Board of Water and Soil Resources Members, Advisors, and Staff. August 23-24, 2017 BWSR Board Tour Details and Meeting Notice

Transcription

1 DATE: August 14, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Water and Soil Resources Members, Advisors, and Staff John Jaschke, Executive Director August 23-24, 2017 BWSR Board Tour Details and Meeting Notice The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) will tour Kandiyohi County on Wednesday, August 23, See attached tour itinerary. The accommodations for the Board Tour and Meeting will be at the Best Western Plus located at 2100 East Highway 12 in Willmar. Sleeping rooms for board members who requested accommodations have been reserved at Best Western Plus located at 2100 East Highway 12 in Willmar, on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, August 22 and 23. Rooms have been direct billed (BWSR Board members, with the exception of agency members, do not pay for the room). Please contact Hannah Pallmeyer if you have any questions about accommodations at Wednesday, August 23 rd BWSR Board Tour Breakfast, starting at 6:00 AM, is included for guests staying at the Best Western Plus on Tuesday evening. Check in for the tour will begin at 7:15 AM at the registration table in Gallery Room 1 & 2 at the Best Western Plus. At 7:30 AM the tour will begin in Gallery Room 1 & 2 with a brief overview of the day and a presentation about a few of the sites we will be visiting. The tour will consist of a few stops where we will be walking a short distance, wear your comfortable walking shoes, and casual attire. The tour will be held rain or shine, so please dress accordingly. The coach bus will travel through Kandiyohi County, with stops at the Squashed Frog RIM Project, Diamond Lake, and an Aquatic Invasive Species decontamination station. We will arrive Willmar at noon for lunch at Robbins Island Park; and a presentation by the DNR on the history of the park. The coach bus will depart at 1:20 PM and tour Neer Park, the Kandiyohi County Landfill Leachate Treatment System, Shakopee Creek, Rasmus Lake, and Grass Lake. The coach bus will arrive back at the Best Western Plus at 5:10 PM to allow attendees a chance to refresh or those not joining us for dinner, return to your car. The coach bus will depart the Fairfield Inn at 5:40 PM and arrive at the Prairie Woods Environmental Learning Center, where dinner will be served at 6:00 PM. There will be a presentation by Prairie Woods Environmental Learning Center staff during dinner. The coach bus will be departing Prairie Woods at 8:00 PM and will return to the hotel at approximately 8:15 PM. Thursday, August 24 th BWSR Board Meeting Breakfast, starting at 6:00 AM, is included for guests staying at the Best Western Plus on Wednesday evening. Bemidji Brainerd Detroit Lakes Duluth Mankato Marshall New Ulm Rochester St. Cloud St. Paul St. Paul Office 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN Phone: (651) TTY: (800) An equal opportunity employer

2 The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) will meet on Thursday, August 24th, beginning at 9:00 AM. The meeting will be held in the Gallery Room 1 & 2 at the Best Western Plus in Willmar. The following information pertains to agenda items: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Grants Program and Policy Committee 1. Resolution Authorizing MN CREP Outreach and Implementation Program In January Governor Dayton and USDA Secretary Vilsack s designee signed the MN CREP Agreement. It authorizes 60,000 acres of land in buffers, wetlands and wellhead protection areas to be secured with a CRP contract and a perpetual RIM easement. Board Resolution (January 25, 2017) authorized staff to implement the MN CREP. This resolution authorizes BWSR staff to allocate the $6 million of ENTRF funds through the CREP Outreach and Implementation project as governed by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Natural Resources (LCCMR) approved Work Plan. These funds will be used by Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) and partners to provide staffing assistance to implement MN CREP outreach and implementation efforts. DECISION ITEM 2. Drainage Records Modernization Match Grants Ending in CY 2016 BWSR, via a LCCMR funded (Phase 1) project, coordinated the: a) development of a drainage records GIS database template; b) a statewide GIS database located on the Minnesota Geospatial Commons for drainage system hydrographic data; c) update of the Drainage Records Modernization Guidelines; and d) development of associated web-based access for these tools to support drainage authority drainage records modernization efforts. BWSR has subsequently received $500,000 for Drainage Records Modernization (DRM) Phase 2, Match Grants. These grants will provide cost share to drainage authorities to use the outcomes of the Phase 1 project to move their drainage records into a GIS database. DECISION ITEM 3. Cooperative Weed Management Area RFP Approval of the FY2018 and FY2019 BWSR Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) Program RFP is requested. The Board was appropriated $100,000 of cost-share grant funds in each year of the biennium for FY2016 and FY2017 ($200,000 total) for county cooperative weed management cost-share programs and to restore native plants in selected invasive species management sites. Staff have developed a request for proposal to make these funds available to qualified cooperative weed management groups. Funding source: 2017 Regular Session, Chapter 93, SF-844, Article 1. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES APPROPRIATIONS, Sec. 4. BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES. DECISION ITEM 4. North Fork Crow River One Watershed One Plan Supplemental Funding request The Crow River Organization for Water (CROW) is the fiscal and administrative agent for the North Fork Crow River One Watershed One Plan (NFCR1W1P). The NFCR1W1P is one of the pilot 1W1P planning areas. The CROW has submitted a request for additional funds so that the 1W1P can be completed. BWSR staff has worked with CROW staff to develop a work plan that will allow for additional planning meetings and allow for their engineering consultant to complete the PTMapp modeling, implementation plan and capital improvement plan. The CROW feels that additional funds are critical for them to complete the planning process. They asked that their request be brought to the BWSR Board in August to avoid depleting grant funds and delays to the planning process. DECISION ITEM BWSR Board Meeting Notice Page 2

3 Wetland Conservation Committee Local Roads Wetland Replacement Program Bonding Appropriation Project Selection Plan The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) has been charged by the legislature to generate wetland replacement credits for use by local public transportation authorities to satisfy wetland replacement requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Five million dollars in bonding funds were appropriated to BWSR in 2017 to generate wetland credits for the LRWRP. The 2017 Bonding Appropriation Project Selection Plan was developed to outline the process and criteria to be used to select and fund projects from this appropriation. The plan has been reviewed by the Board s Wetlands Conservation Committee, which has forwarded the plan to the full Board with recommendation to approve. DECISION ITEM Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee 1. Decision Support Tool for Selecting and Implementing Alternative Practices in Compliance with the Buffer Law The Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee is recommending the Board adopt the Decision Support Tool as authorized under Minn. Stat. 103F.48 and Procedure 5: Other Alternative Practices Approved by the Board. DECISION ITEM 2. Variable Width Water Quality Buffers The Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee is recommending the Board adopt the Variable Width Water Quality Buffers as authorized under Minn. Stat. 103F.48 and Procedure 5: Other Alternative Practices Approved by the Board. DECISION ITEM NEW BUSINESS 1. Review of auditor recommendations regarding Board Member Expense Reports The Office of the Legislative Auditor is concluding their audit of the Board of Water and Soil Resources and has some recommendations and reminders about best practices for filling out expense reports. INFORMATION ITEM If you have any questions regarding the agenda, please feel free to call me at We look forward to seeing you on August 23rd and 24th. BWSR Board Meeting Notice Page 3

4 BWSR Board Tour Itinerary August 23, 2017 Best Western Plus 2100 East Highway 12 Willmar, MN :15 AM Check-in at registration table at Best Western Plus, Gallery Room 1 & 2 7:30 Welcome & Introductions Gerald Van Amburg, John Jaschke, BWSR Brief overview of Tour Kevin Bigalke, BWSR Central Region Manager Overview of Grass Lake Project Tom Wenzel Overview of County Landfill Leachate Project 8:30 Depart Best Western Plus 8:40 Squashed Frog RIM Project Drive by/brief pull over Rick Reimer, Kandiyohi SWCD 8:50 Diamond Lake Project Sites Presenters Margaret Johnson, Middle Fork Crow River Watershed District Project Highlights: two sites will be visited to present water diversion, lake level drawdown, nutrient reduction and water quality improvement in Diamond Lake Refreshment Break 10:15 Depart for Kandiyohi AIS Program, Spicer 10:30 Kandiyohi County AIS Program Presenter - Charlene Brooks, Kandiyohi County AIS Coordinator Project Highlights AIS decontamination station demonstration 11:30 Depart for Robbins Island Park, Willmar 12:00 Lunch and Presentation at Robbins Island Park Presenter Forrest Peterson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Presentation Highlights Robbins Island Park History 1:20 Depart for Neer Park, New London Bemidji Brainerd Detroit Lakes Duluth Mankato Marshall New Ulm Rochester St. Cloud St. Paul St. Paul HQ 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN Phone: (651) TTY: (800) An equal opportunity employer

5 1:45 Neer Park, New London Presenter Bill Gossman, New London Mayor Kandiyohi SWCD Staff Project Highlights Discussion on conflicting landuse & shoreland projection 2:10 Depart for Kandiyohi County Landfill Leachate Treatment System 2:25 Kandiyohi County Landfill Leachate Treatment System Presenter Chance Bratch, Site Manager Kazem Oskoui, Clark Engineering Project Highlights Innovative Landfill Water Treatment System, Partnership Refreshments 3:15 Depart for Shakopee Creek/Ramus Lake Restoration 3:25 Drive by Shakopee Creek Riparian Restoration Presenter Rick Reimer, Kandiyohi SWCD 3:35 Rasmus Lake RIM/WRP Presenter Rick Reimer, Kandiyohi SWCD 4:00 Grass Lake Restoration Project Presenter Tom Wenzel & Mike Anderson, BWSR; Loren Engelby, Kandiyohi County Project Highlights History and Overview of Project, Project Funding/Partnerships 5:00 Depart for Hotel 5:10 Brief stop at Hotel to drop off those not attending dinner 5:40 Depart for Prairie Woods Environmental Learning Center for Dinner 6:00 Dinner Served 6:30 Presentation History of Prairie Wood Environmental Learning Center Presenter Dave Pederson, Executive Director PWELC Highlights Purpose, Mission, Partnerships, Local Community Involvement 8:00 Depart to Hotel 8:15 Arrive at Best Western Plus Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources

6 Shakopee Creek Neer Park County Landfill AIS Decontamination Station Prairie Woods Environmental Learning Center HSW - Pipeline Install Rasmus Lake - RIM/WRP HSW - Phase II Structure Location HSW - Diamond Lake Box Culvert Robbins Island Park Hotel Squashed Frog RIM/WRP Project Grass Lake - Ditch Reroute / Abandonment Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

7 BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES BEST WESTERN PLUS 2100 EAST HIGHWAY 12 WILLMAR, MN THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2017 PRELIMINARY AGENDA 9:00 AM CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2017 BOARD MEETING PUBLIC ACCESS FORUM (10-minute agenda time, two-minute limit/person) CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION REPORTS Chair & Administrative Advisory Committee - Gerald Van Amburg Audit & Oversight Committee - Gerald Van Amburg Executive Director - John Jaschke Dispute Resolution Committee - Gerald Van Amburg Grants Program & Policy Committee - Steve Sunderland RIM Reserve Committee Gene Tiedemann Water Management & Strategic Planning Committee - Jack Ditmore Wetland Conservation Committee - Tom Schulz Buffers, Soils & Drainage Committee - Kathryn Kelly Drainage Work Group - Tom Loveall/Al Kean BWSR Board Meeting Agenda Page 1

8 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Grants Program and Policy Committee 1. Resolution Authorizing MN CREP Outreach and Implementation Program Bill Penning, Tabor Hoek, and/or Tim Koehler DECISION ITEM 2. Drainage Records Modernization Match Grants Tim Gillette DECISION ITEM 3. Cooperative Weed Management Area RFP Dan Shaw DECISION ITEM 4. North Fork Crow River One Watershed One Plan Supplemental Funding request Kevin Bigalke DECISION ITEM Wetland Conservation Committee Local Roads Wetland Replacement Program Bonding Appropriation Project Selection Plan Tim Smith and/or Les Lemm DECISION ITEM Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee 1. Decision Support Tool for Selecting and Implementing Alternative Practices in Compliance with the Buffer Law Tom Gile DECISION ITEM 2. Variable Width Water Quality Buffers Tom Gile DECISION ITEM NEW BUSINESS 1. Review of auditor recommendations regarding Board Member Expense Reports Hannah Pallmeyer DECISION ITEM AGENCY REPORTS Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Extension Service Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ADVISORY COMMENTS Association of Minnesota Counties Jennifer Berquam Minnesota Association of Conservation District Employees Chessa Frahm Minnesota Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts LeAnn Buck Minnesota Association of Townships Nathan Redalen Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts Ray Bohn Natural Resources Conservation Service Cathee Pullman UPCOMING MEETINGS Next BWSR Meeting will be held at 9am on Wednesday, September 27, in the Lower Level Board Room at 520 Lafayette Rd, St Paul. ADJOURN BWSR Board Meeting Agenda Page 2

9 BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES 520 LAFAYETTE ROAD N. LOWER LEVEL BOARD ROOM ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2017 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Patty Acomb, Jill Crafton, Jack Ditmore, Kathryn Kelly, Tom Landwehr, DNR; Tom Loveall, Nathan Redalen, Tom Schulz, Rob Sip, MDA; Steve Sunderland, Rich Sve, Gene Tiedemann, Gerald VanAmburg, Paige Winebarger, Terry McDill, MPCA, Rich Sve BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Collins, Chris Elvrum, MDH; Neil Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Hannah Pallmeyer, Melissa Lewis, John Jaschke, Kevin Bigalke, Dave Weirens, Travis Germundson, Jenny Gieseke, Heather Staff, Al Kean, Josh Van Den Berg, Carrie Rust, Ryan Hughes, Angie Becker Kudelka, Annie Felix-Gerth, Kari Keating, Doug Thomas, Amy Workman OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Martinson, Barb Huberty, Sheila Vanney BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 1

10 Chair Gerald VanAmburg called the meeting to order at 9:07 AM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ** ** ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Moved by Tom Schulz, seconded by Kathryn Kelly, to adopt the agenda as presented. Motion passed on a voice vote. MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2017 BOARD MEETING - Moved by Nathan Redalen, seconded by Paige Winebarger to approve the minutes of May 24, 2017, as circulated. Motion passed on a voice vote. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION Chair VanAmburg read the statement: A conflict of interest, whether actual, potential, or perceived, occurs when someone in a position of trust has competing professional or personal interests and these competing interests make it difficult to fulfill professional duties impartially. At this time, members are requested to declare conflicts of interest they may have regarding today s business. Information on the Conflict of Interest Declaration form was shared with board members by John Jaschke, Executive Director, and discussed by the Board. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES Amy Workman, Student Conservation Technician Josh Van Den Berg, Communication Coordinator Hannah Pallmeyer, Executive Support Carrie Rust, Office and Administrative Specialist INTRODUCTION OF NEW BOARD MEMBER Duane Willenbring Chair VanAmburg and the Board members welcomed the new employees and the new board member to BWSR! REPORTS Chair & Administrative Advisory Committee Chair Gerald Van Amburg reported that the Administrative Advisory Committee met previous to the board meeting on June 28, The AAC reviewed the Strategic Refresh, which was presented to the committee by Jack Ditmore. John Jaschke, Executive Director, also discussed the North Fork Crow River Watershed petition to increase managers. Chair Van Amburg indicated to members that there is an updated committee list in the board packet. Chair Van Amburg mentioned that Executive Director John Jaschke will discuss a new Farmer Led Council initiative. Chair Van Amburg attended various EQB meetings since the previous board meeting, including a meeting about pollinator protection and provided a brief summary about the EQB meeting and the role that BWSR plays on the inter-agency initiative. An excerpt of the first annual report from the interagency pollinator team was distributed to board members. Chair Van Amburg attended an EQB meeting in Waseca to discuss flooding issues. BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 2

