Contents INTRODUCTION PART 1 THE LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN......1 PART 2 THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI & CEDAR RIVER BASINS......8 PART 3 THE MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN......17 PART 4 THE RED RIVER BASIN......44 PART 5 THE MISSOURI & DES MOINES RIVER BASINS......46 PART 6 THE SAINT CROIX RIVER BASIN......55 PART 7 THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN......59 PART 8 ACTIVE STATEWIDE NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS......77 INTRODUCTION The Minnesota Nonpoint Source Management Progress in Federal Fiscal Year 2000 report (Report) introduces eight of Minnesota's 10 major drainage basins through brief summaries. These 8 basins are the ones with active Section 319 projects. The Report then proceeds with a discussion of current nonpoint source projects that are occurring within each basin. Information on other nonpoint source control projects occurring throughout the state can be found in the Statewide section of the Report following the basin sections. Graphics found at the end of the Report detail Minnesota's priority nonpoint source issues and details milestones, funding sources, lead agencies, and product, services and outcomes. Details on funding amounts can be obtained in the EPA GRTS database, which the State of Minnesota has entered its data into through 2000. The Lake Superior Basin INTRODUCTION Many issues of concern in the Lake Superior Basin are related to its physical characteristics, settlement patterns, and use of natural resources. Some areas in the southern part of the basin, such as the mouth of the St. Louis River, are living legacies from years of poor waste disposal and destructive natural resource practices. At the other extreme are coastal Lake Superior and the interior parts of the basin. This region contains scores of high quality trout streams, rivers, wetlands, and lakes. Consequently, protection and restoration programs are equally appropriate water resource management approaches. Basin level planning activities: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1972) North Shore Management Plan - (1988) Lake Superior Basin Information Document - (1997) Minnesota's Lake Superior Coastal Program - (1999) Lakewide Area Management Plan - (2000) (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Ontario, Canada) Inland Waterways Spill Response Atlas - Western Lake Superior Mapping Area (2000) Lake Superior Coastal Nonpoint Program - (2001) Lake Superior Basin Plan - (2001) USEPA Five Year Great Lakes Strategy (Ongoing) * Minnesota's Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program The national Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program, which was established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, created incentives for coastal states and territories, including the Great Lakes states, to plan and manage their coastal resources. There are 33 approved plans (including Minnesota's), that cover more than 99% of the nation's shoreline. To address polluted runoff, the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 created the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Further program clarification was provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1995 and 1996. Although states and territories participate voluntarily in the Coastal Program, the Coastal Nonpoint component is mandatory for all Coastal Program participants. After NOAA approves a Coastal Program, the state has 30 months to submit its Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program. Minnesota's Lake Superior Coastal Program was approved in July 1999. The state's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program document will be submitted in December 2001. The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program is part of both Minnesota's Lake Superior Coastal Program, which is being facilitated by the Minnesota DNR, and the Lake Superior Basin Plan, which is being facilitated by MPCA. The Coastal Nonpoint Program is being developed jointly by both agencies, in cooperation with other state agencies and numerous public and private partners. The Coastal Nonpoint Program Development Process The national Coastal Nonpoint Program emphasizes a cooperative approach, featuring incentive-based programs and voluntary best management practices, but it also requires that such programs be backed by enforceable state authorities and policies. Minnesota believes that its existing comprehensive Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program contains the authorities, assessments and implementation activities that provide the foundation of an approvable Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Minnesota's Coastal Nonpoint Program document will be reviewed by both USEPA and NOAA. If they issue conditional approval, Minnesota will have five years to meet conditions, with an evaluation of progress after three years. Full approval comes after any conditions have been met. After that, states develop a 15-year program strategy, plus a five-year implementation plan that contains milestones and dates. The strategy and implementation plans are updated as necessary, but at least every five years. * The Basin Planning Process: The Coastal Nonpoint Program document is also being developed as part of the Lake Superior Basin Plan. Both the Coastal Nonpoint Program document and the Lake Superior Basin Plan will be completed in December 2001. A combined Basin Plan/Coastal Nonpoint Implementation Strategy is being planned for completion in December 2002. USEPA and NOAA would not require such a coastal nonpoint strategy before early 2007. The entire Basin Plan/Coastal Nonpoint Program development process has had a strong public participation component. The Programmatic Work Group (PWG) has played a key role in this process from the beginning. PWG members represent federal, state, county, municipal and tribal agencies and governments that manage ecosystems and land uses in the Lake Superior Basin. In addition, outreach activities include a Web site, information bulletins, fact sheets, comprehensive U.S. mail and e-mail distribution systems and public meetings. Major watershed level planning activities: St. Louis River Remedial Action Plan (1992) (Minnesota and Wisconsin) St. Louis River Management Plan (1994) Nemadji River Basin Project (1998) St. Louis River TMDL Watershed Partnership (2015) Local and minor watershed planning activities: All counties have existing water plans, which will be updated in the coming years: Pine County 2000, St. Louis County 2001, Aitkin County 2001, Carlton County 2001, Lake County 2002, Cook County 2003, Itasca County 2005 Duluth Surface Water Assessment (2000) Duluth Metropolitan Area Streams Snowmelt Runoff Project (2000) Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) Watershed Project (2001) Stormwater Management Plan for Two Harbors (2001) Oregon Creek Watershed Project (2001) Skunk Creek Project (2000) Midway River Watershed Restoration Project (2002) Knife River Watershed Project (Ongoing) Flute Reed River Watershed (Ongoing) Miller Creek Clean Water Partnership SUMMARY OF ACTIVE NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS: GREAT LAKES EROSION CONTROL (FFY 1996) The following BMPs are completed: * One erosion control system was designed; * 1,800 acres of pasture management were completed; * and two urban NPDES project sites were completed * and four site plans were reviewed. Future Directions/2000 update: The project will be complete following the completion of a final report and receipt of the grant payment. MILLER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (FFY 1996) This project involves restoring the vegetation along Miller Creek, which is a trout stream. MPCA is waiting for the final report to close out this project. In the summer of 2000, biologists began to develop regional biological criteria for fish and macroinvertebrate communities in the Upper Mississippi basin. To accomplish this, numerous reference quality sites along with sites that are known to be influenced by human disturbance were sampled in streams throughout the basin. The information collected from these sites, the previously mentioned monitoring activities, and available historical data will be used to determine the reference condition for the upper Mississippi basin. Once developed, the biological criteria will be an invaluable monitoring tool that will help us identify long term changes in water quality within the entire upper Mississippi River basin. Update 2000: This project is complete and awaiting final report. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IMPLEMENTATION IN THE MINNESOTA LAKE SUPERIOR DRAINAGE BASIN (FFY 1999) The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), in cooperation with the Lake Superior Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), requested funding for another year (at three-quarter time) of the lakeshore engineering technician position in the Duluth office of the BWSR. This position currently works with Gene Clark and local government units to educate landowners, design best management practices (BMPs), and provide construction oversight for erosion control and water quality BMPs throughout the Minnesota portion of the Lake Superior Drainage Basin. The goal of this project is to continue to work with landowners through local government units to design and install BMPs for the reduction of sediment and nutrient loadings to Lake Superior and its tributaries. This project enables better utilization of existing state and federal cost-share program funds, SRF, and other grants to implement projects. On-the-job training for SWCD staff is being used to help build local capability to implement nonpoint projects. In addition to the design and installation assistance, the Lakeshore Technician researched how shoreline and near shore data can be entered into a GIS to assist local governments in prioritizing erosion control project funding requests through the LSSPP and CWP loan program. The Technician helped analyze GIS capabilities and hardware at the county, SWCD, and state agency levels and proposed a system to identify and update maps for the following information: -important fishery areas -high erosion areas -important habitat areas -areas already stabilized (artificially) via CWP, state cost-share, GLC and other funding sources -areas naturally stable PROJECT HISTORY: An original 319 grant (for the first year of this position at half time) ended approximately April 15, 1998, and the grant for a second year (also at half time) ended in the fall of 1999. With the help of these first two EPA 319 grants, 16 higher priority Lake Superior projects were completed and a total of 80 new sites investigated. The current grant started on September 25, 1999. CURRENT UPDATE ON ONGOING PROJECTS: Under the current grant, a total of sixteen new project sites were investigated and three high priority projects completed to date. Another four projects are under construction, scheduled for completion in late fall/early winter 2000. The GIS work has been completed and the planning tools (GIS data disks) distributed to the three Lake Superior county technical advisory committees for use in project prioritization. Data disks were also shared with MN PCA and MN DNR. The project is ongoing with approximately $6,309 in grant funds remaining to be spent. All project match dollars have been accounted for. The original technician has taken another position and efforts are underway to restaff this position as soon as possible. CHANGES IN THE WORKPLAN: No changes in the original workplan are expected. PROJECTED END DATE: The projected end date is September 30, 2002, or when existing grants funds (approximately $6,309) are exhausted. GREAT LAKES SHORELINE PROTECTION PROGRAM (1997) The purpose of the Lake Superior Shoreline Protection Program (LSSPP) is to install erosion control practices on the shore of Lake Superior to control sediment input into the near shore areas of Lake Superior. Landowners accomplish this with technical assistance from Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and the MPCA. The 319 grant funds are used to cost-share with low-interests loans. Local technical advisory committees have been set up to prioritize project sites to receive financial and technical assistance. To date, six projects have been prioritized to receive funding from the 319 grant. Five shoreline protection projects were slated for completion in the year 2000. Czekanski, Risch, St. Sauver, Weller-Russel, and Legg are the property owners to receive grant funding and project assistance in the year 2000. The project requested an extension until September 30, 2001, due to lack of available rock for riprap projects. MIDWAY RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT (2000) The objective of the Midway River Watershed Restoration Project is to reduce nonpoint source pollution impacts to the river and to down-stream water bodies. The Midway River system is located in the St. Louis River Watershed in the Lake Superior Basin. The St. Louis River Remedial Action Plan identified nutrient and sediment loading as problems in the St. Louis Bay Area of Concern. The Midway River watershed has been degraded by nonpoint source pollution, and contributes to this impairment. This project could serve as a demonstration of how other St. Louis River sub-watersheds could be enhanced, restored, and protected. The Midway River Watershed Restoration Project will further St. Louis River protection initiatives. This project will consist of three phases. Phase one will consist of identifying sites in the watershed that are most likely contributing sediment loads to the river system. Phase one will also include outreach and education. Riparian areas that are devoid of vegetation will also be identified. GIS tools will be utilized in this phase. Remediation work will be completed in phases two. At least 3,000 trees will be planted along the river to stabilize eroding areas, increase riparian vegetation, and to provide shading and woody debris in the future. Potted white spruce will be used because they are native to this area. White spruce is well suited to the heavy soils that are found in the Midway River Watershed. Donated seedlings will consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees that are well suited to the watershed. Conservation plans will be developed for lands that have animal agriculture operations impacting the stream. Phase three will consist of monitoring. Water chemistry characteristics and temperature data will be collected. The intention is to conduct monitoring before and during the project to determine present water quality conditions, and to measure project effectiveness through post-project monitoring. The difficulty is that the monitoring for this project will be funded by this grant. There is currently not funding available to continue water chemistry monitoring past the project period. The SWCD will work with partners to continue monitoring after the project concludes. For the SWCD's part this can include temperature monitoring, and labor to conduct water chemistry monitoring. Local MPCA staff has stated that it is possible to include the Midway River in state long-term monitoring programs, and project partners will work towards that goal. The project will be a partnership with many local groups and agencies. In addition to the tasks outlined in this workplan, existing state, federal, and local soil and water conservation programs will be marketed in the watershed. Brief history (of this project) The project is really just beginning Held one work group meeting with partners Current update on ongoing projects (activities) Working on GIS phase of identification Locating tree stock rounding up tree planting volunteers Changes in the workplan (if any) None so far Projected end date 9/30/2002 NEMADJI RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT (1999) This project is working to comply with the recommendations of the Nemadji River Basin report: Erosion and Sedimentation in the Nemadji River Basin. Excessive sedimentation from stream bank erosion caused by increased peak flow conditions has mandated expensive dredging operation in the Duluth-Superior harbor and dramatically reduced the rainbow trout population in Lake Superior. The overall goal of the Nemadji River Basin Project is to decrease peak flow conditions on the Nemadji River and its tributaries by forest management in sub-watersheds. Management efforts will focus on maintaining a minimum forest cover of at least 40% in each sub-watershed. A Watershed Coordinator will work to coordinate timber-harvesting activities and promote forestry best management practices with private and governmental landowners. Funding from the grand would be utilized to fund the Coordinator position and fund technical assistance for GIS assistance and stream hydrology. Brief History: The Nemadji River Watershed is approximately 277,400 acres of extremely remote and sparsely populated land. Approximately 65% of the land cover is forest. Since the Nemadji flows into the Duluth-Superior shipping harbor, its excessive sedimentation effect the operations of this international port. Much of the economy in northeastern Minnesota is directly linked to the viability of the shipping industry. Additionally the 120 miles if trout classified streams in the Minnesota portion of the watershed provide spawning habitat for the estimated 40% of all Lake Superior rainbow trout spawning in Minnesota rivers. The Nemadji river Watershed, under the leadership and direction of the Minnesota and Wisconsin Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Forest Service, local sponsors and numerous local and statewide committees, in 1998 completed a two and a half year erosion and sedimentation study of the watershed. This cooperative river basin study became known as the Nemadji River Basin Project (NRBP). This study identified methods and Best Management Practices for reducing sedimentation into the Nemadji River/Superior and restoring beneficial use to the watershed. Current Update on Ongoing Projects: 1. Dissemination of NRBP executive summary and report to essential stakeholders. 2. Informational presentations are done when requested. Township board meetings, Carlton County Fair, Carlton County Board, Carlton County Water Planning Advisory Committee, and the St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee 3. GIS Consultant is preparing Land SAT maps of the Nemadji Basin to assist in the coordination of forest harvesting and reforestation. Photos were purchased and image rectification was completed 4. Facilitating Technical Committee meetings on a regular basis (quarterly) and Forestry Technical meetings as needed. 5. Educational programs and materials have been developed or are being developed for Best Management Practices for riparian zone management, livestock management, and forestry management. Farm tours were held this past summer in the Nemadji Basin. A Forest Management tour and demonstration took place this past fall, also in the Nemadji Basin. 6. Future infrastructure needs are in the plans for winter of 2000-01. A stream assessment is being done in the basin by the MPCA. The stream recommendations will be coordinated with any transportation infrastructure repairs or construction. 7. Timber sale contract review will take place during winter of 2000-01. DNR in cooperation with a number of other Minnesota organizations have developed a book of Best Management Practices for Sustaining Minnesota Forest Resources which includes BMPS for "Red Clay" forest harvesting. This book is available through the Minnesota Forest Resource Council in St. Paul at no charge. 8. The third newsletter will be sent the first week of December 2000. Each newsletter has featured an agency or organization in partnership with the NRBP. Projects are explained, updated, featured with photos and results. 9. EPA Educational Grant application prepared for education and educational materials for off highway recreational vehicles specific to the Nemadji Basin. EPA Section 319 Grant application was prepared for "Red Clay Project" dam inventory and assessment, demonstrate project to construct water retention areas (highland wetlands construction) and riparian area reforestation. 10. Quarterly meetings of the Technical Advisory Committee are held to provide technical oversight and guidance for the project. 11. Sandy Verry, USDA Forest Service, Grand Rapids, has provided technical assist with fluvial processes related to proposed projects. CHANGES IN THE WORKPLAN: Sandy Verry has been selected to assist as part of the Technical Support Team to replace Barr Engineering. Projected end date: May 2002 The Lower Mississippi River Basin and Cedar River Basin INTRODUCTION These river basins are located in southeastern Minnesota and occupy a part of the state with some of the greatest topographic relief. Water planning has been active for many years with its genesis in groundwater protection. Late in 1999 an ad-hoc group of county, state and federal agency representatives started meeting to discuss the possibility of creating a basin plan for the Lower Mississippi River and Cedar River Basins in southeastern Minnesota. Shortly thereafter, Governor Jesse Ventura launched the Water Management Unification Initiative, as a result of which seven Basin Teams composed of state and federal agency representatives were appointed to assist in the development of the next state water plan. Thus two basin planning groups became established at roughly the same time in the Lower Mississippi and Cedar River Basins, with similar purposes and overlapping membership. The Basin Team produced a report that was provided to Minnesota Planning - Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning in February 2000 for inclusion in Water Plan 2000. It focused on water quality goals, objectives and indicators for the basin. Water Plan 2000 was published in September 2000. The ad-hoc basin-planning group contributed to the development of water quality and land use objectives in Water Plan 2000, and since February 2000 has been developing strategies by which these goals and objectives can be accomplished over the next decade. The planning group calls itself the Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota (BALMM). It meets monthly and is staffed informally by Mower Soil and Water Conservation District (chair), MPCA (basin coordinator) and BWSR (secretary). Membership includes most of those who belong to the Basin Team, in addition to Representatives of many local, state, regional and federal agencies. BALMM is developing strategies for land-use, geographic management and monitoring for a Basin Plan Scoping Document that will be provided to the Basin Team for inclusion in the "Strategies" portion of Water Plan 2000. In addition, they will be further refined and developed by BALMM sub-teams and through interaction with basin citizens and stakeholders to develop a final Basin Plan by December 2003. Strategies are being developed at the basin scale for use throughout the Lower Mississippi River Basin, with a view to making connections with land-use planning activities at both smaller and larger geographic scales. Accordingly, goals and objectives from comprehensive local water plans from counties within the basin were collected, organized, and distributed to BALMM participants to help guide the development of strategies. Similarly, an attempt is being made to relate strategies developed for southeastern Minnesota to those being developed for the larger, 189,000 square mile Upper Mississippi River Basin, defined as the drainage area upstream of Cairo, Illinois, where the Ohio River joins the Mississippi River. Toward this end the Alliance has reviewed the recently published strategy by the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, entitled "A River that Works and A Working River: A Strategy for the Natural Resources of the Upper Mississippi River System." This strategy lists nine objectives for the river system as a whole, which includes the drainage basin as well as the main channel and its floodplain. In particular, improving water quality for all uses (Objective 1), Reduction in erosion and sediment impacts (Objective 2), and Manage channel maintenance and disposal to support ecosystem objectives (Objective 7) are explicitly supported by the BALMM strategies. Other objectives, which deal with particular aspects of managing the Mississippi River and its floodplain, appear to be less directly related to the land-use management activities of local and state government participating in the Alliance. In addition, the Alliance is keeping abreast of developments concerning hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, its relationship to nutrient inputs to the Mississippi River originating in Minnesota, and the "Draft Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico" that was developed by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Nutrient Task Force. Concern about nitrate-nitrogen contamination of ground water is high in southeastern Minnesota's karst region of fractured, porous bedrock. Because of the close interaction between surface water and ground water in karst geology, this concern extends to the trend of steadily increasing concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in the region's rivers. Reversing this trend is a key water quality goal for the basin that is seen as supporting efforts to reduce nutrient loads to the Gulf of Mexico. Basin level planning activities * BALMM, Basin Plan Scoping Document (10/00) * MPCA, Basin Information Document (scheduled to be completed 2/01) * MPCA, Basin Plan (scheduled to be completed 12/03) * SE Minnesota Water Resources Board (nine-county joint powers board) * SE Minnesota SWCD Technical Support Joint Powers Board (11-SWCD board) * Hiawatha Valley Resource Conservation and Development Area (11-county JPB) Major watershed level planning efforts * Cannon River Watershed Partnership and the Cannon River Watershed Joint Powers Board * Whitewater River Watershed project * South Zumbro River Watershed project Local & minor watershed planning activities * All counties have existing local water plans. Updates are scheduled for 3 in 2000, 1 in 2001, 2 in 2002, 1 in 2003, 4 in 2005, and 1 in 2006. * Minnesota Department of Health, Wellhead protection plans for the cities of Rushford, Preston and others * Belle Creek Watershed District * Bear Valley Watershed District * Cooks Valley Watershed District * Stockton-Rollingstone-Minnesota City Watershed District * Crooked Creek Watershed District * Turtle Creek Watershed District * 3 joint powers WMOs in Dakota County which are tributary to the Lower Mississippi River Opportunities exist in this basin to have counties do water plan updates at the same time as watershed planning efforts due to geographic proximity and the long history of cooperative efforts in this part of the state. MPCA Basin Planning is being closely coordinated with Water Plan 2000 basin planning activities as well as BALMM planning activities. SUMMARY OF ACTIVE NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS: NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM: THE WHITEWATER PROJECT (FFY 1997) * Project description summary (take from work plan summary): The 319 water quality monitoring project has been initiated to provide the information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices in improving water quality. The project is designed to follow the National Monitoring Program (NMP) guidance with the intent that the project will be designated as a NMP project. Initial funding for this project was received in FY 1993. The project has received funding each year through FY 1999. An application for FY 2000 funding was not submitted due to previous project delays. All planned work activities will continue, though. Monitoring in the project is composed of two main efforts. One effort involves biological monitoring of several cold-water and warm-water sites in and near the Whitewater River watershed. The second effort involves physical and chemical monitoring at a paired-watershed site and three additional small watershed sites. * Project goals: To provide the information required under the National Monitoring Program for use in evaluating the effectiveness of best management practice implementation. To provide long-term monitoring for continuing evaluation of the pollution problems and solutions in the Whitewater River Watershed Project. Start date: September 1, 1993 Complete date: approximately 10 years following initial grant start date Project has received funding in FY 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and, 1999. Several contracts have been issued for the monitoring activities, plus much of the paired-watershed monitoring is being completed by MPCA staff. A brief summary of each FY grant is given below: Grant Amount Start date End date (as per grant agreement w/ EPA) FY93 50,000 9/1/93 7/31/97 FY94 50,000 5/1/95 12/31/97 FY95 50,000 5/1/96 12/31/98 FY96 13,425 5/1/97 9/30/99 FY97 50,000 5/22/98 9/30/99 FY98 50,000 10/1/97 9/30/00 FY99 50,000 no file yet ? Fifteen separate contracts have been developed for the various monitoring activities. Each contract is listed in CGC as a "project"; whereas, the contracts are all part of a single project (the Whitewater 319 monitoring project). It is for this reason that I listed the grant information by fiscal year above and have not completed a summary for each contract. Annual report information * Project update summary/bullets (take from semi annual reports, include date): * Biological monitoring completed in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. Initial years' data used in developing a reference stream characterization for cold-water streams. Latter years' monitoring expanded to include warm-water streams. Biological sites evaluated for incorporation into a paired-watershed monitoring design as per the National Monitoring Program (NMP). * Physical and chemical paired-watershed monitoring sites constructed in 1996. Monitoring at these sites started in 1997. Associated paired-watershed monitoring at previously existing sites started in 1996. Fairly complete data sets obtained for the 1998 and 1999 monitoring season (samples and continuous flow data) at all five sites. A graduate student from the University of Minnesota has assumed the primary role for site operation and data collection. * Implementation plan for the overall watershed project was completed and funding received for project implementation. * MPCA staff is looking at linking the 319 monitoring activities with turbidity TMDL work that is beginning. * Activities completed during last 6 months * On-going monitoring activities * Challenges faced * Selection and implementation of appropriate BMPs in treatment watersheds in the physical/chemical paired-watershed monitoring design has been very difficult given landowner issues (health, retirement, possible sale of land to developer). * Anticipated activities for next 6 months * On-going monitoring activities * Completion of in-depth analysis and evaluation of the biological monitoring data as Dr. Neal Mundahl completes sabbatical work. OLMSTED COUNTY INTENSIVE MANURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FFY 1999) Olmsted County soil and bedrock formations provide variable, but largely poor protection for groundwater. About 80% of Olmsted County's land area is classified as highly sensitive to groundwater contamination. This area has karst topography, which is typified by cracks, fissures, and sinkholes that provide many situations where surface water is able to enter the ground water system with little or no resistance. Animal agriculture and the related industries are an important part of Olmsted County's economy, ranking tenth in the state for cattle and calves, and fifth for beef cows. Effective manure management is an intensive operation. A properly planned and administered manure application process includes manure testing, nutrient crediting based on crop needs, equipment calibration, and application at agronomic rates. It is extremely important that one-on-one efforts with producers on their farms to fine-tune application rates, test manure for nutrient concentrations, credit applications to crop nutrient needs, develop manure management plans for the entire farm operation, and work towards feedlot permit compliance continue. Update 2000: This project is complete upon submittal of final report. GRAZING LANDS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (FFY 1999) PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1.) Assist landowners and operators to develop and maintain managed grazing systems. 2.) Provide technical support to local natural resource managers (NRCS and SWCD) in the field of pasture management. Primary focus is on southeast Minnesota, with secondary focus on the lakes area of the state. WORK PLAN Task 1: Provide training to SWCD and NRCS field staff in the following subject areas: Forage Plant Identification This was offered to NRCS and SWCD in southeast MN in June 2000 with 18 service providers in attendance, and was offered in east central Minnesota in June with 24 service providers attending. Forage Suitability Groups Information in this course was incorporated into "Planning Prescribed Grazing Systems". Planning Prescribed Grazing Systems This was offered in southeast MN, with 10 service providers attending, and in northeast and east central Minnesota with 30 service providers attending. Predicting Forage Availability (changed to Pasture Monitoring) Three sessions scheduled for 2001: southeast, east central, and northeast Minnesota. Managing Livestock Along Riparian Corridors and Other Sensitive Areas (changed to Sensitive Areas Management) Scheduled one time in 2001 for southeast Mn. Task 2: Direct assistance to producers with development of managed grazing plans: All Environmental Quality Incentives Programs (EQIP) plans reviewed, with training needs determined. The most common training need is in the area of developing livestock watering systems, and in preparation of grazing plans. The following numbers of managed grazing plans have been completed from 01-01-00 through 01-31-01: Southeast Minnesota: 26 plans on 2,579 acres All other areas of Minnesota: 17 plans on 1,780 acres These numbers include only plans that I personally completed, or that I reviewed and some other service provider had done. The goal was to prepare 75 managed grazing plans by the end of this project. At this time 61 % of the plans are complete. I currently have a backlog of 53 plans to do (24 of them in southeast MN), covering an estimated 10,000 acres of grazing lands. Task 3: Hold workshops for producers on the following topics: Considerations for Prescribed Grazing Systems (changed to Planning Managed Grazing Systems): This course has not been offered to producers, yet. It has been refined as a result of this project. A publication, "Grazing System Planning Guide", has been prepared in conjunction with University of Minnesota - Extension Service which will serve as the textbook for this course. Atst three small workshops with producers will be held in 2001 to develop their own grazing plans. Forage Selection and Management: This subject has been incorporated into Planning Managed Grazing Systems. Predicting Forage Yields and Forage Available (changed to Pasture Monitoring): This session was given to producers in northeast Minnesota in June 2000, with 30 producers attending. Sat least 1 session is planned in southeast Minnesota in 2001. Managing Livestock on Sensitive Areas Will be offered 2 times in southeast Minnesota in 2001. OTHER OUTCOMES Publication of "Grazing Systems Planning Guide" in December 2000. Development of a Managed Grazing Systems School for Minnesota, which will be a major aid to educating service providers and producers in Minnesota. Update 2000: This project is complete upon receipt of final report. POLLUTION REDUCTION PROJECT, CANNON RIVER (FFY 1998) The Cannon River Watershed flows to the Mississippi River and enters immediately upstream from Lake Pepin. The Cannon River drains an area of 1,460 square miles and represents a transition from the North Central Hardwoods Forests ecoregion to the north and Western Corn Belt Plains ecoregion to the south. A mosaic of land uses are present in the watershed ranging from a mixture of forested and open lands, including numerous lakes and wetlands, in the north and west to the predominately agricultural lands to the south. The Straight River is the largest single tributary in the watershed and drains 440 square miles in the highly agricultural southern portion of the watershed. GOAL: Develop a watershed-based action strategy for reducing phosphorus discharges from point and nonpoint sources to achieve environmental goals for Lake Byllesby, Cannon Lake and the Cannon and Straight Rivers while contributing to efforts to improve water quality in Lake Pepin and downstream in the Mississippi River. This strategy will help to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for phosphorus, and will be offered as a model for application elsewhere in Minnesota. Specifically, the project will estimate existing phosphorus loads from major subwatersheds and source categories; determine a phosphorus concentration goal for Lake Byllesby, the end-point of the watershed being evaluated; determine load reductions needed to achieve the goal; and evaluate alternative reduction scenarios for achieving the goal. As an additional goal, the project will track reductions in bacteria concentrations in reaches impaired by fecal coliform bacteria, and lay the foundation for developing fecal coliform bacteria reduction scenarios. STRATEGY: Involve local, state and federal agencies, organizations and citizens in a Pollution Reduction Project. A two-phased approach is assumed with the first phase (Years 1 and 2) focusing on education, pollution source assessment, developing a GIS for land use data, source prioritization and, and a second phase (Starting in Year 3) focusing on implementation and progress monitoring. This current proposal is for Phase I. BACKGROUND: Phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria are pollutants of major concern in Minnesota, and specifically in the Cannon River Watershed. The MPCA has developed a statewide phosphorus strategy to address point source permitting, and is beginning to address bacteria problems through the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process. It is anticipated that in the near future the MPCA will add hypereutrophic lakes and reservoirs, such as Lake Byllesby, to its