wq-cwc2-17h - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

wq-cwc2-17h - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

8/24/2017 Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda Sunday, August 27, 2017 Large Conference Room (aka Great Lakes Room) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (...

23MB Sizes 0 Downloads 13 Views

Recommend Documents

2016 Pollution Report - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
agency of the total volume of water and air pollution that was emitted in the state in the ..... nonpoint sources in the

Manure Management Plan - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Manure Management Plan. A Step-by-Step Guide for Minnesota Feedlot Operators. Name of farming operation. MPCA registrati

Fuel-related Wastes - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Aug 4, 2016 - Discarded products containing common fuel ingredients, including those .... Unusable ethanol-water mixture

Eagan Lakes - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Nutrient budgets and recommended reductions for Bur Oaks Lake (Lake ID: 19-. 0259-00). ...... site runoff control;. · P

Eco-Industrial Development - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Industrial symbiosis and byproduct exchanges. ▫ Eco-parks or clusters. ▫ Clean renewable energy and sustainable mate

Staff Directory - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Johnson, Chuck. 218-316-3906. REG/NCRW [email protected] Brainerd. Johnson, Darrell. 651-757-2550. MN. IT darre

Animal Mortality Plan - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Purpose: This Animal Mortality Plan is for handling dead animals in ... Catastrophic loss: A catastrophic event such as

Fact Sheet #2 - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
owner of the real property is entitled to the benefit of the “innocent landowner” provisions of .... CERCLA also inc

p-ac16-05b - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
May 12, 2016 - The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is authorized to take any removal or .... 2) West 66th and

Endocrine Disrupting Compounds - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Jan 15, 2008 - this report: Summer Streets (primary author), Mark Ferrey, Paul Hoff, ... Agency; Deb Swackhamer, Peter S

8/24/2017 Clean Water Council Meeting Agenda Sunday, August 27, 2017 Large Conference Room (aka Great Lakes Room) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) – Duluth 525 Lake Ave. S. Suite 400, Duluth, MN 12:30 Parking · Recommend that Clean Water Council members park their vehicles at the Canal Park Lodge (250 Canal Park Drive, Duluth) and walk over to the MPCA-Duluth office (525 Lake Ave. S. Suite 400, Duluth). Note that lunch will not be provided at this meeting. · Public members can park at the MPCA-Duluth office (525 Lake Ave. S. Suite 400, Duluth). Please let the parking attendant know that you are going to MPCA for a Clean Water Council meeting (parking will be free for the 12:30-3:00 p.m. meeting). 12:40 Clean Water Council Meeting Location: MPCA, 525 Lake Ave. S. Suite 400, Duluth, MN Regular Council Business · Council member introductions and updates · Agenda - comments/additions and approve agenda · Meeting Summary - comments/additions and approve last month’s meeting summary · Council staff update · Legislative Water Commission update 1:00

Lake Superior as a Climate-Stressed Ecosystem – Dr. Robert Sterner, Large Lakes Observatory (LLO) and University of Minnesota-Duluth Presentation about Lake Superior highlighting ecosystem changes over time as water temperatures rise.

1:45

St. Louis River Area of Concern (SLRAOC) 1) Progress Report on SLRAOC Remedial Action Plan Implementation - Nelson French, MPCA (20 minutes) 2) Aquatic Habitat Restoration in the SLRAOC - Mike Peloquin, MNDNR (15 minutes) 3) Wild Rice Restoration in the SLRAOC - Tom Howes, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (10 minutes) 4) Community Engagement in the SLRAOC - Kris Eilers, St. Louis River Alliance, (10 minutes) This team will report on the significant progress made in addressing historic environmental pollution and habitat loss issues in the St. Louis River Area of Concern. This effort, one of the largest restoration efforts underway in the Great Lakes, is focused on removing identified environmental impairments. Major actions have

wq-cwc2-17h

1

included identifying and cleaning up legacy contaminated sediments and restoration of aquatic habitat to replace historic habitat loss. Creative financing for this effort will be described including leveraging Minnesota Clean Water Funds and other funding sources with Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding to complete this exciting work, including completing major actions by 2020. 2:50

New Business

3:00

Adjournment

3:15

Check In Council members walk to the hotel and check in at the Canal Park Lodge (250 Canal Park Drive, Duluth). Not all of the hotel rooms may be available before 4 p.m.

3:45

Travel Time Council members walk from the hotel to the Vista Fleet (323 Harbor Drive, Duluth)

4:00

Vista Queen Boat Tour of the St. Louis River Area of Concern – Nelson French, MPCA, Mike Peloquin, DNR, Kris Eilers, St. Louis River Alliance, and Thomas Howes, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Location: Vista Fleet, 323 Harbor Drive, Duluth Boat tour sites will include the 21st Avenue West, 40th Avenue West, and Grassy Point Restoration Projects. Note: boarding will take place at 4 p.m. and the boat will leave promptly at 4:15 p.m.

6:30

Travel Logistics · Everyone will be dropped off at the Pier B Resort by the Vista Queen.

6:30

Dinner - Bayfront Ballroom, Silos Restaurant, Pier B Resort Location: Silos Restaurant, 800 West Railroad St., Duluth

7:20

Welcome – Emily Larson, City of Duluth Mayor

7:30

History of Pier B Resort: Restoring a Contaminated Site in Duluth’s Waterfront Alessandro Giuliani and Sandy Hoff, Pier B Resort Developers

8:00

Travel Logistics Council members may either walk back to the Canal Park Lodge (~1 mile) or the Pier B Resort will offer a shuttle at designated times in front of the Pier B Resort for Council members and members of the public to the Canal Park Lodge.

2

Clean Water Council July 17, 2017 Meeting Summary Members present: Mark Abner, John Barten, Steven Besser, Pam Blixt, Sharon Day, Sharon Doucette, Tannie Eshenaur, Bob Hoefert, Frank Jewell, Douglas Losee, Jason Moeckel, Jeff Peterson, Raj Rajan, Victoria Reinhardt, Todd Renville, Senator Ann Rest, Sandy Rummel, Glenn Skuta, Margaret Wagner for Susan Stokes, Kevin Bigalke for Doug Thomas, and Representative Jean Wagenius Members absent: Gary Burdorf, Warren Formo, Holly Kovarik, Rylee Main, Senator David Osmek, Patrick Shea, and Representative Paul Torkelson To watch the WebEx video recording of this meeting, please go to https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-watercouncil/meetings, or contact Brianna Frisch. Regular Clean Water Council (Council) Business · Celine Lyman with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the interim CWC Coordinator stepping in for Barb Peichel who is now working at the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). · Sandy Rummel: There is a Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee (MAWSAC) meeting on July 26. · Tannie Eshenaur: Update from last month from the public facilities authority. Last week Tannie was invited to a “tower hoist” in St. Cloud. There were lifting the bowl to the top of a new water tower. It is significant because they received part of their funding from the state drinking water revolving fund. · Glenn Skuta: The MPCA hopes to have a Clean Water Council Coordinator by September. They will be reassigning a staff person from within the agency. Celine will work with the Council for the meeting and field tour in Duluth. · Jason Moeckel: The modeling work for the north and east metro groundwater management area - the contractors made tremendous progress with the transient groundwater model. It should be complete by the end of summer. Secondly, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) submitted a progress report to the Legislature about the Coldspring water study in 2016 – this required a ground water model for work. This should be done by the end of 2017. Third, last week the DNR sent out a draft of a sustainable use of groundwater in the Little Rock Creek areas. There is a meeting on July 26 with the project advisory team. In the action plan, their concern is with the effect on water use – particular on the low flows in mid-summer. This model is going through an outside peer review next, but when complete, it will be used to evaluate questions they have. · Margaret Wagner present for Susan Stokes at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). · Kevin Bigalke present for Doug Thomas (BWSR). Handout of a map showing the latest in the One Watershed One Plan (1W1P) planning areas (color-coded). The pilot area still in the process that was one of the original five1W1P planning areas. Green areas are the approved plans working toward implementation. Yellow areas are the 2016 grant recipients in the startup phase. Pink areas just received notification of the 1W1P and are in the early stages of initiation. The BWSR’s plan is to have all of the state covered with 1W1P by 2025. They are making great progress towards that. · Motion to approve today’s agenda (noting Anna Henderson’s addition in beginning) and the 6-19-17 meeting summary, seconded, and approved. · Council staff update – August 27-28 Council Meeting and Field Tour (Duluth) · Field tour: Parking is hard to find at Canal Park. Please park at the hotel (provide them license plate). Walking map handout provided. The area by the MPCA Duluth office will have some parking. If you must park there, tell them you are there for the CWC and it should be free of charge. The parking attendant will know Council members are coming. Governor Dayton’s Goal to Improve Water Quality: 25% by 2025 – Katie Pratt and Kelly Scanlan, Environmental Quality Board (WebEx 10:00:00) Update on Town Halls and Community Water Meetings as part of the Governor’s 25% by 2025 Water Policy Initiative. · Anna Henderson, Water Advisor for the Governor – Anna has been planning to attend the Council meetings since January, but she has been unable. Anna and Council leadership are trying to connect more to help stay in contact.

· · ·

The first town hall is in Rochester on July 31. The Governor will be joining the first two town halls – Rochester and Mankato. The self-organized meetings are ongoing. There is a lot of interest in doing these and it is available as an option. They will process all the information at the end to help identify the goals for different regions of the state and identify what needs to be done to reach the goal of cleaner water by 25% by 2025.

Questions: · What is it that the Governor wants out of these meetings? Answer: The CWF Roadmap showed that by 2034 there would be only about a 6-10% increase in water quality in the state. The Governor feels this is not enough. We really need to accelerate the pace of progress. The buffer law has had a lot of controversy. In many ways, this is designed to answer that criticism. We are going to listen to the local people to hear what they want - to have cleaner water in Minnesota. The end result will be to report back. There may be involvement in the water summit as well. · We will also have activities for kids who come to the town hall. The Metro Kids Water Festival will have 4th graders learning about water. The Minneapolis Institute of Art will have something for their family days in November, which will allow kids to have a say in what they love about Minnesota’s water. · How do you plan to prioritize the feedback responses? How to segment the parts of the state? Answer: We modeled it after the process the MPCA had about infrastructure. They knew about the technical side of this process. Once you start going around, you start hearing the same things, so we will see if that happens with this. During the town halls we will use a tool called “pigeonhole” which is an application through smartphones (assuming at least one person in each small group will have a smartphone). People can see different answers and provide feedback on which items they agree. Some ideas should coalesce. This is designed for collecting data at all levels of engagement and knowledge of water. The whole range, including policy changes. The information will be sorted. We are happy to hear about suggestions for this as well. · Sharon Day: The instructions were very clear for the community meeting she was a part of. Even though my neighbors are well educated, I expected them to have a deeper understanding, but with the larger issues (amount of chemicals in the rivers), there was some “there’s nothing we can do about that” response. What I think will come from the community meetings, beyond their backyard, not so much. We could do some education. I encourage these smaller community meetings. I would encourage some groups I work with to hold their own meetings. How are you reaching out to all the people so that it is not just the town halls, but also the smaller groups? Answer: This neighbor-to-neighbor or peer-to-peer education is so impacting. We have press releases that have gone out or radio play. News stories are happening all across Minnesota. Anna has been talking to different groups across the state. People can go to the town halls with more information. For each of the regions there is a set of local partners who are informed. There was a phone call where people can call in to talk about the process for these meetings. Many of them are saying if people could just talk about water – it’s great to get things done after, but just talking about it is powerful. · One group of folks who are talking about water loudly are the lake associations due to the invasive aquatic species. There are zebra mussels in northeastern MN. Some of the problems in the lakes are associated with what they are doing (septic systems and mowing to the lake). · Anna Henderson: In terms of reaching out to folks, there was a tribal summit. A letter from the Governor will be sent out to the tribal governments to make sure they know they are invited and can hold their own meetings as well. We did that for the water summit this last year. · Katie Pratt: We’ve been building outreach lists for the state. We could use help getting the information out to more, so please send suggestions Katie Pratt. Think about everyone who needs to be included. · Are there topics that would be useful to talk about in the future when we meet? · One thing is the general mistrust of science. People will tell you anecdotal stories, and we can provide a scientific reasoning, but it does not come across well. We see this right now at D.C. and it makes it harder for our group to address the issues the next few years. Answer: If there is something happening in the federal government that is hindering you, please let us know. The mistrust of science was a big part of the legislative session too. There are some things that seem impossible due to the cost. People assume the science is wrong, but it is an effective strategy to prevent the real conversation from happening because it creates uncertainty.

