Policy Committee Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council

July 26, 2019 9:30 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

MPCA Room 100 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN

2019-2020 Policy Committee members: Rep. Patty Acomb, John Barten (Chair), Pam Blixt, Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Rylee Main, Raj Rajan, Victoria Reinhardt (Vice Chair), & Phil Sterner

9:30 Regular Business • Approve today’s agenda• Approve minutes for April 26, 2019 meeting• Chair and staff update

9:45 Next Steps for Managing Micro and Nano plastics – John Barten lead

10:45 Surface Water and Untreated Waste Water • Surface and groundwater impacts of failing subsurface sewage treatment systems

(SSTS): Jim Zeigler and Aaron Jensen (MPCA)• County perspective: Eric Van Dyken, Kandiyohi County

12:00 Lunch

12:30 continue Surface Water and Untreated Waste Water • What has worked in the past – Sewer Squad: Sheila Craig, Cannon River Watershed

Partnership and formerly of SE MN Wastewater Initiative• One Watershed, One Plan, Watershed Framework and Wastewater – Kevin Bigalke,

BWSR

1:45 New Business • Future policy topics• Tentative Policy Committee meetings:

∗ August 23, 2019: Climate Change and stormwater systems ∗ September 27, 2019: Revisit Waste Pharmaceutical disposal and other recent Policy

Statements

2:00 Adjourn

Policy Committee web page: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/r9rq9y3

wq-cwc5-19g

Policy Committee Meeting Summary Clean Water Council (Council)

May 24, 2019, 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Committee Members present: John Barten (Chair), Pam Blixt, Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Rylee Main, Raj Rajan, Victoria Reinhardt (Vice Chair), and Phil Sterner Members absent: Rep. Patty Acomb

To watch the WebEx video recording of this meeting, please go to https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/policy-ad-hoc-committee, or contact Brianna Frisch.

Regular Business • May 24 meeting agenda, motion for approval by Raj Rajan, seconded by Phil Sterner. Agenda approved.• April 26 meeting summery motion for approval by Bob Hoefert, seconded by Phil Sterner. Meeting summary

approved.• Chair and staff update

o No updates

Legislative Update on Clean Water Fund bill and Policy progress, Paul Gardner, Clean Water Council Administrator (WebEx 00:02:45) • On Monday, May 20, the Legacy Finance Committee should have finished the work by 5 pm. However, this deadline

was not met. A draft bill was introduced in special session this week so that committees had a hearing for thepublic. The special session started at 10:00 today. It will probably by later today or into the weekend.o Most funding items follow the Council’s recommendations. Many cuts in the House version have been reduced

or restored. However, the biggest change is for $24 million to the Soil and Water Conservation Districts(SWCDs) from the Senate version.

• Regarding the Council’s policies, the chloride smart salt training does not look like it will make it through. Regardingthe pharmaceuticals take-back, the legislators are more interested in responding to the opioid issues before movingto the medication take-back process.

• Some areas were zeroed out of the House and Senate. Council budget was approved at the level it wasrecommended.

Questions/Comments: • A spreadsheet has been provided to show the final bill budget numbers compared to our recommendations and the

House and Senate versions. The chloride training and liability protection bill is not likely to make it through, probablybecause of concern over the liability protection part.

• Next Steps for Protection of Healthy Waters: Multiple Benefits of Protecting the Mississippi Headwaters, John Barten (WebEx 00:16:25) • At the previous meeting, we had speakers talk about the costs and actions it would take to protect the Mississippi

headwaters and area (about $0.4 - $0.6 billion to protect versus $1.2 billion to restore later if the water qualitydegraded). We did not have any policy pieces. This time is for some discussion on this topic, to see how we couldhelp on this effort.

• Currently they are using funding from the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund (LSOHF) to purchase easements.There are multiple funding strings going towards the upper Mississippi River, including these funds. I assume thereare One Watershed, One Plans (1W1P), which would positively impact these areas.o Do we know when the 1W1P will be complete for that area of the state? Answer: The Leech Lake 1W1P will be

complete soon, Pine River is in the process, and the plan is for the Mississippi Headwaters probably in the nextyear or two. There is a significant percentage of the state that is in the process, and that pulls staff across thestate. Those three areas are near the headwaters, and they are in progress. The size of the planning area islarge and it is something to keep in mind. There is good progress in this area. Comment: The WatershedRestoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are complete andavailable at this time.

o Regarding a policy statement, the Council could possibly a set percentage of funding towards protection versus restoration.

o The LSOHC and Legislative Water Commission are interested in this topic. Paul Gardner can continue reaching out to find how we can coordinate actions.

Micro and Nano plastics in Minnesota Waters (WebEx 00:41:00) Context on Global Plastics Consumption and Waste Management, by Paul Gardner (WebEx 00:41:00) There is a lot of media coverage lately on macro plastics in the environment. There is not much science yet on micro- and nano-plastics, and Rep. Rick Hansen has pushed for agencies to investigate using the Clean Water Fund. Macro Plastics: Recycling Plastics in Minnesota, by Wayne Gjerde and Barbara Monaco at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) (WebEx 00:45:30) • Definitions

o Mismanaged plastics waste: In addition to urban litter, mismanaged waste also includes inadequately contained waste such as open dumps and are therefore transportable via runoff and wind.

o Plastic debris size: These can be broadly divided into macro-debris (>20 mm in diameter), meso-debris (5-20 mm), and micro-debris (<5 mm).

• There are two sources for microplastics o Primary: manufactured (e.g., microbeads and industrial abrasives) o Secondary: particles created as a result of breakdown of larger plastic litter, car tires, plastic mulch, and

synthetic fibers from textiles o The MPCA Solid Waste section facilitates the management of solid waste including amounts of solid waste

generated; how it is collected, processed, and disposed of; extent of separation, recycling, reuse, and recovery of solid waste; and facilities available or under development to manage the waste.

• How can Solid Waste Management Affect Microplastics? o They can affect the creation of microplastics in Minnesota in two ways. First, to reduce, reuse, and recycle. This

helps eliminate the plastic from the waste stream. Second, to manage our own waste streams appropriately. • How are Plastics Currently Managed in Minnesota?

o Recycling, waste to energy and landfill are the three categories. Using the 2013 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Composition study, the MPCA could estimate the amount of plastic in the waste stream and determine a capture rate of that material over time. In 2017, there was about a 20% capture rate. This means that 20% of the estimated plastic generated is being recycled.

• Minnesota Solid Waste Landfills o There are 21 landfills across the state that are permitted to take MSW. In order to receive a permit from the

MPCA, a landfill must meet certain requirements: Cover exposed waste with at least six inches of soil or other approved cover Have a liner system with a leachate collection efficiency of at least 95% and maintain integrity through the

life and post-closure care period. Have a closure and post-closure plan and funds set aside to ensure adequate care once closed.

o For most Minnesotans, it is against the law to burn or bury household garbage. It has been illegal since the 1980s. Many counties are closing remaining loopholes in the state law by passing no-burn/no-bury resolutions for all residents. However, plastics are on the list of prohibited materials and should never be burned. There are 31 counties that have adopted a no-burn resolution.

• Litter Programs in Minnesota o The Minnesota Department of Transportation Adopt a Highway Program Volunteers picked up more than 35,957 bags of trash in 2018.

o Sentencing to Serve Program Sentencing to Serve is a sentencing alternative for courts that puts nonviolent offenders to work on

community improvement projects. The supervised crews work in parks and other public areas. About 451,023 hours have been worked through this program.

o Counties spent $125,867 in the program Litter Prevention with funding in 2017. These include funding for programs like “Clean City” in Minneapolis and “Come Clean Program” in St. Paul.

• Global Mismanaged Plastic Waste (MPW) generation map (2015). The largest sources of mismanaged plastic waste globally are from South and East Asia. o The East Asia and Pacific region dominates global mismanaged plastic waste, accounting for about 60% of the

world’s total. While countries across North America and Europe generate significant quantities of plastic waste (per capita basis), the well-managed waste streams mean that very little of this is a risk of ocean pollution.

o While the amount of plastic waste being managed locally will increase, this does not mean that it will be managed poorly. If we do not focus on local markets or plastic reduction, more of the waste stream going to landfills and waste to energy will be plastic if the ban in China continues.

