Agency submissions

The following agency submissions are in DRAFT form and have not been approved by Governor Mark Dayton.

These agency submissions were requested by the Clean Water Council’s Budget and Outcomes Committee for their consideration as they develop a PRELIMINARY FY14-15 budget recommendation.

If you have questions, please contact Council administrator, Jennifer Maleitzke at 651-757-2549 or [email protected].

AGENCY RESPONSES May 1, 2012

Attn: Clean Water Council – Budget and Outcomes Committee c/o Jennifer Maleitzke

As requested by the Clean Water Council’s Budget and Outcomes Committee, attached is the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s report on current Clean Water Fund activities, as well as recommendations for the next biennium. The MPCA’s briefing covers a broad range of Clean Water Fund activities. We have also highlighted areas where funds are no longer needed, new needs, and other key changes.

Two areas that will be completed by the end of this current fiscal year, therefore funding is no longer needed: • Coal tar stormwater research best management practices • Wastewater treatment monitoring for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)

The MPCA is asking for the same level of funding in the areas of monitoring and TMDL development; however the agency does request Clean Water Funds for the following new FY14-15 activities: • Enhanced county subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) program; a recommended dollar amount is provided • SSTS corrective action support; the agency has no specific recommendation at this time • Two new wastewater positions for TMDL implementation, specifically to support unsewered community needs and effluent limit development • Funding for the Clean Water Council activities as a direct appropriation with no direct recommendation of level of funding • Interagency team will make recommendations regarding civic engagement

While the Wild Rice Standards study will be completed in this biennium, we found the need for other research to continue with regard to how facilities are able to meet standards around some of the more difficult to manage pollutants, such as chlorides and nitrogen. This will not be an increase of funding but a redirection of the dollars used to support the Wild Rice Standards study.

On behalf of the MPCA, I would like to thank the BOC for their continued support of the MPCA’s activities. The dollars appropriated to the agency are making a difference in the health of Minnesota’s waters.

Sincerely,

Rebecca J. Flood MPCA Assistant Commissioner

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Clean Water Fund appropriations

The following information is preliminary and not approved by the Governor’s office.

Activity Actual FY10- Actual FY12-13 Proposed 11 FY14-15 MPCA Continue monitoring & assessment efforts to meet the 10-year cycle. $15.000M $14.800M $15.000M MPCA Red River Watch Program $0.346M $0.200M $0M MPCA St. Croix Watershed Monitoring $0.500M $0M MPCA Wastewater Treatment Monitoring – EDCs $0.896M Completed MPCA Wild Rice study $1.500M $0.000M MPCA TMDL development: Fund TMDL projects and staff. $18.000M $18.800M $18.800M MPCA Clean Water Council Spending Needs + Groundwater assessment: Continue to enhance ambient network, MPCA modeling to support TMDL stressor ID, continued effort to look for CECs in subset of monitoring wells. $2.250M $2.250M $2.250M Groundwater protection: Under consideration: augmenting/accelerating $5M re- MPCA groundwater protection practices, BMP evaluation and implementation, appropriated source water protection support, data access/integration. to DNR $0.000M MPCA EQB I94 study (transfer) - $0.450M $0.000M MPCA Enhanced county inspections/SSTS corrective actions - $1.570M $5.400M MPCA SSTS Corrective Actions + Great Lakes restoration projects in agreement with the U.S. Army Corps MPCA of Engineers, conducting sediment assessments. Requires at least a two dollar non-state local match for every CWF dollar. $0.950M $1.500M $1.500M MPCA Wastewater Beneficial Reuse Grant $4.669M $0.000M Clean Water Partnership: Provides grants to protect and improve the basins and watersheds of Minnesota; provides financial and technical MPCA assistance to study water bodies with non-point source pollution problems, develop action plans to address the problems, and plan implementation to fix the problems. $2.500M $2.000M $2.000M Incorporate civic engagement into new and current Clean Water Fund MPCA watershed projects. (Included in TMDL request) $0.250M $0.000M MPCA Coal tar stormwater research BMP $0.500M Completed TMDL research and database development: Incrementally connect data management systems, and eventually develop a Watershed Portal that MPCA will interface with existing systems to provide staff with a central location for reporting, analysis, and data management of the watershed data. $0.500M $2.300M $2.300M MPCA Interagency water database and portal development + MPCA FY11 Legislative Priority: Nitrate-Nitrogen rule $0.600M $0.000M MPCA Application of Water Standards $1.500M MPCA Stormwater research and guidance. $0.145M $0.800M $0.550 M NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation: Staffing costs for MPCA implementation efforts. $1.600M $2.000M Total $47.106M $47.770M $51.800M Legend Monitoring/ Watershed restoration/ Drinking water Nonpoint source Education and Applied research & Point source assessment protection strategies protection implementation civic engagement tool development implementation

Page | 1

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Please briefly describe overall progress from activities in FY10-11 and planned progress for FY12-13 by responding to the following questions.

Monitoring and assessment: • Please describe progress made toward completing 20 percent of needed statewide assessments in FY10- 11 and planned activities to complete 20 percent of assessments in FY12-13. Please include a brief summary of the MN River study. Statewide monitoring and assessment work is on track to meet the 10-year schedule, at a rate of about 10 percent of the watersheds each year. Intensive watershed monitoring includes biological, chemical, and habitat monitoring at an average of about sixty sites per watershed to assess the water conditions. Assessments determine what waters are impaired, and serve as a basis for further analysis of watershed problems and watershed planning efforts.

The percent of the state’s watersheds, where intensive watershed monitoring has occurred, increased to 21 percent in 2009, 30 percent in 2010, and 43 percent in 2011. It will increase to 52 percent in 2012 and 62 percent in 2013. Watershed monitoring and assessment reports are completed and web-posted for five watersheds, with another 13 reports scheduled to be completed by summer 2012, and seven more completed by the end of FY13. We are meeting the program goal of assessing data for each monitored watershed within one year of completion of intensive watershed monitoring.

Watersheds with completed intensive watershed monitoring efforts, summer 2012

Page | 2

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Local partners contribute significantly to lake and stream chemistry monitoring through Surface Water Assessment Grants (SWAG). For waters that the PCA seeks local parties to monitor, the percentage actually monitored by local partners has steadily increased over time, reaching 100 percent for both lakes and streams in 2012.

While there is no request for additional funding at this time, the program is realizing efficiencies in operations as the work of the program is performed. The program has also focused use of Surface Water Assessment Grants on watersheds currently active in the intensive watershed monitoring cycle. These efficiencies allow for additional efforts needed to expand the major watershed load monitoring network down to the sub watershed level. This load network expansion will have great benefits to water quality modeling and stressor identification work.

MN River Study The report “Revisiting the Minnesota River Assessment Project” was completed in May 2011 as required by the legislature. The report compared the current health of biological communities in the Minnesota River Basin to their conditions 10 and 20 years ago. Overall results showed a slight improvement in fish communities and a slight decline in invertebrate communities. The report generated quite a bit of press at its release, and was discussed with the Clean Water Council and the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council at their request. The report is located at: www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=15821.

Page | 3

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• Please describe activities and outcomes from the Red River Watch Program from FY10-11 and planned activities for FY12-13. This was a legislative appropriation to the Red River Watershed Management Board (RRWMB) passed through the MPCA. The RRWMB utilized the International Water Institute to carry out the work. Please see attachment for additional information.

• Please describe activities and outcomes from the St. Croix Watershed monitoring efforts from FY10-11. In 2010, the St. Croix River Association (SCRA) received a legislative appropriation of $500,000 from the Clean Water Fund (CWF) to implement phosphorus reduction activities and conduct monitoring in the Lake St. Croix portion of the St. Croix River Basin (Washington County). With these funds the SCRA contracted with four different project sponsors who were required to match 50 percent of their requested grant funds. The funding was split with half going to monitoring, and the other half going to phosphorus reduction activities. Since 2010, work is underway by each of the grantees with all the projects on schedule to be completed by June 2013. The overall outcome is a reduction of 100 pounds of phosphorus per year. The projects selected and related information are listed in the attachments.

• Please describe activities and outcomes from monitoring at least 20 additional sites in public waters adjacent to wastewater treatment facilities, specifically regarding levels of endocrine-disrupting compounds, antibiotic compounds and pharmaceuticals. The MPCA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and St. Cloud State University monitored chemicals of emerging concern at points upstream, at the point of discharge, and downstream from 25 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). The full report, which was completed in February 2011, is available at: www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=15610.

Pharmaceuticals, triclosan, nonylphenol, nonylphenol ethoxylates, octylphenol, octylphenol ethoxylates, bisphenol A, phytoestrogens, and steroid hormones were detected in wastewater, surface water and sediment samples. Several of these compounds were detected at upstream locations as well as downstream from WWTPs, indicating that WWTPs are not the only source of these chemicals.

Fish studies were conducted at five WWTP locations. Vitellogenin concentrations in the male fathead minnows increased with the proportion of and time of exposure to WWTP effluent. Effluent, upstream and downstream water were tested for the ability to turn on or turn off several hundred genes. Water that contained effluent influenced the expression of genes in ways that upstream water did not.

• Please describe progress in the Wild Rice Standards study. The MPCA recently contracted with the University of Minnesota to conduct the study. Work will begin this spring and continue into fall 2013 with completion anticipated by 12/31/2013. Preliminary study plans include: • Field survey of lakes and streams that support healthy stands of wild rice and those that should support wild rice but do not • Laboratory studies to gather additional information about how sulfate and sulfide affect wild rice plant growth • Outdoor experiments with container-grown wild rice

Other accomplishments include developing and finalizing a study protocol, conducting the request for proposal process for selecting the study researchers, and establishing and holding three meetings of the Wild Rice Standards Study Advisory Committee. A report to the Legislature was also completed in December 2011 (see Page | 4

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=16998). For more information see the sulfate standard web page at www.pca.state.mn.us/ktqhd17.

Watershed restoration and protection: • Please describe progress made toward completing an average of 20 percent of TMDLs in FY10-11 and planned activities to complete 20 percent of TMDLs in FY12-13. Please briefly describe the Buffalo River Watershed pilot project and outcomes achieved. Beginning in 2008, the MPCA launched a new “watershed approach” to systematically and comprehensively conduct the state’s water-quality monitoring, and restoration and protection planning needs on a 10-year cycle (or 10 percent of the state’s 81 major watersheds per year). As the assessment process is completed in each watershed, TMDLs will be developed for impaired waters and protection strategies for unimpaired waters. These projects are called Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies or WRAPS, and will set the reduction goals, milestones and measures to guide state and local government in their implementation efforts.

FY10-11 Progress • Listings for conventional impairments: 997. • Number and percent of approved TMDLs in FY10-11 for conventional impairments: 62 or 6.2 percent of the 2008 list of conventional impairments. • Cumulative number of conventional TMDLs approved and in-development through end of FY11 (per 2008 inventory): 223 (20.3%) approved, 701 in-development (65%), or a combined total of 85 percent of all listings for conventional impairments in the inventory. • FY10-11 total listings for toxic impairments: 1,492. • Number and percent of approved TMDLs for toxic impairments in FY10-11: 1,014 or 68 percent. (This is also a cumulative number since this was the first listing cycle that accounted for the statewide mercury TMDL.)

FY12-13 Planned Activities • There are 36 projects – addressing 196 conventional impairments – that are anticipated to be approved by the end of FY2013. It should be emphasized that resolution of contested case requests may delay some of these approvals. • This represents approximately 16 percent of conventional listings needed to reach the legislative target of 20 percent for FY12-13. The cumulative total of approved TMDLs will increase to 30 percent of all conventional listings, according to the 2010 impaired waters inventory. • Anticipated WRAP strategies will be underway in 45 of 81 watersheds by FY13. This number will continue to grow as the MPCA continues to implement its watershed approach.

Please see attachment for additional information.

The Buffalo River Watershed Restoration and Protection Project (WRAP) This multi-faceted project is intended to provide a comprehensive approach for the restoration and protection of surface waters within a major watershed. The project is based on extensive water quality monitoring, modeling, and citizen involvement and, once complete, will demonstrate the efficiency of addressing protection and restoration issues simultaneously, as part of a watershed-wide effort. Surface waters have been assessed to determine whether state water quality standards are being met. Modeling and field reconnaissance, in progress, will ascertain sources of impairments, and strategies are being developed to specifically address how impaired waters can be restored and how waters that currently meet standards can

Page | 5

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. be protected. The plan is being structured to enable local units of government to implement those restoration and protection activities. The project is scheduled for a 2013 completion. In addition to the completion of the WRAP, a watershed wide TMDL report for all impaired waters will be submitted to the EPA as required by the federal Clean Water Act. Please see attachment for additional information. Groundwater/drinking water: • Please describe progress in groundwater/drinking water activities from FY10-11, including: o Installation and sampling at least 30 new monitoring wells. o Analysis of samples from at least 40 shallow monitoring wells each year for the presence of endocrine disrupting compounds. o Completion of at least four to five groundwater models for TMDLs and watershed plans.

• The number of wells in the Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Network increased from 87 wells in 2008 to 196 wells in early 2012. • The planned 40 shallow monitoring wells were monitored each year for the presence of endocrine disrupting compounds. • Completed groundwater-surface water modeling/analysis for 12 major watersheds in Minnesota with conclusions included in Watershed Monitoring and Assessment reports. • Provided technical and modeling assistance to the DNR and the US Geological Survey in support of the White Bear Lake groundwater/surface water interaction study. • Provided development and support for the Little Rock Creek model, resulting in the Little Rock Creek watershed team to select altered flow of groundwater as the primary stressor in the TMDL.

Please describe planned activities for groundwater assessment in FY12-13, including enhancing the ambient monitoring network, modeling and addressing contaminants of emerging concern. The description of the agencies activities are found below: • An additional 32 wells will be installed by the end of FY12. • The MPCA will install 30 wells per fiscal year to meet the goal of 275 wells in 2014. • The first report on findings in the ambient network will be published at the end of calendar 2012. • There are 10 new watershed teams requesting groundwater reviews in FY13. • Provide continued technical support to the on-going White Bear Lake groundwater/surface water interaction study. • Modeling to the Little Rock Creek project which has been selected as a DNR groundwater management area.

Using the ambient groundwater monitoring network, a report on contaminants of emerging concern in groundwater was released in March 2012. A few types of contaminants were found in groundwater at very low levels. The report is found at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=17244 . Monitoring for contaminants of emerging concern will continue on an on-going basis.

• Please describe activities planned and underway for groundwater protection or prevention of groundwater degradation activities through enhancing the county-level delivery system for subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS). The MPCA will use the CWF dollars to enhance county SSTS delivery by providing grants for county-held pools of funds to be used for upgrade of systems that are found upon inspection to be “failing to protect groundwater.” The MPCA worked with county representatives through the SSTS Implementation and

Page | 6

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Enforcement Taskforce to develop a grants program that meets the highest identified need voiced by these counties. Past upgrade funds have focused on “imminent threat” systems that discharge directly to surface waters (including “straight pipes systems”); there was no similar program that counties could tap into to help replace systems that were impacting groundwater. In FY13, the MPCA will work with the SSTS Implementation and Enforcement Taskforce to develop a distribution allocation method for county base grants.

Nonpoint restoration and protection: Please describe how many Clean Water Partnership grants MPCA issued in FY10-11 and the water quality benefits expected from the grant projects. Please include the amount of funds leveraged through the program and the amount of total requests received (vs. amount available).

The Clean Water Partnership (CWP) program issues grants under two funding sources: the General Fund for the traditional investigation and implementation for impacted lakes, streams and rivers; and the Clean Water Fund for protection projects. • In the 2010-11 biennium, 39 projects were awarded grants totaling $5,976,519. • CWF provided grants for 12 projects, totaling $1,934,145. • CWP State General fund provided grants for 27 projects, totaling $4,092,374. • CWP loan funding was provided to 19 projects, totaling $9,423,000.

Please see the attachment for detailed information.

Please describe Clean Water Partnership granting process for FY12-13, including amount available per grant round and applicant process to date. As stated earlier, CWP is funded by two sources. The Clean Water Fund portion made available $1,000,000 in each year of the biennium. In the first year of the FY12-13 biennium, 10 CWP projects were awarded for a total of $1,202,792. • CWF provided grants for eight projects, totaling $802,792. • CWP State General fund provided grants for two projects, totaling $400,000. • CWP loan funding was provided to seven projects, totaling $4,070,000. • Total dollars requested by 27 applicants was close to $4.5 million. • No continuation grants were awarded in state fiscal year 2012.

• Please describe how many beneficial wastewater reuse grants were given in FY10-11 and the outcomes achieved. Please include the amount of funds leveraged through this appropriation, and the amount of total requests received (vs. amount available). The MPCA established, upon direction from the legislature, a public-private partnership program to encourage treated wastewater reuse in lieu of groundwater use with 50 percent grant funding. After four requests for proposals, only two grant contracts were initiated with the cities of Elk River and Paynesville, neither of which involves an ethanol facility.

Program enhancements, through legislation, occurred in 2011 to include beneficial reuse of stormwater and to extend the availability of these funds through June 30, 2016. The MPCA expects legislative changes in 2012 to facilitate implementation of the Elk River project as well as two potential ethanol facility projects. The MPCA does not intend to seek additional funding for this beneficial reuse grant program in FY14-15; but instead will continue to work with interested cities and industries to implement existing grant contracts and seek

Page | 7

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. additional projects that might benefit from the remaining grant funding to further enhance protection of groundwater and surface water resources through treated wastewater and/or stormwater reuse.

• Please describe progress made in FY10-11 on the lower St. Louis River and Duluth harbor restoration project and planned activities for FY12-13. Please include the amount of funds leveraged through this project. An effort known as the St. Louis River AOC (area of concern) Implementation Framework is now underway. This effort will result in the development of a Phase II Remedial Action Plan, including a detailed multi-year comprehensive plan and budget that will identify, prioritize and deploy strategic projects to remove the beneficial use impairments and move the AOC to an Area of Recovery by 2025.

By 2025, the MPCA expects the elimination of the beneficial use impairments and a formal request to delist the AOC to be initiated. Importantly, specific project and budget detail will be components of this far reaching implementation plan.

FY10-11 CWF Appropriation - $950,000 • The MPCA has an effort underway to understand the nature and extent of contaminated sediments in the St. Louis River Area of Concern. The $750,000 of CWF was matched by $1,993,000 of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) funds and work. The work conducted under this appropriation sampled and analyzed sediment contamination across the estuary. The MPCA and its partners are identifying areas that are clean, moderately contaminated and significantly contaminated. This information will inform the prioritization and sequencing of projects designed to remove contaminated sediment and those that can move to habitat restoration. • The MPCA provided $200,000 to the DNR, and matched by the USACOE, to address a large amount of sediment deposited into the St. Louis River from Knowlton Creek watershed area. The sediment caused alteration and degradation of aquatic habitat in the St. Louis River and this area is now restored.

FY12-13 CWF Appropriation - $1,500,000 The MPCA is working on agreements to focus work on the following three projects for FY12 and 13 funds: • Analysis of data to assess bioavailability and uptake of contaminants to be able to translate to how contamination levels affect fish consumption advisories, benthic health and degradation of wildlife populations. Proposal in development with USACOE and University of Minnesota – Duluth (UMD). The multiyear project is estimated to require ~$150,000 in CWF. • Continue assessment and characterization of contaminated sediment data collected during FY 10- 11 to accelerate identification of areas that are clean, moderately contaminated and significantly contaminated with in the St Louis River and harbor. This system-wide ordering of sediment contamination information is critical to developing the 10-15 year action plan and budget. • Near- and Short-term priorities are emerging from the St. Louis River AOC implementation framework including: o Development of a data system for use as clearinghouse for all physical, biological and chemical data acquired in the St. Louis River Estuary and to track measurable indicators. o Continue development of priority remediation to restoration projects including: Grassy Point, 40th Avenue West Complex, 21st Avenue Bay, Slip C. o Continuation of fish sampling for Tumors and Deformities. Page | 8

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. o GIS work associated with sediment characterization – Prioritization of sites.

FY2014-2015 CWF Appropriation - Estimated need $1,500,000 With funding at the existing level of $1.5 million, the MPCA and its partners would complete the analysis of site investigations and feasibility analysis and move forward with implementation phase of numerous projects in the remediation to restoration St Louis River AOC implementation framework. The CWF would continue to leverage federal funds available through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and other sources.

Research and tool development: Collaborative for Sediment Source Reduction: Greater Blue Earth River Basin: Research and monitoring have identified the Greater Blue Earth watershed (GBE; Watonwan, Le Sueur, and Blue Earth Rivers) as the largest source of sediment to the Minnesota River and Lake Pepin. Near channel sources are a significant part of the problem.

The National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics will implement a collaborative project with the goal of developing a consensus for reducing sediment loading in the GBE watershed. The project will include:

• Development of a sediment budget for the GBE watershed. • Sediment simulation model responding to changes in land use, climate, and management actions. • Decision analysis tools to evaluate alternatives for reducing sediment loading.

At the heart of the project is a collaborative of local, state, and industry stakeholders to participate in applying simulation model and decision tools in seeking management and monitoring actions most likely to produce detectable changes in sediment loading, guiding adaptive management. This will establish a basis for continued collaborative planning in the Minnesota River Basin.

$140k of MPCA Research funds will fund the research on Sediment fingerprinting for sediment source and sink identification: Sediment fingerprinting has emerged as a key method for supporting understanding of sediment sources, fluxes, and sinks in the Minnesota River Basin and Lake Pepin drainage. Fingerprinting allows identification of upland versus near-channel sources. Use of different fingerprints allows the fate of upland sediment to be tracked and applying fingerprinting to samples from different locations and sources provides the opportunity to define the runoff conditions associated with different sediment sources. Fingerprinting plays a key role in developing a sediment budget for the watershed because it contributes importantly to the multiple lines of evidence that provide strong constraints on the complex mass balance.

• Task 1: Collect and analyze fingerprinting samples (Beryllium-10, Lead-210, Cesium-137, or other elements as appropriate) from sediment sources including cultivated uplands, non-cultivated uplands, bluffs, banks, floodplains, and ravines. • Task 2: Collect and analyze fingerprinting samples (for Beryllium-10, Lead-210, Cesium-137, or other elements as appropriate) from suspended sediment samples.

• Please describe progress in developing the enhanced TMDL database. The MPCA’s Watershed Data Integration Project (WDIP) is an ongoing effort to improve public and professional access to data pertaining to water resources management. In August 2011, the MPCA used this funding to add several new data retrieval capabilities to the MPCA’s public website, improving the ability to find and use data on water bodies, assessments, impairments, and restoration/protection strategy projects (including TMDL studies). The new tools are described briefly below. Visit the new watershed web tools at www.pca.state.mn.us/watersheds. Page | 9

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. 1. Find information about a specific waterbody: Using either a text search or a clickable map, find information about a particular lake or stream segment, such as map location, recent assessment results, monitoring data, etc. 2. Create a list of waterbodies: List the waterbodies in a specified geographic area, such as a major watershed, county, or metro WMO. Click any waterbody in the list to view the details described above. Download the list as an Excel spreadsheet if desired. 3. Create a list of impairments: Produce a list of water quality impairments — by geographic area, pollutant, or other search criteria. 4. Create a list of projects: Create a list of the TMDL studies and “Watershed Approach” strategy projects in a specified geographic area. Or, list all projects with a particular current status (e.g., in progress, completed). 5. Find the webpage for a specific project: Search by text fragment or project number to quickly find a particular project’s web page. 6. Each of the new major watershed pages contains links that display an assessment unit list and an impairment list for that watershed. In the current biennium, the development plan is being implemented. This includes additional enhancements to web pages that will increase access to data and information, including load allocation data; project implementation strategy, planning and results; additional behind the scenes IT work to further consolidate data sources and integrate data; and scoping of an interagency water data portal.

1. On any page, click the Water tab, then click Watersheds on the menu of links that appears

2. On the map, click on your major watershed of interest

3. On the watershed’s page, click the Restoration and protection tab, then explore the links there

Page | 10

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• Please describe progress in developing the nitrate/nitrogen rules. The MPCA was directed by the Minnesota Legislature to establish water-quality standards for nitrate-nitrogen and total nitrogen (2010 Session Laws, Chapter 361, Article 2, Section 4, Subdivision 1). In support of the legislative directive, the MPCA has evaluated information available for adoption of an aquatic life water quality standard based on nitrate toxicity. Past toxicity studies are compiled and evaluated, and a draft Technical Support Document completed. Additional toxicity studies, funded by the EPA and the State of Illinois, are expected to be completed in 2013. These additional toxicity studies will enhance the existing information providing the basis for a nitrate aquatic life water quality standard. Once the studies are complete, the MPCA’s Technical Support Document will be updated and work will move forward to propose a new standard.

Additionally, the MPCA is completing an effort to characterize nitrate and total nitrogen loading to Minnesota’s surface waters. The study is providing a scientific foundation of information that will be used to develop and evaluate nitrogen reduction strategies and standards for: a) improving conditions within Minnesota, and b) reducing downstream loading to waters such as the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Winnipeg.

Stream nitrogen levels and sources were characterized across Minnesota during this collaborative study involving the MPCA, University of Minnesota and USGS, with assistance from Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Agriculture and others. Nitrogen amounts delivered to land and streams from different point and nonpoint sources and pathways were evaluated using multiple approaches. Ongoing trends analyses will soon show areas of the state where stream nitrate is increasing and decreasing. Recent monitoring, along with results from two models, is identifying priority watersheds for nitrogen reduction. Cost-benefit scenarios for reducing nitrogen losses in watersheds are also being developed. The technical assessment work will be completed by June 2012, with a final report expected in early 2013.

• Please describe progress made in stormwater research and guidance development, including coal tar best management practice development. Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) Project The MPCA’s MIDS Project received clean water funding in FY10-11 and FY12-13. Through the MIDS Project the MPCA is creating a package of stormwater runoff performance goals, credits, easy-to-use calculator and ordinance goals for better stormwater quality and reduced runoff volumes by mimicking natural hydrology. See: www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/stormwater/stormwater-minimal- impact-design-standards-mids.html

To date, the MPCA developed a new development performance goal (treat the first 1.1 inches of runoff from impervious surfaces), beta calculator and foundational science for crediting best management practices (BMPs) for Minnesota conditions. The MPCA expects to complete the MIDS Project by the end of FY 2013.

The MPCA has actively leveraged other resources to complement the clean water funds on the MIDS Project including: • Additional applied research resources being conducted by the University of Minnesota • $665,000 Local Road Research Board grant via the Local Road Research Board for dry swales, construction site erosion and highway runoff • $400,000 NOAA grant on the potential water infrastructure impact of climate change • $100,000 grant from Metropolitan Council to determine the drinking water impacts of increased infiltration under MIDS

Page | 11

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• $100,000 grant from the joint watersheds (MCWD and MWMO) to investigate the potential of stormwater infiltration practices to maintain Minnehaha Creek’s base flows during dry periods • $125,000 EPA grant for the St. Croix River Basin MIDS pilot for development of low impact development ordinance goals and community assistance packages • $400,000 US Forest Service tree grant (pending) “Large, Healthy Urban Trees for Stormwater Management – Integrating Trees into Stormwater Designs and Regulatory Framework”.

Coal Tar Best Management Practices Research has been conducted by the MPCA as well as the Metropolitan Council, the USGS, the University of New Hampshire Storm Water Center, and the EPA. Studies conclude that coal tar-based sealants are an important source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to urban waterways (50% or more). The MPCA research conducted on 15 metro-area stormwater ponds was consistent with the findings of a USGS peer- reviewed study published in 2010.

Using clean water funds, MPCA contracted research by the University of Minnesota to determine the effectiveness of treating PAH-contaminated sediments by mixing them with composted yard waste under controlled conditions. The University of Minnesota report concluded composting is not a feasible treatment option. A second feasibility study was conducted through a workgroup consisting of MPCA staff and external parties charged with conducting a focused review of options for sediment management. Options considered risk management and regulatory mechanisms within the boundaries of affordability and protectiveness of human health and the environment. This work concluded that landfill disposal remains to be the most cost effective option though land disposal has been identified as an unsustainable practice.

MPCA guidance provided to local units of government includes: 1. notice to state and local governments of the potential for contamination of stormwater ponds and wetlands by coal tar-based sealants; 2. a model ordinance to restrict the use of coal tar-based sealants which is available on the MPCA and League of Minnesota Cities websites; 3. current information, research results, and the availability of financial assistance; 4. answers to frequently asked questions; 5. information about health risks associated with contaminated stormwater sediment; and 6. general information about the purpose and function of stormwater collection systems, contaminates of concern, and guidance about recreational uses of these systems.

All of the 2009 legislative assignments are complete with one exception, best management practices are still under development. The BMP development effort is specifically for stormwater sediment and to guide local units of government with sediment removal and management projects. The MPCA will complete this work by June 2012, which will complete this clean water funded project.

Point source implementation: • Please describe the activities underway in FY12-13 for national pollutant discharge elimination system wastewater and storm water TMDL implementation efforts. The clean water fund provides funding for MPCA NPDES activities related to wastewater and stormwater TMDL implementation as described below. 1. Assistance in the development of TMDL wasteload allocations. Notable large scale TMDL projects in development include: 1. Minnesota River Turbidity TMDL. Page | 12

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. 2. South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL. 3. Lake St. Croix Excess Nutrients TMDL. 4. Upper Mississippi River Basin Bacteria TMDL. 2. Development and issuance of permits containing water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) prior to the EPA approval of TMDLs based on Federal regulatory requirements. 1. 45 pre-TMDL permits containing total phosphorus WQBELs issued to date in FY12-13. 2. 45 new chloride monitoring requirements in permits issued to date in FY12-13. 3. 27 permits with mercury monitoring requirements issued to date in FY12-13. 3. Issuance of permits that are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of EPA-approved wasteload allocations. In FY12-13 to date, 17 permits have been issued containing effluent limits that are consistent with EPA approved wasteload allocations including: 1. Nine permits with fecal coliform bacteria limits. 2. Three permits with mercury limits. 3. Three permits with TSS limits. 4. One permit with phosphorus limits. 5. One permit with CBOD and ammonia limits 4. Administration of a pollutant trading system for implementation the Lower Minnesota River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL. Executed 16 trade agreements during the 2011 season. Each trade entails two permit actions, one to reduce the seller’s effluent limit and one to increase buyer’s effluent limit. In addition a pollutant trading rulemaking is underway for statewide application. 5. Development of a watershed permitting approach to implement TMDL requirements in NPDES wastewater permits, as well as improve communication and tracking of the wastewater TMDL implementation efforts. 6. Improving data management through GIS mapping and analysis in support of the NPDES wastewater program TMDL implementation activities as well as to improve the communication and tracking of the wastewater TMDL implementation efforts. 7. Development and implementation of stormwater TMDL guidance documents, as well as the development of TMDL implementation language for the Small MS4 General Stormwater Permit. 8. Work has begun on updating the (2005) Minnesota Stormwater Manual. As part of this effort, TMDL guidance and implementation information as well as MIDS guidance and implementation information will be added to the Manual. The MPCA has a Manual “TMDL” team formed and have begun meeting to decide what needs to be added to the Manual.

In the 2011 Special Session Legacy bill, sec. 25 states “a recipient of funds appropriated in this article shall incorporate civic engagement and public education when implementing projects and programs funded under this article”. Please describe your progress in this area.

Project activities are grouped according to three focus areas that together enable good project governance, evidence-based civic engagement, and data-driven performance tracking and adaptive management.

Focus Area 1 activities include: 1. Community assessment. 2. Select operating principles. 3. Define civic engagement outcomes Issue framing. 4. Governance & stakeholder recruitment.

Focus Area 2 activities: Page | 13

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. 1. Education, outreach and communication strategies. 2. Civic engagement tools and processes such as friendship tours, community dialogs, social media strategies, farmer-led watershed projects, and networking and partnering strategies. 3. Building civic capacity at local levels to find common ground for collective action.

Focus Area 3 activities use the results of a community assessment for purposes of conducting performance management. These activities encourage an adaptive management approach.

The Table below shows the Watershed Project Civic Engagement Spending as of March 2012

($1000) ($1000) Focus 2: 2: Focus Total ($1000) Assessments, Assessments, Project Name Name Project Implementation Implementation Governance and Civic Engagement Civic Engagement Strategy Design & Strategy Design Stakeholder Team Focus 1: Community 1: Community Focus MPCA Regional Office Office MPCA Regional Development ($1000) ($1000) Development Adaptive Management Adaptive Focus 3: Performance / 3: Performance Focus Funding Duration (years) (years) Duration Funding Missouri Basin Data 2 $3 $35 $4 $42

Collection & Outreach

LeSueur CE Project 2 $64 $57 $17 $138

Hawk Creek Watershed 3 $9 $27 $8 $44

Yellow Medicine River WD 3 $10 $17 $6 $33 Southwest Southwest Chippewa CE 2 $21 $54 $75

Pomme de Terre CE 2 $15 $30 $45

SW MN CE Cohort 2 $88 $4 $92

Shell Rock 2 $8 $8 $16

Root River 2 $24 $82 $106

S Metro Miss DCSWCD 2 $35 $35

Mississippi-Winona 2 $11 $66 $6 $83

Southeast Southeast Mississippi Makeover 2 $2 $25 $2 $29

Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance 2 $16 $18 $5 $39

SE MN CE Cohort 2 $3 $71 $7 $81

Page | 14

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Zumbro 2 $10 $73 $83

Cedar 2 $14 $15 $13 $42

Mississippi-St. Cloud 2 $5 $10 $15

Sauk - Phase II 2 $4 $12 $8 $24

Crow Wing - Phase II 3 $32 $15 $47

Long Prairie 4 $6 $31 $13 $50

Redeye 4 $6 $32 $15 $53

North Central North Central Leech Lake - Phase I 2 $4 $7 $5 $16

Pine - Phase I 2 $4 $7 $5 $16

South Fork Crow - Phase 1 2 $6 $21 $19 $46

Buffalo Phase 2 $15 $15

Buffalo - Phase 3 2 $2 $20 $5 $27

Sandhill 4 $2 $20 $5 $27

Mustinka 4 $2 $20 $5 $27

Thief 4 $2 $20 $5 $27 Northwest Northwest Lake of the Woods 4 $2 $20 $5 $27

Upper Red 4 $2 $20 $5 $27

Lower Red 4 $2 $20 $5 $27

St. Louis R, Lk Superior S, 2 $15 $15 $15 $45 NE Nemadji

St. Croix River Basin 2 $15 $3 $9 $27

Lower Mississippi River WMO 2 $20 $40 $7 $67

Chisago Co. 1 $5 $1 $6 Metro Metro

Mississippi-Vermillion 1 $27 $3 $30

TOTALS $336 $1,074 $219 $1,629

Page | 15

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Allocations to civic engagement are likely to increase in the future as project teams gain experience and policy- makers realize the benefits of creating more intentional and strategic plans for collaborative decision-making in watershed management. In order to fully realize the benefits of civic engagement, future funding can be targeted most appropriately if based on the learning from project-based research and development.

Did you return any unused dollars to the Clean Water Fund in FY10-11? If so, please describe circumstances. The MPCA returned $227,000 (0.48%) to the Clean Water Fund at the end of the FY10-11 biennium. The following areas returned funds: • Monitoring and assessment: $110,000 • Wastewater treatment monitoring for EDCs: $6,000 • Ground water assessment: $68,000 • Civic engagement: $43,000

Because project dollars were delayed by six months, grant and contract dollars could not be committed until appropriate funds were accumulated the first year. Also, the MPCA was not given authority to spend the FY10- 11 appropriations until expended. Therefore, when project dollars are returned at the end of the second year of the biennium, dollars must be returned. In the case of the wastewater treatment monitoring, the monitoring project was completed and the dollar amount returned was what was left over. Please describe any new Clean Water Fund initiatives/programs your agency is considering for FY14-15.

The MPCA is asking for the same level of funding except for those areas listed below.

Groundwater/drinking water • Enhanced county inspections/SSTS corrective actions The Clean Water Council convened an SSTS Ad Hoc Committee in FY12. The MPCA staff presented SSTS information at three meetings and prepared a summary report, including SSTS funding recommendations for FY14-15. The MPCA is proposing new funding for enhancing the ability of counties to implement viable programs. Additional information is attached for consideration by the Clean Water Council of correction and improvement needs. Please see the attachment for more information.

NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation Add two new wastewater positions for NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation as follows: 1. Unsewered community coordinator: Unsewered communities are those areas that directly or indirectly discharge untreated sewage into surface waters. The impaired waters program identifies these communities as a significant source of certain pollutants such as fecal coliform bacteria and phosphorus. Addressing these areas requires persistentoversight to keep the unsewered communities on task and also requires a working knowledge of funding opportunities. Having one individual focusing on these communities would allow for statewide prioritization and the ability for projects to more forward faster. This position would develop a more coordinated and defined process for addressing the unsewered areas, including, working with counties to assure that the areas are identified, working with funding agencies to identify funding options, and working with MPCA staff to assure that the highest priority areas are addressed. Page | 16

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. 2. Effluent Limit Review Engineer: The intensive watershed monitoring is resulting in a signficantly larger data set of information about our waters. This information allows and requires us to set more informed amd wholistic limits at our wastewater facilities using both the biological and chemical information. This means time consuming and more complexed anaylsis of the data based on completed TMDLs, TMDLs in process, and impaired water’s information. Many times this requires developing and interpreting modeling and modeling results. The additional data sets will likewise inform anti- degradation reviews which will be used to inform the decisions in the overall watershed approach. The increased need for more complexed and wholist reviews, as well as to produce these expeditously so that the NPDES permitting program can meet the 150 day permit issuance goal, result in the need for an additional engineer within the effluent limit setting arena.

Application of Water Standards (Research) As mentioned earlier, the MPCA expects to complete the Wild Rice Standards Study on time and within budget. For the FY14-15 biennium, the MPCA is requesting ongoing funding in the amount of $1.5 million dollars to conduct research on the application of water standards, as described in the following paragraphs.

Presently, some pollutants do not have sufficient information to allow for effective reduction and protection measures to be put in place. Work is needed in three key areas: 1) To investigate options for addressing pollutants of concern in a way that efficiently and effectively achieves protection and restoration goals, 2) To pilot those options at permitted facilities, and 3) To transfer technology and learning from facilities successfully addressing the pollutant to those that are newly identified as needing additional pollutant reduction/treatment because of the impairments they are creating in waterbodies or the need to protect waterbodies from becoming impaired.

Thus, the MPCA recognizes the need for early identification and pilot pollution reduction and treatment/control practices in partnership with permitted wastewater treatment facilities to address these impairments. Protection of outstanding water quality, restoration of impaired waters, and ongoing TMDL implementation work will be primary considerations during priority setting.

It is estimated that MPCA staff needs will include 1.5 engineering FTE in addition to contractual dollars.

Page | 17

MPCA Attachments

Red River Basin Watch Pages 2-13

St. Croix River Association – Phosphorus Reduction and Monitoring Project Summary Pages 13-16

Watershed projects and approved TMDLs Pages 16-20

Buffalo River Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan Pilot Project Update Pages 21-24

Clean Water Fund Projects: 2010 – 2013 Pages 25-37

Summary of SSTS funding sources for FY12-13 and FY14-15 Page 38

2010-2012 CWP-CWF Rounds and Awardees Separate attachment

Page | 1

RED RIVER BASIN RIVER WATCH Clean Water Legacy Work Plan FY 2010-2012

INTERIM REPORT #2

OBJECTIVE 1: Coordinate project planning and sustainability for watershed science development efforts through the Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) and its affiliated partners and working groups.

Task A: Support opportunities for the SLT and partners to meet and/or gather, share, and refine information and resources to effectively advance project goals. Task B: Convene a one day leadership development session and related pre and post session leadership development options for SLT members and other strategic partners. Task C: Work with SLT to create working partnerships to build program sustainability.

Measurable Outcomes: • Six meetings and between meeting communication/coordination of the SLT are planned throughout the project to report results and coordinate activities. Outcomes of these meetings and attendance roster will be reported online at the IWI website http://www.internationalwaterinstitute.org/. • 20 members of SLT expected to participate in Leadership development session. Additional leadership training opportunities utilized will also be documented. • Partnerships developed and resources leveraged to advance watershed science in the Red River Basin will be reported and quantified in project narrative reports identified in Objective 6.

Objective 1 Progress:

• Minnesota and North Dakota Extension have agreed to help fund and work with the IWI in establishing a joint Water Resources Extension Educator position based in the Red River Basin. A Memorandum of Understanding and position description for the joint position was developed, the position was advertised, interviews completed, and Dr. Annette Drewes was hired. Dr. Drewes especially has experience with water resources and curriculum development. News article re: Dr. Drewes hire and background in attachments. • Dr. Drewes is immersing herself in review of watershed education activities and is meeting people involved in watershed management and education in the Basin as well as people on the various RW planning committees. Dr. Drewes is taking the lead in working through a program development concept map and associated logic model to help focus activities and identify best fits for partners and funding sources to further advance the River Watch program’s goals of watershed awareness, monitoring opportunities, and student/citizen engagement. The current summary version of the logic model is included as the document “RRWatershedFramework Logic Model” in attachments. • This logic model is being used to help better identify strategic partners to include on a functioning Strategic Leadership Team. This team is being restructured with a strategic planning session planned before the end of 2011. • The first edition of the River Rendezvous, a new e-newsletter to promote watershed education and awareness in the Red River Basin was issued in September. This bi-monthly e-newsletter will provide brief updates on project activities, identify helpful resources, and feature special projects and partners in the Red River Basin. In the inaugural edition, the Wheaton River Watch team is featured, snow study contributions are Page | 2

noted, data connections are explained, and sturgeon stocking in the Red River Basin are among the news items included. This e-newsletter can be found at http://www.internationalwaterinstitute.org/riverwatchmain.htm, click on the “e-newsletter” button (also included in attachments to this report as a PDF). • A watershed education blog site has also been developed to provide brief, timely information about water issues related to the Red River Basin, accessible at http://riverwatch.areavoices.com/. OBJECTIVE 2: Develop strong student leadership for River Watch teams and community engagement activities.

Task A: Finalize structure of Youth Leadership Team (YLT), finalize work plan, and provide opportunities for the youth leadership team to meet and/or gather and share information and resources to effectively advance project goals.

Task B: Identify and implement youth leadership development strategies such as team captains for all RW teams, interaction with Students Teaching Attitudes of Respect (STAR) youth leadership program and one youth leadership camp in the summer of 2010.

Task C: Develop student to peer communication system(s) and activities to facilitate RW team building and connections between RW teams and watersheds.

Task D: Develop RW “team-to-team” connections within and between watersheds. RW team members visit other RW teams upstream or downstream of their sampling reach to understand watershed dynamics and connections. Additional support will be sought from WD, SWCD, and other partners to cover travel and related costs.

Task E: Identify and implement school and community engagement strategies such as RW teams giving presentations to school, community, and resource agency audiences. RW teams will also assist with the annual RW Forum, summer science camps for younger students and coordinate community river clean-up activities.

Measurable Outcomes:

• Eight meetings of the YLT and between meeting communication/coordination are planned throughout the project to report results and coordinate activities. Outcomes of these meetings and attendance roster will be reported online at the IWI website http://www.internationalwaterinstitute.org/. • Team captains in place for all RW teams and report of information provided to RW teams and activities undertaken. • Interaction with Northwest MN Foundation STAR youth leadership training program and training sessions at Concordia Language Village to share RW lessons and learn leadership skills. Engage in two retreats with at least six RW team members from 2-3 RW teams engaged in each retreat. • Attendance by 30 high school RW students at 2010 Summer Youth Leadership Camp at UMC campus. Report on skills developed and further training done back in the home schools of camp participants from this “train the trainer” method. • Social networking option in place for RW teams to better communicate. This may be via Face book, NING, or the existing RW online data site.

Page | 3

• The number of RW team exchanges accomplished for visiting neighboring watersheds and partnership support of these activities. Expect at least one exchange within each major watershed in MN Red River Basin (9 exchanges) plus additional exchanges between watersheds as coordinated by RW Team Captains. • Documented RW student involvement in giving community presentations, coordinating river cleanups, involvement in planning and implementing the annual RW Forum, summer science camps for younger students, etc. Hours will be documented and outcomes/impacts quantified and/or described.

