New Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda · 2014. 8. 26. · Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda ....

Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda July 21st, 2014

9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. MPCA Board Room (Lower Level) 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul

9:00 Regular Clean Water Council (Council) Business

· Convene Full Council · Comments/additions to the agenda and approve agenda · Approve 6/16/14 meeting minutes · Council introductions and updates · Conflict of Interest

9:30 Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) update - Pat Flowers

Discuss and receive feedback on the BOC’s draft general FY16-17 Clean Water Fund recommendations. Discuss letter from Metro Cities.

11:30 Lunch 12:00 Policy Ad Hoc Committee update – Pam Blixt, Warren Formo, Gaylen Reetz, Doug Thomas Break into small groups to discuss potential policy recommendations on riparian buffers and

altered hydrology. 1:45 New Business

· Water Reuse – Council interest in this upcoming meeting topic. · Overview of August 17-18 Clean Water Council meeting and field tour.

2:00 Adjournment 2:00 CWC Steering Team

Steering Team discusses upcoming meeting topics and other items. The next Clean Water Council Meeting will be held on Sunday, August 17th in Moorhead, MN followed by a field tour in the Red River Basin on August 18th.

cpenny

Typewritten Text

cpenny

Typewritten Text

cpenny

Typewritten Text

wq-cwc2-14g

1

Clean Water Council Meeting Minutes

Monday, July 21st, 2014 9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

MPCA Lower Level Board Rooms 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul

Meeting Summary: The Clean Water Council’s (Council) Budget and Outcomes Committee presented their draft general FY16-17 Clean Water Fund recommendations to the Council for discussion. The Council passed a motion to allow the BOC, after they update their draft FY16-17 CWF recommendations at their August 1st meeting, to allow this information to be shared for stakeholder input. The Council discussion draft policy recommendations for riparian buffers and altered hydrology. Staff noted that the Council’s August 17th meeting will be held in Moorhead, MN followed by a field tour of the Red River Basin on August 18th. Council Members present: Marilyn Bernhardson, Pam Blixt, Sharon Doucette, Tannie Eshenaur, Patrick Flowers, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Michael McKay, Gene Merriam, Jason Moeckel, Senator David Osmek, Gaylen Reetz, Todd Renville, Sandy Rummel, Senator Bev Scalze, Louis Smith, Deb Swackhamer, Doug Thomas, John Underhill, Matthew Wohlman, and Representative Barb Yarusso Council Members absent: Gary Burdorf, Warren Formo, Keith Hanson, Bradley Kalk, Victoria Reinhardt, Patrick Shea, and Representative Paul Torkelson Regular Clean Water Council Business · Council Chair Mike McKay convened the Council. Council members approved the July agenda and

the June meeting minutes. There were no conflicts of interests noted from Council members. Clean Water Council Member and Staff Updates · Council members introduced themselves and provided updates. · Deb Swackhamer has officially stepped down as co-director of the University of Minnesota’s (UMN)

Water Resources Center is still faculty at UMN for at least one more year. · Jason Moeckel mentioned that the MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has found two

invasive carp in Pool 2 of the Mississippi River. This is the furthest north the fish have been discovered. The gravid (full of eggs) female fish were of two varieties: silver and bighead carp. The DNR is currently trying to determine the age of the fish. It is unknown if the high water has anything to do with the location of the fish.

· Senator Osmek was pleased to see that today’s agenda included discussion about infiltration and inflow (I/I). He noted that there is still high water in Lake Minnetonka.

· Gaylen Reetz, MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), mentioned that MPCA’s Environmental Data Access web page has received over 250,000 page views in the past year. The water web pages have received more than 1.25 million views in the same period.

· Tannie Eshenaur asked members to look over the handout on water reuse that will be discussed today at 1:45 p.m.

· Staff noted that the Clean Water Fund was being audited by the Office of the Legislative Auditor. · Staff mentioned logistics for the Council’s meeting and the field tour on August 17-18 in Moorhead,

MN. Note that on August 17th, there will be a welcome reception at 4 p.m. followed by a Red River Basin presentation, dinner, and then the regular Council meeting. On August 18th, a bus will take members on a field tour. Thank you to Doug Thomas, MN Board of Water Resources (BWSR) for helping coordinate this tour.

2

· Audience members introduced themselves. Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) update - Pat Flowers · Council members were provided a spreadsheet of BOC’s draft general FY16-17 Clean Water Fund

(CWF) recommendations (e.g. increase, decrease, or steady compared with FY14-15 funding). The Council’s Guiding Principles and Funding Priorities formed the basis of these recommendations. Council members were also provided with a handout that summarizes all of the agency responses to BOC questions over the past couple of months.

· The BOC is seeking approval from Council members to send these general recommendations out for stakeholder review. Again, these would be general recommendations and not include dollar amounts at this time. BOC will provide draft funding amounts to the Council in September. At this time, CWF agencies have provided the BOC with draft CWF FY16-17 ranges but they may be able to provide firmer numbers in the next month.

· There are 75 CWF programs to make recommendations on. There are a number of CWF programs where the BOC and agencies agree and we will not spend time on those today. There 9 new programs proposed by agencies that need discussion and ~29 programs that the BOC and agencies do not agree. Note that agencies haven’t put together a final package yet so their recommendations do not constitute a proposal by the Executive Branch at this time as the lower ends of their ranges are higher than the FY16-17 funds available.

· BOC is meeting August 1st. BOC would like the Council to allow the draft recommendations to go out for stakeholder review as a BOC document. Today, the BOC would like to get feedback on these items from Council members. It is not practical to discuss each program in depth today – this is a work in progress. This will go out for stakeholder review as BOC recommendations.

Activity #22 - Inflow & Infiltration (I/I) Reduction Program · Note that the Council received a letter from Metro Cities recommending $3M in FY16-17 CWFs to

help fix private systems with I/I problems. · BOC suggested that there could be a statewide I/I program that could be run through the Public

Facilities Authority (PFA) similar to the Met Council’s I/I program. · PFA responded in an email that they typically use CWFs for public infrastructure projects, not private

systems. · But the recent sewage problems have been with the private systems. This should not be based on

low income, but targeted to problem areas. Funding for this program should be increased. There should be some manner of evaluation for where the money goes and not just put grants out there.

· Duluth had a similar program and didn’t limit it to low income homeowners. · Would supplement/substitute be an issue for CWFs to PFA for this work? No, because it would

supplement current efforts. Could wait to see if the federal changes to the State Revolving Fund would allow use of these funds for private systems.

· It sounds as though the funding (e.g. CWFs and bonding) for Met Council this is not meeting the needs – that the I/I problems exceed the funds.

· How extensive is the problem in greater Minnesota? Not sure. Older cities have problems too. · Met Council administers two grant programs. CWFs go to Cities to administer so can be used by

property owners. · This is a statewide problem and should be funded statewide. · BOC may recommend steady funding for the Met Council program. Met Council noted the

Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) recommended the decrease, not the Met Council. BOC may also propose additional funding for a statewide I/I program.

Activity #1 - Continue monitoring & assessment efforts to meet the 10-year cycle (MPCA) · BOC needs to understand why agencies are requesting an increase. Note agency responses are in

Council meeting packets, but BOC has not had time to discuss these.

3

Activity #8 - Lake Superior Beach Monitoring (MDH) · BOC is not recommending any funding because it should be statewide. · Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) staff noted that this beach monitoring may impact Lake

Superior but the techniques are not exclusive to Lake Superior. The data provides source tracking and helps predict and prevent illnesses.

· How has the information been applied statewide? We are still in the first few years of source tracking. In the Twin Cities Metro, many beaches are monitored through local entities, but they can use our modeling and scientific techniques for other beach monitoring programs.

Activity #9 - Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (includes TMDL development) (MPCA) · MPCA is requesting an increase but this would be for cost of living (e.g. inflation, salaries, insurance,

etc.). This would not increase their efforts. If this is a small increase, may want to capture this as “steady” instead and add a note that there may be small increases. Note there a number of these cost of living increases requested from agencies. BOC will review these and make a recommendation.

Activity #21 - Metro Area Water Supply Sustainability Support (Met Council) · BOC recommends no funding because it is not just a Metro issue and should be a focus statewide. · Note that Met Council represents seven different metropolitan counties and are in the forefront of

some these issues and need funding for these projects. · All cities should have access to help for managing their water. · Some of what is described in this is being done by DNR statewide. Not everything that is laid out

here is applicable statewide. There are more infrastructure issues in the Metro. The fact is 50% of Minnesota’s population lives in the Metro so water supply is important.

· MDH stated that these efforts are valuable as they work with wellhead protection and water supply. Activity #15 - Nitrate in Groundwater (MDA) · MN Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) recommended increase is connected to the new nitrogen

fertilizer plan. Note that nitrogen is a major drinking water contaminant. Activity #23 - Drinking Water Contaminants of Emerging Concern Program (MDH) · MDH is recommending an increase and the justification is in the Council’s packet. BOC still needs to

discuss this item. Activity #27 - Groundwater Virus Monitoring Plan (MDH) · MDH is recommending a decrease and the BOC recommends no funding. · Note that FY15 funding led to an investigation of virus threats for non-chlorinated water sources.

The goal of the first proposal was to assess whether specific viruses are threats to people’s health. · This program would take this information and further develop tools that will be able to be used in

the future to assess the risks across the state. If a virus does pose a health threat, then the proposal is to develop tools to assess the risks across the state. There was not enough funding to complete these microbial contamination risk assessments and they are important.

Activity #29 - Great Lakes restoration project (MPCA) · Agencies were uncertain as to a funding level because federal matching funds are not known at this

time. BOC recommends an increase as the restoration on the St. Louis River is reaching a critical point and these funds leverage matching funds.

Activity #37 - Surface and drinking water protection/restoration grants (Projects and Practices) (BWSR) · Requests far exceed funding available. BOC is recommending an increase because these are on-the-

ground projects with clean water outcomes. Meets Council’s Guiding Principles and Funding Priorities.

Activity #38 - Grants to Watersheds with Multiyear Plans (Targeted Watershed Program) (BWSR) · BOC is recommending an increase – this is multi-year funding with clean water outcomes.

4

Activity #42 - Permanent conservation easements - riparian buffers (BWSR) · BOC recommends an increase, BWSR recommends steady funding. Again, this is on-the-ground

water quality protection. Activity #53 - Wastewater Treatment System Design & Technical Assistance (MPCA) · BOC recommends no funding because municipal and industrial entities already have research staff. Activity #61 - Geologic Atlas with Dept. of Natural Resources (UMN) · University of Minnesota doesn’t make a request from the executive branch but they split the cost

with the DNR. They have funding through 2018 so don’t need additional funding this biennium. Activity #10 - Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (DNR) · BOC asked why they want an increase. It is for cost of living and agency response is in the Council’s

handout. Activity #18 - Aquifer Monitoring for Drinking Water Protection (DNR) · The agencies are requesting a steady funding level. BOC asked for clarification about how the FTEs

were historically funded because they are concerned about whether this is substitute or supplement.

Activity #26 - Well Sealing Cost Share (MDH) · MDH is requesting an increase, but BOC is unsure. Activity #55 - Academic Research/Evaluation (MDA) · BOC had questions about how the research results have been applied and what the benefits were to

clean water. Agency response is in Council packets. Activity #63 - Legislative Coordinating Commission (LCC) · The ICT will not provide a recommendation, but it is a statutory requirement. Note the following activities would all be new programs and are proposed by CWF agencies. Agencies are invited to the August 1st BOC meeting to explain more about these programs and answer questions. Activity #72 - Water demand reduction grant program Pilot (Met Council) · This would be a new program. Questions about if long-term funding would be needed for this

program and what the long-term outcome would be. If this would supplement existing efforts. · Agency recommends around $1M for the biennium. It does meet the Council’s Guiding Principles

and Funding Priorities. BOC has more questions about the details of this program. Activity #73 - Water Reuse (MDH) · This would be a new program. Similar questions as above. · There are issues with construction, building, and plumbing codes. The MN Water Sustainability

Framework includes this strategy. There is potential to reuse water to reduce demand on groundwater and drinking water sources. Agencies have a work group that started to identify these issues, but it would be beneficial to comprehensively look at the rules and regulations across the state and better understand the regulatory hurdles. Another aspect is the potential health risks for reusing stormwater and treated wastewater.

· Patrick Shea wasn’t able to attend today’s meeting, but provided information that St. Cloud has a reuse system designed and ready to be installed, but they lack the financial motivation to install it like many cities.

Activity #74 - Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) (MDH) · This would be a new program. This is the groundwater version of WRAPS and fits in with One

Watershed, One Plan. MDH is requesting around $900K for the biennium. These efforts would enhance local capacity to work on groundwater protection in these areas.

Activity #75 - Vegetative Cover and Soil Health (MDA) · This would be a new program. MDA is looking at how to market environmentally protective crops.

Would try to incorporate lower nitrogen use crops. This is still in the development stage.

5

· There are other initiatives going on right now such as Forever Green – is MDA working with them? No, but they could be. MDA is requesting around $350K for the biennium.

Activity #76 - Riparian Buffer Information (DNR) · This would be a new program. This would be collecting color infrared imagery to analyze buffer

conditions. DNR is requesting around $650K for the biennium. There is a lot of interest in this information.

Activity #77 - Soil Loss and Shoreland Buffer Compliance (BWSR) · This would be a new program. BWSR is requesting around $2M for the biennium. Would

supplement local efforts for shoreland buffer rules. Good value to support local compliance efforts. Could be grants to Counties and Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) where they would duplicate what Olmsted County did - identify the out of compliance buffers and then bring the landowners into compliance over a two to three year period. Soil loss would be used to develop the local soil loss ordinance in cooperating counties. Note this program is linked to #76.

· With $2M, how many counties could actually do a program? It could be about $110,000 for each county. This would be for counties that are ready; there are counties who might not need this. Wide variance between counties as far as buffer issues.

· Some counties are producing more soil erosion than others. But we would work with the county who is interested. Could work with us to target the funding.

Activity #78 - Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) (BWSR) · This would be a new program. This would target permanent easements. Proposed mix of funding is

provided in your packet but could include bonding, Outdoor Heritage Funds, and federal funding too. BWSR is requesting around $18M for the biennium. This is the state response to the farm bill. The funding would be for all agencies. CWF would be a minor funding source.

