The goals set forth in Section 4.0, Resource Management Goals and Strategies will require an integrated set of programs and projects oriented toward the conservation and improvement of water resources within the watershed. The following sections describe generally the activities that will be undertaken by various parties and identifies parties responsible for each activity. Table 17 in Section 5.9 provides a cost estimate and schedule for the District’s responsibilities for new activities in the implementation program.
As discussed in Section 3.6 above, future development is expected to contribute additional stormwater volume and phosphorus loads to Dutch Lake, further degrading water quality. The current regulatory program will not be sufficient to control these impacts. To mitigate these future impacts and to address other goals such as increased infiltration, wetland management, and improved ecological integrity, additional regulation may be necessary. A decision on rulemaking needs/standards can only be made after the formal rulemaking process. In addition, further amendments to the rules should not be precluded by the content of the plan.
Additional regulatory controls on permitted development and redevelopment will be considered for this subwatershed to increase phosphorus load reduction requirements, add volume management and infiltration requirements, implement wetland management in accordance with management classification, and increase scrutiny of development that may impact groundwater or key conservation resources. Regulations providing an incentive such as a volume reduction credit to developers to maintain undisturbed areas, reforest, or plant native vegetation may be considered.
The following are revised or additional regulatory controls in this subwatershed that would be necessary to assist the District in meeting the goals of this Plan:
Prior to the encroachment of additional development, the opportunity exists to create connections between ecosystems within the Painter Creek, Langdon Lake and Lake Minnetonka Subwatersheds to improve water quality, preserve natural conveyances, and facilitate the movement and proliferation of native species as well as enhance recreational opportunities. Figure 19 identifies priority areas, the conservation of which will improve the characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem and the water quality within the subwatershed as well as areas downstream.
The District operates a Land Conservation Program that undertakes conservation activities ranging from assisting property owners in enrolling property in conservation programs to acquiring easements or fee title over high value resources. Key conservation areas identified on Figure 19 are located within the current Land Conservation Program target area or have been proposed for addition to the target area. The District will continue to proactively investigate opportunities to conserve key resources in these areas and work cooperatively with other agencies and groups to accomplish this subwatershed’s conservation goals. The District will provide technical assistance to the LGUs to identify and implement strategies for local conservation efforts in support of program goals.
The District operates a watershed-wide Strategic Education and Communications program that provides general information of wider interest as well as targeted information. The targeted education and public involvement activities identified in this plan, including promotion of a Dutch Lake Association, will be implemented to assist in the reduction of existing pollutant loading to Dutch Lake and other water resources in the subwatershed as well as to minimize the impacts of future development. The specific targeted messages will emphasize conservation of the wide range of high-value resources in the subwatershed and developer education targeting Better Site Design, infiltration, and conservation of undisturbed native vegetation as sites develop.
To monitor progress toward meeting water quality and quantity goals, routine monitoring of water quality in Dutch Lake and water quality and volume in Dutch Creek will continue to be a part of the District’s annual Hydrologic Data program.
Lake aquatic plant monitoring provides information needed to manage aquatic plants, evaluate control measures, and plan for future actions. This monitoring is especially useful as water quality management activities are implemented and plant communities change in response to changing water quality. A baseline aquatic vegetation survey will be conducted as part of a proposed internal load project feasibility study. The survey will be updated by staff/contractor after five years at an estimated cost of $7,000. Interim monitoring could be conducted by trained volunteers.
Wetlands with exceptional value vegetation are present in the subwatershed. Because of the importance to overall subwatershed ecological integrity of preserving these values, these wetlands will be regularly monitored for invasive species by staff or trained volunteers.
Activities detailed in this implementation plan will require both ongoing and new operations and maintenance activities in this subwatershed. These include:
Table 11. Ongoing District operations and maintenance tasks for the Dutch Lake subwatershed.
|
Task |
Spring |
Summer |
Fall |
|
Routine Inspection Dutch Lake Creek |
As needed |
Annually and as needed |
As needed |
|
Inspect High Vegetative Diversity Wetlands |
Regularly |
Regularly |
Regularly |
Table 12. Potential ongoing operations and maintenance tasks for proposed Dutch Lake subwatershed improvement projects.
|
Task |
Treatment Pond |
Wetland Restoration |
Spring |
Summer |
Fall |
|
Routine Inspection |
a |
a |
Early and After Storm |
After Storm |
Late and After Storm |
|
Vegetation Management |
|
a |
As needed |
As needed |
Periodic burns, mowing, or herbicide as needed |
|
General Upkeep |
a |
a |
Regularly |
Regularly |
Regularly |
|
Debris and Trash Removal |
a |
|
As needed |
As needed |
As needed |
|
Inlet/Outlet Cleaning |
a |
a |
As needed |
As needed |
As needed |
|
Minor Erosion Repair |
a |
a |
As needed |
As needed |
As needed |
Note: Responsible parties would be determined by negotiation at the time of project proposal.
