities in that county. (k) How the county will provide information and education History: CR 011 090:cr.RegisterSeptember 2002 No.561,eff.10-1-02;CR related to land and water conservation, including information ll3 0116:am.(1)(b)Re ister Fe6roffuaffy 20ll4 No.098,eff.5-1-14. c related to farm conservation practices and cost–share funding. ATCP 50.12 Land and water resource management (L) How the county will coordinate its land and water con- plan. (1) REQUIREMENT. A county land conservation committee servation program with federal,state,and local agencies. shall prepare and submit, for department approval, a land and Note: The department and DNR will work with counties to develop more detailed guidelines and suggestions for county land and water resource management plans, water resource management plan. The department shall approve but individual counties have some flexibility and discretion to propose plans that are the county plan before allocating any funds to the county under appropriate for their local conditions. subch.IV. (3) PLAN DEVELOPMENT. A county land conservation commit- (2) PLAN CONTENTS. A land and water resource management tee,when preparing a land and water resource management plan, plan shall describe all of the following in reasonable detail: shall do all of the following: (a) Water quality and soil erosion conditions throughout the (a) Appoint and consult with a local advisory committee of county, including identification of the causes of water quality interested persons. impairment and pollutant sources. The plan shall include water Note: A local advisory committee should reflect a broad spectrum of public inter- quality assessments for each watershed in the county available ests and perspectives. For example,it could include: •Affected farmers,businesses,and landowners. from DNR,If any. •Agricultural,business,environmental,civic,and recreational organizations. (b) State and local regulations that the county will use to imple- .Federal,state,local,and tribal officials. ment the county plan. The department may require the county to •The University of Wisconsin and other educational institutions. provide copies of relevant local regulations,as necessary,and may (b) Assemble relevant data,including relevant land use,natu- comment on those regulations. ral resource,water quality,and soil data. Note: See state rules under chs.ATCP 48,ATCP 50,NR l5 l,and NR 243. (c) Consult with DNR. (c) Water quality objectives for each watershed,including any Note: The county land conservation committee should normally consult with the available pollutant load reduction targets,consistent with condi- appropriate DNR staff to obtain needed planning information,effectively address tions identified in par.(a). The county shall consult with DNR to resource management concerns,and ensure that its plan incorporates elements that determine water quality objectives and to identify pollutant load satisfy planning requirements under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. reduction targets. (d) Assess resource conditions and identify problem areas. (d) Key water quality and soil erosion problem areas. The (e) Establish and document priorities and objectives. county land conservation committee shall identify key water qual- (f) Project available funding and resources. ity problem areas in consultation with DNR (g) Establish and document a plan of action. (e) Conservation practices needed to address key water quality (h) Identify roles and responsibilities. and soil erosion problems. (4) PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARING. Before a county land con- (f) A plan to identify priority farms in the county. servation committee submits a land and water resource manage- Published under s.35.93,Stats.Updated on the first day of each month. Entire code is always current. The Register date on each page Register January 2018 No.745 is the date the chapter was last published. Published under s.35.93,Wis.Stats.,by the Legislative Reference Bureau. 