dakota county soil and water conservation district - lower ......2007/11/21 · c/o dakota county...

C/O DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4100 220TH ST. WEST SUITE 102

FARMINGTON, MN 55024

BOARD OF MANAGERS REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2011

9:00 A.M. Mendota Heights City Hall

1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights Agenda

I. Call Meeting to Order

II. Approval of the Agenda

III. Approval of Minutes from June 16, 2011*

IV. Approval of Treasurer’s Report and Invoices to be Paid

a) June 16, 2011 – July 21, 2011 Financial Summary & Invoices*

V. Watershed Management Plan – Response to Comments; Set Public Hearing Date* - WSB

VI. Grant Tracking Update** – Barr

VII. Update on Development of Workplan for Restoration/Protection Projects

VIII. Consideration of 2011 Budget Amendment*

IX. Review of Draft 2012 Budget*

X. Consideration of LMCIT Insurance Waiver*

XI. Other Updates and Handouts: a. Temporary Wetland Disturbance on Mn/DOT Project; IGH**

XII. Adjourn – next meeting date and location

Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization

*Materials attached in full packet **Materials available separately on website


FARMINGTON, MN 55024 PAGE 1

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES Board of Managers Regular Meeting

June 16, 2011 9:00 A.M.

Mendota Heights City Hall Managers in attendance: Mary Lou Sabin (Chair), Gary Johnson (Vice Chair), John Sachi (Secretary-Treasurer), Anne Weber, Mary Jeanne Schneeman, Judy MacManus Others in attendance: Laura Jester, Dakota County SWCD; John Mazzitello, City of Mendota Heights; John Hanson, Barr Engineering; Matt Saam, West St. Paul; Tom Kaldunski, City of Inver Grove Heights; Teish Stafne, City of Lilydale (partial attendance)

I. Call Meeting to Order The regular Board meeting was called to order by Chair Sabin at 9:06 a.m.

II. Approval of Agenda

MOTION to approve the agenda by Schneeman, second by Johnson; passed unanimously.

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes from April 21, 2011

MOTION to approve minutes from April 21, 2011 meeting by Schneeman, second by Sachi; passed unanimously.

IV. Approval of Treasurer’s Report and Invoices to be paid

a) April 21, 2011 – June 16, 2011 Financial Summary and Invoices Sachi reported all invoices were in line with contracts. MOTION to accept financial statement, pay invoices and submit information for official audit by Johnson, second by Schneeman; passed unanimously.

V. Grant Tracking Update

Sabin commented that the format of the grant track summary and spreadsheet was nice. Hanson indicated the most critical grant application period was the upcoming Clean Water Legacy grant process through the BWSR and the PCA. A process similar to last year is expected although a shutdown of the

Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization

Agenda Item III. LMRWMO Meeting 7-21-11



State government may alter the timelines. There was discussion about whether the SWCD applies for the Clean Water Legacy Funds. Jester reported the SWCD currently had two Clean Water Legacy grants from the BWSR and expected to apply for more funding this year.

VI. Official Approval of Barr’s 2011 Monitoring Plan and Budget Jester reminded the Board that at their last meeting, they passed a motion approving Barr to perform water monitoring on Dickman and Schmidt Lakes May – September in 2011 for up to $4,000 with a final proposal to be presented at the June meeting. Hanson indicated that monitoring had begun and the detailed monitoring proposal and budget was submitted for the Board’s review and approval. Water samples will be collected monthly and analytes include chloride, total phosphorus, and Chlorophyll a. Dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, pH, and turbidity are also measured on each lake monthly. The total project cost is not to exceed $3,970.75. MOTION to approve Barr’s official monitoring plan and budget for monitoring in 2011 by Sachi, second by Johnson; passed unanimously.

VII. Update on Request for PCA Funds for Restoration and Protection Projects Jester reminded the Board that a preliminary request for $130,000 was submitted to the PCA in March for restoration (TMDL) and protection studies on four WMO lakes. PCA staff recently indicated the WMO should get started on developing a workplan for that project and that workplan development would be a WMO expense (not reimbursable from the State). PCA staff indicated, via email, that while the WMO may not receive the entire requested amount, it was likely that the WMO would receive some level of funding for the work proposed. A meeting has been scheduled for July 19th for Jester, Keiffer and PCA staff to discuss the workplan. Jester estimated $1,200 in WMO expenses to develop the workplan. Board members discussed whether or not it was appropriate to begin developing a workplan before more is known about the State budget and potential funding levels. While some thought developing a workplan right now was premature, others acknowledged the workplan could be used grant applications in the future if this funding was unavailable. Sachi noted the project should proceed on the merits, not timing and that funding would eventually be there for this work. MOTION to approve development of a workplan to receive State funding for restoration and protection studies by Johnson, second by Schneeman; passed unanimously. Jester and Kieffer will update the Board on State funding levels and workplan development at their July meeting.

