Watershed Management Commission · SCWM 7. Education and ... Tuominen, Champlin; ... to NURP standards with dead storage volume equal to or greater than the volume of runoff from

Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Champlin • Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth • Robbinsdale

Watershed Management Commission

3235 Fernbrook Lane N • Plymouth, MN 55447 Tel: 763.553.1144 • Fax: 763.553.9326

Email: [email protected] • Website: www.shinglecreek.org

October 25, 2018

Commissioners Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Hennepin County, Minnesota

The agenda and meeting packet are available to all interested parties on the Commission’s website. The direct

path is http://www.shinglecreek.org/minutes‐‐meeting‐

packets.html

Dear Commissioners:

Regular meetings of the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions will be held Thursday, November 8, 2018, at Clubhouse at Edinburgh USA, 8700 Edinbrook Crossing, Brooklyn Park, MN. Lunch will be served at 12:00 noon and the meetings will convene concurrently at 12:45.

Please email Tiffany Kline at [email protected] to confirm whether you or your Alternate will be attending the meeting.

Your meal choices are:

______ House Cobb Salad. Chopped Turkey, Romaine, Avocado, Tomatoes, Bacon, Bleu Cheese, Boiled Eggs, and Sweet Basil Vinaigrette on the side

______ Chicken Caesar Wrap. Grilled Chicken Breast, Shredded Romaine Lettuce, Parmesan, and Roasted Garlic Dressing

______ Vegetable Cavatappi Pasta. Spiral Pasta with Artichokes, Broccoli, Asparagus, Tomatoes, Red Onions and Squash in a Light Mushroom Sauce

______ I will be attending but DO NOT want a meal.

______ I will not be attending the regular meeting.

We must make final reservations by noon, Tuesday, October 30, 2018. Please make a reservation, even if you are not requesting a meal, so we can arrange for sufficient seating and meeting materials. Thank you.

Regards, Judie A. Anderson Administrator cc: Alternate Commissioners Member Cites Troy Gilchrist TAC Members Metropolitan Council MPCA DNR Wenck Associates Z:\Shingle Creek\Meetings\Meetings 2018\11_Notice_Meeting.docx

Item 01



3235 Fernbrook Lane N • Plymouth, MN 55447 Tel: 763.553.1144 • Fax: 763.553.9326

Email: [email protected] • Website: www.shinglecreek.org

A combined regular meeting of the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions will be convened on Thursday, November 8, 2018, at 12:45 p.m. at the Clubhouse at Edinburgh USA, 8700 Edinbrook Crossing, Brooklyn Park, MN. An agenda for the meeting follows. Agenda items are available at

http://www.shinglecreek.org/minutes‐‐meeting‐packets.html.

1. Call to Order. SCWM a. Roll Call.

√ SCWM b. Approve agenda.* √ SCWM c. Approve minutes of last meeting.* 2. Reports. √ SC a. Treasurer’s Report.* √ SC b. Approve Claims* ‐ voice vote. √ WM c. Treasurer’s Report.* √ WM d. Approve Claims* ‐ voice vote. SCWM 3. Open forum. SC a. Autumn Ridge – presentation. 4. Project Reviews. √ WM a. WM2018‐008 Brooklyn Park‐Champlin Interceptor, Champlin.* 5. Watershed Management Plan. √ SC a. Minneapolis LWMP.* 6. Water Quality. √ SCWM a. Pictometry Agreement.* √ SCWM b. October 25 TAC Meeting Summary.* SCWM 7. Education and Public Outreach. a. Next WMWA meeting – 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 13, 2018, Plymouth City Hall. 8. Grant Opportunities and Updates. √ SC a. Watershed‐based Funding Grant Agreement.* SCWM 9. Communications.

SCWM a. Communications Log.* SCWM b. Watershed‐based Funding Focus Group Summary.* SCWM 10. Other Business.

a. Meeting Location – no update. b. Adjournment. c. Biochar‐ and Iron‐enhanced Filter Project presentation* ‐ Drs. Beth Fisher and Joshua Feinberg, University of Minnesota. Z:\Shingle Creek\Meetings\Meetings 2018\11 Agenda_reg meeting.docx

* In meeting packet or emailed ** Available at meeting ***Previously transmitted **** Available on website √ Item requires action

Item 01b



3235 Fernbrook Lane N • Plymouth, MN 55447Tel: 763.553.1144 • Fax: 763.553.9326

Website: www.shinglecreek.org • Email: [email protected]

MINUTES Regular Meeting October 11, 2018

(Action by the SCWMC appears in blue, by the WMWMC in green and shared information in black. *indicates items included in the meeting packet.)

I. A joint meeting of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission was called to order by Shingle Creek Chairman Andy Polzin at 12:45 p.m. on Thursday, October 11, 2018, at the Clubhouse at Edinburgh, USA, 8700 Edinbrook Crossing, Brooklyn Park, MN.

Present for Shingle Creek were: David Vlasin, Brooklyn Center; John Roach, Brooklyn Park; Burton Orred, Jr., Crystal; Gary Anderson, Minneapolis; Bill Wills, New Hope; Harold E. Johnson, Osseo; Andy Polzin, Plymouth; Ed Matthiesen, Wenck Associates, Inc.; Troy Gilchrist, Kennedy & Graven; and Judie Anderson, JASS.

Not represented: Maple Grove and Robbinsdale.

Present for West Mississippi were: David Vlasin, Brooklyn Center; Steve Chesney, Brooklyn Park; Gerry Butcher, Champlin; Harold E. Johnson, Osseo; Ed Matthiesen, Wenck Associates, Inc.; Troy Gilchrist, Kennedy & Graven; and Judie Anderson, JASS.

Not represented: Maple Grove.

Also present were: Andrew Hogg, Brooklyn Center; Mitch Robinson and Alex Prasch, Brooklyn Park; Todd Tuominen, Champlin; Mark Ray, Crystal; Derek Asche, Maple Grove; Liz Stout, Minneapolis; Robert Grant and Meghan Albert, New Hope; Ben Scharenbroich, Plymouth; and Richard McCoy and Marta Roser, Robbinsdale.

II. Agendas and Minutes.

Motion by Vlasin, second by Roach to approve the Shingle Creek revised agenda.* Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Chesney, second by Butcher to approve the West Mississippi revised agenda.* Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Wills, second by G. Anderson to approve the minutes of the September regular meeting.* Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Johnson, second by Butcher to approve the minutes of the September regular meeting. * Motion carried unanimously.

III. Finances and Reports.

A. Motion by Orred, second by Wills to approve the Shingle Creek October Treasurer's Report.* Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by G. Anderson, second by Johnson to approve the Shingle Creek October claims.* Claims totaling $35,888.06 were approved by roll call vote: ayes – Vlasin, Roach, Orred, G. Anderson, Wills, Johnson, and Polzin; nays – none; absent – Maple Grove and Robbinsdale.

Item 01c

Joint SCWM Meeting Minutes October 11, 2018 Page 2


B. Motion by Butcher, second by Chesney to approve the West Mississippi October Treasurer's Report.* Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Johnson, second by Butcher to approve the West Mississippi October claims.* Claims totaling $8,685.87 were approved by roll call vote: ayes – Vlasin, Chesney, Butcher, and Johnson; nays – none; absent – Maple Grove.

IV. Open Forum.

V. Project Review.

SC2018‐011 Arbor Lakes Industrial, Maple Grove.* Construction of a 204,000 SF industrial building and associated parking on a 13.5‐acre site located at 8550 Zachary Lane North. The site is currently grassy with areas of gravel and stockpiles. Following development, the site will have 471,502 SF of impervious surface, making the site 80.5% impervious. A complete project review application was received on September 28, 2018.

To comply with the Commission’s water quality treatment requirement, the site must provide ponding designed to NURP standards with dead storage volume equal to or greater than the volume of runoff from a 2.5” storm event, or BMPs providing a similar level of treatment ‐ 80‐85% TSS removal and 50‐60% TP removal. Infiltrating 1.3‐inches of runoff, for example, is considered sufficient to provide a similar level of treatment. If a sump is used the MnDOT Road Sand particle size distribution is acceptable for 80% capture.

Runoff from most of the site (all except a drainage area with only roof runoff) is routed first to a proposed filtration basin in the southwest corner of the site, and then via city storm sewer to a regional basin approximately 0.35 miles east of the site. The filtration basin treats runoff from a 1.78‐inch storm event, and runoff to the filtration basin is pretreated with two sumps (3 and 5 feet depths, respectively) with SAFL Baffles. The applicant meets Commission water quality treatment requirements.

Commission rules require that site runoff is limited to predevelopment rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year storm events. The City of Maple Grove has planned for this site to eventually drain to a regional basin called SC‐A57, located just south of the site on the other side of 85th Avenue, which will provide necessary rate control. However, this pond has not yet been constructed and, in the interim, runoff from the site will be routed to a regional basin called SC‐P58, which is located 0.35 miles to the east. With the additional runoff from the project site, this regional basin’s runoff only increases by 2‐3 cfs during the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year storm events. The applicant meets the Commission’s rate control requirements.

Commission rules require the site to infiltrate 1.0 inch of runoff from new impervious area within 48 hours. The new impervious area on this site is 471,502 SF, requiring infiltration of 39,292 CF within 48 hours (the volume from a 1.0‐inch precipitation event). However, the project is within a City of Maple Grove Wellhead Protection Area, so the applicant proposes to filtrate this volume instead. The proposed filtration basin has the capacity to filtrate the required volume within 48 hours, meeting Commission volume control requirements.

The National Wetlands Inventory does not identify any wetlands on site and there are no Public Waters or floodplain on this site. The low floor elevation of the building is at least two feet higher than the high‐water elevation of the filtration basin according to Atlas 14 precipitation. This project meets Commission requirements for wetland, public waters and floodplain.

An erosion control plan was submitted with the project review, and includes a rock construction entrance, inlet protection, perimeter silt fence, and native seed specified on the pond slopes. The erosion control plan meets Commission requirements.

A public hearing on the rezoning of the site from Single‐Family Agricultural to Industrial was conducted on September 25, 2017. A public hearing on the project is scheduled for October 29, 2018 at the City Planning Commission meeting. The applicant meets Commission public notice requirements.

A maintenance agreement with the City of Maple Grove is in the process of being drafted.

Item 01c



Motion by Orred, second by Willis to notify the City of Maple Grove that project SC2018‐011 is approved conditioned upon receipt of a copy of the draft maintenance agreement with the City. Motion carried unanimously.

VI. Watershed Management Plan.

A. The City of Brooklyn Center* has submitted its Local Surface Water Management Plan for Commission review and approval. Brooklyn Center has lands in both watersheds so both Commissions are required to review and consider the Plan for approval. The Plan was submitted August 17, 2018, and the 60‐day review period extends through October 16, 2018. Metropolitan Council, which has 45 days to review and comment on the plan, has provided comments* to the Commissions.

In general, the Plan meets the Commission and statutory requirements for local water management plans with one exception – a figure depicting installed water quality BMPs. The Plan does a good job of presenting problems and issues and associated corrective actions, as well as past and future TMDL implementation actions.

Staff recommend that Brooklyn Center’s local plan be approved pending the revisions noted in the table attached to their memo.

Motion by Wills, second by Vlasin to approve the Brooklyn Center SWMP with the condition stated above. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Chesney, second by Butcher to approve the Brooklyn Center SWMP with the condition stated above. Motion carried unanimously.

B. The City of Plymouth * has also submitted its Local Surface Water Management Plan for Commission review and approval. The Plan was submitted September 10, 2018, and the 60‐day review period extends through November 9, 2018. Comments from the Metropolitan Council, which has 45 days to review and comment on the plan, have not been received as of this date.

In general, the Plan meets most of the Commission and statutory requirements for local water management plans with a few exceptions, as shown on the table* attached to Staff’s memo. The most notable deficiency is a description of the roles of the Commission and the City at ensuring that development and redevelopment meet Commission rules and standards. The Plan does a good job presenting problems and issues and associated corrective actions, as well as past and future TMDL implementation actions.

Staff recommend that Plymouth’s local plan be approved pending the revisions noted in the table.

Motion by Johnson, second by G. Anderson to approve the Plymouth SWMP pending Staff’s revisions. Motion carried unanimously.

VII. Water Quality.

A. Roser provided an update on the Crystal Lake Carp Survey.

B. Matthiesen provided a pictorial update on the Green Roof project. This 2010 project explored combinations of light weight soil with a high degree of water retention and an optimum plant mix so a municipal public works department or warehouse maintenance crew could build and install a green roof with easily obtained materials on all or a portion of their existing building without additional structural reinforcement or permanent irrigation. Three sites were selected – in the Three Rivers Park District, City of Robbinsdale and Wenck offices in Maple Plain. Visiting the sites prior to this meeting, Matthiesen found all three sites to be successful in maintaining the sedum plants.

VIII. Education ‐ West Metro Water Alliance (WMWA).*

A. WaterLinks. Subscribe to WaterLinks at westmetrowateralliance.org/contact.html. The October issue features autumn and winter‐related content.

Item 01c



B. Education and Outreach Events. Educators are currently scheduling and making fall classroom visits. They currently have 39 sessions scheduled. A session may be one class or several classes at a school. Educators are also available to table at city and school events, contact Amy Juntunen at [email protected]. Upcoming outreach events include a Turf Alterative workshop in Golden Valley on October 16 (sold out) and Weaver Lake Science Night on November 8.

C. The group is updating and refreshing the popular Ten Things You Can Do brochure first developed in 2009. The cities in the four watersheds use this brochure extensively and it is part of the fourth‐grade curriculum of Watershed PREP. In general, the text is being refreshed and condensed and additional emphasis is being placed on water conservation, proper deicer use, and turf lawn alternatives. The back panel is being revised with the tag line Your Street, Your Shoreline, stressing that raindrops carry pollutants and trash to the nearest waterbody and emphasizing the importance of individual actions.

D. Website/Social Media.* Included with Staff’s update are the website Google Analytics for September 2018 and June‐September 2018 along with the Facebook insights for the last 28 days for both Shingle Creek and WMWA. The most viewed post was a figure from the USGS Queen Avenue monitoring station showing the abrupt rise in streamflow from the September 20, 2018 rain event. Shingle Creek FB Metrics for the last 28 days: 125 total Likes (7 new), 1,071 Reaches, 224 Engagements.

E. The next WMWA meeting is scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 13, 2018, at Plymouth City Hall.

IX. Grant Opportunities and Updates.

A. FEMA Flood Modeling. The DNR returned the fully executed grant agreement for the flood mapping project on September 18, 2018.

B. Included in the meeting packet is a guide to the Hennepin County Natural Resources Grants.* Good Steward Grants are awarded in the fall; the maximum available is $25,000 per project and a 25% match is required. Applications for the Good Steward grants are being accepted until November 9, 2018. Opportunity Grants are available at any time on a first‐come, first‐served basis. No match is required, and funding is available up to $100,000 per project. The City of Crystal recently submitted an application for Opportunity Grant funds for the Becker Park project.

The Minneapolis Park Board is considering an application for a Hennepin County grant for a dog park using bio‐char filtration, hopefully located in the Shingle Creek watershed.

C. BWSR Watershed‐Based Funding. Watershed‐based Pilot Funding.

1. Staff submitted the Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Work Plan* to BWSR on September 12, 2018. The awarded amount is $103,571, with a total match of $10,357.10, and will be used to cost‐share member cities installing voluntary stormwater BMPS.

2. Minutes of the September 13, 2018 Focus Group meeting were included in the meeting packet. 3. At the Hennepin County Chloride Steering Committee meeting held earlier today members discussed tasks to be included in an RFP for services to facilitate focus groups of stakeholders to better understand training, information, and other needs and barriers.

D. Biochar‐ and Iron‐enhanced Filter Project. Dr. Beth Fisher will present her findings at the November meeting. Dr. Fisher’s work will provide geotechnical information about the formation of iron‐phosphorus compounds in the filter, biological oxygen demand (BOD), and flow volumes.

E. Twin Lake Carp Management Project. The carp barriers are being constructed and should be in place before December 1.

Item 01c



X. Communications.

A. September Communications Log.* No items required action.

B. Discussion will continue regarding the Commissions’ meeting site when new information becomes available.

C. Watershed Metrics Data Request* contains a listing of Commissions’ activities in response to a request from Hennepin County.

XI. Adjournment. There being no further business before the Commissions, the meetings were adjourned at 1:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Recording Secretary

Judie A. Anderson Recording Secretary JAA:tim Z:\Shingle Creek\Meetings\Meetings 2018\10 Regular Meeting MinutesSCWM.doc

Item 01c

Page 1 of 4

10/26/18

WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

PROJECT REVIEW WM2018-008: Brooklyn Park-Champlin Interceptor Owner: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Jeannine Clancy, Assistant General Manager 390 North Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Engineer: Alison Sumption Company: HR Green, Inc. Address: 2550 University Ave W, Suite 400N St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone: 651-659-7725 Fax: 651-644-9446 Email: [email protected] Purpose: Rehabilitation of an existing sanitary sewer interceptor including sewer lining

and spot improvements. The repair will require temporary wastewater flow above ground. The project area is approximately 22 acres.