Part of the phosphorus load reduction plan for Dutch Lake is a required reduction by the LGUs in the subwatershed of the phosphorus load contributed by existing land uses. The requirement is a 15 percent reduction in loading from existing residential land use; 25 percent from agricultural land use; and 10 percent from other developed land use. This reduction can be accomplished through application of BMPs such as additional street sweeping, local water quality ponds, rain gardens and infiltration swales, and agricultural BMPs that reduce erosion or treat runoff or drain tile discharge; prevention of future load increases through the conservation of lands previously identified for development; or achieving load removals in excess of the minimum required. The LGUs identified below must identify in their local water management plans specific steps to accomplish these minimum reductions. The LGUs must also annually report to the District their progress toward accomplishing this requirement.
Table 13. Allocation of Dutch Lake subwatershed LGU phosphorus load reductions (lbs/yr).
|
Subwatershed Unit |
Minnetrista |
Mound |
Total |
|
DL-1 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
|
DL-2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
DL-3 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
|
DL-4 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
DL-5 |
7 |
4 |
11 |
|
DL-6 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
|
DL-7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
TOTAL |
24 |
4 |
28 |
A key element in achieving overall ecological integrity goals in the Dutch Lake subwatershed is the conservation of key ecological areas, including high-value wetlands and connecting uplands. LGUs must identify in their local water management plans the areas shown on Figure 18. The local plan must also identify strategies the LGU will undertake to protect the ecological values of those areas. These may include such strategies as land use regulation; acquisition and management; conservation easements; ecological restoration; and property owner education regarding land management strategies to maintain ecological integrity.
The HHPLS identified a number of locations where modeling predicts that public roads, private roads, or private drives might overtop during infrequent events, or where there may be minimal freeboard above the flood level. Local plans should identify observed or these potential locations and assess whether the risk of occasional flooding is acceptable or should be addressed.
The HHPLS identified a number of locations where modeling predicts that under existing or future development conditions higher velocities than desired ay result in erosion at outlets or culverts, potentially warranting erosion control or energy dissipation. Local plans should identify observed or these potential locations, assess the need for such measures, and set forth a plan for preventing future erosion.
One of the water quality goals for this subwatershed is the achievement of the Dutch Lake in-lake phosphorus concentration goal of 40 μg/L. Reduction of phosphorus loads from the subwatershed to achieve that goal will require the combined efforts of the regulatory program, operational programs, LGU load reductions, and capital projects. Table 14 below sets forth a summary plan for how this could be accomplished.
The table breaks down modeled phosphorus loading in the subwatershed by source: atmospheric deposition, external sources, and internal sources. Atmospheric deposition is a regional issue and is not dealt with here. The primary means of addressing external loading are through the regulation of new loads generated by development and the reduction of existing loads. Application of the current regulatory program to new development would also reduce the expected load from ultimate development conditions. As Table 9 above indicates, more stringent regulation of new development could reduce the need for or size of capital projects.
It is important to note that a significant share of the modeled phosphorus load to Dutch Lake is from sources that have not been specifically identified. The phosphorus load contributed by wash off from land within the subwatershed is not sufficient to explain the current in-lake phosphorus concentration. The most likely sources for this discrepancy are internal loading from lake sediments or export of phosphorus from the wetlands upstream. Quantification of those sources will require more detailed diagnostic study. On completion of further diagnostic work, a feasibility study could more accurately identify specific improvements and their likely load reduction efficiencies.