VIII. MN Waters Request for Program Membership Jester indicated that last year the WMO contributed $3,000 to the MN Waters Media Campaign. Jester reminded the Board they used funds from Dakota County for that contribution. Sabin indicated the media campaign helps carry out the WMO’s mission and education goals. Saam noted the media campaign can be used to fulfill MS4 permit requirements.



MOTION to continue membership with MN Waters and to contribute $3,000 to the MN Waters Media Campaign in 2011 by Johnson, second by Schneeman; passed unanimously.

IX. Update on Watershed Management Plan Review/Set Public Hearing Date Jester indicated two comment letters had been received from agencies: Met Council’s letter indicated the Watershed Plan is consistent with the Council’s 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan and provided an excellent framework to protect water resources in the watershed; BWSR’s comment letter was short but had some more significant comments including suggesting further detail in the implementation table and the section on local planning. Mazzitello noted the Plan could explicitly allow cities in both the Gun Club Lake WMO and the LMRWMO to delay updating their local water management plan until the next Gun Club Plan update. Sachi said the South St. Paul local water plan doesn’t require extensive changes to be in line with the LMRWMO Plan and perhaps Mendota Heights would find it true in their Plan. The Board discussed implications of the process the WMO would take to appeal a local government’s approval of an individual project and how the WMO can respond to BWSR’s comment on the subject. Jester will ask WSB to bring various options to the Board at their July meeting. WSB will bring all proposed responses to comments for the Board’s consideration at their July meeting. MOTION to set a Public Hearing on the watershed plan immediately preceding their next business meeting on Thursday July 21, 9:00 a.m. at the Mendota Heights City Hall by MacManus, second by Johnson; passed unanimously. NOTE: After this meeting, BWSR staff reminded WMO staff that official responses to comments were to be submitted to review agencies 10 days prior to a public hearing, requiring a public hearing to be postponed until after responses to comments were reviewed and approved by the WMO Board at their July 21st meeting.

X. Update on Blue Thumb Program and Request to Shift Funds Jester reported that participation in the Blue Thumb Program in the LMRWMO area was low this year. This may be due to incorrect registration phone numbers or late registration information listed in city newsletters. Currently, $7,000 is projected to be unused ($3,500 in landowner in incentives and $3,500 in technical assistance funds). SWCD staff requested use of these funds in other cost share programs including the SWCD’s Conservation Initiative Funding and Community Cost Share Programs. MOTION to approve the use of Blue Thumb project funding in other Dakota SWCD cost share programs by Sachi, second by Johnson; passed unanimously.

XI. Review of BWSR’s Performance Evaluation Report Jester reported that the LMRWMO is currently fulfilling all level one (and many level two) performance standards set by the BWSR. This was for the Board’s information only; there were no comments.



XII. Evaluation of NEMO Workshop at Science Museum Jester reported evaluation results from the WMO’s sponsored NEMO workshop at the Science Museum indicated a successful program. Jester distributed more detailed evaluation responses. No comments from the Board.

XIII. Other Updates and Handouts: a. West St. Paul Comp Plan Amendment – no comments; Chair Sabin will sign document indicating such. b. Public Waters Permit in IGH – no comments c. Shoreline Stabilization Project in Mendota Heights – no comments d. Pilot Knob Preservation Association Press Release – the WMO website will include a link to this organization e. December Program at Dodge Nature Center – Jester reported she will be giving an educational presentation on water resources in the WMO f. Dodge Nature Center Wetland Restoration – The SWCD received a State grant to restore the wetland in the Mendota Heights portion of the Nature Center. City staff noted they were glad to see restoration here. Jester also told the group about GreenStep Cities: a new challenge and assistance program sponsored by the PCA for small cities to easily implement sustainable and conservation-based projects.

XIV. Adjourn – MOTION by Johnson to adjourn at 10:14 a.m., second by Schneeman; passed unanimously

Next meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2011 at the Mendota Heights City Hall, 9:00 a.m.

Beginning Balance $136,007.46

Interest: (June, 2011 Interest) $8.84

Deposits

Checks to be approved at this meeting:

Key Community Bank Checks:3471 Barr Engineering - 1,845.383472 Hamline University-Clean Water - 3,000.003473 Dakota County SWCD - 3,335.17

----

Ending Checking Account Balance: $127,835.75

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER

FINANCIAL SUMMARYJUNE 16, 2011 - JULY 21, 2011

ljqs5

Text Box

Agenda Item IV. LMRWMO Meeting 7-21-11

Actual RevenuesESTIMATED REVENUES AND ASSETS Budget Dec 16 - Jan 20 Jan 20 - Feb 17 Feb 17 - Mar 31 Mar 31 - Apr 21 Apr 21 - Jun 16 Jun 16 - Jul 21 Jul 21 - Aug 18 Aug 18 - Sep 15 Sep 15 - Oct 20 Oct 20 - Nov 17 Nov 17 - Dec 15 Variance

