new cannon river committee... · 2005. 3. 17. · brad anderson (goodhue county), jeff beckman...

Cannon River One Watershed, One Plan “Aligning local water planning on major watershed boundaries with state strategies towards prioritized, targeted and measurable implementation plans”

AGENDA Cannon River One Watershed, One Plan

Policy Committee Meeting May 3, 2017 – 9:00 a.m.

Rice County Government Center 320 Third Street Northwest Faribault, MN 55021

1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.

2. Approval of agenda 9:05 a.m.

3. Approve minutes of March 1, 2017 meeting 9:10 a.m.

4. Authorization to award and execute contract with Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 9:15 a.m. for facilitating input and writing of watershed plan

5. Update on Advisory Committee 9:30 a.m.

6. Update on initial kick-off meeting 9:45 a.m.

7. Presentations from each County/SWCD 10:00 a.m.

8. Establish next meeting day, time and location 11:00 a.m.

9. Adjourn 11:15 a.m.

of 5

Cannon River One Watershed, One Plan “Aligning local water planning on major watershed boundaries with state strategies towards prioritized, targeted and measurable implementation plans”

DRAFT Minutes Policy Committee Meeting

March 1, 2017 Rice County Government Services Building

320 Third St NW, Faribault, MN 55021 Policy Committee Members: Brad Anderson (Goodhue County), Jeff Beckman (Goodhue SWCD), Kevin Chamberlain (Dakota SWCD), Dan Hansen (Steele SWCD), Brian Harguth (Waseca County), James Hedeen (Belle Creek WD), Carrie Jennings (North Cannon River WMO), Mike Ludwig (Rice SWCD), Steven Rohlfing (Le Sueur County), Jim Struck (Le Sueur SWCD) Galen Malecha (Rice County), Keith Morgan (Waseca SWCD). Also in Attendance: Brad Becker (Dakota County staff), Brad Behrens (Rice County staff), Ashley Gallagher (Dakota SWCD staff), Jayne Hager Dee (Dakota SWCD Supervisor – Alternate to Policy Committee), Kelly Hunt (Waseca County staff) , Beau Kennedy (Goodhue SWCD staff), Shaina Keseley (BWSR), Josh Mankowski (Le Sueur County staff), Jenny Mocol-Johnson (BWSR), Steve Pahs (Rice SWCD staff), Glen Roberson (Goodhue SWCD staff), Mike Schultz (Le Sueur SWCD staff), Terence Swihart (Rice County Attorney), Brian Watson (Dakota SWCD staff) 1. Open Meeting

a. Watson (Dakota SWCD) opened the meeting at 9:15am. Introductions were made. b. Acceptance of agenda.

Motion by Jennings, Second by Beckman to approve the agenda. Motion carried.

2. Introduction to the Cannon River One, Watershed One Plan (1W1P) a. Mocol-Johnson (BWSR Board Conservationist) provided a presentation on the new state

strategy for comprehensive local water plans. Concept began with the Local Government Water Roundtable (LGWR), which had representation from Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC), Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (MASWCD), and Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts (MAWD). In 2012 legislation was enacted to streamline planning and align planning on watershed boundaries. The pilot watersheds started in 2014 and included Root River, Yellow Medicine River, Red Lake River, North Fork Crow River, and Lake Superior North. These pilots helped to develop, test and inform the 1W1P process. The state strategy is on a ten year cycle and includes completing the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) prior to 1W1P. State planning strategies also include incorporation of a variety of State Agency Plans including but not

of 5

limited to plans from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Metropolitan Council will also be involved in the Dakota County portion due to the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act. The over-arching goal is to have a prioritized, targeted and measurable implementation plan.

Keseley (BWSR Clean Water Fund Specialist) provided a presentation on how the state will transition from County water planning to watershed based planning. The goal is to have to have every watershed covered in the state by 2025.

BWSR will encourage initiation of 1W1P by: i. Coordinating plan development with existing plan processes

ii. Maintaining geographic distribution of planning efforts iii. Providing planning grants iv. Emphasizing planning that addresses state priorities

In the future, 1W1P will be required to receive State funding. Each of the three Associations that participated in the LGWR has adopted a policy paper that shifts Clean Water Funds from a competitive process to a block grant format for watersheds that have completed 1W1P.

Keseley finished the presentation with a diagram regarding the various committees and groups identified under the 1W1P Operational Procedures.

• The Advisory Committee is required. It will consist of many stakeholder groups including local government, state agencies, federal agencies, non-profit groups, growers associations, lake associations, etc. Their purpose is to make recommendations on plan content and implementation to the Policy Committee.

• The Planning Work Group is strongly recommended. It is a subset of the Advisory Committee that consists of local staff, BWSR Board Conservationist and the Consultant. Their purpose is to organize logistics, formulate recommendations for the Advisory Committee and synthesize information from the Advisory Committee.

• The Policy Committee is required. It consists of an elected official from each participating local government unit including one County Board member, one SWCD supervisor, one representative from the Watershed District and one from the Watershed Management Organization. Their purpose is to make final decision about plan content and submittal, as well as expenditure of planning grant funds. The end goal is to have each member take the plan back to their boards for local adoption.

Gallagher (Dakota SWCD) provided an overview of the planning grant and anticipated schedules. There has been a significant amount of effort put into planning just to get to this point. The planning grant has been submitted to BWSR. The Rice SWCD (fiscal agent) will approve the grant at their March 8th meeting.

of 5

The total BWSR planning grant amount is $235,923. The timeline for implementing the planning grant and developing the watershed plan was reviewed. Items highlighted included:

• Two year process • Committees meet throughout • Seeking input and drafting watershed plan most substantial portion • Review includes BWSR approval and local adoption • Firm completion deadline is February 2019 • Next task is hiring a consultant and scheduling a kick-off (open house) event

b. Watson (Dakota SWCD) gave an overview of the organizational structure. Each participating local unit of government has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to collaborate in the development of a comprehensive watershed plan for the Cannon River. The Policy Committee is not a Joint Powers Board (JPB) and eligible to receive State funds at this time. During the planning process, it will be required that an organizational structure to implement the plan’s projects and programs be identified. This will require discussion on new formal agreements and structures. Watson asked the group stay informed, listen to stakeholders, and update their respective boards throughout the planning process. The Policy Committee ultimately has the decision for the watershed plan submitted to the State.

3. Election of Officers Chair: Watson opened nominations for Chair. Watson called for nominations three times. Morgan nominated Rohlfing, second by Beckman. Nominations were closed. Unanimous ballot cast for Rohlfing. Motion carried.

The meeting was turned over to Chairman Rohlfing.

Vice Chair: Chair Rohlfing opened nominations for Vice Chair. Beckman nominated Anderson, second by Chamberlain. A call for nominations was made three more times, hearing none, nominations were closed. Unanimous ballot cast for Anderson. Motion carried.

Secretary: Chair Rohlfing opened nominations for secretary. Anderson nominated Malecha, second by Jennings. A call for nominations was made three more times, hearing none, nominations were closed. Unanimous ballot cast for Malecha. Motion carried.

4. Adoption of Bylaws

A new set of Bylaws was distributed with edits from the Rice County Attorney. The majority of changes were minor. The most significant change was to Section VII. Changes helped clarify the role of Advisory Committee, Planning Workgroup and possible subcommittees to the Policy Committee. It was noted that the Planning Workgroup is currently developing a list of stakeholders for the Advisory Committee. Motion by Jennings, second by Hedeen to adopted the Bylaws with changes as presented. Motion carried.

of 5

5. Approve Consultant Selection Process Gallagher reviewed the Request for Proposal for consultant selection. As currently written, the Planning Workgroup would review applications, interview top proposals, and recommend a consultant for Policy Committee for approval. Evaluation criteria and timeline were both reviewed. Timeline assumes that the Policy Committee will set next meeting for May 3rd.