Table 14. Phosphorus load reduction plan for Dutch Lake.
|
Source |
Reduction |
Ultimate Phosphorus Load [lb/yr] |
Planned Reductions [lb/yr] |
Final Loading [lb/yr] |
| ||
|
Atmospheric | |||||||
|
Atmospheric deposition |
NA |
38 |
NA |
38 |
| ||
|
External Loads | |||||||
|
External load determined from modeling land use |
|
351 |
|
|
| ||
|
|
LGU load reduction (Table 13) |
|
28 |
|
| ||
|
|
Existing regulations |
|
71 |
|
| ||
|
|
Additional regulation |
|
36 |
|
| ||
|
|
Wetland detention pond |
|
65 |
|
50%Removal at Outlet from DL-4 | ||
|
Total After Reductions |
|
|
|
151 |
| ||
|
Internal / "Unknown" Loads | |||||||
|
Internal /"unknown" loads determined from modeling land use |
|
335 |
|
|
| ||
|
|
Internal load management project |
|
235 |
|
70% reduction of internal loading | ||
|
Total After Reductions |
|
|
|
100 |
| ||
|
Total Load | |||||||
|
TOTAL |
|
724 |
435 |
289 |
| ||
|
LOAD GOAL |
|
|
|
306 |
| ||
|
DIFFERENCE |
|
|
|
(-17) |
| ||
The capital improvement program identified below includes projects that will progress the District toward achieving its various goals for the subwatershed. This program is not a comprehensive list of all capital needs or potential projects within the subwatershed, and is limited by available financial resources and staff capacity to manage projects. These priority projects are intended to:
These proposed projects emphasize the achievement of multiple objectives. For example, wetland restorations would not only restore degraded or drained wetlands, they would provide an opportunity to increase infiltration, improve habitat, and conserve existing high-value resources.
| Project | Dutch Lake Wetland Detention Pond | |
| Description | Construction of a stormwater treatment pond at the main tributary to Dutch Lake | |
| Need | The phosphorus reduction plan for Dutch Lake requires a reduction of pounds of phosphorus per year from the subwatershed. A wet detention ponproposed for consideration at the main tributary to Dutch Lake, which drasubwatersheds DL-1 through DL-4. It would be sized to remove 50 percenthe incoming load. | |
| Outcome | This pond could remove an estimated 65 pounds of phosphorus annually, along with other pollutants such as sediment. | |
| Estimated Cost and Funding | Investigation, permitting, construction, and project management. Funding source is the District capital levy. | $202,000 Design $1,754,100 Constr, easmnt $1,956,100 Total |
| Schedule | 2014 Design, easement acquisition 2015 Construction | |
| Project | Dutch Lake Wetland Restoration | |
| Description | Restoration of drained or degraded wetlands in the Dutch Lake subwatershed | |
| Need | Two wetland projects in the subwatershed would be considered for restoration to restore hydrology, improve habitat, increase infiltration, expand wildlife corridors or connect other high-value resources. Prioritization and selection of specific restoration projects would be based on criteria including:
One wetland in the subwatershed would be considered for restoration to restore hydrology, improve habitat, increase infiltration, expand wildlife corridors or connect other high-value resources. Prioritization andselection of specific restoration projects would be based on criteria including:
The following are some of the potential restoration locations that mightmeet those criteria, although other locations may also be considered.Game Farm Road Wetland. One wetland in the subwatershed wasidentified as having a high restoration potential. It is an approximately 20acre Type 2 wet meadow adjacent to the central wetland complex andconservation corridor. Restoration of this wetland could be part of another future corridor linkage to the Painter Creek subwatershed corridors. | |
| Outcome | Restored and improved wetland functions and values, enhanced habitat,increased infiltration, expanded and connected wildlife corridors, protection of downstream resources | |
| Estimated Cost and Funding | Design, easement acquisition,permitting, construction, constructionmanagement, vegetation managementcontract. Funding source is the Districtcapital levy. | $51,700 Design $678,400 Constr, easmnt $730,100 Total |
| Schedule | 2012 Wetland identification, design, easement acquisition 2013 Construction | |
| Project | Dutch Lake Regional Infiltration | |
| Description | Implementation of opportunities to increase infiltration, including but not limited to construction of infiltration basins and devices, wetlandrestoration, reforestation, revegetation | |
| Need | The proposed rule requiring new development and redevelopment toinfiltrate one inch of rainfall would capture approximately 70 percent ofnew runoff volume from the watershed. The remaining 30 percent wouldcontinue to convey pollutants to Dutch Lake and other resources in the watershed. To minimize this pollutant loading and to minimize new stormwater volumes generated from the subwatershed, regional infiltration opportunities such as wetland restoration, underground storage and infiltration, or native vegetation restoration and reforestation may be necessary. Prior to implementing any of these options, opportunities in the subwatershed should be investigated for the most cost-effective and suitable locations. Regional infiltration will be focused on those subwatershed unitsthat are expected to see significant new runoff volumes between 2000 and ultimate development. | |