Water Supply Now and for the Future: Steps Toward Sustainable Water Supplies 2017 Report Dean Lotter, City of New Brighton (WebEx 00:37:00) Presentation on a 2017 Report completed by the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee (MAWSAC). · · · · ·

· · · · ·

·

·

They are an 18-member water supply advisory committee (represent state agencies, counties, and municipalities/utilities) created by the Minnesota Legislature with the purpose to help plan for the sustainable use of the drinking water supply. In the land of 10,000 lakes, why are we worried about water supplies? Answer: There are four extensive aquifers in our area. New Brighton is unique with the wells in different aquifers. However, since July 2016 New Brighton is receiving their water temporarily from the city of Minneapolis. Minnesota has three rivers where drinking water is coming from too. Reducing the drinking water supplies is looking at the reuse of water supplies. Other states are looking at reusing wastewater. The average house can collect 600 gallons of rainwater for irrigation. The demand on the water supply has grown and will continue to grow. By 2040, we will grow by another 800,000 people. The demand will increase accordingly. When we look at where we’ve drawn previously from surface water, then shifted to ground water. The average water use (76% public water systems – crop irrigation, industrial, private, and other). The region faces limits and increased risks (population increase 30%), but we currently use 350 million gallons per day in the metropolitan area. The Met Council has modeled the change by 2040 in the Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifers. The darker areas are important because they will not be able to recharge at a fast enough rate. The green spot is a rebound. Regional goal is for 90 gallons a day per person in the metro area. This goal would help us continue to make drinking water supplies sustainable. Different committees use different amounts. On average, we use about 120 gallons per day. The City of Woodbury looked at businesses in the irrigation systems. About 23% is used for irrigation. It is worth asking what is more important. There could be stormwater collection for use for irrigation purposes. The City of Burnsville and Savage partnership has produced innovation. They have reduced their ground pumping by 80% to reduce reliance on ground water. A quarry pumps millions of gallons a day into the river, but rather than do that (rebound effect) they clean it and use it as drinking water supplies (this explains the rebound green dot on the model). Communities and agencies need to collaborate and work together to address these water supply issues. New Brighton applied for and received a water efficiency grant (replaced toilets in apartments). When you change one leaky toilet for a different one that is more efficient that is 13-15 thousand gallons a year for one toilet. If you change all of them in the apartment (one building), it is about ¾ of a million gallons of water. You can collaborate with private companies and private businesses that can help the water supply. Future work needs support (funding, efficiency and wise use of water, workable solutions, collaborate for better results). Handout (delivered to the Legislative Water Commission in March). They are continuing to look for opportunities to help communities reach regional goals and make water more sustainable now and in the future.

Questions: · Does the 120 gallons of water per day include the irrigations of lawns? Answer: Yes. · You mention rainwater harvesting. If you look at the price of water, the cost of the rainwater system is a challenge. Perhaps price the water so the value is considered, or provide incentives for raingardens. Are there any at this time? Answer: The cost of potable drinking water varies so widely across the state. I’m not sure if there are any programs, but at the next technical advisory meeting, they will look at the money side and that could be included. A local water efficiency grant, like a local grant match, could make it affordable and easy. This is just starting to get more attention and needs more. · Listening to you, it seems like conservation is going to solve the metropolitan water problem and that was not my understanding. Therefore, will conservation alone change the map, so we are no longer depleting the ground

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

water supplies? Answer: It is probably not the silver bullet, but we are looking at surface water supplies that could be used to the fullest extent. We want to balance the approach for efficient use of the supply and diversifying the sources available is part of that equation and constant monitoring of the water supplies will help us target initiatives. Certainly, conservation is a significant impact. If we are going to be dependent on surface water, you did not mention any initiatives to protect the surface water quality. If it gets worse, it will be even more expensive. Have you been talking about initiatives to protect the quality of the surface water? Answer: Those discussions have been happening at the Minneapolis Water Department. Preserving and protection are of utmost concern to them. I’ve not been a part of those discussions. I would assume St. Paul has the same concerns. Response: Here is the problem, neither Minneapolis nor St. Paul have jurisdiction to the incoming water because they take the water from the north and do not have control over it. Therefore, it would be state jurisdiction. The City of New York has a tremendous protection plan and we have nothing! This needs to be part of a long game. Are people talking about it? Answer: I personally agree it is part of a long game, and that logically the state needs to play a role. That can become a more focused agenda topic. You said there is quite a difference in the cost of water across the state. What are the drivers of those costs? Answer: From my perspective, one of the things focused on is making sure the enterprise of water functions correctly. Many fail to capture the utility’s costs. When the distribution systems need to replace their infrastructure, you need a plan to replace these. Also, the systems use chloramines to sanitize versus chlorine, because you cannot blend these. Why do they treat it different? If you have a larger distribution system, there is a greater concern to keep it safe for the whole trip (travels further in pipes), which is more expensive and treated differently. All of these contribute. Also politics impacts. Context for the 90-gallon per person per day goal - in 2005, the only cities that used more than that many gallons were Shakopee and Edina. In 2010, it was set at 90 gallons per person. What is driving this? Even if many people move to an area, what is driving up the per capita of water use? Answer: I don’t know or have a good answer for that response. I think it depends as a community builds out, the kinds of businesses located there and their water use, the age of the distribution system, the kind of toilets, development of land, cleanup of land, so it is a variety of issues. In addition, the general perception of peoples water. You want to raise awareness. We are a leader in innovation and this is easily in our control to identify and solve them. Regarding the issue of source water protection and source water systems. I’m now drinking Mississippi River water. Local planning is done with 1W1P, except that cities are not at the table for this planning. In the water resource management (North Fork of the Crow River), that could be improved. Maybe MAWSAC, as a collaborative of local leaders, would be a good way to approach these watershed plans. We could be better at targeting this area to help with greater improvement in water quality. Answer: That is a great suggestion and a role we can bring back to the MAWSAC board. It seems like a logical thing to talk about. Per capita use is going up, but the graph in the handout shows that the total usage of water since the year 2000 is going down as the population is going up. It looks like the graph is going down. Answer: the graph indicates that, but looking at future growth, there is a concern. There are many variables that impact water usage, so the concern is about adding extra people and development. Response: That is total volume and not the per person usage. I can understand how that varies. Answer: That is what we are trying to get at by using the per person. Last year, TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) and MAWSAC started connecting after legislative directions in 2015. The high priorities for the next few years are water quality and water quality jurisdiction. They are looking to provide more information to take initiative to provide for the legislation. Also, funding for water supply projects and initiatives. The third is collaboration between all the cities and counties. Last, is water efficiency (water diversification, sources of water supply including reuse of stormwater and reuse of wastewater). This is a year of data collection. In 2018, MAWSAC plans to dive into some of these initiatives to direct policy. To answer questions about the increase on water use based on science and data. When Met Council compared the use of water in the 1990s to the 2000s, it was very high in the summers. The main reason was automated irrigation (spring to fall), and they do not know if the systems are leaking and/or if there is irrigation during storms. Most of the systems do not have irrigation rain sensors. The shift in the summer use is the main reason for the increase in water use based on data for most cities (except St. Paul and Minneapolis).

Forest Protection Efforts to Protect Water Quality in Northern Minnesota – Pete Jacobson, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Dan Steward, Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Overview of BWSR’s Private Forest Management Program and interagency efforts to protect high quality lakes and streams in Minnesota (WebEx 01:14:00). · Minnesota is covered with good lakes. Today we want to talk more about north central Minnesota. In this area, there is a lot of the tourism industry (clean water and lots of lakes) and the forest products industry. · There are so many lakes and we are also talking about trees and timber. Forests provide a big benefit helping with runoff and lake water. The forests are great at intercepting the rain. · Context for Watershed Planning in Minnesota. It can be broken down into three areas: the prairie, the deciduous forest, and the coniferous forest. There is water quality restoration in the prairies and more water protection of water quality in the north woods. · Undisturbed lands in the forested ecoregion provide excellent water quality in lakes. The DNR fisheries looked at these lands during their fish habitat plan (full article in the meeting packet). · In a lake watershed, the land extends beyond just the shoreline of the lake. Once water starts going over the land, it carries these flows into the lake. Therefore, we are looking to protect these areas. We do not want to allow too much impervious cover. There is still a growing population where people want to live near or on the lakes (lots of pressure to create these impervious surfaces in lake country). · Expansion of agriculture is taking out the forests. This is concerning when it comes to water quality. The extent of this expansion is how much that could increase in the future. · The Agriculture conversion risk (not all forested lands are suitable for Agriculture, but many might be). There is a need for statewide, high-resolution analysis and considerable expertise at the state of Minnesota for understanding the impacts. · The DNR fish habitat plan: 90% of fishing pressure is on lakes. They mapped the lake watersheds, but did not include any border waters (i.e., Lake Superior) because they would have had to work with a different state or country. They focused on what they could start with to impact change. This mapping provides a unique set of lakes. How much smaller the focus is to help protect these lakes. · Generalized Landscape Protection Model · Private Lands versus Public Lands/Waters (Public waters and federal lands). Wetlands can be impacted, but these can all be considered protected clean water infrastructure. On the other side you have urban developed private lands. The lands in between (Ag, pasture, hay). Then the private forested uplands (these are the important ones). The key protection areas. · “Water in all its uses and permutation, is by far the most valuable commodity that comes from the forest land that we manage, assist others to manage, and or regulate.” From the National Association of State Foresters. The fish and the water are dependent on the quality of the forest. · The fish population is in this as well. Within the private forested uplands, the riparian will go into this category as well. · The county water plan (1W1P) – lots of information and data from the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPs) from the MPCA and other data. This is where policy happens. Then, these policies go into the local priorities. This is the first step for the 14,000 lakes to help with protection. Protecting the habitat as well as water quality, and the forests are helping in both areas. · Suggested approaches for watershed protection and restoration of DNR managed fish lakes in Minnesota. · High Value of the Forest and Fisheries Resources – they go together and are huge drivers of water quality in Minnesota. · Private land is expensive to retain in families, although it produces many benefits (timber management, hunting, etc.). Through timber management, they can actually make the forest better and coniferous forest. It is better if families keep these forests versus selling for agriculture. · All of these areas are connected to help collaborate and help each other. · Key Concepts (Values) · Keeping forested lands forested: Forest cover provides ecological, economic, and social benefits.

·

Keeping forest land working: We need to manage the forests because forest protection allows for productive forests · Follow the risk: Focus on private forest lands (PFM Program is critical to success) · Stack public benefits: Water quality and habitat plus source water and jobs. · Building resilience to public lands: Large tracts of permanently protected forestland are important for future tourism and timber industries. Use SFIA and conservation easements to extend existing conservation impacts of public lands. · Find priority conservation investments: Priority is at the intersection of quality and risk. · Landowners deserve service: Making the conservation options clear and accessible to the conservation minded private landowner. · A lot of the WRAPS work and 1W1P is on a larger scale. We want to make sure the smaller areas are being worked on as well to help provide protection for these waters. · Stacking Public Benefits: It was revealed in ACUB study with Camp Ripley to help demonstrate the public benefits: protect soldier readiness training, preserving the rural character of Morrison County, wildlife habitat along Mississippi River, protecting source water for cities using it as drinking water, fish habitat, and public access to the Mississippi River. The taxpayers assume we are working on providing as many benefits to these areas as possible. · State Policy: Statutes 103B, and 89A. Prioritize, target, and measure for funding. We need to use the water to prioritize. There is usually a lake in the minor watersheds, so that helps decide which lakes to assist. Then, target the land (landowners or parcels) to complete a project to implement. Then measure back to the minor watershed, regarding the WRAPS and 1W1P measures. · Forest resources has been very helpful. Together they worked on PFM by PTM in eight minor watersheds · Look at Borden Lake minor watershed (2013 – 2023 Crow Wing County Water Plan). · Is there a potential to reach 75% protection? They produce 4-page atlases for local governments. This lake has 53% protection, but with sustainable forests and easement it could provide 75% protection. · Private Forest Landowner Implement Toolbox: Landowners choose. Most are already paid for through the general fund. More issues are with the easements, to raise funds. · Add SFIA (Sustainable Forests Incentives Act) - shift towards protection to sustainable forest protection. We are already implementing across the state, so it is feasible. · Local Decision Maker Table (Crow Wing County Lakes) to help the county board make decisions to identify funding priorities. · 1W1P: 2013 Crow Wing County Water Plan, the DNR Forest Plan, and the Pine River Landscape Plan will all provide data to the Pine River 1W1P (funded just approved). Helping tourism and forest products. · Example scenario: There are about 268 lakes in the Mississippi Headwaters which are greater than 400 acres (surface and drinking water related). About 165 are not at 75% protection. The DNR has done a lot of work identifying these lakes. After reviewing, they can work with 53 lakes (in 36 watersheds), which is a total of 89,824 acres. With a cost of SFIA at $2,500,000, and easements at $40,500,000, it would be $43,000,000. The taxable market base for these areas is $5,100,000,000. Tremendous value. · The government has given us many tools to help get to this point. · Quality forests plus quality water equal quality of life! Questions: · Many of the Clean Water funds go towards protection. Given these programs, if you had recommendations to help provide maximum impact in that area, what would you recommend? Answer: the private forest management program (PFM) is critical. We are more concerned about private forestland, which involves that PFM program. The stakes are not as high for this program (have someone walk private owners’ woods to provide information to help). This is critical and very important to keep funding. Comment: The Council makes recommendations for funding and some is for the nonpoint source funding the DNR receives and goes towards forest stewardship plans. They work with the SWCDs who walk the private land woods with the

