Soil & Water Nonpoint Technical Assistance, County Road Inventory, and Wetland Initiatives (306-11-10)

Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program
Soil & Water
Nonpoint Technical Assistance,
County Road Inventory,
and Wetland Initiatives
Tristan Beaster, Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District
December 2009
Project No. 306-11-10
Contract No. B17945
This project was funded in part under the Coastal Zone Management Act, by NOAA’s
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, in cooperation with Minnesota’s
Lake Superior Coastal Program.
Introduction:
The Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District has been involved in
conservation and sustainable land use practices for over 40 years. With the assistance of
a Lake Superior Coastal Program grant, the district was able to pursue three innovative
and important conservation tasks.
First, a key responsibility of a local conservation district is to provide technical

assistance to landowners within the County. This grant allowed SWCD staff to offer a
broad range of technical services ranging from providing more extensive review of
construction projects affecting public waters and wetlands, to assisting local landowners
on proper BMP planning, to establishing a thorough water quality monitoring program
for a portion of the stormwater infrastructure of a local municipality.
The second task that was worked on was an inventory of stream and drainage crossings
on County Roads within the coastal zone. County Roads have been identified in the local
water management plan as significant sources of sediment to the many streams in the
county that drain into Lake Superior. Stream crossings also can become barriers to fish
and other aquatic organism passage. Finally, stream crossings tend to be weak points in
rural infrastructure systems, as they are often deteriorated and eroded. The inventory that
was completed represents an important planning tool and will allow the SWCD and the
County to identify priority projects for future restoration.
The district was also able to pursue a wetland initiative that sought to do two things: One,
it aimed to provide additional wetland education and outreach to the community,
especially to individuals in the construction community. Second, the grant allowed the
SWCD to participate in a Northeast Wetland Mitigation Strategy, a region-wide effort to
identify wetland mitigation in NE Minnesota.
Work Completed:
Nonpoint Technical Assistance
Cook SWCD staff provided technical assistance and review of projects and plans ranging
from proposals to impact wetlands and public waters permit applications to development
plans for local municipalities and non-profit orgranizations. Staff also developed and
implemented a water monitoring project for key components of the City of Grand Marais
stormwater infrastructure. Included in this monitoring effort was measurement of water
level in two stormwater ponds, stream flow and turbidity measurements in a drainage
ditch, and real-time precipitation measurements. These efforts will allow the City to
make more informed decisions when it comes to improving these structures to provide
better flood protection for the city and to reduce water quality impacts to Lake Superior.
Finally, staff participated in the review of erosion and sedimentation reduction projects in
the Poplar River watershed.
Wetland Initiative
This task contained three wetland-related initiatives. The first was to identify potential
wetland mitigation sites in Cook County. To that end, Cook SWCD staff coordinated
with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources to identify sites that possessed
characteristics that gave them a potential for wetland mitigation. After field reviewing
the sites and corresponding with landowners, it was clear that mitigation opportunities
were not abundant. However, there were some sites that we would like to look into in
more detail. SWCD staff will continue to meet with the County Planning & Zoning to
create a County Wetland Bank using the results of the inventory.
The second initiative in this task involved the mapping of historical wetland impacts in
the county to assess which watersheds had been most impacted by wetland alteration and
loss. In lieu of the mapping project, staff attended the week-long wetland delineator
training in Little Falls. This was a valuable training that gave staff an enhanced
knowledge of wetland hydrology, soils, and vegetation. Better wetland delineations and
boundary determinations are a result of staff attending this important training.
The final initiative was to pursue outreach activities on the subject of wetlands that would
provide greater understanding of the Wetland Conservation Act and wetland science.
The target audience for this training was the construction community. Construction
contractors are most often the primary contact for land altering activities, and their
understanding of rules and regulations can often be the difference between a project that
has minimal impacts on the environment and one that becomes and enforcement case and
has expansive, long-term impacts on the environment. A day-long training was held in
conjunction with the Cook County Planning and Zoning office in May 2009 that covered
these important topics. There were 25 participants at the workshop. The presentation
given by Cook SWCD is included with this report.
Road Inventory
Work on this task progressed through four separate phases as outlined in the proposal.
The first of these was a literature review and project planning phase. Staff reviewed
relevant scientific reports and presentations from similar projects that have been carried
out in other parts of the country. Staff from the Cook County Hwy Department, Cook
SWCD, Technical Service Area #3, and Cook County MIS Department met three times
during the winter and spring of 2009 to discuss project goals and methods. During these
meetings, we recognized that the inventory needed to be more focused on the most
pressing resource issues. That is why, although we wrote the proposal with broad
language addressing sediment and ditch erosion, we decided to focus on stream and
drainage crossings on County Roads.
The second phase of the project was to collect data in the field. During this phase, staff
inventoried and assessed 300 stream and drainage crossings on 121 miles of county road
within the coastal zone. Phase three involved the distillation of the field data into a GIS
database for easier interpretation. Phase three progressed simultaneously with phase two.
The final phase of the task was to summarize the findings of the road inventory project
into a final report. That report is included as an appendix to this report, along with the
final GIS data that was collected.
Results:
Nonpoint Technical Assistance
Staff performed 16 technical reviews of non-wetland related projects. Cook SWCD also
provided education materials on shoreland restoration, native plantings, and watershed
awareness at the Gunflint Green-Up fair in May 2009 and the County Fair in August
2009.
Cook SWCD technical staff observed implementation of six erosion reduction BMPs in
the lower Poplar River watershed. Staff also attended three landowner association
meetings to discuss and plan for construction projects.
Cook SWCD Conservation Projects Assistant summarized rainfall, water level, stream
flow, and turbidity data for the 2009 monitoring season on Nature Boy Creek. The final
report for this portion of the project can be found in Appendix F.
SWCD staff served on the Cook County Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel. SWCD
technical staff reviewed 38 applications to impact wetlands, including 14 wetland
delineations. Staff wrote three wetland Restoration Orders and awarded two Certificates
of Satisfactory Restoration. Staff attended 7 days of wetland continuing education,
including a 5-day wetland delineation course, the US Army Corps of Engineers
delineation manual updates, and the Minnesota Wetlands conference. The Cook SWCD
office received, referred and reported citizen wetland concerns. All of the above activities
were also reported to the SWCD Board at their monthly meetings.
County Road Inventory
Three-hundred water crossings on County Roads were inventoried. Of these, 24 were

identified as likely barriers to aquatic organism passage. An additional thirteen crossings
were identified as potential barriers to aquatic organism passage and more study was
recommended to make this determination. These sites are potential candidates for future
coastal habitat restoration projects.
Wetland Initiative
Staff field-reviewed 12 potential wetland mitigation sites in Cook County. Of these,
three were identified as higher priority sites and will be investigated further to assess the
feasibility of creating a local wetland bank. These sites are potential candidates for future
coastal habitat protection projects.
Cook SWCD staff partnered with the Cook County Planning and Zoning Department to
provide a contractor’s workshop in May 2009. The full-day workshop included
presentations on topics ranging from wetland avoidance to erosion control BMP
implementation.
Partnerships:
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources

Technical Service Area 3
City of Grand Marais
County of Cook Highway and Information Systems (MIS) Departments
Gunflint Green Up Committee
County Fair Board
USDA Forest Service
Leveraged Dollars:
Cook SWCD reported $ 3,844.76 in leveraged dollars beyond the 50% match required
for this project.
Conservation Engineer Technical Service Area #3 $1,244.76

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources $2,600.00
Conclusions:
Providing technical assistance to local landowners and local government units continues
to be an important component of implementing conservation practices. Cook SWCD is
able to fill the role of information provider and reviewer of projects that impact the
natural resources of the coastal zone such as wetlands and public waters. The
implementation of a water monitoring project on a portion of the Grand Marais
stormwater system has provided valuable information that will guide efforts to reduce
flooding and sediment loading to Lake Superior. Our initial labors to create a database
record of technical assistance were scaled back due to software complications. We will
move this work into a simpler spreadsheet approach to track work accomplished and
landowners assisted.
Because of the road inventory portion of this project, the county now has an important
piece of infrastructure assessed and recorded, eliminating the need for annual, ad hoc
inspections. A source of major negative impacts to streams has also been identified,
categorized, and mapped, again reducing the need for ad hoc identification of restoration
projects. We were able to expand the utilization of technology in local government by
incorporating GPS and GIS into the work plan and products. We will continue the
success of this particular task by pursuing additional funding options for expansion of the
inventory to the remainder of the county road system. We are also exploring options for
restoration projects based on the prioritization of projects as determined by the inventory.
The granting of Lake Superior Coastal Program funding and the success of this project
have allowed us to pursue these avenues.
The creation of a Cook County wetland bank is complicated by the lack of readily
available mitigation sites. However, with the help of this grant we have finally identified
some sites that could eventually be put into a conservation easement, which would
provide valuable coastal habitat protection.
Appendices
A. Project photos
B. Performance Indicators Checklist
C. Budget
D. Road Inventory Report
E. Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites Map
F. Nature Boy Creek Monitoring Report
G. Contractor Workshop Presentation
H. Technical Assistance and Wetland Review Reports
Appendix A: Project photos
Photo 1.) Gunflint Greenup Fair, SWCD information booth. Photo

taken 5-01-2009 by Cindy Gentz, Cook SWCD Water Plan Coordinator.
Photo 2.) Nature Boy Creek Water Sampler, installed and collecting
data on a stream in Grand Marais. SWCD information booth. Photo
taken 06-29-2009 by Brandon Stephens, Cook SWCD Conservation
Projects Assistant.
Photo 3.) Road Inventory Field Work. Photo taken 8-27-2009 by
Tristan Beaster, Cook SWCD Conservation Technician. Pictured:
Brandon Stephens, Cook SWCD Conservation Projects Assistant,
measures the perched outlet of a county road stream crossing.
Photo 3.) Potential Wetland Mitigation Site. Photo taken 10-24-2008 by

Tristan Beaster, Cook SWCD Conservation Technician
Appendix B: Performance Indicators Checklist
Appendix C: Project Budget
Appendix D: Road Inventory Report
*Note: GIS files for this portion of the project can be found on CD #2.
Appendix E: Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites Map
Appendix F. Nature Boy Creek Monitoring Report
Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Summary
Soil & Water