It was noted that approximately 5-7 proposals from consultants are expected. Discussion occurred on whether Policy Committee members should be part of the selection process. After discussion, it was decided that staff are most qualified to carry out the consultant selection process.

Information on all proposals submitted will be provided to the Policy Committee and eventually posted to the Cannon River 1W1P web site. Motion by Harguth, second by Jennings to approve the RFP process for selection of a consultant. Motion carried.

6. Establish Policy Committee Meeting Schedule Staff proposed Policy Committee meetings be scheduled every other month, on the first Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. It was asked if an April meeting would be needed; staff does not see the need. The next meeting was scheduled for May 3rd at 9:00 a.m. at the Rice County Government Services Building.

7. Kick-off Event Planning The Planning Workgroup has discussed a “Kick-off Event” to initiate the Plan development process. The current idea was to hold two identical sessions; one in the late afternoon and one in the evening on the same day, such as 3-5 p.m. and 6-8 p.m. This meeting would be open to the public and all stakeholders would be invited.

It was noted that this “Kick-off” event would occur after consultant selection so they could participate; scheduling of event would be mid to late May. Chair Rohfling asked for input.

It was asked who would facilitate the event. The consensus was that the Policy Committee or staff would facilitate the event but the consultant plays a large role. The format discussed was a short presentation and then more of an open house format. It was noted that a clear vision be expressed in an informal setting.

Possible locations to hold the event included River Bend Nature Center (probably too small), Faribault Armory (probably too small), Northfield Middle School, and South Central College. Email any other ideas to Gallagher and Watson.

It was asked that once the Plan is established will it overrule existing local water plans. BWSR staff responded that there would be a transition period were a County may have a Watershed based Plan as well as a County Plan to cover all geographical areas. Eventually, each Counties current Water Plan will be covered by Watershed based plans.

of 5

It was noted that the 7-county metropolitan soil and water conservation districts and counties have different watershed plan requirements due to the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act. The North Cannon River Watershed Management Organization located in Dakota County already has a local plan based on a watershed boundary but could choose to adopt the 1W1P to supersede their current watershed plan. Dakota County and the Dakota County SWCD do not have that option and it remains to be seen how the State will fully develop the 1W1P concept in the 7-County Metropolitan area. Participation in 1W1P by metropolitan local units of government is voluntary as they are not held to the 2025 timeline mentioned earlier in the BWSR staff presentation.

The MOA map was reviewed. This map shows the planning boundaries which are slightly different than the actual watershed drainage area. Counties with less than 5% land area can opt out of the plan and include that area in another 1W1P process. Blue Earth, Scott, and Freeborn counties all had very minimal geographical areas within the Cannon River Watershed and chose not to participate. The Cannon River 1W1P Boundary also includes a portion of the Upper Mississippi River/Lake Pepin Watershed, as that made the most sense for Goodhue County planning purposes and is acceptable according to BWSR guidance. Motion by Hansen, second by Anderson to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Galen Malecha, Secretary Cannon River Watershed 1W1 Policy Committee

CANNON RIVER ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN POLICY COMMITTEE

Request for Action

Supporting Documents: Draft Contract Agreement with EOR

Meeting Date: 5/3/2017 Prepared by: Planning Work Group (Staff) PURPOSE/ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization to award and execute a contract with Emmons & Olivier Resources to provide consulting services for facilitating input and writing a comprehensive watershed management plan.

SUMMARY: A Request for Proposal (RFP) for the writing of a watershed plan and facilitation of input was advertised and distributed on March 3rd. Proposals were received from five consulting firms. The following table illustrates the consulting firms and their total proposed cost.

Firm Staff Hours Fee/Hour Expenses Total Proposed Cost Emmons & Olivier Resources 1,248 $133.22 $4,621 $170,879 Houston Engineering 878 $149.72 $6,000 $137,456 LimnoTech (Freshwater Society as subconsultant) 1,491 $115.90 $6,850 $179,653 Wenck and Associates 997 $120.77 $9,000 $129,404 WSB and Associates 1,412 $129.53 $2,700 $185,596

The Planning Work Group (PWG) conducted a screening process on April 7 to review, score and rank each written proposal. Three consultants were then identified and interviewed on April 19 and again scored and ranked based on criteria established. The Policy Committee is not required to select the proposal with the lowest cost.

RECOMMENDATION: The PWG recommends the acceptance of the Emmons and Olivier Resources (EOR) proposal based on their qualifications, key personnel, experience and cost in terms of the requirements as outlined in the RFP. Emmons and Olivier Resources scored and ranked the highest during both the screening process and interviews and wil l provide the requested services for an amount not to exceed $170,879.

A contract has been submitted by EOR and is under review by the Rice County Attorney’s Office.

EXPLANATION OF FISCAL IMPACTS: The total planning grant award from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) is $235,923. This grant amount is intended to cover all phases of plan development including pre-planning, planning, and plan review as well as fiscal agent and grant administration time spent with coordinating committees, coordinating with consultant, fiscal tasks and meeting expenses. The EOR proposal is within the work plan and budget that has been established with (BWSR).

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT

STANDARD SERVICE CONTRACT

This Agreement is effective on the 3

rd day of May, 2017, by and between Cannon River Watershed – One

Watershed, One Plan (“Client”) and Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. (“Consultant”) for services that

Consultant will perform for preparation of the Cannon River Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan.

The Consultant and Client may collectively be referred herein as “Parties.”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

Consultant will provide Client with the services described in Consultant’s proposal, attached as Attachment

I, referred to herein as the “Work,” and incorporated herein by reference . Additional services may be

added to this contract at a later date as Attachment II, to be signed by both parties.

COMPENSATION

Client agrees to pay Consultant the fees stated in Attachment I and subsequent Attachments (the “Fees”)

for the Work. Client agrees to pay for any services that are requested in addition to the Work on a time and

materials basis at the rates provided in Consultant’s schedule of fees which are part of Attachment I.

This Agreement is subject to the following General Conditions:

SECTION 1: FEE PAYMENT

1.1 Consultant will submit invoices to Client

monthly with a final invoice on completion of

the Work. Invoices will show charges based on

the Fees. A detailed separation of charges and

backup data will be provided at Client’s request,

at no cost to the Client.

1.2 Payment is due within ten business days of

receipt of invoice. If the invoice is not paid

within ninety (90) days after invoice date, Client

will also pay a finance charge thereon of 1.5

percent or the maximum rate allowed by law,

whichever is less, for each month thereafter or

portion thereof that an invoice remains unpaid.

1.3 If Client fails to pay Consultant within

ninety(90) days after invoice date, Consultant

may deem failure to pay a breach of this

Agreement, terminate the same, and be relieved

of any and all duties under this Agreement.

1.4 Client agrees to pay all costs of collection,

including reasonable attorney’s fees, in the event

payment is not received as provided herein; this

liability for attorney fees is not contingent upon

suit being filed by Consultant.

1.5 Client may retain the final 10% of payment

for each critical task of Pre-Planning, Planning

and Plan Review until they are reviewed and

determined to be satisfactorily fulfilled per the

submitted work plan.

SECTION 2: WORK INFORMATION AND

NOTICES

2.1 Client will provide to Consultant in writing

only that information known to Client regarding

existing conditions within the area contemplated

by the Work. The information will include, if

applicable and, as appropriate to the Work, , site

plans, hydrologic data, subsurface or latent

physical conditions, previous soil data including

borings, field or laboratory tests, and written

reports, and notice of all known hazardous, toxic,

radioactive, pollutant, or irritant conditions

within the Work area (“Work Information”).

2.2 Client will immediately notify Consultant of

any updates, revisions, or additions that are

sought to be made to the Work or, if applicable,

to Additional Services that may be added as an

Attachment II as provided within the Scope of

Services.