• Plastics Recycling in Minnesota o Public and private sector investments in state-of-the-art sorting equipment. This is focused on developing local

markets. The state has provided funding to invest in new projects and equipment. o Because of these investments, Minnesota is in a better position than most states. The bale contamination rates

are at 5-10%. There are over 260 Minnesota companies that use recycled materials to manufacture products. o Prices for most recyclables have plummeted because of flooded domestic markets. Some materials have little

or no value. Transportation costs have increased. In addition, there are limited markets nationally for plastic film (Trex and Revolution plastics – both are out of state).

• What is Minnesota Doing to Develop Markets? o The state is encouraging a film plastic wash and pelletizing line in Minnesota. They are working to establish a

hub, to speak up for collecting plastics (i.e., agricultural plastics). The Recycling Market Development Working Group are working towards prioritizing materials. There is a grant and loan program, but has limited funding. There is also a Recycling Education Committee, which focuses on less contamination for better quality materials.

Questions/Comments: • Is there no water quality impact regarding macro-plastics disposal in the state? Answer: The state is not a large

source of macro-plastics to our waters, but we are a source of micro-plastics pollution. • Would the Chinese ban and shut down of the waste to energy facility in Elk River impact that at all? Answer: Any

waste not recycled or turned to energy might be landfilled but it will be managed properly. • Are there any contaminants of emerging concern from the agricultural bioplastics side? Answer: [Ginny Black from

the Minnesota Composting Council responding.] We have two plastics that we are working on. The compostable service ware has coating with chemicals PFOAs and PFOSs, and projects would eliminate them. In 2020, Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) will stop certifying PFOA and PFOS containing plastics as compostable. At this time, the U.S. Compost Council is focused on helping to get a product on the market that would help with this issue. In order to expand this, we need the right kind of materials. Comment: The Biodegradable Products Institute does have a commitment by 2022 to remove all PFOA substance from their products. It is an issue the composters do not want to deal with. Often this group of chemicals can be found in products that are resistant to absorbing grease. Compostable plastics are meant to break down and complete disintegrate, so they do not create persistent micro plastics. BPI pushes back against “degradable” plastics that just break apart but leave persistent pieces behind.

• People know to recycle glass and newspapers, but there is a lot of confusion around plastics. For example, some recycling facilities only takes certain numbers, and this is often confusing for people trying to recycle. Is there a way to promote products that minimize the non-recycling containers? Answer: Both Minneapolis and St. Paul have passed ordinances on the kind of packaging that can be used for products. It has eliminated polystyrene foam (some can be recycled into insulation foam). The industry is moving towards better options, with small strides often with tradeoffs. The Recycling Committee is also about helping move these changes.

Aquatic Plastic Pollution – Kathryn Schreiner, Ph.D., and Elizabeth Austin-Minor, Ph.D., University of Minnesota – Duluth (WebEx 01:40:30) • Plastic is a synthetic organic polymer that exhibits plasticity (the ability to deform under stress) at some point in its

life cycle and that can be molded. There are many different polymers that fit this definition, and they are often mixed with additive to adjust the properties (e.g. polyester, polypropylene, PVC). These are being found in Lake Superior. They range in size (microplastics to nanoplastics).

• UMD has not started any studies with nanoplastics (less than 300 um, which is smaller than the mesh net hole size).

• Plastic production has increased since the 1950s. A large portion of the increase is from single use plastic packaging.

• A majority of plastics being used are discarded. A lot is being managed properly, but a significant portion is not. • In Lake Superior, the concentrations of microplastics are on par with the concentrations of plastics in the oceans.

There is more than one might think. • The collection and analysis of environmental microplastics is a science that is still being developed.

o Challenges: Field collection is time intensive and there needs to be enough sample for good counting statistics. Sample preparation is time intensive Sample analysis requires specialized equipment.

• Sample Collection: It is important first to determine what types of samples are necessary for the data you want. There are various complications; including getting sufficient sample for acceptable counting statistics above background (lab banks). The Minor & Schreiner labs focus on environmental plastics in surf waters (Lake Superior and inland lakes), aquatic sediments, and beach sand. Pumping water through the filter system takes about six hours for one sample. The sediment samples take about 30 minutes, but separating plastics from sediment material is time consuming. The beach sand samples are easy to collect and take about 30 minutes, but are time consuming to process. o The sample preparation is time intensive and a multistep process. There is a lot of sieving and filtering. There is

Fenton oxidation to help remove the natural organic matter and leave the plastic behind. They complete a density separation. There is microscope melt testing and particle picking. Then, analyses are done with Pry-GC/MS machines. This helps determine what types of plastic are present. The process can only determine one type of plastic at a time.

• Analytical Challenges: o Inconsistent size ranges: smaller size ranges are hard to sample, hard to handle, and hard to analyze. The

particles are prone to fragmentation. o There is diverse polymer composition. There are many co-polymers. The plastics often look similar to

petroleum and natural products. The current analytical approaches require time-intensive methods and still often cannot deconvolute co-polymers or plastic plus natural organic matter.

o There are challenging matrix effects such as co-occurring organics (chitin-rich insect and zooplankton pieces, bird feathers, other biomass or degraded organic materials). The clays and other small inorganics have a similar density to microplastics, making the separation difficult.

• Altogether (sample, prep, and analysis) how much does this cost? o Per sample (from collection through data analysis), it is about $300. This figure includes technician time and

supplies for all steps described for the water column, sediment, and fish gut samples. o This also assumes access to expensive equipment.

• The majority of the microplastics found are fibers. There are many different types of plastics at the different sites (estuary to open water).

• Ingested micro plastics morphology (fish guts) included mostly fibers as well. This most likely because fibers are the highest frequency of microplastics in their environment.

• They will be corroborating with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to complete a plastic analysis in some of the sentinel lakes using funds from LCCMR. They are going to be looking at four lakes for the next few years.

Questions/Comments: • How do you analyze small Nano plastics when you collect the fish? Answer: This is why we have been doing the

visual analysis. We are identifying individual particles. There is no good chemical way to separate these. It becomes more challenging the smaller it is.

• How small can these be analyzed? Answer: The machines can only analyze to 0.5µm. Current technology does not get smaller than 0.2 µm. It is a challenge.

• How much time does it take for one sample? How many samples are collected in one day? Answer: In one day for the net towing, we collect about five samples. Those samples then take about a week. Then, individually measure the items we find, about three weeks.

• Will you take this net for the sentinel lakes? Answer: Yes.

• Do you have any idea of how much is airborne? Answer: One of the reasons why we saw so many particles in equal concentrations is possibly because some of the particles are airborne. Some might be from the breakdown of plastics as well. Right now, we cannot say. There are preliminary studies that reveal airborne plastics are real. It would be great to have an atmospheric chemist to collaborate with us on some research in this area.

Microplastics fibers in wastewater – Sara Heger, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities (WebEx 02:22:00) • There are many sources of microplastics that impact wastewater. A lot of fibers come from the washing machine

discharge. • Sources of microplastics in wastewater

o Use of top loading washing machines and detergent greatly increases the microplastics released. The “flushable” hygiene wipes contain plastic interlocking fibers and do not completely biodegrade.

• Sorption Behavior: o Microplastics can adsorb and concentrate other pollutants present in wastewater. The persistent organic

pollutants (e.g., PAHs, PCBs, pesticides), as well as metals (e.g., mercury, zinc, cadmium, lead). • The Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) as a Source

o These facilities are not designed to remove microplastics from the effluent o The amount removed will vary from site to site depending on the processes used. o About 90% removal rates are commonly reported, but due to the volume of water discharged, 10% is still a

significant addition. o Studies from around the world reveal a majority of microfibers appear to be removed during the primary

sedimentation and mechanical removal period (in sludge and bio solids). The smallest microplastics making their through are often the fibers.

• The Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) as a Source o Synthetic microplastics may contribute to septic system failures due to clogging of soil pores. o Failing or improper systems likely allow microplastics to reach surface water or groundwater through limestone

and karst geology. • Septic System Failure

o Small non-biodegradable solids may not settle out in septic tanks and cause a surface layer of untreated septate.

