Download Proposal Form - Minnesota Clean Water Partnership (CWP

2010 Proposal Form
Minnesota Clean Water Partnership (CWP)
Resource Investigation Project
Implementation Project
Doc Type: Proposal
Instructions on Page 5
Proposal Deadline: 4:30 p.m. Friday, August 13, 2010



Review the 2010 CWP Grant Request for Proposal (RFP) at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/cwp-319.html.
Review the Clean Water Partnership Proposal Form Instructions on page 5 of this form.
Submit a copy of this Proposal Form electronically via e-mail to: [email protected].
Project Classification
(Choose only one selection per line.)
Check project type:
Resource Investigation
Implementation
Check project category:
Protection
Restoration
Both
Project Title (Create a unique name that begins with the name of the water body and includes the activity – 50-character maximum.)
Project title:
WFDMR SSTS Replacement Loan Program
Sponsoring Organization
(Must be a county, city, township, watershed district, watershed management organization or joint powers organization.)
Sponsoring organization:
Heron Lake Watershed District
Primary contact person:
Jan Voit, District Administrator
Street address:
City:
1008
3rd
Ave., PO Box 345
Heron Lake
State:
Phone: 507-793-2462
MN
Fax: 507-793-2253
Zip:
E-mail:
56137
[email protected]
Project Budget Projection
Grant funds requested:
$0.00
Loan funds requested
$1,980,000.00
Match funds, including
cash and in-kind services:
Total project cost (sum
of other 3 lines):
$20,316.00
$2,000,316.00
Project Location
Major Watershed:
Des Moines
8-digit Hydrologic unit code:
Hydrologic
unit code:
Sub-watershed:
GPS location:
07100001
43° 50’ 41.56” 95° 28’ 00.06”
What type of water body does it affect? (check all that apply)
Stream
Lake
Water body name(s):
River
Other
West Fork Des Moines River
Basin (check all that apply):
Lake Superior
Red River
Lower Mississippi/Cedar
Des Moines
Is the water of concern a drinking water source?
Upper Mississippi
Missouri
Yes
Minnesota
St. Croix
Rainy
No
If applicable, attach map of project area to proposal.
www.pca.state.mn.us •
wq-cwp7-35e • 6/8/10
651-296-6300
•
800-657-3864
•
TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864
•
Available in alternative formats
Page 1 of 6
Project Plan Information
(Indicate Web page address, page numbers and effective dates of plans relating to this project.)
Basin Plan for this Watershed:
Heron Lake Watershed District Overall Plan (2001): Existing Conditions and Related Potential
Problems; Goals and Objectives; Water Quality and Quantity; Erosion/Sedimentation/Nutrient
Loading (p. 7-8)
Lyon County Local Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2003): Section II-C Nutrient
Reduction, Implementation Activities 11 (p. 4)
Cottonwood County Local Water Management Plan (2006): Section D Implementation
Schedule of Ongoing Activities, Actions 3b.2 and 3b.3 (p. 26)
Murray County Local Water Management Plan (2007): Section C Implementation to
Address Priority Concerns, Actions A4.a and A4.b (p. 20)
Nobles Local Water Management Plan (2009): Section C Implementation to Address
Priority Concerns, Actions 1d.9 and 1d.10 (p. 30)
Comprehensive Local Water Plan:
Martin County Local Water Plan (2007): Priority Concerns, Drainage System Management,
Objective 6 (p. 14)
MPCA-approved TMDL Implementation Plan:
West Fork Des Moines River and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan
(2009): 6.2 SSTS/Unsewered Communities, Actions 2 and 5 (p. 42)
Other plans that refer to this project work:
www.pca.state.mn.us •
wq-cwp7-35e • 6/8/10
651-296-6300
•
800-657-3864
•
TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864
•
Available in alternative formats
Page 2 of 6
Summary Information (See Instructions on page 5 to assist you in completing the summary.
Add your summary below – maximum two pages in length)
This project would provide low interest loan funds for the replacement of 165 non-compliant subsurface sewage
treatment systems (SSTS) in the West Fork Des Moines River (WFMDR) watershed.
1. What is the condition of the water body(ies) being addressed? The WFDMR watershed is located in
southwestern Minnesota and is part of the Western Corn Belt Plains and Northern Glaciated Plains ecoregions.
The watershed extends across seven counties: Murray, Cottonwood, Jackson, and Nobles, and small portions of
Pipestone, Lyon, and Martin. It covers an area of 1,333 square miles. The river originates from several lakes
including its principal source, Lake Shetek and flows southeasterly for 94 miles to the Minnesota/Iowa border and
eventually enters the Mississippi River at Keokuk, Iowa.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) listed 15 stream reaches in the WFDMR watershed as impaired
for excess fecal coliform bacteria (a human health concern that limits recreational use of the water) and 15 stream
reaches for excess turbidity (a measure of cloudiness of water that affects aquatic life). In addition, the MPCA
listed North and South Heron Lake as impaired due to excess nutrients (which limits both its recreational use and
ecological/wildlife function). Related to the Heron Lake problem is a listing for pH within the Heron Lake Outlet.