SECTION 3: OWNERSHIP - DOCUMENTS

3.1 Consultant will prepare and deliver to Client

certain reports as instruments of the professional

services performed. All reports delivered to

Client will become the property of Client;

provided, however, Consultant may retain copies

of the reports. Client will, to the fullest extent

permitted by applicable law, indemnify, defend,

and hold harmless Consultant from and against

any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages,

costs, or expenses including, without limitation,

reasonable attorney’s fees, awards, fines, or

judgments arising out of or related to: (a) use of

the reports for locations or times not covered by

the reports: (b) use of information from the

reports out of context; or (c) interpretation of the

meaning of the reports by third parties without

the written consent of Consultant.

3.2 Consultant will retain all pertinent records

relating to the Work for a period of three (3)

years after the report is delivered. During that

time, the records will be made available to Client

during Consultant’s normal business hours.

3.3 All Work Information disclosed or

delivered to Consultant pursuant to Section 2.1,

or information that Consultant uncovers,

acquires, or generates in the course of

performing the Work will be treated by

Consultant as confidential information and will

not be disclosed or made available to others by

Consultant without prior permission of Client.

The foregoing obligation will not apply to any

information that Consultant establishes: (a) is

already known to Consultant at the time of its

receipt from Client as shown by Consultant’s

records, (b) is or subsequently becomes available

and accessible to the public through no fault of

Consultant, (c) is disclosed to Consultant by a

third party on a non-confidential basis, (d) is

deemed necessary by Consultant to warn of an

imminent hazard to life or property, (e) is

required to be disclosed pursuant to law,

subpoena, or order of government or court, or (f)

is deemed public information pursuant to the

Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

SECTION 4: INDEMNIFICATION AND

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

4.1 Each party shall be liable for its own acts to

the extent provided by law and hereby agrees to

indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other,

its officers, agents, personnel, and employees

against any and all liability loss, costs, damages,

expenses, claims or actions, including attorney’s

fees which its officers, agents, personnel, and

employees may hereafter sustain, incur or be

required to pay, arising out of or by reason for

any act or omission of the party, its agents,

servants or employees, in the execution,

performance, or failure to adequately perform its

obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

4.2 Each party agrees to promptly notify the

other party if it knows or becomes aware of any

facts or allegations reasonably giving rise to

actual or potential liability, claims, causes of

action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or

expenses, including attorney’s fees, involving or

reasonably likely to involve the other party, and

arising out of acts or omissions related to this

Agreement.

4.3 Nothing in this Section or Section 5 will be

deemed a waiver of any statutory limitation of

liability or any obligation set out in this

Agreement.

SECTION 5: INSURANCE

Consultant will carry: (a) workers’ compensation

and employer’s liability insurance to comply

with laws of the state in which any project is

undertaken by Consultant under this Agreement

and applicable Federal laws, (b) comprehensive

general liability insurance with a combined limit

for bodily injury and property damage in an

amount not less than $1 million per occurrence

and $2 million aggregate and with completed

operations coverage having a $1 million

aggregate limit, and (c) comprehensive

automobile liability insurance, covering all

automobiles, trucks, and miscellaneous powered

and automotive equipment owned or used by

Consultant, with a combined limit for bodily

injury and property damage in an amount not

less than $1 million per occurrence. Certificates

for insurance will be provided to Client upon

request. Consultant’s liability for damages

arising from occurrence covered by these

policies of insurance will not exceed the

coverage provided therein.

SECTION 6: ATTORNEY’S FEES

In the event of any controversy, claim, dispute,

or litigation between the parties related to this

Agreement or its breach, other than as provided

in Section 4, the prevailing party will be entitled

to recover from the other party, in addition to

other relief as may be granted, a reasonable sum

as and for its attorney’s fees together with

expert’s fees and other costs incurred as may be

determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

SECTION 7: TERMINATION

7.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either

party upon seven (7) calendar days written notice

if there is a substantial failure of performance by

the other party. Termination will not be effective

if the substantial failure is remedied before

expiration of the seven (7) days. If this

Agreement is terminated prior to completion of

all reports contemplated herein or if the Work is

suspended for more than three (3) months,

Consultant may complete analysis and records as

are necessary to complete its files and may also

complete a report on the Work done prior to

termination.

7.2 Upon termination, Consultant will be paid

for services, plus reasonable termination

expenses, which expenses will include direct

costs of completing the analyses, records, and

reports referred to above.

SECTION 8: ASSIGNMENT

Neither party may delegate duties or assign

interest in this Agreement without obtaining the

prior written consent of the other party, which

consent will not be unreasonably withheld,

except Consultant may use the services of

persons and entities not in its employ when it is

customary to do so. These may include, without

limitation, surveyors, specialized consultants,

drilling contractors, testing laboratories, and

construction contractors.

SECTION 9: MISCELLANEOUS

9.1 The parties acknowledge that this

Agreement supersedes all written and oral

agreements, if any, between the parties, and that

this Agreement constitutes the entire and only

agreement pertaining to the Work.

9.2 This Agreement will be binding upon and

will inure to the benefit of the successors and

assigns of the respective parties hereto.

9.3 This Agreement will be construed, the

rights and obligations created hereby will be

governed, and the remedies available will be

provided in accordance with the laws of the state

in which the Work is performed, regardless of

the conflict of law principles customarily applied

by the courts of any jurisdiction. Venue and

adjudication will be in that state.

9.4 Any of the terms or conditions of this

Agreement may be waived at any time by the

party that is entitled to benefit therefrom, but no

waiver will affect or impair the right of the

waiving party to require observance,

performance, or satisfaction of any other term or

condition hereof. Any of the terms or provisions

of this Agreement may be amended or modified

at any time by agreement in writing executed by

each party hereto.

9.5 All provisions of this Agreement

allocating responsibility between Client and

Consultant will survive the completion of the

Work or termination of this Agreement.

9.6 Any provision or part of this Agreement

adjudicated to be void or unenforceable under

any law will be deemed deleted, such deletion to

apply only with respect to the jurisdiction in

which such adjudication is made, and all

remaining provisions will continue to be valid

and binding upon the parties. The parties agree

that this Agreement will be reformed to replace

the deleted provision or part thereof with a valid

and enforceable provision that comes as close as

possible to expressing the intention of the

deleted provision.

9.7 In keeping with the intent of the parties

that this is the entire Agreement between them,

the parties agree that the preprinted terms and

conditions of any Client activating

letter/purchase order issued to request Work

pursuant to this Agreement will not apply to the

Work, regardless of whether Consultant executes

the activating letter/purchase order in acceptance

of the Work.

9.8 Client has authority to enter into this

Agreement and any person signing it on Client’s

behalf has been duly authorized to sign.

WHEREUPON, the parties caused this Agreement to be duly executed and to be effective on the date first

above written.

SIGNATURES

Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. Cannon River Watershed – One Watershed, One Plan

By_________________________________ By_____________________________________

Authorized Agent’s Signature and title Chairperson

___________________________________ _______________________________________

Printed Name Printed Name

ATTACHMENT I

Cannon River Watershed 1W1P – 3/31/2017

E O R : w a t e r | e c o l o g y | c o m m u n i t y P a g e | 4

Part 1: Preparation for Plan Writing

Task 1. Aggregate Existing Watershed Physical & Spatial Data

Timeline: May 4 – September 30, 2017

Objective: The first step in the 1W1P development process is to collect and review the existing plans that will need to be reviewed as part of the Cannon River watershed comprehensive watershed management plan development process. The assessment and aggregation of plan information is not intended to be exhaustive: rather it is a compilation for the purposes of understanding current priorities and goals for management of the watershed and its resources. While some of these plans may be new (issues, goals and objectives reflect the current viewpoint of the entities and stakeholders based on the existing condition of the resources), others may be older and contain information that is outdated and/or no longer valid. In addition to evaluating what other plans, reports, and/or studies should be reviewed as part of the Cannon River watershed comprehensive watershed management plan development process, EOR will consider the need to further assess resources based upon available information.

This task will include an evaluation of areas where entities have identified common goals and/or objectives as well as areas which may be in conflict with one another. This task will also include a gap analysis to highlight information that may need to be collected or evaluated in the future. This information should facilitate the identification and prioritization of implementation activities as well as identify partnerships for the implementation of these activities.