Location: Linear project (approximately 3600 ft.) along Xylon Avenue from

approximately northernmost point of Emery Village Drive to southernmost point of South Pond Trail (Figures 1 and 2).

Exhibits: 1. Project review application and project review fee of $1,100, dated

10/3/18, received 10/4/18.

2. Site plan, site profiles, site details, and dewatering, erosion and sedimentation control specifications dated 9/6/18, received 10/4/18.

Findings: 1. The proposed project is the rehabilitation of an existing sanitary sewer

interceptor through sewer lining and spot improvements. Following completion of the project, there will be no increase in impervious surface (Figure 2).

2. The complete Project Review was received on 10/4/18. To comply with

the 60-day review requirement, the Commission must approve or deny this project no later than the 11/8/18 meeting. Sixty calendar-days expires on 12/4/18.

3. Typically, to comply with the Commission’s water quality treatment

requirement, the site must provide ponding designed to NURP standards with dead storage volume equal to or greater than the volume of runoff from a 2.5” storm event, or BMPs providing a similar level of treatment - 80-85% TSS removal and 50-60% TP removal. However, there is no increase of impervious surface at this site, so the applicant meets Commission water quality treatment requirements.

4. Commission rules require that site runoff is limited to predevelopment rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. Because there is no increase of impervious surface at this site, the applicant meets the Commission’s rate control requirements.

Item 04a

WM2018-008: Brooklyn Park-Champlin Interceptor

Page 2 of 4

Z:\WestMiss\Projects\Projects 2018\WM2018-008 Brooklyn Park-Champlin Interceptor\WM 2018-008 Brooklyn Park-Champlin Interceptor.doc

5. Commission rules require the site to infiltrate 1.0” of runoff from new impervious area within 48 hours, but because there is no new impervious area, the applicant meets Commission volume control requirements.

6. The NWI does not identify any wetlands on site.

7. There are no Public Waters on this site.

8. There is no floodplain on this site.

9. An erosion control plan was submitted with the project review, and

includes silt fence, inlet protection and soil stockpile protection. The only major excavation and soil stockpile will be on the northern end of the site near Emery Park. Otherwise excavations will be limited to 10x10 asphalt cuts. The temporary conveyance system for above-ground wastewater conveyance will include redundant equipment (pumps, drive-units, power sources) and constant monitoring by Met Council authorized representatives. The specifications also require the contractor to provide an extensive spill plan. The erosion control plan meets Commission requirements.

10. A public hearing on the project was conducted on 1/5/17, and there will

also be an open house for the project in early 2019. The applicant meets Commission public notice requirements.

11. A Project Review Fee of $1,100 has been received.

Recommendation: Recommend approval with no conditions. Wenck Associates, Inc. Engineers for the Commission ____________________ ______________________________ Ed Matthiesen, P.E. Date

Item 04a


Page 3 of 4


Figure 1. Site location.

WM2018-008

Item 04a


Page 4 of 4


Figure 2. Site Plan.

Item 04a

Technical Memo

Wenck Associates, Inc. | 7500 Olson Memorial Highway | Suite 300 | Plymouth, MN 55427

Toll Free 800-472-2232 Main 763-252-6800 Email [email protected] Web wenck.com

To: Shingle Creek WMO Commissioners From: Ed Matthiesen, P.E. Diane Spector Date: November 2, 2018 Subject: Minneapolis Water Resource Management Plan Review Recommended Commission Action Approve Minneapolis’ Water Resource Management Plan.

The City of Minneapolis had previously submitted its Water Resource Management Plan for Commission review and approval. The Commission at its July 12, 2018 meeting tabled consideration of the Local Plan and specified a number of revisions that must be completed to meet Commission requirements. The Metropolitan Council also provided a number of comments to the Commission regarding revisions to strengthen the plan. The City has made a number of revisions to the WRMP and has resubmitted it for review and consideration. Table 1 sets forth our comments on the first draft of the WRMP and how the City has addressed those comments in the revised draft. We recommend approval of the Plan as revised.

Item 05a

Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions

60‐Day Review Comments 10/30/18

1

Minneapolis Water Resources Management Plan 60‐Day Review Draft As Revised October 2018 Third Generation Plan Local Plan Requirement Comments City’s Response Update the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. Information from previous plans that has not changed may be referenced and summarized but does not have to be repeated. Local plans may adopt relevant sections of this Plan’s Section 2.0 Inventory and Condition Assessment by reference unless the member city has more recent information, such as revised land use figures and data.

Meets requirements. N/A

Update the existing and proposed hydrology and provide subwatershed, storm drainage system, and installed BMP figures and shapefiles.

Meets requirements. Summary‐level information is presented in the Plan. The City has updated its H & H models and will be using those over the next years to identify hydrology and drainage issues.

N/A

Explain how the goals and policies, and rules and standards established in the WMP will be implemented at the local level.


Show how the member city will take action to achieve the load reductions and other actions identified in and agreed to in TMDL Implementation Plans, including identifying known upcoming projects including street reconstruction projects that will provide opportunities to include load and volume reduction BMPs.

Somewhat meets requirements. The actions are fairly generic and passive. Would like to see the City be more proactive in identifying potential improvements, especially to Shingle Creek.

Meets requirements. The plan has been revised to note the ongoing Subwatershed Assessment for that part of the city that is in Shingle Creek, and that following completion the City will partner with the MPRB and SCWMO to undertake load reduction and stream projects.

Explain how the City will implement the City Review project review requirements of the revised Rules and Standards.


Item 05a

Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions

60‐Day Review Comments 10/30/18

2

Third Generation Plan Local Plan Requirement Comments City’s Response Update existing or potential water resource related problems and identify nonstructural, programmatic, and structural solutions, including those program elements detailed in Minnesota Rules 8410.0100, Subp. 1 through 6.


Summarize the estimated cost of implementation and analyze the member city’s ability to finance the recommended actions.

Meets requirements for years 1‐5 but Does not meet requirements for years 6‐10.

Meets requirements. The CIP has been updated to include projects through the year 2028.

Set forth an implementation program including a description of adoption or amendment of official controls and local policies necessary to implement the Rules and Standards; programs; policies; and a capital improvement plan.

Does not meet requirements. Only a five year CIP is presented, and the CIP is presented in summary. A link to the online CIP is provided. MR 8410 requires the CIP to include actions through the year the local water plan extends. Estimates for years 6‐10 are permissible.

Meets requirements. The CIP has been updated to include projects through the year 2028.

Miscellaneous Comments TMDL implementation actions incorrectly stated Table 3.15 (p. 3‐40) states that in‐stream improvements to address

macroinvertebrate and dissolved oxygen impairments would be completed “by others. “ The City/MPRB would be responsible for those improvements, potentially in partnership with the Commission, as stated elsewhere in the Plan (e.g., Table 3.52)

This has been corrected.

Atlas 14 The Plan states that H & H modeling is being completed using Atlas 14 depths; please verify that rainfall distribution MSE3 is being used.

This has been verified.

Item 05a

Technical Memo


Toll Free 800-472-2232 Main 763-252-6800 Email [email protected] Web wenck.com Z:\Shingle Creek\Agreements\M‐authorize HC agreemeent_Pictometry 2018.docx

To: Shingle Creek/West Mississippi WMO Commissioners From: Ed Matthiesen, P.E. Diane Spector Date: November 2, 2018 Subject: Hennepin County GIS User Agreement Recommended Commission Action Each Commission should by motion authorize execution of the Agreement.

The Commissions in October 2015 authorized entering into a contract with Hennepin County to obtain access to detailed aerial imagery and pictometry resources. The County makes these available to local governments and their staff at no cost. Third parties performing services to the local government, such as Wenck acting as Watershed Engineer or consulting engineer may with authorization also obtain access, but only for the performance of those services. These high‐quality images are valuable in supplementing or even replacing some types of field work or site visits. Attached are a letter and information about the resources as well as the Agreements provided by Hennepin County. Staff recommends that each Commission authorize execution of the Agreements.

Item 06a1

Information Technology

GIS Office A-18 Government Center | Minneapolis, MN 55487 | 612-596-9484 | [email protected]

October 10, 2018

Dear Administrator: Hennepin County is acquiring new aerial imagery and analysis tools this year from the Sanborn Map Company. The county also has historical Pictometry aerial imagery that was captured in 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2015. The county would like to make both resources available to your organization free of charge, through separate online services without installation or administration of any software. These resources will allow users within your organization to access both the new imagery and analysis tools, as well as the historical imagery. Access to aerial imagery and analysis tools adds value to many business areas serving Hennepin County residents, such as property appraisal, public safety, public works, and education, to name a few. Please review the attached page for more information on both Sanborn and Pictometry imagery. If you have a previous contract with Hennepin County for accessing aerial imagery via Pictometry Connect, you will find a new contract enclosed. This agreement will allow your organization to access the new Sanborn imagery as well as the historical Pictometry imagery. Please complete the contract fields, sign, and attach a copy of your delegation of signature authority, then return a hard copy by mail within forty-five (45) days to Julie Gilasevitch at the address below to avoid losing your access. Please be sure to indicate a contact person, their email address, and phone number so the Hennepin County GIS team can follow up with specific instructions to access the imagery. If you do not have a previous contract for the imagery and would like to participate, please call or email Ann Houghton, GIS Project Manager: [email protected], 612-348-5623. The Hennepin County GIS Office will administer access to the system over the coming months and will work with your organization on necessary steps to provide your staff access. Please respond to this letter by November 21, 2018. We look forward to working collaboratively with you in serving Hennepin County residents.

Sincerely,

Julie Gilasevitch, MPH, CPH | Senior Contract Services Analyst |

Hennepin County Government Center | Information Technology Department A-1900

300 S 6th St | Minneapolis MN 55487 | 612-543-5169 | [email protected]

Item 06a2

mailto:[email protected]

Overview: Web Applications

Pictometry CONNECTExplorer ( https://www.eagleview.com) enables staff to view historic aerial photos of Hennepin County. Features and functionality include:

● Orthophotography (straight down) ● Oblique images (taken at a 45° angle from N S E W) ● Length, Area, and Height measurement tools ● Historic images from 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2015 ● View historic imagery side by side ● Copy images for use in reports ● Overlay parcel data

Sanborn Oblique Analyst (https://www.sanborn.com/oblique-analyst/) enables staff to view current aerial photos of Hennepin County. Features and functionality include:

● Orthophotography (straight down) ● Oblique images (taken at a 45° angle from N S E W) ● Length, Area, and Height measurement tools ● Spring 2018 images ● Copy images for use in reports ● Overlay parcel data

Item 06a2

https://www.eagleview.com/

https://www.sanborn.com/oblique-analyst/

- 1 -

HENNEPIN COUNTY USER AGREEMENT This Hennepin County User Agreement (“HCUA”) is between Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, (“COUNTY”) and ________________________, (“USER”).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, COUNTY and Pictometry International Corporation (“Pictometry”) executed the AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A DIGITAL ORTHO AND OBLIQUE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND INFORMATION SYSTEM LICENSE, as amended, for the licensing of oblique images and related systems (the “Pictometry Agreement”); WHEREAS, COUNTY and The Sanborn Map Company, Inc. (“Sanborn”) executed the AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A DIGITAL ORTHO AND OBLIQUE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND INFORMATION SYSTEM LICENSE, as amended, for the licensing of oblique images and related systems (the “Sanborn Agreement”); WHEREAS, Pictometry’s hosted software system and Sanborn’s hosted software system (collectively the “System”) collects, organizes, stores, displays and allows access to a collection of oblique images, metadata, data layers, models, reports and other geographic or structural visualizations or embodiments (collectively “Delivered Content”); WHEREAS, by the terms of the Pictometry Agreement, Pictometry granted COUNTY the right to allow duly authorized political units or subdivisions located totally or substantially within the boundaries of Hennepin County, including cities or townships, to access the System and Pictometry Delivered Content. WHEREAS, by the terms of the Sanborn Agreement, Sanborn granted COUNTY the right to allow duly authorized political units or subdivisions located totally or substantially within the boundaries of Hennepin County, including cities or townships, to access the System and Sanborn Delivered Content. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements set forth herein, COUNTY and USER agree as follows: 1. Term.

This Agreement shall commence upon September 1, 2018 and shall continue for one (1) year unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Unless COUNTY otherwise notifies USER within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a term of this Agreement, this Agreement shall then

Item 06a3

- 2 -

automatically renew for another two (2) year term. However, in no event shall this Agreement continue beyond August 31, 2021.

2. Licenses. Subject to the provisions herein, COUNTY grants USER a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to access and use the System and Delivered Content exclusively for the performance of USER’s public responsibilities. The rights granted in this paragraph may be referred to as the “License”. For clarification and not limitation, the License permits access or use by USER’s employees and contracted personnel performing USER’s public responsibilities (said employees or contracted personnel may be referred to as “Eligible Personnel” and, as applicable throughout this HCUA, the term “USER” shall include and apply to Eligible Personnel).

USER is solely responsible for implementing the technology necessary to access the System, to retrieve Delivered Content and to use, control and safeguard the Delivered Content pursuant to the obligations set forth herein. Except as expressly set forth herein, USER shall acquire no right, title or interest in or to the System or Delivered Content. USER shall strictly comply with the following:

(i) USER shall access the System and access, use, control and safeguard Delivered Content in compliance with the terms of this HCUA; (ii) USER shall only access the System and Delivered content by and through a computer workstation or server (i) that is owned or leased by USER; (ii) that is under the exclusive control of USER; and (iii) that is exclusively available for use by USER (an “Authorized System”); (iii) USER shall not share or distribute System authentication information, usernames or passwords (“Authentication”) with any unauthorized third-party; (iv) USER shall secure and safeguard the System, Authentication and Delivered Content in USER’s possession or control in the same manner that USER secures and safeguards its own critical or confidential systems, software, data, passwords or other information. If there is a conflict between USER’s security requirements and COUNTY’s security requirements, COUNTY’s security requirements shall prevail;

Item 06a3

- 3 -

(v) USER shall not access the Delivered Content by any means other than the System including but not limited to scraping, robots, wanderers, crawlers, spiders, etc (as those terms are commonly used and understood in the information technology industry); (vi) USER shall be solely responsible for accessing, using and otherwise supporting the System including but not limited to paying all costs, expenses and communication charges associated with the same; (vii) USER shall use, control and safeguard the Delivered Content in compliance with the terms of this HCUA and with applicable law including but not limited to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13; (viii) Except as expressly provided herein, USER shall not use, disclose, sell, market, distribute or otherwise make available the Delivered Content during the term of this HCUA or at any time thereafter except as required by law or with COUNTY’s express written consent; (ix) USER shall not allow third-party access to Delivered Content except as follows:

(a) USER may provide Delivered Content to individual members of the public requesting access to data pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act subject to the following:

(1) USER may permit inspection of Delivered Content on Authorized Systems; (2) USER may provide paper copies of Delivered Content; and (3) USER may provide .pdf or .jpg images of Delivered Content provided that USER may not assemble more than three (3) contiguous images into a single image.

(b) USER may provide Delivered Content to an entity performing services for USER (said entity, including but not limited to the entity’s employees or contracted personnel, may be referred to as “Project Participant(s)”) subject to the following:

(1) Access and use of the Delivered Content by Project Participants shall be solely for the purpose of performance of tasks or preparation of materials for USER;

Item 06a3

- 4 -

(2) Project Participants shall be identified in writing to Pictometry and Sanborn, respectively, prior to being granted access to the Delivered Content; (3) Unless Pictometry and/or Sanborn expressly waives such requirement, Project Participants shall enter a written agreement with Pictometry and/or Sanborn authorizing such access; (4) Project Participants shall access and use Delivered Content under USER’s supervision; (5) USER may provide paper copies of Delivered Content to Project Participants; and (6) USER may provide static images of Delivered Content to Project Participants provided that the static image does not include any metadata.

Unless expressly authorized by the provisions herein, all other third-party access to Delivered Content is prohibited; (x) USER shall not remove, delete, alter or otherwise modify any copyright messages on or associated with the System or Delivered Content, including but not limited to copyright notices from COUNTY or Pictometry or Sanborn.

3. Disclaimers and Limitations of Liability.

COUNTY, BY AND THROUGH PICTOMETRY AND/OR SANBORN, IS PROVIDING THE SYSTEM AND DELIVERED CONTENT ON AN AS-IS BASIS WITH NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER. THERE IS NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR USE, NO WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, NO WARRANTY REGARDING THE USE OF THE INFORMATION OR THE RESULTS THEREOF AND NO OTHER WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.

WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, COUNTY DOES NOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM OR RELATED AND NECESSARY COMMUNICATIONS OR CONNECTIONS TO THE SYSTEM, THAT THE SYSTEM WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE, THAT DEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED, OR THAT THE SYSTEM IS FREE OF HARMFUL CODE. USER fully understands and agrees that (i) the System is subject to errors, omissions, delays or interruptions; and (ii) COUNTY, by and through Pictometry and/or Sanborn, may modify or change the System in a manner that may impact or restrict USER’s access. In any such event, the COUNTY will not be liable for the cost of such changes, damages or other liability which may be sustained by USER.

Item 06a3

- 5 -

WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, COUNTY DOES NOT WARRANT THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR TIMELINESS OF THE DELIVERED CONTENT NOR DOES COUNTY WARRANT THAT DEFECTS IN THE SAME WILL BE CORRECTED. USER fully understands and agrees that (i) the Delivered Content is provided by third-parties, including but not limited to Pictometry and/or Sanborn; and (ii) COUNTY does not directly control and is not responsible for the Delivered Content. USER fully understands and agrees that the Delivered Content is subject to errors, omissions, delay or interruptions, including but not limited to (i) delays, errors or omissions in the receipt of the Delivered Content, (ii) changes, adjustments, corrections or modifications of the Delivered Content and (iii) that COUNTY may make modifications, changes and/or adjustments to the Delivered Content at any time and without notice to USER. At the point of initial contact with any Delivered Content provided to the public, USER shall include the disclaimer set forth in the preceding three paragraphs, in the same or substantially similar format with necessary adjustments for accuracy and applicability, including but not limited to defining “Delivered Content”.

IN NO EVENT SHALL COUNTY BE LIABLE FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR LOSS OF PROFIT, LOSS OF BUSINESS OR ANY OTHER FINANCIAL LOSS OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES EVEN IF THE COUNTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. COUNTY’S SOLE LIABILITY AND USER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DAMAGES RELATED TO THIS HCUA OR FOR ANY BREACH OF THIS HCUA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LIABILITY FOR SYSTEM OR DELIVERED CONTENT NONPERFORMANCE, ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, SHALL BE LIMITED TO RESTORING OR CORRECTING THE SYSTEM OR DELIVERED CONTENT TO THE EXTENT AND DEGREE COUNTY IS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING THE SAME AND AS IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE UNDER THE PERTINENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

4. Royalty Free License.

The License is royalty free. COUNTY is not providing any implementation, maintenance, support or other services hereunder and, as such, USER shall not pay COUNTY any amount for services pursuant to this HCUA.

5. Compliance with Applicable Law and Data.

USER and COUNTY shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, regulations, rules and ordinances currently in force or later enacted. Subject to the provisions set forth in Section 2 above, the parties, their officers, agents, owners, partners, employees, volunteers and subcontractors shall

Item 06a3

- 6 -

abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13 (MGDPA) and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy or confidentiality. USER shall promptly notify COUNTY if USER becomes aware of any potential claims, or facts giving rise to such claims, under the MGDPA.

6. Termination.

If COUNTY reasonably believes that USER is not complying with any terms of this HCUA, including but not limited to the license or related limitations, COUNTY may immediately terminate this HCUA and thereby terminate the License and USER’s access to and use of the System and Delivered Content. Either party may terminate this HCUA without cause at any time by upon thirty (30) day written notice to the other party. Notwithstanding the term set forth herein, the parties expressly agree that COUNTY may (i) terminate the license granted herein for either the Pictometry Delivered Content or the Sanborn Delivered Content; or (ii) terminate this HCUA upon the expiration or termination, for any reason, of either or both the Pictometry Agreement and/or the Sanborn Agreement.

7. Liability.

USER agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the COUNTY, their officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting directly or indirectly from USER’s use of or access to the System or Delivered Content, from USER’s failure to comply with the terms of this HCUA or from failure to perform any duties and obligations required by applicable law and/or this HCUA. As applicable, a party’s liability shall be governed by the provisions of applicable law including but not limited to the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, and other applicable law. The statutory limits of liability for some or all of the parties may not be added together or stacked to increase the maximum amount of liability for any party. This paragraph shall not be construed to bar legal remedies one party may have for the other party’s failure to fulfill its obligations under this HCUA. Nothing in this HCUA constitutes a waiver by the USER or COUNTY of any statutory or common law defenses, immunities, or limits on liability.

8. Miscellaneous Provisions.

Item 06a3

- 7 -

The Hennepin County Geographic Information Systems Manager, or his/her designee, shall manage this HCUA on behalf of the COUNTY and perform the other duties expressly set forth herein.

Except as directed by COUNTY, USER shall not use the term “Hennepin County”, or any derivative thereof in USER’s advertising, external facing communication and/or marketing, including but not limited to advertisements of any type or form, promotional ads/literature, client lists and/or any other form of outreach, without the written approval of the Hennepin County Public Affairs/Communications Department, or their designees. USER and COUNTY intend that this HCUA will not benefit or create any right or cause of action in or on behalf of any person or entity other than the parties. The laws of the state of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this HCUA and the legal relations between the parties and their performance.

The remainder of this page is blank.

Item 06a3

- 8 -

COUNTY AUTHORIZATION

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Reviewed by the County STATE OF MINNESOTA Attorney's Office By: Hennepin County Administrator Date:

USER warrants that the person who executed this Agreement is authorized to do so on behalf of USER as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances.*

USER

By: Printed Name: Printed Title:

Date:

*USER shall submit applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances) that confirms the signatory’s delegation of authority. This documentation shall be submitted at the time USER returns the Agreement to COUNTY. Documentation is not required for a sole proprietorship.

Item 06a3

Technical Memo



To: Shingle Creek/West Mississippi WMO Commissioners From: Ed Matthiesen, P.E. Diane Spector Date: November 2, 2018 Subject: October TAC Meeting Summary Recommended Commission Action Discuss and provide direction.

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on October 25, 2018 to discuss potential capital and cost share projects. The Commissions typically solicit the cities for applications for cost‐share projects and revisions to the CIP in November‐December of each year. The purpose of this discussion was to ensure that the Commissions’ CIP is set up with projects to maximize our ability to qualify for grants, and to ensure that the BWSR watershed‐based funding grant funds are fully expended in the next two years. The following are potential CIP projects cities are considering submitting to the Commissions for the next few years. There is also one significant proposal by Plymouth for the Commissions to consider. Brooklyn Center. The City is considering a pond dredging project that may also include an expansion of treatment capacity. Brooklyn Center is also considering submitting a request for cost share in brining equipment to bring that in‐house. They currently go to Brooklyn Park to get their brine, which is time‐inefficient. Brooklyn Park. Brooklyn Park is considering adding a stormwater pond in River Park to enhance water quality treatment of runoff to the Mississippi River. Champlin. Champlin has been developing ideas for BMPs along the TH 169 corridor as a followup to the current MnDOT project. They expect to have these summarized in a list by the end of November. Minneapolis. Still evaluating options for Flood Area 5, which is tributary to Crystal Lake. All of Minneapolis in Shingle Creek is also currently being evaluated in a subwatershed assessment, which may result in future cost‐share projects. New Hope. Is considering submitting a pond project on the north side of City Hall. Osseo. The City is working on a possible flood reduction project in the vicinity of Bottineau Boulevard and 85th, in the channel along the railroad

Item 06b

Plymouth. Plymouth would like the Commissions to consider cost sharing in street sweepers, either in the purchase of or in the cost to upgrade from broom to regenerative air, which are much more effective in reducing fine particles. The Commissions have not previously shared in the cost of maintenance equipment. Recent research has shown that frequent street sweeping can be an effective BMP. The Commission several years ago served as a grant pass‐through fiscal agent to help fund acquisition of pre‐wetting equipment and brine systems for Hennepin County, Brooklyn Park, Plymouth, and Maple Grove. The Commission did not contribute any funds to that equipment. Robbinsdale. Has a concern about flooding on Ryan Lake. They don’t know if the issue is the outlet capacity, periodic outlet obstructions, inflow from Lower Twin Lake, etc. They would like to consider a hydraulic study from the outlet of Lower Twin Lake through Ryan Creek/Ryan Lake to the outfall into Shingle Creek. This may also include a potential stream restoration of Ryan Creek from France Avenue to Ryan Lake. The City is also evaluating options for an alternate emergency outlet from Crystal Lake. Crystal Lake has no natural outlet, and it currently is pumped into Minneapolis storm sewer when the lake level is too high. Minneapolis does not have adequate capacity. There is also the potential for a Lake Management Plan and alum treatment on Crystal Lake.

Item 06b

Technical Memo



To: Shingle Creek/West Mississippi WMO Commissioners From: Ed Matthiesen, P.E. Diane Spector Date: November 2, 2018 Subject: Authorize Execution of Grant Agreement with BWSR Recommended Commission Action

Shingle Creek Commission authorizes the Chair to execute the grant agreement.

The Watershed‐Based Funding Pilot Program work plan has been approved and we have received a grant agreement from the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). The agreement is between BWSR and Shingle Creek, with Shingle Creek acting as the fiscal agent for West Mississippi. The Commissioners will recall that the $68,129 awarded to Shingle Creek and $35,442 awarded to West Mississippi will be managed through the Cost Share Program which funds small City projects not on the CIP. The cost is split 50/50 with the City, up to a maximum of $50,000 per project. Staff recommends that the Shingle Creek Commission authorize execution of the agreement.

Item 06a3

Page 1 of 4

FY 2019 STATE OF MINNESOTA

BOARD OF WATER and SOIL RESOURCES WATERSHED BASED FUNDING GRANTS PROGRAM

GRANT AGREEMENT

Vendor: 0000237333 VN#: PO#: 3000009685 Date Paid:

This Grant Agreement is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Board of Water and Soil Resources (Board) and Shingle Creek WMC, 3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth Minnesota 55447 (Grantee). This grant is for the following Grant Programs : P19‐3278 2019 ‐ Watershed Based Funding Metro (Shingle Creek WMC) $103,571

Total Grant Awarded: $103,571

Recitals1. The Laws of Minnesota 2017, Chapter 91, Article 2, Section 7 (a), appropriated Clean Water Funds (CWF) to the Board for

the FY 2019 Watershed‐based Funding Pilot Program. 2. The Board adopted the Clean Water Fund Watershed‐based Funding Pilot Program Policy and authorized the Watershed‐

based Funding Pilot Program Grants through Board Resolution 17‐96. 3. The Board adopted Board Resolution 17‐96 to allocate funds for the FY 2019 Watershed‐based Funding Pilot Program. 4. The Grantee has submitted a BWSR approved work plan for this Program which is incorporated into this agreement by

reference. 5. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant agreement to the

satisfaction of the State. 6. As a condition of the grant, Grantee agrees to minimize administration costs.

Authorized Representative The State's Authorized Representative is Marcey Westrick, Clean Water Coordinator, BWSR, 520 Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul, MN 55155, 651‐284‐4153, or her successor, and has the responsibility to monitor the Grantee’s performance and the authority to accept the services and performance provided under this Grant Agreement.

The Grantee’s Authorized Representative is: TITLE Judie Anderson, JASS, Administrator ADDRESS 3235 Fernbrook Lane CITY Plymouth MN 55447 TELEPHONE NUMBER 763‐553‐1144

If the Grantee’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this Grant Agreement, the Grantee must immediately notify the Board.

Grant Agreement

1. Term of Grant Agreement. 1.1. Effective date: The date the Board obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, Subd.5. The State’s

Authorized Representative will notify the Grantee when this grant agreement has been executed. The Grantee must not begin work under this grant agreement until it is executed.

1.2. Expiration date: December 31, 2021, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever comes first. 1.3. Survival of Terms: The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this Agreement: 7. Liability; 8. State

Audits; 9. Government Data Practices; 11. Publicity and Endorsement; 12. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; 14. Data Disclosure; and 18. Intellectual Property Rights.

Item 08a2

Page 2 of 4

2. Grantee’s Duties. The Grantee will comply with required grants management policies and procedures set forth through Minn. Stat. § 16B.97, Subd. 4(a)(1).The Grantee is responsible for the specific duties for the Program as follows: 2.1. Implementation: The Grantee will implement their work plan, which is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. 2.2. Reporting: All data and information provided in a Grantee’s report shall be considered public.

2.2.1. The Grantee will submit an annual progress report to the Board by February 1 of each year on the status of program implementation by the Grantee. Information provided must conform to the requirements and formats set by the Board. All individual grants over $500,000 will also require a reporting of expenditures by June 30 of each year.

2.2.2. The Grantee will prominently display on its website the Clean Water Legacy Logo and a link to the Legislative Coordinating Commission website.

2.2.3. Final Progress Report: The Grantee will submit a final progress report to the Board by February 1, 2022 or within 30 days of completion of the project, whichever occurs sooner. Information provided must conform to the requirements and formats set by the Board.

2.3. Match: The Grantee will ensure any local match requirement will be provided as stated in Grantee’s approved work plan.

3. Time. The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this Grant Agreement. In the performance of this Grant Agreement, time is of the essence.

4. Terms of Payment. 4.1. Grant funds will be distributed in three installments: 1) The first payment of 50% will be distributed after the execution

of the Grant Agreement. 2) The second payment of 40% will be distributed after the first payment of 50% has been expended and reporting requirements have been met. An eLINK Interim Financial Report that summarizes expenditures of the first 50% must be signed by the Grantee and approved by BWSR. Selected grantees may be required at this point to submit documentation of the expenditures reported on the Interim Financial Report for verification. 3) The third payment of 10% will be distributed after the grant has been fully expended and reporting requirements are met. The final, 10% payment must be requested within 30 days of the expiration date of the Grant Agreement. An eLINK Final Financial Report that summarizes final expenditures for the grant must be signed by the grantee and approved by BWSR.

4.2. All costs must be incurred within the grant period. 4.3. All incurred costs must be paid before the amount of unspent grant funds is determined. Unspent grant funds must be

returned within 30 days of the expiration date of the Grant Agreement. 4.4. The obligation of the State under this Grant Agreement will not exceed the amount stated above. 4.5. This grant includes an advance payment of 50 percent of the grant’s total amount. Advance payments allow the grantee

to have adequate operating capital for start‐up costs, ensure their financial commitment to landowners and contractors, and to better schedule work into the future.

5. Conditions of Payment. All services provided by the Grantee under this Grant Agreement must be performed to the State’s satisfaction, as set forth in this Agreement and in the BWSR approved work plan for this program. Compliance will be determined at the sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, ordinances, rules, FY 2018 Clean Water Fund Competitive Grants Policy, and regulations. All Grantees must follow the Grants Administration Manual policy. Minnesota Statutes §103C.401 (2014) establishes BWSR’s obligation to assure program compliance. If the noncompliance is severe, or if work under the grant agreement is found by BWSR to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law, BWSR has the authority to require the repayment of grant funds, or an additional penalty. Penalties can be assessed at a rate up to 150% of the grant agreement.

6. Assignment, Amendments, and Waiver. 6.1. Assignment. The Grantee may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this Grant Agreement without

the prior consent of the State and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this Grant Agreement, or their successors in office.

6.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this Grant Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original Grant Agreement, or their successors in office. Amendments must be executed prior to the expiration of the original agreement or any amendments thereto.

Item 08a2

Page 3 of 4

6.3. Waiver. If the State fails to enforce any provision of this Grant Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it.

7. Liability. The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this Grant Agreement by the Grantee or the Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this Grant Agreement.

8. State Audits. Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd. 8, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Grantee or other party relevant to this Grant Agreement or transaction are subject to examination by the Board and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this Grant Agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all State and program retention requirements, whichever is later. 8.1. The books, records, documents, accounting procedures and practices of the Grantee and its designated local units of

government and contractors relevant to this grant, may be examined at any time by the Board or Board's designee and are subject to verification. The Grantee or delegated local unit of government will maintain records relating to the receipt and expenditure of grant funds.

9. Government Data Practices. The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this Agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this Grant Agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Grantee or the State.

10. Workers’ Compensation. The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, pertaining to workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State’s obligation or responsibility.

11. Publicity and Endorsement. 11.1. Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this Grant Agreement must identify the Board as the sponsoring

agency. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this Grant Agreement.

11.2. Endorsement. The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services.

12. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue. Minnesota law, without regard to its choice‐of‐law provisions, governs this Grant Agreement. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate State or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.

13. Termination. 13.1. The State may cancel this Grant Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written notice to the

Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.

13.2. In the event of a lawsuit, an appropriation from a Clean Water Fund is canceled to the extent that a court determines that the appropriation unconstitutionally substitutes for a traditional source of funding.

13.3. The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if the State finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed.

14. Data Disclosure. Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and State tax agencies and State personnel involved in the payment of State obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and State tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file State tax returns and pay delinquent State tax liabilities, if any.

