welcome everyone to the Scott wo Watershed Planning Commission for May 20th 2024 the first action is to call to order do we need a motion for that or or can I just do that you can just call it to order okay all right call it to the order then then the first action item that we need to approve is we publish the agenda and the meeting minutes which everybody has re received if everybody's had a chance to review it I'd be open to any uh Corrections if there are any and hearing none I would be open to a motion to approve the agenda and the meeting minutes as published this is commissioner cilia so I'll make a motion that we approve the meeting agenda and meeting minutes as published is there a second to that motion commissioner Phil second thank you Comm please absolutely commissioner pin hi commissioner cilus I commissioner Phillips I and commissioner Schmidt hi thank you Commissioners all right looks like the first item on the agenda is Vanessa giving us an administrative uh update for the swmo thank you Mr chair and Commissioners uh or Mr Vice chair and Commissioners I'm just going to really quick um right now a lot of the work uh Ryan and Melissa will cover in their updates uh I do just want to add a couple of things that we are still working on looking for financing for the groundwater plan uh again as I've mentioned before lots of financing for implementation of groundwater plans there is zero funding for groundwater planning uh so I'm still kind of working hard on that um as well as there's a lot of work right now in flood plane uh uh ad Administration a lot of developments throughout the county a lot of proposed developments a lot of interest uh so the work in uh that people are hoping to do or wanting to do uh that impacts the flood plane has been notably high this year um and that's certainly taken on a much larger percentage of the work that we do uh so those are kind of just uh couple of big comments and then I will uh let Melissa and Ryan uh speak to some of our other activities because there are many right now good thank thank you Vanessa any members have questions for Vanessa hearing none then we can go on to our ongoing business and that would be the report uh from s swcd thank you Mr chair this is Troy can everybody hear me yes thank you very good uh so I'll just summarize some of the information in the report that you see in your packet for May 202 4 uh you'll see that the first graph there shows a number of service requests these are land owners and in the scottw mode that have called up the SE and water office and we're helping them uh with conservation interest or concerns uh you can see the number of clients that we're working with has been on steady decline and continues to grow so we're um past the 150 Mark have been for a couple weeks or months now so uh we're pretty much at overall when we look at countywide our numbers are like at 225 total so that's kind of the ideal Peak if you will um when we start to get above that number uh our we start to sort of burst at the seams and and trying to keep a track of where everybody is at and keeping up with folks and getting back to them and time becomes a little bit stressful so um it's good to see the numbers up but it also represents a you know kind of a more of a little stress point for us but um it's good to see there's a lot of interest in some of the new cost share options we have available the cost share funds uh just a quick summary of where we're at so in terms of number of active Grant Awards we have a little over 1.26 million we've encumbered over half of that now and we're sitting at about 576,000 $577,000 in available funds um they are a little bit more difficult to encumber than in past years because a lot of these grants are in specific areas and specific projects which is what Bower has kind of demanded um our EPA Grant uh that the W has with the mpca specifies certain projects in certain areas so um it's not just using that money anywhere so we got to be a little bit choosy about it so it becomes a little more um uh difficult to push but um we kind of know what what has to be done and and where the funds need to go and what type of practices so it's just a matter of of working in that direction uh the following three graphs just show graphically that same information how much is available from each agency and the percent that's overall U encumbered soil health and cover crops we continue to make this a priority effort the soil and water was awarded a $375,000 grant to help focus more heavily on soil Health throughout Scott County especially in wo as well um but the nice part about that is is that we can really dedic at U the equivalent of a full-time staff person it won't be just one person but multiple we're taking a team approach to really hit cover crop soil health and other practices hard uh over the next three or so years um the graph there I've included for the past several months now this just shows you kind of the uh the the number of soil Health practice Acres that have been installed uh under the tax program there's probably a lot more out there that we aren't track ping these those would be land owners who are just doing it on their own which there are plenty of we just don't have a way to to verify that information so this just shows kind of the participation in our programs it includes things like high residue management you'll hear that in terms of no till or mulch till type or strip till then nutrient management and cover crops as well so um you can move on Ryan heip rental so we've exceeded the 500 acre Mark and uh that was as of like last week so it was really before the big rush so we expect those numbers to climb significantly over the next month as planting Seas is in full gear um we did have that window in March where the weather was really nice and we uh a lot of the equipment went out at that period of time uh so that helped boost the numbers early in the season earlier than we normally see anyway um clean water education program so we had several work shops uh we had the burn prescribed burn workshop at Ridges of Sand Creek that was on April 2nd and we hosted the how to build a ring Garden in shaki on April 16th um and now we're beginning to prepare for the next Workshop was how to stabilize your Shoreline and that's scheduled for July 18th at the Spring Lake Town Hall uh we continue to submit articles to the scene uh topics for this next Edition will be Urban agriculture uh upcoming Shoreline Workshop debuting the soil and wat's new community restoration shed and a recap of our tree sale um we are working with the city city of Prior Lake and Savage indicated that they have a number of events uh community events they have uh throughout the summer that might be good to table those and and spread our messaging for clean water education program it's a good great way to hit a lot of people um and uh so we look forward to that one one I think in the Shaka it's called um Rhythm on the rails um and I'm not sure the one in Savage is called but it's a multi-week uh event in the city um let's see move down to water quality I'll just say Sand Creek we're in full swing on on the sampling there you can see a lot of data collection uh occurred that uh past this past month um so it's in full swing a city of par Lake uh we're still working on uh we have our final year of monitoring in Markley lake so we installed the conductivity temperature sensors out there and we'll begin um I think they probably already have started the actual um measurements no groundwater observation well readings as past month we do them quarterly so um it was a month off but you'll see in the precipitation of the month of April we're uh well above average at least at the Jordan field office when we compare to Historic a averages and what we just read this past month so it's good to see I I don't know if we can say we're officially out of the drought but it sure feels like it uh let's see move down I think I'll skip some of that Ryan um buffer law I'll just mention we had a couple of sites where we had to follow up um one was we did follow up and we were able to confirm alternative practice at one of the property in Cedar Lake Township what that turned out being was um so one of the ways that you can reduce the buffer wi as if there's something called negative drainage in other words water really doesn't flow into the