335 AGRICULTURE,TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ATCP 50.16 ment plan for department approval,the committee shall do all of (c) Once determined to be in compliance with the nutrient the following: management standard in s. ACCP 50.04 (3), a landowner shall (a) Hold at least one public hearing on the plan. remain in compliance with the nutrient management standard on (b) Make a reasonable effort to notify landowners affected by the entire farm operation owned by the landowner. If a landowner committee findings under sub. (2) (d)and(e),and give them an increases acres of cropland or pasture by acquiring new land or opportunity to present information related to the accuracy of the converting acres to these uses, the landowner remains in com- committee's findings. pliance by updating the farm's nutrient management plan within Note: The county land conservation committee should consult with the depart- one year to incorporate the additional cropland or pasture acres. ment before holding public hearings on a land and water resource management plan. (d) A landowner claiming farmland preservation tax credits (5) PLAN APPROVAL. The department shall review a county shall comply with the pasture requirement in ss. NR 151.02, land and water resource management plan,and shall approve or 151.03, 151.04,and 151.055,beginning on January 1,2016. disapprove the plan after consulting with the LWCB. The depart- (2) ExCEPTIONS; FARMLAND PRESERVATION AGREEMENTS. (a) ment shall review the plan based on the criteria identified in this Except as required under par.(b),sub.(1)does not apply to land- section,s.ACCP 50.30(3),and s.92.10(6),Stats. The secretary owners under a farmland preservation agreement entered into shall sign the order approving or disapproving the county plan. prior to July 1,2009. Landowners with these agreements claiming The department shall approve a plan for a specified period of time farmland preservation tax credits under ss.71.57 to 71.6 1,Stats., that shall not exceed 10 years, subject to conditions that the shall comply with the standards,specified in the agreement,on the department specifies in the order. The department's approval does land specified in the agreement, as required in ss. 92.104 and not take effect if the county board does not approve the county 92.105,2007 Stats. plan. (b) Landowners who entered into, or modified, a farmland Note: The county board may approve the county land and water resource manage- ment anages reservation agreement between July 1,2009,and May 1,2014, ment plan before or after the department approves the plan. The plan approved by p c y y the county board must be the same plan approved by the department. If the depart- pursuant to the provisions in s. 91.60(1)or(3) (C), Stats., shall ment requires changes to a plan previously approved by the county board,the depart- comply with the soil and water conservation standards in effect at ment's approval does not take effect until the county board approves the modified plan. the time the agreement was entered into or modified. (6) PLAN IMPLEMENTATION. The department may review (c) Landowners who enter into, or modify,a farmland pres- county implementation of an approved county land and water ervation agreement after May 1,2014,shall comply with the soil resource management plan. The department may consider infor- and water conservation standards in effect at the time the agree- mation obtained in its review when it makes annual grant alloca- ment was entered into or modified, and shall be required,under tions to counties under subch.IV. the terms of that agreement,to comply with the pasture require- History: CR Ol 090:cr.RegisterSeptember 2002 No.561,eff.10-1-02;CR ment in s.NR 151.02,and ss.NR 151.03, 151.04,and 151.055, ll0-ll22:am.(5)Register.hily 20ll ll No.667,eff.8-1-11;CR ll3-0ll6:am.(2)(a),(c), beginning January 1,2016. (g),(i),0),cr.(2)Om)Register P'ebrtuiry 2014 No.698,eff.5-1-14. (3) PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE. A County land Conservation ATCP 50.14 County ordinances. A county may, by committee may enter into a written performance schedule with a ordinance, require landowners to implement conservation rac- landowner to obtain compliance with new standards under s. q p p i ll f f th all 04 if aoe following apply: tices required under s.ACCP 50.04. A county shall comply with ACCP 50. g pp y' applicable requirements under subch.VII. (a) The performance schedule, including amendments or Note: See county authority under ss.59.69,59.692„92,.11 ll,92,.15,92,.16,and extensions,does not allow the landowner more than 5 years,from 92,.117,Stats. This section does not expand a county's statutory authority. A county the time the landowner is informed of their compliance obliga- ordinance implementing conservation practices under s.ATCP 50.04 should berea- tions, to achieve compliance with all applicable conservation sonably consistent with s.ATCP 50.04, A county livestock ordinance must comply with s.ATCP 50.60 and s.92,.ll 5,Stars. DATCP may review and comment on a county standards. ordinance(see ss.ATCP 50.l2 and 50.54). Cost-sharing under-a local ordinance (b) The landowner agrees in writing to achieve compliance must be at least equivalent to cost-sharing under s.AT('P 50.08(see s.ATCP 50.i4). History. CR Ol 090:cr.Register September 2002 No.561,eff.10-1-02. With the standards required under sub.