· Is this supplementing or substituting? Supplementing because the historic funding from other sources would be met or exceeded and CWFs would supplement these efforts.

Activity #79 - Permanent Conservation Easements - Critical Shoreland Protection (BWSR) · This would be a new program. Would focus largely on areas of protection. Similar to Cisco Lakes

and Wild Rice Easements programs. Intended to target land that is under high threat of development to prevent intense use and protect the high water.

· Is this tied to WRAPS efforts? Yes, WRAPS identify protection strategies in each watershed. · Would these be grants to local entities or state purchased? Could go to Local Government Units to

hold easements. Activity #80 - Tillage and Erosion Transects (BWSR) · This would be a new program. State strategies for nitrogen and sediment reductions call for

decreases in soil loss and since 2007 we have not been able to track this statewide. This is the way to statistically measure soil loss and erosion and to determine how effective those measures are. It would on a watershed or county basis.

General Discussion · Most of the other items not discussed had BOC and Agency agreement. · The process for stakeholder review and comment would be that staff would send out the BOC’s

draft recommendations in early August for a few weeks and also hold a stakeholder meeting. · Last biennium we had dollar values and a short stakeholder/public notice period. We want earlier

input from stakeholders before BOC starts to develop specific funding recommendations. · For stakeholders, the BOC should identify the agency’s dollar amount for new CWF programs. · Clarify that the recommendation is related to FY14-15 funding levels. · The BOC’s use of “steady” funding level could accommodate a minor increase for cost of living. · Appropriate engagement from stakeholders is the goal. · Some of these programs are based on a timeline (e.g. 10-year program) and this should be

identified in the spreadsheet.

6

· New programs need to be more clearly identified or broken out in the spreadsheet. · Motion to allow the BOC, after they update their draft FY16-17 CWF recommendations at their

August 1st meeting, to allow this information to be shared for stakeholder input. Motion seconded and passed.

Policy Ad Hoc Committee update – Pam Blixt, Warren Formo, Gaylen Reetz, Doug Thomas · During the last meeting, the Council voted on the policy recommendations they wanted to work on

today – riparian buffers and altered hydrology. · Small group discussions are for Council members although visitors are welcome to listen. Each

group will designate a note-taker and report back to the entire group at the end of the discussion. The questions for small groups to discuss are included in the Council meeting packet.

· Note the Policy Ad Hoc Committee did not agree on policy recommendations so these will be worked on at today’s meeting. Most of the discussion should be on the policy statements and less on the background material.

Small Group Results – Draft Riparian Buffers Policy Statements Group 1 The CWC recommends that State law should require a 50 foot perennial vegetative buffer or one that is designed to protect water quality along lakes, streams, wetlands, and ditches statewide and there be a state authority that oversees its implementation. Group 2 (Elements of a Policy) · Consistency across ditch law and shoreland (minimum 50 feet) · Statewide (include private ditches that drain to public ditches) · Enforcement – stiff fees (not civil action), funding for enforcement, time lag for compliance (e.g. 10

years) (no more exemptions/grandfather) · Require all counties to report on compliance Group 3 · Buffer related to conditions on the ground, or nature of water body (soil type and slope) · Method of enforcement and means to fund it · Recommend that legislature consolidate buffers laws into one law · Assign that state agency to develop model ordinances for local governments to apply (note that if

local folks do not comply, then state agency would step in and enforce it) Discussion · The biggest difference is the first bullet of Group 3 because it doesn’t include a 50-foot buffer.

There are so many regulations that vary and the enforcement is localized by county. State law should at least be consistent; may or may not allow the local unit to be more restrictive. Should have one law with a statewide minimum and local government unit could be more restrictive.

· Right now buffer laws are different for agricultural land and shoreland. · There are a variety of ways in which people deal with buffer strips and there are many places which

do almost nothing. This would bring it up to at least even across the state. · If we have two counties and two landowners side-by-side. Landowner one has a more restrictive

rule and the landowner two has a less statewide law we may pull up the less restrictive county/owner to the higher bar. State would be the minimum; counties could be more restrictive.

· We would apply this to all waters, including private ditches that drain to public ditches. Right now, it only includes public ditches. What exactly is a private ditch? All ditches are private: some are public waters and some are administered.

· The use of wetlands in in Group 1’s definition is worth discussion. Language must be very specific about what waterbodies are included, especially in the Metro. Public waters may be better language.

7

Small Group Results – Altered Hydrology Group 1 · As a first step, the CWC recommends it should be state policy to require all watersheds of the state

to have a local comprehensive watershed management plan and that it sets water retention, storage, and infiltration standards (i.e. volume control standards) that will hold the first 2 inches of rainfall for at least 24 hours by the year 2020.

Group 2 · The CWC recommends that local comprehensive watershed management plans address altered

hydrology through establishing goals, water retention, storage, infiltration, and stream bank stabilization as appropriate. The CWC also recommends that state agencies provide local water planners with data substantiating the necessity of changes required to address impacts of altered hydrology. The CWC recommends that state agencies make available applicable water monitoring data and support research into the effectiveness of practices currently required or proposed to be required of urban land areas.

Group 3 · As a first step, the CWC recommends it should be state policy to require all watersheds of the state

to have a local comprehensive watershed management plan and that the plan sets water retention, storage, and infiltration standards (i.e. volume control standards) that will manage the first X inches of rainfall per event within the watershed, for at least 24 hours by the year 2020.

Discussion · Group 2 isn’t much of a policy, just work for agencies. Groups 1 and 3 are calling for action and set

goals. There is a wide range of hydrology across the state. Too much specificity can create areas that are not protected or overly burdened.

· These are performance based. The key word is “require”. There is not a requirement for volume control. Having a local county water plan is permissive.

General Discussion · Policy Ad Hoc Committee will reconvene and take these suggestions and form them into one policy

recommendation per topic for the Council’s August meeting. New Business - Water Reuse · The Council’s Steering Team discussed this topic and suggested we ask Council members for more

input on this topic for a potential presentation in October or November. · There is a window of opportunity right now for water reuse. · Council members agreed this was an important topic. Recommended that the discussion include

information about irrigation, water reuse 101 to get everyone on the same page. New Business · At least one Council member requested the ability to call in for the August Council meeting. Note

that Open Meeting Law should allow other participants to call into the meeting too. Adjournment · Motion to adjourn, seconded. Meeting adjourned.

140711te

What is CWC’s interest in and potential contribution to water reuse in Minnesota?

The range of topics included in “water reuse” includes:

· Use of treated municipal wastewater for a range of purposes · Alternate sources – graywater, stormwater, rainwater harvesting · Reuse for drinking water; direct and indirect

Water reuse has implications for water quality, water quantity, sustainable economic growth and environmental stewardship. “Plan for water reuse” is one of the recommended strategies for Issue A, “the need for a sustainable and clean water supply,” in the Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework. “While there is modest demand for water reuse in Minnesota at present, it will be an important strategy for the future and the state should position itself to be able to respond when demand grows.” p. 31. Water Quality: Water reuse may affect TMDLs for phosphorus, solids and nitrogen. Stormwater BMPs that consider water reuse may reduce nutrient and sediment load to surface waters. Harvested rainwater or stormwater could be better quality that some surface or groundwater sources. Water Quantity: Stormwater BMPs that consider water reuse may replenish local groundwater aquifers but also need to manage potential water quality impacts, especially in drinking water source areas. Irrigation using water reuse strategies reduces demand on groundwater aquifers. Strategic water reuse protects aquatic habitat, drinking water sources and provides a sustainable supply for irrigation and industry. Current examples of permitted water reuse in Minnesota include golf course irrigation, wetland enhancement, energy plant cooling, and irrigation for non-food crops.

Activity Number

Agency Clean Water Fund Activity Description CategoryMeets

Guiding Principles?

Meets Funding

Priorities?

Total FY14-15 (in thousands)

Agency DRAFT Recommendations

for FY16-17 Funding Levels

BOC DRAFT Recommendations


Notes/Questions

22 Met Council

A - Inflow & Infiltration Reduction Program: These grants would help protect surface water from spills (e.g. Mound), groundwater from outflow pollution where pipes have deteriorated (like a septic system with no drainfield), and preserve groundwater for Minnesota's water supply (but putting clear water onto the ground instead of the sewers).

Groundwater and Drinking Water

Yes Yes 1,000 Decrease? SteadyNote that agencies are still discussing whether CWFs should be used for this activity.

22 PFA?

B - Inflow & Infiltration Reduction Program: These grants would help protect surface water from spills (e.g. Mound), groundwater from outflow pollution where pipes have deteriorated (like a septic system with no drainfield), and preserve groundwater for Minnesota's water supply (but putting clear water onto the ground instead of the sewers).


Yes Yes 0 None Increase (new)

BOC recommends a statewide program. BOC also recommends that this funding should only support low income folks or only have up to $2K available per system (similar to Met Council's existing requirements).

1 MPCA

Continue monitoring & assessment efforts to meet the 10-year cycle: Statewide monitoring and assessment work is on track to meet the 10-year schedule, at a rate of about 10 percent of the watersheds each year. Intensive watershed monitoring includes biological, chemical, and habitat monitoring in watersheds to assess the water conditions. Assessments determine if waters are impaired and serve as a basis for further analysis of watershed problems, protection options, and overall watershed planning efforts. Includes additional funding to include large river mainstem monitoring.

Monitoring and Assessment

Yes Yes 14,000 Increase Steady

BOC recommends no funding because the effort is too localized. Note that MPCA will not seek funds for the Red River Watch portion of this program.

BOC asked agencies why they are proposing an increase and what these increased funds would be used for.

8 MDHThe Lake Superior Beach Monitoring and Notification Program exists to test recreational beach water and notify the public if bacteria levels become unsafe. This project will expand the Beach Program to include additional outreach efforts, sanitary surveys and testing of new technologies to improve the Beach Program.


No No 210 Steady No FundingBOC recommends no funding because the effort is too localized.

9 MPCA

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (includes TMDL development): In 2008, the MPCA launched a watershed approach to systematically and comprehensively conduct the state’s water-quality monitoring, and restoration and protection planning needs on a 10-year cycle. Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPs), including TMDLs, are developed with local partners to set strategies for impaired waters and unimpaired waters by setting reduction and protection goals, milestones and measures to guide state and local government implementation efforts.

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies

Yes Yes 18,800 Increase SteadyBOC asked agencies why they are proposing an increase and what these increased funds would be used for.

11 MPCA

Groundwater assessment: Monitor and enhance ambient groundwater well network to collect critical water quality data needed for drinking water protection and surface water impact analysis, including modeling to support TMDL stressor identification and contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in a subset of monitoring wells.



12 MPCA

Enhanced County inspections/SSTS corrective actions: Support technical assistance and County implementation of SSTS program requirements (M.S. 115.55) including issuing permits, conducting inspections, identifying and resolving non-compliant SSTS, and revising and maintaining SSTS ordinances. County grants to low-income landowners to address septic systems that pose an imminent threat to public health or safety or fail to protect groundwater.




BOC recommends specifying that some of this funding should be for grants to low-income landowners.

15 MDA

Nitrate in Groundwater: Actions to protect and restore groundwater from nitrate from nitrogen fertilizer. Implement recently revised Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan. Promote and evaluate regional and crop-specific nutrient Best Management Practices statewide and low nitrogen vegetative options in targeted areas. Work directly with local communities dealing with identified nitrate problems. Facilitate planning by community public water suppliers, local farmers and fertilizer dealers. Extensive sampling of private wells in high risk areas and regionally. Develop new rules.



20 BWSRTargeted Wellhead/Drinking Water Protection: Grants to implement best management practices or permanent conservation easements in communities/wellhead protection areas where the actions needed to protect drinking water are known.



21 Met Council

Metropolitan Area Water Supply Sustainability Support: Implement projects that address emerging drinking water supply threats, provide cost-effective regional solutions, leverage inter-jurisdictional coordination, support local implementation of wellhead protection plans, and prevent degradation of groundwater resources. These projects will provide to communities:• Potential solutions to balance regional water use through utilization of surface water, stormwater, wastewater and groundwater• Analysis of infrastructure requirements for different alternatives• Development of planning level cost estimates, including capital cost and operation cost• Identify funding mechanisms and equitable cost-sharing structure for regionally-beneficial water supply development projects


No No 2,000 Steady No FundingBOC noted that this should be a statewide effort.

1

Activity Number


Guiding Principles?

Meets Funding

Priorities?






Notes/Questions

23 MDH

Drinking Water Contaminants of Emerging Concern Program: Continue to protect human health by developing guidance. Develop public health laboratory capacity for research and analysis of emerging contaminants. Give grants to local organizations for community-based outreach and education activities. Expand program to develop quantitative microbial risk guidance based on new data on drinking water and water reuse.


Yes Yes 2,300 Increase DecreaseBOC asked agencies why they are proposing an increase and what these increased funds would be used for.

27 MDH

Groundwater Virus Monitoring Plan: This proposal is to request additional funding to examine the occurrence, fate and transport of viruses in groundwater sources in Minnesota and estimate the risk of acute gastrointestinal illness from consuming drinking water from un-disinfected groundwater sources. Through the collection of virus occurrence data, hydrogeologic data and contaminant information, health-based guidance and tools could be improved and developed to reduce the public health risk from groundwater drinking water sources. This proposal will allow us the opportunity to build upon the work already completed in Minnesota and that being proposed nationally. Reducing acute microbial risk and exposure is the highest public health priority associated with drinking water.


No No 1,600 Decrease No Funding

29 MPCAGreat Lakes restoration project: Great Lakes restoration projects in the St. Louis River area of concern with local and federal partners. Requires at least a 65:35 non-state local match for every CWF dollar.

Nonpoint Source Implementation

Yes Yes 1,500 Steady to Increase? Increase

30 MPCAClean Water Partnership: Provides grants to study and implement solutions that protect basins and watersheds of Minnesota before water quality standards are exceeded.


