DOCSLIB.ORG

South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL (Wq-Iw9-12E)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL (Wq-Iw9-12E) Fig 22 South Metro Mississippi River Total Suspended Solids Total Maximum Daily Load Mississippi River Mississippi River Minnesota River Minnesota River October 2015 wq-iw9-12e Submitted to United States Environmental Protection Agency By Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Authors/MPCA Staff Project Coordinator: Norman Senjem (up to 2012), Chris Zadak (2014-2015) Meeting Facilitation: Milt Thomas Modeling Technical Support: Khalil Ahmad, Hafiz Munir, Charles Regan Water Quality Specialists: Steven Heiskary, Howard Markus, Dennis Wasley, Mike Trojan, Marco Graziani, Greg Johnson Data Management: Brandon Smith, Steve Weiss GIS Support: Nels Rasmussen, Ashley Ignatius Planning Coordination: Larry Gunderson, Denise Leezer, Maggie Leach Information and Outreach: Cathy Rofshus Contractors Water Quality Modeling: Limno-Tech, Inc. Sediment Source Research: National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics St. Croix Watershed Research Station, Science Museum of Minnesota University of Minnesota Editing and Graphic Design Graphic design staff: Jennifer Holstad Cover photo: Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our web site for more information. MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.state.mn.us | 651-296-6300 Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332 This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us Document number: wq-iw9-12e Glossary of Acronyms Acronym Full Name BMP Best Management Practices EMAP Environmental Mapping and Assessment Program EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive Program HUC Hydrologic Unit Code LA Load Allocation LTRMP Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program MCES Metropolitan Council Environmental Services DNR Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources MOS Margin of Safety MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems NLCD National Land Cover Data NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units RC Reserve Capacity SAC Stakeholder Advisory Committee SAP Science Advisory Panel SAV Submersed Aquatic Vegetation SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSS Total Suspended Solids UMR Upper Mississippi River UMR-LP Upper Mississippi River-Lake Pepin USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USGS U.S. Geological Survey WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources WLA Waste Load Allocation WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Priority ranking ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Waterbody Description ............................................................................................... 6 2.1 Water quality history ................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Pollutant of concern ............................................................................................................................................... 12 3.0 Sediment Sources ...................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Tributary basins and watersheds ............................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Urban and rural sources ......................................................................................................................................... 33 3.1.2 Sediment sources by landscape feature ................................................................................................................. 38 4.0 Water Quality Standards and Review of Available Data ............................................. 40 4.1 Water quality standards ......................................................................................................... 40 4.1.1 Water quality standard and numeric target ........................................................................................................... 41 5.0 Modeling Approach and Results ................................................................................ 44 5.1 Water quality models used ...................................................................................................... 44 5.1.1 Load reduction scenarios ........................................................................................................................................ 47 5.1.2 Relationships to other TMDLs within the South Metro Mississippi Watershed ..................................................... 50 6.0 TMDL Development and Determination of Allocations .............................................. 52 6.1 Waste load allocations ............................................................................................................ 58 6.1.1 Wastewater treatment facilities ............................................................................................................................. 58 6.1.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) ................................................................................................. 59 6.1.3 Construction stormwater ....................................................................................................................................... 61 6.1.4 Industrial stormwater ............................................................................................................................................. 61 6.2 Load allocations and natural background ................................................................................ 62 6.3 Margin of safety ..................................................................................................................... 64 6.4 Critical conditions and seasonality ........................................................................................... 65 6.5 Future growth and wastewater reserve capacity ...................................................................... 66 6.6 Procedures for new and expanding wastewater dischargers ..................................................... 68 7.0 General Implementation Strategy .............................................................................. 71 7.1 Minnesota implementation overview ...................................................................................... 71 7.1.1 Nonpoint sources.................................................................................................................................................... 71 7.1.2 Regulated stormwater ............................................................................................................................................ 