list of impaired water bodies, which will introduce the need to conduct phosphorus TMDLs. Available data are sufficient to identify impairments in the watershed, but relative pollutant contributions of major subwatersheds and pollutant source categories are yet to be determined. A Lake Assessment Program (LAP) study was conducted in 1996 on Lake Byllesby, a highly-impaired reservoir on the lower reach of the river. The study documented very high concentrations of total phosphorus (summer average of 258 (g/L) accompanied by extremely high concentrations of chlorophyll a (as high as 207 (g/L near the reservoir dam in late summer), indicating chronic hyper-eutrophic conditions. The study data demonstrate the need to substantially reduce the concentration of phosphorus in Lake Byllesby. But the magnitude of reduction needed in the lake and from contributing subwatersheds and point and nonpoint sources of phosphorus is not known. Monitoring at several other locations in the past decade indicate high nutrient loads and bacteria concentrations. Likely sources include wastewater treatment facilities, livestock manure and failing individual sewage treatment systems. Four reaches of the Cannon River and its tributaries (the Straight River and Prairie Creek) are on the 303(d) list of impaired waters (attached). Also the Cannon River discharges into Lake Pepin, where a major effort is underway to reduce phosphorus loads to reduce algae growth. And, further downstream on the Mississippi, problems of low dissolved oxygen in backwaters are being associated with high nutrient loads as well. Both point and nonpoint sources of phosphorus need to be reduced to achieve goals for Lake Byllesby, Lake Pepin and the Mississippi downstream. Primary sources of phosphorus include point sources (Owatonna, Faribault, Northfield and smaller facilities) in addition to agricultural nonpoint sources. The latter include fertilizer, manure and phosphorus attached to eroded soil particles. The focus on livestock manure will also go a long way toward addressing bacteria problems in the watershed. This project will be coordinated with other efforts that are explicitly focused on the TMDL process for bacteria, including the support and coordination provided by the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy on phosphorus and bacteria issues in the Straight River watershed. Successful implementation of a Pollution Reduction Project at a watershed level will require the cooperation of citizens, organizations, and local units of government in the watershed. The Cannon River Watershed Partnership is a well-established organization with broad local representation and is in a good position to be a leader in a watershed-wide initiative. Milestones: 7/1/2000 1/1/2001 7/1/2001 1/1/2002 7/1/2002 Outreach/ Education xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Form Team xxxxxxxxxx Monitoring xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Develop xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx WQ Goals Develop Strategies xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Work Plan Tasks 1) Establish a Pollution Reduction Team in the Cannon River Watershed 2) In close cooperation with the Team, engage in a process similar to the following to achieve the project's goal: * Compile and effectively communicate existing information on phosphorus- and bacteria-related impairments to Lake Byllesby, Cannon Lake and the Cannon River. * Develop water quality goals for Lake Byllesby, Cannon Lake and contributing tributaries. * Develop GIS source inventories for phosphorus and bacteria in the watershed from significant point and nonpoint sources, including: 1. Livestock feedlots 2. Field erosion 3. Manure and fertilizer application 4. On-site sewage treatment systems 5. Municipalities and industries (these data will be collected by MPCA, not staff supported by this 319 project) * Engage the Team and the public in the development of strategies to reduce point and nonpoint sources of phosphorus and bacteria. Include a blend of educational, economic and regulatory elements in the strategy. Develop a monitoring plan to track progress toward the goals established for Cannon Lake, Lake Byllesby, and contributing tributaries. Description of Products that will result from each task 1. Outreach/Education - Fact sheet(s) on phosphorus and bacteria issues in the Cannon River Watershed - News releases/media interviews on Phosphorus Reduction Project - Improved public understanding of phosphorus and bacteria impairments, sources and potential solutions 2. Form Team - Ongoing stakeholder team actively involved in developing phosphorus and bacteria reduction strategies 3. Water Quality Goals - Agreement on initial phosphorus and chlorophyll goals for Lake Byllesby - Agreement on the need to reduce phosphorus loadings to Cannon Lake - Agreement on the need to meet water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria 4. Phosphorus Source Estimates - Estimate of point source phosphorus discharge concentration and mass (MPCA will provide) - Estimate of livestock feedlots in size and location categories - Estimate phosphorus fertilizer application vs. soil test and crop needs - Identification of areas of high soil erosion/sediment delivery potential - GIS source inventory of land use data 5. Phosphorus Reduction Strategy - Strategy for reducing phosphorus loads from point sources (MPCA will lead this) - Pollution prevention - Wastewater effluent treatment - Strategy for reducing manure runoff from specific categories/locations of feedlots - Education on manure management, feedlot design, pasture management - Identification of high priority feedlots. Assessment of technical assistance/financial assistance needs - Strategy for achieving optimal phosphorus fertilizer application - Identification of education/technical assistance needs to achieve optimal application of phosphorus fertilizer - Strategy for reducing soil erosion and sediment delivery in critical areas - Identification of BMPs suitable for soils, crops, terrain that can economically reduce erosion and sediment delivery at high-priority sites. Budget Total Funding Requested: $130,000 ($65,000 year 1; $65,000 year 2) Year I : Assessment, modeling, and prioritization * Project coordinator with skills in facilitation/watershed/water quality issues: $30,000 * Water quality monitoring and flow gauging at Lake Cannon, plus additional monitoring as needed on sub-tributaries -- $10,000 * Develop source-specific phosphorus load inventories with emphasis on manure (MPCA will add point source phosphorus data). Work with counties to develop a GIS database to target and prioritize sources in an implementation strategy -- $15,000 * Conduct transect survey of crop residue cover and a nutrient management survey -- $5,000 * Publications, education, outreach and publicity -- $5,000 Total Year 1: $65,000 Year II: * Project coordinator -- $30,000 * Water quality monitoring and flow gauging -- $6,000 * Develop source-specific phosphorus load inventories; work with counties to develop GIS database to target and prioritize sources in an implementation strategy -- $15,000 * Conduct transect survey of crop residue cover and a nutrient management survey -- $5,000 * Publications, education, outreach and publicity -- $5,000 Total Year 2: $65,000 $ Match (in-kind): . 1) Cannon River Watershed Partnership * Office and related support for project coordinator, facilitation and volunteer coordination. $15,000/year for both years. (This funding is available from the McKnight Foundation, but only as match for federal and/or state grants to CRWP for pollution reduction initiatives. CRWP will receive $3 from McKnight for each $10 received from these grants.) * Minnesota Legislature grant to the CRWP will provide for each of the next two years: * Water quality monitoring and research: $20,000 each year * Fecal coliform bacteria public meetings, monitoring, strategy development in two priority subwatersheds (Chub Creek and Prairie Creek) $15,000 each year 2) Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy -- TMDL coordination plus support for GIS development in the Straight River - a tributary of the Cannon River ($40,935). 3) Cannon-Wells Lake Association: Unspecified volunteer commitment 4) Lake Byllesby Improvement Association: Unspecified volunteer commitment 5) Carlton College - Fingerprinting of fecal coliform bacteria to determine origin: domestic animal, wild animal or human. (Value unavailable at this time.) Measures of Success - Participation of stakeholders in project - Establish phosphorus load estimates for subwatersheds and sectors - Development of pollutant reduction strategies that are feasible and effective - Stakeholder commitment to undertake their share of strategy implementation Update 2000: This project is complete upon receipt of final report. SALEM CREEK BACTERIA REDUCTION PROJECT (FFY 2000) The project is designed to target obvious sources of bacteria contamination, and achieve source reductions through a combination of education/outreach, citizen monitoring, one-on-one landowner contacts, and funding of economical solutions to manure runoff from feedlots, pastures and manured fields. Update 2000: This project is just beginning The Minnesota River Basin INTRODUCTION The Minnesota River Basin has had extensive experience with watershed planning. Basin planning and major watershed planning and implementation has been happening in the Minnesota River Basin since 1992. Much of the oversight of planning activity in the basin comes from the Minnesota River Basin Joint Powers Board (MRBJPB), made up of representatives from the counties covering the entire geographic area of the basin. Basin level planning activities * MN River Citizens Advisory Committee Report, Working Together - A Plan to Restore the Minnesota River (1994) * MPCA, Basin Information Document (completed in 1997) * MPCA, Basin Plan (scheduled for completion by 12/00) * MDNR, Minnesota River Watershed Comprehensive Guidance Document (completed) * BWSR, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), (completion 2002) * 13 County Southcentral Water Planning Joint Powers Board Major watershed level planning activities * MPCA Clean Water Partnership Projects * Phase I Diagnostic Studies / Implementation Plans * Redwood River watershed (completed) * Yellow Medicine River watershed (completed) * LeSueur River watershed (1999) * Watonwan River watershed (1999) * Blue Earth River watershed (1999) * Chippewa River watershed (2000) * Cottonwood River watershed (2000) * Hawk Creek watershed (2001) * High Island River watershed (in development) * Lac Qui Parle River watershed (in development) * Pomme De Terre River watershed (in development) * Phase II Implementation Projects * Redwood River watershed (2001) * Yellow Medicine River watershed (2006) * Upper Minnesota Watershed District Comprehensive Plan update (draft stage) * Buffalo Creek Watershed District * High Island Watershed District * Lac Qui Parle Yellow Bank Watershed District * Yellow medicine River Watershed District Local & minor watershed planning activities * All counties currently have local water plans. Updates scheduled for 5 counties in 2000, 6 in 2001, 5 in 2002, 1 in 2003, 2 in 2005, 1 in 2006, and 4 in 2007 * Minnesota Department of Health, source water assessments for the surface water supplies for the communities of Fairmont and Mankato * Minnesota Department of Health, wellhead protection plans for all public water suppliers * 14 watershed districts and joint power WMOs in Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, and Scott counties that are tributary to the Minnesota river SUMMARY OF ACTIVE NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS: PRIOR LAKE/SPRING LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (FFY 1996) Grant funding for the Prior/Spring Lake Improvement Project was initiated on May 1, 1994. To date, the project has received three 319 grants for the Lake Improvement Project (for the first three years of the project), as well as a 319 grant for a Wetland Restoration Demonstration project in the County Ditch 13 sub-watershed of Spring Lake. This report addresses the activities completed for the Lake Improvement grants during the period from January 1, 1997, to July 31, 1997. A separate report was completed for the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Wetland Restoration Demonstration Project. Project activities during this period consisted of public information/education efforts, solicitation of participants in the fertilizer management demonstrations, residential soil sampling, easement acquisition for the ferric chloride system, and project administration and documentation. There are no proposed changes in the overall goals and objectives of the project. A discussion of project findings and accomplishments: The following section describes the individual activities completed for each of the milestone project elements during this project period. * Public Information/Education: One of the decisions of the task force and the Prior/Spring Lake Watershed District was to informally combine the education efforts of the Lake Improvement Project and the Wetland Restoration Project. This was done to avoid duplication of effort and maximize public exposure of the two education efforts. The District distributed a project newsletter to all watershed residents in May 1997. Also in May, volunteers from a local Boy Scout Troop collected soil samples and distributed door hangers to homes around Spring Lake. In addition, the District began collaborating with a local elementary school to develop an environmental learning center at a wetland adjacent to the school. * Watershed Management Plan: This element was completed during a previous reporting period. * Conservation Tillage: The efforts for this element were conducted during a previous reporting period. This is an ongoing, growing-season effort that is now self-supporting. * Wetland Restoration: These efforts have been, for the most part, folded into the Wetland Restoration Project for the County Ditch 13 subwatershed. This coordination provides a more efficient approach to acquisition of easements and subsequent restoration efforts. Also, the Highway 13 Wetland has the potential to provide the greatest water quality benefit to Spring Lake of all the potential wetland restorations identified. Construction of the Highway 13 Wetland was completed in the spring of 1997. The District has received a number of calls expressing interest in, and satisfaction with this wetland. In addition, a smaller wetland in a subwatershed of Spring Lake was restored by breaking a tile line and installing a berm. District staff and managers will continue their efforts to generate interest in additional wetland restorations. * Aquascaping: Planting was completed in the fall of 1996. Some plants had to replaced in the spring of 1997 due to winterkill. The District is investigating the possibility of completing an additional aquascaping project, perhaps in a public park. * Ferric Chloride System: Easement agreements were signed for the land upon which the dosing building and access road will be sighted. In addition, initial design was completed for the system. * Water Quality Basins: The city of Prior Lake completed the designs and specifications for the Sand Point Park basin improvement. The city anticipates opening construction bids in late summer, with construction slated for the fall of 1997. * Monitoring: Monitoring was undertaken on Spring, Upper Prior, and Lower Prior Lakes through the Metropolitan Council's Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the Highway 13 Wetland was postponed until the ferric chloride system is completed, so the whole system can be evaluated at the same time. * Documentation: Documentation through meeting minutes, engineer's reports, and notes was ongoing throughout this reporting period. CURRENT UPDATE This project is complete upon the receipt of final report. REDWOOD RIVER CLEAN WATER PROJECT (FFY 1999) Description of the Project Goals of the Redwood River Clean Water Project are to reduce sediment and nutrient loadings; expand game fishery habitat and fishing opportunities; reduce peak flows and improve flow stability; and increase awareness of water quality issues throughout the watershed. These goals are accomplished through one-on-one landowner contacts and an extensive information and education program that encourages implementation of best management practices on agricultural land. Landowners who voluntarily choose to implement best management practices receive technical assistance and up to seventy-five percent cost-share to help pay the cost of installing conservation practices. Effects of best management practices on water quality are monitored through a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program. Activities of the Project are divided into four program elements: Best Management Practices, Monitoring and Evaluation, Information and Education, and Project Administration. History of the Project There isn't anything distinctive or spectacular about the Redwood River or its watershed. It isn't a world class trout stream, it's not suitable for whitewater rafting, it doesn't accommodate barge traffic, and like most rivers in southwest Minnesota, it isn't a tourist attraction. Mostly it supports a little fishing and canoeing and serves as a nice place to hike and observe wildlife, especially in Camden State Park. It is not too much of an exaggeration to say the River's primary function in the past several generations is that of an outlet for drainage ditches and tile lines, yet, the River could serve a broader function. Through the Clean Water Project sponsored by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, a broader function is becoming much clearer. One part in the process is to identify land use changes that improve the quality of water in the river, thus improving the quality of life along the river. This step has been undertaken by the Redwood River Clean Water Project. In 1985, the initial step began when the Redwood-Cottonwood Rivers Control Area (RCRCA) Board of Directors convened a meeting to talk about local perception of the lake and about possible actions to restore the lake's health. Many questions were asked; answers were difficult to find. They wondered why Lake Redwood, a sixty-seven acre reservoir near the River's mouth, had filled with sediment to the point of becoming useless. Where was the sediment coming from? How is the sediment getting into the lake, and what can be done to slow the transport of it? How have land use changes in the watershed affected water quality? They wondered if perhaps something couldn't be done to reverse this trend of deterioration. These questions led to an examination of water quality in the river and its tributaries, assessments of fish populations and erosion potential, and measurements of sediment deposited in Lake Redwood. This research formed the basis of the Redwood River Clean Water project that officially began in 1995. The Redwood River Clean Water project elevated the Redwood River from obscurity to center stage. Meetings were held up and down the watershed, newspapers and radio stations covered river-related stories, Governor Carlson declared "Redwood River Clean Water Project Week," stormdrains were stenciled, canoes were launched, newsletters were distributed, and throughout the watershed people began to feel they were part of a growing effort to clean up the River. 2000 Semi-Annual Report Project Activities Best Management Practices Engineering technicians are responsible for working with landowners on design and construction of best management practices (BMPs). These practices are the primary means for reducing non-point source pollution in the watershed. Practices are assessed through use of the NRCS Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation and the Inventory Planning Worksheet for Concentrated Flow Erosion. These tools help estimate the amount of soil saved by each individual BMP. During the first six months of 2000 one state cost-share contract was approved and signed. This contract contains two BMPs that will be designed and implemented on the land. When installed, these practices will potentially reduce soil loss by 133.18 tons per year, sedimentation by 86.38 tons per year and phosphorous loss by 91.58 pounds per year. Ten contracts were completely finished (meaning that final payments were made in the 2000 reporting period). The total amount of cost-share paid out from January 1, 2000 - June 30, 2000 was $44,110. These twenty BMPs have the potential to save 1058 tons of soil loss each year, reduce net sediment in surface water by 686.86 tons per year and reduce phosphorus loss by 749 pounds per year. An important aspect of BMP promotion and adoption is targeting. Priority management areas have been selected in the watershed based on their relative contribution of non-point source pollution. Within each priority area, appropriate BMPs are promoted to achieve the greatest benefit. To help insure the most cost-effective use of cost-share funds and to compensate for decreases in state funding levels, practices within designated priority areas are subjected to a ranking procedure. The criteria upon which each practice is evaluated reflect important variables affecting surface water quality (e.g., proximity, soil loss reduction, etc.) and are consistent with Project goals and objectives. Throughout the life of the Project, the direct approach to getting farmers enrolled in programs has yielded success. Monitoring and Evaluation Surface water sampling on the main-stem Redwood River and two of its tributaries (Clear Creek and Three Mile Creek) continue each growing season (May through September). Monitoring at each of the sites will extend throughout the implementation phase. Samples are collected during two-year storm events on a four-hour interval. Grab samples are taken from Lake Redwood at monthly intervals. Refer to Map 1 for sampling locations. Data collected at these stations is analyzed and reviewed to identify trends. Water quality data plays an important role in assessing watershed improvements, and is useful for communicating with the general public about Project activities. This year has brought some changes in equipment and programming used to track the water quality data. Clear and Three Mile Creek have Telog equipment that runs off the program Corderbase. Unfortunately, the version that we owned was not Y2k compatible. We had established the stations in mid-April, but because of this glitch, data was not accessible to us. Therefore, the updated program was purchased, and installed at each site by mid-May, and we have not encountered any problems since. The Redwood River main site was also modified this year. Instead of relying solely on USGS flow data, RCRCA added a flow transducer and CR10 to collect data. Redwood River (RR1), May 4, 2000 Through June 30, there have been two sets of base flow samples collected in the watershed. These samples are analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS), nitrate + nitrite (N-NO2 + NO3), total phosphorus (TP), and soluble phosphorus (P-PO4). Additionally, base flows are analyzed for fecal coliform, and field tests are run for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, pH and turbidity. There has also been one set of storm samples collected on both the Redwood River (May 18, 19, and 22) and at Clear Creek May 18 and 19). Sampling Results May 1, 2000 - June 30, 2000 STATION ID# DATE TIME LAB SAMPLE ID# TSS (mg/L) NO2 - NO3 (mg/L) P-PO4 (mg/L) TP (mg/L) FECAL COLIFORM (col/100mL) Non-impacted stream/Western Corn Belt Plains 75.50 6.50 0.35 1200.00 Redwood River Mainstem Event 5/18/00 20:27 4239 174.00 0.73 0.51 0.77 Event 5/19/00 6:27 4240 294.50 2.48 0.73 0.95 Event 5/22/00 16:27 4243 522.50 5.68 0.25 0.88 Base Flow 6/5/00 9:10 4259 248.50 3.71 0.24 0.60 189.00 Base Flow 6/29/00 9:10 4277 78.00 1.45 0.44 0.55 220.00 Three Mile Base Flow 5/17/00 10:00 4217 26.50 0.58 0.07 0.08 98.00 Base Flow 6/29/00 13:40 4280 26.25 1.16 0.10 0.10 109.00 Clear Creek Base Flow 5/17/00 9:10 4216 16.50 0.49 0.09 0.12 105.00 Event 5/18/00 8:10 4225 46.50 0.84 0.14 0.20 Event 5/19/00 8:15 4238 83.00 4.98 0.28 0.79 Base Flow 6/29/00 14:35 4281 36.00 0.97 0.04 0.10 171.00 Information and Education Two important publications were made available the spring of this year. Our 1999 annual report was complied and printed and was highlighted at our annual meeting this past March. Another significant publication that was actually an update of one done in 1997 was the reprinting of our cooperator book. In the updated version we showcased the individuals that have established BMPs throughout the Redwood River Watershed. The purpose is two fold, one is to recognize their participation and the other is to give them a resource book to compare BMPs and get personal testimonials from their neighbors on how their conservation practice is working. This also works especially well for landowners that have a conservation practice in mind but are tentative about implementing one. This gives them a listing of neighbors that have already established a BMP and they can hear first hand on how well the BMP has worked for them. Project Administration Administration of the Redwood River Clean Water Project includes the fiscal management of funds, completion of necessary reports, supervision of Project staff and the coordination of all activities relating to the program elements. Obstacles and Lessons Learned Spring of 2000 has been a time of transition and rebuilding of the RCRCA infrastructure. Bob Finley, Executive Director of 17 years for RCRCA resigned and took a position with the Water Resources Center at Minnesota State University Mankato. At about the same time Su Beran, Watershed Coordinator also took a job with The Office of Environmental Assistance. RCRCA and the watershed projects were without a Director or Educator from March till May. RCRCA hired a new Executive Director as of May 1, 2000. During these six months of transition several of our mainstay educational efforts were postponed. This year's "Coffee on the Projects" for both the Cottonwood and Redwood Rivers were not planned and will resume spring of 2001. Along with the coffee's, our annual spring canoe trip was postponed until August taking for granted that there will be enough water to canoe. Newsletters and publications were also postponed until a new educator could be hired. Currently announcements have been published for a Watershed Educator and Two Watershed Technicians. Their potential start date would be in July 2000. Changes in the Workplan There are no anticipated changes to the workplan at this time. Projected End Date The three Redwood River 319 grants are running concurrently at this time. The anticipated end date for all three is September 3, 2002. The Redwood River project will continue to seek funding through local, state, and federal, sources during this time and into the future. MOUNTAIN LAKE CLEAN WATER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (FFY 1996) This project is a continuation of the Mountain Lake Improvement Program that consists of a total of four EPA 319 grants. Grants for Parts 1 and 2 have been closed out. Grants for parts 3 & 4 remain active. Specific project objectives are to continue work with the nutrient management program and buffer strip program and to implement several additional projects that will conclude the Mountain Lake Improvement Project. The overall project objectives are to reduce in-lake phosphorus concentrations to 80 ppb and to make Mountain Lake once again suitable for full body contact recreation. Program Elements The work consists of the several new and several ongoing program elements which are listed below. 1. Implementation Projects 1.1. Continue the agricultural nutrient management program for 1996 1.3. Sedimentation ponds/gully erosion control 1.4. Finish the buffer strip acquisition program 1.5. Shoreline stabilization 1.8. Stormwater management practices 1.9. Agricultural/Urban Waste Systems 2. Information/Education program 3. Monitoring and Evaluation 4. Project Management History of the Project The Mountain Lake project began with the funding of the first 319 grant in 1994. This was followed with subsequent grants in 1995, 1996, and 1997. To date the project has been awarded $350,000 in cash grants through the EPA 319 program. The first two grants have been closed out and work remains on the last two grants. Mountain Lake is located in Cottonwood County in South-central Minnesota. The lake has a watershed of 6,268 acres and a surface area of 229 acres. This represents a 27:1 ratio. The average depth is 6.6 feet, while the maximum depth is 8.9 feet. In the 1992 Diagnostic/Feasibility study completed through the MPCA Clean Water Partnership, the average summer phosphorus concentrations were 110 parts per billion in the top water. Average summer chlorophyll was 49.5 ppb, with a secchi disc of 3.0 feet. Current land use within the watershed of Mountain Lake is a mix of agriculture, residential, open space, open water and other. The greatest percent (73%) of the land is used for agriculture purposes. Open water account for the second greatest percent at 6%. The water budget for Mountain Lake in 1990-91 found that in one year it received 36.7 inches of precipitation and 8,404,774 cubic meters of surface inflows. The outflow for the year was estimated as surface outflow 3,345,374 cubic meters, evaporation of 36 inches. Mountain Lake has a nutrient budget of 2,241 kilograms phosphorus per year. Phosphorus is the limiting factor for aquatic plant growth and algae growth in Mountain Lake. The phosphorus source is from several sources, including rainfall, agricultural and residential runoff. An important source of phosphorus comes from the lake itself. Phosphorus is recycled from the bottom sediments on an annual basis. 2000 Semi-annual Report Project Activities Implementation project activities of the past year 1. Agricultural nutrient management program Product: Producer nutrient management contracts and phosphorus soil maps from farmers who wish to share the information. 2. Sedimentation ponds/gully erosion control Products: Two restored sedimentation ponds, one new pond, two gully-heads stabilized. 3. Buffer Strip Acquisition Products: Seeding of 3 acres under buffer strip contract with photo documentation. 4. Shoreline Erosion Control Products: No work completed in this area. 5. Storm Water Management Products: Urban BMP information packet, customized for Mountain Lake produced. Installed a sedimentation basin to settle out solids from the portion of the City of Mountain Lake that drains to Mountain Lake. About 30% of the city drains to Mountain Lake. 6. Agricultural/Urban Waste Systems Products: No work completed in this area. 7. Fact sheets, newsletter, and lake magazine Products: Produced an annual 4-page newsletter that described lake progress to date. 8. Trail Installation Products: An additional 800 feet of trail was completed using crushed rock as a base. Evaluation and Monitoring Four streams and Eagle and Mountain Lakes were sampled on eight occasions from March through September, 2000. Results are shown in the next three tables. Table 1. GROWING SEASON LAKE CLARITY. Secchi disc transparencies (in feet) for 2000 for Mountain and Eagle Lakes. Mountain Lake Eagle Lake Golf Course Lobe Landing Lobe Dam 3.29.00 -- -- 4+ -- 5.15.00 4.8 4.8 5+ (bottom) 6.5+ (bottom) 6.12.00 -- -- 6+ (bottom) 7+ (bottom) 7.12.00 1.6 2.2 1.6 7 (bottom) 8.9.00 2.0 2.0 1.3 5.0 10.4.00 -- -- 2.0 -- Growing Season Average (May-Sept) -- -- 3.2+ 6.4+ Table 2. MOUNTAIN LAKE REPORT CARD (summer averages) Water Clarity (feet) Nutrient Status (phosphorus - ppb) Lake Grade 1981 7.9 196 C+ 1985 2.0 200 C- 1989 5.2 -- -- 1990 2.6 151 C- 1991 3.0 100 C- 1994 3.3 104 C- 1995 0.8 199 D 1996 1.7 155 D+ 1997 1.5 142 D+ 1998 1.3 132 D+ 1999 6.0+a 119 C 2000 3.2+b 293 D a in May, June, August, and September the Secchi disc was observed on the bottom. B in May and June the Secchi disc was observed on the bottom. Table 3. Total phosphorus (ppb), chlorophyll a (ppb), nitrogen (mg/l), and suspended solid (mg/l) concentrations for Mountain and Eagle Lakes. Mountain Lake Eagle Lake Streams Mtn Lake Landing Bay Golf Course Bay Storm water Pond Golf Course Eagle Creek Agri Stream 3.29.00 TP 58 -- -- -- 858 -- -- -- 4.19.00 TP -- - - -- 1,660 235 54 -- SS -- -- -- -- 643 63 1.6 -- 5.15.00 Table 3. (continued) Mountain Lake Eagle Lake Streams Mtn Lake Landing Bay Golf Course Bay Storm water Pond Golf Course Eagle Creek Agri Stream TP 146 -- -- 201 641 77 -- -- Chl a <0.5 -- -- 6.9 -- -- -- -- 6.4.00 TP -- - - -- 894 172 46 79 SS -- -- -- -- 155 13 4 11 6.12.00 TP 160 86 -- 128 -- -- -- -- Chl a 1.2 -- -- <0.5 -- -- -- -- 7.12.00 TP 482 354 492 103 7,650 112 97 85 Chl a 46 -- -- <0.5 -- -- -- -- Ammonia <0.02 -- -- 0.06 8.1 <0.02 -- <0.02 TKN 2.4 -- -- 1.4 8.1 1.1 -- 0.82 NO2 + NO3 0.12 -- -- <0.02 8.2 18 -- 2.1 8.9.00 TP 577 491 472 278 20,200 120 96 73 Chl a 140 40 62 14 -- -- -- -- Ammonia 0.49 0.34 0.23 0.04 30 -- <0.02 <0.02 TKN 4.6 2.5 2.2 1.8 38 -- 0.90 0.47 NO2 + NO3 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 12 -- -- 14 10.4.00 TP 103 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chl a 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ACCELERATING THE ADOPTION OF IMPROVED PHOSPHATE MANAGEMENT IN THE BLUE EARTH RIVER BASIN (FFY 1996) Materials for developing resource management plans - Several discussions and meetings have occurred with personnel from University of Minnesota Extension and several other agencies. Information from these discussions and comments from farmers were used to make some modifications to the assessment and planning tools being used. Modifications include clarifying some of the questions, reducing the size of the first document presented to the farmer, and including other ideas about farm planning. Recruitment of Producers - Recruitment of producers has been expanded to include more producers and a larger variety of producers. Meetings have been held with most of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts and a list of potential cooperators developed. These producers will be contacted by mail and telephone. Meetings have also been held with Farm Business Instructors in the Blue Earth Basin. Each of these instructors work with more than 40 producers on financial record keeping and planning. Copies have been given to instructors to pass on to their students. Interested students will be contacted and plans developed. Plan Development - Some plans are being developed, but much of this work will continue in the coming months. Demonstration Plots - Several activities are occurring related to demonstrations in the Basin. In Martin County, a no-till manure injection study was begun on a cooperating farmer's field. Additional funding was obtained by Southern Experiment Station faculty to do analysis and yield checks. Support and cooperation with a demonstration farm in Blue Earth County continues. In Waseca County, cooperation and support is being given to a study of 5 dairy farms that are being monitored as to the sources and fate of phosphorus on the farm. In Faribault County, another dairy farm that was earlier recruited as a demonstration farm for Extension will become active. Water Quality Information - A brochure on the Minnesota River Basin has been completed by University of Minnesota faculty in cooperation with several state agencies. This brochure will be given to all cooperating producers. Evaluation - Evaluation of the process will occur mostly within the last few weeks of the project. Cooperators will be asked to complete an evaluation tool. PROJECT UPDATE - 2000 This project will be complete upon receipt of final report. BUFFERING DRAINAGE DITCHES IN IOSCO CREEK WATERSHED (FFY 1998) The objective of this proposal is to establish a vegetative buffer on at least 90 percent of the riparian area adjoining drainage ditches- both public and private- in Iosco Creek Watershed over the next two years. All buffers will be at least one rod in width if there is a berm or a minimum of 33 feet where there is no berm. In addition, all side inlets must have at least a one-rod buffer around them. An educational component for the establishment of buffers in the riparian area will be a component of this plan. It will include general education programming, one-on-one education and a field day each year. Update 2000: The Iosco project is complete with 53.8 acres enrolled through the 319 project with an additional 26 acres seeded for erosion control. Waiting for final report. WASTEWATER FACILITATOR (FFY 1998) Project Description: Within the Blue Earth River Watershed there is a tremendous need for someone to work with clusters of people to resolve their wastewater problems. There is a definite gap in services between ISTS programs that deal with one landowner at a time to those who have Economic Development or staff resources available to pursue their own wastewater solutions. A Wastewater Facilitator would assist in filling that gap by working with those clusters of people who fall in between. It has long been identified that improperly treated sewage contributes significant amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous and bacteria to surface and ground waters. In our area, which has significant agricultural drainage, many systems are hooked directly to tile lines. According to the MNRAP study 70% of the systems are not in compliance with state law we can easily calculate the total impact this has on our surface waters and issues such as the phosphorous in Lake Pepin or hypoxia in the Gulf. We also have to recognize the health risk due to bacteria entering recreational or drinking waters in the area or the nitrate impact on city residents in Fairmont and Mankato that draw their drinking water from surface waters. This proposal would provide one person to work with these clusters of people in the watershed to resolve their wastewater issues. This person would receive training through existing programs and would be working in the area the next three years under this project. After that we feel the position could become self supporting by recapturing the administrative costs through the various projects they do. An Advisory Committee will be formed to advise the position's direction and prioritize sites. The committee will include at least one representative from each county plus representation from relative state agencies. Time Frame: This proposal is for three years, October 1997 through September 2000. County staff have identified fifty problem areas within the watershed for this person to work with. The Advisory