| Outcome | Minimized new pollutant loads conveyed by runoff; minimized newvolumes generated by new development; protection of wetland and surficialgroundwater hydrology; wetland restorations; conservation of high-value native vegetation and habitat | |
| Estimated | Project 1: Improvements in DL-3. Funding source is District capital levy. Project 2: Improvements in DL-5 at Camp Christmas Tree, including channel restoration, bioretention area,shoreline restoration, and other project elements.Funding source is District capital levy. Project 3: Improvements in DL-7. Funding source is District capital levy. | $118,200 $294,280 $40,000 |
| Schedule | 2010: Identify and construct improvements in DL-3 2011: Identify and construct improvements in DL-5 2014: Identify and construct improvements in DL-7 | |
| Project | Dutch Lake Subwatershed Land Conservation Activities | |
| Description | Implementation of Land Conservation program activities in the Dutch Lake subwatershed, including but not limited to acquisition of conservationeasements or fee title to land as well as facilitating partnerships, encouragingconservation planning and activities, providing technical assistance, and education and outreach. | |
| Need | The Land Conservation Program is an integral strategy to achieving the goals in this subwatershed plan. Land conservation activities help to maintain and improve ecologic integrity, surface and groundwater quantity and quality, wetlands integrity, and streambank stability. High priority areasare located in this subwatershed, including areas with high ecological values.Conservation of key land cover types may be beneficial to reducing runoff and associated pollutant transport, preserving high-infiltration areas,conserving native vegetation, conserving habitat and natural resource corridors, and improving ecologic integrity. | |
| Outcome | Minimized new pollutant loads conveyed by runoff; protection of wetlandand surficial groundwater hydrology; wetland restorations; conservation ofhigh-value native vegetation and habitat. | |
| Estimated Cost and Funding | Estimated cost to achieve conservation goals in the Dutch Lake subwatershed 2007-2017 | $2,575,000 District capital levy |
| Schedule | Implement both proactively and as opportunities arise during the period 2007-2017 | |
This Plan identified the need to consider an internal load management project in Dutch Lake, but that project was not included in the 2007-2016 prioritized CIP. The Board may consider such a project during the time frame of this Plan if funds are available.
| Project | Dutch Lake Internal Load Management Project | |
| Description | Design and implementation of strategies to reduce internal phosphorus loading, including: feasibility study; aquatic vegetation survey update and management plan; fishery survey update and management plan; biomanipulation strategies that may include aquatic vegetation management, zooplankton community and fishery manipulation, and chemical treatment | |
| Need | The modeled watershed phosphorus wash-off load to Dutch Lake is not sufficient to explain the in-lake concentration of total phosphorus that exceeds the lake’s total phosphorus goal. An “unknown load” to Dutch Lake is attributed to internal loading, and is likely a combination of bottom sediments, aquatic vegetation, and model accuracy. A watershed and lake diagnostic / feasibility study will be required to confirm the internal and external phosphorous loading to Dutch Lake, as well as the necessary load reductions. In particular, the “unknown load” must be identified as either an external or internal load before specific strategies can be selected. A variety of strategies would be investigated in the diagnostic and treatment study proposed in this plan. This project would identify and implement a suite of strategies to manage aquatic vegetation, the fishery, and zooplankton community to achieve water quality and clarity goals. The project includes an ongoing vegetation and fishery management plan. | |
| Outcome | Reduction in phosphorus load from internal sources estimated at 235 pounds annually; improved water clarity; more diverse aquatic vegetation community; improved aesthetics | |
| Estimated Cost and Funding | Investigation, permitting, fish, vegetation, and zooplankton surveys, and implementation of strategies. Funding source is the District capital levy. | $18,700 Design, surveys $234,600 Construction $253,300 Total |
| Schedule | One Year Prior to Implementation: Fish, vegetation, and zooplankton surveys, development of management plans No Year Assigned: Implementation of strategies | |
Following tables summarize the proposed implementation action items, their relationship to the problems and issues identified in Section 3.0 above, the metrics by which the District will be evaluating progress toward resolving those issues and problems, the estimated District cost of implementing these actions, and anticipated implementation schedule.