stream or lake uh due to a slight rise in the ground elevation often it's due to spoil piles that have been placed there from historic dredging um so in those cases the buffer actually isn't required to be um the full normal w of 30 foot minimum 50 foot average so we were able to confirm that that was indeed the case for one of those and now we're still following up on a seating and Bell Plane to get them into compliance but um I I just would report on the buffer law in general is that we don't we haven't really seen any push back so farmers are have always been willing to work with us and and learn kind of what they need to do and go about it so we're happy about that um finally I'll report on the native tree s and plant sale so uh the final numbers are in we sold about 29,000 trees uh and filled about 440 orders so that's slightly down I think last year we had about 35,000 trees so was fewer trees which we're sort of expecting because the price of of these bear rot stock have just gone up over the past few years and no last year was no exception so we had to raise our prices and of course because of that we kind of um were expecting to sell fewer trees and that did occur uh but it was still a pretty good year I would say and 440 is quite a good number of orders uh right now uh and for the month the entire month of May we're selling we're um selling the native plant and Seed mixes so that that sale is currently opened um and so that includes live plants like trays and sets of plants a whole mixes and all our seed mixes that we used to sell with the tree program but now we keep them separate it's just a lot easier and the timing works out better so that's in full swing and should be closing probably the end of next week or maybe end of this you know middle of next week I think May 30th is the last day for that sale and Ryan I'll just finish up by just speaking to the tables here so we had a number of new applications a total of $54,900 applications that were approved so um what you'll see there are uh three different types of approvals that we're representing here one is a recommendation and Ryan correct me if I'm wrong but that one is on the the agenda so our board reviewed that but it's a decision made to be made by the WPC on the filter strip renewal the ones you see certification those are ones where the the new docket authorizes staff approval but they still have to go to our board for final certification and then the one that ones that say approval those were not eligible for staff approval um largely because like that particular project uh was exceeding $20,000 so staff is not authorized to approve anything above 20,000 obviously this is over $25,000 so that went to the board and the board did approve that particular project um I believe there's the ones that have a asri on them do have back Sheets if you're more interested more in some of the project information and we had about five four or five uh payments totaling a little over $ 31,600 and with that Mr chair I'll try to answer any questions thank you Troy very nice job um any members have questions or clarification from Troy any followup hearing none thank you again Troy the agenda sounds like it might be Ryan nice sh pint Commissioners uh good evening uh so I I I don't have a lot of updates and they're a bit redundant from uh last month so our cips where things are at so um obviously the xanadoo stream Bank project that we had just completed construction on that it's done we're basically just waiting uh for the sub contractor to come out and do the tree and shrub plantings I did talk to a member of Vite last week about it U so it's on their radar they're working with the subs um so I would imagine probably in the next month I would I would think that we'd see them out there doing the plantings um we still have inlu on retainer here for coming out to kind of help us with the plantings and make sure it's all done according to the plans we did have a little bit of extra funds in their contract that we're looking to actually um our fish survey activities we um we're actually looking to have them do a preliminary feasibility study on a potential fish ladder so basically looking at the logistics of you know would it fit where would it go um different options little bit more high level because it's not a lot of money that we had left over but it was enough to be able to do this kind of prelim linary report and uh get us that information um so we'll continue to work with them till that's complete as well we did uh complete some maintenance plantings on uh on one of the cips as well so that went that went well and timed it kind of with the rains and and so I'm hoping that um we have pretty good luck with all those be root stocks so we ordered those from the tree sale that Troy was just talking about um P Creek design still sitting at 90 or we're waiting for the 90% plans to come in once we get those we'll send them off to land owners get comments uh from them on it as well still waiting for Army core on the permit but other than that everything else is pretty well on schedule with that project and so we'll be looking at finishing the design working with the land owners on easements and getting it ready for a fall bid similar to you know most of the projects that we've done are kind of on a similar timeline where where we bid them in the fall and then get them ready for uh winter construction whenever the contractor can fit it into their schedules at the last meeting we talked about two extensions uh with uh two grants that we've got the EPA Grant and a Watership based implementation funding Grant through Bowser so both of those are still in the works um the Bowser one uh we just basically at the point of just needing to sign the actual Amendment um the EPA one they're reviewing the information that I sent them so we'll see what they say and then um if everything looked good we would continue down that process of extending the grant but both are looking positive in terms of extending them both one more year uh to be able to spend those funds uh with the wbf grant excuse me we had a work plan revisions as well that we were adding some practices to it um it's a kind of a Nuance thing but the program that they use uh we needed to actually assign a dollar amount to uh the residue management the nutrient management projects um good news is we've actually already encumbered uh basically all of the funds that we had set aside for those practices so you know in a short time frame we were able to encumber it all bad news is because we did that and we still have more projects that are coming down the pipeline we need to do another work plan revision so um it's very simp Le it's basically just changing the uh the dollar amount so we had it set at 20,000 and um we'll start looking at what we realistically think we can spend on it um and really what it is is we've got a pot of funds for all these different practices because read to doing nutrient management didn't fit within a category that elink had uh we had to separate them out otherwise you could have just lumped them all together and then they wouldn't have to have a separate budget for them but it's just the way it's structured in eing so we'll we'll figure out a number um you know it might be another 15 20,000 is if we think realistically we can move that um uh before December of 2025 so we'll continue to work on that but we've got the process down we just completed it and uh and we'll we'll kind of go through that process again so um that was all I had so if any Commissioners have any questions are be happy to uh to answer thanks Ryan uh any question or clarification followup for Ryan if not thank you again Ryan next the agenda will be program updates for from Melissa thank you Mr chair um I have a few things to talk about uh so the curly leaf delineation and curly Leaf treatments um I think I mentioned last month that uh Cedar was treated very early April 4th um a whole L treatment with flone again um I just completed with the DNR um the follow-up survey to check that treatment the effectiveness of it on May 16th last week um everything was looking really good there is a lot of curly Leaf in the lake but it's definitely been affected by the treatment and we know that because the whole plant turns kind of translucent um so we'll do another uh standard full Lake summer survey in mid