Item 08a2

Page 4 of 4

15. Prevailing Wage. It is the responsibility of the Grantee or contractor to pay prevailing wages for projects that include

construction work of $25,000 or more, prevailing wage rules apply per Minn. Stat. §§177.41 through 177.44. All laborers and mechanics employed by grant recipients and subcontractors funded in whole or in part with these State funds shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a character similar in the locality. Bid requests must state the project is subject to prevailing wage.

16. Municipal Contracting Law. Per Minn. Stat. §471.345, grantees that are municipalities as defined in Subd. 1 of this statute must follow the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law. Supporting documentation of the bidding process utilized to contract services must be included in the Grantee’s financial records, including support documentation justifying a single/sole source bid, if applicable.

17. Constitutional Compliance. It is the responsibility of the Grantee to comply with requirements of the Minnesota Constitution regarding use of Clean Water Funds to supplement traditional sources of funding.

18. Signage. It is the responsibility of the Grantee to comply with requirements for project signage as provided in Minnesota Laws 2010, Chapter 361, article 3, section 5 (b) for Clean Water Fund projects.

19. Intellectual Property Rights. The State owns all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under this grant. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Grantee, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this grant. Works includes "Documents." Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Grantee, its employees, agents, or subcontractors, in the performance of this grant. The Documents will be the exclusive property of the State and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the State by the Grantee upon completion or cancellation of this grant at the State’s request. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be "works made for hire." The Grantee assigns all right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the State. The Grantee must, at the request of the State, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the State's ownership interest in the Works and Documents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Grant Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. Approved: Shingle Creek WMC

Board of Water and Soil Resources

By: _______________________________________ By: ____________________________________________ (print) _______________________________________ (signature) Title: _______________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________________________________

Item 08a2

SHINGLE CREEK / WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MONTHLY COMMUNICATION LOG

October 2018

Z:\Shingle Creek\Communications\2018\10 October 2018.docx Send Log to: Judie Anderson: [email protected]

1

Date From To SC WM Description

10‐4‐18 Liz Stout, City of Minneapolis Diane S X Revised LWMP and request for consideration at the November meeting.

10‐9‐18

Karen Gallus, Mary Karius, Christine Schmitt @ Hennepin County Diane S. and Ed M.

X X Master Water Stewards But Tour

10‐11‐18 Julie Gilasevitch, Hennepin County SCWM WMC X X Letter to renew contract for the use of county pictometry GIS services.

10‐17‐18 Met Council SC WMC X Comments on Plymouth LWMP

10‐19‐18 MN Storm Water Research Council Ed M. X X Looking for money

10‐22‐18 Dr. Beth Fisher @ U of M Ed M. X X Pond phosphorus data review 10‐22‐18 Jim Tolouse @ Blue Line Ed M. X X Blue Line Light Rail preliminary review

10‐22‐18 Laura Scholl @ Metro Blooms Ed M. X Grant reimbursement request for Autumn Ridge Apartment BMP project

10‐23‐18

John Evans @ Hennepin County Environmental Services Ed M.

X X Commissioner Mike Opat question regarding climate change.

10/23/18 Dan Elder, City of Champlin SCWM WMC X X LWMP to review

10‐24‐18 SCWMC Nick Gervino, MPCA X Biochar grant 3rd quarter reimbursement invoice 10‐24‐18 SCWMC Karen Evans, MPCA X Twin Lake Carp grant 3rd quarter reimbursement invoice

10‐24‐18 Jesse Struve, City of Brooklyn Park Diane and Ed X X Questions regarding some comments on tabled Brooklyn Park LWMP

10‐31‐18 Karen Galles Hennepin County Diane S

X X

Notification that maximum levies were approved by County Board Committee and recommended for full Board approval. The only comment was from Commissioner Opat who had great things to say about the improved clarity in some of the lakes near his house (Ryan, in particular) and expressed his appreciation for the work that you all are doing.

Item 09a

From: Kostrzewski, Jennifer <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:03 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Robert.bean@bolton‐menk.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]‐valley.mn.us; [email protected]; Karen Chandler <[email protected]>; Becky Christopher <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jessica.Collin‐[email protected]; Thomas Dietrich <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; craigj@haa‐inc.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Laura Rescorla <[email protected]>; Jay Riggs <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Saunders‐Pearce, Wes (CI‐StPaul) <wes.saunders‐[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Stephanie Souter <[email protected]>; Diane F. Spector <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Watson, Brian <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; jwilson ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: BWSR Watershed Based Funding Focus Groups Summary Hello BWSR Stakeholders, Thank you for your input over the past couple months as a part of the BWSR Watershed Based Funding Focus Groups. Attached to this email is the final summary document from the focus group events. We will be using this document to inform the first forum on November 7th. If you have any additional comments that you would like to add to this process, please feel free to email me or contact your forum representative. Your representatives will use this feedback and any other information that you share with them to represent your stakeholder group. It was truly a pleasure to work with you all and to get your insights into improving the Metro Watershed‐Based Funding process. Thank you very much for your time and efforts. Jen Kostrzewski

Jennifer Kostrzewski Principal Environmental Scientist | Environmental Services, Water Resources [email protected] P. 651.602.1078 | F. 651.602.1130 390 North Robert Street | St. Paul, MN | 55101 | metrocouncil.org

Z:\Watersheds ‐ Shared\BWSR Funding\M_BWSR_WBF_FocusGroup_Summary.docx

Item 09b1

1 | P a g e

Watershed Based Funding Focus Groups SummarySeptember 6-18, 2018

BackgroundThe Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) partnered with the Metropolitan Council (Council) to perform a stakeholder engagement process to gather input about future directions of the Watershed Based Funding (WBF) Program for the Twin Cities metropolitan area.

The first phase of the engagement was a high-level stakeholder survey with a focus on the pilots of WBF from the last funding cycle. An electronic survey was sent out to five stakeholder groups from the metro area:

1. Cities & Townships2. Watershed Districts3. Watershed Management Organizations4. Counties5. SWCDs

The results were tallied and shaped the focus group breakout questions. Each focus group provided the stakeholders an opportunity to provide deeper input into how they would propose BWSR move forward with the WBF Program. The objective was to develop and discuss the topics of the scale of the decision-making, the type of funding allocation, and the eligibility of entities and project types. At the end of each meeting the stakeholder group nominated two representatives and one alternative to attend a multi-stakeholder forum.

Focus Group DesignThe desired outcomes, agenda, and ground rules of all focus groups was intentionally consistent. Although participants were invited to make suggestions and additions to the ground rules, no one took advantage of this option.

Figure 1: Watershed Based Funding Focus Group Agenda

Z|Watershed Shared|BWSR Funding|BWSR_WBF_FocusGroup_Summary

Item 09n2

2 | P a g e

Desired Outcomes� Prepare representatives for forum

discussions.� Promote discussion and group

prioritizations.� Increase buy-in and support.� Have a transparent process.

Ground Rules� Listen with an open mind� Ask questions� Take care of you� Step forward, step back� Look forward & make change

AgendaWelcome

� Introductions� Today’s Overview� Roles & Ground Rules

Background� Pilot Process� Feedback/Survey Results� Process Details

BreakoutsRepresentative SelectionNext steps/Closing RemarksPlus/Delta

Roles & ResponsibilitiesMCES Meeting Facilitators: Anna Bessel, Nanette Ewald, Karen Jensen, Jen Kostrzewski, Emily Resseger, Lanya Ross, Sara Smith, Judy Sventek

BWSR Representatives: Kevin Bigalke, Marcey Westrick, Melissa Lewis

Meeting SummariesThe participants were engaged throughout the meeting, and in general, the conversation was lively and thoughtful. The attendees for the cities and township focus group were a mix of city staff and consultants. No township representatives attended. Representatives from 9 watershed districts, 15 watershed management organizations, three Counties, and seven SWCD attendedtheir respective focus groups.

After the introductions and overview, BWSR explained how the WBF Pilot Program worked in the 7 counties and provided some feedback from the pilot.

Table 1: 2018 Watershed Based Funding Pilot Program Funding Allocation

County Allocation Total Dollar Amount

Anoka

$125,000 for stormwater educationRemaining funds allocated by formula based on:

� Land area� Water resources

$826,000

CarverAll funds allocated by formula based on:

� Land area� Tax capacity

$749,200

Dakota$100,000 for Dakota SWCD$50,000 as base funding for each WD/WMO$618,000 allocated by formula based on:

$1,018,000


Item 09n2

3 | P a g e

County Allocation Total Dollar Amount� Land area� Property value

Hennepin

$102,240 for chloride educationRemaining funds allocated by fodrmula based on:

� Land area� Tax capacity

$1,018,000

Ramsey$44,200 for Ramsey County (formerly RCD)Remaining funds allocated by formula based on land area

$442,000

Scott

$100,000 for county-wide collaborative projects$75,000 as base funding for each WD/WMO$349,200 allocated by formula based on:

� Land area� Assessed value

$749,200

Washington Equal allocation for each of the 10 entities $787,600

BWSR also shared results of a survey that was sent to 279 entities from the metro area. There were 39 responses. The top comments from the survey touched on:

� BSWR Flexibility vs Funding Requirements� Not enough time� Not enough money� Eligibility of certain projects and organizations� Allocation of funds

These comments helped BWSR and Metropolitan Council to shape the focus group breakout questions for the day.

Lastly, BWSR shared information about the current engagement process. The Metropolitan Council is independently facilitating it to assist BWSR with gathering input about the Watershed Based Funding Pilot. The survey was the first round of engagement. The second round was a series of focus groups. There were four focus groups for each stakeholder category (Counties and SWCDs were merged into one event):

1. Cities & Townships 2. Watershed Districts3. Watershed Management Organizations (this meeting)4. Counties5. SWCDs

Each focus group was run in a consistent manner to provide the stakeholders an opportunity to provide deeper input into how they would propose going forward with the WBF Program. At the end of the focus group, the attendees had the opportunity to select 2 representatives and 1 alternate to attend the stakeholder forums.


Item 09n2

4 | P a g e

The forums will be in November/December and they will provide the space for discussion between the stakeholder representatives to come to some consensus about Program recommendation(s) by the end of 2018. These recommendation(s) will be used in combination with input from the Local Government Water Roundtable, BWSR staff teams, the Metro Forum, pilot areas, and other stakeholder feedback/guidance to be evaluated by BWSR committees. Eventually, the recommendation(s) will be put before the BWSR Board in 2019.

Focus Group Breakout SessionsAt each focus group, attendees were split into breakout groups that addressed the same three questions:

1. At what scale should decision-making occur (metro-wide, major watershed, county, WD/WMO, Other)?

2. How should funds be allocated (Competitive, Equal Distribution, Proportional/Formula, Project Prioritized, Other)?

3. In an ideal world, which LGUs/organizations or projects should be eligible for this funding?

For the first two questions, participants were asked to identify at least one benefit (Pro) and one drawback (Con) for each option. The last question was included to identify the participants’ thoughts about the range and breadth of the program. Tables 2-4 are comprised of the input from all focus groups and contain the most common responses. To see the individual responses and photos from each stakeholder breakout session, please refer to Appendices 1 and 2.


Item 09n2

5 | P a g e

Table 2: Most Common Responses to Question 1: Scale

Scale Pros Cons

Metro-Wide

� Real amount of money √√√√� Develop Metro-wide message to

“unify” work√√√� Addressing bigger issues √√� More consistency metro wide- same

rules throughout √√� Acknowledging Surface Water

Planning Act and existing plans √√

� Too many LGUs/participants √√√√√√√� Politically based √√√� Lack of local knowledge and values √√� Too broad √√� Not watershed-based √√� Needs to be competitive basis √√

Major Watershed

� Fits with 1W1P* √√√√� Focuses on primary resource √√� Most impactful projects, regardless

of location √√� Follows guiding principles (PTM*) √√� Watershed-based √√

� Lack of governance structure √√√√√� Group may still be too large √√√√� Difficult to target issues – too large of a

scale √√√� Doesn’t match w/ water supply √� Outstate issues: organizations on the fringe

will need to work with the metro and non-metro process √

County

� Potentially easier to coordinate √√√√√√

� Forces people to work together (cities/watersheds/etc.) √√

� Many groups are already working together √√

� Matches governmental boundaries √

� Not tied to watershed boundaries √√√√√√� Creates additional planning process when

watersheds cross county boundaries √√√√√� Influenced by political will √√√� Not all counties are eligible √� Creates a weird dynamic between

watershed districts and counties √� Not PTM* √

Watershed Districts/

Watershed Management Organizations

� Existing organization structure and relationships √√√√√√√√

� Plans already in place with rankings √√√√√√√√

� Knowledgeable of local needs, priorities, and issues √√√√√

� PTM* from Comprehensive Plans √√√

� Allows the Surface Water Act to be used correctly √√

� Predictable funding √� History √

� Funding is insufficient √√√√� Disparity in watershed organization capacity

o WMOs don’t have staff √√o Not all WMOs have approved plans √

� Doesn’t recognize regional needs and priorities √

� Doesn’t fit with 1W1P*√� Loses focus on major rivers √� Doesn’t encourage collaboration √

*PTM – Priorit ized, Targeted, Measured; 1W1P – One Watershed One Plan; √ - duplicated comment

Other scales that were brainstormed included BWSR/State-wide, Major watersheds that extend beyond the metro area, a blend of the options, or an even smaller scale.


Item 09n2

6 | P a g e

Table 3: Most Common Responses to Question 2: Allocation

Allocation Pros Cons

Competitive

� Allows higher-scale analysis of cost benefits, etc.

� Best projects get money √√√√√√√√√� More money to impactful, larger

projects√

� Entities that have resources (time, staff, grant writers) get money√√√√√√

� Smaller LGUs/projects get pushed out √√√√

� Effort/Time consuming√√√√� Inherently biased√√� Metrics dictating allocation may not be

appropriate for all√√� Large scale = lots of options√� Unpredictable Funding√

Equal Distribution

� Money is spread-out / Everyone gets something √√√√√√

� Easy and Transparent √√√√√� Predictable, allows advanced

planning√√√

� Less access to big money, maybe not enough money √√√√√

� Does not target water quality issues √√� Isn’t equitable- doesn’t reflect differences

such as size or resource √√� Doesn’t take existing priority projects into

account √� Different needs across the state� Ignores geography� Ignores need

Proportional/Formulaic

� Everyone gets their fair share√√√√√√� Easy, Transparent √√√√� Process weighs many factors

(need/location/equity/education) and has most impact (pollutant recovery bounty) √√

� Compromise between equal distribution and project prioritization

� What is the formula and who defines it? √√√√√

� Too small-doesn’t allow for larger projectsor collaborations √√√

� Does not target water quality issues√� Areas that need more money may not get

it √� Doesn’t account for local priorities √

Project Prioritization

� Collaboration √√√� Best projects are identified√√√� Predictable process√� Allows for PTM√√√� Pushes decisions to locals√

� Value judgements (subjective) √√√√√√√� Scale matters- collaboration is difficult if

scale is too big √√√√√� Takes lots of planning√� Longer lead time√

A Blend � Proportional to a certain scale, then collaborative at a smaller scale

� Funding may still not get to the best projects

*PTM – Priorit ized, Targeted, Measured; LGU – Local Government Unit ; √ - duplicated comment


Item 09n2

7 | P a g e

Table 4: Most Common Responses to Question 3: Organization and Project Eligibility

√ - duplicated comment

Eligible Not Eligible

LGUs/Organizations

Any organization should be able to work through an eligible organization (for non-103B orgs), but not receive watershed-based funding directly √

Cities (through watershed orgs) √√√CountiesSWCDs √√(Let County decide if SWCD should be included)WMO/WDs √√√√√(assuming they are active)

Anyone with an approved plan√

Watersheds – hydrologically based, not political

Cities (as their own entity) √√√Cities without active WD/WMOs √

No LGU should be excluded from getting money, partnering, doing eligible projects/programs

LGUs need to have capacity and responsibility

Depends on allocation

Lake Improvement Districts

HOAs

Anyone without an approved plan

State agencies shouldn’t be directly eligible for funding (but can receive funds through partnership with eligible org)

Cities/townships should be rolled into WD/WMOs work

Projects

Maintenance Projects √√TMDL ProjectsWLA ProjectsCity projects not in a plan – if can demonstrate positive outcomesVetted city projects (in a watershed plan) √Monitoring/equipment √√

Education Programs √√OutreachResearch Projects √√√√Water Quality ProjectsFlood Management ProjectsCapital ProjectsRestoration/Enhancement ProjectsFeasibility Projects√√Quantity (√) and quality (√) projects

In a plan √√√

Let locals decide on projects

As long as projects meet requirements of CWF

Academic Research

MS4 requirements

Maintenance √Political issue

Projects not included in any plan

“Bad” projects are excluded from funding


Item 09n2

8 | P a g e

Priority VotingAfter the report back from the breakout sessions the group was asked to participate in ranked-choice voting to select their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices in both scale and allocation. The ranked-choice results are shown in Table 5.