Objective 2 Progress: • The Youth Leadership Team did not meet as a separate group, but youth participated in planning specific research and community engagement activities that are noted elsewhere in this report. • River Watch team captains were solicited from each RW team as part of the leadership development and communications initiatives of the project. See attached team captain position description, application form, and cover letter. Only 8 teams filled their team captain position thus this proposed network to enhance communications with the RW teams has not worked as planned to this point. However, of the teams that did designate team captains, some have carried out the duties as envisioned, thus this concept will be revisited to see how it might be adjusted to be better advance program goals. • A River Watch Youth Leadership Camp that was scheduled for June 14-16th was cancelled at the last moment due to several students backing out and thus not enough numbers to allow the planned exercises to occur. Notices had gone out to all RW schools seeking 2 representatives/school—either their team captains or other student leaders. The goal of the camp was for the student leaders to better understand watershed conditions and develop skills to engage other students and the public in becoming more actively engaged in watershed education and protection. Planned activities included first aid/CPR training, water safety skills, sonde training, leadership skills development, and river paddling field trip. Planned camp schedule attached. An alternative kayak paddle trip that was planned to be done during the camp was done anyway with students that had pre- registered to attend the camp. This outing was very successful as students had opportunities to learn more about river dynamics as the group of 10 participants paddled a scenic reach of the Wild Rice River between Faith and Twin Valley. Several capsized kayaks and many wet paddlers provided a memorable day with a measure of the success of the paddle being that the student’s asked “when can we go again?” Smaller paddle outings like this will be planned in 2012 as a more flexible alternative to a larger camp gathering due to busy schedules of today’s students. Support is being provided to the Mn Extension and 4-H personnel to assist in coordinating these outings for 2012. They have already purchased 10 kayaks and gear to facilitate these hands-on opportunities to connect students to their local watersheds. Part of these outings will be to point out river and watershed features “up-close” as paddlers see how rivers work including bank full elevations, flood plains, cutbanks, meander development, in-stream erosion, surrounding land use, and management issues. This will be an opportunity also to make the point that river corridors are still one of the most important landscape features that provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife and nature amenities valued as an important quality of life attribute by residents. • Curriculum, youth, and research work groups were involved in planning the 2011 River Watch Forum which was held on March 17 at UofM-Crookston campus. 15 schools and approximately 150 people attended. The National Weather Service provided the keynote address regarding the latest spring flood outlook and discussed factors used in developing flood forecasts—including the snow water equivalency data collected by the RW schools. More hands-on interactive sessions were presented and were very popular. Sessions included LiDAR, stream table, toxicity testing, Sea Perch aquatic robotics, storm drain marking, 3-D visualization lab, river trip planning and exploration, Adopt-A-River clean-up, snow study, and teacher sessions. 2011 Forum brochure and program/sessions schedule attached. School displays highlighting each school’s past year’s Page | 4

monitoring results were on display for public viewing and judging. Judges noted that the displays and students sharing insights about their monitoring were better than previous years. IWI staff visited schools to assist with data reviews in preparation for the Forum. In addition to overall water quality reporting, the special assignment for the 2011 Forum was to have students do a trend analysis of their data for water levels and transparency. • Curriculum and youth work groups met and developed a 50 minute presentation that was given at the Red River Basin Commission Annual Conference to resource managers, government officials, and citizens in MN, ND, and MB. The RW presentation featured the snow study and how River Watch can be engaged in watershed and community activities. Students and teachers from RW schools presented information on their RW monitoring and involvement in other watershed/community activities including Adopt-A-River (Climax), Summer Science Camp (Stephen-Argyle) and Science Fair/Watershed Monitoring (Bagley). A PowerPoint is available of the presentation, but it is too large to provide as attachment. A River Watch education display was also set up including a large screen monitor with video loop showing Climax RW students collecting sediment samples for the pilot research project on Sand Hill River called “Biological Assessment of Sediment Health” (BASH). Snow study equipment, maps of participating snow study schools and program features were also part of the display. • Calibration training was provided to the Hawley RW team which has a set of equipment and will now independently monitor sites in their area including collection of samples to be sent to RMB Lab for processing, thus becoming part of the official Buffalo-Red River Watershed District monitoring plan. Assistance has been provided to the team to enable them to meet the planned sampling schedule. The Barnesville High School RW team is also involved in collecting field data and samples that are sent to RMB Lab for this project. Bagley RW is also collecting samples for lab processing as a contribution to the Red Lake Watershed District’s water quality monitoring program. These are all advances in students taking more responsibility and leadership in performing valuable monitoring services in evolving, stronger partnerships with their local watershed districts. • Students from Campbell-Tintah and Climax-Shelly schools presented testimony at the Senate Environmnent/Natural Resources and Capital Investment Committee’s Joint Hearing in Moorhead on April 8th, 2011. Students shared their insights about how River Watch works in their school and why River Watch is important to them, their school, community, and watershed. They were applauded (literally) by the Senate committee for their RW efforts in their local community and watershed and for their excellent testimony. • Provided support in establishing 1st time involvement in RW program at Norman County East (NCE)—located at Twin Valley in the Wild Rice Watershed District. A proposal (attached) was developed by IWI in collaboration with and on behalf of NCE High School to provide monitoring, education, and outreach services to the Wild Rice Watershed District in exchange for financial support to defray direct costs to the school district of substitute teacher, transportation, and other project expenses to perform activities related to the River Watch program. The Wild Rice Watershed District agreed to provide $750 support for the school’s participation in the program plus support in working with the students in helping with maps, data, or other information they can provide to help better understand watershed conditions in their local area. The NCE RW team has sampled every month from May through October, (data results at http://riverwatch.umn.edu/NCE ). Three news releases of NCE RW team activities are attached as example of a RW team’s efforts to raise community awareness of watershed conditions. Several additional schools have these types of agreements between the RW team and their local watershed districts. It is a model that we are striving for with all schools as part of the agreement is that the RW teams give an annual presentation to the local watershed board, reporting on their monitoring results and helping the watersheds advance community engagement options.

Page | 5

• News releases were also provided to local papers about monitoring being done by Hawley, Herman-Norcross, and Wheaton to help raise awareness of local conditions. Assistance was also provided to Hawley and Herman in analysis of their 2010 monitoring data and preparation of reports and displays that the RW teams presented to their respective local WDs. Bagley also presented their annual report to the Red Lake Watershed District and do River Watch radio spots on the local radio station. • Several new and “revived” schools engaged in RW activities over the past year. Lincoln High School in Thief River Falls is a new school while Wheaton, Fisher and Tri-County (Karlstad) are renewing their involvement. Ongoing assistance is being provided to these schools in site selection, sharing of equipment, training in sampling technique, data interpretation, and presentation of results. Coordination is also occurring in Hallock to engage a local 4-H Club as citizen scientists and becoming the local RW team. Also provided a volunteer citizen monitor in Wheaton with sampling equipment courtesy of the Bois de Sioux Watershed District and MPCA CSMP program and trained her to do transparency tube readings once a month and during rain events. Information was also provided to a teacher from a private school in St. Vincent who expressed interest in getting her students involved in the program. • Another new team that plans to get involved is the UofMN Crookston Natural Resource Club. It will be the first college level River Watch team in the program. Former high school River Watch participants from Walhalla, ND and East Grand Forks, MN—now attending UMC are leading the initiative. They will monitor their own set of sites in the Crookston area and assist existing high school River Watch teams as needed including doing more with data analysis and macroinvertebrate sampling. • Assisted the Red Lake Watershed District to develop a River Watch video to spread the word about the program and recruit additional schools to participate. The video can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEDNuujPyn8. • Worked with Stephen-Argyle RW team in conducting a middle school science camp for 4th to 6th grade students—brought canoes and kayaks and shared basic paddling skills with the students. While on the Tamarac River that flows through Stephen, pointed out turtles, birds, and other “residents” of the river corridor as well as picking up trash found along the river’s edge. Stephen-Argyle RW team members were an integral part of the staff planning and implementing all aspects of this science camp for the younger students. Other activities included GPS geocaching, digital camera nature capture, rocketry, and monarch butterfly tracking. • The River Watch Facebook site, http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/River-Watch-Red-River-of-the- North/246438898716437, has been set up to share information between River Watch teams. Thus far the site has not been used very much by RW students, partially due to Facebook being blocked at most schools. As more student engagement opportunities such as paddle outings and other field activities are undertaken, it is still hoped that the Facebook site will be used more. • IWI website redesign is being worked on in conjunction with the redesign of the Red River Basin Decision Information Network (RRBDIN) website. This includes the River of Dreams program and the RW data website hosted at UMC. These will also be made “seamless” with the RW Facebook site to allow users to easily move between sites. Existing content is being updated or deleted. • Preparations are being made for Regional River Watch gatherings on Nov. 9 at Thief River Falls-Best Western Motel, and Nov. 16 at Rydell National Wildlife Refuge. Fall RW Kickoff letter attached. The southern session that was scheduled at Breckenridge was cancelled due to too few schools signing up—those that did sign up are attending one of the other sessions. Up to five student leaders from each RW team will attend along with their teachers. These more regional gatherings are meant to foster more communication between RW teams

Page | 6

within their local and neighboring watersheds. Concurrent sessions to be offered include photo documentation/map making; flood forecasting/snow study; data analysis; and communication/community engagement. Resource managers are also being invited to share information on flood damage reduction efforts occurring in each of the respective regions.

OBJECTIVE 3: Integrate watershed science learning opportunities directly into school curricula—across subject areas and grade spans.

Task A: Develop applied watershed science education modules for teachers, students, and citizens in the Red River Basin.

Task B: Connect watershed science skills with academic standards across grade spans and subject areas. Primary emphasis during the initial two year project period will be on the high school level.

Task C: Develop teacher training options for watershed science education modules and related watershed science topics including one summer teacher training session.

Task D: Identify or develop training/internship options available for skills development in watershed science for pre-service teachers.

Task E: Develop a curriculum with watershed science components that provides Post Secondary Enrollment Option (PSEO)/dual credit options.

Task F: Provide ongoing opportunities for the curriculum/education work group to meet and/or gather and share information and resources to effectively advance project goals.

Measurable Outcomes:

• Applied watershed science education modules developed and made available to teachers in the RRBasin with considerations addressed for statewide applicability. Initial modules available by March 17, 2010 with additional modules developed by June 20, 2010. • Summary developed of how watershed science skills fit with new MN Academic Science Standards that go into effect in 2011. • 2010 summer workshop provided to 20 teachers to train in use of the developed applied science course. • Training/internship options for watershed science skills building identified for pre-service teachers. • Post Secondary Enrollment/dual credit option related to watershed science in place and available to all high school students in Red River Basin by August, 2010. • Eight meetings of the Curriculum Committee and between meeting communication/coordination are planned throughout the project to report results and coordinate activities. Outcomes of these meetings and attendance roster will be reported online at the IWI website http://www.internationalwaterinstitute.org/.

Objective 3 Progress: • Lesson plans were requested of all teachers who attended the 2010 RW Teacher Boot Camp. Thus far only three have been posted to the IWI website at

Page | 7

http://www.internationalwaterinstitute.org/Curriculum_LessonPlans.htm. Several additional lesson plans are currently under review before posting to the site. • Dr. Annette Drewes is working on aligning River Watch activities and lesson plans to MN Academic Standards, in particular the state science standards. • Held RW teacher input meeting at Hjemkomst Center in Moorhead on August 2011 to foster communication and learning between RW teachers. Eight RW teachers attended and shared how they operate the RW program in their schools. They also identified program strengths, threats, and areas/opportunities for improvement. Also review of plans to hold sub-basin gatherings of RW teams for training and data analysis. See attached meeting notes. • Developed draft RW planner for schools so schools have clearer idea of timing of activities and how much time to plan for and substitute teacher and other resource needs (see attached River Watch Planner). Also working on RW overview for school administrators to provide better overview of how RW helps the school and students meet academic requirements for graduation. By demonstrating how RW can benefit a school and its students, this will engender more administrative support for teacher and student involvement in RW activities. • IWI staff assisted with delivery of programs at stations at the Water Festivals in Warren and Fertile to 4th grade students from northwest Minnesota. Also assisted RiverKeepers at the Water Festival at the Hjemkomst Center. The festivals are held in September of each year and attended by nearly 2,000 4th grade students annually. River Watch teams assist with teaching the younger students. This is a partial step towards gearing water quality messages to younger grades as vision of program is to cross grade spans and subject areas.

OBJECTIVE 4: Contribute to understanding of watershed science by developing structure for effective watershed science applied research partnerships involving RW students as part of a multi-disciplinary team to address relevant local resource management issues.

Task A: Establish working relationship with resource experts and watershed scientists to provide guidance in development of research projects and review of results. Task B: Implement two comprehensive collaborative watershed research projects addressing current watershed research needs.

Task C: Develop online tools and tutorials to enable more thorough understanding and analysis of water quality and related data.

Task D: Facilitate access to current scientific literature related to watershed topics using University e-library resources prompting local research appropriate to all RW schools.

Task E: Provide ongoing opportunities for the applied research work group to meet and/or gather and share information and resources to effectively advance project goals.

Measurable Outcomes:

• Results of two comprehensive collaborative watershed research projects conducted in the Red River Basin will be presented to resource managers as contribution to advancing watershed knowledge in basin. Measures of

Page | 8

success for these research projects will be developed and post-project evaluations completed to determine the success of meeting the research project goals • Additional features and tutorials added to existing RW online website for ease of data analysis and understanding. • RW online website feature added to provide access to scientific literature to facilitate broader involvement in small scale local watershed research projects. • Eight meetings of the Research Committee and between meeting communication/coordination are planned throughout the project to report results and coordinate activities. Outcomes of these meetings and attendance roster will be reported online at the IWI website http://www.internationalwaterinstitute.org/.

Objective 4 Progress: • Developing additional web-based tools for analysis of data including box and whiskers plotting now available as part of graphing analysis and display options. Data for the current monitoring season is now also displayed as “provisional” to allow more immediate access to data by anyone interested. After submittal to MPCA EQIS system and final review the “provisional” status will be removed. • Assisted Campbell-Tintah RW team in development of a study design to monitor water quality from a tiled vs control area. Met with Bois de Sioux administrator to review proposed monitoring sites and project scope. Visited with Professor Xinhua Jia at NDSU (Agric Biosystems and Engineering Dept) to discuss this study as she has been working on tile drainage research at NDSU. Will be helping to foster more connections between students and universtiy research faculty. • A Research Team meeting was held at UofM Crookston to get updates and plan next steps on the Snow Study project and the Toxicity Tests involving analysis of stream sediment. Both projects will continue to be developed and additional schools recruited to participate. Local research projects were also discussed, e.g. tile drainage. See meeting notes as attached document, “Research Mtg Notes 081711.” • Equipment for macroinvertebrate monitoring was purchased and two kits have been assembled for working with schools in collection and identification of macroinvertebrate samples as another way to gain an understanding of watershed conditions and assess watershed health. Providing opportunities for students to do more hands-on work in their local rivers helps connect students to their watershed. • Assisted Herman RW team in doing their first macroinvertebrate sampling and identification exercise. Also worked with Wheaton RW team in a macroinvertebrate sampling of a pond on the edge of the school grounds and lab work to identify organisms found and interpret their tolerance to pollutants. Other River Watch schools that are engaged in macroinvertebrate activities include Bagley, Barnesville, Grygla, and Stephen- Argyle. Snow Study:

• Continueing to work with NDSU Range Science Professor Dr. Jack Norland in developing flood forecasting research project for River Watch schools including developing protocols (see attached Snow Study SOPs) and securing equipment to measure snow water equivalency, frost depth, and water infiltration. Also working with Mark Ewans of the National Weather Service-Grand Forks regarding measurement protocols and data entry. These data will be available to the National Weather Service to expand their coverage and enhance their ability to provide accurate flood forecasts for the Red River Basin. We are working with the national CoCoRaHS network, http://www.cocorahs.org/ (data directly shared with National Weather Service) on data management as well. KVLY TV provided rain gauges at discount for snow measurements and are interested in doing a story on the project. Equipment was installed at 18 sites with only two schools not providing any

Page | 9

readings for the 2010-11 winter season. Made snow boards that were dropped off to participating schools. School visits were made to provide training in how to take measurements for snow study and getting schools registered for online data entry at the national CoCoRaHS website. • In the first year of the study, we had early snowfall insulating the ground in portions of the basin. Considerable variation was seen in frost depths from open sites (frost down to 25-40”) versus sites with insulating snow cover (frost only down 1-3 inches). Working on developing a data entry portal on the RW website specific to snow study data which will also link to the CoCoRaHS website. Grand Forks Herald story on EGFks Public School involvement in the Snow Study project is attached. • Contacts are being made with schools regarding participation in the Red River Basin Snow Study for the winter of 2011-12. Activity is currently underway to relocate some of the frost tubes and study sites to better locations based on experience gained in the first year of the study. Additional training will be provided at the upcoming regional RW gatherings. Dr. Jack Norland continues to provide project technical assistance. National Weather Service personnel will also be consulted with to locate strategic gaps where the RW program will attempt to fill in for better coverage to enhance spring flood forecasting. Biological Assessment of Sediment Health (BASH):

• Another research project is being undertaken as a pilot project on the Sand Hill River using biological measures to assess watershed conditions. The project will investigate stream health through use of bioassays using lettuce seed, earthworms, and rotifers. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples will also be collected and analyzed. Analysis of results of these assays and macroinvertebrate collections in conjunction with companion measurements of physical and chemical properties will provide a much more comprehensive assessment of the health of a river and its contributing watershed. A primary purpose of this project is to engage high school students in research and scientific inquiry by working through a collaborative hands-on research project, introducing the students to the process involved in conducting such a project related to their local watershed. • UMC Biology Professors Dr. Brian Dingmann and Dr. Katy Smith are leading the effort in developing protocols and determining which sampling equipment will work best for watershed conditions expected in the Red River Basin (see attached BASH project summary). The pilot project was initiated following observations during an Adopt-A-River clean-up activity being conducted by the Climax RW team of an old dump site along the river that is becoming more exposed due to river erosion and questions that arose as to whether contaminants might be leaching into the river. Attempts to collect samples in the fall of 2010 were thwarted by unseasonable precipitation and resultant high water levels. Sediment samples are being collected in the fall of 2011 at eight paired sites along the length of the Sand Hill River with each set of paired sites representing an upstream and downstream comparison of different reaches of the Sand Hill River that are also in the vicinity of the RW schools that perform regular monitoring of the Sand Hill River. Artificial substrates were placed at these eight locations as well from headwaters to the mouth of the Sand Hill River to see how the macroinvertebrate composition may vary longitudinally across a watershed. If this pilot project proves successful, plans are to develop equipment kits and protocols that any River Watch school can check out to perform these screening tests in their local streams—complimenting the water quality work now being done via the regular RW program and providing a more holistic assessment of watershed health. UMC Enviornmental Science students are also assisting with the project, providing valuable support and demonstrating interest in environmental science pursuits to the RW high school students.

OBJECTIVE 5: Thorough formative (How can program be improved) and summative( should program be continued? And at what level?) evaluation of project progress and effectiveness to guide ongoing project adjustments and future watershed science programs. Page | 10

Task A: Collect baseline, interim, and final data measuring knowledge, attitude, and interest related to watershed science, current conditions, issues, and management options of project participants.

Task B: Conduct evaluation activities based on a utilization-focused evaluation approach throughout the project to identify what stakeholders want and need to determine the best course of treatment (action) for program improvement and long term sustainability.

Task C: Assess attitude and interest of all participating students to go into STEM careers.

Task D: Document teacher and student interest in dual high school/college credits, environmental and watershed science courses, participation in applied science coursework and research projects.

Measurable Outcomes: • Interim and final reports of student and citizen awareness of watershed and science knowledge and interest and attitude and interest of students in STEM careers. • Documented interest from teachers and students in dual high school/college credits and applied science coursework and research. • Final report of effectiveness of project methods and recommendations for improvements for further program expansion.

Objective 5 Progress: • The evaluation report for the first year of the RW Legislative project was submitted to the required distribution list. Overall the external project evaluator, Dr. Anita Welch, noted the project is making progress towards its goals and is making a positive impact with students and their communities. A primary area that needs further work is in aligning lesson plans and activities with State cirriculum standards. She noted that overall, the teachers are very positive about the project and its related activities, although they are greatly concerned about the scheduling of activities during summer and conflicts with other school events. Teachers were also pleased with the interaction with experts in the field and information and skills they were obtaining related to the Red River basin. Effective and timely communication was seen as a challenge. Based on observations made during the River Watch Forum, students were actively engaged in the project, but due to the lack of student/parent permissions obtained a valid statistical analysis of project impact on students could not be made for this time period. A final comment in Dr. Welch’s interim evaluation report was “The Red River Basin River Watch Program is progressing in a very positive direction. While challenges still remain, great gains have been made in all areas. Evidence is present of a desire to work with the schools and other stakeholders to expand the program and achieve its goals.” • Constant coordination occurs to keep all consent forms up to date so surveying can be done to evaluate program effectiveness. Attempts are made to keep the hasssle factor of dealing with the consent forms and taking the on-line surverys to a minimum, but it is an extra burden on already overloaded and busy teachers and students. This is part of the formal evaluation process for the RW Legislative funding. • An independent report provides some additional evaluation insights to the program. It is a paper developed by co-authors S. Andrew Sheppard and Loren Terveen called “Quality is a Verb: The operationalization of data quality in a citizen science community,” attached as “Sheppard_wikisym11.” Andrew Sheppard is the computer consultant who co-developed and maintains the RW data website and thus is very familiar with

Page | 11

quality control processes involved in the program’s data collection and management efforts. The paper is part of his current PhD studies and was presented at a wiki conference in California in October, 2011. Sheppard notes that the RW program pays special emphasis to data quality to the point that, “the measurement of quality in River Watch is inseparable from the actions used to maintain it. Quality is not a staitc attribute but a set of actions, it is not just an adejective but also a verb.” Following SOPs is central to RW data quality and interviewed teachers noted that “the rigorous process of collecting scientific data is a core part of what teachers want to teach their students.” It was “found that rigorous data quality assurance practices appear to enhance rather than hinder the educational goals of the program.” Sheppard then goes on to identify several opportunities for making data quality a more robust, interactive, educational process. He notes, “technological interventions can support the quality assurance process by leveraging the vast amount of domain knowledge and intuition already held by participants themselves. This can be achieved by explicitly supporting citizen science as a form of open collaboration.” Sheppard and River Watch collaborators are further exploring some of these ideas through social networking and crowdsourcing tools. OBJECTIVE 6: Project Management and Reporting

Task A: Track project grant-related expenditures and matching funds including rent, office supplies, telephone and other project-related costs. Compile and organize invoices and pay bills.

Task B: Track objectives and tasks to ensure outcomes are being met. Prepare and complete reports and results from the River Watch program as follows:

• 9/30/2010 Interim report to MPCA • 2/15/2011 Formal evaluation results to the: o Commissioners of Education and the Pollution Control Agency, o Legislative Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committees, and o K-12 Finance and Policy Committees • 9/30/2011 Interim report to MPCA • 6/30/2012 Final report including final evaluation results to entities identified for 2/15/2011 report above.

Measurable Outcomes: • Interim report of project status and budget to MPCA by September 30, 2010 and September 30, 2011. • Evaluation Results to Commissioners of Education, MPCA and Legislative and Education Committees by February 15, 2011. • Final report of project outcomes, budget, and final evaluation results by June 30, 2012 to all entities receiving 2/15/2011 report noted above. • Submit invoices to MPCA at least quarterly for expenses to be reimbursed.

Objective 6 Progress: • This second interim report fulfills the third reporting requirement of this objective. • Invoices have been submitted and are current through September 29, 2011. Below is a summary of the project budget through this period.

MPCA Grant Total MPCA Total % Budget Project Budget Funds Available Funds Expended Remaining Expended

Page | 12

Balance

Objective 1: Project Planning $42,636.00 $17,819.44 $7,161.56 71%

Objective 2: Youth Leadership & Community $74,206.00 $84,174.65 $20,031.35 73% Engagement

Objective 3: Curriculum Development $81,822.00 $61,676.87 $20,145.13 75%

Objective4: Applied Research $69,273.00 $35,343.53 $33,929.47 51%

Objective 5: Evaluation $28,086.00 $14,616.26 $13,469.74 52%

Objective 6: ProjectMgmnt&Reporting $49,978.00 $21,651.56 $28,386.93 43%

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $346,001.00 $214,459.27 $131,625.81 62%

St. Croix River Association – Phosphorus Reduction and Monitoring Project Summary

Background:

In 2010, the St. Croix River Association (SCRA) received a legislative appropriation of $500,000 to implement phosphorus reduction activities and comprehensive monitoring in the Lake St. Croix portion of the St. Croix River Basin (Washington County). With these funds the SCRA put out a request for proposals to solicit projects. As part of this process a review committee was formed to review the proposals and determine the best ones.

Based on this groups decision 4 projects were funded, and signed into a contract with SCRA by November of 2010. Two of the projects were for monitoring in the St. Croix, and the other two were for implementation of Best Management Practices.

Why this work is important:

In 2008, Lake St. Croix was placed on the impaired waters list for excess nutrients in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. With its listing in 2008 the St. Croix Basin Interagency Team, consisting of federal, state, and local agencies; took on the task of developing the necessary Total Maximum Daily Load report for Lake St. Croix. So, in 2009 the MPCA, Wisconsin DNR (WI DNR), and St. Croix Basin team started developing the TMDL report. In 2011, the MPCA and WI DNR submitted the TMDL report to EPA for preliminary review, and then out for public comments in the winter of 2011.

As of right now the both agencies are finishing their response to public comments, revising the TMDL report based on those comments, and preparing it for final approval by the EPA. The timeline as of now is to submit the report to EPA in May, with a final approval in June or July of 2012 depending on any final comments. While all of this is going on the same group is working on developing an implementation plan that will layout the

Page | 13

necessary steps to meet the 100 metric ton reduction of phosphorus required by the TMDL. The goal is to have the implementation plan approved by the fall of 2012.

Project Summaries:

1. Fixing the Top 50 Rural Nonpoint Phosphorus Sources (Top 50 P) project: This project is a focused effort to identify, implement, and assess prioritized phosphorus reduction practices in rural areas directly tributary to Lake St. Croix. Priority areas include rural portions of Baytown Township, West Lakeland Township, Lakeland, Lake St. Croix Beach, Afton, and Denmark Township. Water resources in the project area include Kelle’s Coulee, Trout Brook, and intermitted drainage ways that discharge directly to the river. The program will work toward achieve 50-100 pounds of phosphorus reduction through the following efforts: • Top 50 Sources Identification • Prioritization and Cost-Benefit Analysis • Landowner Outreach • Design and Implementation of Top 5 Projects • Load Reduction Assessment

Progress from FY10 – FY11: Since the project was signed into contract in 2010, the Washington Conservation District (WCD) has completed a review of existing plans and inventories done in the study area, determined the appropriate modeling approach with input from local modeling experts, delineated the direct drainage areas, conducted a desktop assessment of all significant nutrient sources, all of which were the first step in finding the Top 50 sources. With this information the WCD then conducted outreach with local landowners in the fall of 2011; but this will continue in 2012.

During the outreach campaign one project that was identified was under design, with installation likely happening in the spring of 2012. While outreach will continue into 2012, the goal is to implement the Top 5 projects that were identified by the project modeling. Work for this project also included monitoring in 2011 of the Trout Brook tributary. This monitoring has been completed and analysis was underway.

2. St. Croix Green Streets Initiative – Stillwater and Bayport: The Purpose of the project is to incorporate portions of two communities directly adjacent to Lake St. Croix, Stillwater and Bayport. Because both cities are completely developed in the areas directly adjacent to Lake St. Croix, storm water treatment facilities must be carefully retrofit into small space in order to provide necessary treatment to runoff prior to its discharge to Lake St. Croix.

Progress from FY10 – FY11: Since the St. Croix Green Streets Initiative was selected in 2010, the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization (MSCWMO) has been working with the City of Bayport and the City of Stillwater to target storm water treatment on areas where street reconstruction is taking place. In doing so, the three parties identified areas the following areas to target and implement priority storm water treatment.

• City of Bayport: The city made the decision to reconstruct 2nd Avenue and 1st Avenue, two east/west city streets that intersect Highway 95 and drain to Perro Creek. Through the prioritization process, the project team selected priority raingarden locations along city streets. A partnership between the city of Page | 14

Stillwater Engineering Department, the MSCWMO, and city of Bayport resulted in four large raingardens being installed in 2011. The overall reduction of these four raingardens is: o Phosphorus: 2.90 lbs/yr o Nitrogen: 9.66 lbs/yr o Total Suspended Solids: 316.8 lbs/yr

• City of Stillwater: In 2011, the city of Stillwater completed reconstruction work on five streets that drain to the St. Croix River, which previously had minimal to no storm water treatment in place. The City’s engineering department completed the design for the drainage patterns, stormsewer and curb cuts for each street in the project. The MSCWMO completed the final design and planting plans for all of the projects.

A total of six raingardens and 8 bump outs were installed, resulting in the following project reductions: o Phosphorus: 14.36 lbs/yr o Nitrogen: 34.66 lbs/yr o Total Suspended Solids: 1,410.96 lbs/yr In addition to adding these raingardens and BMPs, the city of Stillwater also completed modifications to two existing storm water ponds in the area. The modification to the ponds included adding infiltration areas above the ponds normal water level. The idea for this is to infiltrate a percentage of the water in the pond before it exits the pond should it rise to the high water outlet. While these are now in place, no load reduction numbers have been calculated yet.

3. Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) Outlet Monitoring Program: The VBWD monitoring project provides funding to the district for collection of flow and analytical data to calculate loadings from two unmonitored discharge points (Kelles Coulee and Rest Area Pond) to Lake St. Croix. This information will then be used to calculate current conditions to the loadings calculated in the Lake St. Croix TMDL. This data, along with future data, will be also be used to provide proof of whether management practices are reducing phosphorus levels. Progress from FY10 – FY11: Since the project started in the spring of 2011, the project has collected eight water samples, basic water chemistry, and continuous 15 minute flow data on Kelles Coulee and at the Interstate 94 rest area pond. Samples that are collected are being sent to Met Council for analysis. Once the lab results are available a 2011 annual monitoring report will be submitted to the St. Croix River Association.

4. Lake St. Croix Nutrient Loading and Ecological Health Assessment – USGS, Met Council, and St. Croix Research Station: This monitoring project has two goals. o The first goal is to improve the existing phosphorus mass balance estimates for Lake St. Croix by providing funding to assist with the installation of a stream gage on the St. Croix River in Stillwater. This will allow for a direct measurement of the goal of a 20% reduction in phosphorus loading to Lake St. Croix. o The second goal of this project is to monitor the ecological health of Lake St. Croix by monitoring the phytoplankton nutrient-dependent growth rate, assessing the seasonal intensity of the zooplankton grazing mortality, assess the use of particulate nutrient ratios, estimate algal biomass loss, and estimate the potential for nutrient loading using short-term sediment core incubation.

Page | 15

Progress from FY10 – FY11: This project involved the installation of a flow gage in Stillwater, MN to measure the stream flows before the river meets Lake St. Croix. This flow data will be used to get a better understanding as to what the current nutrient loads are coming into Lake St. Croix from the entire St. Croix basin. While this work is important, other monitoring was also included to identify the ecological health of Lake St. Croix as well.

The monitoring for the ecological health included monitoring for phytoplankton and zooplankton. This data was collected by the MCES Lake St. Croix Monitoring volunteers. These samples were then analyzed with the data being submitted to the USGS who are developing a new lake model for Lake St. Croix. Once all of the data was collected by the end of FY11, the data will be then put into a report which will be made available to all of those interested. The stream flow gage can be found on the USGS website at: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=05341550

Page | 16

Page | 17

Approved TMDLs FY10-11 and FY12-13

FY10-11 total approvals 31 projects, 62 listings

FY10-11 Approvals: Conventional TMDL Projects EPA approval Listings Pollutant Basin

Lower Wild Rice R. - Turbidity July-09 1 Turbidity Red

Golden Lake - Nutrients September-09 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Lower Vermilion R. - turbidity September-09 1 Turbidity Lower Mississippi

Bass, Pomerleau, Schmitt Lakes - nutrients September-09 3 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Clearwater R. bacteria and 6 lakes - nutrients January-10 7 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Meadow Lake - nutrients March-10 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Kohlman Lake - nutrients March-10 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Cedar Island L., Pike L., and Eagle L. - nutrients April-10 3 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Comfort, Little Comfort, Bone, Shields, School, and Moody Lks. - nutrients June-10 6 Turbidity St. Croix

Mustinka River - turbidity June-10 2 Turbidity Red

Knife R. - turbidity July-10 1 Nutrients Lower Mississippi

Silver Lake - nutrients July-10 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Fish Lake - nutrients September-10 1 Nutrients Minnesota

Clearwater River - Five Lakes nutrients September-10 5 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Magda Lake - nutrients September-10 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Reitz Lake - nutrients September-10 1 Nutrients Minnesota

Carver Creek Lakes - nutrients September-10 4 Nutrients Minnesota

S.Fk. Crow River Lakes - nutrients September-10 3 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Lake Margaret - nutrients October-10 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Wirth Lake - nutrients October-10 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Nine Mile Creek - chloride November-10 1 Chloride Minnesota

Page | 18

Low Dissolved Clearwater R. low - dissolved oxygen November-10 1 Oxygen Upper Mississippi

Brown's Creek - lack of coldwater assemblage and impaired biota December-10 2 Turbidity St. Croix

Lake Como - nutrients December-10 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Medicine Lake - nutrients February-11 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Getchel Creek, Unnamed Creek, and Stoney Creek - turbidity February-11 1 Turbidity Upper Mississippi

Minnehaha Creek Watershed Lakes - nutrients April-11 4 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Lake Sarah - nutrients April-11 2 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Jesse Lake - nutrients May-11 1 Nutrients Rainy

Rabbit River - turbidity June-11 1 Turbidity Red

Big Sandy Area Lakes- nutrients June-11 2 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Totals 31 62

FY12-13 anticipated approvals 36 projects, 196 listings

FY12-13 Expected Approvals: Conventional TMDL Projects Listings Pollutant Basin

Anne and Emma Lakes - nutrients 2 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Bald Eagle Lake - nutrients 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Blue Earth River - turbidity 32 Turbidity Minnesota

Bluff Creek - Fish IBI 2 Fish IBI Minnesota

Buffalo Creek Watershed - bacteria 2 Bacteria Upper Mississippi

Carnelian-Marine St. Croix Watershed District 10 lakes - nutrients 10 Nutrients St. Croix

Carver County Watershed - turbidity 4 Turbidity Minnesota

Cedar-McMahon Lakes - nutrients 2 Nutrients Minnesota

Chippewa River - turbidity 9 Turbidity Minnesota

Cottonwood River Watershed - bacteria 8 Bacteria Minnesota

Crow River Watershed - multiple pollutants 8 Multiple Upper Mississippi

Page | 19

Elk River Watershed - multiple pollutants 4 Multiple Upper Mississippi

Lac Qui Parle River - multiple pollutants 19 Multiple Minnesota

Lake Crystal - nutrients 1 Nutrients Minnesota

Lake Osakis Watershed Lakes - nutrients 3 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Lake Shaokatan - nutrients 1 Nutrients Minnesota

Lake St. Croix - nutrients 1 Nutrients St. Croix

Lino Lakes Chain - nutrients 5 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Little Rock Lake - nutrients 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Lura Lake - nutrients 1 Nutrients Minnesota

Temperature, lack of coldwater Miller Creek - temperature, lack of coldwater assemblage 2 assemblage Lake Superior

Minnesota River - turbidity 18 Turbidity Minnesota

Mississippi River (South Metro Miss River) - turbidity 6 Turbidity Lower Mississippi

Peltier, Centerville Lakes - nutrients 2 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Pope County Eight Lakes - nutrients 8 Nutrients Minnesota

Poplar River (North Shore Streams Group) - turbidity 1 Turbidity Lake Superior

Redwood River Watershed - bacteria 9 Bacteria Minnesota

Redwood River Watershed - turbidity 4 Turbidity Minnesota

Rice Lake - nutrients 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Sauk Lake (North Basin TMDL) - nutrients 1 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Sauk River Chain of Lakes - nutrients 2 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Sauk River - multiple pollutants 4 Multiple Upper Mississippi

Shingle and Bass Creeks - nutrients 2 Nutrients Upper Mississippi

Typo and Martin Lakes - nutrients 3 Nutrients St. Croix

Zumbro River Watershed - turbidity 17 Turbidity Lower Mississippi

Totals 196

Page | 20

Buffalo River Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan Pilot Project Update

Executive Summary

The Buffalo River Watershed Restoration and Protection Project (WRAP) is a multi-faceted project intended to provide a comprehensive approach for the restoration and protection of surface waters within a major watershed. The project is based on extensive WQ monitoring, modeling, and citizen involvement and, once complete, will demonstrate the efficiency of addressing protection and restoration issues simultaneously, as part of a watershed-wide effort. Surface waters (lakes and streams) have been assessed to determine whether state WQ standards are being met. Modeling and field reconnaissance, in progress, will ascertain sources of impairments, and strategies are being developed to specifically address how impaired waters can be restored and how waters that currently meet standards can be protected. The plan is being structured to enable local units of government to implement those restoration and protection activities. The project is scheduled to be completed in 2013. In addition to the completion of the WRAP, a watershed wide TMDL report for all impaired waters will be submitted to the EPA as required by the federal Clean Water Act.

Introduction

The Buffalo River WRAP is a pilot project organized through a joint powers agreement between the Buffalo Red River Watershed District (BRRWD) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in late 2008. The over-all

Page | 21

purpose is to establish a watershed based framework that allows for efficient assessment, project development and implementation across all surface waters within the watershed. Phase 1 of the project assessed all surface waters within the watershed and investigated pollution sources and pathways. In the remaining project phase, targets will be established for reducing pollution for waters that do not meet state water quality standards as well as for protection of waters that do meet state standards. Strategies will be identified to achieve those protection and restoration goals. This project piloted a new approach to planning, by incorporating the watershed work into the District’s overall plan. It also will produce a number of technical products that the district is applying to address water quality issues. It is anticipated that the WRAP will be completed in the spring of 2014 with the associated TMDLs submitted to EPA shortly thereafter.

Watershed Background

The Buffalo River Watershed comprises about 1,100 square miles in Northwestern Minnesota, including parts of Clay, Becker, Otter Tail, and Wilkin Counties. The current land use is 77% cropland, 4% prairie/grassland, 7% wetlands, and 6% forest. The watershed has been altered hydrologically by channelization, ditching and tiling for agricultural purposes.

The major accomplishments of the Buffalo River Watershed Restoration and Protection Project, and the value of those accomplishments to watershed planning in Northwestern Minnesota, are as follows:

Report of Existing Conditions

• Accomplishment: A literature review was conducted and existing data sources identified to document conditions such as soils, slope, land use, demographic and, point and nonpoint sources. Most data was reported by minor subwatershed. This task included an in-depth gap analysis which examined all past data from WQ and biological sampling points in the watershed and the determination of the adequacy of that data.

• Value: The Buffalo Watershed now has a comprehensive baseline for water quality, including condition of streams compared to draft nutrient criteria. This enhances the district’s capacity to plan for future activities.

Watershed Monitoring

• Accomplishment: The MPCA and partners (BRRWD, DNR, River Watch) conducted physical, biological and chemical monitoring of 33 Regional Assessment Locations (RALs). The results were assessed using a variety of methods, including MPCA’s assessment process, as well as draft nutrient criteria.

• Value: The BRRWD has long-term monitoring sites that can be used to evaluate performance toward reaching water quality goals outside the state’s intensive watershed monitoring framework. There is now a baseline of information associated with each site.

Methodology to Identify Sources of Water Quality Pollution and Stressors

Page | 22

• Accomplishment: A GIS- based desktop stressor ID analysis was developed and conducted, based on the Regional Assessment Locations. The GIS layers identified were based on water quality and biological data, drainage density, point and nonpoint sources, soils, vegetation, land use, hydrology, and other geomorphic factors. LIDAR, a remote sensing technology, was added to calculate Stream Power Indices (SPI), primary based on slope and flow data that can be field verified by staff to ascertain any issues relating to stream geomorphology and causes of erosion, sedimentation and point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Field investigations in select RALs are still ongoing with a summary report to be included in the final WRAP document.

• Accomplishment: Biological and geomorphic assessments were conducted to identify sources of sedimentation and the stressors that amplify the condition. Channelization and hydrologic modification are primary biological stressors in the Buffalo River Watershed. Reconnaissance surveys have determined that when sufficient vegetation is in place in the form of grassed waterways or buffers the erosion is typically minimal. In contrast where the vegetative buffers are poor or not present, we have found significant erosion sources in the form of blowouts, gullies and head cuts. Empirical bank erosion prediction and validation sites have been set up throughout the watershed. This work is in collaboration of DNR work with the U of M under a Department of Agriculture grant. Erosion rates are being predicted and determined. Sediment loading from channel sources is being determined for representative areas throughout the watershed and can be used for TMDL non-point load allocation for stream channel component.

• Value: Reconnaissance surveys to date have verified that hydrologic modification is indeed one of the primary stressors in the watershed and, where buffers are insufficient or not present, erosion and sedimentation can be significant. One of the other issues of primary concern that has been identified is the prevalence of farming through 1st order streams. Long-term monitoring tools are in place to measure progress in achieving targets over time.

Civic Engagement

• Accomplishment: The involvement of citizens early and often in the study process has been a priority. The district conducted a mail survey to residents to determine knowledge, attitudes and behaviors towards water quality and best management practices to protect water quality.

• Value: The watershed district identified watershed residents’ attitudes about water quality, knowledge of best management practices, and how people prefer to get information about these issues. This will allow stakeholders to have meaningful input into the process and will help watershed manager’s direct information about the study recommendations to the appropriate audiences.

Water Quality Condition Reports for Lakes, Rivers, and Streams

• Accomplishment: The number of impaired waters was 11 stream reaches and four lakes at the start of the study process; additional monitoring identified an additional 29 impairments on 19 stream reaches. Impairments for turbidity and E. coli are more extensive than previously thought. The 2011 water quality assessment identified 12 more lakes impaired for excessive nutrients.

Page | 23

• Value: A more accurate and complete identification and evaluation of all surface waters will allow for the development of more comprehensive strategies for restoration and protection efforts by local jurisdictions.

Classify/Prioritize Watershed Lakes

• Accomplishment: A modeling approach was developed to classify and prioritize the lakes in the watershed based on their expected response to nutrient loading and various influences on the response, including morphometry and the characteristics the lakeshed. The analysis included a summary of stressor-response relationships seen in these lakes and the lake characteristics that may impact their response (hydraulic residence time, mixing depths, “shallow” vs. “deep”, etc.) based on the analysis of available data modeling. The analysis also considered the level of development and nature of land management around the lakes.

• Value: The results provide management data (available for all 300 lakes) and will be useful for the development of future management strategies.

Water Body Modeling/Load Allocations/Strategy Development

• Accomplishment: An existing model (Soil and Water Assessment Tool-SWAT) was updated and the HSPF Model (Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran) is being run to set load/waste load allocations for impaired reaches.

• Value: This information will be utilized to prepare a TMDL analyses that will be submitted to EPA. Margins of safety will be included as required by the general TMDL equation (TMDL = WLA+LA+MOS). Restoration and Protections strategies will also be developed for Priority Management Zones (PMZ’s) identified in this document and future implementation plans.

Final Document Preparation

After approval by the project’s technical advisory committee, the restoration and protection plan and associated TMDL reports will be reviewed by stakeholders and submitted to the Watershed District Board of Managers for review and approval. The TMDL document for all impaired surface waters will be submitted to the MPCA for review and will be public noticed in the State Register for further review and comments. Based on comments received during the public notice period, additional changes will be made, if warranted, and the TMDL document will be submitted to EPA for review and approval.