Yes Yes 3,000 Steady to Increase? Steady

33 MDA

MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program: A new program under development by the MDA, MPCA, DNR and BWSR, and endorsed by the U.S. EPA and USDA, to increase the adoption of on-farm conservation practices to protect water quality through a voluntary approach. Pilot projects to develop and evaluate the concept will extend through FY16. Program will expand statewide in FY17. Anticipate a 100% federal match of state CW funds with up to 50% of CW funds and all of federal funds for local government and implementation.



34 DNR

Nonpoint source restoration and protection activities: Support local implementation efforts, including: assisting with targeting conservation practices, helping local partners plan for, design, and implement clean water projects, building local community capacity to manage for healthy watersheds; working in forested watersheds on water quality protection.




BOC asked DNR for more information on program effectiveness and examples where this is working. BOC also asked DNR to clarify if the increases in state agency FTEs from FY10-11 to FY14-15 were new positions or reassignments of existing personnel funded historically through other funds (e.g. general fund).

37 BWSRSurface and drinking water protection/restoration grants (Projects and Practices): Grant and incentive funding to protect, enhance and restore water quality in lakes, rivers and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water implement priority actions in local water management plans.


Yes Yes 21,361 Decrease, Steady, or

IncreaseIncrease

BOC notes that requests for this funding has far exceeded available funds.

38 BWSR

Grants to Watersheds with Multiyear Plans (Targeted Watershed Program): Focuses on watersheds where the amount of change necessary to improve water quality is known, the actions needed to achieve results are identified, those actions can be implemented within a four-year time period, and are capable of achieving a measurable outcome.


Yes Yes 12,000 Steady to Increase Increase

42 BWSRPermanent conservation easements - riparian buffers: Purchase and restore permanent conservation easements on riparian lands adjacent to public waters, except wetlands. Establish buffers of native vegetation that must be at least 50 feet where possible and no more than 100 feet.


Yes Yes 13,000 Steady IncreaseBOC notes that requests for this funding has exceeded available funds.

53 MPCAWastewater Treatment System Design & Technical Assistance: Identify and pilot options for implementing standards, not to develop new standards. The MPCA to work with regulated parties to identify new or more efficient ways of meeting standards at wastewater treatment facilities (municipal and industrial).

Applied Research and Tool Development

No No 750 Increase No Funding


61 UMN For developing county geologic atlases with the DNR.Applied Research and Tool Development

Yes Yes 1,230 ? SteadyBOC asked agencies why they are proposing a decrease.

10 DNRWatershed Restoration and Protection Strategies: Work with state and local partners to provide expertise, data, analysis, and support for major watershed studies and the development of watershed restoration and protection strategies.



2

Activity Number


Guiding Principles?

Meets Funding

Priorities?






Notes/Questions

18 DNRAquifer Monitoring for Drinking Water Protection: Monitor Minnesota's observation well network to collect critical aquifer level data and flow dynamics needed for drinking water and water supply protection. Includes analysis, modeling and work with stakeholders to address sustainability management and planning.


Yes No 2,750 Steady Steady or Decrease

BOC asked DNR to clarify if the increases in state agency FTEs from FY10-11 to FY14-15 were new positions or reassignments of existing personnel funded historically through other funds (e.g. general fund).

26 MDH

Well Sealing Cost Share: There is a continuing need to fund well sealing into the foreseeable future. There are between 250,000 and 500,000 unused, unsealed wells. Approximately 6000 wells are sealed per year. Funding from the Clean Water Fund supplements other efforts to properly seal these wells which protects both public health and groundwater. A portion of the funds are passed to local units of government who provide grants to private well owners. Funds are also distributed to public water supply owners to seal unused public water supply wells that are often expensive to seal due to their size and depth.


Yes Yes 500 Increase SteadyBOC asked agencies why they are proposing an increase and what these increased funds would be used for.

28 MDH

Private Well Water Supply Protection: In contrast to highly monitored water supplies that serve water to the public, water quality from a residential well depends on the owner’s initiative and vigilance. The proposed study will utilize the existing private well monitoring networks maintained by MDA and existing data from a variety of sources supplemented by targeted well sampling to characterize the occurrence and magnitude of contaminants in private wells. Guidance will be developed for well contractors to ensure new well placement and construction minimizes potential risks to well owners. Innovative civic engagement and education efforts will be developed to increase the capacity of owners to identify and address potential well issues and ensure safe drinking water for their families.



47 MPCA NPDES wastewater/stormwater TMDL implementation: Staffing costs for implementation efforts.Point Source Implementation


55 MDA

Academic Research/Evaluation: Projects focus on supporting the development of agricultural BMPs and quantifying agricultural contributions to impaired waters with a focus on gaining a better understanding of the processes that underlie these contributions. BMPs will be developed and evaluated to protect and restore water resources while maintaining productivity.


Yes Yes 2,100 Steady ?BOC asked agencies for examples of how the results from the research is being applied at the local level.

62 MPCA Support activities of the Clean Water Council according to M.S. 114D.30.Clean Water Council Budget


63 LegislatureFor the Legislative Coordinating Commission for the website required in M.S. 3.303, subdivision 10, including mapping.

Legislative Coordinating Commission

Yes Yes 30 Steady

72 Met Council

Water demand reduction grant program Pilot: These grants would encourage implementation of water demand reduction measures by municipalities in metro area to ensure the reliability and protection of drinking water supplies. Some of these measures would include but not limited to: municipal, commercial and residential water use audits, indoor water use and summer peak use reduction mainly targeting smart outdoor water use and old inefficient toilet swap.


Yes Yes 0 Increase (new) ?

BOC requested agencies to provide more information about this program and will invite agency reps to their August 1st meeting. It is of particular interest to BOC members how long CWFs will be needed for these new programs, what the measurable outcomes will be, and number of state agency FTEs.

73 MDH

Water Reuse: Water reuse is in progress in Minnesota, and includes use of harvested rainwater (from roofs), storm water, gray water, and reclaimed municipal wastewater. While water reuse has the potential to reduce water costs and demands on water resources, health protection concerns will affect the adoption of water reuse strategies by municipalities, industries, and other interested parties. At this time no systematic evaluation or policy development on treatment and use options to ensure the health and safety of water reuse has been implemented in Minnesota. Various agencies including the MPCA, DNR, MDH, and DoLI all play some role in reuse and will participate in the proposed project. This proposal funds (1) a comprehensive study of non-regulatory and regulatory approaches for ensuring safe and sustainable water reuse, (2) recommendations for practices and policy for water reuse in Minnesota, and (3) work by the University of Minnesota to collect and analyze field data for use in targeting Minnesota-specific risks.


0 Increase (new) ?


3

Activity Number


Guiding Principles?

Meets Funding

Priorities?






Notes/Questions

74 MDH

Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS): Typically groundwater information and management approaches are developed for a variety of purposes and on a variety of scales based on geology, aquifers, contaminant plumes, times of travel or political boundaries, but rarely on a surface watershed basis. This makes it difficult for local planners to take the information from these various efforts and incorporate them into local water management plans. This proposal will build on the efforts funded in FY15 that were focused on protecting drinking water sources in groundwater management areas. Funds will be used to develop groundwater protection and restoration strategies on a watershed scale for incorporation into local water planning efforts. Priority will be given to the one watershed one plan pilot areas. Funds will also be directed to regional or local entities such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts, watershed districts, and local water planning agencies to provide technical assistance and coordination of funding opportunities available for implementation of these strategies to protect public and private drinking water sources. This funding may be shared by a number of state and local agencies.


0 Increase (new) ?


BOC asked agencies why the noted $300K of FY14-15 funding for this program.

75 MDAVegetative Cover and Soil Health: This program will focus on a market driven approach to identify and develop markets for environmentally protective crops in targeted high risk areas. Efforts will be closely integrated with other vegetative cover initiatives and state and local clean water implementation activities.


0 Increase (new) ?


BOC asked agencies how this is different from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).

76 DNRRiparian Buffer Information: Color infrared imagery that can be used for analyzing riparian buffer conditions. Linked to BWSR programs that support local assessment and compliance efforts. Data would be collected on a 5 year rotating cycle statewide, with highest priority for counties that are ready to use the data.


0 Increase (new) ?


BOC asked how this is different from BWSR's buffer program.

77 BWSRSoil Loss and Shoreland Buffer Compliance: Protect and restore surface water quality by supplementing local efforts to ensure compliance with state soil erosion statutes and shoreland buffer rules.


0 Increase (new) ?


BOC asked agencies how this funding will be used and if DNR would be a more appropriate agency for the shoreland buffer component.

4

Activity Number


Guiding Principles?

Meets Funding

Priorities?






Notes/Questions

78 BWSRConservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): Interagency effort to implement a CREP aimed at restoring surface water quality in areas targeted for nutrient reductions and protecting sensitive groundwater and drinking water resources.




BOC asked agencies what the past bonding support has been for this effort so CWFs supplement existing efforts. BOC recommends that it is critical that these are permanent easements (not temporary easements).

79 BWSRPermanent Conservation Easements - Critical Shoreland Protection: Purchase permanent conservation easements to protect lands adjacent to public waters with good water quality but threatened with degradation.




80 BWSRTillage and Erosion Transects: Program to systematically collect data and produce statistically valid estimates of the rate of soil erosion and tracking the adoption of high residue cropping systems in the 67 counties with greater than 30% of land in agricultural row crop production.


0 Increase (new) ?


4 MDAMonitoring for Pesticides in Surface Water and Groundwater: Ongoing monitoring using clean water funded state-of-the-art laboratory instruments which provides increased capability and greater capacity.


Yes Yes 700 Steady Steady

5 DNRStream flow monitoring: Conduct stream flow monitoring and sediment transport analysis to support watershed assessments.


Yes Yes 4,000 Steady Steady

6 DNRLake IBI assessment: Statewide assessment of biological integrity for lakes, including fish and plants, to support the 10-year watershed assessment schedule.



7 DNRFish Contamination Assessment: Increase the number of lake and stream sites where fish tissue samples are analyzed to detect mercury and other contaminants.



17 MDA

Irrigation Water Quality Protection: Nitrogen contributions to groundwater under Irrigated agriculture can be significant in some parts of Minnesota. Funding will provide a regional irrigation water quality specialist via a contract with U of M extension. This position will develop irrigation water quality BMPs and provide supporting education and guidance.



19 DNRDevelopment & Designation of Groundwater Management Areas: Note the FY14-15 appropriation lasts 4 years, so DNR is not requesting additional funds for FY 16-17.


3,000 No Funding No FundingDNR will not seek FY16-17 Clean Water Funds for this activity.

24 MDH

Source Water Protection: Based on continuing CWF support, MDH has a goal to have approved wellhead protection plans for all 935 community water suppliers that use groundwater by 2020. The Source Water Protection Grant Program assists public water suppliers with implementation of their plans to protect sources of public drinking water and with management of known or potential contamination threats.



25 MDH

County Well Index (CWI) Enhancement: CWI is the principal source of well construction information and geologic interpretations and is used by many public and private sector groups to understand and manage Minnesota's groundwater resources. Funding is needed to: 1) update the CWI database operating system, 2) link well data from other state agencies; 3) eliminate 70,000 backlogged well records; 4) update/edit 430,000 records to eliminate errors and reflect subsurface hydrogeological conditions; and 5) define additional capabilities needed by the public and private users.


No No 780 No Funding No FundingMDH will not seek FY16-17 Clean Water Funds for this activity.

5

Activity Number


Guiding Principles?

Meets Funding

Priorities?






Notes/Questions

31 MDA

AgBMP Loan Program: Provides low interest loans throughout the state to farmers and rural landowners to help finance practices, structures and other improvements that reduce or eliminate water pollution. This loan program is administered by local governments, has very low transaction cost, and as loans are repaid, the repayments are used to fund additional projects.


Yes Yes 400 Decrease Decrease

32 MDA

Technical Assistance: Provide technical assistance on impaired waters issues in agricultural landscapes. Ensure that current and accurate technical information on agricultural practices is provided to farmers and other end users and to promote the adoption of BMPs. BMP implementation and effectiveness will be examined, tools will be developed to target conservation practices to critical areas of the landscape and more precise information on non-point contributions to impaired waters will be obtained. Pilot projects and demonstration sites will be implemented that empirically validate and demonstrate cropping BMPs and recommended drainage practices.



BOC would like to better understand what has been learned in the last 6 years and how it has been applied and recommends presenting at a Clean Water Council meeting.

35 DNRShoreland Protection Grants: Note this money is available until spent. DNR has not begun implementing the program because there is a problem with the appropriation language. We will seek a fix during the legislative session.


Yes Yes 1,000 No Funding No FundingDNR will not will not seek FY16-17 Clean Water Funds for this activity.

36 DNRDNR Rulemaking - Mississippi River Critical Area: Note that rulemaking is scheduled to be completed by July 1, 2015.


No No 100 No Funding No FundingDNR will not will not seek FY16-17 Clean Water Funds for this activity. BOC doesn't think CWFs should be used for rule-making.

39 BWSR

Accelerated Implementation: Enhance capacity of local governments to accelerate implementation of projects and activities that supplement or exceed current state standards for protection, enhancement, and restoration of water quality in lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater. Activities include: 1) increase technical assistance through regional technical service areas (TSAs), 2) technical training and certification, 3) inventories of potential pollutant sites, and 4) developing and using analytical targeting tools that fill an identified gap.


Yes Yes 8,000 Increase IncreaseBOC asked agencies why they are proposing an increase and what these increased funds would be used for.

40 BWSRMeasures, results and accountability: Conservation quality assurance by providing oversight, assessment, assistance and reporting of local government performance and results.



41 BWSRConservation drainage management and assistance: Implementation of a conservation drainage/multipurpose drainage water management program in consultation with the Drainage Work Group to improve surface water management by providing funding under the provisions of 103E.015.


Yes Yes 3,400 Decrease DecreaseNote that BWSR split this program into 2 programs (see activity number 77 which is a new program), so this isn't really a decrease.

43 BWSR

Technical evaluation: Statutory mandate to annually evaluate a sample of up to 10 habitat restoration projects, beginning July 1, 2011. BWSR and DNR have been collaborating on implementing state statute (Laws of MN 2011, First Special Session, Ch. 6) that requires restoration evaluations to be conducted on habitat restoration projects completed with funds from the Clean Water Fund, Outdoor Heritage Fund and Parks and Trails Fund.