(1)according to a specific schedule for completing the work. ATCP 50.16 Farmland preservation program; con- (c) Every performance schedule shall include a notice that Servation Standards compliance. (1) COMPLIANCE WITH landowners are responsible for determining their eligibility to STANDARDS REQUIRED. (a) Except as provided in par.(d)and sub. receive a farmland preservation tax credit independent of the land- (2),a landowner claiming farmland preservation tax credits shall owner's commitment to implement the conservation practices set comply with the standards and practices in s.ACCP 50.04. forth in the performance schedule. Note: The soil and water conservation standards are promulgated by the depart- Note: While a performance schedule may extend a landowner's compliance under ment under ss.92.05(3)(c)and(Ic),92.ll 4(8),and 28 L ll 6(3)(b)and(c),Stats. See this section,a landowner may not meet other program requirements necessary to also s.9 L80,Stats. A county land conservation committee or its designee determines receive benefits such as farmland preservation tax credits. These other program whether a landowner is in compliance with conservation standards. A determination requirements may include residency, minimum farm income, and continuity of of compliance is one component of the requirements a landowner must satisfy to claiming farmland preservation program tax credits. claim a farmland preservation tax credit. Landowners are responsible to determine (d) The land conservation committee approves the perfor- whether they meet all the eligibility requirements to claim the benefits of compliance. mance schedule, including the required practices and the time (b) In determining landowner compliance under this section, allowed to achieve compliance. The land conservation committee the land conservation committee shall base its determination on may establish shorter periods to achieve compliance that the 5 all of the following: year maximum allowed under this subsection. A landowner is 1. Whether the entire farm operation owned by the landowner considered to be implementing his or her performance schedule is in compliance with all the applicable conservation standards. if the landowner is making reasonable progress in installing the 2. Whether a review of available documentation at the county required practices and is taking other appropriate actions in the demonstrates the entire farm operation owned by the landowner time frame identified by the land conservation committee in the has no significant discharge from an animal lot, feed storage, performance schedule to achieve compliance. manure storage,or other livestock structure on the farm. Note: A county should exercise sound judgment in its monitoring of a farmer's conservation compliance,including its decision on the length of a performance 3. Whether a review of available documentation at the county schedule,and its decision on how and when to respond to changes in farmer compli- demonstrates the entire farm operation owned by the landowner ance with applicable standards. The county may consider the following in exercising has implemented a nutrient management plan in compliance with its discretion:extenuating circumstances,such as adverse weather-conditions,that the nutrient management standard in s.ACCP 50.04(3)for all land may affect a landowner's ability to comply; the nature and seriousness of the landowner's non-compliance;the degree to which the landowner has cooperated or where a plan is required on the farm. taken actions to address concerns;the availability of technical or other assistance;and Published under s.35.93;Stats.Updated on the first day of each month. Entire code is always current. The Register date on each page is the date the chapter was last published. Register January 2018 No.745 Updated 2015-16 Wis.Stats.Published and certified under s.35.18. August 2,2018. 92.07 SOIL, WATER AND ANIMAL WASTE Updated 15-16 Wis.Stats. 