73 7.1.3 Wastewater treatment facilities ............................................................................................................................. 74 7.1.4 Implementation cost .............................................................................................................................................. 75 7.2 Wisconsin implementation activities: agricultural and rural nonpoint sources ........................... 76 7.2.1 Wisconsin performance standards and prohibitions .............................................................................................. 76 7.2.2 Primary implementation programs ........................................................................................................................ 77 7.3 Reasonable assurance ............................................................................................................. 78 7.4 Water quality monitoring plan ................................................................................................ 80 8.0 Public Participation Record ........................................................................................ 82 9.0 References ................................................................................................................ 84 Appendix A: Wastewater Treatment Facility Waste Load Allocations and Industrial Stormwater Facilities ........................................................................................................... 88 Appendix B: Regulated MS4 List......................................................................................... 112 Appendix C: Stakeholder Advisory Committee and Science Advisory Panel ........................ 121 Index of Tables Table 1: South Metro Mississippi River total suspended solids impairments .............................................. 4 Table 2: Land cover within the South Metro Mississippi TMDL drainage area (“contributing” area only). .................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 3:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin, Southwestern Minnesota and Eastern South Dakota
    Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin, Southwestern Minnesota and Eastern South Dakota By Christopher A. Sanocki Abstract Data that describe the physical characteristics of stream subbasins upstream from selected sites on streams in the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin, located in southwestern Minnesota and eastern South Dakota are presented in this report. The physical characteristics are the drainage area of the subbasin, the percentage area of the subbasin covered only by lakes, the percentage area of the subbasin covered by both lakes and wetlands, the main- channel length, and the main-channel slope. Stream sites include outlets of subbasins of at least 5 square miles, outlets of sewage treatment plants, and locations of U.S. Geological Survey low-flow, high-flow, and continuous- record gaging stations. Introduction watershed boundaries, which were used for parts of this report. These contributions were essential for the This is the 10th report in a series detailing subbasin completion of this report. characteristics of streams in Minnesota and adjacent states. The Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin drains an area of 2,070 square miles and is represented Methods by hydrologic accounting unit 07020004 (U.S. U.S. Geological Survey 7-1/2 minute series Geological Survey, 1974). The Hawk Creek-Yellow topographic maps were used as source maps to obtain Medicine River Basin includes parts of Yellow the areas for the subbasin boundaries, lakes, marshes, Medicine, Lac qui Parle, Lincoln, Lyon, Chippewa, the main-channel length, and the contour elevation Kandiyohi, Renville, and Redwood Counties in points used in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Le Sueur River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report
    z c LeSueur River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report March 2012 Acknowledgements MPCA Watershed Report Development Team: Bryan Spindler, Pat Baskfield, Kelly O’Hara, Dan Helwig, Louise Hotka, Stephen Thompson, Tony Dingmann, Kim Laing, Bruce Monson and Kris Parson Contributors: Citizen Lake Monitoring Program volunteers Citizen Stream Monitoring Program Volunteers Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minnesota State University, Mankato Water Resource Center Project dollars provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment). March 2012 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.State.mn.us | 651-296-6300 Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332 This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.State.mn.us Document number: wq-ws3-07020011b Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 II. The Watershed Monitoring Approach ........................................................................................................................... 3 Load monitoring network ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Map of Upper Sioux Agency State Park Trails and Facilities
    ©2019, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MAP AND GUIDE: ABOUT THE PARK SO EVERYONE CAN ENJOY THE PARK... UPPER SIOUX AGENCY Upper Sioux Agency State Park was established in 1963 to STATE PARK preserve and interpret the remains of the historic site of A full set of STATE PARK RULES AND the Upper Sioux or Yellow Medicine Indian Agency. The REGULATIONS is available at mndnr.gov. 5908 HIGHWAY 67 Historic Upper Sioux Agency Site is managed by the GRANITE FALLS, MN 56241 PARK OPEN Minnesota Historical Society and offers self-led 8 a.m.–10 p.m. daily. YELLOW MEDICINE COUNTY opportunities. Be sure to explore the park’s diverse 320-564-4777 landscapes covering 1,280 acres of the Minnesota River VEHICLE PERMITS and its confluence with the Yellow Medicine River. You’ll Permits required; purchase at park office or entrance kiosk. find open prairie knolls, bluffs and cool, wooded slopes. A VISITOR TIPS visit will reveal trails that are perfect for horseback riding, PETS WELCOME • The park office is open Memorial hiking, snowshoeing and snowmobiling. Reserve a tipi for a unique experience. Keep on 6-foot leash; pick up after; attend at all times; not allowed in Day weekend to Labor Day buildings or at beaches. weekend on Friday evenings and Saturday and Sunday afternoons. TRAIL HIGHLIGHTS − CAMPGROUND QUIET HOURS • Contact at the park November 10 p.m.– 8 a.m.; only registered campers may be in campground during quiet hours. through March may be sparse. Hiking Club Trail 4.3-mile loop • Trails are shared with horses; all Hilly • Mowed grass • Packed dirt FIREWOOD dogs must be leashed.
