Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan

2025-2035
 1

Acknowledgements
Project Partners

Contributors
Dain Erickson, Technical Service Area 8, Graphic Design
Mitch Brinks, Technical Service Area 8, Maps and Data
Candace Zimmerman, Region Five Development Commission, Facilitator

Prepared by Funded By
Moriya Rufer
Houston Engineering
7550 Meridian Circle North, Suite 120
Maple Grove, MN 55369

Crow Wing River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan

2025 - 2035
 2

Steering Committee
Jake Shaughnessy, Hubbard SWCD
Nicole Lundeen, East Otter Tail/Wadena SWCD
Darren Newville, East Otter Tail/Wadena SWCD
Darren Mayers, BWSR
Jeff Hrubes, BWSR
Candace Zimmerman, Region Five Development Commission
Moriya Rufer, Houston Engineering

Technical Advisory Committee Policy Committee

Bryan Malone, Becker SWCD Erica Jepson, Becker County
Kyle Vareberg, Becker County Tony Beck, Becker SWCD
Mitch Lundeen, Becker Parks and Recreation Bob Kangas, Cass County
Dana Gutzmann, Cass SWCD Ken Laporte, Cass SWCD
Ryan Carlson, Cass SWCD Jon Lubke, Crow Wing County
Adam Maleski, Crow Wing SWCD JoAnn Weaver, Crow Wing SWCD
Melissa Barrick, Crow Wing SWCD Tom Krueger, Hubbard County
Nicole Lundeen, East Otter Tail/Wadena SWCD Don Sells, Hubbard SWCD
Darren Newville, East Otter Tail/Wadena SWCD Mike Weyer, Wadena County
Jake Shaughnessy, Hubbard SWCD Ken Berg, Wadena SWCD
Deja Anton, Todd SWCD Tim Denny, Todd County
Adam Ossefoort, Todd County Wayne Wendel, Todd SWCD
Deana Malone, Wadena County
Anne Oldakowski, Wadena SWCD
Darren Mayers, BWSR
Jeff Hrubes, BWSR
Chris Parthun, MDH
Chad Anderson, MDH
Rodger Hemphill, DNR
Bonnie Goshey, MPCA
Zoe Keezer, White Earth Department of Natural Resources
Amy Moore, White Earth Department of Natural Resources
Ryan Perish, Department of Agriculture
Moriya Rufer, Houston Engineering
Candace Zimmerman, Region Five Development Commission
 1

Acronyms
Term Abbreviation
Army Compatible Use Buffer ACUB
Aquatic Invasive Species AIS
Board of Water and Soil Resources BWSR
Central Lakes College CLC
Central Minnesota Irrigators CMI
Citizens Advisory Committee CAC
Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan CWMP
Conservation Reserve Program CRP
Contaminants of Emerging Concern CEC
Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan CWMP
Crow Wing River Watershed CWRW
Department of Natural Resources DNR
Drinking Water Supply Management Area DWSMA
Environmental Quality Incentive Program EQIP
Evaluation of Hydrologic Change EHC
Farm Service Agency FSA
Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA
Household Hazardous Waste HHW
Joint Powers Agreement JPA
Landscape Stewardship Plan LSP
Local Government Units LGUs
Memorandum of Agreement MOA
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MPCA
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MS4
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES
No date n. d. (used for references without a year)
One Watershed, One Plan 1W1P
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances PFAS
Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid PFOS
Prioritize, Target, and Measure Application PTMApp
Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration REPI
Riparian Adjacency Quality RAQ
Solid Waste Management Plan SWMP
Subsurface Sewage Treatment System SSTS
Sustainable Forest Incentive Act SFIA
Soil and Water Conservation District SWCD
Technical Advisory Committee TAC
The Nature Conservancy TNC
Total Maximum Daily Load TMDL
United States Department of Agriculture USDA
United States Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS
United States Geological Survey USGS
Watershed Based Implementation Funding WBIF
Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network WPLMN
Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies WRAPS
Wildlife Management Areas WMAs
Wetland Conservation Act WCA

Acronyms
 1

Table of Contents

Section 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................1

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative ...........................................................................12
Section 3. Priority Issues .................................................................................................................25
Section 4. Focus Resources ...........................................................................................................36
Section 5. Measurable Goals .........................................................................................................47
Section 6. Implementation ............................................................................................................68
Section 7. Plan Implementation Programs...................................................................................84
Section 8. Plan Administration and Coordination .......................................................................102
Section 9. Appendices ...................................................................................................................114
A. Plan Summary
B. Public Input Summary
C. Citizen Advisory Committee Summaries
D. Lake Prioritization
E. PTMApp Scenario
F. Stacked Benefit Calculations
G. Regulatory Comparisons
H. Memorandum of Agreement
I. References

Table of Contents
 1

Section 1.
Executive Summary
Introduction to the Watershed
The Crow Wing River Watershed (CWRW) is located in north-central Minnesota, where it
drains nearly 2,000 square miles with numerous rivers, lakes, and forests. The Crow Wing
River eventually joins the Mississippi River at Crow Wing State Park, meaning that improving
and protecting water quality in the Crow Wing River will influence the quality of downstream
waters. The watershed includes Becker, Cass, Clearwater, Crow Wing, Hubbard, Morrison,
Otter Tail, Todd, and Wadena Counties along with a portion of the White Earth Nation. Cities
with a population over 1,000 include Lake Shore, Menahga, Park Rapids, Pequot Lakes,
Nisswa, and Staples (Figure 1.1).
The Crow Wing River headwaters pass through the Crow Wing Lake Chain, after which
several rivers drain into the Crow Wing River, including the Fishhook, Straight, Shell, and
Blueberry Rivers. The City of Park Rapids is nestled between these rivers and several major
regional lakes, including Big and Little Sand, Long, and Belle Taine. At the southeastern
corner of the CWRW, the Gull Chain of Lakes drain into the Crow Wing River. The protection
of watershed natural resources is a priority for watershed planning and is apparent in the
watershed vision statement below.

The Crow Wing River Watershed was a historic transportation route

and provided the necessities of life for generations. Today, we
blend agriculture, forestry, tourism, and the lake community to
protect our story and preserve resources for future generations.

Section 1. Executive Summary

 2

Figure 1.1. Location and general watershed descriptive map.

Section 1. Executive Summary

 3

About two-thirds of the watershed is covered in forests or wetlands, which provides water
storage, protects surface and groundwater quality, and provides habitat. The other third is
productive land used for agriculture. The CWRW has over 400 lakes and 1,600 miles of
streams, and many of these support aquatic life and recreation. A summary of some of the
notable lakes and rivers in outstanding condition is shown in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2. Summary of outstanding resources in CWRW. For a list of which lakes are in each category, see
Appendix D.

Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan

The CWRW planning partners developed the Crow Wing River Comprehensive Watershed
Management Plan (CWRW CWMP) 2023-2024, through the One Watershed, One Plan
(1W1P) program. 1W1P is an effort to do watershed planning in the state of Minnesota along
watershed boundaries rather than jurisdictional ones. It is administered by the Board of
Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) through MN Statute §103B.801. Prior to approval of this
plan, each county had its own Local Water Management Plan. Now, local government units
(LGUs) within the CWRW will collaborate to achieve the goals set out in this plan.

Section 1. Executive Summary

 4

Roles and Responsibilities

The CWRW CWMP began with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the partners
highlighted in Figure 1.3. A representative from each governmental unit participating in the
MOA was appointed by each county and Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD board
to serve on the Policy Committee, which is the decision-making body for this plan. Clearwater
and Morrison Counties cover less than 5% of the watershed, so they decided not to join the
formal agreement. The White Earth Nation was invited to join the planning process and
opted to sit on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
The plan content was shaped by the TAC, which consisted of the counties and SWCDs in the
watershed, State Agencies, Federal Agencies, the White Earth Department of Natural
Resources, and other local stakeholders.
The Steering Committee guided the planning process, produced the plan content, and
developed the details for implementation such as what will be tracked and by whom. The
Steering Committee will be the primary implementors of the plan. The TAC are partners in
plan implementation.

PARTNERSHIP

Figure 1.3. Members of the CWRW Partnership.

Section 1. Executive Summary

 5

Community Engagement
Public Kickoff
In June 2023, the CWRW Partnership held two
public kickoff meetings, one in Park Rapids, and
one in Nisswa, to inform Crow Wing River
Watershed residents on the 1W1P program and
receive public feedback on issues in the
watershed. In all, approximately 30 people
attended the meetings. Participants offered
input through spending pennies on watershed
issues and completing a survey. For a full report
of the survey results, see Appendix B.
The top five concerns from the public were:

Increased Forest &

Lake Water Loss of Natural Groundwater
Development Habitat Quality
Quality Shoreline Quality
on Lakes for Wildlife

Citizen Advisory Committee

The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was comprised of local stakeholders from a variety of
different resource concerns including agriculture, lakes, and habitat. They met three times
throughout the planning process to provide input to plan content (Figure 1.4). For a full
report of their input, see Appendix C.

Beginning: Middle: End:

Brainstormed and prioritized Developed plan actions and Reviewed full plan
issues vision statement

Figure 1.4. Citizen Advisory Committee input throughout the planning process.

Priority Issues
The public and CAC responses, along with issues discussed in watershed reports from
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and committee input, led to prioritization of
issues facing the watershed that will be addressed through implementation of this plan.
Priority issues that will be the focus of implementation efforts in the 10-year plan are listed in
Table 1.1. The main theme of the issue statement is shown in bold text. In Section 3, these
issues were prioritized for further targeting of implementation.

Section 1. Executive Summary

 6

Issues are assigned one or more resource

Resource Categories
categories that describe where protection or
enhancement is needed. Resource categories
include soil, groundwater, surface water, and
forestry & habitat.
Soil Ground Surface Forestry &
water water Habitat
Table 1.1. Priority Issues Table.

Resource
Category Issue Statement

Changes in land use impact surface and groundwater quality and

fragment habitat.

Lakeshore and riparian alteration impact water quality and shoreland

habitat.

Nutrient and bacteria runoff into lakes and streams impacts aquatic
recreation and human health.

Plant and forest health is vulnerable to climate variability, pests, and

terrestrial invasive species, which can affect habitat and water quality.

Soil health is important for agricultural productivity, water quality, and

climate resilience.

Drinking water quality is highly vulnerable to contamination from land

practices.

Groundwater quantity can impact sustainability, stream temperature,

and surface/groundwater connections.

Sufficient protection is needed for outstanding resources and sensitive

species to maintain water and habitat quality.

Alterations to natural drainage such as tiling, ditching, and culvert

placement increases the flow of water, streambank erosion, and impacts
fish and other aquatic species.

Aquatic Invasive species (AIS) impact lake health, water quality, and
recreation.

Section 1. Executive Summary

 7

Focus Resources
The CWRW has 466 lakes over 10 acres in size, 1,600 river miles, vast forests and wetlands,
and an abundance of deep and shallow groundwater. In a perfect world, there would be
enough time and funding to work on all the resources in the watershed. In reality, both
staffing capacity and funding are limited. Therefore, this planning process aimed to prioritize
resources and determine where to focus the most time and funding in the next ten years.
Focus areas were developed for Groundwater, Surface Water, Habitat & Forestry, and Overall
(darker colors are higher priority). Data used for decisions is shown in Section 4.

Groundwater Focus Areas Surface Water Focus Areas

Habitat & Forestry Focus Areas Overall Focus Areas + +

Section 1. Executive Summary

 8

Measurable Goals
Short-term (10-year) goals were set to address plan issues. Part of the 1W1P requirements is
to create measurable goals that have a metric through which progress can be clearly tracked.
Planning partners set eight goals that will address the priority issues in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2. Measurable Goals.

Agricultural Land Management

Implement 27,100 acres of agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Drinking Water Protection

Implement 13,400 acres of groundwater protection agricultural BMPs, and seal 150 wells.

Protection

Permanently protect 23,800 acres (i.e. Sustainable Forest Incentive Act [SFIA], easements,
and acquisitions).

Forest & Plant Health

Implement 95,000 acres of forestry management and 500 forest management plans.

Shoreland Management

Implement two miles of lakeshore/riparian enhancement.

Nutrient Reduction

Reduce phosphorus in lakes and protect them from degradation. For individual lake
goals, see Table 5.2.

Connectivity Enhancement

Replace 10 barriers to fish passage (dams, road crossings, culverts).

Resiliency

Build resiliency into all projects implemented where possible (cover crops, stormwater
management, forest protection).

Each goal in Section 5 includes a description of why it matters, which issues it addresses,
work that has been already accomplished, a desired future condition, a map of goal focus
areas, and the additional benefits that will be made if the goal is reached.

Section 1. Executive Summary

 9

Implementation
Plan implementation activities and associated information is described in targeted
implementation schedules in Section 6. Each implementation schedule (one for each
planning region, along with a watershed-wide table) includes actions to address issues and
make progress towards the measurable goals, the focus area to target, a measurable
outcome, who is responsible for implementation, a timeline, and the estimated cost. Actions
that will occur in each planning region include:
• Agricultural land management practices
• Groundwater agricultural practices
• Bacteria reduction projects
• Forest stewardship plans
• Forest health management
• Forest & Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) protection
• Shoreline and riparian management
• Urban stormwater management
• Chloride management, and
• Barrier modifications

All plan actions are voluntary and will be implemented through local, state, and federal
programs. To implement all plan actions, a large amount of funding is needed. Planning
Partners estimated that currently (Level 1), they are spending approximately $1.4 million on
conservation programs in the watershed. Approval of the CWRW CWMP
comes with Watershed-Based Implementation Funding (WBIF) from the Clean
Water Land and Legacy Amendment, which are additional non-competitive
funds that can be used for plan actions. This plan will operate at Level 2 (Table
1.2). Some actions require funds beyond these sources or are implemented by
other agencies and partners. These are estimated in Level 3 funding (Table
1.2). Actions planned to be funding through partner funding are indicated in
the targeted implementation schedule.

Table 1.2. Funding needed to implement the CWRW CWMP.

Funding Description Estimated Estimated 10-
Level Annual Total Year Total
The amount of funding needed to fully
implement this plan
Level 2 Level 1 funding=$1,400,000/year
$3,000,000 $30,000,000
2025-2026 WBIF Allocation=$848,600/year
Additional needed=$751,400/year
Level 3 Other/Partner funding $2,257,000 $22,570,000
(SFIA, Lessard Sams, TNC, CRSL, NRCS)
Total Level 2+3* $5,257,000 $52,570,000

Section 1. Executive Summary

 10

Plan implementation will have numerous benefits to surface water, habitat, and climate
resiliency. These are summarized in Table 1.3. Benefits are translated into equivalent
examples that are more understandable to the lay person than the typical units. For example,
this plan will reduce sediment by 16,760 tons/year. That is translated into the amount of
sediment that would fill over 1,670 dump trucks.
Table 1.3. Overall benefits from implementing this 10-year plan.

Benefit Description Real World Equivalent

Phosphorus: the pounds of 8,700 pounds/year; equivalent to:

phosphorus reduced by
implementing all plan goals. 4.4 million pounds of algae

16,760 tons/year; equivalent to:

Surface Sediment: the tons of sediment
Water reduced by implementing all plan 1,670 dump trucks of
Quality goals. sediment
Benefits

132,700 lbs/year; equivalent to:

Nitrogen: the pounds of nitrogen
reduced by implementing all plan 3,317 bags of nitrogen
goals. fertilizer

23,800 acres; equivalent to:

Habitat: acres of forest protected by
the area covered by 1
implementing all plan goals.
township
Habitat
Benefits
2 miles; equivalent to:
Habitat: length of shoreland and
riparian land enhanced by the length of 30 football
implementing all plan goals. fields.

Storage: the amount of new water 5,500 acre-feet; equivalent to:

storage on the landscape or in the
5,500 football fields covered
soil by implementing agricultural
in 1 foot of water
Climate best management practices.
Resiliency
Benefits 7,501,290 tons; equivalent to:
Carbon: the amount of carbon
stored and sequestered by Removing 5,997,249 gas
implementing plan goals. vehicles driven for one year

Section 1. Executive Summary

 11

Implementation partners are shown in Figure 1.3. These LGUs have entered into an MOA for
implementation of this plan and will work collaboratively to implement plan actions and
evaluate progress. Plan implementation will require LGUs to increase staffing and
coordination. Fiscal and administrative duties will be the responsibility of the local Fiscal
Agent, who will prepare the annual workplan and submit funding requests. The Policy
Committee, consisting of one board member from each MOA entity, will review funding and
recommend approval of the annual work plan. The Steering Committee will implement the
targeted implementation schedule. The Advisory Committee will meet annually to provide
input on the annual work plan, report on partner projects, and make recommendations. The
CWRW CWMP has a ten-year lifespan (2025-2035), after which it will be reevaluated. Annual
updates on plan progress will occur along with a midpoint assessment.

Family Fun on Roy Lake

Section 1. Executive Summary

 12

Section 2.
Land and Water Resource Narrative
Introduction
Whether you enjoy boating on beautiful clear lakes, canoeing down meandering streams,
fishing for trout, or hiking in forests, in the CWRW the possibilities for enjoying nature are
bountiful.
The CWRW, located in central Minnesota, covers 1,946 square miles and is named for the
Crow Wing River which is the major river flowing through the watershed. Beginning in the
north near Park Rapids, MN, water flows through many lakes in the forested headwaters, then
through a stretch of cropland, pasture, and drumlins near Menahga and Nimrod. The Gull
Chain of Lakes makes up the final expanse of land near the outlet. The Crow Wing River joins
the Mississippi just south of Baxter, MN, and the Mississippi is an important drinking water
source for downstream cities. In fact, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) ranked over
500 watersheds in the Midwest and Northeast for their ability to discharge clean water, and
the Crow Wing was ranked number five of Midwestern watersheds for importance to drinking
water supply (Barnes et al. 2009).
The watershed encompasses land in Becker, Cass, Clearwater, Crow Wing, Hubbard,
Morrison, Otter Tail, Todd, and Wadena Counties along with part of the White Earth Nation.
Cities with a population over 1,000 are Lake Shore, Menahga, Park Rapids, Pequot Lakes,
Nisswa, and Staples (Figure 2.1).

Roy Lake
in Nisswa

Section 2. Land and Water Resources Narrative

 13

Figure 2.1. Location and descriptive watershed map.

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 14

Past
Glaciation
Glacial advances and retreats shaped much of the geologic features of Minnesota. Glacial till
or outwash deposits make up much of the parent material of today’s soils. Glacial till is
unsorted sediment deposited by glacial movement. Outwash consists of sands or gravel left
behind by flowing glacial melt. At the end of the Wisconsin Stage, the most recent ice
advance over most of the Crow Wing Watershed, the Wadena Lobe carved out lakes and left
behind drumlins (a low elongated oval mound or hill formed through glacial movement)
through erosion and deposition (Cass County 2017).
The geologic history of the past formed the soils that now impacts water quality in the
CWRW. Outwash remnants have increased infiltration rates which allows for quick stormwater
infiltration, less runoff, and fast groundwater recharge. Quick infiltration to groundwater
means pollutants are more able to move between surface water and groundwater. Much of
the CWRW is sandy soils, and contaminants can access groundwater relatively quickly.

Human History
People have been living in the Mississippi River
headwaters area for over 10,000 years. The earliest
The Crow Wing River gets its
people known to inhabit these lands were prehistoric
name from a loose translation
nomadic peoples (Mississippi Headwaters Board
of the Ojibwe language:
2019). The Ojibwe people, deeply connected to the
Gaagaagiwigwani-ziibi, which area’s resources for their way of life, settled in what we
means ‘Raven-feather River’ now call Minnesota around 1400 AD, centuries before
European settlers arrived. Their decision was inspired
This comes from the wing-
by the discovery of a precious gift from the Creator:
shaped island near the mouth
manoomin, or wild rice, which would sustain them for
of the Crow Wing River.
generations.
As European settlers realized the forest's lucrative potential, a somber chapter in history
unfolded for the Ojibwe people. The Chippewa land cession of 1837 was marred by
fraudulent schemes orchestrated by certain individuals in positions of power, including
government officials (Figure 2.2). This deception marked the beginning of logging in the
area.
Amid the boundaries of the Crow Wing and Mississippi Rivers, a pivotal trading center
thrived, culminating in the formation of the Old Crow Wing village. Successive agreements
with the Ojibwe in 1847 and 1855 catalyzed the expansion of logging activities, ultimately
resulting in the excessive depletion of timber resources. In 1867, the establishment of the
White Earth Reservation represented a significant milestone in the watershed's history. This
reservation encompasses the western section of the Crow Wing Watershed and remains
intricately interwoven with the cultural heritage and traditional lifestyle of the Ojibwe people

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 15

(Figure 2.1). Further historical information about the White Earth Nation is available at
whiteearth.com/history .
The economy transitioned to agriculture in the 1900s as the timber was over-logged (DNRa
n.d.). Railroad replaced traditional forms of transport, and when the Northern Pacific Railroad
company chose to cross the Mississippi River at the town of Brainerd, the Old Crow Wing
village became a part of history. This location is currently preserved in Crow Wing State Park.

Figure 2.2. Tribal secession map for the CWRW.