• Groundwater Study in Illinois o Seventeen groundwater samples were taken from wells and springs. There were eleven from a highly fractured

limestone aquifer near the St. Louis metropolitan area. There were six from an aquifer containing much smaller fractures in a rural area. There were microplastics shown in sixteen samples, along with contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) indicating wastewater sources were likely.

• Septage and Bio solids as a Source o Land application of septage (SSTS) and bio solids (WWTP) on agriculture land is common. These microplastics

can then reenter the aquatic environment via agricultural runoff or travel to groundwater. Previous studies show that up to 90% of the microplastics from the influent wastewater would be retained and accumulated in the sludge.

• Research to Date o One study found microplastics in field sites up to fifteen years after the application of sludge products. o Fibers were found after five years in long-term greenhouse soil columns.

• Research Needs o Potential Reduction Methods Method 1: Source reduction

• Public outreach. • Filter installation at washing machines

Method 2: Upgrade WWTPs and SSTS to treat and filter out microplastics from the effluent water prior to discharge

Method 3: Treat the bio solids to reduce microplastics in land application. o Needs for Resources

Determine effectiveness, practicality and economic feasibility of attaching a filter on the output pipe of washing machines (i.e., the guppy friend, Back to Real Water filter).

Evaluate if consumers will purchase less synthetic clothing Evaluate washing machine impacts on microplastics production (water temperature, cycle length,

detergent additives to reduce fiber breakage) Assess factors influencing consumers to wash garments less frequently and to switch to frontload washing

machines. o Needs for WWTPs

Standardization of size of microplastics measurement and method needed. The work is underway. Options for Entrainment of Microplastics in Sludge

• Activated sludge treatment – flocculation helps settle the microplastics • Dissolved air floatation • Tertiary treatment options (membrane filtration or rapid sand filters)

o Needs for SSTS Pretreatment systems

• Evaluate septic tank sizing and configurations for removal of microplastics • Assess septic tank screens for prevention of microplastics release • Determine advanced treatment system effectiveness at microplastics removal

Soil treatment systems • Determine effectiveness of good STA with three feet of soil prior to water table or bed rock at

removing microplastics • Evaluate how microplastics may be increasing the development of a biomat and decreasing

infiltration. o Needs in Septage and Bio Solids

Fate and transport of microplastics in bio solids Effect of microplastics on soil organisms and their impact on farm productivity and food safety Alternative method for reduction (incineration or anaerobic digestion).

o Need for Sludge and Microplastics Reduction Coagulation/flocculation/precipitation Micro screening (e.g., drum filters and disc filters)

Questions/Comments: • It sounds like you focused primarily on micro fibers. What about microbeads? Answer: Those were ignored because

they have been banned. • You mentioned natural fibers, even cotton fibers take about six months to break down and wool takes a few years.

Does it matter if it is wool fiber or plastic fiber floating around? Answer: That is a good question. There are no studies on this yet. Comment: The soil will break down the cotton and wool fibers faster due to soil organisms.

• We need to move forward carefully because we do not know the impacts of all of these concerns. Asking people to change their habits (washing machines, clothing, etc.). We will need to think about the best way for approaching this.

• We need to think about impacts. Looking at the impacts of these microplastics in the environment, and how might it impact our food supply or health? We need to pay attention to this research and these results. This is important research. We cannot prioritize until we know more, and reducing is the best approach moving forward at this time.

Persistent, Potential, and Emerging Contaminants (including micro and nanoplastics), Catherine Neuschler, MPCA (WebEx 03:13:00) • This is broader than CECs. It includes:

o Contaminants that are long-lasting in the environment o Contaminants that bio accumulate in the environment o Contaminants that are emerging as a risk (new concerns about known pollutants, or concerns about new

contaminants) o Contaminant impact on endocrine system o Contaminant types (pharmaceuticals, illicit drugs, personal care products, commercial and industrial products, as

well as pesticides)

• The Path from “Emerging” to “Regulated” o Initial Screening: the use of literature, information from other states to try to figure out if a contaminant is likely

to be a human health or environmental concern and if it is likely to occurring Minnesota’s waters. o Monitoring and Impact: identify and quantify the presence of the contaminant o Risk Assessment: understand the exposure and effects; establish some kind of “benchmark” for human health or

environmental impacts o Risk Management: If needed, create regulatory or voluntary programs to reduce exposure and risk

• What is needed to do this Work? o There is a need for sampling and analytical methods (consistent methods) o Regarding microplastics, there is a need to agree on the methods. There is not a lot of research outside of

academia. This is a need and would be a first area of work for state agencies to tackle this issue. o Understanding exposure routes and the mechanisms of the health or environmental impact. Regarding

microplastics, it is largely unknown. Looking into if these microplastics end up in blood and tissue, does the shape of the microplastics matter, does the type of plastic or chemical property impact, and what other chemicals are carried away with the plastics? There is more risk assessment needed.

o The next step would be benchmarks. However, we cannot understand what the levels of a contaminant in our waters mean unless we know what level is harmful. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and the MPCA both work on benchmarks and screening values but these first require knowing the route of exposure and mechanism of impact.

• Summary and Next Steps o Microplastics are a growing concern and are found all over. They are in the very early phase of “emerging” as a

contaminant of concern o The Legislature directed agencies to work cooperatively and “sample surface water, groundwater, including

drinking water sources, and evaluate potential risks from micro plastics and Nano plastics and identify appropriate follow up actions.” Agencies will be working to scope and implement this directive over the next biennium. Key steps will include sampling and analytical methods and review of literature related to risks. They will

work closely with researchers on these issues. Questions/Comments: • There is a lack of studies on the risks of microplastics. There is a need for this research. Response: The studies that

are published often have many mixed results. • Regarding the banned microbeads, what is the overall global impact of these? These impacts need to be researched. • We do not even know how to sample microplastics. • Is anyone at MDH looking into this topic? Answer: They would know who is tracking it. There are some chemists

looking into absorption. There is a work group that is focused on the CECs, so there is work on this topic, but there are so many more CECs that we know the health impact of, so focusing on what we know about versus what we do not know about.

• What is the best practice at this point? Answer: It depends. We do not know which are best. In Japan, they are doing a lot of research on turning plastics into oil and gas. They fuel many power plants with plastic. We do not know if it is better or worse in terms of environmental impacts. That is with macro plastics. It is not completely carbon free either.

• The less waste we have to deal with later would be a good start. • Follow up in the summer or fall regarding this topic. This is currently far reaching with many potential implications. It

would be a good idea to digest the information. In terms of where we need to go, we might need to brainstorm about what would be some good policy implications. Connecting with the agency folks, figuring out what would be useful.

New Business (WebEx 03:36:00) • Cancel June 28 meeting. Next Policy Committee meeting will be July 26. Adjournment (WebEx 03:59:09)

STATEWIDE SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT

JIM ZIEGLER, PROGRAM MANAGER JULY 26, 2019

SSTS PROGRAM – PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

• 537,354 SSTS reported by LGUs in 2017• ~25% of the wastewater in MN

• Minn. Statue 115.55• Partner with Counties, Cities, and Townships

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE CWC POLICY COMMITTEE

¡ In March 2019, the Clean Water Council Policy Committee asked the MPCA for additional information

¡ Cost comparisons of constructing a residential septic system versus connecting to a wastewater treatment facility.

¡ Counties who use Point of Sale

COST COMPARISONS FOR SSTS VS PUBLIC SEWER

System type 20yr Total Cost

SSTS - Trench $7743

SSTS - Mound $11671

Public Sewer (Metro Area) $11827

Public Sewer (Rural) $15768

• All Costs assumed a 300 gpd flow• Smallest design flow for comparison• Equivalent to a 2 bedroom home

• SSTS costs included pumping over 20 years• Public sewer costs did not include hook-up

fees• Factors for existing lots/new lots were not

included (already stubbed in pipe)

POINT OF SALE

¡ Point of Sale illustration by county.

POLICY COMMITTEE – REQUEST FOR SSTS PROGRAM NEEDS

¡ In late 2018, the MPCA created an internal team to look at innovative ways to accelerate the rate of compliance in unsewered areas. This included rules, statutes, policies, funding, and communication.