Page | 24

Clean Water Fund Projects: 2010 – 2013 Underway: 2010-2011

Project Local Sponsor or Total Project Project Title Type Major Watershed(s) Contractor* Year Award Ann River Watershed TMDL TMDL Study Project Snake River - St. Croix Basin Kanabec SWCD 2011 $ 112,265.00

TMDL Mississippi River - Grand Big Sandy TMDL Project Project Rapids Barr Engineering Co* 2011 $ 2,996.00

Bluff Creek Watershed TMDL TMDL Project Project Lower Minnesota River Barr Engineering Co* 2011 $ 34,339.00 Bluff Creek Watershed TMDL TMDL Project Project Lower Minnesota River Barr Engineering Co* 2011 $ 18,020.39 Total $ 52,359.39

Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed - Excess TMDL Washington Conservation Nutrients Project Lower St. Croix River District 2011 $ 103,598.00

Cedar-McMahon Lakes TMDL TMDL Project Lower Minnesota River Barr Engineering Co* 2011 $ 2,993.00

Chisago Lakes - 5 Lakes TMDL and 1 Stream - Turbidity Project Lower St. Croix River Chisago County 2010 $ 196,600.00

Clearwater River (Upper TMDL Clearwater River Watershed Miss) 5 Lks Nutrient TMDL Project Mississippi River - St. Cloud District 2011 $ 1,548.00

Deer Creek Turbidity TMDL TMDL Project Nemadji River Barr Engineering Co* 2011 $ 26,413.00 Deer Creek Turbidity TMDL TMDL Project Nemadji River Barr Engineering Co* 2011 $ 59,607.00 Total $ 86,020.00

TMDL Randy Ferrin, Independent Lake St. Croix TMDL Project Lower St. Croix River Consultant* 2011 $ 4,997.00 TMDL Lake St. Croix TMDL Project Lower St. Croix River University of Minnesota 2011 $ 500.00 TMDL Lake St. Croix TMDL Project Lower St. Croix River Limno Tech, Inc.* 2011 $ 49,980.00 Total $ 55,477.00

Lake Winona TMDL TMDL Project Project Long Prairie River AECOM, Inc.* 2010 $ 35,000.00 Lake Winona TMDL TMDL Project Project Long Prairie River AECOM, Inc.* 2010 $ 20,000.00 Total $ 55,000.00

Little Rock Creek TMDL Biological Impairment Project Mississippi River - Sartell Benton SWCD 2011 $ 75,000.00 Page | 25

TMDL

Pope County Eight Lakes TMDL Emmons and Olivier TMDL Project Chippewa River Resources, Inc.* 2011 $ 9,557.00 Pope County Eight Lakes TMDL Emmons and Olivier TMDL Project Chippewa River Resources, Inc.* 2011 $ 25,443.00 Total $ 35,000.00

Shingle & Bass Creeks - Impaired Biota & TMDL Mississippi River - Twin Dissolved Oxygen Project Cities Wenck Associates Inc.* 2011 $ 5,000.00

3 watersheds, Including South Metro Mississippi TMDL Mississippi River - Twin TSS Project Cities Dakota County SWCD 2011 $ 22,000.00 3 watersheds, Including South Metro Mississippi TMDL Mississippi River - Twin TSS Project Cities Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance 2011 38,650.00 $ 60,650.00

TCMA Chloride TMDL 8 watersheds, Including Management Plan Project South Fork Crow River Freshwater Society 2011 $ 500.00 TCMA Chloride TMDL 8 watersheds, Including Management Plan Project South Fork Crow River Limno Tech* 2011 $ 20,007.00 TCMA Chloride TMDL 8 watersheds, Including Management Plan Project South Fork Crow River Limno Tech* 2011 $ 46,430.00 TCMA Chloride TMDL 8 watersheds, Including Management Plan Project South Fork Crow River Fortin Consulting* 2011 $ 63,946.62 Total $ 130,883.62

Typo and Martin Lakes - TMDL Emmons & Olivier Resources Excess Nutrients Project Lower St. Croix River Inc.* 2011 $ 6,911.00 Typo and Martin Lakes - TMDL Emmons & Olivier Resources Excess Nutrients Project Lower St. Croix River Inc.* 2011 $ 1,085.00 Typo and Martin Lakes - TMDL Emmons & Olivier Resources Excess Nutrients Project Lower St. Croix River Inc.* 2011 $ 1,261.00 Total $ 9,257.00

Upper Minnehaha Creek TMDL Mississippi River - Twin Minnehaha Creek Watershed TMDL Project Cities Watershed District 2011 $ 15,000.00 Upper Minnehaha Creek TMDL Mississippi River - Twin Watershed TMDL Project Cities Wenck Associates Inc.* 2011 $ 146,988.00 Total $ 161,988.00

Upper Mississippi River TMDL 15 watersheds, Including Emmons and Olivier Bacteria TMDL Project South Fork Crow River Resources, Inc.* 2011 $ 52,841.50 Upper Mississippi River TMDL 15 watersheds, Including Emmons and Olivier Bacteria TMDL Project South Fork Crow River Resources, Inc.* 2011 $ 95,999.74 Total $ 148,841.24

Page | 26

Buffalo River Major WRAP Buffalo-Red River Watershed Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Buffalo River District 2011 $ 249,968.00 Buffalo River Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Buffalo River Houston Engineering Inc.* 2011 $ 34,614.00 Total $ 284,582.00

Cannon River Major WRAP Cannon River Watershed Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Cannon River Partnership 2011 $ 19,960.46

Cedar River Major WRAP Watershed (Headwaters) Strategy Cedar River Mower County 2011 $ 182,205.17

Chippewa River Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Chippewa River Tetra Tech, Inc.* 2011 $ 58,604.00 Chippewa River Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Chippewa River Chippewa County 2011 $ 286,112.29 $ 344,716.29

Crow Wing River Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Crow Wing River Wadena SWCD 2011 $ 30,000.00

Elm Creek Watershed Mgmt Commission WRAP WRAP Mississippi River - Twin Elm Creek Watershed Strategy Strategy Cities Management Commission 2011 $ 100,000.00

Goose Creek WRAP WRAP Strategy Strategy Lower St. Croix River Chisago County SWCD 2011 $ 7,500.00

Lake of the Woods Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Lake of the Woods US Geological Survey 2011 $ 796,400.00 University of Minnesota - Lake of the Woods Major WRAP National Resources Research Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Lake of the Woods Institute 2011 $ 72,461.00 Lake of the Woods Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Lake of the Woods US Geological Survey 2011 $ 9,420.00 Lake of the Woods Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Lake of the Woods Lake of the Woods SWCD 2011 $ 31,714.00 Total $ 909,995.00

Le Sueur River Major WRAP Minnesota Department of Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Le Sueur River Agriculture 2010 $ 63,360.00 Le Sueur River Major WRAP Greater Blue Earth River Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Le Sueur River Basin Alliance 2011 $ 105,196.80 Le Sueur River Major WRAP Minnesota State University - Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Le Sueur River Mankato 2011 $ 13,787.27 $ 182,344.07

Mississippi River-Saint WRAP Cloud Watershed Project Strategy Mississippi River - St. Cloud Sherburne SWCD 2011 $ 225,000.00

Page | 27

Mustinka River Major WRAP Bois de Sioux Watershed Watershed Strategy Mustinka River District 2011 $ 150,000.00

Nemadji River Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Nemadji River Carlton Co SWCD 2010 $ 234,435.00

North Fork Crow River Major Watershed WRAP WRAP Crow River Organization Of Strategy Strategy North Fork Crow River Water 2010 $ 300,000.00

Pomme de Terre River Major Watershed WRAP WRAP Strategy Strategy Pomme de Terre River Stevens SWCD 2011 $ 132,120.00

Rainy River-Headwaters WRAP WRAP Strategy Strategy Rainy River - Headwaters Lake County SWCD 2011 $ 225,000.00

Ramsey-Washington Metro WS District WRAP WRAP Mississippi River - Twin Ramsey-Washington Metro Strategy Strategy Cities Watershed District 2011 $ 120,662.00

Red River North - Sandhill WRAP Red River of the North - Sand Hill River Watershed River Major Watershed Strategy Sandhill River District 2011 $ 178,139.30

Root River Major WRAP Watershed Strategy Root River Fillmore County 2011 $ 73,563.00 Root River Major WRAP Watershed Strategy Root River Fillmore SWCD 2011 $ 319,700.00 Total $ 393,263.00

Shell Rock River Major WRAP Shell Rock River Watershed Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Shell Rock River District 2011 $ 38,598.00

Snake River Watershed WRAP Snake River Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Snake River - St. Croix Basin Management Board 2010 $ 171,766.00

Sunrise River WRAP WRAP Strategy Strategy Lower St. Croix River Chisago County SWCD 2011 $ 199,755.00

Thief River Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Thief River Red Lake WD 2011 $ 185,000.00

Vadnais Lake Area WMO TMDL and Protection WRAP Mississippi River - Twin Vadnais Lake Area Water Strategy Strategy Cities Management Organization 2011 $ 56,770.00

Zumbro River Major WRAP Zumbro Watershed Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Zumbro River Partnership Inc. 2011 $ 58,218.00

Special Minnesota Department of Arrowhead Region LiDAR Project Lake Superior - North Natural Reasources 2011 $ 140,000.00

Page | 28

Development of Initial Modeling Guidance for Special MPCA Project Statewide Aqua Terra Consultants* 2011 $ 49,992.00

Duck Lake Vegetative Special Minnesota State University- Survey Project Minnesota River - Mankato Mankato 2011 $ 17,949.60

HSPF Framework Development of Existing Special RESPEC Consulting and Models Project Statewide Services* 2011 $ 214,963.00

HSPF Model Framework Devlp. for Sauk R, Crow Special 3 watersheds, Including RESPEC Consulting and River Project South Fork Crow River Services* 2011 $ 96,618.00 HSPF Model Framework Devlp. for Sauk R, Crow Special 3 watersheds, Including RESPEC Consulting and River Project South Fork Crow River Services* 2011 $ 80,570.00 HSPF Model Framework Devlp. for Sauk R, Crow Special 3 watersheds, Including RESPEC Consulting and River Project South Fork Crow River Services* 2011 $ 149,677.00 Total $ 326,865.00

HSPF Model Framework Devp Mustinka & Bois de Special Emmons and Olivier Sioux Project Bois de Sioux River Resources, Inc.* 2011 $ 134,997.00

HSPF Model Framework Devp. Big Fork & Little Special 2 watersheds, Including RESPEC Consulting and Phases 1-3 Project Little Fork River Services* 2011 $ 174,579.00

HSPF Model Framework for Crow Wing, Redeye, Special 3 watersheds, Including Long P Project Redeye River Aqua Terra Consultants* 2011 $ 98,795.00

Lake St Croix WQ Special Monitoring & P Reduction Project Lower St. Croix River St. Croix River Association 2010 $ 200,000.00 Lake St Croix WQ Special Monitoring & P Reduction Project Lower St. Croix River St. Croix River Association 2011 $ 300,000.00 Total $ 500,000.00

Le Sueur River Watershed- Special Maple River Monitoring Project Le Sueur River Blue Earth County SWCD 2011 $ 6,000.00 Le Sueur River Watershed- Special Maple River Monitoring Project Le Sueur River Blue Earth County SWCD 2011 $ 23,325.00 Total $ 29,325.00

Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts Minnesota Association of (MASWCD) Conservation Special Soil and Water Conservation Award Project Statewide Districts (MASWCD) 2010 $ 1,500.00 MASWCD Conservation Special Award Project Statewide MASWCD 2011 $ 1,500.00 Page | 29

Total $ 3,000.00

Mississippi River - Lake Mississippi River - Lake Special Pepin and multiple Pepin Project watersheds Goodhue Co SWCD 2011 $ 13,045.00

Missouri River Basin Data Special 4 watersheds, Including Collection and Outreach Project Upper Big Sioux River Nobles County SWCD 2011 $ 188,673.60

Nitrate Data Tabulation Special 12 watersheds, Including and Lit Review Project Zumbro River University of Minnesota 2010 $ 33,414.00

Ramsey-Washington Pilot Special Ramsey-Washington Metro WS-based SW Approach Project Statewide Watershed District 2011 $ 86,500.00

Sediment Transport at Special Selected MN Stream Sites Project Statewide US Geological Survey 2011 $ 76,000.00 Sediment Transport at Special Selected MN Stream Sites Project Statewide US Geological Survey 2011 $ 74,000.00 Total $ 150,000.00

Sediment Work for LMB Special 8 watersheds, Including TMDL Support Project Zumbro River Winona State University 2011 $ 12,000.00

Seven Mile Creek Special Brown Nicollet Cottonwood Condition Monitoring Project Minnesota River - Mankato Counties 2011 $ 34,345.84

Stream Gaging for TMDL & Special Minnesota Department of CWP Projects Project Statewide Natural Resources 2011 $ 75,000.00

Surficial Geologic Mapping Special & Associated Databases Project Statewide University of Minnesota 2011 $ 44,994.16

2 watersheds, Including Special Upper Red River of the USGS Real Time Stations Project North US Geological Survey 2010 $ 10,170.00 2 watersheds, Including Special Upper Red River of the USGS Real Time Stations Project North US Geological Survey 2011 $ 10,480.00 Total $ 20,650.00

Watershed Management Plan Review for TMDL Special Criteria Project Statewide LimoTech, Inc.* 2011 $ 4,944.00

Total of all 2010-2011 *Private consulting firms Projects Underway $ 8,379,537.59

Page | 30

Underway: 2012

Local Sponsor or Project Title Project Type Watershed(s) Contractor* Year Total Project Award TMDL Mississippi River - Twin Bald Eagle Lake (Metro) Project Cities Wenck Associates Inc* 2012 $ 4,811.00

Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District - 10 Lakes TMDL Washington Conservation Excess Nutrients Project Lower St. Croix River District 2012 $ 14,340.00

Osakis/Faille/Clifford/Smith TMDL Lake Nutrient TMDL Project Sauk River Wenck Associates Inc.* 2012 $ 29,872.00

Buffalo River Major Watershed WRAP WRAP Strategy/HSPF Strategy Buffalo River Houston Engineering Inc.* 2012 $ 36,979.00

Crow Wing River Major WRAP Emmons and Olivier Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Crow Wing River Resources, Inc.* 2012 $ 15,041.00 Crow Wing River Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Crow Wing River Hubbard County SWCD 2012 $ 69,990.00 $ 85,031.00

Hawk Creek Major Watershed WRAP Minnesota River - Yellow Renville Co/Hawk Creek WRAP Strategy Strategy Medicine River Watershed 2012 $ 149,860.00

Lake of the Woods Major WRAP 9 watersheds, including Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Vermilion River Lake of the Woods SWCD 2012 $ 237,180.00 Lake of the Woods Major WRAP 9 watersheds, including Lake of the Woods Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Vermilion River Sustainability 2012 $ 500.00 Lake of the Woods Major WRAP 9 watersheds, including Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Vermilion River Science Museum of MN 2012 $ 149,996.00 Total $ 387,676.00

Leech Lake River Major WRAP Cass Co Environmental Watershed Civic Engagement Strategy Leech Lake River Services 2012 $ 30,000.00

Long Prairie River Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Long Prairie River Wenck Associates Inc.* 2012 $ 78,450.00

Lower Mississippi Basin Civic WRAP Mississippi River and 6 Southeast MN Water Engagement Strategy other watersheds Resources Bd 2012 $ 80,737.00

Mississippi River - Winona Civic Engagement and WRAP WRAP Whitewater Watershed Joint Development Strategy Mississippi River - Winona Powers Board 2012 $ 158,328.00

Red Lake River Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Red Lake River Red Lake Watershed District 2012 $ 150,000.00

Page | 31

Redeye River Major WRAP Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Redeye River Wadena SWCD 2012 $ 76,290.00

Snake River Watershed WRAP WRAP Strategy Strategy Snake River - St. Croix Basin Wenck Associates Inc.* 2012 $ 133,904.00

South Fork Crow River Major WRAP Crow River Organization of Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy South Fork Crow River Water 2012 $ 80,640.00

Thief River Major Watershed WRAP WRAP Strategy Strategy Thief River Houston Engineering, Inc.* 2012 $ 67,996.00

Upper Red River WRAP WRAP Upper Red River of the Buffalo-Red River Watershed Strategy Strategy North District 2012 $ 50,013.00

Vermillion River Major WRAP Vermillion River Watershed Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Vermillion River Joint Powers Board 2012 $ 49,720.00 Vermillion River (Civic WRAP Vermillion River Watershed Engagement and Stressor ID) Strategy Vermillion River Joint Powers Board 2012 $ 189,170.00 Total $ 238,890.00

Yellow Medicine River Major WRAP Minnesota River - Yellow Yellow Medicine River Watershed WRAP Strategy Strategy Medicine River Watershed District 2012 $ 105,121.00

HSPF Watershed Monitoring Special Red Lake River and RESPEC Consulting and for Red Lake/Clearwater Project Clearwater River Services* 2012 $ 67,972.00

HSPF Model Framework for Crow Wing, Redeye, Long Special 3 watersheds, including Prairie Project Redeye River Aqua Terra Consultants* 2012 $ 120,328.00

Special Statewide Sediment Study Project Statewide US Geological Survey 2012 $ 81,250.00

Total of all 2012 Projects *Private consulting firms Underway $ 2,228,488.00

Proposed: 2012-2013

In Process ESTIMATED* Project/Contract Cost Project/Contract Cost Watershed(s) Proposed Projects/ Contracts $$ (Encumber in FY12) $$ (Encumber in FY13)

Proposed

Vermillion River Watershed Restoration Miss River/Red Wing Vermillion and Protection Project $140,280.00 $190,000.00

Page | 32

Miss River/(Red Wing)Wells/Hay Wells/Hay Creek WRAP Strategy Creeks Development $100,000.00 Cedar River WRAP strategy development Cedar River Watershed and civic engagement $100,000.00 Shell Rock WRAP strategy development Shell Rock Watershed and civic engagement $75,000.00 Whitewater/Garvin Brook Watersheds Whitewater/Garvin Brook WRAP modeling $75,000.00 Cannon River Watershed Cannon River WRAP modeling $135,000.00 Zumbro River Watershed Zumbro River Civic Engagement $85,000.00 Zumbro Zumbro River HSPF modeling $100,000.00 S. St. Louis SWCD Civic Engagement and St. Louis River, Lake Superior South, Stressor ID / Geo-Morphology Support and Nemadji Watersheds (WRAP) $308,000.00 N. St. Louis SWCD Civic Engagement & St. Louis River Project Support (WRAP) $46,000.00 Toxics TMDL Technical Review & Support St. Louis River (WRAP) $50,000.00 Toxics TMDL/WRAP - modeling & St. Louis River monitoring Gaps $50,000.00 Lake Superior South & Lake Superior Lake County SWCD Civic Engagement & North Watersheds Project Support (WRAP) $46,000.00 Cook County SWCD Civic Engagement & Lake Superior North Project Support (WRAP) $56,000.00 Watershed Civic Engagement Inventory, Analysis, and Strategy (4 current Lake Superior Basin watersheds)(WRAP) $190,000.00 Lake Superior South & Lake Superior UofM - North Shore Turbidity Eco-System North Watersheds Analysis (Phase 2 of 3)(WRAP) $300,000.00 Lake Superior South & Lake Superior UofM - North Shore Turbidity Eco-System North Watersheds Analysis (Phase 3 of 3)(WRAP) $50,000.00 Lab Budget - Stressor ID Monitoring Gaps Lake Superior Basin (WRAP) $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Carlton SWCD Civic Engagement and Nemadji River Project Support (WRAP) $140,000.00 Nemadji River Modeling (WRAP) $100,000.00 Nemadji River Development of TMDLs / WRAPs $50,000.00 Upper Big Souix River, Lower Big Sioux River Lower and Upper Big Sioux modeling $10,000.00 St. Anthony Falls Lab/Center for Earth Surface Dynamics -- Minnesota River Bluff Minnesota River Erosion Rates Study $100,000.00 Civic Engagement Cohort for South-central and Southwest Minnesota Watershed Minnesota, Missouri, DesMoines Projects $45,000.00 Bois de Sioux Bois de Sioux WRAP Strategy $185,000.00 SWCD Civic Engagement & Project Support Little Fork River (WRAP) $45,000.00

Page | 33

WRAP project -- Stressor ID & Geo- Little Fork River Morphology Support $45,000.00 Little Fork River USGS - FLOWSED modeling $70,000.00 Little Fork River Development of TMDLs / WRAPs $60,000.00 SWCD Civic Engagement & Project Support Big Fork River (WRAP) $45,000.00 Stressor ID & Geo-Morphology Support Big Fork River (WRAP) $45,000.00 Big Fork River USGS - FLOWSED modeling $70,000.00 Big Fork River Development of TMDLs / WRAPs $60,000.00 Watershed Civic Engagement Inventory, Analysis, and Strategy (2 current Little Fork & Big Fork Watersheds watersheds)(WRAP) $95,000.00 Lake of the Woods (Watershed) Lake of the Woods Watershed (WRAP) $7,676.00 Civic Engagement & Project Support Lake of the Woods (Lake) (TMDL) $20,000.00 HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program Lake of the Woods (Lake) FORTRAN (HSPF) modeling (TMDL) $140,000.00 Lake of Woods (watershed) WRAP modeling $90,000.00 Rainy Basin Watersheds Basin-wide modeling $185,000.00

Lower Red River Lower Red River WRAP $285,000.00 Sand Hill River Sand Hill WRAP, phase II $100,000.00 Thief River Thief River WRAP, phase II $100,000.00 Thief River Thief River HSPF modeling $34,000.00 Mustinka River Mustinka River WRAP, phase II $100,000.00

Mustinka River Mustinka River HSPF modeling phase III $35,000.00 Red Lake River Red Lake River HSPF modeling $67,000.00 Clearwater River Clearwater River HSPF modeling $67,000.00 Two Rivers Two Rivers WRAP $185,000.00 Two Rivers Two Rivers HSPF modeling $100,000.00

Red River Basin Red Basin Real Time Monitoring Network $10,800.00 $10,800.00 Upper Mississippi River (DL) Lake Winona, TMDL approval process $20,000.00 St. Croix (Stillwater) Ann River Watershed TMDL Phase 3 $3,000.00 Valley Branch Watershed District St. Croix (Stillwater) Restoration and Protection Plan $250,000.00 St. Croix (Stillwater) Sunrise River Phase 2 WRAP Strategy $55,000.00 Snake River Watershed Restoration and Snake River Protection Project (TMDL) Phase 2 $95,000.00 St Croix Civic Governance and Sunrise Watershed Agriculture, Environmental Quality Assurance (EQA) - MN Dept. of St. Croix (Stillwater) Agriculture $30,000.00 Page | 34

St Croix Civic Governance and Sunrise Watershed Agriculture EQA- Citizen's St. Croix (Stillwater) League and Civic Organizing, Inc. $30,000.00 St Croix Civic Governance and Sunrise Watershed Agriculture EQA - Chisago St. Croix (Stillwater) County $5,660.00 Goose Creek Watershed Restoration and Protection Project. Includes Rush and Rock Creek in the St. Croix (Stillwater) St. Croix (Stillwater) major watershed. $200,000.00 Twin Cities Metro Area Chloride Twin Cities metro area Management Plan $80,000.00 Twin Cities Metro Area Chloride Twin Cities metro area Management Plan $138,810.00

Mississippi River (Twin Cities) Elm Creek Watershed Wide TMDL Project $60,000.00 Minnehaha Creek Lakes TMDL Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Implementation Plan $5,000.00 Grass Lake WMO Restoration and Mississippi River (Twin Cities) Protection Project $150,000.00 South Fork Crow River (Pioneer-Sarah Pioneer-Sarah Creek WMO Restoration WMO) and Protection Plan $240,000.00 Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL- Mississippi River (Twin Cities ) Phase 2 $100,000.00 Upper Mississippi River Bacteria Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL- TMDL Phase 2 $100,000.00 Lower Mississippi River WMO Restoration Mississippi River (Twin Cities) and Protection Project $190,000.00 Pool 2 of the Mississippi River Perfluorooctane Mississippi River (Twin Cities) sulfonate (PFOS) TMDL $165,000.00 Mississippi River (Twin Cities) Coon Creek Watershed District WRAP $150,000.00 Mississippi River (Twin Cities) Ramsey-Washington-Metro WRAP $80,000.00 $80,000.00

Mississippi River (Twin Cities) Elm Creek Civic Engagement $20,000.00 $20,000.00

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minnehaha Creek Watershed District $71,000.00 Upper Watershed Restoration Project Rice Creek Watershed District Rice Creek Watershed District WRAP $200,000.00 Crow Wing River Crow Wing River WRAP - TMDLs $84,959.00

Crow Wing River Crow Wing WRAP modeling $30,000.00 Long Prairie River Long Prairie River WRAP - TMDLs $40,000.00

Long Prairie River Long Prairie River modeling $30,000.00 Redeye River Redeye River WRAP $23,710.00 Redeye River Redeye River WRAP - TMDLs $40,000.00

Page | 35

Redeye River WRAP modeling $30,000.00 Leech Lake River Watershed Restoration and Protection Project - Phase 1 and Phase Leech Lake River 2 $70,000.00 Leech Lake River Leech Lake River WRAP modeling $40,000.00 Pine River Major Watershed Project (Phase Pine River 1) and Phase 2 in FY13 $30,000.00 $70,000.00 Pine River Pine River WRAP modeling $40,000.00 South Fork Crow River WRAP (Phase 1) South Fork Crow River Phase 2 in FY13 $149,360.00 Rum River Rum River WRAP (Phase 1) $50,000.00 Mississippi River - Headwaters WRAP Mississippi River--Headwaters (Phase 1) $50,000.00 Mississippi River - Headwaters WRAP Mississippi River - Headwaters modeling Sauk River Sauk River Lakes TMDL Project $50,000.00 Sauk River National Mississippi River Basin Sauk River Initiative Monitoring Project $20,000.00 Mississippi River- St. Cloud Elk River TMDL $5,000.00 North Fork Lower Crow DO, Turb, Fecal North Fork Crow River TMDL (Phase 3) $5,000.00 South Fork Crow River Buffalo Creek TMDL $1,000.00 Lake Bemidji and Lake Irvine Area Citizen MissRiver-Headwaters Survey $10,000.00

South Fork Crow River, North Fork HSPF for the Crows and the Sauk Crow River, Sauk River watersheds, plus scenario development $50,000.00 Watershed chemistry monitoring, FLUX modeling and TMDLs - This is to help refine the calibration targets for Watershed Statewide model calibration. $15,000.00

Unique Situation Chem Samples - The project is for the collection and analysis of chemical data sets not typically collected Statewide during a WRAP project. $15,000.00

Sentinel Watershed Project - This project is for data gathering and analysis at a select number of small watersheds ( 5-6) statewide for the purpose of demonstrating water-quality Statewide improvements over time. $50,000.00 Sparrow modeling for phosphorus in Statewide Minnesota Rivers with the USGS $20,000.00

Page | 36

Index Values for Stressors- This project will be for further refinement of expected threshold values for pollutants impacting Statewide the biological communities. $50,000.00

Stressor ID Targeting - This project is for developing a method for statistically applying the understanding achieved by studying one small watershed in-depth and transfering that understanding to similar unstudied small watersheds with similar Statewide characteristics. $50,000.00

US Geological Survey work to better understand the timing, frequency, and magnitude of total sediment transport for use in managing and controlling excess Statewide sediment as a cause of water pollution $118,750.00

Model Guidance Completion & HSPF Statewide parameter customization for Minnesota $90,000.00

Study on riverine lake core monitoring for Statewide determing historic sedimation rates $105,000.00 Study linking Hydrologic characteristics to Statewide channel widening $125,000.00 $ TOTAL 2,874,835.00 $6,049,970.00 * Project costs are estimates until workplans are finalized

Page | 37

Summary of SSTS funding sources for FY12-13 and FY14-15

FY12-13 FY14-15 Agency Purposes Appropriation Proposal

SSTS Only County SSTS program requirements (M.S. 115.55): • Issue permits MPCA/ • Conduct inspections $4,570,000 $5,400,000 BWSR • Identify and resolve non-compliance • Revise/maintain SSTS ordinance two MPCA staff to support county CWF activities One-time SSTS County program grants for: • County inventories BWSR $0.00* $2,000,000 • Inspection program improvements • Database upgrades Grants to low income households for the “Imminent Threat Abatement” BWSR $0.00* $3,000,000 program. Small community wastewater treatment grants and loans to local governmental PFA $2,500,000 $2,500,000 units to replace non-complying SSTS. SSTS Eligible

Projects and activities (such as ordinances, organization capacity, and state-of- the-art targeting tools) that complement, supplement or exceed current state BWSR $3,000,000 TBD** standards for protection, enhancement and restoration of water quality in lakes, rivers and streams, or that protect groundwater from degradation.

Protect, enhance, restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and protect groundwater and drinking water. Activities include structural and vegetative BWSR $27,500,000 TBD** practices to reduce runoff and retain water on the land, feedlot water quality projects, SSTS abatement grants for low income individuals, and stream bank, stream channel and shoreline protection projects.

Agricultural best management practices loan program. MDA $9,000,000 TBD** Loans are available to rural homeowners in participating counties for SSTS upgrades. Total maximum daily load grant program. Grants available to PFA $22,370,000 TBD** unsewered/undersewered communities if required by federally approved TMDL.

*BWSR funds provided in FY12-13 through the two programs listed under “SSTS Eligible.”

**TBD (to be determined). These programs fund more than SSTS and unsewered community fixes and have not yet established FY14-15 funding needs.

Page | 38

State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

SFY 2010 Funding Round Grant Amount Loan Amount Proposals Requested Grant Amount Available Requested Loan Amount Available 23 resource investigation projects $ 1,708,476 25 implementation projects $ 3,039,279 9 continuation projects $ 1,897,948 21 implementation/continuation projects $ 4,948,000 Totals 78 projects $ 4,747,755 $ 1,707,656 $ 4,948,000 $ 4,948,000

SFY2010 Awards CWP funding = 100 R210 W27 CWL Funding = 353 R210 V15 CWP Grant Award CWP Loan Award Sponsor Match Project Description Major Basin RESOURCE INVESTIGATION PROJECT TITLE Sponsor Agency The RCWD proposes to conduct a diagnostic study that will provide detailed information regarding pollutant sources and magnitudes. Specifically, the study will provide estimates of the pounds of phosphorus originating from each loading source annually. A final report will summarize the methods and present the loading estimates. The final report will also include a Management Action Plan (MAP). The MAP will consist of a list of possible BMPs, along with feasibility and cost/benefit assessment of each BMP. Pollutant removal potential will be estimated for each BMP, and the Upper Rice Creek cost/benefit/b fi analysis l i will ill bbe used d to prioritize i i i management Mississippi Clear Lake Water Quality Diagnostic Study Watershed District $ 20,100.00 $ 21,350.00 actions. State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

The preliminary tasks for the project are: 1. Convene an advisory group of state and local agencies, non-profit organizations, concerned citizens and others for their assistance in determining and prioritizing the issues of most concern in Crosby Lake and developing management goals and actions to address the issues; 2. Review and evaluate available data and studies from CRWD, Ramsey County, Saint Paul, MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and others and determine gaps in data; 3. Obtain/collect additional data needed to complete the plan and synthesize all information on Crosby Lake; 4. Develop a hydrologic regime for Crosby Lake as well as a simple water quality model to analyze current and future conditions of the lake and watershed to help identify implementation activities; 5. Identify the management goals, objectives and activities to address the high priority issues of Crosby Lake; and 6. Prepare the Crosby Upper Capitol Region Lake Management Plan, present the draft management plan Mississippi Crosby Lake Management Plan Watershed District $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 at one public meeting and solicit cnt in de The objectives of the project are to determine the current nutrient and suspended sediment concentrations, to determine the sources of nutrients and sediments, and to determine the distribution of sources and losses across watersheds. Desired outcomes include scientific reports that will inform local and state decision makinggg concerning lake development in the Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion, an increased understanding of water quality and lake management issues in this developing area, and a platform for watershed implementation plans that are built on broad community input. Success of outcomes will be gauged by volunteer participation, policy changes, and future implementation of watershed stewardship activities to Upper sustain use of this resource that is vital to this region of the Mississippi Deer and Pokegama Lakes: A Diagnostic Study Itasca County $ 249,986.00 $ 463,530.00 state. State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

This Research Investigation Project proposal is to examine the relationship between the location of stormwater inlets and stands of Eurasian watermilfoil. To address the research question, 30 total sites will be examined on Green Lake. All data collected will be analyzed for patterns and relationships to answer the research question. Reports will be submitted per grant requirements; it is likely that findings will be submitted to a scientific journal, and an implementation plan Upper Green Lake Eurasian Watermilfoil/Stormwater will be developed for the future management of EWM and Mississippi Study Middle Fork Crow Riv $ 33,000.00 $ 33,330.00 stormwater improvements. The investigation of the resources includes determining in qualitative and quantitative manners, the nutrients and other pollutants (including sediments) that are being transported into the lake by storm water flows, the characteristics of the sediment that is present in the lake bottom and the affects of water quality on wildlife and the effects of wildlife on water quality. A hydrologic budget needs to be developed before restoration begins to determine if the lake is a confined basin lake or a seepage lake through the use of peizometers .The information gathered in this first phase will provide the basis upon which the success of the implementation measures Red River Lake Alice Resource Investigation Project City of Fergus Falls $ 98,500.00 $ 98,500.00 included in the second phase will be measured. ThisThis projectproject willwill identifyidentify locationslocations withinwithin LambertLambert CreekCreek’’s subsub watersheds that contribute the greatest to water quality degradation, determine which best management practice (BMP) retrofit designs would be the most cost effective and efficient to install for removing pollutants. It will also develop a database of construction-ready projects to guide future BMP installations throughout the subwatersheds of concern and for a few pilot installation projects. An educational and social outcome will be a collaborative relationship between local agency staff who will work closely with and educate Vadnais Lake Area homeowners, environmental managers, city and county Watershed Upper Management engineers/planners, in order to gain approval for the Mississippi Lambert Creek Retrofit ID and Design Project Organization $ 15,000.00 $ 16,500.00 installation of retrofit BMP’s on public and private lands. State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

Improve diagnosis of Pearl Lake water quality conditions, investigate agricultural runoff problems, and prescribe BMPs to reduce runoff and runoff impacts, assist residents in becoming informed about lake management issues and encourage citizen involvement, especially through lake Red River Pearl Lake Diagnostic Study Pelican River Waters $ 47,188.00 $ 48,250.00 associations, and through the CLMP and DNR programs. This project defines a two year program of weekly chemical Cass County and physical sampling during seven summer months over two Administration (Pine River years to characterize three priority streams and the six lakes Upper Pine River Watershed Stream Baseline Water Watershed they influence in the Pine River Watershed. The consultant Mississippi Quality Alliance) $ 105,712.00 $ 107,615.00 will also provide a report summarizing data and conclusions. This project will include analysis of the available data collected as part of a multi-lake TMDL that originally included Sand and Long Lakes; development of watershed and in-lake models to determine the effect of existing and future total phosphorus loads on the lakes; meetings with interested parties including lake association, CMSCWD Board of Managers, communities and others to set goals for lake quality and develop implementation strategies; and Carnelian-Marine- St. Croix Watershed development of the overall Diagnostic Study and St. Croix Sand and Long Lake Diagnostic Studies District $ 39,000.00 $ 40,000.00 Implementation Plan for each lake. To maintain the established network of homeowner volunteers in nine counties whose wells will be annually sampled in order to evaluate condition and trends of area drinking water sources. This provides long-term data counties Southeast need to focus their implementation efforts. In addition some Lower SE Minnesota Volunteer Nitrate Monitoring Minnesota Water counties have targeted sensitive areas for additional Mississippi Network Resources Board $ 143,600.00 $ 144,850.00 monitoring State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

This proposed project will identify of changes in the watershed since the initial Diagnostic Study and their potential impacts on water quality, determine the feasibility of a Wilder Wetland Rehabilitation and Maywood Pond Enhancement including monitoring of TP loads, identify other opportunities for stormwater and agricultural BMPs, assess gully erosion in the watershed, identify specific restoration projects, collect new data on transparency, aquatic macrophytes, plankton and fisheries data to identify trends and determine relationships between biologic fisheries and water quality, monitor and assess groundwater to determine TP sources within the contributing groundwatershed, install permanent wells, delineating the groundwatershed, and periodic sampling, complete an aquatic plant survey and develop an aquatic plant management plan and turn the Carnelian-Marine- implementation ideas previously developed into site-specific St. Croix Watershed and action-specific activities to protect the water quality St. Croix Square Lake Implementation Plan Refinement District $ 58,000.00 $ 61,000.00 Square Lake

11 Resource Investigation Projects $ 860,086.00 State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

CWP Grant CWP Loan Award Sponsor Match Project Description Major Basin IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT TITLE Sponsor Agency Recommendation

This project will fund four positions: an Urban Outreach Specialist to promote stormwater BMP’s, including septic system upgrades; a Nutrient Management Specialist, to complete 15 nutrient management plans, develop and present 6 workshops, 3 presentations, 2 field application days for producers and staff; design and display Nutrient Management Planning information, continue promotional activities with 1 informational mailing, 3 press releases, 5 radio program updates, 9 county fair or farm and home show booths, and complete the Certified Crop Advisor training process; a Conservation Agronomist to design, develop and deliver outreach and education activities around 3 rd crops, cover crops, bioenergy crops and conservation agronomy principles by using Walk-N-Talks, displays, one-on-one consultations, presentations, news releases, radio interviews and seminars/conferences, with the goal of reaching at least 5,000 people through these efforts; and a Cobb River Greater Blue Earth Watershed Technician to promote and assist with 2 grass Minnesota Blue Earth River Basin Restoration Positions River Basin Alliance $ 227,600.00 $ 230,783.70 waterways,1 terrace and 1 grade stabilization

This project will also establish baseline watershed data with the addition of site specific information,information, determine high priority watersheds. Appropriate practices will be identified and mapped utilizing GPS and GIS equipment and software. The project will promote side inlets with buffers, incentives for filter strips or establishment of harvestable filter strips, water storage areas, inline ditch treatment, crop residue, open intake alternatives, controlled drainage projects, along Minnesota Blue Earth River-East Branch Watershed Approach Faribault County $ 250,000.00 $200,000.00 $ 339,950.00 with other structural and innovative practices.

This project will increase the dead storage in the wetland cells of the Villa Park system for Lake McCarron’s, with a winter dredging of the cells to remove sediment and will provide Upper Capitol Region extensive monitoring completed after construction to Mississippi Enhanced TP Removal in an Urban Wetland System Watershed District $ - $430,000.00 document its performance

30-40 single septic treatment systems will be installed in Blue Earth, Cottonwood, Jackson and Watonwan counties (120-160 Minnesota & total systems) through low interest loans to homeowners Des Moines Greater Blue Earth and Des Moines River SSTS Loans Watonwan County $ - $1,200,000.00 administered through each of the counties. State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

Repair and upgrade of a water control structure and water quality enhancement measures on Oasis Pond in Roseville, Minnesota in an effort to reduce phosphorus pollutant loads to Lake Johanna and protect the quality of downstream receiving waters. In addition, monitoring will occur to Upper Rice Creek determine how loads of nutrients, and suspended solids and Mississippi Lake Johanna/Oasis Pond Water Quality Treatment Watershed District $ 110,200.00 $ 115,000.00 turbidity are affected

$600,000 of the CWP State Revolving Fund (SRF) would be used to upgrade 60-70 noncompliant septic systems in the watershed, and about $150,000 to undertake 2-3 additional North Fork Crow feedlot manure management projects, such as manure pit Upper River Watershed upgrades, installing storage ponds, pumps, liners, and clean Mississippi North Fork Crow Septic System/ Feedlot Upgrades District $ - $750,000.00 water diversions

BMP activities include 4 streambank or lakeshore erosion control projects, 6 filterstrips, waterways or sediment basins, a wetland restoration, 7 shoreline naturalizations, rain gardens and a modern storm water control mechanism in new or existing developments. Public outreach will include a shoreline naturalization workshop, a Storm Water Task force, webpages and advertisements, and other media for use by Meeker County/ every municipality in the Watershed. The CROW will also Crow River continue to maintain and expand its successful Citizen Stream Upper Organization of and Lake Monitoring Program, which currently have more MississiMississippippi Crow River Basin Sediment Reduction Water $ 250,000.00 250,000.00 $ 314,160.0314,160.000 than 35 volunteers pparticipatingarticipating in this pprogramrogram This project would replace approximately 75 single septic treatments systems in the three- year grant period by Rock County providing low interest loans to landowners, to be Missouri Rock River Replacement SSTS Loan Program SWCD/Land Mgt $ - $650,000.00 administered by Rock County

Through low interest loans which will be administered by the Lower & Upper Sibley County, 21 non-complaint or failing existing systems as Mississippi & determined by inspection or landowner interest will be Minnesota Bevens/Silver Creek SSTS Project - Sibley County Sibley SWCD $ 9,770.00 $273,000.00 557,400 replaced by new single sewage treatment systems.

9 Implementation Projects $ 847,570.00 $3,503,000.00

Major Basin CONTINUATION PROJECT TITLE Sponsor Agency CWP Grant Award CWP Loan Award Sponsor Match Project Description

This project will replace 73 non-compliant single septic treatment systems , provide cost share funding up to 75% for BMP installations in the watershed, provide technical Redwood- assistance to install single septic treatment systems and BMPs Cottonwood River Watershed Phosphorus TMDL Cottonwood Rivers watershed wide, provide water sample analysis and provide Minnesota Continuation Control Area 343,000.00 545,000.00 545,000.00 grant administration and staffing over 3 years State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

This project will continue annual water quality monitoring at 21 lake and stream sites; make nine visits to area elementary and high schools per school year to implement water quality classes into school curricula; present two educational workshops/year offered to area residents; present one volunteer training workshop/year with 10-12 citizens collecting stream and lake data; continue maintenance, development and improvement of the District website; provide 8-10 newsletters and/or newspaper articles; annual report of results and progress; install between 10 and 20 agricultural, rural landuse, streambank restoration, shoreland restoration, stormwater and urban BMP projects each year, focusing on reducing sedimentation and non-point runoff; assist with installation of the Belgrade Stormwater Project; Middle Fork Crow participate in the Nest Lake Curly Leaf Pondweed Study; and Upper Middle Fork Crow River Watershed Restoration and River Watershed provide project administration, such reporting, project Mississippi Enhancement Project Continuation District 350,000.00 150,000.00 574,300.00 tracking, project facilitation and technical assistance

This project will work with local governments to inventory SSTS systems within 300 feet of public waters and target these systems for upgrade through low-interest loans; provide classes on septic system maintenance and upgrade options; provide 90% of feedlots between 10 and 1000 animal units with Sensitive Features for Manure Application Maps, provide technical assistance and 50% cost-share for Nutrient Management Plans; host field days to promote BMPs for grazing and to educate producers about alternative uses of manure; . assist Five producers to implement new grazing BMPs or grazing plans;. Assist twenty producers with education about alternative manure uses and manure management BMPs; work with local governments to develop plans for implementing the Shoreland Buffer Rule; determine and monitor the current bacterial loadingin all three branches of the Whitewater River; support the recently developed Farmer-led Council and sub-councils; and provide project administration, including report preparation, staff hiring, Lower South Branch Whitewater Watershed - Bacteria Whitewater Joint financial management and local relationship maintenance Mississippi Reduction Project Continuation Powers Board 214,028.00 222,812.50 and coordination. State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

This project, within the Buffalo Creek and South Fork Lower Reach Management Areas, will complete up to 4 lakeshore or streambank projects; restore up to two wetland restoration projects; install up to four rain gardens, rain barrels, or storm drain marking projects; complete up to two feedlot/milk house projects or manure management plans; continue incentive payment to enroll up to 350 acres into CRP & RIM; repair or install up to three outlet structures, sediment basins or alternative tile outlets; upgrade up to 90 non compliant septic systems; install additional BMP practices as needed; monitor up to 5 established sites, up to 12 times a year; print and distribute up to 2 newsletters or Annual Reports; disseminate up to 4 yearly electronic E-Currents newsletters; advertise BMPs, SSTS loan and cost share opportunities through informational articles to local newspapers; maintain and upgrade CROW website; continue CSMP program and enroll additional monitors; attend educational Crow River workshops/trainings to increase staff’s knowledge of water Organization of quality issues & new technology; maintain communication Upper Working Together to Improve Water Quality Water-Diane with CROW JPB Board and Technical Committee members; Mississippi Continuation Sander 314,000.00 750,000.00 1,193,310.00 track project grant, matching funds and expenditures; and

4 Continuation Projects $ 1,221,028.00 1,445,000.00

Total CWP Funding $ 2,308,714.00 Total CWF Funding $ 619,970.00

Total SFY 2010 Award $ 2,928,684.00 $4,948,000.00 State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

SFY 2011 Funding Round Grant Amount Loan Amount Proposals Requested Grant Amount Available Requested Loan Amount Available 11 resource investigation projects $ 683,198 24 implementation projects $ 3,393,602 4 continuation projects $ 989,030.00 15 implementation/continuation projects $ 5,776,000 Totals 54 projects $ 4,076,800 $ 3,047,225 $ 5,776,000 $ 4,475,000

SFY2011 Awards

CWP Grant Award CWP Loan Award Sponsor Match Project Description Major Basin RESOURCE INVESTIGATION PROJECT TITLE Sponsor Agency yg pp qy management plans for Blackhawk Lake and Thomas Lake.The plans will include the following specific sections: 1) Introduction of purpose, problem, etc.; 2) Summary of watershed and lake, including history, soils and geology, climate, watershed characteristics, lake morphometry and hydrology, historical water quality, fisheries status, aquatic vegetation, and water level; 3) Discussion of water quality standards (as above) and numeric targets; 4) Assessment and analysis of TP sources and contributions from urban stormwater, internal release, atmospheric deposition, and others; 5) Modeling water quality to source loads; 6) Development of a ―virtual TMDL, including waste load BlBlackhawk kh k LLake k and d ThThomas LLake k MManagement t allocations,ll ti lload d allocations, ll ti and d margin i of f safety, f t and d Minnesota Plans City of Eagan $ 55,276.00 $ 56,610.00 discussion of future growth and anti degradation; 7) Public

The Bostic and Zippel Watershed Assessment Project (BZWAP) is a comprehensive resource investigation of two Lake of the Woods minor watersheds within the Rainy River Basin. Additional data collection and analysis is necessary to determine the primary causes of erosion and sedimentation; identify the causes of ditch systems’ instabilities and erosion; substantiate the water quality impacts; provide best management practices and recommendations for sediment reduction projects and targeted conservation practices. Upon finalizing the plan, public meetings will be held to discuss Lake of the Woods options for implementing best management practice sand Rainy Bostic and Zippel Watershed Assessment Project County $ 53,000.00 $ 56,500.00 provide guidance for implementation. State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

The current Clean Water Partnership grant provides an opportunity to update and intensify existing studies at the lake and provide guidance toward implementing a second phase of improvements in water quality. The project will include specific water quality goals for the lake and quantitative analysis of measures proposed to meet those goals. The study would develop an intensive diagnostic study and include management recommendations and an implementation plan with capital work and best practices to be applied. The MPRB’s extensive data set and ongoing data collection for the lake will be used to develop this study and plan, and will be used to measure the success of implemented Upper Lake Harriet Diagnostic Study and Management Minneapolis Park & projects that come out of the plan. The plan development Mississippi Plan Recreation Board $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00 would include a public participation component. This project in the Kawishiwi Watershed will integrate and coordinate water monitoring activities; build a long term water quality record; perform an inventory of subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS); assess and survey aquatic invasive species (AIS); conduct a geographic information system (GIS) analysis of land based potentials and threats; develop a comprehensive water management and implementation plan; and conduct public outreach and Rainy Kawishiwi Watershed Protection Project Lake County $ 174,500.00 $ 174,550.00 education activities This project will include an assessment of the spatial varvariabilityiability inin waterwater qualityquality inin LowerLower PriorPrior lake;lake; an evaluationevaluation of the internal loading potential of the lake; a watershed assessment of the direct drainage area to identify areas of highest nutrient loading; evaluate the load reduction Prior Lake-Spring potential of proposed BMPs; conduct meetings with Lake Watershed interested parties; develop implementation strategies; and Minnesota Lower Prior Lake Diagnostic Study District $ 48,417.00 $ 48,418.00 develop the overall diagnostic study and implementation plan This project will monitor the lake, its inflows, and outflow; assess the watershed’s turbidity, nutrient, and bacterial Stearns County sources; model watershed loads (FLUX); and develop an Upper Environmental implementation plan to protect the water quality of Pelican Mississippi Pelican Lake of St. Anna Diagnostic Study Services $ 39,100.00 $ 39,160.00 Lake State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

This resource investigation study will evaluate the current ecological health of the stream by conducting biological and habitat assessments, studying food web structure and interactions, collecting macroinvertebrates and fish, monitoring stream flow and water quality, profiling stream temperature, identifying groundwater sources and developing a conservation land management plan to restore or rehabilitate vegetative stream buffers, creating protection zones for groundwater sources, updating water quality information, and developing a stormwater management plan Lower Bridgewater to minimize runoff in order to protect the biological Mississippi Rice Creek Assessment Project Township $ 110,197.00 $ 176,230.00 communities in Rice Creek..