2. How does the proposed project demonstrate a high potential for success as it relates to project goals and
objectives, work activities, measurable outcomes, budget, organization, and management structure? The
WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Report states that the sources of fecal coliform bacteria were found to be
livestock on overgrazed riparian pasture, surface-applied manure on cropland, feedlots lacking adequate runoff
controls, and inadequate septic systems.
A septic system is defined as a private waste removal system for homes that are not connected to a community
sewer. A conventional septic system consists of three main parts: septic tank, drain field, and the soil beneath the
drain field. Waste is filtered to the soil where components in the soil neutralize bacteria and chemicals before they
reach groundwater or nearby rivers and lakes. A functioning system can remove up to 99 percent of bacteria.
This project would provide loan funds to replace 165 SSTS. Based on county and HLWD information from 2009
applications, project partners propose to replace SSTS as follows: 60 in Nobles County, 50 in Murray County, 33 in
Cottonwood County, 13 in Lyon County, and 9 in Martin County. Of those, it is estimated that 24 would be within
the HLWD and would be eligible for their septic system incentive program of $500.00 per system. Both Jackson
County and Pipestone County believed they have adequate loan funds to cover the systems that would be
replaced in the next three years. These efforts, identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan, were chosen activities
to assist in fecal coliform bacteria reduction. The project sponsor would also complete and submit all reports
according to work plan requirements.
3. How does the proposed project include coordination and cooperation of federal, state, local agencies, and
units of government for water quality protection or restoration? Since the early 1950’s, many studies have
collected water quality information throughout the watershed, resulting in several datasets and over 50 impaired
waters listings. In December 2008, EPA approved a comprehensive TMDL report that addressed 32 impairments
in the watershed. In early 2009, through a collaborative effort between local stakeholders and local, state, and
federal entities, the HLWD developed a ten-year implementation plan to address bacteria and turbidity
impairments in the WFDMR watershed and phosphorus impairment in the Heron Lake system. Goals of the tenyear implementation plan include hiring staff to promote the project, seeking additional funding sources,
conducting monitoring, and working with landowners and conservation agencies to improve the water quality of the
WFDMR watershed.
In the last fifteen years, there have been several task force, alliances, and watershed groups that have been
established through grant work plans. While most of the grants were short-term endeavors, they allowed for many
positive accomplishments in the watershed. Some of these successes include: a watershed coordinator on staff for
four years; several diagnostic studies on various WFDMR tributaries, conservation practices installed on sensitive
agricultural lands; many workshops, field days, and watershed tours to provide first-hand information about best
management practices; and thousands of newsletters distributed to watershed residents, agency personnel, and
legislators.
One of the more important successes has been the partnership developed with the seven counties, SWCDs, and
HLWD. These groups entered into a Memorandum of Agreement that shows their intent to work together to
leverage funds and resources by solidifying their commitment to the WFDMR watershed. This will allow for those
involved to maximize resources more effectively, provide new opportunities, and establish a diverse, unique
commitment. Coordination among local government units is needed to maximize the benefits of the efforts and
available resources, while providing the best possible avenues to address the environmental, educational,
economic, and agricultural needs of the watershed, its communities, and its residents.
www.pca.state.mn.us •
wq-cwp7-35e • 6/8/10
651-296-6300
•
800-657-3864
•
TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864
•
Available in alternative formats
Page 3 of 6
4. How does the proposed project complement other local, state, and federal efforts? The seven counties,
SWCDs, and HLWD works in partnership on a Water Quality Management Planning Grant that employs a
watershed coordinator to provide an avenue to bring together the work done within the watershed, renew the Des
Moines River Watershed Alliance, and synchronize multiple monitoring efforts on a basin scale in Minnesota and
Iowa. These entities will also be collaborating on a recently awarded EPA 319 grant to conduct a Level III Feedlot
Inventory, conduct education efforts, and retain a watershed coordinator for the WFDMR watershed.
Partnerships between the agencies and organizations working in the watershed make the best use of funding and
staff. Instead of duplicating efforts, staff works to promote all the cost-share, incentive, and loan programs
available within the watershed to ensure the best possible use of funds for the landowners and local, state, and
federal agencies.
