Scott County Watershed Management Organization

Scott County

Watershed Management Organization June 26, 2017

4:00 PM

Scott County Government Center

County Board Room

Scott Watershed Management Organization

200 Fourth Avenue West

Shakopee, MN 55379-1220

0 00000000000000000000000

AGENDA Scott WMO – Watershed Planning Commission Meeting

June 26, 2017

4:00 p.m.

Government Center County Board Room

Call to Order 4:00 PM Action Approval of Agenda Action Approval of Meeting Minutes May 22, 2017 Action Staff Reports Scott SWCD Information Scott WMO Information Old Business Project Updates Information Planning Updates - Memo from Melissa Bokman (watershed plan update) Information - Guest Speaker Tim Gillette, PE. (BWSR) - Conservation Drainage Information - Memo from Paul Nelson (tile drainage and planning) Information

- Tile Drainage Rules: A Review of MN Watershed District Rules – Scott SWCD Report Information

- Review of Technical Assistance Cost Share Program (2006 – 2016) – Scott SWCD Report Information

- Well Decommission Information New Business 2018 Budget Information Technical Assistance & Cost Share Application - David Brandell Streambank Stabilization Action Adjourn Action

Scott Watershed Management Organization 200 Fourth Avenue West Shakopee, MN 55379-1220 952-496-8054 Fax 952-496-8496 www.scottcountymn.gov

1

MINUTES

Scott County WMO – Watershed Planning Commission

County Boardroom


Shakopee, Minnesota

May 22, 2016

Members Present:

Staff Present:

Others Present:

Patricia Mohn

Paul Nelson

Charlie Howley

Jim Schwingler

Melissa Bokman

Joe Thill

Ryan Holzer

Mark Vierling

Dianna Gerold

Virgil Pint

Brian Schmidt

Rita Weaver

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Schwingler called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM.




2

There was the addition of one new item on the agenda which was to introduce our newest member of the Scott County Watershed Planning Commission: Rita Weaver.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Motion by Commissioner Thill; Second by Commissioner Vierling to approve the 05/22/17 agenda.

Motion carried: Ayes 7 Nays 0

Commissioner Rita Weaver introduced herself to the Commissioners. She has been a Water Resource Engineer for thirteen (13) years; and she works for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. She believes this will be a great opportunity to give back to the community.

APPROVAL OF MEETING APRIL 24, 2017 MINUTES:

Motion by Commissioner Pint; and Second by Commissioner Thill to approve the April 24, 2016 minutes as written and presented.


STAFF REPORTS:

SWCD:

Paul Nelson presented. Troy Kuphal is on vacation; however you do have his report in your information packets; and it is self-explanatory. On page three in the table we have eight (8) applications for cost share with landowners. There were several raingardens as well as native grasses; and there are a number of thank you cards that are going around for your signature today to these landowners. The items with asterisks have a fact sheet attached. However there is one mistake; Michael Wolf should be Michael Sticka. We will present the Michael Wolf project at the next Watershed Planning Commission meeting on June 26, 2017.

SWMO:

Melissa Bokman presented the SWMO updates. They will be holding a Technical Advisory Committee meeting on Wednesday, May 31st from 9:00 AM – 11:30AM; and they will discuss the Watershed plan update, McMahon Lake water treatment, and SCALE.

Jason Swenson, our water source engineer is leaving Scott County on June 9th. There will be a going away party for him and you will be kept posted. He has taken a position at Hennepin County. There is thank you card for Jason as well.

Paul Nelson provided some additional updates. In the evening, on June 6, 2017 there will be a meeting scheduled to gather input from the landowners of McMahon Lake as to whether or not to treat the lake once again.

3

On Saturday, May 20th there was a celebration at Cleary Lake Park. They have completed the renovation of the visitor center, the irrigation system for the golf course and the rain gardens. Since it was raining quite hard Paul was the only one who went out to look at them and they were working just fine; and the plant growth in the raingardens is coming along very well.

The Carp tournament on Cedar Lake was held last Friday night on May 19, 2017.