11 Audit and Oversight Committee No report provided. Executive Director s Report - John Jaschke reviewed the updated packet materials with board members. He also provided a report about the Farmer Led Council initiative. Information about the Farmer Led Councils was provided in the updated packet materials. Board discussion about the councils occurred. John Jaschke also discussed the Governor s 25x25 initiative and the Federal Farm Bill. For CREP, the first batching period will end in July. An All-Staff meeting is scheduled for July. John Jaschke and Chair Van Amburg attended the MAWD annual meeting and tour last week in Bemidji. Dispute Resolution Committee - Travis Germundson provided an update to the board. There are 9 appeals pending and no new appeals have been filed since the last board meeting. Action was taken for 17-3 in Waseca County. The restoration order was stayed and a revised written report was ordered. Action was taken for 17-1 in Sibley County. The appeal was remanded for further review. A new decision was made to approve the applicant s exemption application and the case was dismissed. Grants Program & Policy Committee - Steve Sunderland reported that the committee met on June 13, The committee looked at policy and recommended for board approval three revised polices and one new policy, associated with various grants. Steve Sunderland briefly reviewed the grants and policies currently in front of the board for approval. The next meeting of the Grants Program and Policy Committee is tentatively set for August 9, RIM Reserve Committee - Gene Tiedemann reported that the RIM committee has not met since the previous board meeting. If needed, a meeting may be scheduled for August Water Management & Strategic Planning Committee - Jack Ditmore reported that the committee did not meet in June. However, the Strategic Refresh is on the agenda. Wetland Conservation Committee - Tom Schulz reported that the Wetland Conservation Committee has not met since the previous board meeting. Buffers, Soils & Drainage Committee - Kathryn Kelly reported that several of the agenda items are from this committee and that the next meeting of the Buffers, Soils & Drainage committee will likely be with the Grants Program and Policy Committee in August. Drainage Work Group (DWG) - Tom Loveall and Al Kean reported that the Drainage Work Group meet on June 8, Information was shared with the committee about recent and upcoming drainage related events, pertinent information and outcomes regarding the 2017 legislative session, status of DWG discussion topics and priorities for 2017, and findings of collaborative for sediment source reduction in the Greater Blue Earth Basin. There was an update provided about the Drainage Management Team. A written report was distributed to the board and there was discussion about the report. The next meeting is scheduled for July 13, COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Grants Program and Policy Committee FYs 2018 & 2019 Natural Resources Block Grant Authorization Melissa Lewis presented the Natural Resources Block Grant Authorization. The Laws of Minnesota 2017, 1st Special Session, S. F nd Engrossment, Article 1, Section 4, appropriated $3.423M annually (General Fund) for the FY 2018 and BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 3

12 2019 Natural Resources Block Grant Program (NRBG). The NRBG is a composite of grants to counties to implement programs designed to protect and improve water resources. These programs are: Comprehensive Local Water Management (LWM, $1.139M annually), the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA, $1.906M annually), the DNR Shoreland Management (Shoreland, $0.398M annually), and the MPCA/BWSR Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (final amount to be determined by MPCA). In addition to authorizing funding, this resolution would provide grantees with the flexibility to locally shift grant funds between LWM, WCA, and Shoreland as long as the required match of three Programs is met. This allows grantees to address yearly fluctuations in workload and program activity. Additionally, new appropriation language allows BWSR to authorize both years of the biennium. The Grants Program & Policy Committee met on June 13 to review the resolution and recommends approval. ** The board discussed how grant amounts are calculated by formula. Moved by Steve Sunderland, seconded by Rich Sve, to approve the FYs 2018 and 2019 Natural Resources Grant Authorization. Motion passed on a voice vote. (**17-50**) Technical Service Areas: a.) Revised Policy and b.) Grant Authorization Melissa Lewis presented the Technical Services Revised Policy and Grant Authorization. Technical Service Areas (TSAs) deliver essential engineering and associated technical services for critical soil and water conservation and water quality practices and projects on private lands through shared engineering and associated technical services provided by and through member Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs). The revised program policy provides clear expectations for the administration of two program grants: Nonpoint Engineering Assistance Program (State General Fund, $1.06M in FY2018) Accelerated Implementation Enhanced Shared Technical Services Grants (Clean Water Fund, $1.92M in FY2018) The policy and the grant authorization are presented together due to their interaction. The policy has been revised to incorporate both the Nonpoint Engineering Assistance Program Requirements and the Clean Water Fund Accelerated Implementation Funds into one program policy, standardize the match requirement of 10% between funding sources, and for removal of redundancies with the Grants Administration Manual and grant agreement and edits for plain language. This policy was formerly called the Nonpoint Engineering Assistance Program Policy. The Laws of Minnesota 2017, 1st Special Session, S. F nd Engrossment, Article 1, Sec. 4 appropriated FY2018 Nonpoint Engineering Assistance allocations; and H. F th Engrossment, Article 2, Sec. 7 appropriated the Enhanced Technical Assistance funds through FY2018 Accelerated Implementation Grants appropriation. Total amounts are noted above and individual amounts to TSAs are identified in the resolution. ** ** Moved by Kathryn Kelly, seconded by Patty Acomb, to approve the Technical Service Areas Revised Policy. Motion passed on a voice vote. (**17-51**) There was a brief presentation by Melissa Lewis about the grant authorization specifics and a discussion by the board. Moved by Tom Schulz, seconded by Paige Winebarger, to approve Technical Service Areas Grant Authorization. Motion passed on a voice vote. (**17-52**) BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 4

13 Soil and Water Conservation District Conservations: a.) Delivery and Capacity Policy and b.) Grants Authorization Melissa Lewis presented the Soil and Water Conservation District Conservations Delivery and Capacity Policy and Grants Authorization. BWSR has operated for many years without a policy for Conservation Delivery Funds. However, in the last biennium, and repeated in this biennium, an additional $22 million (called Capacity Funds) has been appropriated to SWCDs for implementation of 103C. To provide specific requirements for implementation of funds associated with these two programs, a new SWCD Conservation Delivery and Capacity Grants Policy has been developed, applicable to: Conservation Delivery (State General Fund) Capacity (Clean Water Fund) The policy and the grant authorization are presented together due to their interaction. The funding authorization would include the two funds listed above, the State Cost Share Program (General Fund), and the Buffer Program Implementation (CWF). The State Cost Share is also known as and is implemented through the Erosion Control and Water Management program, which has a separate policy. The Buffer Program implementation will be through the Clean Water Fund policy, except without a match requirement. And, a separate resolution will be needed in the future for the unallotted amount of the FY2018 Capacity funds. Finally, new appropriation language allows BWSR to authorize both years of the biennium for the General Fund only. There was discussion by the board to consider statutory and constitutional language. Discussion was also conducted about eligible activities and an edit was made to clarify this language. Additional discussion was conducted about the grant match requirement. ** ** Moved by Patty Acomb, seconded by Terry McDill, to approve the Soil and Water Conservation District Conversations Delivery and Capacity Policy. Motion passed on a voice vote. There was a brief presentation by Melissa Lewis about the grant authorization specifics. Moved by Steve Sunderland, seconded by Duane Willenbring, to approve the Soil and Water Conservation District Conversations Grants Authorization. Motion passed on a voice vote. Clean Water Fund Riparian Buffer Cost Share Authorization Melissa Lewis presented the Clean Water Fund Riparian Buffer Cost Share Authorization and presented an updated resolution. The Laws of Minnesota 2017, 1st Special Session, H. F th Engrossment, Article 2, Sec. 7, appropriated to BWSR grant funds for Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) for cost-sharing contracts with landowners to implement riparian buffers or alternative practices on public waters and public ditches consistent with Minnesota Statutes 103F.48. These funds are only available in FY2018. In addition to authorizing $4.63M in grants, the resolution: Would set deadlines for grantees to encumber funds and return all unencumbered funds to BWSR. Would authorize staff to reallocate returned funds and allocate any remaining funds for Riparian Buffer Cost Share to SWCDs and Hennepin County with a documented need for additional funding. Would require SWCDs and Hennepin County to maintain a list of applications for cost share assistance that will be used by staff to reallocate funds to areas of need. BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 5

14 Staff had recommended deadlines of December 31, 2017 for encumbering and February 1, 2018 for returning funds. The Grants Program and Policy Committee discussed this on June 13, 2017 and shifted the dates to January 31, 2018 and March 1, 2018 respectively. The Committee recommends approval of the resolution. After the Committee meeting, staff made additional changes to the resolution as shown in the attached document. ** There was discussion about a typo on the board resolution, staff updates to the document after the committee meeting, encumbrance of funds, enforcement, differences in county funding, legislative directives with the funds, and limitations and collaborative use of funds. Moved by Nathan Redalen, seconded by Gene Tiedemann, to approve the Clean Water Fund Riparian Buffer Cost Share Authorization. Motion passed on a voice vote. One Watershed, One Plan Planning Grants Authorization Melissa Lewis presented the One Watershed, One Plan Planning Grants Authorization. The calendar year 2017 One Watershed, One Plan Planning Grants Request for Proposal (RFP) ended on April 19, Staff screened the eight applications against the RFP selection criteria and received feedback from the Interagency WRAPS Implementation Team. Senior Management Team provided a final review at their May 9, 2017 meeting and recommended funding six of the applications. Grants Program and Policy Committee reviewed this recommendation on June 13, 2017 and recommends the attached resolution to the board. Note that the funds are from the biennium, Laws of Minnesota 2015, 1st Special Session, Chapter 2, Article 2, Sec. 7(j) for assistance, oversight, and grants to local governments to transition local water management plans to a watershed approach. ** There was a discussion by the board about the relationship between Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and this grant authorization. Moved by Kathryn Kelly, seconded by Jill Crafton, to approve the One Watershed, One Plan Planning Grants Authorization. Motion passed on a voice vote. FY2018 Clean Water Fund Policy and Authorization of RFP Melissa Lewis presented the Clean Water Fund Policy, which is reviewed and approved annually. For FY2018, the policy will apply to Projects and Practices, Multi-purpose Drainage Management, Buffer Cost Share, and Buffer Implementation funding. The changes in this policy from the previous year include: Policy revised to new format, with new logo. Modification to 5. Nonstructural Practices and Measures section to: o Add clarity to the In-lake or in-channel treatment requirements (see 5.1; clarity is to require a feasibility study for these treatments) and o Additional requirements for Incentives (see 5.3; last 2 sentences of this section are additions) Addition of Section 7.0: Buffers and Alternative Practices to address the inclusion of $5M of Buffer Cost Share in the Clean Water Fund appropriations. In addition to approving the policy, the resolution also would authorize staff to proceed with the FY2018 Request for Proposals. Grants Program and Policy Committee reviewed this recommendation on June 13, 2017 and recommends that the board approve the resolution. BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 6

15 ** Moved by Tom Schulz, seconded by Jill Crafton, to approve the FY2018 Clean Water Fund Policy and authorize the RFP. Motion passed on a voice vote. Northern Region Committee Morrison County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan Amendment Tom Schulz presented on the proposed amendment to the Morrison County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan. On May 26, 2010, the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Morrison County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan from May 26, 2010 to May 26, The Board required a five year amendment of the plan by May 26, On September 23, 2015, the Board approved an extension of the Board Order 5 year amendment requirement to September 23, Morrison County submitted a petition for a County Local Water Management Plan (Plan) Amendment on February 10, A public hearing was held on April 18, On June 14, 2017, BWSR received the Plan Amendment, a record of the public hearing and copies of all written comments pertaining to the Plan. The County has been actively implementing the goals, objectives, priority concerns, and ongoing action items within the Plan and made substantial progress; however, many tasks have been accomplished and many new activities are not adequately addressed in the Plan are planned or have begun. The primary reasons for amending the Morrison County Water Plan are: 1. Amend the goals, objectives and action items as per Board Order approving the Morrison County Local Water Management Plan Update; and 2. Extend the expiration date to December 30, The County Water Plan Policy Task Force endorsed the amendment. On June 14, 2017, the Northern Regional Committee met with County representatives and BWSR staff to review and discuss the Plan Amendment. The Committee s decision was to recommend approval of the Morrison County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan amendment to the full Board. ** Discussion occurred by the board about extension timeline, with additional information provided by Ryan Hughes. Moved by Tom Schulz, seconded by Rich Sve, to approve the Morrison County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan Amendment. Motion passed on a voice vote. Koochiching County Priority Concerns Scoping Document Official Letter Tom Schulz presented about the Koochiching County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan, which is due to expire December 31, The County passed a resolution to begin the plan update process on January 10, The initial step in the update process, the Priority Concerns Scoping Document (PCSD), was developed by the County and routed to the state review agencies on April 27, The BWSR Northern Regional Committee met June 14, 2017 to discuss the content of the PCSD and the state agency comments and recommendations received for the final plan. All required components of the PCSD have been covered and the priority concerns identified to be addressed are deemed appropriate. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the draft official state comment letter to the full board. ** Moved by Tom Schulz, seconded by Rich Sve, to approve the Koochiching County Priority Concerns Scoping Document Official Letter. Motion passed on a voice vote. BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 7

16 Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee Adoption of Administrative Penalty Order (APO) Plan for Buffer Law Administration Dave Weirens presented about the APO Plan for Buffer Law Administration. A public comment period on draft Administrative Penalty Order (APO) Plan for Buffer Law Implementation was held from April 7, 2017 through May 8, A total of 30 comments were received during this period. Following review of these comments and additional staff review of these documents, several edits and adjustments were made. The Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee reviewed the staff developed documents on May 17, 2017 to develop a recommendation for the Board s consideration on May 24, The Board tabled action on this recommendation to allow staff time to evaluate the Plan as a result of recently enacted statutory changes. The Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee subsequently reviewed this Plan on June 15, 2017 and is recommending Board adoption. This document is a continuation of Buffer Program development that began with Board action to adopt 7 policies in August 2016 that focused on Buffer Program implementation, Policy 8 relating to county and watershed election of jurisdiction that was adopted in January 2017, and Policy 9 that was adopted on May 24, Under Minnesota Statues 103F.48, BWSR is required to adopt an administrative penalty order plan by July 1, The Administrative Penalty Order (APO) Plan for Buffer Law Implementation is the draft BWSR plan to meet this statutory requirement. The deadline for electing jurisdiction for buffer law enforcement is June 28, There was a board discussion about the status of which local government units are electing jurisdiction and updated language to the APO Plan. ** Moved by Kathryn Kelly, seconded by Nathan Redalen, to adopt the Administrative Penalty Order (APO) Plan for Buffer Law Administration. Motion passed on a voice vote. Buffer Program Implementation: Common Alternative Practices Dave Weirens presented on the Common Alternative Practices. BWSR staff developed a series of common alternative practices as guidance for use by landowners and soil and water conservation districts to use in developing alternative for compliance with the Buffer Law. This alternative practices six-pack was initially posted on April 3, 2017 and consisted of the following practices: #1. Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program, #2. NRCS Filter Strip Standard: MN 393/391 practice standards Public Waters, #3. Grassed Waterway/Cultivated Watercourses Public Waters, #4. Negative Slopes or concentrated inflow Public Ditches, #5. Negative slopes or concentrated inflow Public Waters, #6. Conservation Tillage/Cover Crops with Vegetated Filter Strip Public Waters, and; This document was amended in April and subsequently posted on May 5, 2017 with the following addition: #4B. Glacial Lake Plain Areas Public Ditches BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 8