Committee will identify five priority sites and these will be where they will start working. As projects get completed, and depending on complexity of the situations, additional areas will be added. The process will be come ongoing with maybe 5-8 projects at some stage of progress at any time. Update 2000: Awaiting final report POLLUTANT REDUCTION PAYMENTS / CREATING INCENTIVES FOR COST-EFFECTIVE BMP IMPLEMENTATION (FFY 1998) The purpose of this project is to promote cost effective BMP implementation by combining pollution prevention farm planning with price incentives. Its primary focus will be in Le Sueur County and Lake Washington. Economic incentives will be designed to encourage local units of governments and land owners to implement BMPs that result in the maximum degree of expected pollutant abatement for each dollar to grant money spent. Rather than paying land owners "by the practice" or " by the acre" to install recommended water quality BMPs, this project will require local units of government to pay land owners according to the quantity of expected pollutant loading reduction - "by the pound" of predicted sediment loading reduction, that the BMP in question is calculated to achieve. This incentive will be applied to BMPs that are not usually cost-shared -crop residue management and crop nutrient management. During on-site pollution prevention planning with landowners, BMPs will be "credited" with estimated quantities of sediment and phosphorus reduction, based on an MPCA-approved system. Paying land owners "by the pound" will give them an incentive to use ingenuity to reduce pollutant loads inexpensively. This method will be compared with BMP implementation in surrounding counties and watersheds. Update 2000: Awaiting final report. PROMOTING THE ADOPTION OF BMPs IN THE MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN THROUGH COMPREHENSIVE FARM PLANNING (FFY 1998) Update 2000: The revised work plan for this project includes the development of the following products for promoting best management practices: * River-Friendly Farmer Checklist and Resource Guide - The criteria for the RFF award have been somewhat modified and made to correlate with the Core 4 program that is being promoted nationwide. The criteria are more complete and reflect priorities established by other conservation groups and agencies. This resource guide will reflect those modifications as well. Drafts of most sections have been reviewed and are being further modified. * Home page on farm planning - A resource team of about 10 U of M faculty is assisting in the development of the individual sections. Several sections are partly developed and available for review. While not being promoted, sections of the site are available on the Internet. * Farm planning module on drainage - Development of these materials has continued with other faculty at the U of M. The outline of the sections has been developed further with some sections being partly written. ACHIEVING MAJOR CHANGES IN MINOR WATERSHEDS (FFY 1999) Project goals: The overall objective of this project is to achieve widespread adoption of land use BMPs in the Diamond Lake (DL), German Jefferson (GJ),Trout Brook (TB) watersheds and Holland Wellfield (HW). A secondary objective is to evaluate an educational strategy and materials that can be used in other minor agricultural watersheds. The objectives are being accomplished by involving landowners, local governmental units and Clean Water Partnership projects in developing BMP implementation plans that are tailored for farms in their watershed. The proposed educational strategy implements elements of several existing extension and educational programs, e.g., the Ontario Environmental Farm Plan, Farm*A*Syst, and the River Friendly Farmer program. The basic management unit for these programs is an individual farm operation whereas the basic management unit for this educational strategy is a minor watershed. Start Date: The project began in January 1998 and continues under the reestablished final work from of October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2001. The time period covered in this report extends from July 1999 through July 2000. Milestones or Tasks of this project are repeated in each of the watersheds: * Task 1. Selection of Watersheds. Completed in Winter 1998 for the DL, GJ and TB watersheds. HW was added to the project in the summer of 2000. * Task 2. Introduce the Plan. This task was completed in February, March and April of 1998 for the TB watershed; in April and June 1998 for the DL watershed, and December 1996 and again in June 1998 for the GJ watershed. * Task 3. Farm Management Self-Assessment. Farm Management Self-Assessments are guided by the ten criteria outlined in the River Friendly Farmer (RFF) program. The farm self-assessments concentrate on nutrient management, manure management and soil erosion management. This task was completed in June, August and September 1998 in the TB watershed, begun in August 1998 and completed in September 2000 in the DL watershed. Farm management survey data collected by Minnesota Department of Agriculture is being used for the HW. * Task 4. Identifying Barriers to Implementation. The Barriers to Implementation were identified in September 1998 for the TB and completed in the DL watershed and HW in the fall of 2000. Result of the farm self-assessment were tabulated by UMES and MDA and summarized to identify trends among farmers in the watershed. * Task 5. Deploying BMP Response Teams. Work on this task began in October 1998 for the TB and DL watersheds and continued through the summer of 2000. * Task 6. Convene Landowners to Explore Watershed Management Activities. This task was begun in December 1998 and is concluding in the Winter 2000 for the TB watershed. * Task 7. Conduct Information and Educational Activities. This task began in August 1999 for the TB watershed. * Tasks To Be Completed Between October 1, 1999 and September 30, 2001 * Task 5. Deploying BMP Response Teams. BMP Response Teams are forming for the HW in the winter of 2001. * Task 6. Convene Landowners to Explore Watershed Management Activities. Landowners in the HW will be contacted in the Winter and Spring of 2001. * Task 7. Conduct Information and Educational Activities. One-on-one and group educational activities will be conducted in the DL watershed and HW in the summer of 2001. * Task 8. Individual and Group Farm Planning Advising. Nutrient management planning, manure testing and spreader calibrations will be completed for the TB watershed in the winter and spring of 2001. Peer Review Panelists review the summarized collective watershed farm self-assessment data. For each of the criteria, a team of specialists from the cooperating agencies met with TB Peer Review Panel to develop one-on-one educational activities which respond to the identified need. A manure spreader calibration clinic was conducted in the summer of 1999. Educational activities for the HW will begin in the summer of 2001. * Task 9. Farm Management Self Re-Assessment. This task will also be completed for the TB watershed in the winter and spring of 2001. * Task 10. BMP Tracking and Crediting. As landowners adopt BMPs, the practices will be tracked and credited to determine the pollution load reduction for the watershed. Collective pollutant reduction achieved in the watershed will be estimated and further reductions based on BMP adoption targets, within a major watershed can be projected. Building on achievements to date, expand activity by taking on crop residue transect survey coordination, inventory total versus permitted feedlots, and conduct surveys of fertilizer and manure management, in a format useful for modeling load reductions. * Task 11. Convene basinwide follow-up workshops. Peer Review panel members, River Friendly Farmers, and appropriate specialists would meet to share experience and research on the latest information each BMP topic: tillage, manure, P, N and pesticides. Private sector agribusinesses would be willing to co-sponsor such an event for a basin. * Task 12. Watershed Project Evaluation. As the project concludes in the TB watershed in 2000, the portion related to the TB watershed will be completed in the spring of 2001. Lessons learned from the project in the TB watershed will be used as guidance in completing the remaining tasks for the other watersheds under the continuation grant "Achieving Major Change in Minor Watersheds II An Integrated Watershed Management Approach" * Task 13. Final evaluation of the integrated watershed management approach and project reporting. Summary of any work plan changes: * Task 1. Selection of Watersheds. The Holland Wellfield was added to the project in the summer of 2000 to replace the Jefferson-German Lake watershed. The 14,800 acres in the wellfield are located in Pipestone County in southwest Minnesota. TILE INTAKE INITIATIVE (FFY 1999) This proposal is focused on the water quality issues surrounding open tile intakes that are part of an agricultural drainage system. It is estimated that there is one tile intake for every 148 crop acres within the greater Blue Earth River Watershed [MN River Assessment Project]. This would mean there are approximately 13,110 intakes within the watershed. Monitoring has shown that sediment, nutrient and pesticides can enter surface waters through open tile inlets. Amounts of pollutants entering varies depending on intake design, soil type, height of the first orifice in the intake and surrounding crop. Research has shown that enough pollutants are entering by this method that there is justification for heightened awareness about the issue. This proposal has two major objectives, which are: 1] To bring awareness to the environmental impacts of open tile intakes, and 2] To alter at least 234 open tile inlets in the BERBI area so they are more environmentally friendly. We propose to do this by developing an information and education program, focused on the open tile intake issue and the water quality impacts from them, and by offering an incentive program that will alter at least 234 intakes. The incentive component will have three options as outlined below and further defined in the workplan. 2. Remove the intake. [39 intakes] 2. Remove the intake. Install more concentrated tile. [78 intakes] 2. Install a vegetative buffer around the intake. [117 intakes] Altering these 234 intakes will help us bring awareness to this issue at the neighborhood level. If a landowner removes an intake and it does not have a negative effect on his crop, other producers will follow. Once producers are educated so they understand why intakes are a potential pollution risk, many will do the right thing and either remove them or buffer them. 2. Proposed Work Plan: Project Description: The greater Blue Earth River Watershed is dominated by the row crop production of corn and soybeans. The basin is 2.2 million acres in size and is 90 percent in agricultural use. Ninety eight percent of the agricultural acres are under tillage in annual row crops. In addition, agricultural drainage systems are an integral part of the farming infrastructure. One of the environmental challenges we face is in trying to address the water quality impacts from drainage while trying to retain agricultural production. According to the Minnesota River Assessment Project data, it is estimated that there is one open tile intake for every 148 acres in the greater Blue Earth River Watershed. This equates to about 13, 110 intakes within the watershed. Open tile intakes provide an open path for storm water runoff to enter surface water. Sediment, nutrients and pesticides can reach surface water more readily through a tile intake than they could through a buried tile line. There is significant, ongoing, debate about the necessity of tile intakes to the drainage infrastructure. This initiative will provide three different incentives to landowners to make their intake[s] more environmentally friendly. These options are outlined as follows: 1st Priority. Remove the intake. [39 intakes] Pay the landowner $200 to remove the intake. Sign a cost-share contract for ten years. No additional tile is to be installed to compensate for the removed intake. No French Drains. Intended for drainage open tile inlets not ones designed as part of a structure such as terraces or side inlets. 2nd Priority. Remove the intake, install a higher concentration of tile in the immediate vicinity of where the intake was. [78 intakes] Rock Inlets [Carver SWCD Design] Cost share 50-50 with the landowner up to $250. Sign a cost share contract for ten years. No French Drains. 3rd Priority. Establish a buffer. [117 intakes] The concept is to buffer the area that ponds water after a 1-2 inch storm event. Minimum of 30 feet radius. Maximum of 1 acre. Shape can vary. Pay landowner $100 per acre per year. Sign a ten year cost share contract. Money is paid up front. Grant would pay the seed cost. Landowner would prepare, plant and maintain the site. Use a mix recommended to withstand standing water 2-3 days. They can hay the area if assessable. This proposal will also have an information and education component that will bring awareness to the tile intake issue and provide an incentive to landowners who recognize the concern and are willing to try to reduce the environmental impact. From 1993 to 1995 Martin County completed a tile intake buffer initiative. This initiative paid an incentive for landowners to establish a buffer around a tile intake. The buffer had to be a minimum of 30 feet radius from the intake. The buffer component of this project is built from what was learned during Martin County's project. August 15, 2000 - We are finding more interest in priority one than we anticipated. This is good because it is the action that is best from a water quality perspective. There also is a lot of interest in priority two and the installation of rock inlets. Because there is a priority order to the three activities we will move dollars from priority three up into priorities one and two to accommodate the increased interest in these objectives. Goal: The goals of this project are as follows: 2. To bring awareness to the environmental impacts of open tile intakes. 2. To alter at least 234 open tile intakes in the BERBI area so they are more environmentally friendly. August 15, 2000- The goals remain the same. Time Frame: This proposal is for two years beginning in October 1999 through September 2001. As soon as we can encumber the funding we will begin to develop a fact sheet about tile intakes, their water quality impacts and how they might be altered to minimize environmental risk. This will be widely distributed throughout the BERBI area utilizing a variety of methods. As the fact sheet is getting developed, local staff will be made aware of the program details so they can begin to solicit landowner interest. As landowners are identified they can be signed up, with a cost share contract, and the practice completed. This will become an ongoing process until all 234 intakes are completed. Field demonstrations will be planned during the early part of the growing season before the crop gets too high. There will be at least one in each of the 3 watersheds [Blue Earth, LeSueur and Watonwan] each summer. Tasks: 2. Develop a Tile Intake Fact Sheet. This will be one of the first tasks completed under this project. BERBI staff will prepare the fact sheet and have it reviewed by appropriate local, state and federal agencies. We also will ask the Land Improvement Contractors Association to review it. Once developed it will be printed and widely distributed in the region. We anticipate the fact sheet to be completed within two months of being able to encumber the money. August 15, 2000 - A meeting was held in late spring with various agency people to discuss the make up of a tile intake fact sheet. It was agreed that an information sheet should focus on various designs of intakes and their potential impact to the environment and possible alternatives that landowners can use. The info sheet will not try to quantify specific pollutant reductions as the science is really not there to do that at this time. The fact sheet is in rough draft form and will soon be forwarded to the agency people who had initial input to it to review. 2. County and SWCD staff will begin contacting landowners and educating them one on one about the environmental issues surrounding intakes and what the solutions might be. As they identify cooperating landowners, they will work with them to develop a contract [modeled after the State Cost Share Contract] with them and get the project completed. All projects will need to be approved through the BERBI Policy Board. Once approved the practice can be installed and a ten year contract signed. This will be ongoing throughout the two years of the project or until the allocated funds are spent. August 15, 2000, through August 1, 2000 -BERBI has encumbered money for 28 Priority One [Intake Removal] projects and for 67 Priority Two [Rock Inlet] projects. 2. Field Demonstrations. These will be held each summer to bring landowners together for a discussion on the tile intake issue. We will host at least 6 during the project at various locations within the region. Agencies will be invited to participate along with contractors. Our goal will be to demonstrate why intakes are a concern and how the problem can be addressed. August 15, 2000 - During the Minnesota River Technical Committee Meeting at Godahl, August 4th, Tile Intakes was one of the tour stops for that group. Discussion was held about the issues surrounding intakes and the alternatives for landowners. Cottonwood SWCD included tile intake education as part of their local tour. 2. Project Coordination, Administration and Reporting. BERBI will provide the coordination, administration and reporting of this project throughout its life. BERBI will work with the local county and SWCD staff to ensure the guidelines are followed and goals met. They also will be the liaison with other agencies and coordinate the promotion of this effort including transferring the information to other areas of the state or region. Any reporting requirements will be met. 2. Transferability: What is learned during this project should be able to be easily transferred to other areas of the state or within the Midwest where agricultural drainage is prevalent. 2. Budget: 2. Total Funding Amount Requested Under This Grant Source: $103,750.00 2. Breakdown of How the Grant Funds Will Be Expended: Refer to the Budget in Application 2. Description of Match Funding Sources: Source and Amount Participating Landowners $ 55,928.00 Local County and SWCD Staff $ 47,340.00 BERBI Staff $ 7,500.00 Total Eligible Match $110,768.00 Refer to the Budget in the Application for a Breakdown of Each Activity 2. Measures of Success- How will the entire project be evaluated for success? This project will be successful if we 1) alter at least 234 tile intakes so they are more environmentally friendly by either removing them or establishing a vegetative buffer around them, and 2) by increasing the awareness of the environmental impacts of open tile intakes. We estimate that we will be able to reach, through our information and education component, the landowners who control approximately 25 percent of the open tile intakes in the Greater Blue Earth River Watershed. We estimate this to be approximately 3,280 intakes. BERBI TILE INTAKE INITIATIVE GUIDANCE SHEET The BERBI Tile Intake Initiative is effective through September 30, 2002. BERBI has $88,750 for cost share with this initiative. [319 monies through the PCA] There are two major objectives to this project as follows: 2. To bring awareness to the environmental impacts of open tile intakes. 2. To alter at least 234 open tile inlets in the BERBI area so they are more environmentally friendly. This initiative will provide three different incentives to landowners to make their intake[s] more environmentally friendly. These options are: 1st Priority. Remove the intake. [39 intakes] Pay the landowner $200 to remove the intake. Sign a cost-share contract for ten years. No additional tile is to be installed to compensate for the removed intake. No French Drains. Intended for drainage open tile inlets not ones designed as part of a structure such as terraces or side inlets. 2nd Priority. Remove the intake, install a higher concentration of tile in the immediate vicinity of where the intake was. [78 intakes] Cost share 50-50 with the landowner up to $250. Sign a cost share contract for ten years. No French Drains. I have requested an amendment to allow the Carver SWCD Rock Inlets. 3rd Priority. Establish a buffer. [117 intakes] The concept is to buffer the area that ponds water after a 1-2 inch storm event. Minimum of 30 feet radius. Maximum of 1 acre. Shape can vary. Pay landowner $100 per acre per year. Sign a ten year cost share contract. Money is paid up front. Grant would pay the seed cost. Landowner would prepare, plant and maintain the site. Use a mix recommended to withstand standing water 2-3 days. They can hay the area if assessable. Additional components include: development of a tile intake fact sheet six field demonstrations [over two years] for a discussion of the tile intake issue HAWK CREEK (FFY 1999) Description of the Project The Hawk Creek Watershed drains a 958-square mile basin. Counties in this basin include: Chippewa, Kandiyohi, and Renville. The source of Hawk Creek is near the city of Willmar in Kandiyohi County, from where it flows approximately 70 miles to its mouth in the Minnesota River. The watershed's primary concerns are excessive soil losses on cropland; the degradation of surface water quality due to sediment, excessive nutrient movement, and animal wastes; loss of wetland habitat; and flooding. Out of 554,600 cropland acres, over 1/3 or 190,000 acres are eroding over "T" ( tolerable soil erosion level). Streambank erosion is also suspected to be a primary source of sediment. Wind erosion has become a serious problem on the open, unsheltered cropland areas throughout the watershed, especially on sugar beet ground. It is suspected Hawk Creek will rank high among the 12 major tributaries to the Minnesota River in terms of phosphorus contributions. Nonconforming septic systems and field, lawn, and feedlot runoff are suspected sources of this pollution. Harmful bacteria (i.e. fecal coliform) are also a problem in certain areas of the watershed. Concerns also exist that the presence of fecal coliform will negatively impact recreational use of lakes and rivers in the upper and middle portions of the watershed. It is estimated that there are over 400 active feedlots in the watershed. Approximately 65% do not comply with Minnesota statutes governing the storage, transportation, disposal, and utilization of animal manure and are considered polluters that contribute runoff directly to surface water resources. It is estimated that upwards of 98% of the original wetlands in the lower part of the watershed have been drained. Flooding during the spring runoff in 1997 impacted several thousand acres of cropland in the lower portions of the watershed. The project's objectives are to reduce cropland soil erosion to "T" to maintain soil and crop productivity and to improve the water quality to achieve state water quality standards for drinking and enhanced water based recreation. This will be accomplished by installation of appropriate conservation practices including mulch tillage, windbreaks, filter strips, ag waste storage structures, and nutrient management. Additionally, the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative is expanding their plant (located in the watershed) and their sugar beet acreage by up to 40%. This will have a significant impact on the Hawk Creek Watershed in terms of water quality and quantity concerns. A cooperative effort with the Beet Cooperative is currently underway to educate their growers on Best Management Practices (BMPs) to achieve an overall reduction in nutrient and sediment loading and ultimately a "0 net gain" in phosphorus loading. Project goals: 1. Reduce soil erosion on 35,000 acres of cropland fields by 2003. Using coordinated erosion control systems consisting of both structural and management practices, reduce soil erosion by 45,000 tons by 2003. 2. Implement nutrient management on 25,000 acres, reducing phosphorus levels in area lakes and streams by 10% and nitrate levels in wells by 5% by 2003. 3. Install 25 waste storage facilities targeted near surface waters and incorporate 75 waste utilization plans on 11,000 acres by 2003. 4. Reduce sediment entering surface waters by 7% through erosion control systems and incorporating filter and buffer strips by 2003. 5. Restore 100 acres of wetlands and establish 4,000 acres of upland wildlife habitat by 2003. History of the Project Prior to the January 1, 2000 - June 30, 2000 period, the following activities were completed: 1. A "Local Work Group" (LWG) has been formed consisting of representatives from the three counties in the watershed, Prairie Country RC&D, and the Hawk Creek CWP Project. This group has met four times to determine, specifically, how the 319 Project will be implemented. 2. The LWG has developed a cost-share docket. 3. The LWG has, initially, developed an information/education program. 4. The LWG has developed a partnership with the Phase I Diagnostic Study CWP Project to cooperatively work on information/education activities and other mutual needs. 5. The LWG decided that hiring an employee who could work one-on-one with landowners in the watershed on BMP planning and implementation would be the most effective means of providing technical assistance (T.A.) to the project. The LWG developed a position description for a Watershed Planner/Field Technician, advertised the job, interviewed candidates, and selected Dan Hagen to fill the position. Mr. Hagen will assist SWCDs and County Water Plan Groups address their needs and implement projects. 6. The LWG, in cooperation with NRCS, is pursuing watershed modeling, which will assist in developing the Phase II Implementation Plan. 7. The LWG is exploring the development of demonstration projects, especially with the Southern MN Beet Sugar Cooperative. 2000 Semi-annual Report Project Activities As of December 8, 2000, the following activities as have been completed: 1. Cooperated with the Hawk Creek CWP Project on the following information/education activities: a. Conducted three public open houses in June to inform watershed residents of the 319 Project, discuss BMPs, and provide an update of the CWP Phase I Diagnostic Study. b. Jointly develop a newsletter with the CWP and sent it out to 2,600 watershed residents. 2. Completed the following information/education activities for the 319 Project: a. Developed two newsletter inserts that were incorporated into FSA newsletters. b. Completed two news articles promoting the 319 Project and various BMPs. c. Developed an insert for Renville and Chippewa SWCD newsletters. d. Developed two Fact Sheets - one promoting the 319 Project and one promoting septic system upgrades. e. Worked with each SWCD on promotion of CREP, RIM, CRP, and BMPs. f. Made approximately 75 direct landowner contact to view potential practices and promote and discuss the 319 Project. g. Provided technical and financial assistance for "WALK 2000", a natural resources/water quality education program for sixth graders. The event was held on May 16, 17, and 24 in Renville County and attracted nearly 300 students. 3. Held monthly meetings of the LWG to discuss implementation of the grant, act on cost-share applications, and plan and implement information/education projects and activities. 4. Cooperated with NRCS on a watershed-modeling project. Two distinctly different subwatersheds will be modeled for nutrient and sediment runoff losses. 5. Pursued approval of a septic system upgrade amendment to the Project Work Plan. This amendment was denied in April. A revised amendment was re-submitted in August. Currently awaiting a response. 6. Met with Derek Fisher, BWSR Agronomist to plan and implement cooperative efforts for information/education activities regarding nutrient management practices. 7. Continued to explore the development of demonstration projects, including the potential of some with the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative. 8. Re-filled the Watershed Planner/Field Technician position as of 12/4/00. (The position had been vacant since 8/30/00.) Challenges Faced To date, two challenges have been faced by the project's LWG: 1. Obtaining approval of a septic system upgrade amendment to the Project Work Plan. 2. Losing the Watershed Planner/Field Technician in August, which set the project back somewhat. (The position was filled as of 12/4/00.) Changes to the Workplan Practices initially approved for this project were those listed in the 1999 Minnesota EQIP Docket. However, since failing and outdated septic systems surfaced as a major contributor of pollution from the Diagnostic Study, the LWG felt a need to create an awareness of this practice and its benefits. Therefore, in February of 2000, the LWG submitted a request to MPCA to amend the existing Work Plan to add a septic system upgrade cost-share incentive practice. This amendment was denied in April. A revised septic system upgrade was submitted to MPCA in August. There has been no response to this request to date. Projected End Date It is anticipated that the project will run through the grant end date of 9/30/02. YELLOW MEDICINE (FFY 1999) Yellow Medicine Watershed includes 422,600 acres located within a three county area (Lyon, Lincoln, Yellow Medicine). Flooding, drainage, erosion, sedimentation and water quality are considered to be the foremost problems in this watershed. Currently, sheet, rill, and wind erosion is exceeding tolerable levels ("T" values) on nearly 221,300 acres in the Yellow Medicine River Watershed. Of this amount about 39100 acres exceed twice the tolerable level. Not included in the erosion rates is the erosion occurring in areas of concentrated flow commonly called ephemeral gully erosion. Water quality in the streams and lakes is reduced from the sediment, plant nutrients, fertilizer, and other chemicals contained in runoff waters. Opportunities exist for combined efforts of federal, state and local agencies technical and financial resources increase Best Management Practices for the protection of the resources and to secure and enhance the economic status of residents. Project Goals Increasing the implementation of best management practices, enhancing water quality and overall benefits in the entire watershed by reducing soil erosion, improvement of water quality and reduction of flooding. History of the Project A local work group formed in 1998 to apply for a NRCS EQIP priority management area. Funding for this application came through the MPCA Clean Water Action Plan funds. The grant was signed in October of 1998. The local work group from Lincoln, Lyon and Yellow Medicine counties met on October 4, 1999 to discuss items from the August 31, 1999-State meeting held in St. Cloud. Three NRCS people and one SWCD person met on January 5, 2000 to prioritize the applications that were received in the three counties. The current EQIP ranking worksheets were used for prioritizing purposes. The current EQIP cost-share docket will be used. The next step will be for the individual landowners/operators to sign the State Cost-Share Contract for Lincoln SWCD Board approval at their March/April Board meeting(s). The individual landowners/operators have all signed the State Cost-Share Contract but one and the Lincoln SWCD Board has approved all but the one contract. The one remaining contact is waiting to see if his land made it in CRP. If this contract is not funded we had agreed that any slippage would be used on the last project on the funding list which is not fully funded at this time. Designs continue to be drawn up and are ready to go. Due to the growth stage of the crops it is difficult to conduct an adequate survey this time of year. As the small grain and soybeans are harvested more field surveys and designs can be conducted. Four contacts have been completed and paid. 2000 Semi-annual Report Project Activities Local work groups were contacted and updated on 319 funding process. Local work group selected the conservation projects using the EQIP ranking process. To date the following projects have been completed and paid: Craig Winter (00-21YM) $12,256.00 Grazing System-Pasture/hayland planting Craig Winter (00-22YM) $ 5,992.00 Grazing System-Pipeline/tanks Craig Winter (00-23YM) $ 5,059.00 Grazing System-Well Drilling Loren Epple (00-03YM) $ 7,397.00 Six Water & Sediment Control Basins To date the following projects have been surveyed and are being designed at this time: Carl Hauschild (00-13YM) Water & Sediment Control Basins John Popowski (00-05YM) Water & Sediment Control Basins Ron Weverka (00-10YM) Water & Sediment Control Basins Harvey Noble (00-04YM) Water & Sediment Control Basins Paul Dillon (00-01YM) Water & Sediment Control Basins Challenges Faced Crops have grown to the point where the remaining projects will have to be surveyed after crop removal. Projected End Date It is anticipated that the project will run through the grant end date of 9/30/02. CROP NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR ST. PETER WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA (FFY 2000) The project will reduce nitrogen loading to the Jordan Aquifer, which supplies drinking water to the City of St. Peter and to rural homes in East Nicollet County, through the promotion of Nitrogen Best Management Practices for corn and soybean acres in the Wellhead Protection Area. Workplan: There are four components to the workplan. Task 1. Facilitate the enrollment of agricultural land into federal and state set-aside programs. Project staff will work individually with each producer to explain programs (including CRP, RIM, and WIP), to encourage participation and to assist with program applications. Milestones: This work will begin in the spring of 1999 (even before the anticipated project start date) and will continue throughout the project timeline. Products: Overall reduction of Nitrogen applied in the WHP Area Targeted reduction of Nitrogen in extra-sensitive areas within the WHP Area, including buffer strips along drainage ditches and tile intakes. Task 2. Provide financial and technical support for a nutrient manager to work one-on-one with agricultural producers, fertilizer dealers, and agronomy consultants. The nutrient manager (NM) will work with each WHP Area producer to provide a variety of methods to better achieve nitrogen reductions. Tailoring producer-selected applications will lead to better long-term acceptance of new practices. Considerations for the various methods will include size and type of farming operation, available equipment, soil characteristics and soil test results, yield goals, University recommendations and profitability issues. The NM will select 40 acre plots as demonstrations with half (11) of the producers in the WHP Area. Milestones: Fall 1999-develop position requirements, contracts, advertise, interview, hire NM; convene WHP area producers for program explanation Winter 2000-NM makes initial contacts, selects 11 40-acre plots Spring through Fall 2000-NM works with producers developing BMP plots, assists with spring and summer fertilizer applications, assists with harvest, tracks yields. Fall 2000-NM evaluates effectiveness of BMP fields; plans next season field treatments, assists with fall fertilizer applications Spring through Fall 2001-NM works with producers developing second year BMP plots, assists with spring and summer fertilizer applications, assists with harvest, tracks yields. Fall 2001-NM evaluates effectiveness of BMP fields; plans next season field treatments, assists with fall fertilizer applications Winter 2001-2 - evaluate nutrient management work Products: * improved consideration of nitrogen crediting for previous crops and/or manure. * reduction of nitrogen inputs on a field specific basis through plot trails with varying fertilizer rates and/or timing * development of better acceptance of University of MN BMP recommendations for nitrogen management Task 3. Develop and produce nutrient management handbooks for each producer. Project staff will write, print and distribute Farm Nutrient Management Manuals for each farm using GIS/Arc View technology to show soils, tile systems, drainage systems, legal setbacks, manure management acreage (where applicable), former/current wetlands (where applicable), and site-specific situations such as chemical storage or surface water bodies. Appropriate Best Management Practices will be highlighted for each operation. Milestones: Winter 1999-2000 - produce handbooks Spring 2000 - distribute handbooks of target impact areas (such as drainage capture zones, former wetlands) Task 4. Continually evaluate acceptance of BMP adoption; identify barriers to acceptance; adapt promotional messages as needed. Staff will perform continuous evaluation of yields and profitability under various field plot applications. Seasonal and agronomic obstacles will be identified and dealt with. For example, one fertilizer dealership may embrace BMP recommendations; another may require research data before full participation can be implemented. Economic considerations, social issues, health impacts, tradition, Variable Rate Technological problems, and peer pressure may be of varying importance throughout the project timeline, and may also vary from producer to producer. Staff will provide follow-up to these considerations as needed. Milestones: Evaluation will occur both on a per-farm basis, and seasonally as appropriate throughout the project timeline. Winter 2001-2 - final evaluation & report; producer recognition event Products: Increased acceptance, (both during the project, and on a long-term basis) of nitrogen BMPs Support/recognition of relationship between changed farming practices and city water supply steward Update 2000: This project is just beginning IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANS (FFY 2000) The objective of this project is to build the capacity of farmers to better manage their nutrient by accelerating the implementation of comprehensive nutrient management plans within a priority watershed area to assist that watershed in meeting their TMDL goals. This project will use nutrient management as a tool for building 'community' within this watershed and it will involve public-private partnerships to get the job done. Update 2000: This project is just beginning EDUCATION TO IMPROVE FEEDLOT MANURE, AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT (FFY 2000) The objective of this proposal is, through education, to enable producers, their agronomic professionals, and agency staff reduce the environmental impact of manure, as specified in the new Minnesota feedlot rules and the joint EPA-USDA joint strategy on animal feedlot operations. Update 2000: This project is just beginning. The Red River Basin INTRODUCTION Water planning activity in the Red River Basin has been high for many years. International coordination, severe and persistent flooding, and water supply concerns all contribute to a large amount of water planning activity. Basin level planning activities * MPCA, Basin Plan (completed 9/1999), Basin Information Document (completed 1997) * Multiple Stakeholders, Flood Damage Reduction Agreement * International Joint Commission (IJC) - Flooding task force strategy * Red River Basin Board - International and interstate basin water plan Minnesota Red River Basin Water Quality Plan - A Partnership Between Residents, Stakeholders, Local, State, and Federal Resource Managers of the Red River Basin - Though facilitated by the MPCA, the subtitle of this plan demonstrates the fact that this plan was a truly cooperative effort amongst all major water resource managers and stakeholders. The first basin plan to be completed, the Red River Basin Plan contains the goals and strategies to be implemented over the next 5 years. The plan is incorporated by reference into this NPS plan. It is scheduled to begin undergoing revision in 2004. Focus now will be on implementing the strategies identified over the next several years. As planning has concluded, the challenge will be for state and local partners to put the plan into action. Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Work Group Agreement - This agreement was the product of 8 months of consensus-based mediated negotiations. The agreement, which has basin-wide planning applicability, established both flood damage reduction and natural resource goals for the basin. The agreement also included 1) agreed to principles and strategies for future decision making by the nine watershed districts and the state agencies in the basin, 2) a new project review and permitting process, and 3) guidelines for a new comprehensive watershed planning process by the 9 watershed districts. One of the end results of this agreement will be preparation of major watershed level plans by the 9 watershed districts. Major watershed level planning activities * Watershed Districts - comprehensive plan revisions resulting from the mediation agreement (scheduled to be completed over the next 6 years - districts scheduled to begin in 2000 include Bois De Sioux, Wild Rice, and Roseau River) * Minnesota Department of Health - source water assessments (4 communities with surface water supplies - due 5/2003) * Minnesota Department of Health - Consumer Confidence Reports (required in 2000 by all public water suppliers) * Otter Tail River Plan (being completed by SWCD's anticipated completion 7/2001) Local & minor watershed planning activities * County Water Plan Updates - All counties have existing water plans. Four counties are scheduled to update in 2000, 5 in 2001, 9 in 2002, and 2 in 2003 or beyond. * Pelican Lake, Lake Improvement District - Mapping and Hydrologic Study * Red River mediation - Watershed Work Teams (problem area investigations - ongoing) * Wellhead Protection Plans - required for all public water suppliers * Pelican River Watershed District - plan completed * Cormorant Lakes Watershed District - plan competed SUMMARY OF ACTIVE NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS BANK STABILIZATION OF GREENWOOD 27 (FFY 2000) The Red Lake Watershed District (RLWD) and cooperating partners have completed the Diagnostic Feasibility Phase of a Clean Water Partnership for the Clearwater River Basin. Appendix (A) provides a description of the Diagnostic Feasibility Study and findings. The RLWD and cooperating partners are now in the Implementation phase of the project, and have begun implementing projects and activities aimed at improving the water quality of the Clearwater River. Implementation includes four categories of activities: Bank Stabilization, Commercial Wild Rice Production, Conservation Practices Cost Share Program, and Public Education. The Bank Stabilization phase of the project aims to demonstrate the use of emerging technology and innovative approaches toward erosion control, stream stabilization, and water quality improvements. Update 2000: This project is just beginning. The Missouri River and the Des Moines River Basins INTRODUCTION The Missouri River and Des Moines River basins are located in southwestern Minnesota. These areas represent very small portions of the Missouri and Des Moines watersheds, which extend far beyond the boundaries of Minnesota. One of the major water resource issues facing this part of the state is the lack of abundant good quality groundwater supplies. Basin level planning activities * MPCA, Basin Information Document (completion scheduled in 2001) * MPCA, Basin Plan (completion date 2002) Major watershed level planning activities * Heron Lake Watershed District comprehensive plan update * USGS, Des Moines River hydrologic investigation * Heron Lake Watershed District * Kanaranzi-Little Rock Watershed District * Des Moines River TMDL Local & minor watershed planning activities * All counties have existing water plans. Updates are scheduled for 1 in 2002, 1 in 2005, 3 in 2006, and 2 in 2007. * Heron Lake Watershed District, Heron Lake Clean Water Partnership * Minnesota Department of Health, Lincoln-Pipestone and Red Rock Rural Water, wellhead protection plans * Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District SUMMARY OF ACTIVE NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS WELLHEAD MANAGEMENT FOR THE HOLLAND EDGERTON WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS (FFY 2000) This proposal considers the wellhead protection areas of the Holland well field and the Edgerton well field. The Holland well field is one of three well fields operated by the Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water System. The Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water System supplies drinking water to 24 communities, and 2,830 farms. The Edgerton well field supplies the community of Edgerton, MN with water. Elevated nitrate levels, fecal coliform bacteria levels, ammonia levels, and a degradation of habitat to the Endangered Topeka Shiner indicate the severity of poor water quality in these areas. Documentation for these water quality problems is as follows: Testing of Nitrate levels has been on going in the Edgerton and Holland well fields. Incidentally, this testing indicates that both well fields have exceeded federal standards of ten parts per million nitrate-nitrogen. In addition, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has listed Pipestone Creek and the Rock River on the final Minnesota 1998 CWA section 303(d) list. This list indicates that the Pipestone Creek exceeds the Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) for fecal coliform bacteria. Intern the Rock River exceeds the Total Maximum Daily Loading for fecal coliform bacteria levels and ammonia levels. Finally, habitat degradation in these streams are impacting the Topeka Shiner which is now on the endangered list as specified under the federal Endangered Species Act. In the Holland and Edgerton wellhead protection areas maintaining acceptable water quality is challenging due to thin permeable soils and shallow water tables as well as a strong surface water ground water connection. Recent studies conducted by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture within these areas indicate that 20-50 LB/N/A/Year from nitrogen inputs could be trimmed without yield reduction. In addition runoff from feedlots, septic systems, and farmland is suspected by initial sampling and inventory work to be a major contributor toward nonpoint source pollution. To correct these sources of nonpoint pollution this grant proposes to use a combination of education and incentive payments to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs). Update 2000: This project is complete upon receipt of final report. Update 2000: This project is just beginning. UPPER ELK CREEK EROSION CONTROL AND WQ IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (FFY 1999) Time Period: 10/1/98 - 9/30/02 Description of the project This project will install Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Upper Elk Creek subwatershed of the Heron Lake watershed. BMPs will be installed to slow water flow, decrease erosion, and improve water quality entering the Heron Lake system. Project goals 1. Increase public awareness of water quality improvement programs. 2. Implement BMPs. 3. Conduct water quality monitoring. 4. Improve water quality by slowing water flow, decreasing erosion, and reducing phosphorous loading. History of the project Elk Creek is one of a number of priority subwatersheds that indicated an abnormally high degree of environmental degradation during the Heron Lake Watershed diagnostic study. Once known as the "Chesapeake Bay of the West", Heron Lake and its watershed contained clean water, fertile soil, lush vegetation, and abundant wildlife. It is reported that as many as 700,000 canvasbacks stopped at Heron Lake during fall migration. Upwards of 50,000 Franklin's gulls once nested here. Canada geese, white pelicans, trumpeter swans, Sandhill and whooping cranes, curlews, and black-crowned night herons were but a few of the many species that used to frequent the area in large numbers. Gradually, the landscape changed. Wetlands disappeared, streams were channelized, ground was broken for farming, and the waters became polluted. Dikes were constructed to convert portions of the lake bottom to cropland and to try to contain wildly fluctuating water levels. The lake's surface water shrank from 8,250 acres to 6,400 acres. In 1989, a cooperative venture called the Heron Lake Area Restoration Project began. Public and private groups and individuals at the local, state, and national level joined forces to improve water quality within the Heron Lake watershed. In 1998 an EPA 319 grant application for an erosion control and water quality improvement project on Elk Creek was submitted and approved for funding. This grant compliments a number of other state and federal grants currently active in the Heron Lake Watershed area. 2000 Semi-annual Report Project Activities Project to Date 1. July 1998 - landowners and tenants were contacted and made aware of local, state, and federal cost-share programs available in the Elk Creek subwatershed. 2. September 1998 - meetings were held with landowners, tenants, Nobles County Commissioners, Nobles Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Nobles Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Heron Lake Watershed District Board and Clean Water Partnership staff. Discussion was held to determine which BMPs would best apply to the affected properties. 3. October 1998 - Nobles County Commissioners agreed to cost-share with local monies to be used as payment for incentives and conserving use acres. 4. December 1998 - Informational meeting was held with the Elk Township Board to provide data about the project. 5. January through April 1999 - Signups were taken to implement BMP construction. A video was made and shown to landowners, tenants, and other interested parties to gain support for the project. Small grain was planted on conserving use acres where BMPs would be constructed. 6. Stream gages were placed in June to collect data for this season. 7. Water sampling began in May and continued through November. Activities completed during last 6 months * BMPs were installed from August through December of 1999 and January through June of 2000. * March 2000 - Met with Elk Township Board to provide project update. * April 2000 - Met with County Commissioners to provide project update. * Signups are being taken for further BMP implementation. * 3 waterways installed Challenges faced Landowners were hesitant to participate in this program. Most landowners were reluctant to give up the farmland necessary to install waterways. It was also difficult to convince landowners that installing waterways and/or alternative surface tile intakes on their property would be of benefit to them. Changes to the Workplan There are no anticipated changes to the work plan at this time. Projected End Date We are projecting that this project will run through the entire grant agreement and end on 9/30/02. HERON LAKE PHASE II CWP CONTINUATION (FFY 1999) Time Period: 3/31/00 - 3/30/03 Description of the Project The Heron Lake Watershed District (HLWD) encompasses approximately 472 square miles in Jackson, Nobles, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties of southwestern Minnesota. Three major lakes, along with several smaller bodies of water, are found within the watershed. Fulda Lakes 1 and 2 and East and West Graham are the lakes that provide recreational opportunities such as swimming and fishing. The Heron Lake system consisting of North Lake, South Lake, North Marsh, and Duck Lake is the primary receiving basin for the watershed and is noted for waterfowl production and hunting activities. Major environmental problems exist in the watershed. Included are tile drainage, point source pollution, nonpoint source pollution, intensive land use, and storm water runoff. The challenge for the Board of Managers of the HLWD is to increase participation in best management practices (BMPs). BMPs include such practices as filter strips along watercourses, critical area plantings, riparian areas, terraces, waterways, use of field windbreaks, and farming practices that increase protection of exposed soils. History of the Project Once known as the "Chesapeake Bay of the West," Heron Lake and its watershed contained clean water, fertile soil, lush vegetation, and abundant wildlife. It is reported that as many as 700,000 canvasbacks stopped at Heron Lake during fall migration. Upwards of 50,000 Franklin's gulls once nested here. Canada geese, white pelicans, trumpeter swans, Sandhill and whooping cranes, curlews, and black-crowned night herons were but a few of the many species that used to frequent the area in large numbers. Gradually, the landscape changed. Wetlands disappeared, streams were channelized, ground was broken for farming, and the waters became polluted. Dikes were constructed to convert portions of the lake bottom to cropland and to try to contain wildly fluctuating water levels. The lake's surface water shrank from 8,250 acres to 6,400 acres. In 1989, a cooperative venture called the Heron Lake Area Restoration Project began. Public and private groups and individuals at the local, state, and national level joined forces to improve water quality within the Heron Lake watershed. How the Project Works Funding for the watershed diagnostic study and the first three years of implementation was obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) through a Clean Water Partnership (CWP) grant. In March of this year a continuation grant funded through EPA's 319 program was signed and executed. Both the CWP and 319 programs provide financial and technical assistance to local units of government for watershed projects. An intensive monitoring and assessment program of the lakes and streams was conducted in 1992. After reviewing this data, four major problems were identified: tile drainage and the resulting peak flows; urban sources of pollution from point sources and storm water runoff; need for increased participation in best management practices (BMPs), and; lack of vegetated buffers on riparian and floodplain lands and limited participation in field windbreak programs. In 1995, the HLWD applied and received funding for a CWP Phase II grant/loan project through MPCA. A work plan was developed to guide the overall efforts of water quality improvement, increase the diversity and number of plants and animals, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce flooding. To accomplish these tasks, the Board of Managers implemented a Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Filter Strip Incentive Program. The program provided a one-time $25 per acre incentive payment to landowners who enrolled their stream or ditch bank into the CRP program. In addition, the Board of Managers implemented a Wetland Restoration Program. The Board of managers appropriated $10,000 to provide a $100 per acre one-time incentive payment for the pool acres of shallow water containment areas. The Board also funded the Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) Riparian Buffer program. The program requires that landowners enroll an area between 66 and 100 feet in width adjacent to their stream or ditch bank. Regular requirements of RIM apply. An additional incentive payment of 30 percent of the current RIM township rate is paid to the landowner. A rock inlet cost-share program was also initiated. This program pays 75% of the cost (up to $200) to install alternative surface tile intakes. Another facet of the CWP project is the Loan Program. Low interest loan dollars are available to landowners for minimum tillage equipment, septic system upgrading, manure handling equipment, and best management practice installation. Grants have been applied for through various agencies to fund special projects. Grants received have been Board of Water and Soil Resources Challenge Grants, Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Partners, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 319. Water quality monitoring is conducted at several locations throughout the watershed. Samples are collected on a monthly basis. Testing of the samples is done at the Water Resources Center in Mankato. In addition, volunteers throughout the watershed are collecting rain and water transparency information on a number of streams, lakes, and ditches. Volunteer help is essential to the success of this project. 2000 Semi-annual Report Project Activities Best Management Practices Since the Clean Water Partnership (CWP) project began in June of 1996, 235 landowners signed up to implement the following BMPs: 1 Waste Management System Waste Storage Structure 1 Critical Area Planting 1 Multi-Purpose Dam 1 Sediment Basin 123 Filter Strips 19 Grassed Waterways 4 Stream Channel Stabilization 15 Terraces 2 Tree Plantings 2 Wildlife Wetland Habitat Management 9 Riparian Buffers 15 Reinvest In Minnesota program 3 Shallow Water Area for Wildlife 4 Structure for Water Control 1 Contour Buffer Strip 1 Farmstead Windbreak 3 Wildlife Habitat 1 Wetland Restoration 2 Wetland Basins 53 Rock Inlets These practices resulted in $25,590.93 from the HLWD Cost-Share, $81,675.02 from the CWP Cost-Share, $80,739.82 State Cost-Share, $512,545.87 from the State of Minnesota, $1,775.59 from Bondin Township, $2,943.50 from Graham Lakes Township, $4,136.24 from Alba Township, $17,312.65 from USFWS, $201.59 from Fulda Game and Fish, $9,926.33 from Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), $60,000.00 from EQIP, $9,392.57 from the BMP Loan Program, and $55,113 from a BWSR Challenge Grant. Landowner contribution to the projects will amount to $107,085.43. A BMP Tracking Spreadsheet is being utilized to compile information for each practice. The location, cost-share paid, beginning and ending date for each project has been tracked. This information provides partners in the project the opportunity to follow progress. It has been updated throughout the life of the CWP. The information from this spreadsheet is also reported in the Local government unit Annual Reporting System (LARS) computer program and furnished to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). An extensive amount of tillage was done throughout the watershed this spring. There were no major rainfall events. Despite the lower than average rainfall, erosion problems are still apparent. The need for more BMPs to be installed in the watershed is very evident. The cost-share, incentive, and low interest loan programs offered by Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), County Water Plans, and the HLWD CWP continue to open doors in the watershed. These programs provide an opportunity to visit with landowners about the importance of conservation practices. They are also instrumental in getting landowners to enroll their property in conservation practices. Practices that have been implemented in the watershed are making the CWP project more visible. The good examples that Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) riparian buffers, filter strips, critical area plantings, wetland restoration projects, waterways, terraces, and ag waste systems provide an invaluable asset to the CWP. These BMPs have created awareness among landowners of what can be done to enhance their farming operation while improving water quality and wildlife habitat. Information, Education, and Project Administration Meetings and Training Sessions The CWP Phase II Advisory Committee continued to meet. Representatives of all project partners provide guidance and direction to CWP staff on a quarterly basis. Meetings were also held with County Commissioners and township authorities. The purpose of these meetings was to provide information about the CWP program. District-Wide Information and Available Programs The BMP continuing operation and maintenance plan was implemented. The plan designates parties responsible for conducting the routine inspection and technical operation associated with BMPs funded through the CWP program. Site inspection forms for all of the CWP projects have been completed. The summer interns hired in 1999 completed the Jackson County portion of the project. In conjunction with the site inspection forms, a map for each individual project was produced. Mindy Oelke and Melissa Benson have begun to incorporate the 2000 project maps into the large watershed wall map. This effort provides landowners, board members, and project partners the opportunity to see where projects have been completed throughout the watershed. Contact continued to be made with landowners in high priority subwatersheds to assess the needs for BMP installation. The Board of Managers continued to fund the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Filter Strip Incentive Program. The program provides a one-time $25 per acre incentive payment to landowners who enroll their stream or ditch bank into the CRP program. In addition, the Board of Managers continued to fund a Wetland Restoration Program. This program provides a $100 per acre one-time incentive payment for the pool acres of shallow water containment areas. The Board of Managers also funded the RIM Riparian Buffer program. The program requires that landowners enroll an area between 66 and 100 feet in width adjacent to their stream or ditch bank. Regular requirements of RIM apply. The unique aspect of the program is an incentive payment of 30 percent of the current RIM township rate is paid to the landowner. The Board of Managers initiated a new cost-share program for 2000. This program pays 75% of the cost (up to $200) to install an alternative surface tile intake. 53 rock inlets were installed in the HLWD this spring. Grant Applications Conservation Partners Grant An application for a Conservation Partners Grant to provide funding during the summer of 2000 and 2001 to continue watershed monitoring, promote wildlife enhancement projects near Heron Lake, and provide support for graduate-level research designed to identify factors limiting the growth of sago pondweed in Heron Lake has been approved for funding from the DNR. Two interns, Melissa Benson and Mindy Oelke, were hired to assist CWP technicians in monitoring water quality/quantity throughout the watershed, complete aquatic vegetation surveys, update watershed databases and maps, complete site inspection forms and install CWP signs in Nobles and Murray Counties, consolidate and distribute historical and current research findings, assist NHLGPA personnel in maintaining and monitoring waterfowl nesting baskets, organize and promote educational seminars and tours, and assist the graduate student as needed. The graduate student, Shawn Shroeder, will be directed by Dr. Beth Proctor to investigate factors limiting the growth of sago pondweed in Heron Lake. EPA 319 Grant An EPA 319 grant application for an erosion control and water quality improvement project on Elk Creek was submitted and approved for funding in 1998. The project objectives are to install waterways, critical area plantings, terraces, wetland restorations, and shallow water areas for wildlife. Dan Dols has begun work on this project. Construction on waterways and wetland restoration began in late summer. Nine waterways, four alternative surface tile intakes, and one wetland restoration were installed. USFWS Grants The HLWD was awarded another grant through the USFWS. Water quality improvement projects such as wetland restoration, upland habitat, and grass buffer strips are eligible for funding. There is $9,000 available at 50/50 cost-share. EQIP Education Grant The HLWD received an education grant through the EQIP Education Grant Program. This grant allows the opportunity to convey information and provide educational opportunities for watershed residents. Three workshop sessions will focus on the importance of conservation tillage, crop nutrient management, weed and pest management, and conservation buffers. Monitoring and Evaluation Water Quality Monitoring Water sampling for the 2000 season began May 23 and will continue monthly until October or November, weather permitting. The lakes sites that are sampled are Fulda 1 (south basin), Fulda 2 (north basin), East Graham, West Graham, North Heron Lake, and two sites on South Heron Lake. The stream sites that are sampled are Jack Creek, Okabena Creek, Elk Creek, and the Heron Lake outlet. (See Attachment #4) The sedimentation basin located in Section 21 of Seward Township is also monitored. Testing is done for Total Phosphorus, Soluble Phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), fecal coliform (streams only), chlorophyll-A (lakes only), conductivity, turbidity, and pH. The CWP technicians conduct water sampling. The Environmental Quality Lab conducts analysis at Minnesota State University Water Resources Center at Mankato. Volunteer Monitoring The volunteer monitoring program started in the spring of 2000. Volunteers throughout the watershed are collecting rain and water transparency information on a number of streams, lakes, and drainage ditches. This allows comparison between rainfall amounts and water quality during spring, summer, and fall, and after large rainfall events. This data will provide useful, long-term monitoring information to both the HLWD and the MPCA Citizen Monitoring Program. Currently there are twelve volunteers in the watershed. Hydrology Study The Hydrology Study of the Heron Lake watershed continued through the CWP project. The purpose of the project is to help understand the complex hydrology of the watershed. The results are to be used to help target areas for land use changes and increase cost-effectiveness of flood control projects. The stream gages were replaced on March 29 to collect data for this season. The gages record the water elevation, temperature, time, date, and battery voltage. Each of these parameters is recorded every ten seconds with a fifteen-minute average taken and placed in the data logger's memory for downloading. The gages for the Heron Lake outlet, Graham Lakes outlet, Elk Creek south of Brewster, and Okabena Creek south of Brewster were replaced in the same locations for 1999. Gaging stations were added on Okabena Creek and Jack Creek at the DNR gage sites and Elk Creek three miles north of Worthington. Currently there are eight gaging sites in operation. The Elk Creek location will be using a pressure transducer system instead of the shaft encoders located at the other established sites. By taking advantage of this new technology, we will be able to gather data more easily and with less maintenance. The cost is also considerably less for the new system. Equipment was purchased to perform discharge measurements at the gaging locations. A Price AA current meter, AquaCalc current meter digitizer, and all needed accessories were purchased. The technicians received training to operate the equipment and to understand the techniques used to accurately take measurements by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and DNR Division of Waters staff. Discharge measurements are taken regularly at all of the gaging locations during various stages of flow. This information will be combined with elevation data to determine an estimated flow curve. Loan Program Although use of the CWP loan program began slowly, it has proven to be extremely successful. A loan tracking spreadsheet is used to compile information for each practice. The location, loan amount, equipment purchased, septic system installed, and beginning and ending date for each loan is tracked. Loans have been disbursed in accordance with the CWP Lender Agreement. A complete report of the outstanding loan funds to be repaid, the accounting records of the Principal Payment Account, and any delinquent accounts has been prepared and is available at the watershed office. There are no delinquent loans. The First State Bank of Rushmore is now the local lender for the CWP loan program. The First National Bank of Brewster requested that they no longer be involved with the program. The process for the CWP loan program for the Continuation is nearly complete. Jan Voit met with the Nobles, Jackson, and Murray County Commissioners to explain the program. The HLWD will be the lender for septic system installation and BMPs. The First State Bank of Rushmore will be the lender for equipment purchases. A hearing on the project will be held. The DNR and BWSR comments on the project have not yet been received. Changes to the Workplan There are no anticipated changes to the work plan at this time. Projected End Date It is anticipated that a grant extension will be sought to extend the grant period for one year. The projected end date is 3/30/2004. The Saint Croix River Basin INTRODUCTION The St. Croix River Basin is a large watershed where most of the waters are of good to exceptional quality. So exceptional, in fact, that the entire length of the St. Croix River has been federally designated as a National Scenic Riverway, recognized for its value to the nation as a whole. Some trends monitoring on the St. Croix has shown that the levels of some pollutants are improving. Everyone living, working, or recreating in the St. Croix Basin should be complimented on the improvements, since the water quality of the St. Croix River and all of its tributary streams, lakes, and wetlands is in large part a reflection of the activities of the people who use its land and water. But some contaminants have not been improving or have been increasing in the basin, and even those that show improving trends may not continue to do so under the pressure of increasing population and expanding businesses and recreation. Basin level planning activities * Minnesota/Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission * St. Croix Interagency Water Resources Management Team (created by official agreement among the U.S. National Park Service, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) * MPCA - Basin Information Document (scheduled completion 12/00) * MPCA - Basin Plan (scheduled completion 2002) Local and minor watershed planning activities * All counties in the basin have an existing water plan. * Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force * Valley Branch, Browns Creek, and Carnelian Marine Watershed Districts * Forest Lake, Sunrise River, Marine on St. Croix, Middle St. Croix River, and Lower St. Croix River Watershed Management Organizations * Snake River Watershed Management Board Conclusion The water planning approaches that are being used in the State of Minnesota provides an orderly way of communicating water management goals and objectives between local and state government. The tiered approach recognizes the strengths of both statewide approaches and regional differences and capitalizes on the expertise of individuals at all levels. This is particularly evident in the area of resource assessments. In many instances the people best equipped to assess resource conditions are agency staff at the regional and state level. Utilizing these individuals' expertise to do resource assessments at the watershed level is far more efficient than having each local government doing them on their own. The framework, in its purest sense allows each level to do what it is best at doing. In general, the different levels of planning result in: 1) statewide plans, with broad goals, objectives and indicators; 2) major watershed plans, which identify specific pollutants, reduction targets, and problem areas; and 3) local plans that are focused on implementation. This framework supports what local government is best at doing - focusing on implementation activities that work toward achieving the specific water-related objectives and standards set for each of the major watershed unit within their jurisdiction. This framework makes the wisest use of the human resources, fiscal resources, programs, and authorities that exist at each level with the least amount of duplication. SUMMARY OF ACTIVE NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS: KNIFE RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT - EQIP (1999) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Knife River system is a unique resource in Minnesota's Lake Superior basin. The system supports a self-sustaining anadromous fish population that has experienced a significant decline over the last 20 years. The river system experiences conditions that are detrimental to fish reproduction and survival. The ultimate long-term objective is to moderate flow regime, reduce peak flows, and increase base flow by 25%. One of the steps to accomplish this goal is to install 10 structures for water control by 2003. These practices and conditions reestablishing Large Woody Debris will ultimately reduce peak flow by 50%. They will provide a place to store excess surface water reducing the amount of streambank erosion and flooding problems. Stabilization and reduction of active bank erosion and resultant sediment loads by 30% is another long-term objective. Another objective is to stabilize stream temperature regime, reducing hours exceeding 70 degrees F by 50 percent. Within 5 years the hours exceeding 70 degrees F in the stream should show a reduction. Increasing the streams base flow through practices that capture and store runoff will improve thermal conditions moderating extremes. Another objective is to have 3000 trees planted in riparian zone for fish stream improvement over the next 3 years. A long-term goal is to increase fish reproductive success to estimated historic levels. Over the next 3 years the primary objective is to develop 3500 acres of Forest Stewardship plans in addition the over 6000 acres planned currently utilizing Minnesota DNR funds. Fifteen Comprehensive Resource Management Systems will be developed from stewardship plans incorporating the practices identified in the plans. Conifer tree plantings will be encouraged with goals of 150 acres of Upland Wildlife Habitat, 400 acres of reforestation, and 100 acres of forest improvement over the next 5 years. Tree planting in open fields and rank brush areas will be a major practice. Conifer planting will be promoted. New techniques to encourage large tree growth (future large woody debris) along bushy or riparian zones will be promoted. The reestablishment of large woody debris in the stream system is a key component in the Watershed Project. PROJECT HISTORY: An organized effort to improve the conditions of water quality and quantity in the Knife River watershed began in 1991 with the Forest Stewardship Program. Federal, state, and local government agencies along with landowners regularly meet as a committee to direct the stewardship program. The committee, with state and local funding, retained a forester under contract to work with private landowners developing stewardship plans, which incorporate a philosophy of land management and watershed health. This grant allows land users to implement project plans through resource management systems. CURRENT UPDATE ON ONGOING PROJECTS: A project work group has been established. Group makeup is based on the guidelines of the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which also is providing funds for this project. The work group has selected on project for 319 funding. The selected project will repair a severe streambank erosion problem on Little Knife River. The estimated cost for the project is $268,700. The project involves changing the angle of culverts under County State Aid Highway 42. The current alignment causes flows to be direct straight into a high bank. Changing the culvert angle is necessary, along with streambank armoring, to repair the eroded area. The group allocated $18,700 of 319 dollars to the project. St. Louis County will provide the remaining funds utilizing state-aid highway dollars. This $250,000 contribution will exceed the required match for this project. PROJECTED END DATE: September 30, 2002 SHORELAND RECLAMATION FOR IMPROVED WATER QUALITY (FFY 2000) The primary purpose of this project is to aid Carnelian-Marine Watershed District efforts to maintain and improve lake water quality by reducing nonpoint source contributions of phosphorus and sediment through cost-aided and voluntary land use management. In doing so, the District will promote cooperative public relationships and seek to further establish a long-term, dedicated, local watershed approach toward improving water quality. The District will target forty (40) properties with documented evidence of shoreland degradation having a negative impact on water quality. The result of a successful project will be a better-educated citizenry and the start of a broader, long-term trend toward proper shoreland management throughout the watershed district. Update 2000: This project is just beginning. The Upper Mississippi River Basin INTRODUCTION The Upper Mississippi River Basin is comprised of the Mississippi River and its tributaries north of its confluence with the St. Croix River on the Wisconsin border southeast of the Twin Cities. This basin is unique in that the condition of the waters in upper portions of the basin are generally thought of as in good condition while the southern portions of the