44 BWSR

Community Partners Clean Water Program: Increasing citizen participation in implementing water quality projects and programs to increase long term sustainability of water resources. The efforts and resources of active and engaged community groups, such as lake associations, non-profits, and conservation groups, will be supported. This effort will be delivered through local collaboration using a new ‘small grants partners’ program.


Yes Yes 3,000 Decrease DecreaseBOC notes there hasn't been much demand for this program.

45 BWSR

Water Management Transition (One Watershed, One Plan): Accelerate implementation of the State's Watershed Approach through the statewide development of watershed-based local water planning that is synchronized with Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS)


Yes Yes 900 Increase IncreaseBOC asked agencies why they are proposing an increase and what these increased funds would be used for.

46 MDAManure Applicator Program Enhancement: Funding to develop training manuals and resource materials for two levels of manure applicators (senior applicators and field hands). Manure application can be a significant source of nutrient losses and current efforts are not adequate.


No No 100 No Funding No FundingMDA will not seek FY16-17 Clean Water Funds for this activity.

48 PFAPSIG grants (WWTP and stormwater): Provides 50% grants up to $3 million to help municipalities implement wastewater and stormwater projects to comply with TMDL wasteload requirements, phosphorus reduction requirements, wq based effluent limits, and nitrogen limits for soil-based wwt.

Point Source Implementation


49 PFA

Small Community Wastewater Treatment Program: Provides grants and loans to assist small communities to replace non-complying septic systems with community subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS). Technical assistance grants up to $60,000 to contract with consultants and licensed SSTS professionals for feasibility studies and technical assistance. Construction financing up to $2,000,000 through 1% loans and grants up to 80% based on affordability criteria.

Point Source Implementation

Yes Yes 4,000 Decrease Decrease

50 MPCAWatershed research and database development (Watershed Data Integration Project or WDIP): Incrementally connect data management systems that will interface existing systems and provide staff and the public a central location for reporting, analysis, and data management of the watershed data.



6

Activity Number


Guiding Principles?

Meets Funding

Priorities?






Notes/Questions

51 MPCAInteragency Water Data Portal Development: An interagency team has begun planning for a statewide water data portal. The portal would allow users to access data from multiple agencies from one webpage, rather than searching multiple agencies' websites. The project scope represents the ~30 highest priority data sources.


? ? 2,000 No Funding No Funding

Agencies will not seek FY16-17 Clean Water Funds for this activity. BOC needs to see the cost/benefit analysis before they determine if it meets the Council's Guiding Principles and Funding Priorities.

52 MPCA

Stormwater research and guidance: Performance of existing stormwater infiltration sites, as identified in the Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) project. Monitor the range of existing infiltration devices in Minnesota and compare to design criteria, maintenance records, and quantify year-round infiltration rates. Develop and refine pretreatment options and standards for municipal stormwater treatment trains.



56 MDA

Research Inventory Database: Funding to develop, populate and promote a database that contains existing water-related research. This user-friendly, searchable database will provide researchers, water planners, and the public with fast access to a centralized inventory of all types of research related to water in, or relevant to, Minnesota. Currently, many research findings are scattered across websites, reports, journals and other media and are not readily accessible to most people.


Yes Yes 250 Decrease Decrease

57 DNR

Applied research and tools: Provide hydrology modeling expertise to improve understanding of the cumulative impacts of drainage and water management on watershed health, and identify combinations of BMPs to improve water quality; maintain/update spatial data for watershed boundaries, streams, and waterbodies and integrate LiDAR data; assess relationships among disturbance patterns, BMP applications, and water quality in forested watersheds; stream biomonitoring database.



58 DNRDesign BMPs for Water Access Sites: Develop design standards and best management practices for public water access sites to maintain and improve water quality by avoiding shoreline erosion and runoff.


Yes No 85 No Funding No FundingDNR will not will not seek FY16-17 Clean Water Funds for this activity.

59 DNRCounty geologic atlases: Work with the Minnesota Geological Survey to accelerate completion or updates to County Geologic Atlases that provide critical groundwater and geology information to local governments.



60 Met Council

For an agreement with United States Geologic Survey to investigate groundwater and surface water interaction in and around White Bear lake and surrounding northeast metropolitan lakes, including seepage rate determinations, water quality of groundwater and surface water, isotope analyses, lake level analyses, water balance determination, and creation of a calibrated groundwater flow model, including a comparison of water levels with lakes bordering the study area. The council shall use the results to prepare guidance for other areas to use in addressing groundwater and surface water interaction issues.


No No 537 No Funding No FundingMet Council will not seek FY16-17 Clean Water Funds for this activity.

64 MPCAFor coordination with the state of Wisconsin and the National Park Service on comprehensive phosphorus reduction activities in the Lake St. Croix portion of the St. Croix River.


200 No Funding No FundingMPCA will not seek FY16-17 Clean Water Funds for this activity.

7

1

7/14/14 All Agency Responses to Questions from the Clean Water Council’s Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) on Clean Water Fund (CWF) Programs Question 1 – for BWSR, DNR, MPCA, MDA, and MDH - for each Clean Water Fund Program Activity where you propose an increase in funding over FY14-15 levels, please state why you are proposing an increase and what these increased funds would be used for. There are 17 of these programs. Responses from Doug Thomas (BWSR) - BWSR – Targeted Wellhead/Drinking Water Protection (Activity #20) – This category in FY14-15 was limited to easements to take land out of production in wellhead protection areas. BWSR proposes an increase in funding from what was appropriated in FY14-15 ($2.275 million) to $3.5 million for FY16-17. The increase will support additional protection efforts and be expanded to include source water protection best management practices (such as nutrient management, irrigation management, buffer strips, etc.) in addition to perpetual conservation easements. The program is also proposed to be modified to be implemented in a more targeted approach to seek proposals from wellhead protection areas where there is a focused implementation plan and demonstrated community support. BWSR – Surface and Drinking Water Protection/Restoration Grants (Projects and Practices) (Activity #37) - The FY16-17 proposal includes a range for this request of $20.5 million to $35 million. The increase is based on demonstrated demand for these implementation funds by the State’s cities, counties, soil and water conservation districts and watershed districts. For example in FY14 BWSR received requests for funding in the amount of $42.3 million with only $8.4 million in available funds. If one were to only use projects that scored 75 points or more on a scale from 0 to 100, the shortfall in funding in FY14 was approximately $8.8 million. Local governments, through BWSR’s BBR process, have identified shovel ready projects and practices in the amount of $172.6 million for FY16-17 and which will leverage another $83 million in LGU, landowner, and federal funds. Increased funding in this program will result in more on the ground implementation of water quality restoration and protection projects and practices. BWSR – Accelerated Implementation (Activity #39) – The FY16-17 proposal includes an increase in funding of $4 million. The increase will be used to enhance the availability of highly skilled technical assistance for the survey, design and implementation of structural soil and water conservation practices by the 8 existing SWCD Technical Service Areas. The proposal will also allow BWSR to develop and provide technical training to build local capacity and technical expertise within individual SWCD’s for durable soil and water conservations practice planning, design, layout and construction supervision. BWSR – Grants to Watersheds with Multiyear Plans (Targeted Watershed Program) (Activity #38) - The FY16-17 proposal includes a range for this request of $12 million to $25 million. The increase is based on demonstrated demand for these implementation funds by the State’s cities, counties, soil and water conservation districts and watershed districts. For example, in FY14 BWSR received requests for funding in the amount of $46.3 million with only $5.4 million in available funds. Increased funding in this program will result in more on the ground implementation of water quality restoration and protection projects and practices in targeted watersheds with an implementation period of up to four years.

2

BWSR – Conservation Drainage Management and Assistance (Activities 41 and 77) – The increase restores funding for implementation of conservation drainage/multi-purpose drainage water management practices which was eliminated in FY14-15. The $2.0 million will be used to provide incentives to drainage authorities to improve surface water management through 103E.015 (ditch law environmental considerations). Water Management Transition (One Watershed, One Plan) (Activity #45) – The increase in funding will be used to implement BWSR’s One Watershed, One Plan Program through the development of approximately 65 watershed-based local water management plans synchronized with the current development of Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS). These State approved plans will be science based, establish water quality goals and targets by parameter of concern and sub watersheds, include short term (10 Year) and long term (20) year quantifiable milestones, identify implementing authorities and establish timelines and cost estimates based on plan milestones/objectives, coordinate the collection, ranking and submission of requests for funding. The requested level of funding will be needed over the next 3 biennium’s to complete the transition from the current 200+ geo-political based plans to 60+ watershed plans coinciding with the completion of WRAPS. Responses from Julie Westerlund (DNR) (Activities #10 and 34) –

Increases for funding over FY14-15 represent increases in operating costs (inflation, salary increases, etc.). We are not proposing substantial changes to how the money would be used or program outcomes.

Responses from Dan Stoddard (MDA) – Nitrate in Groundwater (Activity #15) - Nitrate in groundwater from the use of nitrogen fertilizer is one of the most important environmental concerns affecting drinking water in Minnesota. Sampling data from private wells in the central sands and southeast Minnesota karst areas of Minnesota indicates that approximately 4% and 11% respectively of all drinking water wells in these areas exceed the drinking water standard for nitrate. In shallow vulnerable aquifers the percent of wells exceeding the drinking water standard can be much higher. Nitrogen is critical for crop production and it is very susceptible to leaching making this issue an especially difficult one to address. The MDA has nearly finished a three year process for revising the state Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan (NFMP), which is the state’s blueprint for how to respond to elevated nitrate from fertilizer in groundwater. All the major decisions on content of the revised NFMP have been decided and MDA is moving forward with implementation of the new plan. The plan includes a process for addressing nitrate in groundwater and also includes immediately developing new rules for statewide regulatory restrictions on the fall application of fertilizer and application of fertilizer to frozen ground in areas vulnerable to groundwater contamination. The increased funding will increase implementation activities for the revised NFMP with most of the additional funding for increased implementation of mitigation activities in areas that have been identified as having elevated nitrate in groundwater. Funding is also requested for one new position for rule development. Additionally MDA will increase prevention activities to promote nitrogen fertilizer BMPs and alternative cropping systems in areas with vulnerable groundwater.

3

MDA will continue its current efforts to sample up to 70,000 private wells for nitrate in approximately 280 vulnerable townships over a period of 6 years. This sampling, along with sampling by public water supply systems, will identify high risk areas for mitigation efforts. In addition, MDA will continue with plans for sampling for pesticides in all of the private wells that have detected nitrate, as directed by the legislature. The plan describes four levels for mitigation based on groundwater quality and BMP adoption. This four level approach will provide an excellent method for evaluating the extent of the problem and the effectiveness of efforts to address the problem. MDA also supports regional monitoring of private wells. These efforts will provide very useful measures of success in addressing this issue. Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (Activity #33) - In 2013 the MAWQCP began four sub-watershed pilot projects which included a partnership with federal and state agencies, local watershed and soil and water conservation districts, and joint powers boards, and further programmatic support from private foundation, non-profit organization, and agribusiness participants. The pilot process has been instructive and clearly successful. Since the State of Minnesota formalized certification contracting with individual farms on June 1, 2014, the pilot project has recorded 252 producers seeking to participate with 79 formal applications active, 57 producers presently being assessed, and already five Minnesota agricultural operations officially certified for water quality. The completion of the four pilot projects occurs in the next biennium and MDA is proposing to expand the MAWQCP statewide. The increase in clean water funding is for implementing the program statewide. Although plans for expanding the program are still being developed, MDA anticipates that the program will be implemented through local government units (LGUs) and that nearly all of the increased appropriation will be passed through to LGUs to provide technical assistance and targeted implementation funding. Currently the MAWQCP clean water funding is matched 1:1 by federal funds. We anticipate a similar match as the program is expanded statewide with all of the federal funds going to LGUs for SWCD staff positions or dedicated conservation project implementation funds. The $5.4 million FY16-17 Clean Water funding request would include approximately $2.5 million in clean water implementation funds that will leverage approximately $4.6 million for conservation project implementation financial assistance from USDA-NRCS. Remaining funds will be used for program development and administration by MDA and SWCDs. Response from Rebecca Flood (MPCA) – Monitoring and Assessment (Activity #1):

1. The full implementation of the intermediate load watershed monitoring system. This will significantly benefit local partners (both by providing critical data as well as providing pass-through grants for locals to collect the samples) as well as our assessment and WRAPs work.

2. The large river monitoring effort (monitoring and assessing all the mainstem rivers by 2018). 3. Includes projected cost of salary and insurance increases in each year of the biennium. 4. Includes allocated share of MN.IT service costs for each year of the biennium.

4

Watershed Restoration/Protection Strategies (includes TMDL development) (Activity #9): 1. Includes projected cost of salary and insurance increases in each year of the biennium. 2. Includes allocated share of MN.IT service costs for each year of the biennium.

Groundwater/Drinking Water (Activities #11 and #12):

1. Includes projected cost of salary and insurance increases in each year of the biennium. 2. Includes allocated share of MN.IT service costs for each year of the biennium.

Nonpoint Source Implementation (Activities #29 and 30):

1. “High” funding option includes additional $1.5 million for St. Louis River/Duluth Harbor Cleanup, which would be used as match to leverage additional federal funding.

2. “High” funding option includes additional $1.0 million for Clean Water Partnership grants to accelerate completion of studies and implementation of solutions for basin and watershed protection.


Applied Research and Tool Development (Activity #53):


Point Source Implementation (Activity #47):


Clean Water Council (Activity #62):

1. Includes increase to cover costs of council activities. Reponses from Chris Elvrum (MDH): · MDH Source Water Protection (SWP) program (Activity #24) – proposed increase provides

additional funding for wellhead protection grants and acceleration of wellhead protection planning efforts for Community Public Water Supply systems.

· MDH CEC Program (Activity #23) – MDH has been asked to understand and apply the science and methods of determining the health risk levels for microbes in water to meet a variety of needs, particularly new information about microbes in drinking water sources and new evaluations of water reuse. This increase will fund a small amount of research on microbes in water (some water analysis and air and water modeling of exposure), and a risk assessor specially trained in and assigned to microbial risk assessment.

