Bass Lake 18-402: GWI Report 2010, Winter Sampling Report 2010
Lakes Area Clean Waters Council
Mapping Data
Mass Balance
Parker Boy Scout Camp
Overall Lake Management Plan
Pelican Lake Stormwater Project
Precipitation Study
Water Quality Data, TSI
Water Quantity Data, Lake Levels
Winter Testing

Thirty Lakes Watershed District Projects

Thirty Lakes Watershed District was formed to preserve lake ecology, prevent or minimize adverse impacts to the District's water resources and to conserve and make wise use of the District's water resources.

The following projects reflect the District's commitment to protecting surface and subsurface waters within the District's boundaries.

1.     Water Quality Data (TSI):
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2010 TSI Mapping, 2011

The District began a lake water quality-monitoring program in 1972, starting with the major lakes in the District.

The District uses the "Trophic Status Index" (TSI) to measure the degree of aging (eutrophication) of each lake. TSI ranks lakes on a scale of 0 to 90; the higher the number, the more eutrophic a lake becomes. Since a major factor affecting water quality is climatic conditions, which vary, the TSI is not a permanent condition, but it provides a base from which to compare each lake's condition and monthly changes. It is possible to draw definite conclusions about the District's water quality by tracking each lakes entire database.

The data allows the Managers to make informed decisions about lake issues. The data can also be used in future modeling efforts to determine impacts of proposed activities on lake waters quality. Current efforts have expanded the District's water quality program to include monthly TSI monitoring for 23 of the District's lakes during June, July and August.

2.     Water Quantity Data (Lake Levels):
        2006,  2007, 2008, 2009

In 1989 an ongoing lake elevation program was initiated. Staff gauges are installed every spring in the following 21 lakes: Bass 256, Bonnie, Clark, Edward, Garden, Gladstone, Hartley, Horseshoe, Hubert, Little Hubert, Lougee, Markee, Mollie, North Long, Pelican, Little Pelican, Perch, Shaffer, Sorenson, Stevens, and Young.

The program is an ongoing cooperative venture between the District, private shore land owners, MN DNR and Crow Wing County Soil and Water Conservation District. The levels shown on the gauges are recorded every two weeks and after major rainfalls. The gauges are removed in the fall and reinstalled in the spring. Graphs of historical lake levels of each recorded lake are available upon request at the District office.

3.     Mapping Data:

The District compiled a photographic database of all the District lakes between 1976 and 1978. The shoreline was segmented into 300 to 500 foot management sectors. Maps were produced; correlating each of the 35mm slides representing the management sectors to its map position. The photographs have been used extensively in the District's daily management tasks.

The condition of each lake's watershed is key to the condition of its waters. An important technique for monitoring this is low-level aerial photography of District lakes.  An average of thirty areas of concern are documented on each flight. Aerial photographs, supplemented by field survey work ("ground truthing") are the most reliable source of information to locate changes and potential problems. With aerial photos, the District produces information on lakes and wetlands, which is correlated with water quality data.

4.    Overall Plan Revision:

In 2001 the District was awarded a cash match grant in the amount of $15,600.00 from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to update the District's Revised Overall Plan.  The first draft of the plan was completed in October 2002 and distributed for the 60-day review. The District eagerly anticipates the approval of the the revised draft. Highlights of the revised plan include the following: individual lake management plans and implementation strategies for each of the District's 52 lakes; several maps, i.e. sewer project, land use, ditch, historical and current boundary. The plan's Executive Summary outlines challenges, plans for addressing the challenges and achievements the District has made.

5. Parker Boy Scout Camp

Reconstructing the shoreline and hills with native vegetation to help with erosion issues to help keep the lake clean. Thirty Lakes Watershed District, DNR, CW SWCD are all participating.

Before

After

6. Lakes Area Clean Waters Council

In 2008, a group of concerned people created this council " To promote stormwater Best Management Practices through research and education", i.e.: Rain Gardens, Rain Barrels and Shoreland Buffers. This group includes members of Crow Wing County Water Plan, U of M extension, Soil and Water Conservation District, MN Pollution Control Agency, Initiative Foundation, Lakes and Rivers Alliance, and several others. www.dropstopabsorb.org

Thirty Lakes Watershed District and
A.W. Research Laboratory Projects:

Precipitation Study:

We took over this Precipitation Study from the Lake Hubert Association, expanded it, and continue to collect and analyze samples from various parts of the state.

We already know that rain (and snow) contain Phosphorus.  This study will track the precipitation back to the point of origin in an effort to determine where the Phosphorus was picked up.  For example:  a rainstorm which originated in the Dakotas may carry with it different amounts or types of Phosphorus than a rainstorm originating in Oklahoma.

Results of the testing can be seen by clicking on "Precipitation Study."

Click here for:  Winter Testing for Phosphorus and Chlorides

Mass Balance:

This is a year long study analyzing the quality and quantity of water entering and leaving lakes within the Watershed District.

In October of 2006 the mass balance studies were suspended due to the very dry conditions throughout Crow Wing County. 