Cash from Reserves $60,000.00 (60,000.00)$ Dues from Members $60,000.00 $60,000.00 -$ Interest $150.00 $6.29 $6.15 $8.99 $18.69 $8.84 (101.04)$ LMCIT Rebate $500.00 (500.00)$ Project Reimbursement $10,000.00 (10,000.00)$

TOTAL $130,650.00 $0.00 $6.29 $60,006.15 $8.99 $18.69 $8.84 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 (70,601.04)$

Actual ExpensesESTIMATED EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES Budget Dec 16 - Jan 20 Jan 20 - Feb 17 Feb 17 - Mar 31 Mar 31 - Apr 21 Apr 21 - Jun 16 Jun 16 - Jul 21 Jul 21 - Aug 18 Aug 18 - Sep 15 Sep 15 - Oct 20 Oct 20 - Nov 17 Nov 17 - Dec 15 Variance

Engineering and Technical AssistanceAdministrative $6,000.00 $29.00 $1,660.00 $666.00 3,645.00$ Meetings $5,000.00 $488.30 $691.62 $920.00 2,900.08$ Plan Reviews $3,000.00 $187.00 2,813.00$ Plan Implementation: Lexington/Riverside Study $0.00 -$ Plan Implementation: Blue Thumb Program $8,600.00 $3,600.00 $645.17 4,354.83$ Plan Revision $0.00 $6,303.50 $8,756.00 $65.00 (15,124.50)$ Plan Implementation: Projects $10,000.00 10,000.00$ Plan Implementation: Monitoring $10,000.00 $16.00 $739.38 9,244.62$ Plan Implementation: Education $3,000.00 $740.00 $3,000.00 (740.00)$

-$ -$

WMO Administration $13,000.00 $4,815.29 $2,145.00 6,039.71$ Insurance $2,500.00 2,500.00$ Attorney and Audit $4,500.00 $2,875.00 1,625.00$

TOTAL $65,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,820.80 $0.00 $23,340.91 $8,180.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 27,257.74$

Checking Balance 159,320.69$ 159,329.68$ 136,007.46$ 127,835.75$ 127,835.75$ 127,835.75$ 127,835.75$ 127,835.75$ 127,835.75$

Engineering Planning Environmental Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South

Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700

Minneapolis St. Cloud

Equal Opportunity Employer K:\01721-02\Admin\Docs\3rd Generation Plan\WMP\ReviewComments\MEMO Addressing 60-Day Comments.docx

Memorandum

To: Melissa Lewis, BWSR Nick Proulx, DNR From: Todd Hubmer, PE Jacob Newhall, PE CC: LMRWMO Board of Managers Date: July 14, 2011 Re: Draft Response to Comments Received During the 60-day Review Period for the 3rd

Generation Watershed Management Plan for the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization

WSB Project No. 1721-02 Thank you for taking the time to review and comment during the 60-day review period for the 3rd Generation Watershed Management Plan of the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO). Please find below responses to the comments received during the 60-day review process in their entirety and the LMRWMO responses.

BWSR Comments Comment #1: Page 5-8, Table 5-1 – suggest reformatting this table so it does not break across pages or by repeating the header on the second page.

Response to Comment #1: Table 5-1 has been reformatted with a repeating header on the second page.

Comment #2: Page 5-16, Strategy 5.9.2.A – Gun Club WMO, which shares Inver Grove Heights and Mendota Heights in their membership, will be starting a plan review process in the near future. We suggest the LMRWMO include a strategy specific to this activity.

Response to Comment #2: TBD at Board Meeting

Comment #3: Tables 6-1 through 6-5 – The footer on these tables indicates “proposed completion dates are estimates and are highly dependent on available funding.” We request the tables clearly identify what the WMO is committed to completing within the timeframe of this plan.

Response to Comment #3: Footer has been modified to read “The WMO is committed to completing the proposed projects, however proposed completion dates are estimates and highly dependent on available funding.

ljqs5

Text Box

Agenda Item V. LMRWMO Meeting 7-21-11

July 14, 2011 Page 2

K:\01721-02\Admin\Docs\3rd Generation Plan\WMP\ReviewComments\MEMO Addressing 60-Day Comments.docx

Comment #4: Table 6-2 – provide futher explanation or definition for ‘required’ vs. ‘additional’ implementation programs.

Response to Comment #4: Description of planning activities has been changed to: “Programs required by State Agencies or Joint Powers Agreement” and “Programs identified as additional priorities by the WMO”.

Comment #5: Page 7-2, Section 7.2 Local Planning

We suggest indicating in this section or in 7.2.1 when each community must have their local plan adopted. For example, the deadline for those communities entirely within the WMO is two years from the LMRWMO plan adoption.

