Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. MPCA Lower Level Conference Rooms West and Central 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul
9:00 Regular Clean Water Council (Council) Business • (INFORMATION ITEM) Council Member introductions and updates • (ACTION ITEM) Agenda - comments/additions and approve agenda • (ACTION ITEM) Meeting Minutes - comments/additions and approve Oct & Nov meeting minutes • (INFORMATION ITEM) Chair and Council Staff update (including Chair/Vice-Chair elections in January) • (INFORMATION ITEM) Policy Committee Update & Budget & Outcomes Committee Update (including SWCD funding discussion) • (INFORMATION ITEM) Appointments to Council vacancies
9:15 Updates on Cooperation with Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC), Legislative Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR), and Legislative Coordinating Committee Subcommittee on Minnesota Water Policy (formerly Legislative Water Commission) • Paul Gardner
9:30 Strategic Planning Exercise #4: TBD • Andrew Elbert, MPCA Continuous Improvement Unit
12:00 Lunch
12:30 Nutrient Reduction Strategy Progress Assessment: Are we on track with new BMPs and river nutrient reduction? • David Wall, Environmental Research Scientist, MPCA
1:15 Clean Water Fund Performance Report • Pam Anderson, Manager, Surface Water Monitoring Section, MPCA
1:45 “Take Note”, New Business & Debrief from today’s meeting – Frank Jewell
2:00 Adjourn
Next Meetings: • January 27th: Strategic Planning Wrap-Up; Great Lakes Restoration Initiative LAMP funding (MPCA) • February 24th: Clean Water Fund Restoration Evaluation Report; water reuse? (member suggestion) • March 16th, April 13th, May 18th: Overview of Agency Proposals for FY22-23 Funding Recommendations
2:05 Council Steering Team - Steering Team discusses upcoming meeting topics and other items.
MEETING DATES FOR 2020: January 27 (moved a week later due to MLK Jr. Day); February 24 (moved a week later due to Presidents Day); March 16; April 20; May 18; June 15; July 20; August 17; September 21; October 19; November 16; December 21 wq-cwc2-19l Clean Water Council October 21, 2019 Meeting Summary
Members present: Rep. Patty Acomb, John Barten, Steven Besser, Kevin Bigalke, Sen. Karla Bigham, Pam Blixt, Gary Burdorf, Tannie Eshenaur, Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Holly Kovarik, Rylee Main, Jason Moeckel, Jeff Peterson, Whitney Place, Victoria Reinhardt, Glenn Skuta, and Phillip Sterner. Members absent: Rep. Josh Heintzeman, Raj Rajan, Todd Renville, and Patrick Shea.
To watch the WebEx video recording of this meeting, please go to https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water- council/meetings, or contact Brianna Frisch.
Regular Clean Water Council (Council) Business • Council Member introductions and updates o Tannie Eshenaur: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released proposed revisions to the lead and copper rule. It is out for public comment. It includes several items that were a part of the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) report on lead and drinking water. Example of these items include, conducting an inventory of lead service lines in the state, strengthening corrosion requirements, and strengthening the work for schools and daycare centers. o Jeff Peterson: Regarding the Minnesota Water Resource Conference by the University of Minnesota (UMN), the PowerPoints, presentations, and keynote sessions were recorded and will be available online soon. • October 21 meeting agenda, motion by Victoria Reinhardt, seconded by John Barten, motion approved. • August 19 meeting summary, motion by John Barten, seconded by Victoria Reinhardt, motion approved. • Subcommittee on Minnesota Water Policy (formerly Legislative Water Commission) update by Jim Stark, Director: o The handout in the meeting packet provides the sixteen issues the subcommittee is focusing on. At the next CWC meeting Stark will discuss the issues in more detail. • Policy Committee Update o New meeting date of November 15 (combined October and November meeting) • Budget & Outcomes Committee Update o They are working on the timeline for the next budget cycle. In November, they will initiate a discussion with interested stakeholders about Soil and Water Conservation Funding (SWCD) funding. • Appointments to Council vacancies o There are four vacancies on the Council. Paul Gardner (Council Administrator) spoke with Helen Waquiu (MPCA Director of Public Engagement and Tribal Liaison) who invited him to speak to Tribal Environmental Officers recently about the tribal vacancy on the Council. The 21 day minimum posting has been met for all four vacancies. The Governor’s Office can make appointments at any time. o Frank Jewell (Chair) and Paul talked about making recommendations to Suzanne Sobotka on what would be useful in those spots (i.e., rural versus urban, skill set, etc.). • Status of Canoes from September Clean Water Council Field Tour: One canoe, launched by Paul and Phil Sterner, has been found. • Meeting Dates for 2020 o The third Monday of January and February are on holidays so the Council will meet on the fourth Thursday. Motion to approve the Council meeting dates for 2020, motion by Pam Blixt, seconded by Gary Burdorf, motion approved. o The Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) meetings will continue to be on the first Friday of the month and Policy on the last Friday.
Update on federal Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule & Section 401 of Clean Water Act (WebEx 00:15:00)
Melissa Kuskie, Certification, Environmental Review, & Rules, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Waters of the United States (WOTUS) regulatory changes: o In 2015 the Obama administration’s EPA published the Clean Water Rule that clarified WOTUS. It was immediately challenged in court. o In 2018 the Trump administration’s EPA wanted to address WOTUS. First, they want to repeal the 2015 rule altogether. In September they signed a final repeal of that rule. It will be in effect soon. . Then, the EPA proposed a separate action to redo the definition of WOTUS. It was proposed in February 2019, and has not been complete at this time. The EPA received many comments urging them to slow down to consider all actions moving forward, incorporating science, and including stakeholders in the process. o Handouts describe some of the changes. The definition and jurisdiction is changing. It excludes ephemeral streams and isolated wetlands. It may change how some headwaters may be defined. Minnesota was not overly affected by these changes, because the state has its own definition of Waters of the State to which state statutory and regulatory requirements apply. 401 Water Quality Certification regulatory changes o On April 10, 2019 the president issued an executive order, to promote energy infrastructure and target the 401 water quality certification program for a regulatory overhaul. o The EPA formally proposed that rule in August, to modify the 401 program. The comment period for that proposal closes today. o The rules governing 401 have been in place for about fifty years, and states have built regulatory programs. The premise of the 401 Certification is that federally permitted or licensed projects must receive certification from the state that the project will not violate state water quality standards. Once a federally permitted/licensed project is determined to have a discharge impacting a WOTUS, the state certification can address a broader jurisdiction (state-only waters, activities beyond the permitted discharge that might affect water quality). Any conditions a state adds in its certification become part of the federal permit or license. The EPA’s rule proposal would have major impacts:: . They are seeking to limit the scope of state and tribal review. The jurisdiction will be to only WOTUS and only to federally permitted discharge. That would make the 401 program redundant. . They also want to give the federal permitting agency the ability to veto or nullify state certification decisions, with no appeals process by the state. If EPA does finalize what is proposed, it will impact how Minnesota addresses the state’s water quality. Questions: • Can the Clean Water Council submit comments today? Answer: Yes, it is open until midnight. Many environmental groups are submitting comments, all of which are focusing on the loss of state authority and the significant change in scope. The MPCA will submit comments today. • From a legal aspect, are we considering state rights over the federal jurisdiction? The Mississippi River starts in our state. Are we going to focus on that aspect? Answer: Yes, MPCA coordinated with the attorney general’s office. To review the loss, it was one of the key issues the MPCA identified in their comment letter. If and when the EPA finalizes, I would expect there would be state actions lead by the state’s attorney general. Many states have significant concerns about the loss of authority. There is also a stringent time period included. Providing the Army Corps full authority to determine the length of time for states to act on a certification before automatically waiving authority – the Army Corps regulations provide 60 days for a project. If this is finalized there will be legal challenges. Most states believe they are the best authority for their states waters. • If the rule goes forward, when would it be implemented? Answer: They are aiming for May, 2020. This is moving very fast. • If it is challenged would it still be in effect? Answer: It depends on the court. • What specific impacts would the new rule have on Minnesota’s ability to run the programs as they are? Answer: In how we review the projects. • Regarding section 401, is that separate from the update on WOTUS? The WOTUS rules have been out since February, or does the section 401 need to be updated at the same time? Answer: It is separate. I would expect to see a final WOTUS in the next few months.