·

·

·

·

owner for suggestions, but then the DNR helps implement strategies. Last year in the report, they highlighted a watershed that came to a 75% protection status. There has been a lot of work in the agricultural area. As soon as there is an economic incentive there is in increase. Are you seeing the same thing with forest agreements? Answer: That is why they go with the 50/50 scenario. The landowner chooses what amount of protection is for them, because not everyone will want an easement (RIM or Forrest for the Future), but some folks want temporary instead. This land is here because people like to hunt deer and they don’t want it developed. They want it protected for habitat, so they keep it in the family and use the other benefits (i.e., hunting). It is a balance. Regarding the conversion of forest to agriculture. There are some tools that have not been used yet. One is a generic EIS that the DNR could do on the whole issue on forestry that could help a lot in the long term. The second one is the state policy for non-degradation in groundwater. Agencies do not use that tool and perhaps that is a discussion for the Legislature to help state agencies use that tool. You talked about the different ways that private landowners can become involved, is that easy? It is not clear how easy it is to access in Minnesota. What is the process to start the work? Answer: It should be straight forward, but it is newer. Protection is really just starting. The SWCDs received the funding, they are choosing to put it on local foresters to get landowners going. Response: I own 40 acres in Itasca, whom do I call? Answer: You can call DNR Forestry or the SWCD because they have a forester. Alternatively, call a private consultant forestry. Response: How do people know this? Answer: We have to market this more; that is the key to this process. Response: People want to do this but they need more information to access this. You mentioned a generic EIS, would that be available if someone took agricultural conversion and used groundwater to irrigate to grow row crops? Does the state get involved at all? Answer: There is some information from the conversions that need to be provided (generic EIS or something else). They need basic information that the DNR would need to know. Response: Is there more funding that the Council can direct to this issue? Reviewing groundwater, I think it needs more attention. What should we be doing as a Council to help in this area? Answer: Some of CWFs are used for research, so it needs to rise to the top to help in this area. You can help by supporting this funding as a high priority research need. Response: Last month Luke Stuewe was here and DNR was a part of this helping with the drilling. This was due to some funds that were used in this area. The agency has had a proposal the last few years for the Pine Land Sands ($1.5 million study). All of the facets would come together as part of a generic EIS, but we are missing information. Within the DNR, there is a workgroup looking to move this forward, but we do not have the funding to do this yet.

Budget and Outcomes Committee (BOC) Update – Todd Renville and Sharon Doucette (WebEx 02:14:00) · There are some handouts in the packet. The BOC met in July and developed some items. · First, the colored flow chart conceptually lays out the schedule for the next appropriations recommendation process. This process generally follows what was implemented in the last funding cycle. The first page deals with the modification. One of the things we heard from stakeholders was to look more at the long term. To facilitate that we have developed some 10-year funding goals. Many of the earlier parts of the schedule are for identifying the goals. On the second page we will be taking presentations from the agencies, stakeholders outreach, and developing the funding recommendations. I’m looking for a motion to approve this so we can move forward with this plan. · Motion seconded and motion carries. · Second, is the guiding principles and funding priorities. These are very similar to the previous cycle, with one additional bullet on page two. Under funding priorities, they added a bullet to integrate the Policy Committee’s recommendations when applicable. Therefore, if there is not a lot of discussion, I would like a motion to approve this document. · Motion seconded and motion carries. · Last item, the actual goals themselves. There are 11 goals as it stands today. We are asking you to review these items and come back with recommendations to Celine Lyman by August 25, so they can take the feedback and go over it at the next BOC meeting in September. Then, vote at the next CWC full meeting in September.

Policy Committee Update – John Barten and Victoria Reinhardt (WebEx 02:20:00) · The Policy Committee heard from the Friends of the Mississippi River and they provided policy recommendations to see how their recommendation may fit with the Policy Committee’s recommendations. These are the ones that fall under the same four categories that they had identified. They also had a presentation from the working lands watershed (looking at some of the ideas presented to them). How to get more land into green cover. · The Policy Committee will not be meeting in July, but will meet August 18. · There is a two-page handout the Policy Committee created from the 2016 CWC Biennial Report sent to the Legislature. We would like you to review and provide some feedback. Then, we would like a motion to approve this two-page summary, in order to take it to the Council’s representative and supporting groups as a way to try to move the policy recommendations forward. At the next full Council meeting in September, we will look at the motion to approve this document. Please note that the policy has already been approved and this is just a shortened version. · On the second page of the two-page handout, the Policy Committee revised this statement. All 8-digit HUC watersheds should have a water storage goal in their lands. This should be done at the 1W1P level to help make it a local issue. We wanted to get some feedback from the drainage workgroup. They sent it to the group and John met with them last Thursday. They have an inherent conflict about draining and storing water on the landscape. They will give feedback on this, but there is some interaction between these two. The main issue with this policy and the revised policy was because they learned a lot about altered hydrology, but it seems like something needs to happen. · Make sure there is an alignment between the funding goals and recommendations and the two-pager on policy recommendations. Several of the first bullet points talk about protection. Yet, in the policy recommendations, it is almost entirely about agriculture and drinking water systems regarding lead. We do not have anything regarding forest protection. Response: That is accurate. We had to choose through a long list of policy areas to focus on, and in FY18-19, we elected to focus primarily on drinking water. It was not that it was not worthy of this, but we did not think we would have as much time. This is why the ad hoc committee became a true committee. At this point, we are focusing on the drinking water protection. We are also trying to align with these policy recommendations. The legislature did reduce some of the funding for drinking water protection. You are right; the other issues do need to be addressed. · The BOC’s draft 10-year funding goals - number two; on the concept of trying to reinforce local planning, it could include the WRAPS - might be another vehicle there. WRAPS go a long way down the road in identifying priority areas. We will not have 1W1Ps completed for Leech and Pine River Watersheds for a few more years, but they do have WRAPS. Other monies would be available to them as well. Response: The 1W1P metro watershed was used as an example, not to be exclusive. We can look at modifying that. Chloride Pollution: Sources and Strategies – Brooke Asleson and Joel Peck, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Overview of the sources of chloride pollution and impaired waters in Minnesota. Discussion of current and potential strategies to reduce chloride in stormwater runoff and wastewater effluent (WebEx 02:30:30). · Goal of today’s discussion: Increased knowledge of chloride’s impact on water resources, review the condition of Minnesota waters, identify what’s being done, identify what is still needed, identify how you can contribute, and a reminder that 1 tsp of salt pollutes 5 gallons of water. · Why salt is a problem (Chloride is the component of salt that has toxic effects on aquatic life). · Water Quality Impacts: This is a permanent pollutant (cannot be treated or removed – except reverse osmosis which is very expensive). Chloride is toxic to aquatic life (860 mg/L for short-term and 230 mg/L for long-term), it contaminates groundwater, 78% of the chloride applied in the Twin Cities Metro Area (TCMA) is retained (sinks to the bottom of the river and does not flow away), it disrupts the natural mixing process in lakes, and chloride in streams in the US has doubled since 1990-2011. · Sources of Chloride: winter maintenance activities (67%), wastewater sources, residential water softeners, and others (i.e., dust suppressants, fertilizers, and land application) · Road Salt Issues · Safe roads, parking lots, and sidewalks are essential.

· Corrodes road surfaces/bridges and damages reinforcing rods · Currently no alternative de-icer impacts to the environment · Fear of slop and fall lawsuits · 365,000* tons of road salt applied each year in the TCMA (national statistic) · Water Softening Issues · The public desires soft water (minimal hardness levels) · 75% of Minnesota relies on “hard” groundwater for drinking · Individual water softeners re used in many households · Treatment to remove chloride from wastewater effluent is costly · Minnesota’s Water Quality Conditions · Statewide Chloride Impairments § 47 chloride impairments statewide (39 in metro area) § 80% of surface water chloride data is in the TCMA · Chloride in the TCMA Surface Waters § 19 lakes, 16 streams, and 4 wetlands impaired by chloride (total of 39 with TMDLs completed). § Roughly 40 “high risk” waters (within the 10% of threshold) § Increase in chloride in Mississippi, Minnesota, and St. Croix Rivers (Met Council data 2014) § 2014 Metro Chloride Assessment Map (where their water bodies are) § The average annual chloride concentrations have increased 81% from 1985 to 2014 (State of the Mississippi, 2016) § The long-term chloride trend in lakes (10 years or more in local data), reveal they are continuing to increase, with no decreases in chloride levels. · Chloride in the Minnesota groundwater § Elevated chloride in groundwater § About 30% of shallow monitoring wells in the TCMA above drinking standard (no human health concern, but salty tasting water) § About one-third of wells across the state showed increased concentrations over time § Impact on base flow concentrations in surface waters § Minnesota Ambient Groundwater Wells for Chloride Concentrations Map · Seasonal Chloride Trends § Lakes = chloride is highest in TCMA in January through May (winter sampling to check this) § Streams = chloride is highest in December through April § Streams influenced by wastewater treatment plant discharges. They find that the chloride is highest during low flow conditions (possible larger source of chloride for the area). Questions: · If the groundwater is becoming more salty, will the need for water softening decrease? Answer: There is a misconception that the presence of salt in water is equal to softness. The salt in water does not mean the compounds that create hard water are gone. These can still be present, but the salt is in an ionized exchange softener in a home, which helps to remove the compounds that make the water hard. This does not mean it takes out these minerals or hardness out of the water. · You said the 2008 UMN study reveals that the chloride levels in the TCMA stick around, so clearly, if the Mississippi River is getting more chloride, the 78% cannot be true anymore. Answer: It is still true. There is a significant amount of salt being applied, from homeowners all the way to the state. This discharges to the Mississippi River (combined water softening and road salts), which is going to be impacted more because it is getting both sources, whereas the rest of the TCMA is driven primarily by road salt. · Have there been any other studies since 2008? Do we know how much is going into the Mississippi River? Answer: It is a challenge to know how much chloride is getting into the river. We do not have a tracking mechanism, so we base it off purchasing orders. There is an LCCMR project with the UMN which is trying to get information on overall sources and budget for how much salt is being applied in Minnesota. Now the salt institution will not share their information with anyone after they did in 2008. Reply: You should have access to the data for water softeners. The Met Council wastewater effluent is measured at the