July uh I did th uh surveys on McMahon odal and th the week of May 7th through the 9th um those were treated the week after with the exception of th th we made an attempt to get to that Northern Bay to check that um the lake level was so low we couldn't get through the first channel so there's two channels I got to get through um onth to get to those Northern bays and I couldn't even get through the first one the water level was May 6 in so we had to kind of stop that and get off the lake so unfortunately th will not be treated this year and will I won't be able to get like a full L survey unless the water levels come up um so we did go with a different chemical on McMahon and odow this year and the reason for that is you know with the mild winter we had a lot of natives already coming up in both Lakes the DNR was really concerned about affecting those natives so the chemical that we went with is called flag guard um it acts a lot like diquat which we've been using on both Lakes but it was a little bit more expensive but I made sure I did all the pricing calculations against our budget and we had we were fine I told them to go ahead and use it also the good thing is that this year we got a grant um to control AIS on odow of $5,250 so that's helping towards that cost too so we're still under budget um from what we budgeted for the treatments um the DNR also because they're concerned um you know with all the natives that were found in odow the DNR actually went out on odow and surveyed about 20 points of an area on the lake that's not being treated and ided and documented the natives that they found and are going to compare that to um the after after treatment survey to see how the natives might be affected at all from flum guards so that'll be interesting it's kind of an experiment this year um the U ofm survey we finally um got to a point where the U ofm is comfortable with our changes and we worked through their comments so I'm expecting to get that contract fully executed hopefully yet this week um and then we should we're still on time on our timeline to start the sending out the survey in June so um we had applied I think until last last meeting for that uh storage Grant from Board of Water and Soil resources we will find out this Wednesday whether we got that or not so this Wednesday is when they make that announcement um we we're continuing to work with Studio Lola on some branding um projects um so we're having her create a flyer template that we can use for the public engagement announcements for the Plan update um so I received that first draft today and I really like it so um we're also going to have her work on creating like a two-page um annual report summary that we can have as a handout at the July 22nd official kickoff uh meeting for the Plan update so more to come on that watercraft inspections they should be starting this week weend I've been uh working with Waterfront um getting um authorizations sent to the DNR for our inspectors that they're hiring um the DNR has to authorize them and then we have also have to have the DNR authorize the devices and send out the software and so there's been a lot of those emails going around so hopefully we'll have inspectors this weekend on the laks Plan update um there's been a few things going on I've been populating or starting to populate the web page that we have um for the Plan update information so there's a few things on there right now but there's still more to come uh natural resources WL staff met internally to talk about um location ideas for like popup popup events and for the community um conversation meetings so we have have a list of those I started sending out some emails to kind of see what events we might be able to have like a popup event at with the questionnaire for people to fill out um I've been working with Matt mcle from our GIS um Department he's working on that interactive mapping application um he's got it um kind of in a draft form and he's asked me for some introductory content so I've got that drafted and I'll send that hopefully to him this week to start finishing that up um staff has also talked about um we're going to be splitting up going to all the Township board meetings and City Council meetings at least once so all staff will be going to at least one of those meetings to kind of give them a like a five minute introduction that we're you know we're starting this plan update here's a questionnaire here's a promotional flyer if you could advertise this we want to get as many residents to give input as we can so we'll be attending those and then um I've started working on the questionnaire that we'll have for the public engagement process um so we're having a staff meeting on Wednesday and we'll go over a few things um to keep that moving and with that that's all I've got anybody has any questions I I can answer anything You' like thank you thank you Melissa any questions for Melissa as a followup this is commissioner Phil just curious on the the uh inspections at the public accesses um are those DNR employees or they actually County Employees or do do you hire them Melissa or how how does that work nope so we actually so we contract with a company called waterfront Restorations and they do all the hiring um of inspectors they make sure they get through the DNR training they actually give them some additional training um they do all the onboarding all the scheduling I just get a contract together with them um I kind of put together a schedule of when I want them to start how you know the start time and end time at each axis and on what days so I make a schedule for them and I tell them how many hours you know they we want to have them work this year and then but they they take care of all all the inspectors they they are front restoration employees and I just work with them on coordinating you know coordinating inspections and making sure there's coverage and stuff like that so yeah that's a a great question I'll add a little bit that um we do uh Melissa did write uh an aquatic invasive species management plan so through all of your downtime or or you know when you really want to read a good plan she's put together a nice little plan that also outlines uh which lakes uh get inspections and how many hours on each Lake uh she does coordinate for the entire County so while some of the other Watershed districts also uh you know coordinate some of the uh inspections at some of the boat launches like Prior Lake for example um Melissa makes sure you know that overall the lakes in the county have coverage and she feels in gaps and Melissa doesn't the DNR do like sporadic here and there inspections in some places too yeah like last year I think they they did do inspections on odel for like one day and I think they came to Cedar for one day but basically the DNR um puts in about 600 hours a season on Prior Lake and then they have a Decon station there also so the DNR prioritizes lakes that have zebra muzzles so they will put staff on those Lakes um rather than other Lakes which which is good you know to have the Decon station there that's part of the purpose of the program we don't want to keep spreading zeer muzzles to the other leges we want to protect them but um so yeah very rarely do they show up on our Lakes because they're prioritizing zebra muzzle Lakes to have inspectors on those Y and then the inspectors are uh through Waterfront restoration of the contract are paid primarily through the um aquatic invasive species uh fund that we have uh that's through state grants so we get about how much each year Melissa uh it's about 68 to 69,000 and then that's what covers the the bulk of those costs for the inspectors as well and we spend 45,000 of that on watercraft inspections so we spend 30 in the wo and we give parl spring like 15,000 because they're getting six six to 700 free hours from the DNR really this is commissioner Phillips thank you for that explanation I appreciate it thank you other questions next on the agenda then is the uh one water one plan and unless uh Rita has joined us I'll give you the update um so as of right now the lower Minnesota River East draft comprehensive watershed management plan has just finished its 60-day review period And for those of you that are available there will be a Public Presentation of that plan scheduled for May 30th coming up here real quick and that'll