Include a description of the process/consequences when the WMO appeals a local government’s approval of a project.

Response to Comment #5: Bullet 1 – The WMO would prefer to use the language from State Statutes 8410.0160 that reads “Member cities must adopt local watershed plans within two years of adoption of this plan, or two years from the date of approval of the last WMO plan in the city, whichever is later.” Using this language, avoids including estimated completion dates for neighboring WMOs that are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Bullet 2 – TBD at Board Meeting

Comment #6: Chapter 8 – include a list of anticipated amendments, such as capital improvement projects that may be added or modified as studies are completed.

Response to Comment #6: The Board will plan on amending as necessary and is not interested in listing potential amendments.

Comment #7: Appendix B and Table 6-2, no. 3 – provide a copy of a fully ratified JPA and complete legal description with final submittal. Additionally, we suggest outlining in the plan the revisions that will be required to reflect the 3rd Generation Plan and note the duration of the current JPA is until Jan. 1, 2012.


DNR Comments Comment #1: There is a clear advantage in having an organization that oversees a hydrological boundary actively participating in the management of water resources. The WMO should take full advantage of this opportunity to assess, implement and evaluate programs in a more systematic way at a watershed level. Member cities capacities to adequately administer these inventories, programs and projects should be considered during the planning and implementation phases and should be fully supported and assisted by the WMO and its member cities.

Response to Comment #1: No response needed. Comment #2: Subsection 2.6.1 Public Waters (Lakes, Wetlands, Streams, Ditches) and Wetlands. This inventory is incomplete. The Fishing in the Neighborhood (FiN) program manages three additional basins for fishing: City Hall Pond (19-267), McGroarty Pond (19-035), and Gun Club Pond (19-245).



Response to Comment #2: The three water bodies listed in comment #2 have been added to the inventory section as follows:

Other Water Bodies: McGroarty Pond (ID #19‐0035‐00), Gun Club Pond (#19‐0245‐00), City Hall Pond (#19‐0267‐00) These water bodies, located in Inver Grove Heights, are managed by the DNR’s Fishing in the Neighborhood (FiN) Program. For more information on these water bodies and other water bodies managed by the Fishing in the Neighborhood Program refer to the DNR’s website www.dnr.state.mn.us.

Comment #3: Subsection 2.7 Public Areas for Water Based Recreation and Access - Fishing/Boating. There are no formal facilities for launching boats in any of the basins located in this watershed. Currently access to these waterbodies can be obtained by portaging through the parks with portable watercraft, such as canoes and/or kayaks. To increase use and access to these waterbodies, the DNR encourages the WMO to pursue development of such facilities, especially where the infrastructure lends itself to these improvements.

Response to Comment #3: The following has been added to subsection 2.7 Fishing/Boating - “There are no public facilities on any of the basins in the WMO for launching boats, so access is limited for those who do not live adjacent to a water body.”

Item #6 in Table 6-3 and Subsection 4.3.A also address this comment: “Investigate opportunities to implement access points to improve access to water resources (e.g. fishing pier, observation platform).”

Comment #4: Subsection 2.8 Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The information provided in this section is general. It would be helpful if the plan included better descriptions on the types of habitat, species utilizing the habitats, and overall health of the habitats available throughout the WMO. Providing this information would be useful to the WMO in identifying problem areas and would assist the WMO in developing and setting management priorities. The DNR also recommends that the WMO assert additional effort inventorying fish and wildlife habitat.

Response to Comment #4: Comment has been noted by the Board, however no change was made at this time.

Comment #5: Subsection 2.9 Unique Features. It’s great that the plan includes a map of the MCBS Native Plant Communities found within the watershed. There are two other layers available on the DNR Data Deli (http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us) that would help to further characterize the watershed. These layers are the MCBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance and the Central Region Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA). More information regarding these data can be found at the following websites: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/biodiversity_guidelines.html http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/index.html http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsea/index.html. The DNR supports including information about the rare species found in the watershed in the Watershed Management Plan. A list of the rare plant and animal species that have been documented in the watershed can be included in the plan (specific location data should not be included in the plan). Section 2.9.2 indicates that the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) was queried in 2009. As new information is continually added to the NHIS, the query should be updated with current data. Our general policy is that Natural Heritage reviews are not



be considered valid if it has been more than one year since the review. Given the type of document that this information is being provided for, the database should at a minimum be rechecked every time the document or related documents are amended or updated and if the latest NHIS letter is dated over one year. Please contact Lisa Joyal, Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator, at [email protected] to request an updated search of the database. Please reference Correspondence # ERDB 20090722 in your communication. If watershed boundaries change, please be sure to include an updated shapefile with your submittal.

