923 North State Street, Suite 170 Richard Perrine

This page is intentionally left blank.

Quality water resources are important to Martin County and the State of Minnesota. Martin County is blessed to have abundant water resources above what is typical for a southern Minnesota county. The County feels it is important, and has made it a priority, to protect those resources to maintain and enhance the quality of life, productivity of agriculture, recreation and business climate it now enjoys.

This is the third edition of the Martin County Water Plan. The first edition was adopted in 1989 and revised to the current ten year plan in 1995. This 2006 plan takes another step in advancing water resource protection in the county. Over the last ten years there has been an extensive amount of accomplishments driven by the last Water Plan. Richard Perrine, Water Plan Coordinator, has summarized these accomplishments on page 8 of this plan. This plan takes the next step in that progression.

The 2006 to 2016 Martin County Local Water Plan was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Local Water Management Act: Minnesota Statute 103B.

During 2005, Martin County Local Water Management Committee developed a Priority Concern Scoping Document in accordance with the changes to the Comprehensive Local Water Management Act; Statutes 103B.304 – 103B.355. This scoping document identified and listed the priority water resource concerns that would be addressed in the next Martin County Comprehensive Local Water Plan document. A copy of the Priority Concern Scoping Document is in the Appendix of this document. The list of identified priority concerns, not in any priority order, include:

• Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads [TMDL]
• Drainage System Management
• Promote the use of Best Management Practices [BMP’s]
• Wetland Protection and Restoration
• Water Quality in Area Lakes
• Promote Low Impact Development
• Groundwater

Martin County Water Plan has had a focus on groundwater quality and quantity in the past. In the process of preparing the Scoping Document, Groundwater was not identified as a priority issue. This is probably due to local, state and national efforts focused on impaired [surface] waters. Because of this strong history, it was felt by the Water Plan Advisory Committee to include assessment, goals and objectives for groundwater as an additional priority concern and is included as part of this plan in order to maintain continuity and recognize the importance of this issue to the county.

This Martin County Water Plan is designed to address the water resource issues within the county. It is intended to be progressive and forward thinking in order to improve the quality of life for area residents. The County Commissioners have been supportive of the Water Plan and intend to continue their support. The implementation plan indicates an annual need of approximately twice what is currently being spent in the county for all water resource related work. The goals/ objectives outlined in this plan should be considered when shaping ordinances, programs and planning documents within the -county. The need to address agricultural nonpoint source pollution in order to meet TMDL goals will be the counties biggest challenge during this ten year plan.

The goals, objectives and actions identified in this plan address ongoing efforts by a variety of county and city departments and they include new goals that will require the county and cities to stretch and grow their current programming. All activities identified are voluntary. Some activities will require the county to acquire incentive funds to encourage landowner participation. The county has been successful in the past in securing a significant amount of incentive dollars and they need to continue to apply for additional funds and work with multiple partners as opportunities arise. Implementation dollars and in-kind contributions from all partners will be needed to accomplish plan objectives, goals and action items. Grant writing has become a necessity, as grants continue to provide funding for a larger portion of the specific projects needed to implement conservation needs. This plan was developed to give Martin County an advantage when applying for financial resources to benefit the county in the natural resources area.

As stated earlier, addressing agricultural nonpoint source pollution will be the biggest challenge facing the county during the next decade. Because the county has highly productive soils there is intense row crop and livestock farming with an extensive drainage infrastructure. Martin County has 98% of its tillable acres in annual row crops. The challenge is to adequately address the environmental concerns while retaining the integrity of production agriculture.

The authors have taken one step in this direction by putting definition to precision conservation. Precision conservation is a term that was adopted to mean higher level BMP’s that are applied to strategically targeted environmentally sensitive areas. In Martin County it is estimated that this is 5 to 10% of the county. Within the BMP priority section these are further defined with the goal being 100% of these areas having precision conservation applied by the end of the plan. It will advance the county in meeting their water quality goals significantly, if it can be done.

Below is a summary of the anticipated annual cost to implement this water plan to its fullest. This assumes adequate staffing and funding to implement all of the action items.

The 2006 – 2016 Martin County Local Water Plan is consistent with local, state and federal rules and regulations.

The Martin County Local Water Plan is a document that outlines voluntary participation in programs that are meant to maintain and better our water resources. The following items are suggested changes to other plans.

• Request the City of Fairmont to develop a Source Water Protection Plan by 2011.
• Expand the Martin County Conserving Acres Program to include riparian buffers.
• Develop and integrate policies on Low Impact Development into city and county ordinances.
• Develop a permit system for removal of any tree within 200 feet of surface water.
• Strengthen existing and encourage the organization of new lake associations for all developed lakes.
• Develop lake shore policies for non-developed lakes.
• Enforce the 16.5’ maintenance strip along all public drainage ditches.

During the 10 years prior to 2006 the Martin County Water Plan accomplished many things to benefit the residents of the county and region. Martin County prides itself on being a leader on water resource issues at the local, regional and state levels. This leadership position has put the county in a position to receive extra funding for a variety of initiatives that meet the goals of the Comprehensive Local Water Plan, Martin County and Martin SWCD.

If the actions of this new plan are to be carried out, it is important for the county to have adequate staff time to properly address the issues identified in this plan. Through cooperation with local, state and federal partners, the county can provide a base level of staffing. It will take additional funding, from a wide variety of sources, to implement all of the needed changes in the timeframe provided. In addition, the cooperation of the landowners is of primary importance as all items in this plan are voluntary – not regulatory, in nature.

County departments involved in water planning activities and programs that support and facilitate Local Water Management Plan implementation include:

• Martin SWCD (County Water Planning, Wetland Conservation Act)

• Prairieland Solid Waste
• Planning and Zoning (Shoreland, Feedlots, Septic Systems)
• U of M Extension
• Highway Department
• Drainage Administration
• County Coordinator

During the ten year period [1996 to 2005] of the previous water plan, the following accomplishments have been achieved in the county by Martin County and Martin SWCD in collaboration with many partnering agencies.

• General Signup CRP – 1,632 Acres
• Continuous CRP – 5,306.8 Acres

• Total CRP 6,939.00 Acres

Included in the totals above, the CP-23 Wetland Restoration Practice was installed on 92 contracts for 3,010.9 acres. The majority of these are CREP. Although the CRP contract has started, approximately 15 of these wetlands are either in the process of being restored or scheduled to be restored in 2006.

Also included in the CRP totals above, the CP-21 Filter Strip practice was installed on 165 contracts for 1,486.9 acres. Using an average of 120 feet in width, approximately 102.2 miles of filter strips were installed along ditches, creeks, wetlands and lakes.

• CWP Alternative Easements and EPA 3^rd Crop Easements: 21 Contracts for 163.23 acres
• Tile intake alternatives installed: 36 rock intakes, 1 intake removed
• BERBI Living Snow-fences: 2 snow-fences on 4.0 acres, 2960 feet
• BERBI Tile Intake Buffers: 8 expired, 4 still under contract on 3.1 acres
• Feedlot Challenge Grant Windbreaks: 5 Contracts on 7.1 acres
• BERBI Nutrient Management: 2 contracts on 600 acres
• Water Plan – Special 2002 Well Sealing Cost share: 25 Wells
• State Cost Share, FY 1996 through FY 2005: 23 Grassed Waterways; 35 Abandoned Wells Sealed; 1 Critical Area Planting; 1 Shoreland Protection; 3 Diversions; 3 Grade Stabilization Structures; 5 Ag Waste systems; 2 Streambank Stabilization Projects; 36 Shelterbelts; 3 Field Windbreaks.
• 96 acres enrolled in RIM-WRP [Wetland Restoration]
• 77.9 acres are enrolled in RIM Wetland Restorations [Total of 298.9 acres are enrolled in RIM Wetland Restorations]
• 2004 Conservation Security Program -- 35,024 acres 75 Contracts
• 2005 Conservation Security Program – 42,009 acres 102 Contracts
• 2006 Conservation Security Program -- 54,740 acres 102 Contracts
• Conducted an extensive feedlot inventory in 1998
• Developed a feedlot inspection program on a five year rotation
• Processed 250 loans for upgrading septic systems
• Digitized feedlot locations and manure acres
• Adopted new Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 2003
• Added a Ditch Administrator Position
• Numerous Education and Outreach Activities

Partnering

• NRCS, FSA, USFWS, USCOE, USGS [Federal Agencies]
• BWSR, MDA, PCA, DNR, EQB [State Agencies]
• 13 County South Central Minnesota Comprehensive Local Water Planning Group
• Greater Blue Earth River Basin Alliance [GBERBA]
• Blue Earth River Basin Initiative [BERBI]
• University of Minnesota
• Minnesota State University - Mankato
• Three Rivers Resource Conservation and Development
• Minnesota River Board
• Area VI MASWCD
• South Central Technical Area
• Region Nine Development Commission
• Southwest Solid Waste Administers Association
• Prairieland Compost Facility
• Prairieland Household Hazardous Waste Facility and Mobile Collection
• Mankato Regional Household Hazardous Waste Facility
• Lily and Center Creek Clean Water Partnership
• Watonwan River Clean Water Partnership
• Blue Earth River Clean Water Partnership
• Okamanpeedan Lake Watershed Project
• Upper Des Moines River Watershed Project
• Red Rock Rural Water
• Elm Creek 3^rd Crop Monitoring with the University of Minnesota
• Fox Lake Conservation League
• Martin County Conservation Club
• Trimont Conservation Club
• Pheasant’s Forever
• Duck’s Unlimited
• Fairmont Lakes Foundation
• South Silver Lake Association
• Fox Lake Association
• Minnesota Waterfowl Association
• Turkey Hunters
• Fairmont Trap & Skeet Club
• Elm Creek Whitetails/ MN Deer Hunters Association
• East Chain Sportsman Club
• Truman Trap Club
• Bass Seekers
• Dutch Creek Archers
• Fairmont Economic Development
• Visitors and Convention Bureau
• Fairmont Economic Development
• East Fork Alliance
• Conservation Marketplace of Minnesota
• Rural Advantage
• Prairie Enthusiasts
• Greater Blue Earth Cooperative Weed Management Area
• Martin County Townships and Cities

The advancement of the TMDL initiative in Minnesota has accelerated the importance of addressing local water quality impairments. The list of impaired waters continues to grow as more water bodies are monitored and reported. The county should prioritize local initiative efforts toward these reaches with a goal of having the reaches delisted.

A water body is "impaired" or polluted if it fails to meet one or more of the federal Clean Water Act’s water-quality standards. Federal standards exist for basic pollutants such as sediment, bacteria, nutrients and mercury. The Clean Water Act requires the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to identify and restore impaired waters.

The primary tool for addressing impaired waters is a pollution reduction plan called a Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant a water body can receive without violating water quality standards. The TMDL process identifies all sources of the pollutant and determines how much each source must reduce its contribution in order to meet the quality standard. The sum of all contributions must be less than the maximum daily load. The source reduction strategies form the basis of an implementation plan. Implementation begins once the EPA approves a completed TMDL.

In Martin County there are 17 waters, with 32 impairments, listed on the Pollution Control Agency Impaired Waters [303d] List proposed for 2006. Below is a summary of the listed reaches and their associated impairment.

* Additions proposed for the 2006 list.

In addition, a copy of the "Blue Earth River Watershed TMDL Project - Elm and Center Creek – Final Report" that was completed by BERBI in 2003 is attached. This report is representative of an early effort of a TMDL project in Martin County. The document includes an implementation plan to address TMDL’s in both Elm Creek and Center Creek watersheds.

The detriment to water quality seems to be fairly consistent from one watershed to another within the county. This probably is reflective of the fact that land use is consistent across the county. Sediment and nutrient coming from both the agricultural and the urban setting have contributed to the degradation of our surface waters.

Sediment contributions coming from agricultural land varies with the crop, slope, intensity of the rain event, soil type, proximity to surface water or a tile inlet and tillage practices. Other sources of sediment are stream channels and stream banks, construction sites, roadways and stormwater outlets. Martin County has a significant amount of wind erosion occurring which contributes sediment and phosphorous to surface waters.

Goal 1: To improve the quality of TMDL listed waters in Martin County to a level that allows them to be delisted.

Objective 1: Provide annually at least six efforts for education and outreach to county residents about impaired waters and TMDL’s and their potential impact to Martin County.

Action Items:               A. Develop outreach materials and disseminate information related to impaired waters. Utilize a variety of methods for delivery that includes radio, meetings, mailings, news articles, fair display, field days, tours and the Conservation Update.

          B. Integrate these issues into other outreach efforts as appropriate.

C. Collaborate with stakeholders; local, state and federal agencies; and other partners on monitoring, assessment and implementation efforts.

D. Develop an aggressive strategy to address the impaired waters for delisting.

E. Support legislation to provide additional funding, including to the local level, to implement practices that improve impaired waters.

          F. Work with the PCA and others to have improved waters delisted.

Objective 2: From the TMDL listed waters, annually prioritize them for water quality improvement efforts and funding.

Action Items:              A. Monitor selected watersheds for water quality contaminants.

                                       B. Involve landowners, local stakeholders, agency staff and interested others in the           process.

Objective 3: To identify areas that could be used as temporary water storage areas to slow down the surface water as it moves off the landscape.

Action Items:              A. Educate landowners on the need for temporary water storage and the

associated problems caused by accelerating the movement of water off the landscape.

B. Establish at least one demonstration area showing the impact to water quality by stabilizing the hydrograph of the stream.

                                        C. Secure incentive money for landowners to establish water storage areas on their land. These do not have to be wetland restorations, but can be areas that hold water for 12 hours or more.

                                        D. Retain the integrity of agricultural drainage in the design.

E. Provide one-on-one technical assistance to 25 landowners annually on this topic.

F. Utilize the RIM/WRP, RIM Riparian, Native Buffer Cost-Share and other programs to implement effective practices.

Objective 4: Recognize open ditch and tile lines as being an integral part of the hydrologic system with natural streams, lakes and wetlands.

Action Items: A. Educate residents annually as to the impact surface water in open drainage ditches has on downstream water quality and quantity.

                         B. Examine the pro's and con's of having these waters, and other surface waters currently not on the protected waters list, regulated similar to protected waters.

                         C. Establish a demonstration area to show potential impacts.

                         D. If it shows to be a public benefit, adapt across the county as a local ordinance.

Objective 5: Partner with the City of Fairmont to implement their Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan and Source Water Protection Plan.

Action Item: A. Assist the City of

    Fairmont to secure funding to implement watershed, lake and lakeshore

    conservation practices, including the Dutch Creek water storage project .

                       B. Educate landowners within that area of the impacts to drinking water their actions may have.

                       C. Identify potential water quality problems within the watershed.

                       D. Work with the landowners to mitigate the problem if feasible.

Objective 6: Continue to upgrade septic systems through property transfers, new housing construction and complaints. Focus on disconnecting systems found to be connected to a drainage tile line. This is anticipated to be 25 Imminent Public Health Threat systems that would be either upgraded on site, or connected to a Wastewater Treatment Facility per year.