basin the waters are considered more affected by nonpoint sources of pollution. Respectively, programs and activities by local government tend to be protection efforts in the north and restoration efforts in the south. Basin level planning activities * MPCA, Basin Information Document (completed by 9/00) * MPCA, Basin Plan (scheduled to be completed in late 2001) Basin planning activities will be organized into five geographic areas that have similar land uses and geomorphic characteristics, and existing political partnerships in place. * US Geological Survey (USGS) Upper Mississippi River Basin National Water Quality Assessment Study * Mississippi River Defense Network - river spill prevention and response plan, Source water protection assessment * U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance Study Major watershed level planning activities * Mississippi Headwater Board, Main Stem Corridor Plan for the northern stretch of the Mississippi River in the basin (scheduled for revision in 2000) * Long Prairie River, TMDL establishment & Response Plan for documented water quality impairment, 2001 - 2003) * Minnesota Department of Health - Source Water Assessment for St. Cloud water supply (surface water withdrawal from Mississippi) * Sauk River Watershed District - comprehensive plan update in progress * North Fork Crow River Watershed District * Crow River Organized Waters (CROW) - joint powers agreement of 9 counties of the Crow River Watershed Local & minor watershed planning activities * County Water Plan Updates - All counties have existing plans. Ten counties are scheduled for updates in 2000, 2 in 2001, 5 in 2002, and 4 in 2005. * Mille Lacs Lake Clean Water Partnership * Wellhead Protection Plans, required for all public water supplies. * South Two River Watershed District * Clearwater River Watershed District * Thirty Lakes Watershed District * 18 watershed districts and joint power WMOs in Anoka, Carver, Hennepin and Ramsey Counties with tributaries to the Mississippi River SUMMARY OF ACTIVE NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS: LAKE HARRIET WATERSHED AWARENESS PROJECT: MAKING A DIFFERENCE THROUGH WATER QUALITY EDUCATION (FFY 1996) The Lake Harriet watershed is in a well-established residential neighborhood of nearly 6,000 homeowners in an area of 1,039 acres. This lake is part of the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes and is a recreational site frequently visited throughout the year by the metro public. The Lake Harriet study area is a 148 acre portion of the Lake Harriet watershed in which the land usage is 96% residential with nearly 700 homeowners. The detached, single family homes date from the early 20th century. About 40% of the study area is covered with "hard surfaces" like pavement and rooftops. A survey of 105 respondents who are the most familiar with the lawn care done on their property, reveals the following information: * Highly educated with college or post/professional degrees, * Average age is 47 years, * Middle and upper incomes, * Lawn care practices consist of regular mowing, some fertilizer use in the spring and fall and some spring herbicide use to control broadleaf weeds, * A small percentage use a professional lawn care service. What Are We Doing? The Lake Harriet project is a research and educational program to inform urban homeowners about living in a watershed and how lawn care practices potentially affect the quality of urban water. The project goal is to improve water quality by reducing the quality of pesticides and nutrients entering urban water. To achieve this goal, project participants: * Identified existing homeowner lawn care practices and measured their cumulative effects by monitoring pesticide and nutrient runoff into Lake Harriet, * Designed and implemented public educational programs to inform urban homeowners about the effects of their lawn care practices on urban waters and how to modify those practices to minimize their adverse effects on urban waters, * Surveyed homeowners to determine how the project's educational programs affected their lawn care practices and monitored pesticide and nutrient runoff into Lake Harriet to quantify those changes, and * Drew from their Lake Harriet experiences to design urban watershed educational programs for use throughout the city of Minneapolis and the state of Minnesota. Pesticide Water Quality Monitoring Application of herbicides in the watershed can affect water quality. The Lake Harriet project monitored for pesticides by measuring compounds in storm water runoff, rainfall and lake water. Monitoring results, during the period 1992-1995, showed that the annual storm sewer run-off load was reduced. The largest decreases came from the following four compounds commonly used for weed control (herbicides): Herbicides Percent Decrease 1992 - 1995 MPCA 86% Dicamba 59% 2,4-D 58% MCPP 56% These eight herbicides, also known as weed killers, account for 95% of all pesticide compounds detected: Lawn Herbicides Agricultural Herbicides MPCA Alachlor Dicamba Atrazine 2,4-D Cyanazine MCPP Metolachlor Storm Water Runoff Samples * Lawn herbicides were found in 80% of the storm runoff events sampled. * Agricultural herbicides were detected in 35% of the storm events sampled. Rainfall Samples * Analysis of rainfall samples indicated that the agricultural herbicides noted previously were the only herbicides found in the rainfall samples. Lawn herbicides were not detected in rainfall samples. * These agricultural herbicides were atmospherically deposited by wind and rainfall into the watershed and the accompanying water bodies. Lake Water Samples * Testing revealed that the three most commonly detected compounds in the lake water samples were MCPP, Atrazine and 2,4-D. They were also the most frequently detected compounds in the storm water entering Lake Harriet. Project Evaluation The project cooperators continue to conduct homeowner surveys. Survey information help to identify current lawn care practices and to educate residents about preserving water quality. Results of the surveys reveal the following: * Based on homeowner records, the majority of homeowners apply significantly less lawn fertilizer than the University of Minnesota recommended guidelines. * The majority of homeowners leave grass clippings on their lawns or compost them. * Spot treating weeds is the preferred method of weed control. Applying herbicide to the entire yard or using non-chemical weed control methods, are less popular alternatives. * Homeowners are motivated to "make a difference" in the quality of their urban waters by changing lawn care practices or by making simple, inexpensive landscaping changes. * The majority of homeowners note that their knowledge about lawn care practices affecting water quality has increased as a result of the educational initiative. Neighborhood newspapers and mailings to homeowners have the largest impact. * The most common means of seeing or hearing about lawn care and water quality information is from neighborhood newspapers and direct mail. * Messages that are the most effective in changing lawn care practices appear in a format that is quick and easy to read with content that is easy to understand. * These non-crisis messages are best delivered over an extended period of time, and by varying the content and ways of reaching the audience. Examples include using fliers, newspaper articles, brochures, direct mail, handouts and one-to-one education. Educational opportunities still remain to preserve water quality based on the survey results. These messages include the following: * Remind homeowners that they can have a healthy lawn and preserve water quality. This is accomplished when lawn care products are applied in appropriate amounts, at the right times and during ideal weather conditions. * Reinforce the impact of keeping leaves out of the storm sewer to reduce phosphorus in runoff. * Focus on fall, the optimal season to apply lawn care products, for controlling broad leaf weeds and for fertilizing. Increase awareness of other sources or inputs that affect water quality such as erosion, leaves, grass clippings, yard waste, pet waste and rainfall containing air pollution. CURRENT UPDATE This project is complete upon receipt of final report. BIG SANDY LAKE IN AITKIN COUNTY (FFY 1997) BIG SANDY REVEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN AT THE EDGE: ART AND SCIENCE FOR LAKESHORE REVEGETATION Removal of wetland fringe vegetation along lakeshores has had a major impact on the ecological health of lakes in northern Minnesota and elsewhere. Devegetation during development and the subsequent addition of fertilized and closely mowed turfgrass lawns to the water's edge has resulted in land losses through shoreline erosion, increased sediment and nutrient loading into the lakes. Lake water quality suffers as water transparency decreases, algal blooms are more frequent due to higher nutrient levels, and fish and wildlife habitat suffers. As boat traffic and use of the more recently introduced jet ski increases, the shoreline is at even more risk of erosion as wave impacts exacerbate shoreline vegetation losses and make reestablishment of the littoral wetland fringe even more difficult. Change over time in shoreline soil composition from the import of sand for artificial beaches complicates restoration efforts. These clear consequences of lakeshore disturbance point to the necessity of working toward revegetation of these areas, both on the site scale in which the quality of vegetated shoreland landscapes can be demonstrated, and at the landscape scale. Procedures to successfully revegetate such areas have been slow to develop. Previous work on shoreline revegetation has used various structures, primarily floating booms or biodegrading mats or rolls that function to reduce wave impact in the restoration area. These procedures have been successful, but are of an expense outside the realm of most homeowners, lake associations or even local governments and, as such, are not practicable over large or small areas of privately held property. Cultural factors also influence acceptance and success of lakeshore revegetation efforts. A strong ethic of "neatness," defined culturally as mown turfgrass, transfers from the suburbs to lake property. In this tradition, "natural" or undisturbed vegetation is considered weedy. In a similar vein, the presence of the sandy beach mentioned above is another part of the stereotypically "proper" presentation of these properties as well as a desired amenity on any lake, whether or not this would naturally occur. "Mucky" lake bottoms and the presence of vegetation in the water are undesirable and a deterrent to swimming, a primary land use on vacation property. These long standing cultural values have been resistant to change, not necessarily because of the resistance of these landowners intrinsically, but simply because the ecological information related to these issues has not been generally understood by the public. The goals of the Big Sandy Lake Shoreland Revegetation Project are be as follows. First, that this project will add to available information on shoreland revegetation and contribute to increased success in this area. Second, we hope to develop methods to minimize wave impact and erosion on newly revegetated sites and thereby increase plant survival, in ways that are accessible to the average landowner. This should increase participation in revegetation of private lakeshores. Third, to increase public awareness of the consequences of devegetation during development and demonstrate revegetation as an aesthetically pleasing alternative to the misplaced turf lawn. We would like to demonstrate the landscape value of an undisturbed, "selectively disturbed" or "edited," natural site, making the point that mature birch and pine cannot be quickly "restored." BIG SANDY LAKE Located 30 miles west of Duluth, Minnesota, Big Sandy Lake is approximately 9,000 acres in area. The Big Sandy Lake Shoreland Revegetation Project was initiated in the late fall of 1995 by the Big Sandy Lake Association which contacted the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for advice on shoreland revegetation. This active and very informed group of residents had already produced a videotape on lakeshore ecology, visually documenting problems such as severe erosion on construction sites, decreased water clarity, increased algae bloom and loss of previously extensive beds of emergent vegetation on Big Sandy Lake. Dr. Susan Galatowitsch, University of Minnesota, working together with Jean Pitt at the Minnesota Extension Service submitted a proposal to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Section 319 funding in late 1994. The first year budget submitted for staffing, materials and expenses was approximately $33,000. Between January of 1995 and March of 1996 demonstration site selection, design, planting plans, plant ordering, harvesting and greenhouse propagation were accomplished, as well as environmental monitoring design and implementation and landowner information/ education were achieved. In the second year beginning in April 1996 demonstration site vegetation installation, monitoring of revegetation success, continuing environmental monitoring, extension education and project documentation will be accomplished ending in 2000, with the final report for the Phase I through III efforts. The Big Sandy Lake Association obtained seven volunteer landowners for the project. Of these seven, three were eliminated from the research portion of the study for the following reasons: structural needs (i.e. severe erosion necessitating major grading), high fetch coupled with pollution and very high wave impact as a result of an adjacent boat fueling station, or largely intact upland and aquatic vegetation. The latter site provides an "editing" site; an example of good management practices on a site before it drastic disturbance and to demonstrate the landscape quality of a "natural" lakeshore site. The four study sites vary in the degree of devegetation and the composition of horizontal structure in terms of relative amounts of upland, wet meadow, and emergent vegetation zone within each study area. They are similar in terms of all being relatively protected sites, and of a generally southerly aspect. Lake bottom soils vary from sandy to fine, with varying levels of organic matter and existing aquatic vegetation. THE DESIGN COMPONENT Early in the research process the extent of the "people factor" was strongly felt. Landowners wanted to know what this revegetation was going to look like, a question not generally encountered in the process of a scientific research project. It was clear that owner acceptance and appreciation of the visual aspect of the restoration was critical to long term vegetation survival. The properties would very likely be "un-revegetated" after study completion without this kind of "investment" in the project by the property owners. In response, Dr. Galatowitsch realized that this project needed a strong visual design strategy, and that the design would be integral to the success of the project. Julie Bargmann, a faculty member in the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University joined the project in the late Spring of 1995. This writer, a graduate student in landscape architecture was then brought on as project designer under Ms. Bargmann's direct supervision. Art and science thus met. From a design perspective, the importance of integrating the study area with the site as a whole is essential. Plant composition, form and placement of the revegetation design must exist in relationship to the individual site itself and the individuals that inhabit each place. Detailed interviews with landowners were conducted in order to learn exactly how they use their property so that these uses and desires would be maintained in the design. For example, one landowner told of how his grandchildren like to use the slope to the lake for sledding in the winter, an important factor to take into design consideration and something that might only emerge in a June encounter after long conversation and careful questions. This seemingly small piece of information about the personal side of a property had a decided effect on the final placement of the study area and spurred a recommendation to relocate a dock structure to accommodate it. Other examples of important design considerations were existing perennial gardens, dock and boat space and upland storage of these in winter, and the amount of mown turf needed for specific activities. A site design was developed which addresses both the study needs for comparability between sites for data collection and flexibility to account for differing proportions of upland, wet meadow or emergent vegetation zones as well as differing private land uses. This need for similarity in the service of research again accentuates the marriage of art and science in this project. The challenge is to create sites that will provide strong research data validity and are also distinctive, interesting and cohesive landscapes. REVEGETATION Planting will be begun on the study sites in June of 1996 as the lake level stabilizes. Plant species used to revegetate these lakeshores are native to the sites and the area surrounding Big Sandy Lake. As this information had not been cataloged previously, several sources were brought together to form a comprehensive plant list for the area: DNR Lake Survey Reports, University of Minnesota Herbarium (Aitkin County Flora, Savanna State Forest Flora and Savanna State Forest Flora-Big Sandy Lake), Ownbey and Morley "Vascular Plants of Minnesota," inventory and specimen collection on each study site and corresponding reference site, and personal observation. This resulted in an original list of approximately 500 plants. Plant inventories of each study site were performed in summer, 1995 to obtain common species and vertical structure found on demonstration and reference sites were performed. Revision and refinement of inventories coupled with the composite lists through the summer of 1995 produced a final list approximately 50 species, and specific plant lists for each study site. In the interest of minimal disturbance on the existing sites and development of soil binding root mass over the course of the first season, plants as opposed to seed mixes will be used and soils will not be amended. In addition to species requirements, concerns regarding local genotypes were also addressed through limiting plant acquisition to a 100-mile radius of Big Sandy Lake with preference to Aitkin County growers. Because the demand for these plant species is not common in the retail nursery business, some difficulty has been experienced in acquiring some species, particularly aquatics. In response to anticipated supply problems, several species have been cultivated at the University of Minnesota greenhouses for the project. THE AQUATIC GARDEN The design consists of three overlapping plant matrices: an upland, wet meadow and aquatic matrix. These matrices consist of the same plant species for each site though in different proportions as mentioned above. For example, within the upland matrix are a blend of woody species, forbs, graminoids and ferns such as Rosa acicularis, Amalanchier laevis, Ranunculus septentrionalis, Aster spp., Carex pensylvanica, Onoclea sensibilis and Thelypteris palustris. In the wet meadow Impatiens capensis, Iris versicolor, Viola spp., Carex lacustris and C. scoparia, Calamagrostis canadensis, Scirpus atrovirons and Onoclea sensibilis make up the matrix. In the emergent zone are Sagittaria latifolia, Potamogeton richardsonii and P. pectinatus, Sparganium eurycarpum, Vallisneria americana, and Scirpus validus. Within each matrix are "color patches" -concentrated plantings of one species per patch, three to five patches per matrix-that are unique to each site. These species include Aquilegia canadensis, Aronia melanocarpa and Uvularia grandiflora in the upland, Eupatorium purpureum, Caltha palustris and Stachys palustris in the wet meadow, and Acorus calamus, Brasenia schreberi and Nymphaea oderata in the emergent zone. The aquatic garden planting is knit together by a wave breaking structure consisting of a series of modular fence sections in a pattern of connected 'v's which connect the upland through the aquatic zone. The structure also serves to house environmental monitoring equipment as well. Additional posts placed between structure sections in the water will measure wave height. A second set of structure posts and monitoring posts without actual fence sections are sited adjacent to these, serving as the control site. A primary concern in designing these gardens and wave breaking structures was the creation of a system of revegetation that would be manageable by the landowner both physically and economically. Large equipment for installation and removal should not be required. It is also a goal of the project that the fence structures are attractive amenities during plant establishment and become available to other landowners as the plants in these initial sites become established. PROJECT ASSESSMENT: MONITORING Design of monitoring equipment and initial environmental monitoring has been done by Pat Lawton, a University student in biological sciences. It is planned that long term monitoring will be conducted by "Wave Watchers," a volunteer program of Big Sandy Lake residents. The need for local monitoring of environmental conditions is crucial to project success, especially in terms of severe weather data that can be generated suddenly and with little warning. Monitoring stations installed in the fall of 1995 have provided baseline soil and water data. Control and reference site monitoring will provide comparison data related to lake changes due to revegetation. Wave conditions, suspended solids, soil erosion and sediment measurement will contribute increased understanding about the role of environmental conditions on plant mortality. Survivorship and growth of installed vegetation, central to this study, will be measured periodically over the first summer (1996) by the researchers, and further data will be obtained the following spring on overwintering survival, critical for long term restoration. EDUCATION Detailed and ongoing information support to landowners regarding lake ecology and native plant communities are seen as another essential factor in addressing lake water quality issues. Minnesota Extension Service staff will be coordinating this informational support. The Big Sandy Lake Shoreland Revegetation Project has received notice via a Minnesota Extension Service videotape segment which was broadcast by satellite to viewers in 19 states. In addition, there are plans to develop an Internet resource for information on lakeshore revegetation, local and regional newspapers have reported on the project, and the slide collection from the project will be made available in print form as a reference for shoreland owners. Plans for development of an Internet resource for information on lakeshore revegetation are in process, and the slide collection from the project will be made available in print form as a reference for shoreland owners. CRITIQUE In critique, I think that the goals stated in then introduction to this paper are valuable and attainable ones. At the same time it needs clarification that it is not an expectation of this study to impact water quality on Big Sandy Lake. As this is a lake with many miles of shoreline, we do not expect that restoration of the vegetation on four, or even 20, 75-100 foot lot fronts would measurably improve water quality on the lake as a whole. We can, however, because of the current understanding of the ecological function of both littoral and upland intact vegetation, envision such an impact in the future if achievement of methods for successful plant establishment were coupled with a public awareness and commitment to large scale revegetation. On a regional or even larger landscape scale, there is the potential to improve the ecology of freshwater lake environments and protect this valuable landscape resource. PROJECT UPDATE This project is complete upon the receipt of final report. RICE LAKE AND LAKE KORONIS RESTORATION PROJECT (FFY 1997) This project will work with two lake associations in the watershed of the North Fork of the Crow. Activities to improve the water quality of Rice/Koronis lakes include best management practices to control erosion and nutrient loading to the lakes. The project includes work plan items for monitoring water quality, shoreline stabilization and vegetation, and home owner education. UPDATE 2000: The grant contract was executed on April 4, 1998. Second payment was received and a one year extension was granted on December 1999. The project was finished as of September 30, 2000. A final report is in progress and final payment will be made when all contract obligations have been met. ACCELERATED WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FFY 1999) Brief Description: This project will work with agricultural producers in targeted sub-watersheds of the Sauk River Watershed to assist them in applying conservation practices to solve high priority water quality problems. The targeted sub-watersheds include Cetchell, Stony, Unnamed, Lower Middle Sauk River, Edenvalley-Lower Sauk and Roscoe Prairie. The project includes work plan items for monitoring water quality within these subwatersheds (conducted by the Sauk River Watershed District) and the purchase of GIS computer equipment and software to help track land use implementation activities and water quality data. Brief History: The grant contract was executed on December 29, 1999. First payment of the grant contract to the project sponsor occurred in April 2000. The project is scheduled to end on Sept. 30, 2002. The August 2000 progress report notes that monitoring is continuing and the computer equipment and software has been purchased. In addition, 1 feedlot project has been completed (FLEVAL rating reduced from 44 to 0), 2 other feedlot pollution abatement systems are in progress and an erosion control project is under construction. An educational activity was conducted in August for local agricultural producers. This consisted of a Manure Utilization and Conservation Tillage Demonstration field day. Partners in this effort included University of Minnesota Extension Service, NRCS and Stearns County Soil and Water Conservation District. Additional feedlot pollution abatement and erosion control practices will be installed until funds are expended. 319 Project: Accelerated Water Quality Improvement Program" Contract # RQ R32 3170 0000131-01------4/24/97 This project submitted a Final Report on 1/7/00 5 feedlots with FLEVAL ratings ranging from 33-40 had pollution prevention practices installed that reduced the FLEVAL rating to 0. 2 gully erosion projects were installed that reduced erosion by 518 tons per acre. Monitoring in conjunction with the Sauk River Watershed District was completed. LAKESHED EROSION CONTROL COST-SHARE PROGRAM (FFY 1998) The purpose of this initiative will be to provide funding to demonstrate and apply lower cost options for land treatment practices to control sediment and nutrient loading in lake watersheds. The Lakeshed Erosion Control Project will provide grants to a maximum to ten SWCDs in the state to provide cost-share opportunities to landowners for erosion control and nutrient reduction practices. Working with a local Lake Association and the County Water Planning task force, the SWCD will target a specific lake watershed and inventory opportunities to implement lower cost BMPs. Fencing of livestock, pasture management techniques, vegetative buffer planting, and lakescaping projects will be marketed to landowners in the watershed at a 75% cost-share rate. Based on the low cost nature of these projects, and the fact that they are targeted within a lake watershed, we hope to successfully demonstrates that significant reductions in sediment and nutrients entering a targeted lake can be achieved with a modest public investment. These demonstration projects will work in concert with existing information and education activities in local county comprehensive water plans. Update 2000: This project is complete upon receipt of final report. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THROUGH SHORELAND STEWARDSHIP IN THE LAKE BEMIDJI WATERSHED (FFY 1998) The Shoreland BMPs manuals continue to be distributed to new lakeshore owners. This information has created new lake protection advocates with realtors, developers, County Environmental Services staff and the public. No new training classes were held in the year 2000. The information distributed through this project has helped to foster the interest in and ultimate formation of the Turtle River Watershed Association. This advocacy group represents the homeowners on 11 developing lakes north of Bemidji. PROJECT UPDATE This project is complete upon receipt of final report. CONSERVATION TILLAGE GUIDELINES FOR THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN (FFY 1999) The Board of Water and Soil Resources over the past year has worked with the NRCS, local SWCDs and others to make progress on several items. A part-time resource professional was hired to coordinate all aspects for the tillage transect program for the crop years of 2000 and 2001. The use of the transect tillage program was expanded from 43 to 74 SWCDs and counties in 2000, achieving the work plan goal. NRCS was instrumental in making this possible. BWSR is presently negotiating a contract to investigate the use of satellite imagery to determine crop residue after planting at a 30 meter pixel. If successful, this alternative approach would help to overcome one of the key challenges faced: keeping SWCDs and counties conducting transect surveys over a long period of time. Data from the 2000 transect survey has been organized and presented in maps and charts to effectively display the results and to compare with previous years. The percent of corn and soybean fields meeting residue targets statewide has remained fairly constant at 37-38% in 1999 and 2000, respectively. BWSR is working with SWCDs to improve the use of the survey for other crops and to promote consistent field survey methods among counties. BWSR conducted training events for conducting the survey at 3 locations in the north, and showed SWCDs how results can be used at 5 area meetings throughout the state. COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SHORELAND VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT TECHNIQUES (FFY 1999) During the spring of 1999 the SWCD in partnership with Bemidji State University developed a study to examine various lakeshore soil stabilization treatments. The project was design for implementation on an eroding shoreline along the southwest side of Lake Bemidji. During the summer of 1999, 15 different plots were staked out and planted with native Forbes and grasses using a variety of different site preparations and planting techniques. The effectiveness of the different planting techniques for establishment of the riparian buffer, and the effectiveness of the buffers in stabilizing the shoreline will be monitored during the study period. During the early winter of 1999, the project site experienced a significant erosion event due to ice action. The ice heaving that occurred scoured the aquatic vegetation and undermined the stability of the bank causing significant slumping and loss of terrestrial vegetation. The remaining 319 funds for this project will be augmented with other funds to install toe protection and re-establish upland vegetation at the site. This work is scheduled to be designed and monitored by students and their professor at Bemidji State University. The SWCD intends to install rock toe protection early this spring and to replant the test plots by June 1, 2001. RIVER FRIENDLY FARMER EXPANSION (FFY 1999) The purpose of the current proposal is to further the reach of the River Friendly Farmer program through the close involvement of the Minnesota FFA. This organization has close ties to agricultural education programs in high schools throughout Minnesota, and with county FFA chapters of high school students. The current proposal would fund the development of a school curriculum centered on the River-Friendly Farmer program, with a strong focus on its 10 key criteria which cover soil management, nutrient management, pesticide management and general conformance with state and local environmental regulations. The University of Minnesota, Agricultural Education Department, has expressed an interest in developing such a curriculum, and has suggested a graduate student could be funded to perform the task in a manner that meets the requirements of state-licensed agricultural instructors. Besides providing information on the River-Friendly Farmer criteria, the curriculum would provide guidance for local FFA chapters to join with county conservation professionals in managing the River-Friendly Farmer program locally. FFA chapters would be encouraged to develop and maintain relationships with such professionals, and make a chapter program out of the River-Friendly Farmer program. This kind of participation has the potential to greatly expand the River-Friendly Farmer program, and in so doing to educate farmers and the broader public on agricultural best management practices for water quality improvement and protection. Update 2000: This project is expected to be completed by 2002 CD-7 & CD-32 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROJECT (FFY 1999) This project will work with agricultural producers to install best management practices to improve water quality and control erosion on two county ditches that drain into Grove and Rice/Koronis Lakes. The project includes work plan items for monitoring water quality, feedlot improvements, erosion control and education within the subwatersheds of the two ditches. Brief History: The grant contract was executed on October 19, 2000. The project is scheduled to end on Sept. 30, 2002. No payments have been made yet. There was some work started this past summer, primarily installation of drop pipes on the ditches along with re-sloping and re-shaping and permanent vegetation to stabilize the sideslopes. Monitoring was also started this summer. CHAIN OF LAKES ALUM (FFY 1999) Monitoring of Eurasian watermilfoil densities has been ongoing. Several technical and public meetings have been held for project discussion. Alum treatment is scheduled for Spring 2001 to be followed by evaluation monitoring. Additionally, an education effort is being developed to inform public officials and citizens of the role of plant communities in aquatic systems. LONG/SPRING LAKES - SHORELINE STABILIZATION PROJECT (FFY 1999) The purpose of the project is to improve lake water quality by reducing shoreline erosion and non-point nutrient loading. Ten lake properties will provide demonstration sites that will hopefully encourage additional property owners to reduce shoreline erosion and nutrient loading at their shoreline properties with adoption of similar Best Management Practices. This Project is the result of recommendations of the Dassel Area Environmental Association Steering Committee, Meeker County Parks, MDNR, and MPCA. Completion of the ten shoreline buffer areas will occur at privately owned, city owned and county owned properties on Long and Spring lakes in Meeker County, Minnesota. The Spring Lake watershed includes the City of Dassel. Best Management Practices will include placement of vegetation and erosion control measures along shorelines of sites selected based on need by the Project participants. The ten sites include the revegetation of shorelines. A city of Dassel site includes stabilization of a steep bank at the end of a cul-de-sac (including installation of a drop culvert structure) which will prevent the further erosion of an existing ditch and the drop culvert structure will also provide sediment removal. Other measures completed include distribution of an educational brochure, the adoption a no-phosphorus/proper yard waste management ordinance and the enforcement of those ordinances by the city of Dassel. * Project goals: Complete the selection, design, construction, and revegetation at ten shore line buffer areas with the cash and in-kind help of homeowners, city, county and state staff. Provide educational materials to people in the watershed, and adopt/enforce the new ordinances. * Project update summary/bullets (take from semi annual reports, include date): - Boat tour of Long and Spring lakes to select sites for Shoreline Restoration, June/July 1998. - Water quality monitoring, June 1999 through September 2002 (the end of the 319/CWP) and beyond. - City of Dassel began increased frequency of street sweeping, increased from 2x/yr to 4x/yr beginning spring 2000. - Spring Lake Watershed Awareness Project brochure completed and distributed, fall 1999. - No phosphorus fertilizer and no discharge of debris (grass clippings etc.) in city's curb and gutter ordinance drafted, adopted, and enforcement (will be fined) by city of Dassel, spring 2000. - MDNR Lakescaping Book distributed to all prospective shoreline property landowners, spring 1999. - Site 2, Long Lake: Plans completed, DNR permit issued, rotten timbers removed, shoreline stabilized, a lot of lawn into Lakescaping concepts during summer/fall 2000. Still has vegetation that needs to be planted spring/summer 2001. - Site 3, Long Lake. Plans completed some construction commenced by Dassel Township, September 2000. - Site 4, Long Lake. Shoreline owner had completed a phase I prior to 319 grant. Their phase II doubled the area the shoreland area restored, completed fall 2000. - Site 5, Spring Lake. Plans completed February 2000. DNR sprayed area with Rodeo purchase by Meeker Co. fall 2000. Plant area spring/summer 2001. - Site 6, Spring Lake. Plans completed, steep bank stabilized, gully replaced with drop tile structure/grit chamber. Most of work completed fall 2000. - Site 8, Spring Lake. Plans completed summer 2000. Work to commence summer 2001. - Site 9, Spring Lake. Plans completed summer 2000. Work to commence spring/summer 2001. RUM RIVER - EQIP (FFY 1999) This project will work with Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the watershed of the Rum River to provide cost share assistance for projects to control or eliminate erosion and other poor water quality practices. The project includes work plan items for administration, landowner contacts and contracts, education, BMP design and installation, progress monitoring. $15,000 was dedicated to education/demonstration projects, the rest is dedicated to cost-share