Minnesota Beach Health, by Trisha Robinson, Waterborne Diseases Unit Supervisor, Minnesota Department of Health (WebEx 00:40:00) • How are beaches monitored? In general, a small water sample is taken from the beach. It is tested at the lab for bacteria. Most test for E. coli, some test for fecal coliforms. The results are available the next day. An advisory is issued if levels are too high. There are different jurisdictions used for different criteria. The advisory is removed when levels return to acceptable levels. The monitoring frequency varies by jurisdiction. • E. Coli in water . There are hundreds of kinds of E. coli, but most do not make people sick . Sign there could be poop in the water, either from humans or animals . Presence indicates that germs that can make people sick might also be in the water . There is a huge public misunderstanding • Beach monitoring: . Beach monitoring is at the discretion of the entity responsible for the beach (city, county, park district, etc.) . Only monitoring program conducted by the MDH is on Lake Superior (38 beaches) . The MDH maintains a list of known monitoring programs (it is not required for results to be reported to MDH) . No centralized source for beach monitoring results . No data on beach monitoring trends Questions: • Regarding the actual testing on the beach, is it the county that decides to do the testing? Answer: It is up to the county on whether they want to test it or not. • There is no requirement of the collection of that data, or requirement to forward the data to the MDH? There is no public information to let Minnesotans know before they go to the beach? Answer: There is no requirement for that data. • Is there a best management practices (BMPs) that the counties use? Answer: Yes, there are BMPs. There are different guidelines, some we see are being misinterpreted. • If the MDH has the authority, can they step in and do some testing? Answer: In an outbreak investigation, the monitoring is not a typical step that is taken. When we identify sickness, monitoring is not included. The monitoring did not identify the illness, but the MDH did through the symptoms of the people. • The reason the MDH has the trend data for Lake Superior, it is a federally funded monitoring program. It would be helpful to describe that program. I thought there was a lot of public sharing. Answer: It is part of the Federal Beach Act, which fund the coastal waters. Lake Superior is part of a coastal water. That program receives about $200,000 each year, which provides the monitoring for the 38 beaches. They are sampled, the data is publically available on the website, posted on real time. If there is an issue, advisory signs posted as soon as available. • Are there separate monitoring programs to monitor for toxic algae blooms? Answer: There is no statewide monitoring for harmful algae blooms. • Under the Clean Water Act, what criteria are used for water that is used for swimming? When you talk about it is impaired for bacteria? Answer: The MPCA uses the data collected from the Lake Superior monitoring data for their impaired waters work and other data. Comment: In this particular situation, the numbers are going up and down, it is intermittent, so it may not be enough to consider a body of water an impairment. • If there was a food outbreak, if it was determined by the county, the state department works in collaboration with them on remediation of it. Isn’t that what would happen if the cause was determined to be ill from swimming in a lake? Answer: Minnesota has a centralized health department. There are certain counties in the state that have different impacts. It would be handled at the state level. • I believe it is a good idea to start monitoring the beaches for water borne illnesses. I think it should be a state issue because they are responsible for swimmable waters. Is there a way to have legislation for this area? Answer: They would handle it at the state level. There are a few counties that would help in this process. If there are human illnesses involved, the MDH investigates it regardless because it is a human health concern. Comment: It would be a good idea to monitor these beaches at the state level. • Are other states doing water samples like Minnesota? What does a program that really monitors the waters well look like? Also, is it warranted? Answer: Talking about a perfect program – it is a moving target. The local programs make up the schedule for monitoring. If there are limited resources, the monitoring may not take precedent. These issues need to be addressed, so there is a need to have the stakeholders at the table. • Most of the public believe that clean water means swimmable. People do care if their beach is safe to swim in, and not get sick from it. There were general guidelines that came up, but people were told not to go swimming after it rained, or let their kids go in the water with dirty diapers, etc. It would help the public understand more. Perhaps that is an area to explore more, to help them check the beach out themselves. Answer: Those guidelines are not new. The media was listening this summer. These messages could really help the public. There will be a series of three videos this summer on the untreated waters for public safety. They are working on more education, to help get more information out to the public, as well as additional resources on the status of the beaches.
Strategic Planning Exercise #2 (WebEx 01:08:30): • Review of Survey Results: Andrew Elbert, MPCA Continuous Improvement Unit o The Council completed a survey. They reviewed the survey results. Then, discussed the results in groups with the following questions: . What was of notable interest from the survey? . What themes did you see? . What learning can be taken from it? • Facilitated discussion: What’s our vision for the Clean Water Fund & Clean Water Council by 2034? • Provided 15 minutes for reading the questions. Provided 10 minutes for writing up the answers to the three posed questions. o First group results: . The Council’s goals and objectives were not aligned with how they want to communicate outcomes – thinking about a greater push for more implementation. . Focus on supplemental funding (helps funding go further). In addition, help build legislator relationships and communication strategies. There was a lot of discussion regarding more involvement at the Legislature. . Coordination to collaborate funding (Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC) or the Legislative- Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR), etc.). . Resiliency plans if the Clean Water Funds (CWFs) are not reauthorized in 2034. In addition, thinking about climate change and future generations. . Demonstrating the accomplishments of the CWFs by 2034. Specifically, providing a comparison of what the water would look like if we did not have this funding. • Second group results: . More outreach and communication on what has been accomplished. Specific outreach on the CWFs accomplishments. . Looking into a long-term solution for the SWCDs funding. Possibly more leveraging of funds. . There is tension between implementation and monitoring. Continue to see competing priorities. . Focus on both groundwater and surface water used as drinking water sources. . Learning more for voluntary approaches to addressing agricultural challenges. Create new economically viable options for conservation on agricultural land. . Create a communications plan. There are a lot of topics to cover, so narrowing the focus would be good. . Create a subgroup to coordinate and connect with the LSOHC and/or the Legislature (provides a clearer process). • Third group results: . Regarding the survey results, they are happy to see everyone was happy with the mission. The differences reflected in the survey were not huge. . There was some conflicting reactions for the direction the Council is moving towards (too broad versus too narrow). Refine (or define) the items that the CWFs are focused on. . There is a concern for what can get done before 2034 – especially the public’s view. . Ensuring safe drinking water at the tap (not just source water protection) . People want measurable and specific indicators to show improvement . Empowering Minnesotans – what do we want Minnesotans to do? . More protection versus restoration - for a bigger impact . The CWFs cannot do everything so some ideas might come forward during this time. Not everyone is excited about the role of the Council – other ideas can be brought forward. . Focus on more public outreach. What can the public do? For example, use less salt. . Leveraging more federal funds – useful to explore that strategy to maximize the amount of matching dollars that can be brought in. • Fourth group results: . What was of notable interest: Communication, leveraging, and drinking water This came from talking about outcomes, which was one of the hardest things in the survey. There is a deadline (2034), what people would want to be able to say they impacted (WebEx 02:03:00). • “ After the scheduled expirations of the Legacy Amendment, what would you like to tell your family and friends about what the Clean Water Fund accomplished, and what would you like the Council to do the achieve the outcomes you described?” Discussion: • There is an appreciation for the thought that everyone has put into this topic. There are a lot of people watching the actions of the Council. • Hopefully by 2034 people will see the effectiveness of the One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) planning process. Part of that relates to more awareness of the accomplishments of the Council. Good investments in funding – view it in a way similar to a venture capital fund (i.e., pay close attention to the outcomes) • Sharing with friends and family. Specifically, the work of local government to local government, and the work between the state and local government. Sharing that these relationships are building and furthering them. Next steps and action plan ideas: Connecting these together • In brainstorming, I think we have made some major progress in the last year. The Council has worked on the relationships with the Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) and the Governor’s Office. Every funding request is being considered with the BOC, the agencies talk about how that impacts the goals. Therefore, the action is connected to the goals. Today, there was more clarification on what it means to have these goals. We have to know how the agency requests will impact and measure those goals. • Having been part of the process last year to hone in on the mission and goals, the question to ask is what do we want to see in 2034? Looking at that timeline, it helps narrow a focus on what I want to see done with the funding now. It is really true that this is touching many different areas of the state. • One of the items that became clearer, is the need to continue more effort and funding for better communication and outreach. This needs to happen with our Legislature and our representative groups. • Regarding communication efforts, there is a need to be intentional because these are different audiences and they require multiple communication strategies to get the information across. • Speaking for myself, thinking about how our water needs will be changing over time, we need someone investing in new technologies and support the funding for this area of innovation. This helps to distinguish the Council from other groups (LSOHC and LCCMR). November will have a report from this information.
Clean Water Fund Logo and Attribution Guidance (WebEx 02:37:00) Handout: Clean Water Fund Acknowledgement Guidelines There is not any official guidance on attribution to the Clean Water Fund (other than the Legacy Amendment logo), so Paul has created a document and asked the agencies to review it for consistency. and agencies offered comments. • There is a motion by Frank Jewell to adopt this document, seconded by Warren Formo, motion carries. Paul is planning to update the web to include this document.
Field Work Podcast & YouTube Channel; Outside in Minnesota App; The Water Main update by Amy Skoczlas Cole (WebEx 02:42:00) • Council reviewed "What is The Water Main" video. • The Water Main o The Water Main mission is to build public will in support of clean, affordable, accessible water. They are the first of three impact initiatives from the American Public Media to look at how the media of story-telling and narratives create positive societal change. There are two others: “Call to Mind” on mental health, and another that will launch this fall which will focus on early childhood education. They work with many organizations, across many different types of organizations. • Public will: defined as the ability and wiliness to act. They have been looking into social science strategies to impact people. It starts with connecting people to the topic, creating understanding and concern, to lead to solutions, and hopefully actions with public will. • Their survey work on audience insights helped establish areas on where to start with their audiences. Then, with the scientific side, it helped identify which topic to start with. This created their editorial agenda. o The three areas: Water and… . Food and agriculture . Infrastructure and equity . Community o For these three areas, they have identified the specific audiences, the target geography, the trusted messengers of the content, as well as the communication platforms and mechanisms to launch (i.e., public radio stations, podcasts, live events, social media, etc.). Events and highlights are included in an app (Outside in MN). This was during water month (July in 2019). • Field Work (Podcast) o This came from work with the agricultural community. Farmers are trying hard, they are tired of being the villains, and it is really hard to change these practices. The Water Main surveyed those who changed their practices, to see how they moved through the process. They heard everything people would expect. They discovered that farmers had a neighbor or friend who tried these practices before they did. They trusted each other more than institutions. This theme of trusting others was used to launch a new initiative: Field Work. They have two millennial farmers talking about these practices. They have conventional ways, and they are also trying different practices out, and talking about them. They talk to farmers across the state who have tried something new, to hear what the challenges and outcomes were, and sharing these experiences. This is also active on YouTube and social media. o Farm Journal – learning more about farm media. They are checking if they have changed minds over time; if there is more openness to try new practices after being exposed to the podcasts. They are hearing that the Field Work podcast is part of their journey to adopting new farm practices. • Upcoming Projects: o Water + Community: amplifying the ‘absent’ voices of different communities in Minnesota and the complex relationship with water. o Water IQ/EQ baseline: quantifying what Americans know, and don’t know, about water. o Pipes + Filters: a water infrastructure podcast designed to illuminate and engage Americans in seeing our drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, the issues it faces, and the bright spots where innovation is happening. o Get the Lead Out: a data and investigative journalism program to shine a spotlight on the merging issue of lead laterals and in home plumbing, starting in Milwaukee and expanding nationwide. • Three big ideas - where do we go from here? o Move from “communicating to…” to “engaging with…” o Build and invest in a community of practice around water engagement o Coalesce around our version of the “wedges”: the portfolio of options that can be dialed in to meet specific goals Questions: • That was really great to see how far you have gotten. The last piece you talked about - the portfolio, it tracks well with the strategic investments conversations we have had today. I think this was helpful for us to think about where the CWFs can be invested and where to structure our conversations. Response: If you had a portfolio of actions that are needle-moving. Right now it is at the micro level. There is a gap in the middle (communities fit). • I used to be a white water kayaker, so I signed up to be on the watershed board. I thought I would be helping the environment. Then, I realized the watershed was about pipes. The rivers did not have pipes. There are over a hundred outfalls of the pipes going into the creek. There is a connection of our infrastructure to our waterways. • Did you ask people where their drinking water comes from? The students understand it. The survey to the parents, they thought it was from the water tower. They did not tie it to the actual source. Did you get any connection for that as well? Answer: We did and about 40% of people did not know where their drinking water comes from. The Natura Conservancy did some survey work on this topic as well. 03:26:00 o Do you think some of that is generational? Answer: We saw basic hydrological thinking, but what is lacking today is where the hydrological cycle meets the human cycle. It seems like the knowledge gaps as a society is where the sewer water goes. Where water is touching humanity which is a huge opportunity.