 Instituting and Funding Projects

           *Methods of Instituting and Funding a Project

 Introduction:

One of the most common questions for the Managers to consider involves the method and responsibility for instituting a project.  This section will outline the various methods of instituting and funding a project and the advantages and disadvantages associated with each method.

             1.    Petition by City:  MS 103D.705 provides that a city may petition the District for improvements.

A petitioner must guarantee a preliminary fund to cover all costs prior to the District ordering the project.  If the Managers order the project, the preliminary fund is charged to the project.  If the project is not ordered, the petitioner pays the preliminary fund.  The petition can limit the amount of the preliminary fund.  Projects initiated in this manner must be paid for by a special assessment against benefiting properties.

a.   Petition by Residents: Various methods are available under MS 103D.705 for residents to petition for a project.  The major problem with this approach is that the residents must collectively guarantee the preliminary fund and the cooperation of numerous residents is necessary.  This type of petition is common for agricultural drainage projects.

b.   Project by Unanimous Resolution: MS 103D.701 allows the District to initiate a project by unanimous resolution of the Managers.  Such a project would be paid for by assessment of the benefited properties.

c.   Project by Resolution: MS 103D.601 allows a project to be instituted by resolution of the majority of the District Managers.  However, the project must be financed by one or more grants totaling at least 50 percent of the estimated project cost and the total estimated cost to the District may not be more than $750,000.  The District share of project costs are paid for by special assessments against benefiting properties.

2.      Administrative Fund:

The Managers may use a portion of the Administrative Fund for construction and maintenance of projects of common benefit to the District.  The entire fund is limited to either .048 percent of taxable market value or $250,000 per year whichever is less.  Since this is normally used for the basic organizational needs of the District, it may be difficult to fund a large project from this source.

3.      Additional Levy:

MS 103D.905, Subd. 3 authorizes the District Managers to levy a tax over the entire District not to exceed 0.00798 percent of the taxable market value for a period not to exceed 15 consecutive years to pay the cost attributable to the basic water management features of projects initiated by petition of a municipality of the District.  Such a levy would generate approximately $25,000 in the District.

4.      Survey and Data Acquisition Fund:

MS 103D.905, Subd. 8 allows the District to levy an amount not to exceed 0.02418% of taxable market value for the purpose of making surveys and acquiring data.  The tax may be levied only once every five years and the fund balance may not exceed $50,000.

5.      Municipal or County Project of Local Improvement: 

Municipalities or the County may institute projects for drainage improvements.  Property owners who receive benefits from the project generally pay costs of such projects.  Such a project would be instituted by a petition to the City Council or County Board and would have no District involvement, except for routine permit approval.

Ongoing Permitting Project:

Thirty Lakes Watershed District Permits and Enforcement

 Implementation of this Watershed Management Plan is governed by the Thirty Lakes Watershed District Regulations adopted by the Managers.  The regulations detail the permit review process and the types of projects, which require a permit.  Enforcement is coordinated with the respective ordinances and rules of municipalities, the county and the state to minimize the regulatory impact on District residents. It is expected that all District Residents and Contractors use all best management practices.

 The District intends to be active in the regulatory process to ensure that its water resources are managed in accordance with District goals and policies.  Consistent with the Minnesota Watershed Law (MS 103D), the District requires permits for all developments and improvements that take place within the watershed boundaries.

   The Requirement for a Watershed District Permit

 The Board of Managers has found that a permit program for certain uses of water or for performing works affecting water resources of the Watershed District is needed to ensure the wise development and conservation of the Thirty Lakes Watershed District water resources to effectuate the purposes and intent of the Minnesota Watershed Act and to enhance the environment.  An application form shall be filed with the Board of Managers and a permit obtained from the Board of Managers as hereinafter provided: 

1. Improvements Requiring a Watershed District Permit:

All persons, municipalities or other agencies undertaking works of improvement, projects or use of water within the boundary of the Watershed District, may be required, as set forth in the District’s rules, as amended, to submit engineering data and other information as may be required on an application for a permit form and receive a permit prior to any work being started for the following:  

·         Any work which requires a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or the United States Army Corps of Engineers, if such work touches upon or affects any lake, stream, wetland irrigation or drainage ditch, or other surface waters, or any well or other ground waters of the district, unless such work falls within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991 as amended

·         Any work which requires a permit from Crow Wing County, or any department, municipality, or town thereof, if such work falls within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake, touches upon or affects any lake, stream, wetland, irrigation or drainage ditch: or other surface waters, or any well or other ground waters of the District.  

·         Any sanitary sewer, storm sewer or other major utility project contemplated by any government subdivision within the Watershed District.  

·         Any public or private street, road or highway construction project, or any other construction project which by means of its construction may have an effect on the quantity or quality of water runoff. 

·         Any drain tile or drainage ditch that drains directly or indirectly into any public waters.  

·         Any works which include dredging or filling of any lowland, marsh, pond or drainage way. 

·         Any bridge, dike, culvert or drain across any natural drainage way, lake or marsh.  

·         Any diking, excavating, grading or filling adjacent to any drainage way, lake or marsh exclusive of the maintenance of any roadway surface. 