Task 1A. Create usable, presentation quality project maps

To facilitate the plan development process, EOR will develop a series of maps for the entire Cannon River

1W1P planning boundary to characterize the watershed. These maps will be created based on input from the

Advisory Committee, including watershed characterization maps and large-format planning maps.

Watershed Characterization Maps

EOR can create individual or compilation

watershed characterization maps (see Sunrise

River WRAPS example below). Parameters can

include, but are not limited to:

Land use

Drainage

Topography

Karst areas

Public waters

Wetlands

Impairments

Catchments

Pollutant loading

from models

Demographics

Recreation

Natural areas

Regulated uses

Permitted point

sources

Water supply

Areas of high-value/

special concern

Large-format Planning Maps

As part of the Little Fork River WRAPS, EOR

created a series of maps of the watershed for the

stakeholder group to visualize the entire

watershed. These maps served as the focal point

of the resource prioritization and project

identification process –drawings and notes made

by stakeholders were later translated into the

implementation plan making for a clear and

transparent process.



Assumptions

Planning Work Group will compile existing

information for the watershed and/or provide

EOR with the contact information needed to

collect the information.

EOR Deliverables

Watershed characterization maps.

Up to 25 large-format (24” x 36”) presentation

quality planning maps.

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke

Etoile Jensen

Mike Talbot

Task 1B. Meeting Facilitation

EOR will facilitate and/or participate in the following meetings as needed to accomplish Task 1A:

Meetings

1. Initial Planning Meeting. The first task

upon selection for plan development will be

to meet with the Planning Work Group to

discuss goals, milestones, and to determine

the purpose, presentation and use of data

needed to complete draft plan activities.

This meeting will include a discussion of how

existing information, stakeholder/public

input and Advisory Committee and Policy

Committee input will combine to shape the

plan content.

2. Stakeholder Engagement Planning

Meeting. It is also assumed that EOR will

meet with the Planning Work Group to

develop a stakeholder engagement plan. We

will begin this process with a stakeholder

mapping exercise to identify all stakeholders.

We will collaboratively work with staff to

strategize optimal ways to reach out to and



engage the various groups over the course of

the project. A stakeholder engagement plan

will be drafted identifying the stakeholder

groups (including the public) and key

methods of contact.

3. Public Information/Kick-Off Meeting. This

meeting will be held after all existing plans,

reports and other documents have been

compiled and reviewed. The goal of this

meeting will be to introduce a broader

audience to the project, explain the goals and

objectives of the One Watershed, One Plan

approach to surface water and groundwater

management and to share what has been

compiled and reviewed for incorporation in

the plan. We recommend up to 3 separate

meetings at different locations and/or times

within the watershed to draw more local

attendance.

4. Advisory Committee Meeting. This

meeting will be held after meetings with the

public and after all responses to the

notification process have been received. The

objective of this meeting will be to discuss

data gaps and identify if additional resources

can be found to address gaps or what

baseline assumptions/proxies could be

developed to address the gap(s).

Assumptions

Facilitation of the Advisory Committee Meetings

will be led by EOR, including generating agendas

and developing a stakeholder input strategy.

Facilitation of Planning Workgroup and Policy

Committee meetings will be led by staff and the

Dakota SWCD.

Dakota SWCD will assist in identifying and

reserving meeting facilities.

EOR Deliverables

Attendance at 6 meetings and participation in

monthly conference calls with the Planning

Work Group.

Minutes for each of the meetings including key

decision points made during each meeting.

Creation of materials and records for the above

meetings and all other telephone discussions

and interviews including agendas, minutes,

presentation materials, etc.

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke

Task 2. Prioritization, Modeling and Targeted Mapping

Timeline: July 1 – November 30, 2017

Objective: Organizing priority concerns and issues previously identified in local, state and regional planning documents is the first step towards building consensus on the issues on a watershed-wide basis. Our experience developing the Lake Superior North 1W1P demonstrated that multiple planning documents often identified the same concerns and issues, further strengthening the need to bring them forward in the comprehensive watershed management planning process.

Successful implementation plans and grant proposals also depend on prioritized and targeted projects that result in measurable pollutant reductions and improvements in water resource quality. EOR has considerable experience in developing BMP plans integrating terrain-dependent BMP siting tools, such as PTMApp and ACPF. These tools target areas conducive for implementing BMPs for which cost-effectiveness is tied to the size and characteristics of the upslope contributing area draining to them.

Note: Developing a prioritized, targeted and measurable implementation plan is an iterative approach. Information obtained in later tasks (such as cost) may inform earlier prioritization steps. Consequently, prioritization and targeting results may need to be revised based on new information obtained in Task 4.



Task 2A. Aggregate priority concerns and input from 60-day Planning Notice

This task will involve a thorough review of existing planning documents to compile priority concerns already

identified by the entities located in the Cannon River Watershed as well as the state agencies. This

information will be supplemented by priority concerns identified in the responses to the 60-day Planning

Notice. Information compiled during this exercise will be summarized in a table that synthesizes and groups

issues and priorities by resource categories. By including the sources and dates of existing planning

documents (as we did for the Lake Superior North 1W1P) demonstrates the importance of the concerns to

the Advisory Committee, Policy Committee, stakeholders and public as they being the process of prioritizing

the concerns for the Cannon River Watershed 1W1P. An example of the summary table of priority concerns

developed for the Lake Superior North 1W1P is provided below:

Assumptions

Notification to plan review authorities of plan

initiation will be sent by others as identified in

the Cannon River Watershed Plan Development

Work Plan.

Responses from plan review authorities and

others, including priority issues and concerns to

be addressed in the plan, will be made available

on May 1, 2017.

EOR Deliverables

Issues identification matrix which includes

the issues/goals identified in previous planning

documents, reports and other technical

documents (i.e. County Plans, Comprehensive

Local Water Management Plans, Watershed

Management Plans, WRAPS, etc.) as well as

issues identified in meetings conducted during

Task 1. This is a typical deliverable EOR creates

for watershed management plans to facilitate

organization and development of issues, goals

and implementation actions and it results in a

transparency document creating the link from

implementation actions back to the original

issue statement.

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke



Task 2B. Create a cohesive watershed priority scheme

EOR will compile previously identified goals and implementation strategies to consider in future phases of

the plan development process. These priorities and goals will be synthesized with the watershed

characterization mapping efforts completed as part of Task 1A and Task 2C, including the existing modeling

efforts, watershed characterization GIS mapping layers, and additional terrain analysis modeling proposed as

part of Task 2C for the Mississippi River direct drainage area.

A summary of priority concerns and issues will be brought to the Planning Work Group to discuss how

important they are today: have any of the priority concerns been resolved or do they need to be included in

the 1W1P? Following this discussion, there should be agreement between members of the Planning Work

Group on the priority resources and issues impacting the resources.

EOR has significant experience pulling multiple layers of information together to create a comprehensive and

cohesive priority scheme for watershed management. This priority scheme will likely consist of multiple

layers of information (collected under Task 1A and Task 2C) including: maps created using available GIS

information; issues/goals identified in previous planning documents and reports; issues/goals identified in

meetings with the Planning Work Group, Advisory Group and members of the public; and pollutant loading

model and assessment results.

An example presentation of the prioritization, modeling, and mapping tasks is a Priority Area Fact Sheet,

illustrated from the Lake Superior North 1W1P on the following page.