The method of voting changed over the course of the focus groups. During the plus/delta exercise at the end of the cities and township meeting, the group discussed the simplicity and inherent bias in dot voting. The participants felt as though the voting did not build upon the demonstrated complexity of the choice as shown by the pro/cons exercise. Additionally, dot voters can be swayed from their opinion by seeing where the majority has voted.

The facilitation team agreed, however they still needed to quickly gather the group’s priorities. The focus group engagement was changed for the other stakeholder groups – thosestakeholders received individual ballots to share their prioritization. This did not address the simplifying of the process but did address the influence of majority opinion.

Table 5: Ranked-Choice Voting on Scale and Allocation by Focus Group

Cities WDs WMOs Counties SWCDs All Votes

Scale

Metro-wideMajor watershed 2 2 3 2 3 3County 3 2 1 1 2WD/WMO 1 1 1 3 1HUC 8/ignore metro 2Blend

Funding

Competitive 3Equal distribution 3Proportional/formulaic 2 2 1 1 2 1Project prioritization 1 1 2 2 3 2Blend 3 3 3 1 3

Forum RepresentativesAt the end of the breakout sessions, the stakeholder groups had the opportunity to select two representatives and an alternate to attend the stakeholder forums.

Representative 1 Representative 2 Alternate 1Cities Rebecca Haug Vanessa Strong Paul TeicherWDs Mark Doneaux Becky Christopher Diane LynchWMOs Mark Zabel Laura Jester Doug SnyderCounties Washington County* Brad Becker Molly ChurchichSWCDs Brian Watson Chris Lord Jay Riggs*Jessica Coll in-Pilarski or Stephanie Souter depending on availabil i ty


Item 09n2

9 | P a g e

Meeting Take-AwaysCities & TownshipsGenerally, there was a consensus that watershed organizations might be the better scale to make the WBF decision-making, and if not at that scale, it should be at a scale that already has a governance structure in place (unlike a major watershed). The allocation preference seemed to favor the Project Prioritization List, but the Proportional/Formulaic was a contender. The eligibility question had less of a clear agreement, but we had good suggestions to build on.

Watershed DistrictsGenerally, there was a consensus that watershed organizations might be the better scale to make the WBF decision-making, and if not at that scale, the major watershed would be the next best scale. The allocation preference favored Project Prioritization List with Proportional/Formulaic behind it. There was also support for a blend of both Proportional/formulaic and Project prioritization, depending on the scale of decision making and a competitive process. Participants were clear that entities with approved plans should be eligible for funding as long as they meet the PTM criteria. Cities would be eligible through their watershed organization plans. Participants believe funds should prioritized projects.

Watershed Management OrganizationsGenerally, there was a consensus that watershed organizations might be the better scale to make the WBF decision-making, and if not at that scale, the county or major watershed would be the best scale. The allocation preference favored Proportional/Formulaic with Project Prioritization List behind it. There was also support for a blend of both Proportional/formulaic and Project prioritization, depending on the scale of decision making. Participants were clear that watershed district/watershed management organizations should be eligible for funding, as well as other 103B entities with plans, like counties. There was not clear consensus on whether cities should be directly eligible, but it was noted that the “pass-through” funding to cities through WMOs likely works better for joint powers WMOs, as they naturally tend to have better/closer relationships with their member cities. Participants believe funds should cover more than just projects and that core watershed activities like monitoring, research, and feasibility studies should be eligible, but permit required activities like MS4 work and maintenance should probably not.

Counties & SWCDsGenerally, there was a consensus that the County geographical areas might be the better scale to make the WBF decision-making, and if not at that scale, major watersheds (both cutoff at the metro line and ignoring the boundary) would be the best scale. The allocation preference favored Proportional/Formulaic with Project Prioritization List behind it. There was also support for a blend of both Proportional/formulaic and Mixed Allocation/Local Control, depending on the scale of decision making. Participants were clear that all LGUs should be eligible for funding. There was a clear consensus that cities and townships should be eligible if they work with their watershed management authorities to include SWCDs, counties, WMOs or WDs. Participants believe funds should cover more than just projects and that core watershed activities like monitoring, research, and feasibility studies should be eligible, but projects must meet some established good/bad criteria and be on an approved plan.


Item 09n2

10 | P a g e

Attendee Contact ListName Organization Email AddressRandy Anhorn Nine Mile Creek WD [email protected] Barten Lower Mississippi River WMO [email protected] Bean Bolton & Menk [email protected] Becker Dakota County [email protected] Belfiori Rice Creek WD [email protected] Bleser Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek WD [email protected] Byron City of Apple Valley [email protected] Carstens Ramsey Washington Metro WD [email protected] Chandler Bassett Creek WMC & Black Dog WMO [email protected] Christopher* Minnehaha Creek WD [email protected] Churchich Ramsey County [email protected] Collin-Pilarski* Washington County [email protected] Dietrich Minnehaha Creek WD [email protected] Doneux Capital Region WD [email protected] Gallagher Eagan-Inver Grove Heights & [email protected]

North Cannon River WMOsKaren Galles Hennepin County [email protected] Gruidl Richfield-Bloomington WMO [email protected] Haas City of Andover & Lower Rum River WMO [email protected] Haug City of Blaine [email protected] Javens Minn. Assoc. of Watershed Districts [email protected] Jester* Bassett Creek WMO [email protected] Jocham Hakanson Anderson [email protected] Juntunen Elm Creek & Pioneer-Sarah Creek WMCs [email protected] Kuphal Scott SWCD [email protected] Loomis Lower Minnesota River WD [email protected] Lord Anoka SWCD [email protected] Lynch Prior Lake Spring Lake WD [email protected] McNamara Vadnais Lakes Area WMO [email protected] Moline Carver County WMO [email protected] Moore South Washington WD [email protected] Pearson City of Richfield [email protected] Ray City of Crystal [email protected] Rescorla WSB [email protected] Riggs Washington CD [email protected] Rogers WSB [email protected] Saunders-Pearce City of Saint Paul [email protected] Scharenbroich City of Plymouth [email protected] Snyder Mississippi WMO [email protected] Souter Washington County [email protected] Spector Single Creek & West Mississippi WMOs [email protected] Strong City of Chanhassen [email protected] Stout City of Minneapolis [email protected] Teicher City of St. Francis [email protected] Watson Dakota SWCD [email protected]


Item 09n2

11 | P a g e

Mike Wanous Carver SWCD [email protected] White Eagle Ramsey County [email protected] Wilson City of Edina [email protected] Zabel Vermillion River Watershed JPO [email protected]

*Becky, Laura, and Jessica did not attend the focus groups. Becky will be the representative for the Watershed Districts, Laura will represent the WMOs, and depending on scheduling, Jessica may be the Washington County contact moving forward in the process.


Item 09n2

12|P

ag

e

App

endi

x 1:

Foc

us G

roup

Res

pons

e S

umm

ary

Tabl

esTa

ble

A2.

1:C

ities

& T

owns

hips

Sum

mar

y of

Res

pons

es to

Que

stio

n1:

Sca

le

Scal

ePr

osC

ons

Met

ro-W

ide

�B

ig p

ictu

re v

iew

�D

evel

op M

etro

- wid

e m

essa

ge to

“uni

fy” w

ork

�B

ette

r ban

g fo

r our

buc

k –

Leve

rage

Opp

ortu

nitie

s�

Rea

l am

ount

of m

oney

√�

Enco

urag

es c

olla

bora

tion

�B

est p

roje

cts

rise

to th

e to

p�

Invo

lves

all

citie

s in

met

ro�

Mor

e ef

ficie

nt�

Addr

essi

ng b

igge

r iss

ues

�La

ck o

f loc

al k

now

ledg

e�

Ther

e ar

e un

ique

nee

ds o

f sm

alle

r are

as�

Div

erse

issu

es�

Har

d to

rank

prio

rity

�Le

ast h

isto

ry o

f col

labo

ratio

ns a

t thi

s sc

ale

�U

s vs

The

m m

enta

lity

with

Out

stat

e�

No

clea

r Bou

ndar

y A

rea

�D

oesn

’t in

clud

e O

utst

ate

or fi

t with

1W

1P*

�To

o br

oad

�S

mal

ler e

ntiti

es m

iss

out

�H

ard

to c

oale

sce

all e

ntiti

es

Maj

or W

ater

shed

�E

cono

my

of s

cale

–le

vera

ge m

oney

AN

D c

an g

et a

t sm

alle

r sys

tem

nee

ds�

Fits

with

1W

1P*

�E

asie

r to

prio

ritiz

e�

Ben

efits

rece

ivin

g w

ater

s�

Focu

ses

on p

rimar

y re

sour

ce�

Mos

t im

pact

ful p

roje

cts

�Si

mila

r iss

ues

�D

iffic

ult t

o ta

rget

issu

es –

too

larg

e of

a s

cale

�La

ck o

f gov

erna

nce

stru

ctur

e √

�P

roje

ct s

elec

tion

�E

asy

for s

mal

l citi

es to

not

get

invo

lved

�H

ard

to im

plem

ent a

t lar

ge s

cale

with

man

y pa

rtner

s�

Inte

rsec

ting/

over

lapp

ing

boun

darie

s�

Div

erse

land

use

�Le

ss m

oney

to d

o ne

cess

ary,

high

-cos

t pro

ject

s

Cou

nty

�Fo

cus

on s

peci

fic w

ater

reso

urce

nee

ds –

disc

rete

pro

ject

s�

Exi

stin

g pr

ogra

m a

nd s

truct

ure

�M

atch

es g

over

nmen

tal b

ound

arie

s�

Pot

entia

lly e

asie

r to

coor

dina

te�

Still

real

mon

ey a

t thi

s sc

ale

�M

ore

adap

tabl

e to

sta

keho

lder

s�

Sim

ilar g

oals

to c

ities

�Ba

lanc

e to

WD

/WM

Os

�O

ur c

ount

y w

orks

wel

l tog

ethe

r

�N

ot ti

ed to

wat

ersh

ed b

ound

arie

s√�

Influ

ence

d by

pol

itica

l will

�V

aria

nce

of g

over

nanc

e be

twee

n co

untie

s�

Har

d to

mea

sure

wat

er s

tand

ards

and

cha

nges

in a

cou

nty

�P

lann

ing

is a

t a w

ater

shed

-sca

le

Wat

ersh

ed D

istri

cts/

Wat

ersh

ed

Man

agem

ent O

rgan

izat

ions

�Kn

owle

dgea

ble

of is

sues

�A

ddre

ss w

ater

issu

es th

at c

ross

pol

itica

l jur

isdi

ctio

ns�

WD

s ha

ve s

taff

�Pl

ans

alre

ady

in p

lace

with

rank

ings

√�

Exi

stin

g or

gani

zatio

n st

ruct

ure

and

rela

tions

hips

√�

Ran

king

is e

asie

r�

Loca

l sca

le�

Sm

alle

r citi

es m

ore

com

petit

ive

�H

isto

ry�

Mat

ches

wat

ersh

ed b

ound

arie

s

�N

ot a

ll W

MO

s ha

ve a

ppro

ved

plan

s √

�Fu

ndin

g is

insu

ffici

ent √

�W

MO

s do

n’t h

ave

staf

f�

Mul

tiple

WD

/WM

Os

�D

oesn

’t fit

with

1W

1P*

�To

o m

uch

pow

er to

wat

ersh

eds

–N

ot e

noug

h ba

lanc

e�

Onl

y w

ayto

get

mon

ey is

thro

ugh

WD

/WM

O�

Som

e w

ater

shed

s ar

e di

fficu

lt to

wor

k w

ith�

Sm

all w

ater

shed

may

not

hav

e pr

ojec

ts�

Wat

ersh

eds

mig

ht n

ot p

ass

mon

ey o

n to

citi

es

BWS

R/S

tate

-wid

e�

Cur

rent

pro

cess

was

wor

king

�M

etro

vs

Out

stat

e�

Citi

es h

ave

troub

le g

ettin

g fu

ndin

g

*1W

1P –

One

Wat

ersh

ed O

ne P

lan;

√ -

dupl

icat

ed c

omm

ent

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

13|P

ag

e

Tabl

e A

2.2:

Wat

ersh

ed D

istri

ct S

umm

ary

of R

espo

nses

to Q

uest

ion

1: S

cale

Scal

ePr

osC

ons

Met

ro-W

ide

�R

ecog

nize

d by

Sta

te�

Add

ress

es u

niqu

e ur

ban

issu

es�

Pur

se g

ets

bigg

er�

App

ly to

wat

ersh

eds

�M

etro

wat

er is

sue

need

s ac

know

ledg

ed�

Uni

fied

cons

ensu

s ac

ross

all

met

ro if

all

parti

cipa

te�

Cou

ld c

reat

e a

met

ro g

rant

pro

gram

�D

oesn

’t su

ppor

t loc

al v

alue

s�

Polit

ical

ly b

ased

√√√

�D

oesn

’t fo

llow

gui

ding

prin

cipl

es o

f pro

gram

(PTM

)�

Fund

ing

of C

lean

Wat

er A

ct (v

oter

s)�

Too

man

y LG

Us/

parti

cipa

nts

�M

etro

has

a d

iver

se la

ndsc

ape

–ho

w to

prio

ritiz

e eq

uita

bly?

�N

ot w

ater

shed

-bas

ed √

�N

ot P

TM�

Nee

ds to

be

com

petit

ive

basi

s

Maj

or W

ater

shed

�A

ble

to lo

ok a

t the

mos

t ben

efic

ial p

roje

cts

that

are

reso

urce

bas

ed�

Follo

ws

guid

ing

prin

cipl

es (P

TM*)

√�

Clo

ser t

o W

RA

PS

* or T

MD

Ls*

�C

larit

y on

met

rics

from

BW

SR

�W

ork

on w

ater

shed

issu

es to

geth

er�

Wat

ersh

ed-b

ased

�Fo

llow

s hy

drol

ogic

bou

ndar

ies

�La

rge

area

with

div

erse

nee

ds�

Doe

sn’t

mee

t loc

al n

eeds

or p

riorit

ies

�Fo

rces

dev

elop

men

t of m

etric

s to

wei

ght o

ne o

ver t

he o

ther

(Rur

al v

s. U

rban

)�

Nee

d pr

oces

s fo

r prio

ritiz

atio

n�

Gro

up m

ay s

till b

e to

o la

rge

�To

o la

rge

of s

cale

to im

plem

ent

�Li

mite

d by

met

ro b

ound

arie

s�

Too

man

y LG

Us

Cou

nty

�G

ood

for w

ater

shed

dis

trict

s in

onl

y on

e co

unty

�Fo

rces

peo

ple

to w

ork

toge

ther

(citi

es/w

ater

shed

s/et

c.)