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 16

Present
Climate
The climate of the CWRW reflects its location in Central Minnesota, with
warm summers and cold snowy winters. The average temperature in the
watershed is 41°F, and the average precipitation is 27 inches per year
In the
(DNRb n.d.). The fluctuating climate results in a variety of recreational
watershed,
opportunities. In the summer, the many lakes provide fishing, swimming,
precipitation
and boating fun for locals and tourists. The cold winters freeze the lakes,
is increasing
allowing for ice fishing and snowmobiling.
by an average
Increasing climate variability is impacting Minnesota, including the CWRW. of 0.16 inches
Across the state, temperatures are warming (especially in the winter) and per decade,
annual precipitation is increasing. The number of rain events greater than and
1 inch are becoming more frequent, and the more intense rain events can temperatures
lead to flooding and greater erosion (DNRc n.d.). Measurements of are increasing
weather in the CWRW go back to 1893, revealing that precipitation in the by an average
watershed is increasing by an average of 0.16 inches per decade, and of 0.24°F per
temperatures are increasing by an average of 0.24°F per decade (DNRb decade.
n.d.). While these small numbers may not seem significant, they have
already begun to impact growing seasons, shorten ice coverage of lakes,
and increase flooding events.

Land Use
The watershed is primarily deciduous forest with some evergreen forest. Following forests,
wetlands are the next most common land use (Figure 2.3). A heavily forested and wetland
covered watershed acts like a sponge to store water in the soils, sequester carbon, reduce
erosion, and provide habitat. Pre-European land cover was primarily Jack Pine Barrens and
Aspen/Birch forests (DNR 2017).
6% 2% Forest
The reduction of forest cover and
land use changes are concerns 7%
Wetlands
for the watershed. Pressure to use
lands for agriculture or 39% Pasture/Hay
11%
developed land threatens surface
and groundwater quality. Total Cultivated Crops
phosphorus is known to increase
Grass, Herbaceous,
when natural land uses such as 11% Shrub
forest and wetlands are disturbed Open Water
(Cross and Jacobson 2013).
Almost a quarter of the watershed Developed
24% use in the CWRW.
Figure 2.3. Land
is cultivated crops and

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 17

pasture/hay (Figure 2.3, Figure 2.4). Common crops include corn, soybeans, potatoes, and
small grains (WHAF).

Figure 2.4. Current land cover in the CWRW (NLCD 2019).

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 18

Water Resources
There is no shortage of surface water in the watershed. The CWRW contains 466 lakes over
10 acres and 1,600 miles of rivers and streams (MPCA 2014). Its namesake, the Crow Wing
River, originates through a series of 11 lakes that were formed by the melting of blocks of ice
that occurred following glacial retreat (Waters, 1977). After the Crow Wing Lake Chain, the
river continues calmly through marshes and forests about 80 miles before flowing into the
Mississippi River south of Brainerd, MN.
In the northwestern portion of the watershed, several tributaries begin and drain into the
Crow Wing River south of Menahga including the Fishhook, Straight, Shell, and Blueberry
Rivers. The City of Park Rapids is nestled between these rivers and several major regional
lakes, including Big and Little Sand, Upper and Lower Bottle, Long, and Belle Taine.
Several smaller tributaries join the Crow Wing River through the middle portion of the
watershed, weaving their way through the drumlins and wetlands left behind by the
retreating glaciers. At the southeastern corner of the CWRW, the Gull Chain of Lakes drain
into the Crow Wing River, right before its confluence with the Mississippi. The Gull Chain of
Lakes are some of the most well-known lakes in all of Minnesota.

Gull Lake
(source:
Brainerd.com)

Outstanding Resources
The CWRW has a number of high-value recreational lakes, lakes with deep clear water to
support trout and tullibee, and shallow lakes with healthy wild rice populations (Figure 2.5).
Wild rice, or manoomin, has vast significance for Indigenous people in Minnesota as it is not
only a nutritious grain, but is culturally and spiritually important. Beyond its cultural value,
wild rice is also a key habitat and food source for migrating waterfowl.
The CWRW’s network of flowing and meandering streams has many cold-water streams (fed
by groundwater) that are essential for supporting trout populations. The cold water holds
oxygen that brook, brown, and rainbow trout depend on. With the trend of increasing
temperature in the watershed, these cold-water streams are a high-value resource to protect.
Cold-water lakes support trout as well as tullibee, which are whitefish that also need cold
water. In addition to warming water from increasing air temperature, cold water streams and

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 19

rivers are threatened by changes in the groundwater that supplies them, and increased
nutrients from development, runoff, or agriculture that can lead to algae lowering the
dissolved oxygen (MPCA 2015).

Figure 2.5. Outstanding resources in the CWRW.

Invasive Species
While the overall water quality of the watershed is excellent, there are waterbodies infested
with invasive species. Invasive species are difficult to eradicate, given they did not evolve with
the ecosystem and can outcompete native species.
AIS in the watershed include curly-leaf pondweed, faucet snails, Eurasian watermilfoil, purple
loosestrife, starry stonewort, and zebra mussels (DNRd 2023). Both the Gull and Crow Wing
Chain of Lakes are infested with AIS. The presence of AIS is constantly changing. Check the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) website for the most up-to-date list of
infested waters. The DNR and counties have AIS prevention and management plans that they
implement in the watershed.

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 20

Impairments
Although the CWRW generally has high quality waterbodies that need protection, there are
some impairments in its lakes and streams. The watershed has aquatic recreation
impairments due to E. coli in streams and nutrients in lakes, aquatic life impairments in
streams due to macroinvertebrate bioassessments, low dissolved oxygen, and fish
bioassessments, and aquatic consumption impairments due to mercury in fish tissue (MPCA
2022).
The main lake pollutant is phosphorus, which contributes to undesirable algae blooms that
impede recreational use and can lead to fish kills. The Stressor Identification Study (MPCA
2014) named cattle grazing in riparian areas and stream channels, improperly sized culverts,
natural peatland characteristics, and altered groundwater/surface interactions as contributors
to aquatic life
impairments.
Nonpoint pollutants
include pollution that
doesn’t have a clear
source. It is often
carried into streams
via overland runoff.
Bacteria and
phosphorus sources in
the watershed include
agricultural fertilizer
and manure runoff,
failing septic systems,
cattle overgrazing in
streams, and wildlife
waste. Additional
sources of nutrients
Mayo Creek
are internal loading
and natural
peatland/wetland
discharge, which can
contain high
concentration of
phosphorus and low
dissolved oxygen
(MPCA 2015).

Figure 2.6. Water quality impairments (2022 Impaired Waters List).

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 21

Habitat
The watershed owes much of its excellent water quality to Moon over an
the presence of forest and wetland habitat. These are vital undeveloped lake
natural habitats for fish and wildlife. In the CWRW, most
historical wetlands remain, and ditching/tile drainage has
not drained much of the land. The watershed is home to
all or part of eight state forests: Pillsbury, Lyons,
Huntersville, Badoura, Smoky Hills, Two Inlets, Paul
Bunyan, and White Earth. The southern part of Itasca State
Park is located in the CWRW as well.
The protection of existing forestland is essential for
guarding water quality. Many lakes in the watershed are
valuable for recreation but changes in the catchment area
could increase nutrients. The increased population trend
incentivizes development, and the forested fertile land is
appealing for agriculture. Protection of large swaths of
forest is critical for habitat protection, as fragmentation of
habitat cuts off species. Maintaining biodiversity is a
priority for conservation, and protecting existing habitat is
easier than restoring lost habitat. The watershed is home
to the grey wolf (threatened), the northern long-eared bat
(endangered), and the tricolored bat (proposed
endangered) (USFWS n.d.).

Groundwater
Most CWRW residents depend on groundwater for drinking water, which is largely accessed
through the surficial Pineland Sands Aquifer (MPCA 2014). There are eleven DWSMAs in the
watershed, which range from low to high vulnerability to contamination. Due to the
importance of groundwater quality for the basic necessity of drinking water, groundwater
quality has been a top priority for watershed management.
The geology of the watershed puts the groundwater at a higher risk for contamination. The
sandy soils allow for nutrients, fertilizer, pesticides, and bacteria to easily move from the
surface into groundwater supplies. The water table is very near to the surface in some places
in the watershed. Nitrates in groundwater have been detected in the sandy soils and
agricultural regions in the north and central parts of the watershed (MPCA 2015). Proper
management of agriculture, nitrogen application, and irrigation, especially on land with
sandy soils, is important for protecting the groundwater.

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 22

The growth in
agriculture places
increased demand on
groundwater
supplies, as irrigation
is often necessary for
a viable crop in sandy
soils. Increased
groundwater
withdrawals for crop
irrigation were
identified as
contributing to
increased stream
temperatures in the
Straight and Shell
Rivers (MPCA 2015).
The warmer water
then holds less
dissolved oxygen,
stressing aquatic life.
The sandy soils result
in quick recharge of
groundwater, and a
lack of groundwater
has not yet been a
concern in the
watershed. However,
projections of
increased need for
irrigation in the future Figure 2.7. DWSMA vulnerability in the CWRW.
may place a strain on the groundwater resources.

Irrigated
field near
Staples, MN.

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 23

Socioeconomics and Population

The CWRW demographics were estimated by
aggregating county data for the CWRW with the
The ‘arts, entertainment, proportion of the main counties in the watershed. The
recreation, accommodation’ majority of the land in the watershed is in Cass (28%),
sector employs 9% of Hubbard (24%), Becker (18%), and Wadena (15%)
watershed residents (US Counties. 11% of the watershed is also in Crow Wing
Census Bureau 2021). The and Todd Counties. A small amount of land not
natural beauty of the forests considered in the following demographics is in
and lakes in the CWRW brings Clearwater, Morrison, and Otter Tail Counties.
visitors that support local jobs.
About 27,000 people call the CWRW home and have
access to the pristine natural resources in their
watershed. Of these, the median age is 44 and median household income is $57,000 (US
Census Bureau 2021). The
value of the natural resources
is evident by the fact that more
than a third of households are
seasonal (Cass & Crow Wing
County data). Many people are
attracted to a summer
home/cabin or resort in the
watershed where they can
enjoy the many opportunities
the resources of the CWRW
offer, including fishing,
boating, hunting, and more.
Several major resorts on the
Gull Lake Chain attract
thousands of visitors year-
round, including Grand View
Lodge, Madden’s, and
Cragun’s. The total market
property value around the Gull
Lake Chain is $4.6 billion (Cass
& Crow Wing County data).
Population is growing most in
the Park Rapids, Menahga,
Pequot Lakes, and Gull Lake
Areas, the rest of the
watershed’s population is fairly stable (Figure 2.8). Figure 2.8. Population change in the CWRW.

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

 24

Future
The CWRW is a precious resource for Minnesotans, with its popular lakes, outstanding
habitat, and boundless opportunities for outdoor recreation. With protection of the forest,
wetland, and water resources as a priority, the watershed’s future is tied to the efforts of local
partners. Management efforts will focus on protecting forest land from conversion, restoring
water quality of impaired lakes and rivers, and maintaining the natural resources that provide
ecological, recreational, and social benefits to residents and visitors.

Crow Wing
River in
Staples, MN.

Section 2. Land and Water Resource Narrative

Section 3.
Priority Issues
Issues are any environmental concern that can be addressed to protect or restore natural
resources in the watershed. In this section, the process for selecting and prioritizing issues in
the CWRW is described. Issues were compiled and prioritized over the course of four months
by compiling information from existing plans and studies; developing and revising the
information at Public, Citizen Advisory, Technical Advisory, and Policy Committee meetings;
and then determining priority issues (Figure 3.1). The priority issues will be the focus of this
plan.

1 2 3 4
Compile issues Categorize
Gather input at
from multiple issues into Prioritize issues
meetings
sources themes

Figure 3.1. Process for developing issues.

1. Compile Issues
The first step in creating prioritized issues was to develop a comprehensive list of all
watershed issues. Watershed issues were identified by reviewing existing data and reports
and receiving input from state agencies. Reports included the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies Report (WRAPS), MPCA
Stressor Identification Report, and county water plans. Letters from the following agencies
detailing their priority issues were received: BWSR, DNR, MPCA, Minnesota Department of
Agriculture (MDA), and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH).

2. Gather Input at Meetings

Technical Advisory Committee Input
At the June 2023 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting, watershed issues were
brainstormed by meeting participants. These issues were then matched with the issues
compiled from existing plans and studies, showing consistency in responses.

Public Input
Concerns of members of the public were Publicalso
Kickoff
considered when developing watershed
in
issues. Public kickoff events were held in Nisswa,
Park Rapids and Nisswa in June 2023 to MN
inform residents about the 1W1P program and

Section 3. Priority Issues

 26

to receive public feedback on watershed issues. The issues residents were most concerned
about include lake water quality, loss of natural shorelines, and groundwater quality. All of
these issues are named in Table 3.1. Further details about the public meeting and public
survey results are described in Appendix B.
The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) met in August 2023 and used sticky notes to
brainstorm issues related to surface water, groundwater, habitat, and land. Then, they
organized the sticky notes under the issue statements developed by the TAC (Figure 3.2).
Their responses were consistent with the existing issue statements, showing consensus
between the two committees. Most of the citizen concerns were issues that can be addressed
with actions that would be implemented by planning partners. To see the reports from their
meetings, see Appendix C.

Figure 3.2. Sticky note brainstorming and grouping by themes at the CAC meeting in August 2023.

3. Categorize into Themes

All major issues compiled within watershed
Resource Categories
reports, agency letters, and meeting feedback
were condensed into 10 issue statements by
the TAC. These issues were then placed into
resource categories (Figure 3.3). An issue may
belong to more than one category. For
Ground Surface Forestry & Soil
example, “Changes in land use” affects
water water Habitat
groundwater, surface water, and habitat.
Figure 3.3. Resource categories for issues.

Section 3. Priority Issues

 27

4. Prioritize Issues
The 10 issue statements were then prioritized by geographic area. Commonly in planning
efforts, the watershed is split into subregions based on topography, resources, and land use.
For the CWRW, the Steering Team recommended four Planning Regions. The TAC Reviewed
and agreed with the map in Figure 3.4. This allows for assigning a location to the issues, and
where the most focus is needed per issue.
The headwaters region, in the northeast, is (as the name implies) where the Crow Wing River
begins. This region has many large lakes including Belle Taine and the Crow Wing Chain of
Lakes.
The Northwest Tributaries Region covers the Straight, Fishhook, Shell, and Blueberry Rivers
as well as Park Rapids. Most of the cropland in the watershed is in this region and the
Headwaters region.
The Crow Wing River
Main region is the largest
and covers the middle of
the watershed. The
majority of altered stream
channels are in this
watershed as well as the
city of Staples.
The Gull Lake River
region is in the southeast
and includes the Gull
Chain of Lakes and the
cities of Pequot Lakes,
Lake Shore, Nisswa, and
Baxter. A large portion of
this region is open water.
The TAC placed issues
into primary, secondary,
and tertiary concerns
within each planning
region. The prioritization
was then approved by
the Policy Committee.

Figure 3.4. Planning Regions in the CWRW.

Section 3. Priority Issues

 28

Priority Issue Statements

Priority issues that will be the focus of implementation efforts in the 10-year plan are listed in
the table below along with the sources where the issue was mentioned. The main theme of
the issue statement is shown in bold text. Each issue was assigned a 1, 2, or 3 within each
Planning Region.
Sources Acronyms Key:
Primary: Primary focus of resources during
1 Public = Top 5 ranked issues in the public survey
implementation (staff time and funds)
BWSR = Agency concern letter
Secondary: Secondary focus of resources MPCA = Agency concern letter
2
during implementation DNR = Agency concern letter
MDA= Agency concern letter
Tertiary: Addressed here as opportunities MDH = Agency concern letter
3
arise TAC = Technical Advisory Committee Brainstorm
WRAPS = Watershed Restoration & Protection Strategy

Table 3.1. Priority Issues for the CWRW.

Resource Planning Region Sources

Category Issue Statement Prioritization (see acronyms key)

Changes in land use impact surface

Plans, MPCA, BWSR,
and groundwater quality and WRAPS, TAC, Public
fragment habitat.

Lakeshore and riparian alteration

Plans, MPCA, BWSR,
impact water quality and shoreland TAC, Public
habitat.

Nutrient and bacteria runoff into WRAPS, Plans,

lakes and streams impacts aquatic MPCA, BWSR, TAC,
recreation and human health. Public

Plant and forest health is

vulnerable to climate variability,
pests, and terrestrial invasive Plans, TAC, BWSR
species, which can affect habitat
and water quality.

Section 3. Priority Issues

 29

Resource Planning Region Sources

Category Issue Statement Prioritization (see acronyms key)

Soil health is important for

Plans, MPCA, BWSR,
agricultural productivity, water TAC
quality, and climate resilience.

Drinking water quality is highly MDH, MDA, BWSR,

vulnerable to contamination from WRAPS, Plans, TAC,
land practices. Public

Groundwater quantity can impact

sustainability, stream temperature,
WRAPS, TAC, Plans
and surface/groundwater
connections.

Sufficient protection is needed for

outstanding resources and sensitive Plans, BWSR, TAC,
species to maintain water and Public
habitat quality.

Alterations to natural drainage

such as tiling, ditching, and culvert
placement increases the flow of Plans, WRAPS,
water, streambank erosion, and BWSR, TAC
impacts fish and other aquatic
species.

Aquatic Invasive Species impact See local County AIS

lake health, water quality, and Plans Plans, TAC
recreation. for priorities.

Section 3. Priority Issues

 30

Local Concerns
Local concerns are issues or topics of interest in the watershed that will not be the focus of
plan funding but are important local considerations to water and land management.

High Water in Lakes

Lake levels can vary over time due to changes in precipitation, land development and runoff
changes, and groundwater supply. While lake levels can vary due to natural factors, when
lakefront properties are located on lakes with rising levels it can cause issues. Higher lake
elevation encroaches on yards, which can erode shorelines and pull sediment into the lake.
Docks have to be moved and sandy beaches are submerged. If water gets high enough,
property and infrastructure can flood, causing financial damage and loss to local businesses.
In the CWRW, a rising lake level on Lake Belle Taine has been an ongoing problem since the
mid-1950s. Lake Belle Taine spans nearly 1,500 acres and its shoreline is largely homes and
resorts. It is a popular recreational lake for boating and fishing. The lake is fed by
groundwater and a large drainage network but has no outlet. This plan can help address
water level impacts through shoreline restoration and stabilization, land protection, and land
management programs. Best management projects such as wetland restoration, cover crops
and reforestation can help increase the water storage capacity of the land, reducing runoff to
the lakes.

Lake Belle Taine,

Nevis, MN

Credit: belletaine.org

Section 3. Priority Issues

 31

Pipelines
A network of pipelines carry oil and gas
across the country. Three crude oil and
one natural gas pipelines cross the CWRW,
carrying crude oil from Canada and North
Dakota into refineries.
Line 3 was replaced in 2021 and runs
through the watershed. It became famous
due to a movement to protest its
constructtion due to the possibility for
dangerous oil spills in natural wetlands,
lakes, and rivers. The largest inland oil spill
in US history occurred on the original Line
3, and any future spills may impact the
watershed. Each county has a Hazard
Mitigation Plan, but those only plan for
natural disasters. Plans in case of an oil spill
or train derailment should be evaluated in
each county.

Emerging Concerns
Figure 3.5. Pipelines in the CWRW.
Emerging issues are concerns in the
watershed that are not included in the issues table because they have a larger scope or lack
enough information to measure local progress or know how to fix them. However, they may
affect the resources in the watershed in the future.

Contaminants of Emerging Concern

Contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) refer to a class of thousands of compounds
created by humans for pharmaceuticals, personal care products, industrial use, and more.
These were produced throughout the past century without testing on the health or
environmental effects of each compound. Recent concern over the fate and impacts of CEC
in the environment has led to a re-examining of the extent of the problem. There is much we
do not know about CEC, and current research seeks to understand the concentrations
present in the environment.
CEC of special importance are endocrine disruptors, which alter normal hormone functions
and have been linked to reproductive harm to organism and human health at low
concentrations. BPA (an endocrine disruptor) and Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
chemicals have grown in the public awareness. BPA is used in plastics and Perfluorooctane
Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) chemicals were developed for fire-fighting materials, cosmetics, and

Section 3. Priority Issues

 32

nonstick uses. Both of these have been found to have dangerous health impacts including
reproductive harm and cancer.
CEC are introduced to Minnesota’s surface water through wastewater treatment plant effluent
(where they are not treated), stormwater runoff, and industrial discharge. A study on the
presence of CEC in Minnesota lakes found antibiotics, disinfectants, antidepressants, DEET,
and BPA in the water, with all lakes tested having at least one CEC (MPCA, 2021). The effect
these may be having on aquatic life, or on humans, is poorly understood. Continued
monitoring and research into the presence and impact of CEC will be done by MDH and
MPCA.