4 or any of its agencies. A land conservation conmuttee may adnun- (d) Plan review The department shall review and approve or ister,as agent of the United States or any of its agencies,or of this disapprove land and water resource management plans submitted state or any of its agencies,any soil conservation,flood preven- by the land conservation committees. The department may tion, water management, water quality improvement, nonpoint require land conservation conmrittees to indicate specific projects source water pollution abatement, erosion control, erosion pre- to be funded under each plan and the related cost-sharing rates. Ventiori project or resource conservation program within the (5) IMPLEMENTATION;BOARD DUTIES. (a) Plan review. The county. A land conservation committee may act as agent for the board shall review land and water resource management plans United States,or any of its agencies,or for this state or any of its submitted by the land conservation committees and make recom- agencies,in connection with the acquisition,construction,opera- mendations to the department. tion or administration of any resource conservation program (b) Solicit comments. The board shall solicit comments on within the county. A land conservation committee,on behalf of land conservation committee plans from the agencies identified as the county, may accept donations, gifts and contributions in advisers to the board under s. 15.135 (4). money,services,materials or otherwise from any source and use (6) IMPLEMENTATION;COMMITTEE DUTIES_ (a) Plan prepara- or expend these moneys,services,materials or other contributions in carrying on its operations. tion. A land conservation committee shall prepare a land and water resource management plan that,at a minimum,does all of (12) CONTRACTS;RULES. Each land conservation committee, the following: in the name of the county,may make and execute contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of its conditions throughout1• Includes assessment of water quality and soil erosion the county,including any assessment avail- powers. (13) CONTRIBUTIONS;AGREEMENTS. As a condition to extend- able from the department of natural resources. ing any benefits under this chapter to,or the performance of work 2. Specifies water quality objectives for each water basin,pri- upon,any lands not owned or controlled by this state or any of its orty watershed,as defined in s.281.65(2)(c),and priority lake, agencies, a land conservation committee may require contribu- as defined in s.281.65 (2)(be). tions in money,services,materials or otherwise to any operations 3. Identifies the best management practices to achieve the conferring the benefits, and may require landowners and land objectives under subd.2.and to achieve the tolerable erosion level users to enter into and perform agreements or covenants respect- under s.92.04(2)(i). ing the use of land as will lead to conservation of soil and water 4. Identifies applicable performance standards and prohibi- resources. tions related to the control of pollution from nonpoint sources,as (14) ENTER UPON LANDS. Each land conservation connnittee defined in s.281.65(2)(b),and to soil erosion control,including may enter upon any lands within the county to examine the land those under this chapter and chs.281 and 283 and ss.59.692 and and make surveys or plans for soil and water conservation without 59.693. being liable for trespass in the reasonable performance of these 5. Includes a multiyear description of planned county activi- duties. This authorization applies to the land conservation cons- ties, and priorities for those activities,related to land and water mittee members and their agents. resources,including those designed to meet the objectives speci- (15) ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCES. A fied under subd. 2.and to ensure compliance with the standards land conservation committee may, if authorized by the county and prohibitions identified under subd.4. board, administer and enforce those provisions of an ordinance 6. Describes a system to monitor the progress of activities enacted under s. 101.65(1)(a)related to construction site erosion, described in the plan. a zoning ordinance enacted under s. 59.693 or an ordinance 7. Includes a strategy to provide information and education enacted under authority granted under s. 101.1206. related to soil and water resource management. History: 1981 c.346;1983 a.410 s.2200(2);1995 a.332 s.251(8);1991 a.309; g, Describes methods for coordinating activities described lri 1993 a.16; 1995 a_201; 1997 a_27; 1999 a.9;2009 a.29;2011 a.32. Cross-reference: see ss.59.70(20)(c)and 60.10(2)(i)for authorization of the plan with programs of other local,state and federal agencies. county or tovn,appropriations. (b) Notification. A land conservation committee shall notify 92.09 Land conservation committee staff. The land con- landowners and land users of the results of any determinations servation conmuttee may