�B

ette

r for

gro

undw

ater

pla

nnin

g�

Man

y gr

oups

are

alre

ady

wor

king

toge

ther

√�

Loca

l foc

us w

ith w

ater

shed

s an

d ci

ties

�W

ater

shed

dis

trict

s ar

e in

mul

tiple

cou

ntie

s�

Doe

sn’t

follo

w g

uidi

ng p

rinci

ples

�Po

litic

ally

bas

ed�

Not

all

coun

ties

are

elig

ible

�C

reat

es a

wei

rd d

ynam

ic b

etw

een

wat

ersh

ed d

istri

cts

and

coun

ties

�D

oesn

’t fo

llow

wat

ersh

ed p

lans

�N

ot w

ater

shed

-bas

ed √

�Fu

ndin

g w

ould

not

be

a pr

edic

tabl

e am

ount

for p

lann

ing

larg

e pr

ojec

ts�

Not

PTM

�N

ot h

ydro

logi

cally

def

ined

�C

onta

in m

ultip

le w

ater

shed

s w

ith d

iver

se la

ndsc

apes

Wat

ersh

ed D

istri

cts/

Wat

ersh

ed

Man

agem

ent O

rgan

izat

ions

�A

lread

y ha

ve p

lans

and

gui

ding

prin

cipl

es in

pla

ce�

Aw

are

of lo

cal n

eeds

and

prio

ritie

s�

Allo

ws

the

Sur

face

Wat

er A

ct to

be

used

cor

rect

ly�

The

plan

s ha

ve g

one

thro

ugh

PTM

�M

eets

inte

nt o

f fun

ding

�C

hanc

e to

get

a la

rger

pie

ce o

f the

pie

�Lo

cally

focu

sed,

wat

ersh

ed-b

ased

�E

xist

ing

10-y

ear p

lans

�Pr

edic

tabl

e fu

ndin

g�

Exi

stin

g pa

rtner

ship

s an

d m

echa

nism

s to

impl

emen

t�

PTM

from

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

lans

�E

xist

ing

fram

ewor

k�

Allo

ws

loca

l con

trol a

nd p

riorit

ies

�D

oesn

’t re

cogn

ize

regi

onal

nee

ds a

nd p

riorit

ies

�Fu

nds

wou

ld b

e sp

lit b

etw

een

lots

of e

ntiti

es =

sm

all f

undi

ng�

Lose

s fo

cus

on m

ajor

rive

rs�

Too

com

petit

ive

base

d�

LGU

s in

dis

agre

emen

t�

Not

PTM

acr

oss

basi

ns�

No

river

bas

in p

lann

ing

�D

oesn

’t pr

iorit

ize

bene

fit o

f pro

ject

s�

Lack

of w

illin

gnes

s to

fund

pro

ject

s ou

tsid

e of

wat

ersh

eds

*PTM

–P

riorit

ized

, Tar

gete

d, M

easu

red;

WR

APS

–W

ater

shed

Res

tora

tion

and

Pro

tect

ion

Stra

tegy

; TM

DL

–To

tal M

axim

um D

aily

Loa

d;√

-dup

licat

ed c

omm

ent

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

14|P

ag

e

Tabl

e A

2.3:

Wat

ersh

ed M

anag

emen

t Org

aniz

atio

nS

umm

ary

of R

espo

nses

to Q

uest

ion

1: S

cale

Scal

ePr

osC

ons

Met

ro-W

ide

�C

olla

bora

tion

with

oth

er o

rgan

izat

ions

�M

ore

cons

iste

ncy

met

ro w

ide-

sam

e ru

les

thro

ugho

ut√

�La

rge

pool

of p

roje

cts,

com

preh

ensi

ve li

st fo

r the

met

ro a

rea

√ �

Com

mon

ality

of m

essa

ging

�M

atch

es b

ound

ary

of s

tate

law

s/m

etro

pla

nnin

g ac

t�

Opp

ortu

nity

to fo

cus

on s

omet

hing

met

ro-w

ide:

big

pro

ject

s�

Mor

e fu

ndin

g fo

r ind

ivid

ual p

roje

cts

�Le

ss ti

me

on th

e pr

oces

s�

Ope

n to

all

LGU

s�

Met

ro a

rea

have

sim

ilar i

ssue

s

�A

ll pl

ayer

s no

t on

equa

l pla

ying

fiel

d�

Pot

entia

l to

beco

me

com

petit

ive

gran

ts √

�

Take

mor

e tim

e�

Sm

alle

r ind

ivid

ual p

roje

ct fu

ndin

g�

Big

ger a

reas

are

pos

ition

ed b

ette

r�

Lack

of k

now

ledg

e�

Var

ianc

e in

prio

ritie

s of

org

aniz

atio

ns�

Diff

eren

t par

ts o

f the

met

ro a

re a

t diff

eren

t sta

ges

of d

evel

opm

ent

�D

iffic

ult t

o co

ordi

nate

/reac

h co

nsen

sus

�To

o bi

g�

Urb

an v

s. ru

ral h

ave

diffe

rent

pro

ject

cos

ts�

Ther

e w

ill al

way

s be

a lo

ser

Maj

or W

ater

shed

�C

an fu

nd th

e m

ost e

ffect

ive

BM

Ps,

rega

rdle

ss o

f loc

atio

n�

Focu

s on

wat

ersh

ed g

oals

�La

rge

scal

e re

sour

ces

(incl

udin

g re

ceiv

ing

wat

ers)

wou

ld b

e th

e fo

cus

�B

est o

utco

mes

for t

he w

ater

shed

nee

ds�

Abs

orb

mor

e th

an in

divi

dual

org

aniz

atio

ns�

The

LG ro

und

tabl

e se

t the

81

maj

or w

ater

shed

as th

e m

ax s

cale

(#or

gs a

nd a

rea)

�P

CA

is u

sed

to w

orki

ng a

t thi

s sc

ale

alre

ady

�A

ddre

sses

true

inte

nt o

f the

pro

gram

�M

atch

es g

reat

er M

N�

Mis

siss

ippi

con

nect

ion

coul

d ha

ve la

rge

(geo

grap

hic)

ben

efit

�A

bilit

y to

hav

e co

nver

satio

ns a

t lar

ger s

cale

whi

le s

till m

eetin

g lo

cal i

ssue

s.

�To

o la

rge:

won

’t re

ach

all a

reas

�P

roje

cts

furth

er a

way

from

maj

or re

sour

cew

ill b

e lo

wer

pro

gram

prio

ritie

s�

Doe

sn’t

mat

ch o

ther

sca

les

for p

lann

ing

(lack

of l

and

use/

reso

urce

s)�

Doe

sn’t

mat

ch w

/wat

er s

uppl

y�

Coo

rdin

atio

n at

this

siz

e is

har

d an

d w

e’re

not

use

d to

wor

king

at t

his

scal

e�

Doe

sn’t

addr

ess

indi

vidu

al im

paire

d w

ater

s�

Som

e m

ajor

s ar

e ar

bitra

ry�

Riv

er fo

cus

vs. l

akes

and

wet

land

s�

Cre

ate

a ne

w le

vel o

f gov

ernm

ent

�O

utst

ate

issu

es: o

rgan

izat

ions

on

the

fring

e w

ill n

eed

to w

ork

with

the

met

ro a

nd n

on-m

etro

pr

oces

s

Cou

nty

�K

now

n bo

unda

ries

by a

ll�

Man

agea

ble

size

for d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

√�

Eas

ier t

o co

llabo

rate

bet

wee

n a

smal

ler g

roup

√�

Rec

ogni

zed

diffe

renc

es a

cros

s th

e m

etro

(E-W

, N-S

)�

Feas

ible

pla

nnin

g le

vel

�Fo

llow

s st

ate

fund

ing

mod

el fo

r oth

er fi

elds

(lik

e tra

nspo

rtatio

n)�

Mat

ch S

WC

D�

GW

pla

nnin

g is

at c

ount

y sc

ale

�In

clud

es m

any

play

ers

�D

oesn

’t m

atch

the

scal

e of

issu

es�

Take

s m

ore

time

to c

olla

bora

te/p

riorit

ize

�D

oesn

’t m

atch

wat

ersh

ed m

anag

emen

t-ar

tific

ial r

esou

rce

boun

darie

s √

�D

oesn

’t m

atch

with

TM

DL

prog

ram

s�

Cre

ates

add

ition

al p

lann

ing

proc

ess

whe

n w

ater

shed

s cr

oss

coun

ty b

ound

arie

s�

Cho

ps fu

ndin

g in

to o

dd p

iece

s (o

ne w

ater

shed

gra

nts

from

2 c

ount

ies)

�Br

ings

pol

itics

into

dec

isio

ns

Wat

ersh

ed D

istri

cts/

Wat

ersh

ed

Man

agem

ent O

rgan

izat

ion s

�B

ette

r mat

ch fo

r exi

stin

g re

gula

tory

/pla

nnin

g st

ruct

ure

√�

Sta

te a

lread

y re

quire

s de

cisi

on-m

akin

g at

this

leve

l (84

10)

�R

elat

ions

hips

alre

ady

exis

t √�

Not

com

petin

g ag

ains

t oth

er W

MO

s�

Eve

ryon

e ge

ts g

uara

ntee

d fu

ndin

g�

Dire

ct c

orre

ctio

n to

exi

stin

g pl

ans-

no n

ew p

lans

�W

ill ta

ke a

sho

rt tim

e to

dis

tribu

te fu

nds

�K

now

wha

t you

are

get

ting

�D

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

at s

cale

with

mos

t kno

wle

dge

of w

ater

issu

es�

Equ

itabl

e ac

ross

met

ro (b

ig/s

mal

l bud

get b

oth

have

aut

onom

y)�

Long

evity

has

led

to c

omfo

rt fro

m p

oliti

cian

s�

Alre

ady

have

spe

cific

prio

ritie

s

�D

oesn

’t m

atch

gre

ater

Min

neso

ta�

Get

s aw

ay fr

om th

e tru

e in

tent

�P

ots

of m

oney

wou

ld b

e to

o sm

all a

nd g

iven

out

too

ofte

n to

be

effe

ctiv

e�

Pen

aliz

e un

derfu

nded

/und

er-o

rgan

ized

WM

Os

�La

ck o

f sta

ff to

coo

rdin

ate

som

e W

MO

s�

Sm

all w

ater

shed

s w

ould

pro

babl

y ge

t les

s m

oney

�S

ome

WM

Os

don’

t hav

e ca

paci

ty�

Too

man

y�

Doe

sn’t

enco

urag

e co

llabo

ratio

n�

Lose

larg

e sc

ale

proj

ects

A b

lend

of t

hese

�G

ood

colla

bora

tion

�E

quita

ble

dist

ribut

ion

Eve

n sm

alle

r sca

le�

Ver

y sp

ecifi

c pr

iorit

ies

�Lo

se c

olla

bora

tion

√ -

dupl

icat

ed c

omm

ent

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

15|P

ag

e

Tabl

e A

2.4:

Cou

ntie

s’ S

umm

ary

of R

espo

nses

to Q

uest

ion

1: S

cale

Scal

ePr

osC

ons

Met

ro-W

ide

�C

ould

focu

s on

are

as o

f gre

ater

nee

d�

Ack

now

ledg

ing

Sur

face

Wat

er P

lann

ing

Act

and

exi

stin

g pl

ans

�“B

eyon

d C

ompl

icat

ed” –

com

plic

ated

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g st

ruct

ure.

Who

/how

wou

ld m

ake

deci

sion

s?�

Too

larg

e la

nd a

rea

with

too

man

y or

gani

zatio

ns�

Doe

sn’t

follo

w w

ater

shed

bou

ndar

ies

�P

oten

tially

mor

e fu

ndin

g to

one

con

cent

rate

d ar

ea

Maj

or W

ater

shed

�C

onsi

sten

t with

1W

1P in

the

rest

of s

tate

(fol

low

s re

sour

ce b

ound

ary)

�P

oten

tially

see

mor

e re

sults

due

to w

ater

shed

focu

s�

How

to a

ccom

mod

ate

coun

ties

with

mul

tiple

maj

or w

ater

shed

s�

May

be to

o la

rge

for t

he m

etro

are

a�

Num

ber o

f par

tner

s is

com

plic

atin

g�

Som

e pa

rtner

s m

ay b

e ou

tsid

e of

the

met

ro

Cou

nty

�S

impl

ifies

the

num

ber o

f par

tner

s –

man

agea

ble

scal

e fo

r mak

ing

deci

sion

s�

Col

labo

ratio

n is

pos

sibl

e at

this

sca

le�

Exi

stin

g pr

eced

ent f

or w

orki

ng to

geth

er (e

.g. W

ashi

ngto

n W

ater

Con

sorti

um)

�P

rovi

des

foun

ds fo

r mov

ing

forw

ard

�B

road

er s

cale

pro

gram

s (e

.g. G

roun

dwat

er P

lan)

can

be

fund

ed

�C

ompl

icat

es fo

r wat

ersh

ed o

rgan

izat

ions

that

cro

ss m

ultip

le c

ount

y bo

unda

ries

�D

oesn

’t fo

llow

wat

ersh

ed b

ound

arie

s�

Is p

oliti

cally

def

ined

�P

erce

ptio

n of

“mul

tiple

-dip

ping

” by

wat

ersh

ed o

rgan

izat

ions

Wat

ersh

ed D

istri

cts/

Wat

ersh

ed

Man

agem

ent O

rgan

izat

ions

�M

ay h

ave

clea

rer p

ictu

re o

f nee

ds th

roug

h ex

istin

g re

latio

nshi

ps�

This

is le

vel a

t whi

ch p

lann

ing

is in

tend

ed to

occ

ur b

y st

atut

e�

Ack

now

ledg

es g

ood

plan

ning

�C

olla

bora

tion

is m

anag

eabl

e�

Alre

ady

have

PTM

�W

hat i

ncen

tive

to c

olla

bora

te a

t maj

or w

ater

shed

sca

le?

�M

ay lo

se o

ppor

tuni

ty to

prio

ritiz

e th

e m

ost c

ost-e

ffect

ive

proj

ects

�H

ard

to c

aptu

re la

rger

-sca

le p

roje

cts

�C

ount

y-sc

ale

plan

s ge

t los

t

1W1P

–O

ne W

ater

shed

One

Pla

n; P

TM

–P

rior

itize

d, T

arge

ted,

Mea

sura

ble

Tabl

e A

2.5:

SWC

Ds

Sum

mar

y of

Res

pons

es to

Que

stio

n1:

Sca

le

Scal

ePr

osC

ons

Met

ro-W

ide

�La

rger

impa

ct�

Pow

erfu

l uni

fied

mes

sage

�C

onsi

sten

cy�

Focu

s on

Pro

ject

s vs

. Ent

ities

�P

oten

tial t

o fu

nd g

ood

proj

ects

�A

lread

y an

ent

ity a

t tha

t sca

le: J

P B

oard

�Si

mpl

e fo

r BW

SR�

Gro

undw

ater

-sca

le o

r Hab

itat-S

cale

�To

o m

any

play

ers

√√√

�M

etro

vs.

Gre

ater

MN

Per

cept

ion

�N

o M

etro

-wid

e w

ater

shed

pla

n�

Ric

h w

ater

shed

s ha

ve a

dvan

tage

�V

ery

diffe

rent

cul

ture

s in

diff

eren

t par

ts o

f the

met

roo

Pro

gram

mat

ic N

eeds

oLa

ndsc

ape

oPo

litic

s

Maj

or W

ater

shed

�S

ynch

roni

ze w

ith 1

W1P

√�

Sam

e as

rest

of t

he s

tate

�G

ood

for g

roun

dwat

er &

hab

itat i

ssue

s�

Sci

ence

-bas

ed b

ound

arie

s�

Faci

litat

e up

stre

am-d

owns

tream

trad

ing

�S

plits

wat

ersh

eds

into

met

ro/n

on-m

etro

�To

o m

any

play

ers

�Fa

ils o

n G

roun

dwat

er p

ersp

ectiv

e�

It’s

craz

y –

too

man

y pl

ayer

s w

ith d

iffer

ent i

deas

�To

o la

rge

if in

clud

e ci

ties

and

tow

nshi

ps�

Ano

ther

leve

l of g

over

nanc

e�

No

regu

lar w

ater

shed

pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s un

derw

ay�

Spl

its c

ount

y &

SW

CD

s�

Con

fusi

on

Cou

nty

�C

olla

bora

tion

is n

atur

al/P

artn

ers

wor

k to

geth

er�

Syn

cs w

ith p

ublic

wor

ks�

Sig

nific

ant i

mpl

emen

tatio

n at

mun

icip

al le

vel

�K

eeps

Cou

ntie

s en

gage

s�

Pra

ctic

e to

bui

ld o

n�

Syn

chro

nize

s w

ith lo

cal l

and

plan

ning

aut

horit

y�

Gre

ater

leve

rage

pot

entia

l for

loca

l mat

ch�

Mor

e ef

fect

ive

for l

ocal

buy

-in

�P

lans

not

cur

rent

ly, d

irect

ly e

ligib

le (e

xcep

t gro

undw

ater

)�

Not

all

SWC

Ds

have

sep

arat

e bo

ards

�N

ot o

rgan

ized

aro

und

Sur

face

Wat

er M

anag

emen

t Are

as�

WM

Os

mus

t be

invo

lved

�C

ount

y ha

s no

real

role

in s

urfa

ce w

ater

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

16|P

ag

e

Wat

ersh

ed D

istri

cts/

Wat

ersh

ed

Man

agem

ent O

rgan

izat

ions

�P

lans

are

read

y to

go

√√�

Easy

to h

andl

e m

oney

�N

o ne

w s

yste

ms

–le

vel p

roce

sses

�W

ater

shed

Dis

trict

s ha

ve ta

xing

aut

horit

y

�N

ot a

ll ar

e ex

act w

ater

shed

bou

ndar

ies

�Th

ere

are

a lo

t of t

hem

–no

t eno

ugh

mon

ey�

Inef

ficie

nt a

t sta

te le

vel (

gran

t man

agem

ent)

�E

xtre

me

focu

s on

sur

face

wat

er�

Bec

omes

ent

ity-c

entri

c, n

ot re

sour

ce-c

entri

c�

Doe

sn’t

prom

ote

colla

bora

tion

�M

uch

wor

k is

con

sulta

nt d

riven

�D

ispa

rity

in w

ater

shed

org

aniz

atio

n ca

paci

ty

Maj

or W

ater

shed

s th

at G

o B

eyon

d M

etro

Bou

ndar

y

�A

ddre

sses

big

rive

r sys

tem

s�

Syn

chro

nize

with

1W

1P √

�S

ame

as re

st o

f sta

te�

Pro

mot

es c

olla

bora

tion

acro

ss m

etro

and

gre

ater

MN

�Tr

uly

wat

ersh

ed b

ased

�C

onfu

sion

�S

low

er to

roll

out f

or m

etro

√ -

dupl

icat

ed c

omm

ent;