Chloride
Road salt (typically sodium chloride) is applied on
roads to prevent ice formation and melt it once it
has formed. Sodium chloride does not degrade in
the environment, so there is concern over the
increasing salinity of surface water, groundwater,
and soil. Road salt corrodes infrastructure, degrades
soil structure, and kills roadside vegetation. High
chloride concentrations are toxic to aquatic life. Salt
can infiltrate through soil and reach groundwater supplies, where high concentrations of
chloride gives drinking water an undesirable taste and high sodium concentrations may be
unhealthy.
While road salt is the largest source of chloride in Minnesota, other significant sources of
chloride are fertilizers and wastewater treatment plant effluent (the largest portion is from
water softeners). Smaller sources of chloride include livestock waste, septic systems, and road
dust suppression for gravel roads (Overbo et al., 2021).
No waterbodies in the CWRW are on the MPCA's impaired waters list due to chloride. Crow
Wing SWCD sampled 10 lakes for chloride and did not find high concentrations. It will be
important to continue monitoring surface water salinity into the future. Given all the negative
impacts of salt, it is important to reduce the amount of salt applied to roads to only use the
necessary amount to improve winter safety. The MPCA offers Smart Salt training for salt
applicators.

Section 3. Priority Issues

 33

Issue Lenses
Issue lenses are a lens through which land and water management should be viewed
through. These issue lenses apply to every aspect of this plan and are important
considerations during implementation.

Environmental Justice and Health Equity

The MPCA has
developed a statewide
map showing areas of
concern related to
environmental justice.
It shows where there is
a large portion of the
population living in
poverty, tribal nations,
or a where 40% of the
population are people
of color. The majority
of the CWRW has at
least 35% of the
population living
under 200% of the
federal poverty level.
The northwest section
is identified as an
MPCA environmental
justice area due to the
presence of the White
Earth Nation (Figure
3.6). Knowledge of
environmental justice
areas helps plan
partners best
implement the
watershed plan with
equity for all. Figure 3.6. CWRW MPCA areas of environmental justice.

Environmental Justice Lens

Throughout this plan, this lens box
will be used to call out considerations related to
environmental justice in the plan.

Section 3. Priority Issues

 34

Climate Variability and Resiliency

Minnesota has seen increased variability in climate,
which has concerning implications for agriculture, Climate Lens
recreation, and infrastructure. Temperatures are getting Throughout this plan,
warmer, with an increase in the CWRW of 0.24 °F per this climate lens box
decade since the 1890s (DNR, 2023) (Figure 3.7). will be used to call out
considerations related to climate
Warmer weather affects surface water, as trout streams
variability in the plan.
depend on cool water, ice fishing season is shortened,
and algae blooms are more likely.

Figure 3.7 Annual temperatures in the CWRW 1895-2023.

Additionally, precipitation is shifting (Figure 3.8). Annually, more rainfall is occurring in the
watershed (a trend of 0.17 additional inches of rain per decade) but there is an increase in
the variability of rain events (DNR, 2023). When it rains, it is more likely to be a heavy rain,
which leads to more runoff, potential flooding, and peaks in streamflow. Climate projections
for Minnesota predict wetter winters and springs. The ability to withstand extreme weather
events is resiliency, which will be an important lens to view projects through when planning
for the future. More resilient agriculture and infrastructure includes planning for a warmer
and wetter future.

Figure 3.8. Annual precipitation in the CWRW, 1895 to 2023.

Section 3. Priority Issues

 35

Resiliency is the ability to withstand change. It can be both social and ecological. Ecological
resilience includes forest protection, adequate water storage, and BMPs. For example, a
resilient watershed that experiences a large rain event would have the ability to store water in
the ground, reducing overland runoff and rising stream flow, and vegetative buffers along
streams to reduce erosion. Resiliency can be built into the environment and society, for
example by constructing impoundments or incorporating hazard mitigation planning into
workplans. Implementation of this plan will build social and ecological resilience (Figure 3.9).

Figure 3.9. Social and ecological resiliency scales.

Section 3. Priority Issues

 36

Section 4.
Focus Resources
Introduction
The CWRW has 466 lakes over 10 acres in size, 1,600 river miles, vast forests and wetlands,
and an abundance of deep and shallow groundwater. In a perfect world, there would be
enough time and funding to work on all the resources in the watershed. In reality, both
staffing capacity and funding are limited. Therefore, this planning process aimed to prioritize
resources and determine where to focus the most time and funding in the next ten years. The
prioritization process was developed by the TAC, applied by the Steering Committee, and
approved by the Policy Committee over the course of four meetings. These Focus Resources
are supported by data and are places where measurable changes can be made. Focus
Resources will be targeted with outreach and project development effort. Other resources in
the watershed will be assisted with projects on an opportunity-basis.

Spirit
Lake in
Menahga,
MN

Minnesota’s Nonpoint Priority Funding Plan for Clean Water Funding Implementation and
Clean Water Roadmap sets priorities around impaired waters close to meeting standards,
waters at risk for impairment, and waters for public use and public health. The resources in
the CWRW were evaluated with these priorities in mind; however, there are only a few
impaired waters. Therefore, for unimpaired resources, the priorities focus on what has the
highest value and the most risk.
The TAC recommended prioritizing subwatersheds
Resource Categories
(HUC12) for each resource category considering existing
data from past studies and analysis, existing plans, and the
MPCA assessments (WRAPS, TMDL, SID). Then, the focus
areas for each resource category were stacked for overall
watershed priorities. This section walks through the focus Ground Surface Forestry &
water water Habitat
areas per resource category.

Section 4. Focus Resources

 37

Groundwater Focus Areas

The groundwater in much of the CWRW is shallow, which when paired with
sandy soils is sensitive to pollution from land practices. Nitrates found in
groundwater are generally from human activities, and nitrate concentrations
are over the state standard (10 mg/L) in some areas of the watershed (Figure
4.2).
Focus Areas are where there is the highest risk of nitrogen infiltration into the
groundwater. This analysis considers the land use practices and infiltration potential to
identify areas that are most vulnerable to nitrogen infiltration (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Groundwater focus areas (based on Nitrogen Infiltration Risk, HEI).

Section 4. Focus Resources

 38

Supporting Information
Other datasets were considered during the groundwater prioritization process, and the TAC found that all these aligned with the
nitrogen infiltration risk (Figure 4.1). MDA well testing within targeted townships shows 5-10% of wells tested in Carsonville,
Osage, Todd, Straight River, and Crow Wing Lake Townships had nitrate concentrations over 10 mg/L. Pine Point, Hubbard, and
Badoura Townships had over 10% of wells tested with nitrate concentrations over 10 mg/L (Figure 4.2 [A]). Groundwater
appropriation permits for agricultural irrigation are focused in the same areas around Park Rapids and Staples (Figure 4.2 [B]).
DWSMAs in Sundsruds Court, Nevis, and White Pine Villas have high vulnerability (Figure 4.2 [C]). DWSMA boundaries establish a
protection area through extensive evaluation that determines the ten-year time of travel of groundwater that supplies a public
water supply well.

Figure 4.2. [A] MDA Targeted Township Testing Program results; [B] Groundwater Appropriation Permits; [C] DWSMA Vulnerability.

Section 4. Focus Resources

 39

Surface Water Focus Areas

The CWRW is home to over 1,600 miles of streams and 466 lakes (>10 acres).
These surface water resources are in good condition overall. This good
condition is likely due to many factors including, but not limited to, forest
cover, sandy soils (good infiltration*), and over 80% of historical wetlands
remaining.
Focus areas were determined by considering four factors: water quality impairments,
water quality trends, phosphorus sensitivity, and land disturbance (the percent of the
minor watershed converted from pre-European settlement landcover to agriculture or
development). (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3. Surface Water Focus Areas.

*Sandy soils provide infiltration of nutrients instead of runoff, which can be

beneficial to surface water, but can be a risk to groundwater. Section 4. Focus Resources
 40

Supporting Information
Numerous datasets were considered during the surface water prioritization process, and the
TAC found that all these data aligned with the local priorities and the WRAPS Cycle 2
Assessment. Lakes and streams were split into four categories that reflect the current
condition of the waterbody (Table 4.1). The Management Strategy is what will drive
implementation activities around each waterbody. Resources in good condition (PROTECT),
will be targeted for forest protection to minimize future land disturbance. Resources that are
at risk (ENHANCE) or impaired (RESTORE) will be targeted for nutrient reduction practices
and forest protection. For more details on the criteria used, see Appendix D.
Table 4.1. Management Strategy definitions.

Management Strategy Description

VIGILANCE The resource is sufficiently protected (>75% of the minor watershed

area). Keep public lands protected.

The resource is in good condition and additional land protection will

PROTECT
help maintain the good condition.

The resource is at risk. It has a declining water quality trend (Fig 4.4
ENHANCE [B]), nearly impaired, and/or a significant amount of land conversion
and/or disturbance in its drainage area but is not currently impaired.
The resource is on the Impaired Waters List for excess nutrients, E. coli,
RESTORE or sediment (Figure 4.4 [A]).

Figure 4.4. [A] Water quality impairments; [B] Water quality trends.
Section 4. Focus Resources
 41

The CWRW has numerous chains of

lakes and important rivers that flow
through these lake chains. Therefore, it
made more sense in this watershed to
look at subwatersheds with connected
resources instead of individual
resources (Figures 4.3 and 4.5). Figure
4.6 describes the risks to each focus
area.
The Osage, Park Rapids, Nevis, and
Menahga areas have a mix of high
value recreation lakes, a trout stream,
growing development, and conversion
of forests to agriculture.
The Partridge River has rolling wooded
lands and is important for agricultural
production. There are also some E.coli
impairments (Figure 4.4 [A]).
The Gull Chain of Lakes area has some
of the highest recreational value in the
whole state of Minnesota. These lakes
have growing development pressure.
In addition, E. coli impaired Cory
Brook, Home Brook, and Stony Brook Figure 4.5. Surface water focus areas with management strategy.
streams drain into the Gull Chain (Figure 4.4 [A]).

Crow Wing Lake Belle Taine Lake Fishhook River & Straight River &
Chain Area Lakes Lakes
•Impairments •Land Disturbance •Declining trend in •Declining trend in
•Land Disturbance •Shoreline Long Lake Straight Lake
Development •Land Disturbance •Trout stream
•Land Disturbance

Shell River & Menahga Area Partridge River Gull Lake Chain
Lakes Lakes Area & Drainage Area
•Land Disturbance •Impairments •Impairments •Shoreline
•Risk of forest •Land Disturbance •Land Disturbance development
conversion •Impairments
•Stormwater

Figure 4.6. Surface water focus areas and risks.

Section 4. Focus Resources

 42

Habitat & Forestry Focus Areas

The majority of the CWRW (63%) is a patchwork of forests and wetlands. A
heavily forested and wetland covered watershed acts like a sponge to store
water in the soils, sequester carbon in the trees, reduce erosion, and
provide habitat. Forests on average produce about 55% less runoff than
cultivated land with conventional tillage methods (Anderson & Kean 2004).
Focus Areas were determined during the LSP process, which involved many of the
same watershed managers and stakeholders as the watershed planning process.
These focus areas have the most risk of forest loss, the best biodiversity (in the
uplands and in the lakes and streams), and the most potential for protection
programs (parcels >20 acres) (Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7. Forestry and Habitat focus areas (based on the CWRW LSP).

Section 4. Focus Resources

 43

Supporting Information
Other datasets were considered during the groundwater prioritization process, and the TAC found that these aligned with the
Landscape Stewardship Plan (LSP) priorities (Figure 4.7). DNR Fisheries Researchers found that when over 25% of the land area in a
minor watershed is disturbed (agriculture or development), phosphorus concentrations increase in lakes. Therefore, protecting 75% of
the land in a minor watershed protects water quality. There are some areas of the watershed that are already 75% protected (Figure 4.8
[A]). The focus of forest and habitat protection therefore is in the areas with the least amount of protected land.
There are a plethora of outstanding lakes and streams in the CWRW that provide habitat for both aquatic, terrestrial, and migrating
species. Protecting forest and habitat in these areas ensures these species thrive into the future (Figure 4.8 [B]). An analysis
determining the risk of privately owned forest land being converted to agriculture (based on suitable soils) shows where there is the
most risk of forest loss (Figure 4.8 [C]).

Figure 4.8. [A] Protected land percentage by minor watershed; [B] Lakes and streams with outstanding qualities (trout, wild rice, cisco, outstanding
biodiversity); ]C] Risk of privately owned forestland being converted to agriculture (based on suitable soils).
Section 4. Focus Resources
 44

Overall Priority Focus Areas

Groundwater Focus Areas Surface Water Focus Areas

The three resource focus areas were

overlaid together to determine the
Overall Focus Areas.
Tier 1: Where two or more resource
focus areas overlap. These areas will be
the primary focus of implementation.
Tier 2: Where there is just one resource
focus area. These areas will be the
secondary focus of implementation.
Implementation in all other areas will be
considered as opportunities arise.
See Figure 4.9.

Habitat & Forestry Focus Areas Overall Focus Areas + +

Section 4. Focus Resources

 45

Figure 4.9. Overall Focus Areas for implementation in the CWRW.

Section 4. Focus Resources

 46

Environmental Justice Lens

Combining the overall focus areas with an
Environmental Justice lens helps emphasize
equitable implementation throughout the
watershed through cost share rates and access to
technical and financial assistance.

Figure 4.10. Overall focus areas with Environmental Justice highlighted.

Section 4. Focus Resources

 47

Section 5.
Measurable Goals
Measurable goals identify the quantifiable desired change in a resource condition and have a
metric that tracks progress during implementation (i.e. acres of BMPs, length of shoreline
enhanced). The Partnership set eight measurable goals to address the priority issues (Section
3) in the focus resources (Section 4).
Goals were developed by the TAC using existing data and based on what is believed to be
feasible given funding and staff time in the next 10 years. Goals were quantified and will be
tracked based on the following tools/datasets: the Prioritize, Target, and Measure Application
(PTMApp); the LSP; Lakes of Phosphorus Sensitivity Significance; eLINK; USGS flow gauge
data; and the Stressor Identification Report. These data and tools provided information on
where in the watershed it makes the most sense to target implementation actions. As the
CWRW spans 1.2 million acres, targeting specific regions on the landscape will allow for
more effective and meaningful actions.
In this section, each goal is summarized in a couple pages. These pages can stand alone
outside the plan once it is completed. Each goal is described in the four boxes below
including the short-term goal, what has already been accomplished, the desired future
condition, and the big picture story. Each goal also includes the following supporting
information.
• A description of the goal and why it matters in the watershed
• A map showing priority areas in the watershed
• Additional tacked benefits of working towards the goal (Table 5.1).

SHORT-TERM GOAL ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED DESIRED FUTURE

A quantifiable change in a What has already been A goal with no specific
resource condition expected in accomplished in the past timeframe that describes the
the 10-year implementation of decade related to this goal. eventual resource condition
this plan. Data sources are from eLINK, resource managers hope to
MPCA Healthier Watersheds, achieve.
and local data.
TELLING THE STORY
The story of what progress towards the goal means overall for watershed health.

Bar Harbor
Shoreline
Restoration,
Gull Lake

Credit: Dain
Erickson

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 48

Many of the goals will have more than one benefit. In order to quantify these, goals have a
‘stacked benefits’ section. These include additional areas in which the goal will improve water
quality or climate resiliency. For example, implementing 27,100 acres of agricultural BMPs is
the short-term goal for Agricultural Land Management. But in doing so, soil health will be
improved, storing water in the soil, and erosion will be reduced which lessens phosphorus
and sediment loading.
Table 5.1. Secondary benefits achieved by reaching the short-term (10 year) goals.

Lbs of phosphorus reduction by reaching the goal.

Surface Water
Lbs of nitrogen reduced by reaching the goal.
Quality Benefits
Tons of sediment reduced by reaching the goal.

The acre-feet of water stored by reaching the goal.

Climate Resiliency
Benefits
The tons of carbon stored in forest and/or sequestered by planting.

Habitat Benefits Acres of forest or length of riparian habitat protected.

11th Crow
Wing Lake

Akeley, MN

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 49

Agricultural Land Management

As 22% of the CWRW is pasture and cropland, PRIORITY ISSUES ADDRESSED
agriculture is an important part of the local
economy and way of life, especially near Park  Nutrient and Bacteria Runoff
Rapids in the north and the Partridge River  Soil Health
subwatershed in the southwest. Due to the  Drinking Water Quality
sandy soils in the watershed, much of the  Groundwater Quantity
agriculture is irrigated row crops including
corn, soybeans, potatoes, and edible beans or is livestock-based.
Managing agricultural land improves soil health and reduces erosion, which also improves
downstream water quality. Soil health is defined as the ability of soil to function as a vital
living ecosystem and is supported by some basic principles: minimize soil disturbance, keep
soil covered, increase crop diversity, maintain living roots, and integrate livestock while
maintaining agricultural productivity.
Implementing BMPs that address soil erosion, nutrient loading, and livestock management
will improve and protect groundwater, lakes, and streams. In addition, healthy soils sequester
carbon and store water, improving resiliency.

SHORT-TERM GOAL ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED DESIRED FUTURE

Implement 27,100 acres • 8,773 acres of CRP Continued annual

of agricultural BMPs in 10 years.
(as of 2023) implementation of BMPs on
• 12,605 acres of soil health agricultural land, contributing
practices* to clean water, food, and air.
• 6,690 acres of prescribed
grazing*

TELLING THE STORY

10%
Implementing this goal will move the needle
10% Already Accomplished
from 10% of crop and pasture acres in the
watershed having BMPs or Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) enrollment to 20%. Short-Term Goal
Acres of BMPs is the way to measure goal
progress, but the real outcome we are looking Desired Future Condition
to achieve is improved soil health and
reduced erosion and runoff.

*Data source: eLINK & NRCS, 2007-2022.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 50

MEASURING & TARGETING

Progress towards this

goal will be measured
in acres of agricultural
land management
practices
implemented (acres
managed or treated)
in each Planning
Region. Acres that
have the potential for
erosion and runoff will
be targeted for
implementation
(purple and salmon
colored areas on
Figure 5.1). These
acres were targeted
using PTMApp.

Climate Lens
Agricultural BMPs
will help build more resilient
soils, particularly important
with high intensity
precipitation events expected
in the coming decades.

Figure 5.1. Focus areas for Agricultural Land Management.

STACKING BENEFITS
Work toward this goal also makes progress towards reductions in phosphorus, sediment, and
nitrogen to surface and groundwater; stores water in the soil; and sequesters carbon. For details on
calculations, see Appendix F. For the PTMApp Scenario, see Appendix E.
Surface Phosphorus = 7,403 lbs/yr Climate Storage = 3,700 acre-feet
Water Resiliency
Sediment = 13,090 tons/yr Benefits Carbon = 1,060 tons
Quality
Benefits* Nitrogen = 119,383 lbs/yr

*PTMApp scenario.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 51

Drinking Water Protection

All of the residents of the CWRW use groundwater PRIORITY ISSUES ADDRESSED
as their drinking water source, making its protection
vital to the health and wellbeing of those living in  Drinking Water Quality
the watershed. The combination of shallow  Nutrients and Bacteria
groundwater and sandy soils results in high Runoff
pollution sensitivity for much of the watershed, making it possible for nitrate from fertilizer
and manure application to infiltrate into groundwater. Excess nitrate in drinking water is
particularly dangerous for babies and can cause methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome).
MDA township testing found over 12% of samples submitted by private well owners in
the three most vulnerable townships in Becker County and 10% of samples submitted by
private well owners in the six most vulnerable townships in Hubbard County had nitrate over
the standard of 10 mg/L (MDA, 2017). In addition, Nevis, Sundsrud Court, Gentle Breezes
Trailer Park, Piney Park Mobile Home Park, Shiloh Assisted Living, and White Pine Villas
DWSMAs are vulnerable to contamination.
In addition to quality, protection of groundwater quantity is important as DNR groundwater
permit records show groundwater withdrawals doubled from the 1990 to 2015. Agricultural
BMPs (such as irrigation water management), easements in vulnerable DWSMAs, and well
sealing will protect groundwater quality and supplies from contamination.

SHORT-TERM GOAL ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED DESIRED FUTURE

Implement 13,400 acres • 6,142 acres irrigation Continued annual

of groundwater protection management* implementation of drinking
agricultural BMPs in 10 years. water protection BMPs on
• 4,631 acres of nutrient
cropland land, contributing to
management*
Seal 150 wells in 10 clean and sustainable
years. • 147 wells sealed* groundwater.

TELLING THE STORY 8%

Implementing this goal will move the needle 10% Already Accomplished
from 8% of cropland having drinking water
protection BMPs to 18%. Acres of BMPs is the Short-Term Goal
way to measure goal progress, but the real
outcome we are looking to achieve is
Desired Future Condition
nitrogen reduction in groundwater.

*Data source: eLINK & NRCS, 2007-2022.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 52

MEASURING & TARGETING

Progress towards this

goal will be measured
in acres of agricultural
land management
practices
implemented (acres
managed or treated)
in each Planning
Region. Acres that
have the potential for
nitrogen infiltration
will be targeted for
implementation (gold
and salmon-colored
areas on Figure 5.2).
These acres were
targeted using a
nitrogen risk
infiltration analysis
(HEI 2021). Well
sealing will be
implemented
watershed-wide.