Information to be reviewed during Task 2B will include, but not be limited to:

Watershed District, County and SWCD Water

Management Plans:

Belle Creek Watershed District Watershed

Management Plan (2011)

Dakota County SWCD Strategic Plan (2012)

Dakota County Comprehensive Plan (2016)

Goodhue County Comprehensive Local Water

Management Plan (2010-2020)

Le Sueur County Local Water Management Plan

(2016-2021)

North Cannon River Watershed Management

Organization Watershed Management Plan

(2013)

Rice County Local Water Management Plan

(2014-2019)

Steele County SWCD Comprehensive Plan

(2016-2016)

Waseca County Local Water Management Plan

Amendment (2015-2018)

Water Quality, TMDLs, and WRAPS Studies:

Revised Regional Total Maximum Daily Load

Evaluation of Fecal Coliform Bacteria

Impairments in the Lower Mississippi River

Basin in Minnesota (2006)

Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform

Implementation Plan (2007)

TMDL Evaluation of Turbidity Impairments in

the Lower Cannon River (2007)

Lake Volney TMDL (2014)

Jefferson-German Lake Chain TMDL (2017)

Cannon River Watershed Monitoring and

Assessment Report (2014)

Cannon River Watershed Stressor Identification

Report (2015)

Cannon River Watershed TMDL (2017)

Cannon River WRAPS (2016)

Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy



Assumptions

None

EOR Deliverables

Table summarizing previously identified

priority concerns and issues.

Bibliography of existing plans and reports used

for Tasks 2A and 2B.

Draft sections of the Plan populated with

priority concerns, issues, goals and

implementation strategies identified in existing

plans and reports (for discussion at future

Planning Work Group and Stakeholder

meetings).

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll, Meghan Funke


E O R : w a t e r | e c o l o g y | c o m m u n i t y P a g e | 1 0

Task 2C. Map and target areas identified through prioritization process

The core of this task involves integrating the results from the prioritization scheme developed in Task 2B

with outputs from more spatially explicit analytical and modeling tools to create compilation maps of

targeted BMP areas. Multiple tools are available for this task – as described below. SWAT, HSPF, PTMApp and

Terrain Analysis outputs will -- independent of each other -- target pollutant hotspots and BMPs based on the

scale of their respective analytical frameworks. For example, PTMApp is better suited to field scales, while

HSPF is better suited at larger scales (e.g., HUC-12 or watershed scale). As such, EOR will utilize a “weight-of-

evidence” approach whereby multiple modeling tools are considered to develop a comprehensive targeting

and implementation strategy. An additional scope can be prepared if significant modeling gaps are discovered

during the model compilation task or additional modeling efforts are requested by the Planning Work Group.

HSPF Phosphorus Yields (from the WRAPS report)

DNR Zonation Results (from the WRAPS report)

Known Pollutant Modeling and Assessment

Efforts:

Cannon River WRAPS HSPF model

Cannon River WRAPS Zonation model

Upper, Middle, and Lower Lobe:

o Hydro Conditioned DEM

o PTMApp

o Terrain Analysis

Straight River Watershed DNR GSSHA Model

Little Cannon River Watershed SWAT model

U of M Nitrate Leaching Loss Research

High Resolution Karst Geology Maps

Regional Fecal Coliform Source Inventory

Known Modeling Gap:

For the 23,500 acres of the Mississippi River

Watershed – Lake Pepin Basin located in Goodhue

County where no known modeling has been

completed, EOR recommends using Terrain Analysis

to identify high risk erosion sources, which tend to

dominate pollutant loads in direct drainage areas.

The cost to perform this exercise has been included

in our cost proposal. Terrain Analysis is an

appropriate tool because it identifies gullies and

erosion at small scales and will integrate with other

existing modeling efforts at low additional cost.

During this task, EOR will pay particular attention to information critical to surface water and groundwater

management in southeastern Minnesota. For example, it will be important to have as much information

about the following in developing issues, goals, and implementation actions:

• Karst Geology – Karst features play a significant role in the Cannon River Planning Area hydrology

and water quality. EOR plans to utilize high-resolution karst maps created by Dr. Calvin Alexander at

the University of Minnesota. Karst features become prominent when they bypass surface and sub-

surface flow pathways and pipe accumulated water and pollutants from source to receiving waters



not normally connected. In addition they can impact BMP planning as certain BMPs will not function

efficiently or even may exacerbate water quality problems if sited near a karst feature. The location

of existing sinkholes as well as candidate areas for “buried” sinkholes (based on mapped geology,

depth to bedrock, texture of soil overburden, etc.) will be factored into the prioritization process.

• Coldwater Fisheries – Given the quality and quantity of cold-water fisheries located in the Cannon

River Planning Area it will be important to understand surface water-groundwater connections in

the watershed. Implementation actions should strive to provide multiple benefits by maintaining

baseflow, preserving groundwater recharge areas, addressing thermal loads and enhancing the

biological integrity of the resources.

EOR will also take into consideration the regional bacteria impairments. Bacteria are not accounted for in

the available modeling tools. Therefore, EOR will consider the source areas identified through surveys and

field verification of existing livestock and manure application management practices as part of the 2007

Regional Fecal Coliform TMDL and Implementation Plan.

When significant modeling efforts already exist, EOR’s role in the mapping and targeting of priority areas

will be presenting and articulating each of the modeling effort results, providing recommendations for how

the model and assessment results interact, and facilitating Planning Work Group workshops to discuss the

modeling results and develop an overall prioritization map for the 1W1P process.

Assumptions

Previously constructed model outputs and/or

spatial layers will be made electronically

available to EOR.

EOR Deliverables

Maps of targeted subwatersheds comparing

outputs from different tools/models.

Final maps of targeted subwatersheds resulting

from integrated BMP analysis.

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke

Stu Grubb

Joe Pallardy

Mike Talbot

Task 2D. Meeting Facilitation

EOR will facilitate and/or participate in the following meetings as needed to accomplish Tasks 2A, 2B, and 2C.

The purpose of these meetings is to facilitate the analysis and prioritization of priority concerns and issues so

that consensus on priority resources and issues can be achieved.

Meetings

5. Planning Work Group Meeting. Meeting to

review information prior to presentation to

the Policy and Advisory Committee Meetings.

6. Joint Policy/Advisory Committee Meeting.

Joint meeting to review information collected

during Task 1 and to create a cohesive

watershed priority scheme. Development of

a cohesive watershed priority scheme will

include exploring watershed-wide and

subwatershed specific priorities as well as

splitting the watershed into logical

management areas.

7. Advisory Committee Meeting. Refine

priorities/categories, further define

watershed-wide and subwatershed specific

priorities, and evaluate the benefits of

splitting the watershed into logical

management areas. Potential management

areas include by geographic region or by

HUC 10 watershed.

8. Public Meetings. While not in the RFQ, we

recommend hosting another series of three

public meetings to get feedback from

stakeholders and the public as well.



9. Policy Committee Meeting. Review and

accept the refined priorities and

management areas/approach.

Assumptions

Facilitation of the Public and Advisory

Committee Meetings will be led by EOR,

including generating agendas and developing a

stakeholder input strategy.



Dakota SWCD.



EOR Deliverables



Work Group.







Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke

Part 2. Development of Draft Plan

Task 3. Set Initial Measurement Goals

Timeline: November 1, 2017 – January 31, 2018

Objective: Measurable goals identify what the planning partners want to achieve, clarify resource restoration and protection needs, and allow for future evaluation of progress. The more specific the Cannon River Watershed Comprehensive Watershed Management plan can be in setting specific goals for surface water and groundwater management, the easier it will be for member communities to seek outside sources of funding for implementation. Goals from existing local water plans and other documents will be considered for inclusion in the plan as well as the institutional knowledge of staff and key stakeholders in the area. In addition, WRAPS, TMDLs and a suite of modeling tools will be used to establish and prioritize the goals.

Given the scale of the watershed, it will facilitate implementation of the plan if issues and measurable goals are categorized as follows: watershed-wide issues and goals versus sub-watershed (or resource management areas) issues and goals. Measureable goals should be further categorized based on priorities, how well-defined they are, ease-of-implementation, etc. This categorization will be used to develop the 10-year Implementation Plan by highlighting higher priority goals, well-defined goals, and goals that can be addressed quicker and more cost-effectively than others.