|
|
Problem or Issue |
Actions in Implementation Plan |
Degree of Improvement |
|
Water Quality |
The water quality in Langdon Lake is in the D-F grade range. Based on this monitoring history, Langdon Lake’s water quality is not supportive of swimming. |
|
Implementation of all the actions in the phosphorus load reduction plan would theoretically reduce in-lake P concentrations, improve water clarity, and meet District water quality goals. |
|
Phosphorus loading reductions would be necessary to achieve any of these desired in-lake phosphorus concentrations. The HHPLS and modeling performed for this plan also noted that internal loading and possibly phosphorus export from wetlands in the subwatershed were likely significant sources of excess phosphorus in the lake | A diagnostic and feasibility study assessing sources of pollutant loading, and capital projects to reduce internal and external load sources. |
Would depend on outcome of diagnostic and feasibility of implementing improvements.
| |
|
Runoff from developed areas in the eastern subwatershed receives little if any treatment prior to discharge to receiving waters |
Requirements for LGUs to reduce phosphorus load from existing land uses through retrofit or redevelopment. |
Plans completed as LGUs complete their local plans, and implemented as opportunities arise. | |
|
No monitoring data are available for Saunders Lake or Black Lake. |
Utilize satellite-estimated measure of water clarity to monitor water quality |
Would provide a cost-effective means of monitoring these wetlands. | |
|
The HHPLS identified several locations where outlets and culverts require maintenance. |
LGUs directed to evaluate these locations as part of their local water management planning. |
Completed as LGUs complete their local plans. | |
|
Water Quantity |
Development, redevelopment, and reconstruction in the subwatershed is predicted to increase volume of stormwater runoff from the watershed as well as increased nutrient and TSS loads. |
|
|
|
Future development could increase the volume and velocity of discharges conveyed by the channel from Saunders Lake to Langdon Lake. |
|
||
|
The HHPLS identified two locations where the minimum 2 foot freeboard requirement was not met for the 100-year event: the outlet of Saunders Lake and at County Road 110 between Langdon Lake and Lost Lake. |
LGUs directed to evaluate these locations as part of their local water management planning. |
Completed as LGUs complete their local plans. | |
|
Wetlands |
The subwatershed includes several Preserve classification wetlands with high to exceptional vegetative diversity, fish and wildlife habitat and aesthetic values that should be protected. |
|
|
|
|||
|
Wetlands with high to moderate restoration potential in the Regional Park |
|
An initial effort that identifies for restoration those wetlands that would technically be easiest to restore, and those in Key Conservation Areas that may benefit most from restoration. This would begin to mitigate wetland losses from past development and help to increase the quantity and quality of wetlands present. | |
|
Ecological Integrity |
|
|
|
|
The railroad berm that bisects the subwatershed is a barrier to ecological connectivity. |
Work cooperatively with Hennepin County to identify opportunities to improve ecological connectivity |
Depends on opportunities and ability to collaborate on improvements. | |
|
The Langdon Lake fishery was last surveyed in 1993 and there is no current fish data. |
|
Depends on response of natural system to improved water quality | |
|
No detailed information is available on aquatic vegetation in Langdon Lake. |
|
||
|
Groundwater |
There are areas in the subwatershed that are highly sensitive to aquifer impacts. |
|
|
|
The FAW identified several large recharge wetlands in the subwatershed. As development occurs it will be important to maintain hydrology to them to preserve groundwater recharge. |
|
Infiltration on site will assist in preventing further modification of surficial groundwater recharge and help to maintain wetland hydrologic regimes. | |
|
Wellhead Protection Areas and associated Drinking Water Sensitivity Management Areas have been identified within this subwatershed.