The DNR also recommends that the plan include goals and strategies to address how these rare species and significant native plant communities will be protected. Information on the biology, habitat use, and conservation measures of the rare species of interest can be obtained from the DNR Rare Species Guide at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html. For further information on how to address the protection of rare features in the plan’s goals and actions please contact Hannah Texler, Regional Plant Ecologist for DNR’s Central Region, at 651-259-5811 or [email protected].

Response to Comment #5: Comment has been noted by the Board, however no change was made at this time.

Comment #6: Section 3.0 Agency Cooperation. The section heading is misleading. A more appropriate section heading may be Regulating Agencies. An inclusion for discussion in an Agency Cooperation section would be to address the participation of the regulatory agencies and WMO and/or city participants on the Technical Advisory Committee for this plan.

Response to Comment #6: The WMO is comfortable with Agency Cooperation as the heading for Section 3.0 as not all of the agencies have regulating authority.

Comment #7: Subsections 4.1.B & 4.1.C Water Quality Problems and Issues. Water quality monitoring should be the cornerstone of any watershed management organization. As you are aware, water quality monitoring prioritizes activities of the WMO and its member cities as well as determines how effective the management activities and programs are. Given this is a 3

rd

generation plan; the WMO should have a detailed monitoring plan already developed and active. Given the approaches for addressing problems 4.1.B and C, it is apparent that this activity remains in the development phase “WMO may conduct monitoring etc” and relies on cities, volunteers to complete this important task.

Response to Comment #7: The WMO currently completes monitoring activities as budget and resources allow. As stated in the plan, the WMO is committed to developing a monitoring plan for water bodies and outfalls to the Mississippi River during the early implementation stages of this plan.

Comment #8: Subsections 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 Flooding and Stormwater Rate Control Concerns, Impacts of Water Resource Management on Recreation, and Impacts of Erosion and Sedimentation of Water Resources – projects that include addressing stream bank erosion. When considering stream projects, practitioners must consider: 1) Whether the problem is systemic or local; 2) The benefits to water quality and habitat; 3) Overall stream health; and whether the project works with geomorphic and ecological processes and functions (or against). The stream’s ability to transport water and sediment from its watershed while maintaining its dimension, pattern, and profile, over time, without either aggrading or degrading would be considered a stable stream. Stable streams typically have very low rates of bank erosion; channels with



multiple bare, eroding, banks are likely not stable. Following principles of natural channel design will result in a self-sustaining system that avoids additional channel impacts with lower maintenance costs, improved water quality (e.g., sediment), increased connectivity (to floodplain and upstream), improved habitat conditions, and improved biological diversity. A systemic approach affords prioritization of projects so that projects proceed in a logical way within the stream network. If interested, DNR has developed draft river restoration guidelines that maybe of assistance, in which a portion is summarized below. Summary The DNR suggest the following for a stream bank project prioritization criteria: The prioritization should consider: 1) Extent to which it addresses or affects a systemic problem; 2) Extent to which it addresses ecological benefit or concern; 3) Breadth of benefits: maintain diversity of habitat, channel evolution, water quality, and stream connectivity; 4) Location in watershed (May constitute a higher priority if effect is cumulative in a longitudinal direction); 5) Its presence and contribution in a larger watershed plan (i.e., TMDL); 6) Degree of controversy (breadth of costs); and 7) Technical difficulty versus need. DNR is concerned with the potential use of riprap and concrete as a means to stabilize banks. Stabilization projects that lock the stream in place, pass the problem downstream, degrade habitat, or decrease connectivity (lateral, vertical, or longitudinal), or degrade water quality, do not meet the long-term goals of this watershed plan and should not be funded with restoration money. Bank stabilization projects which use hard-control measures (e.g., riprap, concrete, etc.) degrade habitat and do not dissipate the water velocities and energy, thereby increasing downstream erosion, decreasing overall habitat diversity, or causing other downstream problems. Projects that should not be considered restoration projects include: Hard-Control measures include projects such as, rip-rapping the lower 1/3 of stream bank, gabions, check dams, bendway weirs, or other concrete structures. Projects which address only hillslope erosion processes when there is a channel erosion process or component also involved. Projects which use Geotextile, in combination with rock or vegetation, are not recommended for funding because it restricts lateral or vertical connectivity, preventing, for example, the movement of aquatic invertebrates in and out of the hyporheric zone. A notable exception to the above restriction is the use of rip-rap to protect critical infrastructure, such as bridge pilings. Here, the best application of rip-rap would include riffle design features that direct the flow toward the center of the channel, away from banks and abutments.

Response to Comment #8: The following has been added to Subsection 4.5.A: “The WMO may also reference the DNR’s River Restoration Guidelines when developing improvement options.”

Comment #9: Subsection 4.3 Impacts of Water Resource Management on Recreation. The problems listed, limited public access and shoreline vegetation and erosion problems do not seem to relate to the Subsection heading.