Draft Timeline for FY22-23 Clean Water Fund Applications (WebEx 03:30:30) • Paul Gardner reviewed the timeline for the last three funding cycles. There is a spreadsheet timeline in the meeting packet. The items in blue are new, and they are working on the deadlines. This is the second draft on how proposals might come into the CWFs. They are looking to work on these items earlier, at the state agencies request, presentations with the BOC would be in April, May, and June. Then, to the full Council for presentations and feedback. Moving forward they are looking to cast the wider net with the strategic planning and incorporating it in the Council’s recommendations. Discussion/Comments: o Do we have any feedback from the administration on how they might see this differently than the last administration? Answer: Regarding the Walz and Flanagan administration, from an environmental justice standpoint, we should reach out to Suzanne Sobotka. She is involved, so we can make sure we are providing them what they need. Regarding the relationship with ICT, I think we are on a stable footing right now. Hopefully we can continue to work. o The state agencies will be presenting the proposals to the BOC, and then they present to the full Council? In the past, there have been quick presentations at the Council meetings. The recent ones were by categories. Then, the BOC had more in depth conversations with the programs, which factored into the recommendations in the report. Is the plan similar to this process or has that changed? Response: Yes. Now that we have the goals and mission in place, we need to make sure it is part of each presentation. Moving it forward that way to help explain our reasoning at the Legislature as well. It will be important moving forward with the framework moving forward. Comment: The Council wants to make sure not to lose the opportunity to have these presentations at the full Council meetings, and to have that opportunity to ask questions at the same time. o When we talked at the BOC meeting, we envisioned something similar to the last budget cycle. Talking about the topics at the BOC, to get a timeline from now until the report is due. o Another version will be drafted with this feedback.
New Business & Debrief from today’s meeting – Frank Jewell (WebEx 03:42:00) o Future topic request from Phil Sterner: It would be good to talk more Industrial water re-use.
Adjournment (WebEx 03:43:07)
Clean Water Council November 18, 2019 Meeting Summary
Members present: Rep. Patty Acomb, John Barten, Steven Besser, Kevin Bigalke, Sen. Karla Bigham, Pam Blixt, Tannie Eshenaur, Rep. Josh Heintzeman, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Holly Kovarik, Rylee Main, Jason Moeckel, Jeff Peterson, Raj Rajan, Victoria Reinhardt, Todd Renville, Patrick Shea, Glenn Skuta, and Phillip Sterner. Members absent: Gary Burdorf, Warren Formo, and Whitney Place.
To watch the WebEx video recording of this meeting, please go to https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water- council/meetings, or contact Brianna Frisch.
Regular Clean Water Council (Council) Business • Council Member introductions and updates o Glenn Skuta: There is a Minnesota River Basin Ag-Urban Partnership Forum today in Mankato. They are talking about options on how to move forward with water quality. It is bringing both urban and rural sectors together. o Jason Moeckel: There was a proposal for 500 million gallons of water out of Dakota County from the Mount Simon aquifer to be shipped by train to Colorado for agricultural use. The information grew fast by social media before the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) could respond. However, there are statutes that restrict the use of the Mount Simon aquifer, specifically restricted to potable water use. There would need to be no viable alternatives. However, it is unlikely this company will be able to get a permit (there are viable alternatives they could use). The company is still interested in finding a company to source this water need. For perspective, 500 million gallons of water is about as much use as 5,000 residential homes. A surface water source may work, or meet, the statutory rule. • Meeting agenda motioned by Victoria Reinhardt, seconded by Todd Renville, motion approved. • Chair and Council Staff update o Deepa deAlwis accepted a supervisor job with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) air policy unit. She has enjoyed working with the Council. The Council is thankful for all her hard work. o Staff report handout, by Paul Gardner (Council Administrator) • There is no news on the appointments from the Governor’s office. • The Council received some news coverage last week regarding the MPCA’s Biennial Impaired Waters draft list that came out. Paul was asked to talk about the work of the Council. • In January, there will be an election for the Council’s Chair and Vice Chair. Therefore, members should consider if they would be interested in being elected. • Policy Committee Update o The Policy Committee meeting involved presentations on Nitrogen Fertilizer Rule from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) talked about private well owners nitrate issues and available tools, there was an update from the Forever Green Initiative, and a chloride update from the MPCA. The committee reviewed their established policies to consider any need for future actions regarding these policies. They will have more information following up on water softening (regarding chloride) and possibly nitrates. • Budget & Outcomes Committee Update o The schedule of the budget recommendation process was drafted. It is on the agenda to review it later today. At the last meeting, the main topic of discussion was Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) funding. They reviewed possible funding mechanisms. This impacts the Council’s budget, so it was something they wanted to review, and perhaps provide some funding recommendations. There were no final conclusions. o Also, they talked about The Freshwater Society draft report and stakeholder discussion on the Council’s budgeting process. They talked about the outcomes and measurements. The report included some recommendations for the Council, some of which they are already working on. The Freshwater Society will provide the final copy to the full Council soon. The next BOC meeting will be about the biennial Clean Water Fund Performance Report.
• Comment: It is important to mention that the SWCDs are trying to have the funding come from a different source than CWFs.
Policy Proposals from LCC Subcommittee on Minnesota Water Policy (formerly Legislative Water Commission), by Jim Stark (director) (WebEx 00:27:00) • The Co-chairs are: Senator Bill Weber and Representative Peter Fischer. Representative Heintzeman is also a member on the subcommittee. • They have some proposed Legislative water policy topics for 2020. These are from multiple sources including: direct requests from legislators, requests from stakeholders, topics from the 2019 session, and bills introduced during the 2019 session. Many of these topics fit with the Council’s policy priorities. • Topics: o Provide incentives for healthy soil (research and outreach) o Ensure safe and sustainable drinking water (small incremental additions to the Groundwater Atlas Program and focus on private wells) o Reduce overuse of salt o Increase efforts to encourage efficient wastewater and stormwater technology and treatment options (multifaceted approach) o Support to improve Minnesota’s drinking water infrastructure o Simplify the water quality standards review and revision process o Simplify the irrigation water appropriations process o State assumption of federal wetlands permits members need to be kept apprised for 2021 o Address the SWCD funding (options need hearing and discussion) o Creation of a Department of Water Resources o Change the structure and function of the Clean Water Council, the LCC Water Policy Committee o Prioritizing outcomes for clean water programs (minor changes and coordination, based on The Freshwater Society’s Trajectory Report) o Preparing for an uncertain future o Keep water on the land (quantifying the impacts of water storage and flood retention structures) o Research and funding to promote precision agriculture o Leveraging dedicated funding programs to maximize conservation outcomes (coordinate strategic planning) • They are in the process of drafting bills, organizing hearings, and meeting on these individual topics. There are also some additional topics that have surfaced in the last few weeks, which were not included. Questions: • Regarding these items, how can we assure that science takes priority over opinions and politics? It seems sometimes science gets pushed aside. Response: Until it can be discussed and talked about, those issues need to be vetted outside the context of the language of the bills. • Do you have specific issues, or are the bills you are talking about drafting relate to specific issues? Answer: Primarily talking about the issues that include addressing bills, while other issues are not ready to be bills yet. The first and third of the items are moving forward to the committees. • In the last session, there were some bills that addressed chloride, but they did not pass. Are you anticipating something similar to this last attempt, or are there changes? Answer: It is similar. The liability portion needs more review. Water softening at the municipal level has also be discussed. There are some items that have been added that may impact this item, and others need to be further discussed.
Updates on Strategic Direction of Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC) & Legislative Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) (WebEx 00:50:00) LCCMR and Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, by Becca Nash, Director • The LCCMR includes 17 members who are focused on protection, conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state’s air, water, land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. Of those 17 members, five are representatives, seven are citizens, and five are senators.
• The Environment and Natural Resource Trust Fund was Minnesota’s first constitutionally dedicated funding source for the environment and natural resources. It was established in 1988 with a 77% approval rate. About 40% of the Minnesota lottery profits are dedicated to it. The lottery contribution will be reaffirmed until 2025. o A permanent environment and natural resources trust fund is established in the state treasury. o Loans may be made up to five percent of the principals of the fund for water system improvements as provided by law. o The assets of the fund shall be appropriated by law for the public purpose of protection, conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state’s air, water, land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. • The trust fund cannot be used to as a substitute for traditional sources of funding environmental and natural resource activities, but the trust fund shall supplement the traditional sources, including those sources used to support the criteria. It must be used primarily to support activities who benefits become available only over an extended period of time. • LCCMR Recommendation Process: o Annual or biennial request for proposals (open to anyone) o The proposals are reviewed, evaluated, ranked, and discussed o There are presentations to the LCCMR o Research projects undergo scientific peer review o The top proposals are recommended to the Legislature o These must be passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor are funded • Funding priority categories (last few years): Foundational Natural Resource Data and Information; Water Resources; Environmental Education; Aquatic and Terrestrial Invasive Species; Air Quality, Climate Change, and Renewable Energy; Methods to Protect or Restore Land, Water, and Habitat; Land Acquisition for Habitat and Recreation; Small Projects (under $200,000). • Each category has an explanation that can be reviewed. • They have been doing a lot of stakeholder engagement, which includes subject matter experts and a general public survey. Questions: • About how much money per year is allocated? Answer: This current biennium is 60 million a year. • Could you provide more information on the prioritization process? Answer: Every project competes against each other. They do not use quotas in the categories. • How does LCCMR see leverage? Answer: Basically, they thing about it as cash or inside match. There is not a universal match. They want to see other sources of funding, to have something from the program (some skin in the game).