This project will monitor major inflows and outflows of Serpent Lake, and the lake itself, Unnamed Cranberry, Peterson, and Cascade Lakes; determine phosphorus and nutrient loads associated with the inflows and outflows; use BATHTUB modeling to determine the transport of nutrients, water quality conditions, and responses to nutrient loads; hold community stakeholder meetings to inform citizens and local officials on the current issues that Serpent Lakeshed faces, and how they as individual citizens and communities can be involved in the project; and create a report that identifies and prioritizes areas of concern along with Upperpp correspondingpg corrective actions to be implementedp within Mississippi Serpent Lakeshed Protection Investigation Study Crow Wing County $ 42,744.00 $ 43,265.00 the lakeshed.

8 resource investigation projects $ 578,234.00

CWP Funding CWL Funding Major Basin IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT TITLE Sponsor Agency CWP Grant Award CWP Loan Award Sponsor Match Project Description State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

This Lower Sauk River project will identify urban target areas by conducting a hydrologic assessment and developing a priority list within five watershed municipalities; identify rural target areas by conducting a watershed assessment and developing a priority list of the Lower Sauk River outside city limits; install conservation Best Management Practices throughout the Lower Sauk River watershed, including 21 BMPs focusing on addressing stormwater and agricultural runoff; conduct 3 adult education workshops focusing on demographics within the priority areas as defined by assessments; conduct 2 adult education workshops watershed wide focusing on water quality protection, human impacts and BMP project maintenance; monitor 10 inlet sites per year collecting 10 samples per season per inlet for a total of 300 samples; monitor 4 established river sites, collecting 10 samples per year per site for a total of 120 samples; and Upper Sauk River manage project by tracking activities and expenditures, and Mississippi Lower Sauk River Water Quality Protection Project Watershed District $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 87,000.00 submit required reports

Upper Sauk River Mississippi Osakis Lake Enhancement Continuation Project Watershed District $ 28,296.29 $ 75,000.00 $ 277,550.00 See below

Activities include assisting eight landowners in designing and fundingfdihih their shoreland ld restoration i and di rain garden d projects; j a ssisting sixteen stormwater management and restoration projects along Osakis Lake and three stormwater management projects within the City of Osakis; i nforming Crooked Lake residents of the available funds for wetland establishment; identifying strategic areas for minor excavation to maximize water storage and sediment reduction; re-establishing 250 acres of cropland into an open water wetland; properly closing two abandoned manure pits according to MPCA standards; excluding livestock from one stream site that drains into Osakis Lake; providing additional feedlot abatement projects as funding permits; c onducting 3 hands-on educational events for targeted topics: invasive species, shoreland restoration, rain gardens, rain barrels and shoreland reforestation; conducting two follow-up maintenance workshops to provide individuals the tools to protect their lakeshore long-term; collecting lakes samples Upper Sauk River and stream samples to determine the effectiveness of the Mississippi Osakis Lake Enhancement Continuation Project Watershed District $ 86,542.88 $ 75,000.00 $ 277,550.00 implemented BMPs State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

This project contains three main tasks: BMP installation, public outreach and administration. BMP activities include 5 filterstrips, waterways or sediment basins, 2 wetland restorations, 5 shoreline naturalizations, 3 shoreline stabilizations, 5 rain gardens, installation of up to 350 acres into Continuous CRP of highly valued ecological practices, and provide an incentive for wetland restorations, filter strips, and riparian buffers with a minimum sign-up of 10 years. The $1,200,000 CWP loan attached with this project will help upgrade 100 SSTS systems in Wright, Meeker and Kandiyohi Counties. This project will also work with the Big Swan Lake Association in Meeker County to host a shoreline naturalization workshop. The CROW will also continue to Crow River maintain and expand its successful Citizen Stream and Lake Upper Crow River Watershed Surface Water Runoff Organization of Monitoring Program, which currently has more than 60 Mississippi Reduction Project Water $ 495,911.85 $ 1,200,000.00 $ 122,700.00 volunteers participating in this program

This grant will reach the following outcomes: 1,850 Shoreland Homeowners Guides provided to riparian landowners; 9 Shoreland BMP Workshops hosted, reaching a minimum of 250 interested watershed landowners; 10 community events presented; 7 BMP Demonstration Projects installed, including Upper shoreline revegetation projects vegetated buffers, rain Mississippi Mille Lacs Lake Watershed Protection Aitkin County $ 145,000.00 $ - $ 145,000.00 gardens, shoreline To reduce nutrient loadings to Sand Creek from the neighborhoods which are the greatest contributors. This project includes the installations of a new stormwater pond Upper Coon Creek and a network of 10 strategically-placed curb-cut rain Mississippi Sand Creek Stormwater Retrofit Project Watershed District $ 83,650.00 $ 83,970.00 gardens.

To address stormwater runoff concerns and erosion issues along the Sauk River. Activities include conducting two education events on “Backyard BMP’s”; installing two demonstration projects and conducting four education events in association with these projects; designing and installing five rain gardens; designing and installing twenty “Backyard BMP’s”; assisting in the design and installation of five urban stormwater management and restoration projects; installing one erosion control project and completing three additional land use projects for sediment and nutrient loss; collecting Upper Sauk River water quality samples and other information to determine Mississippi Sauk River Water Quality Protection Phase III Watershed District $ 235,000.00 $ 175,000.00 $ 121,000.00 the effectiveness of the implemented BMPs State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

To educate the local residents of the importance of groundwater protection, to provide financial assistance to those who need to properly abandon their unused well and to upgrade nonconforming sewage treatment systems to reduce nutrient contributions to groundwater and surface water through groundwater permeation. Activities include conducting four education events focusing on groundwater protection, proper septic maintenance and well sealing; . assisting with funding for ten well sealing projects; upgrading at least twenty-five septic systems to meet current state Upper Sauk River Watershed District Watershed-Wide Sauk River standards; providing additional education activities as Mississippi Groundwater Protection Project Watershed District $ 40,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 10,000.00 necessary.

Purpose: Install buffer strips along 25 miles of ditches in the watershed, replace 50 open tile intakes, and hold workshops Lac qui Parle-Yellow in the watershed to increase conservation tillage, nutrient Bank Watershed and pesticide management, conservation drainage and Minnesota Ten Mile Creek Protection Plan for Turbidity District $ 141,850.00 $ - $ 142,100.00 restoring wetlands.

Upper Rice Creek To design and construct three rain gardens to intercept and Mississippi West Moore Lake Water Quality Enhancements Watershed District $ 86,210.00 $ 86,210.00 infiltrate stormwater runoff near the Fridley Middle School.

10 implementation projects $ 1,642,461.02 $ 2,075,000.00 State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

Major Basin CONTINUATION PROJECT TITLE Sponsor Agency CWP Grant Award CWP Loan Award Sponsor Match Project Description

This continuation project will prepare and submit semiannual reports and final project report; coordinate accounts receivable, accounts payable and other financial information; coordinate water quality/quantity monitoring and citizen monitors; analyze water quality data; prepare water quality reports, presentations, maps and other GIS reports; supervise a summer intern while performing monitoring, education and BMP implementation duties; market BMP programs available and present water quality information through emails, monthly meetings, annual meeting events, newspaper, website, direct mailings and participation in various conferences workshops, and seminars; and promote and implement agricultural, rural and urban best management practices, including critical tree plantings, nutrient management, residue management, alternative tile intakes, conservation drainage, sediment basins, wetland restorations, streambank stabilization, grassed waterways, pasture management, livestock exclusion, ag waste Dry Weather/Lines/Spring subbasin of the management systems, buffer strips, urban BMPS, side inlets, Minnesota Chippewa River Continuation Chippewa County $ 347,833.00 $ 200,000.00 $516,363.00 and terraces

This continuation project will provide technical assistance and promote and install best management practices (BMPs); promote and install 102 Subsurface Septic Treatment Systems (SSTS); continue monitoring activities for 6 primary sites and 4 “Land of the Lost” sites for three years and coordinate the local Citizen Stream Monitoring Program; continue regular public meetings to encourage and promote civic engagement; and complete the duties associated with fiscal management, Hawk Creek Watershed Project FY2006 reporting, supervision and overall coordination of the Hawk Minnesota Continuation Renville County $ 442,697.00 $ 800,000.00 $1,610,705.16 Creek Watershed Project Heron Lake Watershed District and soil and water conservation district staff will promote and provide technical Heron Lake - Alternative Tile Intake Cost-Share Heron Lake assistance for the installation of alternative tile intakes, such Des Moines Program Continuation Watershed District $ 36,000.00 45,148.30 as rock inlets. This continuation project will promote and install 140 Middle Minnesota Watershed, Implementation of Subsurface Septic Treatment Systems (SSTS) in Blue Earth, Conservation Practices and Effectiveness Cottonwood Brown, Cottonwood, Nicollet, Redwood, Renville Sibley Minnesota Monitoring County $ 1,400,000.00 $602,000.00 counties

4 continuation projects $ 826,530.00 $ 2,400,000.00 State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

Total CWP Funding $ 1,733,060.29 $ 4,475,000.00 Total CWF Funding $ 1,314,164.73

Total SFY 2011 Award $ 3,047,225.02 $ 4,475,000.00 State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

SFY 2012 Funding Round Grant Amount Loan Amount Proposals Requested Grant Amount Available Requested Loan Amount Available 3 resource investigation projects $ 380,826 24 implementation projects $ 4,091,856 no continuation projects due to insufficient funds 14 implementation projects $ 6,860,000 Totals 41 projects $ 4,472,682 $ 1,202,792 $ 6,860,000 $ 4,070,000

SFY2012 Awards

CWP Grant Award CWP Loan Award Sponsor Match Project Description Major Basin RESOURCE INVESTIGATION PROJECT TITLE Sponsor Agency

The City of Eagan will prepare state-of-the-art water quality management plans for eight neighborhood lakes: Bald Lake, Bur Oaks Pond, LeMay Lake, O’Leary Lake, Pitts (Cliff) Lake, Quigley (Carlson) Lake, Unnamed (Hay) Lake, and Unnamed Wetland (North Lake). The plans will include the following specific sections: 1) Introduction of purpose, problem, etc.; 2) Summary of watershed and lake, including history, soils and geology, climate, watershed characteristics, lake morphometry and hydrology, historical water quality, fisheries status,,q aquatic vegetation, g , and water level;;) 3) Discussion of water quality standards (as above) and numeric targets; 4) Assessment and analysis of TP sources and contributions from urban stormwater, internal release, atmospheric deposition, and others; 5) Modeling water quality to source loads; 6) Development of a ―virtual TMDL, including waste load allocations, load allocations, and margin of safety, and discussion of future growth and anti degradation; 7) Public input and involvement in development of plan; and 8) Implementation strategy, including reasonable Minnesota Neighborhood Lakes Management Plans City of Eagan 167,000 assurance and follow-up monitoring.

CWP Funding CWL Funding CWP Grant Award CWP Loan Award Sponsor Match Project Description Major Basin IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT TITLE Sponsor Agency

This project will promote and install 90 Subsurface Septic Minnesota Chippewa River Accelerated Restoration Chippewa County 900,000 Treatment Systems (SSTS) in the Chippewa River watershed.

Heron Lake This project will promote and install 45 Subsurface Septic Des Moines Heron Lake TMDL Phosphorus Reduction Project Watershed District 450,000.00 Treatment Systems (SSTS) in the Heron Lake watershed. State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

This project will provide baseline data through water monitoring, recording and analyzing the results of six unassessed rivers/tributaries, three unassessed lakes and five storm water outlets in the city of Mora which drain to the Snake River; promote and implement approved BMP’s, including feedlot runoff treatment and control, livestock fence exclusion from streams, heavy use protection areas for cattle, roadside runoff/erosion control, critical area seeding, sediment basin and wetland restoration; sponsor an outdoor water quality learning event in 2012 for ninety Girls Scouts and their families, as a national event for the Girl Scouts of America; provide technical assistance for the development of eight nutrient management plans for landowners; develop Kanabec Soil and eight forest stewardship plans for landowners; promote and Water implement the local Ag. BMP loan program to assist Conservation landowners with BMP’s that protect and improve water St. Croix Kanabec Water Resources Protection Project District 201,892 204,892 quality.

Capitol Region Watershed District will compile and review previously conducted studies and will prioritize BMPs based on a cost-benefit analysis of their pollutant load reductions and life cycle costs; will conduct a subwatershed analysis to determine optimal BMP locations and types to maximize volume and pollutant removal; solicit and consider stakeholder input in prioritizing BMPs; will design and construct BMPs, such as rain gardens and infiltration practices, within the Villa Park subwatershed of the Lake McCarrons watershed to meet phosphorus load reduction Upper Capitol Region goals to the Villa Park Wetland System and ultimately Mississippi Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP Project Watershed District 275,000 172,500 maintain the long term water quality of Lake McCarrons.

Upper Sauk River Mississippi Lower Sauk-Metro Area Water Quality Protection Watershed District 233,000 150,000 233,000 see below State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

This Sauk River Watershed District will conduct the Whitney Park river clean-up, adopt a river program and other community events as part of their healthy living programs; will collaborate with the city of St. Cloud to install a rain garden demonstration site at Whitney Park; use local radio and public television stations to promote the District’s “neighborhood rain garden initiative” and other incentive programs; interact with residents during the annual events of the Master Gardner’s organization, the local Farmer’s Markets, Friends of the Sauk River organization and other groups; host its first video contest for local high schools students on water quality issues; conduct three adult education workshops on designing and installing rain gardens; conduct three youth outdoor events focusing on water quality; host two radio segments to inform residents of the available funding and upcoming events; conduct three additional adult education workshops focusing on water quality protection, human impacts and BMP project maintenance; install conservation best management practices within the Sauk River watershed of St . Cloud, Waite Park and St. Joseph, including 35 rain gardens and an effective erosion control BMP to address the river bank sloughing in Whitney Park; design and install five stormwater BMPs in the three municipalities; conduct water quality monitoring on the Sauk RiverRiver andand twotwo stormwaterstormwater outfallsoutfalls forfor selectedselected subsub- watersheds undergoing a neighborhood rain garden initiative; Upper Sauk River and be responsible for all reporting, tracking and overall Mississippi Lower Sauk-Metro Area Water Quality Protection Watershed District 65,000 65,000 management of this project.

This project will offer incentives to protect 80 acres of land in filter strips and highly erodible lands adjacent to the rivers; construct 9 sediment and water control basins or terraces; replace 35 open tile intakes and advocate wetland restorations and grassland easement programs; organize a Friendship Tour to bring together MN and SD farmers, county commissioners, farm organizations, local, state and federal agency personnel to experience the watershed, farming practices, discuss future project ideas and strengthen Lac qui Parle- relationships; and upgrade 37 subsurface sewage treatment Yellow Bank systems by offering landowners low interest loans for their Minnesota Protecting North and South Fork Yellow Bank River Watershed District 260,900.00 370,000.00 share of construction. State Fiscal Year 2010-12 CWP Funding Recommendation

Snake River Watershed Snake River Watershed Resource Protection Management This project will promote and install 40 Subsurface Septic St. Croix Project Board 400,000 Treatment Systems (SSTS) in the Snake River watershed. Lower Mississippi/ This project will promote and install 70 Subsurface Septic Cedar Steele County Septic System Loan Program Steele County 700,000 Treatment Systems (SSTS) in Steele County. Crow River Upper Organization of This project will promote and install 110 Subsurface Septic Mississippi Targeting BMP's in the Crow River Watershed Water 1,100,000 Treatment Systems (SSTS) in the Crow River watershed.

11 Project Awards 1,202,792 $ 4,070,000.00 Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA)

From: Stoddard, Dan (MDA) Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:12 PM To: Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA) Cc: Wohlman, Matthew (MDA); Buzicky, Greg (MDA); Hanks, Mary (MDA); Birr, Adam (MDA); Sip, Rob (MDA); Wagner, Margaret (MDA); Montgomery, Bruce (MDA) Subject: FW: Clean Water Council request for information Attachments: 2012 BOC request for information from agencies_MDA.pdf; CWC Information Request MN Dept of Agriculture May 1 2012.doc

Importance: High

Jennifer, Attached are MDA’s answers to the Clean Water Council March 1, 2012 request for information on clean water funded program accomplishments and proposed funding requests. Please let me know if there are any additional questions or if the Council needs any additional information.

Thanks, -Dan Stoddard

Daniel Stoddard, Assistant Director Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Division Minnesota Department of Agriculture 625 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55155-2538 651-201-6291

From: Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA) Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:08 AM To: Frederickson, Dave (MDA) Cc: Wohlman, Matthew (MDA) Subject: Clean Water Council request for information Importance: High

Hello,

Please find the attached letter from the Clean Water Council requesting information on current and proposed Clean Water Fund activities, along with a questionnaire and the Budget and Outcomes Committee 2012 timeline.

Thanks!

Jennifer Maleitzke Clean Water Fund Coordinator 651.757.2549 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 www.pca.state.mn.us 1 Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Clean Water Fund appropriations Agency Activity Actual Actual Proposed FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 Increase monitoring for pesticides and pesticide degradates in $0.675M $0.700M ( = ) MDA surface water and groundwater and provide data to assess pesticide use practices. MDA Root River Demonstration Project $0.395M -- -- Actions to protect and restore groundwater from nitrates. $1.125M $1.700M ( + ) Increase monitoring to evaluate trends in the concentration of nitrate in groundwater both in high risk areas and regionally. Promote and evaluate regional and crop specific nutrient Best MDA Management Practices. Work directly with local communities dealing with identified nitrate problems. Facilitate planning by community public water suppliers, local farmers and fertilizer dealers. MDA Irrigation Water Quality Protection -- -- ( + ) Ag BMP Loan Program - This program will continue to fill a $4.500M $9.000M ( = ) noticeable funding void for crop/livestock producers that are MDA implementing agricultural BMPs and constructing conservation and pollution abatement structures on the landscape. Technical Assistance/Research: Proper BMP implementation and $2.265M $1.550M ( + ) effectiveness will be examined, tool will continue to be developed to target conservation practices to critical areas of the landscape and more precise information on non-point contributions to impaired waters will be obtained. Additional pilot projects and demonstration sites will be implemented that empirically validate MDA best management practices and innovative drainage practices to the agricultural community, researchers, regulators and policy makers (e.g. Discovery Farms concept, edge of field monitoring, etc.). MDA will continue its efforts to provide technical assistance on impaired waters issues in agricultural landscapes. This also includes demonstrating and validating BMPs developed in research settings on-farm. MDA Manure Applicator Education -- -- ( + ) Academic Research/Evaluation - Projects will focus on quantifying -- $2.100M ( = ) agricultural contributions to impaired waters with a particular focus on gaining a better understanding of the processes that MDA underlie these contributions. BMPs will be developed and evaluated to protect and restore water resources while maintaining productivity. Research Inventory Database: A Research Inventory Database will -- $0.350M ( - ) contain existing water-related research activities that have been MDA publically funded. This will reduce the potential for duplication and allow for focusing on the right need at the right time. Total $8.960M $15.400M

May 1, 2012 1

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Legend Monitoring/ Watershed restoration / Drinking water Nonpoint source Education and civic Applied research and Point source assessment protection strategies protection implementation engagement tool development implementation

Please describe overall progress from activities in FY10-11 and planned progress for FY12-13 by responding to the following questions.

Monitoring and assessment:

Please describe the assessment results from three sub-watersheds in the Root River Watershed for changes in agricultural run-off related to land management practices.

• A detailed report on this project, the Root River Field to Stream Partnership Report was released on January 15, 2012 and is available at: www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/cleanwaterfund/~/~/~/media/Files/news/govrelations/legrpt -rootrvrftos.ashx • Monitoring began with snowmelt in 2010, resulting in two full years of monitoring. During this time, more than 160 samples have been collected at the edge-of-field locations. On average there are three to five runoff generating events each year; these are often triggered by snowmelt runoff and rainfall runoff during periods of the year when the crop canopy is not well established. • Stream gaging sites have been established at the outlets of three sub-watersheds (smaller basins with the Root River watershed). Sampling began with snowmelt in the spring of 2010. More than 635 samples have been collected at the in-stream locations. • The first round of producer surveys is complete. Twenty-eight producers participated in the survey; this represents approximately 70% of the roughly 6,000 cultivated acres in the study area. • In 2011, three producers participated in nitrogen rate evaluations (strip trials) and one producer participated in a reduced tillage comparison. Growers involved in the nitrogen trials compared their normal nitrogen application practices and rates to alternative practices and rates (i.e. 154 lbs N per acre verses 124 lbs N per acre).

The Root River Field to Stream Partnership has a strong civic engagement component. MDA staff have met, one-on-one, with most of the farmers in the area and is establishing personal relationships with them. These meetings took place early in the process so everyone was aware of monitoring activities. MDA regularly communicates with these farmers sharing results. In 2012, MDA will host field days, on- farm science presentations and release a promotion video that includes farmers advocating for the Root River Partnership.

May 1, 2012 2

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Planned progress for FY12-13:

• Baseline monitoring will continue through the 2013 monitoring season. The data collected during the baseline period will be evaluated and summarized in a comprehensive report outlining what has been learned about sediment and nutrient movement within the three sub- watersheds. This information will serve as the foundation for the next phase of the project focusing on BMP implementation.

Please describe monitoring activities and assessment outcomes from FY10-11 pesticide monitoring and planned/underway activities for FY12-13.

• Clean Water funding has increased the capability and capacity of MDA's water monitoring program through the provision of new analytical instruments in the lab, specifically a liquid chromatograph mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS). • The MDA produces an annual monitoring report at 2010 Annual Monitoring Report, which documents pesticide water quality results from around the state, including results from the LC- MS/MS, can be found at: www.mda.state.mn.us/monitoring • New analytical equipment is capable of detecting a broader suite of chemicals at lower concentrations. • Approximately 1600 samples were submitted for analysis in 2010, an increase of 600 samples as compared to 2009. • In 2009, MDA routinely analyzed for approximately 44 pesticides requiring three different analytical procedures. In 2010 and 2011 MDA can detect and quantify over 110 pesticides using two different analytical procedures. • In 2011, MDA planned for 1600 samples to be submitted for analysis. Due to dry conditions in the latter part of the year, 1450 samples were submitted.

Planned/underway activities for FY12-13

• Work plans for surface water and groundwater activities have been developed and are being implemented for FY12 and 13. An estimated 1700 pesticide samples will be collected at streams, groundwater, springs, lakes and precipitation. This continues to reflect the increase of 600 samples MDA received in 2010. The 2011 Annual Monitoring Report, which documents pesticide water quality results from around the state, will be available for download in June 2012. This, along with MDA work plans, can be found at www.mda.state.mn.us/monitoring

May 1, 2012 3

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Groundwater/drinking water:

Please describe MDA’s efforts in FY10-11 to protect groundwater and drinking water from agricultural chemicals (primarily nutrients).

Central Sands Private Well Monitoring Network In the spring of 2011, the MDA began the Centrals Sands Private Well Network (CSPWN). The MDA signed a Joint Powers Agreement with Wadena County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). Wadena County SWCD is partnering with 13 other counties that make up the "Central Sands Outwash". Long-term statistically based monitoring of nitrates in private wells was previously identified as a significant knowledge gap. This work addresses that concern.

• During the first year, project partners coordinated the random sampling of 1,555 private drinking water wells and samples were analyzed for nitrate nitrogen. • In FY12-13, approximately 800 well owners will be invited to be part of a long-term monitoring network. Each well enrolled in the long-term network will be evaluated through a well site visit. • The information gathered during well site visits along with nitrate results will be used to determine areas of concern, and which regions may need further studies and/or monitoring.

The CSPWN has benefited from very good well owner participation. Each of the 14 counties has a sufficient sample size of wells and good spatial coverage.

A summary of 2011 Results from the Central Sands is available at: www.mda.state.mn.us/~/~/media/5F3B00B7A52C4591AF43EB747FB91F2B.ashx

Rosholt Farm This project will provide a better understanding of nitrogen fertilizer management and the associated water quality impacts on irrigated, sandy soils. It is supported through a partnership between Stearns County and Pope County SWCDs, Prairie Lakes Co-op, the University of Minnesota and the MDA.

• In 2011, a nitrogen rate and management experiment was established (144 plots). This experiment is assessing nitrogen loss resulting from different nitrogen fertilizer application rates, application timing, and application methods on sandy soils. • MDA staff have installed over 200 suction tube lysimeters underneath research plots. Water that escapes below the root zone of growing crops will be collected in the suction tube lysimeters and analyzed for nitrate-nitrogen. • This project will provide critical data to help the University of Minnesota revise nitrogen fertilizer recommendations for irrigated coarse-textured (sandy) soils.

May 1, 2012 4

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• The goal is to re-establish the Rosholt Farm as an educational hub for local producers, agricultural dealers, and crop consultants. In 2011, field days attracted many participants including farmers, local agronomist and members of local co-ops.

Crop Irrigation Workshops The MDA has partnered with the East Otter Tail SWCD (EOT SWCD) to carry out a series of workshops and expand programs that promote proper water and nitrogen management. • MDA and EOT SWCD have developed curriculum and hosted 4 workshops

o Workshops included information about on-farm nitrogen and fertilizer management and engaged participants with hands-on activities.

• 3 weather stations have been installed in the region to provide accurate local climate (evapotranspiration) information to irrigators. This information is necessary to support irrigation scheduling, an important irrigation BMP.

• MDA and EOT SWCD hosted a Forum on Minnesota Irrigated Agriculture. The Forum attracted 21 participants representing 4 producer groups, 4 state agencies, the University of Minnesota Extension, and the East Otter Tail SWCD. This resulted in a summary report that outlines the challenges facing irrigated agriculture, gaps and needs in education, research and technology and recommended steps for moving Minnesota irrigated agriculture forward.

o www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/cleanwaterfund/gwdwprotection/~/media/Files/prot ecting/cwf/irrigationforumrpt.ashx

• A comprehensive needs assessment of the irrigation industry will include a survey of irrigators in the Central Sands region. The survey will explore current water and nitrogen management and also identify obstacles that hinder the adoption of more sophisticated management practices. o MDA worked with staff at the University of Minnesota to develop a survey in the spring of 2011. o The USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS) will carry out the survey in late summer or early fall of 2012.

Nutrient Management Survey The MDA has partnered with USDA-NASS and University of Minnesota researchers to collect information about fertilizer use and farm management on a regional and statewide scale.

• A summary report : Survey of Nitrogen Fertilizer Use on Corn in Minnesota is available at: www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/cleanwaterfund/~/~/~/media/Files/protecting/cwf/nfertilizer survey2011.ashx

May 1, 2012 5

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• In 2010, NASS enumerators surveyed approximately 1,500 corn farmers from across the state to gather information about commercial fertilizer use. • In 2011, the survey focused on the southeast region. The survey is designed to gather information about nitrogen fertilizer rates, timing of nitrogen application and use of nitrogen inhibitors. The survey was also designed to collect information about manure applications.

Revision of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan The Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan is a strategy for protecting Minnesota's water resources from being harmed by nitrogen fertilizer use. This document is the State's blueprint for prevention or minimization of the impacts of nitrogen fertilizer on the water resources of the state.

• In 2010, the MDA started the process to revise the state's Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan, which was last updated in 1990. • A Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan Advisory Committee was formed and includes representation from agricultural and environmental organizations, local and state government and the University of Minnesota. The advisory committee has met 10 times. • Advisory Committee member ship and meeting minutes are available at: www.mda.state.mn.us/chemicals/fertilizers/nutrient-mgmt/nitrogenplan.aspx

Nitrate Testing Clinics The MDA supports walk-in style water testing clinics with the goal of increasing public awareness about nitrate levels in private well water. Clinics are run by local governments units with technical support from the MDA. The concept has proven adaptable for county fairs, field day events, public school programs, and ‘stand alone’ events.

• In 2011, MDA worked with 40 local government units (LGUs) on nitrate testing clinics and more than 1,200 samples were analyzed.

Technical Assistance MDA staff work on nitrogen fertilizer BMPs, respond to agricultural areas impacted by nitrates and conduct outreach to engage farmers and individual landowners. Below are examples of how MDA staff provides technical assistance on groundwater and drinking water projects:

• Nitrogen Fertilizer BMP Development, Promotion and Education: MDA works with many partners in determining the relationship between fertilizer management and water quality. MDA evaluates the effectiveness of various BMPs by evaluating data from research projects and demonstration sites and by reviewing scientific literature. MDA, in partnership with the University of Minnesota and others, revises existing recommendations to ensure that BMPs are relevant and being adopted by Minnesota farmers.

May 1, 2012 6

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. MDA, in partnership with the University of Minnesota and others, is responsible for the promotion of nitrogen fertilizer BMPs. MDA works directly with farmers and other agricultural stakeholder to ensure that information about BMPs is accurate, easily accessible and delivered in a way that that is meaningful and informative. Frequently, MDA works in partnership with organizations like the Minnesota Irrigators Association and Ag Technology and Environmental Stewardship Foundation. MDA also works in partnership with the University of Minnesota Extension and other research organizations.

• Assessment of BMP Adoption: MDA is implementing and developing tools and methods to monitor the adoption of nitrogen fertilizer BMPs. MDA partners with USDA-NASS to conduct statewide and regional surveys to quantify fertilizer application rates and other fertilizer management practices.

• Responding to Ag Areas Impacted by Nitrates: MDA works with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and local communities dealing with elevated nitrate in public drinking water supplies. MDA assists by conducting highly detailed assessments related to nitrogen management and then develops response strategies based upon the results. This approach has been highly successful due to cooperation among community residents, farmers, businesses, industry, and state/local agencies. Information is being distributed through public meetings, press releases, utility bill inserts, and curriculum being taught in local schools. Frequently on-farm demonstrations, field day events and workshops are conducted.

• Assist Local Governments with County Water Plans for Groundwater: The MDA is working to provide more useful guidance and assistance for addressing agricultural issues in County Water Plans.

Validating Nitrogen Recommendations and Water Quality Impacts under Irrigated Agriculture This project will provide a better understanding of nitrogen fertilizer management on a local level and the associated groundwater quality impacts. The goals for this project are:

• Assess nitrogen loss resulting from different nitrogen fertilizer application rates, application timing, and application methods on sandy soils • Provide critical data to help the University of Minnesota revise nitrogen fertilizer recommendations for irrigated sandy soils • Establish the Dakota County site as an educational hub for local producers, agricultural dealers, and crop consultants

MDA has developed a Joint Powers Agreement with the Dakota County Water Resources Department; Dakota County is responsible for overall project coordination. This project began in FY 2012,

May 1, 2012 7

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. establishment of the field experiment (research plots and lysimeter install) and data collection will begin in summer 2012.

Planned progress for FY12-13

In FY 12-13, MDA will continue to partner with local governments and communities on activities that help identify potential sources of nitrate contamination and to evaluate and implement practices at the local level to reduce nitrates in groundwater.

Restoration and protection:

Please describe efforts in research, pilot projects and technical assistance related to ways agricultural practices contribute to restoring impaired waters and assist with the development of TMDL plans.

Discovery Farms Minnesota The Discovery Farms Minnesota program is designed to collect measurements of sediment, nitrogen and phosphorous movement over the soil surface and through subsurface drainage tiles and to generate a better understanding of the relationship between agricultural land management and water quality.

This program provides:

• Baseline data on the environmental performance of Minnesota farms • Information on how producers can adopt BMPs • An educational environment for farmers to learn from each other

The MDA is supporting the Discovery Farms program by providing technical assistance and expertise in water monitoring. MDA works in partnership with the Minnesota Agriculture Water Resources Center (MAWRC) and local SWCDs and Watershed Districts.

• The MDA, in partnership with the MAWRC, has set up seven monitoring sites (Goodhue, Chisago, Blue Earth (2), Renville, Wright and Stearns County). • Water monitoring equipment is fully operational at all sites. A summary of the 2011 monitoring season is available at www.mawrc.com/images/DFM-YearInReview_2011.pdf. • MDA has developed Standard Operating Procedures and trained 6 local partners to collect samples and maintain monitoring equipment. • Outreach and Education is a critical component of Discovery Farms. In 2010-2011, Discovery Farm staff made 20 presentations reaching over 1000 people, hosted 6 field days with 150 people in attendance and published over 25 articles in newsletters, farm publications and the popular press.

May 1, 2012 8

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• Partnerships exist with the Discovery Farm Programs in Wisconsin and North Dakota; these partnerships bring value to the program, allowing eventual comparisons and evaluation of data across a wide range of environmental conditions.

Precision Conservation Outreach Initiative: Targeting Clean Water Implementation • The purpose of this outreach initiative is to help locally led water restoration and protection projects utilize new conservation targeting tools. • In 2010, the MDA held seven one-day workshops, training over 140 local conservation professionals on recently refined LiDAR-based digital terrain analysis techniques for identifying critical source areas of the landscape. • Workshop materials are available at: www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/cleanwaterfund/~/~/link.aspx?_id=57CAA16A42714B518907 F78563A2B330&_z=z • Phase II of the initiative will begin in 2012. The purpose is to help state agencies and local implementation project leaders learn more about the extent and effectiveness of current conservation targeting efforts and identify opportunities for improvement. • Phase II involves a statewide inventory of conservation targeting tool users. The inventory will be supplemented by regional discussions to gain insight into what’s working (or not working) and to document barriers to the use of targeting tools. • Phase II will also include at least one case study of the use of multiple conservation targeting tools at different scales to improve LGU applications for Clean Water Fund implementation funding. • The MDA is collaborating with other state agencies to ensure consistent messages about conservation targeting tools.

Drainage Demonstration Sites The MDA operates a network of drainage demonstration sites around the state; each designed to evaluate the impact of specific agricultural practices on water quality and quantity. The goals are to:

• Evaluate different methods of reducing phosphorus and/or nitrogen loss on agricultural fields • Demonstrate how BMPs impact water quality at the field level

The two drainage demonstration sites supported by the Clean Water Fund are Highway 90 and Clay County. These demonstration sites provide information on the characteristics of agricultural drainage from a typical field in their region. Outside of these demonstration projects, this information does not currently exist. Both sites are fully automated and collect samples whenever water flows through tile lines.

May 1, 2012 9

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Results from these field level demonstrations sites provide a platform to educate farmers, agricultural professionals, and other interested stakeholders.

Technical Assistance

• Evaluating the Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs: MDA works with many partners, including Universities, private industry, SWCDs and farmers, to evaluate the effectiveness of agricultural BMPs. MDA provides technical assistance on proper implementation of BMPs and precise information on non-point contributions to impaired waters. MDA's work ensures that accurate, scientifically-based information on the costs and benefits of specific agricultural practices is available to stakeholders statewide.

In many areas of the state, MDA uses on-farm BMP evaluations to help farmers compare different management practices and use the results to update knowledge and inform future management decisions.

• Technology Transfer: MDA works with many partners to share information about BMP research and emerging technologies. MDA provides in-field technical assistance, project coordination and technical advice for a number of different stakeholder groups. MDA convenes technical advisory committees to share information about projects and gather input from subject matter experts.

MDA also meets regularly and provides technical advice to project partners including non-profits, producer groups, local SWCDs and other state agencies. MDA works directly with producers and local government units to disseminate information and to ensure that scientific information gets in the hands of the end user.

• MDA works directly local government units to disseminate information and to ensure that scientific information gets in the hands of the end user: MDA sponsors workshops and training for local governments specifically in the areas of clean water research and tool development. Examples include the Precision Conservation Initiative and the Agricultural Best Management Practices Assessment and Tracking Tool.

• Outreach and Education: MDA works with many partners to ensure that Clean Water Fund information is accurate and easily accessible. Brochures, fact sheets, web pages, field days, presentations and meetings are used to deliver information to individuals and organizations. MDA's communication efforts support local partnerships and foster greater cooperation.

• MDA staff attends and presents at meetings of farmers and agricultural groups to raise awareness and support for Clean Water Fund activities: MDA engages a diversity of water

May 1, 2012 10

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. resource stakeholders including farmers, producer groups, state agencies, local governments, academics and non-governmental organizations by attending a variety of meeting about the biological, cultural, social and environmental importance of clean water.

• Conservation on Agricultural Lands: A Tradition of Innovation: An interactive exhibit (to be displayed at Cascade Meadow Wetlands and Environmental Science Center in Rochester) will help the MDA engage more people in discussions about conservation on agricultural land. It will teach people about current conservation practices and hopefully spark an interest in agricultural issues. The goal is to educate the general public and stakeholders on real world, current issues dealing with protection of water resources and create a tool that will encourage and support dialogue on issues and their solutions.

Please describe the number of grants given to the livestock environmental quality assurance program, including number of farms enrolled, analysis of estimated water quality improvements to enrolled farms and analysis of the ability to provide reasonable assurance of the water quality effects. Please describe the amount of requests vs. the amount of available funding.

LEQA was an MDA program to help livestock producers address, using a non-regulatory approach, the unique water quality issues on their farms. MDA contracted with Ag Resource Strategies, LLC, to recruit farmers to enroll in the LEQA program. The company trained technicians to assess farms and the technicians developed an environmental assessment for each farm enrolled.

• 12 LEQA technicians trained • 105 on-farm assessments completed • Assessment of 47,529 acres, 55,215 animal units and 506 environmentally sensitive areas • More information is included in the LEQA Executive Summary Report available at www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/cleanwaterfund/~/~/media/AE2A54F916C0427CB6F098B4BFE1A 152.ashx

Please describe the amount of loans given in the AgBMP loan program in FY10-11 and the outcomes achieved. Please describe the amount given so far in FY12-13. Please describe the amount of requests vs. the amount of available funding.

Summary of AgBMP Loan Program between 07/01/2009 and 4/23/2012 (FY10- 12)

This flexible and adaptive program will continue to provide low interest loans throughout the state to farmers and rural landowners to finance BMP’s that reduce or eliminate water pollution.

• $13.5 million has been appropriated to the program • $8.6 million is under executed contracts and awards

May 1, 2012 11

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• The AgBMP Loan Program has issued 210 loans o Total amount of loan issued: $3.8 million o Total funds leveraged: $2.9 million • $4.0 million is reserved for Calendar Year 2013 • The program has financed: o 36 Ag waste management projects ($1.6 million) o 7 Conservation tillage projects ($0.4 million) o 167 Septic system upgrades ($1.8 million)

The purpose of the AgBMP Loan Program is to implement recognized best management practices with proven environmental benefits with as little administrative costs as possible. This program does not collect site specific environmental data on the benefits of specific practices but can estimate environmental benefits of many practices based on published data.

Research and tool development:

Please describe the research activities underway to quantify agricultural contributions to impaired waters and for development and evaluation of BMPs to protect and restore water resources while maintaining productivity.

The MDA is supporting research projects to evaluate the actual cost and effectiveness of agricultural BMPs, identify processes that affect water quality and develop technologies to target critical areas of the landscape. MDA has supported 17 research projects; 6 are completed and 11 are on-going/ in progress. The goal of these efforts is to provide more accurate information about agriculture’s contribution to water impairments, which will aid in refining and developing BMPs that provide the greatest positive impact and return on investment for Minnesota’s water resources. Project selection is based on the recommendations and an evaluation of proposals by interagency team of scientists and technical experts.

• In 2011, the MDA received 28 research proposals totaling $7.6 million in requests. An evaluation team comprised of the interagency research team and farmers with technical expertise selected projects that are currently at various stages of contract development. Projects will be announced after the contracts have been executed.

• In 2010, the MDA received 9 research proposals totaling $2.4 million in requests. Projects that received funding:

May 1, 2012 12

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. o Agricultural Best Management Practices Assessment and Tracking Tool The goal of this project is to develop a comprehensive database of information related to agricultural BMPs and provide that information in easily accessible formats to stakeholders across the state of Minnesota. The products created under this work will be developed in cooperation with stakeholders and water resource professionals at many levels. The Heron Lake Watershed District will serve as a case study for product development and District staff will provide insight to ensure accessibility to a broad audience. o The Agricultural BMP Handbook for TMDLs in Minnesota The purpose of this project is to conduct a comprehensive inventory of agricultural BMPs that address water quality impairments in Minnesota. • An ag-BMP handbook will help TMDL practitioners estimate the impact of BMPs, quantify the benefits and ensure that BMPs are placed in areas of the landscape where they will have the greatest environmental benefits. • Much of the information that exists about BMPs is dispersed in different places such as agency websites, peer reviewed journal articles, white papers, summaries from meetings, etc. This project addresses a need for more up-to-date and concise information about BMP effectiveness. o Assessment and Selection of Sentinel Watersheds as Priority Management Zones for Addressing Impaired Waters The goal of this project is to select sentinel watersheds in Minnesota. These are watersheds that will be used to monitor changes in water quality as a result of conservation practices on the ground. Information gathered in sentinel watershed will help inform water monitoring efforts all over the state and provide a framework for coordinating data collection o Identifying Priority Management Zones for Best Management Practice Implementation in Impaired Watersheds This project will develop a compendium of assessment tools and provide a decision-support system for identifying and delineating areas of the landscape that are most vulnerable to erosion and areas contributing a disproportionate amount of sediment and nutrient pollution. This support system can be used by state and local watershed professionals and will help target conservation practices to areas of the landscape where they will have the greatest environmental benefit. This project will also result in the development of guidance and training materials for field data collection, which can be used by local governments and community organizations.

May 1, 2012 13

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. o Priority Setting of Watershed Restoration in Sentinel Watersheds The goal of this project is to develop a scientifically defensible approach for prioritizing stream sites with the intent of reducing sediment and phosphorus loading. The idea is that stream sites that contribute the largest amount of sediment and phosphorus should be prioritized and conservation practices should be targeted to these areas. The new approach will engage local government units and test the new approach in the Whitewater River watershed, Elm Creek watershed and Buffalo River watershed.

All projects are described in more detail at www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/cleanwaterfund/research/listofresearchprojects.aspx

Please describe activities underway to develop a research inventory database.

The Minnesota Water Research Database project will create a centralized, web-based inventory of all types of research related to water in Minnesota. When complete, users will be able to readily access tens of thousands of water research documents previously scattered across many websites, journals, and other media not readily accessible to citizens and others outside the research community.

• In 2011, the MDA convened a diverse project advisory committee. The committee continues to provide essential input on the scope of material to be included in the inventory and the types of searchable attributes important to users. • A high-level database and web application design was completed in 2011, including a data model and 120 draft screens (windows) for data entry, public searches, and database reporting and maintenance. • In 2012, the data model is being refined and the highest priority screens will be developed. Planning is also under way for the following project activities: o Data entry and search functions will be tested in the fall of 2012, with help from other agencies and organizations. o Once the web-based tool is fully functional (anticipated early 2013) the MDA and initial data entry partner organizations will begin entering content, with emphasis on recent water research (calendar year 2000 forward). o Once sufficiently seeded, the Water Research Database will be made public. The MDA will announce its availability and implement a multi-faceted outreach strategy to ensure the news reaches target audiences. The MDA will also reach out to diverse agencies and organizations about the opportunity to become data entry partners. o The MDA and data entry partners will continue adding to the research inventory in 2013 and beyond. Public users will be able to submit content to be entered by one or another data entry partner organization.