Response to Comment #9: The WMO feels the existing heading is appropriate. Comment #10: Subsection 4.4 Impacts of Stormwater Quality on Fish and Wildlife Resources. It would be preferable to expand on how and in what ways wetland banking impacts stormwater quality on fish and wildlife. Making the connections more directly by adding details on location and general methodologies will help determine if the approach will work in bolstering fish and



wildlife resources. In general, public wetlands should not be used for stormwater treatment, however the reality of a built out urban area can make this a challenge.

Response to Comment #10: TBD at Board Meeting Comment #11: Subsection 4.5. Impacts of Erosion and Sedimentation of Water Resources. The plan identifies several problems, but only proposes to study the issue and develop a solution. As this document is a 3

rd Generation plan, there should be some already developed solutions that

should be included in the plan.

Response to Comment #11: Both 4.5.A and 4.5.C are included in Table 6-1 for Capital Improvement Projects.

Comment #12: Subsection 4.5 Impacts of Erosion and Sedimentation of Water Resources Problem 4.5D. The WMO should consider the sources of sediment first, before putting together a maintenance plan for stormwater ponds. The priority should be to address the sediment where it is, which will reduce maintenance costs long term.

Response to Comment #12: Addressing the source of the sediment will be a component of the maintenance plan. To this end, “Determination of excess sources of sediment or other loadings will be a component of this maintenance program” has been added to 4.5.D.

Comment #13: Subsection 5.3.3 Water Quality, WMO Policies. It is unclear what the 50% phosphorus removal from new development is based on. As presented, it seems arbitrary to assign a target of 50% without knowing if it will achieve desired outcomes to receiving waters. In addition, using the TMDL P reductions, regardless of it being more or less stringent, may likely result in a missed opportunity to achieve water quality goals. It would be more relevant to use the more stringent number, as it will be a conservative estimate and allow for reserve capacity.

Response to Comment #13: The 50% reduction was selected as it currently exceeds the standard for the TMDL being considered for the Mississippi River. The TMDL reduction will replace this standard when implementation plans are complete, as analysis has been done to determine the appropriate reductions for watersheds of concern. It is important to note that the LMRWMO is not a permitting authority and each member city can adopt more stringent rules if they find it necessary or helpful in meeting their future reduction requirements.

Comment #14: Subsection 5.4.1, 2, 3 Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The goal of protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and maintain shoreland integrities a good one, however the strategies and policies to achieve these goals are not proactive – promote, encourage, support etc. The WMO should be more aggressive to insure that natural shorelines are maintained, that altered shorelines are restored to a natural state, that water quality is improved, that there is improved access to water bodies, and that all projects that impact water resources include natural landscape designs.




Comment #15: Subsection 5.5 Wetlands. The DNR discourages any use of public waters, including wetlands, as treatment for stormwater and would not consider that application to be protective or an enhancement. More likely, the use of wetlands as stormwater treatment will degrade the overall health of the system and reduce the fish and wildlife resources of that wetland.

Response to Comment #15: No response needed. Comment #16: Table 6.1 Capital Improvement Projects. The projects proposed are primarily addressing water quantity issues. The plan includes few projects planned to directly impact water quality, fish or wildlife habitat improvements, or improvements/enhancements of recreational facilities. There may be some indirect impact on water quality by the proposed projects, such as the streambank stabilization work, however without addressing the root cause for these types of issues the projects will likely not have the desired impact at a system scale.

Response to Comment #16: There will most likely be water quality projects added as a result of the monitoring program, but at this time this is the list of projects that have been identified.

Comment #17: Table 6.3 Watershed Management Studies. There are 13 “Watershed Management Studies” proposed, but no money allocated to implement any suggested actions. It would be useful to track the estimated costs for the outcomes from these studies, however preliminary the numbers may be, in order to get a full appreciation for what the WMO is planning on accomplishing during the lifetime of this 3

rd generation water management plan.

Response to Comment #17: Money has been allocated for projects resulting from studies 5, 8, and 9 in Table 6-3 (see 3, 4, and 5 in Table 6-1). Other projects may be added during the lifetime of the Plan, as desired by the Board of Managers.