Task 3A. Organize Goals into Categories

For this task, EOR will organize goals into categories based on priorities identified in Task 2, present and gain

group consensus. For example, goals for the Lake Superior North 1W1P were organized into three categories:

Challenges, Resource Protection, and Stewardship.

Assumptions

None.

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke

EOR Deliverables

Draft table of goals organized into categories

based on Task 2 priorities.

Revised table of goals accepted by the Advisory

and Policy Committees.



Draft section of Plan describing the process for

establishing measurable goals as well as the

draft goals that will be used to address the

issues identified in the comprehensive

watershed management plan.


EOR will facilitate and/or participate in the following meetings as needed to accomplish Task 3A:

Meetings


review draft goals prior to presentation to

Policy and Advisory Committees.

11. Advisory Committee and/or Planning

Work Group Meeting. Meeting to discuss

and refine goals.

12. Policy Committee. Meeting to review and

accept initial goals and to introduce concepts

for the implementation plan.

Assumptions






Dakota SWCD.



EOR Deliverables



Work Group.







Draft section of Plan describing the process for

establishing measurable goals as well as the

draft goals that will be used to address the

issues identified in the comprehensive

watershed management plan.

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke



Task 4. Develop Targeted and Measurable Implementation Plan and Schedule

Timeline: December 1, 2017 – March 31, 2018

Objective: After the identification of priority issues and the development of measurable goals, EOR will work in close coordination with the Planning Work Group, and Advisory and Policy Committees, County officials, SWCD Supervisors, state agency representatives, stakeholders, citizens and citizen-led organizations to develop actions necessary to achieve the goals. These actions will be targeted, cost-effective and measurable to facilitate implementation, performance-tracking and securing of grant funds.

Our experience developing implementation plans has shown that the most successful, frequently used implementation plans are those that were developed in close collaboration with the entities who will be responsible for implementation as well as individuals with an active interest in resource protection and watershed management.

Much work has already been completed in the Cannon River Watershed – our goal will be to build directly from this past work, not recreate it. The WRAPS report culminated in a detailed list of targeted projects. As part of the 1W1P process, we will flesh out the cost, benefits, responsible partners, and timeline for the WRAPS targeted projects. In addition, we will add any other projects identified in existing plans or identified through the 1W1P prioritization and targeting process.

Note that the cost of projects determined in this task may necessitate revisions to the prioritization and targeting results from Task 2 and C. This is expected and part of the iterative nature of developing a targeted and measurable implementation plan.

An example of EOR’s overall approach to developing a prioritized, targeted and measurable comprehensive watershed management plan from the Lake Superior North 1W1P is illustrated in the diagram to the right.



Task 4A. Create 10-year implementation plan

Targeted implementation activities will be identified for each priority resource goal based on the

prioritization and targeting efforts of earlier tasks. As noted earlier, a multiple tier implementation plan was

developed for the Lake Superior North 1W1P. Each activity from each tier was color-coded following a

description of the priority resource goal to highlight which of the three implementation plans the

implementation activities can be found (as shown above).

At a minimum the 10-year Implementation Plan for the Cannon River Watershed will contain the following

elements:

Targeted Implementation Schedule

Brief description of each action and how the action ties back to the original issue and goal for which it is

intended to address;

Identification of project location (i.e. watershed-wide action versus site-specific implementation action

developed to address pollutant loads to a particular resource);

Identification of when the action should be implemented and making the connection to linked action

items (i.e. noting whether or not implementation of an action relies on other actions being completed

first);

Cost estimate and potential sources of funding for implementation of action;

Identification of responsible parties (who will take the lead on implementation) and potential project

partners (entities who will be instrumental in facilitating implementation); and

Identification of how progress towards achieving the measurable goal will be measured.



Implementation Programs Descriptions

Plan Administration and Coordination – This section will address how the plan will be implemented (i.e.

assign entity responsible for coordinating implementation activities and tracking performance towards

meeting goals), decision-making and staffing, collaboration with other units of government, funding,

annual work plan development, assessment and evaluation, plan amendments, and formal agreements.

Plan Implementation Programs – This section will describe existing programs used to implement actions

identified in the plan including Incentive, Capital Improvements, Operation and Maintenance, Regulation

and Enforcement, Monitoring and Data Collection and Education and Outreach.

Assumptions

None.

EOR Deliverables

Draft 10-year implementation plan for

presentation and discussion with Planning Work

Group, Advisory Committee and Policy

Committee.

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke

Joe Pallardy

Mike Talbot

Stu Grubb


EOR will facilitate and/or participate in the following meetings as needed to accomplish Task 4A.

Meetings

13. Planning Work Group Meetings. Given the large size of the Cannon River Watershed, at least two

meetings will be needed with the Planning Work Group to review and discuss the draft

implementation plan prior to presentation to Policy and Advisory Committees. The Planning Work

Group will receive a draft Implementation Plan in advance of the meeting for their review to facilitate

a more productive discussion during the meeting.

14. Joint Policy/Advisory Committee Meeting. Meeting to review, discuss, and finalize the draft plan.

Assumptions



Dakota SWCD.



It is assumed that both the Advisory Committee

and the Policy Committee will review and

comment on the draft implementation plan

prior to the Joint Meeting with the Advisory and

Policy Committees.

The counties, SWCDs, watershed district and

member communities will provide descriptions

of existing programs which may be used to

support the targeted implementation schedule

(i.e. Inventive Programs, Capital Improvement

Programs, Operation & Maintenance Programs,

Education and Outreach Programs).

Decisions regarding Plan Administration and

Coordination will be made in the meeting

described for this task.

EOR Deliverables



Work Group.









Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke

Part 3. Completed Draft Plan Document

Task 5. Complete the Draft Cannon River Comprehensive Watershed Management

Plan and Submit for Local and Public Review

Timeline: February 1 – August 31, 2018

Objective: After developing individual sections of the Plan, EOR will pull all of the information into one planning document for the Planning Work Group to review. This task will involve the development of new sections such as the Executive Summary. It will also involve formatting, graphic design and coordination with the Planning Work Group so that the final product meets the needs of all project partners.

Task 5A. Complete Draft Plan

The plan document will contain the following required elements, as per Minnesota Statutes §103B.801

(March 23, 2016 BWSR One Watershed, One Plan: Plan Content Requirements):

Executive Summary

A condensed and concise plain language summary of

the contents of the overall plan:

A. Purpose, mission, or vision statement if

developed;

B. A general map or description of the planning

boundary and smaller planning or

management units if used;

C. A summary of the priority issues and goals

that are addressed in the plan;

D. A summary of the implementation actions

and programs;

E. A brief description of the process used to

identify the measurable goals and targeted

implementation actions; and

F. An outline of the responsibilities of

participating local government.

Identification and Prioritization of Resources

and Issues

A summary of the process that the planning partners

used to reach agreement on the watershed resource

issues that will be addressed within the lifespan of

the plan:

A. A summary of the issues and resource

concerns identified from all sources for

consideration in this section;

B. The steps used to consider and prioritize the

identified resources and issues;

C. A list of the agreed upon priority resources

and issues for the watershed and a brief

description of why the issue was selected.

Establishment of Measureable Goals

Measurable goals that address each of the priority

issues and articulate what the planning partners

want to achieve and allow for evaluation of progress.

Targeted Implementation Schedule

A schedule or table of the cost-effective, targeted, and

measureable actions necessary to achieve the goals,

including the details of:

A. A brief description of each action;

B. Location targeting where the action will

occur;



C. Identification of roles and who is responsible

for the action;

D. An estimate of cost and potential sources of

funding for implementing the action;

E. An estimate of when the implementation will

occur within the ten year timeframe of the

plan, and;

F. How the action will be measured.

Implementation Programs

A detailed description of the overarching programs

that will be used to implement actions identified in

the schedule and how these programs will be

coordinated between local water management

responsibilities:

A. Plan Administration and Coordinating

a. Decision-making and Staffing

b. Collaboration with other Units of

Government

c. Funding

d. Work Planning

e. Assessment and Evaluation

f. Plan Amendments

g. Organizational Structures or Formal

Agreements

B. Plan Implementation Programs

a. Incentive Programs

b. Capital Improvements

c. Operation and Maintenance

d. Regulation and Enforcement

e. Data Collection and Monitoring

f. Information, Outreach, and

Education Programs

Plan Appendix – Land and Water Resources

Inventory

An account of the water resources and physical

factors affecting the water resources within the

watershed. Including, but not limited to:

A. Topography, soils, general geology;

B. Precipitation;

C. Water Resources;

D. Fish and wildlife habitat, rare and

endangered species; and

E. Existing land uses and proposed

development.