Environmental Justice
Lens
Emphasis on protecting drinking
water in identified areas will provide safe
drinking water to all residents, particularly
those communities that have traditionally
been environmentally marginalized. Figure 5.2. Focus areas for Drinking Water Protection.

STACKING BENEFITS
Work toward this goal also makes progress towards reductions in phosphorus, sediment, and
nitrogen to surface and groundwater; stores water in the soil; and sequesters carbon. For details on
calculations, see Appendix F. For the PTMApp Scenario, see Appendix E.

Surface Phosphorus = 1,300 lbs/yr Climate Storage = 1,800 acre-feet

Water Resiliency
Sediment = 3,670 tons/yr Benefits Carbon = 230 tons
Quality
Benefits* Nitrogen = 13,315 lbs/yr

Section 5. Measurable Goals

*PTMApp scenario.
 53

Protection
The CWRW is a unique watershed in that it contains PRIORITY ISSUES ADDRESSED
numerous lakes, forests, and wetlands in pristine
condition that support a thriving recreational and  Changes in Land Use
tourism industry. There are water quality impairments to  Sufficient Protection
be addressed, but a main goal for this watershed is to  Drinking Water Quality
protect the habitats and resources that are still in  Groundwater Quantity
excellent condition.
Forests in the CWRW have been converted to row crops in recent years, specifically in the
Northwest Tributary’s Planning Region. Some of the forested areas are owned for commercial
harvesting and others are state forests. Protecting the remaining forests is important for
wildlife, water quality, and water storage. Generally, if a watershed remains above 75% forest
cover the water quality is excellent.
Protecting the CWRW’s outstanding resources (described in Figure 2.5 in the Land and Water
Resources Narrative) provides cultural, economic, and ecosystem benefits. This includes
permanently protecting undeveloped shoreline. Protection practices include SFIA covenants,
conservation easements, and land acquisition.

SHORT-TERM GOAL ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED DESIRED FUTURE

Make 10% progress towards • 46% of watershed is Meet the LSP goal of 238,053
the LSP goal by protecting protected as of 2023, acres protected.
23,800 acres (i.e. SFIA, • Protection progress in 2022-
easements, and acquisitions) in 2023 has been 2,323
10 years. acres/year through SFIA and
easements.
TELLING THE STORY
Implementing this goal will move the needle 46% Already Accomplished
35%
from 46% of the watershed protected to
48%. The Desired Future Condition from the Short-Term Goal
Landscape Stewardship Plan is to reach 65% Desired Future Condition
protection overall in the watershed. 2%
Other Land
17%

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 54

MEASURING &
TARGETING

Progress will be measured

in acres of land protection
practices implemented,
including SFIA, easements,
and land acquisition. Focus
areas for protection were
developed during the LSP
process completed in 2023
(Figure 5.3).

Climate Lens
Protected lands
improve resiliency to
changing temperatures and
precipitation. Land protection
also helps store carbon in
forestlands.

Figure 5.3. Protection focus areas.

STACKING BENEFITS
Work toward this goal also makes progress towards protecting water storage in the forest soils,
protecting carbon storage in the existing trees, and providing habitat. For details on calculations,
see Appendix F.

Habitat Protected Habitat = Climate Storage = 3,700-6,300 acre-feet*

Benefits 23,800 acres Resiliency
Benefits Carbon = 1,873,900 tons

*The amount of storage that would be lost if 23,800 acres of forest

were converted to developed or agricultural land uses.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 55

Forest and Plant Health

Forests provide numerous ecosystem services, they are PRIORITY ISSUES ADDRESSED
habitat for wildlife, filter contaminants through the soil,
store water, slow overland runoff, and sequester  Plant and Forest Health
carbon. The CWRW has about 485,000 acres of forest,  Soil Health
with aspen, pine, oak, and birch as the most common
species.
Maintaining forest land and preventing clearing of forests will be achieved through the
Protection goal. The Forest and Plant Health goal specifically plans for 95,000 acres of
forestry management involving 500 forest management plans on private land. A key focus in
forest management is minimizing habitat fragmentation and maximizing water and habitat
quality. Partnering with private landowners to implement forest management plans will be
vital to maintaining forest corridors between state-owned forest areas.
While not named in the 10-year goal, managing terrestrial invasive species and preventing
the spread of tree diseases will be a challenge during implementation. Buckthorn is one of
Minnesota’s most damaging invasive species, with it outcompeting native plants and
degrading habitat. Another damaging invasive species is Emerald Ash Borer, an insect that
has spread across the Midwest, killing ash trees by larval feeding. Oak wilt, a fatal tree
disease caused by a fungus, is an issue in the Gull Lake area. Building resilience to and
planning for invasive species and disease is an aspect of forest management.

SHORT-TERM GOAL ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED DESIRED FUTURE

Implement 95,000 acres • 92,616 acres of Forest Forests are maintained and
of forestry management and Stewardship Plans. managed to improve water
quality and climate
500 forest • Average of 47 plans per year
resilience.
2014-2023.
management plans in
10 years.

TELLING THE STORY

Implementing this goal will double the amount of private forest lands currently in Forest
Stewardship Plans.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 56

MEASURING & TARGETING

Progress will be
measured in the
number of Forest
Stewardship Plans and
acres of forest
management on private
lands (i.e. forest stand
improvement,
controlled burns, tree
planting). Focus areas
for management were
developed during the
LSP process completed
in 2023 (Figure 5.4).

Climate Lens
Improving forest
health will promote resiliency
to invasive species, wildfires,
and other potential climate
impacts to forest health.

Environmental
Justice Lens
This goal will protect
forests lands for equal access
to recreational activities for all
citizens of the watershed.

Figure 5.4. Forest Management Focus Areas.

STACKING BENEFITS
Work toward this goal also makes progress towards protecting water storage in the forest soils,
protecting carbon storage in the existing trees, and providing habitat. For details on calculations,
see Appendix F.

Habitat Managed Habitat = Climate Storage = 15,000-25,000 acre-feet*

Benefits 95,000 acres Resiliency
Benefits Carbon = 7,500,000 tons

*The amount of storage that would be lost if 95,000 acres of forest

were converted to developed or agricultural land uses.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 57

Shoreland Management
Shoreland erosion occurs when human activities such
PRIORITY ISSUES ADDRESSED
as shoreland development, removal of native plants
and trees, and removal of in-lake and riparian  Lakeshore and Riparian
vegetation alter the natural condition. Plants absorb Alteration
wave energy, reducing shoreline erosion, provide  Alterations to natural
habitat for invertebrates and fish, and stabilize the drainage
lakebed sediment.
A ‘lawn to lake’ shoreline allows seven to nine times more phosphorus to enter the lake than a
more naturally vegetated shoreline (Radomski and Ashe 2014) and also increases shoreland
erosion. Minnesota has currently lost 40 to 50% of its natural shorelands, and they are being
degraded at a rate of 1-2% each decade. At this rate, a majority of Minnesota shorelines will
soon be unable to protect water quality and provide fish and wildlife habitat (Radomski
2006).
Working with private landowners on lakeshores to enhance shorelines provides benefits such
as improving aquatic and riparian habitats, capturing, slowing, and infiltrating upslope
stormwater runoff from the uplands, and filtering out pollutants and nutrients. Riparian
vegetation can provide a corridor and habitat for species along the water body such as
pollinators (bees, butterflies, and other insects), birds (loons, songbirds, and shorebirds),
frogs, turtles, and small mammals (otters, mink, muskrats).

SHORT-TERM GOAL ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED DESIRED FUTURE

Implement 2 miles of • 1.75 miles of streambank Halt the 1-2% of shoreline loss
lakeshore/riparian and shoreline protection*. per decade and achieve a net
enhancement in 10 years. gain instead of loss. This
includes implementing the
county shoreline ordinances.

TELLING THE STORY

There are approximately 200 miles of shoreline in the focus lakes, which at a rate of 1-2% lost would
mean a loss of 2-4 miles in the past decade. The restoration already accomplished in the past
decade (1.75 miles) has not kept up with the loss. The ultimate goal is to halt this deficit in the next
decade and achieve a net gain.

*Data source: eLINK & NRCS, 2007-2022.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 58

MEASURING & TARGETING

Progress will be measured

in length of shoreline
enhanced. These projects
will be prioritized on Focus
lakes (Figure 5.5). To see
how the focus lakes were
determined, see Appendix
D.

Climate Lens
Vegetated shorelines
can help mitigate the impacts
of variable precipitation
patterns on shoreline erosion.

Figure 5.5. Focus lakes for shoreline enhancement.

STACKING BENEFITS
Work toward this goal also makes progress towards reductions in phosphorus, sediment, and
nitrogen to surface water, and enhances aquatic and shoreland habitat.

Surface Phosphorus* Habitat Miles of aquatic and

Water Benefits shoreland habitat = 2.0
Sediment*
Quality
Benefits Nitrogen*

*as estimated per project designed and implemented.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 59

Nutrient Reduction
The CWRW has many regionally significant lakes that PRIORITY ISSUES ADDRESSED
provide recreational opportunities to residents and
drive tourism. Protecting good quality lakes and  Nutrient and Bacteria
restoring impaired lakes will continue to allow locals to Runoff
enjoy the beautiful natural resources in this watershed.  Drinking Water Quality
Eight lakes are impaired for aquatic recreation due to
nutrients, largely due to phosphorus.
Nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen are important components that form the basis of
the aquatic food web. However, human activities add nutrients to the land and accelerate
erosion. Phosphorus is a limiting nutrient in Minnesota lakes, meaning additions of it can
cause the algae population to grow rapidly leading to algae blooms and eutrophication.
Many actions will directly or indirectly reduce nutrient loading, including shoreline
management, rain gardens, septic system improvements, and agricultural BMPs.
The large number of lakes (466) in the CWRW requires the need to prioritize our focus for
implantation over the next 10 years. Lakes are categorized as either restore, enhance,
vigilance, or protect based on their water quality and amount of land use converted from
natural (development and agriculture). For more details on the lake prioritization, see
Appendix D.

SHORT-TERM GOAL ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED DESIRED FUTURE

Reduce phosphorus in • 36 Subsurface Sewage Prevent degradation from
Enhance and Restore lakes Treatment System (SSTS) current conditions in Protect
and Protect lakes from improvements, (eLINK, and Enhance focus lakes, reach
degradation. For individual 2007-2022). Total Maximum Daily Load
lake goals, see Table 5.2. (TMDL) reductions in Restore
• 1.75 miles of streambank
lakes.
and shoreline protection.

TELLING THE STORY

When phosphorus increases in a lake, it feeds the algae and =
makes the lake greener, that in turn causes the water clarity to
Decrease Increase
decline. Reducing phosphorus in the lake can improve the lake
Phosphorus Clarity
clarity, making the lake better for recreation, enjoyment, and
property values.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 60

MEASURING & TARGETING

Nutrient reduction will be

prioritized on focus
Enhance and Restore lakes
(Figure 5.6).
Progress in the short-term
goal will be measured in
pounds of phosphorus
reduced to each priority
lake on project estimates.
For a table of short-term
goals for each individual
water body see Table 5.2 on
the next page.

Figure 5.6. Surface water focus areas.

STACKING BENEFITS
Reducing phosphorus also makes progress towards reducing algae and improving lake water
clarity.

Surface
Water One pound of phosphorus can produce 500 pounds of algae.
Quality See lake goals in Table 5.2.
Benefits

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 61

LAKE GOALS
The focus lakes were determined in Section 4 and Appendix D, and each lake has a short-term
phosphorus reduction goal assigned (Table 5.2). The DNR Lakes of Phosphorus Sensitivity Significance
dataset was used to determine the current lake phosphorus load (DNR 2022). The short-term goals
were developed through three different methods.
1. PTMApp was used to determine the goal for lakes with agriculture in their drainage areas. The
goal is based on reductions from implementing agricultural practices.
2. Lakes with small drainage areas and small loads received a goal of 5% reduction of the total
phosphorus load.
3. Lakes with large drainage areas and large loads received a goal of 10 pounds/year reduction.
It was felt by the TAC that 10 pounds was more reasonable to achieve in 10 years than 5% of
the total load.
Table 5.2. Individual lake goals. “Restore” lakes are impaired for nutrients. “Enhance” lakes are at risk due to
declining water quality trends or being nearly impaired, and “Protect” lakes are in good condition.
Short-term
Total (10 Year)
DNR Lake Phosphorus Phosphorus
Lake Name # Category Load (lbs/yr) Goal (lbs/yr) Goal Source
Blueberry 80-0034-00 RESTORE 28,329 195 PTMApp
Eighth Crow Wing 29-0072-00 RESTORE 3,096 10 10 lb estimate
First Crow Wing 29-0086-00 RESTORE 20,961 161 PTMApp
Lower Twin 80-0030-00 RESTORE 28,685 383 PTMApp
Margaret 11-0222-00 RESTORE 6,704 57 PTMApp
Mayo 18-0408-00 RESTORE 2,938 100 PTMApp
Portage 29-0250-00 RESTORE 566 28 5%
Sibley 18-0404-00 RESTORE 4,126 99 PTMApp
Boulder 29-0162-00 ENHANCE 189 9 5%
Deer 29-0090-00 ENHANCE 37 2 5%
Edna 18-0396-00 ENHANCE 15 1 5%
Fish Hook 29-0242-00 ENHANCE 9,076 10 10 lb estimate
Long 29-0161-00 ENHANCE 1,074 10 10 lb estimate
Ninth Crow Wing 29-0025-00 ENHANCE 1,595 10 10 lb estimate
Red Sand 18-0386-00 ENHANCE 369 18 5%
Seventh Crow Wing 29-0091-00 ENHANCE 2,602 13 5%
Spider (NE/SW Bay) 29-0117-01 ENHANCE 140 7 5%
Straight 03-0010-00 ENHANCE 1,898 24 PTMApp
Tenth Crow Wing 29-0045-00 ENHANCE 1,068 10 10 lb estimate
Third Crow Wing 29-0077-00 ENHANCE 9,946 172 PTMApp
West Twin 18-0409-00 ENHANCE 39 2 5%
White Sand 18-0379-00 ENHANCE 84 4 5%
Gull 11-0305-00 PROTECT 18,503 10 10 lb estimate
Agate 11-0216-00 PROTECT 28 1 5%
Belle Taine 29-0146-00 PROTECT 2,719 10 10 lb estimate

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 62

Short-term
Total (10 Year)
DNR Lake Phosphorus Phosphorus
Lake Name # Category Load (lbs/yr) Goal (lbs/yr) Goal Source
Clark 18-0374-00 PROTECT 991 10 10 lb estimate
East Twin 18-0407-00 PROTECT 27 1 5%
Edward 18-0305-00 PROTECT 348 10 10 lb estimate
Fifth Crow Wing 29-0092-00 PROTECT 6,962 10 10 lb estimate
Gladstone 18-0338-00 PROTECT 135 7 5%
Hartley 18-0392-00 PROTECT 23 1 5%
Hubert 18-0375-00 PROTECT 342 10 10 lb estimate
Lower Cullen 18-0403-00 PROTECT 914 10 10 lb estimate
Middle Cullen 18-0377-00 PROTECT 712 10 10 lb estimate
Middle Whipple 18-0387-02 PROTECT 69 3 5%
Nisswa 18-0399-00 PROTECT 1,456 10 10 lb estimate
North Long 18-0372-00 PROTECT 1,716 10 10 lb estimate
Pillager 11-0320-00 PROTECT 129 6 5%
Round 18-0373-00 PROTECT 2,127 10 10 lb estimate
Roy 18-0398-00 PROTECT 1,518 10 10 lb estimate
Second Crow Wing 29-0085-00 PROTECT 7,670 10 10 lb estimate
Shell 03-0102-00 PROTECT 2,885 10 10 lb estimate
Sixth Crow Wing 29-0093-00 PROTECT 2,390 10 10 lb estimate
Spirit 80-0039-00 PROTECT 56 3 5%
Stocking 80-0037-00 PROTECT 573 10 10 lb estimate
Sylvan (Main Basin) 49-0036-01 PROTECT 177,081 10 10 lb estimate
Sylvan (Northeast Bay) 11-0304-02 PROTECT 142 7 5%
Upper Cullen 18-0376-00 PROTECT 853 10 10 lb estimate
Upper Gull 11-0218-00 PROTECT NA 10 10 lb estimate

Environmental Justice Lens

This goal will protect and enhance
lakes for equal access to recreational
activities for all citizens of the watershed.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 63

Connectivity Enhancement
Altered hydrology is the term used to describe PRIORITY ISSUES ADDRESSED
human-caused changes in how water moves on the
landscape. The creation of dams regulates lake  Alterations to natural
water levels and drainage ditches, and drainage
channelization of streams makes fields more
suitable for agriculture, but these changes alter the natural flow regime.
Stream connectivity can be thought of laterally and longitudinally. The lateral connection of a
stream to the floodplain is important for cycling nutrients and resilience to flood events.
Longitudinal connectivity is the connection upstream to downstream, which can be
interrupted by dams, debris, channel alterations and road crossings. Maintaining and
restoring natural stream channels and lake outlets improves connectivity for aquatic
organisms and fish.
The CWRW Stressor Identification Report named incorrect culvert sizing/placement as a main
aquatic stressor for fish migration. Culverts are placed to allow for flow across roadways, but
if perched above the water level or improperly sized they can be a periodic or permanent
barrier to fish migration (see photo below). Additional barriers to fish passage include natural
beaver dams and lake outlet dam/outfall structures.

SHORT-TERM GOAL ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED DESIRED FUTURE

Replace 10 barriers • The Shell Lake Dam has been No culverts or dams
to fish passage (dams, road modified to rock arch rapids and the impeding fish migration:
crossings, culverts) in 10 next four road crossings
• 92 miles of the Crow
years. downstream in the Shell River were
Wing River
improved (DNR).
• 9 miles of the Fish
• Dam between Potato and Fishhook
Hook River
Lake (NE of Park Rapids) has also
been modified to a rock arch rapid • 28 miles of Hay Creek
(DNR).
• 24 miles of Mayo Brook
• A culvert inventory was completed
(DNR). • 30 miles of the
Partridge River

TELLING THE STORY

Implementing this goal will move the needle from two barriers modified to 12, and 180 river miles
unimpeded by barriers. This will work towards the long-term goal of no barriers to fish migration.

perched culvert

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 64

MEASURING & TARGETING

Progress will be measured

in barriers modified for fish
passage (dams, road
crossings, and culverts).
These projects can be
implemented by the DNR
and/or local governments.
DNR priorities are shown
in Figure 5.7 and listed
below.
DNR Priorities for Dam
Modification to Rock
Arch Rapids:
Hubbard County:
• 11th Crow Wing
• 8th Crow Wing
• 1st Crow Wing
• Mantrap Lake
• Portage Lake

Wadena County:
• Partridge River
(Aldrich) –
snowmobile trail
• Stocking Lake –
privately owned

Becker County:
• Two Inlets

Crow Wing County:

• Mayo Lake Figure 5.7. Connectivity enhancement priorities (DNR).
• Sibley Lake

Environmental Justice Lens

This goal will enhance fish habitat in
streams and rivers for equal access to fishing
for all citizens of the watershed.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 65

Resiliency
Storage of water on the landscape reduces overland PRIORITY ISSUES ADDRESSED
runoff, reducing erosion and nutrient loading into
surface waters. Healthy soils and forests store large  Alterations to natural
amounts of water, allowing precipitation to infiltrate drainage
rather than runoff over the land and into surface
waters. Conversion of the historical forests of the CWRW into developed or agricultural land
decreases the natural ability of the landscape to hold water.
Resiliency is the ability to withstand adverse impacts without negative effects. Building
landscape resiliency to precipitation extremes will be important as the hydrologic patterns
that the CWRW is adapted to are changing. The Crow Wing Evaluation of Hydrologic Change
(EHC) Report (2023) found that the CWRW receives an additional 1.7 inches of precipitation
presently compared to the 1970s-1980s. Discharge during both low and high flows increased
at the outlet of the watershed, with the average daily flow increased by over 40% (DNR,
2023). While the EHC only looks back to 1969, DNR climate records kept since the late 1800s
show an increase in precipitation by 0.16 inches per decade in the CWRW (DNRb, n.d.).
The increase in precipitation and resulting impacts on water quality can be buffered by a
resilient landscape that stores water. Water storage can be gained through conservation
practices (i.e. cover crops), stormwater management, and protection of forested land.

SHORT-TERM GOAL ALREADY DESIRED FUTURE

Build resiliency into all ACCOMPLISHED Build resiliency and add water
projects implemented where • Cover crops. storage to capture the extra runoff
possible (cover crops, • Stormwater management needed to keep up with
stormwater management, in Baxter. increasing precipitation trends.
forest protection).

TELLING THE STORY

Water storage is measured in acre-feet. An acre-foot is
equivalent to a football field covered in one foot of water.
Acre-feet storage benefits can be calculated for many actions
in this plan, and all projects can be built to future precipitation
estimates instead of today’s (where applicable), to ensure
resiliency in the face of a changing climate.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 66

MEASURING & TARGETING

Progress will be measured in acre-feet of resiliency built into stormwater management

projects. Other practices, such as cover crops and forest protection, build resiliency into the
soil. Those benefits are estimated below.