5. How does the proposed project demonstrate a high potential for project success based on broad-based
community support and involvement within the project area, and the project sponsor’s and cooperator’s
local capability and organization? The advisory committee, which has been in existence for over five years,
provided input and received updates during the development of the TMDL Report and provided a foundation for
developing an implementation plan. It is composed of watershed residents and stakeholders in the agricultural,
environmental, governmental, and industrial sector and was initiated at the local level to show how important civic
engagement is to the project. The second committee is comprised of local conservation agencies dedicated to
improving the WFDMR watershed. Together these 45 committee members assisted in the development of a 72page comprehensive watershed implementation plan. These committees would continue to meet during the grant
period to receive updates, discuss issues, and pursue future projects.
6. What is the likelihood that the proposed project will serve as a demonstration for water quality protection
or restoration and provide useful information or examples for local, regional, or state efforts for nonpoint
source pollution control? The WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL Implementation Plan estimates there are 3,818
systems in the watershed that are noncompliant. Replacing noncompliant systems is an essential component for
fecal coliform bacteria reduction in the watershed. Project sponsors propose the replacement of 165 SSTS over
the three-year period. Implementation of these practices could demonstrate water quality protection, provide
useful information about the implementation process, and lead to cost-share and incentive programs from the
HLWD that could be successfully implemented in other local, regional, or state efforts for nonpoint source pollution
control.
7. Is the water of concern of state and regional significance and priority? How so? The Des Moines River flows
into Iowa and the Mississippi River. The WFDMR watershed is included on MPCA’s impaired waters list for fecal
coliform bacteria, turbidity, excess nutrients, and pH impairments. More landowners need to participate in best
management practices in order for the goals of the TMDL Implementation Plan to be realized, and the project
sponsors believe that one way this can be accomplished is by offering loan funds to upgrade noncompliant septic
systems.
8. How does the proposed project maximize water quality protection or restoration of the water of concern in
the project area? A septic system is defined as a private waste removal system for homes that are not connected
to a community sewer. A conventional SSTS consists of three main parts: septic tank, drain field, and the soil
beneath the drain field. Waste is filtered to the soil where components in the soil neutralize bacteria and chemicals
before they reach groundwater or nearby rivers and lakes. A functioning system can remove up to 99 percent of
bacteria.
9. For implementation projects only - How will the proposed project facilitate the adoption of the best
management practices (BMPs) by the community in the project area and how does the proposed project
use technically feasible BMPs to abate or prevent non-point source pollution? Replacement of noncompliant
septic systems is one BMP identified to reduce fecal coliform bacteria problems in the WFDMR watershed. The
proposed loan program would be implemented by the HLWD. Landowners throughout the WFDMR watershed
would be eligible to apply for loan funds for septic system replacement. One-on-one landowner contact would be
the method employed to address the fecal coliform bacteria impairment in the watershed.
www.pca.state.mn.us •
wq-cwp7-35e • 6/8/10
651-296-6300
•
800-657-3864
•
TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864
•
Available in alternative formats
Page 4 of 6
Budget Information
Project expenditure budget
Complete the following table by listing the objectives that will comprise your project and estimated cost of each objective. Add
additional rows as necessary.
Objectives
Funding types
Grant
Local cash
1. SSTS Replacement Loans
In-kind
Total
Loan
20,316.00
1,980,000.00
2,000,316.00
20,316.00
1,980,000.00
2,000,316.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Total of program objectives:
0.00
0.00
*The project objective budget should address the cost of setting up monitoring stations, collecting monitoring data, reducing
the data, public education, writing the diagnostic study and implementation plan, Best Management Practices (BMPs)
activities, project administration, etc. Costs listed for each objective must be realistic.
www.pca.state.mn.us •
wq-cwp7-35e • 6/8/10
651-296-6300
•
800-657-3864
•
TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864
•
Available in alternative formats
Page 5 of 6
Project support budget
Complete the following sections for all the sources of grant, loan, match money, and in-kind contributions for your project. The
match requirement must be no less than the amount of the grant. Add additional rows as necessary.
Project costs
Cash contribution
to project
Project sponsors
A.
Project sponsor contribution
B.
Local contributing sponsors:
In-kind contribution
to project
0.00
20,316.00
Total project support
20,316.00
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B. Subtotal
C.
20,316.00
State and/or federal contributing sponsors: (cannot be more than 20 percent of the total project costs.)
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
C. Subtotal*
0.00
Total: All project sponsors (A+B+C)
Grant amount requested
(cannot exceed $500,000):
Loan amount requested
(no maximum)
0.00
1,980,000.00
Grand Totals
Total cash
Total in-kind
Total project cost
$1,980,000.00
$20,316.00
$2,000,316.00
MPCA staff or resources cannot be used as match.
www.pca.state.mn.us •
wq-cwp7-35e • 6/8/10
651-296-6300
•
800-657-3864
•
TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864
•
Available in alternative formats
Page 6 of 6