Assumptions

The process of developing the Cannon River

Watershed comprehensive watershed

management plan will follow the most current

version of the 1W1P Operating Procedures for

Pilot Watersheds.

EOR Deliverables

Draft Cannon River Watershed comprehensive

watershed management plan that meets the

requirements identified in the most current

version of the 1W1P Plan Content for Pilot

Watersheds.

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke

Sonya Carel

Etoile Jensen

Joe Pallardy

Mike Talbot

Stu Grubb

Ashley Sandor

Task 5B. Internal and formal review process

For this task, EOR will complete the internal and formal review process and revise the draft plan accordingly.

Upon completion of Task 5A, the final draft plan will be submitted to the Planning Work Group for review and

approval for distribution in the formal review process.

As part of the 60-day review period, EOR will facilitate distribution of the Draft Plan to the required reviewers

with a notice of the 60-day comment period. The EOR team will prepare draft responses to comments

received. The draft responses will be provided to the Planning Work Group to be reviewed, revised and

approved before they are made available to all stakeholders and commenters prior to the public hearing.



Assumptions

It is assumed that a BWSR representative will be

actively participating in the development of the

Cannon River Watershed comprehensive

watershed management plan. This level of

participation should ensure the development of

a plan which will go through the formal review

process with ease.

EOR Deliverables

Up to 25 color-printed and bound copies of the

Draft Plan for internal review.

List of comments received during the internal

review period.

Draft Cannon River Watershed comprehensive

watershed management plan for Formal review.

List of comments received during the 60-day

review period and response to comments.

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke

Task 5C. Meeting Facilitation

EOR will facilitate and/or participate in the following meetings as needed to accomplish Tasks 5A and 5B.

Public hearings on the draft plan shall be held after the 60-day review period of the draft plan. EOR will

present a brief verbal presentation of the planning process and comments and responses at the Public

Hearing(s). EOR will prepare draft responses to comments received at the Public Hearing. The draft

responses will be provided to the Planning Work Group to be reviewed, revised and approved before they are

made available to all stakeholders and commenters.

Meetings


review the Draft Plan prior to submittal for

formal plan review.

16. Policy Committee and Planning Work

Group Meeting. Meeting to review

summary of comments, prepare a formal

response and to plan and prepare for public

hearings. This may include Focus Group

Meetings, as needed.

17. Public Hearing.

Assumptions






Dakota SWCD.



EOR Deliverables



Work Group.







Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke



Task 6. Complete Final Cannon River Comprehensive 1W1P Management Plan

Timeline: May 1 – October 31, 2018

Objective: The final task for EOR will be to incorporate comments from the Public Hearing and the formal review process into a final draft of the Plan. The Final Draft will be ready for the Policy Committee to submit to the plan review agencies for final review and approval.

Task 6A. Summarize and incorporate all comments from Public Hearings into final plan

EOR will prepare draft responses to comments received. The draft responses will be provided to the Planning

Work Group to be reviewed, revised and approved before they are made available to all stakeholders and

commenters.

Meetings


develop responses to comments from the

Public Hearing.

Assumptions

The Planning Work Group will assist in

compiling comments and developing responses.

EOR Deliverables

Spreadsheet of compiled Public Hearing

comments and responses

Revised Draft Cannon River Watershed

comprehensive watershed management plan for

90-day review submittal and summary of

changes incorporated as a result of the review

process.

Up to 50 color-printed and bound copies of the

Final Draft Plan

Electronic copy of the Final Draft Plan

Attendance at 1 meeting and participation in


Work Group.

Primary EOR Staff

Camilla Correll

Meghan Funke

Stu Grubb

Sonya Carel

Etoile Jensen

Mike Talbot

Ashley Sandor



PROPOSED BUDGET

Task Cec

ilio

Oli

vie

r

Cam

illa

Co

rre

ll

Ja

so

n

Nab

er

Stu

Gru

bb

Me

gh

an

Fu

nk

e

So

ny

a

Care

l

Eto

ile

Je

ns

en

Jo

e

Pa

lla

rdy

Mik

e

Ta

lbo

t

Ash

ley

Sa

nd

or

Expenses Subtotal

Hourly Rate: $195 $161 $161 $161 $143 $118 $99 $96 $96 $63 Hrs. $

Task 1. Aggregate Watershed Data

1A. Project maps 2 14 2 16 40 4 16 $500 A

88 $10,668

1B. Meeting facilitation (up to 6) 48 48 12 2 $700 D

110 $16,834

Task 2. PTM Mapping

2A. Priority concerns 10 2 10 4 26 $3,746

2B. Priority scheme 4 2 20 20 46 $5,746

2C. Map and target areas 4 8 2 10 8 16 40 88 $9,988

2D. Meeting facilitation (up to 7) 56 56 8 2 $791 D

122 $18,885

Task 3. Measurement Goals

3A. Set initial goals 2 32 4 28 16 4 82 $11,902


56 $8,469

Task 4. Implementation Plan & Schedule

4A. 10-year implementation plan 4 20 4 8 32 8 24 40 136 $17,024


56 $8,469

Task 5. Draft Management Plan

5A. Complete draft plan 4 32 4 8 32 40 16 40 8 8 192 $23,856

5B. Review process 24 20 16 8 20 8 8 $500 B

104 $13,096

5C. Meeting facilitation (up to 3) 24 24 6 2 $339 D

56 $8,469

Task 6. Final Management Plan

6A. Incorporate comments into plan 2 26 26 16 16 $1,000 C

70 $11,182

6B. Meeting facilitation (up to 1) 8 8 $113 D

16 $2,545

TOTAL 18 362 24 16 361 55 84 40 128 44 $4,621 1,248 $170,879

A 25 – glossy 24”x36” plots,

B 25 – color printed & bound draft plans,

C 50 – color printed & bound final plans,

D 150 round-trip miles & 1 lunch per meeting



SCHEDULE

Task

2017 2018

M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O

Task 1. Aggregate Existing Watershed Physical & Spatial Data

1A. Create project maps

1B. Meeting Facilitation

#1: Planning Work Group: Initial Meeting X

#2: Planning Work Group: Stakeholder Engagement Planning X

#3: Public Kick-off (3) X

#4: Advisory Committee X

Task 2. Prioritization, Modeling and Targeted Mapping

2A. Aggregate priority concerns

2B. Create watershed priority scheme

2C. Map and target areas

2D. Meeting Facilitation

#5. Planning Work Group X

#6. Joint Policy/Advisory Committees X

#7. Advisory Committee X

#8. Public Input (3) X

#9. Policy Committee X

Task 3. Set Initial Measurement Goals

3A. Set Goals



#11. Advisory Committee and/or Planning Work Group X

#12. Policy Committee X



Task

2017 2018

M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O

Task 4. Develop Targeted and Measurable Implementation Plan and Schedule

4A. Create 10-year implementation plan



#14. Joint Advisory/Policy Committees X

Task 5. Complete the Draft Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan

5A. Complete draft plan

5B. Internal and formal review process

5C. Meeting Facilitation


#16. Policy Committee and Planning Work Group X

#17. Public Hearing X

Task 6. Complete the Final Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan

6A. Incorporate comments into plan


Notes

An example schedule for meetings is shown in the schedule above to illustrate the likely timing and frequency of meetings. The 1W1P planning process

is meeting intensive and it is important to space the meetings at regular intervals to avoid meeting fatigue or scheduling too many meetings in one

month. The exact dates and locations of the meetings will be determined early on in the project with the Planning Work Group.