Conservation District
Prepared by:
�
Brandon Stephens
�
Conservation Projects Assistant
�
Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District
�
Introduction
The overall goal to monitoring the Nature Boy Creek in the summer of 2009
was to assist in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Grand Marais stormwater
management plan created in 2001. The Creechville stormwater retention ponds were
put in place in 2004-2005 and were installed to reduce the total discharge of runoff
through the stormwater system. The 100+ year rain event in June of 2008
demonstrated the inability of the ponds to significantly reduce the discharge
throughout the whole of the Grand Marais stormwater system. It has been implied
that the model (ICECOR) used to create the stormwater management plan should be
re-evaluated and in order to do this data should be collected for the retention ponds
and Nature Boy Creek.
Creechville Stormwater Retention Ponds – Water Level Loggers
The primary data in the stormwater ponds to be collected include water level
and rainfall. Water level loggers were installed in both stormwater ponds in
May/June; however, the water logger (WL-15) in the first pond failed immediately.
The WL-15 is the older model for Global Water level loggers and the company offered
to reduce the cost on a new model (WL-16) if we sent the old one in. The final cost for
a new logger was $300 after trading-in the WL-15. Unfortunately, this did not arrive
until August, so the data set for Stormwater pond 1 (SP1) is fairly truncated. The
second stormwater pond (SP2) was monitored using a new WL-16 water logger that
was purchased in May. The data set for the second stormwater pond is complete for
the 2009 sampling season.
In addition to water level, an Onset rain gauge was used to collect rainfall
data. The rain gauge was placed in SP1 and collected data for the same time period as
water level for SP2. Data from the rain gauge was converted to rainfall rate (in/hr)
and plotted on the same graph as water level for the stormwater ponds (ft).
Cindy Gentz and Brandon Stephens conducted a survey of the major features
of the ponds on June 26th. The purpose of the survey was to monitor for changes in
the accumulation of sediment in the ponds, and therefore changes in the level of our
sampling equipment, over time. Non-electronic survey equipment was used and long
distances were traveled from the survey stations, which may have lead to significant
decreases in the accuracy of the survey points.
Nature Boy Creek – ISCO Autosampler
Further down on the Grand Marais stormwater system an ISCO autosampler

was installed to monitor rainfall and water level in addition to collecting samples for
Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The ISCO autosampler was purchased in 2001 and then
upgraded in 2004. It had been installed on the Nature Boy Creek in 2004; however,
the data set is limited and often contains erroneous data (i.e. negative water levels).
In order to put the autosampler to use again, the software (Flowlink 5.1) used to
interface between computers and the instrument was purchased for $2200. The
autosampler was then installed on the Nature Boy Creek just south of County Road 7
on June 29th, 2009.
The ISCO was setup to collect water level, rainfall rate and collect samples
once triggered by rainfall. The primary advantage of an autosampler is that it can
collect samples based on predefined parameters (ie flow rate, time interval, rainfall
rate) and does not require the individual to enter into the field to collect samples by
hand. The goal for the ISCO this summer was to try different combinations of
parameters to get a more complete data set the following summer. It is also hoped
that data collected in the next season would be entered into the MPCA’s STORET
database.
After trying different combinations of rainfall rate, flow rate and time intervals
the best program was determined to have the following parameters:
• The instrument triggers initially based on a 0.1” per hour rainfall event
�
(termed part ‘A’) and collect one sample after being triggered.
�
• Begin part ‘B’ where sample is collected every 10-12 minutes for bottles
�
numbered 2-13, then collect every 30 minutes for bottles 14-24.
�
Samples collected by the ISCO could remain in the field for up to 24-hours;
however, it was recommended to get them in a cold environment in as soon as
possible. If the samples were to remain at room temperature for longer than a day,
the samples would become significantly altered by bacterial degradation of the
organic material in the water. It was also recommended that the samples be analyzed
within one week so that they are not altered by cold-tolerant bacterial species.
Samples that were collected this summer were analyzed for Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) by ERA labs in Duluth.
Data collected by the ISCO in 2009 demonstrate that most often the rainfall
events were intense and short, giving rise to flashy discharge events. This may not be
true for every year on the Grand Marais stormwater ditch; however, based on this
data it is best to collect samples after a rainfall event exceeds 0.1” per hour and then
collect samples every 10-12 minutes for 2 hours then every 30 minutes for the next 5-6
hours. This sampling program should capture the rise and fall of discharge from most
rainfall events on the Nature Boy Creek. Certainly, events that exceed the 50-year
rainfall event could continue to discharge through the stormwater system for more
than 8-12 hours; however, it is more important to set a program based on average
conditions (and the same is true for a program setup based on flow).
In speaking with Bruce Wilson, the stormwater program manager for the
MPCA, to adequately monitor Grand Marais’ stormwater we would need to quantify
the flow. Quantifying the flow is no small task and should be precisely calculated,
because estimates of the flow may lead to widely ranging uncertainties. Data could
still be collected demonstrating how the water level, rainfall and TSS correlate;
however, this cannot attain sediment-loading estimates. Once sediment loading is
accurately defined for a range of rain events a set of goals may be established for the
stormwater system. This should be the ultimate goal for updating the ICECOR model
defined in the 2001 Grand Marais Stormwater Management Plan.
Conclusions
Nature Boy Creek monitoring for the summer of 2009 demonstrated that the
ponds and creek respond immediately to any rainfall event exceeding 0.05” per hour.
This reiterates the fact that this is a flashy system wherein steep slopes and shallow
bedrock predominate the landscape attributes. The data collected is on such a fine
scale that one may even notice diurnal trends where the water level increases over
night and decreases during the daytime. TSS data also demonstrate that significant
amounts of sediment are transported into the ditch with rainfall events exceeding
0.1” per hour (without any rainfall within the past 24 hours). One goal of monitoring
for the following season should be to better quantify the amount of sediment that is
being discharged by the Nature Boy Creek.

�
Soil & Water

Conservation District
Prepared by:
Brandon Stephens
This document includes:
1) Summary of the Grand Marais Storm Water Management Plan, Cook

County Water Plan Initiatives, and the recent (2009) SWCD
recommendations of remedial action on the Nature Boy Creek.
2) Monitoring plan for Nature Boy Creek with photos of site selection
and ISCO installation.
3) Description of instrumental uses on the Creek, including the initiation
and deployment of the ISCO autosampler and a description of the
WL15 water level logger failure and trade-in.
4) Data collected by the ISCO, water level loggers and rain gauge (which
are located on the Nature Boy Creek system).
Summary of Grand Marais Storm Water Management Plan –

2001
In 2001, the environmental firm IC Environmental Corporation (ICECOR)

developed a storm water management plan for the city of Grand Marais. The plan
was developed in order to address an increase in developmental pressure as well as
the negative impacts of storm water runoff. An additional concern was that the
public water intake was located too close (<0.5 miles) to the harbor storm water
outlets into Lake Superior.
The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) was at the crux of the work
done by ICECOR, and was completed in order to make a recommendation for the
storm water management plan. SWMM can simulate rainfall intensities and predict
the carrying capacity of the storm water systems and culverts. Based on data
obtained from the US Weather Bureau (Technical Paper 40) a 100-year storm event
(24 hour duration) would produce 4.90” of rainfall. However, there have been 3
storms within the last 20 years to reach the 100-year storm event.
Some of the ICECOR recommendations include:
1) Evaluating the impacts of development within the next 20-years on the
existing storm water system. Areas of particular concern include the
Old Ski Hill, the Business Development Area (BDA), the Creechville
Roads and the Gunflint Trail realignment.
2) The use of a unified storm water management ordinance between the
city and the county and the use of an erosion control plan for
construction sites greater than 1/10 acre. This would be better
regulated by initiating a permit process for all new construction sites
and be monitored and enforced by an inspection officer.
3) Preventive maintenance should be performed on a regular basis to
keep things in good working order. These would include cleaning the
sediment from catch basins, maintaining culverts, keeping clear all
manholes, repairing unpaved streets with clean gravel fill, regular
street sweeping, and keeping ditches well vegetated.
4) Initiate low impact development (LID) practices, which involves urban
planning, decreasing runoff volume, and promoting natural processes.
5) The current (at the time) storm water system was able to handle storm
water runoff up to the 25-year storm event, without the need of
overland flow. In order to accommodate the 100-year storm event,
one-half to two-thirds of the existing storm water system would have
to be replaced. Occasional large storm events can be rerouted with
overland flow without experiencing major negative effects.
6) The Village Ditch (i.e. Nature Boy Creek) can handle a 50-year storm
event without major flooding; however, materials from other city
projects should be placed along this bank and vegetated in order to

deepen the channel and lessen the frequency of overflowing the creek.
7) Detention ponds should be installed in order to dampen out peak run
off flows and provide some water quality treatment of the storm
water runoff. Existing ponds should also be excavated so that they
continue to remove sediment (by settling) from storm water run off.
In the ICECOR report the Village Ditch (i.e. Nature Boy Creek) was identified as
an existing problem site (in addition to BDA, Creechville, downtown Grand Marais,
Old Ski Hill, Gunflint Trail, and outlets into Lake Superior). Some recommendations
specific to the Village Ditch include:
1) Relieving some of the pressure on the Village Ditch by either diverting

some of the flow from the ditch to ditches down Co. Rd 12 or extend
the culvert northeast in a “Y” shaped casting. Riprap aprons would
need to be placed on each end of the extension to focus the run off
into the culvert.
2) The north bank of the Village Ditch should be excavated and widened
between the wooden bridges near the athletic building. The excavated
spoils should be placed on the southern ditch bank to increase it’s
height, and it should then be well vegetated.
3) Higher velocity flow events should be diverted from residential
property located on the southern bank of the creek approximately 400
feet east of 7th Avenue East. The exposed bedrock should be blasted
out to level the creek bottom and perhaps deepen the centerline. The
bank should also be armored; however, this is not likely to entirely
prevent the bank becoming eroded behind the armoring.
4) A 6’x11’ box culvert at County Road 7 should be able to contain and
convey storm water run off under the 100 year storm event.
5) Heavy-duty riprap and geofabric should be put in place on the Village
Ditch immediately down gradient of the Highway 61 crossing. Deeper
center channels should also be created to focus flows away from the
creek banks.
Current Accomplishments of the Grand Marais Storm Water

Management Plan and Water Plan Initiatives (in Relation to the
Nature Boy Creek) – Summer 2009
Much of what was originally recommended in the 2001 storm water

management plan has been accomplished to date.
• The ditch has been widened in several locations by either excavation or

blasting – this took place downstream of 7th Ave. E. New culverts were put in
place crossing 7th Ave. E. and Co. Rd. 7.
• Geofabric and other armoring have been put in place in order to reduce bank
erosion. Armoring was placed on the banks immediately up and downstream
of Co. Rd. 7.
• Storm water retention ponds (2) were put in just below the Gunflint Trail and
cement blocks (concrete block assembly) line the hillside leading into the
ponds. Native seed mix was spread twice (the first time failed due to
extenuating circumstances. The water level of the ponds is currently being
monitored with water loggers.
• A berm was put in place immediately behind the football field to reduce the
flooding potential of the creek during spring melt and heavy rainfall events.
• An automatic sampler was put on the Nature Boy Cr in 2005 and then again in
2009 to collect samples during rain events. Samples were analyzed for total
suspended solids (TSS) to get an understanding of the sediment load during
rain events.
• Several forms of outreach with Cook County residents took place so that
citizens could understand the importance of proper storm water
management. These took place in the form of news articles, student projects,
public meetings and website design.
Recommendations to monitoring the Grand Marais Storm