Mr. Nelson continued by saying there was an email sent out to you today regarding more drainage issues on Salisbury Road. Mr. Nelson and Commissioner Schmidt will be attending a meeting with the DNR and Township tomorrow (05/23/17) afternoon. Staff did a feasibility study on this ravine in 2012; and didn’t begin this project because it is quite expensive and the roads are so low and it is difficult to justify spending $750,000.

Commissioner Schmidt added the drop pipe has filled up with sediment and the overflow system they designed is working; the water is going down along the side of the road. This situation is causing more erosion in the ravine.

OLD BUSINESS

Project Updates

Ryan provided his project updates. Quarry Creek has a vegetation management plan that extends for 2 more years. They will be conducting their first inspection this year on 05/24/17. We’ll meet with the contractor and identify areas that need maintenance or possible reseeding. Ryan met with one of the land owners on the upper end of the project and they’ve started construction at that site where they were going to cut off the wing walls of the sheet pile and do some minor grading around the area. The project should be completed on June 30th.

There were two Riparian buffer volunteer events last week and we had about 50 local volunteers. There were a number of volunteers from a local church, and there were fifteen (15) Shakopee High School students along with Commissioner Virgil Pint and Commissioner Schwingler’s wife, Chris. Anything the volunteers did not plant; Great River Greening completed. We may do another project of this type in the future.

Ryan provided an excellent informational presentation which illustrated the Capital Improvement Projects (210th Street [North Site], Xanadu Sawmill and the Ravine projects).

On June 13, there will be a reconvened meeting with BWSR (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources) regarding the watershed grant to provide updates on projects and projected forecasts for the balance of the year. In remaining grant dollars there is approximately $100K in ecological funds; $50K in structural; and a potential of $20K for wetlands if we receive grant money for the application for wetland restorations.

Melissa continued by providing updates on her projects. The Carp study has been completed and there is a final report which will be available on our website.

4

A third wave of University of Minnesota surveys were sent out getting people’s perspective relating to customer service with the Technical Assistance and Cost Share (TACS) program and SWCD. So far, they have received back 181 surveys which are a 54% return rate. They will be working on analyzing data and creating report and these should be completed by mid-June.

All four (4) lakes were treated for curlyleaf pondweed; Thole and McMahon lakes were completed on May 5th; and Cedar and O’Dowd lakes were completed on May 10th.

Planning Update/ Discussion

Melissa provided an update related to planning. They will provide the Watershed Planning Commission with a planning update each month. See the table below which outlines the schedule to discuss the following topics and timing.

Month Discussions Topic TAC April Information/Background Chris Zadak – recent

monitoring results/Vision statement

May Information/Background Bacteria / Chloride Future IQ – Vision Statement Redo

June Information/Background TACS program / Tiling drainage management

July Information/Background Dr. Belmont findings / TSS Plan structure? (Capacity Building versus Program Elements)

August Policies Impaired Waters Priorities / AIS

September Strategies TOUR Policies/Strategies Plan structure

October Strategies WRAPs? November Strategies December Final draft for 60-day

review

Included in the information packets was the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency insert on Bacteria: Sources, Types and Impact on Water Quality which explains what bacteria is and how it affects water quality. Also included was the insert of the Scott County Septic Loan Program which provides information about eligibility and the low interest loans.

Currently, there are two waterbodies listed on the federal 303(d) Impaired Waters List as being impaired for bacteria. These two waterbodies are County Ditch 10 and West Raven Stream. As part of the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) study conducted by the MPCA there are several additional waters which will be added to the federal impaired waters list for bacteria impairments in 2018.

5

Melissa put together some ideas together to determine priority areas and potential management. It is not the intent to have the Commissioners make any decisions tonight she continued, these ideas are to get you thinking about the problems, priorities areas and potential strategies.

Top priority areas to consider:

• Sand Creek is canoeable; and there are not any definite access points on the Creek. • Environmental Health Department is working with potential septic issues and landowners. They

are considering a targeted mailed or advertising of the septic loan program for those landowners with older septic systems.

• Educate landowners of land application of manure to include things such as amounts, timing, and locations. The new Buffer rule may take care of this issue once everyone comes into compliance.

• New technology for DNA testing of bacteria to determine “hot spots”. The DNA testing can determine whether or not the bacteria is animal or human.