Summary of Grant Programs and Application Deadlines in Grant Tracking Database 7/14/2011

Application Deadline Grant Program*

November 1, 2011 USFWS Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) Grant Program

November 1, 2011 Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grants Program (ERF Grants)

November 1, 2011

Met Council Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) Program- Investigation and Clean-

up Grants

October 27, 2011 USFWS North American Wetland Conservation Act U.S. Small Grants Program

September 29, 2011 Midwest Glacial Lakes Partnership/USFWS National Fish Habitat Action Plan

September 28, 2011 (Pre-

application Form) Minnehaha Creek WD Cynthia Krieg Watershed Stewardship Fund

September 15, 2011 BWSR Clean Water Assistance Grant Program

September 15, 2011 BWSR Clean Water Accelerated Implementation Grant Program

September 15, 2011 BWSR Clean Water Community Conservation Partner Program Grant Program

September 15, 2011 BWSR Conservation Drainage Grant Program

September 15, 2011 MDA Clean Water Ag BMP Loan Program

September 1, 2011 NFWF Keystone Initiative Grant Program

9/1/2011 (Pre-proposal) NFWF Acres for America

August 1, 2011 Met Council Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) Program- Investigation Grants

July 31, 2011 MPFA/MPCA Phosphorus Reduction Grant Program

July 31, 2011 MPFA/MPCA Total Maximum Daily Load Grant Program

July 29, 2011 USFWS North American Wetland Conservation Act U.S. Standard Grants Program

July 15, 2011 Met Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant Program

July 15, 2011 Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund Program

June 30, 2011 NFWF Native Plant Conservation Initiative

June 24 or July 8, 2011 MDNR Eurasian Watermilfoil and Flowering Bullrush Grant Program

July 6, 2011 FEMA Federal Aid Programs For State Of Minnesota Disaster Recovery

June 2, 2011 MDNR Flood Hazard Mitigation Grants

May 20, 2011 (Pre-application) Met Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant Program

May 15, 2011 Dakota County SWCD Conservation Cost Share (CCS) Program

May 15, 2011 Dakota County SWCD Community Conservation Partnership Program

May 13, 2011 MPCA Section 319 TMDL Implementation Grants

May 13, 2011 MPCA Section 319 Developmental, Education, and Applied Research (DER) Grants

May 2, 2011 USEPA Environmental Eduction Regional Grant Program

May 1, 2011 Met Council Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) Program

April 4, 2011 MN Depth of Health Source Water Protection Competitive Grant Program

March 31, 2011

MDNR Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program (from Lessard-Sams Outdoor

Heritage Council)

March 31, 2011 USEPA Environmental Justice Small Grants Program

March 31, 2011 MDNR Regional Trail Grant Program

March 31, 2011 MDNR Natural and Scenic Area Grants

March 31, 2011 MDNR Local Trail Connections Program

March 31, 2011 MDNR Parks and Trails Legacy Grant Program

March 31, 2011 MDNR Regional Park Program

March 31, 2011 MDNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Program

* See Grant Tracking Database for further details 1

ljqs5

Text Box

Agenda Item VI. LMRWMO Meeting 7-21-11

Summary of Grant Programs and Application Deadlines in Grant Tracking Database 7/14/2011

Application Deadline Grant Program*

March 30, 2011 MDH Source Water Protection Plan Implementation Grant Program

March 22, 2011 USEPA Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program

March 4, 2011

MPFA Clean Water Revolving Fund: Opportunity for Wastewater or Stormwater

Projects to be included on MPCA's Project Priority List (PPL) for loans or grants

February 28, 2011 MDNR Federal Recreation Trail Program

February 15, 2011 BWSR Clean Water Legacy Lake Protection Challenge Grant

February 14, 2011 NFWF Sustain our Great Lakes Community Grants Program

February 14, 2011 NFWF Sustain our Great Lakes Stewardship Grants Program

February 14, 2011 NFWF Five Star Restoration Matching Grants Program

January 31, 2011 MDNR Solar Energy Legacy Grant Program

January 18, 2011

MDNR Pilot Projects to control Eurasian watermilfoil or Curly-leaf pondweed on a lake-

wide basis

November 5, 2010 MPCA Surface Water Assessment Grant

November 1, 2010 Conservation Corp Minnesota Clean Water Fund Grants

November 1, 2010

Environmental Assistance Grant for stormwater sediment contaminated with Polycyclic

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).

October 15, 2010 USEPA Brownfields Assessment Grants

October 15, 2010 USEPA Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grant Program

October 15, 2010 USEPA Brownfields Cleanup Grant Program

October 1, 2010 MDNR Shoreland Habitat Restoration Grant Program

Grant programs with no specific application deadline date or currently unfunded*

MDNR Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Grants

MDNR State Park Road Account Program

MDNR Wetland Tax Exemption Program

MDNR Water Recreation Cooperative Acquisition & Development Program

SWCD State Cost Share Program

MDNR Roadsides for Wildlife

MDNR Reinvest in Minnesota Critical Habitat Match Program

MDNR Native Prairie Tax Exemption Program

MDNR Native Prairie Bank Program

MPCA Targeted Brownfield Assessment Grant Program

USFWS Landowner Incentive Program (LIP)

MDNR Fishing Pier Grant Program

MDNR Dam Safety Grants

MPCA Clean Water Legacy (CWL) TMDL Development Funds

MDNR Boat Access

Washington County Conservation District Water Quality Cost-Share

USEPA Targeted Watersheds Grants Program

Dakota County SWCD Conservation Initiative Funding Program

MDNR Forest Stewardship Program

MDNR Remediation Fund (Landfills)