May 1, 2012 14

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. In the 2011 Special Session Legacy bill, sec. 25 states “a recipient of funds appropriated in this article shall incorporate civic engagement and public education when implementing projects and programs funded under this article”. Please describe your progress in this area.

Civic engagement is a central part of most of MDA’s Clean Water Fund supported activities. MDA works with many partners to develop and implement the necessary tools (agricultural practices) to protect surface and groundwater and to ensure that information on agricultural issues and recommended practices is accurate, easily accessible and delivered in a way that is meaningful and informative. Brochures, fact sheets, web pages, field days, presentations, meetings and listening sessions are used to deliver information and gather feedback from individuals and organizations. MDA works directly with many diverse stakeholders to ensure that scientific information gets in the hands of the end users.

Individual civic engagement efforts are especially noteworthy in the MDA’s Root River Partnership, Groundwater/ Drinking Water , and Restoration and Protection activities. These efforts include working directly with individual farmers, agricultural organizations and local government in: • Nitrogen Fertilizer BMP Development, Promotion and Education • Responding to Ag Areas Impacted by Nitrates • Technology Transfer for Ag BMPs and emerging precision conservation technologies to support the impaired water process • Outreach and Education on agricultural issues and practices

Did you return any unused dollars to the Clean Water Fund in FY10-11? If so, please describe circumstances.

Yes, some funds in FY 10-11 were returned because of conflicting budget instructions regarding indirect charges. Initially MDA staff were informed there would be no agency indirect charges. Then we were told we would have to charge agency indirects in the same manner as for any dedicated account and funds were held back for some projects to cover these costs. Finally in the last quarter of FY11 we were told we would not have to pay agency indirect costs however at that point it was too late to spend the funds budgeted for indirects on their intended purpose.

Please describe any new Clean Water Fund initiatives/programs your agency is considering for FY14-15.

1. The Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification program. Funding for this project will be under the technical assistance category. 2. Contracting for a regional irrigation water quality specialist position through U of M extension. This would fill a badly needed gap to help develop and provide education and guidance on irrigation water quality BMPs such as irrigation scheduling to Minnesota farmers who irrigate.

May 1, 2012 15

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Irrigation of row crops is a major potential source of nitrates in groundwater especially in the areas with coarse-textured (sandy) soils common in central Minnesota. There are many farmers, particularly those newly implementing irrigation, who would benefit from increased education on irrigation BMPs. This request is an outcome from a recent irrigation forum lead by farmers and sponsored by the MDA with Clean Water Funds. 3. Funding to support a more extensive education program for animal waste technicians who spread manure for hire. These individuals are responsible for spreading the majority of manure from feedlots in Minnesota. An MDA advisory group has identified this as a significant need to help reduce and protect water resources from nutrient runoff due to inappropriate or over- application of manure. 4. Funding to conduct a coordinated survey of the adoption of fertilizer BMPs and on-farm conservation practices conducted jointly through the MDA, NASS, BWSR and Minnesota State University at Mankato. This could help identify in a technically defensible manner the long-term trends in the adoption of BMPs and conservation practices over time without regard to funding source. Funding for this activity will be under the groundwater protection category.

May 1, 2012 16

Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA)

From: Freeman, Jeff (DEED) Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:13 PM To: Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA) Cc: Dunn, Bill (MPCA); Priebe, Bill (MPCA); Kuhlman, Terry (DEED) Subject: PFA Response to BOC Attachments: CWC BOC budget questionaire - PFA&PCA response.doc

Attached is the PFA’s reply (with input from PCA) to the Clean Water Council BOC questionnaire. When the June follow- up meetings are being scheduled please let us know about possible times as soon as possible.

Jeff Freeman | Deputy Director Minnesota Public Facilities Authority 1st National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101 651-259-7465 [email protected] http://www.positivelyminnesota.com/pfa

1 Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Public Facilities Authority Clean Water Fund appropriations

Agency Activity Actual Actual Proposed FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 TMDL grants (WWTP and stormwater): Provides 50% $21.650M $22.370M grants for the specific treatment component required to PFA address new discharge standards due to a TMDL = implementation plan. Phosphorus reduction grants: Provides a 50% grant for $8.550M $8.550M PFA the treatment component required to reduce

phosphorus discharge to new permit levels. - Small community WWT: Construction grants/loans $2.500M $2.500M and technical assistance grants to develop a project PFA feasibility study and help build the technical,

managerial and financial capacity to own and operate + the system when built. Total $32.700M $35.02M

Legend Monitoring/ Watershed restoration / Drinking water Nonpoint source Education and civic Applied research and Point source assessment protection strategies protection implementation engagement tool development implementation

Please describe overall progress from activities in FY10-11 and planned progress for FY12-13 by responding to the following questions.

Point source implementation:

• Please describe information about the TMDL grant program:

o How many TMDL grants were issued in FY10-11 and the water quality benefits expected from the grant projects.

As shown in the table on the following page, the PFA awarded 17 TMDL grants totaling $11,928,011 in FY10-11, thereby helping 17 municipalities meet their required wasteload reductions under approved TMDL implementation plans.

These projects resulted in an estimated 66,000 pounds of phosphorus removed each year, in addition to reductions to other pollutants of concern.

Public Facilities Authority 1 05/01/2012

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

TMDL Grants Awarded, FY10-11 TMDL Grant Leveraged TMDL Eligible Total Project FY Recipient Project Description Amount Funds Cost Cost 2010 Blue Earth, City of Construct treatment plant improv 317,130 317,130 634,260 2,047,950 2010 Comfrey, City of Rehab collection and treatment fa 183,425 43,988 227,413 1,652,850 2010 St. James, City of Construct advanced treatment fa 1,446,213 1,446,212 2,892,425 8,604,167 2010 Waseca, City of Construct advanced treatment fa 505,050 967,400 1,472,450 16,108,549 2010 Willmar, City of Construct new treatment plant 2,192,935 3,296,065 5,489,000 38,431,573 2011 Arlington, City of Construct treatment plant improv 640,339 948,591 1,588,930 5,005,885 2011 Crystal, City of Construct retention basin 347,404 347,404 694,808 694,808 2011 Elmore, City of Construct treatment plant improv 343,707 934,779 1,278,486 5,158,000 2011 Milford Township Construct collection system and c 190,000 313,470 503,470 973,000 2011 Mantorville, City of Extend sewer to unsewered area 277,760 284,929 562,689 562,689 2011 Marshall, City of Construct improvements to storm 309,215 309,215 618,430 810,000 2011 Minneota, City of Construct collection system impro 572,000 572,000 1,144,000 2,414,000 2011 Odin, City of Construct collection and treatmen 1,400,000 1,427,723 2,827,723 3,140,000 2011 Ormsby, City of Construct collection system and c 1,000,000 1,105,530 2,105,530 2,674,000 2011 Pipestone, City of Construct treatment plant improv 1,036,831 2,153,418 3,190,249 3,540,159 2011 Red Rock Township Construct collection and treatmen 291,126 - 291,126 587,498 2011 Watson, City of Construct collection system and c 874,876 874,875 1,749,751 3,165,076 Total 17 $ 11,928,011 $ 15,342,729 $ 27,270,740 $ 95,570,204

o The amount of funds leveraged through the program.

As shown in the table above, the $11.9 million awarded in TMDL grants leveraged an additional $15.3 million in other funding that these municipalities used to meet the TMDL requirements.

o The amount of requests vs. the amount of available funding.

The amounts of available TMDL funding and grants awarded vs. applied for are summarized in the table below. The 2010-2011 Clean Water Fund appropriation rider language for the PFA programs states that the funds are available until spent, due to the multi-year nature of the planning and design work for these projects and the significant investment required by municipalities to complete the technical/engineering work so get these projects ready for construction. The available funds also include a balance from pre-2010 bonding appropriations for the program when it was established by the Clean Water Legacy Act. PFA does not award funding until a project has been approved, bid, and is ready to start construction.

Clean Water Fund appropriations, FY10-11 21,650,000 Total awarded, FY10-11 (11,928,011) Balance available 9,721,989 Balance from pre-2010 CW Legacy bonding appropriations 2,944,039 Clean Water Fund appropriation, FY12 11,185,000 Total available for FY12 23,851,028 Eligible applications for FY12 (22,289,041) Estimated carryforward to FY13 1,561,987 Clean Water Fund appropriation, FY13 11,185,000 Estimated available for FY13 12,746,987

Public Facilities Authority 2 05/01/2012

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. o The TMDL granting process for FY12-13, including amount available per grant round and applicant process to date.

The PFA accepts TMDL grant applications each July from eligible projects on the MPCA’s Project Priority List, but does not award funding until a project has been approved, bid, and ready to start construction. The table below shows the eligible FY12 applications totaling $22.3 million for $23.9 million in available funds. The 22 applications for $22.3 million is a significant increase from FY10-11, reflecting an expected ramp up in applications as additional TMDL studies are completed. In FY12 to date the PFA has awarded 4 TMDL grants for $5.2 million, with the remaining applicants working to complete project engineering and bidding. The PFA expects to award a number of the remaining grants in late FY12 and others will carry over to FY13.

Eligible TMDL Grant Applications, FY12 Estimated Estimated Estimated TMDL Grant Leveraged TMDL Eligible Estimated Total FY Applicant Project Description Amount Funds Cost Project Cost 2012 Biscay Unsewered, potential SSTS 325,203 325,203 650,405 650,405 2012 Dakota Unsewered, joint trmt with Dresb 2,395,000 2,395,000 4,790,000 4,631,930 2012 Dresbach Twp Unsewered, joint trmt with Dakot 1,265,000 1,265,000 2,530,000 2,728,390 2012 Dundee Unsewered, collection and treatm 1,260,000 1,260,000 2,520,000 2,362,883 2012 Hazel Run Unsewered, potential SSTS 380,000 380,000 760,000 894,000 2012 Hibbing Ph 2, rehab secondary/tertiary/pu 3,000,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 8,208,000 2012 Lansing Twp Unswrd area/connect to Lansing W 323,532 323,532 647,064 645,205 2012 Louisburg Unsewered, potential SSTS 280,500 280,500 561,000 405,000 2012 Minneapolis - Stormwater37th Ave. Greenway 840,037 840,037 1,680,073 1,739,970 2012 Minnesota City Unsewered, recir sand filter, NPD 1,006,480 2,085,870 3,092,350 3,226,812 2012 Myrtle Unsewered, collection and treatm 562,000 562,000 1,124,000 970,000 2012 North Koochiching Area SDRehab treatment facility 1,350,000 1,536,918 2,886,918 15,038,290 2012 Northrop Rehab collection system and pond 86,250 86,250 172,500 2,660,000 2012 Raymond Rehab collection and treatment s 2,600,000 2,600,000 5,200,000 5,337,000 2012 Roseland Twp Unsewered, collection and treatm 993,363 993,363 1,986,725 1,987,000 2012 RWMWD - Stormwater Maplewood Mall infiltration Phas 1,250,000 1,250,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2012 Starbuck Expand treatment system, advanc 644,750 644,750 1,289,500 1,583,975 2012 Steele County - Bixby Unsewered, potential SSTS 369,750 369,750 739,500 770,250 2012 Trosky Unsewered, potential SSTS 431,500 431,500 863,000 863,000 2012 Virginia Rehab treatment system, advance 2,171,882 2,171,882 4,343,764 18,698,363 2012 Walnut Grove Rehab collection and treatment s 330,000 330,000 660,000 5,829,000 2012 York Twp - Greenleafton Unsewered, potential SSTS 423,796 423,796 847,591 838,500 Total 22 $ 22,289,041 $ 23,555,349 $ 45,844,390 $ 82,567,973

Public Facilities Authority 3 05/01/2012

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• Please describe the Phosphorus reduction grant program:

o How many phosphorus reduction grants were issued in FY10-11 and the water quality benefits expected from the grant projects.

As shown in the table on the following page, the PFA awarded 10 Phosphorus Reduction grants totaling $3,868,378 in FY10-11, thereby helping 10 municipalities reduce the phosphorus discharge from their treatment facilities to 1 mg/l or less.

These projects resulted in an estimated 38,000 pounds of phosphorus removed each year.

Phosphorus Reduction Grants, FY10-11 Phos Grant Leveraged Phos Eligible Total Project FY Recipient Project Description Amount Funds Cost Cost 2010 Comfrey, City of Rehab collection and treatment fa 183,425 43,987 227,412 1,652,850 2010 Faribault, City of Construct advanced treatment fa 500,000 376,854 876,854 26,731,798 2010 Metropolitan Council Construct treatment plant improv 500,000 282,162 782,162 18,121,807 2010 Renville, City of Construct treatment plant improv 500,000 633,651 1,133,651 4,627,584 2010 St. Cloud, City of Construct treatment plant improv 500,000 1,066,400 1,566,400 44,099,900 2010 Zimmerman, City of Construct treatment plant improv 211,057 70,352 281,409 2,500,000 2011 Butterfield, City of Construct treatment plant improv 389,896 129,965 519,861 2,603,398 2011 Owatonna, City of Construct advanced treatment fa 500,000 526,745 1,026,745 8,429,333 2011 Princeton, City of Construct treatment plant improv 500,000 1,548,994 2,048,994 15,975,000 2011 Winnebago, City of Construct treatment plant improv 84,000 190,158 274,158 3,728,141 Total 10 $ 3,868,378 $ 4,869,268 $ 8,737,646 $ 128,469,811

o The amount of funds leveraged through the program.

As shown in the table above, the $3.9 million awarded in phosphorus reduction grants leveraged an additional $4.9 million in other funding that these municipalities used to reduce their phosphorus discharge.

o The amount of requests vs. the amount of available funding.

The amounts of available phosphorus reduction funding vs. grants awarded and applied for are summarized in the table below. The 2010-2011 Clean Water Fund appropriation rider language for the PFA programs states that the funds are available until spent, due to the multi-year nature of the planning and design work for these projects and the significant investment required by municipalities to complete the technical/engineering work so get these projects ready for construction. PFA does not award funding until a project has been approved, bid, and is ready to start construction.

Public Facilities Authority 4 05/01/2012

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Clean Water Fund appropriations, FY10-11 8,550,000 Total awarded, FY10-11 (3,868,378) Balance available 4,681,622 Clean Water Fund appropriation, FY12 4,275,000 Total available For FY12 8,956,622 Eligible applications for FY12 (1,962,389) Estimated carryforward to FY13 6,994,233 Clean Water Fund appropriation, FY13 4,275,000 Estimated available for FY13 11,269,233

o Please describe phosphorus reduction granting process for FY12-13, including amount available per grant round and applicant process to date.

The PFA accepts phosphorus reduction grant applications each July from eligible projects on the MPCA’s Project Priority List, but does not award funding until a project has been approved, bid, and ready to start construction. The table below shows the eligible FY12 applications totaling $2.0 million for $9.0 million in available funds. In FY12 to date the PFA has awarded 3 phosphorus reduction grants for $632,389, with the remaining applicants working to complete project engineering and bidding. The PFA expects to award some of the remaining grants in late FY12 and others will carry over to FY13.

Eligible Phos Reduction Grant Applications, FY12 Estimated Estimated Phos Leveraged Estimated Phos Estimated Total FY Applicant Project Description Grant Amount Funds Eligible Cost Project Cost 2012 Evansville Phos trmt, Ph 1 rehab collection 57,027 57,025 114,052 330,175 2012 Fosston Add primary pond, other improve 75,362 83,041 158,403 6,879,166 2012 Silver Creek Twp - StewartUnsewered, collection and trmt 500,000 5,900,000 6,400,000 7,023,329 2012 Starbuck Expand treatment system, advanc 500,000 789,500 1,289,500 1,583,975 2012 Walnut Grove Rehab collection and treatment s 330,000 330,000 660,000 5,829,000 2012 Winsted Advanced treatment, LS improvem 500,000 880,550 1,380,550 5,050,000 Total 6 $ 1,962,389 $ 8,040,116 $ 10,002,505 $ 26,695,645

Public Facilities Authority 5 05/01/2012

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• Please describe information about the small community wastewater program:

o How many small community wastewater treatment grant and loans were issued in FY10-11 and the water quality benefits expected from the projects.

As shown in the table below the PFA awarded 19 small community wastewater treatment grants and loans totaling $879,473 in FY10-11. This program targets very small unsewered communities with straight-pipe discharges and other high priority non-complying individual treatment systems. The program awards included 16 technical assistance grants for $398,450 to help these communities contract with ISTS professionals to conduct soils testing and evaluate the feasibility of various treatment alternatives, starting with soil-based sewage treatment system (SSTS) options. The PFA also awarded 50% grant/50% loan funding totaling $481,023 for SSTS construction in three communities. This funding helps these communities eliminate raw sewage discharges and groundwater contamination from straight pipes and other non-complying individual systems.

The 16 communities that received technical assistance grants in FY10-11 are evaluating solutions for a total of 688 failed SSTS or straight pipes, which discharge approximately 300,000 gallons per day of partially or untreated sewage being released into the environment. The three construction projects fixed 65 failed residential systems, eliminating the discharge of 30,000 gallons per day of partially or untreated sewage.

Small Community Wastewater Treatment Grants & Loans, FY10-11 Sm Comm Grant/Loan Leveraged Sm Comm Total Project FY Recipient Project Description Amount Funds Eligible Cost Cost 2010 Carlos Township Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 33,000 - 33,000 33,000 2010 French Township Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 18,500 - 18,500 18,500 2010 Lake County Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 2010 Lake View Township Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 40,000 - 40,000 40,000 2010 Louisburg, City of Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 16,450 - 16,450 16,450 2010 Myrtle, City of Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 23,500 - 23,500 23,500 2011 Afton, City of Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 25,500 - 25,500 25,500 2011 Amador Township Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 25,500 - 25,500 25,500 2011 Biscay, City of Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 28,500 - 28,500 28,500 2011 Doran, City of Construct collect. & SSTS treatme 70,000 534,413 604,413 604,413 2011 Forest City Township Construct collect. & SSTS treatme 114,651 340,000 454,651 454,651 2011 Foxhome, City of Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 33,500 - 33,500 33,500 2011 Grand Lake Township Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 24,500 - 24,500 24,500 2011 Leaf Valley Township Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 25,500 - 25,500 25,500 2011 Miltona Township Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 27,000 - 27,000 27,000 2011 Northern Township Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 19,500 - 19,500 19,500 2011 Red Rock Township Construct collect. & SSTS treatme 296,372 - 296,372 296,372 2011 Trosky, City of Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 26,000 - 26,000 26,000 2011 York Township Eval. alt. to fix failing SSTS 25,000 - 25,000 25,000 Total 19 $ 879,473 $ 874,413 $ 1,753,886 $ 1,753,886

Public Facilities Authority 6 05/01/2012

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. o The amount of funds leveraged through the program.

As shown in the table above, the $879,473 awarded in small community grants and loans leveraged an additional $874,413 in other funding that these municipalities used to correct problems with non-complying systems.

o The amount of requests vs. the amount of available funding.

• The amounts of available small community funding vs. grants awarded and applied for are summarized in the table below. The 2010-2011 Clean Water Fund appropriation rider language for the PFA programs states that the funds are available until spent, due to the multi-year nature of the planning and design work for these projects. The characteristics of many small unsewered communities make it particularly difficult to identify treatment alternatives that are both technically and financially feasible. The PFA awards up front technical assistance grants to help these communities conduct feasibility studies, but construction funding is not awarded until a project has been approved, bid, and is ready to start construction.

Clean Water Fund appropriations, FY10-11 2,500,000 Total awarded, FY10-11 (879,473) Balance available 1,620,527 Balance from pre-2010 CW Legacy bonding appropriations 2,563,005 Clean Water Fund appropriation, FY12 1,250,000 Total available for FY12 5,433,532 Eligible applications for FY12 (1,662,298) Estimated carryforward to FY13 3,771,234 Clean Water Fund appropriation, FY13 1,250,000 Estimated available for FY13 5,021,234

o Please describe small community wastewater treatment grant/loan process for FY12-13, including amount available per grant round and applicant process to date.

The PFA accepts small community wastewater treatment applications at any time throughout the year from eligible projects on the MPCA’s Project Priority List. Technical assistance grants are awarded when a community demonstrates that it is ready to evaluate community SSTS alternatives to address serious problems from non-complying private systems. Construction funding is not awarded until a project has been approved and bid, and the community has developed a management plan to effectively operate and maintain its SSTS systems. The table below shows the eligible FY12 applications to date totaling $1.66 million for $5.0 million in available funds. Two of the technical assistance grants have already been awarded and the PFA expects the remaining grants and loans will be awarded by the end of calendar 2012 as the projects are ready. Overall, the 2012 project priority list includes 15 communities that have been identified as potentially eligible for the small community program with total estimated construction costs of $11.9 million.

Public Facilities Authority 7 05/01/2012

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Eligible Small Community Grant/Loan Applications, FY12 Estimated Sm Comm Estimated Estimated Sm Grant/Loan Leveraged Comm Eligible Estimated Total FY Applicant Project Description Amount Funds Cost Project Cost 2012 Oronoco Twp - King's Park 24,000 - 24,000 24,000 2012 Chisago County - Rolling Shores 17,000 - 17,000 17,000 2012 Northern Twp - Birchmont Beach 22,000 - 22,000 22,000 2012 Northern Twp - Lavinia 26,500 - 26,500 26,500 2012 Oronoco 39,500 - 39,500 39,500 2012 Biscay 132,798 667,203 800,000 800,000 2012 Kabetogama Twp - Puck's Point 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 2012 Steele County - Bixby 400,500 369,750 770,250 770,250 Total 8 $ 1,662,298 $ 1,036,953 $ 2,699,250 $ 2,699,250

In the 2011 Special Session Legacy bill, sec. 25 states “a recipient of funds appropriated in this article shall incorporate civic engagement and public education when implementing projects and programs funded under this article”. Please describe your progress in this area.

Eligibility for the point source implementation programs is limited to municipalities (cities, counties, townships, sanitary districts) for publicly owned wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. The PFA and MPCA inform all eligible applicants about these programs through written and electronic notices, website postings, and presentations at various information seminars and conferences throughout the year. In addition, PFA and MPCA staffs work directly with individual municipal applicants to provide information on the programs and the available funding that the municipalities can use as they provide information to their residents and discuss the proposed projects in public forums.

Did you return any unused dollars to the Clean Water Fund in FY10-11? If so, please describe circumstances.

No dollars were returned to the Clean Water Fund. The 2010-2011 Clean Water Fund appropriation rider language for the PFA programs states that the funds are available until spent, due to the multi-year nature of the planning and design work for these projects and the significant investment required by municipalities to complete the technical/engineering work so get these projects ready for construction. PFA does not award construction funding to a municipality until a project has been approved, bid, and is ready to start construction.

Public Facilities Authority 8 05/01/2012

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Please describe any new Clean Water Fund initiatives/programs your agency is considering for FY14-15.

There is overlap between the TMDL and Phosphorus Reduction programs due to the fact that phosphorus is the pollutant of concern for wasteload reduction in many TMDL implementation plans. The PFA is in discussions with the PCA about whether these two programs should be merged into one to make the funding criteria consistent and simplify the application process for municipalities.

Many of the very small unsewered communities that are the focus of the Small Community Wastewater Treatment program are in extremely challenging situations that make it very difficult to find wastewater solutions that are both technically and financially feasible. The PFA and MPCA are working with other state and federal agencies to consider how to adapt existing programs and resources to address these problems. Internal process and procedural changes are being implemented and larger program recommendations may follow in the future.

Public Facilities Authority 9 05/01/2012

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Department of Natural Resources Clean Water Fund appropriations

Activity Actual Actual Proposed FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 DNR Water quality assessment $3.700M --- (split into categories below) DNR Continuation and expansion of stream flow monitoring. -- $3.65M + Lake IBI assessment: assess 400 additional lakes, provide -- $2.3M + DNR technical analysis to develop aquatic plant IBI analysis, work with MPCA to develop assessment tool. Fish mercury assessment: monitoring to track status of -- $0.260M + DNR mercury-impaired waters and mercury reduction efforts over (slight increase time. for inflation) DNR TMDL development and implementation. $2.100M $3.460M + DNR Drinking water planning and protection activities. $1.125M --- (split into categories below) Water supply planning, aquifer protection and monitoring DNR $3.000M + activities. Metropolitan groundwater monitoring and protection. $4.000M $1.000M 0 (FY10-11 is DNR available until spent) DNR Water appropriation electronic permitting development. -- $0.900M + Nonpoint source restoration and protection activities. $0.500M --- (shifted to “shoreland DNR stewardship…” below) DNR Mississippi River Critical Area. $0.500M -- 0 (project complete) Shoreland stewardship, implementation coordination, -- $3.450M + provide watershed and hydrologic expertise to the Drainage Work Group and Drainage Management Team DNR Watershed delineation: maintain & update watershed boundaries, integrate LiDAR with watershed modeling. ($470K). Biomonitoring database ($0.80M) High resolution elevation data: Complete LiDAR data $5.600M $2.700M - collection and develop products for use with TMDL plan (statewide LiDAR DNR development and implementation data collect done; funding needed for ongoing maintenance) DNR County geologic atlases $1.000M -- + $18.525M $20.720M + Total

Legend Monitoring/ Watershed restoration / Drinking water Nonpoint source Education and civic Applied research and Point source assessment protection strategies protection implementation engagement tool development implementation

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Please briefly describe overall progress from activities in FY10‐11 and planned progress for FY12‐13 by responding to the following questions.

Monitoring and assessment:

 Please describe water quality assessment activities and outcomes in FY10‐11.

Stream Flow Monitoring: Collect stream flow data to determine pollutant loading for establishment of impaired waters. This work is done in cooperation with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

 Installed 6 new gages, upgraded 4 gages in a stream gage network to take automated, continuous stream flow measurements across the state.  Collected 657 stream flow measurements to calibrate stream gages for use in statewide assessment of Minnesota's major watersheds.  Compiled 58 annual daily flow quantity records for DNR ‐ operated permanent gage locations for use in statewide assessment of Minnesota's major watersheds.

Lake IBI Assessment: Develop an index of biological integrity for use by MPCA in assessment of lake water quality.

 Trained DNR Fisheries management staff to do nearshore nongame fish population assessments in preparation for transition of assessment program from the Division of Ecological and Water Resources to the Division of Fish and Wildlife.  Sampled 226 lakes for nearshore nongame fish communities. Additional assessments for quality control were done on 24 lakes. Littoral and pelagic game and nongame fish surveys were also completed.

Fish Mercury Assessment: Collect and process data for determining fish consumption advisories, impairment status, and trend markers for the sampled sites.

 Tested 80 lakes and rivers each year for fish contamination. This is in addition to the approximately 70 lakes that are normally tested on an annual basis.

Watershed Delineation: Develop information for mapping small scale catchment areas, conservation targeting activities, watershed modeling, and many other management applications.

 Mapped drainage areas of 415 shallow lakes and used LiDAR data to complete watershed delineations for two major watersheds.  Completed work with USGS for Watershed updates  Developed and taught LiDAR training courses and coordinated the implementation of LiDAR for use in the DNR and the State.

Watershed Modeling: Provide technical support to watershed managers to guide drainage related conservation projects.

 Participated in all Drainage Work Group and Drainage Management Tram meetings. Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

 Prepared preliminary report on GSSHA model calibrations in the Straight River. Models will be used to better identify sources of sediment in the watershed for support of a clean water restoration (Total Maximum Daily Load) study.  Finalized Cedar River culvert sizing analysis. Presented model results to local governments and watershed science peers.  Shakopee Creek: worked with national science team to review model options that will provide the best framework for a decision support system that will give data access and guidance to stakeholders.

 Please describe activities underway and planned in FY12‐13 for:

o Stream flow monitoring Collect stream flow data to determine pollutant loading for establishment of impaired waters. This work is done in cooperation with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

 Grow the stream monitoring network by adding 60 new gages  Collect 775 stream flow measurements  Compile 60 records for continuous real time gage sites for use in statewide assessment of Minnesota's major watersheds  Coordinate with MPCA’s lake monitoring to install lake level gages on priority lakes  Continue to ensure stream gage and flow measurement data are available for critical flood forecasting if needed.

o Lake IBI assessment, including assessment of 400 additional lakes Develop an index of biological integrity for use by MPCA in assessment of lake water quality.

 Assess 400 lakes (200/year) for nearshore fish communities, along with accompanying littoral zone and pelagic game and nongame fish surveys  Twenty lakes will receive multiple nearshore surveys per field season for quality control purposes  Work with a team of scientists to establish an index of biological integrity for lakes

o Fish mercury assessment Collect and process data for determining fish consumption advisories, impairment status, and trend markers for the sampled sites.

 Test 160 lakes and rivers (80/year) for fish contamination to collect information to be used for determining fish consumption advisories, impairment status, and trend markers for those sites. This is in addition to the approximately 70 lakes that are normally tested on an annual basis.

Watershed restoration and protection:

 Please describe TMDL development and implementation activities and outcomes in FY10‐11, and activities planned and underway in FY12‐13. Collect and synthesize data to characterize watersheds and prioritize watershed restoration and protection strategies. Ensure strong agency collaboration; coordinate budget development and reporting.

FY10‐11 Activities and Outcomes DNR Clean Water Specialists and Field Hydrologists worked closely with MPCA watershed staff in watershed characterization, TMDL development, stressor identification, watershed modeling, and formulation of watershed protection and restoration strategies at the major watershed scale. DNR’s field studies in stream geomorphology Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. have been identified by the MPCA as adding tremendous scientific value to the watershed characterization and strategy development process.

DNR’s Clean Water Coordinator and other staff and mangers facilitated interagency coordination and partnerships, participated in interagency clean water sub‐teams, supported DNR’s participation in the Clean Water Council, and coordinated budgeting and reporting Clean Water Funded work on behalf of the DNR. DNR staff participated in interagency review of Clean Water Partnership and Clean Water Fund grant proposals.

In FY 12‐13, DNR will continue to partner with state agencies and local communities to provide technical assistance to watershed characterization and development of clean water restoration and protection strategies. This work includes the following tasks:  Gathering, analyzing, and sharing existing information. DNR has a wealth of information on stream flows, water levels, climatology, fisheries, habitats, rare species, watershed boundaries, and more, which is used in planning watershed assessments, identifying pollution types and sources, and developing watershed protection and restoration strategies that provide clean water and other ecological benefits.  Conducting technical watershed studies. This is generally field reconnaissance and collecting data about stream features (width, depth, bank erosion) that helps scientists develop computer models to predict pollution sources and amounts, as well as inform findings about the causes of water impairments and the best approaches for watershed restoration. The stream measurements ‐ known as stream geomorphology ‐ are also being used in more detailed studies of sediment movement in watersheds and floodplain mapping and analysis.  Developing Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies. With agency and local partners, DNR staff will participate in a process that uses model results, data synthesis, local input, and professional knowledge to recommend protection and restoration options that will be implemented locally for a given major watershed.  DNR staff will also continue to participate in multi‐agency partnerships to continually improve the process of assessing watersheds and recommending watershed restoration and protection strategies.  Finally, DNR staff will participate in multi‐agency grant reviews for clean water work.

o Development of a watershed assessment tool Establish indices to track watershed health over time at the major watershed scale; use a five component framework (hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, connectivity, and biology) to promote an understanding of watershed systems.

 Deliver a decision support tool to assist managers in applying the watershed health scores to strategic planning and decision making  Make GIS data used for health scores readily available to users  Deliver a systems perspective to a broad audience through outreach via workshops and the web

Groundwater/drinking water:

 Please describe drinking water planning and protection activities and outcomes from FY10‐11. Establish groundwater management areas in places with existing or future stressed aquifers. Increase data available for sustainable long‐ term water supply management.

Water Supply Planning: Define Groundwater Management Areas  Completed a statewide interagency review and ranking process for areas of critical groundwater use Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

 Conducted significant monitoring and held stakeholder meetings to lay the groundwork for aquifer management plans in two pilot areas: Moorhead and Bonanza Valley (Brooten‐Belgrade area)  Conducted meetings with interested parties and interagency staff in three potential groundwater management areas (South Washington County, White Bear Lake and Little Rock Creek), and continued less formal discussions with user groups and local governmental units in two other potential groundwater management areas in Clay and Hubbard Counties  Participated in the Interagency Groundwater and Drinking Water Team’s assessment of a statewide process to evaluate risks to the water table aquifer  Created an updated statewide map of shallow aquifer vulnerability

Water Supply Planning: inventory and maintain Minnesota's groundwater observation well network  Inspected and assessed 591 wells in 36 counties  Sealed 61 non‐functioning wells  Installed 36 new wells

11‐county metropolitan area groundwater monitoring  Installed 14 new monitoring wells in the 11‐county metropolitan area  Equipped 70 new and existing wells with continuous data loggers to collect groundwater level data  Installed 3 deep aquifer monitoring wells in the Mt. Simon Aquifer  Began work on moving Observation Well database to a new data system.  Acquired aw ne data system to provide store and process groundwater data for use by state and local agencies. This is a cooperative effort between MPCA and the DNR.  Initiated pilot project with the Cities of New Brighton, Lakeville and Lakeland to develop a mechanism to collect automated water use and ground water level data to provide better water use and availability information for local communities and state needs.

 Please describe activities planned and underway for water supply planning, aquifer protection and monitoring in FY12‐13. Collect data and work with communities for sustainable long‐ term water supply management.

Groundwater Management Areas  Participate in or lead meetings with stakeholders and interagency staff in four groundwater management areas  Prepare paper files for data mining: review, sort and scan 10 linear feet of hard copy files from ethanol projects and groundwater areas of interest to electronic format;  Achieve significant progress with data‐mining and work planning on six of the ranked groundwater management areas  Assess the feasibility of bringing water supply planning assistance to communities not previously encouraged nor required to prepare water supply plans

Inventory and maintain Minnesota's groundwater observation well network  Inventory and assess 200 wells in 10 counties  Finalize reporting for statewide DNR observation well assessment (85 of 87 Counties), and initiate discussions on assessment process for non‐DNR observation wells that will be part of the statewide network  Work with agency partners to determine locations for approximately 45 new observation wells in each of four groundwater management areas  Instrument wells with state‐of‐the‐art data loggers for continuous water level monitoring Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

 Please describe implementation of metropolitan groundwater monitoring and protection activities. Continue establishing a network of monitoring wells in the 11‐county metropolitan area to provide information about aquifer characteristics and trends; this information will help with evaluating changes in aquifers that are stressed by pumping from existing wells.

 Complete development of and implement a new automated data management system that will provide better data management and integrate groundwater and surface water data  Install 20 new wells  Equip 40 new and existing wells with continuous data loggers to collect groundwater level data  Install deep aquifer monitoring wells in the Mt. Simon Aquifer when opportunities arise. The goal for this work is one well per year.

 Please describe progress towards establishing a web‐based electronic permitting system to capture water appropriation use information. Streamline the water permitting process with a web‐based system.

A project team has been established and has gone through an intensive process to:  Overview and map the current permitting process  Identify inefficiencies, create improvements, and document a new standardized process  Prepare a workplan for development of the new system By the end of FY12, the team will have a detailed design for a new system, and a contractor will be in place to begin work on development.

Nonpoint restoration and protection:

 Please describe nonpoint source restoration and protection activities and outcomes in FY10‐11. Work with local governments and property owners on clean water restoration and protection issues.

 Presented clean water strategies information at 31 workshops, tours, and other events, including 16 "Our Water, Our Choices" workshops led by DNR and attended by 350 people, including local officials.  Provided technical assistance and input to local partners on clean water strategies including agricultural best management practices and municipal stormwater infrastructure {includes participation in St. Croix MIDS (Minimal Impact Design Standards) pilot project}  Developed and distributed informational materials about shorelines, raingardens, and agricultural best management practices  Adapted the CD‐Rom "Restore Your Shore" to an internet‐based application that allows users to interactively explore ways that shoreline property owners can create, enhance, or protect healthy shorelines for habitat and clean water. The website includes step by step instructions for shoreland restoration and an online interactive plant selection tool.  Worked with local governments to provide information, guidance, and technical assistance to landowners regarding conservation assistance, easements and conservation projects. This work resulted in permanently protecting 348.8 acres of riparian land and floodplains through conservation easements  Worked with local, state, and federal partners to implement clean water projects:  5 raingardens  6 river restorations  1 lake drawdown  1 wetland restoration Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

 2 native prairie restorations  2 lakeshore restorations  1 high velocity fish barrier

Research and tool development:

 Please describe activities underway and planned in FY12‐13 for:

o Shoreland stewardship Engage with communities and landowners to advance land protection in shorelands and watersheds.

DNR hydrologists and forestry staff are working with local governments and property owners on clean water restoration and protection issues. DNR Foresters will work with property owners in priority areas within the central lakes region to write stewardship plans and promote enrollment in land protection programs.

o TMDL implementation coordination Support implementation of strategies for watershed restoration and protection.

DNR hydrologists and clean water specialists are working with state and local partners to support implementation projects identified in existing TMDL plans through education, technical help, and partnership. This work will use natural resource information and conservation targeting tools to maximize conservation investments by matching the right strategies in the right places. We will help local governments design, get funding, and implement clean water strategies.

o Drainage Work Group and Management Team technical assistance Participate in Drainage Work Group and Drainage Management Team meetings to help identify research needs and shortcomings in outdated State Drainage Code language.

DNR hydrologists are applying the "Gridded Subsurface Surface Hydrologic Analysis" (GSSHA) model to evaluate BMP alternatives for clean water restoration and protection studies:  Calibrate Shakopee Creek dwetland an lake restoration GSSHA models to support restoration and BMP prioritization efforts in Chippewa River Basin  Finalize Straight River (Cannon River Watershed) GSSHA Model Calibrations for TSS and work with CRWP on Prioritizing Management Zones in Straight River Watershed in support of TMDL implementation

o Updating watershed boundaries Develop information for mapping small scale catchment areas, conservation targeting activities, watershed modeling, and many other management applications.

 Continue to conduct watershed delineations by request  Broaden the number of people using watershed data and tools for clean water related initiatives  Continue to update the DNR Catchment data ewith th last 2 years of tracked changes, and coordinate the use of LiDAR data and LiDAR training as the MN LiDAR Research and Education Committee Chair  Will work with the USGS and Natural Resources Conservation Service and International Joint Commission to harmonize watershed delineation along the Canadian border.

o Biomonitoring database Lead a multi‐agency effort to develop a data management structure for storing and sharing stream and river data.

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

 Please describe progress in acquiring and distributing high‐resolution digital elevation data to aid with impaired waters modeling and TMDLs in FY10‐11 and plans for FY12‐13. Collect and distribute LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data to develop detailed digital elevation models for use in conservation targeting, flood control planning, and a host of other applications.

FY10‐11 Activities and Outcomes  Developed master contracting process to collect Digital Elevation information statewide.  Collected and published LiDAR data was collected and published for 25 counties in the Minnesota River Basin and southwestern Minnesota. It is publicly available on‐line from DNR.  Collected LiDAR data over an area covering 21,933 square miles in 19 counties: Anoka, Benton, Carlton, Carver, Cook, Dakota, Goodhue, Hennepin, Isanti, Kanabec, Lake, Morrison, Mille Lacs, Sherburne, Meeker, Ramsey, St. Louis, Scott and Washington.

In FY12‐13, DNR will acquire LiDAR data over 11,690 square miles covering all or parts of 7 counties: Aitkin, Blue Earth, Cass, Hubbard, Itasca, Koochiching, Todd, and Wadena. This will complete coverage of LiDAR data collection for the state of Minnesota. All data will be processed and published for public use.

 Please describe progress in developing the county geologic atlas program statewide. Work with Minnesota Geological Survey to convey geologic and hydrologic information and interpretation.

Activities and Outcomes to date:  Atlases completed: Todd County (part B), Carlton County (part B)  Data analysis and report production begun: Benton County, Chisago County  Field data collection begun: McLeod County, Blue Earth County, Nicollet County, and Sibley County In FY12, DNR will complete four atlases (Benton, Carver, McLeod, Chisago).

In the 2011 Special Session Legacy bill, sec. 25 states “a recipient of funds appropriated in this article shall incorporate civic engagement and public education when implementing projects and programs funded under this article”. Please describe your progress in this area.

DNR incorporated civic engagement and public education in a variety of ways:

All of DNR’s Clean Water Funded activities and outcomes are described on the Minnesota’s Legacy: Watch the Progress website.

Interagency Reporting:

The DNR worked with other CW legacy‐funded agencies to produce the recently published Clean Water Fund Performance report. The report is designed to provide an integrated overview of the connections between the dollars invested, water resource management actions taken, and clean water outcomes achieved.

Monitoring and Assessment: DNR maintains a cooperative stream gaging website where users can get real time data about stream flows and flooding. We also produce a monthly hydrologic Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. conditions report and weekly stream flow reports, which are made available on the DNR’s website. Fish contamination data are used to develop fish consumption advice, which are published by the Minnesota Department of Health.

Watershed Restoration and Protection: DNR’s Watershed Assessment Tool, with watershed health scores, are available on the web with a wealth of educational information on watershed systems. We are working with Government Training Service to hold workshops on the tool and health scores for local officials. Our statewide coordinator works with the Interagency Communications Team to help communicate about the State’s progress on Clean Water Fund activities. We developed a page on DNR’s website that links to the Minnesota’s Legacy: Watch the Progress site so users can learn more about DNR’s clean water work. We also created a display at the state fair to interpret DNR’s legacy‐funded work.

DNR’s clean water specialists, field hydrologists, and fisheries managers to work closely with MPCA staff and local partners in formulation of watershed protection and restoration strategies based on field data, analysis, and models. These same conversations enhance the understanding of civic groups in the underlying causes of the water quality problems and how to design effective solutions. In addition, they help establish strong partnerships between state and local resource managers that will facilitate more effective implementation efforts (see Nonpoint Source Protection and Restoration Heading below).

Drinking water protection: Groundwater management involves extensive civic engagement and public education. DNR brings data and information on what is known about local aquifers to stakeholders through public meetings and other venues. The goal is to work with local communities to collaboratively advance management practices for sustainable long term groundwater use.

Nonpoint Source Protection and Restoration: See the shoreland stewardship for a description of workshops, tours, publications, and websites we’ve used to increase the public’s understanding of the importance of healthy shorelines, riparian buffers, stormwater management, and other best management practices. Our work in forested watersheds will include development of information for landowners on managing forests for clean water.

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Did you return any unused dollars to the Clean Water Fund in FY10‐11? If so, please describe circumstances.

Yes, DNR returned approximately $1.4 M in FY10‐11, or 8% of the total DNR appropriation for the biennium ($18.25M).

The FY10‐11 CWF appropriation to DNR was substantially larger than the previous biennium ($2.33M). The bulk of funds were for new programs and some expansion of existing work. Ramping up and expanding programs in the midst of a state hiring freeze and extended period of hiring restrictions presented significant challenges and delayed implementation. In addition, a concerted effort to coordinate across state agencies and ensure fund integrity slowed early progress. These issues have been resolved and our programs up and running with excellent coordination among agencies.

Please describe any new Clean Water Fund initiatives/programs your agency is considering for FY14‐15.

DNR is not considering new programs or initiatives. Any funding increases are to build on existing programs. Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA)

From: Blackburn, Julie (BWSR) Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 6:38 PM To: Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA) Subject: CWC BOC Request Attachments: 05-01-12 CWCouncil Request on Outcomes.pdf; CWF_FY2012_Legislative_Rpt- corrected-4.13.12.pdf

Hi Jen: Here is our response and the legislative report. I wanted to compile them into one document, but it’s too big and cumbersome. However, they should both be submitted to the CWC BOC.

Thanks! Julie

Julie Blackburn, Assistant Director MN Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 Direct: 651-297-5617 Cell: 651-308-8647 Email: [email protected] www.bwsr.state.mn.us

1 Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Board of Water and Soil Resources Clean Water Fund appropriations

Agency Activity Actual Actual Proposed FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 Surface and Drinking Water Protection/Restoration $39.324M $27.500M + Grants: Grant and incentive funding for clean surface BWSR and source water best management practices and projects provided through grants and contract with BWSR’s local units of government. appropriations were split into Targeted Local Resource Protection and Enhancement $6.000M + Grants: Enhance local government efforts to develop many more and implement water resource protection and categories in management measures that go beyond state minimum the FY10-11 BWSR standards for wetlands, shorelands, stormwater, sewage biennium. treatment, etc and undertake related projects to restore impaired waters and protect high quality resources (of this amount, $3M is for county SSTS implementation). Measures, Results and Accountability: Conservation $1.800M = quality assurance by providing oversight, assessment, BWSR assistance and reporting of local government performance and results. Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance: $2.000M = For conservation drainage program in consultation ($3.4M per with the Drainage Work Group to improve surface 2012 BWSR water management by providing grants for pilot session) projects to retrofit existing drainage management systems with water quality improvement and retention practices. Permanent conservation easements: riparian buffer BWSR $12.000M + easements Permanent conservation easements: wellhead $2.600M = protection ($3.6M per BWSR 2012 session)

BWSR Technical evaluation $168k = Community Partners Clean Water Program: Increasing $3.000M = citizen participation in implementing water quality projects and programs to increase long term sustainability of water resources. The efforts and BWSR resources of active and engaged community groups, such as lake associations, non-profits, and conservation groups, will be supported. This effort will be delivered through local collaboration using a new ‘small grants partners’ program. Total $39.324M $55.068M Legend Monitoring/ Watershed restoration / Drinking water Nonpoint source Education and civic Applied research and Point source assessment protection strategies protection implementation engagement tool development implementation

1

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Please describe overall progress from activities in FY10‐11 and planned progress for FY12‐13 by responding to the following questions.