• Signage/Posting to warn the public of impaired waters and potential health risks.

There is a hot spot area in Vermillion; however we need probable cause to gain access to these properties. If a landowner is willing to work with us great; if not, we will have to find another avenue to approach the situation.

Commissioner Pint mentioned there might be septic systems that may not be pumped at all. He thought it was a requirement within the county to have them pumped every three years? Scott County sends out notifications to landowners to have their septic pumped every three years. Melissa was unsure of the consequence of not taking that action and she will follow up with Environmental Health.

Commissioner Pint continued by saying, in the past many of the agricultural owners would allow cattle to have direct access to the Ditch and West Raven Stream? Has that practice been eliminated? Is there a buffer for pasture land to not have access to any of the direct waterway? Melissa did consult with Scott Schneider (SWCD) to ask if he knew of any areas the cattle do have direct access. Scott couldn’t think of any landowners at the moment where the cattle still have access to the stream.

Mr. Paul Nelson continued by saying they will be bringing forward these topics such as bacteria and chloride and next month we’ll talk about sediment and phosphorus. Chris Zadak presented at our Commission meeting last month with all of the new listings. With the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Commission will have to do some prioritization with respect to bacteria. Ditch 10 and West Raven have been listed for bacteria for many years; we haven’t prioritized them because they are intermittent. There is some body contact recreation in Sand Creek in the Jordan area with canoeists and kayakers and body contact recreation at the lakes. There is only so much money, so is it bacteria, chloride, sediment or phosphorus? They will have to prioritize.

Melissa continued by saying the areas which are going to be listed with bacteria issues are Eagle Creek, Credit River, Porter, Raven and Sand Creek and several small areas in the Belle Plaine area.

6

Melissa provided the Chloride Impairments in Surface Water presentation. She included a fact sheet in the information packets on the Twin Cities Metro Area Chloride Management Plan (TCMA Plan); which is a study that began in 2010 and was completed in 2014. The following streams in Scott County were monitored in the TCMA chloride study: Sand Creek, Credit River, Raven Stream, Raven Stream East Branch, County Ditch 3 to Raven Stream and Eagle Creek. The following lakes were sampled during the study and found to meet the chloride standard for aquatic life use: Cedar, McMahon, O’Dowd, Thole, Pleasant and Upper/Lower Prior Lake. These lakes were not impaired at this time.

The new chloride impairments list will include: Sand Creek, Minnesota River, Credit River and Porter Creek. Credit River and Porter Creek are the new additions to this list. They have sampled water every month throughout the year to see where we can find trends; and there are some trends in Scott County. As an example Sand Creek had low flows in the middle of the summer when there wasn’t much precipitation. In July, they showed a spike of chloride in Sand Creek. During this low flow the source may be from a wastewater treatment plant rather than salt runoff.

Fortunately, we don’t have any lakes exceeding; however once chloride gets into a water body you cannot get it out. It only accumulates and it becomes more toxic. The only way to remove chloride in a lake is reverse osmosis which is cost prohibitive. If the toxicity is too high it begins to kill fish or smaller invertebrates in the lakes. It can actually start changing a lake’s turnover cycle. In the spring time and fall, with the wind blowing the lake the bottom water turns to the top adding oxygen to the bottom of the lake. Too much chloride in the water can change the density of the water and change the ability of the lake to turnover.

Where there exists impairments in surface water within a particular watershed, the study found impairments in shallow groundwater of chloride in that same watershed. One shallow well was sampled in Jordan which has chloride impairments. Eagle Creek is showing a trend of increasing chloride.

Scott County has been in the forefront and a leader on using best technologies and the best products as far as winter maintenance for its roadways. Scott County was awarded a leadership award in 2004 for its work in salt use and reducing salt use. They use brines, Clearlane and with upgraded equipment and technology they have been an example for other counties.

Potential Watershed Management Prioritization and Strategies:

• Identify watersheds with road densities of 18% or greater to identify watersheds where chloride concentrations are typically above water quality standards (i.e. northern part of the County, Shakopee, Savage and Prior Lake).