Action Items:               A. Enforce the Minnesota Rules 7080.

B. Annually provide education to homeowners and contractors on the impact to water quality and to human health from septic systems hooked to tile lines and outlet into surface water.

                                        C. When it is identified that a septic system is hooked to a tile line the owner of the septic should have it disconnected and a conforming system installed within 10 months.

Objective 7: To prevent open tile intakes from being a path for contaminants to enter surface water. (Support research to develop additional intake replacement designs.)

Action Items: A. Educate landowners about the potential impact to water quality from open tile intakes.

                          B. Work with landowners to alter at least 25 open tile intakes per year by utilizing alternative intakes, vegetative buffers or removal techniques.

                         C. Educate landowners about viable, cost-effective alternatives.

                         D. Encourage landowners to install vegetative buffers around them to filter sediment, nutrients and chemicals.

                         E. Encourage landowners to remove them and add additional

    tile below ground or use another effective alternative.

                         F. Secure financial incentives, possibly cost-share, to encourage buffers.

                        G. Establish demonstration areas to show the benefits to water quality.

Objective 8: Address the implementation goals as stated for TMDL listed waters. Develop and utilize partnerships to address TMDLs by watershed.

1. Implement practices under TMDL plans as they are approved.
   1. Blue Earth River Turbidity TMDL
   2. Blue Earth River Fecal Coliform TMDL
   3. Lake Okamanpeedan Algae and Turbidity TMDL
2. Develop TMDL plans for listed waters.
3. As TMDL plans are approved for Martin County waters, they shall be attached to the Martin County Water Plan and become a part of the Implementation Plan.

The county has a history of extensive drainage to make the land productive for agriculture that dates back to at least the 1880’s. Prior to 1900 about one third of the county was slough/wetland type area. The main impact of this drainage effort occurred prior to the 1930's. Drainage systems put in place since the thirties are mainly improvements and expansions to existing systems. Over the years these ditches have been repaired and maintained pretty much as needed. Because of this the need for major repairs has been limited.

The drainage infrastructure has increased the speed at which surface water leaves the landscape and drains to our natural rivers and streams. This increased flow has accelerated movement of sediment and pollutants into our streams and has caused the hydrograph of the stream to rise quickly and then fall rather than rise at a slower and more stable rate.

A "keeping the raindrop where it falls" mentality on the row crop acres and urban areas could significantly reduce sediment and nutrient losses from nonpoint source pollution. Utilizing conservation tillage methods, precision conservation and improved soil health can assist in keeping that "raindrop" up on the landscape so it can percolate into the soil rather than runoff.

Small water storage areas could be located in areas with low agricultural productivity that would hold water temporarily [72 hours or less] to assist in slowing down the flow of the runoff, allow denitrification, and to stabilize the hydrograph of rivers and streams. This would result in significantly less sediment and pollutants reaching our streams and rivers. It also would reduce the amount of erosion occurring along stream banks due to less velocity in the stream flow. Retaining the integrity of the agricultural drainage systems that are in place would need to be preserved if landowner cooperation is expected.

Landowners who set land aside to provide water storage that benefits a public drainage system, should be compensated for their contribution to the system. Their assessment of benefits should be adjusted to reflect the value of that contribution.

Insufficient quantities of surface water have not been a problem to any proposed land use in the past, and it is not envisioned to present a problem in the future.

There are at least 120 miles of open drainage ditches within Martin County. These open ditches are part of a total drainage picture that has literally millions of feet of tile lines - much of it private. There are over 200 public drainage systems within the county. The Board of Commissioners added a Drainage Administrator position in the county and plan to add a Ditch Inspector, to ensure ditch projects are completed in a timely manner and utilize the correct process. Public drainage systems are privately owned by the determined benefited landowners on the drainage system. The amount spent on maintenance of Martin County’s drainage systems in 2005 was approximately $400,000.

The Martin County Board of Commissioners [Ditch Authorities] have become regional leaders in systematically identifying ditch systems needing maintenance and then they work with the landowners to have the ditch benefits re-determined. This provides an opportunity to evaluate the drainage system and identify lands contributing to the system. Since many systems were established fifty or more years ago, this process brings the system up to date and provides a truer picture of what is happening hydrologically on the landscape. The process also results in a one rod buffer being required along open ditches, if it is not already required.

The trend in drainage is to install pattern tile in the flatter fields where the existing tile is not adequate. While tiling occurs, it is not necessarily draining wetlands. There are several agencies that regulate wetlands in Minnesota and it would be a violation of at least one of these laws to drain or fill a wetland. The penalties are high, especially for agricultural producers who would loose all their USDA Federal Farm Program benefits.

Each public ditch system in Martin County has an engineer's report on file at the Drainage office and at the regional DNR office. These would have to be analyzed individually to really determine the impact any system would have on specific basins, wetland areas or protected waters. Most of the ditches and tile systems were in place prior to the designation of protected waters. Information on water quality or quantity would be addressed, as necessary, in each of the engineer’s reports for that ditch. Generally speaking, water quality problems stem from sedimentation, fertilizer and chemical runoff, contaminants entering through tile lines and feedlot run off.

A significant action that will lessen the water pollution effects of ditches is the maintenance of effective buffer strips on each side of the ditches to prevent erosion. . In many cases the slope along the ditch is away from the ditch or water. Water then travels along the ditch and at a low spot enters a side inlet. This side inlet would also need to be buffered. Of the 27.75 miles required to maintain a 16.5 ft. strip, only 12.05 miles have adequate buffers on both sides. Enforcement of this is the responsibility of the Drainage Authority.

Objective 1: To continue to fund and staff the Martin County Drainage Administration office.

Action Items: A. To provide administrative continuity to public drainage projects in the county.

1. To assist the Ditch Authorities [County Commissioners] on public drainage activities.
2. Martin SWCD provides technical assistance to the Ditch Administrator and County Commissioners on ditch issues as requested.

Objective 2: Encourage landowners to use a qualified contractor to install or maintain their drainage system to ensure that agricultural drainage systems are properly installed and maintained.

Action Item: A. Provide education to landowners about the impact to water quality from poor or improper construction.

                        B. Ensure all regulations are followed.

                        C. Encourage use of NRCS’ standards for design and construction.

                        D. Encourage the adoption of new drainage technologies.

Objective 3: Encourage landowners to have a perennial vegetative strip along all open drainage ditches.

Action Items: A. Provide education annually to landowners about the benefits to water quality, wildlife, life and safety.

B. Provide information at least two times a year on buffer designs appropriate for water quality protection.

C. Encourage the use of local ecotype native plant species with extensive root systems for bank stabilization.

D. Increase buffers along open drainage ditches by at least 10 miles [both sides] per year.

                                        E. Allow the Conserving Acres program to apply to these strips.

                                        F. Encourage species that will reduce the amount of sediment being moved by wind erosion.

                                        G. Require the one rod vegetative strip on all open ditches that are new, improved or have had benefits re-determined since May, 1977.

                                        H. Ditch Authorities enforce the requirement in their area.

Objective 4: To continue enhancement of and sharing Martin County’s drainage leadership activities and initiatives with the rest of the state.

Action Items: A. Participate in at least three information sharing events per year.

B. Inventory public drainage systems for condition and potential problem areas.

C. Continue to be progressive at re-determining benefits.

1. Promote the establishment of vegetative buffers along all open ditch channels.
2. Demonstrate innovative drainage concepts including a controlled drainage site.
3. Demonstrate water storage concepts, within existing drainage systems, to improve drainage.
4. When reviewing drainage systems for maintenance, improvement or re-determining benefits consider opportunities for innovative solutions that provide a positive cost/benefit ratio such as water storage, wetland restoration or alternative crops.

Objective 5: Develop one demonstration site to illustrate water storage principles and how areas may be incorporated into an existing drainage system watershed to assist in reducing some of the water flow problems associated with deteriorating infrastructure.

Action Items: A. Identify possible system[s] to study.

                          B. Involve the landowners.

                          C. Work with GBERBA and other partners to secure funding.

                          D. Examine the watershed for potential sites for water storage areas or wetland restoration. The idea would be to reduce the load on the system immediately following a storm event.

Martin County soils being mostly loams are very productive agriculturally.  Because such a high percentage of the land is intensively cultivated we are presented with some unique land resource problems.  A major portion of the land is in a corn-soybean rotation.  Thus this usually results in insufficient crop residue cover to control erosion by wind and water especially following soybeans.  Also on steeper land, the sloping areas are not uniform but erratic, making cropland difficult to contour.  This is especially true because of the use of large equipment on Martin County farms.

Because Martin County land is productive agriculturally, intensive use results.  Agricultural use has pre-empted the land from other productive uses such as woodland, prairie and wildlife land.  Many farmstead shelterbelts are old and inefficient and would benefit from renovation.  Lack of diversity and small numbers of wildlife are directly related to the need for more woody and prairie wildlife habitat in the county. 

In agricultural areas, erosion and sedimentation are recognized as significant non-point source pollution factors. Martin County farmers are aware of the polluting effects of sedimentation and also of the need to meet the requirements of the Federal Food and Security Act [Federal Farm Bill]. Currently there are approximately 10,000 acres of highly erodible land in 300 fields identified throughout the county. These areas are indentified on the Water Erodible Soils Map on page 56.

Ninety five percent of the land in Martin County is in annual row crop production. The impact this has on water quality can be seen when we look at the turbidity of the water in our lakes, streams or rivers due to sedimentation and algal growth due to eutrophication. Landowners should explore taking their most vulnerable [polluting] acres and converting them to non row crop annuals, such as small grains or cover crops, short term perennials or long term perennials instead of annual row crop. There are several voluntary programs available to enhance landowners efforts including cost share, EQIP, CRP, CREP and CSP.

During the next several years a high percentage of the CRP acres in the county will have their current contracts expire. A priority effort should be made to re-enroll or retain their non row crop use. Land enrolled in CRP needed to be environmentally sensitive to qualify for the program initially. The following chart indicates the number of contracts and the amount of acres affected in Martin County.

Agricultural best management practices [BMP’s] should be applied to all agricultural land in the county. Examples include residue management, conservation tillage, nutrient management, conservation crop rotations and vegetated buffers. These BMP’s

should be adequate on < 2% slope lands and 2% to 6% slope lands that are greater than 200 feet from surface water. Landowners should adopt appropriate BMP’s to control sheet, rill and ephemeral erosion. In addition, areas with seasonal and intermittent streams, that are directly impacting a water body, need to be vegetated with perennial plants.

Precision conservation is a term that was adopted to mean higher level BMP’s that are applied to strategically targeted environmentally sensitive areas. In order to meet local, regional and state water quality goals, within the timeline expected in the TMDL process, agricultural producers will need to go beyond what has been done in the past and take their conservation efforts to a higher level to effectively address agricultural nonpoint source pollution on agricultural lands in Martin County and beyond. Precision Conservation practices should be applied in combination with traditional BMP’s across the county.

Agriculture can acknowledge responsibilities for its greenhouse gas emissions and recognize its mitigation role. Urbanized landscapes share in the responsibility. Utilizing a multi-functional planning approach can result in the installation of climate friendly BMPs.

In an effort to define environmentally sensitive areas take into consideration the following landscape characteristics:

1. Steeper slopes
2. Droughty soils
3. Areas with concentrated overland flow
4. Close proximity to surface waters
5. Size of contributing watershed area
6. Seasonal and intermittent streams
7. Cropping system
8. Floodplain areas
9. Within 30 feet of an open tile intake
10. Poorly drained soils
11. Drown out spots

If your land has any of these characteristics, use the following precision conservation practices, appropriate to the site, in combination with conservation tillage, residue management, conservation crop rotations and other BMP’s that may apply.

• On 2% to 6% [B] slopes within 200 feet of surface water use:
  • Waterways for concentrated overland flow
  • Terraces
  • Cover crops
  • Higher levels of residue management
  • Contour farming systems
  • Perennial cropping systems
  • Sediment control basins
  • Filter strips of perennial vegetation utilizing local ecotype native plants
  • Water storage

• On 6% to 12% [C] slopes located anywhere use:

• Waterways for concentrated overland flow
• Terraces
• Cover crops
• Higher levels of residue management
• Contour farming systems
• Perennial cropping systems
• Sediment control basins
• Filter strips of perennial vegetation utilizing local ecotype native plants
• Adjacent to surface waters establish filter strips of appropriate width for the size of the contributing watershed area

• On 12% to 18% [D] slopes located anywhere use:

• No Till
• Perennial cropping systems
• Critical area plantings

• On 18 to 25% [E] slopes and 18% to 40% [F] slopes located anywhere use:

• Pasture
• Long term perennial cropping systems
• Wildlife habitat

Across the county it is estimated this would equate to 5 or 10 % of the landscape. These areas should be ‘working lands’ that provide economic return back to the farm family, active management and ecological services back to society, instead of ‘retired’ land.

In addition, farmers are encouraged to use conservation tillage methods to reduce soil erosion. Farmers with highly erodible land have been notified by the NRCS and they have provided a conservation compliance plan according to the Federal Food and Security Act [Federal Farm Bill] if they wish to receive USDA benefits.

Sediment is a pollutant in itself, but it also is a carrier of pollutants. Pollutants such as phosphorous, pesticides, heavy metals [such as mercury], toxins and nitrogen attach to clay particles in the soil as they are applied. As soil erosion occurs and the sediment moves, it carries with it the attached pollutants. In many cases, if we can stop or reduce the movement of sediment, we are also stopping the movement of other pollutants. Practices to reduce sediment movement into surface water should be encouraged for both urban and rural landowners.

One major water quality issue is phosphorous. Elevated levels of phosphorous in surface waters lead to excessive algal growth. As more algae grows, it utilizes the oxygen in the water and the increased growth results in reduced water clarity. Phosphorous is the limiting factor for algal growth in freshwater aquatic systems.

Nitrogen is also a surface water concern for Martin County. Elevated nitrogen levels can pose a health risk if the water is being used for drinking water. The City of Fairmont uses surface water as its drinking water source and the City of Mankato, located at the mouth of the Blue Earth River, has a Ramey well which draws water from 40 feet below the Blue Earth River. Basically, they are drinking water from the Blue Earth River. Water sampling on the Blue Earth River has indicated nitrate levels at 20 ppm or twice the drinking water standard especially during the spring [high runoff] season.

Nitrogen also has an impact on aquatic life in the streams and lakes. The ammonia form of nitrogen is toxic to aquatic life. Reducing the nitrogen entering our surface water will help to improve the numbers of aquatic plants and animals that live in our streams and lakes.