1W

1P –

One

Wat

ersh

ed O

ne P

lan

Tabl

e A

2.6:

Citi

es &

Tow

nshi

ps’ S

umm

ary

of R

espo

nses

to Q

uest

ion

2:A

lloca

tion

Allo

catio

nPr

osC

ons

Com

petit

ive

�R

efre

shed

-pr

ojec

ts�

Mor

e m

oney

to im

pact

ful p

roje

cts

�B

est p

roje

cts

get m

oney

√√

�Fu

nd w

ell-p

lann

ed p

roje

cts

read

y to

impl

emen

t�

Eve

ryon

e ca

n ap

ply

�M

oney

goe

s to

are

a of

mos

t nee

d

�M

ost m

oney

to b

est g

rant

writ

ers

�M

oney

may

not

be

spre

ad a

roun

d�

Hav

e to

reap

ply

�Ti

ght t

ime

sche

dule

oA

ligni

ng s

ched

ules

oFi

nanc

ial p

acka

ges

�S

mal

ler p

roje

cts

get p

ushe

d ou

t √�

How

is ra

nkin

g de

fined

?�

Unp

redi

ctab

le�

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

�E

ntiti

es th

at h

ave

time

get m

oney

–te

nd to

be

the

sam

e pl

ayer

s�

Sm

all a

genc

ies/

LGU

s ca

n’t c

ompe

te�

Mor

e ap

plic

atio

ns�

Ret

rofit

s ar

e le

ss c

ompe

titiv

e�

LGU

s ou

t ahe

ad h

ave

troub

le c

ompe

ting

(dim

inis

hing

retu

rns)

Equ

al D

istri

butio

n

�Le

ss p

oliti

cal

�Fi

ts to

exi

stin

g pe

rson

nel

�Ea

sy�

Org

aniz

atio

ns w

ithou

t goo

d gr

ant w

riter

s ge

t mon

ey�

Mon

ey is

spr

ead-

out /

Eve

ryon

e ge

ts s

omet

hing

√�

Mor

e pr

ojec

ts a

ccom

plis

hed

�Tr

ansp

aren

t�

Ass

ume

that

ent

ities

hav

e pr

ojec

ts id

entif

ied

�M

ost f

air

�U

nant

icip

ated

pro

ject

s ca

n be

fund

ed�

Sm

all o

rgan

izat

ions

are

incl

uded

�Im

paire

d w

ater

s m

ight

not

get

add

ress

ed�

Doe

s no

t tar

get w

ater

qua

lity

issu

es √

�B

igge

r pro

ject

s do

n’t g

et c

ompl

eted

due

to la

ck o

f mon

ey�

Diff

eren

t nee

ds a

cros

s th

e st

ate

�N

ot a

lway

s us

ing

dolla

rs to

war

ds th

e be

st u

se�

Less

acc

ess

to b

ig m

oney

�Fu

nds

may

go

unsp

ent i

f no

proj

ects

�Ig

nore

s ge

ogra

phy

�Ig

nore

s ne

ed

Pro

porti

onal

/For

mul

aic

�Le

ss p

oliti

cal

�Tr

ansp

aren

t�

Eve

ryon

e ge

ts th

eir f

air s

hare

�M

ore

equi

tabl

e –

norm

aliz

atio

n of

the

inve

stm

ent

�P

roce

ss w

eigh

s m

any

fact

ors

(nee

d/lo

catio

n/eq

uity

/edu

catio

n) a

nd h

as m

ost i

mpa

ct

(pol

luta

nt re

cove

ry b

ount

y)�

Edu

catio

n/ou

treac

h/m

aint

enan

ce g

et fu

nded

�C

lear

met

hodo

logy

�Im

pact

ful p

roje

cts

get f

unde

d

�Im

paire

d w

ater

s m

ight

not

get

add

ress

ed�

Wha

t is

the

form

ula

and

who

def

ines

it?

√�

Doe

s no

t tar

get w

ater

qua

lity

issu

es�

Are

as th

at n

eed

mor

e m

oney

may

not

get

it

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

17|P

ag

e

�S

mal

l pro

ject

get

mon

ey�

Gre

ater

nee

d/la

rger

are

a ge

t fun

ded

Pro

ject

Prio

ritiz

atio

n

�Ta

rget

mos

t crit

ical

issu

es a

nd w

ater

shed

nee

ds�

Get

to s

tay

on li

st (n

o ne

ed to

reap

ply)

�K

now

whe

re y

ou s

tand

�P

redi

ctab

le p

roce

ss�

Mos

t “id

eal”

–as

sum

ing

true

colla

bora

tion

(WD

pos

ition

ed to

sup

port

colla

bora

tion)

�C

olla

bora

tion

iden

tifie

s pr

ojec

ts�

Bes

t pro

ject

s ar

e id

entif

ied

�A

llow

s fo

r eas

ier p

lann

ing

and

expe

ctat

ions

�S

ubje

ctiv

e –

who

is m

akin

g th

e de

cisi

ons?

�R

eact

iona

ry –

Thin

gs c

ome

up a

nd fi

nanc

ial s

truct

ure

is th

en b

uilt

�S

ome

proj

ects

nev

er g

et to

the

top

�Ta

kes

lots

of p

lann

ing

�S

truct

ure

to d

istri

bute

mon

ey�

Com

mun

ities

that

are

not

par

t of a

pla

n do

n’t g

et m

oney

�C

halle

nges

aro

und

“list

” con

sens

us�

Long

er le

ad ti

me

�P

riorit

ize

base

on

valu

e ju

dgem

ents

(sub

ject

ive)

√ -

dupl

icat

ed c

omm

ent

Tabl

e A

2.7:

Wat

ersh

ed D

istri

cts’

Sum

mar

y of

Res

pons

es to

Que

stio

n2:

Allo

catio

n

Allo

catio

nPr

osC

ons

Com

petit

ive

�A

war

ds to

the

best

pro

ject

s √√

√�

Larg

e sc

ale

= lo

ts o

f opt

ions

�W

hat h

appe

ns if

ther

e’s

a go

od p

roje

ct b

ut d

oesn

’t m

atch

the

met

ric o

f jud

ging

�W

inne

rs a

re th

e LG

Us

with

the

best

gra

nt w

riter

s, n

ot n

eces

saril

y th

e be

st p

roje

cts

Equ

al D

istri

butio

n�

Eve

ryon

e ge

ts s

ome

mon

ey�

Easy

cal

cula

tion

�If

fund

ing

was

relia

ble

per y

ear,

coul

d ro

tate

ann

ually

bet

wee

n LG

Us

�E

very

body

doe

sn’t

get e

noug

h�

Doe

sn’t

mee

t the

inte

nt o

f PTM

–at

the

Cou

nty

or M

etro

-wid

e sc

ale

�B

etw

een

who

?�

Sm

all f

undi

ng to

citi

es –

may

be to

o sm

all a

mou

nt to

mat

ter

Pro

porti

onal

/For

mul

aic

�W

ho d

esig

ns th

e fo

rmul

a? T

his

coul

d be

a p

ro…

�M

ost f

air √

�A

llow

s fu

nds

to b

e al

loca

ted

to d

iffer

ent p

ots

�A

llow

s fo

r bet

ter p

lann

ing

of re

sour

ces

–A

S L

ON

G A

S B

AN

KIN

G IS

ALL

OW

ED

�W

ho d

esig

ns th

e fo

rmul

a? T

his

coul

d be

a c

on…

�M

ight

not

be

enou

gh fu

ndin

g�

Lots

of f

acto

rs th

at g

o in

to th

e fo

rmul

a –

The

larg

er th

e sc

ale,

the

mor

e co

mpl

ex

Pro

ject

Prio

ritiz

atio

n

�Bu

y-in

–It’

s a

dem

ocra

tic p

roce

ss�

Mor

e in

nova

tion

with

spe

ndin

g�

Aw

ards

to b

enef

icia

l pro

ject

s�

Tim

e to

do

the

proj

ect

�S

trong

er fo

unda

tion

with

mea

sura

ble

resu

lts�

Allo

ws

for P

TM�

Alre

ady

occu

rs in

wat

ersh

ed d

istri

ct p

lans

�A

llow

s fo

r loc

al v

aria

tion

�W

hat p

roje

ct is

mos

t ben

efic

ial –

to w

hat?

To

who

m?

�S

cale

dep

ende

nt –

conv

ersa

tions

abo

ut p

riorit

izat

ion/

fund

ing

�A

dds

anot

her l

evel

of p

lann

ing

�C

olla

bora

tion

is v

aria

ble

*PTM

–P

riorit

ized

, Tar

gete

d, M

easu

red;

√ -

dupl

icat

ed c

omm

ent

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

18|P

ag

e

Tabl

e A

2.8:

Wat

ersh

ed M

anag

emen

t Org

aniz

atio

ns’ S

umm

ary

of R

espo

nses

to Q

uest

ion

2: A

lloca

tion

Allo

catio

nPr

osC

ons

Com

petit

ive

�B

est p

roje

cts

(in c

once

pt) √

�Eq

ual o

ppor

tuni

ty�

Sav

es ti

mes

bec

ause

pro

cess

es a

lread

y ex

ists

�R

epor

ting

to L

egis

latu

re is

eas

ier (

lead

ing

to m

ore

$$)

�A

llow

s la

rger

pro

ject

s�

Ince

ntiv

izes

pla

nnin

g�

Stim

ulat

es c

olla

bora

tions

�M

ore

thro

ugh

pre-

proj

ect p

roce

ss (a

lread

y ne

eds

feas

ibilit

y st

udy)

�M

ore

succ

essf

ul p

roje

cts

�M

ore

crea

tivity

�M

ust b

e sk

illed

at g

rant

writ

ing

�M

etric

s di

ctat

ing

allo

catio

n m

ay n

ot b

e ap

prop

riate

for a

ll�

Not

pre

dict

able

-can

’t co

unt o

n fu

ndin

g du

ring

plan

ning

�B

igge

r pla

yers

tend

to w

in�

Not

mat

chin

g pr

iorit

ized

nee

d�

Not

wat

ersh

ed fo

cuse

d�

Tend

to fu

nd c

omfo

rtabl

e-no

t inn

ovat

ive

�Ta

kes

effo

rt to

con

tinua

lly c

ompe

te�

Lots

of e

ffort

that

may

be

for n

othi

ng�

Org

aniz

atio

ns m

ay n

ever

get

fund

ed if

they

nee

d pr

ojec

ts th

at a

re n

ot c

ompe

titiv

e�

Pro

ject

s th

at a

re m

ost l

ikel

y to

be

built

may

not

be

fund

ed if

they

are

less

cos

t effe

ctiv

e�

Inhe

rent

ly b

iase

d�

Mur

ky p

roce

ss�

Bia

ses

tow

ards

cer

tain

pro

ject

s (T

P/T

SS

, not

hab

itat)

�O

rgan

izat

ions

hav

e di

ffere

nt p

riorit

ies

�A

lway

s ha

ve $

$ ce

iling

s

Equ

al D

istri

butio

n

�S

impl

e-kn

ow w

hat y

ou g

et √

�E

very

one

gets

som

e an

d th

esa

me

$ am

ount

�P

redi

ctab

le�

Sm

alle

r and

less

org

aniz

ed o

rgan

izat

ions

are

ince

ntiv

ized

to p

lan

�A

llow

s ad

vanc

ed p

lann

ing

�Is

n’t e

quita

ble-

does

n’t r

efle

ct d

iffer

ence

s su

ch a

s si

ze o

r res

ourc

e √

�Sm

all $

am

ount

lim

its w

hat c

an b

e do

ne a

nd m

ay n

ot g

et e

noug

h to

do

larg

e pr

ojec

ts √

�A

ssum

es e

xist

ing

boun

darie

s ar

e th

e rig

ht b

ound

arie

s�

Doe

sn’t

take

exi

stin

g pr

iorit

y pr

ojec

ts in

to a

ccou

nt √

Pro

porti

onal

/For

mul

aic

�Fe

els

fair

√�

Pre

dict

able

�O

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r gre

ater

equ

ity�

Easy

�D

irect

s fu

ndin

g w

here

nee

ded

�C

an b

e ba

sed

onre

sour

ce, l

and

area

, pro

perty

bou

ndar

y, e

tc.

�D

epen

ds o

n a

form

ula

�To

o sm

all a

mou

nt to

o fre

quen

tly�

Doe

sn’t

acco

unt f

or lo

cal p

riorit

ies

√�

Too

smal

l-doe

sn’t

allo

w fo

r lar

ger p

roje

cts

√�

Rur

al v

s. u

rban

-will

allo

catio

n be

focu

sed

on u

rban

whe

n ru

ral h

as d

iffer

ent i

ssue

s?�

Doe

sn’t

prom

ote

colla

bora

tion

�M

ore

equi

tabl

e bu

t sm

alle

r org

aniz

atio

ns w

ill s

till p

roba

bly

get l

ess

�H

ow is

equ

ity d

efin

ed?

Pro

ject

Prio

ritiz

atio

n

�En

cour

ages

col

labo

ratio

n�

Alig

ns p

riorit

ies

and

allo

ws

high

est p

riorit

y pr

ojec

ts to

be

addr

ess

�A

llow

s or

gani

zatio

ns to

thin

k bi

gger

�O

rgan

izat

ions

can

com

bine

fund

s�

Can

be

reso

urce

bas

ed�

Forc

es p

lann

ing

�Le

ss p

aroc

hial

�O

rgan

izat

ions

can

get

app

ropr

iate

fund

ing

whe

n th

ey n

eed

it�

Mee

ts th

e in

tent

of W

ater

shed

Bas

ed fu

ndin

g po

licy

�Pu

shes

dec

isio

ns to

loca

ls�

Can

dev

elop

met

rics

for w

ork

in a

loca

l are

a

�S

cale

mat

ters

-col

labo

ratio

n is

diff

icul

t if s

cale

is to

o bi

g √

�D

iffic

ult t

o co

ordi

nate

div

erse

sta

keho

lder

s�

Can

be

excl

usiv

e de

pend

ing

on c

riter

ia�

Can

stil

l int

rodu

ce b

ias

�C

ould

bec

ome

com

petit

ive

and

then

wou

ld h

ave

thos

e sa

me

conc

erns

�R

ewar

ds th

e sq

ueak

y w

heel

�Ti

me-

cons

umin

g to

dev

elop

prio

ritiz

ed p

lan

�D

on’t

alw

ays

know

if $

will

stil

l exi

st�

Diff

erin

g de

finiti

on o

f prio

rity

�H

ow d

o yo

u se

t com

para

ble

met

rics

A B

lend

�P

ropo

rtion

al to

a c

erta

in s

cale

, the

n co

llabo

rativ

e at

a s

mal

ler s

cale

�Fu

ndin

g m

ay s

till n

ot g

et to

the

best

pro

ject

s

√ -

dupl

icat

ed c

omm

ent

Tabl

e A

2.9:

Cou

ntie

s’ S

umm

ary

of R

espo

nses

to Q

uest

ion

2: A

lloca

tion

Allo

catio

nPr

osC

ons

Com

petit

ive

�In

theo

ry, a

ll or

gani

zatio

ns s

tart

with

the

sam

eop

portu

nitie

s�

Allo

ws

high

er-s

cale

ana

lysi

s of

cos

t ben

efits

, etc

.�

Rew

ards

goo

d gr

ant w

riter

s/hi

gh c

apac

ity o

rgan

izat

ions

�O

ther

des

ervi

ng p

roje

cts

may

be

out-r

anke

d

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

19|P

ag

e

�C

onsi

sten

t, ob

ject

ive

crite

ria�

Sm

all o

rgan

izat

ions

may

be

at d

isad

vant

age

�La

rger

org

aniz

atio

ns h

ave

grea

ter c

apac

ity fo

r fea

sibi

lity

stud

ies,

etc

.�

Dis

tribu

tion

of m

oney

at d

iffer

ent s

cale

than

mon

ey is

col

lect

ed�

Out

stat

e fu

ndin

g is

not

com

petit

ive

(1W

1P)

Equ

al D

istri

butio

n�

Easy

, sim

ple

�A

ll w

ould

rece

ive

a sh

are

�H

elp

build

con

fiden

ce a

nd c

apac

ity

�N

ot a

ll or

gani

zatio

ns a

re e

qual

(e.g

. lan

d m

ass,

wat

er b

odie

s)�

Eac

h m

ay n

ot g

et s

uffic

ient

mon

ey to

get

any

thin

g do

ne

Pro

porti

onal

/For

mul

aic

�E

asy

once

you

hav

e th

e fo

rmul

a�

Obj

ectiv

e�

Com

prom

ise

betw

een

equa

l dis

tribu

tion

and

proj

ect p

riorit

izat

ion

�D

evel

opin

g th

e fo

rmul

a�

May

stil

l hav

e w

inne

rs a

nd lo

sers

�M

ay d

isco

urag

e la

rger

-sca

le p

roje

cts

& c

olla

bora

tion

Pro

ject

Prio

ritiz

atio

n

Sca

le m

atte

rs!