• Identify critical areas for chloride reduction focuses on areas with drinking water supply wells with hard and very hard water

• Look at waters that are already impaired - Credit River is a high risk, but they are still going to list it in 2018 - Sand Creek (water treatment plants) we may want to put an emphasis on residential

water softeners.

7

• Ask the cities to review this implementation plan and include what they plan on doing. The County will be reviewing the City plans.

There are a lot of suggested and draft strategies in the last two pages of the memo which Melissa provided in the packet. There is a lot to think about with what role we would like to have in chloride reduction.

Several considerations:

• Should Staff start monitoring for chloride in ground water? Currently people come in to test their ground water for day care of for selling their home.

• Currently there is no lake monitoring; should Staff begin to monitor the lakes?

Commission Pint said it seems to me that a logical explanation for Sand Creek may be where there are higher concentrations of human activity that is where most of the chloride is coming from whether it is roads or water softener. Have we done any analysis of seeing whether or not the municipalities on Sand Creek, New Prague or Montgomery are discharging from their sanitary plant a chloride concentration or from storm water discharging potential where there may be high concentrations of chloride? Melissa answered The PCA sampled every month of the year. I haven’t been out to some of these locations to see what the sampling site looks like.

Mr. Nelson added. The PCA added monitoring of chloride to the wastewater discharge permits and I know that in the study that Melissa was part of they only had so much money to monitor monthly at the stations they didn’t monitor a whole lot of them. One strategy may be to search for hot spots by doing more sampling of chloride. We could begin by looking at where the most pavements are located.

Mr. Nelson continued by saying they do suspect Sand Creek and Raven is a wastewater issue. I’ve seen some of the sampling results for Jordan and it is high. People soften their water and it is not removed by wastewater processes.

Melissa continued by saying relating to prioritization should they collect more data before they act? We’ve told the cities when they update their local water plans we want them to go through what is within the PCA plan and identify what they will be doing within their municipalities with respect to their road practices. Looking at the figure 4 in your packet which is all the red is where the pavement is 18% or greater; it is largely in the cities. The County road density is not really high enough and may not really be a big issue.

Several Questions

• If the Cities adopt practices which are laid out in the TMDL study and are put into their plans for us to review should we hold them to this? Does that leave a gap for the private side? It could be your policies that place where we should fill in.

• Does the WMO share any responsibility or public benefit from us working with the wastewater plants?

8

• Waste water utilities are a rate system. They can charge their users for whatever they have to do? Would it be good policy for the WMO to use the tax dollars to help an organization that has rate raising capacity?

• Perhaps the County should make grant requests and work together? We’ve already told the Cities we will work with them. Do we ask the County to do anything more?

NEW BUSINESS

Ryan Holzer reviewed the application for Richard Dietz Wetland Restoration. The property is located In LeSueur County, Section 27, Laneburgh Township which quite close to the headwaters of Sand Creek. The total estimated cost of the project if $20,560.00. The total requested combination of incentive and cost share the applicant is seeking from the WMO is $19,360.00.

The wetland is 4.3 acres and will include the required upland buffer. The applicant will restore approximately 90 acres of agricultural land on this parcel to a combination of native prairie and additional smaller wetland restorations. This wetland was designed by the USFWS and they will also help with construction management. The project’s requested funds would come from the Targeted Watershed Grant and would represent the first project to tap into the wetland restoration funds from the grant.

The application requires Screening Committee recommendation since all wetland restoration projects require a review. The LeSueur SWCD Screening Committee members recommended approval of this project’s funds at their May 9, 2017 Board Meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Pint and Second by Commissioner Thill to recommend for approval the Richard Dietz restoration project.


Ryan Holzer reviewed the Kevin Shea shoreline protection project along McMahon Lake. It is 360 linear feet of shoreline. The total estimated cost of the project is $23,100,00. The total requested cost share the applicant is seeking from WMO is $17,325 which is 75% cost share.

The site has been experience erosion along the shoreline of McMahon Lake due to a combination of wave action and turf grass planted down to the water’s edge. These two factors are causing up to one (1) foot of erosion per year along some sections of this shoreline. Rip rap combined with coir logs and some bank shaping will reduce erosion and an upland native buffer shall be planted as well. This project’s requested funds would come from the Targeted Watershed Grant and would be well within the budget of those funds.