Water Management Plan – 2003-2004
In December of 2003 Jeff Lee and Chris Bonick of Barr Engineering

recommended the following in a memo in order to properly monitor the storm water
system of Grand Marais.
• Staff gauges should be relocated to areas where the stream channel is
well defined and stable. Areas of low flows should be avoided so that
the area of the channel is readily identifiable and does not shift over a
sampling season. Examples of ideal gauge locations include at a rock
ledge or at a weir. The best locations would be either at the culverts in
the municipal campground or at the culvert immediately downstream
of Hwy 61. The gauges once installed should be surveyed each year to
determine if they have moved.
• Water level loggers should be, like the staff gauges, relocated to
better-defined locations in the stream. The best locations for these are
on the upstream side of nearby culverts.
• Automated sampling equipment should be purchased to collect
samples when a specified water flow condition has been met. A
pressure transducer is best suited for the Village Ditch (Nature Boy
Creek) to measure water level changes. An area-velocity flow meter is
not recommended because there is not a well-defined, uniform
channel.
• A 24-bottle configuration is recommended so that it can collect the
greatest number of separate samples to be analyzed. Also, a protective
structure should be built to protect the autosampler unit from weather
events. Either ISCO or Sigma autosamplers are recommended.
• Barr recommends placing the autosampler just upstream of the Co. Rd.
7 crossing on the Village Ditch (Nature Boy Creek). There are shrubs
that could conceal the autosampler and this section of the ditch is
stable.
• Four baseflow samples should be collected along the ditch: one at the
upstream end of the ditch, one at the highway facility and two at
locations in between. Samples should be tested to determine the
impact of Individual Sewage Treatment Systems.
• The following parameters should be tested for: total dissolved solids,
total suspended solids, total phosphorus, total orthophosphorus,
chloride, E. coli, hetertrophic plate count and heavy metals (i.e. lead,
zinc and copper). Sample bottles should be acid washed between uses
to remove any residue that may affect subsequent samples.
• Barr also cautions that an attempt to calibrate the existing storm water
model (SWMM) could prove to be complex and costly while providing
little improvement. It would on the other hand be more cost effective
to create a new SWMM instead. The data collected in this monitoring
effort could be included in this model.
Cook County Water Plan Initiatives (in Relation to Nature Boy

Creek) – December 2007
Dave Stark, a previous Water Plan Coordinator with the Cook County SWCD,
summarized the status of the Village Ditch (Nature Boy Creek) monitoring program.
Dave reported that data about the ditch was scant and unreliable at best. Water level
loggers and an ISCO autosampler had been deployed previously, but the exact
locations of the water level loggers was not listed and the ISCO was not successful in
recording a full data set. The ISCO had been put in place in July of 2004 and recorded
flow, water level and collected samples after a rain event from July to December
2004. However, the ISCO was not deployed again in 2005, which would have allowed
for a complete season of data collection.
Some of the ISCO sampling parameters included:

1) Trigger to start collecting “grab” samples for turbidity analysis
after a 0.1” per hour rainfall event.
2) After collecting an initial (500 ml) sample the program became
flow based to collect a sample every 3 pulses.
3) The ISCO would continue to collect samples until all 24 bottles
had been filled.
Also in this initiatives document were a few recommendations by Keith

Anderson, Joint Power’s Engineer. He recommended that the storm water retention
ponds be accurately evaluated for retention capacity and hydrology. We should also
evaluate previous modeling efforts so that this may be effectively updated, which
could be supplemented by consultation with a contract-for-hire engineer. The BDA
ponds should be investigated in terms of design, location and function. Finally, the
Storm Water Management Plan requires serious consideration for review and
update.
Village Creek Remediation Recommendations – Summer 2009
On May 28th, 2009 a group of staff from EDA, KGM Construction, SEH, the City
of Grand Marais, Cook County Highway Department, Soil and Water Conservation
District, Planning and Zoning and concerned citizens got together in order to make
recommendations for the remediation of the Village Creek (Nature Boy Creek).
Recommendations were either verbally expressed or written and later delivered to a
Jamie Mehle of SEH Engineering. The following is a site description of the Nature Boy
Creek and a summary of the recommendations that the SWCD office offered to Jamie
(this document can be found at S:\TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE\2009\Nature Boy Creek
Remediation\ FINAL Village Cr Remediation SWCD Recommenda).
Site Description:
The Creechville ponds were constructed in 2004-2005, designed to meet a 50-
year (4”) rainfall event capacity. The June 5th storm event in 2008 exceeded the 100-
year rainfall levels (5.1”) and created unforeseen problems. Recent widening of the
Gunflint Trail contributed to increased runoff. The medium-sized rhyolite rock used as
bank erosion control flushed into and blocked the culvert draining into the ponds.
Water bypassed the ponds and washed out huge areas west of the ponds and below.
With the loss of retention at the ponds water peaked in the Village Creek rapidly.
Water in the ponds did not overflow during the flood. (Pond water levels will be
monitored in relation to rainfall this summer with data loggers.)
The Creechville ponds outlet into the 2nd Ave W ditch. Flows go southeast to
the intersection of 2nd Ave W and Gunflint Trail. This section of the creek is a steep,
straight channel, with downward erosion through clay. There are several sections (2’-
7’ long) that have significant erosion of the riparian zone streambanks where trees
and sections of streambank have fallen into the creek. Additionally, a significant
amount of sediment has been deposited around both the entry and exit of the
culvert (intersection of 2nd Ave W and Gunflint Trail).
Water then travels through an intermittently flooded wetland/floodplain for
about 800 meters, which retains significant quantities of water and traps sediment.
Water flows from the wetland into the Village Ditch then east (downstream) and
again under the Gunflint Trail. The culvert inlet here is both exposed bedrock and
cement.
The culvert one block east of the Gunflint Trail at 7th Avenue is in good shape.
However, in severe storms water and debris flows exceed the capacity of the culvert
and diverts to overland flow.
The creek then flows behind several residential properties for about
250m over exposed bedrock turning south. Trees and other vegetation generally
stabilize the streambanks here. Bank height extends to 4-5’ above the streambed.
However, the creek exceeded this height in last summer’s flood. A concern of the
ICECOR hydrologist in 2000 was that at the turn water will hit the east bank and roll
bank into the west bank. Several properties neighboring the stream in this area were
damaged in the flood. Towards the last 50-100m of this stretch geotextile fabric was
secured over the banks in 2005 in order to promote riparian growth and stabilization;
however, most of the netting was washed out in last year’s storm. Water then flows
through a new, 6’x11’ concrete box culvert. (An ISCO water sampler was previously
placed at this culvert to monitor flow and water levels.) South of this culvert erosion
is less of an issue until below Hwy 61 where there is a large scour pool.
Recommendations for Repairs to Nature Boy Creek:
1.) As a general principle, focusing resources further up in the watershed would
have less risk associated with whatever projects are built. The ditch below the
pond outlet, for example, could use protection to reduce the risk of erosion
on and near the roadway.
2.) Removal of the rhyolite material along the north bank of the Gunflint Trail
above the culvert draining to the storm water ponds may be a good measure
to prevent blocking the culvert, flooding of the roadway, erosion, and allow
the ponds to function more appropriately in their capacity to reduce peak
flows in the system. One suggestion is that the rock be replaced with erosion
control blanket overlying a native grass seed mix. Bedrock could be left
exposed. Our recommendation is for SEH to design this change in bank
stabilization for the Highway Department.
3.) Remediation of road crossings should be seriously considered for the multiple
benefits it would provide. These are commonly areas where stream systems
are most negatively impacted and erosion and sedimentation occur. In
addition, undersized culverts tend to be blocked with debris and can cause
flooding of public and private property. Our office encourages the installation
of a natural bottom, open arch or similar design. These designs offer an
increase in channel bottom roughness, which reduces the velocity and erosive
power of the stream. This also has a small biological benefit, as it encourages
the passage of aquatic organisms. One culvert in need of replacement is at
the Village Ditch crossing on 7th Ave E. The Grand Marais City Administrator
should be consulted for this project.
4.) The first storm water pond (furthest upstream) has accumulated a large
volume of sediment at the base of the inlet flume. This sediment should be
cleaned out in order to maintain the water holding capacity of the pond and
reduce the risk of re-suspension of the sediment into the water column.
Furthermore, the accumulation of sediment in the pond is at a rate such that
sediment could accumulate up and beyond the height of the culvert outlet
within the next few years.
Monitoring plan for Nature Boy Creek – Summer 2009

Based on an evaluation of SWMM by engineers Keith Anderson of Joint
Powers Board and Jeff Lee and Chris Bonick of Barr Engineering the model should be
calibrated and possibly revised. This will be achieved by collecting stream flow and
turbidity data in the Nature Boy Creek in addition to water level and rain gauge
information from the Creechville storm water retention ponds. A preliminary data
set from the ISCO will be obtained in the summer of 2009 in order to determine the
best placement and programming scheme for a more complete and accurate analysis
the following year.
The Water Advisory Committee has repeatedly encouraged storm water
monitoring on both the Creechville retention ponds and Nature Boy Creek. The
Committee questions whether storm water issues in the BDA have been adequately
evaluated, and the placement of the ISCO sampler on Nature Boy Creek will begin to
answer this question.
The Grand Marais storm water management plan was written in 2001 and is in
need of an update. Based on a complete data set collected in 2010 and the
reformulation of SWMM, we will be able to more accurately describe the needs of
this plan for a developing Grand Marais. For instance, the Grand Marais storm water
ordinance was a result of this plan (although the ordinance was revised in 2005). An
eventual goal of this project is to assess the effectiveness of the ordinance and in
turn the appropriate level of regulation to be prescribed.
10
Actions Taken in the Summer of 2009

�
Through communications with representatives at Teledyne ISCO, Tech Sales

Co. (Abraham Salamzadeh) and Global Water (Dallas Schwartz and Jesse Randolph)
we determined that to effectively monitor the Creechville storm water ponds and the
Village Ditch we would need an updated software interface for the ISCO sampler
(Flowlink 5.1) and new water level loggers (Global Water).
Water Level Loggers