17 This request for adoption of the common alternative practices is brought forward as a result of legislation enacted this year, which authorized the Board to adopt and publish common alternative practices. ** Discussion occurred by board members about the definitions, updated language, and illustrations in the Common Alternative Practices documents. Moved by Kathryn Kelly, seconded by Terry McDill, to approve the Buffer Program Implementation: Common Alternative Practices. Motion passed on a voice vote. Revision to Buffer Program Policies; Adoption of Buffer Program Procedures Dave Weirens presented revisions to Buffer Program Policies and a recommendation to adopt Buffer Program Procedures. The Board has adopted a series of policies to inform and guide the implementation of the buffer program as follows: 1. Buffer Compliance Determination Policy (Parcel and Bank Approach)-August 25, Buffer Law Reporting and Progress Tracking Policy-August 25, MS4 Exemption Policy-August 25, Alternative Practices Implementation Policy-August 25, Alternative Practices Approved by the Board Policy-August 25, Local Water Resources Riparian Protection Policy (Other Watercourses)-August 25, Non Implementation Policy-August 25, : Election of Jurisdiction-January 25, : BWSR s Review of County and Watershed District Buffer Rules, Ordinances, and Official Controls-May 24, 2017 Staff have reviewed these 9 policies and recommended a number of edits to ensure consistency across these documents that were adopted over a nine month period and three separate Board meetings. In addition, the Attorney Generals Office conducted a legal review of all of the policies, and is recommending some changes, chief among them is to not title them as policies; in response to this recommendation, staff are proposing to title them as procedures. ** Discussion occurred by the board about updated language to the proposed procedures. Moved by Tom Loveall, seconded by Jill Crafton, to rescind the previously adopted Buffer Program Policies and adopt the Buffer Program Procedures. Motion passed on a voice vote. Water Management and Strategic Planning Committee BWSR Strategic Plan 2017 Refresh Jenny Gieseke presented the BWSR Strategic Plan 2017 Refresh. BWSR s Current Strategic Plan was adopted by the Board in 2008, and updated in In the five years since the Update, BWSR has grown both in the number of programs and policies administered, as well as in the number of staff responsible for implementing those programs. The 2017 Refresh of the Strategic Plan maintains BWSR s mission, while updating and focusing in on eight Impact Areas BWSR must focus on to meet that mission. The Water Management and Strategic Planning Committee have worked with a Core Team of BWSR staff to identify those impact areas, develop direction statements, make revisions, and recommend approval of the Strategic Plan 2017 Refresh. BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 9

18 ** There was discussion by the board about examples of supporting work and initiatives, process to develop the Strategic Plan Refresh, and the format of the plan. Moved by Steven Sunderland, seconded by Kathryn Kelly, to adopt the BWSR Strategic Plan 2017 Refresh. Motion passed on a voice vote. NEW BUSINESS Citizen Petition for Increase in Board Managers, North Fork Crow River Watershed District Kevin Bigalke presented a citizen petition for an increase in Board Managers in the North Fork Crow River Watershed District. A citizen petition was received requesting an increase in the number of managers that serves on the Board of the North Fork Crow River Watershed District. The petition has the required 50 signature from resident owners that reside in the Watershed District. BWSR staff requested that the BWSR Board order a public hearing to consider the petition with the date and location to be set in coordination with the Executive Director and the Central Region Committee. ** Discussion occurred about the timeline for a hearing and what a hearing would entail. Moved by Patty Acomb, seconded by Duane Willenbring, to accept the petition and order a public hearing to consider an increase in Board Managers for the North Fork Crow River Watershed District. Motion passed on a voice vote. Wabasha Soil and Water Conservation District PRAP Assistance Grant and Update on Current PRAP Assistance Grants John Jaschke presented on a Performance Review and Assistance Program (PRAP) Assistance Grant application that was received from Wabasha Soil and Water Conservation District for $7, with a total project cost of $23,938. The 2017 PRAP Level III Assessment made several recommendations to improve the performance of the SWCD. The purpose of the strategic assessment of the Wabasha SWCD is to focus on mission, goals and staff capacity and provide a written report with key findings and recommendations. The proposed work will be performed by, or in cooperation with a consultant. The project will also conduct a compensation study of four SWCD positions and implement recommendations of 2017 PRAP Level III report. The project start date is June, 2017 and will end February, John Jaschke also presented on a Performance Review and Assistance Program (PRAP) Assistance Grant application received from the Cottonwood Soil and Water Conservation District for $4, with a total project cost of $8, This project will develop a personnel policy for the Cottonwood SWCD and the Southwest Prairie Technical Service Area. There was discussion about the level and sources of funding available for PRAP. AGENCY REPORTS Minnesota Department of Agriculture Rob Sip distributed a document to board members about the Draft Nitrogen Fertilizer Rule. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources no report. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency no report. ADVISORY COMMENTS Minnesota Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts Sheila Vanney distributed the MASWCD report for Summer 2017 and presented on MASWCD activities. BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 10

19 Minnesota Association of Townships Nathan Redalen presented about the Fillmore Soil and Water Conservation District County 75 th Anniversary event and tour. UPCOMING MEETINGS Next BWSR Meeting is the Board Tour, August 23 and 24, 2017, Willmar Chair VanAmburg adjourned the meeting at 1:47 PM Respectfully submitted, Gerald VanAmburg Chair BWSR Meeting Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 11

20 BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEM AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Dispute Resolution Committee Report Meeting Date: August 24, 2017 Agenda Category: Committee Recommendation New Business Old Business Item Type: Decision Discussion Information Section/Region: Contact: Prepared by: Reviewed by: Presented by: Central Office Travis Germundson Travis Germundson Travis Germundson/Gerald VanAmburg Audio/Visual Equipment Needed for Agenda Item Presentation Committee(s) Attachments: Resolution Order Map Other Supporting Information Fiscal/Policy Impact None Amended Policy Requested New Policy Requested Other: General Fund Budget Capital Budget Outdoor Heritage Fund Budget Clean Water Fund Budget ACTION REQUESTED None LINKS TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION See attached Report SUMMARY (Consider: history, reason for consideration now, alternatives evaluated, basis for recommendation) The report provides a monthly update on the number of appeals filed with BWSR. 1

21 Dispute Resolution Report August 10, 2017 By: Travis Germundson There are presently nine appeals pending. All of the appeals involve WCA. There has been one new appeal filed since the last report (June 28 th Board Meeting). Format note: New appeals that have been filed since last report to the Board. Appeals that have been decided since last report to the Board. File 17-5 ( ) This is an appeal of a replacement plan decision in Wright County. The appeal regards the denial of a replacement plan application for the construction of a residential driveway. The appeal has been accepted. File 17-4 ( ) This is an appeal of a restoration order in Caver County. The appeal regards the unauthorized impacts to wetlands resulting from excavation of a private ditch system. The appeal has been placed in abeyance for submittal of additional documentation in support of the appeal and for the county to make a final decision on the wetland applications. File 17-3 (5-4-17) This is an appeal of a restoration order in Waseca County. The appeal regards the unauthorized placement of 19,100 sq. ft. of fill in a wetland for lakeshore access. The appeal has been placed in abeyance and the restoration order stayed for submittal of additional documentation in support of the appeal and for the Technical Evaluation Panel to convene on-site and develop a revised written report. File ( ) This is an appeal of a restoration order in Nicollet County. The appeal regards the unauthorized impacts to 11.2 acres of wetland associated with the installation of agricultural drain tile. The appeal has been placed in abeyance for submittal of additional documentation and for the TEP to convene onsite and develop written findings of fact. The order placing the appeal in abeyance was amended for a second time extending time period on the stay of the restoration order until the LGU makes a final decision on the wetland applications. File 16-7 (7-7-16) This is an appeal of a restoration order in Morrison County. The appeal regards the unauthorized impacts to approximately 3.6 acres of wetland associated with an agricultural drainage project. The appeal has been placed in abeyance until the LGU makes a final decision on the applications for exemption, no-loss, and a replacement plan. File ( ). This is an appeal of a restoration order in Chisago County. The appeal regards the unauthorized placement of fill in a wetland resulting in approximately 1.5 acres of impact. The alleged impacts are associated with the construction of motor cross/atv track. The appeal has been placed in abeyance and the restoration order stayed for the Technical Evaluation Plan to convene on site and develop written findings of fact on the area of impact. A certificate of satisfactory completion has been issued by the SWCD for the impacts identified in the restoration order. 1

22 File 15-7 ( ) This is an appeal of a Restoration Order in Olmsted County. The appeal regards the unauthorized placement of drain tile in a purported wetland. Applications for exemption and no-loss determinations have been submitted to the local unit of government concurrently with the appeal. The appeal has been placed in abeyance until the LGU makes a final decision on the applications for exemption and no-loss. That decision has been appealed (File 16-5). The appeal will remain in abeyance until there is a final decision on the exemption and no-loss appeal. File 14-6 ( ) This is an appeal of a replacement plan decision by DNR Land and Minerals involving the Hibbing Taconite Mine and Stockpile Progression and Williams Creek Wetland Mitigation. The appeal regards the approval of a wetland replacement plan application for mining related activities. A similar appeal was also filed simultaneously with DNR under procedures required for permit to mine. The appeal has been placed in abeyance for completion of DNR s contested case proceedings. DNR s February 11, 2016 final decision has been appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court issued an opinion on December 5, 2016 reversing the final order in part and remanding it back to DNR for further proceedings. File 11-1 ( ) This is an appeal of a restoration order in Hennepin County. The appeal regards the filling of approximately 1.77 acres of wetland and 0.69 acres of excavation. The appeal has been placed in abeyance and the restoration order stayed until there is a final decision on an after-the-fact wetland application and confirmation of required mitigation. Site certification is scheduled to take place during the 2017 growing season. File (7-9-09) This is an appeal of a banking plan application in Aitkin County. The appeal regards the LGU s denial of a banking plan application to restore acres of wetlands through the use of exceptional natural resource value. The appeal has been accepted and settlement discussions are on hold while the appellant addresses permitting issues with the Corps of Engineers. The appeal has been placed in abeyance by mutual agreement. A revised wetland bank plan application has been approved with conditions. Those conditions require the approval of partial ditch abandonment along with a Conditional Use Permit for alterations in the floodplain. Summary Table Type of Decision Total for Calendar Year 2016 Total for Calendar Year 2017 Order in favor of appellant 1 Order not in favor of appellant 1 Order Modified 1 Order Remanded 1 1 Order Place Appeal in Abeyance 7 2 Negotiated Settlement 1 Withdrawn/Dismissed 8 1 2

23 BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEM AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution Authorizing MN CREP Outreach and Implementation Program Meeting Date: 8/23/17 Agenda Category: Committee Recommendation New Business Old Business Item Type: Decision Discussion Information Section/Region: Contact: Prepared by: Easement Section Bill Penning Bill Penning Reviewed by: Committee(s) Presented by: Bill Penning / Tabor Hoek/Tim Koehler Audio/Visual Equipment Needed for Agenda Item Presentation Attachments: Resolution Order Map Other Supporting Information Fiscal/Policy Impact None Amended Policy Requested New Policy Requested Other: General Fund Budget Capital Budget Outdoor Heritage Fund Budget Clean Water Fund Budget Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund ACTION REQUESTED The Board is requested to approve the recommendation of the GP&P Committee to implement the Minnesota Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (MN CREP) Outreach and Implementation Program. LINKS TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION See BWSR s CREP web page at for additional information regarding all aspects of the MN CREP. 1

24 SUMMARY (Consider: history, reason for consideration now, alternatives evaluated, basis for recommendation) In January Governor Dayton and USDA Secretary Vilsack s designee signed the MN CREP Agreement. It authorizes 60,000 acres of land in buffers, wetlands and wellhead protection areas to be secured with a CRP contract and a perpetual RIM easement. Board Resolution (January 25, 2017) authorized staff to implement the MN CREP. This resolution authorizes BWSR staff to allocate the $6 million of ENTRF funds through the CREP Outreach and Implementation project as governed by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Natural Resources (LCCMR) approved Work Plan. These funds will be used by Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) and partners to provide staffing assistance to implement MN CREP outreach and implementation efforts.