employ county soil and water conserva- concerning soil erosion rates and nonpoint source water pollution, tion staff,subject to the approval of the county board. The county and provide an opportunity for landowners and land users to pres- soil and water conservation staff is responsible for the administra- ent information relating to the accuracy of the determinations dur- tion of the county soil and water conservation program and may ing preparation of the land and water resource management plan. exercise the powers granted to the land conservation conmuttee. (c) Hearings. A land conservation committee shall hold one History: 1981 e.346. or more public hearings on the land and water resource manage- ment plan. 92.10 Land and water resource management planning (d) Plan submission. Aland conservation committee shall program. (1) CREATION. There is created a land and water submit the land and water resource management plan to the board resource management planning program. The department,board and department. and land conservation committees jointly shall develop and (8) DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. The administer this program. department of natural resources shall provide counties with assist- (2) PURPOSES. The purposes of the land and water resource ante in land and water resource management planning,including management planning program are to conserve long-term soil providing available water quality data and information,providing productivity, protect the quality of related natural resources, training and support for water resource assessments and apprais- enhance water quality and focus on severe soil erosion problems. als and providing related program information. (4) IMPLEMENTATION; DEPARTMENT DUTIES_ (a) Data. The History: 1981 c_346;1983 a 524;1985 a.29;1987 a_27;1999 a.31;1997 a.27 department shall develop S stematic metco hod of collecting d ss.2488s to 2489L,9456(3m);1999 a.9;2003 a.33 s.2811;2003 a.48 ss.10,11; lr P a Y g an2003 a.206 s.23;2005 a.25 ss.1742,2493. organizing data related to soil erosion. The department shall cooperate with the department of administration under s. 16.967 92.11 Regulation of local soil and water resource uran- in developing this methodology or any related activities related to agement practices. (1) PROPOSED ORDINANCES_ To promote land information collection. soil and water conservation or nonpoint source water pollution (c) Plan assistance. The department shall assist land con- abatement, a county, city, village or town may enact ordinances servation committees in preparing land and water resource man- for the regulation of land use, land management and pollutant agement plans. management practices. 2015-16 Wisconsin Statutes updated through 2017 Wis.Act 367 and all Supreme Court and Controlled Substances Board Orders effective on or before August 2,2018. Published and certified under s.35.18. Changes effective after August 2,2018 are designated by NOTES.(Published 8-2-18) St . Croix County 2018- 2028 Land & Water Resource Management Plan Land & Water Conservation Plans Require( • Chapter 92 Wis. Stats. Section 92. 10(2) Establishes a Ian water resource management planning program "to conE long-term soil productivity, protect the quality of relate( resources, enhance water quality and focus on severe s( erosion problems. • Counties must adopt a Land & Water Resource Manager Plan that meets Wisconsin Administrative Code ATCP 50 • Goals established in the plan guide programming & acti) especially the Resource Management Division of Comm Development. • Plan must be approved by the DATCP & updated every 5 • County Plans support applications for DATCP grants to agricultural producers for cost-share on conservation pr Development Department Plan Process & Timeline � Jan.-Mar. Advisory Committee Meets 3 Times and Provides Input � • Natural Resource Agencies • Farmers • Businesses • Conservation Organizations • Local government March 29th Community Development Committee Approves Draft PIE A„ Plan Submitted to State, DATCP and DNR, for Comment p July 25th Public Hearing -- CDC August 7th Presentation to State Land & Water Conservation Board i% August 16 Resolution Recommending Plan -- CDC *September 4 County Board Action on Plan Plan Becomes Active Development Department St . Croix County LWRMP Goals 2008 2018 1. Protect and improve groundwater quality 1. Protect and improve groundwater c and quantity to supply clean water for and quantity to supply clean water for drinking and recharging surface waters and consumption and other uses and recl^ wetlands. surface waters and wetlands. 