¡ The next step is to add our outside partners to the team and gather their input.

¡ In early 2019, the CWC policy committee asked the MPCA for recommendations.

¡ While we hope to bring formal recommendations back in the near future, the next few slides outline some of the ideas our internal team considered.

EXPLORE INCREASING GRANT FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR LOW-INCOME HOMEOWNERS

¡ Provide additional funds to the low-income upgrade grant program.

¡ Grant requests exceed the current availability of funds.

¡ Helps counties accelerate compliance

¡ Low income homeowner's have few options for financing new systems.

CURRENT LOW INCOME FIX-UP GRANT

¡ Clean Water Fund: At least $750,000 each year made available to counties for grants to low-income landowners. $40,000 cap per county per year.¡ SSTS must be non-compliant and either Imminent Threat to

Public Health or Failing to Protect Groundwater¡ Homesteaded single family homes or duplexes¡ Homeowner must be low income

¡ Over $6.8 million CWF awarded to counties for low income fixes in fiscal year 13 through fiscal year 19

¡ ~700 Low-income fixes as of April 2018

¡ Over $11.6 million requested

¡ Close to $2 million per year

CURRENT PROGRESS

¡ We have averaged about $1 million for low-income upgrades per year

¡ Approximately $16,000 replacement cost per system for a mound¡ ~63 systems can be fixed per year at 100% grant

¡ ~78 systems can be fixed per year at 80% grant

¡ ~125 systems can be fixed per year at 50% grant

EXPLORE CREATING A STATEWIDE UNSEWERED COMMUNITY FACILITATOR PROGRAM OR POSITION TO ASSIST COMMUNITIES WITH WASTEWATER ISSUES.

¡ Having a statewide Unsewered Community Facilitator would accelerate the rate of compliance for unsewered areas. Facilitators help communities with tasks that are new, foreign, and simply overwhelming to small communities. ¡ Assist communities with understanding their wastewater needs and options for compliance.

¡ Helping the communities understand funding and the best long-term option for each area.

¡ Assist communities with the initial process of applying to the PPL.

¡ Hiring an engineer or consultant to complete a Community Assessment. This might even include interviews and basic information gathering.

SOUTHEAST MINNESOTA WASTEWATER INITIATIVE –CREATING A MODEL FOR THE FACILITATOR ROLE

¡ Often know as the Sewer Squad, the SEMWI worked with over 30 communities to resolve non compliant wastewater.

¡ They helped each community understand the problem, assess all available options, and implement a solution.

¡ Removed an estimated 450,000 gallons per day of raw or partially treated sewage from being released to the environment.

¡ Solutions fit the needs of the community and included;¡ Individual upgrades¡ Cluster Systems¡ Wastewater Treatment Facilities¡ Regionalization.

UNSEWERED COMMUNITIES

¡ Some areas are Incorporated Communities

¡ In a better place to obtain a community solution

¡ More opportunity for state grants

¡ Unincorporated Communities

¡ Not organized

¡ Individual fixes

¡ Very little grant money available

EXPLORE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO ACCELERATE THE RATE OF ATTAINING COMPLIANCE FOR UNSEWERED AREAS.

The MPCA has created an internal team that has been looking at innovative ways to accelerate and assist unsewered communities. The next step is to bring in our outside partners and county representatives, such as ¡ Board of Water and Soil Resources

¡ Public Facilities Authority

¡ University of Minnesota Extension

¡ Minnesota Department of Health

¡ Association of Minnesota Counties

NEXT STEP - BRINGING IT ALL BACK FOR RECCOMENDATIONS

¡ Accelerating the rate of compliance in the remaining unsewered areas is the teams ultimate goal. Thinking outside the box, being creative, and looking at the problem from multiple perspectives will give us some valuable ideas on how to move forward.

¡ Once the joint team has fully explored all the ideas, the MPCA would like to bring the teams recommendations back to the Clean Water Council.

THANK YOU!JIM ZIEGLER 218-846-8102 JIM.ZIEGLER@STATE.MN.US

Southeast Minnesota Wastewater Initiative

Sheila CraigCommunity Wastewater Facilitator

July 26, 2019

Southeast Minnesota Wastewater Initiative

Provide educational and technical assistance to unsewered and under-sewered communities to help them start and complete theirwastewater project.

Background• In 2001 SE MN Water Resources Board

(Joint Powers agreement of 11 SE MN counties) working on feedlots expressed a desire to address wastewater issues with ISTS and unseweredsmall communities

• Met with MPCA & U of M Extension– Implement ISTS educational program – Counties and U of M Extension– Adapt small community model from Blue Earth River Basin Initiative

(BERBI)• Community facilitator(s)• Training• Funding

Initiative Structure• 2002 – Clean Water Grant (319) funding

awarded to the Southeast MN Water Resources Board

• 2 Community Wastewater Facilitators• Advisory Committee to provide project guidance• Administration of project:

– 2002 – 2006 – SE MN Water Resources Board Olmsted Co. as fiscal agent

– 2006 through 2018 - Subcontracted to CannonRiver Watershed Partnership

Started in 2003, continued through 2018

Successive grants allowed facilitators to stay with community projects from start to finish

319 Clean Water Grant awarded through MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) thru 2012

BWSR funding since 2012

Funded by Grants

Advisory/Steering Committee

• Became known as “The Sewer Squad”

•Comprised of: MPCA staff, county septic staff, retired University of MN faculty, volunteers

• Meet quarterly to discuss overall program, projects, and project strategies

Work Elements:• Education –

– “Wastewater 101”– Treatment methods– Potential community structures– Potential funding sources

• Facilitation –– Community task force – Working with professionals

• Cost Share - depending on grant funds available

Where We Worked:

Types of Systems Our Communities Have

Straight Pipes Surfacing

to Ground

Lack of Watertight

tanks

Types of Systems Our Communities Have

Lack of vertical separation

How did the process get started?

• EnforcementMPCAComplaint to the County

• Point of Sale - Homeowner unable to fit a new system on their property

• Environmental Concern

Key Elements

A. Relationships / Community Process

B. Working with Professionals

C. Identifying Potential Solutions

D. Funding

A. Relationships / Community Process

• Wastewater Problems Are Community Problems

• Learn about the community– Wells– Current wastewater systems

• Methods– Community Survey– General Site Evaluations

A. Relationships / Community Process

• Forming a Task Force

• Community Organizational Structure Options- None - Systems are owned by the individual

- Homeowners Association

-Subordinate Service District by Township (M.S. 365A)

-Subordinate Service District by County (M.S. 365 B)

Community Organizational Structure Options• Sanitary District: M.S. Chapter 115 (115.18 – 115.37)

(M.S. = Minnesota State Statute)

• Water and Sewer District: M.S. Chapter 116A

• Lake Improvement District M.S. 103B.501 – 103B.581

• Lake or Homeowner Association M.S. 505

A. Relationships / Community Process

B. Working with Professionals• A community will work with a lot of professionals

during the course of a project • We helped them choose the professionals that serve

their needs and we helped them manage those relationships

• Professionals– Designer / Installer / Engineer / Contractor– Soil Scientist– Lawyer– Surveyor– Bond counsel

B. Working with Professionals• County Professionals

- Planning & Zoning Staff - Septic Staff- County Public Health- Assessor - Recorder - GIS - Highway Department- Auditor- County Attorney

C. Solutions• Promoted looking at a wide range of

solutions, from individual septic systems to “city” sewer and everything in between. – Individually owned, maintained, and operated– Individual septic systems that are owned, operated,

and maintained by the city – Combination of individual septic systems and cluster

systems– Centralized or municipal system, owned by the City or

Township (through SSD)

Criteria for selecting a treatment system

• Cost– Construction– Operation & Maintenance

• Permitting• Land Availability• Level of management• Reliability

C. Solutions

D. Funding• County Ag BMP Loan Funds

• County Loan Funds

• USDA Rural Development

• MN Public Finance Authority

• State of MN - Small Cities/DEED

• SE MN Wastewater Initiative

• Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR)