This application requires a Screening Committee recommendation since all shoreline protection projects require a review. The Scott SWCD Screening Committee members recommended approval of this project’s funds at their May 9, 2017 Board meeting.

9

Motion by Commission Mohn; and Second by Commission Vierling to approve the Kevin Shea Shoreline Protection Application


ADJOURN MEETING

Motion by Commissioner Schmidt and Second by Commissioner Mohn to adjourn the meeting at 5:10PM.

_________________________________________ ___________________________

Jim Schwingler Date Chair, Watershed Planning Commission

________________________________________

Dianna Gerold Secretary

Staff Reports




Old Business




Tile Drainage Rules: A Review of MN Watershed District

Rules Prepared by Scott SWCD for Scott WMO

6/20/2017

1

Introduction

This report summarizes current rules governing subsurface tile drainage in Minnesota. It is intended to

support the Scott Watershed Management Organization (WMO) as it prepares its next comprehensive

water plan update. It provides a brief history of drainage law, outlines watershed district rules, and

discusses options for the WMO.

County commissioners were first authorized to accept petitions and establish public drainage systems in

1883 (Laws 1883, c. 108). The basic framework of assessing benefits and damages and then approving if

the proposed drainage project provides a net benefit has not changed much since 1883. Seventy-two

years later, the Watershed Act was enacted establishing watershed districts to protect water resources

and giving them authority to assume drainage authority responsibilities when directed. (Laws 1955, c.

799).

Efforts to mitigate the negative effects of tile drainage through the application of Conservation practices

continue to evolve and can offer net benefit to society if properly evaluated. Because environmental

concerns were not a priority at the time drainage legislation was crafted, there is some question of a

drainage authority’s ability to mandate conservation drainage practices into drainage systems (Smith

and Holman, 2011). The original legislation certainly did not address conservation or negative

environmental impacts. Instead, drainage projects are evaluated primarily on feasibility of design and

cost. Drainage authorities are mandated by MN Statures 103E.015 to consider conservation and other

public values when evaluating a drainage project. However, quantification of public value or

conservation is difficult and usually becomes supplemental to the private benefits and damages dollar

estimates (Smith and Holman, 2011).

Tile drainage is largely unregulated by state and federal law because it is on private lands. This is the

case in Minnesota and the entire mid-west. Drainage laws are generally in place to support agriculture

and find the best way to efficiently drain at a low cost. Rulemaking authority is granted to watershed

districts under 103D and watershed management organizations under 103B. This provides a framework

for local rule development to address subsurface tile drainage, as it relates to flood and water quality

protection. Watershed districts may require permits for activities under rules controlling the use and

development of land in the floodplain, greenbelt, and open space areas of the watershed district under

103D. Watershed management organizations may regulate the use and development of water and

related land resources under 103B. Where local rules are in place to limit drainage, there is a stated

need to mitigate flooding or manage water quality. This report is an assessment of local drainage rules

governing the design or installation of tile drainage systems. A review of watershed district subsurface

drain tile rules is provided to represent the range of current rules in use in Minnesota and possible

options should the Scott WMO decide to pursue tile drainage rulemaking.

Methods

The current state of tile drainage rules throughout Minnesota was determined by a review of the 46

watershed district rules. All but six watershed districts have copies of their rules available online.

Attempts were made to call those six watershed districts to determine if tile drainage rules exist.

2

Tim Gillette (BWSR drainage engineer) and Tim Jon Roeschlein (Sauk River WD Ditch and Permit

Coordinator and former Bois de Sioux WD Administrator) provided input as well to help understand

state drainage law and watershed district rule making authority.

Results

Of the 46 watersheds reviewed, 22 require permitting of tile installation in some capacity. Eleven of

those 22 require permit of all new or expanded subsurface tile drainage. The Bois de Sioux Watershed

District (BdSWD) in the Red River Valley is leading the way when it comes to tile drainage regulation. As

a result of recurring damaging floods, BdSWD has required all tile drainage be permitted since 1999.