�Fu

nds

the

high

est i

mpa

ct p

roje

cts

�“D

evil’

s in

the

deta

ils”

�It’

s ha

rder

at l

arge

r sca

les

�V

alue

judg

emen

ts p

ut o

n di

spar

ate

reso

urce

s (w

hich

is m

ore

dese

rvin

g –

Bro

wns

Cre

ek v

s. S

quar

e La

ke?)

�V

alue

judg

emen

ts p

ut o

n di

spar

ate

proj

ects

(whi

ch is

mor

e de

serv

ing

–TP

vs.

TN

pro

ject

s?)

�To

o m

any

varia

bles

�M

ay re

sult

in tu

rf w

ars

1W1P

–O

ne W

ater

shed

One

Pla

n; T

P –

Tot

al P

hosp

horu

s; T

N –

Tot

al N

itrog

en

Tabl

e A

2.10

:SW

CD

s’ S

umm

ary

of R

espo

nses

to Q

uest

ion

2: A

lloca

tion

Allo

catio

nPr

osC

ons

Com

petit

ive

�Fo

cus

on b

est p

roje

cts

(bet

ter v

ette

d, m

ore

supp

ort)

√√√√

�G

et to

spe

nd lo

ts o

f tim

e w

ritin

g gr

ants

�Fl

exib

le fo

r ong

oing

fund

ing

�E

xpen

sive

, tim

e co

nsum

ing

�M

iss

loca

l prio

ritie

s�

Can

pla

n on

fund

ing

�D

efea

ts p

urpo

se o

f sta

ble

fund

ing

�To

o m

uch

wor

k�

Favo

rs n

ew fl

avor

s, fa

d pr

ojec

ts�

Bui

ldin

g an

d di

sman

tling

pro

gram

s �

Favo

rs p

roje

cts

not p

rogr

ams

�O

nly

fund

s pa

rt of

wha

t’s n

eede

d fo

r wat

ersh

ed m

anag

emen

t

Equa

l Dis

trib

utio

n

�Ea

sy, s

impl

e√√√

√√�

Dep

enda

ble

fund

ing

�E

ncou

rage

s co

untie

s to

hav

e G

W P

lan

�Ve

ry fl

exib

le�

Can

use

it fo

r all

com

pone

nts

of a

dapt

ive

man

agem

ent i

n a

plan

�N

ot e

quita

ble

�N

ot re

spon

sive

to re

al n

eeds

(ign

ores

sca

le)

Prop

ortio

nal/F

orm

ulai

c

�D

epen

ds o

n fo

rmul

a�

Cou

ld b

e 2

diffe

rent

app

roac

hes:

1.1

varia

ble

2.2+

var

iabl

es

�E

quita

ble,

Loo

ks a

t nee

d�

Fair

(or s

eem

s fa

ir)�

Mon

ey c

ould

be

prop

ortio

nal t

o la

nd a

rea

�D

istri

bute

bas

ed o

n en

tity

capa

city

to s

pend

�C

olla

bora

tion

to d

evel

op =

buy

-in

�D

epen

ds o

n w

ho m

akes

the

form

ula

�M

ay n

ot b

e na

tura

l res

ourc

e ba

sed

�U

nlim

ited

leve

ls o

f com

plex

ity�

‘Ext

rove

rt-ba

sed

plan

ning

” –th

e m

ore

you

are

invo

lved

, the

mor

e yo

u ca

n sh

ape

the

outc

omes

�In

cons

iste

nt, d

epen

ding

on

scal

e�

Col

labo

ratio

nto

dev

elop

= c

ompl

exity

Proj

ect P

riorit

izat

ion

Sca

le is

a b

ig fa

ctor

�R

esou

rce

focu

sed

�C

olla

bora

tion

�In

form

atio

n-sh

arin

g/Le

arni

ng

�In

tern

al fi

ghtin

g�

How

doe

s pr

ogra

m s

uppo

rt co

mpe

te w

ith p

roje

cts?

Mix

ed A

lloca

tion

Met

hod

as a

gree

d by

ent

ity�

Flex

ible

�Fu

ll pl

ate

(too

man

y no

odle

s) –

It’s

a co

mpl

icat

ed, m

essy

pro

cess

√ -

dupl

icat

ed c

omm

ent

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

20 | P a g e

Table A2.11: Cities and Townships’ Summary of Responses to Question 3: Organization and Project Eligibility


Cities and Townships’ other comments:

It works for cities to do the work and watershed to do the grant administration

Create long-term funding options – perhaps bank the WBF funds?

Is there a way to create more uniformity to the structures (WMO/WD governance)?

Support BWSR to provide money to water resources

Allocation is more important than scale

Minimize the cost to cities

Appreciate the collaborative process, but not everyone is participating. Perhaps tie eligibility to participation?

The role of individual groups is not clear. We need an education piece to explain how:

State Policies → BWSR → WD/WMOs → Cities/Townships → Water Issues

What do cities do if their WD/WMO doesn’t have a plan? How can they get projects approved?

It is difficult to decouple scale and allocation:

� Great the scale, the larger the pot of money� Smaller the scale, there’s less money but greater complexity of dividing money� Watershed scale bridges divisions to potentially enhance collaboration

An alternative allocation method was proposed to be a blend between Proportional/Formulaic and Project Prioritized lists. The blend would provide two different pots of funding: 1) proportional funding that is


LGUs/Organizations

Cities (through watershed orgs) √Cities (as their own entity)Cities without active WD/WMOsSWCDsWMO/WDs – Best target water issue (assuming they are active)

Lake Improvement DistrictsHOAs

Projects

Maintenance Projects √TMDL ProjectsWLA ProjectsCity projects not in a plan – if can demonstrate positive outcomesVetted city projectsEducation Programs √OutreachResearch Projects √Water Quality ProjectsFlood Management ProjectsCapital ProjectsRestoration/Enhancement ProjectsFeasibility Projects

Academic Research


Item 09n2

21 | P a g e

distributed to all eligible entities and for all eligible projects/programs; 2) prioritized project list that allows for larger, shovel-ready projects to be funded.

Table A2.12: Watershed Districts’ Summary of Responses to Question 3: Organization and Project Eligibility


Watershed Districts’ other comments:

� Watershed Organizations have been doing this for 30+ yearso This is all about WD/WMOs messaging to cities/counties at this point

� Today’s focus group is biased – our minds won’t be changed� I am interested in collaborating with cities in district

o What’s the best way to distribute money that enhances collaboration with cities/countieso The most efficient way is through watershed plans

� Funding related comments:o Competitive process may not provide stable fundingo Reliable funding is importanto Distribution of money like gas tax = formula basedo Banking based on 5-10 year period which would allow for large regional projectso Hybridized approach – is there a way to address metro-wide issues (i.e. Chloride) as well

as watershed-specific projects


LGUs/Organizations

� Watersheds – hydrologically based, not political� Municipalities with watershed plans� Anyone with an approved plan� Watershed Districts and Watershed

Management Organizations� Active cities in “weak” watershed districts

� Anyone without an approved plan

Projects/Programs

� In a watershed plano Research

� On the ground projects or programs that will protect/improve water quality

� Watershed-recommended projects that are vetted through Technical Advisory Committees


Item 09n2

22 | P a g e

Table A2.13: Watershed Management Organizations’ Summary of Responses to Question 3: Organization and Project Eligibility


Watershed Management Organizations’ other comments:

� Uncertainty of program funding continuing.� Scale depends on allocation.� Formulaic could be on a rotation. You’d know when you will get the money, but everyone

organization doesn’t receive funds in the same year. o Divide WMO/WD into subgroups. Each subgroup gets money for a year. Then rotate

� Dollar overall for the metro may be too small- retrofits are more expensive. Metro has to focus on retrofit.

� Should have the ability to bank funds over several year.� A local competitive process is really prioritization. � Criteria are bias: What plans? Adopted? By whom?� Scale matters!� Eligibility criteria matter!� What is the impact of ceilings on funding?


LGUs/Organizations

� Watersheds √� Cities-but so many this process may be

difficulto Tied to their plans or watershed plans?

� Anyone with an approved plan (including county-gw)

� Pilot eligibly was good- 103B, but also include SWCDs

� Any organization should be able to work through an eligible organization (for non-103B orgs), but not receive watershed basedfunding directly √o Transparento Consistento Hard to pass through funding

� Depends on allocation

� Hennepin GW should not be eligible because it has no adopted plan

� State agencies shouldn’t be directly eligible for funding (but can receive funds through partnership with eligible org)

Projects/Programs

� In a watershed plan� Base funding for core watershed services

o Monitoring/equipment √o Research √o Feasibility studieso Education

� Maintenanceo Will make projects work bettero Cities can’t/aren’t enforcing maintenance

agreementso Fund maintenance when added to a

project, but not maintenance programs� Quantity and quality projects� Opportunities for creativity

� MS4 requirements� Maintenance √o Disincentives local

ownership/responsibilityo Political issue


Item 09n2

23 | P a g e

Table A2.14: Counties’ Summary of Responses to Question 3: Organization and Project Eligibility

SWCD – Soil Water Conservation Distr ict, WD – Watershed Distr ict; WMO – Watershed Management Organization; CWF – Clean Water Fund

Table A2.15: SWCDs’ Summary of Responses to Question 3: Organization and Project Eligibility

Counties & SWCDs’ other comments:

� SWCDs’ don’t have their own taxing authority, they may have smaller budgets� Counties have elected boards – they are more accountable� Some counties need to work with tribes, how does this influence the process? Does it?� How to address organizations that are both in and out of the metro?� How to address metro cities that straddle the metro that are not participating in the Metro Water

Planning? � Don’t distinguish between the Metro and Non-Metro� Don’t include cities and townships as their own entity – they should work through county/WD/etc.

it simplifies the approach� It’s hard to distinguish between scale and entity with County vs. SWCD

Post-meeting comments:

We did receive comments via email after the meeting ended. We are including them in this write-up so that they can be incorporated with the content from the meeting.

� I do not support a competitive grant process. The intent of watershed-based funding was stable and reliable funding and a competitive grant process does not accomplish that.


LGUs/Organizations

� SWCDs potentially have less rigorous plan recommendations – Let County decide if SWCD should be included

� Counties, SWCDs, WD, WMOs

� Cities/townships should be rolled into WD/WMOs work

Projects/Programs

� Let locals decide on projects� As long as projects meet requirements of CWF� Projects listed in a plan� Monitoring should be included� Research Projects� Feasibility Projects� GW Quantity (water efficiency programs)

o Projects not included in any plan


LGUs/Organizations

� No LGU should be excluded from getting money, partnering, doing eligible projects/programs

� LGUs need to have capacity and responsibility

Projects/Programs

� In a plan� All “good” projects and programs

� “Good” is decided by the decision-making LGU.

� Criteria is set to evaluate the quality of projects/programs.

� “Bad” projects are excluded from funding


Item 09n2

24 | P a g e

� Support future funding allocations in Metro Area based on 8-digit HUCs not County Geographical boundaries as we did under the pilot; believe that would be 8 to include:

� Rum River� North Fork Crow River� South Fork Crow River� Mississippi River Twin Cities� St. Croix River� East Lower Minnesota River� Mississippi River Lake Pepin (Vermillion River)� Cannon River


Item 09n2

25|P

ag

e

App

endi

x 2:

Foc

us G

roup

Bre

akou

t Ses

sion

Pho

tos

Que

stio

n 1:

At w

hat s

cale

sho

uld

deci

sion

-mak

ing

occu

r?

Figu

re A

2.1:

Citi

es a

nd T

owns

hip

Focu

s G

roup

Pro

s &

Con

s of

Sca

le

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

26|P

ag

e

Que

stio

n 1:

At w

hat s

cale

sho

uld

deci

sion

-mak

ing

occu

r?

Figu

re A

2.2:

Wat

ersh

ed D

istri

cts

Focu

s G

roup

Pro

s &

Con

s of

Sca

le

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

27|P

ag

e

Que

stio

n 1:

At w

hat s

cale

sho

uld

deci

sion

-mak

ing

occu

r?

Figu

re A

2.3:

WM

O F

ocus

Gro

up P

ros

& C

ons

of S

cale

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

28|P

ag

e

Que

stio

n 1:

At w

hat s

cale

sho

uld

deci

sion

-mak

ing

occu

r?

Figu

re A

2.4:

Cou

ntie

s Fo

cus

Gro

up P

ros

& C

ons

of S

cale

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

29|P

ag

e

Que

stio

n 1:

At w

hat s

cale

sho

uld

deci

sion

-mak

ing

occu

r?

Figu

re A

2.5:

SW

CD

Foc

us G

roup

Pro

s &

Con

s of

Sca

le

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

30|P

ag

e

Que

stio

n 2:

How

sho

uld

fund

s be

allo

cate

d?

Figu

re A

2:6:

Citi

es &

Tow

nshi

ps F

ocus

Gro

up P

ros

& C

ons

of A

lloca

tion

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

31|P

ag

e

Que

stio

n 2:

How

sho

uld

fund

s be

allo

cate

d?

Figu

re A

2:7:

Wat

ersh

ed D

istri

cts

Focu

s G

roup

Pro

s &

Con

s of

Allo

catio

n

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

32|P

ag

e

Que

stio

n 2:

How

sho

uld

fund

s be

allo

cate

d?

Figu

re A

2:8:

Wat

ersh

ed M

anag

emen

t Org

aniz

atio

ns F

ocus

Gro

up P

ros

& C

ons

of A

lloca

tion

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

33|P

ag

e

Que

stio

n 2:

How

sho

uld

fund

s be

allo

cate

d?

Figu

re A

2:9:

Cou

ntie

s Fo

cus

Gro

up P

ros

& C

ons

of A

lloca

tion

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

34|P

ag

e

Que

stio

n 2:

How

sho

uld

fund

s be

allo

cate

d?

Figu

re A

2:10

: SW

CD

s Fo

cus

Gro

up P

ros

& C

ons

of A

lloca

tion

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

35|P

ag

e

Que

stio

n 3:

In a

n id

eal w

orld

, whi

ch L

GU

s/or

gani

zatio

ns o

r pro

ject

s sh

ould

be

elig

ible

for t

his

fund

ing?

Figu

re A

2:11

: Citi

es &

Tow

nshi

ps F

ocus

Gro

up E

ligib

ility

Bra

inst

orm

s &

Oth

er C

omm

ents

Z|W

ater

shed

Sha

red|

BW

SR

Fun

ding

|BW

SR

_WB

F_Fo

cusG

roup

_Sum

mar

y

Item 09n2

36 | P a g e

Question 3: In an ideal world, which LGUs/organizations or projects should be eligible for this funding?

Figure A2:12: Watershed Districts Focus Group Eligibility Brainstorms & Other Comments


Figure A2:13: Watershed Management Organizations Focus Group Eligibility Brainstorms & Other Comments


Item 09n2

37 | P a g e


Figure A2:14: Counties Focus Group Eligibility Brainstorms & Other Comments


Figure A2:15: SWCDs Focus Group Eligibility Brainstorms & Other Comment


Item 09n2

Technical Memo



To: Shingle Creek/West Mississippi WMO Commissioners From: Ed Matthiesen, P.E. Diane Spector Date: November 2, 2018 Subject: Biochar‐ and Iron‐Enhanced Sand Filter Update At the Commissions’ November 8, 2018 meeting, Dr. Beth Fisher and Dr. Joshua Feinberg of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Minnesota will present some preliminary findings of the additional specialty monitoring being completed as part of the Biochar‐ and Iron‐Enhanced Sand Filter project. They are delving deeply into the science of understanding the factors that may influence how the filters work, especially related to the iron added to the sand filters. Dr. Fisher designed and built the specialty instrumentation that is tracking redox, pH, dissolved oxygen, and saturation of the filters. They are working to understand which iron oxyhydroxides are present in the filters and how that may influence their ability to capture phosphorus as well as affect the longevity of the filter. A background definition for those who haven’t had much chemistry in a while: Redox potential (or oxidation / reduction potential, ORP, pE, or Eh) expresses the tendency of an environment to receive or supply electrons. An oxic (rich in oxygen) environment has high redox potential because O2 is available as an electron acceptor. For example, Fe oxidizes to rust in the presence of O2 because the iron shares its electrons with the O2: 4Fe + 3O2 → 2Fe2O3. In contrast, an anoxic(low oxygen) environment has low redox potential because of the absence of O2 Reduction potential is measured in volts (V), or millivolts (mV). Each species has its own intrinsic reduction potential; the more positive the potential, the greater the species' affinity for electrons and tendency to be reduced. pE‐pH stability field diagrams show in a comprehensive way how protons (pH) and electrons (pE) simultaneously shift equilibria of reactions under various conditions. These diagrams also indicate which species predominate under any given condition of pE and pH.

Item 10c