STACKING BENEFITS
Reducing runoff in the watershed also reduces the amount of sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen
reaching streams and lakes. In addition, keeping forested areas forested protects current storage in
the soil. This protected storage is the amount that would be lost if forest was cleared for
development or agriculture in this watershed. Implementing agricultural BMPs increases water
storage in the soil.

Protected Storage from Protection Goal = 3,700-6,300 acre-feet

Climate Resiliency
Benefits Storage from Agricultural Management and Drinking Water Protection Goals =
5,500 acre-feet

Climate Lens
With increased
precipitation expected in
the coming decades,
water storage on the
landscape is essential to
minimize erosion and
flooding during extreme
rainfall events.

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 67

Overall Benefits
With current funding available plus the new watershed-based funding that will be acquired
upon completion of this plan, planning partners aim to achieve the following overall
improvements in the watershed (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3. Overall benefits from implementing this 10-year plan.

Phosphorus: the pounds of 8,700 pounds/year; equivalent to:

phosphorus reduced by
implementing all plan goals. 4.4 million pounds of algae

16,760 tons/year; equivalent to:

Surface Sediment: the tons of sediment
Water reduced by implementing all plan 1,670 dump trucks of
Quality goals. sediment
Benefits

132,700 lbs/year; equivalent to:

Nitrogen: the pounds of nitrogen
reduced by implementing all plan 3,317 bags of nitrogen
goals. fertilizer

23,800 acres; equivalent to:

Habitat: acres of forest protected by
the area covered by one
implementing all plan goals.
township
Habitat
Benefits
2 miles; equivalent to:
Habitat: length of shoreland and
riparian land enhanced by the length of 30 football
implementing all plan goals. fields.

Storage: the amount of new water 5,500 acre-feet is equivalent to:

storage on the landscape or in the
soil by implementing the agricultural 5,500 football fields
land management and drinking covered in 1 foot of water
Climate water protection goals.
Resiliency
Benefits 7,501,290 tons; equivalent to:
Carbon: the amount of carbon
stored and sequestered by Removing 5,997,249 gas
implementing plan goals. vehicles driven for one year

Section 5. Measurable Goals

 68

Section 6.
Targeted Implementation Schedule
This section contains the actions planned in the watershed from 2025-2035 that will address
issues identified in Section 3 and make progress towards the goals in Section 5. Each
planning region has a table with actions, referred to as a targeted implementation schedule
because it contains an action description, focus areas, measurable output, timeline, and
estimated cost. A watershed-wide targeted implementation schedule includes actions that
will occur broadly across the entire watershed.

Already Accomplished
The actions listed in this plan build on the success of local and state partners already working
in the watershed. The MPCA Healthier Watersheds website tracks actions reported by BWSR,
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and MDA. A summary of some of these is
shown in Figure 6.1 below.

• 900+ acres of upland wildlife habitat management

• 6,500+ acres of prescribed grazing
• 6,000+ acres of irrigation water management
• 4,000+ acres of nutrient management of cropland
• 92,000+ acres of forest management plans
• 147 wells sealed
• 200 septic system improvements
• 17 stormwater retention or bioretention basins
• 1.75+ miles of streambank and shoreline protection

Figure 6.1. Work done in the watershed (source: 2004-2022 in MPCA Healthier Watersheds).

Funding
The local partners’ ability to implement actions depends on funding availability. Planned or
anticipating projects will only be undertaken as funds become available. The actions
developed in this plan were selected to have the greatest impact on watershed issues with
available funding.
Level 1 includes non-competitive baseline funding already available in the watershed, which
includes county tax levies, funding for counties (DNR Shoreline, MPCA SSTS), and state
programs such as BWSR Capacity Funding for SWCDs. This level is estimated just to
document the past. The actions in this plan fall within funding Levels 2 and 3, described in
Table 6.1.

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 69

Approval of this CWMP comes with non-competitive WBIF from the Clean
Water Fund of the Land and Legacy Amendment. Level 2, the level this plan will
operate at, includes WBIF funding. Current funding + WBIF funding cannot
fund every possible action in the watershed. Increases in WBIF or additional
grants will be needed to reach all the goals. Level 3 funding is not specifically
budgeted for in this plan and includes additional funds beyond what is already
available and WBIF. There is likely much more project funding occurring in the
watershed in addition to these totals as it is difficult to document projects by all entities,
including private landowners and lake associations. See Section 8 for more detail on funding.
These are all just estimates and the costs for implementation will be more specific in each
biennial work plan.
Table 6.1. Funding Levels in the CWRW CWMP.

Funding Level Description

Level 1: Base Current funding available in the watershed
The amount of funding needed to fully implement this plan
Level 2: Base +WBIF
Current funding + WBIF + Grants
Additional funding (partner funding, SFIA, Lessard Sams, TNC,
Level 3
CRSL, NRCS)

Targeting Implementation
Targeting includes where projects should be done and with whom. For the CWRW, targeting
data is available to the individual parcel level for use in outreach. These data sets are meant
to target the root causes of watershed issues. For example, land protection practices are
targeted to where land protection would have the best impact on water and habitat quality.
PTMApp is a GIS tool that estimates existing pollutant loads and creates implementation
scenarios for BMP locations on the landscape and resulting acreage, nutrient and sediment
reductions, and cost. More information on PTMApp can be found in Appendix E.
Table 6.2. BMP targeting data available in the CWRW CWMP.
Goal Targeting Data Scale
Agricultural Land Management PTMApp Parcel
Drinking Water Protection PTMApp Parcel
Protection Riparian Adjacency Quality scoring (RAQ) Parcel
Forest and Plant Health Riparian Adjacency Quality scoring (RAQ) Parcel
Shoreland Management Local data, new LiDAR Parcel
Nutrient Reduction PTMApp, Terrain Analysis Parcel
Connectivity Enhancement DNR Each barrier
Resiliency Local data Each project

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 70

Programs
Plan implementation will be organized through four implementation programs: Planned
Landscape Management, Constructed Environmental Enhancements, Protected Lands
Maintenance, and Data Collection and Outreach. Each action in the implementation tables
has an icon indicated which program it will fall under. More detail on plan programs is
available in Section 7.

Figure 6.2. Crow Wing Implementation Programs.

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 71

Where to Work First

The long-term goals detailed in Section 5 represent the desired future condition for the
CWRW and its resources given time, funding, and capacity. The short-term goals represent
what is possible to accomplish in 10 years, and that means putting efforts and funding toward
areas that need it most.
To prioritize where to work first overall, the focus areas for groundwater, surface water, and
habitat & forestry were stacked together to determine overall watershed priorities (for details,
see Section 4). The outcome is shown below in Figure 6.3 and indicates where outreach and
funding will be focused in the first five years of plan implementation.

Figure 6.3. Overall watershed focus area map.

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 72

Targeted Implementation Schedule

The Targeted Implementation Schedule is presented in five tables in the next few pages,
organized by planning regions. Actions that are tailored to specific planning regions are
presented in the Planning Region tables (Figure 6.4) and watershed-wide actions not directly
in a specific planning region are in a separate watershed-wide table.

Northwest Tributaries Headwater Lakes Crow Wing River Gull Lake/River

Figure 6.4. Planning Regions in the CWRW CWMP.

Actions were developed through actions in the WRAPS, those adopted by neighboring
comprehensive watershed management plans, and those identified as priorities in state
agency letters.
The numbers, cost, and locations of practices in the Targeted Implementation Schedule
represent a best-case scenario for planning. Due to voluntary participation, field verification,
and funding availability, prioritized projects may not be feasible, in which case the next
highest priority project will be targeted. In addition, projects may emerge that were not
identified in the Targeted Implementation Schedule. These projects will still be pursued if
environmental and economic benefits are comparable to those identified in the Targeted
Implementation Schedule.
A variety of factors will ultimately determine where implementation occurs, including but not
limited to the following:
Voluntary participation by landowners and residents
Field verification of practice type and location
Amount of funding available for implementation
New data on resource conditions
Emerging practices
Practices/projects ready to implement
Effectiveness of education and outreach and research initiatives

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 73
Northwest Tributaries Planning Region

At A Glance

32% of the Counties Communities

plan area Becker Park Rapids
Hubbard Menahga
Wadena

Focus resources
Land Use
Straight Lake
Straight River
Shell Lake
Forest
Shell River Grass
Long Lake Agriculture
Portage Lake Water
Wetland
Fish Hook Lake Developed
Fish Hook River
Blueberry Lake
Lower Twin Lake
Stocking Lake

The Northwest Tributaries Planning Region is located in the

northwestern corner of the CWRW. It contains part of the White Earth
tribal land, numerous lakes, and the Fish Hook, Straight, and Shell
Rivers.
The northern section is more forested while cropland is concentrated
west of Park Rapids and west and south of Long Lake. The Straight
River flows through here, one of Minnesota’s most valued trout
streams.
The subwatersheds around Straight River, Long Lake, the Shell River
east of Blueberry Lake, and Stocking Lake are Tier 1 focus areas.
Work will be focused here first.

Figure 6.5. Northwest Tributaries Planning Region priorities.

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 74
Northwest Tributaries Planning Region Implementation Schedule
ACTIONS TARGETING & MEASURING MEASURABLE GOALS WHO WHEN COSTS

Connectivity Enhancement
Drinking Water Protection

Shoreland Management
Ag Land Management

Forest & Plant Health

Nutrient Reduction
Land Protection

2025-2026

2027-2028

2029-2030

2031-2032

2033-2034
Resilience
Total 10-Year Cost
Responsibility/Partners (Level 2 colored blue,
Action Program Focus Areas Outcome (Bold = Lead) level 3 in green)
Agricultural Land Management Practices 9,820 Acres
Cover crops, conservation tillage, perennial crops, pasture 552 tons sediment/year*
Figure 6.5
750 lbs phosphorus/year*
SWCDs, NRCS, BWSR, MDA      $1,473,000
mgmt, WASCOBS, grassed waterways, filter strips
12,400 lbs nitrogen/year*
Groundwater Agricultural Practices 6,260 Acres
Irrigation water mgmt, nutrient mgmt, precision technology, Figure 6.5, 179 tons sediment/year*
SWCDs, NRCS, BWSR, MDA      $939,000
variable rate irrigation DWSMAs 173 lbs phosphorus/year*
1,801 lbs nitrogen/year*
Bacteria Reduction Projects $500,000
Feedlot management, manure management plans, livestock Figure 6.5 20 Projects NRCS, SWCDs, Counties     
fencing, waste pit closure
$500,000
Forest Stewardship Plans 150 plans SWCD, NRCS, DNR, Private
Figure 6.5      $262,500
28,500 acres Consultants
Forest Health Management SWCD, NRCS, DNR, Private
forest stand improvement, tree planting, reforestation, climate Figure 6.5 300 Acres      $150,000
Consultants
assisted migration
Forest & DWSMA Protection SWCDs, DNR, BWSR, TNC, USFWS,
SFIA, easements, acquisitions Figure 6.5 9,800 Acres TCF, Minnesota Land Trust, Northern      $4,082,960
Waters Land Trust, Counties
Shoreline/Riparian Management Focus Lakes, 0.5 miles DNR, SWCDs, Counties, Lake
Buffers, soft armor, berms, capture upslope water, coir logs,      $264,000
Figure 6.5 (2,640 feet) Associations, Private Consultants
willow wattles, aquatic vegetation, streambank stabilization
Urban Stormwater Management Park Rapids,
SWCDs, Cities, Crow Wing County
Rain gardens, stormwater retention basins, biofiltration Menahga,
4 Projects Highway Department, MnDOT,      $100,000
Hwy 34, Hwy 71,
Resorts
Resorts
Chloride Management 1. Develop a policy for salt
Road salt/dust suppressant, smart salting use in each city,
Park Rapids, 2. Level 1 Smart Salting Cities, Counties, MNDOT, MPCA,
    $50,000
Menahga, Roads Certified staff in each city, Townships
3. Purchase Smart Salting
Equipment.
Barrier Modifications Two Inlets, Portage, SWCDs, Counties, DNR,
Modify dams and replace improperly fitting culverts to allow for 1 Project    $500,000
Stocking Townships, Cities
fish passage

Primary Goal(s) this action will address Total Level 2 Funding (Base+WBIF) $3,413,500

Secondary Goal(s) this action will address Total Level 3 Funding (Partners, Grants) $5,232,960
*PTMApp scenario benefits at the Planning Region outlet

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 75
Headwaters Lakes Planning Region

At A Glance

13% of the Counties Communities

plan area Hubbard Nevis
Akeley

Focus resources
Land Use
Spider Lake
Boulder Lake
Deer Lake
Forest
Lake Belle Taine Grass
Crow Wing Lake Chain Agriculture
Crow Wing River Water
Wetland
Developed

The Headwaters Planning Region, located in the northeastern part

of the watershed, is the smallest planning region. The headwaters of
the Crow Wing River begin here in the Crow Wing Chain of Lakes.

The majority of this planning region is forested, with numerous lakes

scattered across the region and cropland mainly in the south. The
Headwater Lakes Planning Region is more heavily forested than any
other planning region.

The Tier 1 Priority Area in the Headwaters Lakes Planning Region

includes most of the Crow Wing Chain of Lakes and Lake Belle Taine.
Work will be prioritized here.

Figure 6.6. Headwaters Planning Region Priority Areas.

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 76
Headwaters Planning Region Implementation Schedule
ACTIONS TARGETING & MEASURING MEASURABLE GOALS WHO WHEN COSTS

Connectivity Enhancement
Drinking Water Protection

Shoreland Management
Ag Land Management

Forest & Plant Health

Nutrient Reduction
Land Protection

2025-2026

2027-2028

2029-2030

2031-2032

2033-2034
Resilience
Total 10-Year Cost
Responsibility/Partners (Level 2 colored blue,
Action Program Focus Areas Outcome (Bold = Lead) level 3 in green)
Agricultural Land Management Practices 2,500 Acres
Cover crops, conservation tillage, perennial crops, pasture 161 tons sediment/year*
Figure 6.6
144 lbs phosphorus/year*
SWCDs, NRCS, BWSR, MDA      $375,000
mgmt, WASCOBS, grassed waterways, filter strips
2,956 lbs nitrogen/year*
Groundwater Agricultural Practices 1,230 Acres
Irrigation water mgmt, nutrient mgmt, precision technology, 37 tons sediment/year*
Figure 6.6
26 lbs phosphorus/year*
SWCDs, NRCS, BWSR, MDA      $184,500
variable rate irrigation
357 lbs nitrogen/year*
Bacteria Reduction Projects $25,000
Feedlot management, manure management plans, livestock Figure 6.6 1 Project NRCS, SWCDs, Counties     
fencing, waste pit closure
$25,000
Forest Stewardship Plans 50 plans
Figure 6.6 SWCD, NRCS, DNR, TNC      $87,500
9,500 acres
Forest Health Management
forest stand improvement, tree planting, reforestation, climate Figure 6.6 300 Acres SWCD, NRCS, DNR, TNC      $150,000
assisted migration
Forest & DWSMA Protection SWCDs, DNR, BWSR, TNC,
SFIA, easements, acquisitions Figure 6.6 3,800 Acres Minnesota Land Trust, Northern      $1,860,158
Waters Land Trust, Counties
Shoreline/Riparian Management Focus Lakes, 0.4 miles DNR, SWCDs, Counties, Lake
Buffers, soft armor, berms, capture upslope water, coir logs,      $211,200
Figure 6.6 (2,112 feet) Associations, Private Consultants
willow wattles, aquatic vegetation, streambank stabilization
Urban Stormwater Management Nevis, Akeley, Hwy
SWCDs, Cities, Crow Wing County
$50,000
Rain gardens, stormwater retention basins, biofiltration 2 Projects Highway Department, MnDOT,     
34, Resorts $50,000
Resorts
Chloride Management 1. Develop a policy for salt
Road salt/dust suppressant, smart salting use in each city,
Nevis, Akeley, 2. Level 1 Smart Salting Cities, Counties, MNDOT, MPCA,
    $50,000
Roads Certified staff in each city, Townships
3. Purchase Smart Salting
Equipment.
Barrier Modifications Mantrap, 1st Crow
Modify dams and replace improperly fitting culverts to allow for Wing, 8th Crow SWCDs, Counties, DNR,
4 Projects    $2,000,000
fish passage Wing, Townships, Cities
11th Crow Wing

Primary Goal(s) this action will address Total Level 2 Funding (Base+WBIF) $1,158,200

Secondary Goal(s) this action will address Total Level 3 Funding (Partners, Grants) $4,085,158
*PTMApp scenario benefits at the Planning Region outlet

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 77
Crow Wing River Planning Region

At A Glance

38% of the Counties Communities

plan area Wadena Nimrod
Cass Aldrich
Todd Staples

Focus resources
Land Use
Crow Wing River
Partridge River
Forest
Grass
Agriculture
Water
Wetland
Developed

The Crow Wing River Planning Region, located in the southern

half of the watershed, is the largest planning region at 38% of the
watershed area. It surrounds the Crow Wing River and its tributaries
after the Crow Wing River passes through the Crow Wing Chain of
Lakes until it meets the Mississippi River.

This planning region differs from the rest of the watershed in its
land cover. It has the lowest proportion of forest and developed
area relative to its size, but the largest number of wetlands and
agricultural land. The drumlins leftover from the glaciers dominate
the landscape. Unlike the other planning regions, it is not covered
in lakes.

Only a small area of the Crow Wing River Planning Region is a Tier
1 priority, the subwatersheds around the upstream reach of
Partridge River and Pillager Creek, and the full length of the Crow
Wing River. The Camp Ripley Sentinel Landscape is also present at
the south end of this Planning Region. Work will be focused in
these areas first.

Figure 6.7. Crow Wing River priorities.

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 78
Crow Wing River Implementation Schedule
ACTIONS TARGETING & MEASURING MEASURABLE GOALS WHO WHEN COSTS

Connectivity Enhancement
Drinking Water Protection

Shoreland Management
Ag Land Management

Forest & Plant Health

Nutrient Reduction
Land Protection

2025-2026

2027-2028

2029-2030

2031-2032

2033-2034
Resilience
Total 10-Year Cost
Responsibility/Partners (Level 2 colored blue,
Action Program Focus Areas Outcome (Bold = Lead) level 3 in green)
Agricultural Land Management Practices Figure 6.7 and 12,275Acres
Cover crops, conservation tillage, perennial crops, pasture 633 tons sediment/year*
Camp Ripley
1,718 lbs phosphorus/year*
SWCDs, NRCS, BWSR, MDA      $1,841,250
mgmt, WASCOBS, grassed waterways, filter strips
Sentinel Landscape 27,875 lbs nitrogen/year*
Groundwater Agricultural Practices Figure 6.7 and 2,790 Acres
Irrigation water mgmt, nutrient mgmt, precision technology, 167 tons sediment/year*
Camp Ripley
271 lbs phosphorus/year*
SWCDs, NRCS, BWSR, MDA      $418,500
variable rate irrigation
Sentinel Landscape 2,790 lbs nitrogen/year*
Bacteria Reduction Projects $125,000
Feedlot management, manure management plans, livestock Figure 6.7 5 Projects NRCS, SWCDs, Counties     
fencing, waste pit closure
$125,000
Forest Stewardship Plans Figure 6.7 and
150 plans
Camp Ripley SWCD, NRCS, DNR, TNC      $262,500
28,500 acres
Sentinel Landscape
Forest Health Management Figure 6.7 and
forest stand improvement, tree planting, reforestation, climate Camp Ripley 300 Acres SWCD, NRCS, DNR, TNC      $150,000
assisted migration Sentinel Landscape
Forest & DWSMA Protection Figure 6.7 and SWCDs, DNR, BWSR, TNC,
SFIA, easements, acquisitions Camp Ripley 6,200 Acres Minnesota Land Trust, Northern      $2,365,581
Sentinel Landscape Waters Land Trust, CRSL, Counties
Shoreline/Riparian Management Crow Wing River, 0.1 miles DNR, SWCDs, Counties, Lake
Buffers, soft armor, berms, capture upslope water, coir logs,      $52,800
Partridge River (528 feet) Associations, Private Consultants
willow wattles, aquatic vegetation, streambank stabilization
Urban Stormwater Management Nimrod, Aldrich,
Rain gardens, stormwater retention basins, biofiltration Staples, Pillager, SWCDs, Cities, Crow Wing County
$50,000
Bertha 2 Projects Highway Department, MnDOT,     
Hwy 10, Hwy 64, Resorts $50,000
Resorts
Chloride Management 1. Develop a policy for salt
Road salt/dust suppressant, smart salting Nimrod, Aldrich, use in each city,
2. Level 1 Smart Salting Cities, Counties, MNDOT, MPCA,
Staples, Pillager,     $50,000
Certified staff in each city, Townships
Bertha, Roads 3. Purchase Smart Salting
Equipment.
Barrier Modifications SWCDs, Counties, DNR,
Modify dams and replace improperly fitting culverts to allow for Partridge River 1 Projects    $500,000
Townships, Cities
fish passage

Primary Goal(s) this action will address Total Level 2 Funding (Base+WBIF) $2,800,050

Secondary Goal(s) this action will address Total Level 3 Funding (Partners, Grants) $3,190,581
*PTMApp scenario benefits at the Planning Region outlet

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 79
Gull Lake/River Planning Region Table

At A Glance

16% of the Counties Communities

plan area Cass Pequot Lakes
Crow Wing Lake Shore
Nisswa
Baxter
East Gull Lake

Focus resources
Land Use
Sibley Lake
Mayo Lake
Gull Lake
Forest
Upper Gull Lake Grass
Edward Lake Agriculture
Hubert Lake Water
Wetland
Round Lake Developed
North Long Lake
Red Sand Lake
White Sand Lake

The Gull Lake/River Planning Region is located in the southeast

corner of the watershed. At 16% open water, this planning region has
abundant lakes. It contains multiple large lakes in its southeastern
half, including the Gull Chain of Lakes, North Long Lake, and Edward
Lake. The upstream area of the planning region has Mayo Creek,
Cory Brook, Stoney Brook, and Home Brook.