Over that time, they have seen near exponential growth in new tile installation. There was a 2013 peak

that matched commodities prices and slight decline since prices dropped (Figure 1). BdSWD is innovative

in that they were the first watershed district to require a drainage coefficient (Dc) limit. They set a Dc of

¼ inches per day on drainage systems without pumps or gate control structures with the ability to “shut

off” the drainage system. Those systems using controls or pumps that can turn off drainage are not

limited by Dc but are required to close their drainage systems when flood conditions exist. These rules

effectively limit peak flood flows by holding water back on the landscape and releasing it at a slower

rate.

Similarly, the Joe River Watershed District, a downstream district from BdSWD along the Red River, uses

a Dc of 3/8 inches per day and requires shutoff gates.

Figure 1. Bois de Sioux Watershed District cumulative and annual permitted tile miles. Data used from

BdSWD.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Pe

rmit

ted

tile

(m

iles)

Year

New Tile Cumulative Tile

3

Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) also has strict drainage rules. A big difference, however, is that

RCWD is mostly developed with fewer farmed acres. All drainage activities, including subsurface tile

drainage, must be permitted. It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the drainage

activity will not adversely impact either upstream or downstream water quality or quantity and must

provide a stable outlet. Furthermore, the system must be designed for maintenance in perpetuity. The

maintenance responsibility must be memorialized in a document executed by the property owner,

accepted by RCWD, and filed for record on the deed.

There are eight other watershed districts that permit all subsurface drainage projects (Table 1). Some

have other stipulations and rules that go along with the permitting process. Kanaranzi-Little Rock

Watershed District (KLRWD) requires the applicant to notify all adjacent landowners to inform them of

the proposed project. No tiling may outlet into a road ditch and surface inlets must also be placed where

deemed necessary by the KLRWD board of managers. The Lac Qui Pearl-Yellow Bank Watershed District

(LQPYBWD) requires that the drainage coefficient of any new or expanded drainage system shall not

exceed those of the receiving drainage way, a practice that would limit erosion and flooding in

downstream waters. The Red Lake Watershed District (RLWD) requires that all subsurface tile drainage

system protect from erosion and include RLWD approved erosion control measures. “As built” plans

must also be submitted to RLWD after installation. Turtle Creek Watershed District (TCWD) and Upper

Minnesota River Watershed District (UMRWD) require an applicant to get written permission from

adjoining downstream landowner. If permission cannot be acquired, TCWD allows for an engineering or

technical report to be submitted that shows no adverse impact to the adjoining downstream landowner.

Lastly, Yellow Medicine Watershed District (YMWD) requires all surface tile intakes, in addition to

subsurface tile drainage systems, to be permitted and requires tile to have a non-eroding outlet.

Table 1. Watershed Districts that require all subsurface tile drainage be permitted. Eleven

of 46 Minnesota watershed districts require all tile be permitted

Watershed District Criteria

Bois de Sioux Drainage coefficient (1/4” per day) or shutoff gate

Joe River Drainage coefficient (3/8” per day) + shutoff gate Kanaranzi - Little Rock Board approved tile intake location Lac Qui Pearle - Yellow Bank Coefficients not to exceed receiving drainage way Middle-Snake Tamarac Rivers None stated

Red Lake RLWD approved erosion control measures

Rice Creek Maintenance obligation recorded on deed

Turtle Creek Downstream landowner permission

Upper Minnesota Downstream landowner permission

Wild Rice None stated

Yellow Medicine Require non eroding outlet

4

Several other watershed districts permit some subsurface tile projects that exceed some threshold

(Table 2). Buffalo-Red River Watershed District (BRRWD) and Sand Hill River Watershed District

(SHRWD) both require permits for subsurface tile drainage of greater than 5 acres. Roseau River

Watershed District and the Two Rivers Watershed District require permitting of subsurface tile projects

draining greater than 20 acres. The North Fork Crow River Watershed District (NFCRWD) requires

permitting of subsurface tile drainage projects greater than 320 acres. In practice, the 320 acre

threshold would rarely be reached and a majority of tile projects would go ahead unpermitted.