· MDH Well Sealing (Activity #26) – The minor increase in the request for well sealing funds is

intended to meet the demonstrated demand. As funding for this activity becomes more regular and predictable, requests have increased and will likely continue to do so in the future.

· MDH Private Well Protection (Activity #28) – The modest increase in this funding is to develop and

test outreach and education efforts as well as pilot private well testing for Arsenic and possibly other parameters in selected areas.

5

· MDH GRAPS (Activity #74) – See below (next response). Question 2 - Related to the Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) (MDH - Activity #74), why did you note $300K of FY14-15 funding for this program? Response from Chris Elvrum (MDH): · Clean Water Funding ($300K) was provided during the 2014 legislative session for FY 2015 to MDH

to collaborate with the Board of Water and Soil Resources and local units of government in the North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area, Bonanza Valley Groundwater Management Area, and Straight River Groundwater Management Area and to update wellhead protection areas within groundwater management areas, in cooperation with the Board of Water and Soil Resources.

· The proposal titled “GRAPS” for FY 2016-17 builds on the collaborative effort funded in FY 2015 and described above. The additional funds will support the development of groundwater protection and restoration strategies on a watershed-scale, using existing information, for inclusion in local planning. Priority will be given to the One Watershed One Plan pilot areas. Funds will also be directed to regional or local entities such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts, watershed districts, and local water planning agencies for technical assistance and coordinated implementation of strategies to protect public and private drinking water sources. This funding may be shared by a number of state and local agencies.

Question 3 - Related to the Vegetative Cover and Soil Health (MDA - Activity #75), how is this program different from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)? Response from Dan Stoddard (MDA): This proposal is, to our knowledge, different from anything previously proposed by state agencies for clean water funding and is not at all the same as EQIP or other programs that subsidize specific crops or vegetative cover. There is general agreement that the types of crops grown on agricultural land have an enormous impact on surface water and groundwater quality. For example, low nitrogen input crops such as forage crops can reduce nitrogen leaching to groundwater by 95% or more. These crops also will increase organic matter in the soil which provides other benefits including increased water holding capacity. For this reason an increased emphasis on low nitrogen input crops is a central long term strategy of the revised Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan. While many farmers are open to considering these crops they will tell you these crops are generally not economically viable and can be quite risky to grow. That is why EQIP and other environmental programs subsidize the use of these crops. This means some form of subsidy or easement will need to continue into the future. If these crops were economically viable they would not require long term subsidies. We believe that creating economically viable markets for environmentally protective crops so they can be grown without ongoing subsidies is one of the most important long term strategies for protecting Minnesota’s water resources. The goal of this proposal is to approach the increased use of low nitrogen vegetative cover from a market driven perspective so they can be grown by farmers without subsidies. The MDA has significant expertise in marketing and development of agricultural products. MDA is also an active participant in the interagency coordination of clean water efforts. There are significant markets for hay and other forage crops. We believe it is possible to better develop these markets in Minnesota and integrate them into clean water program activities and we propose to do so with this effort. This

6

effort will support vegetative cover activities being conducted by other groups. The effort will also create a more systematic approach for evaluating which types of vegetative cover proposals have the greatest potential for becoming economically viable. Question 4: Related to the Riparian Buffer Information (DNR – Activity #76), how is this different from BWSR's buffer program? Response from Julie Westerlund (DNR): DNR is working with BWSR to develop this program jointly. The program has several elements, including data collection, data analysis, and compliance actions. Here’s a breakdown of the responsibilities: What How Who

Data (color infrared images)

Spring aerial color infrared imagery (after snow-melt, before leaf-off). These photos show presence or absence of perennial vegetation. Photos would be collected statewide every five years (1/5 of the state would be flown each year on a rotating basis).

DNR (w/MNGEO and other partners)

Data analysis Digitize public waters in GIS (location of top of bank)

DNR

Determine whether buffers are present or absent in areas where they are required (GIS analysis)

BWSR ($ for LGUs)

Compliance actions LGU can choose how to go about enforcing buffer requirements – typically notifications and follow up, with enforcement action if needed.

BWSR ($ for LGUs)

Question 5 - Related to the Soil Loss and Shoreland Buffer Compliance (BWSR - Activity #77), how will this funding be used? Is DNR a more appropriate agency for the shoreland buffer component? Response from Doug Thomas (BWSR): Soil Loss and Shoreland Buffer Compliance - The BWSR funding proposed is complementary to the DNR proposal and has been coordinated with them. The DNR proposal focuses on acquiring the color infrared imagery and the initial GIS analysis which then enables counties and SWCD to conduct a compliance effort/program. The BWSR portion of funding will be used to coordinate local efforts and provide grants to participating counties/SWCDs to carry out the local data verification, landowner notification of potential violation, and the technical assistance necessary to assist landowners with coming into compliance, and enforcement parts of a buffer compliance program. BWSR has the established grant making authority and grant reporting/verification processes necessary to ensure funds are used state CWF and Office of Grants Management policies.

7

Question 6 - Related to the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) (BWSR - Activity #78), what has the past bonding support been for this effort? CWFs should supplement those funding levels. Will these be permanent easements? Response from Doug Thomas (BWSR): Conservation Reserve Program (CREP) – The proposed CREP would be the third CREP initiative in MN. The State’s share of the previous two CREP’s came from state general bonding (CREP 1 = $63 million and CREP 2 = $20 million). The primary focus of the current CREP proposal is water quality and will target the acquisition of 100,000 acres of permanent easements on new riparian buffers and wetland restorations. The proposed mix of State funding is 45% general bonding, 30% CWF, and 25% Outdoor Heritage Fund. The State’s total investment in this CREP would be $150 million which leverages $600 million in federal funding. Question 7: Related to developing county geologic atlases with the DNR (UMN - Activity #61), why did you propose a decrease? Response from Julie Westerlund (DNR): DNR did not propose a decrease. We do not know about the University of Minnesota’s intentions. Question 8: Related to the Legislative Coordinating Commission (Activity #63), why did you propose a decrease? Response from Rebecca Flood (MPCA): We did not propose a decrease. It is up to the Legislature so we left it blank. Question 9: Related to the Enhanced County Inspections/SSTS corrective actions (MPCA - Activity #12), will some of this funding be used for grants to low-income landowners? Response from Rebecca Flood (MPCA): In FY 2014 $1,000,000, and in 2015, just over $1,000,000, were provided for grants to low income landowners for upgrades to their SSTS systems. With similar funding in the future, the money provided for grants to low income landowners would be between $750,000 and $1,000,000 per year. Question 10: Related to the Pesticide Monitoring and Assessment Program (MN Department of Agriculture (MDA) – Activity #4), please provide examples of when MDA has taken action (e.g. imposing or removing restrictions on pesticide use and/or impairment designation) because of the data collected through this program. Response from Dan Stoddard (MDA): 1. New laboratory analytical equipment made possible an increased number of collected samples,

primarily in the context of surface water. Within MDA’s tiered monitoring approach, this translates into greater geographic coverage for storm flow sampling during the entire growing and application season, as well as a greater number of samples from sites where high pesticide concentrations were seen in the previous year.

2. Having greater sampling capacity throughout the growing season allowed MDA to identify late-season detections of the highly toxic insecticide chlorpyrifos in surface water, typically applied during mid-to-late summer. This lead to MPCA impairment designations of specific stream

8

reaches. As a result of this sampling MDA determined that chlorpyrifos is a “Surface Water Pesticide of Concern” as defined in the state Pesticide Management Plan, which resulted in the development and promotion of state BMPs for chlorpyrifos and label compliance outreach for application setbacks from surface waters.

3. Monitoring for acetochlor, a corn herbicide, in two south-central Minnesota watersheds led to the designation of two stream reaches as impaired due to exceedances of the MPCA chronic surface water standard to protect aquatic life. A substantial amount of outreach and evaluation of practices was conducted as a result of these impairments. The water bodies have recently been recommended by MPCA for de-listing as impaired waters.

4. Monitoring data for atrazine in surface water led the MDA to develop and promote BMPs that reinforced application restrictions near water bodies, recommended reduced application rates in certain vulnerable settings, and led to increased education and enforcement of the label application setbacks from surface water for atrazine.

5. Samples have also been available to conduct pesticide analyses in support of a study to evaluate pesticides in lakes and to sample specific surface waters at MPCA’s request to rule out pesticides as a potential source of impairments as part of the stressor ID process.

6. MDA has been able to increase monitoring, add new analytes and at lower detection levels to evaluate the long-term trends for pesticides in groundwater. Long-term trend data is important for determining the effectiveness of management practices and the risk to drinking water. Current pesticide monitoring data indicates that the concentration of historic groundwater contaminants such as atrazine, a corn herbicide, is dropping. However the frequency of detection is generally not dropping and residual contamination from certain pesticides is still observed after their use has been significantly reduced over time.

7. Increased improved capability of the new LC/MS/MS instruments allowed MDA to add neonicotinoid insecticides as new analytes for groundwater and surface samples. This class of pesticides have had increased use in recent years and may be of concern for bees. Certain neonicotinoids have been found at low detection frequencies and concentrations in the groundwater of the Central Sands. They are found less frequently in surface waters.

8. It is important to note that the non-detection of frequently used pesticides is important information and useful for screening potential surface water stressors, evaluating the risk to drinking water, determining the effectiveness of pesticide management practices and focusing the use of limited resources.

Question 11: Related to Stream Flow Monitoring (MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) – Activity #5, WRAPS (DNR) – Activity #10, and Aquifer Monitoring for Drinking Water Protection (DNR) – Activity #18, and Nonpoint source restoration/protection activities – Activity #34), were the increases in state agency FTEs from FY10-11 to FY14-15 new positions or reassignments of existing personnel funded historically through other funds (e.g. general fund)? Response: From Julie Westerlund (DNR) - These increases represent new positions, doing new work that was not previously done with other funding sources. These new positions have been filled in one of two ways:

9

1) New positions filled by new employees who had never worked for DNR before or by existing personnel who changed jobs to do the new work.

2) Expanding the list of job responsibilities (new work) for existing personnel and reducing some of their “traditional” work (historically funded through other sources).

a. Clean water funding has expanded the capacity of our existing staff, who have a great deal of knowledge about local water resources, so they can participate in the MPCA’s 10-year cycle (new work) and provide technical assistance on implementation projects that they did not give in the past.

b. We have very clear guidance for these staff so that clean water funds are only used for work that is directly related to implementation of the Clean Water Legacy Act and does not substitute for work historically funded through other sources.

c. “Traditional” work, historically funded through other sources, was: i. reduced or discontinued due to budget cuts in the other funding sources

ii. taken on by other employees not paid with clean water funds iii. made more efficient through continuous improvement efforts.

d. An example: An Area Hydrologist now has 25% of her salary paid from the clean water fund. She now spends 25% of her time working with other agencies providing technical advice and input on the WRAPS process and clean water funded implementation projects (new work). She reduced her traditional Area Hydrologist duties by 25% by a combination of:

i. transferring some of her permitting work to another employee (non-CWF) in the region and spending less time of permitting because of DNR’s the new online permitting system

ii. referring landowners with questions about floodplain, shoreland or other programs to their local government or the DNR website (e.g., no longer conducting site visits)

iii. no longer commenting on shoreland variances and conditional use permits unless specifically requested by a community.

Question 12: Related to the Great Lakes Restoration Program (MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) – Activity #29), how much federal funding is available for FY16-17? What level of FY16-17 state funding would be needed to leverage these federal funds? Response: From Myrna Halbach (MPCA) - The federal funding level for Minnesota’s Area of Concern (AOC) is not established. Congress appropriates a funding amount for all AOC activity. The highest percentage federal match funding is 65%. Thus, the MPCA has been working on a 65% federal – 35% state match. We have been able to leverage the current Clean Water Fund – Federal effort to ensure other funding has been considered for the effort. None is guaranteed for the future as we must reapply each year. Minnesota’s prepared plan and readiness has made us very competitive as the federal agencies have considered resources for projects.

Question 13: Related to the AgBMP Loan Program (MDA – Activity #31), were FY14-15 CWF levels too high, too low, or about the right amount to meet the demands for this program? Response: From Dan Stoddard (MDA) - The FY14-15 CWF appropriation for the Ag BMP loan program only allowed $30,000 each year or $60,000 in total for administration costs for the program. This was not sufficient to cover MDA’s actual pro-rated administration costs. For the next budget cycle MDA is

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/index.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/index.html

10

requesting $60,000 each year or $120,000 to cover these costs. The actual charge to the account is pro-rated. Any extra funds will be added to the corpus of the account and used for future loans. Comment 14: Related to the Technical Assistance Program (MDA – Activity #32), we would like to better understand the results about what has been learned in the last 6 years of this funding and how it has been applied. Recommend presenting at a Clean Water Council meeting. Response from Dan Stoddard (MDA): The MDA’s technical assistance helps ensure that current and accurate scientific information is made available to the public and used to address water quality concerns in agricultural areas of Minnesota. This funding is used to evaluate the effectiveness of agricultural conservation practices, share information about research and new technologies and deliver workshops / trainings to transfer information and build skills and capacity at the local level. In response to the BOC general question about what we have learned there are two possible levels of response - a high level overview of results learned and a more detailed discussion of specific funded activities. We have provided a general overview of the concepts behind the work we are doing and some information on specific work activities. What we have learned from the past 6 years of the technical assistance program can be summarized into three categories: Tools and Technology MDA sponsored research has helped develop several tools such as the LiDAR based conservation targeting, the Ag BMP handbook and more recently field decision support tools. These tools are extremely useful to support local impaired waters decision making and field evaluation. They provide LGUs and others substantial savings and even make some work possible that otherwise likely could not be done at the local level. There are very practical outcomes from this work. However, we have learned without ongoing technical support their usability and adoption within many watersheds is generally very limited. Further there are many details for each project or tool that are not always obvious and are difficult to convey, so support for their use at the local level is important. Demonstration and Evaluation Much of the impaired waters assessments work and evaluation of BMP adoption scenarios are performed though computer modeling. However there are very significant data gaps (both state-wide and nationally) in the collection of edge-of-field water data, which enables the quantification of BMP effectiveness. Edge-of-field efforts are critical to demonstrate the real measureable impacts from fields. Many practices are well understood but others clearly are not and there is a need for field scale BMP demonstration and evaluation work for certain practices. MDA has, through technical assistance funds, undertaken a number of these activities. However, we have learned that it can be very difficult to run these sites. Much of the runoff occurs during spring snowmelt or during one or two major precipitation events which can create significant weather challenges to sampling equipment. On the other hand understanding how important major storm events are to the total runoff from a site is a critically important lesson for managing agricultural pollution and we are collecting accurate data on the impacts of specific practices. MDA has developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for edge-of-field monitoring and for training local partners and others on all aspects of water quality sampling and site maintenance.