Hypoxia [low oxygen] conditions are present at the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi River discharges into the gulf. There is a 5 – 8,000 square mile ‘dead zone’ in the gulf where marine life has been impaired to the point where it can no longer survive. The Hypoxia Task Force has identified intense row crop areas, such as the Blue Earth watershed, as a major contributor of nitrogen to the hypoxia problem in the Gulf. Nitrogen ‘leaking’ into tile and surface waters has been shown to contribute significantly to the hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico. In marine water systems, nitrogen is the limiting factor for aquatic plant growth; whereas in freshwater systems the limiting factor is phosphorous.

Fine tuning the management of fertilizers and manures being applied to our agricultural lands to reduce nutrient leaching and runoff will reduce the amount of nutrient getting into surface waters. Increasing carbon levels in the soil by sequestering additional carbon can greatly improve soil health. Quality soil health will result in less nutrient leeching, increased productivity and crop quality, and less erosion. Agricultural producers who adopt practices resulting in higher soil quality will benefit from the result economically and ecologically.

The urban sector also has to get involved and use proper rates and application methods in applying fertilizers to their lawns and properly handling their yard wastes. Effluent from municipal sewage treatment systems also has to be properly managed to reduce nutrient inputs to surface waters.

Bacteria contributions to surface waters are from three main sources: individual sewage treatment systems with a direct connection to the surface; mismanaged manure application, storage or handling; and natural sources. Identifying coliform bacteria in surface water indicates a potential health risk is present. Coliform bacteria is an ‘indicator’ bacteria for other, more toxic, bacteria. The State of Minnesota has established a level of 200 colonies coliform bacteria per 100 ml as the water quality limit. The State is currently examining the bacteria water quality standard. Considerations are being given to using an e-coli bacteria standard instead of coliform bacteria. Since e-coli bacteria is an actual health risk this may make more sense. Reducing the bacteria amount is the only thing that will make our waters ‘swimmable’.

Implementing programs to get individual sewage treatment systems in compliance with state law will reduce the level of bacteria in our streams, lakes and wetlands. It is estimated that over 7 % of the individual sewage systems in Martin County are permitted. The county has had several programs, such as the County Loan Program, Pleasant Prairie Project, Clean Water Partnerships and the MDA State Revolving Loan program, to provide assistance to landowners for upgrading. Efforts need to continue to find financial assistance to address this problem as the cost for each system in the county continues to rise. The Lake Belt Project is an example of ongoing work, as low income eligibility continues to be reviewed and adjusted. Priorities include areas that impact recreational waters due to the health risk associated with failing systems. Strong educational programs must accompany any financial offerings.

Manure management plans are required for feedlots of 50 or more animal units and manure application acres are digitized. Proper application, storage and handling of manure by all farmers will ensure protection of our surface waters from bacterial organisms from livestock. Education and technical assistance needs to continue to be provided so farmers can continue to improve their own management skills. These educational efforts need to include the resulting impact to surface waters if manure is not properly handled. The county needs to ensure that the permitting process is completed, sites are inspected prior to issuing a permit and violations are identified and corrected. Farmers need to follow BMPs when applying manure to ensure excess manure does not runoff into surface waters and that phosphorous levels in the soil do not build up excessively.

Most of the natural streams, lakes and wetlands in the county are listed as protected waters on the DNR Protected Waters list. Many first order drainage ditches and streams as well as smaller wetland areas do not qualify as protected waters.. The problem is that all of these systems are connected hydrologically. Any potential negative impact to them will impact the water in a Protected Water. Therefore, the county, and the state, needs to explore the possibility of applying more protection to these areas as well.

In an effort to encourage more protection for eroding lands adjoining surface water, the county should consider utilizing the County Conserving Acres program, CRP, CREP, CSP or other opportunities to promote buffers that protect water quality. This could include drainage ditch buffers along with riparian buffers of either trees or permanent grass. Drainage ditch buffers required as part of the drainage law should not be eligible for additional payment.

In Martin County wind erosion is also a factor in contributions of sediment to surface water. Wind erosion occurs across the county where there is not adequate protection in the row crop areas. In 1980 a program was developed in the county for encouraging landowners to provide protection from wind erosion. This program, called Conserving Acres, allows landowners who have planted a field windbreak to have one rod [16.5 feet] on each side assessed at a lower rate [$200] per acre. This would apply as long as the windbreak remained in the field.

Martin County maintains an inventory of permitted feedlots. The majority are swine operations of a variety of sizes. There is some water quality monitoring required for feedlots either by Martin County or the State. Several educational programs are available each year to producers focusing on the proper management, handling and application of livestock manure. The local Pork Producer group in conjunction with the state and national groups, have been leaders in developing specialized programs for the swine industry addressing environmental issues.

Martin County has accepted the regulatory authority for the feedlot program from PCA and efforts are being made to identify the polluting feedlots [if any] and to work with the owner to get the problem corrected. The County has established an inspection program that provides that each feedlot is inspected at least every four years. Feedlots, and manure, that are properly managed are not water quality concerns. Within the county there are mostly pits located under the building rather than earthen basins or lagoons. With the subsoil's we have, the potential for spills or leakage from manure storage areas getting to ground or surface waters is very limited.

Action Items: A. Encourage all agricultural producers to utilize a cropping system that promotes healthy soils, higher quality produce, and less environmental impact at least six times per year.

1. Promote using a three to five crop rotation to improve soil health on lands currently in annual tillage at least six times per year.
2. Incorporate perennials into the cropping system to build soil health.
3. On a monthly basis, promote the use of agricultural and urban BMP’s.
4. Promote these lands as ‘working lands’ [versus land retirement].

Objective 2: Agricultural best management practices [BMP’s] should be applied to all agricultural land in the county. Examples include residue management, conservation tillage, nutrient management, conservation crop rotations and vegetated buffers. These BMP’s should be adequate on < 2% slope lands and 2% to 6% slope lands that are greater than 200 feet from surface water. Landowners should adopt appropriate BMP’s to control sheet, rill and ephemeral erosion. In addition, areas with seasonal and intermittent streams, that are directly impacting a water body, need to be vegetated with perennial plants.

Action Items: A. Promote to agricultural landowners at least 12 times per year.

Objective 3: Achieve voluntary adoption of precision conservation on 100% of the environmentally sensitive acres in the county. Encourage practices that provide Ecosystem Services resulting in multiple benefits when selecting practices to treat sensitive area issues.

Action Items: A. When determining environmentally sensitive areas consider the following landscape characteristics:

1. Steeper Slopes
2. Droughty soils
3. Areas with concentrated overland flow
4. Close proximity to surface waters
5. Size of contributing watershed area
6. Seasonal and intermittent streams
7. Cropping system
8. Floodplain areas
9. Within 30 feet of an open tile intake
10. Poorly drained soils

If your land has any of these characteristics, use the following precision conservation practices, appropriate to the site, in combination with conservation tillage, residue management, conservation crop rotations and other BMP’s that may apply:

• On 2% to 6% [B] slopes within 200 feet of surface water consider:

• Waterways for concentrated overland flow
• Terraces
• Cover crops
• Higher levels of residue management
• Perennial cropping systems
• Sediment control basins
• Filter strips of perennial vegetation utilizing local ecotype native plants
• Water storage

• On 6% to 12% [C] slopes located anywhere consider:

• Waterways for concentrated overland flow
• Terraces
• Cover crops
• Higher levels of residue management
• Perennial cropping systems
• Sediment control basins
• Filter strips of perennial vegetation utilizing local ecotype native plants
• Adjacent to surface waters establish filter strips of appropriate width for the size of the contributing watershed area

• On 12% to 18% [D] slopes located anywhere consider:

• No Till
• Perennial cropping systems
• Critical area plantings

• On 18 to 25% [E] slopes and 18% to 40% [F] slopes located anywhere consider:

• Pasture
• Long term perennial cropping systems
• Wildlife habitat

Objective 4: Establish the use of conservation tillage, residue management and conservation crop rotations on 95% of the land in annual tillage to reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients delivered to surface water. Achieve at least 50% residue following corn and 30% residue following soybeans, after planting, on these acres.

Action Items: A. Provide quarterly educational opportunities to producers on the advantages to soil health and water quality from higher residue levels.

                          B. Establish one demonstration site showing various percentages of residues.

                          C. Provide a financial incentive to farmers, through a grant or a loan, to purchase equipment that leaves more residue or provides less soil disturbance. Examples of successful programs include the Ag BMP Loan Program with the MN Department of Agriculture [offered through Martin SWCD] and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] with NRCS.

Objective 5: Encourage the use of vegetative buffer areas between fields in annual tillage and surface water.

Action Items: A. Provide education six times per year on the benefits to water quality, wildlife, life and safety with the use of a buffer area.

                          B. Establish one demonstration area in the county to show a variety of types of buffers that are suitable for this area. Include both vegetative and woody species and a variety of widths in cooperation with the University of Minnesota.

                          C. Provide financial assistance to get buffers established in areas needing precision conservation.

                          D. Have available to landowners a no-till drill, broadcast seeder and culti-packer so buffers can be planted properly.

                          E. Annually promote the use of a culti-packer to firm the seedbed.

                          F. Encourage the use of local ecotype native species when practical.

Objective 6: Encourage the use of shelter belts, living snowfences and field windbreaks to reduce soil erosion from wind.

Action Items:              A. Provide monthly education to landowners about the impact to water quality.

                                       B. Provide financial incentive to establish shelter belts, living snowfences and field windbreaks in critical areas.

C. Encourage landowners with critical areas to enroll in RIM, CRP, CREP or other long term easement programs.

                                        D. Maintain a demonstration area to show innovative methods and alternative plant species.

                                        E. Encourage landowners who remove a grove, to replace it within one year.

Objective 7: Expand the Martin County Conserving Acres program to include buffer zones in the riparian area. Consider the application of the program to other practices, including wetland restorations and perpetual conservation easements that provide water quality/quantity mitigation and/or provide other public values.

Action Items: A. Define what additional conservation practices would be eligible for the program . Include open drainage ditch buffers and riparian buffers established along lakes, rivers and streams.

                         B. Define a minimum and maximum width that is eligible.

                        C. Estimate the number of acres that potentially would be enrolled.

                        D. Discuss the potential impact to the tax base with the Assessor.

                        E. Have the County Board adopt the policy and begin to implement it.

Objective 8: Provide technical assistance to landowners desiring to put conservation practices on the land. Apply Ag. BMPS on all agricultural land in the county by AMA.

Action Items: A. Provide conservation planning, layout and design assistance through the SWCD, NRCS, South Central Technical Area , Technical Service Providers and others.

                                            b.  Assist in informing land users of scheduled application of

                                                     conservation compliance plans.

•     c.  Assist with application in conservation compliance plans, CSP and CRP.

                                           d.  Review EQIP and WHIP Plans.

Objective 9: Provide opportunities for financial assistance to landowners desiring to implement conservation programs during the entire year. Consider multiple uses when planning practices and develop project plans that result in multiple benefits.

Action items: A. Participate in the following programs and seek additional funds for conservation projects:

1. State Cost-Share funds from BWSR

2. State Revolving Loan Funds

3. Various Programs through USDA, including CSP, EQIP, WRP

4. RIM Program

5. BWSR Natural Resources Block Grant and Challenge Grants

6. Clean Water Partnership and Section 319 Programs

7. DNR Conservation Programs

8. Private Foundations

9. USFWS Easement Programs

10. Clean Water Legacy

11. LCCMR

12. GBERBA

13. Others

Objective 10: To retain at least 75% of the lands in CRP or Limited Duration RIM in perennial cropping systems when current contracts expire.

Action Items: A. Promote re-enrollment at least three times per year for CRP expiring contracts.

                          B. Promote utilizing these areas as working lands or third crops to prevent being plowed up at least three times per year.

Objective 11: Develop a program to promote, preserve, protect and enhance native species and to detect, control and manage invasive species .

Action Items:               A. Involve county residents, state agencies and others.

                                        B. Priority is to preserve and protect existing native populations.

C. Enhance and expand Special Concern, Threatened and Endangered species habitat.

D. Work to replace populations of invasive species with local ecotype native species.

E. Utilize the Native Buffer Cost-Share program to increase the supply of local ecotype native plant materials for use on restoration projects.

F. Work through the Greater Blue Earth Cooperative Weed Management Area to manage invasive species and replace them with local ecotype native species.

G. Keep up to date on noxious weeds and regulated plants through the MN Department of Agriculture and invasive species identified by the DNR.

Objective 12: Educate homeowners with lakeshore at least annually on BMP's to minimize lakeshore erosion.

Action Items: A. Hold an annual informational meeting to discuss with homeowners, contractors and developers shoreland erosion problems and potential solutions, materials and plants that reduce lakebank erosion, regulations that apply when working in the shoreland area and examples of projects that have worked.

                         B. Have an annual tour to show rain gardens and lakeshore BMP's.

                        C. Establish a demonstration area to show practical ways to reduce shoreland erosion.

                        D. Provide technical assistance when possible.

                        E. Develop and offer an incentive program for the most critical areas.

                        F. Support groups of homeowners working together to address shoreline issues.

                       G. Educate annually on riparian [top of the bank, to the water edge and

        into shallow water] vegetation management.

                       H. Utilize the DNR Shoreland Grant Program to install demonstration

        examples of riparian plantings.

Objective 13: Provide a variety of educational programs each year promoting conservation practices and environmental topics.

Action Items: A. Hold annual information meetings promoting BMP's or new programs.

                          B. Write articles for the local newspapers at least ten times per year.

                         C. Continue the annual publication 'Conservation Update'.

                         D. Host a field day showing conservation practices, projects and opportunities available in the county.

                         E. Have a weekly radio show promoting conservation activities.

F. Participate in programs for youth in the county including SWCD Environmental Awareness Day, Envirothon, Poster Contest, Tree Day, Girl Scout Day Camp, CER, Ecology Bus, DNR Programs WET & WILD, Green Wing event, Boy Scouts, MC Conservation Club Habitat Day, Ag in the Classroom, MC West High School Ecology Class and 4-H activities.

Goal 2: To prevent degradation of surface and groundwater from pesticides and fertilizers.

Objective 1: Ensure that fertilizers and pesticides are properly stored, handled and applied so that surface and groundwater are not adversely affected.

Action Items: A. Provide annual education to landowners through meetings, workshops, press releases and radio shows about the proper use and handling of pesticides and fertilizer.

                         B. Ensure farmers, commercial applicators and others are properly licensed for pesticide application.

                        C. Do demonstrations bi-annually for homeowners on calibration, application and storage of pesticides and fertilizer.

Objective 2: To ensure that the disposal of pesticide containers is done in a manner that does not pollute.

Action Items: A. Provide annual education to all who use pesticides on how to properly dispose of pesticide containers.

                         B. Hold an annual container collection for residents and retailers.

Objective 3: To ensure waste pesticide is properly disposed of.

Action Items: A. Provide annual education on the proper handling and disposal of waste pesticide.

                          B. Continue to hold a regular Hazardous Waste Collection for household products -- May through September each year.

C. Continue to collect agricultural waste pesticide, on an ongoing basis, in collaboration with the MN Department of Agriculture. Appointment must be made with the Martin County Solid Waste Department for collection.