LSOHC, by Mark Johnson, Executive Director, • The LSOHC is a 12 member council that was created by the legislative branch in 2008. They were formed to recommend appropriations from the Outdoor Heritage Fund (OHF) to the Minnesota Legislature. They are all appointed. Four are public members appointed by the House and four are appointed by the Senate. The other eight appointed are citizens. Every two years members are up for appointment or reappointment. Recently there have been five new members appointed, which may change the dynamics of the group. • The LSOHC operates on the vision to “…restore, protect, and enhance Minnesota’s wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife…” The state statute required a 10-year plan and a 25-year framework be developed and presented to the Legislative Coordinating Commission (LCC). • At their upcoming December meeting they will be hearing from a proposal to reevaluate the forest portion of the vision. It is something that the previous chair had been working on. This is due to massive changes that have happened in the industry and the forest industry infrastructure over the last decade(s). The local communities are having a hard time keeping their businesses going. In addition, it impacts habitat as well. Protection has been linked to acquisition of easements.
• During their process, they are looking for the best returns on investments, as well as providing the most leverage and poignant outcomes for the public. They believe the public is key, because the public needs to feel like the funds are impacting. • Regarding the process, they are looking at each item. They are also trying to share the information to the public with outreach. They also have many small grants to help at the smaller local level. They want the projects and programs to go well. • The LSOHC is more limited to what it can fund because of the habitat component. However, regarding the past funding projects, there are probably more collaborative funding done between Clean Water Council and OHF, than LCCMR. There is a handout in the meeting packet of the projects/programs that have received both CWFs and OHF dollars. On the back page are programs that reported joint funding from OHF and CWFs, and there are many of them. There is a big opportunity for collaboration. Questions: • When you talk about the goals being around habitat, are there secondary goals? Specifically any that impact their decision making (i.e., water quality, climate change, etc.)? Answer: They do not have formal secondary goals, but they are a diverse membership who consider those goals. They are looked more at as outcomes and outputs, the impacts of those (how many more miles are protected). They are working with the University of Minnesota to do an analysis of their outcomes. This will help set the first benchmark. • Do you give any preferential treatment to the projects/programs that are shovel ready? Answer: Every member has their own vote, but generally they do prefer shovel ready. • If the Clean Water Council (CWC), LSOHC, and LCCMR, can encourage the groups providing proposals, they can work with the programmatic standpoint (working with the DNR or the Board of Water and Soil Resources), to help these all groups to work together bring in this work, and allow the funding to move further. • What kind of communication is there between the staff of these committees (CWC, LSOHC, and LCCMR) to see if there is a way to collaborate with these groups to help in this area (make the funding stronger and more stretched)? Perhaps something between the executive directors of the group? Answer: That is a great thought. This has been growing between staff. Comment: Perhaps look through the proposals to help cover these areas, or work the resources more efficient between groups. It is a more proactive approach. • Mark Johnson: Please feel free to make a comments, suggestions, or request to the LSOHC.
Strategic Planning Exercise #3: Key findings from October & Action Planning, by Andrew Elbert, MPCA Continuous Improvement Unit (WebEx 01:49:00) • The Council reviewed three questions individually. They discussed these in groups. Then, they reported their discussion to the larger group. These were the questions: o What is the next “big idea” on the horizon that the Clean Water Council should be nurturing? o Name the three (3) outcomes that the Clean Water Council should focus on achieving by 2034? . What guidance can be given to agencies to achieve them that the public with understand? o How will the Clean Water Council ensure safe drinking water everywhere? . Safe at the source? . Safe at the tap? . What should be the expectation on the state to achieve this? • First group results: o Next big ideas: Water reclamation (specifically water reuse); empowering local units of government to better manage their water as there are many layers at the state; support for new industries and products (like cover crops); new innovation (different solutions to issues); integrate efforts with climate change by using solar on marginal lands; incentives for soil health; emerging threats of microplastics and plastics as well as other chemicals (i.e., pharmaceuticals); super bugs and viruses; aging infrastructure; plumbing codes (no more timed water softeners). o Outcomes to focus for 2034: water on the land (treat the water as a sponge versus a shield); protecting the Mississippi Headwaters by 2034 with an 80% protection level (high quality water into the future) and they would do this by asking the state agencies to focus on that task.
o Safe drinking water: Protecting the 300,000+ acres of vulnerable wellhead protection areas; PFAS reduction, elimination, or treatment; consistency across the state for water quality goals; salt alternative (also a big idea); cut the percent of private wells that do not meet the standards in half by 2034 (measurable); reduce phosphorous and nitrogen in drinking water; target for reduced sediment loss; no new impairments after 2034 would be significant. Expectations on the state: equity is important; focus on vulnerable areas for surface water; help to have enough credited labs to complete the testing for nitrate testing in private wells; suggest a document listing the constraints of ensuring safe water at the tap (all that it would involve); encourage residents to test for clean water; decrease the vulnerable wellhead protection areas; and infrastructure to help with wastewater. • Second group results: o Next big ideas: Looking at the collaboration of multiple efforts of addressing climate change, land use, water resources, and habitat so that the many groups (i.e., CWC, LSOHCF, LCCMR) can work together to get all of this moving forward together (not just one item). o Outcomes to focus for 2034: Have 50% of agricultural lands acreage to have perennial cover where it is needed most; adopting the water quality certification framework; and greater than 50% improvement of the number of private wells exceeding nitrates. o Safe drinking water: An emphasis that the municipalities and Legislature needs to work on the lead in pipes. Watching for leading indicators for the impaired water list, to help decrease the list of impaired waters. • Third group results: o Next big ideas: Change or diversify land use by getting private companies and market research development the idea that the change would take place at a system level (take the target off the farmers), expanding choices, letting consumer dollars drive change; Finish One Watershed One Plan (1W1P) for all the watersheds, and then move 1W1P from competitive to predictable funding; support or wrap up the Minnesota Ag Water Quality Program; protect the high risk vulnerable wellhead protection areas; provide protection for private wells through water safety plans; and assist land owners with precision agriculture. o Outcomes to focus for 2034: The number of waters that are delisted (some kind of plain language indicator); have a sustainable water monitoring network in place (citizen science or state agency); counting the number of vulnerable water acres protected; No increase in the number of community water supplies which need treatment for their water source; have all private wells be tested according to MDH recommendations; and have the waters sustainable managed according to water quantity (groundwater and surface waters). o Safe drinking water: There is language in the Legacy Amendment which talks about protecting sources of drinking water. There is an intersection of source water protection (surface water and groundwater as sources). Clean water fund dollars go to the public facilities authority, so the Council is active in this area. Questions: • Paul has a handout in the meeting packet for Council members to complete. There are blanks to be filled out. This helps to move this work forward, looking at the goals of the Council by 2034 (accountable). Council members circle what they like, cross out what they do not like, and submit this document to Paul. This will help create an action plan, influence the next few budget cycles. • This is a word of caution. Regarding the outcomes, it is frustrating when public expectations do not align with what is practical. Specifically with the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), a lot of the implementation recommendations or high level strategies suggest timelines that are not close to being met. There are areas where we can achieve items by 2034, but looking at what is already set with measurable outcomes, perhaps a smaller scale or more general statements would be a better approach. Trying to avoid unrealistic expectations. • Sediment is a huge issue, but we do not have any goals related to sediment. It would be useful, but I am not sure what is being measured that would help. It is a huge part of our problem. Response: The large rivers of the state could be selected. Then, have the sediment levels identified as increasing or decreasing, and that could be used to show that outcome. Comment: The Minnesota River TMDL provided a lot of discussion. Sediment loading can be variable and there are challenges in results of the loading. It is a challenging area to measure, especially when weather patterns are unpredictable. The flooding issue may need more attention to that complication. There is a need for more conversation.
• The next steps will be to narrow down some outcomes. We will take this information and we will create another survey (email it out to Council members). This one will be to grade and prioritize, and we will provide feedback for December. We will have some recommendations for organization as well.
Draft Timeline/Process for FY22-23 Clean Water Fund Applications (WebEx 03:15:30) • Paul has created a spreadsheet of the draft Budget and Outcomes timeline for fiscal year 22-23. There is also a written schedule (Proposed Process for FY22-23 Funding Proposals). These contain the same timeline, just presented in two different forms. This is has been reviewed by the BOC as well as input from the Interagency Coordination Team (ICT). This is up for review, or to finalize, and provide to the public on the web. • Motion to finalize and place on the website by Steve Besser, seconded by John Barten, and motion carries.
“Take Note”, New Business & Debrief from today’s meeting – Frank Jewell (WebEx 03:20:00) • This was completed as a whole group instead of individually. • In reflection, I think the Council should set a formal coordination between the CWC, LSOHC, and LCCMR. However, those two groups have a reaction to specific proposals to specific projects. Whereas the Council makes recommendations in terms of how the funding should be spent, but not necessarily recommendations for projects on the ground. Trying to get together to coordinate the recommendations may not work as smoothly. Does anyone else see that issue? o I also felt that way. They look at each program on an individual basis. Some of the Council’s goals are more specific (i.e., protect vulnerable areas). Overall, the funds are dispersed. To get the measurable outcomes, focusing the funding to the priority areas, might be a better way to help see more defined outcomes by 2034. If funds are allocated all over, it might not impact as strongly overall. o Some of the funds (TMDLs, WRAPS, and 1W1Ps) are informational documents and plans that are help in good decision making and good implementation. I don’t have the sense that there is something parallel to that in LSOHC. Is there a way we could coordinate when they are looking at what they are going to fund, could they be looking at the CWFs as part of their decision-making process? To see if the project they are reviewing relates to some of these information documents and plans? It may not work or may be too complicated. It feels like we use a lot of time and energy in allocating those funds. o At a minimal level, just having the information through staff coordination would be helpful for decision making. If we evaluate where there is overlap, just knowing about that may be helpful for our recommendations. It may help reveal gaps that exist as well. o I suggest the three staff members, Mark Johnson (LSOHC), Becca Nash (LCCMR), and Paul (CWC) meet quarterly to follow up on what is going on with the other boards. o The LCCMR tends to fund a lot of new research. Sometimes the research is to find out a little more about something, and some is more high risk for high reward. It would seem to me, that it may be an incubator, for ideas that could be transferable for the Council. I think it would be really good if we keep in communication on new research findings. o This is the first time to hear from the LSOHC and LCCMR, and this was helpful and informative to have a better understanding of their priorities and structure. o The DNR tends to be active in many areas at the LSOHC, and some LCCMR funding for some data (i.e., geologic atlas). Because our agency is involved in these groups, we have these conversations between the three, but it is not happening as much with other agencies. There are opportunities that could make these funds go further. o Regarding the handout from LSOHC, it showed that funding came from these multiple sources. There are areas of funding that can pull from the others. Especially, when the pieces come together and it provides a synergy, but it often lands on a local partner to knit these things together. So, I wonder how impacting that is for the local folks. If there is a way to make it more user friendly to help this move forward faster, to get these funds to implementation. Could the three funding sources, get together to help create this synergy.