    [Show full text]
  • ROOT RIVER ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN -I- SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
    Cold Snap Photography Prepared For: Root River Planning Partnership Prepared By: Houston Engineering, Inc. Photo by Bob Joachim Root River Watershed | ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN List of PLan Abbreviations i Plan Definitions iii Executive Summary iv 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Preamble 1-1 1.2 Plan Area 1-1 1.3 Watershed Characteristics 1-4 1.4 Plan Overview 1-4 1.5 Plan Partners and Roles in Plan Development 1-5 1.6 Incorporating Comments into the Plan __________________1-7 2. ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF RESOURCES, CONCERNS, AND ISSUES CAUSING CONCERN 2-1 2.1 Definitions 2-1 2.2 Identifying Potential Resource Concerns and Issues 2-2 2.3 Prioritizing Potential Resource Concerns and Issues 2-13 2.4 Priority Resource Concerns and Issues 2-14 2.4.1 "A" Level Priorities 2-14 2.4.1.1 Description and Resource Concern Locations 2-14 2.4.1.2 Issues Affecting "A" Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-18 2.4.2 "B" Level Priorities 2-18 2.4.2.1 Description and Landscape Locations 2-18 2.4.2.2 Issues Affecting “B” Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-26 2.4.3 "C" Level Priorities 2-26 2.4.3.1 Issues Affecting “C” Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-35 2.5 Use of Priority Categories in Plan Implementation 2-35 2.6 Emerging Issues 2-35 2.6.1 "Scientific and Technical Emerging Issues 2-36 2.61.1 Climate Change and Infrastructure Resilience 2-36 2.6.1.2 Endocrine Active Compounds 2-37 2.6.1.3 Water Movement Within a Karst Landscape 2-37 2.6.1.4 Improving Soil Health 2-37 2.6.1.5 Buffers for Public Waters and Drainage Systems 2-38 2.6.1.6 Invasive Species 2-38 2.6.1.7
    [Show full text]
  • Little Crow Historic Canoe Route
    Taoyateduta Minnesota River HISTORIC water trail BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA Twin Valley Council U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 AUGUST 17, 1862 The TA-OYA-TE DUTA Fish and Wildlife Minnesota River Historic Water Four Dakota men kill five settlers The Minnesota River Basin is a Trail, is an 88 mile water route at Acton in Meeker County birding paradise. The Minnesota stretching from just south of AUGUST 18 River is a haven for bird life and Granite Falls to New Ulm, Minne- several species of waterfowl and War begins with attack on the sota. The river route is named af- riparian birds use the river corri- Lower Sioux Agency and other set- ter Taoyateduta (Little Crow), the dor for nesting, breeding, and rest- tlements; ambush and battle at most prominent Dakota figure in ing during migration. More than the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Redwood Ferry. Traders stores 320 species have been recorded in near Upper Sioux Agency attacked the Minnesota River Valley. - The Minnesota River - AUGUST 19 Beneath the often grayish and First attack on New Ulm leading to The name Minnesota is a Da- cloudy waters of the Minnesota its evacuation; Sibley appointed kota word translated variously as River, swim a diverse fish popula- "sky-tinted water” or “cloudy-sky tion. The number of fish species commander of U.S. troops water". The river is gentle and and abundance has seen a signifi- AUGUST 20 placid for most of its course and cant rebound over the last several First Fort Ridgely attack. one will encounter only a few mi- years.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Funds, Sharing Expertise in the Yellow Medicine River
    ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN The Yellow Medicine River flows under Minnesota Highway 23 just north of Hanley Falls in Yellow Medicine County. The Yellow Medicine River Watershed was among five One Watershed, One Plan pilot projects funded in 2014. The watershed drains more than 665,000 acres in Yellow Medicine, Lincoln, Lyon and Lac qui Parle counties. Leveraging funds, sharing expertise in the Yellow Medicine River Watershed MARSHALL – In the Yellow middle of the watershed Medicine River Watershed, near Canby, agreed. Antony upstream projects are has phased out of full-time gaining downstream farming since his crop support as One Watershed, insurance business took off, One Plan catches on. but most of his constituents are farmers. The locally driven, “The watershed isn’t just watershed- isolated to our county. based Knutson Netzke Overholser As projects are being approach done upstream, it’s spans ultimately going to help us political River Watershed to leverage “If we’re putting those downstream,” Antony said. boundaries federal funds that will cut practices in and the money “This is how you have to as it landowners’ shared costs in upstream, you’re going to think, as a watershed, not as prioritizes and put more projects on see benefits downstream,” ‘I’m part of this county,’ or conservation the ground. said Michelle Overholser, ‘I’m part of this district.’” work with the potential to Yellow Medicine River make the biggest water- The watershed drains land in Watershed District Agriculture dominates the quality improvements. four counties, from Lincoln administrator. 665,073-acre watershed. County in the southwest to Most watershed districts in A $551,700 Clean Water the Minnesota River south of Yellow Medicine County this part of the state formed Fund implementation grant Granite Falls in Upper Sioux Commissioner Ron Antony, decades ago to alleviate allowed the Yellow Medicine Agency State Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Si@~Ili!Iiii~~I~11~~~~\\Ll\ 11111