In the associated EOR Proposed Budget table below, EOR attendance at each meeting assumes 8 hours of staff time for Camilla Correll and Meghan

Funke (including all preparation, travel and attendance time), 150 round trip mileage reimbursement, and a small per diem for lunch and printing

handouts – for a total cost of $2,545 per meeting. Camilla and Meghan would be available to attend more meetings in person, if needed, at an additional

charge of $2,545 per meeting.


Information Item

Supporting Documents: Current list of state agencies, cities, organizations and other stakeholders to be part of the Advisory Committee

Meeting Date: 5/3/2017 Prepared by: Planning Work Group (Staff)

PURPOSE/ACTION REQUESTED: Provide update on Advisory Committee list generated to obtain stakeholder and public participation during development of comprehensive water plan.

SUMMARY: An Advisory Committee is a State requirement to meet stakeholder and public participation goals and is identified in rule and statute for obtaining approval of local water plans. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to make recommendations on the plan contents and plan implementation to the Policy Committee.

The Planning Work Group (PWG) has been discussing and gathering a list of all potential stakeholders within the watershed planning area. Due to the size of the watershed this stakeholder list will be extensive. The PWG recognizes that an engaged and effective Advisory Committee also needs to be manageable to obtain good feedback and express various perspectives.

The PWG will work with the selected consultant to improve upon the Advisory Committee list initially developed and begin to build a strategy for obtaining valuable feedback from stakeholders and the public. The Advisory Committee list is likely to be modified by adding groups or organizations as the process moves forward.

RECOMMENDATION: Review current Advisory Committee list and provide input.

EXPLANATION OF FISCAL IMPACTS: Advisory Committee meetings and the facilitation of stakeholder and public input has been included within the work plan and budget of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Planning Grant.

Cannon River 1W1P Stakeholder List 4/26/2017

1

Type County Organization Name 1 Agricultural Dakota Dakota County Farm Bureau 2 Agricultural Dakota Cropmetrics 3 Agricultural Dakota NRCS 4 Agricultural Goodhue Farm Bureau 5 Agricultural Goodhue Corn Growers 6 Agricultural Goodhue Corn Growers 7 Agricultural Goodhue Soy Bean Growers 8 Agricultural Goodhue Pork Producers 9 Agricultural Goodhue NRCS 10 Agricultural Le Sueur Scott/Le Sueur Corn & Soy Bean Association 11 Agricultural Le Sueur Farm Bureau/Sheep 12 Agricultural Le Sueur Cattleman Association 13 Agricultural Le Sueur Le Sueur Co Pork Producers 14 Agricultural Le Sueur Scott/Le Sueur Dairy Association 15 Agricultural Le Sueur Farmers Union 16 Agricultural Le Sueur Turkey Growers 17 Agricultural Le Sueur Pork Producers 18 Agricultural Le Sueur NRCS 19 Agricultural Regional SE Irrigators Association 20 Agricultural Regional Corn Growers Association 21 Agricultural Regional River Country Co-op 22 Agricultural Regional CFS 23 Agricultural Regional AgPartners 24 Agricultural Regional Sustainable Farming Association 25 Agricultural Regional Minnesota Farmers Union 26 Agricultural Regional Genesis Co-op 27 Agricultural Steele Steele County Corn/Soybean Growers Assoc. 28 Agricultural Steele Steele County Farm Bureau 29 Agricultural Steele Steele County Pork Producers 30 Agricultural Steele NRCS 31 Agricultural Waseca Waseca County Pork Producers 32 Agricultural Waseca Waseca County Farm Bureau 33 Agricultural Waseca Waseca County Corn and Soybean Growers 34 Agricultural Waseca Waseca County American Dairy Association 35 Agricultural Waseca Southern Research and Outreach Center 36 City Dakota City of Miesville 37 City Dakota City of New Trier 38 City Dakota City of Randolph 39 City Goodhue City of Cannon Falls 40 City Goodhue City of Dennison


2

41 City Goodhue City of Kenyon 42 City Goodhue City of Red Wing 43 City Le Sueur City of Waterville 44 City Le Sueur City of Kilkenny 45 City Le Sueur City of Elysian 46 City Rice City of Northfield 47 City Rice City of Dundas 48 City Rice City of Faribault 49 City Rice City of Nerstrand 50 City Rice City of Lonsdale 51 City Rice City of Morristown 52 City Steele City of Medford 53 City Steele City of Owatonna 54 City Steele City of Ellendale 55 City Waseca City of Waseca 56 Environmental Goodhue Forestry Committee 57 Environmental Regional Land Stewardship Project 58 Environmental Regional The Nature Conservancy 59 Environmental Regional The Trust for Public Land 60 Environmental Regional Cannon River Watershed Partnership 61 Environmental Rice Friends of the Cannon River Wilderness Area 62 Environmental Rice River Bend Nature Center 63 Environmental Rice Carleton College Arboretum 64 Environmental Steele Izaak Walton League 65 Lake Association Dakota Lake Byllesby Improvement Association 66 Lake Association Le Sueur Lake Francis Association 67 Lake Association Le Sueur Waterville Lakes Association 68 Lake Association Le Sueur Gorman Lake Association 69 Lake Association Le Sueur Greater Jefferson German Lake Association 70 Lake Association Rice Rice County Coalition of Lake Associations 71 Lake Association Waseca Waseca Lakes Association 72 Other Regional League of Women Voters 73 Other Regional LICA 74 Other Regional Minnesota Rural Water Association 75 Other Regional University of Minnesota Extension 76 Other Regional Forever Green Initiative 77 Sportsman Dakota Southern Dakota County Sportsmen's Club 78 Sportsman Dakota Trout Unlimited 79 Sportsman Goodhue Pheasants Forever 80 Sportsman Goodhue Turkey Federal 81 Sportsman Le Sueur Waterville Sportsmen Club


3

82 Sportsman Le Sueur German and Jefferson Sportsman Club 83 Sportsman Steele Ducks Unlimited 84 State State Minnesota Department of Agriculture 85 State State Minnesota Department of Agriculture 86 State State Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 87 State State Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 88 State State Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 89 State State Minnesota Department of Health 90 State State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 91 State State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 92 State State Metropolitan Council 93 State State Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 94 Tourism Goodhue Cannon Falls Area Chamber of Commerce 95 Tourism Rice Faribault Area Chamber of Commerce 96 Tourism Rice Northfield Area Chamber of Commerce 97 Tourism Steele Owatonna Area Chamber of Commerce 98 Tourism Waseca Waseca Area Chamber of Commerce 99 Tribal Goodhue Prairie Island Indian Community 100 Wildlife Goodhue Red Wing Wildlife League 101 Wildlife Steele Steele County Minnesota Pheasants


Information Item

Supporting Documents: None

Meeting Date: 5/3/2017 Prepared by: Planning Work Group (Staff)

PURPOSE/ACTION REQUESTED: Provide update on the “kick-off” event scheduled to inform stakeholders and the public about the One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) process for the Cannon River Watershed planning area.

SUMMARY: The goal of the Cannon River 1W1P kick-off meeting is to inform and initiate the involvement of stakeholders within the watershed. Participants will be able to learn about the watershed and the planning process. There will also be opportunities for participants to talk with local and state agency staff and voice priority concerns they may have. Meeting space has been reserved at South Central College in Faribault for the afternoon and evening of Wednesday, May 31st. The Planning Work Group and the consultant will continue to work on details of the event. The overall concept of the event will be an informal open house format. Tables or stations will be set up in order to allow people to gather information and provide input at their own pace. RECOMMENDATION: Review and discuss event.

EXPLANATION OF FISCAL IMPACTS: Advisory Committee meetings and the facilitation of stakeholder and public input has been included within the work plan and budget of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Planning Grant.