·         Any structure intended for commercial or industrial use to be built, located or relocated on any property within the Watershed District.  

·         Any artificial drainage way or canal cut across a subwatershed within the District.  

·         Drainage of any marsh, pond or wetland.  

·         Construction, alteration, repair or removal of any dike or reservoir within the District.  

·         Any field ditching or draining of any area within the District’s shore land or in excess of one acre within the District.  

·         Any land alterations that remove surface vegetation from more than one acre 

·         Any work on a lake lot which removes or alters an ice ridge. 

 2.   Permit Procedures

    ·         Applicant shall obtain copies of any application forms from the Watershed District.  

·         When it is necessary for the Watershed District Engineer or other consultant to review the application and all exhibits, view the site and make a report to the Watershed District as to the technical implementation of the work, fees for such services may be assigned to the applicant.  

·         The Board of Managers may, at its discretion, require the applicant to appear before the Board to present his application for permit and to give any testimony the Board feels proper in making a decision to the granting or refusal of the permit.  

·         If the permit is issued, the applicant shall abide by all of the conditions of its issuance and shall, in any case, be responsible for the timely notification to the Watershed District of commencement of work so that proper observation and inspection can be made.  

·         If required by the Board of Managers of the Watershed District, the applicant shall file a bond or other approved form of escrow deposit with the Board of Managers in an amount set by the Board and conditioned on performance by the applicant of authorized activities in conformance with the terms of the permit.  ** Said bond or escrow shall be filed prior to issuance of the permit. The bond or escrow shall be deposited with the Watershed District Board before any work is commenced, and when work is completed in a satisfactory manner, the bond or escrow deposit shall be released to the applicant. If the work is of such a nature that the fact of acceptable completion is difficult to determine immediately after the completion thereof, the Watershed District may retain the bond or escrow deposit for a period not to exceed six (6) months at which time a final determination of acceptability shall be made.  

·         If the Watershed District determines that the work is not acceptable, the bond or other escrow deposit shall be forfeited and the Watershed District shall complete the work using those funds.  The Watershed District shall return unused funds to the permit holder or agent after completion of the work.  If said funds are insufficient to complete the work, the Watershed District may complete the work and assess the permit holder under the enforcement provisions of the statute and the Watershed rules. 

·         If the Board determines that is necessary to monitor an activity authorized by permit, all such monitoring costs may be charged and collected from the permit holder.  

·         The fees and cost prescribed herein shall not be charged to an agency of the United States or any governmental unit in this state.  

·         All issued permits shall be signed by the President or Secretary of the Board of Managers or their designates.  

·         No works or use requiring a permit shall be commenced prior to the issuance of the permit.  

·         Unless specified in the permit, works for which a permit is given must be complete within one year, unless the Board of Managers grants an extension. The managers may further require, as a condition of all permits, that they be notified when said improvement is completed.  

·         Application for a permit will be acted upon within 60 days from the date the Board of Managers receives the application and required data.  

·         If a permit application is refused or granted subject to conditions, the applicant may within 30 days, demand a hearing on the application before the Board of Managers.  

·         Obtaining a permit from the Board of Mangers does not relieve the applicant from the responsibility of obtaining any other additional authorization required.  

·         Applications for permit shall be filed with or mailed to the Watershed District office, a Manager for the District or the Engineer.  

·         A plan should accompany the application, and the Board of Managers may request additional information.  (Note: Additional information requirements can be found in the “Rules of the Thirty Lakes Watershed District”.     

3. Variances:

 The Managers may grant variances from District regulations only if extraordinary or unnecessary hardship will result from strict compliance.  However, the District regulations provide that these variances should not subvert the intent and purpose of the regulations or the District's management plan, and should not grant special convenience or rights to any person or group.  In accordance with these provisions, variances may be granted only if all of the following circumstances exist: 

1.      The purpose of the variance is to alleviate unique non-economic conditions or circumstances that are not the result of any action by the applicant. 

2.      The exceptional or unusual circumstances for which the variance is requested do not apply generally to other properties adjacent to the same water resource and are the result of topography or other natural circumstances over which the property owners have no control. 

3.      Granting the variance will not confer special privileges to the applicant that are otherwise denied to the owners of other lands adjacent to the water resource or to public users of the resource. 

4.      The variance will not result in conditions that do not meet standards set by state law or by regulations of other governmental bodies, and it will not permit a lower degree of flood protection than that provided other lands adjacent to the water resources. 

5.      The variance is the minimum variance that will alleviate the hardship. 

6.      The variance will not violate the spirit and intent of District regulations or the District's management plan. 

7.      The variance will not adversely affect the use of other properties not controlled by the applicant and will not unduly limit the way in which other properties not under the applicant's control may be used or developed. 

The District reviews an average of 80 permit applications, 12 potential permit violations, 43 un-permitted activities, and 14 citizen reports of actions each year.  Many potential violations are seen during the aerial flights. The permits and inspections allow the Managers to meet the District's goal of protecting the water resources by preventing or minimizing adverse impacts.