    NCE LIBRARY si@~ili!iiii~~i~11~~~~\\ll\ 11111 This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp (Funding for document digitization was provided, in part, by a grant from the Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Program.) SH i73:5 ~M53 1989 MICROHABITAT CRITERIA FOR SELECTED STREAM FISHES AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSTREAM FLOW STUDIES IN MINNESOTA TECHNICAL REPORT 1987-1989 Report to the LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION on MINNESOTA RESOURCES Prepared by Luther Aadland Chantel Waltner Mary T. Negus Henry Drewes Charles Anderson Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Section of Fisheries June, 1989 PREFACE The quantity of water needed to maintain instream values, such as water-based recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, water quality, and navigation, must be determined to resolve water-use conflicts and wisely allocate water for offstream uses. Several methods for setting the protected flows are available, but not all address the habitat requirements of fish. The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a method of quantifying instream flow needs of fish by combining detailed hydraulic modeling with species-specific habitat suitability criteria to determine the "useable" habitat throughout a range of flows. The goal of this project was to develop habitat suitability curves which can be incorporated into instream flow models of Minnesota's warm water streams. These models will be used to determine flow regimes which optimize habitat for target species of fish.
    [Show full text]
  • By David L. Lorenz and Gregory A. Payne
    SELECTED DATA FOR STREAM SUBBASINS IN THE LE SUEUR RIVER BASIN, SOUTH-CENTRAL MINNESOTA By David L. Lorenz and Gregory A. Payne ABSTRACT This report presents selected data that describe the characteristics of stream basins upstream from selected points on streams in the Le Sueur River basin. The points on the streams include outlets of subbasins of about five square miles, sewage treatment plant outlets, and U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in the basin. INTRODUCTION The Le Sueur River upstream from its confluence with the Blue Earth River drains an area of 1,110 mi (square miles). It is located in the counties of Blue Earth, Faribault, Freeborn, Le Sueur, Steele, and Waseca in south-central Minnesota. This report is one of several gazateers providing basin characteristics of streams in Minnesota. It provides selected data for subbasins larger thai about 5 mi , sewage-treatment-plant outlets, and U.S. Geological Survey (USG! streamflow-gaging stations located in the Le Sueur River basin. Methods USGS 7-1/2 minute series topographic maps were used as base maps to obtain the data presented in this report. Data were compiled with a geograph­ ic information system (CIS) and were stored in an Albers equal-area projec­ tion. Data-base functions and other capabilities of the CIS were used to aggregate the data, determine drainage area of the subbasins, and determine stream channel lengths. Elevation data for the streams were recorded at the point were topographic-contour lines interescted the stream traces. Points on the stream channel 10 percent and 85 percent of the stream-channel length from the basin outlet to the drainage divide were located by the CIS, and the elevations of these points were interpolated from the data recorded in the CIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River Basin Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed
    Minnesota River Basin Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed • Physiography and Description • Geology and Land Use • Climate • Water Quality o Ground Water o Surface Water • Recreation • References This report reflects the number and boundary delineations of earlier work done by the Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP), in which the Minnesota River Basin was divided into thirteen major watersheds. The majority of these watersheds contain the drainage area of only one of the Minnesota River's major tributaries, while the others contain a given reach of the Minnesota River as well as the tributaries and creeks joining the Minnesota along that reach. Among the latter is the Hawk Creek- Yellow Medicine River Watershed, classified as a major watershed of the Minnesota River it is actually two separate sub-watersheds, Hawk Creek on the north side of the Minnesota, and Yellow Medicine on the south side of the river. In addition, the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed also includes the section of the Minnesota River mainstem extending between the Lac Qui Parle Reservoir to just below the mouth of the Redwood River. Several smaller creeks draining their respective minor watersheds also join the section of the Minnesota River mainstem within the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed, it is assumed, land use, geology, water quality, etc. within these minor watersheds is comparable to that within the Hawk Creek Watershed on the north side of the Minnesota River, or the Yellow Medicine Watershed on the south side of the river. Without installing monitoring equipment at each of the smaller tributaries, collective inputs from these minor watersheds can be calculated as being the residuals of Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed (Minnesota River inflow load plus Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine load minus Minnesota River outflow load).