25 Board Resolution # 17- MINNESOTA CREP OUTREACH AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION WHEREAS, the Governor signed a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (MN CREP) Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in January of 2017 agreeing to a goal of 60,000 acres of protected land through Conservation Reserve Program contracts combined with permanent Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) easements; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) has been designated as the lead agency representing the State for the MN CREP; and, WHEREAS, the State has committed to providing additional technical staff to implement all phases of the MN CREP; and, WHEREAS, BWSR Board Resolution (January 25, 2017) authorized staff to implement the MN CREP; and, WHEREAS, $6 million of Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF) dollars have been appropriated to BWSR in Minnesota Laws 2017, Chapter 96, Section 2, Subdivision 08(k) for the project, CREP Outreach and Implementation, and is governed by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) approved Work Plan; and, WHEREAS, BWSR, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Pheasants Forever have conducted an initial Solicitation of Interest and will conduct future Solicitation of Interests from Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) and Hennepin County for the MN CREP Outreach and Implementation Program specifically tied to the MN CREP; and, WHEREAS, BWSR Executive Team met on July 26, 2017 and recommended consideration and approval to the BWSR Grants Program and Policy Committee; and, WHEREAS, BWSR Grants Program and Policy committee met on August 9, 2017 and recommended Board approval of this authorization. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Board authorizes staff to allocate up to $6,000,000 from Minnesota Laws of 2017 ENRTF appropriation as cited above, for the MN CREP Outreach and Implementation Program, including SWCD, Hennepin County, and BWSR expenses; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, eligible grantees will be selected to receive partnership staffing grants to cover up to 90% of costs for staff positions. The state grant share will be used to cover wages, benefits and other direct expenses of the position. Each grantee will provide a 10% cash or in-kind match to the position budget for project related expenses. Selection will be based on: 1. Process A combination of Solicitation of Interest responses, providing coverage throughout the MN CREP area, MN CREP demand and other considerations; 2. Eligibility Grantees must be an SWCD or Hennepin County located within the 54 county MN CREP area, commit to the 10% match requirement, ability to provide space and support at the local office and have the ability to administer grants; 1

26 3. Criteria to fund grantees historical performance, increased capacity/expertise, location within the MN CREP area, identified water quality and habitat goals and outreach plans to secure MN CREP applications. Gerald Van Amburg, Chair Board of Water and Soil Resources Date: 2

27 BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEM AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Drainage Records Modernization Match Grants Meeting Date: August 24, 2017 Agenda Category: Committee Recommendation New Business Old Business Item Type: Decision Discussion Information Section/Region: Technical Services Contact: Tim Gillette Prepared by: Tim Gillette and Al Kean Reviewed by: Grants Program and Policy Committee(s) Presented by: Tim Gillette Audio/Visual Equipment Needed for Agenda Item Presentation Attachments: Resolution Order Map Other Supporting Information Fiscal/Policy Impact None Amended Policy Requested New Policy Requested Other: LCCMR Grant General Fund Budget Capital Budget Outdoor Heritage Fund Budget Clean Water Fund Budget ACTION REQUESTED Approve Drainage Records Modernization Match Grant program. LINKS TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2018 Drainage Records Modernization Grant Program RFP, Board Resolution SUMMARY (Consider: history, reason for consideration now, alternatives evaluated, basis for recommendation) BWSR applied for a 2015 LCCMR project titled Drainage Records Modernization and Statewide Geographic Information System Database, which was funded in part in FY 2015 (Phase 1). In calendar year 2016, Phase 1 was completed, including: a) development of a drainage records GIS database template for Chapter 103E drainage authority use; b) a statewide GIS database located on the Geospatial Commons of the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office (MnGeo) website for drainage system hydrographic data; c) update of the Drainage Records Modernization Guidelines; d) development of associated web-based access for these tools; and e) outreach to Chapter 103E drainage authorities about these new tools. BWSR applied to LCCMR for funding of Drainage Records Modernization (DRM) Phase 2, Match Grants and received $500,000 for FY The DRM Match Grant program will enhance drainage system management through advanced drainage records preservation, modernization and use, and will provide hydrographic data about these drainage systems in the statewide GIS database for use by watershed modelers and planners. The Request For Proposal (RFP) will be prepared and sent out to all drainage authorities. It will stipulate the following: 1) A drainage authority must agree to, a) use the Phase 1 database template and associated 8/10/2017 4:01 PM Page 1 Request for Board Action Form 2013.doc

28 Drainage Records Modernization Guidelines, and b) annually provide drainage system hydrographic data updates electronically to the associated statewide GIS database, and 2) must provide a local match of at least 1:1 (higher ranking will be given to proposals with greater than 1:1 match). 8/10/2017 4:01 PM Page 2 Request for Board Action Form 2013.doc

29 Board Resolution # 17- FY2018 DRAINAGE RECORDS MODERNIZATION MATCH GRANTS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHEREAS, Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund Funds have been appropriated to the Board of Water and Soil Resources (Board) in Laws of Minnesota 2017, Chapter 96, Section2(g); and, WHEREAS, the Board has authority under Minn. Stat. 103B.3369 to make grants to cities, townships, counties, soil and water conservation districts, watershed districts, joint powers organizations, and other special purpose districts or authorities with jurisdiction in water and related land resources management when a proposed project or activity implements a county water plan, watershed management plan, or county groundwater plan; and, WHEREAS, project proposals for funds appropriated for Drainage Records Modernization (DRM) Match Grants will be evaluated by BWSR drainage staff based on the following criteria: Ranking Criteria Connection to a Local Water Management Plan: The project application clearly identifies connection with local water management plan priorities or how it would advance the plan goals. Project Readiness: The application has a set of specific activities that can begin to be implemented soon after grant award with required staff in place or a plan to hire contract staff to accomplish the proposed activities described. Match: The drainage authority must provide a local match of at least 1:1. Higher ranking priority will be given to applications that provide greater than 1:1 match. (Points will be assigned based on a comparison of all applications as to the relative match over that required for eligibility. Highest gets all the points. If an applicant is in the middle of the range, ½ of the points. If no increase over the minimum 1:1 match, no points.) Measureable Outcomes: The project is consistent with the Drainage Records Modernization Guidelines, and clearly identifies uses and benefits of the drainage records modernization proposed. Maximum Points Possible Cost Effectiveness: The project application clearly identifies the scope and quantity of results the applicant is planning to achieve, and how the applicant intends to achieve those results in a cost-effective manner. and, 20 Total Points Available 100 WHEREAS, the Grants Program and Policy Committee reviewed the Drainage Records Modernization Match Grants Request for Proposals (RFP) developed by staff on August 9, 2017 and recommends approval to the full Board. 1

30 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Board authorizes staff to finalize, distribute and promote a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the FY2018 Drainage Records Modernization (DRM) Match Grants Program consistent with the provisions of the appropriation and this Board resolution. Gerald Van Amburg, Chair Board of Water and Soil Resources Date: Attachment: FY 2018 Drainage Records Modernization (DRM) Match Grants Request for Proposal (RFP) 2

31 FY 2018 Drainage Records Modernization (DRM)Match Grants Request for Proposals (RFP) 2017 FY 2018 Drainage Records Modernization Match Grants RFP 1

32 RFP Information Purpose The purpose of Drainage Records Modernization (DRM) Match Grants is to assist counties and watershed districts that administer public drainage systems in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E to preserve and upgrade their records in an electronic GIS database. This purpose includes enabling enhanced drainage system management by using a recently developed GIS database template that is based on prior drainage records modernization experience. The purpose also includes populating an associated statewide GIS database with hydrographic data (only) for Chapter 103E drainage systems (e.g., drainage system location, type, alignment, profile and dimensions) to better enable data access for watershed-based modeling, water planning and implementation. Background The State of Minnesota, through the Board of Water and Soil Resources, has previously provided drainage records modernization match grants to drainage authorities in 2009 and In 2016, the first phase of an FY 2015 LCCMR Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund grant project titled Drainage Records Modernization and Statewide Geographic Information System Database was completed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), in collaboration with the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office (MnGeo) and Houston Engineering, Inc. The products and outcomes from Phase 1 of the project include: a. a drainage records GIS database template with data standards for Chapter 103E drainage authority use (compatible with DrainageDB TM ); b. updated 2016 Drainage Records Modernization Guidelines (the first edition was published by BWSR in September 2008); c. a statewide GIS database for easy access to public drainage system hydrographic data in the Minnesota Geospatial Commons on the MnGeo website; d. associated web-based access for these tools; and e. outreach to Chapter 103E drainage authorities about these new tools. These DRM Match Grants are Phase 2 of that project, funded by an FY 2018 LCCMR Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund grant to BWSR. Phase 2 match grants will utilize the products from Phase 1 of the project. Available Funds The Legislature has appropriated $500,000 for DRM Match Grants in FY 2018 from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. New for 2018 The grant eligibility requirements have changed somewhat from previous DRM grant programs. To receive a grant award, an applicant must agree to: a. use the Drainage Records GIS Database Template and associated Drainage Records Modernization Guidelines (See Drainage Records Modernization subheading on the BWSR Drainage webpage to request the Drainage Records GIS Database Template and access the Drainage Records Modernization Guidelines); b. annually provide drainage system hydrographic data updates electronically to the statewide GIS drainage records database on the Minnesota GeoCommons (see example on the Minnesota Geospatial Commons). The DRM database template packet includes instructions for publishing drainage system hydrographic data to the statewide database); and c. provide a local match of at least 1:1, with higher ranking priority given to applications that provide greater than 1:1 match. FY 2018 Drainage Records Modernization Match Grants RFP 2

33 Application Guidelines 1. Applications must be submitted via elink. Eligible applicants without a current elink user account must submit a request to establish an elink account no later than 7 days prior to the application deadline. As part of the application, elink will require applicants to map the location of the proposed project area, which can be all, or part, of the drainage authority s jurisdiction area. 2. Proposals may include one image file (.jpg,.tiff,.png) as an application image within elink. (Other attachments will not show up as a part of the application report in elink.) Applicant Eligibility Only M.S. Chapter 103E county or watershed district drainage authorities can apply for this grant. Minimum and Maximum Grant Requests There is no minimum grant request amount for the DRM Match Grant Program. The maximum DRM Match Grant that can be requested is $75,000. Match The drainage authority must provide a local match of at least 1:1. Purchase of DrainageDB tm cannot be used as match for this grant program. Application Deadline and Timeline No late submissions or incomplete applications will be considered for funding. August 28, 2017 October 2, 2017 December 20, 2017 January 2018 March 12, 2018 April 9, 2018 Application period begins Application deadline at 4:30 PM* BWSR Board authorizes grant awards (proposed) BWSR grant agreements sent to recipients (proposed) Work plan submittal deadline Grant execution deadline *The application must be submitted by 4:30 PM. Late responses will not be considered. The burden of proving timely receipt is upon the grant applicant. Eligible Activities The Drainage Records Modernization Guidelines provide detailed guidance for the kinds of tasks necessary to modernize drainage system records. Eligible activities include scanning, digitizing, database creation, and otherwise organizing electronic versions of drainage system records. Grant funds cannot be used for purchase of DrainageDB tm. Project Period The project period starts when the grant agreement is fully executed, meaning all required signatures have been obtained. Work that occurs before this date is not eligible for reimbursement with grant funds and cannot be used as match. All grants must be completed by June 30, Payment Schedule Grant payments will be distributed in three installments to the grantee. The first payment of 50% of the grant amount will be paid after work plan approval and execution of the grant agreement, provided that the grant applicant is in compliance with all BWSR website and elink reporting requirements for previously awarded BWSR grants. The second payment of 40% of the grant amount will be paid once the grantee has provided BWSR with notification of 50% completion and BWSR has reconciled expenditures of the initial payment. The last 10% will be paid after all final reporting requirements are met, the grantee has provided BWSR with a final financial report, and BWSR has reconciled these expenditures. FY 2018 Drainage Records Modernization Match Grants RFP 3

34 Incomplete Applications Applications that do not comply with all application requirements will not be considered for funding, as provided here. a. Components of the application are incomplete or missing, including information on pollution reduction estimates, where applicable; b. Any required documentation is missing; or c. The match amount does not meet grant requirements. Grants and Public Information Under Minnesota Statutes, Section , responses to an RFP are nonpublic until the application deadline is reached. At that time, the name and address of the grantee, and the amount requested becomes public. All other data is nonpublic until the negotiation of the grant agreement with the selected grantee is completed. After the application evaluation process is completed, all data (except trade secret data) becomes public. Data created during the evaluation process is nonpublic until the negotiation of the grant agreement with the selected grantee(s) is completed. Minimum Browser Requirements The applicant must use Microsoft (MS) Internet Explorer 9 and above or Mozilla Firefox. Ranking All proposals will be ranked by BWSR drainage staff using the following criteria: Ranking Criteria Maximum Points Possible Connection to a Local Water Management Plan: The project application clearly identifies connection with local water management plan priorities or how it would advance the plan goals. 15 Project Readiness: The application has a set of specific activities that can begin to be implemented soon after grant award with required staff in place or a plan to hire contract staff to accomplish the proposed activities described. Match: The drainage authority must provide a local match of at least 1:1. Higher ranking priority will be given to applications that provide greater than 1:1 match. (Points will be assigned based on a comparison of all applications as to the relative match over that required for eligibility. Highest gets all the points. If an applicant is in the middle of the range, ½ of the points. If no increase over the minimum 1:1 match, no points.) Measureable Outcomes: The project is consistent with the Drainage Records Modernization Guidelines, and clearly identifies uses and benefits of the drainage records modernization proposed Cost Effectiveness: The project application clearly identifies the scope and quantity of results the applicant is planning to achieve, and how the applicant intends to achieve those results in a cost-effective manner. 20 Total Points Available 100 Questions Questions about the Drainage Records Modernization Match Grants can be answered by calling Tim Gillette at , or ing to tim.gillette@state.mn.us. FY 2018 Drainage Records Modernization Match Grants RFP 4

35 BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEM AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Cooperative Weed Management Area Rfp Meeting Date: August 24, 2017 Agenda Category: Committee Recommendation New Business Old Business Item Type: Decision Discussion Information Section/Region: Contact: Dan Shaw Prepared by: Dan Shaw Reviewed by: Grants Program and Policy Committee Committee(s) Presented by: Dan Shaw Audio/Visual Equipment Needed for Agenda Item Presentation Attachments: Resolution Order Map Other Supporting Information Fiscal/Policy Impact None Amended Policy Requested New Policy Requested Other: General Fund Budget Capital Budget Outdoor Heritage Fund Budget Clean Water Fund Budget ACTION REQUESTED Approval of FY2018 and FY2019 Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) Program RFP. LINKS TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BWSR CWMA Webpage: SUMMARY (Consider: history, reason for consideration now, alternatives evaluated, basis for recommendation) Approval of the FY2018 and FY2019 BWSR Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) Program RFP is requested. The Board was appropriated $100,000 of cost-share grant funds in each year of the biennium for FY2018 and FY2019 ($200,000 total) for county cooperative weed management cost-share programs and to restore native plants in selected invasive species management sites.. Staff have developed a request for proposal to make these funds available to qualified cooperative weed management groups. Funding source: 2017 Regular Session, Chapter 93, SF-844, Article 1. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES APPROPRIATIONS, Sec. 4. BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES. 8/14/2017 2:26 PM Page 1 Request for Board Action Form 2010.doc

36 Board Resolution # 17- FY2018 AND 2019 COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREA PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION WHEREAS, the Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) Grant Program administered by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (Board), provides financial assistance to SWCDs to develop and sustain Cooperative Weed Management Areas that control emerging weed threats and manage natural areas and conservation lands through an integrated pest management and ecosystem approach; and WHEREAS, the Laws of Minnesota 2017, Regular Session, Chapter 93, S. F nd Engrossment, Article 1, Sec. 4 appropriated fiscal year 2018 and 2019 funds for county cooperative weed management cost-share programs; and, WHEREAS, the Board has previously endorsed an inter-agency granting strategy that includes an interagency Project Advisory Team to assist in the development and evaluation of this grant program, and WHEREAS, the Grants Program & Policy Committee reviewed the proposed RFP on August 9, 2017 and recommended approval to the Board. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board authorizes staff to proceed with the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the FY2018 and 2019 CWMA Grants Program consistent with the provisions of the appropriation and this Board resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the CWMA program will be administered through the Board s Erosion Control and Water Management Program Policy. Gerald Van Amburg, Chair Board of Water and Soil Resources Date: Attachment: FY 2018 & FY 2019 Cooperative Weed Management Area Program Request for Proposal (RFP) 1

37 FY 2018 and 2019 Cooperative Weed Management Area Program Request for Proposal 7/26/2017 FY2018 & 2019 CWMA Program RFP 1