and BMP assistance including administration. Brief History: The grant contract was executed on October 29, 1999. First payment of the grant contract to the project sponsor occurred in April 2000. The project is scheduled to end on September 30, 2002. As of October 19, 2000, the project had an un-encumbered balance of $25,151.07 in the project cost-share category and a $4133.62 balance in the education/demonstration projects category. Twenty-eight projects have been accepted into the program. Eight of the projects have been completed, three of them are partially completed, and the others will be worked on next summer. Three education/ demonstration projects have been completed. There have been no changes to the workplan. End date will be September 30, 2002, depending on how the construction season goes. BIG TEN MISSISSIPPI - EQIP (FFY 1999) They have spent all but $18,000+ of the first phase $139,000 (this of a total of $330,000 awarded). They planned on having all of it spent by now, but ran into some weather problems on a project in Todd County. Eleven projects (ag waste, critical area stabilization, pasture management & a well sealing) in a three county area of Todd, Morrison and Crow Wing have been completed. The fourth county, Aitkin, has not submitted any projects for consideration. The remaining $18,000+ should be spent this spring. They will be applying in May/June (once the first phase dollars are expended) for the second part of the $330,000. So far, they have 3 ag waste projects and one shoreline stabilization project lined up in the three counties for the second phase. Weather permitting, they hope to have all of the second phase dollars spent in 2001. For all of the feedlot/ag waste projects, they are trying to get applicants to apply for additional cost-share dollars available from the state feedlot program. When this occurs, the 319 dollars go further. CROW RIVER WATERSHED WQ ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (FFY 2000) The Crow River Watershed is part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin located in the central part of Minnesota. Approximately 1,810,300 acres of the Crow River Watershed drains into the Mississippi River at Dayton, Minnesota. The largest ownership of land within the Crow River Watershed is private land consisting of about 1,602,200 acres. Various federal, state, county, and local units of government own about 63,900 acres in the Crow River Watershed. The rest of the 199,000 acres is water. Private lands are mostly comprised of cash crop and/or livestock producers. The average size farm varies from 152 acres to 327 acres. Approximately 60 percent of the cropland is extensively planted to corn and soybeans. Total animal units exceeds 230,000 in the Crow River Watershed. Approximately 800 feedlots are contaminating surface waters. The watersheds two primary concerns are surface water quality -animal waste and soil quality- excessive sheet/rill erosion. The first concern is targeted to correct feedlot runoff emptying into waters of the state. The second concern is to reduce soil erosion by installing practices which brings the soil loss below tolerable levels. The ultimate objective of the Crow River Watershed Project is to implement land use changes that will improve the water quality and quantity issues in the watershed while also promoting a healthy agricultural, industrial and recreation-based economy for the region. The objective of this initial watershed implementation project is to plan and apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) through cooperative partnerships that lead to continued public support for BMPs and watershed restoration. Project update/summary: Activities between October 1999-October 1, 2000 A 319 work group consisting of staff from County Planning and Zoning offices, local NRCS and SWCD offices, Prairie Country RC&D, and the C.R.O.W. was formed. The work group reviews potential projects, determines if they are suitable for funding. The group works to make sure that the projects meet 319 specifications, and that the projects will provide benefits to the watershed. * Activities completed during last 6 months: Dates covered by the following statement: October 1, 1999 (the beginning of the grant) through (October 1, 2000). No actual projects were completed during this time period because the 319 grant funds were not received until the end of September 2000. FEEDLOT POLLUTION ABATEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE (FFY 2000) Brief Narrative Description of Project Objective: Work with agricultural producers located within shoreland and coarse textured soils regions of Stearns County in applying conservation practices to solve high priority non-point pollution problems. A large portion of the grant funds would be dedicated to assist producers with private consultant costs incurred when securing permits for manure storage structures. Update 2000: This project is just beginning. ASHLEY CREEK AND HOBOKEN CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FFY 2000) In the upper portion of the Sauk River Watershed District lie two tributaries that drain into the Sauk River and Big Sauk Lake (flowage lake of the Sauk River). These tributaries drain an intensively farmed area, and carry large amounts of sediment and nutrients into the Sauk River and Big Sauk Lake. Based on the water quality data from 1982 (MPCA study), 1990 (U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers by section 602 of Public law 99-662) and the 1992 (Diagnostic Study) studies, the Sauk River Watershed District has targeted the following subwatersheds for technical and cost share assistance: Ashley Creek and Hoboken Creek. The agricultural runoff and sedimentation from these two creeks are the primary sources of nutrient loading to the Sauk River and Big Sauk Lake. According to the 1992 Diagnostic Study, Ashley and Hoboken Creeks contribute approximately 88% of the Phosphorus loading to Big Sauk Lake. The primary source of nutrients (predominantly phosphorus) and sediment, which enter the Sauk River and Big Sauk Lake, is from the agricultural and feedlot runoff during the spring thaws and rainstorms. The 1992 Study indicated that Hoboken Creek has 19 feedlots, with 9 feedlots having a rating higher than 30. Ashley Creek has 22 feedlots with 17 feedlots having a rating higher than 30 (8 rating higher than 40 and 2 rating higher than 50). The 1999 Fleval ratings for these feedlots are still between 30 and 40. The MPCA has classified Big Sauk Lake (based on diagnostic data) as borderline Hypereutrophic when compared to the Ecoregion average in-lake Total Phosphorus levels. According to the latest studies, unless a major reduction in nutrient and sediment loading is transpired, "swimming impaired" conditions will likely continue and "no recreation" conditions may be encountered which would cause immediate economic consequences on the local area (particularly to the city of Sauk Centre, which is located directly on Big Sauk Lake and the Sauk River). The objective of this project is to work with the agricultural producers in the Ashley and Hoboken Creek subwatersheds and assist them in applying conservation practices to solve high priority water quality problems to Ashley and Hoboken Creeks and ultimately the Sauk River and Big Sauk Lake. The Mission of the Sauk River Watershed District is "Water Quality is Our Concern" and this agency has demonstrated the capability to create effective partnerships for improving water quality. These efforts have been most recently demonstrated by successfully completing the EPA Clean Lake Program Phase I investigations on the Horseshoe Chain of Lakes, Big Birch Lake and the Osakis and Sauk Lake Diagnostic Studies in Central Minnesota. As a certified local unit of government officially designated to preserve the lakes and streams within the watershed, the Sauk River Watershed District has access to a wide range of local experience and technical resources and support for the implementation of this project. As shown in the Stearns County Comprehensive Local Water Plan, this project is consistent with the county's goals and objectives. Update 2000: This project is just beginning. MISSISSIPPI HEADWATERS BOARD NPS REMEDIATION EFFORT (FFY 2000) Proposed work plan which includes: Based on the results of the 1998 Erosion Inventory of the Mississippi Headwaters, the counties with the most serious erosion problems will implement plans to stabilize shorelines with riparian plantings, and implement educational workshops for Best Management Practices of shorelines in Crow Wing and Morrison County. Forested areas will be addressed by conducting workshops and educational sessions with materials for all 8 counties. In addition, MHB will recommend approval of forest management plans for harvesting timber in the MHB corridor, which implement the BMPs. Educational workshops on BMPs for agri-forestry and hobby farming will be conducted throughout the MHB corridor during the summer and fall of 1999. The costs here will be supplemented by a $9,500 EQIP grant, received from Minnesota extension service designed to help the small (less than 40 acres) farmer decrease nutrient loading and shoreline erosion in all 8 counties. The negative impacts of small noncomforming lots platted in the 1930's is an historic non-point source (NPS) problem due to high water tables, sandy soils, shallow private wells, and steep slopes in riparian zones, that are unable to adequately sustain construction of an adequate Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS). The lots are too small to accommodate one ISTS. If one system fails it is impossible to find space to relocate a replacement. The cumulative effects negatively impact drinking water in many cases with high nitrates, fecal counts, and occasionally chloride and phosphorus levels. For those clustered sites in jeopardy, we propose siting and designing off-site wastewater collection systems in Hubbard and Cass counties. Update 2000: This project is just beginning. Active Statewide Nonpoint Source Projects SUMMARY OF ACTIVE NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS TILLAGE TRANSECT PROGRAM (FFY 1999) The Board of Water and Soil Resources over the past year has worked with the NRCS, local SWCDs and others to make progress on several items. A part-time resource professional was hired to coordinate all aspects for the tillage transect program for the crop years of 2000 and 2001. The use of the transect tillage program was expanded from 43 to 74 SWCDs and counties in 2000, achieving the work plan goal. NRCS was instrumental in making this possible. BWSR is presently negotiating a contract to investigate the use of satellite imagery to determine crop residue after planting at a 30-meter pixel. If successful, this alternative approach would help to overcome one of the key challenges faced: keeping SWCDs and counties conducting transect surveys over a long period of time. Data from the 2000 transect survey has been organized and presented in maps and charts to effectively display the results and to compare with previous years. The percent of corn and soybean fields meeting residue targets statewide has remained fairly constant at 37-38% in 1999 and 2000, respectively. BWSR is working with SWCDs to improve the use of the survey for other crops and to promote consistent field survey methods among counties. BWSR conducted training events for conducting the survey at 3 locations in the north, and showed SWCDs how results can be used at 5 area meetings throughout the state. BENEFITS AND IMPACT OF CHEMICAL TREATMENT (FFY 1999) This project is to evaluate implementation of storm water inflow treatment with chemical precipitants for phosphorus removal. The primary focus of the evaluation is directed toward alum however ferric chloride is included also. The evaluation includes treatment efficiency fate of floc and floc management. The first activity was a literature review followed by performance monitoring of operating systems and lab studies. Brief history - The literature search has been completed and is being compiled into a literature review. Field monitoring of operating systems has been completed. Lab evaluations have also been completed. Final project reports - A draft final report is nearly written and should be received in January 2001. Product List - A May 5, 2000 project update is provided with this report. A final report should be ready for submittal to EPA by July 2001. OPTIONS FOR SOLVING WASTEWATER PROBLEMS IN UNSEWERED AREAS (FFY 1999) Update: Project on hold. Author of project no longer available. IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCALLY ADMINISTERED NITRATE TESTING AND EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH FOR RURAL WELLOWNERS (FFY 1999) In 1993, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture developed a 'walk-in' style of water testing clinic with the goal of increasing public awareness of nitrates in rural drinking and livestock water supplies. The clinic concept went statewide in 1997 with a two-year grant from the Environment and Natural Resource Trust Fund administered through the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR). Since July 1, 1999, 319 funding has provided financial assistance to continue the program. The clinic concept revolves around a number of simple principles: local participation is critical; testing is free to the public with immediate results; the overall program needs to be inexpensive; a non-regulatory atmosphere is important and well owners may remain anonymous; and the staff's most important goal is to provide the required technical assistance across a diverse audience of well owners. Results from the testing has also provided some broad information on the occurrence of nitrate 'hotspots' across the state along with educating the public Project Results In 1999, the program provided water testing services and technical assistance to fifty-three (53) counties by hosting 116 clinics. A total of 6,278 samples were tested. The year 2000 hosted 106 clinics in 53 counties for a total of 4,845 samples tested. The statewide average percent of samples exceeding the Health Limit of 10 ppm NO3-N for both 1999 and 2000 was 10 percent. Since the MDA Nitrate Well Testing program was developed, a total of 73 of Minnesota's 87 counties have sponsored clinics. An average of 55 counties participate each year. Over 33,500 samples have been tested at 536 clinics over the past eight years. MINNESOTA NONPOINT SOURCE INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAM (FFY 1999) Minnesota's Nonpoint Source Management Plan (MNPSMP, 1994) education strategy outlined a four year information and education strategy to address the adult population in the state. This project is a continuation of the third year of that strategy. The Nonpoint Source Information & Education Coordinator will provide leadership for educational programming to reduce nonpoint source pollutants in the state, including coordinating educational initiatives among state agencies and establishing a communication mechanism with key local entities that will ensure long-term delivery of nonpoint source information and education in Minnesota (FY 1996 Plan of Cooperation, To The Memorandum of Understanding Between Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Extension Service). Implementation Task. Minnesota's Nonpoint Source Information and education project is changing with MPCA's reorganization and integrating the agency's five year hydrological basin planning transition (MPCA, 1996). This project remains an implementation process, i.e., coordinating, informing and working with University of Minnesota Extension Educators to implement nonpoint source outreach activities as part of their county and cluster plans of work. How the project will move toward quantifiable load reduction It makes sense to focus public resources for pollution reduction efforts that contribute a disproportionate mass of pollutants to the water body in question. The marginal productivity of our pollutant reduction efforts is likely to be highest in these circumstances. An excellent opportunity exists for information and education activities in initiating and evaluating which TMDL reduction strategies are appropriate to local areas through the proposed Short-Form TMDL (MPCA, 1999). In conjunction with Minnesota's TMDL approach, the 1998 Impaired Waters List (per Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act provides an excellent starting place where load reductions can be quantified for each hydrological basin. The proposed project is integrated with existing programs to control NPS pollution. The major focus of this project is to facilitate and improve the coordination between partners and maximize the sharing of programs across watersheds. The original educational strategy is now more closely aligned with the following existing projects and programs across the state: - The University of Minnesota Extension Service Environment and Natural Resources Specialized Extension Educators - River Friendly Farmer program - Natural Resource Conservation Service EQIP Educational Program - Several Clean Water Partnership Phase II projects - Several other Section 319 Projects, e.g., Pollution Reduction Payments in Jefferson-German Complex and Lake Washington This Project has a Significant Information and Education Component. This project is 100 percent information and education. It is a continuation of the third year of the statewide information and education strategy. Education cannot be viewed as a separate element of a nonpoint source management plan, but just one of the many steps that must be taken to meet water quality or environmental goals. In facts, education is an integral part of many existing programs. Simply stated, an effective educational program is required because none of our other implementation programs (incentives, regulations, etc.) will work correctly without it. Drawing from recent research in a watershed in the Minnesota River basin (Napier and Tucker, 1999) suggest that environmental programs that demonstrate to farmers that they will not have to internalize additional risks by adopting conservation production systems and that conservation production systems can be profitable will have a higher probability of adopting recommended production systems. Furthermore, programs within the Minnesota watershed will probably be more effective with farmers who value technical assistance. In contrast to the findings of watersheds in Ohio and Iowa, Napier and Tucker's study indicate that perceptions of profitability and risk associated with adoption of conservation production systems at the farm level have been important in the adoption decision making process within the Minnesota watershed. "Conservation initiatives within the Minnesota watershed would be well advised to emphasize the economic benefits and costs when attempting to motivate land owner-operators to adopt conservation production systems." Based on Previous Assessment For the 84 Minnesota counties responding, the water planners indicate that educational efforts are about one-quarter complete for the three major water pollutants. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL WATER MANAGEMENT: ON-FARM DEMO (FFY 2000) Farmers are addressing both their water and soil management plans while complying with additional requirements for society's need for cleaner water and air. Farmers and others have been adopting "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) on the land along with state and federal conservation programs to help address or reduce erosion, nutrients and other potential contaminants from their operations. Their actions have resulted in some improvements of water quality for nearby water resources. However, in many settings due to the water resource needs or the nature of the watershed topography, soils, hydrology and other factors, additional treatments and/or new technologies may be needed to reach water quality and local water storage goals. WETLAND PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL (FFY 2000) Funding would be provided to four local Soil & Water Conservation Districts to provide the technical assistance with Federal Swampbuster provisions in heavy wetland workload areas. A strong preference will be towards multi-county assistance. The NRCS will formulate individual cooperative agreements with each district that will address local wetland concerns and issues. A Minnesota Conservation District has been partnering with the NRCS for the last several years. They have laid the groundwork for specific tasks to be accomplished. This pilot effort was viewed as very successful by the SWCD board landowners, contractors and NRCS. The time period for this grant will follow the federal fiscal year from October 1, 1999, to October 1, 2000. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT ANNUAL REPORTING SYSTEM (LARS) (FFY 2000) Project Objective: Determining the effectiveness of water quality best management practices (BMP) and tracking the associated pollutant reductions has been a difficult task for state and local governments in Minnesota. The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in collaboration with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in 1995 began development of a computerized pollutant reduction tracking system. The program estimates and tracks, by local governmental unit and geographic location, pollutant reductions for phosphorous. Phosphorus reductions are calculated using standard sheet, rill, and gully soil erosion equations. Phosphorus reductions from resultant feedlot projects can also be calculated. The Local Governmental Unit Annual Reporting System (LARS) reporting program also tracks BMPs implementation costs, funding partners technical assistance, education & information, monitoring, inventory, and regulatory activities completed on an annual basis. The primary objectives of this LARS proposal is to: 1) Establish data, by geographic location, on the pollutant reductions of BMPs installed by local governments in Minnesota through the implementation of LARS. 2) Link the LARS database with desktop Geographic Information System (GIS) to allow spatial analysis of installed BMPs. Further work is required to represent LARS data at watershed and basin scales. Tools for watershed modeling of priority pollutants and targeting projects will also be explored. 3) Further implementation of conservation projects will be determined based on pollutant credit estimations. Local government units will be able to determine project eligibility through pollutant crediting estimates and water resources data assessment. 4) Expand the use of LARS by the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources through cooperative efforts. 5) Develop program enhancements that will allow for estimating the pollutant reductions for wind erosion BMPs urban storm water BMPs and riparian/floodplain easements, wetland restorations. MINNESOTA GREEN RESORT PROGRAM (FFY 2000) The purpose of this program is to provide a coordinated, comprehensive educational resource for resort owners and operators throughout Minnesota. This project will address environmental regulations and concerns that affect their facilities, and best management practices that can be implemented to either prevent or mitigate degradation of water resources from resort facilities. Environmental concerns include, but are not limited to: 1) individual sewage treatment systems 2) underground and aboveground petroleum product storage tanks; 3) handling, dispensing, and proper disposal of petroleum products near waters; 4) drinking well installation, closure and sealing; 5) shoreline management for storm water runoff, lawn fertilizers, pesticides and aquatic plants; and 6) solid waste minimization, handling, and disposal. This will be a voluntary, two-step program that includes both a formal workshop with associated materials for education purposes, and an additional "Green Resort Certification." The certification which will include an actual audit of a resort's facilities and corrections as necessary along with implementation of an Environmental Best Management Standard. Update 2000: This project is just beginning. CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION (FFY 2000) Development is occurring at an ever-increasing pace throughout Minnesota. From the north shore of Lake Superior, to the lakes region of central Minnesota, to the urban fringes of the Twin Cities, and in rural centers in the heart of farm country. What once was forest or agricultural land is now a residential plat development, shopping mall, hotel or vacation home. With this type of development comes a whole host of natural resource management challenges: storm water management, ag land preservation, riparian area protection, urban erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, and stream and lake sedimentation just to name a few. Local governments are often required to oversee construction site erosion control and storm water management where zoning controls exist. There is a need to focus attention to these CSSM issues: (1) to train local officials in strategies to manage development while protecting the environment through development and enforcement of local ordinances and programs, and (2) to establish a certification process for local government and site practitioners of erosion control. Since construction site erosion control and storm water management are inextricably tied, we will combine them for this effort. Update 2000: This project is just beginning. RIVER-FRIENDLY FARMER CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT (1999) The purpose of the current proposal is to further the reach of the River Friendly Farmer program through the close involvement of the Minnesota FFA. This organization has close ties to agricultural education programs in high schools throughout Minnesota, and with county FFA chapters of high school students. The current proposal would fund the development of a school curriculum centered on the River-Friendly Farmer program, with a strong focus on its 10 key criteria which cover soil management, nutrient management, pesticide management and general conformance with state and local environmental regulations. The University of Minnesota, Agricultural Education Department, has expressed an interest in developing such a curriculum, and has suggested a graduate student could be funded to perform the task in a manner that meets the requirements of state-licensed agricultural instructors. Besides providing information on the River-Friendly Farmer criteria, the curriculum would provide guidance for local FFA chapters to join with county conservation professionals in managing the River-Friendly Farmer program locally. FFA chapters would be encouraged to develop and maintain relationships with such professionals, and make a chapter program out of the River-Friendly Farmer program. This kind of participation has the potential to greatly expand the River-Friendly Farmer program, and in so doing to educate farmers and the broader public on agricultural best management practices for water quality improvement and protection. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INCENTIVES FOR NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT (FFY 2000) The objective of this proposal is, through training, technical assistance and traditional cost-share/incentive assistance, to enable farmers to implement nutrient management practices through an enhanced working relationship with agronomic professionals, agency and locally-led Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) staff in one or more priority watersheds in Minnesota. Update 2000: This project is just beginning. PRIORITY NONPOINT SOURCE ISSUES AND CONCERNS IN MINNESOTA (AN UDATE AND REPORT ON WHO IS DOING WHAT) Table cells that are blank in the following Priority Nonpoint Source Issue tables are under review in the drafting of Minnesota's 2001 Nonpoint Source Plan (Plan), and will be filled-in/included in the final Plan to the extent possible. FEEDLOTS The following Table provides the Goals and Action Steps included in the 1994 Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan (NSMPP). The Products, Services and Outcomes Column provides information on the accomplishments, progress and status of those recommended 1994 action steps. Implementation of all action steps is contingent upon adequate funding and local involvement. Goal 1: To Further Develop and Maintain Forums for Communication between Agencies and Groups with Interests and Responsibilities Related to Animal Production, Manure Management, And Related Aspects of Pollution Control. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Establish Feedlot and Manure Management Advisory Committee (FMMAC) in response to recent legislation. This committee will replace the informal advisory group known as the Feed Lot Advisory Group (FLAG). The primary purpose of this advisory committee is to receive input from affected parties outside of government regarding programs and policies related to feedlot and manure management. Meetings will likely be held quarterly or as needed. MPCA MDA MPCA MDA BWSR FMMAC was established in 1994 and meets regularly. The FMMAC has advised on improvements to the feedlot rules, research and strategies for odor measurement and mitigation and other research needs. 2. Continue use of task forces for review of specific issues as they arise, such as earthen basin standards, manure stockpiling issues, land application of manure, alternatives methods of runoff treatment, manure storage in karst areas, and effects of turkey ranges on ground water. MPCA MDA BWSR UMES MPCA MDA UMES Ongoing efforts of FMMAC and others Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 3. Establish and formalize a Feedlot and Manure Management Coordinating Committee (FMMCC) to coordinate efforts of the various state and federal agencies involved in these issues. MPCA MPCA MDA BWSR This effort is done through FMMAC, with continued formal and informal coordination between agencies. 4. Develop a system of "one-stop shopping" for producers required to apply for permits for construction and operation of animal confinement facilities. MPCA MDA BWSR MPCA MDA BWSR Revisions to MN Rule Chapter 7020 allow counties to handle all permitting activities up to 1000 animal units, making the delegated county a "one stop shop" for most of the feedlot permitting work in that county. Goal 2: Establish, Maintain or Improve Effective Education and Technical Assistance Programs to Provide Consistent Information Regarding Water Quality Impacts from Animal Confinement and Manure Storage Facilities. Targeted Program Audiences would Include Producers; Contractors; Federal, State and Local Government Agency Staff; Educators and Consultants. Local Staff Include CFO's, Zoning Officials, Water Planning Staff, etc. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Distribute statewide guidance and information materials for producers regarding: - regulatory programs; - technical and financial assistance programs; - BMPs for water quality protection from animal production activities, such as filter strips and controlled grazing; MPCA MDA BWSR NRCS UMES 319 MPCA MDA BWSR Ongoing. The Internet is a valuable tool for this sort of work, and is being used increasingly effectively. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 2. Periodic (e.g. annual) training sessions for target audiences on the issues such as: - regulatory programs; - financial and technical assistance programs; - BMPs for manure storage, treatment and land application; - assessment and inspections of animal confinement and manure storage facilities for potential pollution hazards; - strategies for resolution of pollution hazards; - design and construction of manure storage structures and pollution abatement systems; - alternative methods of pollution abatement or prevention; - relative costs of various types of pollution abatement and manure management systems. Audiences should include producers, federal, state and local government agency staff; lenders; realtors; equipment sales staff; consultants; extension service staff; contractors; and others interested in these issues. MPCA MDA BWSR NRCS UMES 319 MPCA MDA UMES 319 MPCA MPCA MDA BWSR Ongoing. Training is a key component of rule revision implementation at MPCA. Recent 319 grant allows UMES to provide grants and training to local officials so they can put on county-based producer workshops to educate on the new requirements. Joint training for regulatory and technical assistance staff is ongoing. 3. Coordinate preparation and development of guidance and information materials on manure management with Agricultural Nutrient Management Team. MDA MDA MPCA UMES Not Done 4. Develop and distribute guidance materials for local government on planning and zoning issues related to construction of animal production facilities. MDA UMES BWSR 319 MDA MPCA UMES BWSR Ongoing Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 5. Develop process to evaluate effectiveness of Feedlot Education, Information and Technical Assistance Programs and activities. BWSR MDA NRCS 319 BWSR MDA MPCA Not Done, but will be a key feature of the new MPCA feedlot program. MPCA staff has worked with consultants from the Green Mountain Institute to establish appropriate measures of effectiveness for the MPCA feedlot program as administered with their regulatory partners. 6. Provide private consultants with information about requirements for development of pollution abatement systems under federal and state cost-share programs. MPCA MDA BWSR UMES NRCS 319 MPCA MDA BWSR UMES NRCS Ongoing 7. Develop training programs for consultants and contractors on: - earthen basin design and construction; (Ongoing) - concrete pit design and construction;(Ongoing) - manure stockpile area design and construction; and - vegetated filter strip design and construction. NRCS FSA UMES BWSR MPCA 319 MPCA NRCS Earthen basin and concrete pit design and construction training programs are ongoing. Manure stockpile and some vegetated filter strip activities are not done. FLEVAL training addresses filter strip analysis. 8. Identify and promote new partnerships and improved methods for delivery of technical assistance to producers BWSR UMES MPCA BWSR UMES NRCS Ongoing (Joint Powers Engineers) 9. Evaluate need for and seek funding and approval for additional staff to provide technical assistance to producers in design of pollution abatement systems. BWSR MDA UMES MPCA MDA BWSR UMES Ongoing 10. Promote use of alternative animal production methods as a means of pollution prevention such as controlled grazing of pastures. MDA MPCA, 319 NRCS UMES BWSR MDA MPCA BWSR NRCS Ongoing Goal 3: Increase And Improve The Information And Options Available For Design And Assessment Of Animal Confinement And Manure Storage Areas To Minimize Or Eliminate Impacts On Water Quality. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Research and evaluate ground and surface water effects of vegetated filter strips used for treatment of manure-polluted water. MPCA MDA NRCS MDA UM MPCA Some work has been done. 2. Research and evaluate effects of earthen basins and other types of manure storage structures or areas (e.g. concrete pits and stockpile areas) on ground and surface water. MDA MPCA UM MDA has funded a study by the U of M of seepage from concrete pits. A USGS report was issued in early 2000 on seepage from earthen basis. MPCA has been conducting monitoring at storage structures to determine ground water impacts. 3. Evaluate the Feedlot Evaluation Model computer program for uses in regulatory programs, and develop a more effective ground water evaluation component. MPCA NRCS 319 MPCA The Feedlot Evaluation Model has been evaluated for use in the recent rule revisions, but the ground water component has not been improved. 4. Develop a survey of existing management practices and attitudes regarding animal manure collection, storage and utilization. MDA UMES 319 MDA FANMAP of MDA performs detailed, limited area surveys of nutrient management practices. A UM Extension survey reviewed manure management practices. 5. Review standards and recommendations on animal waste management to ensure that these documents reflect current knowledge and research in Minnesota or areas similar to Minnesota. MDA MPCA UMES 319 MPCA MDA BWSR UMES Ongoing: 7020 rules update, GEIS, NRCS standards update 6. Research and evaluate alternative ways to treat manure feedlot runoff and dead animals. MDA MDA UM MDA animal mortality composting publication and demonstrations. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 7. Develop software to improve efficiency and uniformity of structural designs for manure storage structures. MPCA 319 MPCA The MPCA has developed software on concrete manure pit design that can be used by regulators or designers. 8. Compile an inventory of livestock and poultry facilities. MPCA 319 EQB MPCA Ongoing, both through the GEIS and in MPCA's registration program. 9. Evaluate need for research on water quality impacts of abandoned feedlots and manure storage areas. MPCA MPCA UM Not done Goal 4: To Establish Flexible Programs for Financial Assistance Used to Correct Pollution Hazards from Animal Confinement and Manure Storage Areas Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Examine and develop sources of funding for: - installation of pollution control systems - relocation or retirement of facilities where correction of pollution hazards is not practical or economical - purchase of easements restricting use of facilities to prevent further pollution (with consent of landowner) (with consent of landowner) MPCA 319 MDA MPCA BWSR Ongoing MDA and BWSR activities 2. Identify sources and increase funding used to provide technical assistance for design of pollution control facilities BWSR MDA BWSR MDA Joint Powers Engineers program. 3. Assess and, if appropriate, develop programs to provide tax credits for installation and use of pollution control systems MPCA MPCA Not done 4. State Revolving Fund program of low-cost loans for manure management and feedlot pollution abatement practices. State Revolving Fund (SRF) MDA MPCA In place and ongoing Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 5. Implement grant program for administration of the feedlot permit program at the county level MPCA MPCA In place and ongoing 6. Develop and improve methods to prioritize utilization of financial assistance. MPCA MPCA MDA BWSR Not done Goal 5: To Provide Clear, Consistent Guidance and Requirements Related To Control Of Pollution from Animal Confinement and Manure Storage Facilities. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Assess and when necessary revise current standards for construction of manure storage facilities MPCA MDA BWSR MPCA MDA BWSR UMES Revisions to Minnesota Rule Chapter 7020, the feedlot rule, complete in October 2000. 2. Promote adoption of feedlot permit program administration by counties with appropriate accountability for counties MPCA MPCA Ongoing. 54 counties delegated as of October 16, 2000. 3. Develop programs and formats to coordinate regulatory and enforcement activities among responsible agencies (e.g. MPCA, MDNR, counties) MPCA MDNR MDA NRCS UMES MPCA MDA Meetings with County Feedlot Officers are held regularly. State agencies coordinate through informal meetings as needed, and in formal settings in FMMAC, EQIP meetings, and other. Ongoing. 4. Increase awareness of regulations and requirements through integration into information and education programs UMES MPCA MDA BWSR MDNR MPCA BWSR MDA UMES Ongoing 5. Assess structure of delivery of MPCA feedlot permits, examining central and regional office roles and county staff responsibilities MPCA MPCA Ongoing Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 6. Examine and develop "affirmative defense" aspects for producers in compliance with regulations MPCA EQB MPCA EQB In law 7. Examine financial effects of regulatory programs and develop strategies to minimize financial impacts on producers. This could include recommendations for changes in current regulatory program. MDA MDA Rules revision process 8. Assess and if necessary rewrite regulations on pollution control on animal confinement and manure storage areas. MPCA MPCA Rules revision 9. Assess and if appropriate implement requirement for notification of MPCA at time of transfer of ownership of facilities, to assure application for feedlot permit. MPCA MPCA In law 10. Develop and implement an appeal process for pollution assessments MPCA MPCA While a pollution assessment is not appealable, there are procedures in law for appeal of penalties assessed by MPCA. 11. Develop an operation and management component into regulatory program to allow greater flexibility in administration of rules and assessment of pollution hazards. MPCA MPCA In the new feedlot 7020 rule the SDS permit is used as a flexible permitting tool for non-standard facilities. 12. Assess need for change of Environmental review process of animal confinement facilities by Environmental Quality Board and develop recommendations for improvement. EQB EQB Ongoing. Revisions to EQB rules for environmental review were completed in October 1999. Goal 6: To Develop Strategies And Plans for Program and Policy Development which Resolve Current Issues and Anticipate Future Issues Related to Pollution from Animal Production. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Assess impacts of large animal facilities on communities (e.g., greater than 1,000 animal units). GEIS is studying this issue. 2. Identify strategies and options for addressing odors from animal production facilities, and evaluate the effectiveness of current state regulations on odors from animal production facilities and activities. Major emphasis by MDA, MPCA, U of MN on odor and air quality issues over the past five years. 3. Develop and distribute aids and guidance for local government to address planning and zoning issues related to animal production facilities. MDA has prepared materials to aid local governments in dealing with feedlots. These are the MDA Feedlot Manuals and the MDA Planning and Zoning for Animal Agriculture Manual. MDA is developing a siting tool based on odor emissions in conjunction with the U of M. AGRICULTURAL EROSION The following Table provides the Goals and Action Steps included in the 1994 NSMPP. The Products, Services and Outcomes Column provides information on the accomplishments, progress and status of those recommended 1994 action steps. Implementation of all action steps is contingent upon adequate funding and local involvement. Goal 1: Develop Long-term Consistent and Clear Statewide Policies on Agricultural Erosion and Sediment Control Issues through Improved Interagency Coordination. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Develop a comprehensive strategy for an agricultural erosion and sediment control program to address federal, state and local requirements. 2. Establish long-term coordination committee to address programmatic issues, share technical information and improve strategic planning for implementation of agricultural erosion and sediment control measures. Needs with potential to be addressed by this group include: a. Clarify specific roles of the various state and local agencies, land users and their associations; b. Clarify how the various rules (e.g. federal farm policies) apply to specific situations (e.g., forestry activities within a agricultural areas; riparian pasture management; etc.); c. Develop process for coordinating and distributing BMP implementation and effectiveness information statewide; d. Define the existing and future roles of local water planning to guiding federal and state priorities and programs; e. Provide forum on status and upcoming requirements of federal programs; and f. Examine role of each agency with respect to ensuring policies are consistent, and develop issue papers relating findings and identifying areas that need further coordination. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 3. Develop coordinated federal, state, and local policies for consistent use of agricultural erosion and sediment control BMPs. Policies would address: a. Coordinate local water management planning and requirements with state and federal efforts; b. Develop approved water quality standards for NPS (i.e., agricultural erosion and sediment control); and c. Develop management strategy for agricultural erosion and sediment control with achieves compliance with federal programs. 4. Develop a coordinated policy on how local, state and federal programs will be implemented. This policy would address ways to integrate local planning process and state programs so that local, state, and federal programs will be consistent. Goal 2: Establish an Effective Technical Assistance and Education Delivery System Focused on Improving Water Quality through Application of Agricultural Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs. To Achieve Maximum Effectiveness, Target Audiences for Education and Information Delivery Would Include Both Local Resource Managers and the General Public, Whereas Target Audiences for Technical Assistance Would Primarily Involve Local Resource Managers. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Reestablish a soil and water conservation specialist position within the Minnesota Extension Service of the University of Minnesota. State general fund Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and University of Minnesota Extension Service A conservation agronomist was hired who conducts training for local government and is involved in many conservation tillage- oriented endeavors 2. Accelerate availability of technical assistance to producers by increasing the number of technicians in local SWCD offices. State general fund Board of Water and Soil Resources Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 3. Evaluate the need for developing an erosion and sediment control specialist certification/training program to address contractors, administrators and installers/inspectors. State general fund BWSR, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Minnesota Erosion Control Association The group has continued to refine the need for a certification program, including the need for staff. An effort is underway to finalize funding for a staff person 4. Develop both informational materials and educational workshops related to development of integrated farm pollution prevention plans. Workshops would be targeted toward: a. providing technical assistance to landowners and land users; and b. providing assistance to local governments for writing and interpreting guidance for the integrated farm pollution prevention plans. State general fund BWSR, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, NRCS and MPCA Many workshops and training sessions were held as separate sessions and as integrated material within ongoing planned activities 5. Develop public education process for exchange of information between federal and state agencies, local governments, various researchers and landowners and land users. 6. Develop process to evaluate effectiveness of information and education programs and activities. 7. Evaluate proper utilization and combinations of agricultural erosion and sediment control measures for varying sets of circumstances within watersheds. Goal 3: To Improve the Reliability and Technical Accuracy of Future Decision-Making Capabilities by Increasing the Level of Technical Evaluation and Research, and Research, and by Focusing this Evaluation and Research on Minnesota's Most Pressing Agricultural Erosion and Sediment Control Issues. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Develop agricultural erosion and sediment control BMP auditing process to establish where BMPs are being implemented, if they are being installed correctly, and whether or not they are effective. 2. Evaluate the cost effectiveness (i.e., agronomic and environmental considerations) of agricultural erosion and sediment control measures. 3. Evaluate long-term effectiveness and acceptance of agricultural erosion and sediment control BMPs, including: a. maintenance responsibilities; b. surface and ground water impacts; c. enhancement of soil quality; and d. enhancement of water quality. 4. Soil surveys: a. preparation for all counties; b. update existing soil surveys; and c. accelerate digitization and automation of soil survey data. USDA and county funding NRCS 54 of 87 counties will have initial soil surveys 5. Research and develop soil erosion susceptibility and sediment potential maps. USDA and county funding and State funding from the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources NRCS, University of Minnesota and BWSR 10 of 87 counties will have initial soil surveys updated and about 50 of Minnesota' 87 counties have digital soils information suitable for GIS application Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 6. Data coordination: a. Improve NPS assessment procedures; and b. Develop data management system for BMP implementation and effectiveness including a plan for entering monitoring data into computer systems, systematic analysis of data, and compilation of field-level BMP audits in priority areas. c. Develop a minimum data set of soil quality parameters as suggested by the national Academy of Science and ensure county-by-county coverage of soil conservation data items of high priority to the state for all future National Resources Inventories conducted by SCS, beginning in 1997. Goal 4: Increase Adoption and Improve Appropriate Application of Agricultural Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs through Evaluation of Existing BMPs and Identification of New Types of BMPs Needed to Meet Water Quality Goals. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Develop guidance for targeting the physiographic features where certain agricultural erosion and sediment control BMPs (or combination of BMPs) would be most effective. State general fund University of Minnesota and Minnesota Department of Agriculture Agriecoregion maps were developed 2. Implement a demonstration project to illustrate the significance of agricultural erosion and to show the integration of water quality BMPs into several distinctly different agricultural production farms and use as statewide models. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 3. Evaluate and develop hydrologic modification BMPs addressing the impacts of: a. drainage (subsurface and surface); b. effects on wetland habitats and flow; and c. effects on streambank and lakeshore stability. 4. Evaluate ways to mitigate artificially extended "bankful" flow in developed areas of extensive drainage systems. 5. Conduct a field-level audit of agricultural erosion and sediment control measures. Goal 5: Improve Compatibility Between the Various Federal, State and Local Regulatory Programs so that There Is Consistency Between the Various Regulatory Requirements. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Identify and evaluate local, state and federal regulations relating to agricultural erosion and sediment control. 2. Develop model ordinance for agricultural erosion and sediment control for local governments. 3. Work with local governments to revise, upgrade, or develop agricultural erosion and sediment control ordinances. 4. Improve enforcement efforts so that local, state and federal agencies are consistent. 5. Assess landowners' compliance with federal, state and local regulations for control of agricultural erosion and sedimentation. Goal 6: Focus Agricultural Erosion and Sediment BMP Planning and Implementation Activities on a Watershed Basis to More Effectively Assess Water Quality Needs and Better Demonstrate Implementation Successes. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Model and evaluate potential impact of proposed BMPs for site specific watersheds and waterbodies. 2. Assess ways to more effectively implement policies which avoid, minimize and mitigate the impacts of agricultural erosion and sedimentation, evaluating such methods as: a. permanent and long-term land retirement (where appropriate); b. alternative crops and crop management systems (including agro-forestry applications); c. monitoring of BMPs (funding and planning for follow-up to BMP installation); d. monitoring of impacts (ways to monitor and methods of finding out the impacts). USDA and state general funds. USDA agencies and BWSR About 1.5 million acres of cropland is enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program and approximately 115,000 acres of environmentally sensitive cropland has been enrolled in permanent conservation easements. 3. Examine local, state, federal and private funding mechanisms to identify ways of implementing programs. For example, provide guidance or position papers on: a. information sources and methods of funding; and b. assessment formulas and legitimate uses of funds. 4. For prioritized watersheds, encourage governments to use watershed assessment and planning to develop implementation approaches that address specific water quality improvement goals. State general fund and local government funding BWSR and MPCA Watershed planning and assessment techniques were promoted by agencies in their ongoing land and water programs. AGRICULTURAL NUTRIENTS The following Table provides the Goals and Action Steps included in the 1994 Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan (NSMPP). The Products, Services and Outcomes Column provides information on the accomplishments, progress and status of those recommended 1994 action steps. Implementation of all action steps is contingent upon adequate funding and local involvement. Goal 1:Enhance The Education Delivery System For Nutrient And Crop Residue Best Management Practices And The Sensitivity Of Water Resources To Nutrient Contamination. Target Audiences For Education Should Include Agricultural Dealers, Consultants, Local Resource Managers And Farmers Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Develop an educational program to promote the use of newly developed soil nitrogen test in the humid (eastern) half of the state. State University of Minnesota Successful promotion of nitrogen test for corn following corn. UM Extension publication # 6514 2. Intensify educational efforts in the areas of: * Soil and manure testing o Soil testing State University of Minnesota MN Dept. of Agriculture Increased use of soil testing services. Standardize testing and reporting methods for soil sampling relative to predicting crop nutrient needs. o Manure testing State, federal (319) University of Minnesota MN Dept. of Agriculture Increased use of manure testing services. Standardize testing and reporting methods for manure sampling relative to predicting crop nutrient needs. * Sensitivity of lakes and streams to nutrients 319 MDA, UM, SWCD Water Quality Workshop for Home & Cabin Owners (Otter Tail, Pope, and Dakota Counties) * Best Management Practices for phosphorus State, federal University of Minnesota, MPCA Guidelines Land Application of Manure and Phosphorus; Publications (6288, 6797-B, 6796-B, 6795-B, and FO-7079-E); Low interest loans for BMP construction and equipment. Phosphorus Forum, 1998 Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes * Provide assistance to farm operators to prepare nutrient management plans in cooperation with state resource agencies. Site specific assessments would be made for nutrient needs of crops and for on-farm sources of nutrients. Nutrient plans would consider soil type, soil test results, cropping history, previous crop cover, realistic yield goals. Vulnerability of receiving waters and nutrient valve of various on-farm sources (animal manure, green manure, etc.) Federal (319 and other); state; local Various Various groups promoting nutrient management plans Nutrient Management Training Workshops 1995-96 Nutrient Management Planning Workshops for Ag Retailers-1996. Ag Chem Retailers Needs Assessment Survey-1996 * USDA - EQIP: Educational demonstrations of ag nutrient Best Management Practices in wellhead protection areas Federal; state SWCDs (Otter Tail, Hubbard, Martin and Nicollet Co), UM, MDA Technical assistance with demonstration planning, interpretation, outreach, education and distribution of results. * Economics of nutrient management Best Management Practices 319, State UM, MDA Various associated workshops, Dealer and farmer training sessions. * Running yield goal for corn Federal; state University of Minnesota, MN Dept. of Agriculture, SWCD Federal EQIP projects and Red Top Demonstration Farm * Site specific management (Precision Agriculture) State; federal University of Minnesota Ongoing, international conferences and establishment of the Precision Agriculture Center in Rosemount. * Manure application Best Management Practices Federal (319 and other); state; local Various Manure Management Workshops * Manure exchange and transport programs State MPCA Currently operating at the local level through the Minnesota Pollution Control feedlot permitting process. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes * Successful approaches of local agencies to promote Best Management Practices Federal (319 and other); state; local Natural Resources Conservation Service; regional University of Minnesota, Soil and Water Conservation Districts; Clean Water Partnerships Promotion of Best Management Practices * Irrigated agriculture: Development of Best Management Practices for Potatoes State University of Minnesota; MN Dept. of Agriculture Management practices t minimize impact of irrigated potato farming on groundwater resources - Nitrogen BMPs for Irrigated Potatoes adopted 1996 * Irrigated agriculture: Development of BMPs for dry edible beans State, AURI, EQIP, North Harvest Bean Growers, Irrigators Ass. of MN University of Minnesota; SWCD (Hubbard, Otter Tail and Wadena) UM Ext Bulleting BU-7397 IPM Control of White Mold in Irrigated Dry Beans, Meronuck et al., 1999 * Licensing of commercial animal waste technicians State MN Dept. of Agriculture Rule enacted in 1998 requires licensing of Commercial Animal Waste Technicians Manuals completed in 1999 and examinations completed 2000. * Feasibility study on the certification of non-commercial manure applicators State MN Dept. of Agriculture Statute enacted in 1998 to evaluate and determine feasibility of certification of non-commercial manure applicators Report delivered 1999. * Phosphorus education forum State Minnesota River Basin Joint Powers Board Conferences in Mankato and Marshall. * USDA - EQIP: Incentive payments for improved pesticide, nutrient and irrigation management Federal Natural Resources Conservation Service Incentive payments for farmers to adopt improved management practices. * Sustainable agriculture promotion and teaching 3. Develop an irrigation/nitrogen certification program; ideally administered through the irrigators themselves. 319, State MDA, UM, SWCD Irrigation Issues Workshops Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 4. Technically transfer the body of knowledge from successful watershed projects (e.g., the Clean Water Partnership projects, Clean Lakes Projects, Minnesota River Assessment and other special projects) regarding nutrient transport and loading. Federal (319 and other); state; local Various Participation by various groups in watershed projects. Goal 2: Further Develop And Improve Best Management Practices That Minimize Nutrient Losses From Agricultural Fields And Obtain Information Needed To Understand Nutrient Transport To Water Resources And Ways Of Reducing Such Losses. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Conduct a demonstration project to promote the economic and environmental benefits resulting from realistic yield goal selection using the "running yield goal" concept. Federal; state MN Dept. of Agriculture Anoka Sand Plains Project, Red Top Demonstration Farm and. federal EQIP projects * Develop manure management plan format and software State University of Minnesota Manure Application Planner software and manual record keeping systems. * DNA fingerprinting of manure sources State University of Minnesota Study to be completed by June 30, 2001 2. Manure management research needs include: * Improve the techniques for predicting nitrogen availability from manure in the application year and subsequent years. State University of Minnesota * Improve application equipment enabling more precise application rates and more uniform distribution. Private industry None Various technical advances in response to the need to improve manure application procedures. * Explore the feasibility of manure exchange or transport programs for concentrated animal operation areas. None MPCA Localized exchange based on feedlot permit needs. * Gain a better understanding of how Minnesota farmers store, credit and apply their manure resources. State, local University of Minnesota, Blue Earth River Basin Implementa-tion Manure management practice surveys for commodity groups in specific areas. #Inventory of feedlot data collected by county personnel Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 3. Irrigated agriculture research needs include: * Develop localized crop coefficient curves so irrigators can make accurate estimates of crop water use and minimize percolation losses. State, Irrigators Association of MN University of Minnesota, SWCD offices (Otter Tail, Hubbard, Wadena, and Anoka) Clear Lake Wellhead Project Development and promotion of local crop water use ET hotline and development of the Irrigation Scheduling-Checkbook Method into a computer spreadsheet program. * Develop Best Management Practices specific for Minnesota's outwash sand regions incorporating nitrogen/irrigation interactions State, AURI, EQIP, Private Industry, North Harvest Bean Growers, MN Irrigators Association University of Minnesota Development and promotion of BMPs for white mold control, N Timing and Irrigation scheduling. UM Extension Bulletin BU-7397 4. Determine extent of nutrient loading to surface water resulting from tile drainage and surface tile inlets and develop Best Management Practices to reduce nutrient inputs to surface and ground water from drainage activities. * Red Top Farm project State MN Dept. of Agriculture, Various cooperators Farm demonstration project monitors tile water under Best Management Practices. * Tile design research/demonstrations: Waseca and Lamberton University of Minnesota, MDA, MN Land Improvement Assoc. Various drainage practices installed in 1999 for research * Computer simulation (ADAPT) output of tile line management and design Developed computer model based on lysimeter data from seventies and eighties. 5. Conduct paleolimnological work to determine historical/background phosphorus levels in order to set attainable goals for surface water quality. 6. Research and demonstrate the economic and environmental benefits of soil specific crop management. State University of Minnesota Ongoing, international conferences and establishment of the Precision Agriculture Center in Rosemount. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 7. Develop Best Management Practices for proper setback distances from surface water bodies that are needed to minimize cropland nutrient runoff (with and without filter strips). State MPCA Guidelines (not official Best Management Practices) Land Application of Manure published in 1996. 8. Study how nitrogen affects algae and weed growth in Minnesota lakes and streams. 9. Conduct research on phosphorus as recommended by the proposed phosphorus task force. 10. Value of perennial forages for ground water protection State ARS ,UM, MN Dept. of Agriculture Study to be completed by June 30, 2001 11. Management Systems Evaluation Area (MSEA) Northern Cornbelt Sand Plains project, Minnesota site Federal; state University of Minnesota Development of environmentally protective ridge-till corn-soybean rotation Best Management Practices 12. Establishment and study of agroecoregions Federal; state University of Minnesota Division of state into agroecoregions based on soil and hydrologic characteristics; management guidelines based on agroecoregions 13. USDA - EQIP Conservation Priority Areas Federal; state; local Natural Resources Conservation Service; local Focused application of Best Management Practices Goal 3: To Improve Our Understanding Of The Adoption Of BMPs, Effectiveness Of BMPs, And To Identify Priority Areas Through Monitoring Of BMP Implementation, And Soil, Surface And Ground Water Nutrient Levels. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Agricultural Pesticide and Nutrient Monitoring and Assessment Program State MN Dept. of Agriculture; MPCA; MN Department of Health; Clean Water Partnerships Develop monitoring network for data collection and analysis of ag chemical trends in groundwater Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 2. Place planning or technical staff in regional or field offices to assist local governments and public water suppliers State MN Dept. of Health; and MN Dept. of Agriculture Direct assistance to public water suppliers, ag producers and local governments 3. Establish a long-term monitoring network for nitrate in vulnerable aquifers throughout the state in order to better understand nitrate trends, progress towards meeting the state's degradation prevention goal, and the effectiveness of BMP promotion efforts. State Clean Water Partnership 4. Identify areas and aquifers where nitrate concentrations exceed or approach standards in order to help set county priorities regarding nitrogen management, target areas for the Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan and the Clean Water Partnership, and proved an increased level of drinking water protection for domestic water supply users. Federal (319); state MN Dept. of Agriculture Annually test 6,000 to 8,000 private wells for nitrates. 5. Monitor the adoption of nutrient management Best Management Practices by farmers in various areas in the state through surveys and interviews. State MN Dept. of Agriculture, Clean Water Partnership Baseline surveys on 500 farms of farm practices 6. Assemble and analyze soil test data to determine trends in soil phosphorus levels throughout the state. 7. Monitor lakes, streams, soil water and ground water where Best Management Practices have been implemented through the Clean Lakes and the Clean Water Partnership Projects. Monitoring should be conducted for a period of at least six to ten years after BMP implementation. State MN Dept. of Agriculture, Clean Water Partnerships Study to be completed by June 30, 2001 Goal 4: To Develop Clear Statewide Policies for Decreasing Transport of Nutrients to the State's Water Resources and to Improve the Coordination Framework Necessary to Accomplish these Policies. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Analyze and document existing information related to phosphorus in Minnesota waters to support the development of best management practices to minimize phosphorus transport to water resources. State University of Minnesota Phosphorus publications (6288, 6797-B, 6796-B, 6795-B, and FO-7079-E) published in 1997. 2. Draft and implement rules for nitrogen management Best Management Practices, considering recommendations made in the Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan. 3. Provide a forum among various state and federal agencies and local interest groups to discuss proposals for dealing with livestock exclusion along waterways, buffer strips along surface water resources, and surface tile inlets. State MN Dept. of Agriculture; MPCA Establishment of Feedlot and Manure Management Advisory Committee and revised feedlot rules in 2000. 4. Establish a multi-agency advisory group to determine criteria for classifying the severity of existing ground water nitrate problems in townships throughout the state that would aid in state and local prioritization efforts. Task not completed 5. Develop an institutional framework that clearly identifies the interrelating roles of various programs (Comprehensive Local Water Plan, The Clean Water Partnership and Wellhead Protection) as they relate to the Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan. AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES The following Table provides the Goals and Action Steps included in the 1994 NSMPP. The Products, Services & Outcomes Column provides information on the accomplishments, progress and status of those recommended 1994 action steps. Implementation of all action steps is contingent upon adequate funding and local involvement Goal 1: Increase the reliability and accuracy of future decision making through improvement of the current technical base. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Expand the understanding of relationships between pesticides and their breakdown products in ground water by: * Federal * State MDA, MPCA Lab capability developed at MDA MPCA CG project i. conducting a background search on existing pesticide/breakdown product data; * Federal * State MDA, MPCA Incident response and monitoring programs ii. developing a sampling program for pesticides and their breakdown products; and determining the contamination source where possible and comparing results from point source vs. nonpoint source contamination sites. * Federal * State MDA Monitoring network installed 1999. Monitoring initiated in 2000. 2. Monitor scientific and toxicological research regarding parent pesticides and their breakdown products. Apply results toward updating drinking water exposure standards and monitoring regimes. * Federal * State MDA, MDH 3. Conduct a literature review evaluating all available pesticide research data to facilitate the development of scientifically based BMPs for agriculture. * Federal * State MDA, U of M Literature review completed 4. Evaluate ways in which research that is indirectly related to pest management and alternatives to pesticide use could be implemented by landowners to reduce chemical use (e.g. cover crops, alfalfa for biomass production, etc.) * Federal * State MDA, U of M Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 5. Update BMP manuals to include results of research efforts directed at non-traditional and non-chemical approaches to pest management. * Federal * State MDA, U of M 6. Complete Geologic Atlas series statewide. DNR Completed for many counties Goal 2: Improve the assessment and documentation of pest management practices and their impacts on Minnesota water quality. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Develop screening procedures for pesticides and field sites that likely could impact ground and surface water. * Federal * State MDA 2. Expand ground water monitoring efforts to incorporate parameters that could be indicators of pesticide contamination. * Federal * State MDA 3. Incorporate low geologic sensitivity settings and bedrock aquifers in the pesticide-monitoring network. Program discontinued 4. Periodically conduct surveys to update information on pesticide use practices in Minnesota. * Federal * State * 319 MDA, U of M, MASS Lake Harriet Watershed Awareness Project 5. Develop procedure and software that combines the Soil Pesticide Interaction Screening Procedure matrix system with information contained in the atlas series (for counties having the completed series). These procedures must be regionalized for Minnesota conditions. MDA, U of M, MDNR Program Discontinued Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 6. Evaluate past monitoring efforts and target future efforts through application of GIS capabilities. GIS application would include mapping locations of MDA, MPCA, and MDH monitoring networks; analytical results from various sites; geographically sensitive areas; pesticide use and storage sites; public water supply wells; and Wellhead Protection Areas. * Federal * State Interagency monitoring groups 7. Incorporate pesticide breakdown products in analyses of well water monitoring results. * Federal * State MDA Analysis 8. Develop procedures to track reduced chemical use or risk. * Federal * State 9. Consider the impacts on non-target organisms, including threatened or endangered species and native plant communities when developing recommendations for pesticide use. * Federal * State MDA, DNR, US FWS Endangered Species Protection Program 10. Develop a comprehensive vulnerability assessment by: i. completing the Geologic Sensitivity mapping for all agricultural areas of Minnesota; DNR Completed for many counties ii. combining Geological and Soils Sensitivity ratings for all mapped counties. MDA, U of M Program Discontinued iii. developing maps delineating High Risk Areas in Minnesota; and MDA, U of M Program Discontinued iv. combining individual pesticide leaching ratings with High Risk Areas. MDA, U of M Program Discontinued Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 11. Develop and implement a strategy for obtaining and managing accurate information on current and future agricultural management practices. * Federal * State MDA, U of M Farm Nutrient Management Assessment Program Goal 3: Educate the public on pest management practices that reduce pesticide impacts on water quality. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Incorporate results of BMP research into ongoing MDA certification training programs (e.g. Extension's short course training efforts and crop consultant certification program sponsored by the American Society of Agronomy). * Federal * State MDA, U of M Certification programs 2. Develop focused educational program for promoting use of pesticide specific BMPs. Design program to address three levels of effort: * Federal * State MDA, U of M, MPCA Common Detection Advisory Committee recommendations i. identify the geographic areas of the state potentially at risk from specific pesticides and target these areas for BMP educational efforts; * Federal * State MDA, U of M, MPCA Common Detection Advisory Committee recommendations ii. identify vulnerable areas of the state where specific pesticides are most widely used and target these areas for BMP promotion; and * Federal * State MDA, U of M, MPCA Common Detection Advisory Committee recommendations iii. identify agricultural pesticide users and dealers/crop consultants for targeting specific training efforts. * Federal * State MDA, U of M Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 3. Incorporate information on Wellhead Protection and BMPs when promoting both programs. * Federal * State MDA, MDH, MPCA 4. Develop targeted demonstration projects to show economic viability and water quality benefits of selected BMPs or alternative management practices. * Federal * State * 319 Funds MDA, U of M Lake Harriet Water Quality Awareness project, Lake Alimagnet Water Quality Awareness project 5. Extend the pest management training programs to dealers, crop consultants, coop agronomists, Soil and Water Conservation District and SCS staff and pesticide users. * Federal * State MDA, U of M, NRCS Goal 4: Establish statewide policies, standards, or criteria designed to reduce pesticide impacts on Minnesota's water resources. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Incorporate ideas from the Consolidated State Ground Water Protection Plan Strategy Activity III. These include: Inappropriate goal for this chapter i. expand the role of local government; Inappropriate goal for this chapter ii. improve land use planning; Inappropriate goal for this chapter iii. revise metro area water management; Inappropriate goal for this chapter iv. resolve Wellhead Protection jurisdiction issues; Inappropriate goal for this chapter v. improve state government programs; and Inappropriate goal for this chapter vi. form advisory council. Inappropriate goal for this chapter 2. Establish ground and surface water standards for pesticides declared Common Detection as defined in the Minnesota PMP. MDA, MPCA, MDH, U of M Common Detection Advisory Committee Recommendations Goal 5: Improve the coordination and communication linkages between state and local resource managers, as well as between the various state agencies. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Assist public water suppliers in development of their Wellhead Protection plans by: * Federal * State MDA, MDH, MPCA i. coordinating monitoring well selection with Wellhead Protection area monitoring needs; and * Federal * State MDA, MDH, MPCA ii. developing GIS application designed to compare locations of community and non-community non-transient public water supply wells in Minnesota with areas where agricultural pesticides are being used and with locations of existing monitoring stations. * Federal * State MDA, MDH, MPCA 2. Encourage implementation of the recently completed Memorandum of Agreement between the MDA, MPCA, and MDH on Wellhead Protection. * Federal * State MDA, MDH, MPCA 3. Review monitoring data on agricultural pesticides collected by public water suppliers for Wellhead Protection and use to augment existing MDA network. * Federal * State MDA, MDH, MPCA Common Detection Advisory Committee Recommendations 4. Assure interagency cooperation on goals established as part of the comprehensive state ground water protection plan. * Federal * State MDA, MDH, MPCA, DNR 5. Establish a task force comprised of agencies, coalitions, chemical dealers, crop consultants, and pesticide users, to coordinate and advance Integrated Pest Management issues. * Federal * State MDA, U of M Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 6. Develop a method of coordinating with other state task forces, working groups and agencies on standardizing data collection activities and in developing clearinghouse procedures for gathering and issuing data. * Federal * State MDA, MDH, MPCA, DNR 7. Formalize a funding source for conducting research specifically targeting pesticides, pest control, and soil/pesticide interactions. * Federal * State MDA Pesticide Regulatory Account URBAN RUNOFF The following Table provides the Goals and Action Steps included in the 1994 NSMPP. The Products, Services and Outcomes Column provides information on the accomplishments, progress and status of those recommended 1994 action steps. Implementation of all action steps is contingent upon adequate funding and local involvement Goal 1: To Improve the Reliability and Technical Accuracy of Future Decision Making Capabilities by Increasing the Level of Technical Evaluation and Research, and by Focusing this Evaluation and Research on Minnesota's Most Pressing Urban Issues Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Develop urban BMP auditing process to establish where BMPs are being implemented. If they are being installed correctly, and whether or not they are effective. State, 319, MDNR DNR Forestry audits have applicability 2. Evaluation of cost effectiveness of urban BMPs. 319, State MDNR DNR Forestry audits have applicability 3. Develop protocols and test methods for analyses and evaluation of storm water events, including: - toxics - bioaccumulation - compliance testing for effluents and WQ standards Federal 319, MnDOT MnDOT, USGS MnDOT, Local Road Research Board, USGS roadway runoff study 4. Research and evaluate the impacts to various types of wetlands due to inflow of storm water (quantity and quality). State, 319, federal MPCA SWAG June 1997 publication resulted from these efforts 5. Assess the impacts of snowmelt to evaluate the effectiveness of existing and potential BMPs. 319 USGS Met Council, USGS Met Council, Seminar with the Center for Watershed Protection Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 6. Evaluate long-term effectiveness and acceptance of urban BMPs, including: - maintenance and removed substance options - air deposition sources and controls - ground water contamination - litter collection and source controls - removal substance handling and disposal - wetland treatment and pretreatment requirements State, 319 Met Council, local Met Council follow up to McCarrons Lake, Maplewood study of BMP acceptance 7. Evaluate erosion flows and develop guidance and policy on ways to avoid these impacts in areas with runoff affected by urban developments. State Seminars have expanded the knowledge of these issues Goal 2: Establish an Effective Technical Assistance and Education Delivery System Focused on Improving Water Quality through Application of Urban Runoff Best Management Practices. To Achieve Maximum Effectiveness, Target Audiences for Education and Information Delivery Would Include Both Local Resource Managers and the General Public, Whereas Target Audiences for Technical Assistance Would Primarily Involve Local Resource Managers. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Institute certification/ training program to address contractors, administrators and installers/inspectors. federal MPCA Construction certification program instituted in 1994. 2. Develop both informational materials and educational workshops related to development of pollution prevention plans for compliance with the NPDES storm water program. Workshops would be targeted toward: a) providing technical assistance to NPDES permittees and b) providing assistance to local governments for interpreting guidance for the pollution prevention plans. federal 319, local) MPCA, BWSR, Local Construction certification training, Team efforts on construction MPCA, BWSR, Counties, local 3. Develop process for exchange of information between state agencies, local governments, various researchers and NPDES permittees. 319, state MPCA Informally done by USWAG, NPDES Training Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 4. Hold statewide annual seminar (jointly sponsored between agencies) on urban issues. State, local MPCA, U of M MECA, Water Resources Conferences 5. Improve public education efforts related to urban impacts through such delivery channels as brochures, pamphlets, newsletters, and videotapes. Initial areas of emphasis would include: - fertilizer - sewers (where they discharge to) - construction (BMP and erosion control) - material handling (tanks, spills, hazardous materials solid waste, etc.) - animal waste - public participation - litter (source controls, collection and prevention) - water collection and treatment system especially sewers, ponds State, local, 319 Met Council, MDNR, MPCA Storm sewer stencil program, adopt a river program, construction training programs, Met council major effort on information adds 6. Develop process to evaluate effectiveness of urban runoff. Information and Education programs/activities. Met Council Follow up to Met Council efforts Maplewood 7. Evaluate proper utilization and combination of urban BMPs as appropriate for varying sets of circumstances within watersheds, such as: - pond design - outlet flow controls - wetland pretreatment and use - wetland construction - housekeeping - erosion controls 319, State, local MPCA, local City of Minneapolis Lakes programs, Lake Harriet watershed awareness project, Lake Alimagnet watershed awareness project Develop Consistent and Clear Statewide Policies on Urban Runoff Issues Through Improved agency Coordination. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 8. Establish long-term interagency coordination committee and urban runoff task force to address programmatic issues, share technical information and improve strategic planning for implementation of storm water BMPs. Needs with potential to be addressed by this group include: - clarify specific roles of the various state agencies and local entities; - clarify how the various rules apply to specific situations; - develop process for coordinating and distributing information statewide - define the future role of local water planning - provide forum to relay back storm water information gained on status and upcoming requirements of federal programs - examine rules of each agency with respect to ensuring policies are consistent, and develop either MOA or issue papers relating findings and identifying areas that need further coordination. Local, State Gen. Fund, 319 MPCA, Urban Storm Water Advisory Group established in 1992 9. Data coordination - a) Improve NPS assessment procedures b) develop data management system for NPDES enforcement procedures including a plan for entering of monitoring data into computer systems and systematic analysis of data. State, federal (non-319) MPCA MPCA Waters permits entered into Delta Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 10. Develop coordinated federal, state and local policies for consistent application of urban management requirements. Policies would address: - coordinate local water management planning and requirements with state and federal efforts; - development of approved water quality standards for NPS and storm water management; and - development of an enforcement policy for the storm water program and a strategy for addressing compliance. State, Federal, Local BWSR, MPCA, Met Council New Storm Water Plans required since 1986 - 11. Develop a coordinated policy on how local, state and federal programs will be implemented. This policy would address: a) ways to integrate local planning process with state programs and b) guidance on urban storm water runoff, wetland use and pretreatment requirements so that local, state and federal programs will be consistent. BWSR, MPCA, Met Council New Storm Water Plans required since 1986 12. Develop guidance for targeting the physiographic type of area where certain urban runoff BMPs (or combination of urban BMPs) would be most effective. 319 MPCA 2000 BMP manual developed. 13. Implement a demonstration project to show the integration of water quality BMPs into existing storm water management requirements at the local level and use as a statewide model. 319 MPCA, Local Fairfax, Maplewood, Minneapolis chain of lakes 14. Identify and develop BMPs oriented toward retrofitting controls in developed areas. Local, 319 MPCA, Local Minneapolis chain of lakes 15. Evaluate and identify those areas of the state where implementation of certain storm water BMPs that entail ponding and infiltration may detrimentally impact ground water (i.e., for potentially using hydrocarbon analysis). Local LGUs South Washington County Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 16. Revise the MPCA BMP manual to reflect the findings of studies and experience gained locally and throughout the nation. 319 2000 BMP Manual 17. Evaluate policies on removed materials and develop recommendations and toxic assessment protocol for collected sediment, street sweeping and other removal materials. State MPCA, Met Council Met Council Street sweepings, Nationwide Investigations conducted are reflected in the BMP manual 18. Evaluate and develop hydrologic modification BMPs addressing the impacts of: - Ditching - Channels - Drainage - Effects on wetland habitats and flow State BWSR, MPCA, DNR MPCA Ditch policy manual has been drafted 19. Evaluate ways to mitigate artificially extended "bankfull" flow in developed areas. 319, State BMP manual, seminars have raised consciousness 20. Develop a comprehensive storm water program and a strategy for addressing consistent federal, state and local requirements. State MPCA Plans, permits and BMPs all being worked on and developed 21. Work with locals to revise, upgrade, or develop erosion control ordinances. State and local MPCA, BWSR, Local Model ordinances from BWSR and MPCA 22. Improve inspection and enforcement programs so that local, state and federal agencies are consistent. State, local Construction E-team efforts local State cooperative efforts 23. Develop ways to proportionate allocate NPS inputs to water quality for Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Federal MPCA In process 24. Develop water quality standards for NPS issues, total suspended solids, phosphorus, flow changes, channelization. Federal, non 319 In process Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 25. Model and evaluate potential impacts of proposed BMPs for site specific watersheds and waterbodies. CWP, Local MPCA, LGUs 26. Assess ways to avoid, minimize and mitigate the impacts of development, evaluating such methods as: - Layouts - restrictive growth - removed substances (waste removals, street sweeping, dredged material disposal) - monitoring of BMPs (funding and planning for follow-up to BMP installation) - monitoring of impacts (ways to monitor and methods of finding out the impacts) - natural drainage feature avoidance (wetlands, drainageways, swales, etc.) State, Local CWP( 319) MPCA Reflected in BMP manual 27. Examine local, state and federal funding mechanisms to identify ways of implementing programs. MPCA, BWSR, Met Council CWP, 319, State revolving fund FORESTRY The following Table provides the Goals and Action Steps included in the 1994 NSMPP. The Products, Services and Outcomes Column provides information on the accomplishments, progress and status of those recommended 1994 action steps. Implementation of all action steps is contingent upon adequate funding and local involvement Goal 1. Education: Improve Adoption and Use of BMPs through Effective Educational Programs. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Target outreach to NIPF landowners. * develop a system to identify private landowners so they can be effectively targeted for information distribution and educational opportunities * develop curriculum for local coalitions (i.e., woodland advisory committees). General Fund (S) Stewardship Education Fund (S), Blandin Foundation (P) Northwest Area Foundation (P) DNR Forestry MFRC Forest Guideline Brochure Stewardship 50% by 2005 program Woodland Advisor Program 2. Develop early education cur-riculum in cooperation with MN Association of Science Teachers and Project Learning Tree. General Fund (S) DNR Forestry, MN SAF PLT & MN SAF Natural Resources in the Classroom 3. Document water quality benefits of the BMP educational program based on an evaluation of field audit results and further landowner surveys. General Fund (S) DNR Forestry, U of M Extension Accomplished & ongoing 4. Continue logger training program. LEAP (F) Rural Development Grant (F) USFS, State and Private Forestry (F), General Fund (S), U of M Extension (F), Forest Industry (P), MLEP (P) DNR Forestry U of M Extension MLEP Over 30 workshops reaching producers of more than 80% of the timber harvested. 5. Develop logger recognition program. General Fund (S) Not accomplished 6. Improve coordination of education efforts among organizations and agencies. General Fund (S), MLEP(P), MFRP U of M Extension (F) MRFC, DNR Forestry, MLEP, U of M Extension, Accomplished & ongoing 7. Continue providing educational opportunities for forestry professionals. General Fund (S) Forestry Industry (P) MFRC, DNR Over 90% of foresters trained Goal 2. Monitoring: Evaluate and Quantify Compliance with and Effectiveness of BMPs Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Continue BMP compliance monitoring effort on a biennial basis beginning in 1993 (with spot checking in the off years). General Fund (S) MFRC DNR Forestry Ongoing 2. Monitor and quantify the sediment and nutrient loads to waterbodies identified as priorities. LCMR (S), Northwest Area Foundation (P), General Fund (S), U of M (S) NRRI (S), US Forest Service (F) MFRC, DNR Forestry, U of M, NRRI, US Forest Service Research evaluating impacts of harvest practices in riparian areas began in 1997 & is ongoing. 3. Quantify real cost of BMP implementation and cost effectiveness. LCMR (S), Council of Great Lakes Governors (S), Blandin Foundation (P), Northwest Area Foundation (P), Rural Development Grant (F), General Fund (S) MFRC, US Forest Service, U of M Work began in 1997 and is ongoing. 4. Develop a revision system to revise the BMP handbook based on updated auditing information. General Fund (S) MFRC, DNR Forestry BMPs updated in 1994-95, expanded in 1997-98 & peer reviewed in 2000. 5. Incorporate water quality protection measures recommended in the timber harvesting GEIS into the forestry program. LCMR (S), Special state appropriation (S), General Fund (S) MFRC, MFRP MOU signed by most public forestry agencies & forest industries. Goal 3. BMP Development and Implementation: Continue BMP Development and Implementation Efforts to Improve Adoption and Use of BMPs Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Establish 4-6 BMP demonstration sites on state land, one of which would focus on road installation in the Nemadji River watershed. LCMR (S), Council of Great Lakes Governors (S), Blandin Foundation (P), Rural Development Grant (F), General Fund (S)* MFRC, MFRP, DNR Forestry, MLEP, U of M Extension A full day of field training on a demonstration site is a required part of logger & forester guideline training. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 2. Establish ongoing equipment demonstration program to evaluate harvesting equipment and related technologies. General Funds (S)*, USFS, State & Private* Forestry (F)* Private Industry (P)* DNR Forestry, U of M Extension, US Forest Service Demonstrations & workshops held on high flotation tires, cable yarding on steep slopes, cable yarding on level ground, portable stream & wetland crossings, small-scale logging equipment & cut-to-length systems. 3. Revise BMP handbook to include: * additional wetland BMPs for forestry, * developed visual quality BMPs, * expand BMPs to address riparian areas, soil productivity, cultural & historic resources, & site specific wildlife & integrate all BMPs into a single document. General Fund (S)* General Fund (S)* General Fund (S)* DNR Forestry DNR Forestry MFRC NFRP DNR Forestry Completed Completed Completed 4. Improve cost share programs (i.e., MFIP and SIP) to ensure BMPs are a requirement. General Fund (S), Stewardship Education Fund (F) DNR Forestry Ongoing 5. Identify and prioritize specific erosion problem areas to better focus assistance and corrective action efforts. LCMR (S), Northwest Area Foundation (P) DNR Forestry, U of M Ongoing 6. Modify language within timber harvesting contracts to require use of BMPs. No cost MFRC, MFRP MOU signed by most public forestry agencies & forest industries. 7. Evaluate need for increased technical assistance to private landowners. General Fund (S) DNR Forestry Ongoing 8. Evaluate need for tax credits as incentive for BMP adoption. No action Goal 4. Research: Target Research Efforts to Evaluate Effectiveness of BMPs in Reducing Silvicultural NPS Pollution. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Evaluate effectiveness of filter strips in reducing sediment movement to streams. LCMR (S), General Funds (S)*, U of M (S)*, NRRI (S)*, US Forest Service (F)* MFRC, DNR Forestry U of M, NRRI, US Forestry Service Research on the impacts of harvest systems in riparian areas began in 1997 & is ongoing. 2. Evaluate fate and off-site movement of forest-use herbicides under Minnesota conditions. LCMR (S) NAPIAP (F) No action taken. 3. Evaluate soil disturbance in coverage and severity from conventional and high flotation harvesting. LCMR (S)*, Private Industry (P)*, Central MN Initiative Fund (S)*, US Forest Service (F),* General Fund (S)* DNR Forestry, US Forest Service, U of M Research has been done on high flotation tires, cable yarding on steep slopes & cable yarding compared to CTL & grapple skidding. Research continues on comparison of harvest systems in riparian areas. Goal 5. Coordination: Increase Coordination Among Agencies and Organizations to Improve Effectiveness of BMP Implementation. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Establish federal/state water quality coordination committee. General Fund (S)* State legislature Established the MFRC & MFRP in 1995 & reauthorized in 1999. 2. Develop network with allied state, federal and local entities to promote water quality, share resources and take advantage of specialized expertise. General Fund (S)* MFRC, MFRP Accomplished & ongoing. Goal 6. Restore Forest Vegetation on Riparian Areas Through Planting to Improve Water Quality (E.G. Absorb Nitrates, Slow Flood Discharge Provide "Benign" Floodplain, Trap Sediment Runoff, Restore Habitat/Ecosystems, Provide Alternative Crop, Improve Aesthetics). Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Plant 2,000 to 6,000 acres per year of bottomland tree species on converted agricultural fields in floodplain and other riparian areas. ACP (F), FIP (F), SIP (F), DNR Forestry Substantially more acres planted each year than targeted. Three DNR foresters hired to target riparian forest. 2. Provide training to field staff on identifying native vegetation communities needed for restoration. General fund (S)* DNR Forestry 158 DNR foresters & 53 wildlife managers & county foresters trained in 1993 & 1994. 3. Identifying and prioritize specific sites for reforestation which best absorb excess nutrients and best prevent surface erosion. ACP (F) DNR Forestry Minnesota River floodplain targeted. 4. Evaluate need for easement program or tax incentives to promote conversion of crop land to permanent cover. No action # ACP = Agricultural Conservation Program FIP = Forestry Incentives Program SIP = Stewardship Incentives Program * Actual Sources of Funding Utilized MINING The following Table provides the Goals and Action Steps included in the 1994 NSMPP. The Products, Services and Outcomes Column provides information on the accomplishments, progress and status of those recommended 1994 action steps. Implementation of all action steps is contingent upon adequate funding and local involvement. Goal 1: Document the Presence of the NPS Impacts Reported in the MPCA Questionnaire * To quantify any impacts * To identify the source(s) * To submit the results to the appropriate regulatory agency for corrective action Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Contact resource managers, identify specific areas of concern Postponed until further reports of problems 2. Conduct field surveys, collect water quality data Postponed until further reports of problems 3. Based on field surveys, identify sources of nonpoint pollution Postponed until further reports of problems 4. Report findings to appropriate regulatory authority Postponed until further reports of problems Goal 2: To Identify Best Management Practices For Sand And Gravel Operations * To develop new management practices as needed * To distribute the information to operators * To perform follow-up audits to insure that the BMPs are being implemented Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Identify BMPs Goal adopted by Aggregate Resources Task Force (2000) 2. Develop new BMPs Goal adopted by Aggregate Resources Task Force (2000) 3. Prepare BMP guidance manual for operators Goal adopted by Aggregate Resources Task Force (2000) 4. Hold a series of training sessions Goal adopted by Aggregate Resources Task Force (2000) 5. Follow-up audits Not included in Aggregate Resources Task Force recommendations Goal 3: To Conduct A Survey Of Problems Associated With Abandoned Sand And Gravel Pits * To identify areas with potential problems * To determine if significant water quality impacts are occurring Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Conduct survey Postponed until further reports of problems 2. Identify areas where significant water quality problems are occurring Postponed until further reports of problems 3. Identify water quality impacts Postponed until further reports of problems 4. Report impacts to appropriate regulatory agencies for corrective action Postponed until further reports of problems Goal 4: To develop and test best management practice for non-ferrous mining Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Defectiveness of methods to control acid and metal release from mine waste: a. reclaim tailings as wetlands basins b. add alkaline material to mine waste 319, Environmental Cooperative research funding received for wetland portion MDNR Final report submitted in 2000, recommended as a best management practice 2. Assess impacts of the underwater disposal of mine waste in lined basins: a. sulfide containing waste b. non-sulfide waste Iron Ore Cooperative Research, Environmental Cooperative Research MDNR Final report prepared for in pit disposal of taconite tailings; Inland Steel's in pit disposal is currently being reviewed 3. Develop guidelines for the use of constructed wetlands to treat mine drainage 319, Environmental Cooperative Research MDNR Final report in preparation. One of the wetlands appears to be self-sustaining, providing long-term treatment 4. Refine procedures for the prediction of mine drainage quality Bureau of Land Management (Salt Lake Field Office) MDNR Ongoing study; several reports and technical papers prepared * Funding was not received until Fiscal Year 1998 LAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL The following Table provides the Goals and Action Steps included in the 1994 NSMPP. The Products, Services and Outcomes Column provides information on the accomplishments, progress and status of those recommended 1994 action steps. Implementation of all action steps is contingent upon adequate funding and local involvement Goal 1: Implement statewide standards (Minn. R. ch. 7080) legislation was enacted that requires that Minn. R. ch. 7080 be the minimum statewide standard for all local ordinances to provide consistent standards for the design, location, installation and maintenance of ISTS. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Complete ch. 7080 revisions General Fund MPCA Two Revisions since 1994 - January 1996 & October 1999 2. Implementation activities a) Develop sample ordinances General Fund MPCA All but five counties have an ISTS ordinance b) Develop local government guidance documents General Fund MPCA Completed - both revisions c) Conduct local government training General Fund MPCA Completed - both revisions 3. Local governments implement standards General Fund Local Governmental Units Counties, cities and townships are implementing - some need to improve Goal 2: Implement mandatory certification program legislation was enacted requiring a mandatory certification program for ISTS professionals.. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Implementation activities a) Enact new licensing rules General Fund MPCA Completed - June 1994 b) Revise current workshops Workshop fees MPCA/ U of M Completed - August 1995 c) Expand education and certification programs Workshop fees MPCA/ U of M Completed - August 1995 d) License all professionals Licensing fees MPCA Completed - April 1, 1996 Goal 3: Statewide Enforcement. Current legislation should be changed for a statewide enforcement program to provide a mechanism for bringing all ISTS in the state up to code. ISTS should, at a minimum, be inspected whenever is a property transfer, before a building permit is issued, and if there is a complaint or nuisance condition. Nonconforming ISTS would then be upgraded or replaced within a specified period in order to protect although the new legislation makes progress public health and the environment. in these areas, further strengthening is necessary. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Garner support for legislation General Fund MPCA 2. Introduce legislation General Fund MPCA Legislation passed requiring 10-month upgrade for public health threats. Local ordinances are required to have upgrade requirements for systems failing to the groundwater. Goal 4: Maintenance program. Maintenance guidance should be provided to municipalities for the oversight of ISTS within their jurisdictions. Municipalities should be required to track system maintenance by using a reporting system, or the municipalities could contract to have the systems maintained and bill the residents for the service. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Develop municipal guidance documents U of M U of M Not completed, in process through new U of M Extension Service position for ISTS homeowners. 2. Provide training U of M U of M Not Complete - some training has occurred. Goal 5: Continuation of Current Funding Program. The legislature should continue to support the current ISTS grant program until a revised program, using environmental priorities, can replace it. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Seek additional funding for current program General Fund MPCA Current funding has not changed. However, a one-time $1,000,000 extra appropriation was awarded in 1997. 2. Revise program to include environmental priorities General Fund MPCA Program not yet revised based on environmental priorities - awaiting coordination with other programs. However, program now includes funding for systems with less than 10,000 gpd with a surface discharge. Goal 6: Education. For many of the recommended solutions to be effective, education on the benefits and importance of conforming ISTS is necessary. Three primary target groups must be reached: a) Decision-Makers - county commissioners, township boards, city councils and other local government decision-makers; b) The general public in unsewered areas; and c) Special Groups Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Seek funding for educational efforts U of M, General Fund MPCA, U of M With cooperation with the MPCA, a new position was created at U of M Extension Service for ISTS homeowner education 2. Develop public relations plan U of M, General Fund MPCA Completed. 3. Implement education and public relations plans U of M, General Fund U of M, MPCA Workshops have been conducted statewide. Revisions to, and development of, new informational materials has been completed. Conducted of 3 national satellite conferences. Goal 7: Research/Funding. Research is needed and would include investigation of alternative and possibly lower cost designs, small collector systems, studies on siting, design and proper management of ISTSs in Minnesota's soils and climatic conditions. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Seek funding for research efforts LCMR MPCA, U of M Three cycles of funding awarded - LCMR 2. Develop work plans LCMR U of M Completed. 3. Integrate results into training programs U of M U of M Completed. Additional changes will be made as new information is received. Goal 8: Planning Assistance. Planning assistance is needed for municipalities. Determining whether ISTS are the best environmental and most cost-effective solution for wastewater treatment is a difficult problem for small municipalities. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Seek funding for planning efforts 319 (federal) MPCA Not complete, legislative report (due July 2000) will request funding for wastewater planning function. 2. Develop comprehensive guidance materials 319 (federal) MPCA Not complete Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 3. Hold training workshops U of M U of M, MPCA Some training has been provided for wastewater treatment decision-making by the new U of M Extension Service personnel. Goal 9: Technical Approval Methodology. Methodology to facilitate the use of promising innovative alternative systems should be developed. Revisions to Minn. Rule chapter 7080 should include a performance standard for the level of treatment required from an ISTS. Systems that consistently meet these performance standards would then be allowed under the code. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Seek funding for denitrification systems LCMR MPCA, U of M LCMR funding acquired 2. Seek funding for mound system alternative FEMA, LCMR MPCA, U of M LCMR funding acquired 3. Construct alternative systems LCMR U of M Constructed 1995+ 4. Monitor performance LCMR Monitored since 1995 5. Report findings LCMR U of M Many research papers were written and presented at national symposiums. Results were presented to ISTS professionals at U of M training workshops. Goal 10: Financial Assistance. Efforts To fund ISTS should first be concentrated on municipalities. The greatest environmental benefit will be derived from concentrating limited funding sources on problem areas. Funding for individuals also needs to be increased to resolve this approximately $1.7 billion problem. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Seek additional funding for municipalities. None MPCA No additional funding acquired 2. Expand existing individual funding sources None MPCA Not expanded 3. Implement program revisions None MPCA Not revised Goal 11: Develop a database designed specifically for sludge land application which will automate data tracking and compliance monitoring, and provide information to satisfy EPA reporting requirements by down loading data to EPA's data management system (PCS). The database would also be utilized for further evaluation of the land application program by providing data for numerical analysis of the program. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Determine the data elements necessary for evaluating compliance with federal and state sludge management rules and program impacts within watersheds. Work with non-point source program personnel and local resource managers to develop data needs for coordination of the sludge land application program with overall watershed management efforts. 319, General Funds MPCA WATERS/Delta system developed to include some capability to track land application. The system still needs improvement in order to be useful for compliance monitoring and site tracking. There are still bugs in the system for entering annual reporting data. 2. Work with MPCA data management personnel and other computer professionals to develop the database and other data management software necessary to create a system which is user friendly and applicable to program needs. MPCA System developed is not considered user friendly. Difficult to get useful reports and information from the system at present. 3. Complete database and software design and provide necessary hardware for program operation. MPCA Hardware available for use of delta. 4. Determine staffing needs for data management and provide staff training on the use of the database. MPCA Not accomplished 5. Design inspection program to obtain data necessary to evaluate the program, determine compliance, evaluate operator knowledge, and provide operator assistance when appropriate. This would involve development of a standard inspection protocol, development of inspection forms compatible with database format needs, establishment of an inspection schedule, and identification of staff responsible for performance of inspections. MPCA Not completed. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 6. Conduct scheduled inspections of sludge processing facilities and land application sites. General Fund MPCA Inspections are mainly complaint driven. 7. Summarize inspection results to determine compliance in the field and take actions based on the results of inspection findings (i.e. enforcement or assistance). MPCA Inspections complaint driven. Some valid and lead to enforcement, some are caused by poor communication and corrected. 8. Identify training needs for implementation of new sludge management regulations and any future federal program delegation requirements. Utilize inspection results to determine areas of weakness for training emphasis. Determine number of courses to offer and training format for these courses. General Fund MPCA New manual is near completion for biosolids courses. Course is updated to agree with new rule requirements. 9. Develop training and certification program to address identified needs. This will include development of courses and a manual for the certification course. Preparation of a written exam for certification will also be necessary. MPCA New test is written for biosolids courses. New course developed for land application of industrial by-products (needs some additional changes). 10. Conduct training. Course Fees MPCA Training is being conducted as scheduled. 11. Evaluate training effectiveness on a continuous basis by looking at test results, course evaluations, and compliance with regulations. General Fund MPCA This is done on an ongoing basis. 12. Develop data elements needed for evaluation of ground water and surface water quality as it relates to land application of sludge. Coordinate data collection with other programs for consistency. MPCA Not completed Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 13. Establish program responsible for collection of necessary data. MPCA Not completed 14. Collect data. MPCA Not completed 15. Utilize the existing MPCA database Integrated Ground Water Information System (IGWIS) for entry of all ground water monitoring data. MPCA Not completed 16. Identify software or databases available for entry of surface water quality data. MPCA Some data has been entered. Unsure of status of this project. 17. Interpret data and determine impact of sludge land application on ground water and surface water quality and its interaction with other nonpoint sources of contamination within watersheds. MPCA Not completed 18. Conduct mineralization studies under varied conditions of interest. MPCA Not completed, funding not available. 19. Collect and interpret data to establish mineralization rates. MPCA Not completed. Some industries have completed studies of their own. 20. Verify results by conducting field studies and yield comparisons to determine if predicted availability is accurate. MPCA Not completed, funding not available. 21. Apply information to establish nitrogen application rates that more closely match crop nitrogen uptake. Develop BMPs for sludge land application designed to prevent ground water contamination by nitrate nitrogen MPCA Not completed, funding not available. 22. Monitor runoff and discharge through tile lines from sludge application sites and under different site conditions (i.e. high soil test phosphorus, steep slopes, tiled fields, tillage method, etc.). MPCA Not completed, funding not available. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 23. Collect data and interpret results. MPCA Not completed, funding not available. 24. Develop BMPs for sludge land application designed to prevent surface water contamination with phosphorus.. MPCA Not completed, funding not available. EFFECTS OF ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION ON WATER QUALITY The following Table provides the recommended Action Steps included in the 1994 NSMPP. The Products, Services & Outcomes Column provides information on the accomplishments, progress and status of those recommended 1994 action steps. Implementation of all action steps is contingent upon adequate funding and local involvement Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 1. Quantify relationship between emissions and deposition to surface water & watersheds. 2. Evaluate methylation of mercury in wetlands used as BMPs for trapping storm water runoff. 3. Quantify deposition of metals (cadmium, lead, iron, etc.) and phosphorus in select watersheds. LCMR MPCA Ongoing at 4 sites in Minnesota 4. Quantify proportion of phosphorus and mercury deposited from atmosphere that resulted from wind erosion of soil. TMDL MPCA 5. Quantify the deposition of calcium carbonate and its effect on acid precipitation. 6. Quantify the deposition of organics: PCBs, dioxin, and pesticides (chlordane, DDT/DDE, dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, alpha-HCH, lindane, toxaphene, and others. LCMR MPCA Deposition to be inferred from sediment core data being produced. 7. Investigate the impact of atmospheric deposition of hormonal disrupters on aquatic organisms. 8. Investigate whether aquatic resources near emission sources experience increased impacts. LCMR MPCA Data from sediment cores obtained; interpretation scheduled. Milestones (Action Steps) Funding Sources(s) Lead Agency(ies) Products, Services & Outcomes 9. Evaluate the environmental cost of atmospheric pollutants on aquatic systems. LCMR MPCA Willingness to pay study on mercury is done. 10. Evaluate why lakes vary greatly in mercury contamination of fish. TMDL, USGS MPCA, USGS Study on lakes in Voyageurs park underway. 11. Develop local BMPs for pollutants deposited from the atmosphere. 12. Determine environmental fate and budgets for persistent chemicals, so that appropriate BMPs can be developed. 59 1 18 19 26 27 46 48 47 56 57 60 61 78 77 80 79 78 79 86 83 85 139