·

discharges and do not take chloride out, so you should be able to figure out that amount. Then you would know what the contribution from water softeners is, so you can make the estimations. Answer: Yes, for the metro area, about 67% is coming from road salt and the rest is primarily from the wastewater discharges. Reply: It is not entirely from home softeners. There are industries that contribute as well. What’s Being Done to Address Chloride? · A little history: § 1998 Shingle Creek listed for chloride on Minnesota’s Impaired Waters List § 2001 Fortin Consulting & Freshwater Society hosted the 1st Road Salt Symposium § February 2005 Pilot training called Winter maintenance training for reduced impacts to waters was developed with a small P2 grant by Fortin Consulting § In July 2006, an EPA 319 grant was awarded to Fortin Consulting to continue the pilot training § The first chloride TMDL was completed for Shingle Creek in 2007 § In 2008, the UMN published a report on Environmental Effects of De-Icing Salt on Water Quality in TCMA. This research revealed that the chloride is sinking to the bottom of waterbodies, which then inhibit the ability of the lake to mix naturally. § In 2009, the MPCA completed a 20-year Feasibility Study to better understand the extent and magnitude of the chloride problem. · TCMA Chloride Management Plan February 2016. · Chloride Management Plan (115 stakeholders in 5 years to view all the options) § Reviewed the purpose, scope, and audience. They wanted to reach all avenues. § Identified critical areas (see problems in surface waters when measured at 18% or greater road density - identified as critical areas) in the seven county metro area. § Note, if you see salt after the ice melts, it was over applied. Shovel often and early. Also, applying road salt in a liquid versus granular form would create a larger reduction in the amount of salt used (estimated 30% reduction) · Winter Maintenance Assessment Tool (WMAT) – Balancing Public Safety and Clean Water § They created a technical expert team in 2011 to focus only on the winter maintenance practices (state, county, city, and private members) with the goal to: develop an easy-to-use, flexible, and comprehensive tool to help agencies and companies reduce salt usage in the 7-county metro area. § Web based tool: WMAT Assessment. They can answer detailed questions about their winter maintenance applications, and it will provide a report. The report is color-coded; green are the best practices, yellow are good practices, and red are poor practices. They added a new feature which provides previous data gathered to reveal the changes in their area. This is geared as a planning tool for them, so they can see opportunities and shift over the next years. § Salt Savings Mode (only 10% of those practices have research to reveal reduction in salt – not much research in this area). They can share the effectiveness of the practices, which helps share across the nation, to see what works. § Utilizing WMAT Reports · Planning tool: used to evaluate current practices, identify areas for improvement, develop interim and long-term BMP goals, and education operators. · Tracking tool: track implementation (BMP) progress over time, track progress in achieving reductions, assist with MS4 permit TMDL reporting requirements, and increase knowledge of reductions achieved through S2. · Shared the tool with Environment Canada, so they can use it. · MPCA Smart Staling Level 1 Training § MPCA, Fortin Consulting, Minnesota Local Technical assistance Program (through the UMN), the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), many local watershed partners § Voluntary “pilot” training program established in 2005. § Certification given to participants who pass test § Teach best practices to reduce chloride impacts

Targeted to private applicators and local government Funded by EPA 319 grants MPCA graph of those certified, including out of state. New Hampshire modeled after this training. § Success Stories – this training is the most important strategy to reduce salt use. Those who have tracked their training, they have a significant cost savings. § MPCA smart salting level 2 training (web-based). It is free and online. § Model snow and ice management policy, mostly for the cities and counties to reduce the liability. · What about the large businesses like malls? Answer: Yes, it is very challenging. Often the maintenance workers are charged per pound of salt, which is an incentive for them to put a lot of salt out. We are working to try to get that to change. People are concerned about lawsuits (i.e., as long as you can see a lot of salt on the ground, slip, and falls cannot be blamed). The only motivation is to do their part. § Everything is about reducing the amount salt. · What about other sources of de-icer other than salt, or other practices? Answer: Calcium and magnesium chloride are tools used in the metro area. That is one of the practices in the training and management plan. As far as non-chloride, acetate is only product for salt, but it is very expensive. It does not corrode bridges as much but it still has negative impacts on the environment. Other nonchemical strategies will be needed in the future (heat roads or bridges through solar power). We will need more alternatives. · Is Formate used? Answer: I’ve not heard about that one. That is not a common one in any of the discussions. We’ve talked about cheese brine; it will still need to have chloride added to it. They do not anticipate switching yet. One other trade off, dogs love cheese brine on tires and they might be near roads more, along with other animals. · I heard that about 80% of Minnesotans have a home water softener. However, many of the drinking water plants use lime to soften the water already. In New Brighton, which has switched to Minneapolis water, the city sent out a letter informing the residents, but some people may not know that they can turn off the water softener now. I think there might be an educational opportunity. Answer: Yes, there is an opportunity for education there. It is redundant for them to be using their water softener when the city already does. · Regarding the model snow and ice, how is it being encouraged for cities to adopt? Answer: It is a partnership approach. Brooke tries to work it in all her presentations; the road salt symposium included it their chloride presentation, and freshwater society included it as well. It is really just geared for cities and counties – they have some protected policies already in existence. Wastewater Treatment Plants · Histogram of population of municipalities who would require a chloride limit (discharge permit limit reissues review these). Notice where limits are required are the small towns. The agency staff completed an engineering alternatives analysis for chloride treatment, for needs and measure. They can treat for chloride, which is usually a reverse osmosis system at the end of the pipe, but it is very costly (reject water discharge issues as well) and the water is still reaching the waterways. The only method that does not do that is the evaporation and crystallization, but that treatment method is also incredibly expensive (28 million gallons per mgd.). · Analyzing the issue, the municipalities statewide who have reasonable potential for a chloride limit. It is not a small problem. They would exceed the water quality standard. · Chloride working group (8 municipal representatives) conclusions § Chloride problems for cities are similar and different § Some cities are on the threshold to require a limit, and some cities may never make it (we can still try). § They found that variance is the best route for most municipalities who show a reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to, a chloride impairment. The variance is the process that allows them to issue the impairment where it exists, while taking steps to help reduce the impairment. Over the course of the variance, a few things may happen. For most cities, the cost of treatment should lower so it is affordable. On the other hand, the economic conditions within the city can change, so they can afford the cost of the existing forms of treatment. § § §

·

· ·

§ The group developed a decision tree. Cost of variance tool was streamlined. Goal: People will be able to use this tool to help determine if their city is eligible for variance. If so, there is a three-page application form to fill out. This is simpler than the former process. Streamlined Variance approach § Existing variance process requires involvement of consulting engineers, which adds costs. § The streamlined variance tool uses data already available to justify a variance, eliminating the upfront need for consulting engineers. § Current variance process requires individual applications be reviewed by EPA in many different formats (application cost of $10,850) § Streamlined Variance process still requires individual review by EPA, but standardizes formats. All applications look the same for EPA review.

Questions: · You mentioned lime softeners versus individual softener, what would be the savings/reductions if a small municipality would do a lime softener as opposed to each individual home having a water softener? Answer: We do not have that information, but the savings in chloride would be evident because you are not using chloride to remove the hardness. Lime softening does not use chloride. · Strategy Considerations · State of the River Report identified Chloride. § Three recommended areas for what needs to be done to make a significant impact on chloride. One was full funding of this road salt application training program. In addition, elimination or reduction of liability for private applicators who become certified in responsible salt application. Lastly, research funding to develop new technology and alternatives to chloride-containing deicing chemicals. · Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Water Policy Report (2015) – Voluntary Solutions (page 18 in report) § Pollution prevention is the only option for reducing salt § Focus on the MPCA smart start training (highly successful and in demand) § The report also highlighted regulatory solutions. Private applicators account for 5-45% of the salt applied (challenging to reach). Important to note the New Hampshire liability law (2013), although Minnesota has not taken this approach yet. · Where are we at today? The MPCA Integrated Chloride Implementation Strategy – April 2017 · Pollution prevention is the only viable solution · Smart Salting training program is the key strategy · Need sustainable funding mechanism for chloride reduction · Expand Smart Salting training statewide and integrate into the Agency · Improve Agency communication and coordination regarding chloride – leverage our assistance program to assist with permit requirements · Wastewater permitting · Additional groundwater monitoring · Continued surface water monitoring · Website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/roadsalt.html Questions: · What is the practicality of lime softening as an alternative, perhaps on a larger or smaller scale? Answer: There are two challenges. First, lime softening is old technology. It was well understood during the 1900s. The city of Gilbert, MN has a lime softening plant built in 1917. The challenge is when municipalities go out for bids on contracting the old technology is not viewed favorably. This increases the capital and operating costs. Second, the operator licensure on a lime softening plant is more expensive (requires a Class A licensure). It also takes more energy. This is a better system because when you use lime to soften the water, it not only eliminates chloride, but also the TSF components and the conductants drop. We cannot tell municipalities what to use, but we see the advantages of the lime softening.

·

·

·

What is MNDOT doing to address this issue? Answer: They have been at the forefront of this issue. They have a great in-house training program, their snow plow drivers get training every year, and they’ve been funding the alternative products research. MNDOT is on the cutting edge of the newest technologies. They have equipment in their vehicles now which incorporates the weather to determine what amount of salt should be laid down, as well as mapping their route. This is probably not feasible yet for smaller communities, but we hope we can find a way to bring the costs down. Have you looked at studies on the residual impacts in the soil and ditches to try to get a handle on a “flush” period for the salt that sticks around? Have you seen areas with correlations of reductions in use to water quality reductions? Answer: At the MPCA, we don’t have the funds to do this research. However, the UMN does and they received a grant from the LCCMR to do this work. Professor John Gulliver is looking directly at this, but it depends on the local geology and soil types to help predict these improvements. We really do not know how long it takes the chloride to get into the lakes, and thus out of the lakes. There are many different factors involved. We still have a long ways to go. Drinking water treatment plants are now being challenged because they have salty discharges. What research is being done so that we are not recycling pollution? Answer: Lime softening technology does not do that. When that treatment technology is used, you avoid chloride completely.

Altered Hydrology: Going beyond Best Management Practices (BMPs) to Clean Water – Jim Solstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) The presentation will show results of hydrologic analyses with traditional BMPs and demonstrate quantitatively the need for more widespread efforts across the landscape to achieve clean water (WebEx 03:46:00). · The last few years, Jim has been working with a group at the DNR working with hydrologic models containing surface water runoff, groundwater, and tile flow. It is aggraded to look at specific BMPs at the specific watersheds. It is very detailed. They have a Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis. · At Dr. Shawn Schottler CWC presentation conclusion on March 20, 2017 on water quality said that BMPs and conservation practices on an individual level are effective, but are collectively not enough. We are doing other practices that negate conservation. · From a hydrology standpoint, do perennial cover crops have an impact on soil health? If it is done at a large enough scale, then yes they can have significant impacts. Also we are not taking any land out of production. · Dobbins Creek (Cedar River Watershed District) received one of BWSR’s targeted watershed grants to concentrate BMPs within the watershed. They are doing a good job of working in this area for both the people (farmers) and the fields. · This area is prime farmland. Also prime farmland if drained. · Taking land out of production is not going to be useful in this watershed · No public ditches, but a riparian corridor (few depressions present) · The farmers are staying out of the floodplain · BMPs of choice: water and sediment control basins (WASCOBS), grassed waterways, and buffers · From the modeling standpoint, most of the land is in corn and soybeans. Adding conservation tillage, adding the BMPs the watershed district is looking at, and adding perennial cover under a computed flow event. The results of a 7-year scenario reveal a range of runoff results of computed flow (see chart). If you look at the conservation tillage, there is some impact, but not a lot. Perennial cover provides some good cover revealing it is a significant impact. Without taking the land out of production using perennial coverage and other BMPs does help. · Perennial cover has an effect on reducing sediment entering channels. · This is the value of these practices and they are good practices. Individually, they do reduce the sediment loading, less effect on the hydrology. · WEPP: Water Erosion Prediction Project was a multiyear effort of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) looking at erosion from a technical means. The chart shows a relative range of percolation rates (how much water can seep into the soil for an amount of time). It is about a 2:1 ratio with alfalfa – with percolation rates. This would help reduce the amount of erosion. More field research will reveal even more benefits of cover crops.