    [Show full text]
  • Waseca County Water Plan Cover.Pub
    WASECA COUNTY LOCALWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 2015 - 2018 (Photo credit: Kelly Hunt) Clear Lake, Waseca, Minnesota Prepared by Waseca County Planning and Zoning This page was intentionally left blank to allow for two-sided printing. WASECA COUNTY WATER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations List………………………………………......................... Pg. iii Executive Summary..........................................................................................iv Water Plan Contents……………………………………………………………………………..…..iv Section One: Purpose of the Plan……………………………………………………………....v Section Two: Waseca County Priority Concerns....……………………………….....vi Waseca County Water Plan Task Force……………………………........................vii Section Three: Summary of Goals & Objectives………………………………………..x Section Four: Consistency with Other Plans & Recommended Changes………………………………………………………………………………….……xi Section Five: Nonpoint Priority Funding Plan……………………………………..……xv Chapter One: County Profile & Priority Concerns Assessment………………………………………………………….1 Section One: County Profile……………………………………………………………………..1 Section Two: Reducing Priority Pollutants Assessment………………………………………………………………………….6 Section Three: Drainage & Wetlands Assessment…………………………………………………………………………24 Section Four: Shorelands & Natural Corridors Assessment…………………………………………………………….36 Section Five: Public Education Assessment……………………………………………..39 Waseca County Water Plan Amendment (2015 – 2018) i Chapter Two: Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Steps .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Minnesota
    Improving water quality Southwest 25% BY 2025 Minnesota Dear Fellow Minnesotans, In the land of 10,000 lakes, clean water should be a right, not a privilege. But the reality is that the quality of our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater is threatened from many sources all across our state. We are at a crucial moment – we can continue to let water quality become worse or we can work together to reverse the damage that has been done and prevent future water degradation. That is why your involvement in this summer’s Community Water Meetings is so important. It will take all of us working together to protect our waters for ourselves and future generations. That is why, after hearing from citizens and experts at Water Summits in Morris and St. Paul, I set the goal to improve our State’s water quality 25 percent by 2025. This goal does not mean that every pollutant will be reduced by 25 percent; it does not mean that every part of the state will improve 25 percent; but it means that in aggregate for the state and the many pollutants there will be a 25 percent improvement. At the current level of effort, there will be only a 7 percent improvement statewide, and without further action, water quality will get worse. To be clear, this is not a regulation. More importantly, it is a call to action and the reason for Minnesotans to gather for Community Water Meetings this summer. I want to hear from people in every part of our State about the water concerns in their communities, how it will benefit our economy and quality of life to improve water quality, and what we can do to make greater progress toward clean water.
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Water Fund Appropriations 2018-2019 Biennial Report to the Legislature
    Clean Water Fund Appropriations 2018-2019 Biennial Report to the Legislature March 1, 2020 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 651-296-3767 www.bwsr.state.mn.us Prepared by Megan Lennon, Mary Juhl, Marcey Westrick, and Seth Weeks. This document was developed in consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. As requested by Minnesota Statute 3.197: This report cost approximately $3,400 to prepare, including staff time, printing, and mailing expenses. This report is available at www.bwsr.state.mn.us/cleanwaterfund. Upon request, this material will be made available in an alternative format such as large print, Braille, or audio recording. Printed on recycled paper. Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Clean Water Fund Appropriation Summary .......................................................................................................... 5 Statewide Watershed Management Transition .................................................................................................... 9 Watershed-based Funding Implementation Funding ......................................................................................... 10 Clean Water Fund Conservation Easement Programs .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]