This planning region is also the most developed, with large cities
including Baxter, Pequot Lakes, and Nisswa.

Nearly all of the Gull Lake/River Planning Region is a Tier 1 priority

area, aside from the subwatershed around Home Brook River. The
Camp Ripley Sentinel Landscape covers much of this Planning
Region as well, which is a priority for land protection.

Figure 6.8. Gull Lake/River Planning Region priorities.

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 80
Gull Lake/River Implementation Schedule
ACTIONS TARGETING & MEASURING MEASURABLE GOALS WHO WHEN COSTS

Connectivity Enhancement
Drinking Water Protection

Shoreland Management
Ag Land Management

Forest & Plant Health

Nutrient Reduction
Land Protection

2025-2026

2027-2028

2029-2030

2031-2032

2033-2034
Resilience
Total 10-Year Cost
Responsibility/Partners (Level 2 colored blue,
Action Program Focus Areas Outcome (Bold = Lead) Level 3 colored green)
Agricultural Land Management Practices Figure 6.8 and 2,374 Acres
Cover crops, conservation tillage, perennial crops, pasture 75 tons sediment/year*
Camp Ripley
255 lbs phosphorus/year*
SWCDs, NRCS, BWSR, MDA      $356,100
mgmt, WASCOBS, grassed waterways, filter strips
Sentinel Landscape 5,015 lbs nitrogen/year*
Groundwater Agricultural Practices Figure 6.8 and 419 Acres
Irrigation water mgmt, nutrient mgmt, precision technology, 12 tons sediment/year*
Camp Ripley
28 lbs phosphorus/year*
SWCDs, NRCS, BWSR, MDA      $62,850
variable rate irrigation
Sentinel Landscape 310 lbs nitrogen/year*
Bacteria Reduction Projects $50,000
Feedlot management, manure management plans, livestock Figure 6.8 2 Projects NRCS, SWCDs, Counties     
fencing, waste pit closure
$50,000
Forest Stewardship Plans Figure 6.8 and
150 plans
Camp Ripley SWCD, NRCS, DNR, TNC      $262,500
28,500 acres
Sentinel Landscape
Forest Health Management Figure 6.8 and
forest stand improvement, tree planting, reforestation, climate Camp Ripley 1,000 Acres SWCD, NRCS, DNR, TNC      $500,000
assisted migration Sentinel Landscape
Forest & DWSMA Protection Figure 6.8 and SWCDs, DNR, BWSR, TNC,
SFIA, easements, acquisitions Camp Ripley 4,000 Acres Minnesota Land Trust, Northern      $1,788,373
Sentinel Landscape Waters Land Trust, CRSL, Counties
Shoreline/Riparian Management Focus Lakes, 1.0 miles DNR, SWCDs, Counties, Lake
Buffers, soft armor, berms, capture upslope water, coir logs,      $528,000
Figure 6.8 (5,280 feet) Associations, Private Consultants
willow wattles, aquatic vegetation, streambank stabilization
Urban Stormwater Management Pequot Lakes, Lake
Rain gardens, stormwater retention basins, biofiltration Shore, Nisswa, SWCDs, Cities, Crow Wing County
$200,000
Baxter, Hwy 371, 8 Projects Highway Department, MnDOT,     
Hwy 210, East Gull Resorts $200,000
Lake, Resorts
Chloride Management 1. Develop a policy for salt
Road salt/dust suppressant, smart salting Pequot Lakes, East use in each city,
Gull Lake, Lake 2. Level 1 Smart Salting Cities, Counties, MNDOT, MPCA,
Certified staff in each city,     $100,000
Shore, Nisswa, Townships, Highway Department
Baxter, Roads, 3. Purchase Smart Salting
Equipment.
Barrier Modifications SWCDs, Counties, DNR,
Modify dams and replace improperly fitting culverts to allow for Mayo, Sibley, Gull 3 Projects    $1,500,000
Townships, Cities
fish passage

Primary Goal(s) this action will address Total Level 2 Funding (Base+WBIF) $1,559,450

Secondary Goal(s) this action will address Total Level 3 Funding (Partners, Grants) $4,038,373
*PTMApp scenario benefits at the Planning Region outlet

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 81
Watershed Wide Table
Actions MEASURING MEASURABLE GOALS WHO WHEN COSTS

Connectivity Enhancement
Drinking Water Protection

Shoreland Management
Ag Land Management

Forest & Plant Health

Nutrient Reduction
Land Protection

2025-2026

2027-2028

2029-2030

2031-2032

2033-2034
Resilience
Responsibility/Partners Total 10-Year Cost
Action Program Outcome (Bold = Lead) (Level 3 colored green)
Regulation and Ordinances Counties, SWCDs, MPCA, DNR,
See Section 7 and Appendix G. Continue current program      $9,320,000
BWSR
Education and Outreach SWCDs, Counties, Lake
Landowners, public, businesses, stakeholders, See Section 7, Table 7.3. Implement Program      $200,000
Associations, Cities
Develop an outreach plan to promote consistent
messaging and strategies One Plan SWCDs, Counties, BWSR      Included in staff time

Track progress towards goals during implementation Create tracking program and track
SWCDs, Counties, BWSR      Included in staff time
progress
Develop an Incentive Program
Incentive Program developed SWCDs, Counties, BWSR    Included in staff time

Surface Water Monitoring Continue current program and add

MPCA, Lake Associations, White
Lakes, streams, USGS gages, See Section 7, Figure 7.2. sites at focus resources where      $162,500
Earth Nation, SWCDs, USGS, DNR
needed
Groundwater Monitoring Continue current program and add
Monitoring wells, township testing, See Section 7, page 94. sites at focus resources where DNR, MDA, MDH, SWCDs      $45,600
needed
Data Collection Better understanding to implement SWCDs, Counties, DNR, MPCA,
See Section 7, Table 7.3.      $200,000
goals. See Section 7, Table 7.3. BWSR, MDH, MDA, U of MN
Seal Abandoned Wells
150 wells MDH, SWCDs, Counties      $100,000

Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems $150,000

Replace noncompliant systems, inspect systems 200 systems Counties, SWCDs, MPCA     
$280,000
Terrestrial Invasive Species Management Continue current program and SWCDs, Counties, DNR,
Noxious weeds, buckthorn, oak wilt      Included in staff time
monitor future changes Townships
Land Retirement Programs Maintain current acres and re-enroll
Enroll land in temporary and permanent easements, i.e. CRP, CREP. Re-enroll FSA, SWCDs, NRCS, BWSR      $394,785
(8,773 acres in 2023)
expiring acres
Ag Water Quality Certification
Two farms/year MDA, SWCDs      $200,000

AIS management and prevention Counties, SWCDs, DNR, White

Continue county programs Earth Nation, Lake Associations,      $2,268,000
MAISRC

Primary Goal(s) this action will address Total Level 2 Funding (Base+WBIF) $9,970,000

Secondary Goal(s) this action will address Total Level 3 Funding (Partners, Grants) $3,350,885

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 82
Lake Implementation Reference Table
This table can be used during implementation to guide projects for each lake to meet their phosphorus and protection goals.
Phosphorus Ag BMPs
Short-term Focus (acres to reach Urban
LPSS Total (10 Year) (based on the P Goal in Stormwater Noncontributing/ Protection
Management Phosphorus Phosphorus Watershed:Lake PTMApp, see (City in the Nearshore Isolated (10% towards minor
Lake Name County DNR Lake # Approach Load (lbs/yr) Goal (lbs/yr) Goal Source Ratio) Appendix E.) Subwatershed) Practices Subwatershed watershed LSP goal)
Straight Becker 03-0010-00 ENHANCE 1,898 24 PTMApp Mix 270 acres  180 acres
Shell Becker 03-0102-00 PROTECT 2,885 10 10 lb estimate Nearshore  233 acres
Agate Cass 11-0216-00 PROTECT 28 1 5% Nearshore   297 acres1
Gull Cass 11-0305-00 PROTECT 18,503 10 10 lb estimate Mix   70 acres
Upper Gull Cass 11-0218-00 PROTECT NA 10 10 lb estimate NA   135 acres2
Margaret Cass 11-0222-00 RESTORE 6,704 57 PTMApp Watershed 250 acres  297 acres1
Pillager Cass 11-0320-00 PROTECT 129 6 5% Nearshore  277 acres
Sylvan (NE Bay) Cass 11-0304-02 PROTECT 142 7 5% Nearshore  83 acres
Clark Crow Wing 18-0374-00 PROTECT 991 10 10 lb estimate Mix  135 acres2
East Twin Crow Wing 18-0407-00 PROTECT 27 1 5% Nearshore   135 acres2
Edna Crow Wing 18-0396-00 ENHANCE 15 1 5% Nearshore   135 acres2
Edward Crow Wing 18-0305-00 PROTECT 348 10 10 lb estimate Nearshore   160 acres
Gladstone Crow Wing 18-0338-00 PROTECT 135 7 5% Nearshore   30 acres
Hartley Crow Wing 18-0392-00 PROTECT 23 1 5% Nearshore  62 acres
Hubert Crow Wing 18-0375-00 PROTECT 342 10 10 lb estimate Nearshore   30 acres
Lower Cullen Crow Wing 18-0403-00 PROTECT 914 10 10 lb estimate Mix  184 acres3
Mayo Crow Wing 18-0408-00 RESTORE 2,938 100 PTMApp Watershed 958 acres*  170 acres4
Middle Cullen Crow Wing 18-0377-00 PROTECT 712 10 10 lb estimate Mix  184 acres3
Middle Whipple Crow Wing 18-0387-02 PROTECT 69 3 5% Nearshore  212 acres
Nisswa Crow Wing 18-0399-00 PROTECT 1,456 10 10 lb estimate Watershed  135 acres2
North Long Crow Wing 18-0372-00 PROTECT 1,716 10 10 lb estimate Nearshore   132 acres5
Red Sand Crow Wing 18-0386-00 ENHANCE 369 18 5% Nearshore   0 acres
Round Crow Wing 18-0373-00 PROTECT 2,127 10 10 lb estimate Mix  132 acres5
Roy Crow Wing 18-0398-00 PROTECT 1,518 10 10 lb estimate Watershed  135 acres2
Sibley Crow Wing 18-0404-00 RESTORE 4,126 99 PTMApp Watershed 958 acres*  170 acres4
Upper Cullen Crow Wing 18-0376-00 PROTECT 853 10 10 lb estimate Mix  184 acres3
West Twin Crow Wing 18-0409-00 ENHANCE 39 2 5% Nearshore   135 acres2
White Sand Crow Wing 18-0379-00 ENHANCE 84 4 5% Nearshore   0 acres

*The Ag BMPs goal for Mayo and Sibley is 958 acres total because they are in the same subwatershed.

For these groups of lakes, the acre Protection goal is shared

1
Margaret and Agate lakes are in the same minor watershed
2
West Twin, East Twin, Clark, Nisswa, Upper Gull, and Roy lakes are in the same minor watershed
3
Lower, Middle, and Upper Cullen lakes are in the same minor watershed
5
Sibley and May lakes are in the same minor watershed
5
Round and North Long lakes are in the same minor watershed

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 83
Lake Implementation Reference Table
This table can be used during implementation to guide projects for each lake to meet their phosphorus and protection goals.
Phosphorus Ag BMPs
Short-term Focus (acres to reach Urban
LPSS Total (10 Year) (based on the P Goal in Stormwater Noncontributing/ Protection
Management Phosphorus Phosphorus Watershed:Lake PTMApp, see (City in the Nearshore Isolated (10% towards minor
Lake Name County DNR Lake # Approach Load (lbs/yr) Goal (lbs/yr) Goal Source Ratio) Appendix E.) Subwatershed) Practices Subwatershed watershed LSP goal)
Belle Taine Hubbard 29-0146-00 PROTECT 2,719 10 10 lb estimate Nearshore   249 acres6
Boulder Hubbard 29-0162-00 ENHANCE 189 9 5% Nearshore   205 acres
Deer Hubbard 29-0090-00 ENHANCE 37 2 5% Nearshore   249 acres6
Eighth Crow Wing Hubbard 29-0072-00 RESTORE 3,096 10 10 lb estimate Watershed  432 acres7
Fifth Crow Wing Hubbard 29-0092-00 PROTECT 6,962 10 10 lb estimate Watershed  314 acres9
First Crow Wing Hubbard 29-0086-00 RESTORE 20,961 161 PTMApp Watershed 1,675 acres  168 acres8
Fish Hook Hubbard 29-0242-00 ENHANCE 9,076 10 10 lb estimate Watershed   150 acres
Long Hubbard 29-0161-00 ENHANCE 1,074 10 10 lb estimate Nearshore 79 acres  435 acres
Ninth Crow Wing Hubbard 29-0025-00 ENHANCE 1,595 10 10 lb estimate Watershed  432 acres7
Portage Hubbard 29-0250-00 RESTORE 566 28 5% Nearshore  162 acres
Second Crow Wing Hubbard 29-0085-00 PROTECT 7,670 10 10 lb estimate Watershed  168 acres8
Seventh Crow Wing Hubbard 29-0091-00 ENHANCE 2,602 13 PTMApp Watershed 69 acres  314 acres9
Sixth Crow Wing Hubbard 29-0093-00 PROTECT 2,390 10 10 lb estimate Watershed  314 acres9
Spider (NE/SW Bay) Hubbard 29-0117-01 ENHANCE 140 7 5% Nearshore   249 acres6
Tenth Crow Wing Hubbard 29-0045-00 ENHANCE 1,068 10 10 lb estimate Watershed  432 acres7
Third Crow Wing Hubbard 29-0077-00 ENHANCE 9,946 172 PTMApp Watershed 1,536 acres  168 acres8
Sylvan (Main Basin) Morrison 49-0036-01 PROTECT 177,081 10 10 lb estimate Nearshore  34 acres
Blueberry Wadena 80-0034-00 RESTORE 28,329 195 PTMApp Watershed 1,784 acres  316 acres
Lower Twin Wadena 80-0030-00 RESTORE 28,685 383 PTMApp Watershed 3,178 acres  179 acres
Spirit Wadena 80-0039-00 PROTECT 56 3 5% Nearshore    464 acres10
Stocking Wadena 80-0037-00 PROTECT 573 10 10 lb estimate Nearshore  464 acres10

For these groups of lakes, the acre Protection goal is shared

6
Belle Taine, Deer, and Spider lakes are in the same minor watershed
7
Eighth, Ninth, Tenth Crow Wing lakes are in the same minor watershed
8
First, Second, Third Crow Wing lakes are in the same minor watershed
9
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Crow Wing lakes are in the same minor watershed
10
Spirit and Stocking lakes are in the same minor watershed

Section 6. Targeted Implementation Schedule

 84

Section 7.
Implementation Programs
There are four plan programs that will be used for implementing this plan, and each action in
Section 6 belongs to a plan program as indicated by the icon in the implementation tables.
There are four main categories: Planned Landscape Management (“Manage It”), Constructed
Environmental Enhancements (“Fix It”), Protected Lands Maintenance (“Keep It”), and Data
Collection & Outreach (“Know It”). For the CWRW, the scale is evenly balanced between
programs. The “Manage It”, “Fix It”, and “Keep It” actions all depend on Data Collection &
Outreach (“Know It”) actions to be effective and successful (Figure 7.1). Each of these four
plan programs contains many state or local programs (i.e. forest management programs,
land conservation programs) through which plan actions will be implemented. Detailed
discussion of plan actions and programs in each category is discussed in this section.

Figure 7.1. Plan Programs.

Section 7. Plan Programs

 85

Plan implementation will actively target prioritized resources for each program (see Focus
Areas column in Section 6 implementation tables). Non-priority areas will be considered if
priority areas are not feasible, or conditions change.

Manage It: Planned Landscape Management

Programs and actions that fall into the Planned Landscape Management Program involve
continuous management of the landscape, including soil health practices, nutrient
management, and forest stewardship plans. It also includes regulation, such as county zoning
rules or ordinances.

Climate Lens Environmental Justice Lens

Management of the following These programs, plans, and ordinances
programs, plans, and ordinances will focus on will also focus on equitable management of
building resilience for climate variability. resources in the watershed.

Cost-Share Programs
Cost-share programs or projects are those where the cost of installing a project is shared with
the landowner(s). Cost-share is available at the local, state, and federal level. Potential
cost-share actions in this plan include soil health practices such as cover crops and reduced
tillage, forest enhancement, or irrigation water management.

Conservation Reserve Program

CRP is administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). It is a voluntary program that partners with agricultural producers so that
environmentally sensitive agricultural land is not farmed or ranched, but instead devoted to
conservation benefits. CRP participants establish long-term, resource-conserving plant
species to control soil erosion, improve water quality, and develop wildlife habitat. In return,
FSA provides participants with rental payments and cost-share assistance. The CRP’s contract
duration is 10-15 years.

Private Forest Management

Forest Stewardship Plans
DNR’s Forest Stewardship Program assists forest owners in managing their woods through
development of Woodland Stewardship Plans. Plan forest goals can be developed in
coordination with trained foresters to create wildlife habitat, increase natural beauty, enhance
environmental benefits, or harvest timber. Use of voluntary site level guidelines is
encouraged. Plans must be prepared by a DNR-approved plan writer, which may include
SWCD staff and private foresters.

Section 7. Plan Programs

 86

Forest 2C Designation
Landowners with DNR-registered Woodland Stewardship Plans are then eligible for 2C
Classification, which is a state program that provides a reduced tax rate to landowners that
keep their property at least 20 acres forested. This is an annual program.

Regulatory Programs
Some issues are addressed through
enforcement of local ordinances and
Environmental Justice Lens
Regulatory actions have historically
administration of statutory responsibilities.
furthered inequalities. Planning partners
Counties are responsible for enforcing local
enforcing ordinances will emphasize
ordinances. Regulatory programs are thoughtful implementation in MPCA
discussed here, and a full comparison of environmental justice regions to promote
Becker, Cass, Crow Wing, Hubbard, Wadena, equity in the watershed.
and Todd County Ordinances is provided in
Appendix G.

Aggregate Management
The MPCA oversees air permits, hazardous waste licenses, stormwater and wastewater
management, and storage tanks (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/regulations/aggregate-sand-
and-gravel). Counties may have ordinances further regulating aggregate management.
Additionally, there may be opportunities within the watershed to reclaim abandoned
aggregate pits to protect water quality and enhance habitat value.
Regulations: Minnesota Statutes 298.75, 394.25

Bluffland Protection
Blufflands are managed under several state programs, including programs for shoreland
management and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Minimum structure setbacks from bluffs and
related development standards apply to land in shoreland for this watershed. The state
regulates land around public waters with a shoreland classification, which includes land
within 1,000 feet of any public water body, 300 feet of any public water river or stream, or the
landward extent of their floodplains. Cass, and Crow Wing Counties include bluff protection
in their land use ordinances. Becker, Todd, and Wadena Counties include it in their Zoning
Ordinance and Hubbard County protect bluffs in the shoreland management ordinance.
There are differences between the ordinances between each county (setback, height,
practices allowed, etc.).