be at the new pre fire department which is right on there on Highway 21 as you enter town from the north if anybody can make that there's a a open house so to speak from 4:30 to 5 where you may ask questions and Etc and then there'll be a formal presentation at 5:30 of the comprehensive Watershed plan so anybody else need any information that any staff members want to add any comments to that um well commissioner uh Mr Vice chair and Commissioners I would probably just add uh you know as far as like the comments we submitted as staff uh probably the the bigger comment was just that there didn't seem to be in the initial draft a lot of clarification on exactly what this entity might do and exactly how they were going to coordinate with other entities uh because we'd already encountered an issue with uh pca's monitoring plan uh you know we had said that we uh would submit the uh monitoring locations we wanted prioritized for the wmo and then unfortunately the lower men and ended up submitting as well which created a much larger list and of course our concern is we want the PCA to prioritize what we want monitored in the wo not some other entity made up of entities that not us um because obviously we're the only ones able to implement anything that comes out of those monitoring activities so um I think we've been working with them to kind of improve those uh coordination um plans in the plan and so I think that's uh really nice that you know they're kind of open to working with that and kind of improving that because obviously we all want to work together and fill gaps not Not Duplicate so um as far as you know staff's concerned that was probably the biggest concern we had was just really ensuring that there was some clear coordination in that plan so that everybody knew who was going to do what thanks V Vanessa any other comment I'll make is that one thing became pretty obvious to me as I got involved in this a little bit is that we are fortunate because we have such a strong organization track record of performance uh excellent staff and and great teers in our organization to accomplish a lot and the other members of the lower men weren't as far along in terms of their development so we have to be careful that we don't have a lot of duplication of effort things that we are already doing we don't want to have to kind of redo uh for a larger organization so that's been kind of a challenge for staff as well as it has been for for re and I in terms of coordinating and communicating with the rest of the lower men so thanks again for staff for the taking leadership in that any other questions follow up on that if not we'll move on to new business here we go um I'm anxious to hear uh the staff report on this cover crop benefits calculator because it seemed very confusing to me when I'm looking at it so take it over VI sh P Commissioners well hopefully we can clarify some things here and and make it less uh less confusing uh so back in 2018 so cover crops I guess backing up a little bit further cover crops is um it's been around forever but uh we more recently have kind of put it into our cier docket and have a lot of participation in it's one of our um practices that we have the most you notice in the annual reports it's typically in the top three for most amount of projects that we're putting in the ground um per year uh so in 2018 it's kind of when we started to incorporate that into our docket but um when we did that there's there was not a universally accepted way of calculating the benefits whereas in like a grasswater we or a grade stabilization or other various practices there is a very defined way of how to calculate those benefits um so you know one of the big things with cover crops is the soil Health aspect of it but you're also putting vegetation on the ground um in periods of the Year where there otherwise wouldn't be and so there is the sediment and phosphorus U and and soil loss as well those benefits are very much still a part of um cover crop and if we are um including those in any grants uh all our grants have a um sediment phosphorus reduction uh goal that we have to hit and so we wouldn't want to be putting projects using Grant dollars if we're not collecting benefits on them um it's detrimental to you know the the goals of of what that Grant is and so um that's kind of the background of it so 2018 we developed a way of calculating cover crops and and maybe even Vice chair Might Recall I'm sure we brought it to the WPC to have it kind of looked at at one point um it was basically the the best way that we felt at that time um to to do that and so and it's worked um uh Through The Years um but to date there still isn't a method that we know about that is kind of universally used um in the state and so um we developed that one and after enough years of of going through it um we've come to find that it's just it's very time consuming and so the s swcd specifically Diane and Troy who I'm going to turn it over to here in a little bit um wanted to kind of go back and look is there another way that we could essentially calculate these benefits while reducing staff time and still end up with an accurate number U it might not necessarily be accurate in a per subwatershed basis but as an overall method of calculating it is there some way that we can reduce that um so our our current way and I won't get into much of the details of this because Diane got it in her presentation um but you're going to see it's cumbersome there's um you're separating out portions of fields and basically running these Cals on various um subwatersheds within a given field and that just that takes time when you're doing that and so we're looking at it as more of a you know larger scale Endeavor versus trying to break apart a field you know to get the very pinpoint most um uh benefits for you know those Sub sub areas of the field um maybe looking at it as more wholesome um so I guess what I'll do now is you've already heard from Troy today but I'll introduce Diane I'll stop sharing my screen and she's going to over a presentation um that's going to kind of outline our previous methods in a little bit more detail and then also what they found by reviewing past data and um you know proposing a new potential way of of calculating benefits and kind of lay it all out for you so without further Ado I will stop sharing my screen and I'll let Dian then take over all right can you hear me yes yep thank you uh that was a very nice summary um I'm G to start sharing my screen here [Music] okay um Mr Vice chair and Commissioners I'd like to give a small presentation on um how we currently evaluate the benefits of cover crops like Ryan was saying and um just our ideas for proposing a new method that could save some staff time and become more efficient um for the increasing number of requests that we're getting for these projects a little bit of background um on this topic um as Ryan mentioned anytime we use a state Grant um to pay for cover crop projects we need to re they require um benefit calculations um for sediment and phosphorus reductions and so in 2018 the swcd and Ryan worked together with Bowser to come up with well what is um the best me best method we know of that um would be the most accurate to do this and um while it is very accurate um it's very timec consuming labor intensive um just because it's a very detailed um per field per acre type of calculation and um every year we're just getting more uh higher number of cover crop requests bigger acreages um which require more calculations and uh is just becoming a little bit impractical due to the number of requests we're getting and the time it takes to complete them um and like Ryan had mentioned too um the primary objective would be to track the trends over time um on a larger scale so while we're doing a field Byfield um subwatershed level um the new method we're going to propose which I'll go into detail about um will give similar results on a larger Watershed level um this is just a nice visual of all the cover crop fields in Scott County between 2018 and 2023 so for six years um which was about 8,500 acres and um the the calculations we have to do um cover every single acre of of these uh contracts uh so I'll give a little detail on the current method we use and then I'll describe how it's a little bit different from the proposed method um So