Goal 3: To prevent the degradation of surface waters from feedlots and manure application, storage and/or handling.

Objective 1: Continue to ensure all feedlots are properly permitted.

Action Items: A. Continue to identify feedlots without a permit and inspect them.

                          B. Continue to provide education to landowners of the permit requirements and other regulations that apply to feedlots.

                         C. Work with the farmers to get a permit and meet requirements. .

                         D. Refer farmers to NRCS/SWCD for technical assistance and potential

cost share funding to bring feedlots into compliance and follow through to see that they do.

                          E. If the landowner fails to comply then prosecute.

F. Continue a periodic inspection program where each feedlot is re-inspected every four years.

Objective 2: To enforce the Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020.

Action Items:              A. Continue to employ adequate staff that have proper training and technical skills to provide a   comprehensive feedlot program.

B. Identify feedlots that have pollution concerns and work with the landowner to resolve the pollution issues.

Objective 3: Continue to offer annual education to livestock produces regarding proper management of their manure and manure handling.

Action Items: A. Cooperate with local agricultural organizations to host meetings, news releases, radio spots and special seminars to educate on proper management practices at least 4 times per year.

                         B. Support the Pork Producers Environmental Assurance program.

                        C. Provide a demonstration day or tour to show BMP’s bi-annually.

                        D. Provide educational programs for manure management, handling and application.

Objective 4: To ensure that manure is properly stored, handled and/or applied in a manor that is not detrimental to the environment.

Action Items: A. Provide annual education to producers on the impact to water quality if manure is mismanaged.

                          B. Provide annual education to producers about proper techniques for manure handling, storage, and application.

                         C. Inspect each feedlot before permitting to identify if there is proper facilities to handle manure in all stages.

                         D. Encourage producers to have one year of storage for liquid manure.

                         E. Teach producers how to calibrate the amount of manure being applied by having two training sessions over the next ten years.

                         F. Teach producers how to consider their soil test results, crop history, yield goals, nutrient content of manure and crop being grown when calculating amounts to apply on an annual basis.

                        G. Encourage all producers to develop nutrient management plans

                        H. Utilize MN Extension, NRCS, GBERBA and SWCD programs to

         accomplish these education and management action items.

Objective 5: To provide technical and financial assistance to producers to address feedlot pollution issues.

Action Items: A. Provide daily technical resources through the Zoning Official, SWCD, NRCS, Technical

Service Providers and Extension regarding the construction, operation and maintenance of feedlots.

                           B. Continue to seek funds through the Natural Resource Block Grant, State Cost-Share, State                Revolving Loan Fund and other special sources of funds for addressing feedlot issues.

                           C. Assist with the promotion, prior to signups, of participation in the CSP and EQIP program through NRCS.

Objective 6: To explore alternative uses for manure and seek new technology.

Action Items: A. Research other uses of manure besides use as a farm fertilizer.

                          B. Encourage farmers to explore alternative uses.

                          C. Possible uses could be methane or a bio-digester.

                          D. Apply for funds to assist those interested in doing this type of project or for the county to be the lead.

                          E. Disseminate this information annually in conjunction with other educational efforts.

Objective 7: To examine the impact application of manure by phosphorous levels rather than by the nitrogen needs.

Action items: A. Provide annual education on the impact excess phosphorous [P] has on water quality.

                          B. Explore alternatives for landowners with high or very high levels of P.

                          C. Provide education annually on the proper management of P.

D. Annually promote the utilization of cropping systems that require high levels of phosphorous to assist in bringing down very high phosphorous soil levels.

Objective 8: Continue to ensure that any manure waste storage area that is no longer in use, is properly abandoned to prevent degradation to ground and surface waters.

Action Items: A. Identify manure storage areas that are no longer used and discuss with the landowner the need for proper abandonment.

B. Provide education annually, via presentation or demonstration, of proper abandonment techniques as defined by the NRCS.

1. Provide awareness of potential cost share opportunities for manure storage area abandonment cost share through EQIP.

Goal 4: To bring all the septic systems in the county into compliance with Minnesota Chapter Rules 7080.

Objective 1: Continue to implement the county’s strategy to accomplish this goal.

Action Items: A. Continue to gather input from homeowners, contractors, regulators, and policy makers on how to accomplish the task.

                          B. The County Zoning Official is to be the lead.

                          C. The strategy should be feasible to accomplish based on number

            of staff and contractors available.

                           D. Continue to require compliance at the time of property transfer, with

             the issuance of building permits and upon complaints.

                            E. Continue to host an annual septic system contractors meeting.

                            F. Utilize the 2010 inventory and keep it up to date.

Objective 2: Provide continued education on proper septic system maintenance.

Action Items: A. Provide homeowners with knowledge of proper maintenance need for pumping, and usage.

                          B. Engage local contractors in the design and presentation of the class.

Objective 3: Continue to work with and provide information to residents who are out of compliance. .

Action Items: A. Send a letter to all residence owners that do not have a permit on file that they are out of compliance.

                          B. Inform them of the date that they are required to comply. Current

policy requires direct discharges to be corrected within 10 months and out of compliance systems within a year .

                           C. Continue to track and provide follow-up on letters that are sent and document when owners are issued a permit for a new system.

Objective 4: Provide education to landowners annually about the degradation to water quality and the health risk associated with non-complying septics.

Action items: A. Conduct annual public meetings to discuss the risks of non-complying septic systems.

                          B. Specifically clarify the difference between a septic system that works and one that works properly.

                          C. Continue to require that contractors be licensed by the state.

Objective 5: Continue to provide loan assistance to home owners with failing septics.

Action items: A. Continue to explore opportunities for funding for septics and determine if they fit the needs of Martin County residents.

                         B. Identify critical areas, develop projects and apply for funds.

                         C. Support legislation to provide cost-share to upgrade septics that influence drinking water sources or that impact recreational waters.

D. Continue to offer the County Septic Loan Program, Clean Water Partnership Loan funding and the Ag BMP Loan Program to county residents.

Objective 6: Ensure that the disposal of sludge from the storage areas of the wastewater treatment plants is handled in a way as to pose no threat to the water supply.

Action items: A. Ensure that sludge disposal is carried out per PCA guidelines.

Objective 3: Continue to have the DNR permit water appropriations for surface water withdrawals.

Action Items: A. Refer residents to the DNR when requesting information about pumping from surface water.

1. Assist DNR by reporting any problems identified as a result of surface water withdrawals.

Objective 4: Assist the DNR with the implementation of their programs in Martin County as requested.

Action Items: A. Examine sites and offer comments on all permits for the DNR Water Permit Program.

1. Cooperate with the Department of Natural Resources - Division of Waters on the observation well monitoring program.  The SWCD will do monthly monitoring of 6 wells for ground water level information.  (March – December).
2. Promote DNR programs in SWCD newsletters, website and radio programs and other available venues.
3. Work with Lake Associations and encourage the establishment of new Lake Associations to work with DNR to develop Lake Management Plans and Vegetation Management Plans.

Objective 5: Continue administering the precipitation monitoring network. 

Action Items: A. Presently there are 25 rain gauge monitors reporting to the SWCD. 

Compile monthly reporting and submit to the State Climatologist.

1. Hold a volunteer recognition event and invite the State Climatologist to speak.
2. Promote the Rain Gauge Program through the SWCD website, media releases, newsletters and radio programs.
3. Publish the reports.

Objective 6: Encourage participation in citizen water quality monitoring programs.

It is anticipated that there will be increased development around some of the lakes within the county for recreation purposes. There is evidence of increasing demand of shoreland property in Martin County resulting from growth in the Okoboji, Iowa area; persons looking for ‘second’ homes; and local residents looking to upgrade.

County zoning regulations should be enhanced to establish low impact development guidelines to ensure sustainable growth. Zoning changes need to fully consider the impacts to water quality degradation, conflicts with agricultural uses, and the ability of the county to recover the cost to provide public services [including wastewater and stormwater] to the development areas. Impact to areas within 200 feet of surface water should be limited in order to protect these natural buffer zones. Natural lakes are generally bounded by wetland, prairie and forested areas that provide natural protection to our surface waters. These areas need be protected as a part of the permitting process to prevent further degradation. Topographical limitations such as ravines, wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains and bluffs should be factored in when considering lot size as these areas are unbuildable by current zoning ordinances.

Martin County had a Geologic Atlas developed in cooperation with the 13 County Water Planning group in 1991 which is complete enough to meet the county's needs. The Atlas provides a cross section of the top 500 feet of the earth at every three mile interval across the county- both east-west and north-south. This provides an excellent map and understanding of our geologic structure.

Through the 13 County Water Planning Group and Minnesota State University - Mankato we have a map that indicates the geologic sensitivity for the region. This was completed in 1995 and considers things such as topography, geologic structure, depth to an aquifer, number of users, soils and water yield. These maps provide a tool to utilize when considering how sensitive our aquifer is to various land uses.

In 1990 an inventory of wells in the county was completed with the cooperation of city and township officials. The inventory was followed up with a free water test for rural wells in 1991 where additional well data was collected. These inventories helped us to

identify about 3000 wells in the county. Some areas did a very complete job and some did nothing, so in places we have limited data. Efforts should continue to try to get as complete of inventory as possible because all of the wells constructed prior to 1976 do not have a well log on them and the information has to come from personal records.

From this information we are able to determine that the eastern portion of the county has several aquifers available for use. It also is the area of the county with the shallowest aquifer, approximately 90 feet. As we move west across the county we find that there are less aquifer options and they are at a deeper depth. In the northwest corner of the county [mainly Elm Creek and Cedar Townships] we have an area that has no true aquifer and about 100 feet down is the Sioux Quartzite bedrock. This area yields about 10 GPM but, not over extended periods of time.

Great River Energy has an electrical generating plant in the northwest corner of the county. This plant is a peaking plant and can generate 550 mega watts of electricity. The area that is being looked at is in this limited groundwater reserve- the Sioux Quartzite bedrock. This plant built a water line from Trimont to supply the necessary water needed to cool their turbines. With added impervious surfaces and cooling water discharge, storm water implications to existing drainage systems could be a concern.

The northwest quarter of the county has access to the Red Rock Rural Water System. There are currently 107 members connected to the system and 31 who have indicated interest in their current expansion within Martin County. The Red Rock Rural Water System is based in Jeffers, MN and serves residents and business in a large area of southwestern Minnesota. The area served is mainly the area with Red Rock Quartzite geology and no true aquifer available to supply adequate quantity or quality of water to residents. The Red Rock Rural Water System provides an adequate water supply with a favorable quality to this region.

Iowa Lakes Regional Water is another potential rural water source for southwest Martin County. Its current service area extends into southern Jackson County, within two miles of Martin County. Their Jackson-Martin Rural Water Expansion project includes all of Lake Fremont Township and most of Jay Township.

Within Martin County, Cedar and Elm Creek townships have the Red Rock Quartzite geology. Most of these residents are on the Red Rock System. Additionally, the Red Rock Rural Water System has expanded in to at least into Galena, Fox Lake, Waverly and Westford townships. Generally speaking, there is adequate water supply and quality in these other townships for residents and business. By continuing to expand into these areas in Martin County, they could be putting their other members at risk, especially in times of severe drought. If these residents feel they want the benefits of a rural water system, then Martin County should be proactive in developing their own rural water system within the county to serve these areas.

Martin County has no known agricultural drainage wells. If any are identified they should be given the highest priority for sealing because of the threat they pose to our groundwater resources.

Abandoned wells are the biggest threat to groundwater contamination in all of Martin County. The glacial till that lies over the aquifers within the county boundaries provides a protective barrier of sorts to the aquifer. Because this barrier is made up of silts and clays, it provides a filter that is 80 feet deep or more across the county. An abandoned well provides a direct path to the groundwater through this layer. There are no points within the county where bedrock comes to the surface nor are there any karst soils.

The operation of two ethanol plants, within five miles of each other, presents a potential concern with groundwater availability. Each withdraws an estimated one million gallons per day. Testing that has been conducted at the two sites indicate adequate water supply and they actually are drawing from two different aquifer resources. County officials should be aware of potential cumulative impacts to ground water supply in these areas.

Objective 2: Support private business by providing water quantity information when requested and to the degree the county has it available.

Action Items: A. Provide information about the geology, water yield, regulations, permitting and other information as requested for business' looking to locate within the county. [limited to what information the county has]

B. Consider the cumulative impacts on water withdrawals for industrial uses to ensure adequate supply for residential use.

Goal 2: To protect the groundwater reserves serving the county from degradation.

Objective 1: To ensure residents and industry construct all wells to Minnesota State Code.

Action Items: A. Provide education to residents that there is a well code and it's importance for protecting our drinking water supplies.

B. Provide education to landowners on contamination sources to their well and what precautions should be taken.

Objective 2: To assist municipalities, and others, with the preparation of wellhead protection plans.

Action Items: A. Provide technical assistance for the preparation of wellhead protection plans.

B. Supply GIS information about the geology, soils, land use, water courses, etc. as is available to the county.

C. Provide information, from the county's inventory list, regarding inventoried wells, both abandoned and active.

D. When wellhead protection areas are identified they are a priority for locating CRP tracts within them.

E. Work with the City of Fairmont to identify and develop a protection plan for their drinking water source, Budd Lake.

Objective 3: To continue to collect inventory information about wells in the county.

Action Items: A. Maintain and update the county's well inventory as information becomes available to the county.

B. In areas where the county's well data is limited, have an expanded effort to gather the information.

Objective 4: Identify poorly constructed wells and develop a project to get them brought up to code.

Action Items: A. Provide education to residents as to the risks involved if they have a well that is poorly constructed.

B. Utilize the well database to identify wells of poor construction that pose a health risk to the families using them.

C. Pursue project funding to assist with the improvement of wells that are a health risk.

Objective 5: Provide education to residents on the importance of protecting their wellhead.

Action Items: A. Teach residents about the potential contaminant sources for their well[s] and how to identify them in their yards.

B. Encourage residents to sample their well for coliform bacteria and nitrate - nitrogen every one to two years.

C. If there is a local contamination source, assist the homeowner in getting a solution to the problem.

Objective 6: Encourage residents to identify and seal inactive or abandoned wells.

Action Items: A. Provide education on the problems associated with an inactive well.

B. Where feasible secure financial incentive to offer landowners for sealing wells.

C. Support other agencies efforts to provide funds for well sealing such as FSA, MVAC and DEED.

D. Continue to add inactive wells to the county's database.

E. Identify high priority inactive wells.

Objective 7: Identify wells with a history of poor water quality.

Action Items: A. Inform homeowners of possible risks associated with using contaminated water.

B. Assist homeowners with finding the source of the contamination, if possible.

C. Assist homeowners with trying to find a solution to the problem.

Objective 8: Educate residents about water quality issues that are a health risk versus

aesthetics issues.

Action Items: A. Educate homeowners on various water contaminants and the risks associated with them.