We had one logger (model # WL15), which was located at storm water pond 1
(SP1) in April. We ordered a new logger (WL16) in mid-May so that we could monitor
the second storm water pond as well (data for the ponds is located at: S:\TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE\2009\Creechville Storm Water Ponds Water Level Data 2009).
After approximately a month in the field, the old water level logger (WL15)
failed and we traded it in for a new logger (WL16). This logger will be placed at SP1
upon its arrival in July.
Keith Anderson said he would survey in the location of the loggers and the
elevation so that any changes to the location of equipment can be determined.
However, Keith trained Brandon in surveying using a laser level on 6.25.09.
Unfortunately, the less accurate standard level was issued to Cook County SWCD
staff for use on 6.26.09. Brandon Stephens and Cindy Gentz attempted to survey the
culverts in both storm water ponds as well as the rain gauge and water level logger
probe (see Appendix A for data).
The water level appears to have a nearly direct linear relationship to rainfall;
the graph in Appendix B demonstrates this well. It appears that when the rainfall
exceeds about 0.1” per hour the water level will increase in turn. The water level of
storm water pond #2 does not fluctuate much beyond 0.1 feet, except under heavier
rainfall events (i.e. 4.8”/hr, averaging 2”/hr over 12-hour period rainfall event on
6/19/09) where the water level increases up to 0.5 feet.
ISCO Autosamplers
In 2001 an ISCO autosampler was purchased for the express purpose of
evaluating storm water for the storm water management plan. In 2004 it was
returned for a new model and used at the intersection of Co. Rd. 7 and the Village
Ditch (Nature Boy Creek) on George Humphrey’s property. Flow data and rainfall
were recorded from July to December of 2004 (S:\TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE\2009\Nature Boy Creek ISCO flow turbidity
analysis\ISCOVillageDitchGWData). No further information about the parameters
monitored could be found (i.e. turbidity, TSS, DO, etc.) At this time the ISCO
interfaced with the Dell Latitude D600 laptop (via serial port) using the software
Flowlink 4. In 2009, when attempting to put the ISCO back on Nature Boy Creek it
was discovered that Flowlink 4 was outdated and a new software license was not
11
available for purchase on this software. Fortunately, funding was secured from 2009
Coastal grant with help from Pat Collins and the current software (Flowlink 5.1, for
$2,200) was purchased from Teledyne ISCO.
In June 2009, the ISCO was again placed on the bank of Nature Boy Creek just
south of Co. Rd. 7 on a county easement (property formerly belonging to Virginia
Palmer). Brandon Stephens held email correspondence with some of his previous
professors at the University of Minnesota-Duluth and University of Minnesota-T.C.’s
as well as with Keith Anderson (Joint Powers Board) for advice on the ISCO setup
(see Appendix C).
Based on a data analysis of north shore streams (S:\TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE\2009\Nature Boy Creek Monitoring Plan – 2009\North Shore Stream
Data and Appendix D) for 2008 and through the advice of peers the ISCO was
programmed to trigger when 0.1” of rain per hour was recorded and to then collect
samples based on flow (i.e. every 3 pulses). One of the most difficult tasks in ISCO
installation will be to accurately determine flow for the stream. The ISCO may be
programmed to calculate stream flow automatically based on data entered by the
user and placed into Manning’s equation. Data required for Manning’s equation
include: stream shape, slope, stream width, and a roughness coefficient. We
determined the stream to be rectangular in shape, the slope to be 0.025 (2.5%), the
width to be 8 feet during baseflow, and having a roughness of 0.045 (based on tables
shown in Brooks et al., 2003; see S:\TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE\2009\Nature Boy Creek
Monitoring Plan - 2009\Mannings Roughness Coefficient). See Appendixes E-H for
complete programming details.
This initial set of stream flow data should not be used to make policy decisions
nor should it be used to make predictions (i.e. in SWMM). The data obtained in the
summer of 2009 is strictly preliminary and should only be used to help program
and/or best utilize the ISCO in Nature Boy Creek or elsewhere in Cook County in the
2010 sampling season. See Appendix I for a graph illustrating rainfall rate (in/hr, pink)
and water level (ft, blue) for the dates June 29th to August 24th.
On June 29th, 2009 Cindy and Brandon installed the ISCO south of Co. Rd. 7 on
a county easement (property formerly belonging to Virginia Palmer). The flow and
sample inlet tubes should be placed either immediately above a culvert inlet or far
downstream of any confluences or culvert outlets. However, the limited sites
available to place the rather large protective case (i.e. compost bin) did not allow for
sufficient placement of the tubes in the stream: the tubes were placed about 2 feet
downstream of a confluence after braiding in the stream. This should not significantly
impact the quality of data but is noteworthy. Additionally, the rain gauge should be
at least twice the height of the nearest objects away from said objects. However, the
only available sites fitting this requirement were in the bottom of the streambed,
which is not a feasible option. We settled for placing the gauge along the stream
bank about half the height of a tree away. The gauge was secured in place with large
cement blocks and the ISCO secured within a chain linked, locked protective case.
See S:\TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE\2009\Nature Boy Creek Monitoring Plan – 2009 or
Appendix K for photos.
12
On July 9th, 2009 Cindy went to download water level data and change the
battery for the ISCO only to find that the creek had dried up. Brandon went out on
the 13th and found that the condition hadn’t changed. Both Brandon and Cindy
walked the length of the creek from the Creechville ponds downward and
determined that it would be difficult to get a constant flow measurement anywhere.
The options were either to leave the ISCO in place and wait until a rain event came
along or to move the ISCO to a stream/river that has at least a measurable baseflow.
Some of the other potential sites include further downstream on the Nature Boy
Creek on the Eckel property, on the Devil Track River or on one of the tributaries to
the Devil Track, Woods Creek (see photos of other potential sites at S:\TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE\2009\Nature Boy Creek Monitoring Plan - 2009\Photos\Photos 07.14.09).
A rain event on July 15th, 2009 demonstrated that, although the creek does run dry,
flow increases to a significant level shortly after the onset of precipitation. So, in
discussing the options between Rebecca W., Cindy and Brandon it was decided to
leave the ISCO where it was on the creek.
During the July 14th rain event the ISCO was triggered by a 0.1” per hour of
rain, however it did not collect any sample thereafter. The ISCO was programmed to
collect sample based on the flow velocity [>1.75 cubic feet per second (cfs)]. Cindy
and Brandon measured the channel dimensions and estimated the flow and those
values compared to those indicated by the ISCO and it was estimated that the flow
should increase to well over 1.75 cfs. Still, the flow of the creek during this storm
event did not get close to the threshold selected. So, upon this realization a grab
sample was collected and the program terminated. Two samples were sent to ERA
labs to be analyzed for Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The first sample was collected
after the rain gauge was triggered (0.1” of rain per 1 hour; at 21:30 on 07/14/09) and
the second collected at 17:05 (07/15/09).
The sample program was changed to trigger after 0.1” of rain per hour (like
the previous program), but instead to collect samples every 3 pulses thereafter (like
for Karen Evens’ program in 2005). However, after a rain event began on July 21st it
was found that samples weren’t being collected; even 5 hours after the rain began.
So, the program was halted again, the data from July 16th to July 21st accidentally lost,
and the program changed to collect 12 samples every hour starting at 14:30. Ten
samples (2 collected at 09:34 and 8 collected hourly starting at 14:30) were then hand
delivered to ERA labs on 7/24 (ERA said that the previous two samples did not arrive
on the same day that they were sent and that the samples were warm upon arrival.)
Brandon spoke with a Susanna at ERA, and she has recommended that we either use
at least three ice packs plus crumbled newspaper (as added insulation) took pack the
cooler or the samples should be hand delivered.
After this program had completed the program was changed to collect into 10
bottles every 30 minutes after being initiated by a 0.1”/hr rainfall event. After the ten
bottles had filled the next 12 would be filled every hour. This ISCO program is entitled
July 27th and can be viewed below in Appendix G. After this program was setup at
11:00 am on Monday, July 27th, the ISCO was triggered at 14:18 by a small rainfall
event. Though it was enough to start the ISCO, it did not appear to be large enough
13
and so the ISCO wasn’t checked again until Wednesday evening (it actually had 0.26”
in about 20 minutes). Since the samples sat in the ISCO for two days they were not
sent down to ERA labs to be analyzed. But to be fair, the water level did not change
significantly and the water did not noticeably change color. This instance
demonstrates that the ISCO should either be checked on daily to ensure bottles do
not get missed or an external modem should be purchased that sends real-time data
to the office.
A rainfall event that began on July 30th at 12:50 PM triggered the next
program and bottles were collected the morning of the 31st. It was good that
Monday’s event was not collected because there would not have been any bottles to
use for this event. These were then hand delivered by Brandon to ERA labs later in
the afternoon. Data for this event demonstrate a near linear correlation between TSS
(mg/L) and water level (as the water level rises and falls so too does the
concentration of TSS; see Appendix J). This was a typical flashy storm event, raining
0.56” in one hour and 15 minutes. From 12:50-13:08 it rained 0.49”, reaching a rate of
3.0” per hour at its peak.
As the TSS data demonstrate it is useful to sample more frequently for a short
time after the storm begins. Therefore, a suitable sampling program may be
something where 12 samples are collected every 12 minutes and then the remaining
samples are collected every 30 minutes (giving a total sample window of 8 hours.)
This data shows that the TSS decreases back to baseline values (2 mg/L) 14 hours
after the storm begins. 8 hours after the storm begins the TSS value is at 6 mg/L,
which is low enough to baseline for our purposes. We would like to catch the rise and
fall of the TSS peak so we can ultimately model the discharge of sediment (often
referred to as sediment load) for a range of storm events.
In speaking with Bruce Wilson, a stormwater program manager with the
MPCA, it is absolutely necessary to determine the flow of the stream to obtain
sediment load values. This should be a primary goal for the monitoring plan on the
Nature Boy Creek. Mr. Wilson warns that flows are one of the most difficult
measurements to take on a stream given the large amount of uncertainty that must
be taken into account. The uncertainties stem from channel disconformities, stream
flow patterns/paths and channel roughness coefficient estimates. It may be
worthwhile to connect with individuals at the DNR’s Hydro group in St. Paul or MPCA
streams monitors at the Duluth office.
One final bit of data to note is the difference between the rainfall rates
measured by the ISCO’s rain gauge (Appendix I) and by the Onset Rain gauge at the
storm water ponds (Appendix B). There is a reduction by nearly half in the ISCO’s rain
gauge relative to that of the ponds. This is likely due to interferences from the trees
surrounding the ISCO’s rain gauge. As noted in the text Hydrology and the
Management of Watersheds, a rain gauge should be placed twice the height of the
nearest object away. Unfortunately, this is not possible for the ISCO given that the
rain gauge sampling cord is only 25 ft long. Additionally, it would be an expensive
procedure to try to get a longer cord. Placing the rain gauge on a tall pole could
alleviate this but this would be no small task.
14
Climate Data for Summer of 2009