| Stormwater and groundwater management within those areas will be coordinated with wellhead protection plans. |
Will help minimize future impacts to drinking water and provide for proactive management rather than reactive |
|
Objective |
Metric |
Existing |
Desired |
Location |
|
Water Quality |
Phosphorus Loading (lbs annually) |
610 (Ultimate) |
258 |
Langdon Lake |
|
Water Quantity |
Volume Reduction (Acre-feet) |
|
45 |
Watershed-wide |
|
1.5 year discharge (cfs) |
4.9 |
4.9 |
Watershed-wide | |
|
100 year discharge (cfs) |
14.0 |
14.0 |
Watershed-wide | |
|
Ecologic Integrity |
Key Conservation Areas conserved (acres) |
|
51 |
Watershed-wide |
|
Wetlands |
Wetland Acreage |
203.1 |
203.1 or greater |
Watershed-wide |
|
157.5 |
157.5 or greater |
Preserve | ||
|
11.3 |
11.3 or greater |
Manage 1 | ||
|
12.0 |
12.0 or greater |
Manage 2 | ||
|
8.7 |
8.7 or greater |
Manage 3 |
|
Item |
Description |
Estimated Cost |
Schedule |
Section 3.0 Problems Addressed |
|
MCWD Capital Projects | ||||
|
1 |
Internal load management project |
$620,500 |
2013 |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5 |
|
2 |
Wet detention pond |
$801,700 |
2013 |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5 |
|
3 |
Regional infiltration |
$18,600 |
2009 |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.5.2 |
|
$100,800 |
2012 | |||
|
$83,400 |
2016 | |||
|
MCWD Data Acquisition/Study | ||||
|
1 |
Develop infiltration/filtration strategies appropriate to wellhead protection areas and areas of groundwater sensitivity |
Part of watershed-wide study |
2008 |
3.1.5, 3.2.1-3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1 |
|
2 |
Identify keystone, umbrella, and indicator species, evaluate habitat, and develop conservation strategies |
Part of watershed-wide study |
2010 and ongoing |
3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 2.4.3, 3.4.4 |
|
MCWD Land Conservation Program | ||||
|
9 |
Undertake land conservation efforts in accordance with Figure 19 |
$602,000 |
Part of ongoing watershed-wide program |
3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.4.2 |
|
MCWD Regulatory Program | ||||
|
1 |
Amend District Rules to increase stormwater management requirements for new development |
Part of watershed-wide effort |
2007-2009 |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5 |
|
2 |
Amend District Rules to require abstraction of 1” of rainfall on new development and redevelopment |
Part of watershed-wide effort |
2007-2009 |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.2-3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.5.1 – 3.5.3 |
|
3 |
Amend District Rules to adopt wetland management rules based on wetland management classification |
Part of watershed-wide effort |
2007-2009 |
3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2 |
|
MCWD Hydrodata Program | ||||
|
13 |
Monitor Langdon Lake |
Part of watershed-wide hydrologic data program |
Part of ongoing watershed-wide program |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.2 |
|
14 |
Identify shallow wells to monitor groundwater levels |
Part of watershed-wide study |
2008 and ongoing |
3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.5.1 |
|
MCWD Education/Communication Program | ||||
|
1 |
Provide targeted education materials to key stakeholder groups to meet objectives of plan |
Part of watershed-wide education program |
Part of ongoing watershed-wide program |
3.1.1 – 3.1.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2 |
|
2 |
Provide educational opportunities for LGU staff, developers, elected and appointed officials and other interested parties |
Part of ongoing watershed-wide education program |
Part of ongoing watershed-wide program |
3.1.1- 3.1.5, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3 |
|
3 |
Develop and distribute model ordinances and design standards that incorporate low impact design principles |
Part of watershed-wide education program |
Part of ongoing watershed-wide program |
3.1.1-3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3 |
|
4 |
Promote the development of a Langdon Lake Association |
Part of watershed-wide education program |
Part of ongoing watershed-wide program |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4 |
|
5 |
Recruit and train volunteers to monitor vegetation in Langdon Lake |
Part of watershed-wide education program |
Part of ongoing watershed-wide program |
3.1.2, 3.1.2, 3.1.5, 3.4.3, 3.4.4 |
|
6 |
Develop a small grant program to provide financial assistance to property owners desiring to implement BMPs on their property or to install demonstration projects on public property |
Part of watershed-wide program |
2008 and ongoing |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.2-3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.5.1 – 3.5.3 |
|
MCWD Operations and Maintenance | ||||
|
1 |
Inspect channels and outlet structures every five years |
Ongoing activity |
Part of ongoing watershed-wide program |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3 |
|
2 |
Monitor high vegetative-diversity wetlands for exotic species |
Part of watershed-wide program |
Part of ongoing watershed-wide program |
3.3.1, 3.4.1 |
|
3 |
Operate an internal load reduction system |
$69,300 annually |
Ongoing following construction |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.5 |
|
Collaborative Projects | ||||
|
1 |
Cooperative project with Hennepin County to identify ways to improve trail corridor connectivity |
Part of watershed-wide cost-share program |
2008 and ongoing |
3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.4.2 |
|
2 |
Cooperative project with Minnetrista to identify need to stabilize Saunders Lake outlet |
Part of watershed-wide cost-share program |
2008 and ongoing |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4 |
|
3 |
Cooperative project with Minnetrista and Three Rivers Park District to identify need to stabilize Black Lake outlet |
Part of watershed-wide cost-share program |
2008 and ongoing |
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.3.2 |