• Please describe information about the surface and drinking water protection/restoration grant program: o How many grants were issued in FY10‐11 and the range of water quality benefits expected from the grant projects. o The amount of funds leveraged through the program o The amount of requests vs. the amount of available funding.

Surface and drinking water protection/restoration grant funds are used to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water. Activities include structural and vegetative practices to reduce runoff and retain water on the land, feedlot water quality projects, SSTS abatement grants for low‐income individuals, and stream bank, stream channel and shoreline protection projects.

BWSR Clean Water Fund Competitive Grants FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Applications Awarded 79 98 103 Grant Funds Requested $ $40,103,067 $ 30,138,199 $ 39,243,249 Grant Funds Awarded $ $9,288,658 $ 11,480,187 $ 12,998,484

Water quality benefits are found in the FY 2011 and FY 2012 Legislative Reports. 2012 report can be found at: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/cleanwaterfund/2012_BWSR_CWF_Legislative_Rpt‐ rev4.13.12.pdf 2012 report can be found at: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/cleanwaterfund/2011_BWSR_CWF_Legislative_Rpt.pdf

Total dollars leveraged from this program for FY 2010‐FY 2012: 40.5 M

o The granting process for FY12‐13, including amount available per grant round and applicant process to date.

FY 2012 Clean Water Fund grants were awarded in December 2011 following an application period and interagency review and scoring. Details are in above table. The FY 2013 grant period is anticipated to open in late summer for 2012 with a BWSR board approval in December 2012, following a similar application and interagency review and scoring process.

2

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• Please describe the Targeted Local Resource Protection and Enhancement Grant program: o How many grants were issued in FY10‐11 and the range of water quality benefits expected from the grant projects. o The amount of funds leveraged through the program. o The amount of requests vs. the amount of available funding.

The Targeted Local Resource Protection and Enhancement Grant Program did not exist in FY 2010‐2011. This program was established in FY 2012 and was part of the overall BWSR CWF Competitive Grant program. The Targeted Local Resource Protection and Enhancement Grant funds are used for projects and activities (such as ordinances, organization capacity and state of the art targeting tools) that complement, supplement or exceed current State standards for protection, enhancement and restoration of water quality in lakes, rivers and streams or that protect groundwater from degradation. Since these grants are not implementation grants, the estimated water quality benefits are not quantifiable at this time.

BWSR Clean Water Fund Targeted Local Resource Protection and Enhancement Grant FY 2012 Applications Awarded 21 Grant Funds Requested $ 5,295,822 Grant Funds Awarded $ 2,200,551

Total dollars leveraged through this program: $620,300

o Please describe granting process for FY12‐13, including amount available per grant round and applicant process to date.

FY 2012 Clean Water Fund grants were awarded in December 2011 following an application period and interagency review and scoring. Details are in above table. The FY 2013 grant period is anticipated to open in late summer for 2012 with a BWSR board approval in December 2012, following a similar application and interagency review and scoring process.

• Please describe information about the Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance program: o How many grant were issued in FY10‐11 and the range of water quality benefits expected from the projects. o The amount of funds leveraged through the program o BWSR Conservation Drainage o Grants FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 o Applications Awarded 5 3 9 Grant Funds Requested $1,029,821 $353,368 $1,471,747 Grant Funds Available $200,000 $313,000 $950,000

3

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

o The amount of requests vs. the amount of available funding.

Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance funds are used for pilot projects to retrofit existing drainage systems with water quality improvement practices, evaluate outcomes and provide outreach to landowners, public drainage authorities, drainage engineers, contractors and others.

Total dollars leveraged from this program: $525,436

o Please describe granting process for FY12‐13, including amount available per grant round and applicant process to date.

FY 2012 Clean Water Fund grants have been awarded. Planning is currently under way in anticipation of additional funding for FY 2013 for Drainage Water Management. It is anticipated that the grant round for these funds will being soon after the Legislative session. For the remainder of the Conservation Drainage appropriation, the funding will go out with the other competitive grants. The FY 2013 grant period is anticipated to open in late summer for 2012 with a BWSR board approval in December 2012.

• Please describe information about the Community Partners grant program: o Please describe granting process for FY12‐13, including amount available per grant round and applicant process to date. o The amount of funds leveraged through the program. o The amount of requests vs. the amount of available funding.

In FY2012, the Community Partners grant program was a part of the overall BWSR CWF Competitive Grant program. These funds are used for community partners (ex. NGOs, citizen groups, etc.) within a LGUs jurisdiction to implement structural and vegetative practices to reduce stormwater runoff and retain water on the land to reduce the movement of sediment, nutrients and pollutants. LGUs will be the primary applicant and provide sub‐grants to community partners who are implementing practices to accomplish restoration, protection or enhancement of water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and/or protection of groundwater and drinking water.

BWSR Clean Water Fund Community Partners FY 2012 Applications Awarded 11 Grant Funds Requested $ 1,193,952 Grant Funds Available $ 1,425,000 Grant Funds Awarded $ 860,575

Total dollars leveraged from this program: $250,222

4

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

o How has this new program been received by applicants?

The initial response was less than expected; we believe this was largely due to reduced time to market this program as a result of the State government shutdown. We will be continuing our marketing efforts in advance of the FY2013 grant program.

• Please describe the number and cost of permanent conservation easements on riparian buffers adjacent to public waters that have been purchased and/or restored thus far in FY12‐13.

The BWSR Board adopted policy on September 28, 2011 to establish criteria, eligibility and sign‐up procedures for FY2012 CWF RIM Reserve Riparian Buffer Easements and Wellhead Protection Easement Initiatives.

RIM Reserve Riparian Buffer Conservation Easement Initiative BWSR received $6.0 million in Clean Water Funds (CWF) and $2.249 million in Outdoor Heritage Fund (OHF) dollars, available only in prairie section landscape approved by the Lessard‐Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC). Specifically, the RIM Riparian Buffer Easement Initiative established and restored permanent conservation easements on riparian buffers adjacent to public waters, excluding wetlands, to keep water on the land to decrease sediment, pollutant, and nutrient transport, reduce hydrologic impacts to surface waters and increase infiltration for groundwater recharge. Additionally, through the appropriation from the OHF, buffers may be extended for wildlife habitat purposes.

BWSR established the FY12 CWF RIM buffer easement initiative in November, 2011. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued to solicit participation from local SWCDs in agricultural areas of Minnesota. During this RFP process, we received proposals from 24 SWCDs expressing interest in the RIM Riparian Buffer Easement Initiative. A landowner sign‐up period was held from February 1, 2012‐March 30, 2012 in the approved target areas for enrollment. During this first scoring period we received a total of 62 landowner applications for permanent RIM riparian buffer easements from 15 SWCDs totaling 555 acres, requesting $2.167 million in CWF dollars and 127 acres requesting $438,000 in OHF for wildlife buffers.

We are in the process of reviewing this initial FY 2012 sign‐up and funding cycle in preparation for the next sign‐up period to begin July 2, 2012. (See Appendix A and the 2012 Clean Water Fund Report.)

• Please describe the number and cost of permanent conservation easements on wellhead protection areas that have been implemented in FY12‐13.

RIM Reserve Wellhead Protection Conservation Easement Initiative BWSR received $1.3 million for FY12 and $1.3 million for FY13 for this initiative, which is focused on converting agricultural land to grasslands and wetlands in areas where the vulnerability of the drinking water supply management area, as defined by Minnesota Rules, part 4720.5100, subpart 13, is designated as high or very high by the

5

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). An easement must enroll a majority (at least 51 percent) of the land in such an area.

MDH, in consultation with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), provided BWSR with a list of the most vulnerable wellhead protection areas. This project is a cooperative effort between Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD’s), MDH, MDA, USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA), Rural Water Association, and the BWSR.

The BWSR would like to remind SWCDs and local water suppliers that the RIM Wellhead Protection Easement Initiative for high and very high vulnerable wellheads is an ongoing effort and that funding remains for these critical easements. The BWSR web page at http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/easements/wellhead/index.html contains current mapping and sign‐up details. Here are the highlights of this program:

• $1.3 million in Clean Water Funding each year for purchasing perpetual RIM easements. • Eligible areas include high and very high vulnerability areas within the Wellhead Protection Area (See mapping for your area). • Must have state approved wellhead protection plan (If mapped plan is in place). • Current RIM payment rates for cropland and non‐cropland apply. • Landowners are able to enroll or extend CRP contracts and retain those payments in combination with the RIM easement. • CRP contracts are available under the continuous sign‐up at any time.

Several landowners have already indicated interest in the program and SWCDs are developing applications for future consideration by the BWSR. In addition, Minnesota Rural Waters Association is using expiring CRP contract and spatial data provided to them by the BWSR to identify all high and very high wellheads with eligible expiring CRP contracts. This information will be provided to SWCDs to assist in targeted marketing to eligible landowners.

• Please describe what BWSR has learned through providing oversight and accountability of conservation program implementation. Please include an evaluation of results from the various programs.

Oversight/Accountability:

Grant oversight and monitoring: BWSR worked to develop a policy for verification, monitoring and close‐out of grants that was approved by the board in June 2011. This policy formalized grants oversight procedures used to conduct and document financial monitoring activities such as reconciling grant recipients actual expenditures to ensure that grantees used funds in accordance with the grant agreement. The annual verifications were conducted on a sampling basis of 10% of all grants beginning in late 2011 and will be conducted each year. Using this process, BWSR has learned that local governments are adequately meeting grant requirements. However, BWSR has

6

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. occasionally recommended that the local government revise their administrative procedures in some cases to provide better internal controls and financial tracking.

Additionally, in order to provide tracking of these monitoring activities, BWSR worked with the developer of the eLINK grants reporting system to add a grants monitoring journal to this system. This allows for BWSR Board Conservationists to document regular oversight activities with local governments.

Fiscal Compliance Program: As the volume of grants continues to increase in conjunction with increasing requirements for oversight and accountability, it became necessary for BWSR to increase organizational capacity to address these requirements. In January we signed an interagency agreement with DNR for an internal audit of our grant processes and programs. This audit will be completed in May and the results will allow us to improve our internal policies and processes. In order to adequately address the identified grant oversight needs and goals, we created a new position of Fiscal Compliance Director. This position was filled in April and is responsible for building a comprehensive grants monitoring program that ensures the appropriate levels of monitoring and verification of grantee activities.

New grants management system: eLINK is BWSR’s current grants management program. It was launched in 2003 with an update in 2008 that provided a web‐based version. The technology available and the types of grants and grant processes needed a decade ago are no longer sufficient and this system cannot be updated to meet new goals and requirements. In late 2010, BWSR began a process to evaluate system needs. In 2011 an RFP was developed, a provider was selected and the contract was signed in April 2012. The plan is for the new system to be up and running in spring of 2013.

Reporting Outcomes:

Website: BWSR implemented a website for reporting ‘stories’ of Clean Water projects before the LCC website was up developed. We have continued to populate both websites (BWSR and LCC) with stories. The BWSR website also contains associated information and reports. Additionally, the new grants management system will have a public query function of Clean Water Fund activities via the website so that data and outcomes from multiple grants and projects can be reported on a user‐defined query basis and reported in easy‐to‐understand formats such as maps and summaries.

Report: The completed mandatory report is attached and can be found on the BWSR website at: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/cleanwaterfund/2012_BWSR_CWF_Legislative_Rpt‐ rev4.13.12.pdf

7

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. Media/PR/Outreach: Every Minnesotan should have an opportunity to learn about how their taxes via the Clean Water Fund are resulting in real outcomes and water quality improvements in their neighborhood ‐ without having to first find a website and then search for the information. Previously BWSR reduced its communications staff to half time. That position has been vacant since September. Currently we are working to fill this vacancy. However, we added Outdoor Heritage and Clean Water funds that when combined with the General Funds allocated to this position, allowed for one full‐time position. This will more fully address the reporting and outcome goals in a comprehensive manner that provides for citizens to have the ability to know where their money is going.

Evaluating Results:

U of M Estimators Project: Accounting for actual outcomes and measureable environmental benefits to the quality of soil, water, and habitat is an essential component of implementing conservation projects. BWSR currently utilizes eLINK, an online reporting system and database, to quantify the pollution reduction benefits of installed Best Management Practices (BMPs) by using models or ‘estimators’. Estimators quantify the outcomes of conservation practices in terms of reduced soil erosion, sediment and phosphorus reduction, carbon sequestered, etc. The demands on the reporting system to estimate and quantify environmental benefits of conservation practices have outpaced BWSR’s ability to provide such information. For example, the pollution reduction benefits of some BMPs are not included in the eLINK database because Local Government Units do not have access to an estimator or model that quantifies the outcomes of implementation.

BWSR and the U of M partnered and received funding for an LCCMR project that uses a three tiered approach to improve estimates of conservation projects implemented by BWSR and cooperating agencies: 1) Improvement of existing pollution reduction estimators and creation of new estimators where needed, 2) Field verification and ground truthing for revised and new pollution reduction estimators and 3) Local Government Unit (LGU) training and education.

This project is currently underway. One example of how this will be applied is that the preliminary results on the estimates of soil movement (using cesium tracers) across various landscapes and conservation practices will allow for greater accuracy in the formula of the soil erosion estimators. Therefore there will be greater accuracy of reported outcomes for conservation activities targeted to reducing erosion and sedimentation into waterways. These results were presented by the U of M researchers at a national conference in March. The Clean Water Fund appropriation support BWSR’s role on this project including staff time, building a curriculum and

8

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. developing training for local staff to accurately estimate environmental outcomes from each practice and activity.

New grants management system: Although every project reported in eLINK must report outcomes, there is no simple way to retrieve or consolidate that information into meaningful reports on water quality impacts on a watershed basis. The new system will include the latest in GIS mapping technology so that projects and project outcomes can be displayed and analyzed using mapping processes.

Building Local Capacity:

Comprehensive Training Program: The anticipated outcomes of Clean Water Fund implementation dollars can only be realized if there is proper site evaluation, design and construction of practices. BWSR requires grant recipients to document technical capacity, as identified in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide, for the practices that funding is being requested. The dramatic increase in funding over the past several years requires a commensurate increase in training to build these technical skills. BWSR implements a comprehensive training program to address the technical capacity needs as well building organizational capacity so that local governments can better address the challenges of implementing the Clean Water Fund programs.

Survey of technical skill levels of SWCDs: One of the techniques BWSR recently implemented to better define the technical training needs of Soil and Water Conservation District staff was to conduct a technical certification survey. We worked with NRCS and MASWCD to develop and deliver the survey which received a high response rate. Currently the results of the survey are being compiled and will be used to guide the development of future trainings more targeted to urgent needs.

• Please describe progress and results toward conducting up to ten restoration evaluations.

A report on how to implement the restoration evaluations was completed with DNR in November 2011. DNR and BWSR hired a program coordinator who began in April. The coordinator is establishing the teams needed to perform habitat evaluations. The first evaluations will be performed this summer, concluded by the end of the year and a report written.

• In the 2011 Special Session Legacy bill, sec. 25 states “a recipient of funds appropriated in this article shall incorporate civic engagement and public education when implementing projects and programs funded under this article”. Please describe your progress in this area.

For Fiscal Year 2012, language was incorporated into the BWSR Clean Water Fund Competitive Grant Request for Proposals stating that community engagement and education must be incorporated when implementing practices and projects. Civic engagement and education as

9

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. related to proposed projects are eligible to receive funding or can be used as match to the clean water fund grants.

• It should be noted that in many cases, civic engagement and education has occurred prior to an applicant applying for grant dollars. One example of this is in the Pell Creek Watershed. Prior to application submittal, the applicant held two information meetings with landowners. As part of the Clean Water Fund grant, the applicant will continue contacts with landowners. In addition, the applicant will send news releases to newspapers in the surrounding communities and complete an information brochure for watershed residents once the project is completed.

• Another example of civic engagement occurring both prior to and during a grant project is in the Lily Lake Watershed. Prior to submitting a grant application, the applicant conducted a stormwater audit for residents within the watershed. As part of the grant project, continued outreach will be accomplished through mailings, open house neighborhood meetings, and door‐to‐door outreach when necessary.

• Additional examples of civic engagement and outreach occurring as a component of a grant project is lake associations helping to coordinate SSTS inventories and compliance inspections or the development of a mini‐grant program using Community Partners Conservation Program funds to work with eligible and enthusiastic citizens groups including lake associations.

BWSR has incorporated civic engagement and public education by creating fact sheets of all FY 2010‐2011 funded projects that are available on the BWSR Clean Water Stories webpage. In addition all of BWSR’s Clean Water Fund activities and outcomes are described on the Minnesota’s Legacy: Watch the Progress website.

BWSR also worked with other CW legacy‐funded agencies to produce the recently published Clean Water Performance report. The report is designed to provide an integrated overview of the connection between the dollars invested, water resources management actions taken, and clean water outcomes achieved.

• Did you return any unused dollars to the Clean Water Fund in FY10‐11? If so, please describe circumstances.

No funds have been returned to the Clean Water Fund as BWSR spend authority has not expired on any funds yet.

• Please describe any new Clean Water Fund initiatives/programs your agency is considering for FY14‐15.

At this time we do not have specific initiatives to outline. However, it’s important to share information about a process we are implementing in May and June that allows for BWSR to better identify implementation funding priorities.

10

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. For the past two years BWSR has been working on developing a new process for learning about local government priorities that compliment state goals for implementing Clean Water Fund activities. We call it the BBR – Biennial Budget Request. It is not a requirement of any local government, but will allow budget preparation to be more aligned with capacity and needs of the local governments responsible for implementation. Here is a summary of the issue and our solution.

Problem: Under current budget development and appropriation processes, local water management plans become relevant only after funds are appropriated and therefore, applicants must squeeze their priorities into available funding categories. We think this is backwards. Current Biennial Budget Request Process:

Local Water Plans BWSR Biennial Legislative Find Projects that Budget Governor's Budget Appropriation Fit Appropriation Development Categories

Solution: The best way to ensure that State funds are used to address the most important water management issues, is to know those priorities before funds are appropriated. With this in mind, the process should look more like this:

Proposed Biennial Budget Request Process:

Targeted Local Water BWSR Biennial Governor's Activities Management Budget Legislative Budget Based on Local Plan Priorities Development Appropriation Water Plans

This process puts local plans where they should be in State water management implementation: at the front‐end for establishing funding priorities; and at the back‐end by providing funds to implement these State approved, locally adopted documents.

The timeframe for collecting this data is through June. We will not have the results and summary of the priorities until mid‐July. We request the opportunity to meet with members of the Clean Water Council at that time and hope the information will be useful in building a budget recommendation.

Complete information about this new process can be found at: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/grants/

11

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters. APPENDIX A – Easement program accomplishments

Riparian Buffer Easements FY10/FY11 Easement Easement Donated Easement Practice Total SWCD Count Acres Acres Payments Payments Payments Blue Earth 6 32.8 1 113,576.90 630.00 114,206.90 Brown 1 9.9 0 29,888.00 0 29,888.00 Carver 10 70.3 0 374,337.28 10,260.00 384,597.28 Chisago 1 3.2 0 10,944.00 960 11,904.00 Cottonwood 3 18.1 3.1 42,791.24 23,470.00 42,791.24 Faribault 1 8 0 29,872.00 0 29,872.00 Jackson 4 34.1 0 131,035.06 3,750.00 134,785.06 Kandiyohi 1 41.5 0 156,123.00 0 156,123.00 Martin 8 34 0 132,142.05 7,550.00 139,692.05 McLeod 28 215.6 0 900,112.21 2,850.00 902,962.21 Meeker 1 7.1 1.5 14,058.24 0 14,058.24 Murray 3 29.5 0 95,617.40 0 95,617.40 Nobles 1 29.7 0 112,425.24 300 112,725.24 Olmsted 2 14.5 0.4 40,356.90 2,070.00 42,426.90 Pope 3 38.8 0 86,707.10 1,890.00 88,597.10 Redwood 63 456.9 0 1,745,390.50 25,410.00 1,770,800.50 Renville 31 253.1 0 1,041,693.40 90 1,041,783.40 Scott 6 35.2 0 209,828.34 4,200.00 214,028.34 Steele 1 4.8 0 18,201.60 1,440.00 19,641.60 Stevens 1 4.1 0 7,237.30 0 7,237.30 West Ottertail 2 8.2 0 16,951.20 0 16,951.20 Wilkin 5 90.4 0.7 146,427.24 0 146,427.24 182 1,439.8 6.7 5,455,716.20 84,870.00 5,517,116.20

FY12/FY13 (application reviews completed; funding in process) Stevens 1 15.0 0 48,105.00 TBD 48,105.00 Meeker 2 27.8 0 88,729.00 TBD 88,729.00 Wilkin 6 80.7 0 180,055.44 TBD 180,055.44 Nobles 2 24.2 0 99,983.30 TBD 99,983.30 Blue Earth 11 77.7 0 310,435.56 TBD 310,435.56 West Otter Tail 3 37.0 0 72,985.66 TBD 72,985.66 Cottonwood 5 51.6 0 213,535.56 TBD 213,535.56 Redwood 10 77.1 0 364,512.10 TBD 364,512.10 Scott 3 20.4 0 112,656.28 TBD 112,656.28 Carver 6 33.5 0 155,102.50 TBD 155,102.50

12

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Renville 8 67.3 0 335,780.70 TBD 335,780.70 McLeod 2 11.4 0 51,398.00 TBD 51,398.00 Murray 1 4.0 0 15,774.24 TBD 15,774.24 Rice 1 3.7 0 16,064.78 TBD 16,064.78 Yellow Medicine 1 23.8 0 101,844.12 TBD 101,844.12 62 554.9 0 2,166,962.24 0 2,166,962.24

Wellhead Easements FY10/FY11 Easement Easement Donated Easement Practice Total SWCD Count Acres Acres Payments Payments Payments East Otter Tail 4 220.4 0 315,616.56 20,950 336,566.56 Grant 1 51.6 0 143,265.25 14,370.00 157,635.25 Rock 2 101.6 0 440,872.80 17,580.00 458,452.80 10 764.5 0 2,231,613.31 78,440.00 2,310,053.31

FY12/FY13 ‐ Applications are currently be developed in the field and will be submitted when ready

13

Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Annual Report to the Legislature

March 1, 2012

Prepared by Angie Becker Kudelka, Paul Senne, David Weirens, and Marcey Westrick.

This document was developed in consultation with Department of Agriculture, Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The estimated cost of preparing this report (as required by Minn. Stat. 3.197) was:

Total staff time: $1,150 Production/duplication: $30 Total: $1,180

BWSR is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audiences. This report is available at www.bwsr.state.mn.us/cleanwaterfund and available in alternative formats upon request.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 651-296-3767 BWSR is an equal opportunity employer

Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Clean Water Fund Appropriation Summary ...... 1 Clean Water Fund Easement Programs ...... 3 Riparian Buffer Conservation Easements ...... 3 Outcomes and Effectiveness ...... 3 Map ...... 4 Wellhead Protection Area Conservation Easements ...... 5 Outcomes and Effectiveness ...... 5 Clean Water Fund Competitive Grant Program...... 6 FY 2012 Process ...... 7 Shifted FY 2012 Allocations Between Grant Categories ...... 8 Maps...... 9 Outcomes and Effectiveness ...... 16 Directed Clean Water Fund Expenditures ...... 18 BWSR Administration of Clean Water Fund Expenditures ...... 19 Appendix A: BWSR Clean Water Fund Ranking Criteria ...... 20 Appendix B: Complete List of FY 2012 Clean Water Fund Grant Recipients ...... 23 Appendix C: Estimated Intermediate Outcomes ...... 48 Appendix D: Estimated Number of Non-compliant SSTS by County to Projects Funded ...... 55 Appendix E: Estimated Number of Non-compliant Feedlots by County to Projects Funded ...... 58

Introduction

This report has been prepared for the Minnesota State Legislature by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in fulfillment of the requirements of the Laws of Minnesota 2011, 1st Special Session, Chapter 6, Article 2, Section 7. This requires BWSR to submit “to the legislature by March 1 each year an annual report prepared by the board, in consultation with the commissioners of natural resources, health, agriculture, and the Pollution Control Agency, detailing the recipients and projects funded” with Clean Water Fund. This report outlines BWSR’s comprehensive strategy used to implement the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 appropriation from the Clean Water Fund – one of four funds established through the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Constitutional Amendment approved by voters in 2008.

BWSR is the State's soil and water conservation agency whose mission is to improve and protect Minnesota’s water and soil resources. Working through Minnesota’s local governments enables BWSR to be strategic in granting funds to meet locally identified water quality goals within the larger scope of Minnesota’s clean water efforts. BWSR has a number of Clean Water Legacy grant and easement programs that encourage strategic collaboration and partnerships and utilize a wide range of conservation practices and tools. BWSR’s unique mission and structure provides for effective and efficient use of Legacy dollars. BWSR’s reporting and tracking requirements ensure measurable and specific results. Clean Water Fund Appropriation Summary

The 2011 Legislative Session passed FY 2012 Clean Water Fund appropriations of $27,534,000 to BWSR for implementation of nonpoint source pollution reduction programs. As of March 1, 2012:

BWSR is in the process of allocating up to $6 million for permanent conservation easement projects to establish buffer strips adjacent to public waters and up to $1.3 million for conservation easements in wellhead protection areas. BWSR partners with Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) to implement these conservation Clean Water Fund Performance Report easement programs. The Minnesota State agencies receiving funding through BWSR oversees $500,000 to the the Clean Water Fund, including the Board of Water and Conservation Corp of Minnesota Soil Resources, Department of Agriculture (MDA), and Iowa for installing and Department of Health (MDH), Department of Natural maintaining conservation practices that are consistent with Resources (DNR) and the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) the goals of the Clean Water Fund. have released the Clean Water Fund Performance Report. For further information on the connections between funds BWSR has distributed invested, actions taken and clean water outcomes approximately $16.6 million in FY achieved, please reference the Performance Report at: 2012 through a competitive grant http://www.legacy.leg.mn/funds/clean-water-fund. process. Competitive grant programs include Clean Water Assistance, Accelerated

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 1 Implementation, Community Partners Conservation Program and Conservation Drainage. Each grant applicant must meet various reporting requirements to demonstrate the effectiveness of these expenditures. These requirements are found in Laws of Minnesota 2011, 1st Special Session, Chapter 6, Article 5, Section 4, Subdivision 4, Expenditures; accountability.

Projects paid for through the Clean Water Fund grants may take up to three years to be completed. Table 1 summarizes the programs and funding allocated under the appropriation.

Table 1: Summary of FY 2012 Clean Water Fund Appropriations to BWSR

Allocation Program Description FY12 Riparian buffer Purchase and restore permanent conservation easements on riparian lands conservation $6.0M adjacent to public waters, except wetlands. Establish buffers of native vegetation easements that must be at least 50 feet where possible. Wellhead protection Permanent Conservation Easements on wellhead protection areas under MS conservation $1.3M 103F.515 Subd. 2, paragraph (d). Must be in drinking water supply management easements areas designated as high or very high by the Commissioner of Health. Grants to local government units and joint powers organizations of local government units to protect surface water and drinking water; to keep water on Clean Water the land; to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and $13.75M Assistance* streams; and to protect groundwater and drinking water, including feedlot water quality and subsurface sewage treatment system projects and stream bank, stream channel and shoreline restoration projects. $1.5M Grants for projects and activities that complement, supplement, or exceed current State standards for protection, enhancement, and restoration of water Accelerated quality in lakes, rivers and streams or that protect groundwater from Implementation * degradation.

$1.5M Base Grants for County SSTS implementation. Grants to be used for community partners within a LGU’s jurisdiction to Community Partners implement structural and vegetative practices to reduce stormwater runoff and Conservation $1.5M retain water on the land to reduce the movement of sediment, nutrients and Program * pollutants. Technical assistance and grants for the conservation drainage program in Conservation consultation with the Drainage Work Group. Program consists of projects to $1.0 Drainage* retrofit existing drainage systems with water quality practices, evaluate outcomes and provide outreach. Oversight, support, To provide State oversight and accountability, evaluate results and measure the accountability $0.9M value of conservation program implementation by local government units and to reporting prepare an annual report detailing recipients and projects funded. Restoration To provide a technical evaluation panel to conduct up to ten restoration 0.084M Evaluations evaluations under Minnesota Statutes, Section 1214D.50, Subdivision 6. * Competitive grant process

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 2 Clean Water Fund Conservation Easement Programs

BWSR’s clean water easement programs are a part of a comprehensive, statewide clean water strategy to prevent sediment and nutrients from entering Minnesota’s lakes, rivers and streams; enhance fish and wildlife habitat; protect wetlands, groundwater and drinking water supplies.

BWSR adopted an enrollment policy on September 28, 2011 to establish payment rates and eligibility criteria for both Riparian Buffer and Wellhead Protection conservation easement programs that received Clean Water Fund appropriations, found in Laws of Minnesota 2011, 1st Special Session, Chapter 6, Article 2, Section 7. BWSR staff provided enrollment guidance to SWCD staff statewide.

Riparian buffer enrollment focuses on a landscape selection process where a total of 24 SWCDs have identified 68 priority catchment (subwatershed) areas in Minnesota (see map on page 4). The landowner application period is open from February 1 to March 30, 2012. A list of landowner applications will be submitted to BWSR on April 15, 2012 for funding consideration.

Wellhead protection enrollment opened on December 1, 2012 and will run until funding has been utilized. Riparian Buffer Easement Program

BWSR received $6 million in FY 2012 to acquire permanent Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) Reserve conservation easements on riparian lands adjacent to public waters, except wetlands. This program uses an innovative approach to connect both Clean Water and Outdoor Heritage Funds ($2.2 million in FY 2012 from OHF).

The program creates multiple benefits by targeting lands with cropping history and new or existing USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts. Participating landowners receive a payment to retire land from agricultural production and to establish permanent buffers of native vegetation. Buffers must be at least 50 feet wide where possible with a maximum width of 100 feet.

Outcomes and Effectiveness. Studies show that buffers in riparian areas reduce sediment and nutrients entering waterways, stabilize streambanks, and provide food and habitat for many species of wildlife. Buffer strips of native vegetation will be established on easement acres, all of which are adjacent to public waters streams, lakes or public drainage systems. The program is targeting critical CRP acres, so that these areas will be permanently protected instead of enrolled in short-term contracts.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 3

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 4 Wellhead Protection Conservation Easement Program BWSR received a $1.3 million FY 2012 appropriation for this program. The Wellhead Protection program is targeted to areas where the vulnerability of the drinking water supply management area (as defined by Minnesota Rules, part 4720.5100, subpart 13) is designated as high or very high by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). An easement must enroll a majority (at least 51 percent) of the land in such an area. Targeted lands include new or existing CRP contracts with cropping history. The easements funded under this section are permanent, whereas CRP easements are for 10-15 years. Participating landowners receive a payment to permanently retire land from agricultural production and to establish buffers of native vegetation. MDH, in consultation with the MDA, provided BWSR with a list of the most vulnerable wellhead protection areas. SWCDs in those areas are promoting this easement option directly to eligible landowners. As of January 2012, two easement applications have been received for approximately $400,000 and are in the process of being reviewed and approved. Outcomes and Effectiveness. Restoring wetlands and grasslands within wellhead protection areas improves water quality by providing a greater distance between drinking water sources and agricultural chemical use. Changing land use from agricultural production to restored grasslands and wetlands has produced dramatic, measurable improvements in water quality. According to MDH, the City of Edgerton experienced a 50 percent reduction in the nitrate levels of its drinking water after landowners enrolled 60 acres of land in the city's wellhead protection area into CRP (Source: "The Protector, Newsletter for Minnesota's Source Water Protection Program," Volume 12, Summer 2004). Because these easements are permanent as opposed to the short-term CRP easements, the protection of these environmentally sensitive lands will stay secure.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 5 Clean Water Fund Competitive Grant Program

BWSR’s Clean Water Fund Competitive Grant Program is a part of a comprehensive, statewide clean water strategy to prevent sediment and nutrients from entering Minnesota’s lakes, rivers and streams; enhance fish and wildlife habitat; protect wetlands, groundwater and drinking water supplies.

In FY 2012, BWSR Competitive Grant Programs included Clean Water Assistance, Accelerated Implementation, Community Partners Conservation Program and Conservation Drainage. Funding for these programs was provided under Laws of Minnesota 2011, 1st Special Session, Chapter 6, Article 2, Section 7. BWSR distributed appropriated program funds as indicated in Table 2.

Table 2: Clean Water Fund Applications Funded per Grant Program

Applications Funded Total Funds Awarded Grant Program FY12 FY12

Clean Water Assistance 53 $9,498,485

Clean Water Assistance: Livestock 29 $2,000,000 Waste Management Clean Water Assistance: SSTS 21 $1,500,000 Imminent Health Threat Abatement

Accelerated Implementation 21 $2,200,551

Community Partners Conservation 11 $860,575 Program

Conservation Drainage 9 $638,267

SSTS Program Implementation** $1,500,000

**Distributed as part of the Natural Resources Block Grant

BWSR’s funding authority for water management is derived from M.S. 103B.3369. Local government units (LGUs) with State approved and locally adopted comprehensive local water management plans are eligible for financial assistance. Although this statute limits BWSR’s funding authority to LGUs, it does not limit the ability for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to collaborate and partner with eligible LGUs.

The Clean Water Fund Competitive Grant Program also incorporated requirements of M.S. 114D.20, which directs the implementation of Clean Water Funds to be coordinated with existing authorities and program infrastructure. Those requirements are referenced in the Clean Water Fund Grants Policy adopted by the BWSR Board (http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/cleanwaterfund/FY12_BWSR_CWF_Policy_Final.pdf). The BWSR Board approved this policy on June 22, 2011.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 6 FY 2012 Process. The FY 2012 Competitive Grant application was open from August 8 through September 20, 2011. BWSR staff notified all eligible local government units of the application via email on August 8, 24 and 31 of 2011. BWSR staff conducted four online information and outreach sessions to review the grant programs and criteria. These sessions were held on August 10, 11, 17 and 25 of 2011. In addition, a Frequently Asked Questions document was created and posted on the BWSR website to provide updated information to all applicants.

Local government units throughout the State submitted 320 applications (Table 3) for these competitive grants and the total amount requested was more than $47 million. BWSR staff initially reviewed and assessed applications. This assessment resulted in the separation of applications into high – medium – low groupings using the criteria for evaluation identified in the Clean Water Fund Request for Proposals.

Table 3: Summary of BWSR FY 2012 Clean Water Fund Competitive Grant Applications

Applications Received 320

Applications Awarded 144

Funds Requested $47,508,345

Funds Awarded* $16,874,452

* MDH well sealing funds included in total

An interagency team, consisting of staff from MDA, DNR, MPCA, MDH and BWSR, scored “high” and “medium” ranked applications for Clean Water Assistance, Accelerated Implementation, and Community Partners Conservation Programs. Their scoring used points-based criteria to rank the proposals (specific program criteria are found in Appendix A, Tables 1-3). Under the Clean Water Assistance Grant Program, BWSR set funding targets for SSTS Imminent Public Health Threat Abatement Grants and Livestock Waste Management Grants at $1.5 Million and $2 Million, respectively. The Imminent Health Threat SSTS Abatement and Feedlot Water Quality funds were scored separately from the competitive grant process. BWSR staff first assessed proposals for program eligibility and then evaluated and scored eligible applications, with input by MPCA staff, based on the criteria found in Appendix A, Tables 4 and 5. Conservation Drainage applications identified as high or medium were then scored by the Drainage Management Team which consists of staff from the MDA, the DNR, the PCA, University of Minnesota, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Minnesota State University - Mankato and BWSR, based on the criteria found in Appendix A, Table 6.

The interagency team leaders combined and averaged all scores to produce a numerical “rank” or order of projects. Projects were recommended for funding based on their rank order and eligible grant category until available funds were expended. Ranked applications that targeted specific water

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 7 resources or priority conservation practices but did not identify precise locations for installation of those practices were recommended for a maximum of 50 percent of requested funding to begin implementation and development of more specific project lists for future applications. The BWSR Senior Management Team reviewed the recommendation provided by the interagency and BWSR staff teams on November 8, 2011. The BWSR Board Grants Program and Policy Committee reviewed the funding recommendation on November 17, 2011. The BWSR Board approved the final funding recommendations for the FY2012 Clean Water Fund Competitive Grants on December 14, 2011. Of the 320 applications received, 144 were approved for funding. In mid-December, BWSR notified all applicants of approval status. As of this March 1, 2012 report deadline, awardees are working with BWSR staff to develop detailed work plans that become a component of the grant agreement. The BWSR Board specified a deadline for completion and approval of the work plans of March 30, 2012 and grant execution of April 30, 2012. Once work plans are approved and the grant agreements executed, projects will begin implementation in the spring of 2012. Maps detailing FY 2012 project locations are shown below. More detail regarding FY 2012 projects can be found in Appendix B.

Shifted FY 2012 Allocations Between Grant Categories. BWSR received $1,500,000 in Accelerated Implementation Grant program appropriations to fund projects and activities for accelerated targeting, planning and environmental controls that complement, supplement or exceed current State standards for protection, enhancement and restoration of surface water quality or protection of groundwater. BWSR received over $5,000,000 in project requests. To help meet this demand, BWSR shifted $557,441 of Community Partners Conservation Program Grant funds and $307,077 of Conservation Drainage Grant funds to the Accelerated Implementation Grants program. The Accelerated Implementation Grant program now contains $2,200,551 in funds.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 8

Clean Water Assistance Grants: FY 2012 Funds Awarded $9,498,485

Funds are used to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water. Activities include structural and vegetative practices to reduce runoff and retain water on the land, feedlot water quality projects, SSTS abatement grants for low-income individuals, and stream bank, stream channel and shoreline protection projects.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 9

Clean Water Assistance Grants (Metro Map):

Funds are used to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water. Activities include structural and vegetative practices to reduce runoff and retain water on the land, feedlot water quality projects, SSTS abatement grants for low-income individuals, and stream bank, stream channel and shoreline protection projects.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 10

Clean Water Assistance Grants: Livestock Waste Management FY 2012 Funds Awarded $2,000,000

Funds are used to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water. Activities include structural and vegetative practices to reduce runoff and retain water on the land, feedlot water quality projects, SSTS abatement grants for low-income individuals, and stream bank, stream channel and shoreline protection projects.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 11

Clean Water Assistance Grants: SSTS Abatement FY 2012 Funds Awarded $1,500,000

Funds are used to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water. Activities include structural and vegetative practices to reduce runoff and retain water on the land, feedlot water quality projects, SSTS abatement grants for low-income individuals, and stream bank, stream channel and shoreline protection projects.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 12

Accelerated Implementation Grants: FY 2012 Funds Awarded $2,200,551

Funds are used for projects and activities (such as ordinances, organization capacity and state of the art targeting tools) that complement, supplement or exceed current State standards for protection, enhancement and restoration of water quality in lakes, rivers and streams or that protect groundwater from degradation.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 13

Community Partners Conservation Program Grants: FY 2012 Funds Awarded $860,575

Funds are used for community partners (ex. NGOs) within a LGUs jurisdiction to implement structural and vegetative practices to reduce stormwater runoff and retain water on the land to reduce the movement of sediment, nutrients and pollutants. LGUs will be the primary applicant and provide sub- grants to community partners who are implementing practices to accomplish restoration, protection or enhancement of water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and/or protection of groundwater and drinking water.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 14

Conservation Drainage: FY 2012 Funds Awarded $638,267

Funds are used for pilot projects to retrofit existing drainage systems with water quality improvement practices, evaluate outcomes and provide outreach to landowners, public drainage authorities, drainage engineers, contractors and others.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 15 Outcomes and effectiveness. Fifty-three (53) grant applications were funded through the Clean Water Assistance Grants: 14 are for water bodies listed as impaired that have a completed Total Maximum Daily Load study (TMDL); 29 are for water bodies listed as impaired that have not completed a TMDL (14 of the 29 do have a TMDL study in progress); 10 are for either drinking water or water quality protection for water bodies that are not listed as impaired and are currently meeting State water quality standards.

BWSR required grant applicants to estimate anticipated intermediate outcomes for proposed projects during the application process. Applicants used pollution reduction calculators, such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE and RUSLE2), and similar tools for estimating effectiveness of keeping water runoff on the land through infiltration, diversion or collection (Appendix C).

For specific project outcomes for SSTS Abatement and Feedlot Water Quality Management Grants, BWSR compared the aggregated number of specific BMPs installed with Clean Water Fund grant dollars to the estimated number of projects to be addressed statewide. In their 2009 SSTS Annual Legislative Report, MPCA developed the following statewide estimate for SSTS imminent health threats:

Table 4: Statewide SSTS Imminent Health Threat Estimates

Number of Onsite SSTS in MN 521,000

Estimated ‘Failing’ SSTS 113,000 (22%)

Estimated Imminent Health Threats 35,300 ( 7%)

Estimated Total Failing and Imminent 148,000 (29%)

Source: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/legislative-issues/legislative- reports/legislative-reports.html

Through the efforts of the FY 2012 BWSR SSTS Abatement Grant program, 143 imminent health threat SSTS are proposed to be fixed (Appendix D). Of note, BWSR funds for SSTS Abatement were directed towards low-income residents. However, more analysis would be needed to determine what portion of the estimated 35,300 imminent health threat SSTS statewide would fall into the low-income category.

In 2008, BWSR updated the Feedlot Financial Needs Study that provides estimates of the number of feedlots that are required to be in compliance with the Minnesota State Feedlot Rules (Chapter 7050) and the estimated associated costs. That study estimates that approximately 5,050 feedlot enterprises with fewer than 300 animal units in size need to come into compliance with State feedlot rules. (http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/publications/Feedlot_Financial_Needs-2008.pdf) The study also estimates that approximately 27% of feedlot enterprises are non-compliant. 2011 feedlot registration data from MPCA was also reviewed. Using the same 27% non-compliance rate, it is estimated that 3,882 feedlot enterprises fewer than 300 animal units are non-compliant.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 16 Through the BWSR Livestock Waste Management grants from the Clean Water Fund in FY 2012, a total of 27 feedlots that contain fewer than 300 animal units will be fixed. Appendix E provides a breakdown of feedlots fixed by county in comparison to recent 2011 MPCA registered feedlot data from counties participating in the MPCA delegated feedlot program.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 17 Directed BWSR Clean Water Fund Expenditures

BWSR’s directed clean water programs are a part of a comprehensive, statewide clean water strategy to prevent sediment and nutrients from entering Minnesota’s lakes, rivers and streams; enhance fish and wildlife habitat; protect wetlands, groundwater and drinking water supplies.

SSTS Program Implementation

Successful long-term treatment of sewage depends on a system capable of providing adequate treatment and effective on-going operation and maintenance. BWSR was appropriated FY 2012 Clean Water Funds to provide base grants to counties for SSTS program implementation. All counties that have enacted countywide ordinances and have a BWSR approved, locally adopted comprehensive water management plan received this grant as part of the Natural Resources Block Grant. Grant amounts were determined by allocating funds equally by county. Under Laws of Minnesota 2011, 1st Special Session, Chapter 6, Article 2, Section 7 (b), BWSR allocated $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2012 to counties for SSTS program implementation as described above. These funds were a part of Accelerated Implementation Grants in Table 1.

Conservation Corps of Minnesota and Iowa

BWSR is required to contract with the Conservation Corps of Minnesota and Iowa (formerly Minnesota Conservation Corps) or CCMI, for installation of conservation practices benefitting water quality. The Board approved reserving $500,000 in FY 2012 Clean Water Assistance program funds from Table 1 to comply with this appropriation.

As part of the process, BWSR staff has worked with the CCMI to ensure the following procedures are followed:

Eligible local governments have an initial 30-day application period. CCMI has 30 days to review proposals and make a list of projects, consistent with the Clean Water Fund appropriation (Laws of Minnesota 2011, 1st Special Session, Chapter 6, Article 2, Section 7). CCMI sends the list of projects to the appropriate BWSR Clean Water Specialist for their review and approval before commitments are made to applicants. This will be accomplished within the 30-day CCMI review period. After initial allocations, any remaining funds are available on a first-come, first-served basis by any eligible local government. CCMI will report financial information on the use of State funds, and the local government will report outcome and match information in eLINK.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 18 BWSR Administration of Clean Water Fund Expenditures

The goal of the Clean Water Fund directed to BWSR is to reduce non-point source pollution by providing Clean Water Fund dollars to local government units for on-the-ground activities, many of them installed on private lands that will result in improved and protected surface and ground water.