B. Educate homeowners on the correct treatment methods available for their situation.

C. Encourage regular testing of drinking water for coliform bacteria and nitrates.

Objective 9: Identify business' that may impact groundwater and ensure that they do

not.

Action Items: A. Provide education to business' about groundwater contamination sources.

B. Inform business' of susceptible wells in their area.

C. Encourage the use of environmentally friendly products.

D. Encourage the proper disposal of business wastes.

Objective 10: Identify and seal any agricultural drainage wells.

Action Items: A. Identify any agricultural drainage wells, if any.

B. Secure funding, if necessary, to assist landowners in having the well sealed.

Historically, Martin County has always had a strong Water Planning program. This can be attributed to the County Commissioner Board who had the foresight to establish a strong Water Plan Advisory Committee. The Water Plan Advisory Committee is made up of a cross section of interests across the county and includes representatives of agriculture, extension, conservation clubs, planning commission, Martin SWCD, small business, large business, townships, small city, large city, health, well drillers, solid waste and wastewater. The committee has met regularly since Water Planning started in 1988. This committee will continue to meet quarterly and be coordinated by the Water Planner.

In 2003, Martin SWCD contracted with the County to perform the Comprehensive Local Water Management activities for Martin County. Martin SWCD should continue to provide adequate staff to implement the goals and objectives of the plan in a progressive manner. Martin SWCD has adopted the Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan as their Comprehensive Plan.

On the following fourteen pages is the Implementation Schedule For Priority Concerns & Ongoing Activities. This list matches up with the priority concern goals, objectives and action items previously listed in the Water Plan. Each action item that is ongoing is identified by shading and "ongoing" is listed in the priority column. A ten year schedule matrix is laid out and shaded in for when it is anticipated that action item will occur. Money needed is an estimation of what each action item needs to complete it fully on an annual basis for the ten years of the plan. The last column is a list of the local departments that are expected to be part of that action item. The first agency listed is anticipated to be the lead.

Below is a summary of the anticipated annual cost to implement this water plan to it’s fullest. This assumes adequate staffing and funding to implement all of the action items.

The General Soils Map that follows shows the soil associations within Martin County. Each association has a distinctive pattern of soils, relief, and drainage. Each is a unique natural landscape. Typically, an association consists of one or more major soils and some minor soils. It is named for the major soils. The soils making up one association can occur in another but in a different pattern.

The general soil map can be used to compare the suitability of large areas for general land uses. Areas of suitable soils can be identified on the map. Likewise, areas where the soils are not suitable can be identified.

Because of its small scale, the map is not suitable for planning the management of a farm or field or for selecting a site for a road or building or other structure. The soils in any one association differ from place to place in slope, depth, drainage, and other characteristics that affect management. Soil associations found in Martin County include:

November 16^th, 2004:  Local Water Plan Committee met to prioritize priority concerns and give input on action items needed to be taken to address the concerns chosen.

Attendees

Bryan Gregor – citizen, Billeye Rabbe – Martin County Solid Waste/Recycling, Ryan Kruse - NRCS, Jerry Voyles - SWCD, Darwin Roberts - citizen, Guy Beemer - citizen, Bob Davis - DNR, Chris Hughes -BWSR, Darren Newville SWCD, Char Kahler citizen, Gene Tonne - citizen

 

January 12^th, 2005:  Official public notice for public input meeting requesting comments on priority issues that have been selected by Local Water Plan Committee run in official County newspaper.  News releases on meeting also submitted to various media outlets.

 

January 20^th, 2005:  Public meeting held to solicit comments on Priority Concerns and Action items.

Attendees

Ryan Kruse - NRCS, Les Anderson Farm Bureau, Kathy Smith - SWCD, Darwin Roberts- SWCD, Bryan Gregor - citizen, Curtis Kuehl - citizen, Char Kahler - citizen, Wendell  Rode - SWCD, Jack Potter – County Commissioner, Guy Beemer - citizen, Steve Thompson - citizen, Jerry Voyles - SWCD, Brian Hanson - SWCD, Tom Kellander - citizen

 

Comments received were positive with one suggestion of adding source water protection for ground water sources as a priority.

 

Date:  County Commissioners approve priority concerns and scoping document.

The following narrative has been part of the Martin County Comprehensive Local Water Plan in the past but is no longer required. Members of the Water Plan Advisory Committee felt there was value in continuing to have it as part of the plan as it characterizes the water resources in Martin County and would be of interest to county residents.

Martin County is located in South Central Minnesota, about midway between South Dakota and Wisconsin, and bordering Iowa on the south. Fairmont, population 10,747, is the largest city within the county and it is the largest city- wholly located - within the greater Blue Earth watershed. Although Martin County is largely agriculture based, with approximately 95% of the total 464,640 acres in farmland, there are over 700 industries within the county, located not only in the rural cities, but also out in the rural areas. Less than 2% of the land is urban or residential.

Ninety nine percent of the land in Martin County is privately owned. Publicly held land is owned by the following governmental agencies: Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 2341 acres; Department of Transportation (DOT) - roads - 15,417 acres (of which 1152 acres is Interstate 90); Federal 154 acres; Railroads 698 acres. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has no Indian trust land in Martin County.

Early descriptions of Martin County refer to "waving prairie grass, marshes and sloughs, and not a tree as far as the eye can see." The land no longer breeds prairie grass. Most of the marshes and sloughs have been drained for agricultural production. Soils are very productive and dark colored, formed from loamy glacial till which remained after the Des Moines Lobe of the Wisconsin glaciations period, rich in organic matter from centuries of decaying grasses. Soil quality and adequate rainfall make it nearly ideal for crop production.

The climate of Martin County is characterized by long winters and relatively hot summers. About 19 inches of the total 29 inches, or 2/3 of annual precipitation, occurs during the growing season. About ¾ of the rainfall during the growing season occurs in March, April and May. Normal frost free dates are May 10 to October 10, allowing about a 150 day growing season.

The topography features slightly rolling prairie mixed with gentle slopes, lowlands and small depressions. The southwest corner of the county features the highest elevation of 1410 feet above sea level. Gradually sloping north and east, the elevation reaches 1270 feet at the northeast corner. The lowest point, along the Faribault County line in Pleasant Prairie Township, is 1120 feet above sea level.

A major geographic feature of the county is the three chains of lakes which are thought to be part of a major drainage system from the last glacial period. The central chain consists of 20 lakes and formed the main drainage channel for the county . The west and east chains were thought to be tributaries to the main chain. The topographical relief across the county is generally fairly flat as far as the natural streams are concerned. Many of the lake banks are bluffs and slough off periodically into the lakes. Once the streams become third order or get closer to the main stem of the Blue Earth River, they also begin to have steeper slopes and bluffs along their banks.

The general soils map shows the soil associations in Martin County. Each association has a distinctive pattern of soils, relief and drainage. Each is a unique natural landscape. Typically an association consists of one or more major soils and some minor soils. It is named for the major soils. The soils making up one association can occur in another but in a different pattern. The soils in any one association differ from place to place in slope, depth, drainage, and other characteristics that affect management.

Hydrologic soil groups are used to estimate runoff from precipitation. Soils not protected by vegetation are assigned to one of four groups. They are grouped according to the intake of water when the soils are thoroughly wet and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The NRCS has classified soils by their production and use capability. They are placed in eight different classes according to their general characteristics. They are:

Class I - few limitations

II - moderate limitations

III - severe limitations

IV - very severe limitations

V - limit impractical to correct but not likely to erode - used for pastures, woodland

and wildlife.

VI - severe limitations, unsuitable for cultivation

VII - very severe limitations unsuitable for cultivation

VIII - very severe limitations, even for recreation and pastureland. Too steep for

use.

Letter designations following these classifications denote other risks associated with the area (e=erosion; w=wetness; s=shallow; c=climatic limitations).

The following table outlines the capability class of the different soils in Martin County and the amounts designated under each class:

Capability Class Acres % of County

Prime--I and II 253,610 54.5

Good-- III 182,353 39.2

Marginal--IV, V & VI 11,722 2.4

Poor--VII, VIII 2,935 0.6

Water 16,630 3.3

Soil erosion potential on rural land is influenced mostly by soil type, farm management practices – including cropping system, and slope. Martin County has 10 soil mapping units that are highly erodible lands as defined by the 1985 Food Security Act. They are Estherville sandy loam (IVs), Lester Loam (IIIe), Bold-Truman silty clay loam (IVe), Truman-Bold silty clay loam (IIIe), Clarion-Estherville-Storden complex (IVs & VIs), Clarion-Storden loam (IIIe), Storden-Clarion loam (IVe and VIe) and Terril-Swanlake loam (VIe).

As we look across the county, the East Fork of the Des Moines River watershed tends to have minimal lands classified as highly erodible. The fields that are highly erodible in this watershed are very small and approximately half of them are enrolled in some type of conservation program. The Blue Earth River has far more areas that meet the highly erodible criteria which tend to be concentrated along the major streams of Elm, Center and South Creeks.

Most cropland in these critical erosion areas are not adequately protected with typical farmland management practices. Using conservation tillage with a crop rotation that includes a hay crop or establishing permanent cover will be needed to get soil erosion losses below T. Only 10,000 acres or 2 1/2 % of the crop land in the county meets the criteria for highly erodible land as defined by the USDA Conservation Compliance provision in the Food Security Act. Approximately 7.6 percent of the crop land has a C slope or more [> 6%] in the county. There are smaller areas of C slopes or steeper, within the bigger fields, causing the lower percentage for highly erodible lands. This should be considered when prioritizing local conservation efforts.

The potential for soil erosion caused by water runoff becomes greater as the steepness of slope increases. Of the annually tilled cropland, 267,000 acres have a slope of less than 4%. About 112,000 acres have slopes of 1-6% and have an average estimated erosion rate of 6 tons per acre per year. About 24,000 acres are 6-12% slopes and have erosion rates of 18 tons per year. About 4500 acres have slopes of 12% or greater and have annual erosion rates of 24 tons. Most Martin County soils have tolerable soil erosion rates [T] of 5 tons per acre per year from water erosion.

The wind erosion hazard is greatest on level soils that have little vegetative cover. Soil movement by wind in some areas can be as high as 20 tons per acre each year. However, wind erosion on most level soils varies from 5 to 10 tons per acre per year depending on residue cover. Utilizing perennial crops on the most vulnerable soils and leaving adequate crop residue each fall can greatly minimize soil losses from wind erosion.

Soil sedimentation can cause many thousands of dollars of repair and cleanup cost from dredging waterways, rivers, open drainage ditches and road ditches. In the county, there are 1,352 miles of roadways, causing a volume of 36,500 cubic feet of erosion to be lost. This comes out to 27 cubic feet per mile lost. This is one of the lowest rates in the state. Of the erosion occurring, 100 percent of it is caused by slide (gravity), which is unusual. Usually the main factor is washing (water) and some loess. This may account for the low erosion total.

Starting in 1995, Martin County SWCD has conducted a Tillage Transect Survey of the county to determine the result of tillage systems that farmers are using in the county. The results of this indicate that 78 % of the cropland acres planted to soybeans [following corn] had greater than 30% residue and 74% of the cropland acres planted to corn [following soybeans] had greater than 15% residue following planting. Martin County has consistently ranked second best of all the counties in the state completing the survey.

Major streams in Martin County are Center Creek, Elm Creek, Lily Creek, Perch Creek and South Creek, which are tributaries of the Blue Earth River. Other streams include Ten Mile Creek and the East Fork of the Des Moines River. Both flow across the southwest corner of the county through Lake Okamanpeedan, then south and east through Iowa to the Des Moines and then the Mississippi River. Except for the East Fork of the Des Moines and the very beginning the Elm Creek, all streams originate in Martin County, making it a headwaters area of both watersheds.

Martin County actually has portions of four minor watersheds within it= s boundaries. These are the Blue Earth River, Watonwan River, East Fork of the Des Moines River and the West Fork of the Des Moines River. The West Fork of the Des Moines River is the smallest and includes only about one half of a township or 9,478 acres. Because it is such a small area of the county, for the purposes of this Water Plan, it is has the same considerations as the East Fork of the Des Moines River. The Watonwan River within Martin County, which includes 53,485 acres, is similar to the Blue Earth River Watershed. Covering less than 10 % of the county it has similar characteristics to the Blue Earth River and will be encompassed under the discussion for the Blue Earth River. There are some differences in issues and where these are significant they will be clarified in this Plan.

Three-fourths of Martin County is in the Blue Earth River Watershed which is primarily an area of ground water recharge. Recharge occurs in the uplands as precipitation percolates through the soil to the aquifers. Discharge takes place in the major river basins which is evident by continued flow during periods of drought and low flow. The southwest corner of the county is in the Des Moines River watershed which displays little ground water discharge as evidenced by rivers having no flow during low flow periods. Recharge has not been adequately determined for the Des Moines River water shed.

Martin County has 55 lakes throughout the county that are on the protected waters list. There are also 26 wetland areas and 28 natural or altered natural water courses listed as protected waters within the county. The benefits of protecting the lakes, wetlands and streams under the protected water statutes are numerous. Fish and wildlife habitat is maintained, thus providing outdoor recreational opportunities. However, some of the more important benefits include the ability of these areas to recharge underground waters, the provision of catch basins for flood waters and the ability of wetlands to act as natural filters for suspended sediments, nutrients and other pollutants.

Within the county there are at least 120 miles of public drainage ditches. This is supplemented with several miles of private ditch. In addition, there are millions of feet of private tile lines that were put in to drain land for agricultural use. Much of this initial drainage occurred in the late 1800’s and early 1900's. About one third of the county was wetlands prior to this time. Public drainage systems are regulated by Minnesota statutes 103E. Additional drainage being installed in the county must comply with local, state and federal wetland regulations to prevent the drainage of any additional wetland areas.

Martin County has several aquifers available for drinking water in the east half of the county. These include the St. Peter, the Prairie du Chien and Jordan, and the St. Lawrence, Franconia Formation and Dresbach Group. The St. Peter, found around the area north and east of East Chain, consists of quartz sandstone with a thin clay layer that restricts vertical water movement. Moderate amounts of water are available from the St. Peter Aquifer. The Prairie du Chien Group consists mainly of dolmitic limestone that has some pieces of chert in some of its layers. It is about 250 feet thick. The Jordan group in this area has medium to coarse grained sandstone with silty, fine grained sandstone mixed in locally. This group has a lot of water and is about 100 feet thick. Water in these aquifers moves from the southeast toward Mankato and the Blue Earth River.

The St. Lawrence group is a silty, sandy Dolomite layer about 35 feet thick that restricts vertical water movement. The Franconia sandstone layer consists of glauconitic quartz sandstone from 100 to 200 feet thick that contains little water. The Dresbach Group consists of three sandstone layers that total 300 to 400 feet thick. The top layer is Galesville sandstone and contains moderate amounts of water. The middle layer, Eau Claire sandstone, is from 100 to 200 feet thick and contains practically no water. The drinking water quality of these aquifers is poor and generally not considered drinking water sources. The bottom layer is Mt. Simon sandstone consisting of medium to coarse grained sandstone that contains large amounts of water.