• Others

TAOPITILEOUTLET

TAOPI

• Task Force formed

A. Relationships/Community Process

B. Working with Professionals• General Site & Soil Evaluation Completed

• Designed by ISTS designer; review by engineer

• Oversight by U of M Onsite Sewage Treatment Staff

• County Assessor and County Recorder

• Lawyer and Bond Counsel

TAOPIC. Solutions• Mound Systems Needed

• Individual Sewage Treatment Systems: 20 homes

• Cluster Treatment System: Shared by two homes

TAOPI

• 50% grant through Small Communities Program• 16% grant through TMDL funds• Remainder in a 1% loan from PFA to City of

Taopi• Payable by homeowner over 10 years by tax

assessment• Rural Development low income grants to 2

homeowners• Permit fees reduced by the county

D. Funding

HOPE

HOPE

A. Relationships / Community Process- Project started many times in the past. None successful.

- Task Force formed

- Difficulty working with the Township

B. Working with Professionals– Numerous changes in engineers

C. Solutions- Best solution determined by what system was feasible

for the available land

- Municipal style system

D. Funding - Both Federal and State funding

- USDA Rural Development, PFA - TMDL & WIF $$s

HOPE

HOPE

Results SEMWI Projects• Helped 25 communities

remove 129 million gallons of untreated sewage annually from streams in SE MN

Southeast Minnesota Wastewater Initiative Raw Sewage Reduction Summary

Projects Completed (as of December 2018) Number of Systems Installed: 1,306 Sewage Treated: 454,090 gallons/day Shallow Wells Sealed: 33 Projects in Process (as of December 2018) Number of Systems: 1,084 Sewage Treated: 443,550 gallons/day Septic System Inventory Projects Assisted Number of Failing Systems Identified: 707 Number Posing Imminent Threat to Human Health: 135 Options used by Communities working with SMWI Individual and cluster septic systems; some in-ground and some mounds Constructed wetland Stabilizations ponds Annexation to nearby city with municipal system New municipal water system; new shared wells New municipal wastewater treatment system Funding Resources Utilized Self-funded County Ag BMP loans Small Community Grants and loans from PFA USDA Rural Development grants and loans Grant from August 2007 funding City Assessment TMDL (PSIG) Grants through PFA Low interest loan funds through PFA

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 1

FY 2020 Clean Water Fund Competitive Grant Policy

From the Board of Water and Soil Resources, State of Minnesota

Version: FY2020

Effective Date: 06/25/2019

Approval: Board Order #19-32

Policy Statement

The Clean Water Fund was established to implement part of Article XI, Section 15, of the Minnesota

Constitution, and Minnesota Statutes §114D with the purpose of protecting, enhancing, and restoring water

quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water sources from degradation.

Applicable Clean Water Fund Programs and Grants

Projects and Practices

Multi-purpose Drainage Management

Reason for the policy

The purpose of this policy is to provide expectations for implementation activities conducted via the Board of

Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Clean Water Fund (CWF) competitive grant program.

BWSR will use grant agreements for assurance of deliverables and compliance with appropriate statutes, rules

and established policies. Willful or negligent disregard of relevant statutes, rules and policies may lead to

imposition of financial penalties or future sanctions on the grant recipient.

The FY 2020 Clean Water Fund Competitive Grants Request for Proposal (RFP) may identify more specific

requirements or criteria when specified by statute, rule or appropriation language. BWSR’s Grants

Administration Manual (http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/grants/manual/) provides the primary framework for

local management of all state grants administered by BWSR.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 2

Program Requirements

1. Local Governmental Unit Eligibility Criteria

Eligible applicants for competitive grants include local governments (counties, watershed districts, watershed

management organizations, soil and water conservation districts, and cities) or local government joint power

boards working under a current State approved and locally adopted local water management plan,

comprehensive watershed management plan or soil and water conservation district (SWCD) comprehensive

plan. Counties in the seven-county metropolitan area are eligible if they have adopted a county groundwater

plan or county comprehensive plan that has been approved by the Metropolitan Council under Minn. Stat.

Chapter 473. Cities in the seven-county metropolitan area are eligible if they have a water plan that has been

approved by a watershed district or a watershed management organization as provided under Minn. Stat.

103B.235. Cities, including those outside of the seven-county metropolitan area, without such plans are

encouraged to work with another eligible local government if interested in receiving grant funds. Local water

plans must be current when the Board approves awards to be eligible to receive grant funds as defined under

the Board’s Local Water Plan Status and Grant Eligibility Policy. Applicants must also be in compliance with all

applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, ordinances, rules, and regulations.

2. Match Requirements

A non-State match equal to at least 25% of the amount of Clean Water Funds requested and/or received is

required, unless specified otherwise by Board action and/or included in a Request for Proposals. Match can be

provided by a landowner, land occupier, local government or other non-State source and can be in the form of

cash or the cash value of services or materials contributed to the accomplishment of grant objectives. Buffer

Implementation grants are exempt from this requirement.

3. Eligible Activities

The primary purpose of activities funded through this program is to restore, protect, and enhance water quality

in lakes, rivers and streams; protect groundwater from degradation; and protect drinking water sources. Eligible

activities must be consistent with a comprehensive watershed management plan, county comprehensive local

water management plan, soil and water conservation district comprehensive plan, metropolitan local water plan

or metropolitan groundwater plan that has been State approved and locally adopted or an approved total

maximum daily load study (TMDL), watershed restoration and protection strategy (WRAPs) document,

groundwater restoration and protection strategy (GRAPs) document, surface water intake plan, or wellhead

protection plan. Local governments may include programs and projects in their grant application that are

derived from an eligible plan of another local government. BWSR may request documentation outlining the

cooperation between the local government submitting the grant application and the local government that has

adopted the plan.

Eligible activities can consist of structural practices and projects; non-structural practices and measures, project

support, grant management and reporting. Technical and engineering assistance necessary to implement these

activities are considered essential and are to be included in the total project or practice cost.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 3

3.1 Effective Life. All structural practices must be designed and maintained for a minimum effective life of

ten years for best management practices and 25 years for capital improvement practices. The beginning

date for a practice’s effective life is the same date final payment is approved and the project is

considered complete. Where questions arise under this section, the effective lifespan of structural

practices and projects shall be defined by current and acceptable design standards or criteria as defined

in Section 3.8.

3.2 Project Assurances. The grantee must provide assurances that the landowner or land occupier will keep

the practice in place for its intended use for the expected lifespan of the practice. Such assurances may

include easements, deed recordings, enforceable contracts, performance bonds, letters of credit, and

termination or performance penalties. BWSR may allow replacement of a practice or project that does

not comply with expected lifespan requirements with a practice or project that provides equivalent

water quality benefits. See also the Projects Assurances section of the Grants Administration Manual.

3.3 Operation, Maintenance and Inspections. Identifying operation and maintenance activities specific to

the installed practices is critical to ongoing performance of installed practices as well as to planning and

scheduling those activities. An operation and maintenance plan must be prepared by designated

technical staff for the life of the practice and be included with the design standards. An inspection

schedule, procedure, and assured access to the practice site shall be included as a component of

maintaining the effectiveness of the practice.

3.4 Technical and Administrative Expenses. Clean Water Funds may be used for actual technical and

administrative expenses to advance project implementation. Eligible expenses include the following

activities: grant administration, site investigations and assessments, design and cost estimates,

construction supervision, and construction inspections. Technical and administrative expenditures must

be appropriately documented according to the Grants Administration Manual.

3.5 Project Support. Eligible activities include community engagement, outreach, equipment and other

activities, which directly support or supplement the goals and outcomes expected with the

implementation of items identified in this section. Refer to guidance within the Grants Administration

Manual for Capital Equipment Purchases.

3.6 Grant Management and Reporting. All grant recipients are required to report on the outcomes,

activities, and accomplishments of Clean Water Fund grants. The grant funds may be used for local grant

management and reporting that are directly related to and necessary for implementing the project or

activity. Applicants who have previously received a grant from BWSR must be in compliance with BWSR

requirements for grantee website and eLINK reporting before grant execution and payment.