Here is summarized some of the climate data for Minnesota found at the
HydroClim Minnesota Website (http://climate.umn.edu/).
• June 2009 was a seasonally dry month across nearly all of Minnesota. There is
a rainfall shortfall that began in early April and continued throughout most of
the summer.
• Ice-out for some lakes in northeastern Minnesota occurred at the following
times: Brule (5/11), Devil Track (5/13), E. Bearskin (5/6), Greenwood (5/16),
Northern Light (5/7), Saganaga (5/7), Sawbill (5/7), Seagull (5/7), Trout (5/14).
• Minnesota’s heaviest rainfall event fell on June 16th, while Grand Marais’s
heaviest rainfall event fell on June 19th.
• Much of early June was colder than average and in fact set records for coldest
max and min temperatures on the 5th, 6th and 7th.
• Large portions of Minnesota were considered abnormally dry as a result of
two spells of dry weather, one short-term and one longer-term. The shorter-
term dryness began in April and the longer-term commenced in mid-June
2008. The 13-month long-term dry spell produced a deficit of 8 inches or more.
• USGS reports that stream discharge values are low for south central, east
central and northeastern Minnesota. Northeastern rivers are falling below the
10th percentile for stream discharge. Consequently, Lake Superior water level
is 1” down from last year at this time and remains below the long-term
average.
• The potential for wildfires was moderate in northeastern Minnesota counties.
• In July the water level for Lake Superior is down 3 inches relative to last July
and remains below the long-term average.
• Stream discharge remained low for July, occasionally ranking below the
historical 25th percentile.
• For most of Minnesota July was drier than average, while the northshore was
fairly close to average.
• July of 2009 was the third coldest July for Minnesota on record.
15
APPENDIX A - Creechville Retention Pond Survey

Creechville Retention Ponds Survey Date: 06/26/09 Time: 8:30
Staff: Cindy Gentz and Brandon Stephens
Storm Water Pond 1 (SP1)

Rod Level
Holder's Holder's Final Difference
Location Height Height Height Backspot from BS
Top of rocks (bottom of cement blocks, centerline) 16.96 10.72 11.42
Bottom of rocks (centerline) 24.25 5.62 23.57 99.31
Bottom of Culvert outlet (centerline) 25.7 -0.09 25.79 97.09
Top of the edge of the Culvert outlet (centerline) 25.7 7.76 22.88 122.88
Rain Gauge (next to post) 25.7 6.45 24.19 98.69
Tripod Level Location: On slope above top of rocks, near treeline

Backspot is top edge of culvert outlet?
Storm Water Pond 2 (SP2)

Rod Level
Holder's Holder's Final Difference
Location Height Height Height Backspot from BS
Top of Culvert inlet (centerline) 15 7.64 12.54 95.82
Bottom edge of the Culvert intlet (centerline) 15 5.59 14.7 93.66
Water Level Logger Probe (mid pond) 23 9.52 18.42 89.94
Top of Culvert outlet (centerline) 23 14.09 13.85 94.51
Bottom edge of the Culvert outlet (centerline) 23 12.56 15.38 92.98
Manhole/drain (at "Made in USA" label) 10 7.06 8.36 108.36
Near
Tripod Level Location: manhole/drain
Backspot is manhole/drain?
*** Add this amount to the difference between the rod holder's height and the height observed
in the level.
Bottom of rod to rod holder's eye level Range (ft)

5' 5" 5.42 9.23>
5' 3.5" 5.29 13.02>x>9.23
5' 2 1/8" 5.18 16.97>x>13.02
5' 0.75" 5.06 21.1>x>16.97
4' 11.25" 4.94 >21.1
16
APPENDIX B - Stormwater Ponds Water Level and Rainfall Rate

Storm w ater Retention Pond1 - Sum m er 2009
0.7 0
Rainf all Rat e ("/ hr )
Feet
0.6 1
0.5 2
0.4 3
0.3 4
0.2 5
0.1 6
0 7
26-Jul 31-Jul 5-Aug 10-Aug 15-Aug 20-Aug 25-Aug 30-Aug
This figure illustrates rainfall rate (in/hr) and water level (ft) for Creechville Storm
Water Pond #1.
Stormwater Retention Pond2 - Summer 2009
2.5 0.0
2.4 1.0
2.3 2.0
Rain Fall Rate (in/hr)

Water Level (ft)
2.2 3.0
2.1 4.0
2 5.0
1.9 Feet 6.0
Rainfall Rate ("/hr)
1.8 7.0
5/30 6/6 6/13 6/20 6/27 7/4 7/11 7/18 7/25 8/1 8/8 8/15 8/22 8/29
This figure illustrates rainfall rate (in/hr) and water level (ft) for Creechville Storm
Water Pond #2 (ft). The raw water level data was adjusted beyond 6/26/09 by
subtracting 0.1’ from the recorded data in order to correct for a slumping that took
place immediately after conducting the pond survey (at 9:45 on 6/26).
17
APPENDIX C - ISCO Recommendation Email

The following is an email sent on 6.22.09 from Brandon Stephens summarizing advice
from previous professors regarding ISCO placement and data acquisition.
Hi Cindy and Rebecca-
I emailed a few old professors and they were kind enough to provide some things that we should
consider as the ISCO is put in place. Below is a summary of what they have said for your
reference.
* Place the sampling tube at a representative spot in the stream. Whatever you are trying to
measure may differ in concentration across a stream's cross-section. One professor indicated
that we should take grab samples every 1-2 feet across a stream to make sure that we place the
sample tube at a “representative” location. However, another professor said that total suspended
solids (TSS) are generally spaced uniformly throughout streams of the north shore. Even further,
one study found that unless the sampling tube is greater than 40% off the bed, you are likely to
collect sediment that had just been kicked up by either wave action or small rocks. So when
anchoring the sampling line into the streambed we should try (if possible) to find a representative
location and to anchor it in such a way that sediment might not be interfering with TSS's.
Additionally, if the ISCO someday goes out on a large stream system that differs in water depth
across the stream, it would be advantageous to get a depth-integrated sampler (like a DH-48) to
ensure that the ISCO is placed in a representative location.
* We can trigger the ISCO to collect sample based on rainfall or we can trigger it based on stream
height above baseflow. Since we have the rain gauge, we should just use that. But if something
was to happen to the rain gauge for any reason, we can continue to collect data from the stream.
In this case, the ISCO would be programmed to collect sample when the pressure (or water level)
increased above baseflow.
* It's very difficult to predict the best interval to program the ISCO for. Individual storm events
behave in different ways depending on how much and for how long the rain comes down. Even
after finding an appropriate interval for average conditions, you can't always catch the rise and fall
of TSS in streams. Based on 2008 data for north shore streams (from duluthstreams.org) we
should set up the ISCO to collect every 1 hour for 24 hours as soon as the rain gauge measures
0.1"/hr. This method seems to have worked well for others in the past. However, when measuring
every hour regardless of flow or rain, it is possible to totally miss the rise and fall of TSS export.
Measuring based on flow may help to get around this by collecting when the discharge is higher.
This should be considered as an alternate method if the rain gauge is not working well.
* Some miscellaneous things to be aware of include: 1) ensure the batteries are charged (by
replacing the rechargeable battery weekly, of which we have two), 2) ensure the tubing is well
secured using plastic tie straps, 3) keep tabs on the water level over the sampling season (when
it's too low a storm event may not influence TSS predictably), 4) use Manning's equation to
determine flow (need to find the slope, stream roughness and stream width).
Thank you,
Brandon Stephens
411 W. 2nd St.
Grand Marais, MN 55604
soilandwater@co.cook.mn.us
18
APPENDIX D - Graphs of North Shore Rainfall vs. Turbidity

Poplar River 2008
1.2 3500
Rainfall Rate
Turbidity
3000
1
2500
0.8
Rainfall Rate (in/hr)
Turbidity (NTU)
2000
0.6
1500
0.4
1000
0.2
500
0 0
2-Apr 22-Apr 12-May 1-Jun 21-Jun 11-Jul 31-Jul 20-Aug
Tischer Creek 2008

4.5 1600
Rainfall Rate
Turb
4 1400
3.5
1200
3
1000
Turbidity (NTU)
2.5
800
2
600
1.5
400
1
0.5 200
0 0
14-Nov 3-Jan 22-Feb 12-Apr 1-Jun 21-Jul 9-Sep 29-Oct 18-Dec 6-Feb
This figure illustrates rainfall rate (in/hr) and turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units)
for two north shore streams (Poplar R. and Tischer Cr.)
19
APPENDIX E - ISCO Program June 27th, 2009

�
SAMPLER ID# 1081348301 17:23 9
JUL-09 ----------
Hardware: A1 Software: 2.33 ---------- INTERROGATOR
*********** PROGRAM SETTINGS 'B' PACING:

CONNECTOR
*********** FLOW, EVERY

POWER ALWAYS ON
---------- 3 PULSES
PROGRAM NAME:
SAMPLE AT START
----------
"EXTENDED 1"
---------- ----------
SITE DESCRIPTION:
'B' DISTRIBUTION:
----------
"NATUREBOY2"
SEQUENTIAL
---------- 0.01 inch TIP
UNITS SELECTED:
RAIN GAUGE
LENGTH: ft
----------
'B' VOLUME: ----------
NO SDI-12 SONDE
---------- 500 ml SAMPLES
UNITS SELECTED:
AUTO SDI-12 SCAN OFF
FLOW RATE: cfs
----------
FLOW VOLUME: cf
'B' ENABLE: ----------
I/O1= NONE
---------- FLOW >1.750 cfs I/O2= NONE
SUBMERGED PROBE: I/O3= NONE
MANNING ----------
RECTANGULAR CHANNEL 'B' ENABLE:
----------
ONCE ENABLED,
---------- STAY ENABLED

0 ANALOG OUTPUTS
SAMPLE AT ENABLE
1 MINUTE
----------
DATA INTERVAL
'B' ENABLE:
----------
0 PAUSE & RESUMES
---------- NO EXTERNAL MODEM

24, 500 ml BTLS
27 ft SUCTION LINE
----------
AUTO SUCTION HEAD
----------
0 RINSES, 1 RETRIES NO DELAY TO START
---------- NO ALARM
TWO-PART PROGRAM CONDITIONS SET
BOTTLE ASSIGNMENTS: ----------