38 Table of Contents Table of Contents...2 Cooperative Weed Management Area Program...3 CWMA Program Purpose...3 Applicant Eligibility...4 Application Guidelines...4 BWSR Assistance...5 Project Period...6 Payment Schedule...6 Native Vegetation...6 Application Deadline and Timeline for CWMA Funding...6 Incomplete Applications:...6 Project Reporting Requirements...7 Grants and Public Information...7 Prevailing Wage...7 Conflict of Interest...7 Minimum Software Requirements...8 Questions...8 FY2018 & 2019 CWMA Program RFP 2

39 Cooperative Weed Management Area Program Cooperative Weed Management Areas are partnerships of federal, state and local government agencies along with tribes, individual landowners and various other interested groups that manage noxious weeds or invasive plants in a defined area. The BWSR Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) Program was developed in 2008 to promote the collaborative and efficient control of invasive species and protection of conservation lands and natural areas across geographic boundaries. $200,000 is available for FY2018 and FY2019 (combined) for newly developing and existing CWMAs/terrestrial weed management partnerships in Minnesota through this Request for Proposal. CWMA Program Purpose To establish strong and sustainable CWMAs across Minnesota for the collaborative and efficient control of invasive species and protection of conservation lands and natural areas. Key activities of CWMAs include: #1 Building Strong Partnerships Public landowners, and agencies Private landowners Local units of government Private organizations #2 Sharing Resources between Partners Staff/labor Equipment Leveraged funds Access to lands, roads, gravel pits and/or key decision makers #3 Effective Outreach/Communication Communication back and forth between agencies, landowners, local units of government, and private organizations. Educate - ID, prevention, management - also grant writing and plan writing Technical transfer - news, tips #4 Identifying and prioritizing emerging weed threats New and/or recently introduced species Those changing status Possible prioritization methods Species based Site based Based on planned actions #5 Facilitating management/control of priority species Promote sound weed management that promotes multiple landscape benefits (pollinators, re-establishing native vegetation) etc. #6 Effective data management/sharing Occurrence Projects Structures/memberships Deliverables Funding FY2018 & 2019 CWMA Program RFP 3

40 Applicant Eligibility As the CWMA Program is a State Cost-share Program, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) are the only eligible applicants. Other organizations may consider applying in partnership with SWCDs to help develop and run the Cooperative Weed Management Area project. Newly developing and existing CWMAs and CISMAs (Cooperative Invasive Species Management Areas) are eligible for this RFP. Applicants are eligible to receive grant funds if they are working under a current water management plan that has been state approved and locally adopted when the BWSR Board authorizes the grant awards Proposals from applicants that were previously awarded CWMA Funds will be considered during the review process for applications submitted in response to this RFP. However, applicants that have expended less than 50% of previous award(s) at the time of this application will need to demonstrate organizational capacity to finalize current projects and complete new projects concurrently. Application Guidelines Applications will be submitted via elink. Eligible applicants without a current elink user account must submit a request to establish an elink account no later than 7 days prior to the application deadline. As part of the application, elink will require applicants to map the location of the proposed project. Proposals should demonstrate significant, measureable project outputs and outcomes 1. As appropriate, outputs should include scientifically credible estimates of both short-term and long term benefits as well as other measures such as: acres of invasive species treated, increases in diversity levels, etc. Proposals must have plans for long-term maintenance and inspection monitoring for the duration of the project s effective life. Proposals should demonstrate that, when appropriate, a sufficient partnership exists to implement the project. $200,000 is available for the program for FY 2018 and FY 2019 combined. Up to $20,000 can be requested by newly establishing CWMAs/CISMA s or groups where more than one county are combined as part of existing CWMAs/CISMA s; and $15,000 can be requested by other existing groups. Grant funding can be used for a wide variety of activities related to setting up and sustaining existing CWMAs, conducting outreach and education, weed mapping, managing invasive species and monitoring. A minimum non-state match equal to at least 25% of the amount requested and/or received is required. The match must be cash or in-kind cash value of goods, materials, and services directly attributed to project accomplishments. Applicants are required to fill out a project budget summarizing proposed activities and expenditures including proposed actual technical and administrative costs. Applicants may propose using more than 1 The term outcome means the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out the environmental program or activity associated with the application. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health related or programmatic in nature but must be quantitative. They may not necessarily be achievable within the grant agreement timeline. The term output or intermediate outcome means an environmental activity, effort and/or associated work product related to an environmental goal and objective that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be quantitative or qualitative but must be measurable during the grant agreement timeline. FY2018 & 2019 CWMA Program RFP 4

41 20% of the grant funds for technical and administrative costs as provided in Section 2.2 of the Erosion Control and Water Management Program Policy, July Proposals may include one image file (.jpg,.tiff,.png) as an Application Image in elink. General attachments will not show up as a part of the application report in elink. Applications may receive partial funding if there are insufficient funds remaining to fully fund a project. Prior to final selection, the Board may engage applicants to discuss modifications to the project or funding request. The grant application must be in Submitted status in elink by 4:30 PM on October 2nd Table 1: Cooperative Weed Management Area Program Ranking Criteria Maximum Points Ranking Criteria Possible Newly Establishing Organizations: The funding will be used to assist the development of a newly establishing Cooperative Weed Management Area 10 (CWMA) or Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area (CISMA). Anticipated Outcomes: The outcomes expected upon completion of the project initiatives are identified, consistent with project goals, and it is clear how these 30 outcomes will be obtained. Relationship to CWMA and Conservation Plans: The proposal and species of focus are based on priority actions listed in or derived from CWMA/CISMA 10 plans, and other local, state and federal conservation and invasive species plans. Weed Prioritization: Weed threats are prioritized and are consistent with Minnesota s Noxious Weed Law, as well as local needs. 15 Strength of Partnerships: Partnerships are clearly defined. 15 Management Approach: An approach is defined to plan and manage invasive species through partnership coordination and using integrated pest 10 management, and an ecosystem restoration approach. Information Management: An approach is defied for the management of information about weed locations (using tools such as EDDMapS), as well as 10 management approaches used. Total Points Available 100 BWSR Assistance BWSR Board Conservationists are available to help applicants with grant application development and questions. A map showing the Board Conservationist work areas is available at: Questions can also be directed to Dan Shaw, the Program Manager at dan.shaw@state.mn.us, FY2018 & 2019 CWMA Program RFP 5

42 Project Period The project period starts when the grant agreement is executed, meaning all required signatures have been obtained. Work that occurs before this date is not eligible for reimbursement with grant funds, and cannot be used as match. All grants must be completed by December 31, Payment Schedule Grant payments will be made as one payment after the work plan approval and execution of the grant agreement provided the grant applicant is in compliance with all BWSR website and elink reporting requirements for previously awarded BWSR grants. Native Vegetation The planting of native vegetation following removal efforts is recommended whenever feasible for a project to provide competition for invasive species and provide other landscape benefits. Vegetative practices must follow the Native Vegetation Establishment and Enhancement Guidelines found at: Minnesota Session Law 114, Article 4, Section 12 (b) requires that any prairie planting conducted with state funding include pollinator habitat through the growing season. For information regarding pollinators, see information at: Application Deadline and Timeline for CWMA Funding No late submissions or incomplete applications will be considered for funding. August 28, 2017 October 2, 2017 December 20, 2017 January 2018 March 12, 2018 April 9, 2018 Application period begins Application deadline at 4:30 PM* BWSR Board authorizes grant awards (proposed) BWSR grant agreements sent to recipients (proposed) Work plan submittal deadline Grant execution deadline *The application must be submitted by 4:30 PM. Late responses will not be considered. The burden of proving timely receipt is upon the grant applicant. Incomplete Applications: Applications that do not comply with all application requirements will not be considered for funding, as provided below. Components of the application are incomplete or missing; Any required documentation is missing; and The match amount does not meet grant requirements. FY2018 & 2019 CWMA Program RFP 6

43 Project Reporting Requirements All grant recipients are required to report on the outcomes, activities, and accomplishments of CWMA grants. All BWSR funded projects will be required to develop a work plan and budget, including detail relating to the outcome(s) of the proposed project. All activities will be reported via the elink reporting system. Grant funds may be used for local grant management and reporting that are directly related to and necessary for implementing this activity. For more information go to BWSR CWMA funds will be administered via a standard grant agreement. BWSR will use grant agreements as contracts for assurance of deliverables and compliance with appropriate statutes, rules and established policies. Willful or negligent disregard of relevant statutes, rules and policies may lead to imposition of financial penalties on the grant recipient. All grantees receiving funds from BWSR programs must follow the BWSR Grants Administration Manual and FY18 Erosion Control and Water Management Program Policy. Grant recipients must display their program goals and major program activities on a fact sheet (or separate webpage) that is linked to their website. Grants and Public Information Under Minnesota Statute , responses to an RFP are nonpublic until the application deadline is reached. At that time, the name and address of the applicant, and the amount requested becomes public. All other data is nonpublic until the negotiation of the grant agreement with the selected applicant are completed. After the application evaluation process is completed, all data (except trade secret data) becomes public. Data created during the evaluation process are nonpublic until the negotiation of the grant agreement with the selected applicant(s) is completed. Prevailing Wage It is the responsibility of the grant recipient or contractor to pay prevailing wages on construction projects to which state prevailing wage laws apply (Minn. Stat ). All laborers and mechanics employed by grant recipients and subcontractors funded in whole or in part with state funds included in this RFP shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a character similar in the locality. Additional information on prevailing wage requirements is available on the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) website: Questions about the application of prevailing wage rates should be directed to DOLI at Conflict of Interest State Grant Policy (see Conflict of Interest for State Grant-Making, also applies to BWSR grantees. Grantees conflicts of interest are generally considered organizational conflicts of interest. Organizational conflicts of interest occur when: FY2018 & 2019 CWMA Program RFP 7

44 A grantee is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice due to competing duties or loyalties, A grantee s objectivity in carrying out the grant is or might be otherwise impaired due to competing duties or loyalties, or A grantee or potential grantee has an unfair competitive advantage through being furnished unauthorized proprietary information or source selection information that is not available to all competitors. Minimum Software Requirements Internet Explorer 9 or above or the Firefox web browser is required to complete the application in elink. Questions This RFP and the Erosion Control and Water Management Program Policy, July 2017 adopted by the BWSR ( provide the framework for funding and administration of the CWMA Program. Questions regarding grant applications should be directed to your area Board Conservationist ( or the Program Manager, Dan Shaw. FY2018 & 2019 CWMA Program RFP 8

45 Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) Grant Program Program Purpose: To establish strong and sustainable CWMAs across Minnesota for the effective control of invasive species and protection of conservation lands and natural areas. Reasons CWMAs are Needed Across Minnesota 1) They provide effective weed mapping, education, outreach and management leading to the control of emerging and established invasive species. 2) They work effectively across geographic and ownership boundaries. 3) They develop strong partnerships to leverage expertise and funding 4) They help prevent significant ecological and economic losses from invasive species 5) They protect the diversity and resiliency of natural areas and conservation lands. What is a CWMA? a local organization that provides a mechanism for sharing invasive species management resources across jurisdictional boundaries in order to achieve widespread invasive species prevention and control. CWMA and Program Funding History: CWMAs started in western states to manage grazing lands. Clay County had the first Minnesota CWMA, acting as a model for the BWSR program that started in FY 2008/ $400,000 (legislative appropriation) -FY 2010/ $200,000 (legislative appropriation) -FY $232,470 (funded with cost-share roll-over funds) -FY2013 No funding available -FY 2014/ $200,000 (legislative appropriation) -FY 2016/ $200,000 (legislative appropriation) Current Status of Program Minnesota CWMAs cover 40 counties, making the state on-par with other Midwest states. Future funding sources will be needed to develop new groups and sustain existing groups. Minnesota Cooperative Weed Management Areas Roseau CWMA working with County Commissioners CWMAs across the Midwest (2013)

46 CWMA Models: The following are three examples of how CWMAs are tackling weed issues across Minnesota: Becker CWMA Focus: Emerging weed threats- crown vetch, common tansy, spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, wild parsnip. Started: 2006 with a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grant (NFWF). Mapping: Conducted baseline GIS mapping of all invasive weeds in the county. Marsha Watland of Becker CWMA meeting with landowners Management Action: Combined manual, biological and cultural treatments for target species across the county. Strength of Program: Through mapping, partnering with the County Hwy. Dept., establishment of a gravel pit certification program and developing a landowner cost-share program they have achieved effective control of weeds in the county. Wright CWMA Focus: Wild Parsnip control (a significant agricultural, ecological, and human health threat to the county), now adding other species. Started: 2008 with BWSR Funding. Mapping: GIS Mapping of parsnip locations across county. Management Action: Worked with over 100 landowners and treated 11,000 acres. Wild Parsnip Strength of Program: Partnership with County Hwy. Dept., Townships and Landowners to halt the spread of an emerging weed threat. Wabasha CWMA Focus: Addressing emerging weed threats from Japanese knotweed and Japanese barberry, as well as common buckthorn and invasive honeysuckle shrubs. Started: 2008 with BWSR Funding, developed own cost-share program. Mapping: GIS Mapping of 1000 acres of invasive species populations. Management Action: Over 150 acres have been treated for removal of invasive species in important habitat areas. Terri Peters of Wabasha CWMA monitoring invasive species Strength of Program: Effective control of emerging weed threats. Focus on protecting intact plant communities and re-seeding native vegetation after removal.

47 BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEM AGENDA ITEM TITLE: North Fork Crow River One Watershed One Plan Additional Funding Request Meeting Date: August 24, 2017 Agenda Category: Committee Recommendation New Business Old Business Item Type: Decision Discussion Information Section/Region: Central Region Contact: Kevin Bigalke Prepared by: Kevin Bigalke Reviewed by: Grants Programs & Policy Committee Committee(s) Presented by: Kevin Bigalke Audio/Visual Equipment Needed for Agenda Item Presentation Attachments: Resolution Order Map Other Supporting Information Fiscal/Policy Impact None Amended Policy Requested New Policy Requested Other: General Fund Budget Capital Budget Outdoor Heritage Fund Budget Clean Water Fund Budget ACTION REQUESTED Approve additional funds to the North Fork Crow River One Watershed One Plan Pilot to complete their One Watershed One Plan process. LINKS TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUMMARY (Consider: history, reason for consideration now, alternatives evaluated, basis for recommendation) The Crow River Organization for Water (CROW) is the fiscal and administrative agent for the North Fork Crow River One Watershed One Plan (NFCR1W1P). The NFCR1W1P is one of the pilot 1W1P planning areas. The CROW has submitted a request for additional funds so that the 1W1P can be completed. BWSR staff has worked with CROW staff to develop a work plan that will allow for additional planning meetings and allow for their engineering consultant to complete the PTMapp modeling, implementation plan and capital improvement plan. The CROW feels that additional funds are critical for them to complete the planning process. They asked that their request be brought to the BWSR Board in August to avoid depleting grant funds and delays to the planning process. 1

48 The Grants Program & Policy Committee will be meeting on August 16, 2017 to consider their request and will have a recommendation for the Board. Additional information will be available after the August 16 Grants Program & Policy Committee meeting and will be provided to Board members at the August 24 Board meeting.