3.7 Drinking Water. Both surface water (streams, rivers, and lakes) and ground water (aquifers) can serve as

sources of drinking water. Drinking water projects must be consistent with wellhead protection plans,

protection plans for surface water intakes, strategies for groundwater restoration and protection, or

local water management plans or their equivalents.

3.8 Practice Standards. All practices must be consistent with the Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG), Minnesota Stormwater Manual, or be a professionally

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 4

accepted engineering or ecological practice. Design standards for all practices must include

specifications for operation and maintenance for the effective life of the given practice, including an

inspection schedule and procedure.

Livestock Waste Management Practices. Funding for application of conservation practice components

to improve water quality is limited to: livestock management systems that were constructed before

October 23, 2000, and livestock operations registered with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Database or its equivalent and that are not classified as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

(CAFO) and have less than 500 animal units (AUs), in accordance with Minnesota Rule Chapter 7020.

BWSR reserves the right to deny, postpone or cancel funding where financial penalties related to

livestock waste management violations have been imposed on the operator.

a. Funded projects must be in compliance with standards in MN Rule Chapter 7020 upon

completion.

b. Eligible practices and project components must meet all applicable local, State, and federal

standards and permitting requirements.

c. Eligible practices are limited to best management practices listed by the MN USDA-NRCS.

(www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/mn/programs/financial/eqip/?cid=nrcs142p2_0235

13)

d. Feedlot roof structure is an eligible practice with the following payment limitation: The

maximum grant for a feedlot roof structure is not to exceed $100,000. Funding is not eligible for

projects already receiving flat rate payment equaling or exceeding this amount from the NRCS

or other State grant funds.

e. Feedlot relocation is an eligible practice, with the following conditions:

1) The existing eligible feedlot must be permanently closed in accordance with local and

State requirements,

2) Payment Limitation: The maximum grant for a feedlot relocation is not to exceed

$100,000. Funding is not eligible for projects already receiving flat rate payment

equaling or exceeding this amount from the NRCS or other State grant funds.

3) The existing and relocated livestock waste management systems sites are considered

one project for grant funding.

Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS)

a. SSTS project landowners must meet low income thresholds. Applicants are strongly encouraged

to use existing income guidelines from U.S. Rural Development as the basis for their definition of

low income.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 5

b. Only identified imminent threat to public health systems (ITPHS) are eligible for grants funds,

except as provided under c.

c. Proposed community wastewater treatment systems involving multiple landowners are eligible

for funding, but must be listed on the MPCA’s Project Priority List (PPL) and have a Community

Assessment Report (CAR) or facilities plan [Minn. Rule 7077.0272] developed prior to the

application deadline. For community wastewater system applications that include ITPHS,

systems that fail to protect groundwater are also eligible.

d. In an unsewered area that is connecting into a sewer line to a municipal waste water treatment

plant (WWTP), the costs associated with connecting the home to the sewer line is eligible for

funding if the criteria in b. and c. above are met.

3.9 Non-structural Practices and Measures Non-structural practices and activities that supplement, or

exceed current minimum State standards or procedures for protection, enhancement, and restoration

of water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water sources

from degradation are eligible. Non-structural vegetative practices must follow the Native Vegetation

Establishment and Enhancement Guidelines.

http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/native_vegetation/seeding_guidelines.pdf.

a. In-lake or in-channel treatment. Best management practices such as rough fish management,

vegetation management, lake draw-down and alum treatments that have been identified as an

implementation activity are eligible. A feasibility study that meets minimal requirements as

defined by BWSR must be completed prior to applying for funding and the report uploaded to

eLINK as part of the grant application. Eligible costs apply only to initial costs for design and

implementation. All subsequent applications and treatments under this subsection are

considered to be Operations and Maintenance expenses that are a local responsibility.

b. Incentives. Incentives may be used to help landowners mitigate risk to install or adopt land

management practices that improve or protect water quality. Incentive payments should be

reasonable and justifiable, supported by grant recipient policy, consistent with prevailing local

conditions, and must be based on established standards. BWSR reserves the right to review and

approve incentive payment rates established by grant recipient policy.

Duration. Incentives to install or adopt land management practices must have a minimum

duration of 3 years with a goal of ongoing landowner adoption unless otherwise approved

by BWSR. Any projects proposing incentives other than 3-years must be reviewed by BWSR

staff and approved by the Assistant Director of Regional Operations prior to work plan

approval.

4. Ineligible Activities

The following activities are ineligible for these funds. The Clean Water Fund Competitive RFP may identify program specific ineligible activities.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 6

4.1 Activities that do not have a primary benefit of water quality.

4.2 Routine and/or baseline water quality monitoring.

4.3 Household water conservation appliances and water fixtures.

4.4 Wastewater treatment with the exception of Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems.

4.5 Municipal drinking water supply facilities or individual drinking water treatment systems.

4.6 Stormwater conveyances that collect and move runoff, but do not provide water quality treatment

benefit.

4.7 Replacement, realignment or creation of bridges, trails or roads.

4.8 Aquatic plant harvesting

4.9 Routine maintenance or repair of best management practices, capital equipment and infrastructure

within the effective life of existing practices or projects.

4.10 Feedlots

a. Feedlot expansions beyond state registered number of animal units, with exception of activities under

section 3.8 Livestock Waste Management Practices.

b. Slats placed on top of manure storage structures.

4.11 Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS):

a. Small community wastewater treatment systems serving over 10,000 gallons per day with a soil

treatment system, and

b. A small community wastewater treatment system that discharges treated sewage effluent directly to

surface waters without land treatment.

4.12 Fee title land acquisition or easement costs, unless specifically allowed. If not specifically allowed, land

acquisition and easement costs can count toward the required match if directly associated with the

project and incurred within the grant period.

4.13 Buffers that are required by law (including Drainage Law and Buffer Law).

5. Technical Expertise

The grantee has the responsibility to ensure that the designated technical staff have the appropriate technical

expertise, skills and training for their assigned role(s). See also the Technical Quality Assurances section of the

Grants Administration Manual.

5.1 Technical Assistance Provider. Grantees must identify the technical assistance provider(s) for the

practice or project and their credentials for providing this assistance. The technical assistance

provider(s) must have appropriate credentials for practice investigation, design, and construction.

Credentials can include conservation partnership Job Approval Authority (JAA), also known as technical

approval authority; applicable professional licensure; reputable vendor with applicable expertise and

liability coverage; or other applicable credentials, training, and/or experience.

5.2 BWSR Review. BWSR reserves the right to review the qualifications of all persons providing technical

assistance and review the technical project design if a recognized standard is not available.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 7

6. Practice or Project Construction and Sign-off

Grant recipients shall verify that the practice or project was properly installed and completed according to

the plans and specifications, including technically approved modifications, prior to authorization for

payment.

7. BWSR Grant Work Plan, Reporting and Reconciliation Requirements

BWSR staff is authorized to develop grant agreements, requirements and processes for work plans and project outcomes reporting, closeouts, and fiscal reconciliations. All grantees must follow the Grants Administration Manual policy and guidance. In the event there is a violation of the terms of the grant agreement, BWSR will enforce the grant agreement and evaluate appropriate actions, up to and including repayment of grant funds at a rate up to 100% of the grant agreement.

The grantee board is the authority and has the responsibility to approve the expenditure of funds within their own organization. The approval or denial of expenditures of funds must be documented in the Grantee Board’s meeting minutes.

BWSR recommends all contracts be reviewed by the grant recipient’s legal counsel.

Grant reporting, fiscal management, and administration requirements are the responsibility of the grant recipient.

History

This policy was originally created in 2010 and is updated annually for each fiscal year of funding.

Contact

For Clean Water Programs: Marcey Westrick, Clean Water Coordinator

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 1

FY 2018 Watershed-Based Funding Pilot Program

Policy

From the Board of Water and Soil Resources, State of Minnesota

Version: FY2018

Effective Date: 12/20/2017

Approval: Board Resolution #17-96

Policy Statement

The Clean Water Fund was established to implement part of Article XI, Section 15, of the Minnesota

Constitution, and Minnesota Statutes §114D with the purpose of protecting, enhancing, and restoring water

quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water sources from degradation.