Other watershed districts regulate and permit based on the diameter of the tile. Buffalo Creek

Watershed District (BCWD) requires permits for use of drain tile greater than eight inches. Both Middle

Fork Crow River Watershed District (MFCRWD) and Saulk River Watershed District (SRWD) require

permits for drain tile greater than 12 inches in diameter.

Other features of tile drainage systems can trigger a permit requirement. For example, in Heron Lake

Watershed District (HLWD) and Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District (OOWD), a permit is required for

new surface tile intakes but not the actual subsurface tile drainage system. Warroad Watershed District

(WWD) requires a permit for subsurface tile drainage systems that outlet directly or indirectly into a

public water. In reality, there would be few circumstances where permitting in WWD is not required.

Cormorant Lakes Watershed District exempts normal agricultural practices from permitting unless it

adversely affects water quality. There may be circumstances where this could apply to tile drainage

systems.

Table 2. Watershed Districts that require subsurface tile drainage to be permitted under some circumstances. Eleven of the 46 districts require permits above some threshold.

Watershed District Threshold for permits

Buffalo - Red River 5 acre threshold

Buffalo Creek 8 inch or greater

Heron Lake Permit required for new surface intakes Middle Fork Crow River 12 inch or greater threshold

North Fork Crow River 320 acre threshold

Okabena - Ocheda Surface intakes must be permitted

Roseau River 20 acres

Sand Hill River 5 acre threshold

Saulk River 12 inch or greater threshold

The Two Rivers 20 acres

Warroad If drains directly or indirectly to public water

The remaining 24 watershed districts do not have language in their rules expressly limiting subsurface

tile drainage or requiring permitting of subsurface tile drainage. Most of the metro districts have

language in their rules relating to drainage into MS4 or storm sewer systems. Many watershed districts

have a statement that “surface or subsurface water shall not be artificially moved from upper land and

5

across lower land without adequate provisions being made on the lower land for its passage, nor shall

the natural flow of surface water be artificially obstructed so as to cause and overflow onto the property

of others.” For some, this is the extent that subsurface drainage is covered in rules.

Discussion

The range of rules regarding tile drainage varies greatly across the state. The variation seems to be

geographic with most watersheds in the western and central part of the state having tile rules and

metro area and southeast part of the state areas generally not having tile rules (Figure 2).

There is precedent for a range of measures Scott WMO could explore with justification. The first option

is to stay in line with neighboring watershed districts in the metro area and focus on stormwater and

MS4 discharge. This option would not address eroding tile outlets, limit peak flows, or slow erosion of

unstable ravines or other watercourses. There would be little political backlash to this option, as is

usually the case with maintaining the status quo.

The second option is to require permits for some drainage activities but not all. Projects draining a large

number of acres or using large diameter tile outlet have the capacity to create erosive discharge

velocities, which can increase damage to receiving waters bank and bed. This can exacerbate water

quality concerns by increasing instream sediment load. Limiting the number of acres or size of pipe

would give the WMO an opportunity to ensure stable outflow conditions exist and there is enough

capacity in downstream waters for the added drainage. A concern with using thresholds to trigger rules

is oversight. Who will watch and ensure a project is under a certain acreage or diameter of pipe. When

an activity is exempt from rules in certain situations, the benefit of the doubt must be given and

enforcement becomes more difficult.

The third option is to require permits of all subsurface drainage activities. This alleviates the benefit of

the doubt scenario where a landowner installs tile and the WMO is forced to assume it meets an

exemption criteria. This will provide the WMO the opportunity to ensure best management practices

are used to limit erosion, ensure downstream waters can handle the increased flow, and allow for

drainage statistics to be kept. A drawback of the other options is that there is no way to estimate where

and how much tile is installed on an annual basis. The BdSWD tile installation numbers (Figure 1)

indicate how fast tile can be installed. It is not known how many miles are installed in Scott County but it

can be assumed that the rate is increasing over the past decade as well.

6

Figure 2. Map of Minnesota watershed districts with rules permitting subsurface tile drainage.