49 Board Resolution # 17- FY 2018 CLEAN WATER FUND NORTH FORK CROW RIVER ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN PILOT PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT AWARD WHEREAS, the Clean Water Fund is established in Minn. Stat. 114D.50; and, WHEREAS, on June 25, 2014, in Resolution #14-40, the Board of Water and Soil Resources (Board): 1) Approved and authorized five One Watershed, One Plan pilot watershed areas including: Lake Superior North, North Fork Crow River, Red Lake River, Root River, and Yellow Medicine River; 2) Authorized staff to complete work plans and enter into grant agreements with the pilot watershed areas for development of On Watershed, One Plans; 3) Approved the allocation of up to $1,758,710 which included a shift of up to $458,710 from the unspent FY 14 CWF Soil Erosion & Drainage Law Compliance and Community Partners Programs; 4) Authorized staff to enter into agreements and/or contracts with the University of Minnesota and the Red River Watershed Management Board for the purposes of partner readiness surveys and completion of the Water Quality Decision Support Application; and, WHEREAS, the North Fork Crow River pilot watershed area has requested additional funding to finalize their plan and further their implementation readiness efforts, and; WHEREAS, Clean Water Funds have been appropriated to the Board in Laws of Minnesota 2017, First Special Session, House File 707, 4 th Engrossment, Article 2, Section 7(i), and; WHEREAS, the Grants Program & Policy Committee reviewed and recommended the attached One Watershed, One Plan Funding Recommendation on August 16, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board hereby approves the allocation of up to $36,000 appropriated to the Board in Laws of Minnesota 2017, First Special Session, House File 707, 4 th Engrossment, Article 2, Section 7(i), as identified in the attached One Watershed, One Plan Funding Recommendation. Gerald Van Amburg, Chair Board of Water and Soil Resources Date: Attachments: One Watershed, One Plan, Funding Recommendation 1

50 One Watershed, One Plan Funding Recommendation Pilot Watershed Funding Recommendation North Fork Crow River $36,000 2

51 BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEM AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Meeting Date: 2017 Local Roads Wetland Replacement Program Bonding Appropriation Project Selection Plan Agenda Category: Committee Recommendation New Business Old Business Item Type: Decision Discussion Information Section/Region: Contact: Prepared by: Wetlands Section Tim Smith Les Lemm Reviewed by: Wetlands Conservation Committee(s) Presented by: Tim Smith and/or Les Lemm Audio/Visual Equipment Needed for Agenda Item Presentation Attachments: Resolution Order Map Other Supporting Information Fiscal/Policy Impact None Amended Policy Requested New Policy Requested Other: General Fund Budget Capital Budget Outdoor Heritage Fund Budget Clean Water Fund Budget ACTION REQUESTED Approval of the 2017 Local Roads Wetland Replacement Program Bonding Appropriation Project Selection Plan via Board resolution. LINKS TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUMMARY (Consider: history, reason for consideration now, alternatives evaluated, basis for recommendation) The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) has been charged by the legislature to generate wetland replacement credits for use by local public transportation authorities to satisfy wetland replacement requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Five million dollars in bonding funds were appropriated to BWSR in 2017 to generate wetland credits for the LRWRP. The 2017 Bonding Appropriation Project Selection Plan was developed to outline the process and criteria to be used to select and fund projects from this appropriation. The plan has been reviewed by the Board s Wetlands Conservation Committee, which has forwarded the plan to the full Board with recommendation to approve. 1

52 Board Resolution # 17- LOCAL ROAD WETLAND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 2017 BONDING APPROPRIATION PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS WHEREAS, Laws of Minnesota 2017, 1st Special Session, H.F. 5, 1st Engrossment, Article 1, Section 8, Subdivision 3 appropriated $5 million to the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in 2017 for the local roads wetland replacement program (LRWRP); and WHEREAS, BWSR has been charged with generating wetland replacement credits for use by local public transportation authorities to satisfy wetland replacement requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) under Minnesota Statutes 103G.222, Subd. 1(m) and Minnesota Rules Chapter ; and WHEREAS, BWSR strives to establish and maintain an adequate supply of wetland credits in each bank service area to meet local transportation authority needs over time; and WHEREAS, BWSR has effectively utilized bonding money in the past to fund the program and produce sufficient credits to fulfill its statutory obligation; and WHEREAS, BWSR has generally used two approaches for generating credits for the LRWRP in the past: an easement program sign-up and a request for proposals (RFP) process; and WHEREAS, a third approach for generating credits is a hybrid of the two previously used options, where BWSR will partner with a local government or landowner to develop the wetland bank project; and WHEREAS, utilizing the easement sign-up or partnership methods currently represents the most efficient options for generating wetland credits to meet the needs of the LRWRP, and are compatible with current BWSR staff capabilities; and WHEREAS, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) have been effective partners in the easement program sign-up approach that involves identifying potential projects, assisting in easement acquisitions, and project implementation; and WHEREAS, current foreseeable wetland credit needs have been identified within bank service areas 2, 4, 6, and 9. This area includes all or portions of the following counties: Scott, Carver, Hennepin, Washington, Anoka, Isanti, Chisago, Pine, Carlton, Kanabec, McLeod, Mille Lacs, Aitkin, Kandiyohi, Douglas, Pope, Swift, Stevens, Otter Tail, Becker, Mahnomen, Wilkin, Clearwater, Norman, Clay, Wilkin, Chippewa, Grant, Traverse, Big Stone, Lac Qui Parle, Yellow Medicine, Renville, Lincoln, Lyon, Pipestone, Murray, Cottonwood, Jackson, Martin, Faribault, Freeborn, Waseca, Blue Earth, Nicollet, Brown, Watonwan, Redwood, Sibley, Le Sueur, Dakota, Rice, Lake of the Woods, Roseau, Beltrami, Koochiching, Itasca, St. Louis, Lake, and Cook; and WHEREAS, project selection will depend on a number of technical, economic, and public value-related criteria. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Board authorizes staff to obtain projects and generate needed wetland credits using 2017 bonding funds consistent with the 2017 Bonding Appropriation Project Selection Plan for the Local Roads Wetland Replacement Program dated August 24, 2017, including easement payment rates, project evaluation criteria, and the project selection process. 1

53 Gerald Van Amburg, Chair Board of Water and Soil Resources Date: 2

54 2017 Bonding Appropriation Project Selection Plan for the Local Roads Wetland Replacement Program August 24, 2017 Background The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) has been charged by the legislature to generate wetland replacement credits for use by local public transportation authorities to satisfy wetland replacement requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Local Roads Wetland Replacement Program (LRWRP) provides wetland credits for local public transportation authorities that follow specified notification procedures and have qualifying projects according to criteria established in Minnesota Statutes 103G.222, Subd. 1(m) and Minnesota Rules Chapter To generate wetland replacement credits, BWSR typically receives a bonding appropriation to restore wetlands and generate wetland replacement credits. These wetland restorations are primarily conducted on private lands with cooperating landowners. All wetland restorations and associated credits are processed and entered into the State wetland banking system as road replacement banks, and all are required to be protected by a permanent wetland conservation easement specific to wetland banks. Given the uncertainty and variability of wetland replacement needs associated with qualifying transportation projects, BWSR strives to keep an adequate supply of wetland credits in each bank service area (see attached map). Having readily available wetland credits in all bank service areas allows public road projects to move forward more quickly and reduces overall credit use (and cost to the State) due to increased replacement requirements when replacement occurs in a different service area than the impact. There are three primary methods that BWSR can use to generate credits with bonding dollars: 1) One method, referred to as conservation easement sign-up, involves the purchase of an easement from a landowner that allows for BWSR staff to design and implement a wetland restoration project. BWSR typically contracts with the local soil and water conservation district to assist, and contractors are hired by the landowner to implement the BWSR-developed plan. Contractor payments from the landowner are reimbursed by BWSR. The landowner is compensated for the cost of obtaining the easement, based on Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) payment rates. In some areas of the state, this method tends to be the most efficient means (in terms of cost per credit) of producing wetland credit and BWSR has been very successful at producing credits using this method once the easement is purchased. However, this method involves a significant BWSR staff commitment and may not be an attractive option for landowners wishing to seek greater compensation for the value of the wetland credits generated on their land. 2) A second method is to send out a request for proposal (RFP) from landowners and/or other entities in partnership with landowners to submit proposed wetland restoration projects. The proposals include a cost per credit that the landowner would sell deposited credits to BWSR. This method 1

55 requires BWSR to enter into a contract with the landowner to purchase wetland credits at a specified price once they are generated by the landowner through project implementation. In some areas of the State this method can result in a higher cost per credit compared to the conservation easement sign-up option. However, this method requires significantly less BWSR staff time and could potentially attract landowners willing to front the cost of project implementation in exchange for the higher payment for wetland credits as compared to the lower payment for wetland easement acres. BWSR s experience with this option is that the design and agency review process prior to construction takes longer than with BWSR managed projects, which adds considerable uncertainty to the schedule for obtaining credits for the LRWRP. 3) A third option used that is being used more frequently is to partner with a local government unit, soil and water conservation district, or landowner to split responsibilities for project development with a commensurate split of the resulting credits. These partnership style projects take advantage of the capabilities and manpower of each partner where there are available resources and a need for wetland credits. These projects maximize economies of scale for wetland bank projects by facilitating the pursuit of larger projects, while our funds can be used to pursue an increased number of projects statewide because the partnerships reduce our total investment in each project. These partnerships are also an attractive option for landowners in the northeast, non-agricultural areas of the state where RIM payment rates are low, as a split of credits can provide additional incentive for the landowner Bonding Appropriation Five million dollars in bonding money was allocated to BWSR in 2017 via Laws of Minnesota 2017, 1st Special Session, H.F. 5, 1st Engrossment, Article 1, Section 8, Subdivision 3. Approximately five percent of this appropriation is currently budgeted for program administration expenses, leaving at least $4.7 million for project development. LRWRP Account Balances by Bank Service Area The LRWRP has experienced a severe shortage of credits during the past year due to a lack of adequate funding appropriations. The credit balances in certain Bank Service Areas (BSA) were increased in 2017 through private credit purchases from a $5 million general fund appropriation which temporarily prevented the program from entering state-wide default. However, these additional purchases are one time infusion of credits and did not address credit shortages in every BSA where shortages exist or longer-term needs statewide. The following graphic shows the current LRWRP account balances. 2

56 Bank Service Area Available Credits BWSR is also in the process of completing additional private bank credit purchases using a portion of the remaining general fund appropriation. This second round of credit purchases will add credits to the LRWRP in BSAs 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10. Because of the limited amount of private credits available in BSAs 4, 6, and 9, short-term LRWRP demand cannot be met through the purchase of private bank credits with a general fund appropriation alone. Project Identification and Selection BWSR will prioritize the use of the conservation easement sign-up and partnership options for generating wetland credits for the LRWRP in BSAs 2, 4, 6, and 9. Each of these BSAs has a low balance of credits, a limited supply of privately owned credits, and, except for BSA 9, no LRWRP wetland bank projects currently being developed or monitored following construction. These BSAs are the highest short-term priority for the LRWRP at this time. The contract credit option will be retained as a possible method for acquiring credits, but initial efforts will focus on conservation easement sign-up and partnership options. Using the conservation easement sign-up method provides greater certainty with respect to the project schedule relative to the alternative method because it utilizes in-house expertise to design the project and obtain the required agency approvals. A predictable schedule for delivering credits is critical given the shortage of credits in the LRWRP accounts statewide and the expectation that BWSR will provide credits for local road improvement projects. Approximately 13% of the 2017 five million dollar bonding appropriation 3

57 is currently budgeted for engineering and other project development staffing costs to complete an estimated four to five wetland bank projects, leaving approximately $4.1 million in bonding funds for contracts, construction, and payments to landowners (final amounts are dependent on the actual number of projects and the scope and estimated cost of each). The process to identify and evaluate potential projects is described in the following paragraphs. If there are insufficient responses provided under the conservation easement sign-up option, staff will consider a separate notification to the public seeking potential projects utilizing a request for quotation process from private landowners. The sign-up area will include only properties within bank service areas 2, 4, 6, and 9. This includes all or portions of the following counties: Scott, Carver, Hennepin, Washington, Anoka, Isanti, Chisago, Pine, Carlton, Kanabec, McLeod, Mille Lacs, Aitkin, Kandiyohi, Douglas, Pope, Swift, Stevens, Otter Tail, Becker, Mahnomen, Wilkin, Clearwater, Norman, Clay, Wilkin, Chippewa, Grant, Traverse, Big Stone, Lac Qui Parle, Yellow Medicine, Renville, Lincoln, Lyon, Pipestone, Murray, Cottonwood, Jackson, Martin, Faribault, Freeborn, Waseca, Blue Earth, Nicollet, Brown, Watonwan, Redwood, Sibley, Le Sueur, Dakota, Rice, Lake of the Woods, Roseau, Beltrami, Koochiching, Itasca, St. Louis, Lake, and Cook. If utilized, the contract credit option (the second option described previously) would involve a public notice announcing that BWSR is seeking RFPs from landowners or other project sponsors with landowner consent to purchase wetland bank replacement credits within one of the previously identified BSA(s). Responses would be evaluated using a process similar to that described for the conservation easement sign-up option in the following paragraphs (use of pre-established evaluation criteria and coordination with internal staff and external agencies to evaluate and rank responses). Conservation Easement and Partnership Option Sign-Up Process BWSR will conduct an easement application sign-up of potential wetland banking sites. This sign-up will be facilitated through our local government partners, specifically Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), counties, and non-profit conservation organizations involved in wetland conservation projects. SWCDs will utilize their local knowledge and expertise to identify potential wetland banking projects and willing landowner participants. SWCDs will gather site information and assist landowners in completing application materials. Payment rates ($ per acre) for easement acquisition will be set at 125% that of the current RIM easement rate consistent with the Board approved LRWRP easement sign up process conducted in 2012 (Board Resolution ). The higher payments for wetland bank easements was justified at that time because the road replacement program is competing with conservation programs for good project sites, conservation easements for wetland banking have a higher level of landowner liability, land values continue to rise, and wetland banking projects have specific needs that limit the number of available projects. These factors are all relevant for the LRWRP today. The opportunity for partnerships will be included with the sign-up notice. The RFP will ask for partnership opportunities to be identified along with a preliminary estimate of the number of credits desired, anticipated services provided, and financial contribution. The sign-up period (pending BWSR Board approval) will start in the fall of 2017 and last for 2 months. Prior to the sign-up period SWCDs will be provided application information, instructions, and required submittal documents. The process and submittal information will be similar to the RIM-WRP partnership sign-up. 4