Applicable Clean Water Fund Programs and Grants

Watershed-based Funding Pilot Program

Reason for the policy

The purpose of this policy is to provide expectations for implementation activities conducted via the Board of

Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Clean Water Fund (CWF) Watershed-based Funding Pilot program as defined

by the Clean Water Fund appropriation under Laws of Minnesota 2017, Chapter 91, Article 2, Section 7 (a).

$4,875,000 the first year and $4,875,000 the second year are for a pilot program to provide performance-based

grants to local government units. The grants may be used to implement projects that protect, enhance, and

restore surface water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams; protect groundwater from degradation; and protect

drinking water sources. Projects must be identified in a comprehensive watershed plan developed under the One

Watershed, One Plan or metropolitan surface water management frameworks or groundwater plans. Grant

recipients must identify a non-state match and may use other legacy funds to supplement projects funded under

this paragraph.

BWSR will use grant agreements for assurance of deliverables and compliance with appropriate statutes, rules

and established policies. Willful or negligent disregard of relevant statutes, rules and policies may lead to

imposition of financial penalties or future sanctions on the grant recipient.

BWSR’s Grants Administration Manual (http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/grants/manual/) provides the primary

framework for local management of all state grants administered by BWSR.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 2

Program Requirements

1. Local Governmental Unit Eligibility Criteria

In the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, eligible recipients through this policy include local

governments (counties, watershed districts, watershed management organizations, soil and water conservation

districts, and municipalities1) having a current state approved and locally adopted: watershed management plan

required under §103B.231, county groundwater plan authorized under §103B.255, or soil and water

conservation district comprehensive plan under Minnesota statutes §103C.331, Subd. 11 who have partnered

within a county boundary to develop a joint work plan. The BWSR reserves the right for the Executive Director

to determine if the partnership is sufficient to meet the goals of the pilot program. Disputes to this decision may

be brought to the BWSR Central Region Committee.

For areas outside of the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, eligible recipients include partnerships of

local governments (counties, soil and water conservation districts, watershed management organizations,

watershed districts and other local governments) that have a current state approved and locally adopted

comprehensive watershed management plan authorized under Minnesota statutes §103B.101, Subd. 14 or

§103B.801 and a formal agreement to implement this plan together. Local governments within the partnership

that have not adopted the state approved comprehensive watershed management plan cannot directly receive

these funds; however, implementation may still occur with these funds in the geographic area of that local

government by another entity within the partnership.

All recipients must be in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, ordinances, rules,

and regulations. Recipients who have previously received a grant from BWSR must be in compliance with BWSR

requirements for grantee website and eLINK reporting before grant execution and payment.

2. Match Requirements

A non-State match equal to at least 10% of the amount of the Watershed-Based Funding received is required.

Match can be provided by a landowner, land occupier, private organizations, local government or other non-

State sources and can be in the form of cash or the cash value of services or materials contributed to the

accomplishment of grant objectives.

3. Eligible Activities

The primary purpose of activities funded through this program is to implement projects that protect, enhance,

and restore surface water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams; protect groundwater from degradation; and

protect drinking water sources. Eligible activities must be identified in the state approved, locally adopted

comprehensive watershed management plan developed under Minnesota statutes §103B.101, Subd. 14 or

§103B.801, watershed management plan required under §103B.231, or county groundwater plan authorized

under §103B.255 and have a primary benefit towards water quality. Activities must be first submitted through a

1 Municipalities (cities and townships) in the seven-county metropolitan area are eligible if they have a water plan that has been

approved by a watershed district or a watershed management organization as provided under Minn. Stat. 103B.235.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 3

work plan that will be reviewed by BWSR. The work plan must be approved by BWSR prior to funds being

distributed.

Eligible activities can consist of structural practices and projects; non-structural practices and measures,

program and project support, and grant management and reporting. Technical and engineering assistance

necessary to implement these activities are considered essential and are eligible to be included. Activities that

result in multiple benefits are strongly encouraged.

3.1 Practice Standards. All practices must be consistent with the Natural Resource Conservation Service

(NRCS) Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG), Minnesota Stormwater Manual, or be professionally

accepted engineering or ecological practices. Design standards for all practices must include

specifications for operation and maintenance for the effective life of the given practice, including an

inspection schedule and procedure.

3.2 Effective Life. All practices must be designed and maintained for a minimum effective life of ten years

for best management practices and 25 years for capital improvement practices. The beginning date for

a practice’s effective life is the same date final payment is approved and the project is considered

complete. Where questions arise under this section, the effective lifespan of structural practices and

projects shall be defined by current and acceptable design standards or criteria as defined in Section 3.1.

3.3 Project Assurances. The grantee must provide assurances that land owners or land occupiers receiving

this funding will keep the practice in place for its intended use for the expected lifespan of the practice.

Such assurances may include easements, deed recordings, enforceable contracts, performance bonds,

letters of credit, and termination or performance penalties. BWSR may allow replacement of a practice

or project that does not comply with expected lifespan requirements with a practice or project that

provides equivalent water quality benefits. See also the Projects Assurances section of the Grants

Administration Manual.

3.4 Operation, Maintenance and Inspections. Identifying operation and maintenance activities specific to

the installed practices is critical to ongoing performance of installed practices as well as to planning and

scheduling those activities. An operation and maintenance plan must be prepared by designated

technical staff for the life of the practice and be included with the design standards. An inspection

schedule, procedure, and assured access to the practice site shall be included as a component of

maintaining the effectiveness of the practice.

3.5 Technical and Administrative Expenses. Clean Water Funds may be used for actual technical and

administrative expenses to advance plan implementation. Eligible expenses include the following

activities: grant administration, site investigations and assessments, design and cost estimates,

construction supervision, and construction inspections. Technical and administrative expenditures must

be appropriately documented according to the Grants Administration Manual.

3.6 Grant Management and Reporting. All grant recipients are required to report on the outcomes,

activities, and accomplishments of Clean Water Fund grants. The grant funds may be used for local grant

management and reporting that are directly related to and necessary for implementing the project or

activity.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 4

3.7 Livestock Waste Management Practices. Funding for application of conservation practice components

to improve water quality is limited to: livestock management systems that were constructed before

October 23, 2000, and livestock operations registered with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Database or its equivalent and are not classified as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)

and have less than 500 animal units (AUs), in accordance with Minnesota Rule Chapter 7020.

BWSR reserves the right to deny, postpone or cancel funding where financial penalties related to

livestock waste management violations have been imposed on the operator.

a. Funded projects must be in compliance with standards in MN Rule Chapter 7020 upon completion.

b. Eligible practices and project components must meet all applicable local, State, and federal

standards and permitting requirements.

c. Eligible practices are limited to best management practices listed by the MN USDA-NRCS.

(www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/mn/programs/financial/eqip/?cid=nrcs142p2_023513)

d. Feedlot roof structure is an eligible practice with the following payment limitation: The maximum

grant for a feedlot roof structure is not to exceed $100,000. Funding is not eligible for projects

already receiving flat rate payment equaling or exceeding this amount from the NRCS or other State

grant funds.

e. Feedlot relocation is an eligible practice, with the following conditions:

1) The existing eligible feedlot must be permanently closed in accordance with local and State

requirements,

2) Payment Limitation: The maximum grant for a feedlot relocation is not to exceed $100,000.

Funding is not eligible for projects already receiving flat rate payment equaling or exceeding

this amount from the NRCS or other State grant funds.

3) The existing and relocated livestock waste management systems sites are considered one

project for grant funding.