1- 1 TO 'A' ---------- ----------
2-24 TO 'B' ---------- ----------
---------- LIQUID DETECT ON ----------
'A' PACING:
EVENT PACED
QUICK VIEW/CHANGE PART 'A':
1 EVENT CONDITIONS
EVENT CONDITIONS:
---------- EVENT01: RAIN >0.10"/ 1:00
----------
'A' COMPOSITE: TAKE MEASUREMENTS ----------------------------------------
EVERY 1 MINUTES
1 SAMPLES
----------
---------- DUAL SAMPLER OFF SAMPLER ID# 1081348301 17:23 9
'A' VOLUME: BTL FULL DETECT OFF JUL-09
TIMED BACKLIGHT Hardware: A1 Software: 2.33
500 ml SAMPLES *********** SAMPLING RESULTS
---------- ***********
---------- SITE: NATUREBOY2
'A' ENABLE: EVENT MARK SENT
PROGRAM: EXTENDED 1
DURING PUMP CYCLE
Program Started at 15:24 WE 1-JUL
RAIN >0.10"/ 1:00 09
---------- PART 'A' Nominal Sample Volume =
---------- PUMP COUNTS FOR
500 ml
'A' ENABLE:
EACH PURGE CYCLE:
PART 'B' Nominal Sample Volume =
ONCE ENABLED,
200 PRE-SAMPLE
500 ml
STAY ENABLED
AUTO POST-SAMPLE
COUNT
SAMPLE AT ENABLE
---------- TO
---------- SAMPLE BOTTLE TIME SOURCE
'A' ENABLE:
NO PERIODIC
ERROR LIQUID
0 PAUSE & RESUMES
SERIAL OUTPUT
20
APPENDIX F - ISCO Program July 16th, 2009

�
SAMPLER ID# 1081348301 17:11 16-JUL-09 FLOW, EVERY ---------
Hardware: A1 Software: 2.33 3 PULSES ---------
*********** PROGRAM SETTINGS SAMPLE AT START
*********** --------- 0.01 inch TIP
---------- 'B' DISTRIBUTION: RAIN GAUGE
PROGRAM NAME:
SEQUENTIAL
"EXTENDED 1"
---------
SITE DESCRIPTION:
NO SDI-12 SONDE
"NATUREBOY2"
---------
---------- 'B' VOLUME: AUTO SDI-12 SCAN OFF
UNITS SELECTED:
LENGTH: ft
500 ml SAMPLES ---------
I/O1= NONE
--------- I/O2= NONE
---------- 'B' ENABLE: I/O3= NONE
UNITS SELECTED:
FLOW RATE: cfs

WHEN 'A' IS DONE ---------
FLOW VOLUME: cf
--------- 0 ANALOG OUTPUTS

---------- 'B' ENABLE:
SUBMERGED PROBE: ONCE ENABLED,
MANNING STAY ENABLED ---------
RECTANGULAR CHANNEL SAMPLE AT ENABLE
--------- NO EXTERNAL MODEM
---------- 'B' ENABLE:
0 PAUSE & RESUMES
1 MINUTE
---------
DATA INTERVAL
--------- NO ALARM
---------- CONDITIONS SET
24, 500 ml BTLS
NO DELAY TO START
27 ft SUCTION LINE
---------
AUTO SUCTION HEAD
---------
0 RINSES, 1 RETRIES --------- ---------
---------- ---------
TWO-PART PROGRAM --------- PART 'A':
BOTTLE ASSIGNMENTS: LIQUID DETECT ON EVENT CONDITIONS:
1- 1 TO 'A' EVENT01: RAIN >0.10"/ 1:00
2-24 TO 'B' QUICK VIEW/CHANGE
---------- ---------------------------------------
'A' PACING:
---------
EVENT PACED
1 EVENT CONDITIONS
TAKE MEASUREMENTS
EVERY 1 MINUTES SAMPLER ID# 1081348301 17:11
---------- 16-JUL-09
'A' COMPOSITE: --------- Hardware: A1 Software: 2.33
DUAL SAMPLER OFF *********** SAMPLING RESULTS
1 SAMPLES BTL FULL DETECT OFF ***********
TIMED BACKLIGHT SITE: NATUREBOY2
---------- PROGRAM: EXTENDED 1
'A' VOLUME: --------- Program Started at 17:13 WE 15-JUL
09
500 ml SAMPLES EVENT MARK SENT PART 'A' Nominal Sample Volume =
DURING PUMP CYCLE 500 ml
---------- PART 'B' Nominal Sample Volume =
'A' ENABLE: --------- 500 ml
PUMP COUNTS FOR COUNT
RAIN >0.10"/ 1:00 EACH PURGE CYCLE: TO
200 PRE-SAMPLE SAMPLE BOTTLE TIME SOURCE
---------- AUTO POST-SAMPLE ERROR LIQUID
'A' ENABLE:
--------- ------- ------ --- -- - -----
ONCE ENABLED,
17:13 'A' DISABLED
STAY ENABLED
NO PERIODIC 17:13 'B' DISABLED
SAMPLE AT ENABLE
SERIAL OUTPUT ------------- TH 16-JUL-09 ------------
---------- 17:05 MANUAL PAUSE
'A' ENABLE:
--------- 17:11 MANUAL RESUME
0 PAUSE & RESUMES
INTERROGATOR
CONNECTOR
POWER ALWAYS ON ---------------------------------------
----------
'B' PACING: ---------
21
APPENDIX G - ISCO Program July 27th, 2009

�
SAMPLER ID# 1081348301 16:08 29-JUL-09
Hardware: A1 Software: 2.33 WHEN 'A' IS DONE
*********** PROGRAM SETTINGS *********** ----------
---------- ----------
PROGRAM NAME: 'B' ENABLE: NO ALARM
�
"EXTENDED 1" ONCE ENABLED, CONDITIONS SET
�
SITE DESCRIPTION: STAY ENABLED
"NATUREBOY2" NO SAMPLE AT ENABLE ----------
---------- ---------- ----------
UNITS SELECTED:
� 'B' ENABLE: ----------
LENGTH: ft
� 0 MINUTE DELAY TO
START OF SAMPLING PART 'A':
�
EVENT CONDITIONS:
�
---------- ---------- EVENT01: RAIN >0.10"/ 1:00
�
UNITS SELECTED:
� 'B' ENABLE:
FLOW RATE: cfs
� 0 PAUSE & RESUMES ----------
FLOW VOLUME: cf
�
PART 'B':
---------- ---------- NONUNIFORM TIME: (quantity@interval)
SUBMERGED PROBE: START 12@0030 10@0060
MANNING NO DELAY TO START
RECTANGULAR CHANNEL ----------------------------------------
---------- ----------
----------
2 MINUTE
� ---------- SAMPLER ID# 1081348301 16:08 29-JUL-09
DATA INTERVAL
� LIQUID DETECT ON Hardware: A1 Software: 2.33
*********** SAMPLING RESULTS ***********
---------- QUICK VIEW/CHANGE SITE: NATUREBOY2
24, 500 ml BTLS PROGRAM: EXTENDED 1
27 ft SUCTION LINE ---------- Program Started at 16:29 TH 23-JUL-09
AUTO SUCTION HEAD PART 'A' Nominal Sample Volume = 500 ml
0 RINSES, 1 RETRIES TAKE MEASUREMENTS PART 'B' Nominal Sample Volume = 500 ml
---------- EVERY 1 MINUTES COUNT
TWO-PART PROGRAM TO
BOTTLE ASSIGNMENTS: ---------- SAMPLE BOTTLE TIME SOURCE ERROR LIQUID
1- 1 TO 'A' DUAL SAMPLER OFF ------- ------ ---- -- -- ------
2-24 TO 'B' BTL FULL DETECT OFF 16:29 'A' ENABLED
---------- TIMED BACKLIGHT 16:29 'B' DISABLED
'A' PACING: 16:29 MANUAL PAUSE
EVENT PACED ---------- 16:29 MANUAL RESUME
1 EVENT CONDITIONS ------------- FR 24-JUL-09 -------------
EVENT MARK SENT 09:43 MANUAL PAUSE
---------- DURING PUMP CYCLE 09:43 MANUAL RESUME
'A' COMPOSITE: ------------- MO 27-JUL-09 -------------
---------- 10:18 MANUAL PAUSE
1 SAMPLES PUMP COUNTS FOR 10:18 MANUAL RESUME
EACH PURGE CYCLE: 1,1 1 13:18 'A' Ev 610
---------- 200 PRE-SAMPLE EVENT 1
'A' VOLUME: AUTO POST-SAMPLE 13:18 'A' DONE 27-JUL
---------- 13:20 'B' ENABLED
�
500 ml SAMPLES 1,1 2 13:50 'B' T 599
�
NO PERIODIC
� 1,1 3 14:20 'B' T 600
�
---------- SERIAL OUTPUT
� 1,1 4 14:50 'B' T 601
�
'A' ENABLE: 1,1 5 15:20 'B' T 600
�
---------- 1,1 6 15:50 'B' T 604
�
NONE PROGRAMMED INTERROGATOR
� 1,1 7 16:20 'B' T 594
�
CONNECTOR
� 1,1 8 16:50 'B' T 590
�
---------- POWER ALWAYS ON
� 1,1 9 17:20 'B' T 594
�
'A' ENABLE:
� 1,1 10 17:50 'B' T 602
�
ONCE ENABLED,
� ---------- 1,1 11 18:20 'B' T 602
�
STAY ENABLED
� ---------- 1,1 12 18:50 'B' T 603
�
SAMPLE AT ENABLE
� ---------- 1,1 13 19:20 'B' T 610
�
---------- 1,1 14 20:20 'B' T 604
�
'A' ENABLE: 0.01 inch TIP
� 1,1 15 21:20 'B' T 606
�
0 PAUSE & RESUMES RAIN GAUGE
� 1,1 16 22:20 'B' T 606
�
1,1 17 23:20 'B' T 604
�
---------- ------------- TU 28-JUL-09 -------------
---------- NO SDI-12 SONDE 1,1 18 00:20 'B' T 600
'B' PACING: 1,1 19 01:20 'B' T 602
NONUNIFORM TIME, AUTO SDI-12 SCAN OFF 1,1 20 02:20 'B' T 600
INTERVALS IN MINUTES 1,1 21 03:20 'B' T 600
---------- 1,1 22 04:20 'B' T 596
---------- I/O1= NONE 1,1 23 05:20 'B' T 604
'B' DISTRIBUTION:
� I/O2= NONE 1,1 24 05:50 'B' T 597
SEQUENTIAL
� I/O3= NONE 05:50 'B' DONE 28-JUL
05:50 PGM DONE 28-JUL
----------
----------
'B' VOLUME: 0 ANALOG OUTPUTS SOURCE T ==> TIME
�
SOURCE Ev ==> EVENT
�
500 ml SAMPLES ----------------------------------------
----------
----------
'B' ENABLE: NO EXTERNAL MODEM
APPENDIX H - ISCO Program August 24th, 2009