The BWSR Board uses existing authorities, polices, and staff, along with the processes outlined previously, to implement Clean Water Fund programmatic activities. The BWSR Board requires Clean Water Fund awardees to use the eLINK reporting program to track all Clean Water Fund grant-related projects.

For FY 2012, BWSR received a $900,000 direct appropriation for Clean Water Program Oversight and indirect authority for Clean Water Program Administration to provide oversight and administration of Clean Water Fund dollars. The FY 2012 initial spending plan has allocated $1,779,589 for administration. BWSR has funded three full-time positions charged with getting protection and TMDL-derived restoration strategies adopted into local water plans, directing over $16 million of grant funds to priority areas and activities, and aligning administrative procedures to optimize leveraging of non-State funds with low transaction costs. In our efforts to document results and increase technical capacity for the local delivery system, a training program coordinator position has been established. Portions of two other technical staff positions with duties related to reporting and outcomes are being funded with these dollars. As appropriations for non-point restoration and protection continue to ramp up, BWSR funding for additional full-time staff may be necessary to ensure that local implementation produces real-world outcomes.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 19 Appendix A: BWSR Clean Water Fund Ranking Criteria

Table A-1 Maximum BWSR Clean Water Assistance Ranking Criteria Points Possible The proposed project demonstrates a high potential of long-term success based on project organization and management structure, partner support and community 20 involvement within the project area. The outcomes expected upon completion of the project initiatives on the water resources are identified, including a description of the resulting primary and 35 secondary public benefits such as pollution reduction, groundwater or drinking water protection, hydrologic restoration or aquatic health improvement. The application has a set of specific initiatives that can be implemented soon after 20 grant award. The proposal is based on priority protection or restoration actions listed in or derived from an approved local water management plan or address pollutant load 25 reductions prescribed in an approved TMDL.

Total Points Available 100

Table A-2 Maximum Clean Water Accelerated Implementation Ranking Criteria Points Possible Clarity of project’s goals, standards addressed and projected impact on land and water management and enhanced effectiveness of future implementation 40 projects. Prioritization and Relationship to Plan: The proposal is based on priority protection or restoration actions listed in or derived from an approved local 25 water management plan or address pollutant load reductions prescribed in an approved TMDL. Means and measures for assessing the program’s impact and capacity to 20 measure project outcomes.

Timeline for implementation. 15

Total Points Available 100

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 20 Table A-3 Maximum Community Partners Conservation Program Grant Ranking Criteria Points Possible Clarity of project goals, projected impact and involvement with community 40 partners. Prioritization and Relationship to Plan: The proposal is based on priority protection or restoration actions listed in or derived from an approved local water 30 management plan or address pollutant load reductions prescribed in an approved TMDL. Plan for assessing the programs impact and capacity to measure project 20 outcomes. LGU capacity to implement the local grant program processes and protocols. 10

Total Points Available 100

Table A-4 Maximum Livestock Waste Management System Ranking Criteria Points Possible

MinnFARM Index 20

MinnFARM Loading (P, N, BOD) 20

Prioritization and Relationship to Plan 15

Located in Riparian Zone 25

Open Lot Agreement 20

Total Points Available 100

Table A-5 Maximum SSTS Abatement Ranking Criteria Points Possible

Prioritization and Relationship to Plan 20

SSTS Located in a Riparian Zone 30

SSTS identified 50

Total Points Available 100

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 21 Table A-6 Maximum Conservation Drainage Ranking Criteria Points Possible

Problem Identification and Relationship to Plan. 20

Consistency with Conservation Drainage Program Purposes. 20

Project Located on a Public Drainage System. 10

Project Evaluation Plan. 20

Public Outreach Plans. 10

Overall Proposal Quality and Completeness. 20

Total Points Available 100

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 22

Appendix B

Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) Dakota Dakota $150,000 $150,000 Dakota County The SWCD, in cooperation with the Vermillion River Watershed Joint County Soil Agricultural Powers Organization (VRWJPO) and the North Cannon River and Water Conservation Watershed Organization (NCRWMO), will target, prioritize and Conservation Partnership establish BMPs that reduce pollutants in subwatersheds with District identified surface water impairments and poor ground water quality. Lake Lake County $282,634 $282,634 Knife River This project will restore the two most severely eroding streambank Soil and Water Watershed sites on the Knife River, a river that is listed as impaired for excess Conservation Protection Project turbidity by the MPCA. Annually, the sites generate 697 pounds of District - TMDL Turbidity phosphorus and contribute 606 tons of sediment to the turbidity Reduction impairment. Lac qui Parle Lac qui Parle $53,533 $53,533 Flood Plain Well This project would retrofit 35 well pits. All domestic water supplies Soil and Water Pit Retrofit and in Lac qui Parle County are from groundwater sources. Assisting Conservation Groundwater residents to protect their water supply system, targeting floodplain District Protection areas first, is spelled out as an implementation activity in the County's Water Management Plan. Washington Brown's Creek $158,800 $158,800 Iron-enhanced The Brown’s Creek Watershed District has collaborated with the Watershed Sand Filter - University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, City of District Settlers Glen 5th Stillwater and MN DNR Waters and Fisheries to design an iron- Addition, enhanced sand filter to remove approximately 118 pounds of total Stillwater phosphorous per year from an area of Stillwater that has been diverted away from Brown’s Creek to McKusick Lake and the St. Croix River.

Stearns Clearwater $738,750 $738,750 Clearwater Lake This project is Phase II of the Clear River Watershed District’s plan to River Chain TMDL reduce nutrient loading to sensitive and impaired downstream Watershed Implementation: waters and to protect high value recreational resources by managing

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 23 Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) District Kimball stormwater from one of two urban areas within the watershed Stormwater Phase draining to the impaired waters. II

Polk East Polk Soil $251,680 $251,680 Phase II Sand Hill The East Polk Soil and Water Conservation District will continue to and Water River Watershed implement erosion control/sediment reduction project in the Upper Conservation Accelerated Sand Hill River Watershed. To date, 31 water and sediment basins District Erosion Area have been installed with an additional 38 shovel ready to be BMP's installed once engineering design plans and cost estimates are completed. Wadena Wadena Soil $91,305 $91,305 Wadena County A large portion of Wadena County has high or moderate probability and Water Sand Plains of elevated nitrate concentrations. With groundwater being the Conservation Nitrate primary source of drinking water, this issue is a top priority in the District Groundwater county. Protection Project Otter Tail East Otter Tail $130,650 $130,650 East Otter Tail The conversion from a high or medium pressure irrigation system to Soil and Water County Nitrate a low pressure system improves the efficiency of water use through Conservation Groundwater the system (decreased evaporation). District Protection Project Multi- Pomme de $350,470 $350,470 Pomme de Terre The Pomme de Terre River is impaired for turbidity and from Muddy County Terre River River Watershed Creek to Marsh Lake; the river is impaired for fecal coliform. The six Association BMP 2012 SWCD's partnering in this project identified a number of Initiative conservation practices that will be instrumental in achieving these reductions. Redwood Redwood Soil $363,957 $363,957 Revere, MN - Pell Where Pell Creek enters the Cottonwood River, aquatic recreation, and Water Creek Sub- aquatic consumption and aquatic life are considered impaired due to Conservation Watershed 29053 turbidity and fecal coliform and mercury contamination. A reach District upstream of the targeted sub-watershed is impaired due to turbidity, resulting in low oxygen levels. Using aerial imagery and LiDAR we will be able to identify areas that would be most appropriate for these various conservation practices.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 24 Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) Mille Lacs Mille Lacs Soil $55,129 $55,129 Groundwater This project will protect groundwater near Princeton from nutrient and Water Protection of contamination associated with livestock manure storage. Well water Conservation Highly Vulnerable tested throughout Mille Lacs County and specifically within the District Drinking Water - Anoka Sand Plain area of Princeton; routinely indicate the presence Feedlot Manure of nitrates above 10ppm in shallow drinking water wells. Management Traverse Bois de Sioux $333,200 $333,200 Mustinka River This grant will provide staff time and resources for project Watershed TMDL Turbidity development and promotion of 1,875 acres of buffers and 515 acres District Reduction Project of wetland restorations. This grant will also provide one-on-one technical assistance to landowners for the enrollment of a total of 1,150 acres of Continuous CRP buffers and 445 acres of wetland restorations within the entire project area. Olmsted Olmsted $575,540 $575,540 Cascade Creek The purpose of this project is to design, construct and maintain two County Turbidity retention structures and restore approximately 4,700 LF of failed Reduction stream bank to address nonpoint source turbidity pollution in rural Through Rural areas, while also restoring aquatic health and providing flood Retention and protection. This project integrates the once-disparate objectives of Stream Olmsted County, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Restoration City of Rochester into a common project. Ramsey Rice Creek $497,100 $497,100 Bald Eagle Lake This project will collect and store stormwater runoff from a 915 acre Watershed Watershed watershed upstream of Bald Eagle Lake and use it to irrigate 116 District Stormwater Re- acres within the Oneka Ridge Golf Course. After meeting irrigation use/Phosphorus needs, if additional runoff volume is available, it will be pumped into Reduction Project infiltration areas to be constructed within the golf course to further reduce runoff volumes. Dakota Dakota $300,000 $300,000 Stormwater This project will retrofit stormwater BMPs on public lands or private County Soil Retrofit land protected by easements to assist partnering LGUs in achieving and Water Partnership in water quality goals identified in local stormwater plans. Conservation Dakota County District

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 25 Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) Kandiyohi Middle Fork $252,125 $252,125 Green Lake The Green Lake Stormwater Quality Improvement Project will Crow River Stormwater provide retrofitted solutions to the water volume and water quality Watershed Quality issues threatening this priceless resource. District Improvement Project Washington Middle St. $45,525 $45,525 Lily Lake This project will work to implement priority stormwater treatment Croix Stormwater projects that were identified in the Lily Lake Stormwater Retrofit Watershed Retrofit Project, Assessment. Management Phase II Organization Lake Lake County $105,075 $105,075 Stewart River This project will restore five severely eroding streambank sites along Soil Water Watershed a 1.5 mile reach of the Stewart River. The sites generate over 446 Conservation Protection Project tons of sediment and 480 pounds of phosphorus annually. District Houston Root River Soil $63,175 $31,588 Targeted Utilizing the Stream Power Index Terrain Analysis, the Root River and Water Conservation SWCD identifies high priority sites most likely to deliver sediment to Conservation Measures Utilizing trout streams within the Root River Watershed. The sub-watersheds District Stream Power within the Root River targeted in this effort were identified for their Index biodiversity significance harboring rare species like Ozark minnow, American brook lamprey while supporting a coldwater trout fishery. Otter Tail East Otter Tail $86,310 $86,310 Lake Seven This project will maintain ecoregion leading water quality in Lakes Soil and Water Watershed Six and Seven by reducing pollutant loading to the affected lakes. Conservation Exceptional Lake Seven is a waterbody of statewide significance often leading District Resource the north central hardwoods forest ecoregion in water clarity. Protection Project Washington South $156,645 $156,645 Colby Lake South Washington Watershed District, in partnership with the Washington Neighborhood Washington Conservation District and City of Woodbury, will Watershed Retrofit improve water quality in Colby Lake through implementation of 30 District priority small-scale water quality Best Management Practices in the Colby Lake 1st Addition neighborhood.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 26 Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) Washington Middle St. $37,925 $37,925 McKusick Lake This project will work to implement priority stormwater treatment Croix Stormwater projects that were identified in the McKusick Lake Stormwater Watershed Retrofit Project, Retrofit Assessment. Management Phase I Organization Wright Wright Soil $ 66,580 $66,580 Reducing This project will stabilize a severely eroded 800 foot section of and Water Turbidity Using streambank which is contributing large amounts of sediment to the Conservation Natural Channel Crow River, which enters the Mississippi River. District Management in the Crow River Washington Comfort Lake- $176,047 $176,047 Greening the Big This project will install stormwater management controls in targeted Forest Lake Box and Greening areas where minimal or no stormwater controls currently exist. The Watershed Streets for project will install stormwater practices to filter and absorb runoff District Comfort Lake from areas that currently flow untreated to nearby wetlands, the Sunrise River and Comfort Lake. Hennepin City of Medina $334,450 $334,450 Loretto Creek This project will provide treatment for 490 acres of the Loretto Creek and Loretto Phosphorus watershed that drains to Lake Sarah, a regionally significant lake that Removal Project: is impaired. A Total Maximum Daily Load study for Lake Sarah was Cities of Medina & completed and determined that Loretto Creek carries approximately Loretto 269 pounds of sediment and phosphorus to Lake Sarah each year.

Ramsey Ramsey- $1,250,000 $625,000 Maplewood Mall The project addresses aspects of the Kohlman Lake TMDL Washington Stormwater Implementation Plan through the construction of infiltration and Metro Retrofit Phase 4 filtration projects throughout 12 acres of Maplewood Mall’s parking Watershed lot. These infiltration projects include: trees planted in rock District trenches, porous pavement, and rainwater gardens/bioretention areas. Clearwater Clearwater $32,260 $32,260 Lost River Over 2,100 feet of the Lost River shoreland will be improved through Soil and Water Watershed Runoff installation of buffers, streambank restoration, and livestock Conservation Reduction Project exclusion. District

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 27 Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) Marshall Marshall Soil $357,500 $178,750 Accelerated The City of Thief River Falls obtains drinking water from the reservoir and Water Sediment on the Thief River. The Thief River and its tributaries have water Conservation Reduction quality impairments, including low dissolved oxygen, turbidity, District Practice ammonia, and E. coli. Sediment plumes and deltas have formed at Installation along the inlets of pools in Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge (Agassiz Pool) the Upper Thief and Thief Lake. River Mower Cedar River $133,250 $133,250 Upper Cedar This project will install at least 10 water and sediment control basins Watershed Watershed Runoff to reduce peak flows in the targeted subwatershed. This will also District Reduction Project provide an estimated reduction of 25 tons of soil per year.

Kittson Kittson Soil $200,000 $100,000 Lake Bronson The project will reduce runoff and decrease movement of sediment, and Water Watershed Runoff nutrients and bacteria by targeting, prioritizing and installing Conservation Reduction Project vegetative practices along with potentially installing Side Water District - Phase II Inlets (SWI) within the Lake Bronson and upland subwatersheds. Ramsey Vadnais Lake $55,800 $55,800 Central Middle Lambert Creek discharges into Vadnais Lake, which is the final Area Water School Infiltration impoundment reservoir containing the potable water supply for the Management Swale and city of St. Paul and 8 nearby suburbs. A TMDL Work Plan has been Organization Education Project completed. Central Middle School provides an opportunity to modify an existing practice to maximize its efficiency. Hennepin Bassett Creek $217,500 $217,500 Bassett Creek This project will stabilize a total of 3,100 feet of Basset Creek Watershed Golden Valley streambanks at eight locations over a total reach length of Management Road to Irving approximately 15,000 feet, primarily within Theodore Wirth Park. Commission Avenue This park is heavily used by area residents and stabilizing these Restoration locations will help preserve the stream by maintaining clear water Project and preventing sedimentation

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 28 Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) Hennepin City of $235,200 $235,200 Bloomington: Green Streets for Blue Waters is a collaborative effort to install curb Bloomington Green Streets for cut raingardens and other stormwater best management practices Blue Waters (BMP) within public right of way and private land in the Bloomington. The practices will reduce sediment, phosphorus, and stormwater volumes generated by the residential area adjacent to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Scott Scott $34,500 $34,500 Native Grass Cost The Scott WMO has a long-term strategy to reduce runoff in Sand Watershed Share and Creek and alternative grass crops have been identified as one of the Management Incentives For practices to promote. This project is a continuation of a successful Organization Runoff Reduction effort by the Scott WMO and the Scott SWCD to establish native Continuation grasses for runoff reduction that received funding from the Clean Water Fund in 2010. Kittson Kittson Soil $150,000 $75,000 Red River of the The project will reduce runoff and decrease movement of sediment, and Water North Watershed nutrients and bacteria by targeting, prioritizing and installing Conservation Runoff Reduction vegetative practices along with potentially installing Side Water District Project Inlets (SWI) within the Red River of the North which is impaired for turbidity and upland subwatersheds Anoka Anoka $339,700 $339,700 Oak Glen Creek The Oak Glen Creek Corridor Stabilization project will stabilize a ¼ Conservation Corridor mile section of creek corridor that presently has 20-30 foot bare soil District Stabilization cliffs. The creek’s watershed delivers 352 tons of sediment to the Mississippi River each year, 287 tons of which are generated in this section of the creek. Washington Middle St. $194,900 $194,900 Lily Lake This project will work to implement stormwater treatment projects Croix Stormwater that were identified in the Lily Lake Stormwater Retrofit Assessment. Watershed Retrofit Project, The project will reduce TSS loading to Lily Lake by 4,144 lbs/yr, Management Commercial phosphorus loading by 5 pounds/year and provide a stormwater Organization Properties volume reduction of 11.16 acre-feet/year.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 29 Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) Chisago Chisago Soil $238,640 $238,640 Chain of Lakes Through a partnership with the Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement and Water Stormwater District, the Chisago SWCD has completed the subwatershed Conservation Retrofit assessments for the communities of Center City, Lindstrom and District Assessment Best Chisago City, all within the Chisago Lakes Chain of Lakes watershed. Management Practices Olmsted Olmsted Soil $59,298 $59,298 Flow and The Whitewater and Zumbro Rivers are impaired for turbidity. The and Water Sediment Whitewater river is a valuable cold-water trout fishery. These BMP's Conservation Reduction using will be targeted to actively eroding gullies in the Zumbro and District Targeted Whitewater River watersheds. Installation of these grade control, Conservation and water and sediment control basin projects will reduce Practice sedimentation to these streams by an estimated 65 tons per year. Installation Chisago Chisago Soil $84,400 $84,400 St. Croix River In 2011, the Chisago SWCD received CWF dollars to inventory the and Water Escarpment Gully active gully erosion sites along the St. Croix River escarpment from Conservation Stabilization the Wild River State Park entrance south to the County line. This District Implementation project is designed to implement restoration activities at those Program identified sites.

Carver Carver Soil $95,950 $ 63,350 Hydes Lake The purpose of this project is to reduce the nutrient loading into and Water Nutrient Hydes Lake in Carver County. This project will focus on installing Conservation Reduction Project soluble phosphorus treatment devices and completing shoreline District restorations.

Douglas Douglas Soil $133,939 $133,939 Upgrade of A soils investigation conducted during the summer of 2010 and Water Existing confirmed the existing Liquid Manure Storage Area is a threat to Conservation Noncompliant groundwater because of the sandy soil and high water table and District Liquid Manure must be properly closed to be compliant with MN rules chapter Storage Facility 7020. A new manure containment structure and reshaping of an adjacent lot will prevent manure contaminated water from entering the groundwater and improve waste management treatment on the site.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 30 Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) Kandiyohi Middle Fork $120,000 $120,000 MFCRWD This project contains several activities with effective BMPs on Crow River Shoreland and multiple water bodies, with a focus on reducing the erosion Watershed Stream Bank processes impacting bank stability. District Restoration/Stabil ization Program Red Lake Red Lake $120,000 $120,000 Accelerated Red Lake County SWCD conducted an Erosion Site Inventory during County Soil Erosion Control the winter of 2009. The results were prioritized and are being and Water Projects in the addressed in order of importance. This project focuses on the area Conservation Red Lake River identified as the highest sediment contributor. District Watershed Becker Becker Soil $42,160 $42,160 Buffalo-Red Erosion and sedimentation have been identified as a high priority in and Water Watershed the area through the Becker County Local Water Management and Conservation Sediment Plan and the Watershed District’s Water Management Plan. This District Reduction Project project will focus on the installation of water and sediment basins in this area and is estimated to keep 975 tons of sediment and over 1,100 pounds of phosphorus out of the Buffalo River each year.

Cook Cook Soil and $34,978 $34,978 City of Grand Cook County SWCD is partnering with the City of Grand Marais to Water Marais reduce the stormwater footprint on Lake Superior by proposing to Conservation Stormwater construct 2 rain gardens. With the funding from a Minnesota Lake District Management Superior Coastal Program (MLSCP) grant, Cook SWCD has rain Implementation garden designs shovel ready. Projects Dakota Vermillion $244,000 $244,000 Grade Control The Mississippi River and Spring Lake are both identified as high River Structure and priority waters and are seen to be of significance for restoration and Watershed infiltration to TSS/Turbidity reduction as identified in the South Metro Mississippi Joint Powers Prevent Erosion to River TMDL (draft). A grade control structure in combination with a Organization Mississippi River weir and ponds was determined to be the most effective and Gully inexpensive solution to address the erosion and sediment issue and is estimated to reduce sediment by 82 tons/year.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 31 Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) Becker Becker Soil $61,648 $61,648 Bejou, Shoe and In 2009, the Cormorant Lake Watershed District had an and Water Dahlberg Lakes Environmental Assessment and Engineering Study completed for the Conservation Sediment West Side of Bejou Lake to address water quality issues. It was District Reduction Project determined that significant amounts of sediment were being deposited from the 84 acre adjacent watershed. Installation of Sediment and erosion control basins would reduce sediment and nutrient inputs to the Cormorant headwaters lakes by 670 tons of sediment and 775 pounds of phosphorus each year. Ramsey Capitol Region $150,000 $150,000 The Highland The Highland Ravine is a large bluff area in central St. Paul that Watershed Ravine includes steep gullies and woodland areas that have become highly District Stabilization and eroded due to hydrologic changes associated with urban Restoration development over time. Stabilizing and restoring Highland Ravine Project will prevent future flooding, erosion, and sedimentation to local properties and improve the quality of stormwater being conveyed to the Mississippi River by reducing sediment and total phosphorus loads from the Ravine. Steele Steele County $36,650 $36,650 Owatonna Parks The City will install four rain gardens in City of Owatonna parks to Rain Gardens provide water quality treatment for stormwater runoff. Washington South $82,510 $82,510 Trout Brook This project will help restore and protect two unique resources in Washington Watershed southern Washington County--Trout Brook and Lake St. Croix. It is Watershed Restoration estimated that this project will reduce annual loading from the Trout District Brook watershed by 29.1 pounds of phosphorus, 23.6 tons of suspended solids, and 52.2 tons of sediment.

Benton Benton Soil $163,639 $163,639 Little Rock Lake Little Rock Lake is severely impaired for nutrients. This project kicks and Water TMDL Phosphorus off the implementation strategies outlined in the TMDL Conservation Reduction Project implementation plan through a coordinated effort with Benton and District Morrison SWCD's and NRCS, the Little Rock Lake Association, the poultry and livestock industry and other partners. Becker Becker Soil $33,095 $16,395 Continuation of This project will continue the successful efforts of erosion and and Water the Hay sediment reduction in the Hay Creek Watershed to improve the Conservation Creek/Stinking water quality of Stinking Lake through the installation of water and

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 32 Table B-1: Clean Water Assistance Grants Amount Amount CWA Project County Applicant Requested Recommended Project Description Title ($) ($) District Lake Sediment sediment control basins and buffer strips adjacent to Hay Creek and Reduction Project throughout the Hay Creek watershed.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 33 Table B-2: FY 2012 Clean Water Assistance: SSTS Abatement Grants

# of Imminent County Applicant Health Threat Grant Award Abatements McLeod McLeod County 27 $342,000 Pipestone Pipestone soil & water 12 $41,600 Stearns Stearns County Environmental Services 31 $330,286 Dodge Dodge County 3 $ 45,490 St. Louis St. Louis County 7 $78,582 Cass Cass County ESD 1 $ 8,570 Lincoln Lincoln County Environmental Office 1 $23,580 Big Stone Big Stone County 4 $41,265 Marshall Marshall County Water and Land Office 5 $53,500 Pennington Pennington SWCD 2 $34,500 Rock Rock County SWCD/Land Mgt 19 $198,083 Douglas Douglas SWCD 1 $10,700 Mille Lacs Mille Lacs County 30 $291,844 Total 143 $1,500,000

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 34

Table B-3: FY 2012 Clean Water Assistance: Livestock Waste Management Grants #of County Applicant Total BWSR Award Projects Fillmore Fillmore SWCD 2 $180,882 Todd Todd SWCD 3 $307,326 Stearns Stearns SWCD 6 $163,500 Wright Wright SWCD 2 $23,000 Winona Winona SWCD 4 $289,180 Goodhue Goodhue SWCD 2 $325,350 Mower Mower SWCD 1 $76,325 Renville Renville SWCD 1 $70,540 Olmstead Olmsted SWCD 1 $143,597 Douglas Douglas SWCD 1 $16,588 Pipestone Pipestone SWCD 1 $30,407 Nobles Nobles SWCD 1 $241,308 Chisago Chisago SWCD 1 $39,800

Dodge Dodge County 3 $92,197

Total 29 $2,000,000

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 35 Table B-4: Accelerated Implementation Grants Amount Amount Project Description County Applicant Requested Recommended CWA Title

($) ($) Multi- SE SWCD $309,800 $309,800 Nutrient This project will reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal coliform County Technical Joint Management in runoff into surface and ground water in southeast Minnesota and Powers Board the Lower the Mississippi River. Two nutrient management specialists will

Mississippi River assist landowners in the eleven-county Southeast Minnesota Area

Basin in with writing nutrient management plans and implementing BMP's Minnesota for manure and fertilizer use.

Roseau and Warroad River $52,532 $37,446 Warroad River The proposed project will investigate and quantify sources of Lake of Watershed Sediment Source sediment to the lower portion of the Warroad River near its the Woods District Assessment confluence with Lake of the Woods (LOW) by performing a sediment balance for the study area and using GIS-based terrain analysis

methods to identify and prioritize critical management areas.

Benton Benton Soil $55,410 $55,410 Little Rock Lake This project will provide the needed staff to work with the corporate and Water Phosphorus and private livestock industries on the animal feed lot component of

Conservation Reduction the equation for the Little Rock Lake Phosphorus TMDL. District Through Feed

Management

Initiative

Multi- Southeast $221,790 $221,790 Southeast Two staff to provide a wide range of technical assistance to 14 small County Minnesota Minnesota communities follow the many steps needed to upgrade their sewage

Water Wastewater treatment systems.

Resources Initiative Board

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 36 Table B-4: Accelerated Implementation Grants Amount Amount Project Description County Applicant Requested Recommended CWA Title

($) ($) Multi- Red River $194,490 $194,490 Red River Basin The WQDSA project will develop and refine LiDAR-derived data County Watershed Water Quality products to effectively target locations to reduce field erosion and

Management Decision Support reduce the magnitude and frequency of high flow events.

Board Application (WQDSA)

Clay Buffalo - Red $57,818 $57,818 Buffalo - Red River This project would provide a means of prioritizing areas of the River Watershed watershed for BMP implementation to reduce overland runoff

Watershed District BMP contaminant loadings contributing to water quality impairments District Strategic Plan within the BRRWD by utilizing LiDAR and other state of the art technologies.

Cass Cass County $24,120 $24,120 "Lake Sweep" In cooperation with funding from the Boy/Swift Lake Association Environmental SSTS compliance combined with matching funding from the Initiative Foundation

Services Inspections on Healthy Lakes and Rivers program, this project will result in SSTS Department Boy and Swift compliance inspections on up to 290 properties on Boy Lake and 69 Lakes on Swift Lake and an inventory of all properties SSTS on the two

lakes.

Clearwater Clearwater $8,000 $8,000 It's All in the This grant will allow us to conduct Lake Protection Screening Reports Soil and Water Timing: Expanding on three lakes of special interest.

Conservation Lake Protection

Distich Screening Reports

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 37 Table B-4: Accelerated Implementation Grants Amount Amount Project Description County Applicant Requested Recommended CWA Title

($) ($) Faribault Faribault Soil $41,344 $41,344 Faribault County This project aims to create a web based tool which will provide an and Water Drainage System inventory of drainage maintenance needs, including repairs, which

Conservation Online will reduce the sediment load to public open channels and track District Management Tool through the entire process from request, to inspection, to final payment.

Lac qui Parle Lac qui Parle $30,894 $30,894 Level 3 Feedlot Lac qui Parle County recognizes the need for a Level 3 Feedlot Soil and Water Inventory for Lac Inventory to use as a tool for targeting outreach efforts and financial

Conservation qui Parle County assistance that will improve and protect both impaired and District unimpaired surface waters of the County.

Renville Soil $6,990 $6,990 Renville County The project would involve a GIS analysis of the Middle Minnesota and Water Middle Minnesota River Watershed in Renville County using the soon to be released Renville Conservation River Watershed LiDAR topographic data to inventory BMP project potential in this District LiDAR BMP watershed, and then target priority projects for future funding. Inventory

Chisago Comfort Lake $30,200 $30,200 Tools to Target This project will greatly enhance the District’s ability to reduce Forest Lake and Restore phosphorous loading to six impaired lakes through the

Watershed Drained Wetlands implementation of both wetland restorations and other upland District for Water Quality BMP’s.

Todd Todd County $291,890 $291,890 Todd County This project will eliminate any seepage of untreated sewage into the Systematic Septic county's surface waters by identifying and upgrading failing onsite

System Inventory sewage treatment systems around 8 lakes.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 38 Table B-4: Accelerated Implementation Grants Amount Amount Project Description County Applicant Requested Recommended CWA Title

($) ($) Carlton Carlton Soil $99,000 $99,000 Kettle River This project will develop integrated watershed management tools to and Water Watershed TMDL accelerate on the ground conservation projects. Specifically, GIS data

Conservation Phosphorous for the watershed will be compiled, analyzed and processed for use District Reduction Project in an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) tool, which will identify sites with high value for conservation practice implementation.

Faribault Faribault Soil $37,574 $37,574 East Branch Blue This project will utilize LiDAR topographic data to determine areas of and Water Earth River BMP high importance for BMP implementation on a 117 square mile

Conservation Targeting Tools subwatershed of the East Branch Blue Earth River. District

Multi- Mississippi $100,000 $100,000 Prioritizing This 400-mile Mississippi Headwaters project will develop a County Headwaters Conservation prioritization methodology that utilizes a GIS land analysis along with

Board Project existing water quality data sets in order to determine river water

Implementation in quality trends that are increasing, decreasing, static or needing more

the 400- mile information. Mississippi Headwaters

Mower Mower $99,995 $99,995 Mower County Mower County is seeking to locate and require updating of all County County Imminent Public remaining un-inventoried septic systems which are classified as

Health Threat imminent public health threats (IPHTs). The purpose is to improve

Inventory Phase III and protect surface and ground water.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 39 Table B-4: Accelerated Implementation Grants Amount Amount Project Description County Applicant Requested Recommended CWA Title

($) ($) Multi- Greater Blue $300,860 $150,430 Greater Blue Earth A Conservation Agronomist will work with landowners, local and County Earth River River Basin Clean agency partners and the U of M to promote cropping systems other

Basin Alliance Water Fund than corn and soybeans in addition to other BMPs that help reduce

Positions soil erosion, promote water quality benefits and provide ecological

benefits.

Blue Earth Blue Earth $108,000 $108,000 Green printing for Blue Earth County and Watonwan County will be sharing County Wetland information, ideas and resources for completing mining reclamation

Restoration and and wetland management plans for inclusion in their local water

Mining management plans and comprehensive land use plans. Reclamation

Martin Martin Soil $79,179 $79,179 Implement Martin County will revive four lake associations by working in and Water surface water partnership with the Martin SWCD, Minnesota Waters, Barr

Conservation runoff prevention Engineering and U of MN Extension. District and protection

programs.

Multi- Metro $358,050 $216,181 Metro Wide A long standing partnership of the eleven metro soil and water County Conservation Subwatershed conservation districts (MCD) will continue to implement a process to

Districts Stormwater analyze an additional 33 subwatersheds that contribute to the

Retrofit Analysis degradation of locally identified high priority water resources. The

analyses to be completed identify the location and estimated

cost/benefit relationship for best management practices.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 40 Table B-5: Community Partners Grants County Applicant Amount Amount CWA Title Project Description Requested Recommended ($) ($) Crow Wing Crow Wing $150,000 $150,000 Brainerd Lakes This program will provide cost-sharing and technical assistance on Soil and Community projects that will intercept, treat and infiltrate runoff that will reduce

Water Centered phosphorus and sediment loads to high priority lakes and streams in Conservation Stormwater Crow Wing County. District Reduction Mini grant Program

Washington Washington $178,200 $150,000 Washington The goal of this project is to offer grant funding to churches located Conservation County Green within priority subwatershed of Washington County to install various

District Churches Low Impact Development best management practices.

Washington Washington $56,175 $56,175 St. Croix "Green" The goal of this project is to offer grant funding to boat marinas Conservation Marinas located in Washington County on the St. Croix River to complete

District water quality improvement projects.

Ramsey Vadnais Lake $105,200 $105,200 Community Blue: The “Community Blue” partnership program aims at completing 7-10 Area Water VLAWMO BMPs within the Lambert Creek subwatershed and Goose Lake

Management Partner drainage area. This will be a unique program with a focus on Organization Conservation engaging VLAWMO citizens through the installation of exceptionally Program visible and community accessible raingardens, shoreline restorations

and tree trenches.

Rice Rice County $31,200 $31,200 Rice County The purpose of this project is to increase awareness of Environmental Community environmental stewardship practices by providing six subgrants to

Services Environmental local partners to engage the public, provide education on Best Partnership Management Practices and create practices; including rain gardens,

Program vegetative buffers and wetland restorations.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 41 Table B-5: Community Partners Grants County Applicant Amount Amount CWA Title Project Description Requested Recommended ($) ($) Cass Cass County $50,900 $50,900 Cass County This project would allow numerous partners to address their own Environmental Partnerships for unique water quality issues by providing matching sub-grants to

Services Clean Water implement practices to reduce stormwater runoff and retain water District Challenge Grant on the land to reduce the movement of sediment and nutrients. Partnership.

Otter Tail East Otter Tail $154,380 $150,000 Otter Tail County The Otter Tail County Community Conservation Sub-grant Program Soil and Community enables community groups to go beyond planning and take action to

Water Conservation protect their water resources. This grant program provides Conservation Sub-grant community groups with the means to make positive improvements District Program now and identify further water quality opportunities.

Wadena Wadena Soil $82,950 $82,950 Improving Water In the rebuilding of Wadena after an EF4 tornado, it has become and Water Quality with visible that more needs to be done to reduce runoff by retaining or

Conservation Stormwater diverting stormwater and educating the citizens on stormwater District Abatement management. This project will filter the stormwater before it Within the City of reaches Union Creek and the Leaf River.

Wadena

Dakota Dakota $50,000 $50,000 Dakota County This project will provide cost share funding to faith based County Soil Community organizations and home owner/lake associations to construct

and Water Partners in medium-sized water quality best management practices (BMPs) in Conservation Conservation Dakota County. District

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 42 Table B-5: Community Partners Grants County Applicant Amount Amount CWA Title Project Description Requested Recommended ($) ($) Le Sueur Le Sueur $21,100 $21,100 Gorman Lake The Gorman Lake Water Retention Basins Project will install two County Water Retention tiered retention ponds to reduce peak flow in the drainage ditch and

Basins to reduce the amount of phosphorus enriched soil particles from

reaching Gorman Lake.

Douglas Douglas Soil $13,050 $13,050 Gully control at The Smokey Timbers Foundation and Miltona Township are and Water Smokey Timbers partnering on this project to solve an erosion problem from an

Conservation Youth Camp on existing gully entering Lake Miltona. The proposed fix for the District Lake Miltona problem is to construct a diversion to direct some of the runoff into existing woods to treat the runoff.

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 43 Table B-6: Conservation Drainage Grants County Applicant Amount Amount CWA Title Project Description Requested Recommended ($) ($) Wilkin Wilkin SWCD $294,506 $294,506 Connelly Ditch This water quality improvement project involves the retrofit of Retrofit to county ditch #31(CD31). Together all practices will reduce sediment

Improve Water loading by 335 tons/year and peak flows by 50 to 75 percent. Quality

Yellow Yellow $30,595 $30,595 Lower Yellow This project will install 1 bioreactor, 12 water control structures and Medicine Medicine Medicine River 20 alternative tile intakes to reduce nitrate and phosphorus inputs to

Sub-watershed the Lower Yellow Medicine River sub-watershed. SWCD Water Quality Improvement through Drainage

Stearns North Fork $34,110 $34,110 Drainage Water This project will result in more than 500 linear feet of woodchip bioreactors Crow River Quality and 5 rock inlets being installed within the Middle Fork of the Crow River

Watershed Improvement in Watershed. District the Middle Fork Crow Watershed

Kandiyohi Middle Fork $43,505 $43,505 Drainage Water This project will result in more than 500 linear feet of woodchip bioreactors Crow River Quality and 5 rock inlets being installed within the Middle Fork of the Crow River

Watershed Improvement in Watershed. District the Middle Fork Crow Watershed

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 44 Table B-6: Conservation Drainage Grants County Applicant Amount Amount CWA Title Project Description Requested Recommended ($) ($) Red Lake Red Lake $36,000 $36,000 Red Lake Red Lake County SWCD will continue to work cooperatively with SWCD Watershed the Red Lake Watershed District (RLWD) and the landowners

District Ditch #3 involved to reduce erosion, provide temporary detention and eliminate sediment deposition along the Red Lake Watershed Project (Phase II) District Ditch # 3 system, by installing 15 additional side water inlet structures. Carver Carver SWCD $32,600 $32,600 Hyde Lake The project will result in the installation of a bioreactor and/or Nutrient treatment cells to treat 60 acres of tilled agricultural fields

Reduction currently draining directly to Hydes Lake via drain tile. Project

Wright Wright SWCD $32,201 $32,201 Martha Lake Iron This project will used an iron enhanced sand filter to effectively treat Enhanced agricultural drainage and before enter Lake Martha. This filtration

Drainage System system will be utilized to reduce dissolved P levels in drainage water enter Lake Martha.

Roseau Roseau River $48,250 $48,250 Roseau River Roseau County SWCD will work cooperatively with the Roseau River Watershed Watershed WD Watershed District (RRWD) and the landowners involved reducing

District #3, Laterals 2&3 erosion, providing temporary detention and eliminating sediment Project deposition along the Roseau River Watershed District Watershed

Ditch # 3 system Laterals 2 and 3 by installing 29 side water inlet

structures in Roseau County. Nicollet Nicollet SWCD $173,000 $86,500 Conservation This project will be targeting drain tile outfalls entering ravines in the Drainage Upland upper portion of the Seven Mile Creek watershed by using mitigative to Ravine measures to hold back water above the ravines and using innovative Sedimentation techniques to dissipate the energy of the drainage water flowing and Rate Flow Reduction from top of ravine to the creek. Project BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 45

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 46 Appendix C: Estimated Intermediate Outcomes

TMDL TMDL Phosphorus Estimated TMDL Estimated TMDL Keeping Sediment Awarded Impaired Completed Name of Reduction Needed Phosphorus Phosphorus Sediment Sediment Water on Year County Project Title Reduction Organization Water TMDL TMDL Study (lb/yr)*includes Reductions Reduction Reductions Reduction the Land Needed internal loading (lb/yr) (%) (T/yr) (%) (acre-ft) (T/yr) Project addresses multiple Dakota County Dakota County Agricultural 2012 Dakota Yes Yes TMDLs 561 657 SWCD Conservation Partnership within Dakota County

Knife River Watershed Knife River Lake County 2012 Lake Protection Project - TMDL Yes Yes Turbidity 697 9,380.50 606 6.5 SWCD Turbidity Reduction TMDL

Flood Plain Well Pit Retrofit Lac qui Parle 2012 Lac qui Parle and Groundwater No No SWCD Protection

Iron-enhanced Sand Filter - Brown's Creek 2012 Washington Settlers Glen 5th Addition, Yes No 235 118 50 WD Stillwater Clearwater River (UM Basin) CD #44 to Lake Clearwater Lake Chain Betsy: Clearwater River TMDL Implementation: 2012 Stearns Yes Yes Dissolved 19,136 118 0.6 WD Kimball Stormwater Oxygen, Phase II Bacteria and Excessive Nutrient TMDL

Phase II Sand Hill River 2012 Polk East Polk SWCD Watershed Accelerated Yes No 400 450

Erosion Area BMP's

Wadena County Sand 2012 Wadena Wadena SWCD Plains Nitrate Groundwater No No

Protection Project

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 47 Appendix C: Estimated Intermediate Outcomes

TMDL TMDL Phosphorus Estimated TMDL Estimated TMDL Keeping Sediment Awarded Impaired Completed Name of Reduction Needed Phosphorus Phosphorus Sediment Sediment Water on Year County Project Title Reduction Organization Water TMDL TMDL Study (lb/yr)*includes Reductions Reduction Reductions Reduction the Land Needed internal loading (lb/yr) (%) (T/yr) (%) (acre-ft) (T/yr) East Otter Tail County East Otter Tail 2012 Otter Tail Nitrate Groundwater No N/A SWCD Protection Project Turbidity TMDL Pomme de Terre River Pomme de Terre Assessment 6,602 - 2012 Multi-County Watershed BMP 2012 Yes Yes 3,710 16-56 River Association for the 22,190 Initiative Pomme de Terre River Lower Minnesota Revere, MN - Pell Creek River 2012 Redwood Redwood SWCD Yes Yes 29667 258 1 250 Sub-Watershed 29053 Watershed Low DO TMDL Groundwater Protection of Highly Vulnerable Drinking 2012 Mille Lacs Mille Lacs SWCD Yes No Water - Feedlot Manure Management Mustinka Mustinka River TMDL River 2012 Traverse Bois de Sioux WD Yes Yes 15,625 252,208 16,617 7 Turbidity Reduction Project Turbidity TMDL Cascade Creek Turbidity Cascade Reduction Through Rural Creek 2012 Olmsted Olmsted County Yes Yes 4,080 2,006 Retention and Stream Turbity Restoration TMDL

Bald Eagle Lake Watershed Stormwater Bald Eagle 2012 Ramsey Rice Creek WD Yes Yes 2,622 100-275 Re-use/Phosphorus Lake TMDL Reduction Project

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 48 Appendix C: Estimated Intermediate Outcomes

TMDL TMDL Phosphorus Estimated TMDL Estimated TMDL Keeping Sediment Awarded Impaired Completed Name of Reduction Needed Phosphorus Phosphorus Sediment Sediment Water on Year County Project Title Reduction Organization Water TMDL TMDL Study (lb/yr)*includes Reductions Reduction Reductions Reduction the Land Needed internal loading (lb/yr) (%) (T/yr) (%) (acre-ft) (T/yr) Project addresses Stormwater Retrofit multiple Dakota County 2012 Dakota Partnership in Dakota Yes Yes TMDLs 5.2 1.5 6.2 SWCD County within Dakota County Green Lake Stormwater Middle Fork Crow 2012 Kandiyohi Quality Improvement No No 50 19.2 River WD Project

Middle St. Croix Lily Lake Stormwater 2012 Washington Yes No 145 8.8 6 WMO Retrofit Project, Phase II

Lake County Stewart River Watershed 2012 Lake No No 480 446 SWCD Protection Project

Targeted Conservation 2012 Houston Root River Measures Utilizing Stream No No 212 534

Power Index

Lake Seven Watershed East Otter Tail 2012 Otter Tail Exceptional Resource No No 6.4 2.8 SWCD Protection Project

South Colby Lake Neighborhood 2012 Washington Yes No 10.5 2.3 Washington WD Retrofit

Middle St. Croix McKusick Lake Stormwater 2012 Washington Yes No 235 5.6 2 2 4.3 WMO Retrofit Project, Phase I

Reducing Turbidity Using Natural Channel 2012 Wright Wright SWCD Yes No 416 Management in the Crow River

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 49 Appendix C: Estimated Intermediate Outcomes

TMDL TMDL Phosphorus Estimated TMDL Estimated TMDL Keeping Sediment Awarded Impaired Completed Name of Reduction Needed Phosphorus Phosphorus Sediment Sediment Water on Year County Project Title Reduction Organization Water TMDL TMDL Study (lb/yr)*includes Reductions Reduction Reductions Reduction the Land Needed internal loading (lb/yr) (%) (T/yr) (%) (acre-ft) (T/yr) Greening the Big Box and Forest Lake Comfort Lake- 2012 Washington Greening Streets for Yes Yes Comfort 126 11.2 9 2.6 Forest Lake WD Comfort Lake Lake TMDL

Loretto Creek Phosphorus City of Medina Lake Sarah 2012 Hennepin Removal Project: Cities of Yes Yes 4,330 140 3 and Loretto TMDL Medina & Loretto

Ramsey- Maplewood Mall Kolman Lake 2012 Ramsey Washington Stormwater Retrofit Yes Yes 209 30 14 TMDL Metro WD Phase 4

Lost River Watershed 2012 Clearwater Clearwater SWCD No No 45.4 32.7 Runoff Reduction Project

Accelerated Sediment Reduction Practice 2012 Marshall Marshall SWCD Yes No 2,993 Installation along the Upper Thief River

Upper Cedar Watershed 2012 Mower Cedar River WD Yes No 2.5 2.5 Runoff Reduction Project