3.8 Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems

a. Only identified imminent threat to public health systems (ITPHS) are eligible for grants funds, except

as provided under b. Project landowners must meet low income thresholds. Low income

guidelines from U.S Rural Development are strongly encouraged as the basis for the definition of

low income.

b. Proposed community wastewater treatment systems involving multiple landowners are eligible for

funding, but must be listed on the MPCA’s Project Priority List (PPL) and have a Community

Assessment Report (CAR) or facilities plan [Minn. Rule 7077.0272] developed prior to work plan

submittal. For community wastewater system applications that include ITPHS, systems that fail to

protect groundwater are also eligible.

c. In an unsewered area that is connecting into a sewer line to a municipal waste water treatment

plant (WWTP), the costs associated with connecting the home to the sewer line is eligible for

funding if the criteria in a. and b. above are met.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 5

3.9 Multipurpose Drainage Management. Proposed activities must be conducted adjacent to, on, or within

the watershed of a priority Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E Drainage System(s). Following is a list of

eligible conservation practices and activities.

a. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Code 410 Grade Stabilization Structure: When proposing

side inlet structures in combination with a continuous berm along a Chapter 103E drainage ditch,

eligibility is limited to the side inlet pipes and construction of an average 3 ft. high (above existing

ground) berm.

b. CPS Code 412 Grassed Waterway

c. CPS Code 638 Water and Sediment Control Basin

d. Open tile inlet replacement: Replacement of existing open tile inlets with water quality

improvement inlets (e.g. perforated riser, dense pattern tile, or gravel inlet) in accordance with

NRCS CPS Code 606 Subsurface Drain, as applicable, to reduce sediment entering a Chapter 103E

drainage system via subsurface drainage tile.

e. Storage and Treatment Wetland Restoration: This activity requires a perpetual flowage and

conservation easement to be held by the Chapter 103E drainage system.

f. A perpetual flowage and conservation easement must be approved by BWSR for entire contiguous

storage and treatment wetland restoration(s) on, or within the watershed of, a Chapter 103E

drainage system. Total payment rates, including match shall not exceed Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM)

rates. The perpetual flowage and conservation easement must include an upland buffer of perennial

native vegetation around the wetland area having a minimum width of 30 feet and average width of

50 feet, except where the wetland boundary is adjacent to a road right-of-way or property

boundary, as approved by BWSR. The maximum upland buffer to increase multipurpose benefits or

square off the easement area is limited to a 1:1 upland to wetland area ratio for each wetland, as

approved by BWSR. Payable non-cropland buffer acres are limited to 20% of the total buffer acres.

Design and construction components necessary for wetland and upland buffer restoration are

eligible.

g. NRCS Conservation Activity Plan (CAP) 130 Drainage Water Management Plan: The CAP 130 can

include controlled subsurface drainage, denitrifying bioreactor, and saturated buffer components.

The plan must be developed by a Technical Service Provider (TSP) certified in the NRCS Tech

Regulation for CAP 130.

h. CPS Code 587 Structure for Water Control:

i. CPS Code 554 Drainage Water Management, Implementation/Operation: A CAP 130 is required. For

areas where controlled subsurface drainage structures have been installed to manage water levels,

NRCS rates must be applied.

j. CPS Code 604 Saturated Buffer:

k. Code 605 Denitrifying Bioreactor:

3.10 Non-Structural Practices and Measures. Non-structural practices and activities that supplement, or

exceed current minimum State standards or procedures for protection, enhancement, and restoration

of water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams or that protect groundwater from degradation are eligible.

Non-structural vegetative practices must follow the Native Vegetation Establishment and Enhancement

Guidelines: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/native_vegetation/seeding_guidelines.pdf.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 6

a. In-lake or in-channel treatment. Best management practices such as rough fish management, lake

drawdown and alum treatments that have been identified as an implementation activity in a TMDL

study or Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies document are allowable. A feasibility

study must be completed, reviewed and approved by BWSR staff prior to funds being spent on these

activities. Eligible costs apply only to initial costs for design and implementation. All subsequent

applications and treatments under this subsection are considered to be Operations and

Maintenance expenses that are a local responsibility.

b. Incentives. Incentives may be used to encourage landowners to install or adopt land management

practices that improve or protect water quality. Incentive payments and enhanced protection

measures should be reasonable and justifiable, supported by grant recipient policy, consistent with

prevailing local conditions, and must be accomplished using established standards. All incentivized

practices or procedures must have a minimum duration of at least 3 years with a goal of long-term

landowner adoption. BWSR reserves the right to review and approve incentive payment rates

established by grant recipient policy. Any projects proposing incentives for more than 3-years must

be reviewed by BWSR staff and approved by the Executive Director prior to work plan approval.

c. Project Support. Eligible activities include community engagement, education and outreach,

equipment and other activities, which directly support or supplement the goals and outcomes

expected with the implementation of items identified in section 3.0 above. Refer to guidance within

the Grants Administration Manual for Capital Equipment Purchases.

d. Easements. Proposed use of easements and payment amounts must be reviewed and approved by

BWSR staff prior to expenditure of grant funds to acquire an easement. Total payment rates for

perpetual easements, including match shall not exceed Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) rates.

4. Ineligible Activities

The following activities will not be considered:

a. Activities that do not have a primary benefit of water quality

b. Stormwater conveyances that collect and move runoff, but do not provide water quality treatment

benefit

c. Replacement, realignment or creation of trails or roads

d. Municipal wastewater treatment

e. Municipal drinking water supply facilities or individual drinking water treatment systems

f. Routine maintenance activities within the effective life of existing practices or projects

g. General maintenance and repair of capital equipment

h. Activities having the primary purpose of water quality monitoring

i. Livestock Waste Management Practices: Practices and activities that are not listed in the USDA

NRCS-EQIP docket or are not included in the USDA NRCS eFOTG

j. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS):

1) Small community wastewater treatment systems serving over 10,000 gallons per day with a

soil treatment system, and

2) A small community wastewater treatment system that discharges treated sewage effluent

directly to surface waters without land treatment.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 7

k. Drain tile, except for tile outlets required for water and sediment control basins, tile required to

make eligible drainage water management practices function, and dense pattern tile to replace

open tile inlet(s)

l. Ditching except if needed for the creation of a storage and treatment wetland restoration

m. Back-flow preventing flap gates on side inlet structure pipes where a system-wide analysis has not

been completed

n. Bridges

o. Fee title land acquisition (costs may count towards match)

p. Contribution to a contingency or reserve fund that extends beyond the grant agreement period

q. Payment(s) to an equipment replacement fund

5. Technical Expertise

The grantee has the responsibility to ensure that the designated technical staff have the appropriate technical

expertise, skills and training for their assigned role(s). See also the Technical Quality Assurances section of the

Grants Administration Manual.

5.1 Technical Assistance Provider. Grantees must identify the technical assistance provider(s) for the

practice or project and their credentials for providing this assistance. The technical assistance

provider(s) must have appropriate credentials for practice investigation, design, and construction.

Credentials can include conservation partnership Job Approval Authority (JAA), also known as technical

approval authority; applicable professional licensure; reputable vendor with applicable expertise and

liability coverage; or other applicable credentials, training, and/or experience.

5.2 BWSR Review. BWSR reserves the right to review the qualifications of all persons providing technical

assistance and review the technical project design if a recognized standard is not available.

6. Practice or Project Construction and Sign-off

Local governments receiving these funds shall verify that the practice or project was properly installed and

completed according to the plans and specifications, including technically approved modifications, prior to

authorization for payment.

7. BWSR Grant Work Plan, Reporting, and Reconciliation Requirements

BWSR staff is authorized to develop grant agreements, requirements and processes for work plans and project

outcomes reporting, closeouts, and fiscal reconciliations. All grantees must follow the Grants Administration

Manual policy and guidance. BWSR recognizes that as a pilot program activities may be identified after the work

plan is approved. Work plan revisions must follow the BWSR Grants Administration Manual procedures for

Grant Agreement Amendments and Work Plan Revisions.

In the event there is a violation of the terms of the grant agreement, BWSR will enforce the grant agreement

and evaluate appropriate actions, up to and including repayment of grant funds at a rate up to 150% of the

grant agreement.

www.bwsr.state.mn.us 8

8. Performance

Watershed-based funding will be based upon accountability and performance in achieving measurable progress

towards elements of the comprehensive watershed management plan. As a performance-based grant, BWSR

reserves the right to modify, suspend, or cancel the grant agreement at any time if work under the grant

agreement is found by BWSR to be unsatisfactory. Performance under this program may impact future

watershed-based funding allocations.

A future performance measure under consideration for these grants is the amount or percent leveraged funds;

therefore, grantees are encouraged to report all funds leveraged above and beyond the required match.

History

This version is the first for this policy

Contact

For Clean Water Programs: Marcey Westrick, Clean Water Coordinator