2. Protect and enhance surface waters and 2. Protect and enhance surface water wetlands to preserve and restore their wetlands to preserve and restore thei water quality, ecological functions, and quality, ecological functions, and recreational and scenic values. recreational and scenic values. 3. Protect and restore fish and wildlife 3. Protect and restore fish and wildlife habitats while enhancing water quality, habitats while enhancing water qualit, recreational opportunities, and natural recreational opportunities, and naturz beauty. beauty. 4. Preserve agricultural land and soils for 4. Preserve agricultural land and imps crop and livestock production, scenic values, soil health for crop and livestock prod and wildlife habitat. scenic values, and wildlife habitat. S. Develop and connect with active environmental stewards and future h to support and carry out the above g, Community .pa .. 5% Wetlands & 5% Surface Water Developed *Other categories < 1% V✓+ tl I "'YY j Ij A 1 OO Agricultural IIN �i � Land Coved IN�� �� J ar � "� Tri1 �r� �� �Ir:� p � r1�,y� s im p 1P °iubifi Land big ��IIS ,�� �'�. Agriculture ➢ � �+ 4k W k,�p. Wi( f� � A"R Ir��� I 'MY y Forem 1rha " r f l lrtiIllrI rl fi f(/ open walter )Mibi,IIIWedondEMi INN $hrublomd Community Development Department Galena-Platteville Dolomite Ordovician Do s . 1' .6 included in NR e JMGl11 L��L�i114 ' in the futu X, MA All a�,amba im ICA opt t4) CARBO SATE BDc (in depth, below �/ IwaCrtfQ<A tl'N�wlurm 5.08�1�uan�Rd �%� (/� e aua dZI a ® ' 5�O feetI Is s �C00 mi a � u�anIMmn : J, 'Feet ivil�r c j oir � Areas jwith carbonate, bedrock within 50,feet o /l i the land �r ,F ori or is l r� vulnerable w� groundwater contamination. p, Community Development Department Depth to Bedrock <5ft. Closed Depressions Agricultural + t a �ftpg RO I��'� rJ✓ � p n ji �' �m d r, � � d ' �.... Ir ru- J um 4i � � were n d. n, � m I e h z101n n r f Areas of Special Concern for Groundwater Contamination ______________- D446 k M 1 Y Nitrate Tests .__ IAN 63 !6:.. .... t' �'i YYYYYYYYYYYYC, d Hued— 92 1.35; in �� 1728 i l / Pi J;. 29 � io-rrin ------------------------------ __ _w________________________________________________________________ ..__________ Groundwater Priority Areas _w________________ ___R_____ a k as ss 'rs x i Soan,rsct 1� s/ G1en a.4 C. HO n 2 cr 112 - Hud—..n i ilsmn IN dAi 35 35 in f i12�8 1, /I 4 29 Aran Where the intersection of closed depressions, bedrock less than and Ag land occurs within 1 mile of Nitrate Test greater than 10 pr DepartmentCommunity Development An, -e N Focus on data tracking Manure Storage .. W .a. . � Locations future activities/decisic V& Page 13 �—20 D.I r increases public visibilil -------------------------------------------------- �� ....i.M"". p.IJ ""<... ... ... ..... Non Metallic Prioritized 6ecrsomumendticrn Mines from the ,.. Page 14 g ;round Surface Water Quality Sti Report Well Water Nitrate Test Results Over Time t �� n Page 29 �,,,� � ��Vu fr � uw� I hse u run w �^ Well Abandonment Cost ON Share Projects Page 61 x. !, -T 1 � ,U NT Y" County Wide BMP � YsJB $ --------------------------------------------------- Tracking Sinkhole mapping is full z Page 62 a 2018 & 19 DevelopmentCommunity ep Surface Water Priority Areas l AA St. Croix River Lake St. Croix TMDL Red Cedar TMDLr Rush River TRM � Wilson/Annis Creek . Shallow Bedrock W c C. lam 777, f1� l "ONA m 1 i"tl.'r'�ii � u�9fi r tGlliU l` ,f 1; ,� �✓ � Qi 6!alfi�;� 4li r � x 47 + r r M Community Development Department Habitat Priority Areas k I -39 i I I .. .. J. „w.. ..... 63. .. ... ":." ".w., F�1^ h II IWBeII ti -------- o L Plrad uefion i' """ Area s ....� � L� Western PV'a` d ale X47[7 BVF � ros .uu �ro I L- �................. Iris _ _--- - ---- stern Pra de HaNtHt Iffor Wuson 1� �........................� Reso�ul on _ Area gg, H r 12 _scar Huls®n u II I;I I ails Community I b Py I Development Department ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ISt. Croix :.County ...FP"F' Areas �� t�trient Mana ment..Aci... 2018 NMP Fields ifl! Flush Fiver Legacy AEA FFP Plan Areas quaw Lake AEA AG-1 AG-2 Zoning I� 1 IPraine l Qee ��^Ip �, IIllll IIII / V VE Perk �I Somerset Star Prairie Stanton Cyion Forest S I Somerset IVew RicMmc nd Glenwood Riclhmondr6j for ��� prairie Emerald ro�N St,Jloseph 9riVIII qty L2!