currently it's a very detailed and labor intensive process where we take each field that's planted to a cover crop and break it into similar subwatersheds um they're usually it's first divided by where the water goes different um water discharge points it could be a tile intake it could be a drainage ditch or it could be a Wetland um and so that could break the field itself into you know three to five different sub Fields um and then other divisions we might make would be um maybe if there's some really steep areas and some really not steep areas where a calculation would be different between the two we might break those two into different areas um but typically on one field say it's a 30 or a 50 acre field um you might have three to five separate sub fields and each one would need its own U calculation which is um basically just a matter of running through a few different um slopes and spreadsheets um but to do this takes about four to six hours per project per staff um and a lot of times that equates to about $300 to $500 worth of Staff time per project and um if you're figuring we might have 16 to 20 cover crop projects a year um that can be between $6 and $8,000 so um it can be time and labor intensive and not to mention um the more requests we get the more grants we get for cover crops is going to be harder for current staff to keep up with um finishing all these projects um so here's a very basic example of what this might look like uh this was a 30 acre field and it was split um in three separate subwatersheds based on where the water drained to so um on the the red shaded area that went to a tile intake the yellow shaded area went to a wetland and the blue shaded area went to a drainage ditch um so we had to separate them out and do all the calculations for three different fields basically um and just for reference um just I want to give you this number so you know how similar um the methods are um this the sediment savings per acre came out to 0.19 tons of sediment per acre so that was based on a true field level calculation um what we're proposing is to simplify the process a little bit um partially by using the main dominant um soil type slope group and water discharge Point rather than breaking it into multiple um because as you see in the example um while each of them went to a separate drainage discharge Point um all of those discharge points were still in the Porter Creek Watershed um then we came up with some average default values we could use based on the past um three years of calculations and this came out to 112 field level calculations we've done in the past three years based on some of those averages um there's some default values we can use for soils and slopes um which would make only one variable left which would be distance to water um we could come up with some default graphs that staff could use to just pick um the closest reference point off of that graph and I'll show you that in a minute um the main points of this is that it could make more standardized results um there's less room for interpretation between different staff and over time on a bigger Watershed basis um the results would be very similar um and then it would also reduce staff time um by 75% or more um reducing it down to about $70 per project so here's just a visual example of what the new method would look like um the first part would be um reducing it just to the main dominant um subwatershed and doing the taking the calculations for that one um one main Watershed per field the second part of that example was um using the default values that we have that were averages um a staff could use a chart like this that we would develop ahead of time and could pick um based on the distance to water um on the x- axis and the slope that of their field um they would be able to just pick a number off of this reference graph um so in this example uh the actual calculation I did resulted in 0.19 tons per acre of reduction where um the proposed method resulted in 0.21 tons per acre so very similar just a lot quicker way to get there um so the next steps would be if this is accepted um by the WPC uh we would send it to Bowser for their review um and if um we can agree with them on on this method then we would request the same methodology for um residue management and also no till strip till practices um which is a a similar practice and um like Ryan mentioned um we we have to report numbers to Bowser because these are state funded Pro um Grant funded practices and um recently we received approval through the wbf grant to use the grant for residue management and so we currently don't have an approved method to do these calculations for that practice and um we think this method would be a good method to use for that one as well so um with that I would take any questions I know it's a a little bit detailed um but if there's any higher level uh questions I could ask I could nice sh nice job Dian um so yeah if there's any questions for Dian about you know the specifics of this this is an action item so we are looking to you know take comments from the WPC if if you've got questions or concerns or anything else that you'd want U addressed um otherwise we would be looking to you know take take a motion on it is commissioner Phillips a quick question um what you mentioned the cost on the um older way of doing it and um is there a a cost on the new way of doing it is there a software to buy or how does that compare um to um with the proposal as it stands yeah um so the yep with the current method where we estimate about $300 to $500 per project in staff time um with the new method we we estimate about 1 hour or $70 per project um so so quite a bit of savings there isn't anything additional to purchase um it's all just a matter of time savings there would be some time upfront um in developing those charts you know that would take some time but um that could be done kind of in the off seon whereas um when we're trying to get projects paid and certified is when these calculations need to be completed and um technically so we're not we can't pay a person for their practice until it's done um so it'd be nice to have all the the leg work done in advance um so at certification time this could be quicker but um yeah basically the comparison of about $500 per project verse uh $70 per project on about 16 to 20 projects per year is what we currently have good thanks and this is commissioner pent uh I'm very impressed so thank you for a great presentation it was very easy to follow along and understand and um OB just have a couple comments or questions maybe it looks to me like we might be setting a trend here within Bowser because obviously there hasn't been a lot of other watersheds that have done this type of presentation or analysis before is that safe to assume yeah um I can't say how other districts are doing this um I've heard it's not as detailed as we do it but um there I think soon maybe Bowser will have some better guidance and methodology but right now it's it's kind of been up to us to develop it and yeah so I think we are send setting a trend here well great great job yeah I hope that uh it it gets through B's approval and then eventually maybe potentially could be used by other districts also um seems like a much smarter way to do things so thank you yeah thank you any other questions for Diane or comments if not I'm sure to this is commissioner casus I want to thank you for your question Virgil because that was right where I was going to go too is like what what would they be comparing your work to versus what what currently is being done so I I think it's great that you guys are kind of on The Cutting Edge of this so I'll be interested to see what kind of feedback you get from them and and uh hopefully the green light to move forward yeah Vice chair I had one more thing I wanted to just add and that's um we're going to take it to Bowser and try to get their approval on this as well same thing with npca there could be a scenario where they say no and we we on the local end might still do that so if we're not using Grant funds we could still use this new method for any locally funded projects to save on the staff time but yet for Grant projects we'd revert back to the old method as well so just wanted to um throw that scenario out there if um if others had kind of thought about that too thanks Ryan that that