The west half of the county contains a discontinuous layer of Cretaceous bedrock, composed of shale and sandstone, that overlies part of the older sedimentary rock aquifers (St. Peter, Prairie du Chien, Jordan, St. Lawrence, Franconia, Dresbach) and the Precambrian bedrock where the older sedimentary aquifers are absent. This Cretaceous layer is sometimes used as an aquifer.

The towns of Trimont, Sherburn, Dunnell, Ormsby, Welcome and Granada use the buried glacial aquifers for their municipal systems. The town of Ceylon and Fairmont's backup well use the Cretaceous Aquifer. Fairmont’s main source of water is from Budd Lake. Northrop uses the Dresbach bedrock aquifer, and Truman uses both the Dresbach and the glacial aquifer.

Water from the Cretaceous Aquifer is high in total dissolved solids, sulfate, and iron. Most of the glacial materials in Martin County is derived from the Cretaceous shale and sandstone, which was scraped off the land surface and ground up to make glacial deposits of till. Consequently much of the water from the glacial aquifers share the water chemistry characteristics of the Cretaceous Aquifer.

Surface water from recent precipitation in Martin County may have a higher natural quality than most of the ground water, although it is more vulnerable to contamination from human sources. The City of Fairmont is the only community in the county that uses surface water as their drinking water source.

The Cretaceous Aquifer may also affect natural water quality in the older sedimentary rock aquifers were the Cretaceous Aquifer overlies them, because ground water from the Cretaceous Aquifer may seep into the deeper aquifers, depending on pressure conditions in the aquifers. Isolation of the Cretaceous aquifer from the deeper sedimentary aquifers is one factor to consider in prioritizing well abandonment.

Groundwater in Martin County flows to the northeast in the Blue Earth River Watershed. In the southwest portion of the county, that is part of the Des Moines River Watershed, the groundwater flows toward the Des Moines River.

Conservation contracts and easements within the county assure that a tract of land will

remain in a particular land use for a specified period of time. The program acreages

relating to water resources that are in effect in Martin County at this time are: Reinvest

in Minnesota RIM 20 year easement - 120.3 acres; CREP (CRP 15 year contract – 2.0

acres & RIM 35 year easement – 2.0* acres; CREP (CRP 15 year contract - 36.4 acres

& RIM 50 year easement – 50.9* acres; CREP (CRP 15 year contract - 3,748.7 acres &

RIM perpetual easement – 4,360.9* acres RIM perpetual easement – 773.4 (includes

96.0 acres or RIM-WRP); PWP perpetual easement – 129 acres; General Signup

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 10 to 15 year contract – 1,632.2 acres;

Continuous CRP – 5,306.7 acres and USFWS- 400 acres in wetland easements.

*acres include the CRP contract acres plus additional RIM, which includes non-crop acres.

All incorporated municipalities in Martin County have municipal drinking water systems. The City of Fairmont has the highest permitted pumping volume, 1500 gallons per minute. This well is currently not used because the city pumps water from Budd Lake for drinking. This well would be utilized if the lake water became unusable.

Except for Ormsby, all municipalities have wastewater treatment facilities permitted by MPCA.

The City of Fairmont has made changes to their wastewater treatment plant to bring their wastewater treatment plant discharge to below 1 ppm phosphorous. In addition, ammonia levels will be below 5mg/l during December through March; 5.3 mg/l April through May; 1 mg/l June through September; and 2.7 mg/l October through November. All municipalities have their storm water discharge to surface waters in the area. The City of Fairmont has a comprehensive storm water management plan to assist with long range decision making for new developments

Martin County is a strong agricultural based county with most of the land in annual row crop production. Population is somewhat stable. With new agricultural processing and retail growth the county will grow over the next twenty years. Two ethanol plants and a Super Wal-Mart have been built and trailing retail growth is expected to continue. This will draw on the counties groundwater resources. Plant locations are about five miles apart with the Welcome plant evaporating excess water and the Fairmont plant discharging to the Center Creek Watershed under a variance, since Center Creek is currently listed as an impaired water. The national trend is toward larger farms and we see this happening in Martin County for the corn/soybean and swine industries.

In addition to ethanol, other forms of renewable energy have a presence in the county. Trimont Area Wind Farm included 64 turbines in Cedar Township and Kimball Township [Jackson County]. With recent construction, there are approximately 65 turbines located in western Martin County. We will probably see additional development of soy diesel, gasification or biomass to energy projects in the region over the next decade.

As we look to the livestock industry, we need to recognize the potential impact to water quality from poorly managed feedlot operations. Manure is a resource that when properly managed is not a water quality issue. Landowners and operators need to use sound agronomic advice when applying manure to fields. We also need to have proper facilities for the storage, handling and application of manure along with sensible site selection when building. Current zoning regulation provides a sound base for adequate protection and the county must ensure that these regulations are followed.

Wetland activities should result in a net gain for the county. The current wetland regulations provide for protection of wetlands. If there was to be an impact to a wetland, it would need to be replaced at least one acre to one acre and perhaps greater than that. With the current CREP, CPR and other easement programs, we will actually see an increase in wetland acres in the county over the long term.

Martin County can expect continued growth around their recreational lakes. The County is blessed with an abundance of recreational waters that there is increasing demand for. New growth is occurring around Clear, Big Twin and Temperance Lakes. The current Zoning Ordinance, including the Shoreline Ordinance is expected to be adequate for anticipated growth in these corridors.

There is limited data available on the high, mean and low flows on streams within Martin County. Using the USGS designated descriptions of dry, normal or wet to describe surface water availability, the general condition of Martin County as a whole could be described as normal. The county has seventeen lakes with established ordinary high water marks. They are Amber, Big Twin, Bright, Budd, Cedar, Clear, Fox, George, Hall, Seymour, Iowa, Sisseton, South Silver, Willow Creek, Wilmert and two unnamed lakes.

Martin County has 13 permitted withdrawals from surface water. Center Creek is the only stream in Martin County with a protected flow. It has a protected flow of 7 cubic feet per second. There are no lakes with protected water levels within the county.

There are no surface water use conflicts within Martin County at this time. Martin County has a significant number of lakes compared with other counties in the area. There also are fairly ample supplies of groundwater so that people do not have to use surface water for traditional groundwater uses.

The county has a history of extensive drainage to make the land productive for agriculture that dates back to at least the 1880’s. The main impact of this drainage effort occurred prior to the 1930's. The drainage infrastructure has increased the speed at which surface water drains to our natural rivers and streams. This increased flow has accelerated movement of sediment and pollutants into our streams and has caused the hydrograph of the stream to rise quickly and then fall rather than rise at a slower and more stable rate.

A "keeping the raindrop where it falls" mentality on the row crop acres could significantly reduce sediment and nutrient losses from nonpoint source pollution. Utilizing conservation tillage methods can assist in keeping that "raindrop" up on the landscape so it can percolate into the soil rather than runoff.

Small water storage areas could be located in areas with low agricultural productivity that would hold water temporarily [24 hours or less] to assist in slowing down the flow of the runoff and to stabilize the hydrograph of rivers and streams. This would result in less sediment and pollutants reaching our streams and rivers. It also would reduce the amount of erosion occurring along stream banks due to less velocity in the stream flow. Retaining the integrity of the agricultural drainage systems that are in place would need to be preserved if landowner cooperation is expected.

Insufficient quantities of surface water have not been a problem to any proposed land use in the past, and it is not envisioned to present a problem in the future.

The City of Fairmont does draw it's drinking water from Budd Lake rather than from a well. They do not anticipate a supply problem because they feel the watershed they draw from is large enough to provide the amount of water they are permitted to withdraw (680 million gallons per year) from the DNR. This watershed includes a total drainage area of 23,278 acres to the George Lake Outlet.

The surface soils in Martin County consists of areas of glacial till, with average water yields of less than 1 gallon per minute, glacial outwash with water yields from 100 to 500 gallons per minute and alluvium with an estimated water yield of from 100 to 500 gallons per minute. These latter high water yielding types of soils are found along Elm Creek, Center Creek, South Creek, the East Fork of the Des Moines River and along the lake chains in the county.

The depth to bedrock in the county averages 200 feet with a 300 foot deep valley running north and south in the center of the county. The eastern half of the county has several aquifers with large amounts of available water, with the western half being mainly Precambrian rock that is not used as an aquifer.

An area lying generally west of State Highway 4 and north of I-90 does not have a true aquifer. This area is under laden with Sioux Quartzite that does not yield water. Many residents in this area have chosen to have Red Rock Rural Water supply their water needs for home and farm. A more reliable and adequate supply has been pointed out as a reason for hooking up to the public water system.

Martin County had a Geologic Atlas developed in cooperation with the 13 County Water Planning group in 1991 which is complete enough to meet the county's needs. The Atlas provides a cross section of the top 500 feet of the earth at every three mile interval across the county- both east-west and north-south. This provides an excellent map and understanding of our geologic structure.

Through the 13 County Water Planning Group and Minnesota State University - Mankato we have a map that indicates the geologic sensitivity for the region. This was completed in 1995 and considers things such as topography, geologic structure, depth to an aquifer, number of users, soils and water yield. These maps provide a tool to utilize when considering how sensitive our aquifer is to various land uses.

In 1990 an inventory of wells in the county was completed with the cooperation of city and township officials. The inventory was followed up with a free water test for rural wells in 1991 where additional well data was collected. These inventories helped us to identify about 3000 wells in the county. Some areas did a very complete job and some did nothing, so in places we have limited data. Efforts should continue to try to get as complete of inventory as possible because all of the wells constructed prior to 1976 do not have a well log on them and the information has to come from personal records.

From this information we are able to determine that the eastern portion of the county has several aquifers available for use. It also is the area of the county with the shallowest aquifer, approximately 90 feet. As we move west across the county we find that there are less aquifer options and they are at a deeper depth. In the northwest corner of the county [mainly Elm Creek and Cedar Townships] we have an area that has no true aquifer and about 100 feet down is the Sioux Quartzite bedrock. This area yields about 10 gpm but, not over extended periods of time.

Great River Energy has an electrical generating plant in the northwest corner of the county. This plant is a peaking plant and can generate 550 mega watts of electricity. The area that is being looked at is in this limited groundwater reserve- the Sioux Quartzite bedrock. This plant built a water line from Trimont to supply the necessary water needed to cool their turbines.

Martin County has no known agricultural drainage wells. If any are identified they should be given the highest priority for sealing because of the threat they pose to our groundwater resources.

Abandoned wells are the biggest threat to groundwater contamination in all of Martin County. The glacial till that lies over the aquifers within the county boundaries provides a protective barrier of sorts to the aquifer. Because this barrier is made up of silts and clays, it provides a filter that is 80 feet deep or more across the county. An abandoned well provides a direct path to the groundwater through this layer. There are no points within the county where bedrock comes to the surface nor are there any karst soils.

The potential development of two ethanol plants, within six miles of each other, presents a potential concern with groundwater availability. Each will withdraw an estimated one million gallons per day. Testing that has been conducted at the two sites indicate adequate water supply and they actually are drawing from two different aquifer resources.

Martin County surface water involves 4 major watersheds - the Blue Earth, the Watonwan, the West Fork of the Des Moines and the East Fork of the Des Moines. An awareness that any pollution entering the surface water in Martin County will affect waters far beyond the boundaries of the county exists within the populace. A demonstration of this fact was revealed when a citizen survey was completed and surface water pollution remains a high priority.

The West Fork of Des Moines River watershed has no natural streams or lakes within Martin County's boundary. The East Fork of the Des Moines River Watershed contains the largest remaining wetland complex within the county. This area, just north of Okamanpeedan Lake, provides water storage and filtering for runoff waters coming from the southwest 1/4 of the county. The Blue Earth River Watershed has an abundance of lakes and several natural streams and wetland areas. This being the most level portion of the county, is dominated with numerous depressional areas which once were prairie pothole wetlands. The Watonwan River Basin area has more rolling topography and still retains several wetland, wooded and stream areas.

Throughout the county there are a number of open drainage ditches, both public and private. These are surface water areas yet most are not protected waters as defined by the DNR. These ditches are connected to our lakes, streams and wetlands and have an impact on the surface water quality in the region.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has set classification standards for the protection of the quality and purity of the waters of the state which are delineated in Chapter 7050. This chapter gives specific use classifications and standards of quality and purity for the designated uses. The uses are designated by numbers as follows: 1) is domestic consumption, 2) is fisheries and recreation, 3) is industrial consumption, 4) is agriculture and wildlife, 5) is aesthetic enjoyment and navigation, 6) is other beneficial uses and 7) limited resource value. A letter following the number indicates the limit or range allowable for various substances and characteristics such as turbidity values, odor, etc. with "A" being the lowest levels allowed or least amount of treatment required.

A listing of the water quality management classifications for each of the streams and lakes in Martin County indicates that the creeks are classed as 2b (fisheries and recreation - limited recreational opportunities). The lakes all have the classification of 1c as their highest (domestic consumption with limited recreational opportunities). The open drainage ditches are classed at 7 (limited resource value waters).

Monitoring through the Blue Earth River Clean Water Partnership in 1996 indicates pollutant loading to contribute 98,630 tons of total suspended solids [TSS]; 2,752 tons of nitrate- nitrogen; and 99 tons of total phosphorous per year. These numbers are for the entire 992,034 acres in the Blue Earth Watershed. It does not include the Watonwan and LeSueur Basins. If you were to make the assumption that pollution loading was somewhat even across the basin the loading would be 198 pounds per acre of TSS [algae, sediment and organic materials]; 5.5 pounds of nitrate- nitrogen per acre; and 0.2 pounds of phosphorous per acre. Considering that Martin County is somewhat typical of the region, these are significant pollution loads to be contributing.

The lake and stream water quality monitoring data that is available is limited and on only a few streams and lakes in Martin County. The major pollutant issues are sediment, nutrients [nitrogen and phosphorous] and bacteria. Accelerated flow of surface water enhances the pollutant getting to surface water. Dissolved oxygen levels are low at times, especially low flows, as well. Both point and non-point sources contribute to these water quality problems.

Martin County and Martin SWCD are participating in the Blue Earth River Clean Water partnership which is focusing on Lily and Center Creeks. This project monitors for water quality within the watershed and provides funds for conservation practices through the SWCD.

The lakes in Martin County are typical of southern Minnesota in that they are shallow, nutrient rich and hyper-eutrophic. Most are managed for fishing and Pierce is managed for wildlife by the DNR. Fox Lake is currently being managed for muskie. DNR has successfully stocked muskie in recent years. The Fairmont Chain of Lakes has over 35 studies completed on it whereas the rest of the lakes have a minimal amount of information available.