�
SEQUENTIAL NO SDI-12 SONDE
SAMPLER ID# 1081348301 09:01 24-AUG-09 AUTO SDI-12 SCAN OFF

Hardware: A1 Software: 2.33 ----------
*********** PROGRAM SETTINGS 'B' VOLUME: ----------
*********** I/O1= NONE
---------- 500 ml SAMPLES I/O2= NONE
PROGRAM NAME: I/O3= NONE
"EXTENDED 1" ----------
SITE DESCRIPTION: 'B' ENABLE: ----------
"NATUREBOY2"
---------- WHEN 'A' IS DONE 0 ANALOG OUTPUTS
UNITS SELECTED:
�
LENGTH: ft
� ----------
'B' ENABLE: ----------
ONCE ENABLED,
---------- STAY ENABLED NO EXTERNAL MODEM
UNITS SELECTED:
� NO SAMPLE AT ENABLE
FLOW RATE: cfs
� ----------
FLOW VOLUME: cf
� 'B' ENABLE: ----------
0 MINUTE DELAY TO
---------- START OF SAMPLING NO ALARM
SUBMERGED PROBE: CONDITIONS SET
MANNING ----------
RECTANGULAR CHANNEL 'B' ENABLE: ----------
0 PAUSE & RESUMES ----------
---------- ----------
2 MINUTE
� ---------- PART 'A':
DATA INTERVAL
� EVENT CONDITIONS:
NO DELAY TO START EVENT01: RAIN >1.00"/ 1:00
----------
24, 500 ml BTLS ----------
27 ft SUCTION LINE ----------
AUTO SUCTION HEAD ---------- PART 'B':
0 RINSES, 1 RETRIES ---------- NONUNIFORM TIME: (quantity@interval)
---------- LIQUID DETECT ON START 12@0012 11@0030
TWO-PART PROGRAM
BOTTLE ASSIGNMENTS: QUICK VIEW/CHANGE ----------------------------------------
1- 1 TO 'A'
2-24 TO 'B' ----------
----------
'A' PACING: TAKE MEASUREMENTS SAMPLER ID# 1081348301 09:01 24-AUG-09
EVENT PACED EVERY 1 MINUTES Hardware: A1 Software: 2.33
1 EVENT CONDITIONS *********** SAMPLING RESULTS
---------- ***********
---------- DUAL SAMPLER OFF SITE: NATUREBOY2
'A' COMPOSITE: BTL FULL DETECT OFF PROGRAM: EXTENDED 1
TIMED BACKLIGHT Program Started at 10:17 TU 11-AUG-09
1 SAMPLES PART 'A' Nominal Sample Volume = 500 ml
---------- PART 'B' Nominal Sample Volume = 500 ml
---------- COUNT
'A' VOLUME: EVENT MARK SENT TO
DURING PUMP CYCLE SAMPLE BOTTLE TIME SOURCE ERROR
500 ml SAMPLES LIQUID
---------- ------- ------ ---- -- -- ------
---------- PUMP COUNTS FOR 10:17 'A' ENABLED
'A' ENABLE: EACH PURGE CYCLE: 10:17 'B' DISABLED
200 PRE-SAMPLE ------------- MO 17-AUG-09 -------------
NONE PROGRAMMED AUTO POST-SAMPLE 09:57 POWER FAILED!
---------- 09:57 POWER RESTORED
---------- ------------- TH 20-AUG-09 -------------
'A' ENABLE:
� NO PERIODIC 09:05 MANUAL PAUSE
ONCE ENABLED,
� SERIAL OUTPUT 09:05 MANUAL RESUME
STAY ENABLED
� 09:05 MANUAL PAUSE
SAMPLE AT ENABLE
� ---------- 09:05 MANUAL RESUME
---------- INTERROGATOR 09:05 MANUAL PAUSE
'A' ENABLE: CONNECTOR 09:05 MANUAL RESUME
0 PAUSE & RESUMES POWER ALWAYS ON 09:05 MANUAL PAUSE
09:05 MANUAL RESUME
---------- 09:05 MANUAL PAUSE
---------- ---------- 09:06 'A' EVENT01 CHANGED
'B' PACING: ---------- TO RAIN >0.75"/ 1:00
NONUNIFORM TIME, 09:06 MANUAL RESUME
INTERVALS IN MINUTES 0.01 inch TIP
RAIN GAUGE
---------- ----------------------------------------
'B' DISTRIBUTION: ----------
23
APPENDIX I - Nature Boy Creek Rainfall and Water Level
Nature Boy Creek - ISCO Water Level
0.7 0.00
0.6 0.50
0.5 1.00

Water Level (ft)
0.4 1.50
0.3 2.00
0.2 2.50
= No Data
0.1 3.00
Water Level
Rainfall
0 3.50
26-Jun 6-Jul 16-Jul 26-Jul 5-Aug 15-Aug 25-Aug 4-Sep
This figure illustrates rainfall rate (in/hr) and water level (ft) for the Nature Boy Creek
on data obtained by the ISCO. There is no data for 7/8-7/9 because of a power failure
(the rechargeable battery doesn’t hold a charge for longer than 7 days). There is no
data for 7/16-7/21 because the program was altered just after a rain event (7/21)
began. The program was altered because the ISCO was set to collect every 3 pulses,
but unfortunately even 5 hours after the ISCO was initially triggered it still hadn’t
collected the next sample in line. After the program was changed to collect samples
the data history from the internal memory was erased and the data lost.
24
APPENDIX J - Nature Boy Creek TSS, Rainfall and Water Level

�
This figure illustrates TSS (•••) rainfall rate (⎯) and water level (⎯) for a rainfall
event on Nature Boy Creek on July 30th, 2009.
25
APPENDIX K - Photos of the ISCO site location and Nature Boy Creek
(photos can be found at S:\TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE\2009\Nature Boy Creek Monitoring Plan – 2009)
ISCO potential sites, located just above Co. Rd. 7, Humphrey’s property shown to the
left (taken 06.22.09).
ISCO potential sites, located just below Co. Rd. 7, the marked ‘x1’ site is the location
chosen for the ISCO in on June 29th, 2009 (taken 06.22.09).
Potential ISCO site, located across from the Highway Department at the outlet of the
box culvert shown to the right (taken 06.22.09).
26
ISCO autosampler located on Nature Boy Creek, located just south of Co. Rd. 7 (taken
06.30.09).
ISCO autosampler located on Nature Boy Creek, located just south of Co. Rd. 7 (taken
06.30.09).
Culvert outlet to the Creechville storm water ponds (taken 07.13.09).

27
Midway between Gunflint Tr. (locations shown below) and Creechville retention
ponds (taken 07.13.09).
Nature Boy Creek just above Gunflint Tr., behind the school, culvert inlet not quite
visible in photo (taken 07.13.09).
28
Nature Boy Creek just below the Gunflint Tr., behind the school, culvert outlet (taken
07.13.09).
Nature Boy Creek just opposite Highway Department and west of 7th Ave. E., culvert
inlet shown at the bottom of the photo (taken 07.13.09).
Nature Boy Creek, opposite the Highway Department and east of 7th Ave. E., box
culvert outlet shown on the right (taken 07.13.09).
29
Nature Boy Creek just above Co. Rd. 7, Humphrey’s property just to the left of the
photo (taken 07.13.09).
Nature Boy Creek just below Co. Rd. 7, box culvert outlet shown at bottom of photo
(taken 07.13.09).
ISCO sampling tube and flow probe on Nature Boy Creek (taken 07.13.09).

30
Appendix G. Contractor Workshop Presentation

Soil and Water – Mission
Statement In short
� "The mission of Cook County Soil & Water � We’re here to ensure that the county stormwater
(SWCD) is to improve water quality in Cook ordinance and state WCA are administered.
County by fostering responsible land use and by � We provide technical assistance to help you –
controlling soil erosion and nonpoint source the constructors – comply with regulations
pollution. The Board will encourage local � Our role is not enforcement…P&Z is better
conservation efforts by providing educational, staffed to receive and process complaints.
technical, and financial assistance for local land
users." (adopted June 2000)
Some questions we can help
� The County Stormwater Ordinance requires a signed with…
copy of the erosion and sediment control plan checklist
for small site projects, and for use of BMPs for all grade
� How big should the rock be for this check dam or
and fill permits.
rock chute?
� The checklist is available at www.co.cook.mn.us under
the Planning and Zoning and Soil and Water � Can I use coconut blanket instead of rock?
department pages. � What diameter pipe should I use?
� What items on the checklist apply to your project? � If I can’t answer you immediately, I can call our
� The practices you use need to result in no negative engineer and get his opinion.
water quality impacts for the 2 year storm event (x
� Remember, we’re here to help!
inches)
Some examples…
� It may just be dirt
and rocks, but it
can get
complicated…
1
This method works better.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Maintenance is key
� Has anyone
tried this as an
alternative to silt
fence?
2
Dumping rock everywhere is not
always the most cost-effective
erosion control method.
We encourage you to think creatively in managing stormwater,

not just for the permit application, but for the life of the project.
3
� Remember the best construction erosion and
sediment control practice is to limit disturbance
of native vegetation!
� Likewise, the best longterm erosion control is to
establish healthy, native vegetation.
4
Appendix H. Technical Assistance and Wetland Review Reports
Cook SWCD Technical Assistance Report Total Reviews 26
Date of Review Date of Review Supervisor District Type of Review Primary Reviewer Site Visit
by Month
Comments/Outcome
August 2008
8/14/2008 2 General Technical Assistance Beaster
Visited Leo Lake water access with County Assessor. Some erosion and safety issues at the canoe access. Recommended additional steps be installed by MCC or
similar crew to prevent erosion and improve safety. Also revegetate alternate access.
Visited Clearwater lake water access with County Assessor. Erosion associated with boat landing parking lot and Cty Rd 66. Recommended rocklined ditches,
ditch-outs, and water bars to prevent sediment transport into the lake.
September 2008
9/12/2008 2 Beaster
Visited property west of town on Hwy 61. Walked stream channel and observed stream downcutting and scour erosion. Encouraged landowner to apply for cost
share funds to build a berm diversion above house to prevent flooding. Mailed application.
Visited June 2008 flood damage on property in Grand Marais on Hwy 61. Culverts were washed out and property was flooded. Culverts were replaced.
Recommend larger rock size for culvert and channel protection. Likely not a cost shareable project.
Response to complaint of excess runoff and erosion from city street. 2nd street curbed and paved, but 11th ave is not. Runoff from 2nd street is apparent.
Recommend curb and gutter 11th ave or construct a check dam ditch along 11th ave.
Visited 7th Ave East stream crossing in response to flooding and erosion complaint. 8 ft squashed culvert at 7th Ave, upstream are 2 10x5 ft concrete box culverts.
Recommend much larger culvert at 7th Ave crossing.
Visited property in response to a request for technical and financial assistance to prevent flooding and erosion on property. Recommend water bars and
constructing berm to prevent flooding and allow intermittent stream to flood into existing wetland
Thursday, February 25, 2010 Page 1 of 4

by Month
Comments/Outcome
Visited June 2008 flood damage site on Old Shore Rd. 2 Culverts had washed out but were already replaced with 60", 28" and 24" culverts. Culvert diameters are
probably sufficient. Recommend additional rock armor at inlet.
9/4/2008 4 General Technical Assistance Anderson
Visited Croftville homeowner's site that was flooded in June 2008. Joined by Keith A. and Tim Byrns. Keith recommended talking to MnDOT about upgrading
culvert to prevent highway overtopping. Possible cost-share potential of building a diversion.
Visited property on Linnell Rd east of Grand Marais. Reviewed landowner's plans to improve drainage and reduce flooding risk from Durfee Creek on property.
October 2008
Provided recommendations to Caribou Lake association on management of the public water access.
Visited property onE Hwy 61. Gave suggestions to landowner on ways to reduce flooding and erosion of drainage ditches. Offered potential for cost share dollars
if money was available.
May 2009
5/7/2009 1 General Technical Assistance
Provided recommendations for wetland avoidance and boundary determinations for a grade and fill permit proposal.
Provided recommendations for wetland avoidance and minimization. Referred landowner to DNR for public waters work permit requirements.
Reviewed ditch erosion at stormwater pond outlet in Grand Marais. Provided preliminary recommendations and referred landowner to street department.