11

Agricultural Community Decision Making Convincing farmers to adopt best management and conservation practices is a major goal for clean water programs in Minnesota. Local implementation efforts through SWCDs to deliver conservation practices on the farm are a critical component of this effort. However, we have learned how important it is to recognize that farmers are strongly influenced by their crop advisors and professional organizations who can either validate or raise questions about the viability of a specific practice. These are critical participants in the decision making process for many farmers. These technical people are best accessed through their participation in demonstration sites and related activities. Models are generally not very convincing to these professionals who have spent their careers working in the field. They need to see and participate in demonstration and evaluation activities to be convinced of their viability and benefits. It is especially effective to include them in local projects that also include LGUs and SWCDs. The MDA has designed our technical assistance activities to address these needs. The following describes examples of the work funded under technical assistance. The MDA provides in-field technical assistance, project coordination and technical advice for a range of stakeholder groups. Technical assistance efforts include activities that support the Impaired Waters Process; participating in local work groups and providing technical advice regarding the appropriate use of agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs). Technical assistance funding ensures that accurate, scientifically-based information on the costs and benefits of specific agricultural conservation practices is available to stakeholders statewide. The MDA works directly with and is supportive of local government units to disseminate information and to ensure that scientific information gets in the hands of the end user. For example, the MDA hosts workshops to transfer knowledge learned within their CWF Research Program. The MDA hosted seven workshops in 2010 titled “Digital Terrain Analysis with LiDAR for Clean Water Implementation. There were 145 conservation professionals in attendance to learn when, why and how to use digital terrain analysis to target conservation practices to protect and improve water quality. Workshops were supported by the MDA and taught by professors and technical experts at the University of Minnesota. Both of these workshops help local government staff and others to use targeting tools to implement practices in their watershed. The LiDAR based tool demonstrated to LGUs in these workshops is currently recommended as part of the One Watershed, One Plan initiative for prioritized, targeted and measurable implementation plans. Based on the success demonstrated through a MDA Clean Water Fund research project, the MDA is coordinating a field verification pilot project with three LGUs to aid the WRAPs process by demonstrating the effectiveness of using this targeting tool to encourage soil health discussions with land owners and promote BMP implementation in critical source areas. Technical assistance also fills an important need for field demonstration and validation of practices. MDA uses on-farm, edge-of-field monitoring to assess sediment and nutrient loss at the field scale and to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation practices. Both new and existing practices are evaluated at these sites including many that have been developed or studied within MDA’s Clean Water Research program. Information collected is being used to support implementation decisions and inform computer simulation models. Currently MDA is managing or supporting 17 demonstration sites with water quality monitoring across the state.

12

On farm activities include the Root River Field to Stream Partnership (RRFSP), Clay County Drainage Site and the Discovery Farms Minnesota Program. The MDA is the lead partner on the first two programs and provides technical support for Discovery Farms Minnesota. Within the Discovery Farms Program, the MDA is responsible for the selection and installation of monitoring equipment as well as the collection, management and distribution of high quality, technically defensible, scientific data. The work is generally conducted in coordination with scientists from the University of Minnesota. The MDA has developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for edge-of-field monitoring and trains local partners on all aspects of water quality sampling and site maintenance. Most importantly local and regional growers are engaged in understanding the cause and effect of various practices. Two of MDAs highlighted technical assistance projects will be discussed below to illustrate how the MDA has established collaborative demonstration sites: The first is the Root River Field to Stream Partnership (RRFSP), which started in 2009. The partnership is led by the MDA and includes local farmers and their advisors, the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resource Center, The Nature Conservancy, Monsanto, Fillmore, Mower and Houston County Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), and academic researchers. The purpose is to conduct intensive surface and groundwater monitoring at multiple scales in order to provide an assessment of the quantity and sources of nutrients and sediment delivered to the watershed outlet, and to determine the effectiveness of agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs). Monitoring is occurring both at the edge of agricultural fields and at in-stream locations. Monitoring at these two scales will help improve the understanding of how practices on the land affect water quality at a larger scale. Data from the first few years of the RRFSP project is summarized in annual reports that are located on the MDA’s CWF website (http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/cleanwaterfund/onfarmprojects.aspx). Baseline data will be used to inform the selection and implementation of conservation practices and in some instances to make recommendations for changes in nutrient or on-farm management. The site was recently part of a University of Minnesota Extension field tour and has been toured by many state agencies, professional science organizations and conservation groups. The second project is the Clay County Drainage Site, located in the Red River Valley, which started in 2010. The Red River Valley is experiencing an unprecedented increase in the amount of installed subsurface drainage tile. Although drainage tile is commonly found in other areas of the state, it is relatively new into this region. The water quality impact of tiling in this region, with its unique soil and environmental conditions, has not been studied in detail. Research activities are occurring on the field scale (155 acre field) in cooperation with the farmer who owns the land. The Clay County Drainage site offers a unique opportunity to monitor the environmental impacts of both surface and sub-surface drainage from agricultural fields. It is the only site of its kind in the Red River Valley. Seven fully automated edge-of-field sites provide information about the quantity of water, nutrients and sediments moving off a field by surface and sub-surface drainage into an adjacent waterway. Project partners are working together to determine the range of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment losses occurring when agricultural fields in the Red River Valley are artificially drained and how effective certain agricultural management practices are at reducing nutrient and sediment losses from these drainage systems. This is a long-term project that is expected to last >10 years. The advisory group consists of local farmers, crop advisors, area university researchers, and local agricultural industry representatives. Presentations are given at workshops across the state and the site has been used for field days and private tours. The Clay County Drainage

13

site has garnered much attention from researchers, policy makers and other because it is one of the first sites established to evaluate the environmental impact of tile drainage in an area that has been historically dominated by surface drainage systems. In addition to edge-of-field monitoring, the MDA uses on-farm evaluations to help farmers compare different management practices and use the results to update knowledge and inform future management decisions. For example, the MDA is supporting the Nutrient Management Initiative, which helps farmers fine tune their nutrient application by comparing different rates. In this program, farmers work with a certified crop consultant to evaluate their current nutrient management practices compared to more efficient rates recommended by NRCS and the University of Minnesota. Finally we would note that MDA and some of our project cooperators have given several presentations to the Clean Water Council on Technical Assistance projects and we would be pleased to provide another overview. Question 15: Related to the MN Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (MDA – Activity #33), how much federal funding is available for FY16-17? What level of FY16-17 state funding would be needed to leverage these federal funds? Response: From Dan Stoddard (MDA) - This program was developed in partnership with the USDA and the US EPA and has been strongly supported by the highest levels of leadership at the USDA. We have experienced a greater than 50% USDA match of state funds for the program and we anticipate a 100% match moving forward into FY16-17. However the funding is a match, therefore state funds must be provided to obtain these federal funds. Question 16: Related to the Nonpoint source restoration and protection activities Program (DNR – Activity #34), please provide more information on program effectiveness and examples where this is working. Response: From Julie Westerlund (DNR) - DNR works with state agency partners and assists local governments on water resource restoration and protection issues. DNR brings expertise in hydrology, geomorphology, and biology that enhances local projects so that conservation investments give maximum water quality and ecosystem benefits. We prioritize where we do clean water funded work based on:

· Watersheds engaging in One Watershed, One Plan (we are just beginning this now) · Projects that have received clean water funding (passed through the interagency review

process) · Projects or locations where an interagency group has agreed DNR’s assistance is needed for a

water quality project, plan, (and the project has been identified in a TMDL implementation plan or a local water plan)

· Communities where waters are at risk from land use change and local zoning regulations are inadequate to provide protections

We don’t yet have a summary of our FY14 outcomes - here’s a summary of what we reported for FY13 to the Legislative Coordinating Commission:

14

· Worked with local governments to strategically target conservation for 58 project ideas that will provide water quality and other ecosystem benefits

· Provided technical assistance with funding, design, or implementation on 127 specific water quality projects. Many of these are initial site visits/consultations. The result is water quality projects that are selected, located and designed for long-term sustainability and improved water quality. DNR consulted with a number of local governments to use a natural channel design approach to stream channel stabilization projects; this type of project lasts longer and provides better habitat benefits than traditional armoring of stream banks. Some specific examples:

o Cascade Creek, Olmstead County – off-channel wetland creation, channel floodplain connection

o East Branch Flandreau Creek, Pipestone County – realigning a stream channel as the county widens CR10; improve on county’s design to incorporate natural channel design, improve habitat for Topeka Shiner

o North Fork Crow River – Toe-wood streambank stabilization project o Trout Brook, Afton – helped partners prioritize implementation projects across the

watershed o St. Louis River Watershed – help LGUs with restoration planning, seeking funding,

coordination, and design on multiple stream restoration projects following major flooding in 2012

o East Branch Chippewa River – technical and design help on a streambank stabilization project and buffer installation

o Hubbard-Schultz-Wheeler chain of lakes water quality project – help with design and project planning

· Gave presentations at meetings and workshops attended by over 1,150 people from 32 communities or groups. These presentations are intended to increase understanding of the importance of healthy watersheds and management actions to achieve clean water.

· DNR foresters worked with landowners and County Soil and Water Conservation Districts to write 59 forest stewardship plans covering 6,458 acres of forested land in targeted watersheds. This represents an 80% increase in the number of stewardship plans in the targeted watersheds, which drain to sensitive lakes that are home to populations of tulibee, an important fish that requires cold, clean water to survive. The forest stewardship plans will increase eligibility for enrollment in land protection programs and result in an increase in forest health, which is integral to protecting high quality lakes.

Two other notes about this program:

1) We are just requesting FY14 reports from our field staff and will have more stories to tell about how and where this work is happening in the next six weeks;

2) DNR did not spend some of the FY13 funding for implementation assistance. The legislature amended the original appropriation language to extend those funds for one year to be spent on stream flow and groundwater monitoring.

Question 17: Related to the Measures, results and accountability program (BWSR – Activity #40), how is this coordinated with other agencies? Is eLINK part of this? Should program oversight be funded separately?

http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2014/01/17/legacy-amendment-helps-clean-up-crow-river-in-st-michael/

15

Response from Dave Weirens and Sarah Strommen (BWSR): This appropriation is for CWF oversight and results reporting that cuts across the suite of BWSR’s CWF programs. Therefore, it does include eLINK, which is used for tracking all BWSR CWF grant programs. It also includes review of grant reporting, grant verification, results reporting and communication, and development and maintenance of the Nonpoint Priority Funding Plan. Our measures and results work is coordinated with other agencies via the ICT and its subteams. The most visible element of this coordination probably is the Clean Water Fund Performance Report, but there also is ongoing work to develop and refine the ways in which we measure and report outcomes. Finally, we do not believe any changes to this appropriation are needed. Question 18: Related to the Small Community Wastewater Treatment Programs Grants and Loans Program (PFA – Activity #49), can PFA address private systems for inflow and infiltration (I&I)? Response from Jeff Freeman (PFA): The current Small Community WWT Program can only address I/I problems if they are part of a small community land based treatment system project. Question 19: For entire ICT - If PFA can’t address private systems for inflow and infiltration, which agency would be the right lead agency for this program if it was a statewide program? Response from Jeff Freeman (PFA): PFA would be the appropriate lead agency if it was determined that there should be a statewide program to address I/I issues on private property. However, there are questions about whether there should be such a program, and if it would be an appropriate use of Clean Water Funds. Question 20: Related to the Academic Research/Evaluation Program (MDA – Activity #55), please provide examples of how research results are being applied at the local level. Response from Dan Stoddard (MDA): Please note that the research projects funded by MDA are selected using an RFP process based on the recommendations of an interagency research team with the intent to support the impaired waters process in Minnesota. We believe the projects have been extremely valuable in helping to address specific concerns or issues or for developing technical practices and tools to support the impaired waters process. Given time constraints we cannot cover all of the projects here, but a link to a list of the projects is below and we have discussed a few select projects in more detail below in response to the question of how these projects are being used at the local level. Other project results are being used by more technical audiences. Response from Heidi Peterson (MDA): There are a number of water quality impairments that have implications for agriculture including bacteria, turbidity, pesticides, and nutrients. Significant knowledge gaps remain particularly related to understanding watershed scale systems and conservation practice effectiveness. MDA’s focus is to provide more accurate information about agriculture’s contribution to water impairments, and which best-management practices provide the greatest positive impact. Over the past 6 years MDA Clean Water Research funds have provided funding for 24 academic projects, with an additional 4 projects funded this year (http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/cleanwaterfund/research/mdaresearchprojects.aspx). Of these projects, 14 have been finished and their results either contributed to additional projects

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/cleanwaterfund/research/mdaresearchprojects.aspx

16

furthering the progress of science, or revolved into MDA technical assistance projects. A few of the projects, covering a diversity of topics, are summarized below: One well-known project was “Targeting BMPs to Critical Portions of the Landscape”, which was led by University of Minnesota professor David Mulla between 2007 and 2009. This was the first debut of using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data to conduct a terrain analysis within Minnesota to target BMP placement within the landscape. This technology reduces the staff time required by local government units (LGUs) to complete watershed field walkovers, and allows their time to be prioritized to critical source areas. Research showed that a walking survey took 10 days and approximately 300 labor hours with 3 people ($9,500), which otherwise, without the use of the technology, would have taken approximately 10 years to complete ($100,000). Based on the promising application of this terrain analysis methodology, the MDA applied technical assistance funds and hosted 7 workshops across the State in 2010 titled “Digital Terrain Analysis with LiDAR for Clean Water Implementation”. There were 145 conservation professionals in attendance, primarily from LGUs including SWCDs, to learn when, why and how to use digital terrain analysis to target conservation practices for water quality projects. The Water Resources Center at the University of Minnesota continued to host these courses between 2011 and 2013 through a LCCMR grant directed toward natural resource conservation. This technology is now being promoted by BWSR and is a component of the One Watershed One Plan Initiative. A second research project developed from Dr. Mulla’s project began in 2011 and ended this past month. It was a collaborative effort between consultants, LGUs and the University of Minnesota which demonstrated applying the results of using LiDAR conservation targeting to streamline field evaluations and assist LGU communication with landowners regarding BMP implementation. A workshop was conducted last month for LGUs, agencies and consultants which demonstrated the success of the resulting field worksheets and field evaluation techniques. Through technical assistance, additional workshops will be conducted in other areas of Minnesota to assist LGUs with the “next step” to their targeted conservation. With the success of this project demonstrated at the June workshop, the MDA is currently coordinating with University researchers and staff from Stearns County SWCD to arrange a presentation for the Clean Water Council to demonstrate how local water quality projects can use the terrain analysis results together with landscape characteristics to better estimate treatment needs and costs, improve project outcomes, and enhance grant applications for Clean Water Fund implementation dollars. In 2009 professor Bruce Wilson was awarded funds for his project titled “Validation of the Minnesota Feedlot Assessment Runoff Model (MinnFARM) for use in assessing TMDLs”. This research project closed in 2011 and MinnFARM is currently being used by LGUs as a “user-friendly” management tool to model nutrient contributions from feedlots and to identify those which are non-compliant. In 2011 the MDA funded the development of “The Agricultural BMP Handbook for TMDLs in Minnesota”. This was completed by Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. and Dr. Joel Peterson, P.E. from the University of Wisconsin-River Falls. The handbook received the American Council of Engineering Companies of Minnesota’s, 2013 Engineering Excellence Honor Award. It is a compilation of agricultural BMPs used in Minnesota and provides effectiveness estimates. The Handbook is frequently cited in TMDL and WRAPs reports and used by consultants and LGUs when modeling watershed water quality scenarios. A benefit of the Handbook was also the identification of knowledge gaps, which will aid in the funding of future academic research.