A review of information available on surface water quality revealed that there is one instance of a fish kill caused by pollution in Martin County, which occurred during a copper sulfate treatment in Budd Lake. Because the lakes are shallow, during the winter when there is a snow cover on them, the oxygen supply in the water is at times insufficient to support fish life. Aeration systems, managed by local conservation groups, are usually established on Lake George, Sisseton and Big Twin.

In Martin County there are 29 waters listed on the Pollution Control Agency Impaired Waters [303d] List proposed for 2006. Below is a summary of the listed reaches and their associated impairment.

* Additions proposed for the 2006 list.

Surface water quality in the county is impacted by both point and non-point sources of pollution. Point sources of pollution are for the most part regulated at the state level by the Pollution Control Agency and local governments have little say in the enforcement of point source pollution issues as they relate to water quality. Non-point source pollution on the other hand can, and does, have local control. Examples of this are feedlots and individual septic systems.

In Martin County, surface waters are most impacted by sediment, nutrients [nitrogen and phosphorous] and bacteria. There have been some indications of pesticides but the monitoring for pesticides is limited. Changes in pesticide usage and formulations have resulted in more environmentally friendly resulting in less impact to surface and ground waters.

The advancement of the TMDL initiative in Minnesota has accelerated the importance of addressing local water quality impairments. The list of impaired waters continues to grow as more water bodies are monitored and reported. The County should prioritize local initiative efforts toward these reaches with a goal of having the reaches delisted.

The detriment to water quality seems to be fairly consistent from one watershed to another within the county. This probably is reflective of the fact that land use is consistent across the county. Sediment and nutrient coming from both the agricultural and the urban setting have contributed to the degradation of our surface waters.

Sediment contributions coming from agricultural land varies with the crop, slope, intensity of the rain event, soil type, proximity to surface water or a tile inlet and tillage practices. Other sources of sediment are construction sites, roadways and stormwater outlets. Martin County has a significant amount of wind erosion occurring which contributes sediment and phosphorous to surface waters.

Sediment is a pollutant in itself, but it also is a carrier of pollutants. Pollutants such as phosphorous, pesticides, heavy metals [such as mercury], toxins and nitrogen attach to clay particles in the soil as they are applied. As soil erosion occurs and the sediment moves, it carries with it the attached pollutants. In many cases, if we can stop or reduce the movement of sediment, we are also stopping the movement of other pollutants. Practices to reduce sediment movement into surface water should be encouraged for both urban and rural landowners.

The main water quality issue is phosphorous. Elevated levels of phosphorous in surface waters lead to excessive algal growth. As more algae grows, it utilizes the oxygen in the water and the increased growth results in reduced water clarity. Phosphorous is the limiting factor for algal growth in freshwater aquatic systems.

Nitrogen is also a surface water concern for Martin County. Elevated nitrogen levels can pose a health risk if the water is being used for drinking water. The City of Fairmont uses surface water as it= s drinking water source and the City of Mankato, located at the mouth of the Blue Earth River, has a Ramey well which draws water from 40 feet below the Blue Earth River. Basically, they are drinking water from the Blue Earth River. Water sampling on the Blue Earth River has indicated nitrate levels at 20 ppm or twice the drinking water standard especially during the spring [high runoff] season.

Nitrogen also has an impact on aquatic life in the streams and lakes. The ammonia form of nitrogen is toxic to aquatic life. Reducing the nitrogen entering our surface water will help to improve the numbers of aquatic plants and animals that live in our streams and lakes.

Hypoxia [low oxygen] conditions are present at the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi River discharges into the gulf. There is a 5 – 8,000 square mile ‘dead zone’ in the gulf where marine life has been impaired to the point where it can no longer survive. The Hypoxia Task Force has identified intense row crop areas, such as the Blue Earth watershed, as a major contributor of nitrogen to the hypoxia problem in the Gulf. Nitrogen ‘leaking’ into tile and surface waters has been shown to contribute significantly to the hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico. In marine water systems, nitrogen is the limiting factor for aquatic plant growth; whereas in freshwater systems the limiting factor is phosphorous.

Fine tuning the management of fertilizers and manures being applied to our agricultural lands to reduce nutrient leaching and runoff will reduce the amount of nutrient getting into surface waters. The urban sector also has to get involved and use proper rates and application methods in applying fertilizers to their lawns and properly handling their yard wastes. Effluent from municipal sewage treatment systems also has to be properly managed to reduce nutrient inputs to surface waters.

Bacteria contributions to surface waters are from three main sources: individual sewage treatment systems with a direct connection to the surface; mismanaged manure application, storage or handling; and natural sources. Identifying coliform bacteria in surface water indicates a health risk may be present. Coliform bacteria is an ‘indicator’ bacteria for other, more toxic, bacteria. The State of Minnesota has established a level of 200 colonies coliform bacteria per 100 ml as the water quality limit. The State is currently examining the bacteria water quality standard. Considerations are being given to using an e-coli bacteria standard instead of coliform bacteria. Since e-coli bacteria is an actual health risk this may make more sense. Reducing the bacteria amount is the only thing that will make our waters > swimmable= .

Since failing Septic Systems are a source for more human disease causing organisms than other sources, bringing failing septic systems in compliance is the highest priority when addressing bacteria issues.

Implementing programs to get individual sewage treatment systems in compliance with state law will reduce the level of bacteria in our streams, lakes and wetlands. It is estimated that 70 % of the individual sewage systems in Martin County are permitted, and considered to be in compliance. The county has had several programs, such as the County Loan Program, Pleasant Prairie Project, Clean Water Partnerships and the MDA State Revolving Loan program, to provide assistance to landowners for upgrading. Efforts need to continue to find financial assistance to address this problem as the cost for each system continues to increase.. Priority should be given to address areas that impact recreational waters due to the health risk associated with failing systems. Strong educational programs need to compliment any financial offerings. There is a need for more licensed contractors.

Proper application, storage and handling of manure by all farmers will ensure protection of our surface waters from bacterial organisms from livestock. Education and technical assistance needs to continue to be provided so farmers can continue to improve their own management skills. These educational efforts need to include the resulting impact to surface waters if manure is not properly handled. The county needs to ensure that the permitting process is completed, sites are inspected prior to issuing a permit and violations are identified and corrected. Farmers need to follow BMP= s when applying manure to ensure excess manure does not runoff into surface waters and that phosphorous levels in the soil do not build up excessively.

Most of the natural streams, lakes and wetlands in the county are listed as protected waters on the DNR Protected Waters list. Headwater drainage ditches and streams in first order watersheds as well as smaller wetland areas do not qualify as protected waters. The problem is that all of these systems are connected hydrologically. Any potential negative impact to them will impact the water in a Protected Water. Therefore, the county, and the state, needs to explore the possibility of applying more protection to these areas as well.

Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) annual sanitary surveys done on municipal water systems are the only routinely monitored groundwater quality information available. No indications exist that ground water pollution has been shown to be a problem in these tests nor did the volatile organic chemical survey of community water supplies done by the MDH reveal any problem in Martin County. A Tri-County drinking water quality study conducted by the Faribault-Martin-Watonwan (Counties) Human Services Board Sanitarian on private water supplies was done on 139 sample wells in 1980. This revealed that 11 of the wells had coliform contamination and 3 had nitrate levels of 10 mg or higher. A further test done in 1988 of 56 sample wells revealed that 16 had coliform contamination and 4 had nitrate levels of 10mg or higher.

During 1991, all residents with a private well were offered a free water test screening for nitrates and coliform bacteria. During the spring of that year we had excessive amounts of rain and flooding to the point that crops did not get planted until late in June. The results of this screening showed about 69 % of the people had coliform bacteria in their drinking water. The high levels were probably reflective of the flooded conditions earlier in the year. Homeowners did collect their own samples which may have resulted in higher levels due to improper handling.

Nitrate levels were relatively low with less than 10 % showing any nitrate at all. The wells that had detects of above 10 ppm, the drinking water standard, were wells that were poorly constructed, tile cased, shallow [< 30 feet deep], or near contamination sources such as a septic system or feedlot.

The City of Fairmont, as a source water [gets their drinking water from surface sources] community, has completed a Source Water Protection Plan as part of their Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan. Other Martin County communities with municipal wells will need to complete a Wellhead Protection Plans within the next few years. Developing the remaining plans and assisting with the implementation of all of the required plans will remain a water plan priority. The Cities of Welcome and Trimont, who have constructed new wells, were the only communities required to complete a Wellhead Protection Plan.

In the citizen attitude surveys done on water issues, purity of drinking water supplies has always rated high. The state currently has no testing program for private water supplies except for the tests for coliform bacteria and nitrates that is required when a new well is constructed. The MDH recommends that private wells be tested for coliform bacteria and nitrates at least once per year.

Because of the geologic conditions we have in the county, the only real path for contaminants to the aquifer is through a poorly constructed well or through an abandoned well. The county has had numerous programs to identify and seal abandoned wells. These efforts need to continue to provide landowners with an awareness of the issue and financial assistance where feasible.

An inventory was done in 1990 and efforts need to continue to add to the database. Areas with limited data could be surveyed to get more information. Problem areas also could be identified by analyzing the well water data.

More reliable and consistent water quality has been indicated as a reason residents have expressed for hooking up to Red Rock Rural Water to supplement or replace their well water supply.

The issue of poor well construction is one that needs attention for the sake of the homeowner’s health. For Martin County, poor well construction means contaminated drinking water. Most homeowners that have bad wells are also low income and cannot afford the cost of a new well. By working to repair these wells, the homeowner would have safe drinking water and it also would protect everyone’s drinking water supply from contamination.

As communities need to address their Wellhead Protection Plan, the Water Planning/SWCD Office can provide technical assistance to the municipalities. The county has information available regarding the geology, land use, water yields, use and flows. Most of the information needed for the plan is already available at the county. The exception would be extra monitoring that may be required and landuse specific to the site vicinity.

There are 9960 acres of highly erodible land in Martin County as defined by the Federal Food and Security Act [Farm Bill]. This includes topsoil loss from fields through wind or water erosion usually occurring within 300 feet of a stream or 1000 feet of a water basin. NRCS prepares a National Resources Inventory (NRI) which deals with land use parameters affecting water quality. These are correlated with land classes. Some of these parameters include: land cover/use of non-federal land and small waters; non-irrigated cropland use; pastureland and forestland use; etc.

In Martin County wind erosion is also a factor in contributions of sediment to surface water. Wind erosion occurs across the county where there is not adequate protection in the row crop areas. In 1980 a program was developed in the county for encouraging landowners to provide protection from wind erosion.

This program, called Conserving Acres, allows landowners who have planted a field windbreak to have one rod [16.5 feet] on each side assessed at a lower rate [$200] per acre. This would apply as long as the windbreak remained in the field.

In agricultural areas, erosion and sedimentation are recognized as significant non-point source pollution factors. Martin County farmers are aware of the polluting effects of sedimentation and also of the need to meet the requirements of the Federal Food and Security Act [Federal Farm Bill]. Currently there are approximately 10,000 acres of highly erodible land in 300 fields identified throughout the county.

Ninety five percent of the land in Martin County is in annual row crop production. The impact this has on water quality can be seen when we look at the turbidity of the water in our lakes, streams or rivers due to sedimentation and algal growth due to eutrophication. Landowners should explore taking their most vulnerable [polluting] acres and converting them to non row crop annuals, such as small grains or cover crops, short term perennials or long term perennials instead of annual row crop. Across the county this would equate to 5 or 10 % of the landscape. These areas should be ‘working lands’ and provide economic return back to the farm family, instead of ‘retired’ land.

In addition, farmers are encouraged to use conservation tillage methods to reduce soil erosion. Farmers with highly erodible land have been notified by the NRCS and they have provided a conservation compliance plan according to the Federal Food and Security Act [Federal Farm Bill] if they wish to receive USDA benefits. Some of the turbidity problems are from other sources such as decaying vegetation, fertilizer and chemical runoff and agitation of lake bottoms from rough fish or wind in areas with a long fetch distance.

In an effort to encourage more protection for eroding lands adjoining surface water, the county should consider utilizing the County Conserving Acres program, CRP, CREP or other opportunities to promote buffers that protect water quality. This could include drainage ditch buffers along with riparian buffers of either trees or permanent grass. Drainage ditch buffers required as part of the drainage law should not be eligible for additional payment.

Irrigation is very limited in Martin County. The county has highly productive soils made up of fine silts and clays. Where the glacial outwash occurs along main tributaries we do see lighter soils and the potential need for irrigation, although very limited. There is no township within the county that has more than 1,000 acres of irrigated land.

There is not enough irrigated land within the county to have a significant impact on either surface or ground water at this time.

There are at least 120 miles of open drainage ditches within Martin County. These open ditches are part of a total drainage picture that has literally millions of feet of tile lines - much of it private. There are over 200 public drainage systems within the county. Public drainage systems are privately owned by the determined benefited landowners in Minnesota. The amount spent on maintenance of these drainage systems in 2005 was $400,000.

The Martin County Board of Commissioners [Ditch Authorities] have become regional leaders in systematically identifying ditch systems needing maintenance and then they work with the landowners to have the ditch benefits re-determined. This provides an opportunity to evaluate the drainage system and identify lands contributing to the system. Since many systems were established fifty or more years ago, this process brings the system up to date and provides a truer picture of what is happening hydrologically on the landscape. The process also results in a one rod buffer being required along open ditches, if it not already required.

There is an extensive drainage infrastructure in place in Martin County. Prior to 1900 about one third of the county was slough/wetland type area. In the early 1900's much of this area was drained for agricultural use. Drainage systems put in place since the thirties are mainly improvements and expansions to existing systems. Over the years these ditches have been repaired and maintained pretty much as needed. Because of this the need for major repairs has been limited.

The trend in drainage is to install pattern tile in the flatter fields where the existing tile is not adequate. While tiling occurs, it is not necessarily draining wetlands. There are several agencies that regulate wetlands in Minnesota and it would be a violation of at least one of these laws to drain or fill a wetland. The penalties are high, especially for agricultural producers who would lose all their Federal Farm Program benefits.

Each public ditch system in Martin County has an engineer's report on file at the Auditor’s office and at the regional DNR office. These would have to be analyzed individually to really determine the impact any system would have on specific basins, wetland areas or protected waters. Most of the ditches and tile systems were in place prior to the designation of protected waters. Information on water quality or quantity would be addressed, as necessary, in each of the engineer’s reports for that ditch. Generally speaking, water quality problems stem from sedimentation, fertilizer and chemical runoff, contaminants entering through tile lines and feedlot run off.

A significant action that will lessen the water pollution effects of ditches is the maintenance of effective buffer strips on each side of the ditches to prevent erosion. This does not necessarily mean all the ditch edge needs a buffer. In many cases the slope along the ditch is away from the ditch or water. Water then travels along the ditch and at a low spot enters a side inlet. This side inlet would also need to be buffered. Of the 27.75 miles required to maintain a 16.5 ft. strip, only 12.05 miles have adequate buffers on both sides. Enforcement of this is the responsibility of the Ditch Authority.