Construction Soil Erosion

Temporary construction erosion control is the practice of preventing and/or reducing the
movement of sediment from a site during construction. All construction projects should
follow construction BMPs, but projects disturbing one acre or more of land will require a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Permit from the MPCA.
Regulations: Minnesota Rules, chapter 7090

Section 7. Plan Programs

 87

Feedlots
MPCA rules govern the collection, transportation, storage, processing, and land application
of animal manure and other livestock operation wastes. The MPCA administers the feedlot
program in Becker, Crow Wing, Cass, and Hubbard Counties. Wadena and Todd Counties
are delegated to administer the MCPA feedlot program.
Regulations: Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020

Groundwater Use
The DNR administers groundwater appropriation permits for all users who withdraw more
than 10,000 gallons of water per day or 1 million gallons per year. SWCDs, counties, and
municipalities cooperate with the state and are offered the opportunity to comment on
landowners’ permit applications.
Regulations: Minnesota Statute 103G for appropriation; 103H, 1989 Groundwater Act

Groundwater Protection Rule

The MDA administers the Groundwater Protection Rule, which went into effect on June 24,
2019. The rule has two parts: Part 1 restricts the application of nitrogen fertilizer in the fall and
on frozen soils and applies in the CWRW. Part 2 focuses on mitigation of nitrate in DWSMAs
and applies to Sundsruds Court DWSMA.
Regulations: Minnesota Statute 14.16

Hazard Management
Hazard mitigation may be defined as any action taken to eliminate or reduce the future risk to
human life and property from natural and human-caused hazards. Climate change adaptation
also plays a part in hazard management. These requirements direct the state to administer
cost-sharing. Hazard Mitigation Plans/Emergency Management Plans are deployed in each of
the CWRW counties as well as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard
mitigation programs.
Regulations: Minnesota Statute, chapter 12

Invasive Species
Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species can cause ecological and economic damage to water
resources and forests. The DNR has regulatory authority over aquatic plants and animals as
well as terrestrial animals. For aquatic species, permits are required by the general public for
transporting lake water and invasive species and for treating invasive species. Counties
administer and receive state funding for AIS programs. Counties partner with SWCDs, MHB,
and DNR for AIS programs and education.
Regulations: Minnesota Statute 84D

Noxious Weed Law

Noxious weeds affect the natural, native balance of ecological functions. The Noxious Weed
Law in Minnesota is administered by the MDA through SWCDs. Todd County and the Crow

Section 7. Plan Programs

 88

Wing Land Commissioner also enforce state noxious weed law through the Public Works
Department. The State maintains noxious weed lists of those species to eradicate, control,
restrict, and specially regulated plants.
Regulations: Minnesota Statutes 18.75-18.91

Public Drainage Systems: Establishment, Improvement, Re-routing,

Repairs, and Impoundments
Minnesota Drainage Law enables multiple landowners to collectively construct, improve, and
repair drainage systems across property boundaries and governmental boundaries. These
drainage systems can be open ditches and/or subsurface tile. Drainage systems have their
own laws and requirements that LGUs must uphold. These ditches are managed by the
county for the benefit of the landowners.
Regulations: Minnesota Statute 103E

Shoreland Management
Minnesota has shoreland management rules that are administered by the DNR. LGUs are
required to have land use controls that protect shorelands along lakes and rivers, and they
can adopt stricter ordinances than the state’s, if desired. All counties in the CWRW have
shoreland ordinances (Table 7.1). The DNR published an Innovative Shoreland Standards
Showcase website that may be helpful to local governments as they implement this plan:
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/innovative-
standards.html

Loons and ducks on Lake Margaret (credit: Ron Faust)

Section 7. Plan Programs

 89

Table 7.1. Comparison of shoreline ordinance between counties.

General Development Recreational Natural Environment

Development
Generally medium-
Generally small, shallow
sized lakes often
Generally large, deep lakes. They often have
characterized by
lakes with high levels adjacent lands with
moderate levels of
and mixes of existing substantial constraints
recreational use and
development. These for development such
existing development.
Definition (DNR) lakes often are as wetlands and
Development consists
extensively used for unsuitable soils. These
mainly of seasonal and
recreation and are lakes usually do not
year-round residences
heavily developed have much existing
and recreationally
around the shore. development or
oriented commercial
recreational use.
uses.

Becker, Cass, Crow Becker, Cass, Crow Cass, Crow Wing,

Minimum Water Wing, Hubbard, Todd: Wing, Hubbard, Todd: Hubbard, Todd: 200 ft
Frontage and 100 ft 150 ft Becker: 250-350 ft
Lot Width
Wadena: 300 ft Wadena: 300 ft Wadena: 300 ft

Becker, Hubbard, Todd: Crow Wing, Hubbard,

Becker, Crow Wing,
20,000 ft2 Todd, Wadena:
Minimum Lot Hubbard, Todd:
80,000 ft2
Area Crow Wing: 30,000 ft2 40,000 ft2
Cass: 100,000 ft2
(Single Home) Cass: 37,500 ft 2 Cass: 50,000 ft2
Becker: 120,000-
Wadena: 80,000 ft2 Wadena: 80,000 ft2
140,000 ft2
Minimum
Setback from
All: 75 ft All: 100 ft All: 150 ft
Ordinary High
Water Level

Stormwater Management – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) general permit is designed to reduce the
amount of sediment and other pollutants entering state waters from stormwater systems.
Entities regulated by the MS4 general permit must develop a stormwater pollution
prevention program and adopt best practices. Brainerd, Baxter, and Little Falls have
stormwater management programs required through the MPCA MS4 General Permit.
Regulations: Minnesota state rule Minn. R. 7090

Section 7. Plan Programs

 90

Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems

The SSTS Programs are required by Minnesota State Statute in order to protect the public
health and environment. Counties are required to have an ordinance that regulates SSTS
enforced at the county level. Cities and townships may administer their own programs but
must be as strict as their county’s ordinance. Low-interest loans and low-income grants are
available through the SWCD, county, or Region 5. Todd County require SSTS inspections on
point-of-sale.
Regulations: Minnesota Statutes 115.55 and 115.56; Minnesota Rules Chapters 7080,
7081, 7082, and 7083

Waste Management
Each county has a Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) (10-year Plan) that is approved by
the MPCA. Solid waste management in Minnesota is managed at the county level and
includes programs related to mixed municipal solid waste, industrial waste, and non-landfill
programs such as recycling to include paper, plastics, metal, tires, electronics, appliances,
and other recyclable items. As part of this plan, each county manages a household hazardous
waste (HHW) program that receives some state funding to implement. Counties also received
SCORE funds from the state to help cover some of the cost of recycling.
Regulations: Minnesota Statutes 115.55; Minnesota Rules Chapters 7001, 7035, 7045,
7150, 7151, 9215, and 9220

Wellhead Protection
The purpose of the Wellhead Protection Program is to prevent contamination of public
drinking water supplies by identifying water supply recharge areas and implementing
management practices for potential pollution sources found within those areas. MDH is
responsible for statewide administration. The program has since expanded to Source Water
Protection to include supplies that rely on surface water. Wellhead Protection is mostly
administered at the city level, with various cities in the CWRW having a Wellhead Protection
Plan.
Regulations: Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103l; Minnesota Rules, chapter 4720;
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, US Code, Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter XII, Part
E, Section 300j-13; Minnesota Rules, chapter 4725

Well Construction Standards

Well construction standards are an MDH Program.
Regulations: Minnesota Well Code/ Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725

Operations and Maintenance

After projects are installed, regular on-site inspections and maintenance to ensure the
project’s continued function and success are required by the BWSR Grants Administration
Manual. These details, along with records, including notes and photos, should be included
with each project’s Operations and Maintenance Plan. BWSR’s recommended inspection

Section 7. Plan Programs

 91

plans, according to the Grants Administration Manual, include inspections during years 1, 3,
and 9 after the certified completion.
Watershed partners will explore ways to better integrate this watershed management plan
into all of the county comprehensive land use plans. Counties and cities will meet once a year
to discuss ordinances and counties will notify each other of any proposed ordinance
amendments. An effort will be made to compile the information watershed-wide

Comprehensive Plans
County, city, and township comprehensive plans are required to implement land use
regulatory ordinances and provide the framework of the ordinance requirements. It is
recommended that when a comprehensive plan is updated, that at a minimum the
County/City adopt all comprehensive watershed management plans (CWMPs) within the
County/City by reference. One step further would be for the County/City to utilize specific
goals and strategies from the CWMP when developing a comprehensive plan.
Current Water Plans in the CWRW
Crow Wing County Water Plan (2013)

Todd County Water Plan (2016)

Becker County Local Water Management Plan (2017)

Wadena County Local Water Management Plan (2016)

Cass County Water Plan (2017)

Hubbard County Local Water Management Plan (2016)

Current Comprehensive Land Use Plans in the CWRW

Todd County Comprehensive Plan (2009)

Crow Wing County Comprehensive Plan (2003)

Cass County Comprehensive Plan (2021)

Becker County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2003, update in progress)

Wadena County Comprehensive Plan (2013)

Other Plans in the CWRW

Camp Ripley Sentinel Landscape Plan (2024)

Section 7. Plan Programs

 92

Keep It: Protected Lands Maintenance

Conservation Easements Climate Lens

Conservation easements are voluntary, legal Protecting lands will help
agreements between a landowner and governmental build climate resilience and protect
against rising temperatures and
or nonprofit organization, whereby land use and
irregular precipitation patterns.
development are limited on a property while
conserving natural values that reside upon that
landscape. The easements are individually tailored agreements with an organization such as
BWSR, DNR, MHB, Minnesota Land Trust, or TNC.

Sustainable Forest Incentive Act

SFIA provides annual incentive payments for the landowner recording a covenant taking
away some of the rights of the land (development and farming, for example). Private
landowners can receive a payment for each acre of qualifying forest land they enroll in SFIA.
In return, they follow the covenant for a set period of time: either 8, 20, or 50 years. Data on
current enrollees shows that landowners who start with an 8-year covenant commonly move
up to a 50-year covenant (DNR), which is why this program is considered under “Keep It.”

Wetlands
Wetlands are protected by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The overall goal
of the act is no net loss of wetlands. Draining, filling, and in some cases excavating in
wetlands is prohibited unless (a) the drain, fill, or excavation activity is exempt from requiring
replacement or (b) wetlands are replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least
equal public value. Replacement can be buying credits or creating/restoring a wetland
(usually credits are encouraged over an on-site replacement). DNR is responsible for WCA
enforcement but typically counties are the LGU and SWCDs work to restore wetlands. In
CWRW, Cass County has its own wetland ordinance. Becker SWCD is the LGU for the WCA in
Becker County.
Regulations: Minnesota Rules, part 8420.0105

Buffers
In 2015, Minnesota enacted legislation requiring buffers of perennial vegetation of an
average of 50 feet with a minimum of 30 feet on public waters and 16.5 feet for public
drainage systems. This program is regulated by BWSR and implemented at the county level.
Each county has an ordinance for buffer management, and SWCDs conduct buffer
compliance checks and provide technical assistance and alternatives for compliance.
Currently, all counties are near 100% compliance.
Regulations: Minnesota Statutes 103B and 103F.48 Subd. 4

Section 7. Plan Programs

 93

Land Acquisition
For areas with unique and important resources that meet state goals, the DNR, United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), counties, cities, townships, and other entities may
purchase and manage the land.

Fix It: Constructed Environmental Enhancements

Climate Lens
Low-Interest Loans Fix it programs will build
Low-interest loans may be made available for infrastructure to help mitigate climate
septic system replacement, small community variability and reduce flooding and erosion.
wastewater treatment systems, agricultural
BMPs, and other projects that meet eligibility
criteria for funding. Environmental Justice Lens
These programs will target areas
Cost-Share Programs which have traditionally been environmentally
marginalized for improvement projects.
Cost-share programs can also be used for
structural practices. Implementing fencing and water sources for grazing cattle away from
streams, shoreline enhancements on lakeshore, and well sealing are applicable examples
that meet the goals of this plan. Implementation of this plan will involve cost-share programs
that will be actively targeted to prioritized areas for projects. Non-priority areas will be
considered on an opportunity basis.

Capital Improvements
Capital improvements are large projects that require significant investment and have a longer
lifespan than cost-share programs. The BWSR Grants Administration Manual considers capital
improvement projects to have a minimum effective life of 25 years. These types of projects
and activities often require feasibility studies before design and construction can proceed.
Urban stormwater control projects are an example of capital improvement projects within the
plan boundary.

Operations and Maintenance

After projects are installed, the BWSR Grants Administration Manual requires regular on-site
inspections and maintenance to ensure the project’s continued function and success. These
details, along with records, including notes and photos, should be included with each
project’s Operations and Maintenance Plan. BWSR’s recommended inspection plans for
capital improvement projects with a minimum effective life of 35 years, according to the
Grants Administration Manual, includes inspection after years 1, 8, 17, and 24.

Section 7. Plan Programs

 94

Know It: Data Collection and Outreach

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection, inventories, and monitoring are crucial for determining where projects are
needed, investigating problems, and tracking progress towards the measurable goals of this
plan. Current data collection and monitoring efforts are described, along with data gaps that
have actions for implementation, in this plan.

Current Data Collection and Monitoring Efforts

Currently, a wide variety of monitoring is carried out on multiple government and local
organization levels (Table 7.2). These existing data helped determine the current conditions
of surface water, groundwater, and habitat in this plan and developed a starting point for
measuring goals moving forward. Because these are already established projects, they don’t
cost additional funds for this plan. CWRW MPCA, DNR, and Citizen monitoring sites are
shown in Figure 7.2.
Table 7.2. Summary of ongoing water quality and quantity monitoring programs. RS = rivers and streams, L = lakes, W =
wetlands, and GW = groundwater.

Parameters MPCA DNR MDH MDA Citizens

Nutrients RS, L, W RS, L RS, GW RS, L
Suspended RS, L, W RS RS RS
Solids
Productivity RS, L RS RS, L
Pesticides RS, L, W, GW
Bacteria RS, L GW
Biology RS, L, W RS, L
Water RS, L RS, L
level/Flow
Algal Toxins L
Invasive RS, L RS, L
Species
Chlorides RS, L, W RS RS, L, GW
Sulfates RS, L, W RS, L RS, L, GW

Section 7. Plan Programs

 95

Surface Water Monitoring

As part of the Intensive Watershed Approach, the MPCA conducts lake and
stream monitoring in each watershed on a 10-year cycle. This assessment
includes water chemistry and biological parameters, any TMDL needed, and
results in comprehensive reports.

There are many active Lake Associations and Lake Improvement Districts that
conduct general condition monitoring annually, including total phosphorus,
chlorophyll-a, and transparency parameters (Figure 7.2). This data is crucial for
tracking trends in lake water quality.

The MPCA Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network (WPLMN) provides

funding to local partners to assist with intensive water quality monitoring at
long-term sites. Monitoring at these sites can be used to track progress towards
reduction of phosphorus, sediment, nitrogen, and water outflow during plan
implementation (Figure 7.2).

To track pollutant reductions from plan implementation actions (Section 6) and

point source improvements, it would be beneficial to continue monitoring sites
in focus lakes and streams.

Figure 7.2. Surface water

monitoring sites in the
CWRW.

Section 7. Plan Programs

 96

Groundwater Monitoring

The DNR monitors groundwater availability and ecological impacts through the
Cooperative Groundwater Monitoring network.

The MDA monitors groundwater for agricultural chemicals and fertilizer

contamination.

The MPCA monitors groundwater for industrial contamination.

The MDH monitors wells and drinking water supplies for public health,
including bacteria, nitrates, and arsenic.

Townships in CWRW have participated in the MDA’s Township Testing

Program, and Todd and Crow Wing Counties participated in Central Sands
Private Well Network that works with property owners to test their wells.

Forestry and Habitat Monitoring

During the MPCA’s intensive monitoring cycle, the rivers in the watershed are
tested for biological parameters. The DNR monitors fish in lakes and MPCA
monitors macroinvertebrates and fish in streams (Figure 7.2). Any biological
impairments are assigned a stressor that is likely causing the reduction in
diversity. Stressors include loss of habitat, loss of connectivity, sediment,
dissolved oxygen, and altered hydrology.

Forest habitat is described in the CWRW LSP. Areas for enhancement and
recommended species assemblages are outlined in the plan.

Section 7. Plan Programs

 97

Filling Data Gaps

This planning process has identified data gaps to be filled through implementation of this
plan or further into the future. The following inventory and study activities were developed by
the TAC and the associated Plan Goal (Section 5) is noted.
Table 7.1: Data gaps identified in the CWRW.

Data Gaps
Agricultural Land Management
LiDAR survey of waste pits
Groundwater Protection
Pollution reduction estimates for groundwater
Complete geologic atlas
Analyze 1950s aerial photos in comparison to current to find wells to seal
Land Protection
None
Forest & Plant Health
Connect forest management to water quality
Use fall season aerial photos to locate buckthorn
Shoreland Management
LiDAR survey to determine impervious surface area and shoreline condition changes since
original LiDAR data
Evaluate Shoreline Ordinance in each county and if revisions are needed
Nutrient Reduction
Lake modeling and feasibility studies
Nutrient loading in Margaret Lake
New lake management plans
Identify old septic systems through surveys and records
Connectivity Enhancement
Inventory culverts

Section 7. Plan Programs

 98

Outreach and Project Development

Public participation and engagement are
essential for successfully implementing this Environmental Justice Lens
plan. The implementation of actions in this Outreach will be focused in MPCA
environmental justice areas to ensure
plan is voluntary and requires willing
equitable plan implementation.
landowner participation.
Landowners have varying levels of understanding of conservation practices, programs, and
funding opportunities available. Many times, the first step towards adopting conservation
practices is outreach. Outreach can be conducted in a variety of ways, including mailings,
workshops, and social media. It can be targeted to landowners in priority areas to help target
conservation practices in those areas to reach plan goals. Outreach can be conducted with
partners as well such as NGOs and tribal partners.

Sites visits
OUTREACH Mailings PROJECT
Technical Assistance
Workshops DEVELOPMENT
Peer-to-Peer Networks
Social Media
Demonstration Plots
Local Radio
Co-ops
Local Newspapers
Newsletters

Project Outreach (credit: Crow Wing SWCD)

Section 7. Plan Programs

 99

Outreach
OUTREACH
Watershed partners already implement numerous outreach strategies.
Current and future strategies are outlined in Table 7.3 along with their
frequency.
Table 7.3. Outreach strategies in the CWRW.

Events Local Media

• Landowner forums • Social Media
• Well testing clinics • Press Releases
• Pairing well testing clinics with water • Watershed “Snapshot” (submitted
quality and treatment option articles about projects by LGUs)
consultations • Local radio programs and ads
• County Fairs • Plat book ads
• Tree Sale • Media educating residents on
• Breakfast on the farm importance of testing well water
• Rain garden/Rain barrel workshops
• Ag BMP workshops
• Salt/chloride workshop Frequency: Quarterly

Frequency: Once a year for each type

Mailings Public Engagement

• Contribute information to Lake • Maintain citizen lake and stream
Association and LID Newsletters volunteers
• SWCD Newsletters • Outstanding Conservationist of the Year
• County Tax mailings • Maintain Citizen Advisory Committee
• Resource guide/map about plan • Conduct public surveys

Frequency: Quarterly Frequency: Track number of people

interacted with

Meetings School Outreach

• Lake Association and LID meetings • 4H
• COLA meetings • Ag in the Classroom
• LGU Board meetings • Water Watch Programs
• Township meetings • Envirothon
• Local Service Club meetings • FFA
• Water Fest

Frequency: Visit each group once a Frequency: Each entity two programs a
year year

Outreach Effectiveness can be tracked by:

• Number of participants at each event
• Number of events and meetings
• Number of people reached
• Hours spent on outreach

Section 7. Plan Programs

 100

Project Development
The second step is project development; including site visits, technical
PROJECT
assistance, peer-to-peer networks, and demonstration plots. DEVELOPMENT
Sometimes the outreach and project development can take years
before landowners adopt the practices. Once the landowner is
interested in adopting practices, incentives and cost-share programs
can help them get started. Project development strategies are outlined
in Table 7.4 along with their frequency.
Table 7.4. Project Development activities in the CWRW.

Peer-to-Peer Site Visits & Technical Assistance

• Peer-to-Peer meetings (i.e., soil health, • Forest stewardship plans and forest
irrigation) to discuss project protection options
implementation and make local • Agricultural BMPs
connections • Lakeshore projects
• Build relationships with co-ops and • Participation in drinking water protection
agronomists plan development and implementation
• Continued communication and meetings
cooperation between NRCS and SWCDs
in developing projects Frequency: As requested based on
• Participate in group meetings (i.e., outreach and walk-ins
irrigators, corn/soy producers, soil
health team)

Frequency: Twice per year

Demonstration Plots Targeted Outreach

• Develop demonstration plots and hold • Compliance letters
workshops with technical information • Targeted mailings/post cards
and cost share for implementation • Signage at completed projects
• Invite-only events
Frequency: Twice per year
Frequency: Twice per year

Project Development can be tracked by:

• Number of projects implemented
• Number of people reached
• Number of people that adopted practices
• Number of people that adopted practices by word of mouth (neighbors,
newspaper, social media, etc.)

Section 7. Plan Programs

 101

Achieving Plan Goals

Overall plan progress towards goals will be tracked by watershed partners. The Steering
Committee will develop ranking criteria to develop projects during work planning, with the
assumption that projects identified in this plan will be prioritized for funding.
Figure 7.3 summarizes the different levels of measuring progress and how it will be
implemented in this plan. Projects will be tracked during plan implementation using a system
set up for the watershed.

TRACKING
•Gathering and compiling numbers about the practices, acres, and miles
achieved in plan implementation.
•Outputs are identified in Section 6. Projects will be tracked by local partners
and reported in eLINK during implementation.

REFLECTING
•Comparing the work activities completed to the work activities in the plan to
evaluate progress.
•The big picture of measuring progress is highlighted in "Telling the Story" for
each goal in Section 5.

EVALUATING
•Comparing the resource results associated projects, pratices, or programs to
the stated resource goals in the plan.
•Lake and stream water quality will be evaluated by ongoing monitoring and
trend analysis.

SHARING
•Maintain support for local work through communications about local
watershed implementation geared toward the public and specific
stakeholders.
•The Outreach Program will engage the public and stakeholders in support
for the plan and implementation of plan actions.