17

Research funds have not only supported University researchers, but have also been granted to LGUs. In 2012 the “Controlled Drainage and Bioreactor – Research and Demonstration Site” was funded to the Martin County SWCD. Project data will be collected through 2016 and will be used to analyze the impact of conservation drainage practices on water quality. The site has already been used for various field days and Martin County has been working together with University of Minnesota researchers to collect information regarding construction and maintenance costs and effectiveness. Question 21: Related to the Shoreland Stewardship Program (DNR – Activity #58), we assume this activity will be completed in FY14-15 and you won’t seek funding beyond this biennium? Response from Julie Westerlund (DNR): Correct. We did not have funding for Shoreland Stewardship in FY14-15 and will not seek funding for it FY16-17. “Shoreland Stewardship” started in FY10-11 with an emphasis on gearing up for new shoreland requirements (effort that was put on hold indefinitely by the legislature). In FY14-15 we re-named this line item in our budget “Nonpoint Source Restoration and Protection Activities.”

Question 22: Expanded Contaminants of New Concern (under Monitoring/Assessment efforts) (MPCA) and Drinking Water Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) (MDH) - Activity #23 · Is MDH only evaluating CECs that are being found in the water (through MPCA monitoring or other

monitoring)? Other than MPCA, what other monitoring results is MDH using? Response from Chris Elvrum (MDH): the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) evaluates risks from a variety of exposures to chemicals (air, food, soil, and water), but is using Clean Water Funds for work only related to water. The MDH Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC) Program takes suggestions (nominations for chemicals to evaluate) from the public, stakeholders, agencies, and staff whether or not the chemical has actually been found in Minnesota waters. The presence of the chemical in waters in Minnesota increases the likelihood that MDH will evaluate the chemical and develop a drinking water guidance value. While MDH carefully follows the monitoring work of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) (that is, studies of CECs in ground water and surface water), MDH also relies on work conducted in Minnesota and the region by the US Geological Survey (e.g., the Water Resources Center), academics working throughout the state, and the work of MDH drinking water and site assessment programs. Most of the nominations for evaluation that MDH receives from programs in state agencies (MDH, MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA)) are related to monitoring data. However, MDH has developed and increased laboratory capacity to analyze certain CECs that MDH or MPCA are concerned about and wish to monitor. For example, acrylamide, a chemical associated with well construction and frac sand mining, was nominated to the CEC program and as a result, a new laboratory method to measure acrylamide was developed, human health-based risks evaluated, and groundwater monitoring for specific situations was conducted, showing that at this point in time when acrylamide has been found in groundwater, it has not posed a health risk. Question 23: Expanded Contaminants of New Concern (under Monitoring/Assessment efforts) (MPCA) and Drinking Water Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) (MDH) - Activity #23 · What is the coordination between MPCA efforts (CEC monitoring) and MDH efforts (evaluation of

toxicity and exposure data to develop health based guidance)?

18

Response from Chris Elvrum (MDH): MDH and MPCA staff and management have a commitment to developing a more coordinated approach to CEC related work. At this time, staff have been working together to describe current activities and goals for increased coordination. Staff agree that the MDH CEC program should provide risk values to MPCA and that MPCA’s CEC activities should provide occurrence data to MDH. As a result, the agencies anticipate that risk information will be available for the CECs that are most often and most widely found in Minnesota. However, more work is needed to optimize the coordination of CEC work plans for the two agencies. In addition, MDH and MPCA are working together to develop ecological risk statements for chemicals in order to present, in MDH work, a holistic description of risk (that is risks to aquatic plant and animal life in addition to risks to humans). Similarly, the agencies are working together to ensure human health risk evaluations for chemicals in surface waters incorporate the findings of each agency’s work. A current example is that MDH and MPCA are collaborating on exposure and toxicology of nonylphenol and pharmaceuticals. In a similar fashion, MDH is coordinating ecological and exposure risk statements about agricultural chemicals with MDA and CEC resources have been used to conduct rapid assessments of a wide range of pesticides for which MDA did not have state risk-based drinking water values. These activities will assist the state in focusing on the greatest risks that CECs present to human and ecological health. Question 24: Pesticide Monitoring and Assessment (MDA) – Activity #4 · What is this funding currently being used for? We are looking for FY14-15 budget detail (2.25 FTEs

plus what other expenses = $700K). Response from MDA (Dan Stoddard): I am responding to the second question from the BOC on Pesticide Monitoring and Assessment. The BOC wanted to know what we spend these funds for. Back in FY10-11 the MDA used clean water funds to purchase a state-of-the-art LC/MS/MS analytical instrument to conduct pesticide analyses on water samples at our lab. This instrument has lower detection limits and a longer suite of analytes than our previous analytical instrument. The MDA lab already had one of these instruments, but there was need and interest from a variety of sources for MDA to increase the number of water samples for pesticides. This instrument provides an increase of approximately 600 samples per year. The ongoing costs are to run the instrument. This includes costs for two chemists to maximize the use of the instrument and .25 FTE lower level staff for sample check-in and administration. There are also equipment costs for the operations and maintenance of the instrument including what they call “consumables” that are used one time to prepare and run the samples during the analysis. Question 25: IBI Lake Assessment (DNR) – Activity #6 · What is the funding from other sources for this program going forward (FY16-17 and beyond)?

Concerned that you are still in discussion with other agencies about how this tool will be used by different agencies going forward (beyond pilot watersheds) – why would funding be requested for the program if you are not sure how it will be used?

Response from Julie Westerlund (DNR): Lake Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) FUNDING: Clean Water Fund (CWF) provides supplemental funding to enhance lake surveys, which are and have been traditionally supported by the Game and Fish Fund.

19

The DNR’s section of Fisheries has traditionally conducted surveys of game fish (gill nets, trap nets) on a schedule determined by the local fisheries office. With the advent of the watershed approach and the MPCA’s schedule, DNR Fisheries has: · Added multiple different types of sampling (nearshore seining, backpack electrofishing, vertical

gill netting) to accurately check the lakes entire fish population (game + non-game). · Added lake surveys to accommodate MPCA’s watershed schedule. Funding from the Clean Water Fund is also used to purchase special equipment that is needed for the non-game fish survey work. Traditional game fish lake survey equipment is paid for from the Game and Fish Fund. ABOUT IBIs: The goal of the Lake IBI program is to develop and use a biological assessment tool for lakes, similar to what has been done for streams. Prior to the development and use of Indices of Biological Integrity (IBI), the MPCA relied mainly on water chemistry to determine if a waterbody is impaired (nutrients, turbidity/water clarity, mercury, chloride, bacteria, etc.). The addition of biological indicators (fish and macroinvertebrates in streams; fish and plants in lakes) gives MPCA more robust information for determining if a lake or stream is swimmable or fishable. THE LAKE IBI PROGRAM: Since the start of the Clean Water Fund, DNR and MPCA have been working together to develop and use IBIs for lakes. The program consists of sampling game and non-game fish populations in lakes for two main purposes: · Tool Development

o FISH: when this work started, Minnesota had a fish IBI developed for a one set of lake classes (small lakes in central Minnesota). Multiple IBIs needed to be developed for the wider range of lakes in Minnesota. CWF has paid for the development of 5 IBIs to reflect different types, sizes, and locations of lakes in Minnesota. This involved sampling non-game and game fish in many more lakes in Minnesota than we previously had data for. At this time, three of the five fish IBIs are complete and IBIs can now be calculated for ~80% of Minnesota’s lakes with fish populations. The remaining IBI tool development work is primarily for: 1) north shore lakes (where there are currently few impairments and low numbers of fish species); and 2) refining a metric for cisco, which we think can be a very good indicator of water quality, but for which we need more data.

o PLANTS: DNR added the development of a plant IBI in the last few years; one assessment tool has already been developed based on existing plant information. Plant IBI work is a few years behind the fish IBI development.

o Tool development also includes standardizing protocols, quality control, determining sampling intensity needs, and managing data.

· Assessment: Assessment is the process of determining whether a lake meets water quality

standards. In 2013, DNR began shifting lake IBI surveys from tool development to assessment purposes. Now that the IBIs tools are mostly done, the assessment data can be used to calculate an IBI score and determine whether a biological impairment exists. Sampling for fish populations for the purposes of assessment will be an ongoing activity, rotating through the state on MPCA’s watershed assessment cycle.

20

MOVING FORWARD: As the tool development work comes to a close, CWF will support ongoing sampling of fish populations for the purposes of assessment. MPCA is ready to use the tools and will rely the data for assessing lakes now and into the future. Question 26: DNR · What are your FY10-11 State Agency FTEs for each of your ~12 Clean Water Fund Program Activities? Response from Julie Westerlund (DNR): FY10-11 DNR Clean Water Fund FTEs:

· Stream Flow Monitoring (Activity #5) = 5.5 · Lake IBI Assessment (Activity #6) = 10.2 · Fish Contamination Assessment (mercury) (Activity #7) = 0 (funding used for a contractor) · Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (DNR) (Activity #10) = 6.3 · Aquifer Monitoring for Drinking Water Protection (Activity #18) = 3.1 · Nonpoint source restoration and protection activities (Activity #34) = 1.1 · Applied Research and Tools (Activity #57) = 2.25 · County Geologic Atlas (Activity #59) = 0

Question 27: County Well Index Enhancement (MDH) – Activity #25 · What has the progress been on entering backlogged well records? How many more need to be

entered? When will this effort be done? How is the Clean Water Fund accelerating this? Why does the larger number of wells that need to be entered keep changing? Will funding be requested for this effort beyond FY16-17?

Response from Chris Elvrum (MDH): total records entered since funding was made available for this effort is about 60,000. Without CWF probably about 10,000 records would have been entered in that period. There are approximately 20,000 more records that will be entered with CWFs. The number grows as records are discovered or donated from well contractors. We are not requesting funding for County Well Index for FY16-17. Question 28: Well Sealing Cost Share (MDH) – Activity #26 · How many wells have been sealed each year that can be attributed solely to Clean Water Funds?

Why are some wells hard to seal using other funds? Response from Chris Elvrum (MDH): there were about 200 private wells sealed with CWF in the first year and about 25 public wells in the second year. It is estimated that this will be about the same for the current biennium. The Clean Water Funds are used as a 50/50 cost share. While well sealing is required, resources are not available to seek out and pursue unused unsealed wells so the grants act as an incentive to get wells sealed. In addition, the public water supply wells are often expensive to seal as they deep, large diameter and more complex construction. They can also pose a greater risk due to these factors. These wells may be owned by small businesses or small communities without significant financial resources available. The cost share can really help those public well owners get those high risk wells sealed.

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.