The other implication of these ditches and their potential for pollution is the connection of septic systems to them. This issue is addressed more completely in other areas of this plan.

The list of known sanitary landfills in Martin County shows one landfill within the county, the Gopher Sanitary Landfill, located southeast of the intersection of County Roads 142 and 39, in Rutland Township. Originally this was a privately operated landfill permitted by the MPCA in 1972. Because of operational violations, the MPCA revoked the permit in 1985. The landfill stopped accepting waste in 1986 and Martin County assumed the responsibility for closing the landfill in 1988. Martin County met the landfill closure requirements and the landfill was admitted into Minnesota’s Landfill Cleanup Program and the state’s takeover of long term care of the landfill in 1996.

Groundwater beneath the landfill moves slowly to the south and in 2004 the landfill was reopened by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency because contamination was found in the discharge to Elm Creek. The landfill was reshaped and covered with a heavy liner. Surface water was rerouted to a holding pond in the southeast corner of the property. Monitoring will continue to check the effectiveness of this revision to the landfill. Martin County Commissioners have expressed a desire for the State of Minnesota to take over ownership of the landfill property as well as the long-term care of the landfill. The State has not acted on their request.

A list of permitted feedlots is maintained by the Planning and Zoning Department.. The majority are swine operations of a variety of sizes. There is some water quality monitoring required for feedlots either by Martin County or the State. Several educational programs are available each year to producers focusing on the proper management, handling and application of livestock manure. The local Pork Producer group, in conjunction with the state and national groups, have been leaders in developing specialized programs for the swine industry addressing environmental issues.

Martin County has accepted the regulatory authority for the feedlot program from PCA. Efforts m are being made to identify the polluting feedlots and to work with the owner to get the problem corrected. The County has established an inspection program that provides that each feedlot is inspected at least every four years. Feedlots, and manure, that are properly managed are not water quality concerns. Within the county there are mostly pits located under the building rather than earthen basins or lagoons. With the subsoil's we have, the potential for spills from manure storage areas is very limited.

There is information available in the SWCD Office about abandoned wells within the county. All of the information that has been collected is from the Minnesota Department of Health or personal sources. This information should continue to be collected and efforts made to collect data in areas where the database is limited. This list serves a useful function of helping to identify priority areas for well sealing. Over half of the wells are on a computer database called County Well Index distributed by the Minnesota Geological Survey.

Underground storage tanks present a threat to groundwater if they leak. The location, content, size and other information concerning the underground storage tanks within the county are maintained by PCA. Any water quality information relating to the sites of any of the tanks within the county would be maintained by PCA. There are no identified problems at this time.

All facilities with permits to discharge into Martin County waters are available from PCA. The water quality information supplied with this listing is such that an assessment of the data is not possible. The county requests the PCA, who supply the permits and gather the information from the facilities, to notify the county if any violations are indicated in their records.

The listing of facilities in Martin County that have hazardous waste generator identification numbers reveals that there are no major generators (generating more than 1000 kilograms per month) of hazardous waste within the county. There are numerous facilities that do generate or handle hazardous waste in quantities of less than 100 kilograms per month. All of this waste is disposed of outside the county or recycled.

While all of the above pollutant sources have a potential to affect the water quality, the existence of unsealed abandoned wells appear to be the most immediate threat due to their direct link with the aquifers that provide drinking water to the majority of residents. The other major implication of the information in this section is the lack of water quality monitoring information that is available surrounding these potential hazards. If a concern should arise the county should pursue possible monitoring efforts to determine the degree of impact.

There is evidence to indicate the presence of several buried valleys in Martin County. The bedrock surface contour indicates these rivers were part of a system with a northward flow. There are three distinct chains of lakes associated with this river system. They are the East Chain string of lakes, the chain running from straight north of Fairmont to the Iowa border and in the northwest corner near Trimont.

Buried valleys are the buried remnants of rivers that once flowed over the bedrock surface. These pre-glacial drainage patterns in the bedrock surface were significantly altered by glaciations. The bedrock river valleys were filled with glacial deposits through successive glacial advances.

Buried valleys may have chains of lakes associated with them. This occurs when ice blocks, separated from the main mass of a down washing glacier became lodged in a pre-glacial valley. They may become buried by till from a slight re-advance of the glacier. Upon melting a chain of lakes is produced.

These valleys are poorly defined by present date, but they may be promising areas to explore for water-bearing sand and gravel beds. Knowledge of these valleys may also allow for better prediction of groundwater contamination movement.

The eastern portion of the county contains areas where the bedrock is 100 feet or less below the surface. All other areas have at least 100 feet to bedrock.

The presence of the buried valley evidence indicates that it is important for Martin County to ensure that any polluting sources, such as abandoned wells, that lead to the ground water supply in these areas are corrected, since the aquifers that these serve are extensive and go way beyond Martin County's border. Residents with shallow wells or poorly constructed wells should be testing their drinking water regularly for nitrates and coliform bacteria as these are most likely the wells that will show contamination.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has inventoried wetlands in Martin County which are included, and are in addition to, those identified in the State Protected Waters and Wetlands Inventory. These have been classified and located on 7 1/2 minute topographical maps which have been digitized and mapped for this area. A copy of the National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI) is available at the SWCD Office.

Anyone wishing to place dredged or fill material in any wetland or waters must obtain a 404 permit from the US Army Corp of Engineers. This permit is also required for dredging or placing structures in navigable waters.

All wetlands are regulated. There are eight agencies which regulate wetlands in Minnesota. They are FSA, DNR, NRCS, USFWS, COE, BWSR, EPA and PCA. The local WCA Administrator [Martin SWCD] can provide basic information regarding which permits are necessary for landowners. Persons enrolled in the Farm Program should go to FSA or NRCS to file necessary forms prior to conducting any alterations. If the site is wet and needs to be filled or drained, it has a strong chance of being a regulated wetland.

Wetlands in Martin County can be found throughout the county. At one time about one-third to one-half of the land area was wetlands. In the early 1900's much of this area was drained for public health and safety and agricultural use. It is anticipated that the current number of wetlands will not decrease but increase. There is interest from landowners in wetland restoration. There are currently several sources of financial incentive and landowners are beginning to understand the benefits of wetlands.

As we continue to see the deterioration of public drainage systems we will need to find viable alternatives to major improvements. Many improvements will be cost prohibitive. This will open the door to having water storage areas in the watershed to slow down the movement of stormwater off the landscape. Restored wetlands, strategically located, could provide a viable practical solution.

There is not any reported instance of Purple Loosestrife within the county. It has been reported in neighboring counties and the county is checked regularly for it.

It is recognized by the county the role that wetlands play in recharging the groundwater supply of the county and helping to enhance the water quality. Once key wetlands have been identified they could be assessed to determine what improvements are needed for fish and wildlife habitat, maintaining high environmental quality or for socio-economic values such as flood and storm damage protection, erosion control, water supply and groundwater recharge and recreation.

Because only about 5% of the original wetlands remain, it would be important to have the entire county be a priority area for wetland restoration. Within this priority it could be subdivided as to restorations that are a priority for floodwater storage, wildlife benefit, fisheries habitat, etc. Protection and improvement of native plant populations and raising awareness terrestrial and aquatic invasive species has become a priority. An evaluation of potential sites would need to occur to establish a scoring system.

The following waters and their 100-year floodplain have been identified by inventoried Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps for known and potential flood risk in Martin County:

Creeks:

Cedar, Willow, Perch, Lily, South, Dutch, Mink, Elm, Center and Four Mile.

Lakes:

Cedar, Murphy, Buffalo, Sagar, Bright, East Chain, Okamanpeedan, Iowa, George, Hall, Park, Creek, Eagle, Charlotte, Imogene, Pierce, Rose, Tuttle, Inlet, South Silver, Swag, Sisseton, Budd and Amber.

Rivers:

East Fork Des Moines, Watonwan.

The required map of areas with known flooding problems reveals that 42.5 percent of the county has the potential for flooding. However, the NRCS reported in 1982 through a National Resources Inventory that 13,600 acres of Martin County land were susceptible to flooding annually. An estimate of average annual flood damages is unavailable, but Martin County does participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Participation in the NFIP includes adoption of a floodplain ordinance. Enforcement of this is generally adequate. Martin County's Floodplain Management Ordinance is up to date. Areas with known flooding problems are mainly along lakes and streams. These areas generally have low population and development is limited to the requirements of the local floodplain ordinance.

The local governments with approved shoreland ordinances that are compliant with 1969 MN Shoreland Management Act as of May, 1988 are Martin County and the City of Fairmont. Both Martin County and the city of Fairmont revised and updated their Shoreland Ordinances to be effective in 1993.

A list of protected waters and their shoreland classifications under Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.485 reveals that lakes are classified as a Conservation District, Natural Environment Lake or a Recreational Development Lake. Landowners should check with the local Zoning Office to determine the set backs and development requirements for their specific situation.

Shoreland ordinances need to be addressed with proactive enforcement if water quality is to be maintained or improved. . General problems include:

l. Substandard septic systems

2. Non-point source pollution from agricultural runoff

3. Uncontrolled shoreland alterations and residential pesticide use.

4. Inadequately treated stormwater.

The listing of water based recreation lands reveals that there are 49 municipal and 6 county parks within Martin County.

The map of public water accesses reveals that there are 19 access points on 18 different lakes in the county. A map of the public accesses is available in the Water Plan Office.

There are no state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers within the county. In 1996 the state designated the Watonwan River as a state designated canoe and boating route. The Watonwan River just dips into Cedar Township in Sections 2 and 3 but the Watonwan River Watershed includes much of the northern edge of the county.

Martin County has several water-based recreational lands for present use. These include parks (municipal and county), public accesses and wildlife management areas. Even though they serve the public fairly well there is room for improvement. Some of the parks in the towns are heavily used. Through park/access improvements and advertising some of this use could be spread out over some of the less used areas. Popular lakes which have no public access could have an access added. Each park has a long range plan and these should be followed and improvements made as needed. If the opportunity exists to acquire additional public land it should be pursued.

FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT:

Martin County has 18 Wildlife Management Areas (WMA's) with a total of 2,944 acres. The DNR has developed a Wildlife Management Plan for each of these areas and they are available through the DNR. There is one designated wildlife management lakes within the county, that being Pierce Lake. DNR manages the water levels with water control structures on seven basins (255 acres) within WMAs, plus Pierce Lake (455 acres). Additionally, Fox Lake, with 5,065 acres and Mud-Bardwell Lakes with 1,620 acres are designated as statutory game refuges. There are no designated trout lakes or streams within the county. Fox lake has recently begun being managed as a muskie fishery with lake stocking occurring.

The list of state ecological and management classifications for the fish lakes in Martin County shows that 12 have ecological classifications of Roughfish-Gamefish with management classifications of Warmwater Gamefish, 3 have ecological classifications of Centrachid (Bass, panfish) with management classifications the same and 7 are unclassified.

A review of the biological lake survey information for Martin County shows that most lakes have a fair to good population of gamefish species, such as northern pike, walleye, yellow perch, channel catfish and crappie despite evidence of high fertility, algae blooms, and turbidity. Most Martin County lakes have had fish surveys completed since 1993 by the DNR. A vegetation survey was completed on Fox Lake in 2010. Some lakes suggested possible pollution from agricultural sources and/or city streets.

The area DNR has management plans of Martin County's Wildlife Management areas. There are 3 streams currently being managed for fisheries in Martin County: Elm Creek, Center Creek and Cedar Run Creek. As a result of extensive channelization, agricultural, municipal and industrial pollution, none of the above rivers have been stocked. The management plan is to encourage better land management practices and continue to evaluate the fishery situation.

Continued encouragement by local conservation groups, state and federal agencies on the improvement of wildlife habitat on private lands will aid public owned wildlife management areas. Much of the wildlife habitat has been destroyed due to the push for fence row to fence row production of the 40's and 50's plus the elimination of most of the fence rows since then. Encouraging local land owners to increase wildlife habitat can only enhance wildlife populations in Martin County. Incorporating habitat needs into BMPs that address energy, erosion control and water quality, can further enhance the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat.

The Department of Natural Resources has done significant work in evaluating the natural resources of Martin County. In reviewing of this data we can see that much has to yet be done if we are to provide adequate lakes for fishing and recreation and land for wildlife habitat. The DNR needs to continue to evaluate these areas as they are always changing and the public needs to have a greater awareness and concern for their environment. This can be accomplished by landowners, governmental agencies and conservation groups working together to study, evaluate and carry out the plans for a better environment.

Local governments should utilize local ecotype native seed and plants for doing prairie and riparian buffer restorations, especially adjoining existing native areas wherever practicable and feasible.

There has been 1 threatened species (Sullivant's Milkweed), 1 endangered species (Burrowing Owl) and 4 special concern species (Eastern Spotted Skunk, Sandhill Crane and King Rail, animals and Rattlesnake Master, a plant) spotted in Martin County. Additionally, there are 21 archaeological sites found in Martin County, as well as 2 historical sites (Livingstone Log Cabin and George Wohluter Mansion). Martin County has one original native prairie site enrolled in the Prairie Bank program with the DNR.

Recent finds include a single population of Prairie Bush Clover (State Endangered; Federally Threatened) in Cedar Township and the Blanding’s Turtle (Threatened) in the Perch Creek area.

Although Martin County's unique features are few they are still important. Some of these features were identified several years ago and these areas should be rechecked to see if these species still exist. Where they do exist the area should be protected or enhanced to allow the specie to continue. Most of these features, such as an archeological site, are protected by state or federal law.

If it is determined that the species listed are still in the area steps should be taken to evaluate their habitat to see if more could be done to encourage them to come to this area. This determination would have to be by someone who has the knowledge to make an adequate determination, such as the DNR.

The Minnesota County Biological Survey has recently completed field work in Martin County, identifying many rare and declining species. Plans need to be developed to protect, enhance and expand habitats to aid in their survival. The MN DNR Non-Game Wildlife Program is studying the Perch Creek Blanding’s Turtle population. Priority habitat needs are being identified. Nesting priority areas have been mapped for potential habitat development work.

During the ten years of this plan the main changes we will see that will potentially impact surface and ground water is the industrial and retail growth within the county. This growth will in turn, impact residential growth and development especially in areas with favorable water resources for recreation. Great River Energy operates an electric peaking plant west of Trimont, The Trimont Area Wind Farm, CHS constructed a soybean crushing facility west of Fairmont and two ethanol plants are planned to be constructed in the near future. These are major industries that demand large volumes of water. As these projects, and other projects, are proposed consideration needs to be given to the cumulative effect there may be to our surface and groundwater water resources.

It is anticipated that there will be increased development around some of the lakes within the county for recreation purposes. County zoning regulations could be enhanced to establish low impact development guidelines to ensure sustainable growth in these critical areas.