Next Meetings:
• December 16th: Strategic Planning; update to state’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy; draft Clean Water Fund Performance Report • January 27th: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative LAMP funding; water reuse? (member suggestion) Project evaluation strategies? • MEETING DATES FOR 2020: January 27 (moved a week later due to holiday); February 24 (moved a week later due to holiday); March 16; April 20; May 18; June 15; July 20; August 17; September 21; October 19; November 16; December 21
Adjournment (WebEx 03:32:27)
Chair and Vice Chair Elections
December 16, 2019
Greetings, Clean Water Council members.
Chair Frank Jewell and Vice-Chair Pam Blixt asked me to remind you that according to the Council’s by- laws, the Council shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair in January every other year.
Our by-laws read as follows:
Election of Chair and Vice-Chair The Council shall elect from its voting members a chair and vice-chair. Elected chair and vice-chair will serve one two-year term, beginning in January. The Council shall use the methods of nomination and elections consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order, and in compliance with Minnesota Open Meeting Law, as outlined below.
The job descriptions are in our by-laws as well:
The powers and duties of the Chair shall be as follows: 1. To preside as Chair at all meetings of the Council. 2. To see that the laws of the State, pertaining to the purpose and functions of the Council, the resolutions of the Council and its policies are faithfully observed and executed. 3. To call special meetings of the Council, on his/her own initiative, or upon request of three or more members. 4. To serve on the Steering Committee.
The powers and duties of the Vice-Chair shall be as follows: 1. To perform the Chair’s duties at regularly scheduled or special Council meetings whenever the Chair is absent. 2. To handle Council business on behalf of the Chair whenever illness or personal matters prevent the Chair from handling Council business outside of regularly scheduled or special Council meetings. 3. To serve on the Steering Committee.
The process to use in January is as follows:
Election Process: (Process to be followed separately; first for election of Chair and subsequently, election of Vice-Chair) 1. Council members submit nominees to Chair prior to election. 2. Current Chair may designate another Council member to facilitate the election of Chair. 3. Chair or designee presents list of nominees for Chair/Vice-Chair to the Council. There is no vote taken on accepting this list of nominees, these nominations are treated as if made by members from the floor. 4. Chair or designee opens floor for further nominations for Chair/Vice-Chair. 5. Council member makes verbal nomination; nominees’ names are noted. Nomination need not be seconded. 6. Chair or designee seeks any further nominations. 7. Chair or designee seeks motion to close nominations. Council members makes a motion; motion is seconded by another Council member. 8. Chair or designee calls for a vote on the motion to close nominations. 9. When the Council votes on closing the floor for nominations, Council then proceeds to the election. a) If there are no nominees for the position of Chair/Vice-Chair, the Council shall vote on continuing the term of the current Chair/Vice-Chair. b) When there is one nominee for Chair/Vice-Chair: Chair or designee calls for a vote to elect this individual to the position. If majority of Council members vote in favor, nominee is elected as Chair/Vice-Chair. c) When there are multiple nominations: Chair or designee calls for a vote for each nominee. Each Council member may only vote once. Council member may vote for him/herself. A member has the right to change his/her vote up to the time the vote is finally announced. Nominee with the majority vote is elected to the position. 10. Chair or designee announces who is elected as Chair/Vice-Chair, their effective starting date (typically January), and length of term (typically 2 years from start date).
To: Clean Water Council
From: Paul Gardner
Date: December 16, 2019
Re: Staff Memo for December
Appointments: No news to report. The Secretary of State automatically removes people from the list of applicants after 12 months. I reached out to those people to make sure they know to reapply if they want.
Budget Forecast: The November budget forecast and revenue estimate came out and there is more money on the Clean Water Fund bottom line. There is approximately $2.5 million more in additional sales tax revenue, plus some carryover from the previous fiscal year and additional interest income. The total addition revenue adds up to $14.275 million.
Outreach: As part of our efforts to seek input on our strategic direction and ideas for 2020 recommendations, here is a list of organizations I’ve met with so far or will meet with:
• Association of Minnesota Counties • Minnesota Farmers Union • Conservation Minnesota • Minnesota Geological Survey • Environmental Working Group • Minnesota House Environmental Finance Chair • Freshwater • Minnesota Lakes & Rivers Advocates • Friends of the Boundary Waters • Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association • Friends of the Mississippi River • Minnesota Rural Water Association • Irrigators Association of Minnesota • Minnesota Soil Health Coalition • Land Stewardship Project • Minnesota Well Owners Organization • MASWCD • Nature Conservancy • Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy • Sierra Club • Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition • St. Louis River Alliance • Minnesota Corn Growers Association • Voyageurs National Park Clean Water Joint • Minnesota Environmental Partnership Powers Board Staff time: With Deepa’s departure, there is 0.15 of an FTE provided by MPCA that is vacant. I’ve suggested to our Chair and Vice-Chair that we ask that this time come from MPCA communications staff. Assistant Commissioner Katrina Kessler and Communications Team leader Darin Broton are supportive.
FIRST DRAFT of a Strategic Plan for the Clean Water Council
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY 12/16/2019
Mission Protect and Restore Minnesota’s Waters for Generations to Come
Vision By the expiration of the Legacy Amendment in 2034 and in comparison to 2008 when the Legacy Amendment passed, Minnesota will have safer drinking water and fishable and swimmable waters throughout the state. There will no net increases in impairments since 2019 when the first statewide testing cycle was completed, and there will be a substantial decrease in impairments. Drinking water sources statewide will be protected, and drinking water at the tap for both public water suppliers and private well owners will be safe for all Minnesotans. Minnesotans will adhere to new societal norms for protecting, restoring, and conserving water.
Goals Drinking water is safe for everyone, everywhere in Minnesota • Protect public water supplies sources • Update public water treatment and distribution infrastructure • Ensure private well users have safe water Groundwater is clean and available • Improve and protect groundwater quality • “Maximize opportunities for restoration of degraded groundwater” and “support effective measures to restore degraded groundwater.”1 • Ensure sustainable long-term trends in aquifer levels • Avoid adverse impacts to surface water features due to groundwater use Surface waters are swimmable and fishable • Prevent and reduce pollution impairments in surface waters • Maintain and improve the health of aquatic ecosystems • Protect and restore hydrologic systems • Incorporate climate considerations into water planning Minnesotans value water and take actions to sustain and protect it • Build capacity of local communities to protect and sustain water resources • Encourage systems and approaches that support, protect, and improve water • Provide education and outreach to inform Minnesotans’ water choices
1 Minnesota Statutes 114D.20, subdivision 2(7) and 2(8). Also refer to degradation prevention goal in Minnesota Statutes 103H.001.
• Encourage citizen and community engagement on water issues • Incorporate the needs of Minnesota’s diverse communities
Strategies
Goal: Drinking water is safe for everyone, everywhere in Minnesota & groundwater is clean and available 1. Ensure that a minimum of five percent of the Clean Water Fund is spent exclusively on drinking water as required in the State Constitution. 2. Support widespread testing of private well water and recommend options to agencies to help private well owners achieve safe limits at the tap. 3. Recommend options to agencies to help property owners using public water distribution systems achieve safe water at the tap. 4. Support protection of ~300,000 acres of vulnerable land surrounding drinking water wellhead areas statewide by 2034.
Goal: Surface waters are swimmable and fishable (protection and restoration strategies)2 5. Fund the completion of Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) for all 80 major watersheds by 2023.3 6. Fund the completion of comprehensive watershed management plans for all 80 major watersheds, including those under One Watershed One Plan, by 2025.4 7. Promote maximum leverage of other sources of restoration funding, including federal, state, local, and private sources of funds, the Environment & Natural Resources Trust Fund, and the Outdoor Heritage Fund. 8. Within Minnesota’s major watersheds, prioritize protection and restoration funding according to approved comprehensive watershed management plans through the One Watershed One Plan program, when applicable. 9. Prioritize projects that “show a high potential for early restoration and delisting [from impaired waters list] based upon scientific data developed through public agency and citizen monitoring or other means.”5 10. Protect sufficient acreage in the Upper Mississippi River basin to ensure high quality water by 2034. 11. Invest in activities and research that can accelerate improvement in water quality through new approaches (e.g., perennial crops and other “landscape drivers”, chloride management or alternatives).
2 Derived from Minnesota Statutes 114D.20, subdivision 6 and 7. 3 As required in Minnesota Statutes 114D.26, subdivision 3. 4 As required in Minnesota Statutes 103B.801, subdivision 5. 5 Minnesota Statutes 114D.20, subdivision 6(4).
12. Include climate impacts as one of multiple benefits of protection and restoration.6 13. Support effective science-based responses to emerging threats or contaminants of emerging concern. 14. Support efforts for improved soil health and perennial cover and their multiple benefits.
Goal: Minnesotans value water and take actions to sustain and protect it. 15. “Develop strategies for informing, educating, and encouraging the participation of citizens, stakeholders, and others” in the protection and restoration of Minnesota’s waters.7 16. Plan for program resilience after expiration of Legacy Amendment in 2034 and encourage Clean Water Fund applicants to not rely on 100% CWF funding. 17. Develop cultural competency on the Council, and collaborate with agencies on inclusion strategies to make sure all Minnesotans’ voices are heard and their needs about water understood.
“Portfolio mix” for Clean Water Fund recommendations 18. Recommend a minimum of 20% of available Clean Water Fund revenue for projects that protect groundwater and drinking water from degradation, with five percent that is exclusively dedicated to drinking water.8 19. Recommend spending a minimum of 30% of available Clean Water Fund revenue for implementation of priorities in approved comprehensive watershed management plans, including those under One Watershed One Plan. 20. Recommend spending a minimum level of support for ongoing monitoring. 21. Recommend spending a minimum of ___% for innovation and activities that focus on “landscape drivers” and pollution prevention. 22. Recommend spending a minimum of ___% for competitive grants to entities outside state government and the University of Minnesota that meet the requirements of the Clean Water Legacy Act.9 23. Require all applicants for Clean Water Fund support to show anticipated and actual measureable outcomes. 24. Recommend random third-party reviews of programs supported by the Clean Water Fund.