·

Why are the WASCOBS (water and sediment controlled basin) not influencing as much? A very small percentage of the landscape is controlled by the proposed WASCOBS. They do work to temporarily store water to reduce erosion when there are high concentrations of water. They also help reduce the energy of water. Reviewing where more WASCOBS could be placed, it will start to get expensive. · Subsurface Drainage for the cover crops and soil health · Increased infiltration (high water table, increased tile flow) · Partially offset by greater spring and fall plant transpiration and higher soil water holding capacity · Will need more research in this area to help answer more questions (MDA has a current study ongoing) · Collaborative Sediment Source Reduction in the Greater Blue Earth River Basin · Summary of Findings (March 2017): “Achieving water quality standards will require priority investment in more temporary water storage to reduce high river flows and bluff erosion. This is a critical component of a strategy to reduce sediment in the Minnesota River.” · Take Home Message: Altered Hydrology · Traditional BMPs: “individually effective, collectively not enough” · Widespread adoption of perennial cover (cover crops, 2nd crop; “soil health”) will move a long way to achieving whatever “altered hydrology” goal is established. § Significant reduction in surface runoff and associated erosion § Increase in subsurface flow where tile are present Questions: · This was in one small watershed. Can that be transferred on a statewide basis? Answer: I’ve looked at similar watersheds and was finding the same thing. Unless you get at some of the big depressions, it is hard to show much of an impact. I have also done work in the Red River Valley (tighter clay soils), and I’m not sure if you can do cover crops, so yes, it is different across the state. It will be specific. Better to look in the southern part of the state. · There are many impairments in this state that are driven by sediment. The major sediment relationship we are trying to address is in-channel stream erosion and channel stability. In this context, water is the pollutant load because that is what is affecting these stream channels. The only way we are really going to make impacting changes in water quality on our sediment impairment is to address hydrology as our major driver. It is the most intricate and most complex modeling today. Barb Huberty update (WebEx 04:09:00) · The Legislative Water Commission has decided to learn more about how the standards and permitting happen, so they can understand how the regulatory world affects the cost that entities are impacted by through the regulatory structure. They will look at wastewater permitting specifically to understand from that point of view and maintain a clear focus in the next six months. Handout of the schedule of meetings for the rest of the year. New Business · Note upcoming meeting date changes · Field Tour in Duluth on August 27-28 · Policy will meet on August 18 · The BOC will meet on September 8 Motion to adjourn, second, motion carries (WebEx 04:10:58)

Walking Directions for Council Members: 1. Members should park at the Canal Park Lodge (provide license plate number). Then walk to the MPCA Duluth office (525 S. Lake Ave. Duluth, MN). The walk is about 0.4 miles (estimated 8 minutes): a. Head southeast on Canal Park Drive for 0.3 miles. b. Turn right onto Buchanan Street and walk the block, and cross to S Lake Ave. c. Walk down one more block to intersection of S Lake Ave and Morse St. and turn right into parking lot area. Enter building and take the elevator to the fourth floor. Turn right and meeting is in the large conference room. 2. Members walk back to Canal Park Lodge to check in. 3. Members walk from hotel to Vista Fleet a. Head southeast on Canal Park Drive for 0.3 miles. b. Turn right onto Buchanan Street (at the Fountain of The Wind) and walk the block, and cross S Lake Ave. c. Walk over the Minnesota Slip Bridge (the little blue bridge). d. Vista Fleet is on the right after exiting the bridge. 4. The boat will drop members off at Pier B for dinner. 5. After dinner, members may choose to walk back to the hotel (about 0.8 miles; approximately 16 minutes) along the walking trail. Alternatively, members can shuttle back (8:15 and 8:45 have been identified as times to shuttle back – see front desk for shuttle). a. Walk across the Pier B walking bridge to the trail along Harbor Drive (Superior Hiking Trail). b. Cross over the Minnesota Slip Bridge (the little blue bridge). c. Walk along Buchanan Street to cross and turn left onto Canal Park Drive, which will lead back to the hotel.

LAKE SUPERIOR: A CLIMATE STRESSED ECOSYSTEM

ROBERT W. STERNER

DIRECTOR, LARGE LAKES OBSERVATORY PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DULUTH

LLO’S UNIQUE MISSION: THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF THE LARGE LAKES OF EARTH

LLO works on large lakes worldwide, performing fundamental research and engaging the public.

The Large Lakes Observatory

University of Minnesota Duluth

CURRENT LAKE SUPERIOR EXTRAMURAL PROJECTS Blue Heron operations (NSF) Buoy and observatory support (GLOS) Evaluating Lake Superior’s Health in a Changing World (LCCMR) Characterization of global internal tides (NSF) Flipping a Foundational Interdisciplinary Graduate Course (NSF) Collaborative Research: Testing Laurentide Ice Sheet (NSF) Estimating biogeochemical impact of invasive mussels (NSF)

Earth the Water Planet 71% of surface is covered by liquid water All Fresh liquid Fresh, liquid surface

MOST CONTINENTAL WATER IS IN A FEW VERY LARGE BASINS

Burgis and Morris 1987

(No Vostok, Aral Sea is big)

250 km

Antarctica has hundreds of subglacial lakes, Vostok is largest. Theoretical possibility in 1950s. First (seismic) hint in 1959. “Final” discovery 1993. Lake water possibly isolated for 15-20 million years, residence time 104 y. Russians bored into the lake. First attempt mixed lake water with Freon etc. Fresh borehole, allegedly clean, in January 2015

By area Rank

Lake 1Caspian Sea 2Superior 3Victoria 4Aral (historic) 5Huron 6Michigan 7Tanganyika 8Baikal 9Great Bear 10Malawi

1000s km2 1000s of 371 82.1 68.8 68 59.6 58 32.9 31.7 31.1 29.6

km3 Continent 78.2Asia 11.6N. America 2.7Africa 1.1Asia 3.5N. America 4.9N. America 18.9Africa 23.6Asia 2.2N. America 7.7Africa

1989

2014

∑ marine = 5100

Gronewold et al. 2013

Lake Superior max depth/length = 1330/560000 = 0.00237 mean depth/length = 150/560000 = 0.000268 Sheet of notebook paper thickness/length = 0.000364

“Queen of the Lakes” is 1,013 ft long

ESTIMATES OF ET APPROPRIATED FOR “HUMAN-DOMINATED” USES Land type

NPP co-opted (109 metric tons)

ET co-opted (km3)

Cultivated land

15.0

5,500*

Grazing land

11.6

5,800

Forest land

13.6

6,800

Human-occupied areas (lawns, parks, etc.)

0.4

100**

Total

40.6

18,200

*Adjusts

for irrigated land (2,000 km3 per y)

**Assumes

1.5 LS This is 26% of total terrestrial ET

½ is irrigated

RECENT CHANGES IN WATER LEVEL Aug 2017, 183.8 m

Feb 2007, 182.83 m One meter of water at LS surface area = is 80 km3 of water. or ¼ the volume of L. Erie

Bottled water costs roughly $1/L. At this price, Lake Superior is worth

$1.2 x

16 10

About 100x annual Gross World Product

http://growingblue.com/case-studies/economicimpact-of-the-great-lakes/

WHAT ARE THE THREATS?

From Allan et al. 2013

Figure courtesy of John Lenters

COMPLEX EFFECTS OF WARMING ON LAKES From Adrian et al. L&O 2009 Hydrology – lake level Temperature & length of stratification Thermocline depth Ice phenology Transparency Chemistry, including oxygen, pH, nutrients Community structure and phenology Invasive species In addition: Light delivery Wind Storminess

WARMING WATER COLUMNS IN LAKES Lake Tanganika (6°S lat., 1470 m depth, “endless summer” Verburg et al. Science 2003 O’Reilly et al. Nature 2003 And others

Warming -> Increased surface temperatures -> Increased density gradient -> Reduced upwelling of nutrients -> Lower production and declining fisheries Also: weaker winds

(but interpretation has been questioned, see Verburg 2007)

“DEFAULT” HYPOTHESIS: THE RAPIDLY WARMING LAKE SUPERIOR SHOULD EXHIBIT DECLINING PRODUCTIVITY AND ALGAL ABUNDANCE OVER TIME AND THESE PARAMETERS SHOULD SHOW NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH SURFACE TEMPERATURE.

OBSERVED TRENDS – DIRECT MEASUREMENTS

Big changes in surface chlorophyll during limited time of year (summer)

Needs to be updated)

Chl (µg/L)

Summer, surface, annual means (> 6 obs/y)

(For POC, trend is significant for < 80 µm but not for other fractions (less data).

Size (µm) Rate (µg y-1) 10 – 80 0.170 2 (or 3) – 10 -0.109 < 2 (or 3) -0.039

DIFFERENT APPROACH – GIVEN WIDE RANGES IN TEMPERATURE SEASONALLY, AND FROM YEAR TO YEAR, CAN WE IDENTIFY TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT PATTERNS IN THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD WEB?

21 total Deployments 6/19/2006 8/8/2006 7/31/2007 11/8/2007 4/30/2008 7/31/2008 8/17/2008 11/11/2009 5/15/2010 8/19/2010 6/26/2010 10/6/2010 3/30/2011 8/15/2012 6/3/2014 7/23/2014 8/17/2014 9/30/2014 5/12/2016 7/20/2016 9/29/2016

NILS

G. Bullerjahn, J. Finlay, M. McKay

CARGO

SINC

G. Bullerjahn, J. Finlay, M. McKay, C. Small

LCCMR

J. Austin, D. Branstrator, E. Brown, T. Hrbak, L. Minor

Production mg C m-3 d-1 0

0

10

30

0

10

10

20

20

30

30

40

40

50

50

60

60

70

70

7/31/2008

80

Depth (m)

20

90

100

100 0

5

10

15

20

25

0

10

10

20

20

30

30

40

40

50

50

60

60

70

70

80

5/15/2010

5

10

80

90

90

100

100

15

20

25

Some example profiles 7/23/2014

80

90

0

0

0

5

10

15

20

11/8/2007

25

CALCULATING INTEGRATED PRODUCTION -5

0

5

15

10 20

188.3 mgC m-2d-1

30 40 50 5/15/2010 60 70 80 90 100

(And zero to 155 m)

Areal rate mass per surface area per time

25

Integrated Production (mgC m-2 d-1)

Temperature is positively related to areal production, seemingly in a nonlinear fashion 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Mean = 364

Residuals plotted vs light 200 150

Mean = 232

100 50 0 -50

0

5

-100

0

10 -150

5000

10000

15

15000

20000

20

-200

Surface Temperature

Light matters after accounting for temperature

Above ~ 8 °C, areal production seems to be unrelated to surface temperature. Does this mean climate change will have no effect on primary production in Lake Superior? Not so fast…

Timing of stratification highly variable and dependent on winter conditions.

There is ~ 2 months difference in onset of strat. In warm vs. cold years.

Figure courtesy of John Lenters

Length of season with surface temperature above 8 C highly variable.

Temperature figure courtesy of John Lenters

Production June to October (150 days), mg C m-2

HOW MUCH DOES THIS MATTER?

60000

50000

Difference from short to long season, ~25% increase in carbon moving into the ecosystem.

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

1

Cold only

2

Warm 30 d

3

Warm 100 d

4

Warm only

CLIMATE-RELATED SHIFTS IN THE DCM Work performed by K. Reinl with guidance from R. Sterner and J. Austin (in progress!) CTD casts for 2014-2016 Glider data for 2011 - 2015 Conditions Analyzed: • Positive stratification only • Locations with depth > 75 meters

Mean every 0.1 m across transect

Data Processing • Nighttime only • Horizontal variation per transect collapsed into one profile

Strong relation between surface temperature and width of DCM Higher temperatures accentuate vertical heterogeneity

R2 = 0.50 P < 0.001

WARMER MEANS: Higher integrated chlorophyll. Higher primary productivity. Shallower DCM Sharper DCM Note that a warmer lake would mean higher algal abundance at shallower depth. Schematized

Warmer – shallower – brighter?

The “default” hypothesis that warmer means reduced nutrient supply and lower productivity is rejected rather decisively.

MANY MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS!

What is happening to the offshore, the bulk of these vast, valuable inland seas? Time to evaluate current monitoring frameworks?

Time to evaluate social investment in science and monitoring? What is the right level of investment to protect these resources?

MINNESOTA LIES AT THE HEADWATERS OF THREE MAJOR HYDROLOGIC SYSTEMS 1.Great Lakes 2.Mississippi 3.Red River We are upstream of millions of people and thousands of square kilometers of land, as well as the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico

BEING WATER RICH CARRIES RESPONSIBILITIES

For more information, or to help LLO with its mission to study the large lakes of Earth, contact me [email protected] @bobsterner

The Green Revolution has been driven by massive alterations to the global hydrological cycle

Crop circles in Kansas

Image: NASA

Creative Financing: Implementing the St. Louis River Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan in MN Progress Report on SLRAOC Remedial Action Plan Implementation Minnesota Clean Water Council NELSON T. FRENCH August 28, 2017 A Great Lakes Restoration Initiative - MN Legacy Fund Partnership

Creative Financing – A Common Thread Legacy Development Period

Area of Concern Period

1850’s – 1960’s

Financing 1987 – 2010

Tycoons financing early development of the region included the likes of: Andrew Carnegie - Pittsburgh Jay Cooke – Philadelphia Hugh McCollough – London, England Andrew Mellon - Pittsburgh J.P. Morgan – New York City James J. Hill – St. Paul John D. Rockefeller – New York City Creative financing schemes developed the region.