by Month
Comments/Outcome
Responded to landowner complaint of flooding of property in Hovland. Discovered beaver dam failure where flooding began.
June 2009
6/17/2009 1 General Technical Assistance Gentz
Referred landowner observation on gully erosion and solid waste to planning and zoning staff.
6/24/2009 3 DNR Waters Permit (Non-Wetland) Beaster
Reviewed DNR waters permit application for Angry Trout Café in Grand Marais. Proposal to construct riprap and concrete breakwall to protect restaurant
structure. Recommended permit approval with basic erosion and sediment control requirements.
July 2009
Reviewed expansion proposal for township cemetery. Provided recommendation to avoid wetlands and steep slopes.
Visited site on Lake Superior shoreline in response to concern of erosion. Erosion minimal. Recommended re-directing gutter downspouts, provided information
on rock riprap and native vegetation.
August 2009
Reviewed landowner proposal to create pond on property. Recommended contact with NRCS and formal wetland boundary determination.
November 2009
Reviewed erosion on Gunflint trail and associated repaving of shoulder. Submitted comments to SWCD board.

by Month
Comments/Outcome
Provided NWI map to landowner for trail improvement requirements.
Reviewed erosion on a private shared road near Hovland. Provided recommendation for further study and inventory of drainage crossings.
December 2009
Provided information on trout stream designation to Cook County Commissioner.
Reviewed NRCS streambank erosion control project on Flute Reed River in Hovland. Provided observations of structural deficiencies to engineering staff.

Cook SWCD Wetland Review Report Total Reviews 31
Date of Review Date of Review Supervisor District Primary Reviewer WCA Violatio Action Taken
by Month Comments
August 2008
8/13/2008 1 Beaster Restoration Order
Site review to determine extent of wetland impacts.
8/28/2008 2 Beaster Replacement Order
October 2008
Reviewed restoration activities on a wetland violation on Devil Track Lake. Restoration activities were only partially completed by the 10-01-2008 deadline.
10/9/2008 2 Beaster Delineation Review
Wetland TEP performed review of delineation for Popham property on Devil Track Lake. TEP approved delineation report as prepared by Wayne Hensche.
Provided recommendations for site stabilization and revegetation.
Performed wetland delineation review for Norvell property in Schroeder. Delineation report was found to contain inaccuracies, so it was not approved.
May 2009

by Month Comments
Reviewed restoration activities for 3 wetland impacts on South Devil Track Lake. Restoration was satisfactory at 2 of 3 sites. Recommended removing additional
material from coniferous bog, seeding and mulching.
Reviewed restoration order requirements with landowner at site on Devil Track Lake. 3,234 sq. ft. of Alder thicket wetlands were impacted in 2008. Restoration
activities not complete, deadline July 1, 2009.
June 2009
6/2/2009 1 Beaster Boundary Determination
Reviewed plans for trail improvement through wetlands at Birch Grove Community School in Tofte. Made wetland boundary determination, recommended that
landowner build boardwalk trails to avoid impacts to wetlands. Preliminary approval of no-loss decision
Provided wetland boundary assistance to Lutsen Cemetery Association. Recommended avoiding northern and western sides of property. Preferred alternative:
expand to previously disturbed upland on south side of property.
6/9/2009 5 Demmer Comment on Application for Impacts
Landowner submitted application for impacts to a coniferous swamp on McFarland Lake. Driveway impacts of 2,600 sq. ft. were approved. Building pad impacts
of 1,375 sq. ft. were not approved because a reasonable alternative of developing uplands exists.
Reviewed delineation prepared by Tim Lederle for 60 acre parcel on Cty. Rd. 14 East as part of administrative subdivision process. Site dominated by Alder
Thicket and Hardwood Swamp type wetlands. Approved delineation report as written.
Reviewed Replacement Plan for 7,928 sq. ft. of impacts toa coniferous bogfor a driveway near Devil Track Lake. Plan was found to contain errors and was sent
back to landowner for revisions.

by Month Comments
6/22/2009 2 Beaster Comment on Application for Impacts
Reviewed application for impacts resulting from the clearing of ski trails south of Poplar Lake. Agreed with No-Loss decision by LGU, provided that wetlands
would be avoided and clearing would be done by hand.
July 2009
Reviewed unpermitted impacts to Type 6 Alder thicket wetland near Little Devil Track River. Issued Restoration Order to remove fill from wetlands.
7/17/2009 5 Demmer Boundary Determination
Recommended approval of previous delineation completed in 2006. 2009 delineation contained inaccuracies and could not be approved by the TEP.
Recommended approval of de minimus exemption for repair of ski trails. Recommended erosion control BMPs for stream crossings and ditch improvement.
Provided recommendations for BMPs to avoid wetland impacts.
Approved de minimus exemption decision for ski trail maintenance work on Sugarbush trail system in Tofte.
August 2009

by Month Comments
Recommended alternative to minimize impacts to wetlands for driveway construction on Old Shore Rd.
September 2009
Recommended approval of No-loss determination for culvert replacement project on Woods Creek.
Reviewed wetland delineation as prepared by Tim Lederle for property on E Hwy 61. Recommended approval of the delineation.
Reviewed unpermitted impacts to wetlands at lumber mill. Determined that impacts were under the 10,000 sq. ft. de minimus.
Reviewed wetland delineation prepared by EMR, Inc. Recommended against approval of delineation due to presence of additional wetlands not identified in the
delineation.
Reviewed wetland delineation report as prepared by Tim Lederle. Recommended approval of boundary determination.
Delineation for parcel on W Hwy 61 was approved as written by Tim Lederle

by Month Comments
9/28/2009 3 Demmer Delineation Review
Wetland delineation report as prepared by Tim Lederle was approved for 10 acre parcel west of Grand Marais on Cty Rd 7.
October 2009
Recommended approval of application for impacts for driveway construction across a stream.
Recommended approval of wetland delineation which identified 32.45 acres of wetlands at Cook County Airport.
10/23/2009 2 Demmer Delineation Review
Amended delineation submitted by Wayne Hensche was approved.
November 2009
Recommended not to approve application for impacts for a driveway on Greenwood Lake. Project purpose not well defined.
December 2009
Reviewed wetland boundary and proposed impacts for property on Cascade Beach Rd. Approved of boundary, but recommended project alternative to avoid
impacts to wetlands.

Soil &amp; Water Nonpoint Technical Assistance, County Road Inventory, and Wetland Initiatives (306-11-10)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil &amp; Water Nonpoint Technical Assistance, County Road Inventory, and Wetland Initiatives (306-11-10)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program

Soil & Water

Nonpoint Technical Assistance,

County Road Inventory,

and Wetland Initiatives

Tristan Beaster, Cook County Soil & Water Conservation District

Project No. 306-11-10

Contract No. B17945

First, a key responsibility of a local conservation district is to provide technical

Nonpoint Technical Assistance

Nonpoint Technical Assistance

County Road Inventory

Three-hundred water crossings on County Roads were inventoried. Of these, 24 were

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources

Conservation Engineer Technical Service Area #3 $1,244.76

Photo 1.) Gunflint Greenup Fair, SWCD information booth. Photo

Photo 3.) Potential Wetland Mitigation Site. Photo taken 10-24-2008 by

Soil & Water

Creechville Stormwater Retention Ponds – Water Level Loggers

Nature Boy Creek – ISCO Autosampler

Further down on the Grand Marais stormwater system an ISCO autosampler

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Soil & Water

This document includes:

1) ­Summary of the Grand Marais Storm Water Management Plan, Cook

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Summary of Grand Marais Storm Water Management Plan –

In 2001, the environmental firm IC Environmental Corporation (ICECOR)

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

projects should be placed along this bank and vegetated in order to

1) ­ Relieving some of the pressure on the Village Ditch by either diverting

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Current Accomplishments of the Grand Marais Storm Water

Much of what was originally recommended in the 2001 storm water

• The ditch has been widened in several locations by either excavation or

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Recommendations to monitoring the Grand Marais Storm

In December of 2003 Jeff Lee and Chris Bonick of Barr Engineering

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Cook County Water Plan Initiatives (in Relation to Nature Boy

Some of the ISCO sampling parameters included:

Also in this initiatives document were a few recommendations by Keith

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Village Creek Remediation Recommendations – Summer 2009

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Recommendations for Repairs to Nature Boy Creek:

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Monitoring plan for Nature Boy Creek – Summer 2009

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Actions Taken in the Summer of 2009

Through communications with representatives at Teledyne ISCO, Tech Sales

Water Level Loggers

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

Climate Data for Summer of 2009

Nature Boy Creek Monitoring – Summer 2009

APPENDIX A - Creechville Retention Pond Survey

Storm Water Pond 1 (SP1)

Tripod Level Location: On slope above top of rocks, near treeline

Storm Water Pond 2 (SP2)

Bottom of rod to rod holder's eye level Range (ft)

Soil & Water Nonpoint Technical Assistance, County Road Inventory, and Wetland Initiatives (306-11-10)

Soil & Water Nonpoint Technical Assistance, County Road Inventory, and Wetland Initiatives (306-11-10)

1) Summary of the Grand Marais Storm Water Management Plan, Cook

1) Relieving some of the pressure on the Village Ditch by either diverting

--------- 0 ANALOG OUTPUTS