Lake Bronson Watershed 2012 Kittson Kittson SWCD Runoff Reduction Project - Yes No 12,848 12,389

Phase II

Vadnais Lake Central Middle School Area Water 2012 Ramsey Infiltration Swale and Yes No 2.1 0.6 Management Education Project Organization

Bassett Creek Golden Bassett Creek 2012 Hennepin Valley Road to Irving Yes No 60 52.5 WMC Avenue Restoration Project

City of Bloomington: Green 2012 Hennepin Yes No 14 15.4 Bloomington Streets for Blue Waters

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 50 Appendix C: Estimated Intermediate Outcomes

TMDL TMDL Phosphorus Estimated TMDL Estimated TMDL Keeping Sediment Awarded Impaired Completed Name of Reduction Needed Phosphorus Phosphorus Sediment Sediment Water on Year County Project Title Reduction Organization Water TMDL TMDL Study (lb/yr)*includes Reductions Reduction Reductions Reduction the Land Needed internal loading (lb/yr) (%) (T/yr) (%) (acre-ft) (T/yr)

Native Grass Cost Share 2012 Scott Scott WMO and Incentives For Runoff Yes No 25.5 26.7 11.6

Reduction Continuation

Red River of the North 2012 Kittson Kittson SWCD Watershed Runoff Yes No 7,234 5,085

Reduction Project

Oak Glen Creek Corridor 2012 Anoka Anoka CD Yes No 317 Stabilization

Lily Lake Stormwater Middle St. Croix 2012 Washington Retrofit Project, Yes No 145 13.2 9 1.6 WMO Commercial Properties

Chain of Lakes Stormwater 2012 Chisago Chisago SWCD Retrofit Assessment Best Yes No 30 12 16

Management Practices

Flow and Sediment Reduction using Targeted 2012 Olmsted Olmsted SWCD Yes No 32.3 67 Conservation Practice Installation

St. Croix River Escarpment 2012 Chisago Chisago SWCD Gully Stabilization Yes No 72 120

Implementation Program

Hydes Lake Nutrient Carver Creek 2012 Carver Carver SWCD Yes Yes 855 233 27 Reduction Project Lakes TMDL

Upgrade of Existing Long Prairie 2012 Douglas Douglas SWCD Noncompliant Liquid Yes Yes Low DO 15

Manure Storage Facility TMDL

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 51 Appendix C: Estimated Intermediate Outcomes

TMDL TMDL Phosphorus Estimated TMDL Estimated TMDL Keeping Sediment Awarded Impaired Completed Name of Reduction Needed Phosphorus Phosphorus Sediment Sediment Water on Year County Project Title Reduction Organization Water TMDL TMDL Study (lb/yr)*includes Reductions Reduction Reductions Reduction the Land Needed internal loading (lb/yr) (%) (T/yr) (%) (acre-ft) (T/yr) MFCRWD Shoreland and Middle Fork Crow Stream Bank 2012 Kandiyohi Yes No River WD Restoration/Stabilization Program

Accelerated Erosion Red Lake County 2012 Red Lake Control Projects in the Red No No 2,200 SWCD Lake River Watershed

Buffalo-Red Watershed 2012 Becker Becker SWCD Sediment Reduction Yes No 1,130 975

Project

City of Grand Marais 2012 Cook Cook SWCD Stormwater Management No No 0.6 0.08

Implementation Projects

Vermillion River Grade Control Structure Watershed Joint and infiltration to Prevent 2012 Dakota Yes No 70 82 43,560 Powers Erosion to Mississippi River Organization Gully

Bejou, Shoe and Dahlberg 2012 Becker Becker SWCD Lakes Sediment Reduction Yes No 775 670

Project

The Highland Ravine Capitol Region 2012 Ramsey Stabilization and Yes No 91 11.5 WD Restoration Project

Lower Mississippi River Fecal Owatonna Parks Rain Coliform 2012 Steele Steele County Yes Yes 6.6 1.1 Gardens TMDL, Lower Cannon River BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 52 Appendix C: Estimated Intermediate Outcomes

TMDL TMDL Phosphorus Estimated TMDL Estimated TMDL Keeping Sediment Awarded Impaired Completed Name of Reduction Needed Phosphorus Phosphorus Sediment Sediment Water on Year County Project Title Reduction Organization Water TMDL TMDL Study (lb/yr)*includes Reductions Reduction Reductions Reduction the Land Needed internal loading (lb/yr) (%) (T/yr) (%) (acre-ft) (T/yr) Turbidity TMDL

South Trout Brook Watershed 2012 Washington Yes No 29 52 Washington WD Restoration

Little Rock Lake TMDL Little Rock 2012 Benton Benton SWCD Phosphorus Reduction Yes Yes 7,914 507 6 389 Lake TMDL Project

Continuation of the Hay Creek/Stinking Lake 2012 Becker Becker SWCD Yes No 600 500 Sediment Reduction Project

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 53 Appendix D: Comparison of Estimated Number of Non-compliant SSTS by County to Projects Funded CWF SSTS CWF SSTS Total # Calculated # Calculated # Jurisdiction Projects in Projects in SSTS of Failing of ITPH FY 2010-11 FY 2012 Aitkin County 14,103 1,551 141 Anoka County 200 20 - Becker County - - - Beltrami County 8,076 - - 1 Benton County 5,214 1,564 261 Big Stone County 1,661 399 133 3 4 Blue Earth County 6,014 2,045 1,022 Brown County 2,302 645 645 Carlton County 7,400 1,480 444 Carver County 4,297 1,117 602 Cass County 21,543 4,309 431 62 1 Chippewa County 2,227 156 1,136 1 Chisago County 7,450 1,863 0 17 Clay County 2,904 581 290 Clearwater County 3,350 1,843 168 Cook County 4,351 1,305 218 15 Cottonwood County 1,632 196 783 Crow Wing County 17,708 1,919 159 3 Dakota County 1,045 79 21 Dodge County 2,841 - - 13 3 Douglas County 5,060 708 51 1 Faribault County 2,112 21 891 Fillmore County 3,788 189 114 Freeborn County 3,981 1,592 836 10 Goodhue County 5,210 1,824 1,303 Grant County 1,055 200 106 Hennepin County - - - Houston County 55 15 11 Hubbard County 17,570 4,423 354 Isanti County 8,803 1,232 88 Itasca County 15,558 4,201 467 Jackson County 3,277 1,966 - 6 Kanabec County 6,535 1,307 - Kandiyohi County 6,846 2,396 342 Kittson County 980 245 - Koochiching County 1,951 1,346 195 Lac qui Parle County 1,792 627 - Lake County 5,248 577 420 6

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 54 Appendix D: Comparison of Estimated Number of Non-compliant SSTS by County to Projects Funded CWF SSTS CWF SSTS Total # Calculated # Calculated # Jurisdiction Projects in Projects in SSTS of Failing of ITPH FY 2010-11 FY 2012 Lake of the Woods 2,650 265 27 15 Le Sueur County 7,122 1,424 1,424 Lincoln County 1,788 903 376 5 1 Lyon County 2,300 759 115 Mahnomen County - - - Marshall County 2,800 1,120 280 5 Martin County 2,400 408 408 17 McLeod County 4,108 1,643 1,027 12 27 Meeker County 5,550 1,554 1,055 31 Mille Lacs County 5,619 1,405 562 5 30 Morrison County 9,658 2,415 483 Mower County 3,631 2,179 363 Murray County 1,115 100 479 9 Nicollet County 2,656 452 797 Nobles County 2,182 873 436 Norman County 1,161 116 58 Olmsted County 4,140 869 207 Otter Tail County 23,050 5,763 1,153 Pennington County 1,200 180 24 2 2 Pine County 4,897 1,959 1,224 Pipestone County 1,371 137 823 17 12 Polk County 6,000 900 120 Pope County 6,012 1,503 - Ramsey County 1,798 - - Red Lake County 833 8 8 Redwood County 2,550 1,020 510 Renville County 2,486 497 945 Rice County 7,153 1,288 1,574 10 Rock County 1,305 548 261 19 Roseau County 3,925 - - Scott County 9,143 1,737 91 3 Sherburne County 13,559 1,627 136 Sibley County 2,606 365 886 St. Louis 32,086 11,872 963 7 Stearns County 16,436 2,794 329 45 31 Steele County 3,028 908 606 Stevens County 1,182 24 355 Swift County 3,969 1,985 1,072

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 55 Appendix D: Comparison of Estimated Number of Non-compliant SSTS by County to Projects Funded CWF SSTS CWF SSTS Total # Calculated # Calculated # Jurisdiction Projects in Projects in SSTS of Failing of ITPH FY 2010-11 FY 2012 Todd County 8,278 2,070 828 Traverse County 846 152 42 Wabasha County 3,966 873 476 Wadena County 3,648 1,058 511 Waseca County 2,328 466 372 Washington County 14,691 441 441 Watonwan County 1,292 323 388 Wilkin County 1,060 594 32 Winona County 4,735 1,515 568 Wright County 15,101 4,530 302 Yellow Medicine 1,737 434 434 TOTALS 465,290 107,995 35,197 308 143

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 56 Appendix E: Comparison of Estimated 2011 Non-compliant Feedlots to Projects Funded All Feedlots Required Estimated Non- # of CWF Feedlot County to be Registered by Compliant Feedlots Projects in FY County under 300AU** 2012 Aitkin Data not available* Data not available*

Anoka Data not available* Data not available*

Benton Data not available* Data not available*

Big Stone 64 13

Blue Earth 292 52

Brown 371 77

Carver 265 66

Chisago Data not available* Data not available* 1 Clay 114 26

Cottonwood 274 54

Dakota 203 40

Dodge 257 54 3 Douglas 410 106 1 Faribault 409 85

Fillmore 862 203 2 Freeborn 331 73

Goodhue 679 166 2 Houston 446 112

Jackson 328 60

Kandiyohi 415 94

Lac Qui Parle 170 38

Lake of the Woods 29 8

Le Sueur 190 36

Lincoln 416 103

Lyon 278 18

Marshall 67 16

Martin 376 48

McLeod 354 89

Meeker 296 72

Morrison 566 130

Mower 354 70 1 Murray 449 85

Nicollet 307 66

Nobles 403 71

Norman 43 11

Olmsted Data not available* Data not available* 1 Pennington 53 12

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 57 Appendix E: Comparison of Estimated 2011 Non-compliant Feedlots to Projects Funded All Feedlots Required Estimated Non- # of CWF Feedlot County to be Registered by Compliant Feedlots Projects in FY County under 300AU** 2012 Pipestone 492 106 1 Polk 81 18

Pope 329 79

Red Lake 43 9

Renville 281 60 1 Rice 338 77

Rock 472 92

Scott 168 42

Sibley 327 77

Stearns 1,502 364 5 Steele 271 58

Stevens 135 22

Swift 138 28

Todd 723 183 3 Traverse 40 8

Wabasha 507 129

Wadena 129 31

Waseca 212 43

Washington Data not available* Data not available*

Watonwan 163 29

Winona 589 143 4 Wright 292 72 2 Yellow Medicine 288 63

Grand Totals: 17,591 3,882 27 . * Counties that do not participate in the MPCA delegated County feedlot program ** Data based on 2011 registration data from MPCA database. Assumes 27% of feedlots under 300 AUs non- compliant

BWSR FY 2012 Annual Report on Clean Water Fund Appropriations Page 58 Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA)

From: Elhassan, Ali [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:03 PM To: Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA) Cc: Buttleman, Keith; Moore, William; Rummel, Sandy Subject: Clean Water Council request for information: Completed Metropolitan Council questionnaire Attachments: Metropolitan Council_Questionnaire_Final.docx; Metropolitan Council_Questionnaire_Attachment1.docx; Metropolitan Council_Questionnaire_Attachment2.docx

Importance: High

Jennifer,

I have attached the Metropolitan Council’s response to your March 1, 2012 letter from the Clean Water Council requesting information on current and proposed Clean Water Fund activities.

Please find the attached completed questionnaire and two supporting attachments.

I am happy to provide additional information as needed or to answer any questions.

Thank you,

Ali Elhassan, Ph. D., P. E., Manager, Water Supply Planning Metropolitan Council, Environmental Services Phone: 651-602-1066 Fax: 651-602-1130 e-mail: [email protected] Address: 390 Robert street North, St. Paul, MN 55101-1805

“And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.”

John Steinbeck, East of Eden

From: Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:35 AM To: Haigh, Susan Cc: Rummel, Sandy; Ross, Lanya; Buttleman, Keith Subject: Clean Water Council request for information Importance: High

Hello,

Please find the attached letter from the Clean Water Council requesting information on current and proposed Clean Water Fund activities, along with a questionnaire and the Budget and Outcomes Committee 2012 timeline.

Thanks! 1 Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Metropolitan Council Clean Water Fund appropriations

Actual Actual Proposed Agency Activity FY10-11 FY12-13 FY14-15 Twin Cities metro water supply plan implementation and $0.800M $1.000M + update: Conduct local assessments and develop sustainable supply options. Develop and enhance tools for storm water and wastewater management, including reuse, to protect and recharge aquifers. Enhance the base of technical information and guidance to promote water conservation program effectiveness. Continue the collection, analysis, and sharing of hydrogeologic information to refine the understanding of groundwater availability. Update the regional groundwater model with new information, including collar county data, and apply the model to test different approaches to water supply Met Council development. Regional groundwater recharge areas – identification and $0.00M $0.00M + classification: Identify and classify regional recharge areas, in order to improve the efficiency of source water protection and to develop and implement informed regional growth and land use policies. This effort will entail the development of criteria to identify areas of significant natural recharge and qualitatively define areas for potential protection; criteria to identify areas for artificial recharge; an approach to classify identified recharge areas, in order to guide land use decisions and prioritize management activities and funding; and maps and public outreach materials. Total $0.800M $1.000M +

Legend Monitoring/ Watershed restoration / Drinking water Nonpoint source Education and civic Applied research and Point source assessment protection strategies protection implementation engagement tool development implementation

Please describe overall progress from activities in FY10-11 and planned progress for FY12-13 by responding to the following question. Please describe progress made in implementing the Twin Cities master water supply plan in FY10-11 and the outcomes achieved. Please describe activities planned or underway in FY12-13.

In FY10-11, the Metropolitan Council initiated several projects supporting implementation of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Master Water Supply Plan in order to protect, better manage, wisely use and ensure sustainability of the water supplies of the metropolitan area which is home to half of the state population. Details are provided in Attachment 1. 1

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

o Evaluation of Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction - Completed o Assessment of Water Availability in East Bethel - Completed o Hydrogeologic and Groundwater Chemistry Assessment – Completed o Cost-Benefit Analysis of Water Conservation - Completed o Mapping the Vulnerability of Glacial Aquifers and Mapping Contaminant Plumes – Completed o Seminary Fen Protection – In Progress o Feasibility Assessment and Guidance for Stormwater Reuse - Completed o South Washington County Comprehensive Water Supply Plan – In Progress

In FY12-13, the Metropolitan Council initiated new activities and continued some activities begun in FY10-11. All activities support expanded implementation of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Master Water Supply Plan. Details are provided in Attachment 2.

o Impacts on Groundwater Quality by Stormwater Infiltration Practices – In Progress o Assessing the Opportunities and Barriers for Water Conservation by Private Industrial Users – In Progress o Update of the Regional Groundwater Flow Model (Metro Model 2) – Phases 1 & 2 – In Progress o Update of the Regional Recharge Model – In Progress o Source Water Protection: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Study – In Development o Providing technical assistance to metropolitan area water supply stakeholders through continued project management, QA/QC on analyses, model application, and outreach– In Progress o Integration of Metropolitan Area Master Water Supply Plan into the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Development Framework and Water Resources Management Policy Plan – In Progress o Update of the Metropolitan Area Master Water Supply Plan with information generated by FY10-13 Clean Water Fund projects – In Progress

In the 2011 Special Session Legacy bill, sec. 25 states “a recipient of funds appropriated in this article shall incorporate civic engagement and public education when implementing projects and programs funded under this article”. Please describe your progress in this area.

The Metropolitan Council engages stakeholders and the general public in water supply planning through a variety of efforts, including:

o Technically supporting, coordinating and facilitating: o The Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee o Sub-regional water supply work groups, which are attended by municipal water utility staff, city planning staff, state agency water resource management staff, and watershed district staff o Presenting water supply planning project and program information at local conferences and seminars and to interested groups as requested

2

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

o Regularly reporting on Clean Water Fund-supported project and program activities to the legislature o Enhancing, updating and maintaining a water supply planning website, which provides a wide range of information about the region’s water supplies o Volunteering staff time for water resource and drinking water education events o Regularly publishing newsletters about regional water supply issues and providing interviews as requested

Did you return any unused dollars to the Clean Water Fund in FY10-11? If so, please describe circumstances.

The Metropolitan Council did not return any unused dollars to the Clean Water Fund in FY10-11.

Please describe any new Clean Water Fund initiatives/programs your agency is considering for FY14-15.

o Regional Groundwater Recharge Areas - Identification and Classification: Identification and classification of regional recharge areas, with the purpose of promoting more efficient source water protection and developing and implementing informed regional growth and land use policies. This effort will entail development of:

1. Criteria to identify the areas of significant natural recharge and qualitatively define areas for potential protection 2. Criteria to identify areas favorable for artificial recharge 3. An approach to classify identified natural recharge areas and potential artificial recharge areas, in order to guide land use decisions and prioritize management activities and funding 4. Maps and public outreach materials

3

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Attachment 1: FY10-11 Activities

Metropolitan Council Clean Water Fund Appropriations

Evaluation of Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction On behalf of the Metropolitan Council, Barr Engineering Company developed maps and supporting information to characterize the relationship between surface waters and groundwater, identifying surface waters most likely to be impacted by groundwater withdrawals. This study resulted in the delineation of surface waters vulnerable to impacts from groundwater withdrawals in the region. In addition resource monitoring strategies were developed that provide recommendations for monitoring and analysis to avoid impacts on surface water features from groundwater pumping. This information will support water appropriation permit decisions, sub-regional water supply management plan development, future updates of the Master Water Supply Plan and Metro Model 2 re-calibration.

Assessment of Water Availability in East Bethel On behalf of the Metropolitan Council, Barr Engineering Company was contracted to assess the local water resources in the City of East Bethel area, where the city and Metropolitan Council are working together to design a water reclamation and reuse facility to treat wastewater generated by future growth. This project evaluated plans for land use, water supply and wastewater treatment using a local groundwater flow model to identify potential risks to high-value water resources. Important aspects of the project focused on the additional groundwater withdrawals that would result from serving growth and the effects of infiltrating reclaimed wastewater. Project results are being used to help develop water supply system options and monitoring strategies to avoid adverse water resource impacts from projected withdrawals and water reclamation. This project is also being used as a pilot to demonstrate how water supply planning can be aligned with regional sewer service expansion.

Hydrogeologic and Groundwater Chemistry Assessment On behalf of the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Geological Survey collected information and conducted an assessment of the hydraulic properties and groundwater chemistry of selected aquifers in the metro area. A robust database of groundwater age, aquifer hydraulic conductivity and groundwater chemistry data was developed that is easily accessible to water resource managers. This project greatly improves the accessibility of existing data, which were previously available only in scattered paper reports. The information will help improve the understanding of the groundwater resources in the region and will be used to update the regional groundwater model (Metro Model 2).

Attachment 1: Metropolitan Council FY 10-11 Activities 1

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Water Conservation On behalf of the Metropolitan Council, Environmental Financial Group Inc. generated a matrix of water conservation programs with detailed information about the costs and benefits of the programs in comparison with developing traditional water supply sources. Tools were developed to allow users to calculate potential water savings, estimate program implementation costs, and test the effects of various water conservation programs and rate structures.

Mapping the Vulnerability of Glacial Aquifers and Mapping Contaminant Plumes On behalf of the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Geological Survey is cooperating with the Minnesota Department of Health to evaluate the vulnerability of glacial aquifers in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The project improves upon previous vulnerability assessments by incorporating a substantial amount of new aquifer property information and blending methods previously used by the Minnesota Departments of Health and Natural Resources. The result will be a consistent vulnerability assessment across the metropolitan area based on the most up-to-date information available. This project will generate maps showing pathways of groundwater movement through glacial materials to bedrock. The maps will be supported by a database of aquifer property and groundwater chemistry information developed through a related Clean Water Fund study. As part of this project with the Minnesota Geological Survey, the Metropolitan Council is developing a map index of existing groundwater contaminant plumes in the metro area. This project will generate an interactive map of known groundwater contaminant plumes. Both contaminant plume mapping and glacial aquifer vulnerability mapping will help land use planners consider the impacts of groundwater quality on land use decisions.

Seminary Fen Protection The Metropolitan Council is conducting technical analyses and leading a stakeholder process to evaluate potential threats to the Seminary Fen, a calcareous wetland in southeastern Carver County. This rare and sensitive water feature, protected by Minnesota Statutes 103G.223, relies on the discharge of groundwater to sustain a unique and protected plant community. Growing communities near the fen also rely on groundwater for their water supply. The technical analysis will evaluate potential effects of current and projected groundwater withdrawals, surface water management and land use activities on the Seminary Fen. This effort will result in the development and implementation of a resource stewardship plan to guide management activities in addressing pressures that affect the health of the fen, including groundwater withdrawals, stormwater runoff, water quality and invasive species.

Feasibility Assessment and Guidance for Stormwater Reuse Working with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) created a feasibility evaluation guidance for using stormwater runoff for irrigation and other purposes that traditionally rely on potable water. Effective implementation of stormwater reuse practices can lower demands on drinking water supplies and reduce impacts from aquifer decline, while simultaneously

Attachment 1: Metropolitan Council FY 10-11 Activities 2

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

reducing mass loading of pollutants to surface waters. The project includes an analysis of factors that influence the feasibility assessment, scoping and implementation of stormwater reuse projects; an analysis of the requirements, challenges, and benefits of stormwater reuse systems; and the development of stormwater collection, storage, treatment and distribution component options. Guidelines and conceptual plans provide tools to assess the feasibility of, and to scope and implement, stormwater reuse projects. This project complements and supports existing stormwater guidance manuals, such as the Minnesota Stormwater Manual.

South Washington County Comprehensive Water Supply Plan The goal of this project is to evaluate projected water demand, groundwater contamination and potential natural resource impacts in southern Washington County to ensure water supplies are developed sustainably. An important part of this project involves working with stakeholders to identify common goals and objectives, as well as ways to enhance coordination amongst water suppliers and water resource managers. Partners include state agencies, Washington County, watershed districts and the cities of Woodbury and Cottage Grove.

The project includes conducting technical analyses to evaluate water availability, effects of projected demands on natural resources including the Valley Branch trout stream, and migration of known groundwater contaminant plumes. Supply options will be developed to address issues identified early in the process. The project will result in the development and implementation of a water supply/water management plan to ensure that a high quality water supply is available to meet projected demand while protecting natural resources in the area.

Attachment 1: Metropolitan Council FY 10-11 Activities 3

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Attachment 2: FY12-13 Activities

Metropolitan Council Clean Water Fund Appropriations

Impacts on Groundwater Quality by Stormwater Infiltration Practices The Twin Cities metropolitan area has a rich history and connection with its waters. In an effort to keep surface waters clean, a wide variety of stormwater practices have been developed and installed throughout the metro in recent years. Many of these, such as rain gardens and infiltration basins and trenches, are intended to reduce the total runoff volume by infiltrating stormwater. There are concerns that contaminants commonly found in stormwater (VOCs, SVOCs, toxic metals, nutrients, chloride, etc.) are infiltrating into groundwater supplies. Working with the University of Minnesota – Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory, this project will focus on the impact of stormwater infiltration practices on groundwater quality in the metro area, thereby increasing the ability to place new stormwater infiltration practices in locations that have minor or no impact on groundwater resources. These objectives will be achieved through a combination of a literature survey, laboratory studies, and field measurements.

Assessing the Opportunities and Barriers for Water Conservation by Private Industrial Users Working with the Metropolitan Council, the University of Minnesota - Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) is investigating the opportunity for water conservation by private industrial water users across the Twin Cities metropolitan region. Private industrial water users are defined as industries that use private wells for their water supply. This work will determine factors that either encourage or create barriers for implementation of water conservation opportunities. The project includes a survey of private industrial water users to assess general trends in water use and conservation activities; onsite assessments with MnTAP engineering staff to directly identify water conservation opportunities in selected facilities; and an in-depth water conservation investigation of one facility through a MnTAP summer intern project.

Update of the Regional Groundwater Flow Model (Metro Model 2) State law charges the Metropolitan Council (Council) with developing and maintaining a base of technical information needed for sound water supply decisions (Minnesota Statutes 473.1565). The Council’s primary tool to provide this information is the Metro Model 2, a regional groundwater model capable of predicting the impacts of planned water demand on aquifers and connected lakes and streams. The Metro Model 2 is a modern and comprehensive groundwater model of the Twin Cities area. In order to provide the best available information for the update of the Council’s policy plans and related documents and tools, the model will be updated with new information, adapted to run transient

Attachment 2: Metropolitan Council FY12-13 Activities 1

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

(seasonal) simulations, and expanded to consider impacts of water supply development in adjacent counties.

Update of Regional Recharge Model Regional recharge modeling with the Twin Cities daily soil water balance (SWB) model has been a fundamental part of the Metropolitan Council’s (Council) groundwater flow modeling effort, which supports the Metropolitan Area Master Water Supply Plan. The updated SWB model will be used to evaluate the impact of planned land use and climate change on recharge in the eleven-county metropolitan area, and will support the update of the regional groundwater flow model (Metro Model 2). Project objectives include: 1) incorporation of new technical data into the SWB model; 2) expansion of the extent of the SWB recharge model; 3) addition of the capability to run predictive simulations with the SWB recharge model; and 4) evaluation of SWB recharge model uncertainty.

Source Water Protection: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Study The majority of drinking water source areas, or recharge areas, in the metropolitan area are privately owned. The result is that our region’s water supplies are influenced by the actions of thousands of diverse and independent landowners. In approximately 60% of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, water and/or wastewater is managed by individual residents and business owners who operate private wells and on-site wastewater treatment systems. Little documentation exists about the level of knowledge these private landowners have regarding the region’s drinking water sources and effective source water protection activities, or the drivers affecting their behavior. Without this information, it is challenging to assess the risk of drinking water contamination in recharge areas or develop effective methods to protect drinking water sources. To remedy this knowledge gap we plan to conduct a survey of metropolitan area residents and business owners who rely on private wells for their water supply. The survey will be structured to provide information about these stakeholders’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding source water protection.

Attachment 2: Metropolitan Council FY12-13 Activities 2

Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA)

From: Eshenaur, Tannie (MDH) Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:50 PM To: Maleitzke, Jennifer (MPCA) Cc: Bruemmer, Linda (MDH); Hogan, Tom (MDH); Ellingboe, Randy (MDH) Subject: MDH report to the BOC Attachments: Department of Health for BOC 120430.doc

Jen,

Please find MDH’s report attached to this email.

If there are any questions, feel free to contact us,

Tannie

Tannie Eshenaur, MPH Planning Director Environmental Health Division Minnesota Department of Health [email protected] tele: 651.201.4074 FAX: 651.201.4701

625 North Robert Street P.O. Box 64975 St.Paul, MN 55164-0975

1 Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Department of Health Clean Water Fund appropriations

FY10-11 FY12-13 Proposed Agency Activity Budget Budget FY14-15 Assess, evaluate, and develop health based guidance for 10 additional contaminants of emerging concern. $1.335M $2.040M + Screen up to 20 substances from the list of nominated MDH substances. Continue public communication and outreach efforts. Expand MDH Public Health Laboratory capability to analyze for contaminants of emerging concern in Minnesota source waters. Accelerate source water protection statewide through plan development and grants to local governments. MDH $2.415M $2.830M + Expand MDH capacity to provide technical assistance and improve data sharing with external partners. County Well Index enhancement MDH -- $0.668M +

Well Sealing Cost Share: Protect groundwater used for drinking water from contamination by assisting public MDH -- $0.500M + and private well owners to seal unused wells by sharing up to 50% of the cost. Total $3.750M $6.038M Proposed Agency Proposed Activity FY14-15 Private Well Water Supply Protection – Evaluate factors that influence water quality in private individual wells; develop and deliver guidance to well contractors MDH < $1M and well owners on well construction, sampling, treatment and maintenance to reduce health risks from private well water supplies. Lake Superior Beach Monitoring – In order to protect water resources and public health, the MDH proposes to conduct water quality monitoring for 80 beaches, <$0.25M MDH analyze data, document results to support decision-making, and provide public notification on beach closures and monitoring results. Collaborate with local governments to find contamination sources and address polluted runoff.

Legend Monitoring/ Watershed restoration / Drinking water Nonpoint source Education and civic Applied research and Point source assessment protection strategies protection implementation engagement tool development implementation

Please describe overall progress from activities in FY10-11 and planned progress for FY12-13 by responding to the following questions.

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

Please describe progress made and outcomes achieved in characterizing and issuing health-based guidance for 10 unregulated drinking water contaminants in FY10-11. Please describe activities planned or underway in FY12-13.

FY10-11 Progress and Outcomes • MDH developed health-based guidance for 10 contaminants (including pharmaceuticals, a fragrance, a solvent, a flame retardant, an industrial chemical, pesticides, an insect repellent and an antibacterial chemical). Additional chemicals were prioritized for future work.

• MDH conducted four special projects to answer specific questions or issues: o A baseline needs assessment for public communication o Evaluation of 28 computer models used to estimate exposures from various sources, including drinking water o Research of alternative risk assessment methods that can be used when there is limited toxicological information o Collaboration with the Public Health Laboratory to ensure that lower drinking water levels of concern can be measured

• Outcomes from several work groups composed of engaged stakeholders and citizens include: o a web-based nomination process for chemicals to be reviewed o refinement of the process for screening and prioritizing chemicals o development of citizen-friendly outreach and web materials

FY12-13 Activities Planned or Underway • Develop guidance for 10 additional contaminants; screen and prioritize additional nominations. • Determine if guidance should be taken through rule-making process or remain as informational advice. • Continue research on alternative risk assessment methodologies; submit the findings to a peer review panel. • Offer grants to local governments and nonprofits to conduct outreach and education. • Develop and apply criteria to classify contaminants reviewed by MDH for high concern, possible concern, or low concern to human health.

Please describe progress made in assisting 90 or more communities with the development and implementation of community source water protection plans and awarding 30 or more source water protection implementation grants in FY10-11, and the outcomes achieved. Please describe activities planned or underway in FY12-13.

Additionally, please describe the amount of funds leveraged through the program and the amount of requests vs. the amount of available funding.

FY10-11 Progress and Outcomes • 452 out of 929 community public water supplies are now engaged in wellhead protection planning. Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• Of that total, 227 have approved plans and 283 are in the process of developing or amending a wellhead protection plan • 160 communities were provided with technical assistance by four new planners supported by CWF dollars; • 142 grants totaling $1,015,146 provided funding to help public water suppliers manage known or potential sources of contamination located in source water protection areas. • $ 595,163 was leveraged by an investment of $ 356,056 in source water protection grants. • All eligible grants were funded due to salary cost savings that was redirected to fulfill additional grant requests.

FY12-13 Activities Planned or Underway • Technical assistance for communities will continue as we progress toward our goal of engaging every community public water supplier in wellhead protection planning by 2020. • $1 million dollars for the FY12-13 biennium for source water protection grants is being offered three times a year. • Staff are working with other state agencies to identify mechanisms for using other grant programs that can complement work that is to be performed under source water protection grants.

Please describe how many unused wells have been sealed thus far in FY12-13 and what the goal is for the rest of the biennium. Please describe environmental benefits of this program.

FY12-13 Activities Planned or Underway • $176,575 was awarded to 9 local governments (counties, and soil and water conservation districts) in December 2011 to be used for up to 50% of the cost to seal private wells. • Approximately 200 private wells will be sealed with these funds. • A competitive grant process will be used to award the remaining $323,425 in FY13 for up to 50% of costs to properly seal public water supply wells. • Environmental benefits: Any unused unsealed wells are a potential direct pathway for contaminants to reach aquifers. These sources can go unnoticed for years and once contaminants reach an aquifer they are very difficult to remove. Because of their size and location, unused unsealed public water supply wells can present a significant threat to groundwater and public water supplies.

Please describe progress in expanding the County Well Index in FY12-13 and the environmental benefits of this program.

FY12-13 Activities Planned or Underway • Internal workgroup was established to implement the data operating and delivery system update workplan • Staff hired and contract in place to eliminate a large backlog of well records that were not processed due to limited resources Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

• Identify the range of capabilities external users need with an enhanced CWI, including the public • Use CWI and existing files to compile an inventory of public water supply wells that are unused and need to be properly sealed. • Environmental benefits: The County Well Index database is the principal source of well construction and subsurface geologic information for state and local agencies and the general public. It is jointly managed by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) and contains approximately 443,000 records.

In the 2011 Special Session Legacy bill, sec. 25 states “a recipient of funds appropriated in this article shall incorporate civic engagement and public education when implementing projects and programs funded under this article”. Please describe your progress in this area.

Drinking water protection activities rely on civic engagement and public support to be effective and sustainable. To this end, outreach and education are conducted in a variety of ways.

In the Contaminants of Emerging Concern initiative, MDH conducts an annual public meeting. Citizen- friendly information is prepared for contaminants reviewed. Staff also participate in public events such as science fairs, the State Fair, the Living Green Expo, and the Home and Garden Show to discuss program findings with the public. Citizens can nominate contaminants they consider to be of concern though a web-based nomination process. Quarterly reports, an annual report, a biennium report, email updates to more than 2,000 subscribers, and frequent web updates also educate the public about program activities.

For the well sealing initiative, awareness of the need to seal unused wells is raised through the efforts of grantees. Information about well sealing is maintained on the MDH website and distributed to interested parties by request.

Source water protection planning relies on an engaged and active local wellhead protection planning committee. MDH planners spend time consulting with these committees, assembling information about the local water system, potential contaminant sources and developing strategies for protecting the groundwater that supplies the drinking water. Source water protection grants can be used to fulfill the public education requirement specified in an approved plan.

The County Well Index initiative will use an external users group to identify data that should be linked to CWI, the data access needs of specific groups, and training needs for internal and external partners who would either add or edit data in CWI.

Per statutory requirement, all MDH Clean Water Fund initiatives are included on the Minnesota’s Legacy: Watch the Progress website. The MDH website also has a series of web pages highlighting MDH initiatives with background, project descriptions, grants/funding opportunities and links to other Clean Water Fund agencies and the Legacy website.

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on state programs to restore and protect Minnesota’s waters.

MDH participated in the development of groundwater and drinking water protection measures that are included in the Clean Water Fund Performance Report and is active in promoting the report through presentations to public health and water resource professional associations, non-governmental stakeholder groups and the general public.

Did you return any unused dollars to the Clean Water Fund in FY10-11? If so, please describe circumstances.

Approximately $675,000 was returned in FY10-11. Due to an initial startup delay in acquiring allocated funds, the Contaminants of Emerging Concern program was delayed in hiring new, dedicated staff and unable to initiate as many contracts as planned. The Source Water Protection program streamlined the planning process and waited until the improvements were incorporated before hiring new, dedicated staff. The state hiring freeze and the state government shutdown were also factors that prevented expenditures. Additionally, MDH was required to spend CWF within the normal biennium time frame. In future appropriations MDH will seek a larger window for spending appropriations.

Please describe any new Clean Water Fund initiatives/programs your agency is considering for FY14-15.

1. Private Well Water Supply Protection – Evaluate factors that influence water quality in private individual wells; develop and deliver guidance to well contractors and well owners on well construction, sampling, treatment and maintenance to reduce health risks from private well water supplies.

This project will build on existing private well sampling networks to target and sample high risk areas for arsenic, nitrate, manganese and radium. Private well owners may be unaware of changes in water quality that occur after the required initial water sample following well construction. Results from this project will be used to define and predict conditions when measures to avoid elevated arsenic, nitrate, manganese or radium would be needed.

2. Lake Superior Beach Monitoring – In order to protect water resources and public health, MDH will conduct water quality monitoring for 80 beaches, provide public notification, analyze data, and document results to support decision-making.

While the short-term focus of this project is reducing disease risk, the project will also contribute to improving water quality by working with city and sanitary staff to find the sources of bacterial contamination. Staff will also collaborate with the Regional Stormwater Protection team to address polluted storm runoff and raise the visibility of how waste disposal practices and litter impact coastal recreation and public health. • Paul and the BOC discussed if Clean Water funds could be used to build local capacity; Paul suggested there may be possibilities elsewhere

Discuss structure of June 1 BOC meeting • BOC moved meeting to be held May 31, 2012 • Smaller-budget agencies will have 30 minutes; larger-budget agencies will have 60 minutes; BOC will ask follow-up questions • Following the last agency interview, BOC members will prepare draft budget numbers to bring to the full Council at the June meeting

Discuss structure of June 18 Council meeting • BOC will ask agency representatives to be briefly present their submissions at the June meeting, after which BOC will give its draft recommendations

Budget and Outcomes Committee / Met Council meeting: Thurs., May 31 at 9:00 a.m. Follow-up questions for discussion

• Please identify the number of FTEs funded by the Clean Water Fund in FY10-11, and to the extent possible, in FY12-13 and list by agency program. Additionally, please describe the geographic location of the staff members.

• If relevant, please describe in greater detail the anticipated budgetary needs that Met Council will propose as part of the interagency watershed portal initiative, necessary to prepare internal Met Council databases to align with the interagency portal.

• Please give the BOC a general overview of the Twin Cities’ Metro Water Supply Plan Implementation project and the proposed Regional Groundwater Recharge Area project, including the goals, accomplishments and timelines for each project.

Budget and Outcomes Committee / PFA meeting: Thurs., May 31 at 9:45 a.m. Follow-up questions for discussion

• If relevant, please identify the number of FTEs funded by the Clean Water Fund in FY10- 11, and to the extent possible, in FY12-13 and list by agency program. Additionally, please describe the geographic location of the staff members.

• If relevant, please describe in greater detail the anticipated budgetary needs that PFA will propose as part of the interagency watershed portal initiative, necessary to prepare internal PFA databases to align with the interagency portal.

• Please describe the level of federal funding PFA has received for similar CWF programs in past years, and how the Clean Water Fund supplements those programs.

• Describe Project Priority List; including how it is compiled and how funding is determined for each program. o Is water quality a component in every project, or do the projects include municipal development opportunities as well?

• Does the Clean Water Fund provide any money for protection / prevention for municipal infrastructure projects, or is it only for impairments?

• Please describe the level of funding in each program for storm water issues. Please describe the number of storm water projects vs. number of wastewater projects that have been funded in FY10-11 and 12-13.

• Please describe PFA’s plans to modify its existing Clean Water Fund programs.

Budget and Outcomes Committee / MDH meeting: Thurs., May 31 at 10:30 a.m. Follow-up questions for discussion

• Please identify the number of FTEs funded by the Clean Water Fund in FY10-11, and to the extent possible, in FY12-13 and list by agency program. Additionally, please describe the geographic location of the staff members.

• If relevant, please describe in greater detail the anticipated budgetary needs that MDH will propose as part of the interagency watershed portal initiative, necessary to prepare internal MDH databases to align with the interagency portal.

• Questions regarding the Contaminants of Emerging Concern program:

o Please explain the nomination process - - please describe why 10 additional contaminants are studied each biennium and why 20 are screened (How did MDH arrive at those specific numbers?)

o Is MDH program staff paid for through this program?

o Do other federal agencies do similar work (EPA)?

o Has this program received funding from other sources, and if so, how much?

o Are there lab costs associated with the program, and if so, what are they?

o Is this program expanding?

• Please describe what county well index enhancement entails.

• In the Source Water Protection program, please describe what the criteria are for wellhead protection planning.

• Overall, please describe what the long-term projection is for all MDH Clean Water Fund programs.

• It appears that MDH completed a first season of Lake Superior beach monitoring in 2011.

o Please describe how adding Clean Water Funding would supplement rather than supplant the 2011 funding source.

o Why is there a need to increase the beaches monitored from 40-80? Budget and Outcomes Committee / MDA meeting: Thurs., May 31 at 11:15 a.m. Follow-up questions for discussion

• Please identify the number of FTEs funded by the Clean Water Fund in FY10-11, and to the extent possible, in FY12-13 and list by agency program. Additionally, please describe the geographic location of the staff members.

• Please describe in greater detail the anticipated budgetary needs that MDA will propose as part of the interagency watershed portal initiative, necessary to prepare internal MDA databases to align with the interagency portal.

• Please describe what the proposed groundwater / drinking water activities include for FY14-15, what the proposed budgetary increase includes. Please describe MDA’s overall groundwater / drinking water strategy and how state agencies are collaborating on these activities.

• Please describe the expected outcomes of the proposed irrigation water quality protection specialist position.

• Please describe, to the extent possible, the parameters of the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program, including the proposed state investment and the anticipated federal investment.

• Please describe the proposed manure education program, including the anticipated need, who was on the advisory group and if this program may be funded through license fees. Budget and Outcomes Committee / MPCA meeting: Thursday, May 31 at 1 p.m. Follow-up questions for discussion

• Please identify the number of FTEs funded by the Clean Water Fund in FY10- 11, and to the extent possible, in FY12-13 and list by agency program. Additionally, please describe the geographic location of the staff members.

• Please describe in greater detail the continued needs of the MPCA watershed integration database project, including how many more years of continued funding are necessary. Further, please describe the interagency watershed portal initiative, estimated costs and timing for the life of the project.

• Please describe the average cost of completing a Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy. Further, please explain the overall cost of what is included in developing a WRAP, and describe the differences in responsibility of the MPCA, contractors and local units of government.

• With your assistance, the BOC would like to develop a budget for the Council’s operating expenses and salary costs in FY14-15. To begin this process, please provide the Council’s expenses and staffing costs for FY10-11 and estimated budget for FY12-13.

• Please discuss how funding for the MPCA’s SSTS funding supplements previous funding, rather than supplants previous funding.

• Please provide more information on the application of water standards. Please describe if MPCA intends to research current or proposed new standards, and which parameters and/or contaminants will be included.

• Please describe the Clean Water Partnership Program rule change and how money through the program is targeted throughout the state. Please describe possible ramifications to the program if the Council recommends that it is administered through the BWSR grant process, rather than at MPCA.

• Please describe MPCA’s vision for carrying out civic engagement activities in the future.

• Please describe in greater detail the proposed NPDES staffing costs of $2M. Please discuss how funding for NPDES implementation supplements previous funding, rather than supplants previous funding.

• DNR describes that its Clean Water Funding supports programs that assist MPCA in carrying out its goals related to monitoring and TMDL/WRAP development. Please describe DNR’s efforts that support MPCA programs.

Budget and Outcomes Committee / DNR meeting: Thursday, May 31 at 2 p.m. Follow-up questions for discussion

• Please identify the number of FTEs funded by the Clean Water Fund in FY10- 11, and to the extent possible, in FY12-13 and list by agency program. Additionally, please describe the geographic location of the staff members.

• Please describe in greater detail the anticipated budgetary needs that DNR will propose as part of the interagency watershed portal initiative, necessary to prepare internal DNR databases to align with the interagency portal.

• The BOC would like to walk through each DNR Clean Water Fund activity category to get a brief explanation of programs, specifically including: o Monitoring programs and how they complement MPCA monitoring. o TMDL/WRAP development and how it complements MPCA program. ƒ Why does the proposed budget include an increase and what does that entail? o Groundwater / drinking water activities ƒ In DNR’s Water Supply Planning program, are activities for both surface water and groundwater included? o Research and tool development; a general overview of programs

• Generally, the BOC is interested in learning how Clean Water Funding complements other water program funding. If possible, please bring a current budget for the Division of Water and Ecological Services.

• Does DNR think RIM and the shallow lakes program fit into possible Clean Water Fund activities?

Budget and Outcomes Committee / BWSR meeting: Thurs., May 31 at 3:00 p.m. Follow-up questions for discussion

• Please identify the number of FTEs funded by the Clean Water Fund in FY10-11, and to the extent possible, in FY12-13 and list by agency program. Additionally, please describe the geographic location of the staff members.

• Please describe in greater detail the anticipated budgetary needs that BWSR will propose as part of the interagency watershed portal initiative, necessary to prepare internal BWSR databases to align with the interagency portal.

• Please describe why water quantity issues are unable to be funded through BWSR’s grant programs – or if that is not true, please describe which programs are able to fund quantity projects.

• Through BWSR’s new Biennial Budget Request process, do you anticipate that local governments will be able to realistically portray their needs for the next two years, or do you anticipate an inflation of needs?

• The BOC has been discussing how it may be possible to address local staffing capacity through the BWSR grant programs. Please describe if any staffing costs are able to be embedded in your grant programs, and if they are not currently allowed, how such a program could work. (The BOC has discussed a program where a grant may possibly fund local staff members for two years, based on a contract stipulation that the local government funds the staff member for a third year.)

• Please describe BWSR’s vision for carrying out civic engagement activities in the future.

• Please describe how ongoing, long-term maintenance is monitored for various programs (i.e. stormwater ponds – is ongoing maintenance built into the project?).