Various federal and state programs created to fund environmental improvement No overall strategic plan

Financing 2011 – Present (Post GLRI) GLRI Funded Remedial Action Plan Strategic Business Plan Approach $ $ $ $ $

GLRI Funds Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds MN Clean Water Land and Legacy Funds General Obligation Bond Funds Natural Resource Damage Assessment

BUI Removal Target Dates Aggresssive and bold timelines Major actions complete by 2020 Delist by 2025

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is a commitment between the United States and Canada to restore and protect the waters of the Great Lakes. The Agreement provides a framework for identifying binational priorities and implementing actions that improve water quality. EPA coordinates U.S. activities that fulfill the Agreement. The U.S. and Canada first signed the Agreement in 1972. It was amended in 1983 and 1987. AOC’s were designated in 1987 amendment. In 2012, it was updated to enhance water quality programs that ensure the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of the Great Lakes. The 2012 agreement will facilitate United States and Canadian action on threats to Great Lakes water quality and includes strengthened measures to anticipate and prevent ecological harm. New provisions address aquatic invasive species, habitat degradation and the effects of climate change, and support continued work on existing threats to people’s health and the environment in the Great Lakes Basin such as harmful algae, toxic chemicals, and discharges from vessels.

One of 43 AOC’s Across the Great Lakes

St. Louis River AOC | https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/st-louis-river-area-concern

Legacy Contaminants

The result of many years of industrial and municipal pollution directly discharged to the St. Louis River. These discharges and their legacy are from the days prior to adoption of our current environmental protection laws and rules.

Legacy Habitat Loss

The result of many years of dredging and filling the estuary to create the Duluth-Superior Port. An estimate 7,000 acres of aquatic habitat was dredged and/or filled. These habitat alterations took place prior to the adoption of our current environmental protection laws and rules.

City of Duluth Creates the Duluth Entry 1871 One of the first acts of the City of Duluth when it was first established in March of 1870 was to dust off an old idea from 1856: dig a ship canal through Minnesota Point to allow vessels to pass through to safe harbor. They chose Portage Street as the path of that canal. It’s the stuff of legend. And the rest is history…

Duluth Harbor - 1887

Duluth and Superior - 1910

Mitchell and McClure Lumber Milling

Marshall Wells Co. Main Building

Zenith Blast Furnace and US Steel Mill Site on Spirit Lake

McDougall Shipbuilding - Whaleback Columbus

Dylan on Duluth "You'll never see another town like Duluth. It's not a tourist destination, but it probably should be. Depends what season you're in there, though. There are only two seasons: damp and cold. I like the way the hills tumble to the waterfront and the way the wind blows around the grain elevators. The train yards go on forever too. It's old-age industrial, that's what it is. You'll see it from the top of the hill for miles and miles before you get there. You won't believe your eyes. I'll give you a medal if you get out alive." Bob Dylan From a Rolling Stone interview with Douglas Brinkley, May 14, 2009

Clean Water Infrastructure Expenditures – 1978 - 2016 Prior to GLRI and as part of a recently completed consent decree an estimated $320 million was spent on water infrastructure in the MN portion of the St. Louis River Area of Concern

Hog Island – Newton Creek Prior to GLRI an estimated $85 million was spent cleaning up contaminated sediments at Hog Island-Newton Creek, WI (GLLA) and the St. Louis River Interlake Duluth Tar Site, MN/WI (Superfund)

Habitat Protection/Restoration - WI Lake Superior Reserve Area & Clough Island Prior to GLRI an estimated $15 million was spent in WI acquiring and restoring habitat in the St. Louis River Area of Concern

St. Louis River Area of Concern Investment Estimates – First 32 Years 1978 – 2010

$15,000,000.00

~$420 million

$85,000,000.00

$320,000,000.00

Water Infrastructure

Contaminated Sediment Cleanup

Habitat Protection/Restoration

The Bi-Partisan Great Lakes Restoration Initiative was launched in 2010 to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the largest system of fresh surface water in the world — the Great Lakes. During FY15 -19, federal agencies will continue to use Great Lakes Restoration Initiative resources to strategically target the biggest threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem and to accelerate progress toward long term goals for this important ecosystem. GLRI Action Plan II summarizes the actions that federal agencies plan to implement during FY15-19. These actions will build on restoration and protection work carried out under the first GLRI Action Plan, with a major focus on: Cleaning up Great Lakes Areas of Concern

Preventing and controlling invasive species Reducing nutrient runoff that contributes to harmful/nuisance algal blooms Restoring habitat to protect native species

Minnesota Voters Amend Constitution 2009 - 2034 In 2008, Minnesota's voters passed the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to: • protect drinking water sources; • to protect, enhance, and restore wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; • to preserve arts and cultural heritage; • to support parks and trails; and • to protect, enhance, and restore lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater.

• Remedial Action Plan • The “business plan” • Stakeholder developed and vetted • 70 actions with deadlines and budget estimates • Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) removal focused with target BUI removal dates • Put the St. Louis River AOC and MN on the map

Beneficial Use Impairment Removal Goal Timeline BUI Removal Timeline Degradation of Aesthetics (BUI 8) Fish Tumors and Deformities (BUI 3)

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations (BUI 2)



Restrictions on Dredging (BUI 5)

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

● ●

Degradation of Benthos (BUI 4)

2020



Excessive Loading of Sediment & Nutrients (BUI 6)

Beach Closings and Body Contact Restrictions (BUI 7)

2019

● ● ●

Fish Consumption Advisories (BUI 1)



Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat (BUI 9)



Sediment Characterization Funded by CWF and GLRI

21st Avenue W. Interstate Flats – ready for restoration

Contaminated Sediment Characterization, RAP and Staff Capacity Clean Water Fund-Federal GLRI Funds SFY 2010-2011 MN CWF $950,000

Federal GLRI Funds

$3,881,490

MN Slip – highly contaminated requires cleanup

Sediment Cleanup and Restoration Sites – Major Actions

Management and Use of Navigational Dredge Material Science Based Data Driven BUI Design Approach

Remedial Action Plan Progress – Actions Underway

2016 • 96% of the Remedial Action Plan Actions are either completed or in progress

Not Started 4%

• Major MN Restoration Actions • • • •

5 completed 2 funded and in progress 2 funded and in design 1 in design awaiting construction funding

• Major MN Contaminated Sediment Actions • 2 completed • 11 in feasibility study/design phase

Complete 29%

In Progress 67%

Unique Federal-State Partnership Agreement for Design USACE Remedial Action Plan Partnership Agreement Restoration and Cleanup Design, Environmental Review and Permitting

CWF

BOND FUNDS

$9,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 $7,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00

$5,316,340.28

GLRI $8.1 million for site design at 9 aquatic habitat restoration sites and 10 contaminated sediment sites.

$4,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00

$422,473.43

$2,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $0.00

$2,421,749.06

Total Project cost for the designed work under this agreement is in excess of $100 million.

Major Action Status Map Major MN Restoration Actions 5 completed 2 funded and in progress 2 funded and in design 1 in design awaiting construction funding Major MN Contaminated Sediment Actions 2 completed 11 in feasibility study/design phase

21st and 40th Avenues West

Implementation

Remedial Action Plan Partnership Agreement

Design – Environmental Review - Permitting

21st Avenue West

21st Avenue West

Table 5. 21st Avenue West restoration project resources. Note: Interstate Flats total includes 2016 contract carry-over of 47,800 CY and a 2017 contract estimate of 95,000 CY.remediated areas.

Location

Volumes (cubic yards)

Funds (millions) GLRI HMTF

Embayment

456,000

$1.05

$5.60

WLSSD Flats

86,500

$0.94

$0.18

Interstate Flats

Project Total

$1.22 221,800 $2.11 764,300 $4.10 M $7.00 M

21st Avenue West – Precision Construction

Financing 21st Ave W and 40th Ave W Habitat Restoration $248,150

Recipient of 2016 State Governmrnt Innovation Award from The Bush Foundation and the Humphrey School of Public Affairs

$107,668

$6,381,483

34% $11,925,936

64%

GLRI

HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

CLEAN WATER FUND

Design and construction 98% federally funded per an agreement reached with the GLRI Regional Working Group – especially USEPA and USACE! USACE EWN

Slip 2 – Contaminated Sediment Cleanup

Slip 2 – Contaminated Sediment Cleanup

Slip 2 – Contaminated Sediment Cleanup

Contaminated Sediment Cleanup Estimates Total Project Cost Estimate: $72.60 million MN Capital - $25.41 million - EPA GLLA - $47.19 million

MN Capital Budget Request - $25.41 million 2017 Legislative Session

The Bottom Line for Minnesota Activity

Additional GLRI Funds Required FFY2018-2020

FFY2018 Federal GLRI Budget Proposal

Local Public and Private Funds Various Sources

Contaminated Sediment Cleanup Aquatic Habitat Restoration Capacity

~$81,690,000

$0

~$ 3,500,000

$0

~$ 1,000,000

$0

$25,410,000 $34,500,000 $59,910,000 $3,500,000 $6,500,000 $10,000,000 $1,878,000

Total

~$86,190,000

$0

$71,788,000

MPCA Related Fund Sources 2010-2017 and Estimated 2018-2019

MPCA Related Project Funding by Source SFY2011 - 2017 MPCA Related Project Funding by Source SFY 2018-2019 ESTIMATED MN Clean Water Funds $5,455,000

US Steel Funds $39,000,000

GLRI Funds $44,947,419 GLRI Funds

$25,410,000

MN Bond Funds $1,500,000

MN Clean Water Funds

$86,812,540

Current Expenditures Through 2017/Estimated Need Through 2020 FINANCING 2011 - 2017 $0

EST. TOTAL FINANCING 2011-2020

$2,100,000

$41,100,000

$8,667,000

$5,445,000

$25,400,000 $33,500,000

$7,250,000

$115,000,000 $130,000,000

$12,000,000 $7,000,000 $11,900,000

USEPA GLRI

USACE HMTF/WRDA/EWN

USEPA GLRI

USACE HMTF/WRDA/EWN

MN CLEAN WATER FUND

MN OUTDOOR HERITAGE FUND

MN CLEAN WATER FUND

MN OUTDOOR HERITAGE FUND

MN BOND FUNDS

PRIVATE FUNDS

MN BOND FUNDS

PRIVATE FUNDS

Goal:

Delisting 2025!

Complete management actions that will lead to BUI Removal and AOC Delisting.

Remove BUI’s: Monitoring 2017-2024

Implement Develop

Management Actions 2013: Establish projects and actions that will achieve removal of each BUI

Management Actions 20132020: Implement projects and actions to achieve removal of each BUI

of progress Execute towards Management measurable biological Actions by targets and 2020: BUI removal Execute actions with available funding

targets

• Actions are complete • Data show that BUI removal criteria have been met for all BUI’s

Bob Dylan on Duluth “I was born in Duluth – industrial town, ship yards, ore docks, grain elevators, mainline train yards, switching yards. It’s on the banks of Lake Superior, built on granite rock. Lot of fog horns, sailors, loggers, storms, blizzards. My mom says there were food shortages, food rationing, hardly any gas, electricity cutting off – everything metal in your house you gave to the war effort. It was a dark place, even in the light of day – curfews, gloomy, lonely, all that sort of stuff – we lived there till I was about five, till the end of the war.” Bob Dylan

Nelson T. French | (218) 302-6625 [email protected] 8/31/2017

53

MNDNR Aquatic Habitat Restoration Projects • • • • • •

Chambers Grove Radio Tower Bay Knowlton Creek Wild Rice Restoration Kingsbury Bay-Grassy Point Perch Lake

8/31/2017

Optional Tagline Goes Here | mn.gov/websiteurl

1

RAP-Related Projects Being Completed on the Minnesota Side of the Area of Concern

Chambers Grove – Completed 2015

Chambers Grove

OHF 58%

Non-OHF 42%

Goals/Outcomes: Spawning, Restore Shoreline Funding: OHF/NOAA - $954,000 Monitoring: MNDNR Completed: October 2015

Chambers Grove-2015

8/31/2017

4

May 4, 2016

SLREAOC Federal Partners Meeting

5

May 4, 2016

SLREAOC Federal Partners Meeting

6

May 4, 2016

SLREAOC Federal Partners Meeting

7

May 4, 2016

SLREAOC Federal Partners Meeting

8

May 4, 2016

SLREAOC Federal Partners Meeting

9

May 4, 2016

SLREAOC Federal Partners Meeting

10

May 4, 2016

SLREAOC Federal Partners Meeting

11

RAP-Related Projects Being Completed on the Minnesota Side of the Area of Concern