makes a lot of sense and and even even if that is the worst case scenario it's not the end of the world because it still give us just more data because that would have more data sets for one system versus the other system and how it kind of relates in our County here so yes again I I would definitely be looking for a motion to approve uh uh the new cover crop benefits calculation process that we're trying to implement so commissioner schm I'll make that motion it's been M there's been a motion is there a second to that motion this is commissioner cilia s in it thank you it's been moved and seconded that we approve of the new cover crop benefits calculation process as defined here today are there any other questions or comments on this before we take a roll call hearing none I would ask then to take roll call thank you commissioner pint uh commissioner pint hi commissioner cilus I commissioner Phillips I and commissioner Schmidt all thank you Commissioners great thank you uh next new business item is the lgu cost share program uh by Vanessa Vice chair so there was a little bit of confusion with this one so it's actually right are you gonna do it well we're going to tag team it um I can I can start and then um vaness the plan is for then Vanessa to fill in gaps and to jump in at times I uh I'll admit I accidentally deleted his initials when I was finalizing the agenda and trying to format it so that's my mistake you thought you get off the hook but it's not that easy sorry right yeah uh Vice chair commissioner so um this uh is an action item as well so I wanted to make sure you're aware of that to start this is what we're proposing is a pilot program and that is for um local government units so cities and townships uh to have essentially a separate uh pot of funds that they could apply for on storm water bmps and um you know Vanessa can kind of touch a little bit on the the background but um there she's been contacted by um a couple cities um that they have a need out there for um improving storm water bmps or also ensuring they are providing the benefits that they were designed for Brian you want to open up the PowerPoint yeah do you want me to just jump right into the PowerPoint yeah might as well all right let me stop the benefit of everybody just quick review again of the bpms in terms of storm water best practic we haven't done a lot with that yeah um but sure that's correct we haven't done a lot of those um in the past uh we two recent ones that might um ring a bell is uh we worked with the city of shaki on installing they're called sapple baffles and what they are is they um go inside a storm drain and the gist of it is essentially you can collect some of the sediment uh that drains into those storm drains and um it captures that sediment without allowing it to pass through the system and end up like this one ended up in the uh Minnesota River so those sapple baffles capture that sediment and then you can do periodic cleanings where you remove that sediment um and you know you take it to a was site where you can dispose of it properly um another example would be a storm water Pond we worked with um the city of savage where they had a storm water Pond that took runoff from a u um parking lot and um and then obviously you know it Outlets it in the um there was the nearby fedit River actually that was flowing through that area and what they wanted to do is actually retrofit it so you know it was designed for um standards at the time that it was initially constructed but through you know further development um or design standards changing um they wanted to essentially improve upon that um that pond and they actually installed um well they they expanded it um so it had a larger capacity to it as well um so those are kind of two examples um of that uh so you know another one would be you know ponds in general just fill up with sediment that's what they're designed to do and um you know cities are required to clean those every so often per the ms4 requirements and um you know there just might not be enough funds to go around in their budgets and so there's a little bit of a gap there where a lot of times those activities are not covered by grants um you know the I guess the two examples of shock and Savage were covered um and so this program is geared more towards you know things that wouldn't be covered U by a grant and so we we come in and and and try to help out the lgus as best we can um so did that kind of give enough background of the types ofing at very good thank you thank you okay perfect all right so we're gonna jump into the um background here and so I guess we've kind of been talking a little bit about that um so I don't know Vanessa is there any other items that we haven't already touched on a little bit that maybe you want to mention yeah administratively I mean you you've hit on a lot of like some of the key points so there's there's several things that we're trying to address here right now and with our watershed management Plan update that's always the time that gives us that really perfect opportunity to kind of tweak our existing programs um or offer new programs kind of based upon what we've learned over the last planning cycle so we're seeing at the staff level is that there's just some just kind of just clunky programming when it comes to how we partner with our local lgus so our lgus are there our cities are our municipalities or townships right um through RS Park District those are the examples of the LG videos um uh and and just how how we work with them and partner with them on projects now on one hand uh currently yes if they want to cost share with us they can always apply through the tax program you know however the tax program really is designed specifically for residents and you're not really Apples to Apples projects here um the other issue of course is that the the ones that the cities and townships are applying for those types of projects really do need like an Engineers review so we're really not our Water Resources engineer here at the county really isn't maybe as getting involved in those as maybe that they should and they really don't need a lot of other review outside of maybe the staff level um so the review process for those projects is also kind of different than the review process that the residential projects are applying for so that's kind of one thing um the other thing is that you know as Troy mentioned he kind of really put the nail on the head which is that those Grant funds are just getting harder and harder to to meet those eligibility requirements so when our lgus have to go through our existing Grant Coster program you know it's a lot of that is pretty restricted to what the grants require um and so it does make it harder and harder to have them have eligible projects through that program uh at the same time we also do targeted projects obviously through the wmo you heard about many of them over the years uh the markl lake uh flood mitigation study was actually a targeted project obviously that we did with partnership through Prior Lake and Credit River uh but you know trying to get that Grant through the contract P process at the county was also kind of arduous and if we have a streamlined process that's already preapproved it allows us also to really speed up that that getting those projects underway so on one hand we're working with cities through partially a little bit through the Coster program and a little bit we're also working with them through these targeted projects and we really just want to streamline it into one program that allows us to really efficiently work with our lgus and then also you know free up more of that technical assistance and funding specifically for the residents because really that's a very different kind of of cost share type program so you know that's that's kind of the the gist of why we're trying to do it um and and again the overall goal for us is to really fill the gaps where state grants federal grants other grants aren't aren't reaching you know they're they're getting narrower and narrower uh but they still You Know cover quite a few things so we're really trying to hit those projects that the lgus are like we really need to do this and from a wmo perspective it hits our priorities um and just because the the state doesn't think it's an eligible Grant project does not mean it's not not