6 Minnesota Statutes 114D.50 subdivision 4: “A project receiving funding from the clean water fund must meet or exceed the constitutional requirements to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water from degradation. Priority may be given to projects that meet more than one of these requirements.” 7 As required in Minnesota Statutes 114D.35, subdivision 3. 8 Minnesota Constitution, article XI, section 15: “33 percent of the [Legacy Amendment] receipts shall be deposited in the clean water fund and may be spent only to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater from degradation, and at at least five percent of the clean water fund must be spent only to protect drinking water sources.” 9 Refer to Minnesota Statutes 114D.30 subdivision 6 and 114D.50 subdivision 3 for guidance on eligibility.
Policy [need help here on connecting to a goal] 25. “Advise on the administration and implementation of the [Clean Water Legacy Act], and foster coordination and cooperation” among public agencies and private entities”10 26. “Identify for the legislature any innovative approaches that may strengthen or complement existing programs.”11
10 Minnesota Statutes 114D.30 subdivision 1. 11 Minnesota Statutes 114D.20 subdivision 3(6). Strategic Plan—DRAFT #1 Paul Gardner, Administrator 651-757-2384 [email protected] Today’s Objective
• Walk through the first draft
• Next steps
• Discard the whole thing?
• Mark up the plan and come back in January?
• Vote on anything where there is major disagreement?
• Add more specific action items to the list of strategies? Previous Work
• Clean Water Council Ten-Year Funding Goals (2017)
• Clean Water Council Goals & Objectives (2018)
• Clean Water Legacy Act (MN Statutes 114D)
• Other statutes Recent Sources of Input
• September, October, and November 2019 Clean Water Council meetings • External Input • Facilitated Freshwater workshop at June 2019 BOC meeting • Freshwater “Trajectory Report” (2018) • Individual meetings • Agencies What We Heard
• Integrate water and climate • Stick with watershed planning/implementation approach • Leverage more state/federal funding, reduce reliance on CWF • More emphasis on de-listing impairments • Increased investment in groundwater protection • Identify possible big goals that are easily explained to the public that could be complete by 2034 • Mississippi Headwaters protection • Protection of vulnerable acres in wellhead protection areas • Outreach to the public about how CWF is used • Equity Putting It All Together
• Merging the past work with recent input
• Mission: Used from 2018
• Vision: What we want things to look like by 2034—this is NEW
• Goals: 2018 “goals and objectives” with a few suggested changes
• Strategies: Specific things we want to do between now and 2034-NEW • Borrowed heavily from 2017 Ten-Year Funding Goals • Serves as guidance for 2020 recommendations Mission
“Protect and Restore Minnesota’s Waters for Generations to Come”
Surveys show 100% Council member approval of this language Vision—Needs some work
“By the expiration of the Legacy Amendment in 2034 and in comparison to 2008 when the Legacy Amendment passed, Minnesota will have safer drinking water and fishable and swimmable waters throughout the state. There will no net increases in impairments since 2019 when the first statewide testing cycle was completed, and there will be a substantial decrease in impairments. Drinking water sources statewide will be protected, and drinking water at the tap for both public water suppliers and private well owners will be safe for all Minnesotans. Minnesotans will adhere to new societal norms for protecting, restoring, and conserving water.” Goals—from 2018—No changes suggested
1. Drinking water is safe for everyone, everywhere in Minnesota
2. Groundwater is clean and available
3. Surface waters are swimmable and fishable
4. Minnesotans value water and take actions to sustain and protect it Subgoals
1. Drinking water is safe for everyone, everywhere in Minnesota • Protect public water supplies sources* • Update public water treatment and distribution infrastructure** • Ensure private well users have safe water
* Consistent with statutory language ** Suggested by Council input Subgoals
2. Groundwater is clean and available • Improve and protect groundwater quality [oops, keep “protect”] • “Maximize opportunities for restoration of degraded groundwater” and “support effective measures to restore degraded groundwater”* • Ensure sustainable long-term trends in aquifer levels • Avoid adverse impacts to surface water features due to groundwater use * Minnesota Statutes 114D.20, subdivision 2(7) and 2(8). Also refer to degradation prevention goal in Minnesota Statutes 103H.001. Subgoals
3. Surface waters are swimmable and fishable • Prevent and reduce pollution impairments in surface waters • Maintain and improve the health of aquatic ecosystems • Protect and restore hydrologic systems • Incorporate climate considerations into water planning Subgoals
4. Minnesotans value water and take actions to sustain and protect it • Build capacity of local communities to protect and sustain water resources • Encourage systems and approaches that support, protect, and improve water • Provide education and outreach to inform Minnesotans’ water choices • Encourage citizen and community engagement on water issues • Incorporate the needs of Minnesota’s diverse communities Strategies
Goal: 1) Drinking water is safe for everyone, everywhere in Minnesota & 2) groundwater is clean and available 1. Ensure that a minimum of five percent of the Clean Water Fund is spent exclusively on drinking water as required in the State Constitution. 2. Support widespread testing of private well water and recommend options to agencies to help private well owners achieve safe limits at the tap. 3. Recommend options to agencies to help property owners using public water distribution systems achieve safe water at the tap. 4. Support protection of ~300,000 acres of vulnerable land surrounding drinking water wellhead areas statewide by 2034. Strategies
Goal 3: Surface waters are swimmable and fishable (protection and restoration strategies) 5. Fund the completion of Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) for all 80 major watersheds by 2023. 6. Fund the completion of comprehensive watershed management plans for all 80 major watersheds, including those under One Watershed One Plan, by 2025. 7. Promote maximum leverage of other sources of restoration funding, including federal, state, local, and private sources of funds, the Environment & Natural Resources Trust Fund, and the Outdoor Heritage Fund. 8. Within Minnesota’s major watersheds, prioritize protection and restoration funding according to approved comprehensive watershed management plans through the One Watershed One Plan program, when applicable. Strategies-Goal 3 continued
9. Prioritize projects that “show a high potential for early restoration and delisting [from impaired waters list] based upon scientific data developed through public agency and citizen monitoring or other means.” 10. Protect sufficient acreage in the Upper Mississippi River basin to ensure high quality water by 2034. 11. Invest in activities and research that can accelerate improvement in water quality through new approaches (e.g., perennial crops and other “landscape drivers”, chloride management or alternatives). Strategies-Goal 3 continued
12. Include climate impacts as one of multiple benefits of protection and restoration. 13. Support effective science-based responses to emerging threats or contaminants of emerging concern. 14. Support efforts for improved soil health and perennial cover and their multiple benefits. Strategies-Goal 3 continued
15. “Develop strategies for informing, educating, and encouraging the participation of citizens, stakeholders, and others” in the protection and restoration of Minnesota’s waters. 16. Plan for program resilience after expiration of Legacy Amendment in 2034 and encourage Clean Water Fund applicants to not rely on 100% CWF funding. 17. Develop cultural competency on the Council, and collaborate with agencies on inclusion strategies to make sure all Minnesotans’ voices are heard and their needs about water understood. “Portfolio Mix” for CWF Recommendations
18. Recommend a minimum of 20% of available Clean Water Fund revenue for projects that protect groundwater and drinking water from degradation, with five percent that is exclusively dedicated to drinking water. 19. Recommend spending a minimum of 30% of available Clean Water Fund revenue for implementation of priorities in approved comprehensive watershed management plans, including those under One Watershed One Plan. 20. Recommend spending a minimum level of support for ongoing monitoring. 21. Recommend spending a minimum of ___% for innovation and activities that focus on “landscape drivers” and pollution prevention. 22. Recommend spending a minimum of ___% for competitive grants to entities outside state government and the University of Minnesota that meet the requirements of the Clean Water Legacy Act. 23. Require all applicants for Clean Water Fund support to show anticipated and actual measureable outcomes. 24. Recommend random third-party reviews of programs supported by the Clean Water Fund. Policy
• “Advise on the administration and implementation of the [Clean Water Legacy Act], and foster coordination and cooperation” among public agencies and private entities”* • “Identify for the legislature any innovative approaches that may strengthen or complement existing programs.”**
* Minnesota Statutes 114D.30 subdivision 1. ** Minnesota Statutes 114D.20 subdivision 3(6). Minnesota’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy Evaluating five-years of progress
A multi-agency assessment (in draft)
Dave Wall |Environmental Research Scientist NRS finalized in 2014 by 11 organizations
• 2013 Public review https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nutrient• 2014 Finalized -reduction-strategy Milestones 10-20% Final goals 45-50%
Major basin 2014 to 2025 (Milestones) “final” goals
for P 1. Mississippi 12% (of pre-2000 baseline loads) 45% River & meet MN lake & river standards 2. 20% for N 3. 10% for P 2. Red River & 50% Lake Winnipeg 13% for N 1.