=ood City x�W Warren u Northl' u S Hudson Hudson Hammond" Baldwin Spriln field Hudson ry k Hammond ,4Roberts or r 'WWriodvlNle �i��' Baldwin Troy Kinnlickinnic leaisant Rush P Town .. ailiey `River �ti �III�EaulrGalie Cady City or Village l 9 St Croix County River Falls lomm I Spring go �° Valley 1Map lnd—,11on p,np—dby I?,,St G ", IV b5 l—.d buc 1-1b,,,,&ADVISORY onOy l t ebaaad aai pubad 11—d—1,... l6.bbuI'.blx fi P' 9.CAbla L©ur�ty dlsbildutrru YP�w'orfbrmaP'aM1Gt ar A'B IRSb o..Mtl wa—Stvnyar—Iph- Agriculture Priority Areas Acres of Tillable Ag-1 Zoned 721028 40 Ag-2 Zoned 161742 9. Total Ag-1 & Ag-2 88,770 49 2018 NMP 48p9O8 2Z FPP Zoning 251783 14 FPP Zoning & AEA Agr. 721 0. FPP Agreements (old modified Agreements, 680 0. not in AEA, but claim on schedule FC-A) FPP AEA Contracts only - 0. Total FPP (claim Sch. FC-A) 27,184 1s *Overall tillable Ag Land (2012 census) = 179, DepartmentCommunity Development Partnerships • Ove pa rt u,rrvcatf w �e raa Q FE �� �, . � p r r° x S "'d C Natural Resources Conservation Service �y�'r IL Jt /p Ension Giro '» rrm xxa�r�V''w �..,,�SC`CNI4S�R�� �UIUIIIIIIVVuuu� � Of pt�� PI Ta • k N St.pry ��.:w/ /G Y"..�d IpI����wIV� ^dry IpI IpIIRM-11, f p y'' �f ��IVl7(d llwd{!{Iy�I'jI%NB U �% RO 1 . 6 A ll N. .✓ ,km"„ Gff/,'DIY� 111 �� I I�/D �Yf � * • ° Lz CI wlww�w Vrwtft ttlY Mr€°,a r,~rtll -p,1d„RPAI C`* Farmer-�Zed d Yom, Qy�nut mA �ar,,� sr�l�. • J( WATERSHED COUNCIL i Oil I' .�t.0wiscinmin rol".h i /iirra�aGwn�9YliYY�lv7in Q<�± rptnnic -.1hed / CC StotionC� h Riv�erLaundTrust �p /% % farm BureaW coaIlla"rtrnr.aitlzr�a„mer- v m kiw n dry4pD R „ CONSERVANCY Farmers Union 1+9/ P S C iwr fry `" d N C St.Croix-Red Cedar a l.lr hVflf l` I.7 I I FTOWN , TROY I1F., I FaiJ I I. p DevelopmentCommunity Department • • N /iiiii ar o, 1 w� 1� oaa�� �0�uuuumpip� i iiillllllll i q J l / 1 Y N, I i September 22, 2018 1101 Carmichael Road Hudson, WI 54016 St. Croix County Board of Supervisors, Thank you for the opportunity to review the St. Croix County 2018-2028 Land&Water Resource Management Plan in greater detail. The plan looks to be a great starting point in giving direction in managing our county's natural resources into the future. We are supportive of the County Board of Supervisors adopting the plan. Going forward with the implementation of the plan is where we would like to provide some input. As part of the farming community, we recognize the importance of having access to usable, quality water. It is not only important for our livestock and crops, but also for our own families. One of our concerns is the process in which the water quality is measured, both surface and ground water. For example,the plan doesn't include specific information on where and how the data originates for determining impaired waters. While we recognize describing the process.can be lengthy in detail,it could be simply included in the Appendix of the plan. We want the make sure planning, goals, decisions and actions are made on sound science. In particular we are concerned about the measurements of the concentration of silt and pollutants in the streams and lakes. We feel it is important to have a consistent water sampling technique by all organizations or individuals helping with the sampling. Timing of sampling after rainfall,the number of tests per year and the consistency of sampling with all involved will give us the best information as we move forward. The best management practices for landowners, fanners and other stakeholders will be best served when these samples are taken by organizations or individuals after they have been properly-trained.=The better the numbers,the better decisions can be made to help alleviate any contamination. It would seem best to concentrate our efforts on those areas with the highest contamination. With this in mind,we believe it would be important for the County Board of Supervisors to put expenditures in next year's budget to help with training on testing techniques and possibly fund more testing. We also believe it is also important for you as County Board Executives to consider the possibility of helping fund(cost-share) special practices landowners could adopt. If water quality improvement is a priority,more funding should allocated in addition to other cost-share programs that are already in place by other agencies and organizations. This could include small payments for such farming and land management practices as cover crops, no-till planting and establishing permanent cover on some highly erodible tracts. Thank you for allowing the time for our committee to provide more input. Sincerely, St. Croix County Farm Bureau Board of Directors Dave Kruschke Leslie Svacina Jenny Mueller President 'Vice.Preside-at Secretary&Treasurer Directors Melanie Peterson Lynn Brosi James Lund Dean Mueller Steve Mueller Clary Peterson Randy Roquette Greg Zwald