58 SWCDs will be encouraged to work with local landowners in putting applications together. SWCDs working with landowners on projects selected by BWSR will have the opportunity to receive payment for services they provide in project development and implementation. Payment rates to SWCDs for services associated with selected projects will vary based on project size and the scope of services provided. To be eligible for selection, all applications will have to meet WCA replacement and construction standards in terms of ecological suitability, long-term sustainability, and being a true restoration. Applications will be reviewed using the following criteria: 1. Credit yield 2. Potential restoration cost based on estimated cost of easement, design, and construction relative to anticipated number of credits. 3. Technical feasibility Actions required to restore wetland hydrology and vegetation and level of complexity and reliability of proposed measures. 4. Functional benefit for the watershed stressors or impairments addressed through the proposed project and the value of the restored functions and services to the watershed relative to other proposals from the same BSA. 5. Rare or difficult to replace wetland functions or characteristics - extra consideration for projects that would restore wetlands that are particularly rare or rarely restored. In general, the review criteria will be qualitatively evaluated and placed into broad categories (high, medium, and low) based on the experience and knowledge of the review team members. An exact quantitative determination of review criteria is not possible or desirable when estimating proposed conditions. Final project selection will weigh the rankings for each of the five review criteria and then consider those in terms of the geographic location priority list. For easement applications with similar rankings, efforts will be made to distribute selected projects evenly amongst priority areas. Review Team Projects will be reviewed by BWSR Wetland Section staff and representatives from our resource partners at the Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Based on the results of the review, a list of recommended projects and alternates will be composed by the BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator and presented to the Executive Director or his designee for final approval. 5

59 Schedule (Anticipated) August 2017 BWSR Board approval of the process September 2017 Program sign-up December 2017 Project reviews January/February 2018 Approval of recommended projects 6

60 BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEM AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Buffer Program Implementation: Other Alternative Practices Decision Support Tool for Selecting and Implementing Alternative Management Practices in Compliance with the Minnesota Buffer Law Meeting Date: August 24, 2017 Agenda Category: Committee Recommendation New Business Old Business Item Type: Decision Discussion Information Section/Region: Programs and Policy Contact: Tom Gile/Dave Weirens Prepared by: Dave Weirens Reviewed by: Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee Committee(s) Presented by: Tom Gile and Others Audio/Visual Equipment Needed for Agenda Item Presentation Attachments: Resolution Order Map Other Supporting Information Fiscal/Policy Impact None Amended Policy Requested New Policy Requested Other: General Fund Budget Capital Budget Outdoor Heritage Fund Budget Clean Water Fund Budget ACTION REQUESTED The Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee is recommends the Board adopt of the Decision Support Tool for Selecting and Implementing Alternative Management Practices in Compliance with the Minnesota Buffer Law as an other alternative practice under the Buffer Law with the conditions established by the Buffer Technical Advisory Team and the additional condition that any best management practice established using the Decision Support Tool is subject to a validation of compliance issued by the soil and water conservation district. LINKS TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1

61 SUMMARY (Consider: history, reason for consideration now, alternatives evaluated, basis for recommendation) Minn. Stat. 103F.48 authorizes landowners to establish and maintain alternative practices to comply with the riparian protection and water quality protection requirement. The statute provides that alternative practices must be based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG). The statute further authorizes the BWSR Board to adopt other practices that are not contained within the FOTG. On June 28, 2017, the Board adopted Procedure 5 which provides details on how this other alternative practices authority is to be implemented. Consistent with Procedure 5, staff established a Buffer Technical Advisory Team that met on May 11, 2017 and July 12, 2017 and recommended the Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee approve the Decision Support Tool for Selecting and Implementing Alternative Management Practices in Compliance with the Minnesota Buffer Law. This recommendation was then taken up by the Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee on August 7, 2017.

62 Board Resolution # 17- Buffer Program Implementation: Other Alternative Practices Decision Support Tool for Selecting and Implementing Alternative Management Practices in Compliance with the Minnesota Buffer Law WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 103F.48 establishes a riparian protection and water quality practices program, commonly referred to as the Buffer Law, and; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 103F.48, Subd. 3(b) as enacted in 2015 provided the following: A landowner owning property adjacent to a water body identified in a buffer protection map and whose property is used for cultivation farming may meet the requirements by adopting an alternative riparian water quality practice, or combination of structural, vegetative, and management practices, based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide or other practices approved by the board, that provide water quality protection comparable to the buffer protection for the water body that the property abuts., and; WHEREAS, the Board adopted Procedure 5: Other Alternative Practices Approved by the Board on June 28, 2017 to establish a process to utilize the authority provided in statute; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Corn Growers Association contracted with the University of Minnesota to develop the Decision Support Tool for Selecting and Implementing Alternative Management Practices in Compliance with the Minnesota Buffer Law and applied for approval as an Other Alternative Practice by the Board as provided by Procedure 5, and; WHEREAS, the Buffer Technical Advisory Team reviewed this application and the Decision Support Tool on May 11, 2017 and July 12, 2017 and is recommending the Board adopt the Decision Support Tool with the following conditions: and; The University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Corn Growers Association will work with BWSR Staff to address concerns with the Conservation Crop Rotation Practice Standard (which technically can allow moldboard plowing) prior to deployment. If acceptable changes cannot be implemented, this BMP is to be locked or removed from the preliminary release. Guidance is to be expanded to allow some flexibility to SWCDs in selecting the appropriate Agro- Ecoregion that has typical characteristics appropriate for the parcel site, such as for floodplains within bluffland. Guidance is to be expanded to clarify details in selecting upland management conditions. Guidance is to be expanded based on a two week testing period (mutually agreed upon) by 5 SWCDs who have volunteered to test the tool and its guidance prior to BWSR Board action. 1

63 WHEREAS, the BWSR Buffers, Soils and Drainage Committee reviewed the decision support tool on August 7, 2017 and is recommending adoption by the Board with the conditions established by the Buffer Technical Advisory Team and the additional condition that any best management practice established using the Decision Support Tool is subject to a validation of compliance issued by the soil and water conservation district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources adopts the Decision Support Tool for Selecting and Implementing Alternative Management Practices in Compliance with the Minnesota Buffer Law and authorizes staff to ensure the following conditions are met prior to making the decision support tool available for use: The University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Corn Growers Association will work with BWSR Staff to address concerns with the Conservation Crop Rotation Practice Standard (which technically can allow moldboard plowing) prior to deployment. If acceptable changes cannot be implemented, this BMP is to be locked or removed from the preliminary release. Guidance is to be expanded to allow some flexibility to SWCDs in selecting the appropriate Agro- Ecoregion that has typical characteristics appropriate for the parcel site, such as for floodplains within bluffland. Guidance is to be expanded to clarify details in selecting upland management conditions. Guidance is to be expanded based on a two week testing period (mutually agreed upon) by 5 SWCDs who have volunteered to test the tool and its guidance prior to BWSR Board action. Any best management practice established using the Decision Support Tool is subject to a validation of compliance issued by the soil and water conservation district Gerald Van Amburg, Chair Board of Water and Soil Resources Date:

64 Final Draft Decision support tool for selecting alternative management practices in compliance with the Minnesota Buffer Law A preliminary report to the Board of Water and Soil Resources August 14 h, 2017 by Jake Galzki (U of MN Department of Soil, Water, and Climate), Chris Lenhart (U of MN Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering), and David Mulla (U of MN Department of Soil, Water, and Climate) Funding provided by the Minnesota Corn Growers Association. The Minnesota Buffer initiative, signed into law in April of 2016, provides protection of Minnesota surface waters by requiring permanent riparian vegetation at a width of 50 feet adjacent to public waters and 16.5 feet adjacent to public ditches. Alternative practices may be implemented in lieu of vegetative buffers if such practices provide at least as much water quality benefits as the prescribed buffer. This analysis provides a comprehensive review of available literature regarding alternative management practices and their effectiveness. A decision support tool has been created based on this literature review and provides options for selecting combinations of alternative management practices that provide comparable water quality benefits of a vegetative buffer. The Minnesota Phosphorus Index was utilized in 30 different landscapes in the state and provides expected baseline sediment and phosphorus export dependent on average upland soil texture, slope, and climatic considerations. In each region, three baseline management scenarios were explored that consider region-specific manure and fertilizer usage as well as tillage practices. The regional effectiveness of vegetative buffers was then analyzed; buffer contaminant removal rates were determined based on regional characteristics and further refined with site-specific slope and soil information. Finally the decision support tool uses these regionalized baseline contaminant exports coupled with site-specific buffer removal efficiencies as a benchmark for comparisons of alternative practice combinations. The overall goal of the tool is to define various combinations of suitable alternative practices that meet or exceed water quality benefits of a prescribed buffer and remain in compliance with the new law. The tool focuses on sediment and total phosphorus loss via overland flow, but other benefits of buffers such as infiltration and bank stabilization may also occur.

65 Literature review for BMP effectiveness values Existing research data was reviewed to define the effectiveness of the practices to be recommended as alternatives to riparian buffers. The practices examined are a subset of the NRCS list of approved BMPs. They are all commonly used in Minnesota farmland and most were included in the Agricultural BMP Handbook for Minnesota 31. The NRCS groups practices into categories of avoiding, controlling, and trapping contaminants. These functions often correspond with hillslope position (Figure 1). Riparian buffers are at the bottom of the hillslope and trap contaminants. Alternative practices are typically avoiding or controlling practices located in fields or in channels or drainage systems flowing towards a stream or ditch. Occasionally opportunities arise for restored or created wetlands as well as water and sediment control basins (WASCOBS) and side inlets, which are trapping practices. Figure 1. The USDA NRCS uses the categories of avoiding, controlling, and trapping to group BMPs by function and/or hillslope position. Riparian buffers typically lie at the end of the slope, so many of the alternative practices involve practices that avoid or control the loss of sediment and nutrients higher up the landscape within the farm fields. The effectiveness of the alternatives will be compared to the effectiveness of buffers. Riparian buffers have been thoroughly researched for their benefits on treating surface water treatment flowing as gradual sheet flow across the buffer 3, 6, 15, 22, 25, 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46. Using values from these Midwestern studies to develop a regression equation yielded efficiency removals of 90.0 % for TSS (total suspended solids) in a 50ft buffer and 76.9% in a 16.5 ft. buffer. There were fewer studies available for phosphorus and nitrate removal within Minnesota so a regression equation for nutrient removal efficiency based on a nationwide synthesis of studies was used by Nieber et al. 34. Based on that synthesis, phosphorus removal was 67.9% in the 50 ft. buffer and 50.3% in the 16.5 ft. buffer while nitrogen removal was 66.0% and 43.6% with the 50 ft and 16.5 ft. buffers, respectively. These studies assume gradual surface flow across the buffer; however, subsurface drainage largely bypasses buffer function, greatly reducing buffer effectiveness for dissolved pollutants such as nitrate and dissolved reactive phosphorus. Schilling et al. 37 studied removal of 2

66 nutrients in subsurface groundwater flow and found that buffers were partially effective at reducing nitrate and dissolved phosphorus although they had much lower concentrations and longer residence times than in tile drained fields. Eleven BMPs (Table 1) were selected that are potential alternatives to riparian buffers. Eight are in-field practices including nutrient and tillage management in farm fields (contour buffer strips, cover crops, conservation crop rotation, pasture/hay planting and conservation tillage) as well as controlling practices that fit in with typical Minnesota farm operations (contour strip-cropping, grassed waterways, terraces). Five trapping practices were selected to capture and treat water typically at the bottom of the hillslope or edge-of-field (filter strips, WASCOBS, constructed wetland, restored wetlands, side inlets). Studies done in Minnesota were utilized wherever possible. Where Minnesota-specific studies were not available, information from Iowa or other upper Midwestern states were used to augment the database. In both cases, data from field studies with observed data were chosen over modeling studies or simulations. Field study data were available for most BMPs except for a few that had not been researched in the past ten to twenty years in Minnesota or the upper Midwest. For example the only data on grassed swales came from a modeling study in Iowa 8. Effectiveness values were assigned to each BMP using an average from multiple literature review values (Table 1) when possible. The average represents the effectiveness of a newly installed BMP. Some of the BMPs may decline in effectiveness over time. For example trapping practices such as WaSCoBs often fill in with sediment, and vegetative buffers and grassed waterways may become reduced in size from mowing and/or farming over time. The alternative practices suggested here must be installed correctly and maintained over time to achieve contaminant losses listed in this analysis. Where limited studies were available, professional judgement was used to select the value most appropriate from the literature based on similarity in ecoregion or landscape setting. These effectiveness values were then used to feed the decision support tool when a BMP was deemed appropriate for a given landscape setting. The limitations to the literature review include lack of available data for some BMPs, such as hay planting and conservation cover. Total phosphorus and sediment were the focus of this analysis because buffers are most effective at removing sediment and particulate phosphorus in surface flow. In contrast, dissolved pollutants such as nitrate and dissolved phosphorus are not removed as effectively. This is particularly true where sub-surface tile drainage bypasses the filtering function of buffers, especially on the more narrow 16.5 foot buffers required on public ditches. Sediment and particulate P were removed at consistently higher rates with lower variability as indicated by coefficient of variation values. Dissolved pollutants were removed with more variability with dissolved phosphorus the most variable. 23 3

67 Table 1. Pollutant removal efficiency data for alternative BMPs BMP name Contour Buffer Strips NRCS practice code Hillslope location / Type Avg. sediment removal % Avg. Total Phosphorus removal % Reference number 332 Avoiding ,14,41 Cover crops 340 Avoiding , 16, 18,19, 21, 26 No till/strip till 329 Avoiding ,2,29 Contour Stripcropping Grassed Waterways 585 Controlling Controlling Terraces 600 Controlling Filter Strips *** Trapping , 31 Water and Sediment Control Basin WaSCoB Constructed Wetland Restored Wetland (Riparian) Side inlets (grade stabilization) 638 Trapping , Trapping ,17,20, 33, Trapping , 13, 23, Trapping ***Filter strip design will be in compliance with buffer law, not NRCS practice Note: the above studies cite efficiency of removal values for field-scale BMPs treating varying quantities of water. They do not reflect the total volume of water treated or total load removed. Trapping BMPs that retain water can generally treat much larger volumes of water and therefore reomove much larger total loads of sediment or nutrients Baseline Modeling In order to understand how buffers and different BMPs function in different landscape settings within Minnesota, a modeling approach was used to simulate their effectiveness across the state. The Minnesota Phosphorus Index models three main pathways of phosphorus export in agricultural systems: erosion, rainfall runoff, and snowmelt runoff. This robust tool is based on the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE), and considers landscape characteristics, cropping and tillage practices, and application methods of fertilizer and manure. The model was run for thirty different agroecoregions within Minnesota. These agroecoregions represent areas with homogenous climate, soil, and landscape characteristics, which largely influence sediment and phosphorus export (Figure 2). There are thirty-nine unique agroecoregions in Minnesota; this modeling effort was focused on thirty with predominantly agricultural land-use. 4