MDNR Community Forest Bonding

MDNR Native Shoreland Buffer Incentives Program

BWSR Native Buffer Cost Share Program

MDNR Environmental and Conservation Partnerships Grant Program

BWSR Cooperative Weed Management Area Grants

* See Grant Tracking Database for further details 2

2011 LMRWMO Proposed Budget Amendment

ESTIMATED REVENUES AND ASSETS Original Proposed Budget

Amendment Notes

Cash from Reserves $60,000.00

$60,000.00 Dues from Members $60,000.00

$60,000.00

Interest $150.00

$75.00 LMCIT Rebate $500.00

$500.00

Project Reimbursement $10,000.00

$0.00 No grants/projects expected

TOTAL $130,650.00 $120,575.00

ESTIMATED EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES Original

Proposed Budget Amendment Notes

Engineering and Technical Assistance Administrative $6,000.00

$6,000.00

Meetings $5,000.00

$5,000.00 Plan Reviews $3,000.00

$3,000.00

Plan Implementation: Lexington/Riverside Study $0.00

$0.00

Plan Implementation: Blue Thumb Program $8,600.00

$3,600.00 Workshop portion of BT Program

Plan Revision $0.00

$24,000.00 Carry over from 2010 budget

Plan Implementation: Projects $10,000.00

$10,000.00 Blue Thumb Project Implementation

Plan Implementation: Monitoring $10,000.00

$4,000.00 Dickman and Schmidt Lakes

Plan Implementation: Education $3,000.00

$6,025.00 Includes CAC coordination, website, MN Waters membership

WMO Administration $13,000.00

$13,000.00 Insurance $2,500.00

$2,500.00

Attorney and Audit $4,500.00

$4,500.00 TOTAL $65,600.00 $81,625.00

Agenda Item VIII. LMRWMO Meeting 7-21-11

ESTIMATED REVENUES AND ASSETSAmended

2011 Notes

Use of Fund Balance* $60,000 ?Dues from Members $60,000 $60,000Interest $75 $75LMCIT Rebate $500 $500

Project Reimbursement $0 $0 No known grants/projects

TOTAL $120,575 TOTAL $60,575*Estimated fund balance 12/31/11 = $87,000

ESTIMATED EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES Amended

2011 Notes

Engineering and Technical Assistance Consulting EngineeringAdministrative $6,000 Technical Assistance $6,000 More info provided at meetingMeetings $5,000 Meetings $5,000 More info provided at meetingPlan Reviews $3,000 Plan Reviews $3,000 More info provided at meeting

Subtotal $14,000 Subtotal $14,000

Plan Revision and Implementation Project Planning and ImplementationPlan Revision $24,000 Plan Revision $0Blue Thumb Program - Projects $10,000 Cost Share Program $10,000 Blue Thumb ImplementationMonitoring $4,000 Monitoring $4,000 Monthly samples, two lakes


Education EducationBlue Thumb Program Workshops $3,600 Blue Thumb Program Workshops $3,600MN Waters Membership $3,000 MN Waters Membership $3,000Website $1,400 Website $1,400CAC Coordination $1,625 CAC Coordination $1,625


Administration AdministrationGeneral Administration $13,000 General Administration $13,000Insurance $2,500 Insurance $2,500Attorney and Audit $4,500 Attorney and Audit $6,000 Increase due to JPA Revision


TOTAL $81,625 TOTAL $59,125

Proposed 2012

2012 Proposed BudgetLower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization

Proposed 2012

Agenda Item IX. LMRWMO Meeting 7-21-11

Additional Items From Watershed Plan Amount Location in PlanDevelop WQ monitoring program $4,500 Table 6-2; # 17

Assist members w/ TMDL Implementation $3,500 Table 6-2; # 15Develop pond/BMP maintenance program $30,000 Table 6-2; # 21

Trainings for staff to address MS4 Permit $2,000 Table 6-2; # 13Develop outreach to assist w/ MS4 permit $5,000 Table 6-2; # 18

Feasibility study to address Thompson Lk PAHs $16,500 Table 6-3; # 2Feasibility study to address floatables in Simley Lk $4,000 Table 6-3; # 3

Feasibility study on erosion in Ivy Falls Creek $13,500 Table 6-3; # 9Monitor shoreland erosion along Golf Course Pond $1,200 Table 6-3; # 10

Verify WMO boundary in GIS $1,800 Table 6-3; #11Set aside funds for 4th Generation Watershed Plan $5,000 Table 6-3; #13

Subtotal $87,000

Agenda Item X. LMRWMO Meeting 7-21-11

dakota county soil and water conservation district - lower ......2007/11/21 · c/o dakota county...

Documents