HRE 03 St. Louis River Restoration Initiative - Phase V

Perch Lake – Proposed Completion 2020

PERCH LAKE

OHF 46%

Non-OHF 54%

Goals/Outcomes: Fish and wildlife habitat restored Funding: OHF/GLRI – Approximately $6.5 million Monitoring: AOC Schedule: completed in 2020 May 4, 2016

13

RAP-Related Projects Being Completed on the Minnesota Side of the Area of Concern

Radio Tower Bay - Completed 2015

Radio Tower Bay

NonOHF OHF 40% 60%

Goals/Outcomes: Fish and wildlife habitat restored Funding: OHF/NOAA/GLRI - $3,975,000 Monitoring: AOC Completed: October 2015

15

Radio Tower Bay - 2015

8/31/2017

16

Knowlton Creek – Completed 2016

Knowlton Creek

OHF 27%

NonOHF 73%

Goals/Outcomes: Reduce sedimentation, restore trout habitat Funding: OHF/EPA/NFWF/SOGL - $1,658,000 Monitoring: MNDNR/AOC Completed: June 2017

17

Add post-flood pictures

RAP-Related Projects Being Completed on the Minnesota Side of the Area of Concern

Kingsbury/Grassy – Proposed Completion 2019

Kingbury Bay/Grassy Point

OHF 39%

NonOHF 61%

Goals/Outcomes: Fish and wildlife habitat restored Funding: OHF/EPA/NRDA – $13,500,000 Monitoring: AOC/NRDA Schedule: To be completed in 2019

29

Facility/Garden

Proposed Trail Connection

Fremoun t Park

S 63rd Ave W

Fairmount Park

Fremont St

S 64th Ave W

Potential Locations of Stormwater Treatment

S 69th Ave W

Stabilize Sediment Sources

S 66th Ave W

Fremont St

S 65th Ave W

S

Kingsbury/Grassy Restoration Project Kingsbury Bay Habitat Restoration Project

0-1’ Nature Experience/ Trailhead Trailhea d

Ave W

1-3’ 3-4’

0-1’ Pulaski St

• Boardwalk Trail • Kiosks • Water Garden

• • • •

0-1’ Depth Tag Alder Broadleaf Cattails Willows

Emergent Wetland

• 3-4’ Depth • Floating Aquatic Plants • Potamogeton (pondweed)

S 70th Ave W

Open Water

• 5-6’ Depth • Fishing • Power Boat Access

5-6’ S 72nd Ave W

Fishing Pier

1-3’

Nature Experience

Partia l Open Water

Indian Point

Bayhil l

• Swimming Beach • Vegetated Shoreline (nonwoody) • Kayak and Canoe Launch Access • Fishing Pier

• 1-3’ Depth • Wild Rice • Arrowhead

1-3’

Boardwalk Trail Proposed Trail Connection

Water Access

Scrub-Shrub Wetland

1-3’

Kayak/Canoe Launch

Kingsbury B a y Concept Plan

Water Access

Deep Water

• 10’ Depth • Fish Overwintering Habitat

Legend

10

3-4’

Park Land Boundary Proposed Trails Existing Trails Boardwalk

3-4’

0-1’ Scrub-Shrub Wetland 1-3’ Emergent Wetland S 70th Ave W

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-02-25 16:51 File: I:\Projects\23\69\1622\Maps\Meetings\FigureX_Kinsbury_Bay_Lidar_Dsize.mxd User: jwk

Water Access Milford St

1-3’ Wild Rice 3-4’ Partial Open Water 5-6’ Open Water 10’’ Deep Water

; ! N

0

15 0 Fee t

300

Kingsbury Bay – Grassy Point Restoration Project Removing sediment from Kingsbury Bay and beneficially reusing it to restore Grassy Point

Kingsbury/Grassy Restoration Project

216 Acres Enhanced

Clean Water Council Field Tour Agenda Monday, August 28, 2017 8:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. Field Sites between Duluth and Two Harbors, MN

8/21/2017

6:30

Breakfast (North Shore Room - Canal Park Lodge) and Check-Out 6:30 – 8:00 a.m. Council members have breakfast at the hotel and check out of their hotel rooms. The breakfast buffet will be served in the lobby and Council members may eat in the North Shore Room (down the hall to the left as you face Lake Superior).

8:00

Load Bus - Canal Park Lodge front entrance Location: Canal Park Lodge, 250 Canal Park Drive, Duluth, MN

8:15

Depart for Bus Tour The tour bus will leave promptly at 8:15 a.m.

8:45

Walk or shuttle to field site Bus will park on a gravel road and members will have ~10-minute walk up a driveway to the field site overlook. A shuttle will be provided for members who prefer not to walk.

9:00

Knife River Bank Stabilization: Copperhead Road site – Greg Johnson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Ryan Hughes, Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), Dan Schutte, Lake Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Karl Koller, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Location: 135 Copperhead Rd. Knife River, MN 55609 Visit a high clay bank streambank stabilization project identified by Lake SWCD as one of the highest priority projects that, according to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report, is within a reach of the river that contributes more than 50% of the bank sediment loading to the river. MPCA will provide an overview of the water monitoring activities, turbidity impairment, and TMDL Study supported by the Clean Water Fund (CWF). BWSR will talk about the CWF Competitive Grants Program used to fund implementation projects, along with other topics. Lake SWCD will discuss the lessons learned from this stream restoration project. DNR will provide an overview of how CWF dollars are used to provide technical assistance on stream restoration projects and how they can be leveraged with Outdoor Heritage Funds.

10:00 Walk or shuttle back to the bus 10:15 Travel Time by bus to next site 10:30 Walk or shuttle to field site Bus will park on a gravel road and members will have ~10-minute walk up a gravel driveway and then choose from 2 different field sites. A shuttle will be provided for members that choose not to walk up the driveway. wq-cwc2-17h

1

10:45 Knife River Bank Stabilization: Hawk Hill Road site – Dan Schutte, Lake SWCD, Ryan Hughes, BWSR, Karen Evens, MPCA Location: 723 Hawk Hill Rd. Knife River, MN 55609 Option A - Members will walk up the driveway and then turn left on a short path through the woods to see a Knife River restoration site and high clay bank up close. The project was primarily funded with Great Lakes Restoration Initiative dollars and Lake SWCD will speak about lessons learned from stream restoration projects. Option B – Members will walk up the driveway (note it will be steep at the end) to an overlook of a Knife River restoration site and BWSR will discuss a project where CWF dollars were used for plantings on an old airstrip consistent with the Best Management Practices recommended in the TMDL report to reduce overland watershed runoff that exacerbated the streambank erosion. 11:15 Walk or shuttle back to the bus 11:30 Travel Time 12:00 Lunch - Castle Danger Brewery, Two Harbors Location: 17 7th Street, Two Harbors, MN Boxed lunches will be provided for Council members and speakers. Beverages can be purchased at the brewery. Dan Schutte, Lake SWCD, will discuss the Brewery’s raingarden if time permits. 1:00

Travel Time

1:15

Source Water Protection Efforts at Resorts – Bill Guse, Bob’s Cabins and Anita Anderson, Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Location: 664 Old North Shore Rd., Two Harbors, MN Overview of Non-Community Drinking Water Systems, MDH’s Source Water Protection Grant Program that provided $7,000 of Clean Water Fund dollars to Bob’s Cabins in 2014 to construct a new well, update on the Clean Water Fund Virus Study, and a potential drinking water contaminant exercise.

2:00

Travel Time

2:20

Clover Valley Farms – Cindy Hale, Clover Valley Farms, Ryan Clark, Carlton SWCD, and Brad Redlin, Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) Location: 6534 Homestead Road, Duluth, MN Discussion of the process used to certify a farm through MDA’s Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program and how certification helps business owners.

3:00 3:30

Travel Time Bus Returns (Canal Park Lodge, Duluth) 2

LAKE COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT COPPERHEAD ROAD 2012 CWF KNIFE RIVER SEDIMENT REDUCTION GRANT The mission of Lake SWCD is to provide technical assistance to help property owners and local units of government implement sound land management planning to protect the natural resources of Lake County.

Funding:

CWF Project Cost: $221,000 Non-state Project Match: $293,000

The Knife River is Minnesota’s only Lake Superior tributary with no natural barriers preventing fish migration, and contains Minnesota’s only naturalized wild steelhead trout population. However, the Knife River is listed on the EPA’s 303(d) list as impaired with a total maximum daily load (TMDL) established for turbidity. Turbidity is caused by soil erosion in the watershed, resulting in increased sediment in the river. Since the TMDL study was released in 2010, Lake SWCD and our partners have successfully designed and implemented several projects aimed at reducing turbidity in the Knife River. During the 2015 field season, a 900 foot bank was stabilized utilizing $221,000 in funding through the BWSR Clean Water Fund paired with Great Lake Restoration Initiative funds. Long-term sediment savings are being monitored by Dr. Karen Gran at the University of Minnesota, Duluth and the MPCA Pollution Control Agency. The expected sediment reduction was estimated at 12% (430 tons/ year) of the total river sediment load. Dr. Gran’s research will provide actual sediment reduction numbers annually as her research group monitors this and the Hawk Hill Road bluff.

Project Partners: Private Landowners, South St. Louis SWCD, Technical Services Area #3, Lake County, Pollution Control Agency, MN DNR, MN Board of Water & Soil Resources, Advocates for the Knife River Watershed

Construction 2011

(above left) Eroding clay banks increase turbidity in the Knife River. (left) Floodplain bench installed at the bank stabilization site on the Knife River. (above right) Geomorphic survey data was analyzed to prioritize stabilization.

Lake SWCD  616 Third Ave  Two Harbors, MN  55616  (218) 834-8372  www.co.lake.mn.us/swcd

Assessing Cumulative Forest Watershed Stressors THE PROBLEM: DNR staff engaged in the SFRMP 10 year Planning Staff felt that certain streams were over stressed with no good way to quantify. Research shows that removal of the forest canopy that changes land use to "open" conditions: agricultural, urban, or rights of way, is sufficient to initiate and prolong in-channel stream erosion and sedimentation for more than a century.* When the amount of open land and young forests reach 60% of a watershed, stream flows can increase two to three-times THE FIX: We used LIDAR LAS returns to assess the amount of open lands associated with increased erosion to understand the effect of stressors all along the tributary, not just for discreetly defined watersheds. THE IMPACT: Watersheds with healthy forests show greater resiliency to large events. It is difficult and expensive to repair streams so the focus is on preventing degradation. It should be noted that streams over the limits may not show immediate impacts. This analysis bring a watershed context to forest planning efforts and provides tools for planning and strategic decision making by forest resource managers. It helps inform the planning process and make better decisions through the use of quality data and recognized methods. MORE INFORMATION: *Verry, E. S. (2000). Society of American Foresters. In Society of American Foresters (Ed.), LAND FRAGMENTATION AND IMPACTS TO STREAMS AND FISH IN THE CENTRAL AND UPPER MIDWEST (pp. 16–20). Washington, DC: SAF Publ 01-02 PARTNERS: MNDNR, MED-EPA, Minnesota Lake Superior Coastal Program

Percent Open Land by Stream Segment – red greater than 60%

CONTACT: John Jereczek-MN DNR and Tom Hollenhorst-USEPA

Lake Superior Red Clay Till Plain THE PROBLEM: The predominant soils in this area are red clays interspersed with sands and silts originally deposited during glacial periods. They are geologically young and are undergoing a high rate of natural erosion. The concern was the pervasiveness of the erosion problem and associated costs. The Red Clay Project was a research and demonstration project completed in 1980 sponsored by five soil and water conservation districts and two states. The objectives were to demonstrate economically feasible methods to improve water quality, to assess the capabilities for cooperative implementation and to provide data and recommendations. THE FIX: Our project builds on the Red Clay Project to explicitly map these natural areas of instability. Though the visible red clay erosion is significant and turbidity highly visible the effects of red clay turbidity and sedimentation on aquatic life in the western Lake Superior basin rivers is minimal. The Red Clay Reports identify that red clay does not contribute significant quantities of nutrients to Lake Superior, oxygen levels are not significantly affected, primary production does not appear to be significantly affected, macro-invertebrates are not significantly affected, and fish populations were not demonstrated to change as a result of turbid conditions. It was noted that only where sand was the primary product were significant detrimental effects of erosion identified. We used soil data to determine clay dominated soils and the 3 meter LIDAR derived DEM to determine slope. Slopes were re-classed into 3 slope categories identified in the Red Clay Reports. THE IMPACT: Once identified, appropriate land management practices listed in the original report can be applied to these watersheds. The results are a GIS layer hosted on the DNR’s GDRS. Information derived from this were instrumental in the 1W1P process. MORE INFORMATION:

http://www.lrcd.org/uploads/1/6/4/0/16405852/red_clay_proj_rep._sum_i.pdf http://www.lrcd.org/uploads/1/6/4/0/16405852/red_clay_turbidity_1979.pdf http://www.lrcd.org/uploads/1/6/4/0/16405852/redclay2ndpartbioandveg_.pdf

PARTNERS: MNDNR, MED-EPA, Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program CONTACT: John Jereczek-MN DNR, Clint Little-MNDNR, and Tom Hollenhorst-USEPA

LAKE COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 723 HAWK HILL ROAD 2012 GLC/CWF KNIFE RIVER SEDIMENT REDUCTION GRANT The Lake SWCD mission is to provide technical assistance to help property owners and local units of government implement sound land management and water quality planning to protect the natural resources of Lake County.