68 In addition to agroecoregion features, site-specific farming management practices influence contaminant export. Three baseline management scenarios (best, average, and poor) were modeled within each of the thirty agroecoregions to represent how contaminant export varies with management. The best management condition employs conservative tillage and follows University of Minnesota fertilizer recommendations. The average management condition was based largely on Farm Nutrient Management Assessment Program (FANMAP) surveys conducted by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture 27. These surveys provide region-specific data on actual fertilizer and tillage management. The poor management condition simulation was based on aggressive tillage and fertilizer rates 25% higher than rates found in FANMAP surveys. The Phosphorus Index model assumes that sheet flow delivers sediment and phosphorus from field to surface waters. In some regions of the state, berms interrupt sheet flow and concentrate flow paths parallel to streams and ditches. This overland runoff enters surface waters in concentrated areas such as a low spot in local topography, an ephemeral gully, or an artificial drainage structure. Areas where sheet flow is interrupted with berms have been accommodated within the model by increasing field lengths. Empirical data on the frequency of gullies and side inlets along stream segments were analyzed where available 11. These data were supplemented with terrain attributes for each agroecoregion so that steeper landscapes had a higher frequency of concentrated flow entry points into surface waters. In the presence of berms, field length adjustments were therefore increased more in flat landscapes and less in areas with more topographical relief. An increase in the overall field length reduces sediment delivery ratios and thus produces less baseline sediment and phosphorus export in areas with berms. In the past, the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources have focused on sediment and sediment bound constituents when determining comparable water quality benefits of buffer alternatives. By employing the robust Minnesota Phosphorus Index in the present analysis, dissolved phosphorus is explicitly being considered in the removal estimates and offers a more conservative approach for determining comparable water quality benefits. This introduces a margin of safety for this analysis in an attempt to ensure equal or greater water quality benefits of alternative practices. Although this study uses sediment and Phosphorus as comparison benchmarks, buffers provide additional benefits that are more difficult to quantify, such as bank stability. This study does not suggest the complete removal of buffers in any case, but offers options of alternative practice combinations coupled with a reduction of policy mandated buffer widths. 5

69 Minnesota Agroecoregions Figure 2. Agroecoregions within Minnesota. 6

70 Baseline modeling results without vegetative buffers Sediment export varied from over 80 tons/acre/year in very steep landscapes to under 1 ton/acre/year in the flattest landscapes without vegetative buffer strips. Best management practices yielded the lowest sediment export values for each region, while poor management resulted in the highest values. The effects of management condition are more apparent in steeper landscapes such as the Blufflands and Steeper Alluvium agroecoregions (Figure 3). Sediment Export in different Agroecoregions (t/ac/yr) Poor Management Average Management Best Management Alluvium and Anoka Sand Plains Blufflands Central Till Coteau Drumlins Dryer Blue Earth Till Dryer Clays and Silts Dryer Till Inner Coteau Inter-Beach Sand Level Plains Mahnomen Lake Poorly Drained Blue Poorly Drained Rochester Plateau Rolling Moraine Somewhat Poorly Steep Dryer Moraine Steep Stream Banks Steep Valley Walls Steep Wetter Steeper Alluvium Steeper Till Stream Banks Swelling Clay Lake Undulating Plains Very Poorly Wetter Blue Earth Till Wetter Clays and silts Figure 3. Modeled Sediment Export in different agroecoregions. Total phosphorus export values varied from 7 lbs. P/acre/year to under 1 lb. P/acre/year. Sediment export values are used by the model to calculate phosphorus export, thus trends in total phosphorus export were similar to sediment. The main difference seen with phosphorus export data are the effects of management condition. The best management condition assumes crop residue cover of more than twenty percent. This residue increases trapping of drifting snow, and increases soluble phosphorus in snowmelt runoff; thus the best management in some areas produces similar or slightly higher phosphorus export as the average management condition (Figure 4). 7

71 Total Phosphorus Export in different Agroecoregion (lbs P/ac/yr) Poor Management Average Management Best Management Alluvium and Anoka Sand Blufflands Central Till Coteau Drumlins Dryer Blue Dryer Clays and Dryer Till Inner Coteau Inter-Beach Level Plains Mahnomen Poorly Drained Poorly Drained Rochester Rolling Moraine Somewhat Steep Dryer Steep Stream Steep Valley Steep Wetter Steeper Alluvium Steeper Till Stream Banks Swelling Clay Undulating Plains Very Poorly Wetter Blue Wetter Clays Figure 4. Modeled Total Phosphorus export in different agroecoregions. Buffer removal efficiencies Buffer effectiveness depends on several factors including buffer width, soil texture, slope, field length, upland management, and also the type of contaminant being considered. Buffer removal efficiencies for sediment and total phosphorus were determined for 16.5 and 50 foot buffer widths based on each of the above factors using buffer removal equations developed by Dosskey et al. in all thirty agroecoregions considered 9. Buffer efficiency of sediment removal varied from 100% to under 5%. Slope and soil texture had the largest influence on the effectiveness of buffers. Flatter landscapes and coarser soils increase the ability of a buffer to remove contaminants in overland flow (Figure 5). Similar trends were seen in total phosphorus removal efficiencies; however, it is more difficult for a vegetative buffer to remove soluble phosphorus in runoff. Thus overall removal efficiencies for total phosphorus are generally lower than removal efficiencies for sediment (Figure 6). 8

72 Alluvium and Outwash Anoka Sand Plains Blufflands Central Till Coteau Drumlins Sediment Removal Efficiencies of Buffers % Sediment Reduction from 50 ' buffer % Sediment Reduction from 16.5 ' buffer Dryer Blue Earth Till Dryer Clays and Silts Dryer Till Inner Coteau Inter-Beach Sand Bars Level Plains Mahnomen Lake Poorly Drained Blue Poorly Drained Lake Rochester Plateau Rolling Moraine Somewhat Poorly Steep Dryer Moraine Steep Stream Banks Steep Valley Walls Steep Wetter Moraine Steeper Alluvium Steeper Till Stream Banks Swelling Clay Lake Sed Undulating Plains Very Poorly Drained Wetter Blue Earth Till Wetter Clays and silts Figure 5. Sediment removal efficiencies of buffers in different agroecoregions Alluvium and Outwash Anoka Sand Plains Blufflands Central Till Coteau Drumlins Phosphorus Removal Efficiencies of Buffers % Phosphorus Reduction from 50' buffer % Phosphorus Reduction from 16.5' buffer Dryer Blue Earth Till Dryer Clays and Silts Dryer Till Inner Coteau Inter-Beach Sand Bars Level Plains Mahnomen Lake Poorly Drained Blue Poorly Drained Lake Rochester Plateau Rolling Moraine Somewhat Poorly Steep Dryer Moraine Steep Stream Banks Steep Valley Walls Steep Wetter Moraine Steeper Alluvium Steeper Till Stream Banks Swelling Clay Lake Sed Undulating Plains Very Poorly Drained Wetter Blue Earth Till Wetter Clays and silts Figure 6. Phosphorus removal efficiencies of buffers in different agroecoregions. Expected water quality benefits of buffers Buffer removal efficiencies are coupled with baseline contaminant export under best, average, and poor management to determine the expected water quality benefits that a prescribed buffer would 9

73 have in each agroecoregion. These contaminant reduction goals were determined for each of the 30 agroecoregions and each of the three management conditions (best, average, or poor) within the region. Sediment export reductions of a 50 foot buffer varied from 10 tons/acre/year to under 1 ton/acre/year. Buffer reduction estimates are highest where there is higher sediment export coupled with high buffer removal efficiencies. Reduction estimates are higher for each region when poor management practices are employed because there is more sediment to remove (Figure 7) Sediment Export Reductions of a 50' Buffer (t/ac/yr) Poor Management Average Management Best Management Alluvium and Outwash Anoka Sand Plains Blufflands Central Till Coteau Drumlins Dryer Blue Earth Till Dryer Clays and Silts Dryer Till Inner Coteau Inter-Beach Sand Bars Level Plains Mahnomen Lake Poorly Drained Blue Poorly Drained Lake Rochester Plateau Rolling Moraine Somewhat Poorly Steep Dryer Moraine Steep Stream Banks Steep Valley Walls Steep Wetter Moraine Steeper Alluvium Steeper Till Stream Banks Swelling Clay Lake Sed Undulating Plains Very Poorly Drained Wetter Blue Earth Till Wetter Clays and silts Figure 7. Sediment export reductions in 50 buffers in different agroecoregions. Total phosphorus reductions of a 50 ft. buffer varied from just over 1 lb. P/acre/year to under 0.1 lbs. P/acre/year. Poor management practices again increase the reduction goal; however, where soluble phosphorus in snowmelt is high due to crop residue, reduction goals for best management practices are similar or at times higher than average management conditions (Figure 8). 10

74 1.20 Phosphorus Export Reductions of a 50' Buffer (lbs P/ac/yr) Poor Management Average Management Best Management Alluvium and Anoka Sand Plains Blufflands Central Till Coteau Drumlins Dryer Blue Earth Dryer Clays and Dryer Till Inner Coteau Inter-Beach Level Plains Mahnomen Lake Poorly Drained Poorly Drained Rochester Plateau Rolling Moraine Somewhat Steep Dryer Steep Stream Steep Valley Walls Steep Wetter Steeper Alluvium Steeper Till Stream Banks Swelling Clay Undulating Plains Very Poorly Wetter Blue Wetter Clays Figure 8. Phosphorus export reductions in 50 buffers in different agroecoregions Decision support tool The expected water quality benefit of buffers, or the reduction goal, was used to feed the decision support tool. The excel-based tool is designed to be easy to use; it allows users to select their geographic region and management conditions to determine their specific expected contaminant export. The region selected also determines the effectiveness of a buffer, but can be further refined based on site-specific slope and soil texture characteristics. Once region, management, and slope and soil texture are selected, the tool provides reduction goals for sediment and phosphorus. These reduction goals are used as benchmarks for comparing alternative practices to the effectiveness of a buffer given site-specific conditions. Within the decision tool, users can choose from eleven different alternative management practices. Based on the literature review, removal efficiencies for each practice have been determined (Table 1). These removal efficiencies require that the BMP in question is both installed and maintained according to NRCS practice standards for all practices except the reduced width buffer option; the design of this practice must comply with buffer law, only it allows for a narrower buffer. A range of reduced buffer widths can be selected within the tool. The region selected within the tool not only determines which alternative practices are suitable in that region, but also how effective each specific practice is within the region. For example contour buffer strips are only offered as a suitable practice in regions with higher slopes. Furthermore, previous research shows that these contour buffer strips are less effective as slope increases. The 11

75 model accommodates this by reducing the overall impact of contour buffer strips in very steep areas. Baseline management condition also affects BMP removal efficiencies within the tool. Practices that are designed to control and trap contaminants by filtering runoff (WASCoBs, side inlets, grassed waterways, terraces, and wetlands) may experience reduced effectiveness over time when upland cultivated land is managed poorly. For these practices, the average of all removal efficiencies found in the literature was only used in the best management baseline condition. The minimum removal efficiency in the literature was applied to poor management conditions. For average management baseline condition removal efficiencies are based on the average of the two aforementioned removal efficiencies. Finally for buffer removal efficiencies, Dosskey et al. found that poor upland management results in a decrease in buffer removal efficiency 9. Thus, when poor management is selected within the tool, the reduced width buffer option yields a lower trapping efficiency. Utilizing the average removal values in the literature for controlling and trapping practices within the tool only when the best site-specific management practices are employed, and decreasing removal efficiencies when poor management exists is a conservative approach for determining comparable water quality benefits to a buffer. This introduces yet another means of obtaining a margin a safety within the tool, ensuring that suggested practice combinations produce an equivalent or better water quality result than a prescribed buffer. Removal efficiencies of applicable alternative practices are then applied to baseline contaminant export to determine the region-specific benefits associated with each alternative practice. Combinations of practices can then be explored within the tool to determine if the practices selected meet or exceed the reduction goal benchmark set by the expected removal of a buffer. When deemed appropriate by local conservation planners, the tool ultimately determines which combinations of alternative practices would be in compliance with the new buffer law. Decision Tool Example Step 1: Baseline Site Conditions The execution of the decision support tool is carried out in an excel spreadsheet. User input starts with entering baseline site conditions in the worksheet labeled Baseline Conditions. For this example, the Steeper Till agroecoregion has been chosen, which is largely located within the Minnesota River Basin, and includes much of Renville County. Average management considerations have been chosen and sheet flow is assumed, so the riparian berm option is not selected. With these site conditions and the absence of any buffer, this landscape is expected to produce 5.65 tons/acre/year of sediment and 0.58 pounds of total phosphorus/acre/year as edge of field overland erosion export. Within the same worksheet, site specific soil and slope conditions are selected. The waterbody in this example is a public water requiring a 50 foot buffer. Average slopes are between % and soil texture is a medium loam. With this information, the tool determines that a 50 foot buffer would reduce sediment export by 2.92 tons/acre/year and total phosphorus export by 0.17 pounds of phosphorus/acre/year (Figure 9). 12

76 Figure 9. Example baseline site conditions entered in the first step of the decision support spreadsheet. Step 2: Alternative BMP Choices The next tab in the spreadsheet labeled Alternative BMP Choices has a list of the eleven BMPs analyzed in this review. A checkbox next to each practice implies that it will be installed when selected and not installed when unchecked. When BMPs are checked, or chosen to be installed, their expected contaminant reductions are summed and compared to the reduction goal set by the 50 foot vegetative buffer. Expected reductions are populated based on site conditions selected in step 1. Note that an expected reduction value of 0.00 either implies that BMP is not suitable for this specific landscape, or more user input is required. BMPs that trap contaminants require the user to determine how much overland runoff would be affected by the BMP. These trapping practices include grassed waterways, water and sediment control basins, side inlets, and wetlands. User input is also required when choosing a reduced width vegetative buffer. In this example, a 16.5 foot buffer is chosen to be placed where a 50 foot buffer is required. The tool output determines this is not an acceptable practice on its own (Figure 10). 13

77 Figure 10. The Alternative BMP Choices worksheet allows experimentation with different combination of BMPs. Note that the tool output determines this is not an acceptable combination of practices. The next BMP checked in this example is cover crops. When a reduced width buffer of 16.5 feet is left selected and cover crops are also chosen, the tool determines that this is an acceptable BMP combination (Figure 11). This result implies that with these specific site conditions, the combination of cover crops with a reduced width 16.5 foot buffer would have equal or greater water quality benefits of a 50 foot buffer. Figure 11. A satisfactory result is returned when a reduced width buffer is combined with cover crops in this specific landscape example. Next steps: Information needs and decision tool refinement Data on performance of Minnesota-specific BMPs and combinations of BMPs There is a lack of effectiveness data for some of the alternative BMPs listed in Table 1, especially for practices such as grassed swales and terraces, with no field-based studies in the past 20 years or more. Another area lacking good data is the cumulative effectiveness of BMPs placed in series. Almost all studies have been done on single practices. There could be large and non-linear increases in performance of downstream BMPs (trapping practices) if upstream avoiding or controlling 14