a wo priority we have a lot of things that we do that don't that don't qualify for funding pretty much any of our monitoring never qualifies for funding um a lot of our studies or whatever we might not get any funding for because again that's not eligible too um we might do projects for very different reasons than than a State might approve grants for but that doesn't mean it doesn't hit our priorities so there are a lot of things in our plan and in our programs that we prioritize that just aren't Grant eligible but we still want to get them done and so when the cities come to us and say we want to get these done and we agree because they're high on our priority list we're looking for a better way to get that done as quickly as possible and effectively as possible so that's kind of the gist of the background thank you Vanessa um so just reiterating here and one of the bullet items on this background slide is that we'd like the WPC to weigh in on this pilot program with any suggestions or improvements that they see with it so what we'll do is we'll just start getting into the details of kind of what we've um the direction that we've kind of outlined here so um it would be eligible for local cities and townships to apply uh the maximum cost share would be 50% uh the standards that they'd have to meet would be the ms4 requirements and also our wo standards and then also we um we'd be looking to basically develop a new application that would be created and submitted by a predetermined date and one of the other background uh on that background slide thing that we didn't touch on is that we'll be working with the plan I guess is to work with a couple reps at the cities and figure out you know with their projects what is the best time of the year for them to actually do these applications you know I'm guessing it's probably the beginning or the end of be here would be my guess but you never know there could be another time period that I'm unaware of that um these Urban bmps are you know kind of being developed to plan for um but we'll figure that out and um we'd have like a ranking and batching uh process similar to what we do with our U our tax projects right now and so um that's the next item so you know highest priority would be based on water quality benefits and also our Watership management plan priorities um um activities identified in the annual work plan the was management plan or the approved Municipal plan um these would be ones that are not eligible for other uh funding like we mentioned before um this the lgus would be responsible for calculating the current benefits of a storm water BMP and then also then providing what they're proposing to do so if they're you know improving upon u in existing structure they would you know be calculating if this Pond currently you know because it's filled in with sediment to a certain degree is you know um is reducing sediment and phosphorus x amount and they're proposing to clean it out or make it bigger they'd have to then do the calculations on that Improvement um that new benefit that it be providing uh this does not mean that all applications would be approved for funding either so um that's what the ranking and batching is essentially designed to do that uh we review it and if we feel like it's a good project and we would look at funding it and if we don't then you know we have the ability to deny it as well um and and you know the plan here would be looking at these projects correct if I'm wrong ask it but they'd be going to the WPC for a recommendation on them as well absolutely uh budget so the number that we've kind of thrown out there to start would be 50,000 per year um and it would not impact our current cost share program budget so it wouldn't it wouldn't be like removing 50,000 from our land and water treatment budget this would just be an additional 50,000 that's set aside for this um we did have some preliminary conversations if let's say no cities apply then it's a possibility that it could be moved over to the normal tax project or you know like last year we had a little bit of of um extra in the tax budget and then potentially it could get shifted over to this if there was more interest in in um in city so you we'll play that by year and you know that would be something that would lean more towards the end of the year when we know those things you know the beginning of the year is really tough to to budget for that so that would be more of a how's the year going type of deal at the end so hopefully that's when these cities would want to apply that's what I'm thinking the best time frame might be so with that um just looking for suggestions um you know if uh or questions be happy to answer any of those as well so with that I'll I'll stand for any question or suggestion I would one other thing I would add uh Mr Vice chair and Commissioners is that you know we will uh if we have the approval from the WPC to go ahead we would flush the program out a little bit more thoroughly and then bring it back to the WPC for you know approval of the the program details and then again as it is a pilot program uh we would run it you know for just a couple years just to kind of see how uh how it takes on and how well it works um with the goal that if it worked well um we would incorporate it into the new watershed management plan and if it does not we'd obviously take anything we learned from it and incorporate it to the whatever we have or uh just you know move on from there commissioner P thank thanks so much Vanessa and Ryan um yeah you did a good job present presenting it to us obviously this is something a little bit new for us we Haven not done a lot like I said with ms4 kinds of projects for lgus um but as it affects the water in our district right it behooves us I think to to take a look at this and so the other Advantage might be is that um in terms of expanding sort of our constituency base out there we deal a lot with land owners obviously um but we also then could bring some real value now to some of our lgus um and still accomplishing what we're trying to accomplish so the concept makes a lot of sense to me um interesting to hear from other Commissioners here what their thoughts are either questions or Pros or cons or anything else you might want to comment on this is commissioner Phillips a quick question I had if it's not if the money is not coming out of the cost share to to fund it where would the money um be coming from to fund it would that be our our our general fund so to speak or how would that be funded and how also how would it um would you anticipate a uh the funds being used quicker um if we did did this partnership thank you thank you commissioner Phillips that is a great question uh for this first year for 2024 uh it would come uh at the moment I would propose it would come out of the funds we would be saving from our Watershed based implementation funding projects that Grant uh work plan uh we just finished submitting uh and so if we actually do get those uh approved uh work plan projects then we actually don't have to spend and our local General funds that we had already dedicated which means we could reallocate them uh towards this project uh it was uh in excess of $200,000 so $50,000 of that $200,000 is a very small amount uh and that would be my first uh Choice uh obviously we could also take it out of the existing fund balance but I at the moment would say that's unnecessary uh since we would probably be saving funds through the Wata base implement ation funding work plan projectss um and then um I apologize was there a second question yeah would be fun the funds would be used quicker I think question yeah so the the goal yes is is to get the funds out the door faster um as I said right now we we already do partner I mean it's not going to stop us from partnering with the lgus because we already do it's just we do it in such kind of almost kind of clunky convoluted ways that it's it's just really administratively timec consuming which obviously is cost uh that the residents pay right they're not they're paying for the administrative time as well and if we can speed this up and get these projects out the door much faster because we're uh streamlining the Contracting process and just kind of having one quick program to do this through uh that's a Time Savings to everybody and you'll get the the projects out