Figure 7.3. Description of how different activities will be measured during plan implementation.

Section 7. Plan Programs

 102

Section 8.
Plan Administration
Plan Administration describes how the plan will be implemented, how the watershed
partners will work together, how the funding will move between them, and who will handle
the administrative duties. The CWRW CWMP will be implemented through a MOA between
the local governments in Figure 8.1. The LGUs in the MOA will be collectively referred to as
the CWRW Partnership.

PARTNERSHIP

Figure 8.1. Members of the CWRW Partnership.

Section 8. Plan Administration

 103

Decision-making and Staffing

Implementation of the CWRW CWMP will require increased capacity of plan partners,
including increased staffing, funding, and coordination from current levels. Successful plan
implementation will depend on generating active interest and partnerships within the
watershed.
The decision-making and staffing for implementing the CWRW CWMP will be conducted
based on the concepts outlined in this section of the plan. Presented below are the probable
roles and functions related to plan implementation (Table 8.1). Expectations are that the roles
of each committee will shift and change during implementation to best meet the needs of the
CWRW Partnership. Fiscal and administrative duties for plan implementation will be assigned
to an LGU through a Policy Committee decision as outlined in the formal agreement.
Responsibilities for work planning and serving as the central fiscal agent will be revisited by
the Policy Committee on a biennial basis.
Table 8.1: Roles for CWRW CWMP Implementation. The LGUs will be collectively referred to as the CWRW Partnership.

Committee Description Primary Implementation Role and Functions

Meet twice a year or as needed
Annual review and confirmation of Steering and TAC
One board
Policy recommendations
member from
Committee Recommend approval of the annual work plan by the
each MOA entity.
individual boards of the MOA members
Review the implementation funds from plan participants
Convene committee meetings
One or two of the
Prepare the annual work plan
Local Fiscal participating
Prepare and submit grant applications/funding requests
Agent and LGUs as decided
Research opportunities for collaborative grants
Coordinator by the Policy
Report on how funds were used
Committee.
Compile annual results for annual assessment
Meet monthly or as needed to review projects
Review the status of available implementation funds from
Staff from each plan participants
Steering MOA entity and Review opportunities for collaborative grants
Committee local BWSR Board Review annual fiscal reports
Conservationist. Review annual reports submitted to BWSR
Prepare plan amendments
Implement the targeted implementation schedule
Meet annually or as needed
Review and identify collaborative funding opportunities
State Agencies Recommendations to Steering Committee on program
and local adjustments
Advisory
stakeholders Assist with execution of the targeted implementation
Committee
appointed by the schedule
Policy Committee. Provide input for the annual work plan
Communicate the needs of local landowners
Be a local supporter for the plan

Section 8. Plan Administration

 104

Collaboration
Collaboration between Planning Partners
The CWRW Partnership acknowledges the value of
collaboration between planning partners to achieve
successful plan implementation. Benefits of successful
collaboration for the CWRW Partnership include
consistent implementation of actions watershed-wide,
increased likelihood of funding, and resource
efficiencies gained.
There is already some collaboration within the SWCDs
through three Technical Service Areas (Figure 8.2). This
collaboration is an advantage for implementation in the
watershed. Where possible and feasible, the CWRW
Partnership will pursue opportunities for collaboration
with fellow TSA members to gain program efficiencies,
pursue collaborative grants, and provide technical
assistance. Figure 8.2. Technical Service Areas in
Minnesota with the CWRW highlighted in
There are already some shared services and programs black.
between planning partners shown in Figure 8.3.

Figure 8.3. Collaborations in the CWRW.

Section 8. Plan Administration
 105

Collaboration with Other Units of Government

The CWRW Partnership will continue to coordinate and cooperate with other governmental
units at all levels. Coordination with state agencies, including BWSR, DNR, MDH, MDA, and
the MPCA, will continue as they are experts in many of the topic areas included in this plan,
have been participating members of the planning TAC, and will be members of the
implementation TAC. Cooperation with units of government such as NRCS, municipalities,
city councils, township boards, county boards, joint powers collaboration, and other water
management authorities are a practical necessity to facilitate watershed-wide activities.
Examples of collaborative programs in the watershed include EQIP (NRCS), CRP (FSA),
Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification (MDA), Targeted Township Testing (MDA),
Wellhead Protection for Community Water Supply DWSMAs (Minnesota Rural Water
Association [MRWA] and MDH), and Minnesota Forest Resource Council and WRAPS (MPCA).
CWRW CWMP implementation actions and goals were developed through a collaborative
process. Some agency goals, objectives, directions, and strategies for resource management
within the plan area have not been selected as priority issues. The responsibility for achieving
the goals associated with lower priority tier issues remains with the respective agency or
organization.

Collaboration with Others

Local support and partnerships will drive the success of final outcomes of the actions
prescribed for implementing this plan. Because this plan’s focus is voluntary land stewardship
practices, collaborations with landowners in the watershed is of vital importance. There are
many actions in the plan that describe working with individual landowners and providing cost
share and technical assistance for implementing land stewardship practices (Section 7). Many
of the existing collaborations in the watershed have been involved in the development of this
plan and are committed to protecting and enhancing the watershed resources. Partners for
these collaborations include, but are not limited to, Lake Associations, Lake Improvement
Districts, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Camp Ripley Sentinel Landscape, Central
Minnesota Irrigators (CMI), Central Lakes College Agriculture and Energy Center (CLC),
Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, MN Deer Hunters Association, Pheasants Forever,
Sportsman’s Clubs, National Wild Turkey Federation, Freshwater Society, local co-ops,
University of Minnesota Extension, civic groups, private businesses, individuals, and
foundations. The CWRW Partnership collaborates with these groups for education, outreach,
monitoring, and project implementation.

Shoreline
Restoration
projects by
Crow Wing
SWCD

Section 8. Plan Administration

 106

Regional Collaborations
Two notable regional collaborations between local, state, and federal governments as well as
local organizations are:

Regional Conservation Partnership Program

Implementing Innovative Irrigation Practices to Protect Groundwater Quality and Quantity.
This project, sponsored by the MDA, is a partnership of 20 Minnesota SWCDs, CLC Ag and
Energy Center, AgCentric, Northern Center of Agricultural Excellence, Mille Lacs Band of
Ojibwe, Irrigators Association of Minnesota, CMI, Todd-Wadena Electric Coop, Reinke
Manufacturing, RD Offutt Farms, RESPEC Consulting, University of Minnesota, Minnesota
BWSR, and MDH. https://www.agcentric.org/rcpp-precision-irrigation

Camp Ripley Sentinel Landscape

Partners in protecting and
enhancing natural resources
within the landscape include
US Army National Guard,
FSA, Forest Service, NRCS,
US Department of Defense,
USFWS, National Park
Service, BWSR, MDA,
Minnesota Department of
Military Affairs, DNR, Forest
Resource Council, MPCA,
City of Baxter, Crow Wing
SWCD, Morrison SWCD,
MHB, Sylvan Township,
Great River Greening, The
Conservation Fund, and
TNC. In the future, partners
could explore expanding the
sentinel landscape borders
to enhance protection
benefits in the region. The
whole northern part of the
CRSL sits within the CWRW
(Figure 8.4).

https://sentinellandscapes.org/l Figure 8.4. Camp Ripley Sentinel Landscape border shown within the
andscapes/camp-ripley CWRW.

Section 8. Plan Administration

 107

Funding
The CWRW Partnership will pursue funding opportunities collaboratively in order to
implement the activities prescribed in the targeted implementation schedule (Section 6).
Current programs and funding (Level 1) will not be enough to meet the full targeted
implementation schedule. The success of plan implementation will hinge on reliable non-
competitive watershed-based funding being available for plan implementation in addition to
competitive state, federal, and private grant dollars. The CWRW Partnership acknowledges
that additional staffing may be necessary to meet plan goals. Because implementation is
occurring under an MOA, staff will be hired by existing local government units in the
watershed.
The current funding level (Level 1) is based on the annual revenue and expenditures for the
following counties and SWCDs: Cass, Crow Wing, Wadena, Hubbard, Becker, and Todd. The
current level of investment by each local government unit is expected to remain the same
during the CWRW CWMP 10-year time period. It includes local funds such as county
allocations for SWCD support, in-kind match for office space, tree sale, and state funds such
as state programs and conservation delivery grants, including the Natural Resources Block
Grant and SWCD Local Capacity Building Grants (Table 8.2).
Table 8.2. Level 1 funding for the CWRW.

Funding Level Annual Local Annual State Annual Federal Annual Total
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
Level 1 $1,102,000 $298,000 $0 $1,400,000

Level 2 funding describes the total funding needed to fully implement

the 10-year plan. It includes baseline funding plus additional funding that
could be obtained to implement the plan, including noncompetitive
WBIF and competitive grants (Table 8.3). WBIF and many state grants
come from the Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment. The total
estimated funding for Level 2, which is just the funding that is
administered by the CWRW Partnership, is $3,000,000 annually and
$30,000,000 over the 10-year life of the CWRW CWMP.
Level 3 funding consists of funding that is administered outside of the
CWRW Partnership by partners, including TNC, CRP, SFIA, NRCS, Army
Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB), Lessard Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund,
and state agency projects. There is likely much more project funding occurring in the
watershed in addition to these totals as it is difficult to document projects by all entities,
including private landowners.

Section 8. Plan Administration

 108

Table 8.3: Estimated implementation funding for the CWRW (per Levels 2-3).

Funding Description Estimated Estimated

Level Annual Total 10-Year Total
The amount of funding needed to fully
implement this plan
Level 2 Level 1 funding=$1,400,000/year
$3,000,000 $30,000,000
2025-2026 WBIF Allocation=$848,600/year
Additional needed=$751,400/year
Level 3 Other/Partner funding $2,257,000 $22,570,000
(SFIA, Lessard Sams, TNC, CRSL, NRCS)
Total Level 2+3* $5,257,000 $52,570,000
*Level 1 is not included in the overall total because Level 2 includes Level 1

Table 8.4 lists the most used programs and grants for executing the implementation
programs described by this plan and used within the targeted implementation schedule. The
funding grants and programs are cross-referenced to plan implementation programs,
thereby showing potential sources of revenue for implementation. Programs will be
coordinated uniformly throughout the watershed where possible.
Table 8.4: Funding sources available for implementing the CWRW CWMP.

Type of Form of
Agency Program/Fund Name
Assistance Assistance
BWSR Clean Water Fund Financial Grant • • • •
BWSR Reinvest in Minnesota Financial Easement •
BWSR Natural Resources Block Grant Financial Grant • •
BWSR SWCD Government Aid Financial Grant • • • •
BWSR Erosion Control & Water Management Financial Grant • • •
Program
DNR Conservation Partners Legacy Financial Grant • •
DNR Aquatic Invasive Species Control Financial/ Grant
STATE FUNDING

Technical
•
DNR Forest Stewardship Program Technical Cost Share • •
DNR Aquatic Management Area, Financial Fee Title Acquisition
Wildlife Management Area
•
DNR/Revenue Sustainable Forest Incentive Act Financial Incentive payment •
MPCA Clean Water Partnership Financial Grant •
MPCA State-Revolving Fund Financial Grant •
MPCA Surface Water Assessment Grant Financial Grant •
MDH Source Water Protection Grant Financial Grant • • •
MDA Nitrate Testing Technical Monitoring •

Section 8. Plan Administration

 109

Type of Form of
Agency Program/Fund Name
Assistance Assistance
MDA Agricultural BMP Loan Program Financial Loan • •
LSOHC Outdoor Heritage Funds Financial Grant •
LCCMR Environmental Trust Fund Financial Grant • •
Legislature Bonding Financial Bond •
FSA Conservation Reserve Program Financial Cost Share • •
FSA Grassland Reserve Program Financial Cost Share • •
FEDERAL FUNDING

NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant Financial Grant •

NRCS EQIP Financial Cost Share • •
USGS Stream Gaging Network Technical Monitoring •
USACE Planning Assistance Technical Planning •
EPA State Revolving Fund Financial Loan •
Ducks Unlimited Financial/ Easement/Cost Share
Technical
• •
OTHER FUNDING

Trout Unlimited Financial/ Easement/Cost Share

• •
Technical
Muskies, Inc Financial/ Easement/Cost Share
• •
Technical
The Nature Conservancy Financial Easement •
Minnesota Land Trust Financial Easement •

Local Funding
Funding derived from either the local property tax base or in-kind services of any personnel
funded from the local tax base is local revenue. Local funding excludes general operating
funds obtained from BWSR, fees for service and grants, or partnership agreements with the
federal government or other conservation organizations.
Local funds will be used for locally focused programs where opportunities for state and
federal funding are lacking because of misalignment of a program’s purpose with state or
federal objectives. These funds will also be used for matching grants where statutory
authority already exists. Some examples include:

Water Planning Authority for Special Projects (Minnesota Statute

103B.355):
Counties have the authority to levy funds for priority projects and assist SWCDs with
program implementation.

Section 8. Plan Administration

 110

Road Authorities:
Counties can provide limited local funding to assist with the local share of road
retention and other floodwater-retention projects.

Drainage System Costs (Minnesota Statute 103E):

Funding of all costs related to construction, maintenance, and improvement of
drainage systems is apportioned to property owners within the drainage system
based on the benefits received from the improved drainage.
A drainage authority can accept and use funds from sources other than assessments
from benefitted landowners for the purposes of flood control, wetland restoration, or
water quality improvements. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E, Section 15,
subdivision 1a requires drainage authorities to investigate the potential use of
external funding for the purposes identified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E,
Section 11, subdivision 5.

State Funding
Leadership from the state agencies that are tasked with protection and restoration of
Minnesota’s water resources came together and agreed on a set of high-level state priorities
that align their programs and activities working to reduce nonpoint source pollution. The
resulting Nonpoint Priority Funding Plan outlines a criteria-based process to prioritize Clean
Water Fund investments. These high-level state priority criteria include:
Restoring those waters that are closest to meeting state water quality standards
Protecting those high-quality unimpaired waters at the greatest risk of becoming
impaired
Restoring and protecting water resources for public use and public health, including
drinking water
State funding includes funds derived from the State tax base for state cost-share and
regulatory purposes. State funding excludes general operating funds obtained from BWSR,
counties, fees for service and grants, or partnership agreements with the federal government
or other conservation organizations.

Collaborative Grants
The fiscal agent will apply for collaborative grants on behalf of the CWRW Partnership, which
may be competitive or non-competitive. The assumption is that future base support for
implementation will be provided to the CWRW CWMP as one or more non-competitive WBIF
allocations. Where the purpose of an initiative aligns with the objectives of various state,
local, non-profit, or private programs, these dollars will be used to help fund the
implementation programs described by this plan. Funding sources that are currently
available at the time of developing this plan are listed in Table 8.4.

Section 8. Plan Administration

 111

Federal Funding
Federal funding includes all funds derived from the federal tax base. This includes programs
such as the EQIP administered by NRCS. Federal funding does not include general operating
funds obtained from BWSR, counties, fees for service and grants or partnership agreements
with state government or other conservation organizations.
Federal agencies can be engaged following the approval of this plan and prior to
implementation, to create an avenue to access federal resources for implementation.
Opportunity may exist to leverage state dollars through some form of federal cost-share
program. Where the purpose of an implementation program aligns with the objectives of
various federal agencies, federal dollars will be used to help fund the implementation
programs described by this plan. For example, the NRCS will likely provide support for
agricultural BMPs, the FSA may provide land-retirement program funds such as CRP, and the
Department of Defense Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program (REPI)
provides funding for land protection in the Camp Ripley Sentinel Landscape (Table 8.4).

Other Funding Sources

Foundations, nonprofit organizations, and private contributions (including landowners and
corporate entities) will be sought for plan implementation activities. Local foundations may
fund education, civic engagement, and other local priority efforts. Several conservation
organizations are active in the watershed, such as TNC, Lake Associations, Ducks Unlimited,
Trout Unlimited, MN Deer Hunters Association, Pheasants Forever, Sportsman’s Clubs,
National Wild Turkey Federation, Freshwater Society, CLC Ag Center, and local co-ops.
These organizations acquire funding of their own and may have project dollars and technical
assistance that can be leveraged. Major cooperators and funding sources are private
landowners who typically contribute 25% of project costs and many donate land, services, or
equipment for projects or programs.

Work Planning
This plan envisions collaborative implementation. Biennial work planning will be completed
to align the priority issues addressed, the availability of funds, and the roles and
responsibilities for implementation.

Local Work Plan

The CWRW Partnership will be responsible for completing a biennial work plan based on the
targeted implementation schedule. Adjustments to the biennial work plan will be made
through self-assessments. Then the biennial work plan will be presented to the Policy
Committee, who is ultimately responsible for its approval. The purpose of these biennial work
plans is to obtain BWSR WBIF, maintain collaborative progress towards completing the
targeted implementation schedule and reaching the outcomes prescribed in the plan.

Section 8. Plan Administration

 112

Funding Request
The CWRW Partnership will collaboratively develop, review, and submit a watershed-based
funding request from this plan. This request will be submitted to and ultimately approved by
the Policy Committee prior to submittal to BWSR. The watershed-based funding request will
be developed based on the 2025-2026 priority projects outlined in the targeted
implementation schedule and any adjustments made through self-assessments.

Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting

Accomplishment Assessment
The Steering Committee will provide the Policy Committee with an annual update on the
progress of the plan’s implementation. For example, any additional acres of land BMPs will
be tracked so that each year the Steering Committee will report how many additional acres
were managed in the watershed. A tracking system will be used to measure progress and will
serve as a platform for plan constituents and the public. Tracking these metrics will also make
them available for supporting future work plan development, progress evaluation, and
reporting.

Partnership Assessment
Biennially, the Steering Committee, with the help of the Advisory Committee, will review the
CWRW CWMP goals and progress toward implementation, including fulfillment of committee
purposes and roles, efficiencies in service delivery, collaboration with other units of
government, and success in securing funding. During this review process, feedback will be
solicited from the boards, Policy Committee, Citizen Committee, and partners such as state
agencies and non-governmental organizations. This feedback will be presented to the Policy
Committee to set the coming biennium’s priorities for achieving the plan’s goals and to
decide on the direction for grant submittals. Also, this feedback will be documented and
incorporated into the 5-year evaluation. The CWRW Partnership intends to pursue
watershed-based funding to meet goals and plan implementation schedules.

Mid-Point Evaluation
Beginning in 2025, this plan will be in effect for 10 years. Over the course of the plan’s life
cycle, progress toward reaching goals and completing the implementation schedule may
vary. New issues may emerge as the plan progresses, and/or new monitoring data, models,
or research may become available. Therefore, in 2030-2031, a mid-point evaluation will be
undertaken to determine if the current course of actions is sufficient to reach the goals of the
plan, or if a change in the course of actions is necessary. At the 10-year mark, and every 5
years after, the plan will be fully re-evaluated.

Section 8. Plan Administration

 113

Reporting
LGUs have several annual reporting requirements. Some of these reporting requirements will
remain a responsibility of the LGUs. Reporting related to grants and programs developed
collaboratively and administered under this plan will be reported by the plan’s fiscal agent
(Table 8.1). In addition to annual reporting, the CWRW Partnership will also develop a
biennial Watershed Report to present to the Policy Committee. This report will document
progress toward reaching goals and completing the targeted implementation schedule and
will describe any new emerging issues of priorities. The information needed to biennially
update the Watershed Report will be developed through the annual evaluation process.
The fiscal agent is responsible for submitting all required reports and completing annual
reporting requirements for CWRW Partnership as required by state law and policy. The
Steering Committee will assist in developing the required reports and roles and
responsibilities will be defined in the MOA Bylaws.

Plan Amendments
The CWRW CWMP is effective through 2035 per the BWSR Order approving it. Activities
described in this plan are voluntary, not prescriptive, and are meant to allow flexibility in
implementation. An amendment will not be required for addition, substitution, or deletion of
any of the actions, initiatives, and projects if those changes will still produce outcomes that
are consistent with achieving the plan goals. This provision for flexibility includes changes to
the activities except for those of capital improvement projects.
During the time this plan is in effect, it is likely that new data giving a better understanding of
watershed issues and solutions will be generated. Administrative authorities, state policies,
and resource concerns may also change. New information; significant changes to the
projects, programs, or funding in the plan; or the potential impact of emerging concerns and
issues may require activities to be added to the plan. If revisions are required or requested,
the Policy Committee will initiate a plan amendment process consistent with Minnesota
Statute 103B.314, Subd. 6.

Formal Agreements
The CWRW Partnership is a coalition of Cass SWCD, Cass County, Crow Wing SWCD, Crow
Wing County, Becker SWCD, Becker County, Hubbard SWCD, Hubbard County, Wadena
SWCD, Wadena County, Todd SWCD, and Todd County (Figure 8.1). The Policy Committee
previously entered into a MOA for planning the 1W1P for the CWRW (Appendix H). The
entities will enter into a joint powers collaboration implemented through a memorandum of
agreement for purposes of implementing this plan. The Policy Committee is advisory to the
individual county and SWCD boards under the umbrella of the MOA.

Section 8. Plan Administration