3. Lake Superior No net increase from 1970’s
Statewide Groundwater/ Meet 1989 Groundwater Protection Act Goals Source Water Mississippi River Phosphorus Goals
Phosphorus reduced into Mississippi River 1997-2013
1200 1000 800 600 400 200 Metric Tons per year per Tons Metric 0 Wastewater Cropland feedlots, lawns & septics
Note: 48% agric. P reduction to Minnesota River Basin during decades prior to 2006 Based on National Conservation Effects 1997 2014 2025 Assessment Project (USDA 2010). Mississippi River Phosphorus Goals
1997 2014 2025 Mississippi River Nitrogen Goals
1997 2014 2025 We need increases in multiple areas
Most in-state goals
Gulf of Mexico & Lake Winnipeg goals soil, water soil, water
Some in-state goals
agriculture, agriculture, 2025 milestone - targets Positive Impact Impact Positive Conceptual diagram 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052 Added BMP acreage scenario for 2025 milestones (statewide for N & P) 7 6.3 M 6
4.9 M Plus advance: 5 • Urban Wastewater • Urban runoff 4 • Septic systems 3
2 1.9 M
1 0.6 M Million ofacres cropland affected 0.5 M 0 Reduced tillage & soil Crop nutrient mgmt Drainage water Perennials - fuel, forage, Cover crops - relay, conservation efficiencies storage/treatment food, buffers & set-aside intercrop, winter annuals New BMP acreages for milestones & final goals Huge scale of new acreages needed 7 Final goals 6
5 Final goals Final 4
3
2 Final Final goals 1 goals Million ofacres cropland affected
0 Reduced tillage & soil Crop nutrient mgmt Drainage water Perennials - fuel, forage, Cover crops - relay, conservation efficiencies storage/treatment food, buffers & set-aside intercrop, winter annuals Five-year Progress Evaluation
1. Programs advanced? 2. BMPs adopted? 3. Improvements in water? 4. Next steps?
Update & republish Today
• Awareness of upcoming 1. Programs advanced? progress report 2. BMPs adopted? • Preliminary view of findings 3. Improvements in water? 4. Next steps? • Feedback and questions & associated advances since 2014 (part 1) 1.. NRS Strategies
Research • Split N fertilizer application Integrate City • N monitoring plan dev. wastewater to • Perennials & cover crops with • 450 WWTF monit. N • WRAPS w/NRS goals nitrogen advance • MDA Clean Wat. Research • Fed. Grant to model • Stormwater research council watershed • 1W1P w/NRS goals monitor & approach • Wastewater certainty best • ++ more treat practices
• Nitrogen Smart (500+) • Ag WQ Certification • MN Office Soil Health • Gov. 25% by 2025 Partnership • Forever Green Soil • Soil Health position Education • Nutrient & N mgmt. with Ag • N fertilizer education • Private and local Soil Health conferences Private Health campaign • Soil Health & 4R promo partnerships • Ag BMP & drainage Industry focus handbooks • Nitrogen Smart
•Discovery Farms (11) • Over ½ million acres Socio- Demo •Watersheds for 319 (20) • Social research at Center •Root R. field to stream Ag WQ • Over 1500 New Practics economics for changing landscapes at Small-scale •Cedar R. partnership • Over 40,000 lbs P reduce UMN •Red River Basin water storage Certific. advanced successes •Wellhead area implementation NRS strategies & associated advances (part2) 2..
• Forever Green Tracking Perennials Advance • Stormwater permits (251) systems • Gov’t program BMPs – & living • CREP Program stormwater Healthier Waters site • Buffer Law • New stormwater manual cover & septic • Reduced direct septic for BMP • Satellite imagery • EQIP Cover Crop use advanced • Cover Crop Insurance Pilot programs outlets
Ground • Rule related to N fert. • Clean Water Fund $ Feedlots, • Nutrient Mgmt Initiative • Source Water Protect. Local • Training & Certif. Prog. manure & • Manure application water • Multipurpose DWM grant inspections increased Prog. capacity nutrient program • N fertilizer mgmt. plan protect & • GWRAPS (6) efficiencies increased • Watershed-based funding • New WQ manure restore • N fertilizer mgmt. plan • Federal 319 prog. revamped advanced specialist
• NWQI & MRBI projects Coordinate • Watershed Conservation • Watershed Pollutant Load Market- • Point-nonpoint trading Planning Initiative Ongoing Federal & Monitoring Network based • GHG reduction benefits • One Water One Plan water state & • Well water nitrate of WQ BMPs defined • Healthier Waters website monitoring programs local • River trends assessment monitoring network Summary of NRS program advancement
1. Programs advanced? • Greatly advanced most strategy areas • More time needed before full implementation • Most every strategy area needs continued implementation & development
2. BMPs adopted? 3. Improvements in water?
4. Next steps? New BMP acreage scenario by 2025 (statewide for N & P) 7 6.3 M 6 Plus advance: 4.9 M For each category we assess: 5 A. Adoption• throughUrban Wastewater government program support B. Indicators• Urbanof broader runoff overall adoption 4 • Septic systems 3
2 1.9 M
1 0.6 M Million ofacres cropland affected 0.5 M 0 Reduced tillage & soil Crop nutrient mgmt Drainage water Perennials - fuel, forage, Cover crops - relay, conservation efficiencies storage/treatment food, buffers & set-aside intercrop, winter annuals Government Program – reduced tillage & soil conservation
2014-18 ~318,000 new acres
Source: MPCA - https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/healthier-watershedsDRAFT Conservation Tillage – indicators of broader overall adoption
10,000,000 Satellite Imagery (OpTIS) U.S. Census Survey 9,000,000 Plus further advance: 8,000,000 • Urban Wastewater 7,000,000 • Urban runoff 6,000,000 • Septic systems 5,000,000 4,000,000 tillage acres (>30% residue) (>30% acres tillage 3,000,000 1.9 M 2,000,000 1,000,000 conservation conservation 0.5 M 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
DRAFT 5-year change compared to 2025 scenario needs 7 6.3 M 6 2025 milestone scenario Plus further advance: 5 • Urban Wastewater • Urban runoff 4 • Septic systems 3 U.S. Census of Agriculture 1.9 M 2 2012-17
1 0.6 M Million ofacres cropland affected 0.5 M Gov’t programs + 318,000 new acres 0 Reduced tillage & soil Crop nutrient mgmt Drainage water Perennials - fuel, forage, Cover crops - relay, conservation Satelliteefficiencies -1,400,000storage/treatment food, buffers & set-aside intercrop, winter annualsDRAFT Crop nutrient mgmt. efficiencies – Gov’t support 7 6.3 M 6
4.9 M Plus further advance: 5 • Urban Wastewater • Urban runoff 4 • Septic systems 3 69,000 acres of cost-shared Nutrient Mgmt 2014-18 2 1.9 M
1 0.6 M Million ofacres cropland affected 0.5 M private adoption? private 0 Gov’t cost-share Reduced tillage & soil Crop nutrient mgmt Drainage water Perennials - fuel, forage, Cover crops - relay, conservation efficiencies storage/treatment food, buffers & set-aside intercrop, winter annualsDRAFT General indicators of overall nutrient use efficiency change
Similar since 2010 Plus further advance:N fertilizer sales - Minnesota • Fertilizer sales (N & P) • Urban Wastewater • N fertilizer rates (2010-14) • Urban runoff • N Use Efficiency index • Septic systems • Nitrification inhibitor sales
1.9 M Other changes since 2010 • Shifts from anhydrous ammonia to urea 0.5 M • Soil phosphorus test levels higher (2010-15)
DRAFT Drainage water storage & treatment 7 6.3 M 6
4.9 M Plus further advance: 5 • Urban Wastewater • Urban runoff 4 • Septic systems 3
2 1.9 M
1 600,000 Million ofacres cropland affected 0.5 M
0 Gov’t programs 15,700 acres Reduced tillage & soil Crop nutrient mgmt Drainage water Perennials - fuel, forage, Cover crops - relay, conservation efficiencies storage/treatment food, buffers & set-aside intercrop, winter annualsDRAFT Living Cover - 2025 milestone scenario goals 7 6.3 M 6
4.9 M Plus further advance: 5 • Urban Wastewater • Urban runoff 4 • Septic systems 3
2 1,900,000
1 600,000 Million ofacres cropland affected 500,000 0 Reduced tillage & soil Crop nutrient mgmt Drainage water Perennials - fuel, forage, Cover crops - relay, conservation efficiencies storage/treatment food, buffers & set-aside intercrop, winter annuals Government cost-support - living cover (CRP not included)
Optional Tagline Goes Here | mn.gov/websiteurl DRAFT Comparing against 2025 scenario 7 6.3 M 6
4.9 M Plus further advance: 5 • Urban Wastewater • Urban runoff 4 • Septic systems 3
2 1.9 M
1 600,000 Million ofacres cropland affected 500,000 255,000 ac. 86,000 ac. Gov’t prog. 0 Gov’t prog. Reduced tillage & soil Crop nutrient mgmt Drainage water Perennials - fuel, forage, Cover crops - relay, conservation efficiencies storage/treatment food, buffers & set-aside intercrop, winter annuals DRAFT Cover crops – indicators of progress 2014-18
Data Source Cover Crop acres Government cost-support + 255,000 programs U.S. Census of Agriculture + 171,000 2012-17 (planted) Satellite Imagery (CTIC OpTIS) Small grain CC increased Corn/soy remain at ~1% Overall + 23,000
DRAFT Perennials - indicators of progress 2014-18
Data Source acres Government program new sign-ups +86,000 (not including CRP) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) -167,000 Satellite images hay + grass (CDL) +300,000 U.S. Census of Agriculture 2012-17 (Forage lands – hay, haylage, grass silage, green chop) -51,000
DRAFT Progress indicators compared to 2025 scenario 7
6 Government program support 2014-18 5 Range based on other indicators 2014-18 4
3
2
1 ? Million ofacres cropland affected
0 Reduced tillage & soil Crop nutrient mgmt Drainage water Perennials - fuel, forage, Cover crops - relay, conservation efficiencies storage/treatment food, buffers & set-aside intercrop, winter annuals DRAFT Municipal Wastewater Nutrient Discharge Trends in MN
P N 2,500 16,000
2,000 14,000 12,000 1,500 10,000 8,000
1,000 Nitrogen
Phosphorus 6,000 (metric tons/year) (metric tons/year) 4,000 500 2,000 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Mass from observed Values Mass from observed values Mass from categorical values Mass estimated from quarterly sampling Mass from categorical values
12/16/2019 Septic, stormwater & feedlot programs also included in progress report
Total number of structural Stormwater BMPs New & Replacement Septic Systems Over 17 Years implemented (2014-2018) at 78 MS4s New Replacement 83 25000
20000
580 15000
925 10000
5000
0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 176 New 9650 9176 9434 9157 7185 5649 4446 4220 3575 3770 3795 3984 3767 4288 4639 4709 4483 Replacement 7168 11963 7039 6267 6659 6207 1992 5711 4599 4756 5238 4927 5393 6205 5917 6197 5436 Constructed basin Filter Infiltrator Swale or strip
DRAFT Summary of BMP adoption
1. Programs advanced?
2. BMPs adopted? • Historic conservation progress prior to the 2014 strategy • Some added acres since 2014 – about 5% of 2025 milestone scenario acres • Limited progress compared to scale of adoption needed
3. Improvements in water?
4. Next steps? 20-year phosphorus trends - showing improvements
Phosphorus concentrations (flow-corrected) 28 sites 21 – decreasing 15-55% 6 - no significant trend 1 - increase 1 6
21 DRAFT 20-year nitrate trends do not show many improvements
Nitrate concentrations (flow-corrected) 28 sites 3 – decreasing 11 - no significant trend 14 - increasing 3
14 11
DRAFT 10-year nutrient trends
Phosphorus – decreasing Nitrate – increasing or or no significant trend no significant trend
P FWMC
From Met Council 2018 From MPCA 2018 Mississippi River Phosphorus loads not decreasing 1999-2018 due to increased river flow
Phosphorus Concentration X Flow = Load
20 - 50% 40% Summary
1. Programs advanced? Greatly in all 18 focus areas… more time/development needed
2. BMPs adopted? Falling short of pace needed for goals (i.e. 5% of way to milestones)
3. Improvements in water? • River phosphorus concentrations decreasing or not significant in past 10 and 20 years (when corrected for flow variability) • River nitrate and total N increasing or not significant in past 10 and 20 years • Increasing river flows in southern Minnesota offsetting some P reduction progress
4. Next steps? Next Steps
• Complete draft report • Discuss with Steering Team • Draft review • Main messages • Any mid-course adjustment needs? • Finalize report this spring • Continue implementation and tracking • 2024-25 update & republish Multi-agency Steering Team
Organization Steering Team rep. Compile, write, review MPCA Katrina Kessler D. Wall, M. Graziani, L. Ganske, J. Jahnz, G. Johnson, R. Glenn Skuta Olmanson, M. Trojan, C. Robinson, D. Miller, Lisa Schreier, Lee Engel BWSR John Jaschke M. Drewitz, D. Thomas MDA Dan Stoddard J. Kjaersgaard, M. Wagner, B. Fitzgerald U of MN Mike Schmitt J. Larson coordinating for multiple UMN contributors Met Council Sam Paske J. Sventek, H. Wang, J. Mulcahy, M. Gail Scott DNR Steve Colvin B. Weisman, J. Moeckel EQB Katie Pratt MDH Tom Hogan S. Robertson, M. Wettlaufer
Other contributing Jeff Freeman (PFA) R. Nustad (USGS); C. Spencer (NRCS); S. Carpenter agencies Troy Daniel (NRCS) (NRCS)
Consultant Jennifer Olson & others from Tetra Tech https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nutrient-reduction-strategy
Thank you!
David Wall [email protected] 651-757-2806 Lake Clarity Trends
1200
1000 977
800
600 482
400 Numberof lakes 187 200
0 improving No trend or No change degrading
Source: MPCA 2019 Nitrate trends in 117 wells monitored 2005-2017
80 74 70
60
50
40
30 24 19 Number of wells 20
10
0 decreasing no trend increasing Source: MPCA 2019 NRS defines load reduction targets for each HUC8 to collectively meet downstream needs Greenhouse Gas Reduction Benefits
• BMPs to achieve nutrient milestone reductions will reduce GHG emissions
3 million MT/yr
CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emission reduction
~10% of agricultural emissions
MN statewide Multiple benefits - large-scale adoption of key BMPs
Cover Crops, Wetlands, Perennials reductions at watershed outlets in south-central MN 40% 36% 32% 28% 24% 20% 16% 12% 8% 4% 0% Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Flow
Cottonwood & LeSueur Watersheds HSPF modeling (Tetra Tech 2019) BMP Maps: Buffalo Red Waterways/WASCOBs
12/16/2019 LiDAR is 8-10 years old now, in case above many WASCOBs newer than LiDAR 44 Cover Crop Fractional Area by Crop Type (with Fall 2016 Sentinel 2 Imagery)
1.5%
From D. Mulla and L. Olmanson, 2018 (UMN/BWSR joint project) Perennials added through government programs 2014-18
Practice Acres Buffer Strips 519 Borders 511 Programs Grassed waterways 5,567 Conservation cover 15,710 • EQIP, CSP, CREP, RCPP, 319 Conservation crop rotation 7,413 • State cost-share projects Critical Area Planting 6,897 Filter strip 15,827 • MN Agricultural BMP Loan Riparian forest buffer 1038 • MN Agric WQ Certification Forage and biomass planting 19,024 Windbreak/shelterbelt establish 13,408 Total 85,714 CRP acres enrolled - recently decreased in MN
2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000 Decreased 1,400,000 -167,371
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1987 1998 2007 2018 CDL hay & grass increased by 300,000 acres 2013-18
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Hay/haylage Grass/pasture satellite imagery from Crop Data Layer (CDL) Phosphorus concentrations decreasing over the past 10, 20 and 40 years
T. Phosphorus Concentration Decreases
Mississippi River & Recent Mid-range Long-Term major tributaries (~ 10 yr) (~ 20 yr) (~ 40 yr) Mississippi River Winona -41% -50% -53% Mississippi River Red Wing -21% -40% Mississippi River Anoka -26% -41% Minnesota River Jordan -17% -30% Minnesota River Fort -18% -51% Snelling St. Croix River -15% -27% Stillwater
QWTREND flow-adjusted concentrations MCES, MPCA 2016 Cover Crops as % of cropland (from fall Sentinel 2 imagery)
214,000 acres cover crops in Southern MN
Cover Crop % Cropland
From D. Mulla and L. Olmanson, 2018 (UMN/BWSR joint project) Wastewater nutrient discharges – 2000 to 2018
P N Combined nutrient benefits of BMPs across Misssissippi Basin
Nitrogen Phosphorus Cover crops Fertilizer rate (UMN) Riparian buffer Marginal land to perennials tillage reduced controlled drainage Wetland construction Saturated buffer manure incorporated Alternative intakes bioreactor
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
% N + P reduced to waters in Mississippi Basin 52 *BMPs on 80% of suitable acres (NP-BMP tool by Lazarus & Mulla UMN) Government Program BMPs – new adoption
Programs
• EQIP, CSP, CREP, RCPP, 319 • State cost-share projects & RIM • MN Agricultural BMP Loan • MN Agric WQ Certification
Source: MPCA - https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/healthier-watersheds
Phosphorus in Rivers (20 years - corrected for flow variability)
1999 – 2018 Trends (QWTREND)
Mississippi R., Anoka -26% P FWMC
Minnesota R., Jordan -17%
Mississippi R., Red Wing -21% -50% at Winona Source: Metropolitan Council From MetQWTREND Council 19972018-2017 From MPCA 2018 Source: MPCA Nitrate in rivers (20 year - adjusted for flow variability)
1999 – 2018 Trends (QWTREND)
Mississippi R., Anoka +34% NOx FWMC
Minnesota R., Jordan NS
Mississippi R., Red Wing +34%
Source: Metropolitan Council Source: MPCA 2020 Clean Water Fund Performance Report TRACKING MINNESOTA’S CLEAN WATER FUND INVESTMENTS 5th Edition of Clean Water Fund Performance Report In Development Scope of Clean Water Fund Efforts and Report
Clean Water Fund investments are an important part of water resource management in Minnesota, but we also rely on the dedication and partnership of citizens, communities, and businesses to implement strategies that improve water quality. Clean Water Fund Performance Report
GOAL: Clarify the connections between Clean Water Fund investments, actions taken, and outcomes achieved in Minnesota’s water resources. Performance Report Measures Performance Report Measures Performance Report Measures Key Changes – Alignment to Clean Water Council
• Work initiated in 2019 to align Performance Report measures with the Clean Water Council’s Goals, Measures, and Objectives. New in the 2020 Report: Tracking vulnerable land
• Tracking percent of vulnerable land in Drinking Water Supply Management Areas
• This land drains to groundwater used for drinking water
• 36% of the 1.2 million acres of drinking water supply management areas are vulnerable to pollution New in the 2020 Report: New approach to monitoring
• Reduction in monitoring sites in base design
• Request process to get needs of local government and other state programs
• Goal is 20-30% of sites support local or other state needs Highlights: Tracking Spending Patterns
• Clean Water Fund investments in implementation activities and drinking water protection have increased over time • Project implementation funding has been more concentrated in watersheds with significant water quality challenges • Clean Water Fund investments leverage 95 cents in matching funds from local or federal sources per dollar invested in implementation Highlights: Expanding Information and Resources to Guide Local Planning and Implementation Efforts
• The initial comprehensive assessment of all watersheds completed
• Vulnerable community public water supply systems now have protection plans with grant and technical assistance provided through the CWF
• Nitrate testing has been completed for over 30,000 vulnerable wells in 50 counties. Highlights: Reducing Pollutants and Documenting Successes
• Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program surpassed 500,000 acres in 2019
• With CWF, over 11,500 practices have been installed on the landscape, resulting in a reduction of over 170,000 tons of sediment and phosphorus across the state
• Fifty lakes and river segments have been taken off the list of impaired waters Highlights: Reducing Pollutants and Documenting Successes
• Plum Creek in Stearns County was removed as bacteria levels were reduced
• Local engagement and implementation was key
• Work included monitoring, source tracking, and implementation
• Locally initiated; included citizen volunteers, township, county, and state government involvement Arts & Cultural Heritage Outdoor Heritage Parks & Trails Clean Water
Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment Legacy Amendment Allocations
ALLOCATIONS BY FUND (MILLIONS)
$407 $565
Arts & Cultural Heritage Clean Water Outdoor Heritage $959 Parks & Trails $971 Acknowledgements
Project Team: Pam Anderson (MPCA), Matt Drewitz (BWSR), Bill Dunn (MPCA), Tannie Eshenaur (MDH), Suzanne Hanson (MPCA), David L. Miller (MPCA), Katie Nyquist (MDH), Paul Putzier (DNR), Emily Resseger (MCES), Lanya Ross (MCES), Margaret Wagner (MDA), Marcy Westrick (BWSR) Clean Water Fund Interagency Coordination Team: Angie Becker Kudelka (BWSR), Chris Elvrum (MDH), Jeff Freeman (PFA), Katrina Kessler (MPCA), Sam Paske (Met Council), Whitney Place (MDA), Jess Richards (DNR), Guest: Will Seuffert (EQB) Editing: Doug Schultz (MDH) Designers: Katie Nyquist (MDH), Frieda von Qualen (MDH) Thank You!
The 2020 Clean Water Fund Performance Report will be available at: http://www.legacy.leg.mn/funds/clean-water- fund/clean-water-fund-performance-reports