Total Project Value: $293,000

Project Partners: Private Landowners, South St. Louis SWCD, Technical Services Area #3, Lake County SWCD, St. Louis County, MN Pollution Control Agency, MN DNR, MN Board of Water & Soil Resources, Advocates for the Knife River Watershed

The Great Lakes Commission, (funded by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative) awarded a $293,000 grant to Lake SWCD to implement streambank and stream channel stabilization projects on the highest priority sites along the river in 2014. This grant allowed Lake SWCD to complete one of two large-scale bank stabilization projects as part of the Knife River Sediment Reduction project. In 2012-2013, near-bank shear stress and bank erosion hazard index surveys were conducted to quantify sediment loading at high priority sites. In 2014, a bank stabilization project was constructed using natural channel design on the Hawk Hill Road site, an eroding bluff estimated to be contributing 102 tons/year of sediment into the Knife River. Through this funding, Lake SWCD anticipated a 3% reduction (102 tons/ year) of the total river sediment load. (Measured soil savings documented in Dr. Karen Gran’s attached write up) Tree and shrub plantings on open land above the eroding bluff were made possible by Clean Water Funds and installed in 2016. Through this effort, open areas contributing to overland runoff and exacerbating erosive conditions at the site were addressed with long-term vegetative solutions that promote a healthy and diverse forested landscape.

(above left) LiDAR imagery of bluff and gully formation from open land above bluff (above right) Hawk Hill road bank postconstruction and one year after initial seeding. (left) Eroding clay banks, like this one at the Austin site, pre-construction, increase turbidity in the Knife River.

Lake SWCD  408 First Ave  Two Harbors, MN  55616  (218) 834-8370  www.lakecountyswcd.org

Bluff monitoring on Knife River, K. Gran and UMD students (primarily L. Hall, E. Brown) In 2014, the outside bend along the Austin-Minor property on Hawk Hill Road was stabilized using a toe wood bankfull bench approach. This methodology shifts the channel away from the bluff, provides toe wood for bank protection and improved aquatic habitat, and provides a floodplain bench to trap accumulating sediment from continued bluff erosion. The bench is generally set at bankfull elevation, and thus can be accessed during high flow events, preserving floodplain capacity. These structures are being used for bluff stabilization and to prevent finegrained sediment from entering the river. Although the bluff is still able to fail through mass movements, the hope is that the bluff can lay back to a stable angle, once under-cutting at the toe is no longer occurring. We have been monitoring the effectiveness of four of these projects since installation in 2014 and 2015. These include two sites on the Knife River and two on Amity Creek in Duluth. The goal of the monitoring is to provide data on how much sediment is being eroded from the bluff and how much is being trapped on the floodplain bench. Monitoring is conducted using a 3D laser scanner that can scan the bluff at cm-scale resolution. Consecutive scans are subtracted from one another to provide data on topographic changes (both erosion and deposition) between each time period. The data from the project sites can be compared to erosion rates on non-stabilized bluffs, some of which have been monitored annually since 2011. The bluff on the Austin-Minor property was scanned in September 2014, April 2015, November 2015, May 2016, November 2016, and June 2017. In November 2016, we added in a second technique, using a UAV to collect photographic data of the bluff that can be turned into highresolution topographic data. The hope is that this technique will provide a more cost-effective way to collect monitoring data of eroding bluffs than the 3D laser scanner. For each time period, we calculated an average retreat distance by taking the net erosion or depositional volume change and dividing it by the area of the bluff being monitored. From April 2015 to Nov. 2015, the average retreat distance on all non-stabilized bluffs was 7 cm. On the Hawk Hill Road bluff, this would have meant 15.8 m3 (24 tons) of silt and clay being added to the river. Instead, the bluff was net depositional during this time period, trapping 8 m3 (12 tons) of sediment on the bench. If we look over a 14-month period from Sept. 2014 to Nov. 2015, we find 29 m3 (45 tons) of fine sediment trapped on the bench. Analyses of more recent data are still on-going.

April 2015

November 2015

Example of Hawk Hill Road site comparing April 2015 to November 2015. Red indicates erosion and blue indicates deposition. A large slump, visible in the middle of the bluff left a deposit at its base that was not removed by the flow. From L. Hall (2016).

Image of 3D data from June 2017 of the same bluff. These data were collected with UAV photography, processed to create a topographic surface, using a technique known as Structure-from-Motion (SfM). The mass wasting deposit visible in 2015 data has clearly grown, with much of the sediment remaining on the bench.

MN DNR Clean Water Work MN DNR has a level of expertise in fluvial geomorphology and hydrology (understanding of how streams work) that is lacking in other agencies, LGU’s or Non-Profits. The most prevalent impairment in MN streams is excess sediment, which is an indicator of an unstable channel. MN DNR provides its expertise to understand processes causing unstable channels, assistance for prioritizing work and designing implementation to restore the stream to a stable form.

DNR Clean Water Goal: Incorporate a system approach to restoring and maintaining healthy watersheds. From a stream perspective, this means considering not only water quality, but also geomorphology (channel stability/evolution), hydrology, connectivity and biology.

CLEAN WATER ACT Sec. 101 (a) “The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” This means the State’s goal should be restoring streams to a stable form by holistically addressing physical and ecological function, not just focusing on reducing pollutants. Examples of work DNR Clean Water Field Staff Provide: 1. Assistance to PCA on WRAPS process – Sediment and biological impairments – · Identify channel instability · Estimate bank erosion (helps to prioritize implementation projects) · Identify causes of channel instability · Provide a framework for holistic assessment of watershed health · Assess stream connectivity · Perform hydrologic modeling 2. Conduct training in foundational geomorphic principles, assessment tools and restoration approaches that are holistic and systematic. 3. Collect baseline data and develop of tools for completing assessment and design work. 4. Developing a master planning approach to prioritizing stream projects for LGU’s and NGO’s at a scale that is manageable and system wide and provides specific approaches based on most effective use of CWF and LSOHC dollars. (Fill in the gap between WRAPS and implementation – giving LGU’s a roadmap to restoration.) 5. Assist with project implementation including design, permitting and Environmental Review, and construction oversite assistance.

In order to move away from “Random Acts of Conservation” and better target and prioritize stream project requires staff in the field. Streams and sediment are too complex to accurately model.

Knife River Project (McDonald Site) Lake SWCD BANCS Assessment Estimated erosion rates based using method taught by MN DNR. Identified McDonald Site as biggest contributor (Red=highest, Orange =high, Yellow =moderate, green = low)

Method for targeting high priority sites (requires field work)

Project Objectives: · · · · ·

Hydrology: ‘attain a hydrologic regime that better supports geomorphic stability and ecological function’. Connectivity: restore longitudinal (fish passage and sediment transport), lateral (floodplain connectivity and watershed land use) and vertical (ground water interactions) connectivity. Biology: improve ecological function of the stream ecosystem (support aquatic life use for coldwater fish. Geomorphology: restore and maintain channel stability (maintain channel form without degrading or aggrading). Water Quality: support aquatic life in cold-water ecosystem both through sediment reduction and temperature mitigation.

Toe Wood Benefits § § § § § §

Reduces erosion (water quality) Dissipates stream energy (rough surface) Provides cover for fish and invertebrates Provides floodplain to dissipate energy Allows for healthy riparian area – promotes natural vegetation Narrower channel (improved sediment transport and temperature)

Project outcome: Annual sediment reduction estimated to be close to 600 tons! That equals 25+ dump trucks per year! Other benefits include improved habitat, connectivity, water temperatures and more stable channel!

Knife River (McDonald site) Pre-Construction 2012

2012

2015 Construction

Post-completion 2016

2017 Clean Water Funds: 

BWSR Capacity Funds—hire additional staff, implement best management practices on the ground, water monitoring, and education and outreach



Community Partners Shoreland Erosion Grant—education and outreach workshops, shoreland plantings and bio–engineering practices installed to reduce erosion and enhance buffers



Ilena Hansel, District Manager

assessment and development of a stormwater management plan for the City of Grand Marais

Theresa Oberg, District Administrator Phil Larson, Conservation Technician





(218)-387-3647

Targeted Watershed Poplar River —stormwater flowpath, tributary stabilization to reduce sediment into the Poplar River, other projects in the watershed for sediment reduction

Michaela Clingaman, Conservation Technician

411 West 2nd Street, Grand Marais, MN 55604

One Watershed One Plan implementation funding-

MPCA Civic Engagement— workshops, outreach materials, videos, meetings, and water monitoring are taking place to engage the community in watershed and water quality health

Photos: Top right—outreach workshop; middle top—inland lake monitoring; upper leŌ—community rain garden; boƩom leŌ—naƟve planƟng in full bloom; boƩom right—bank erosion planƟng

Cook County SWCD has used Clean Water Funds to work on a variety of projects. The projects have aided in protecting water quality, restoring shorelines, educating landowners, and helping to install best management practices on the ground.

Some of the projects funded over the years with Clean Water Funds include: 

Raingardens — 11 gardens installed throughout the County



Shoreland erosion stabilization and re-vegetation to native species — 4 completed with several others on their way to completion



In-land lake and Lake Superior Monitoring — over 51 inland lakes monitored



Education and Outreach — Aquatic vegetation, shoreland planting; frogs, septic systems, forestry, newspaper inserts, etc. reaching over 2,000 people



Poplar River sediment reduction projects — Projects are being completed to de-list the river for turbidity



Cost share projects — over 24 cost share projects installed



Lake Superior North One Watershed, One Plan completed and adopted



Technical Assistance to landowners throughout the County

Photos: Upper right—stream restoraƟon on Poplar River; upper leŌ –tree planƟng in Lake Superior coastal area; middle—erosion control pracƟce with local farmer; boƩom—shoreline erosion pracƟce along Lake Superior

Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program August 2017 The MAWQCP is a voluntary opportunity for farmers and agricultural landowners to take the lead in implementing conservation practices that protect our water. Those who implement and maintain approved farm management practices will be certified and in turn obtain regulatory certainty for a period of ten years. 452 farm operations in Minnesota have achieved Water Quality Certification status representing 262,720 acres. More than 812 new conservation practices have been implemented since the program went statewide two summers ago. Clean Water Council visits Cindy Hale’s Clover Valley Farms & Vinegary This 15 acre gardens and pasture, outside of Duluth, was MAWQCP certified in May by Carlton SWCD staff, Ryan Clark. In addition to vinegar, the farm produces herbs and fruits and raises sheep and rabbits organically. Clover Valley Farms also participated in a MDA Sustainable Agricultural Demonstration and Research Grant. Hoese Dairy first in Carver County The Hoese Dairy recently became the first farm in Carver County to become certified in the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program. The fifth generation dairy also raises alfalfa, corn, beans and small grains. Conservation practices include filter strips, conservation cover, precision nutrient management, and soil health building practices such as perennials crops and cover crops. Photo: MDA Assistant Commissioner Matt Wohlmann, MPCA Assistant Commissioner Rebecca Flood, Scott and Eric Hoese. Dombecks certified in Otter Tail County Bob and Tiffany Dombeck's Sandhill Dairy and Toad River Farms near Perham are recognized for their efforts of protecting Minnesota's water quality and their successful completion of Minnesota's Agricultural Water Quality Certification process. The Dombecks use cover crops on irrigated edible beans, corn silage and potato crops. They follow the University of Minnesota Nutrient Best Management Practices for corn and edible beans, are reducing tillage and deferring tillage to spring. In addition, they have installed buffers to address the water resource concerns. Photo: Brittany Johnson, East Otter Tail SWCD; Bob Dombeck; Darren Newville and Jim Lahn, both with EOT SWCD

www.mylandmylegacy.com