the door faster uh the biggest trick too with grants is that you know like the Watershed based implementation funding Grant that's a banial grant it's got to be in our watershed management plan well if it's not in our watershed management plan they're not even eligible to put these projects forward so then they have to wait until we either update our plan or the next round of watershed based implementation funding so I mean our municipalities and they're just sitting on these projects waiting for things waiting for money to come about and it's like we could make it happen a lot faster good question thanks for the follow up on that I just make another comment um so there's a balance there obviously we want to be able to do things more quickly um but I'm always concerned about are we the path of lease resistance so therefore they want to use our money rather than other funds that available and as you know I'm in the stickler about that in the past but but I appreciate the fact that you did mention here in the pilot that to be eligible uh priority be given to projects that aren't available to be funded through other sources so thank you for that uh that clarification any other questions if not I'd be uh looking for a motion to approve a pilot program for the uh it's got what shed management organization to work with the lgus uh for cost sharing on ms4 projects on a pilot basis and with the amount of funding dedicated at 50,000 annually I'm sorry yes annually is there a second is there a motion to that effect I would be this is commissioner cilus I would be happy to make that motion if I could actually rep everything you said um I think staff can probably grasp that and clean it up hopefully if not yeah no I I think it sounds worth worth pursuing and so I would definitely offer up a motion that we we get you know give them the green light yes thank you is there a second to that motion this is commissioner Phillips I'll second the motion great been mov and seconded that we recommend the approval for a pilot program working with the local lgus for C sharing on ms4 type of projects uh to the T 50,000 per year and uh is there any other further questions or comments on this before we take it hearing none can we take a roll call please absolutely commissioner pinch hi commissioner cilus hi commissioner Phillips hi and commissioner Schmidt hi thank you commissioner ni all right thank you that was very uh informative so I appreciate it and we're looking forward to uh going ahead with this P Pate project and starting to see some results so looking forward to it the last not the last but the next item on the new business is the application by the gazinski filter strip Farm Ryan is that Ryan Commissioners yes we're getting down there we're getting close to the end uh so this is a filter ship application uh if you notice in Troy's report um there was a recommendation on it in that table at the end of uh the s swcd report so this property is located in helina Township section 16 uh Ken is interested in re-enrolling 2.1 Acres of filter shrips uh so our re-enrollment rate is $100 per acre which is half of the rate for a new project so the total amount being requested is 2,100 um this would be for a new onetime 10year contract so you can't uh renew it after you get approved for one renewal aend uh this filter trip is planted along a ditch that then flows into Raven stream we help continue to buffer sediment nutrients and if you notice in the fact sheet um it's got really good benefits the if you look at the unit cost we're talking about $3 of for sentiment and for ton and and phosphorus is $167 so um this will was a fairly easy one to determine that it made sense to to uh to potentially then reenroll it U so this one did go to the S swcd uh May 16th board meeting and they recommended approval and why it's in front of you today is that uh we currently have it in our docket that all Reen rolls go to the WPC so with that I'll stand for any questions for Ryan on this commissioner pin all I have one question for you Ryan um I it's pretty clear that this is a project we want to move forward that's a given right the benefit is great there uh are we concerned about any precedent setting here in terms of when we will allow for re-enrollment uh funding on the type of projects because as we talked in the past if we can't we can't fund every renewal other we'll never may have any money left to do any new projects so concerns there Vice chair um I I think there's there's always probably a concern about that but we do have a ranking and batching process and in there and also in the docket we clearly outline what we're looking to fund so um the wo plan's pretty clear about you know not necessarily wanting to uh you want to incentivize change but not sustain it and so what that essentially means is we're we're trying to um incentivize people to uh put these you know filter ships or native grass plantings in and leave them beyond the term of you know when the contract contracts contracts expire and we do limit the budget so there's only 20,000 that we set aside out of the you know the 200,000 that we have for it um so there's enough I think that um you know uh layers to this that I mean we're really only funding a very small subset of of what's actually expiring and our process is proactively going to the ones that we would want to uh fund you know so it's not necessarily the ones coming in the door we we kind of go out and look to see um because they have a window too also of one year of of when it's going to expire that they they have to apply so if they let it go two years after the contract in there that that's it I mean that they don't have the opportunity to um to reenroll role at that time so I think we put enough layers in this that we're really funding only the the the highest benefiting projects and this is a prime example of that right thanks you thanks clarification yeah and I had forgotten that that we put a limit on this to 20,000 so that's my mistake in the docket so yes that makes a lot of sense that's our control right there is that we only can do 20,000 it's not like we're gonna get overrun by renewals so thanks for clarification you all any other questions or comments for Ryan uh Ryan this is commissioner cilus now is this this requires new work or this is this is like readdressing work that was already done I'm I'm really not clear on how this works yeah vice sh Mr cilus uh great question so typically no um however if uh there was so what ends up happening is there's a ninth year uh status review so generally speaking we have a pretty good idea of what it's going to still look like the next year you know when it's expiring and so if there were concerns in that 9 year status that things aren't looking good and they have not addressed them I mean that that potentially would become a problem um and then also when they reenroll they're going to go through the same status review checks that we currently have for any new projects so they still get inspected uh they still have to make sure that they uh are maintaining the practice and that it's functioning as it's designed um so likely no they don't have to do anything but if they do they would have to correct it to remain in the program okay thank you you're welome thanks Ryan other questions for Ryan if there are no other questions I would again entertain a motion to approve the tax application by the gazinski farm for filter strip renewal commissioner Schmidt I'll make that motion been moved is there a second to that motion this is commissioner cilus I'll second that motion moved and seconded that we approve the tax application by the glinsky farm for a filter strip renewal is there any other further discretion hearing none then I'd ask for a roll call vote absolutely commissioner Pence hi commissioner cilus hi commissioner Phillips all and commissioner Schmidt all thank you Commissioners now are there any other issues questions Etc if not the next item would be to have a motion to adjourn this is commissioner Phillips I will move to adjourn all right great I don't think we need a second for that if I'm correct um we need a roll call vote though commissioner pinch hi commissioner cilus hi commissioner Phillips hi and commissioner Schmidt hi thank you Commissioners thank thanks members have a wonderful evening a wonderful Memorial Day weekend um and