7/11/14 Email from Jeff Freeman, Public Facilities Authority (PFA) to the Clean Water Council’s Budget and Outcomes Committee’s Chair and Vice-Chair on I/I Funding Issues From: Freeman, Jeff (PFA) Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 5:40 PM Keith and Pat, I know the Clean Water Council has received a proposal for Clean Water Legacy Funds to be used to help local governments address I/I mitigation issues in the metropolitan area, and specifically private sources of I/I. I want to offer some background and information on this issue from the Public Facilities Authority’s perspective. There is no doubt that excessive infiltration and inflow (I/I) of clear water into sanitary sewer systems is a significant problem for cities throughout the state. The PFA has funded many projects for cities to replace and repair old sewer pipes and correct other I/I sources through our Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program, and also WIF grants when the project meets the WIF affordability criteria. We consider the SRF loan program and WIF grant program to be “base” PFA programs that are primarily used for basic wastewater infrastructure repair, replacement and expansion. State funding for these programs is provided from state bonding. Neither the SRF or WIF programs have ever received any Clean Water Legacy appropriations. From the beginning of the PFA’s Clean Water Legacy Programs, these programs were specifically focused on and limited to helping cities implement projects to: 1) meet more stringent treatment limits (TMDL grants and phosphorus reduction grants) when required by MPCA to achieve specific water quality improvements in specific waterbodies, and 2) address serious problems from noncomplying septic systems in unsewered communities. Decisions were made early on that Legacy funds should not be used for general point source infrastructure repair and replacement. While point source infrastructure repair and replacement needs are great and certainly could use additional funding, using Legacy funds for these needs would cross this line that was established early on. Of course one reason that Legacy funds are attractive for I/I projects is that they aren’t restricted to publicly owned infrastructure as state bond funds are. To date the PFA’s SRF loan program has also had this restriction under federal law, even for funding sources other than bond funds. Recently, Congress approved changes to the SRF loan program that include expanded eligible uses that in some cases remove the publicly owned restriction. This change appears to possibly open the door to SRF loan funds being used by a city to contract for work to fix private sources of I/I (service laterals, sump pumps, foundation drains, etc.). These low interest loans could then be repaid over time through assessments back to the benefiting properties. We won’t know for sure to what extent this type of work would be SRF eligible for at least several months. However it is potentially a significant new development that could allow PFA to finance private I/I work for cities throughout the state without creating a new program or needing a new source of funding. I would be happy to talk with you and other members of the Clean Water Council and BOC about these issues in the future. I will be on vacation during the week of July 21 and so will miss the Council’s next meeting, but I do plan to attend the August 1 BOC meeting. In the meantime, please feel free to contact me if you have questions or want to discuss these issues further. Jeff Freeman | Executive Director Minnesota Public Facilities Authority 1st National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W820, St. Paul, MN 55101-1378 651-259-7465 [email protected] http://mn.gov/deed/pfa

mailto:[email protected]

http://mn.gov/deed/pfa

7/11/14

Clean Water Council Policy Discussion Objective: Come to agreement on Clean Water Council policy recommendations for riparian buffers and altered hydrology The questions below are for Council Members only to discuss in small groups (4-6 members per group). First answer these questions for riparian buffers (12:00-12:40 p.m.) and then for altered hydrology (12:40-1:20 p.m.). Designate one person in your group to take notes and one person in your group to report out to the large group. 1. What are your desired outcomes for this policy recommendation? (10 minutes)

a. Should additional outcomes be added to the “background” section? If yes, what are they?

b. What criteria/elements should a Council policy recommendation have?

2. Are there alternative options to add to the list of draft “policy statements”? If so, what are they? (30 minutes)

a. For example, are there ways to combine the “policy statements”? b. Are there items that could be changed (e.g. scope) to satisfy everyone’s interests? c. Are there items that could be added (e.g. measures) to strengthen the “policy

statements”?

1

7/9/14 Clean Water Council DRAFT Policy Recommendations Note: Black text is agreed upon language. Purple text is Version #1 and Green text is version #2. Topic 1: Riparian Buffers DRAFT Background: Riparian buffers - Too often our lakes, streams and ditches do not have riparian buffers: two obvious examples are agricultural crops that are cultivated within a few feet of the stream or ditch bank, and lakeshore residents that have turf grass right down to the lakeshore. If we are to accelerate the pace of progress in protecting and improving water quality we must have consistent perennial vegetative buffers along our riparian areas. Currently, state law recognizes the importance of buffers, but it is addressed in 3 areas of law and has 3 different entities overseeing the requirements. There have been several studies that have evaluated the compliance with buffer requirements. It is clear that the buffer requirements are inconsistently applied and enforced. Riparian and constructed water course buffers - Current state law recognizes the importance of buffers, and consistent with the diverse nature of natural lakes and streams, constructed ditches and wetlands, three separate protections are in place in the Shoreland Rule, the ditch buffer requirement and the wetland buffer requirement. It has been demonstrated that buffers of perennial grasses and vegetation can reduce sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen significantly. DRAFT Policy Statements: 1. The CWC recommends that State law should require a 50 foot perennial vegetative buffer

along all lakes, streams, wetlands and ditches statewide and there be a single authority that oversees its implementation.

2. The CWC recommends the state agencies responsible for current buffer requirements

conduct targeted outreach with local government units promoting the development and enforcement of appropriate ordinances in accordance with current buffer requirements. The CWC recommends that BWSR provide counties with data demonstrating the effectiveness of buffers in protecting local water bodies under local landscape conditions including water quality monitoring data.

2

Topic 2: Altered Hydrology DRAFT Background: Altered hydrology – Minnesota is and has always been a water rich state. Altered hydrology – Most of Minnesota is water rich. Through efforts to drain water in order to make it suitable for agriculture, transportation, 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, 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. To address problems associated with altered hydrology, it will be necessary to first identify areas where water quality is being impacted and associated drivers, and then identify effective methods to re-create storage, retention, and infiltration in watersheds. Urban runoff is highly variable across the state. Prior to the development of current MS4 requirements, runoff was not a significant consideration in urban building projects. Currently, MS4 requirements only apply to the largest cities. In addition, monitoring shows that even where stormwater practice requirements are being met; the actual water quality of runoff discharge is such that urban runoff continues to contribute to water quality impairments. There are many ways that water retention and infiltration can be achieved ranging from improved infiltration of water into the soil to water storage and retention. These options often provide multiple natural resource and water quality benefits. DRAFT Policy Statements: 1. As a first step, the CWC recommends it should be state policy to require all watersheds of

the state to have a local comprehensive watershed management plan and that it sets water retention, storage, and infiltration standards (i.e. volume control standards) that will hold the first X inches of rainfall for at least 24 hours by the year 2020.

2. The CWC recommends that local comprehensive watershed management plans address altered hydrology through water retention, storage, infiltration, and stream bank stabilization as appropriate goals. The CWC also recommends that MPCA provide local water planners with data substantiating the necessity of changes required to address impacts of altered hydrology. The CWC recommends that state agencies make available applicable water monitoring data and support research into the effectiveness of practices currently required or proposed to be required of urban land areas.

DRAFT 7/11/14 Clean Water Council (CWC or Council) DRAFT Meeting and Field Tour Agenda

Sunday, August 17th-Monday, August 18th 1080 28th Ave South (Salons A&B), Moorhead, MN

Objective: The Clean Water Council has spent a lot of time on agricultural non-point and drainage issues this past year. The meeting and field tour will demonstrate how Clean Water Funds (CWFs) are being used to:

1) Provide up-to-date technology and tools to better inform planning and target implementation of water quality projects and practices, including LIDAR data,

2) See and hear about local projects funded with the CWF and hear about and discuss targeting, partnerships, leveraging of other funds, and the importance of local capacity, and

3) See and hear about tile research work being done in the Red River Valley. DRAFT MEETING AGENDA, Sunday, August 17th 11:30 a.m. Vanpool (optional) leaves from MPCA in St. Paul (520 Lafayette Road N, St.

Paul, MN). Optional stop near St. Cloud (location TBD) around 12:45 p.m. 3:00 p.m. Arrive in Moorhead. Check-in Courtyard Marriot (1080 28th Ave South,

Moorhead, MN) – note you can check in any time after 3 p.m. 3:30 p.m. CWC Steering Team meeting (location TBD) 4:00 p.m. Welcome Reception – for all Clean Water Council members and Red River Basin

local government officials Meeting Location – Salons B and C (Marriot) 5:00 p.m. Presentation on the Red River Basin Decision Support Network & Water Quality

Decision Support Application - Chuck Fritz, International Water Institute Meeting Location – Salons B and C (Marriot)

6:00 p.m. Dinner (for Council members)

Clean Water Roadmap, Sarah Strommen, Board of Water and Soil Resources Meeting Location – Salons E and F (Marriot)

6:45 p.m. Policy Committee – Pam Blixt, Warren Formo, Gaylen Reetz, & Doug Thomas

Break into small groups to discuss potential policy recommendations. Meeting Location – Salons E and F (Marriot)

7:45 p.m. Budget and Outcomes Committee update – Keith Hanson and Pat Flowers Discuss the Council’s FY16-17 Clean Water Fund Recommendations Report.

Meeting Location – Salons E and F (Marriot) 8:30 p.m. Adjournment

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/farcy-courtyard-fargo-moorhead-mn/

DRAFT FIELD TOUR AGENDA - Monday, August 18th 6:30-8 a.m. Breakfast (Salons E and F) and Check Out 8:15 a.m. Depart from Hotel Lobby for Field Tour (bus tour, please wear walking shoes) 8:30 a.m. Site visit at the Red River - hear about dam removal/renovation and the City of

Moorhead’s drinking water supply intake – River Keepers 9:00 a.m. Depart for Buffalo-Red River Watershed District and Wilkin Soil and Water

Conservation District (SWCD) Field Sites *Drive by and hear about County Ditches 9, 32, and 33 retrofit projects (on bus)

9:30 a.m. Site visit at Wolverton Creek Water Quality improvement/Sediment Reduction

Project/Stream Restoration Project 10:00 a.m. Depart for next field site *Drive by and hear about the Manston Slough project – flood control/

groundwater recharge/wildlife (on bus) 10:30 a.m. Site visit for drainage water quality management practice and visit with farmer

Ross Agner 11:00 a.m. Depart for next field site

*Drive by and hear about the Dearhorn Creek restoration project 11:45 a.m. Lunch and Presentations/Discussions (Buffalo River State Park/Minnesota State

University-Moorhead Regional Science Center, Glyndon, MN) · Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program - MN

Department of Agriculture (MDA), Wilken SWCD and Nordick Family (first farm certified in Minnesota)

· Local targeting of conservation practices using LIDAR/terrain analysis – Boyer Lake and Stinking Lake CWF projects - Peter Mead, Becker SWCD

1:30 p.m. Tour of Minnesota’s Largest Prairie Reserve (optional)

2:00 p.m. Depart for next field site

*Drive by and hear about current tile drainage research - Luke Stuewe & Stefan Bischof, MDA

2:30 p.m. Clay County Tile Research Project – MDA 3:00 p.m. Depart for hotel (arrive back to hotel around 3:30 p.m.)

CWC Steering Team Agenda July 21st, 2014 2:00-3:30 p.m.

MPCA, Lower Level Board Room 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul

1. Discussion of today’s Council meeting 2. Future meeting topics Potential Meeting Topics – August 17 (Sunday) · 3:30 p.m. CWC Steering Team · 4:00 p.m. Welcome Reception (Clean Water Council members and Red River Basin officials) · 5:00 p.m. Presentation on the Red River Basin Decision Support Network & Water Quality

Decision Support Application · 6:00 p.m. Dinner

Clean Water Roadmap (10 minutes) · 6:45 p.m. Policy Topics · 7:45 p.m. BOC - Draft Council Report Outline · 8:30 p.m. Adjourn Red River Basin (field tour) - August 18 (Monday)

Potential Meeting Topics – September 15 · 9:30 BOC – review public comments, discuss Council’s draft FY16-17 Clean Water Fund

(CWF) recommendations, discuss Council report · 11:30 Lunch · 12:00 Policy Topics · 2:00 Adjourn Potential Meeting Topics – October 20 · 9:30 BOC update – vote on final Council FY16-17 CWF recommendations and report · 11:30 Lunch · 12:00 Policy Topics – vote on final policy recommendations · 2:00 Adjourn

Potential Meeting Topics (Nov/Dec) · Water Conservation/Reuse - Industrial reuse (e.g. Met Council/MnTAP effort), pilot studies of

stormwater/wastewater reuse, plumbing code, update from multi-agency reuse group or partners · Supplemental FY15 Clean Water Fund programs appropriated in 2014 · Drinking Water – better integration of Clean Water Act with Safe Drinking Water Act · Drinking Water – source water protection and how to improve water quality in another municipality · Groundwater in the Twin Cities Metro Area - groundwater planning on a regional scale · New stressors (Interagency) · Forever Green Initiative (UMN) and NRCS and individual farmers (cover crops) · Buffers – Environmental Working Group (Craig Cox) · Targeting Implementation Activities (e.g. tools/processes to help target projects) · Innovative Approaches - how to encourage innovative approaches through short-term incentives · Integrate Clean Water agenda with Land Use and Transportation Planning · Wastewater treatment – status of new technologies for treating nutrients, etc. · Role of Clean Water Funds and groundwater quantity · Update on groundwater sensitivity (DNR)

Clean Water Council Advising the Legislature and the Governor on the administration and implementation of the Clean Water Legacy Act

Clean Water Council Members: Marilyn Bernhardson Soil and Water Conservation Districts Pamela Blixt Watershed Districts Gary Burdorf Township Officers Sharon Doucette City Governments Tannie Eshenaur MN Department of Health Patrick Flowers Business Organizations Warren Formo Statewide Farm Organizations Keith Hanson Business Organizations Bob Hoefert Statewide Farm Organizations Frank Jewell Counties (Rural) Bradley Kalk Tribal Governments Michael McKay, Chair Environmental Organizations Gene Merriam Environmental Organizations Jason Moeckel Department of Natural Resources Senator David J. Osmek MN Senate Gaylen Reetz MN Pollution Control Agency Victoria Reinhardt Counties (Twin Cities Metro Area) Todd Renville Statewide Hunting Organizations Sandy Rummel, Vice-Chair Metropolitan Council Senator Bev Scalze MN Senate Patrick Shea City Governments Louis Smith Lakes and Streams Nonprofit Organizations Deborah Swackhamer State Higher Education Systems Doug Thomas MN Board of Water and Soil Resources Representative Paul Torkelson MN House of Representatives John Underhill Statewide Fishing Organizations Matthew Wohlman MN Department of Agriculture Representative Barb Yarusso MN House of Representatives

July 17th, 2014 Ms. Patricia Nauman Executive Director Metro Cities 145 University Ave W St. Paul, MN 55103-2044

Dear Ms. Nauman: Thank you for your request to the Clean Water Council (Council) about Clean Water Legacy Fund assistance to local governments to mitigate inflow and infiltration issues in the metropolitan region. We will take this request into consideration as we develop our FY16-17 Clean Water Fund recommendations for the Legislature and Governor.

The Council plans to discuss your request at their July 21st meeting and may also discuss it at future meetings of the Council and the Council’s Budget and Outcomes Committee. Note that the Council usually meets on the third Monday of the month and all meetings are open to the public. More information about the Clean Water Council and meeting dates/locations can be found at www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanwatercouncil. Again, thank you for approaching the Council with your request.

Sincerely,

Michael J. McKay Chair, Clean Water Council MM:cp

www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanwatercouncil

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanwatercouncil

New Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda · 2014. 8. 26. · Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda ....

Documents

Transcript of New Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda · 2014. 8. 26. · Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda ....