Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda October 19, 2015

9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. MPCA Lower Level Conference Room

520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul

9:00 Regular Clean Water Council (Council) Business Convene meeting Agenda - comments/additions and approve agenda Meeting Minutes - comments/additions and approve 9/20/15 minutes Introductions and updates - Council Members Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) update - Todd Renville Staff update

9:30 Beyond the Status Quo: 2015 Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Water Policy Report - Anna Henderson and Erik Dahl, EQB Presentation of EQB’s 2015 Water Policy Report highlighting state agency goals and a menu of options to move beyond the status quo.

10:45 Clean Water Council Guiding Principles/Funding Priorities (GP/FP) - Frank Jewell Review of 2014 GP/FP and discuss any major changes that need to be made to guide the Budget and Outcomes Committee process. Note that the BOC intends to solicit agency and stakeholder feedback on GP/FP and bring the document back for Council review/approval in January 2016.

11:15 Council Group Photo

11:30 Lunch

12:00 Policy Ad Hoc Committee - Pam Blixt Overview of process used by the Council in 2014 to develop Policy Recommendations, next steps, and revisit Policy Ad Hoc Committee membership.

12:30 Clean Water Fund and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Programs – Doug Thomas, Board of Water and Soil Resources and Cathee Pullman, State Conservationist, U.S. Department of Agriculture-NRCS Overview of state programs that receive both Clean Water Fund dollars and NRCS Program funds. NRCS vision for federal funding programs. Discuss future opportunities to leverage federal funding dollars to improve Minnesota waters.

1:30 New Business Debrief from today’s meeting and September’s meeting/field tour Member Comments

2:00 Adjournment

2:00 Council Steering Team - Steering Team discusses upcoming meeting topics and other items.

The next Clean Water Council Meeting will be held on Monday, November 16 in St. Paul, MN.

wq-cwc2-15j

Clean Water Council (Council) Meeting Minutes Monday, October 19, 2015

9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. MPCA Lower Level Conference Room

520 N. Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155

Members Present: John Barten, Pam Blixt, Gary Burdorf, Sharon Doucette, Tannie Eshenaur, Patrick Flowers, Warren Formo, Robert Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Holly Kovarik, Gene Merriam, Jason Moeckel, Jeff Peterson, Raj Rajan, Gaylen Reetz, Victoria Reinhardt, Todd Renville, Sandy Rummel, Senator Bev Scalze, Patrick Shea, Doug Thomas, and Representative Barb Yarusso Members Absent: Mark Abner, Senator David Osmek, Representative Paul Torkelson, Matt Wohlman, and John Underhill Regular Council Business – Introductions and Updates · Motion to approve today’s agenda and September 20, 2015 minutes, motion seconded and carried. · Jason Moeckel - provided a handout describing the Legislative Report on the Definitions and

Thresholds for Negative Impacts to Surface Water due on December 15, 2015. Two meetings were held so far with stakeholder groups. Information can be found on the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) website - http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gwmp/gw_thresholds/index.html. The next meeting is will be held on October 21 and will discuss at what level negative impacts to surface waters from groundwater withdrawals occur. DNR is using long-term hydrological models and statistics to create thresholds. It is not so simple to predict for a given lake what the water level should be – have to first determine the normal fluctuations and dry/wet periods. Next month DNR will present more about this topic to the Council.

· Holly Kovarik - area just had their first farm become certified through the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (MAWQCP) administered by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). This summer was the first time the program was available outside the pilot area. MDA is doing a great job.

· Tannie Eshenaur - just returned from community health conference. Largely comprised of public health professionals and county commissioners and this was the first time water was the central theme. Discussion focused on the value of water. A lot of interest at the county commissioner level.

· Todd Renville – the Council’s Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) had their first meeting. Spent time getting organized - elected Frank Jewell as Chair and me as Vice Chair, discussed the schedule for developing Clean Water Fund recommendations. BOC plans to meet with the Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) on November 12, 2015, do not plan to meet in December, and meet with key stakeholder groups on January 8, 2016.

Beyond the Status Quo: 2015 Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Water Policy Report - Anna Henderson and Erik Dahl, EQB · The EQB’s Water Policy Report (Report) is a result of coordinating across state agencies by legislative

mandate – this report is our five-year update. · The Report has an improved format; designed to engage groups, agencies, and the public. Report

contains many solutions that are options that should be considered with the realization that agencies can’t do all of these items. But wanted to look towards the future and this is a good starting place. Meant to be a broad, high-level overview of topics.

1

· Last section of the report includes information on the water tech industry – these are businesses that sell, clean, and/or reuse water. Found that these water industries support around 13,500 employees and exports around $870M in water-related technology exports.

· Report has four main goals and within each goal there are solutions in the categories of voluntary, system change, regulatory changes, and additional resources. Examples of voluntary solutions are incentives and outreach; examples of regulatory solutions are laws and guidance; and examples of system changes are market forces and governance models. Today we will only highlight a handful of the proposed solutions in the report.

· Goal #1 is to promote sustainable water use. Water use in Minnesota is increasing with population and economic development. Some areas are vulnerable to groundwater pumping. There are locations where we don’t know what the sustainable groundwater use is because of lack of data.

· Water use shown in the figure; is this per capita or overall use? The graph is total water usage, not per capita.

· For Goal #1, a voluntary solution is to improve industrial water use efficiency. Conservation saves industries money and benefits the community.

· For Goal #1, a regulatory solution is to update plumbing codes and treatment standards for water reuse. Federal guidelines are absent in the case of reuse and regulation is left to the states. A success story is in Mankato where the power plant uses treated wastewater instead of river water.

· Goal #2 is to manage runoff in the built environment. · For Goal #2, a system change solution is minimal impact design standards (MIDS) for enhancing

stormwater management in Minnesota. Example is the Maplewood Mall project that includes a cistern, raingardens, trees, and permeable pavers to reduce stormwater runoff by 70% a year.

· For Goal #2, a regulatory solution is to reduce liability for applicators who attend training on best management practices. Chloride is an emerging issue – used as a road deicer and in water softeners and pollutes water. There are 39 impaired waters and 38 others nearing impairment from chloride in the Twin Cities Metro. Chloride concentration is trending upwards in lakes, streams, and groundwater in some areas. The fear with salt application on sidewalks/parking lots may be lawsuits and people err on heavy salt applications. New Hampshire passed a law in 2013 to protect applicators decreasing salt used and improving water quality.

· Goal #3 is to increase living plant cover to help filter contaminants and sediment and hold water on the landscape. Need to do this in areas other than ‘built’ environment. Costs of treating water contaminated with nitrate in public and domestic wells are high.

· For Goal #3, a regulatory solution is to use living cover around wellheads to prevent groundwater contamination. These areas protect the public well supply – there are about 1.2 million acres of wellhead protection areas in Minnesota and 360,000 acres are considered high risk.

· For Goal #3, as system change is to enhance existing markets for perennial-fed beef and dairy products and bioenergy from perennial crops.

· Goal #4 is to ensure resilience to extreme rainfall. Infrastructure and communities are vulnerable. · For Goal #4, a voluntary solution is to reduce risks by removing homes and businesses from

floodplains. Example is in East Grand Forks. · For Goal #4, more study is needed to assess how vulnerable we are to extreme rain events. · Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) were also discussed in the report. We need to protect

drinking water and ecosystems from harmful levels of CECs. Can improve ingredient disclosures and improve evaluations of chemicals before they are available on the market.

2

Discussion · Question about reuse example on page 9 of the Report where it says that 45 billion gallons of

groundwater is saved due to the Mankato energy project. How prevalent is groundwater used for cooling in Minnesota? Most states use surface water. Surface water used for energy is considered non-consumptive. About 2% of groundwater is used for energy consumption in Minnesota. Most use rivers. The Rosemount refinery is drawing from deep aquifers – could reused wastewater be considered? Potential discussion – reused wastewater has potential chemical problems and the water needs to be treated.

· How many watershed management organizations are already using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Atlas 14 (provides precipitation frequency estimates for Minnesota and are important to engineers designing stormwater infrastructure). The Report doesn’t look at governance or local governmental unit details.

· Report is good and well presented. On page 18, need to reword the first sentence on liability – it should not suggest immunization from inadequate salt applications. Big concern is what is not in the report. If we look at the Statutes about what the EQB should be doing in this report there is a very large gap. This requires a serious discussion of the big picture of why EQB was formed – so the problems are highlighted that transcend the focus of individual agencies. Some of these big picture items are not addressed in the report. An example is the need for assessment and availability of groundwater. Also the report doesn’t provide a clear direction. How can we get to nitrogen goals for example – need more specifics.

· One thing to clarify is that these more specific agency reports (for example on nitrogen strategies) are in the appendix of the report. This was not meant as a technical document.

· Is groundwater used for cooling considered non-consumptive? This would be a problem because it may not be recharged to the same aquifer. Not all surface water use is considered non-consumptive because some is lost through evaporation, etc. All groundwater use is treated as consumptive.

· Report does suggest how we can move the needle forward. An example is Groundwater Management Areas (GWMA). Report lays out the groundwork in specific areas of concern.

· Groundwater has significant challenges because of the lack of information. Surface water, with much more data, is still a daunting challenge to address. Good information in this report.

· On page 35 of the Report there is a map showing two big dots in Northeastern Minnesota where CECs have been detected. Where are these located and what contaminants are they? They are Cook and St. Louis Counties. There are specifics in the appendices. This map was to show CECs are a statewide issue, not to show specific information about each contaminant.

· This is an interesting report, well done, and readable. The title and charge and of this report makes one think that agencies are going beyond the status quo in this Report. But in reading EQB’s Report it is information that the Clean Water Council members already knows and have heard from state agencies over the past couple of years. Report is more of a self-exam for state agencies to discover what gets in the way of improving water resources. Didn’t see this self-exam in the Report either. Report feels like the status quo – you are still recommending voluntary measures and talking about pollutants like chloride – don’t feel like anything new is being offered.

· The intention was to lay out possible solutions. Some of these water solutions are in progress such as the MAWQCP – the intent was not to only look at new ideas. Intent was to make this document accessible to anyone in Minnesota, but not to cover every water issue.

· Did you find organizational issues? No, we didn’t evaluate water governance. · Agree that the Council has heard this information in the past and there is nothing new, but it is a

first to see a single EQB document highlighting all the issues. This Report shows what is being done, what can be done, and includes great examples (e.g. Maplewood Mall project).

3

· Would have liked to see in the Report more clearly where the gaps area and what issues must be addressed. Only occasionally saw a “must do” as part of the paragraph. Should have more clearly illustrated the problems and what people just do to address the problems. Report is a way to show the options and set the agenda. Groups like the Council need to weigh in: there is no silver bullet.

· Graphics are hard to understand with suppressed zeros and fuzzy captions. Should have had a science person develop the graphics and not a designer.

· Need to apply social science and bring the public in a bigger way for water issues. · Nutrient pollution is an example where there are many options in the Report to address this issue. · Are the nutrient loads from Minnesota tracked by state agencies to know how it contributes to the

hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico? Is EQB looking beyond state boundaries? Agency reports do look at headwater goals for nitrogen. See appendix of EQB Report.

· Appreciates all the work that went into this Report – a lot of information. Know that there are geographical differences across the state so acceptable to not be specific in this Report. Specifics on Best Management Practices (BMPs) can be found in local water management plans.

· Report needs to highlight issues around aging wastewater infrastructure and need for upgrades. State needs to discuss the balance between funding nonpoint and point source pollution needs. On page 12 of the Report, there is a “more study needed” solution that recommends analyzing what the price of water should be in Minnesota – this section discusses water infrastructure needs.

· Last year the Council made policy recommendations. Are there one or two policy issues that float high enough to the top that there is potential for impact? EQB laid out options in the Report and didn’t prioritize these solutions.

· Senate and House just had bonding tours. There were many requests from Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTF) for state bonding money. These facilities have leaking ponds and wastewater is discharging into lakes. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is requiring these updates because of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) projects. WWTFs need funding for these updates. Some legislators think we should just use Clean Water Fund dollars for these projects instead of bonding dollars. This issue is going to keep coming up.

Clean Water Council Guiding Principles/Funding Priorities (GP/FP) - Frank Jewell · The Council’s Budget and Outcomes (BOC) Committee process is starting a bit earlier than previous

years. Today we want to get your feedback on Guiding Principles and Funding Priorities (GP/FP). Not sure all Council members used this document as much as BOC members, but also want to hear back what your experience was. Note the Council’s FY16-17 GP/FP are in your packet as a starting place – what are elements you want to keep and/or make changes to for FY18-19.

· The GP/FP really did help guide the BOC through the budget recommendation process. The Committee frequently referred to them. The GP/FP helped the BOC start on the right path for discussions so they could make better decisions.

· The document is very well done. It was helpful to be reminded about funding priorities. But note these could be interpreted differently by different members which was fine because we all have different viewpoints and have to be open to listen to others.

· What do Legislative members think of the GP/FP and how the Council used this overarching document as the driver behind their decisions?

· The Conference Committee between the House and Senate understood how the Council’s process worked which was good. But many legislators see the Clean Water Fund (CWF) as a large pot of money that can help finance specific water projects.

4

· The presentation of the Council’s budget recommendations was much more understandable this session – the notes column in the spreadsheet was helpful and knowing how and why the Council made their decisions was helpful for legislators.

· The GP/FP document is good but we should add the statutory language about what Council recommendations must do. That will help in the delivery of this document. Could add this to the top of the document. Specifically you should add the first three parts of 2015 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 114D.30, subdivision 6 of the Clean Water Legacy Act. This should be the foundation of the recommendations.

· Council members should think about a few milestones. First, there are only about nine more budget recommendations for the Clean Water Funds before they end. Secondly, consider the scope of the water problem. Results from deliberations last year were to focus on on-the-ground implementation and increase funding for projects that can show success. That is what we’ve heard from legislators, state reports, and citizens. We will not get to clean water in this timeframe, but we should be moving in this direction. Note that we need to aware that these are one-time funding dollars and we should not assume they will exist past 2034. Need to get the state headed in the right direction.

· Looking for a little background on why the Geologic Atlas is the only program specifically named in the GP/FP in 2014. Recollection that Council perceived the importance of maintaining progress of this work since it is a foundation for many efforts and knowledge about groundwater is fundamental. Wanted to push the completion date ahead. Interest in groundwater was high.

· The GP/FP document gets us into the push and pull discussion we have for making decisions on these funds. We are the process of creating a tremendous amount of data and producing reports about the state of our waters. The scientists cannot have enough data. At some point we need to be cognizant that we could spend all the money on producing data and reports but must account for implementation. We could create lots of TMDL studies, but if there is no money to fix the problem (long-term), we will only be able to show that we produced data and reports. Need to make this shift for implementation and reduce need for data and reports. Funding priorities need to reflect this.

· Need guidance from the full Council to BOC on these priorities to for example, figure out where wastewater and stormwater infrastructure projects fits in.

· Need to understand the nature of the problems that we face and make sure the fix is cost effective so funds can be maximized. Need a comparison of benefits and costs. Discussed the issue last month of protection/prevention versus restoration – protection can be low cost with a big impact.

· How are we going to move the needle for implementation and also set the stage well for after the CWF dollars are no longer available? What other funds can keep the work going in the right direction?

· Need to a cost benefit analysis to figure out what drives the return on investment for CWF dollars. Need to map this out from low to high, use as proof of concept and document it. This should be a guiding principle. If we can’t move the needle enough with Clean Water Funds we must set it up for others.

· Geological Atlas – this work only receives partial funding from the CWF. It predates CWF and this work accelerates the timeline. Not sure if it should rise to the level of this specificity in the funding priorities.

· How far we are on the Geologic Atlas? What percentage of the state is done? About 10-12 years from completion. There are some uncertainties from Northeastern Minnesota. This work is largely dependent on data from private wells and there are fewer private wells in that area because of rock formations. Some uncertainties when dealing with glacial deposits. We are about more than one-third done with this effort in Minnesota. This should be a meeting topic for the Council to discuss.

5

· Implementation efforts versus data gathering – we need to remember that we went from the former TMDL approach to Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) that contain multiple TMDLs and that reduced the cost of these plans greatly for the entire watershed.

· Agree that scientists may never see enough data, but don’t think agencies are there. Their monitoring and planning processes have become more efficient. An example is in Brainerd where the WRAPS data is being used to guide implementation efforts even before these plans are completed to guide their actions.

· We are also not going to buy our way out of our water quality problems just through state funding for more implementation projects. All individuals have a responsibility.

· Need to discuss what the most appropriate uses of these funds are. Should more of this public money be used for collecting and analyzing data or implementation of projects?

· Council needs to spend some time discussing past Clean Water Fund investments. An example is the development of the lake index of biological integrity (IBI) – need a certain amount of data to understand the lake biology to determine if there is an impairment/problem and figure out a solution. This should be a future Council item.

· No perfect solution to get all members up to speed. We can revisit past decisions about investments but know there have been many conversations over time.

· As far as the watershed approach – the Council has seen presentations about these efforts – Council needs to understand where we are on the analysis piece. Important to have some science, but as a local government person our charge is getting projects in the ground to make improvements.

· Support these observations – when I meet with my constituencies, they want more money for on-the-ground projects from the Clean Water Fund and less for data collections.

· Can spend money early in the process on TMDLs to satisfy the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) but plans are not well-received by the public. Council recommended more money for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to do WRAPS (compared to FY14-15) but since they didn’t account correctly in the past for indirect costs it stretches out the 10-year planning cycle. Creates credibility problems. Need to read the law about indirect costs more clearly for the Clean Water Fund because indirect cost guidance seems wrong.

· Thought GP/FP document helped us talk to the Legislature about our Council process in making budget recommendations. Want this to be a good document.

· Need to consider adding something about the return on investment to the GP/FP. · CWF is only one part of Legacy Funds. Knew from the beginning that the CWF would not be enough

to address all the water needs in Minnesota. People will be disappointed if we can’t move the needle more.

· We have our funding priorities and strategies out there but haven’t discussed our vision and overall goals. Our goal should be clean water well into the future.

· Need to demonstrate the problems, fixes, and how much is needed. Need to show we have accomplished something with this money or it will not be renewed. We have made some progress.

· Often hear that from public that Legacy money is being used and abused and this is an issue. · Should add a vision to the GP/FP document. · Note that the legislative bonding tour discussed a number of wastewater treatment (WWTF)

projects that need funding. For example, the Detroit Lakes WWTP is facing tighter phosphorus discharge limits; Silver Creek has failing subsurface sewage treatment systems. Legislators want to know why CWF cannot be used for all of these projects. Need more information for legislators about projects and how Clean Water Fund is used.

· Thank you for all the feedback on GP/FP – a lot to think about. The BOC will revise the GP/FP document based on your feedback today. BOC will also obtain input from the Interagency

6

Coordination Team and stakeholder groups on GP/FP. BOC will come back to the Council in January for your final review/approval of the GP/FP document.

Policy Ad Hoc Committee - Pam Blixt · Last year the Council boiled down policy recommendations to two topics: riparian buffers and water

retention, storage and infiltration. As we all heard, the Governor had a policy initiative on buffers. · The Policy Committee (Committee) did discuss other topics that didn’t rise to the level of

recommendations last year such as water reuse, CECs, cropping practices point sources, etc. · Would like feedback from Council members about the Committee process, if any topics need to be

added or deleted, and about the makeup of the Committee. · Like having only one or two thought out policy topics rather than a long list – this is more effective. · Would like to add alternatives to chloride on this list. Could be under point sources. · Add sustainable WWTF infrastructure needs – either under regional sustainability or point sources. · Note that this will not be a closed list by any means – Council can always add an issue as they arise. · Need to discuss what could be done as far as rules with the issue on cattle in streams. Heard about

this issue during the Council’s field tour. · Need to figure out how to protect targeted lands from the worst changes that could impact water –

think about wholesale land conversion like Council’s field tour from forest to potatoes. Need BMPs to mitigate these changes.

· Council members interested in participating on the Committee so far are Gaylen Reetz, Pam Blixt, Mark Abner, John Barten, Doug Thomas, and Gene Merriam. Any others that are interested?

· It would depend on the topic. For example, agencies could participate depending on what expertise is needed once the topics are selected.

· Could keep Committee to about five or six members to facilitate good discussions. · Victoria Reinhardt would like to be added to provide a local government perspective. · Like the idea of voting members being Committee members and then bringing in experts. · Last year’s Committee was too small - glad to see extra participants this time. · Would like to see an agricultural representative on the Committee. Warren Formo will participate. · Motion to form and convene the Policy Ad Hoc Committee with Pam Blixt as Chair and other

members as Mark Abner, John Barten, Gene Merriam, Victoria Reinhardt, and Warren Formo with the understanding that nonvoting Council members are welcome to attend meetings and may be asked to participate based on the policy topics discussed. Motion seconded and carried.

· Note that a few of these policy topics were addressed in legislation last year and could be removed from the list – soil loss and local water planning. Maybe just remove soil loss – the implementation of One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) and local capacity is a different discussion that what was passed in legislation last year.

· May not need water retention, storage, and infiltration – some of this was included in 1W1P. · Last year stakeholder groups were pleased with the interaction with the BOC on budget

recommendations but didn’t interact with the Policy Committee. Stakeholder groups were surprised by the Council’s Policy Recommendations and that was frustrating. Intention of the Policy Committee is to have a more robust stakeholder process this time. Will try to coordinate stakeholder input on both budget and policy recommendations at the same time if possible.

Clean Water Fund and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Programs – Doug Thomas, Board of Water and Soil Resources · Thought we could set the stage by providing an overview of Minnesota’s approach to managing

water resources to frame the discussion with NRCS today.

7

· Handout provided in your meeting packet of Minnesota’s Water Management Framework. This document illustrates a 10-year approach to monitoring, planning, and implementing water management strategies. Back of handout explains how state agencies work together.

· The need for implementation funding in Minnesota greatly exceeds the demand. For example in FY14, the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) were only able to fund 21% of the eligible implementation projects and in FY15 were only able to fund 28% of the eligible projects. Clean Water Fund dollars will never be enough to restore and protect all of Minnesota lakes and streams.

· BWSR ensures that funded projects are prioritized (focused on the right areas where implementation matters most), targeted (priority areas selected from sound science), and measurable (results show progress towards water goals). BWSR also takes into account State goals in reports such as the Nonpoint Priority Funding Plan.

· WRAPS developed by MPCA are a core document that summarizes the water quality conditions, identifies pollution reductions, sets milestones, and identifies priority areas and actions.

· Watershed Management Plans can incorporate WRAPS information on lakes and streams, land use plans, and groundwater plans to develop a list of specific water management actions.

· The goal of 1W1P is to move from 200+ plans to 63 in greater Minnesota. 1W1P pilots will be finished in 2015 and will launch this statewide next spring.

· Example of targeted areas are that we can characterized where the highest sediment loads are to a river based on modeling and monitoring efforts and focus implementation efforts in those catchments. Can calculate the sediment reductions needed to meet water quality standards.

· Note that BWSR and local partners are already leveraging Clean Water Funds. From 2010-2014 there was $1.21 leveraged for each $1 of Clean Water Funds by federal, local, and landowner funds.

· One specific example is the MAWQCP which leveraged NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Program funding. Another example is that BWSR leverages Clean Water Fund dollars for buffer, wellhead, and wetland easements. NRCS Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative funding is also leveraged in Minnesota with Clean Water Fund dollars.

Clean Water Fund and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Programs – Cathee Pullman, State Conservationist, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-NRCS · Cathee Pullman is the new Minnesota State Conservationist for NRCS. Started five months ago and is

still learning. Has been with the USDA for 29 years and worked in eight states. · Brochure provides details about our federal funding programs. Note that through NRCS’s

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), $16 million has been invested in Minnesota. · NRCS is about locally led conservation – partnerships are so important in Minnesota. Hugh

Hammond Bennett was the father of soil conservation and the Soil Conservation Act passed in 1935. Minnesota adopted this law in 1938. First Soil and Water Conservation District was Winona. Today there are 89 Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Minnesota. Conservation Districts assemble USDA local working groups – priorities and information is generated from the bottom up this way.

· Note that FY16 priorities for EQIP and Conservation Stewardship Program (CStP) both included water quality.

· NRCS has 38 programs/initiatives in Minnesota which is more than any other state. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) also receives support from NRCS. Leveraging is very important to NRCS – for example if we provide 50% to 65% cost share for a project and local landowners put in the rest this is real money. A large amount of federal funding goes directly to landowners.

· One area where we could leverage with Clean Water Fund dollars could be the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) in the 2014 Farm Bill. This was designed to target conservation goals at a regional or watershed scale with partners. In 2015, $370 million was

8

available and Minnesota was awarded two multi-state and one state-level projects. For 2016, $225 million is available and 165 groups were asked to submit full proposals in November. Many projects had water quality objectives.

· What were projects funded through NRCS’s RCPP in 2015? NRCS awarded $12 million to the Red River Retention Authority for the Red River Basin of the North Flood Prevention Plan project to complete 6-8 water storage projects (Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota); $5 million to the American Bird Conservancy for the ABC: Improving Forest Health for Wildlife Resources in MN, WI, MI to implement forest management on public and private lands to benefit threatened and endangered species (e.g. golden-winged warbler); and $9 million to the MDA for implementing their MAWQCP statewide. The RCCP program where Clean Water Fund dollars could be leveraged. But there are a lot of other ways to work together.

· NRCS guides Minnesota conservation efforts by providing technical assistance to private landowners, increasing technical capacity of staff through trainings, water quality monitoring, and evaluating BMP effectiveness. Minnesota is the sixth state to provide coordinated training to state, federal, and local staff. Need to have the expertise and also make the connection with landowners to be most effective.

Discussion · If a landowner applies for EQIP funding and there are not enough funds – how does NRCS prioritize

these projects? About 40% of landowners that apply to EQIP are funded. Minnesota hasn’t had a screening tool for a while but we have one now that includes national, state, and local questions. An example of a state question could be how far this project is from an impaired stream.

· Last year the Council recommended funds for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) to leverage other state and federal funding. Need to look at national programs like this and think more broadly about opportunities for implementation.

· Fortunate in Minnesota that we have state resources and the commitment of citizens for clean water. Much of the pollution is coming from agricultural sources but there is a large gap between resources and the need to solve the problem. How could we change this model? One example is looking to crop consultants and how technical services are provided. Demographics of landowners are changing to include more women and minorities. Soil health is a huge campaign. Marginal lands may need to go back to prairie. Need to work together.

· Can you speak more about the technical assistance needs? Need to make sure staff has time to be out in the field and limit the workload that is administrative. This is all about position management. We can hire specific employees who have administrative expertise to allow our technical experts to have time to meet with landowners at their site. A lot of folks are retiring and need to train new staff which takes time.

· Encouraged to hear about the screening process for projects. Need to rank projects based on the science – NRCS is a science-based agency. Local watershed priorities are provided in the work group process. Specific subwatersheds have been prioritized and rank higher in EQIP process. Need to include all the technical service providers including crop consultants and pest management, etc. – it takes a village to clean up the water.

· Minnesota is a lead in the nation on water management and it would be fantastic to see a project proposed that leverages Clean Water Fund dollars.

· Clean Water Fund dollars are also being leveraged locally that aren’t related to match dollars – for example NRCS engineers could design a project and then project is management by SWCD.

· Should see more from the federal government on water retention and groundwater. Is some of that technical capacity directed at wellhead protection? Working with the Minnesota Department of Health on that to expand our capacities.

9

New Business · Wanted to get some feedback from the Council’s September meeting and field tour in the Brainerd

Lakes Area. · Fervor of the speakers at Serpent Lake was good but the fact that the City mowed the grass all the

way to the lakeshore was disappointing. Partners need to be more aggressive of getting more local participation. Another example is for the Big Trout Lake site – we are putting in state resources to protect this lake, but the City has not extended municipal sewage treatment to those properties on this lake. Need to see more local commitment to match state efforts. Sometimes it is only one person locally that can stop conservation from taking place and this is a common story.

· One of the conversations was about someone who bought 8,000 acres of forestland and put 4,000 cattle on it and the water quality in the river changed dramatically. But the landowner didn’t break any rules. Could be a policy discussion. Livestock access to water is unregulated. Where there are livestock in streams, there are clearly water quality problems. Note that once the landowner knew there were problems he did work to restrict cattle – didn’t knowingly try to harm the stream. Shouldn’t overestimate the changes that can take place when people have knowledge.

· Was good to hear from the people doing the implementation work on the ground. Didn’t know that we had these big changes such as the forestland to potato field conversion going on in Minnesota – that is concerning. We must figure how to get out in front of these changes to prevent the worst things from happening. Should discuss how many animals should be allowed per acre in forested land for example.

· Council also needs to discuss what it means for water quality when forestland is removed. There was a pronouncement that there would be a moratorium on water permits in the area for 54 pending applications. But DNR entered into a memorandum of understanding with the R.D. Offutt Company to reduce the number of permit applications to five and then DNR wouldn’t require an environmental assessment for those applications. Would like a copy of this memo from DNR. Only go the impression from DNR that this was a great opportunity to monitor the water quality changes from this land conversion and it wasn’t apparent that we should be concerned.

· There will be a legislative proposal to study these water quality results of land conversion (possibly with Clean Water Fund dollars). Council needs to be updated about this proposal at a future meeting.

· Water policies need to be proactive for wholesale land conversion so they include BMPs for water. · December 21 Council meeting – should the date be moved or meeting be cancelled? Many

members will not be available to attend the meeting. We have many new members and many topics to discuss so we shouldn’t miss a meeting. Steering Team will discuss (Steering Team subsequently decided to cancel the December 21 Clean Water Council meeting).

· A potential topic for a future Council meeting is cover crops. A dealer from Albert Lea Seed could be a possible speaker.

· Motion to adjourn, seconded and motion carried.

10

8r MNDNR

Working with citizens to conserve and manage the state's natural resources, to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, and to provide for commercial uses of natural resources in a way that creates a sustainable quality of life.

Report to the Legislature Definitions and Thresholds for Negative Impacts to Surface Waters

THE REQUEST The 2015 Legislature has directed the Department of Natural Resources to consult with interested stakeholders and submit a report by December 15, 2015. The specifics of the directive are:

Sec. 143. NEGATIVE SURFACE WATER IMPACTS; RECOMMENDATIONS. By December 15, 2015, the commissioner of natural resources shall consult with interested stakeholders and submit a report to the Legislative Water Commission and the chairs and ranking minority members of the house of representatives and senate committees and divisions with jurisdiction over the environment and natural resources policy and finance on recommendations for statutory or rule definitions and thresholds for negative impacts to surface waters as described in Minnesota Statutes, sections 103G.285 and 103G.287, subdivision 2. Stakeholders must include but are not limited to agricultural interests; environmental interests; businesses; community water suppliers; state, federal, and local agencies; universities: and other interested stakeholders.

The DNR recognizes that writing this report is an excellent opportunity to engage a wide range of individuals and organizations in a discussion of an important natural resource challenge: long-term sustainable use of groundwater for drinking water, irrigation, livestock, and industry.

THE PROJECT TEAM The DNR has created a project team to organize internal and external resources to write the report. Jason Moeckel (651 -259-5240, iason.moeckel@state.mn.us) and Suzanne Rhees (651-259-5677, suzarme.rhees@state.mn.us.') from our Division of Ecological and Water Resources will lead the project team. Assistant Commission Barb Naramore and Ecological and Water Resources Division Director Luke Skinner will serve as the project's executive sponsors.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT DNR will establish a Project Stakeholder Advisory Group that will include representatives of interests identified in the legislation. We will send invitations in late July to a range of organizations, including:

• Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

• League of MN Cities • Coalition of Greater MN Cities • Irrigators Association of Minnesota • Minnesota Corn Growers Association • Minnesota Soybean Growers Association • MN Potato Growers Association • Minnesota Well Drillers Association • Minnesota Cattlemen's Association • MN Rural Water Association • Association of Minnesota Counties

• American Water Works Association - MN Section • Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association • Minnesota Golf Course Superintendents'

Association • Minnesota Water Well Association • Minnesota Environmental Partnership • Freshwater Society • Izaac Walton League • Ducks Unlimited • Trout Unlimited • Minnesota Waterfowl Association • Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts

The Advisory Group will be our most structured way of engaging stakeholders in our process. However, we recognize that interest in the project will extend well beyond those with the opportunity and capacity to participate directly on the Advisory Group. Therefore, as described below we will use a variety of

tr MNDNR

Working with citizens to conserve and manage the state's natural resources, to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, and to provide for commercial uses of natural resources in a way that creates a sustainable quality of life.

communications tools to inform interested parties about the project and seek their input as we develop the required report.

PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS DNR will establish a webpage for the project, so interested citizens and organizations can understand the project and its progress. We will also use GovDelivery to promote Advisory Team meetings to a wide range of stakeholders and provide other information about the project. We will explore options for providing remote access to Advisory Team meetings or other opportunities to interact with project staff.

THE PROJECT TECHNICAL TEAMS DNR is establishing four technical work groups. These technical work groups are focused on stream systems, lake systems, wetland systems, and policy and procedures. The technical teams consist primarily of staff from multiple DNR divisions, but also include experts from the University of Minnesota, other state and federal agencies, and the private sector.

Wetlands/Shallow Lakes/Fens (Norris- lead) Doug Non-is, DNR - EWR Nicole Hansel-Welch, DNR Wildlife Ricky Lien, DNR Wildlife Ray Norrgard, DNR Wildlife Steve Kloiber, DNR - EWR Skip Wright, DNR - EWR Steve Thompson, DNR - EWR Dave Leuthe, DNR - EWR Eric Mohring, BWSR Dan Shaw, BWSR Les Lemm, BWSR Mark Gemes, PCA Susan Galatowitsch, UMN Michael Whited, NRCS Jim Amdt, Merjent Inc. (consulting firm) Rob Sipp MDA

Lakes (Wright-lead) Dave Wright, DNR - EWR Jacquelyn Bacigalupi, DNR Fisheries Brian Herwig, DNR Fisheries Pete Jacobson , DNR Fisheries Nathan Olson, DNR Fisheries Brad Parson, DNR Fisheries Heidi Rantala, DNR Fisheries TJ DeBates, DNR Fisheries Nicole Hansel-Welch, DNR Wildlife Paul Radomski, DNR - EWR Donna Perleberg, DNR - EWR Ian Chisholm/Dan O'Shea, DNR - EWR Richard Kiesling (USGS) Jim Solstad, DNR - EWR Sandy Fecht, DNR - EWR

Streams/Trout Streams (Chisholm-lead) Ian Chisholm, DNR - EWR Dan O'Shea, DNR - EWR Brian Nerbonne, DNR Fisheries Doug Kingsley, DNR Fisheries Doug Dieterman, DNR Fisheries Luther Aadland, DNR - EWR

Policy/Procedures (Hovey-lead) Tom Hovey, DNR - EWR Suzanne Rhees, DNR - EWR Barry Stratton, DNR - EWR Dan Lais, DNR - EWR Sean Hunt, DNR-EWR Brian Stenquist, DNR - EW

THE PROJECT SHCEDULE The December 15, 2015 deadline for completion requires an aggressive schedule for DNR's work. During the month of July, DNR is focused on developing the project plan and organizing the various teams within the project. The Project Stakeholder Advisory Team and the Project Technical Teams will begin their work in August and complete their work by December.

The Project Stakeholder Advisory Team will meet four times over the next five months. Team meetings will be open to the public, and likely will be in a western suburb of the Twin Cities. Project team leaders will be in direct contact with individual stakeholders (both Advisory Team members and otherwise), for one-on-one discussions, seeking advice and insight, throughout the project.

r Working with citizens to conserve and manage the state's natural resources, to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, and to provide for commercial uses of natural resources in a way that creates a sustainable quality of life.

MNDNR

Project Stakeholder Advisory Team Meeting Schedule - Draft Meeting 3 - mid-October: stakeholder perspectives about

Meeting 1 - late August: orientation to the project; technical team draft products, advice on project issues, focus, design, and participation.

Meeting 4 - early November: review and advice on Meeting 2 - late September: advice on technical team first draft of the report, analysis and draft products.

Meeting 5 - mid-December: presentation of the final report and advice on where else to present the findings

The Project Technical Teams will meet twice a month through November. The teams will analyze negative impacts to surface water systems and use feedback and advice from the Project Stakeholder Advisory Group to develop DNR's recommendations regarding statutory and rule definitions, thresholds for negative impacts to surface waters, and related issues.

Project Website http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gwmp/gw thresholds/index.html

Beyond the Status Quo:

2015 EQB Water Policy Report

• Anna Henderson• Erik Cedarleaf Dahl 

The Environmental Quality Board (EQB)• Governor’s office• Five citizen members• Board of Soil and Water Resources• Department of Administration• Department of Agriculture• Department of Commerce• Department of Employment and Economic Development

• Department of Health• Department of Natural Resources• Department of Transportation• Metropolitan Council• Pollution Control Agency

Outline

• Minnesota’s Water Technology Industry

• Report Framework

– 4 Types of Solutions:

• Voluntary, Regulatory, System change, More study 

– 4 Goals

EQB Water Report Team

What is the water tech industry?

Employment Findings

Water‐Tech Exports

Report Outline

What do solutions look like?

• Incentives• Outreach to encourage voluntary action • Public discourse to engage the community

What do solutions look like?

• Laws/Ordinances• Regulations ‐ Permits• Guidelines• Monitoring requirements• Codes and standards

What do solutions look like?

• Market forces• Cultural expectations• Governance models• Management structures

What do solutions look like?

• Additional Research• Monitoring• Social Science ‐ Cultural Barriers• New Technologies

Improve industrial water use efficiency• Recycle water, reduce leaks, evaluate processing inefficiencies…

Vo l un t a r y

Update plumbing codes and treatment standards to allow for safe and 

practical water reuse

Re gu l a t o r y

Is the amount of groundwater we discharge as treated waste water sustainable?

More   S t ud y

Institute Minimal Impact Design Standards

Stakeholder‐driven process led to:• Performance goals• Calculator• Design specifications• Ordinance guidance

S y s t em   C h a n g e

19

Maplewood Mall, photo courtesy of Ramsey‐Washington Metro Watershed District

An emerging issue inmanagement of runoff 

in thebuilt environment is 

chloride.

Reduce liability for applicators who attend training on best management practices

Regu l a t o r y

Living plant cover helps filter contaminants and sediment out of water, and it holds water on the landscape.

Perennial crops: 

Cover crops: 

Prairie and Grasses:

Wetlands: 

Forests: 

No till/Minimum till:

Long‐Term Trends for Corn, Hay and Small Grains: 1921‐2014

The Cost of Nitrates in Public and Domestic Wells

Use living cover around wellheads to prevent groundwater contamination 

Re gu l a t o r y

• Acres in MN = 50+M• Well areas = 1.22M• Vulnerable acres 

= 360K

Enhance existing markets for perennial‐fed beef and dairy products and bioenergy from 

perennial crops 

S y s t em   C h a n g e

Extreme rainfall has increased during the past century in Minnesota.  This combined with our activities on the land, make our infrastructure and communities vulnerable.

Acquisitions

Vo l un t a r y

Reduce risks by removinghomes and businesses from

floodplains

How vulnerable are we to extreme rain? 

More   S t ud y

We need to protect drinking 

water and ecosystems from harmful levels of contaminants of 

emerging concern.

Thank you

Anna HendersonErik Cedarleaf Dahl 

Protect the natural functions of floodplains 

S y s t em   C h a n g e

• What percent of Minnesota farmlands leave crop residue on the ground, and how does this affect erosion? 

• How can we quantify soil conservation benefits to agriculture producers?

• How do we economically incorporate cover crops across Minnesota production acres?

• What influences private landowners to participate in watershed strategies to protect water resources? 

More   S t ud y

Control and filter runoff with green infrastructure

Photo courtesy of Project 15206, http://tinyurl.com/ngrgpv7

Vo l un t a r y

Final 6/16/14

Clean Water Council Guiding Principles and Funding Priorities for FY16-17 Clean Water Funds

A. Guiding Principles:

Focus on achieving outcomes and improvements in water quality and resources in accordance with state and federal laws.

Achieve a balance between short-term progress and long-term achievement of sustainable water quality improvement with a bias towards on-the-ground projects that have measurable outcomes.

Promote programs where it can be demonstrated that the funding will achieve significant new progress towards attaining the goal of clean water and supplementing and accelerating the process.

Reflect Constitutional mandates regarding expenditures on drinking water and supplementing (but not substituting for) traditional funding sources.

Increase agency coordination and collaboration to efficiently utilize Clean Water Fund dollars.

B. Funding Priorities:

Programs that address point and nonpoint pollution source issues and have measurable outcomes.

Implementation activities from completed Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS), Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plans, or Comprehensive Local Water Management Plans.

Continued implementation of the State’s Watershed Approach that contributes new, significant progress to achieve water quality goals.

Surface water and groundwater monitoring activities that contribute to the ability to conduct and target near term work to improve water quality and quantity and influence the long-term sustainability of those improvements.

Continued progress on the completion of County Geologic Atlases.

Strengthen local capacity to support nonpoint source implementation activities.

New enforcement of existing regulations that would achieve measurable clean water outcomes.

Recommend funding programs that can leverage other available funds to achieve outcomes and increase the overall impact of Clean Water Fund dollars.

MEMO  

Date: October 19, 2015 To: Clean Water Council (Council) From: Pam Blixt, Chair, Policy Ad Hoc Committee  

Summary: The Council recognized that Clean Water Fund dollars alone would not be able to meet the expectations of Minnesota citizens for clean water. Therefore the Council created the Policy Ad Hoc Committee (PAC) in April 2014. Members were Pam Blixt (Chair), Warren Formo, Gaylen Reetz, and Doug Thomas. The PAC developed draft policy recommendations for consideration by the full Council. The Council adopted policy recommendations on August 17, 2014 for the Legislature and Governor.  Policy Committee 2014 Process: 

Council formed the PAC and tasked it with developing draft policy recommendations (April 2014) 

PAC considered more than 40 topics (e.g. drainage, sediment reduction strategy, groundwater sustainability, etc.) from 2013‐2014 Clean Water Council meeting topics (May 2014) 

PAC recommended 5 topics (May 2014) 

Council added 6 additional topics for PAC consideration (May 2014) 

PAC agreed on 6 topics but not on draft policy language so decided to bring different versions to the full Council (May 2014) 

Council selected 2 most important topics ‐ altered hydrology and buffers (June 2014) 

Council broke into small groups and drafted solutions to the different versions of policy recommendations (July 2014)  

PAC revised policy recommendations based on Council input (July 2014) 

Council amended and approved final policy recommendations on riparian buffers and water retention, storage, and infiltration (August 2014) – see handout 

 Policy Topics not addressed in 2014. Do you have other recommendations for PAC to consider? 

Local Water Planning and Implementation Capacity 

Water Reuse 

Regional Water Supply and Sustainability 

Point Sources 

Soil Loss 

Cropping Practices 

Contaminants of Emerging Concern Prevention 

Land Use Planning/Enforcement 

Challenges for Best Management Practice Implementation 

Leveraging other Funding Sources  Next Steps: 

Revisit Policy Ad Hoc Committee membership. PAC will likely meet in December 2015. 

Clean Water Council Report: FY16-17 Clean Water Fund Recommendations (December 2014) 13

The Clean Water Council recognizes that CWF dollars

alone will not be able to meet the expectations of

Minnesota citizens for clean water. From a range of

issues presented to the Council in 2013 and 2014,

two policy recommendations have the Council’s

support: riparian buffers and water retention,

storage, and infiltration. These recommendations, if

adopted, should accelerate the adoption of water

quality improvement practices.

Riparian Buffers

It has been demonstrated that buffers of perennial

grasses and vegetation can reduce sediment,

phosphorus and nitrogen significantly. Currently,

state law recognizes the importance of buffers.

Buffers are addressed in three areas of law

(Minnesota Rules Chapters 6120 and 8420 and

Minnesota Statutes 103E) and many different state

and local entities oversee the requirements. There

have been several studies that have evaluated

compliance with buffer requirements and indicate

that buffer requirements are oftentimes

inconsistently applied and enforced. In order to

accelerate the pace of progress in protecting and

improving water quality, the State must have

consistent perennial vegetative buffers along our

riparian areas.

Policy Statement: The Clean Water Council

recommends that the State require maintained

vegetative buffers along public waters and public

ditches, including private ditches that drain to public

ditches, to protect water quality. Buffer width should

be determined based on conditions on the ground

(e.g., soil type and slope) and the differences in the

type of water body. There should be one state

agency that develops model ordinances for local

governments to apply, oversees local

implementation, and requires reporting. We

recommend the state fund both local

implementation and enforcement.

Water Retention, Storage, and Infiltration

Through efforts to drain water in order to make it

suitable for agriculture, transportation, and economic

and urban development, the natural hydrology of the

landscape has been significantly altered. This can lead

to moving water off the land faster and in greater

amounts, and carrying sediment, nutrients and other

pollutants. It has also altered the flow regime of our

rivers, streams and ditches modifying both the

frequency and magnitude at which the banks and

beds of our rivers, streams and ditches erode.

To address this problem, it will be necessary to

re-create storage, retention, and infiltration in

watersheds to hold back the power and force which

destabilizes these systems and contributes to water

quality problems. There are many ways that water

retention and infiltration can be achieved. Note that

watersheds in the seven-county Twin Cities Metro

Area are already required by Minnesota Rules,

Chapter 8410 to develop watershed plans and

stormwater controls.

Policy Statement: The Clean Water Council

recommends the State require all major (8-digit HUC)

watersheds outside the seven-county Twin Cities

Metro Area of the state to develop local

comprehensive watershed management plans. These

plans must establish water storage goals, expressed in

acre-feet, and standards for water storage, retention,

and infiltration.

Buffers and native vegetation provide multiple benefits for

water quality and wildlife habitat.

Council FY16-17 Policy Recommendations

Conservation Programs for You and Your LandUSDA offers voluntary conservation programs for all kinds of land, natural resources, and people. We provide conservation programs to help reduce erosion, guard streams and rivers, restore and establish fish and wildlife habitat, improve air quality and conserve energy.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is the lead USDA agency for conservation on privately owned working lands.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)EQIP offers financial and technical help to install or implement needed conservation practices on working land. Over 100 conservation practices are available. Contracts provide flat rate payments based on average costs to install or implement the practices. All private land in agricultural production is eligible, including cropland, grazing and pastureland and non-industrial private forest.

Conservation PaysMany conservation programs offer financial incentives, such as easement purchases, cost-sharing to install conservation practices, or annual payments for stewardship.

All programs are voluntary and competitive, with the best, most environmentally beneficial projects selected for funding.

Technical HelpNRCS professional and technical experts will help farmers and landowners identify what conservation systems can help, and what programs they are eligible for. NRCS helps producers plan, design and implement conservation practices on their land.

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)CSP provides payments to producers who already practice good stewardship on their land and are willing to take additional steps over the next five years. All agricultural operations and non-industrial private forest lands are eligible. Farmers receive an annual payment for five years, based on their level of stewardship.

Helping People Help the Land

The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)

ACEP provides financial and technical assistance to help conserve agricultural lands and wetlands.

Easement Programs offered through the NRCS provide landowners a way to ensure the permanent protection of their property for specific uses. These uses include wetland habitat protection, floodplain protection, grazing and pasture protection, and forest and timber stand protection.

ACEP has two components:

1) Agricultural Land Easements (ALE), and 2) Wetland Reserve Easements (WRE). The ALE component combines the purposes and functions of the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP, Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) to protect working agricultural lands by providing financial assistance to eligible entities toward the purchase of Agricultural Land Easements.

The WRE component replaces and operates like the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and will provide financial assistance directly to private and Tribal landowners to restore, protect and enhance wetlands through the purchase of Wetland Reserve Easements.

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.Minnesota April 2014

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners and operators, administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality.

The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat.

Many types of ag land are eligible, and can be planted to trees, grass, small wetland restoration, prairie and oak savannah restoration and others.

Enhance Wildlife Habitat

Build Healthy Soil

Protect Water Quality

Protect Air Quality

Reduce Soil Erosion

Save Energy

Conservation Programs forMinnesota Landowners

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)

RCPP promotes coordination with NRCS partners to deliver conservation programs to farmers through partnership agreements.

RCPP works on regional or watershed scales with partners to help producers increase the restoration and sustainable use of soil, water, wildlife and related natural resources.

www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov

For more information contact NRCS at your

local USDA Service Center or visit

Clean Water Fund – and USDA NRCS Funding Nexus

Clean Water Council October 19, 2015

Minnesota Clean Water Council October 19, 2015

History of Locally Led Conservation Minnesota NRCS Programs State Priorities set by LWG and FY 2016 State Priorities Leveraging resources with Partners

2

2

4

1

3

Minnesota Clean Water Council Key Talking Points

Minnesota Clean Water Council Locally Led Conservation

Hugh Hammond Bennett Soil Conservation Act, April 27, 1935 In February 1937, President Roosevelt wrote the governors of all the states recommending standard Soil Conservation District law that would allow local landowners to form soil conservation districts. Locally Led Conservation began…

Minnesota Clean Water Council Locally Led Conservation

5

Minnesota Clean Water Council Locally Led Conservation

Minnesota was one of the first states to adopt the new Soil Conservation District law. In 1938, Minnesota’s first district formed was the Winona Soil and Water Conservation District.

6

Minnesota Clean Water Council Locally Led Conservation

Today in Minnesota, 89 Soil and Water Conservation Districts continue the Locally Led Conservation process that began in 1937.

Minnesota Clean Water Council Local Working Groups

Conservation District • It is the responsibility of the conservation district to— • (i) Develop the conservation needs assessment as outlined in

440-CPM, Part 500, Subpart A. • (ii) Assemble the USDA local working group. • (iii) Set the agenda. • (iv) Conduct the USDA local working group meetings. • (v) Transmit the USDA local working group's priority area and

funding requests to the NRCS designated conservationist or the State Technical Committee, as appropriate.

Minnesota Clean Water Council Local Working Groups FY 2016 Priorities

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CStP) FY 2016 Priorities per Land Use

EQIP: CStP: Cropland: Agland 1. Water Quality 1. Water Quality 2. Soil Erosion 2. Soil Quality 3. Soil Quality 3. Plants Pastureland: NIPF: 1. Water Quality 1. Plants 2. Plant Condition 2. Water Quality 3. Livestock Production 3. Soil Quality Forest Land: 1. Wildlife Habitat 2. Plant Condition 3. Water Quality

9

Minnesota Clean Water Council MN NRCS Programs

38 MN NRCS PROGRAMS/INITIATIVES ACEP: ALE: WRE: Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program Wetland Reserve Program Grassland Reserve Program Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program Healthy Forest Reserve Program Wetland Reserve Program – Reinvest in Minnesota Prairie Pothole Grassland Reserve Program Red River Wetland Reserve Program

AgCertainty RCPP EQIP: General EQIP Resource Stewardship Program Pilot AgCertainty Pilot Honey Bee Initiative National Water Quality Initiative Driftless Area Landscape Conservation Initiative Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Monarch Initiative Mississippi Restoration Basin Initiative Red River Basin Initiative Upper Mississippi Headwaters Restoration Initiative Ag Certainty – RCPP American Bird Conservancy – RCPP Organic Initiative On-Farm Energy Initiative High Tunnel Cropping System Initiative Prairie Pothole Wetland & Grassland Retention Program Missouri River Basin Initiative Joint Chief’s, Lake Superior North Shore Coastal Forest Restoration Partnership Initiative Sentinel Landscape Initiative Other programs: VAP-HIP, CSP, CstP, CRP, Continuous CRP, CREP, Red River Basin RCPP, Biomass Cost Assistance Program, CRP Grassland and Haying Initiative

10

Minnesota Clean Water Council Leveraging Resources with Partners

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (2014 Farm Bill)

• Designed via partnerships, to multiply the federal conservation investment and target conservation goals on a regional or watershed scale.

• Available funding pools: state-level, multi-state and

national, and critical conservation areas • 25 percent is allocated for state-level projects, 40

percent for multi-state and national projects, and 35 percent for projects in the critical conservation areas.

11

Minnesota Clean Water Council Leveraging Resources with Partners

2015 RCPP at a glance: • 115 conservation projects • $370 million • Across all 50 states and Puerto Rico • Water quality was the most common project objective • Minnesota was awarded two multi-state projects & one state-level

project 2016 RCPP at a glance: • $225 million available • NRCS received 265 pre-proposals total $856 million • Over 60 percent of the submitted pre-proposals, the partners

identified water resource issues as a primary objective • 165 groups to submit full proposals by November 10, 2015

12

Minnesota Clean Water Council Leveraging Resources with Partners

To help guide Minnesota’s conservation efforts: • Continue inventorying the natural resources of Minnesota. Such as

studies, watershed plans, monitoring, evaluating best management practices (BMPs) etc.

• Provide technical assistance to Minnesota’s private landowners – more boots on the ground

• Increase technical capacity –Minnesota’s Technical Training Plan – BWSR, MASWCD, and NRCS (important for implementing the new buffer law)

• Water quality monitoring for watershed initiatives such as the National Water Quality Initiative projects and the Mississippi River Basin Initiative projects

13

Minnesota Clean Water Council Leveraging resources with Partners

Hugh Hammond Bennett Lecture, North Carolina State University, June 1959 “I consider the soil conservation districts movement one of the most important developments in the whole history of agriculture.” Page 28. “Every additional gallon of water that can be stored in the soil through the use of conservation measures means one gallon less contributed to flood flows.” Page 37. “We cannot depend on windshield surveys and office planning to carry out a job of the complexity and magnitude of safeguarding our farmland and controlling floods.” Page 38-39.

Agency Approach to Managing MN’s Water Resources

Coordination Between Agency Programs & Authorities

Perspectives on implementation of on-the-ground soil and water conservation projects

• Clean Water Fund requests far exceed available funding

All Categories FY2014 FY2015

Awarded $ 21,153,418 $ 19,735,527

Requested $ 98,059,945 $ 67,152,971

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

N. Center S. Center N. Lindstrom S. Lindstrom Chisago

Sediment Reduction (lbs/yr)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NorthCenter

SouthCenter

NorthLindstrom

SouthLindstrom

Chisago

Phosphorus Reduction (lbs/yr)

Prioritized

areas to focus where implementation matters most.

Targeted practices

with the priority areas provide direction for on-the-ground action based on sound science.

Measurable results that can show pace of progress toward the identified goals.

5

Money for Projects & Practices is Guided by Water Management Plans That Are:

Consideration of State Priorities in Plan & Projects

Projects and Programs are informed by Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS)

• Summarize water quality condition • Reports stressors to the fish and invertebrate communities • Identifies pollution reduction necessary to

achieve beneficial uses (TMDLs) • Identifies actions necessary to achieve uses • Identifies priority areas for targeting actions • Sets milestones

7

Water Management Plans Today 200+ Local Water Plans

Plans Result in Measureable Implementation Scott County / Sand Creek watershed

Land Use Plan Water Plans

9

Targeted

TACS Program BMP Practices and Capital Improvement Projects

10

Reductions Achieved

Water Body Load Reduction Goal

% Goal Achieved Source

Sand Creek At Jordan TSS reduction of 40% to 70% in mid and high flow ranges

20% - 30% Load reduction curves and SWAT Scenario modeling

Porter Creek at Xanadu TSS reduction of 50% to 70% in mid to high flow ranges

20% - 30% Load reduction curves and SWAT Scenario modeling

Cedar Lake Watershed: 81 lbs TP/season, -25% Inlake: 5,200 lbs TP/season, -90%

100% of watershed reduction goal

Approved TMDL load allocations

McMahon Lake Watershed: 17 lbs TP/season -25% InLake: 455 lbs TP/season, -91%

100% of entire (watershed and in-lake) reduction goal

Approved TMDL load allocations

11

Future Watershed

Management

12

The Future

Sediment to Watershed Outlet Lowest Source (< 10%)

Low Source (10% - 25%)

Moderate Source (25% - 75%)

High Source (75% - 90%)

Highest Source (> 90%)

Big Picture – Identify Subwatersheds Which Contribute the Most Sediment (Load) to the Outlet

Sub-Watershed Characterization from WRAPS/TMDLs

Lowest Source (< 10%)

Low Source (10% - 25%)

Moderate Source (25% - 75%)

High Source (75% - 90%)

Highest Source (>90%)

Sediment Delivery to Resource of Concern

Sediment Source Rank to Priority Resource

Ability to estimate field scale (~ 40 acres on average) nutrient and sediment mass delivered downstream to a subwatershed pour point.

Targeted

Catchment Filtration Opportunity Index Sediment Rank

+

BMP Potential Source Magnitude

=

BMP Bullseye

Leveraging Clean Water Funds

Leveraging of CWF is occurring

State Expense Federal Expense Local Expense

Landowner Expense Total Expense

$70,270,507 $8,130,362 $64,133,776 $12,963,089 $155,497,734

2010 to 2014 595 Clean Water Fund awards, -- installing more than 4,152 conservation practices have to reduce critical erosion, stormwater runoff and to keep water on the land.

$1.21 dollars leveraged for every $1 dollar of CWF

MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program

Easements for Buffers/Wellhead/Wetlands

USDA - NRCS FY 2015 Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds

Initiative

Chisago SWCD Chain of Lakes (Green Lake)

Mower SWCD Dobbins Creek

CWF Targeted

Watershed Projects

Clean Water Council (Council) Steering Team Agenda

October 19, 2015 2:00 - 3:30 p.m.

MPCA Board Room (Lower Level) Debrief about today’s Council meeting Potential Meeting Topics – November 16, 2015 Mississippi River Program - McKnight Foundation Natural Capital Project - University of Minnesota Groundwater appropriation impacts (Department of Natural Resources) - 30 minutes Lawsuit - Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy vs. State of Minnesota; Lake Pepin and

sewage treatment plant pollution How to reach out to agricultural renters/landowners to implement Best Management Practices Potential Meeting Topics – November 2015 - January 2016 Items recently recommended by members Community health approach for stakeholder involvement Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework update - UMN Lake IBIs - how lake health is determined based on fish and plant communities - MPCA/DNR Drainage - tools for implementation Pilot Watersheds Progress Reporting (i.e. Accountability) for WRAPS/TMDLs - MPCA (January) Buffer Law - update on the implementation - BWSR/DNR (January) Clean Water Fund Performance Report - State Agencies (January) Clean Water Ideas from stakeholder groups (BOC or small Council groups)

Items recommended by members in Council Work Plan Economic Drivers (Water Quality Drivers) Effective Incentives and Regulations (Innovative Approaches) Outcomes Reporting for each Program (Measurable Outcomes) Leveraging (Nonpoint and Point Source Implementation) Funding Needs & Costs/Benefits (Point Sources)

1  

Lawsuit says Minnesota needs a tougher stance to clean up Lake Pepin 

New pollution limits and sewage treatment plants are too lax, environmental group says.  By Josephine Marcotty Star Tribune  OCTOBER 8, 2015 — 11:19PM   

 Lake Pepin in 2014. One of Minnesota’s leading environmental groups has sued the state, charging that top regulators are doing too little to protect Lake Pepin from the pollution discharged by sewage treatment plants. 

ne of Minnesota’s leading environmental groups has sued the state, charging that top regulators are doing too 

little to protect Lake Pepin from the pollution discharged by sewage treatment plants, a violation of the federal 

Clean Water Act. 

The suit centers on a new plan that would allow five of the largest metro‐area water treatment plants to 

discharge 175 tons of phosphorus annually into the Mississippi River and Lake Pepin, which is one of 

Minnesota’s most scenic recreation spots and drains water from two‐thirds of the state. 

Although the plants are currently below that ceiling, on average, the new plan would not result in cleaner 

water downstream, said Kris Sigford, water quality director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental 

Advocacy (MCEA), which filed the suit Thursday. 

The suit also says the state’s prediction for water quality in Lake Pepin optimistically presumes that thousands 

of farmers upstream on the Minnesota River will adopt sweeping changes in land management to reduce 

phosphorus discharges. 

“You can’t just expect a miracle and base your limits on that,” Sigford said. 

   

2  

PCA assumptions 

John Linc Stine, commissioner of the state Pollution Control Agency, said his staff must base any plan on 

assumptions, including some that reflect expectations about land use changes in the future. 

He also pointed out that the Metropolitan Council has made enormous strides in reducing phosphorus 

discharges from its water treatment plants — voluntarily achieving reductions of 70 percent or more in recent 

years to bring the discharges well below their legal limits. He expects that performance to continue, he said. 

But Stine also said he welcomes the debate because “it is focused on what our goals are for the water.” 

The lawsuit raises the increasingly contentious question of whether Minnesota can clean up its lakes, rivers 

and streams without tackling problems caused by chemically intensive farming in the state’s largest 

watersheds. 

Phosphorus, a nutrient that causes foul and sometimes toxic algae blooms in lakes and rivers, is one of the 

most common water pollutants. It comes from homes, pets, lawns, and stormwater runoff. But in Minnesota’s 

major rivers, most of it results from fertilizers used in agriculture. 

In Lake Pepin and a stretch of the Mississippi just below its confluence with the Minnesota River, phosphorus 

levels are often well above 100 parts per billion, the state’s legal standard. State regulators have been working 

for years on a massive plan to reduce both phosphorus and the rising levels of sediment in Lake Pepin, and the 

permits under challenge are part of that plan. 

In a novel step, the state agreed to issue one “umbrella” phosphorus permit for all the largest sewage 

treatment plants. Pooling the discharges would give the Met Council flexibility in reducing overall loads, Stine 

said. 

But MCEA argues that the new permit would allow a 35 percent increase, on average, above what the plants 

are discharging now. It’s unlikely they would ever bump up against the ceiling, Sigford said, but even on paper 

the state has an obligation to reduce discharges into water that’s already polluted. 

Cutting discharges from the plants even further is feasible, said Betsy Lawton, an attorney with MCEA. A 

handful of cities in other states have done so, and setting a lower ceiling would give the Met Council an 

incentive to do the same, she said. 

Met Council officials declined to comment Thursday, saying they have not seen the lawsuit. 

3  

Predictions questioned 

Perhaps even more troubling, Sigford said, is that in setting ceilings for the treatment plants, the state makes 

highly optimistic predictions about what farmers are willing to do. The phosphorus goals for Lake Pepin will be 

achieved only if other polluters produce additional, much larger reductions. And that would require, for 

example, that 20 to 30 percent of the land in the Minnesota River watershed be covered with grasses and 

forests instead of crops and pavement, and that soil erosion from sandy ravines be cut by 30 to 40 percent. 

Even if all those assumptions were to “magically” come to pass, Sigford said, Lake Pepin would still meet water 

quality goals for phosphorus in only nine out of the next 22 years. 

In documents, the PCA said it does not dispute that. But, while phosphorus in Lake Pepin may exceed the 

standard from time to time, on average it will be within limits. 

Stine said his agency has to consider future changes on the landscape that will be driven by a growing 

understanding of what’s driving water pollution. 

But, he said, the state cannot regulate farmers, “and if [MCEA] is concerned about the sources we don’t 

regulate, I don’t think this lawsuit is the way to get at it.” 

http://www.startribune.com/suit‐says‐minnesota‐needs‐a‐tougher‐stance‐to‐clean‐up‐lake‐pepin/331494691/