7

References

Smith, L. N., & C. B. Holtman. (2011) Minnesota Drainage Law Analysis and Evaluation. Retrieved from

BWSR website:

http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/drainage/Drainage_Law_Eval_Smith_Partners_LCCMR_Final_Rep

ort_08-15-11.pdf

http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/drainage/Drainage_Law_Eval_Smith_Partners_LCCMR_Final_Report_08-15-11.pdf

http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/drainage/Drainage_Law_Eval_Smith_Partners_LCCMR_Final_Report_08-15-11.pdf

Review of Technical Assistance Cost Share Program (2006-2016)

Prepared by Scott SWCD for Scott WMO

6/20/2017

2

Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Funding ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

TACS Programs .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Filter Strips ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Native Grasses ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Water and Sediment Control Basins ......................................................................................................... 9

Grassed Waterways ................................................................................................................................ 10

Grade Stabilization .................................................................................................................................. 12

Well Decommission ................................................................................................................................ 13

Streambank Protection ........................................................................................................................... 14

Raingardens ............................................................................................................................................ 16

Underground Outlet ............................................................................................................................... 17

Shoreline Stabilization ............................................................................................................................ 18

Natural Shoreline Restoration ................................................................................................................ 19

Wetland Restoration ............................................................................................................................... 19

Closure of Waste Impoundment ............................................................................................................. 20

Stormwater Runoff Control .................................................................................................................... 21

Lined Waterway or Outlet Structure ...................................................................................................... 22

Riparian Herbaceous Cover ..................................................................................................................... 24

Prescribed Burning .................................................................................................................................. 25

Terrace .................................................................................................................................................... 26

Herbaceous Wind Barriers ...................................................................................................................... 26

Windbreak/shelterbelt renovation ......................................................................................................... 27

Field Border ............................................................................................................................................. 28

Critical Area Planting ............................................................................................................................... 28

Wildlife Habitat Management ................................................................................................................ 29

Other available practices ........................................................................................................................ 30

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 32

3

Introduction

The Scott Watershed Management Organization (WMO) Technical Assistance and Cost Share (TACS)

Program was created to provide assistance to landowners to implement conservation practices that

protect and improve water quality in rivers, lakes, streams and other valuable water resources in the

Scott WMO. Landowners, citizen groups, and local units of government can request technical and

financial assistance from the Scott WMO and the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD).

WMO funds are often used in combination with other federal, state, and local funds (Figure 1). Policies

and procedures for the use and distribution of cost share funds are established the TACS program

“docket”. The Docket is updated annually, and currently includes 24 eligible conservation practices. The

TACS program was initiated in 2006. Since then, over 675 projects have been installed with a

combination of technical and/or cost share assistance. Of these, 40 are a repair of an existing

conservation practice and 34 have not been completely closed out.

This report is intended to support planning for the next water management plan update. It provides a

comprehensive review and summary of project cost and efficiency, in terms of phosphorus, sediment, or

runoff reductions, where data is available. The SWCD’s database of conservation practice projects is

complete from 2006 to present with, at a minimum, practice type, quantity, and certification date.

Certification is the date the project was deemed complete by the SWCD in accordance with all

applicable federal, state and local standards and specifications. Estimation of phosphorus, sediment,

and runoff reduction was not as important or emphasized in earlier years. Not all completed projects

have these estimates and performing estimates on past completed projects at this time would be unduly

burdensome. As such, this report provides the best summary of currently available data in the SWCD’s

database of completed TACS projects over the past 11 years. The report outlines total funding amounts

by source and then summarizes individual practice types. The practice types are arranged from most to

least used.

In total, 30 practices are included. A detailed review of the 23 most used practices is included. Some

additional practices are mentioned that are either no longer relevant or not typically used as standalone

practices but instead are sub-components of other practices.

Funding

Projects are funded by federal, state, local, and landowner contributions, either solely or in

combination. The WMO helped fund 437 of the 495 projects having readily-available cost information.

WMO financial assistance totaled $2,430,181. The total cost of the 495 conservation practices was

$5,764,893. The figures below include project construction cost share and incentive payments and do

not include expenses from staff time. Expenses from staff time vary year-to-year but is typically between

40% and 50% of the cost of practices.

4

Figure 1. Project funding by source for all project types. Sum of project funding by source for 495 completed projects with cost information. All projects after 2012 have cost figures and some prior to 2012. An additional 106 projects were completed that do not have cost information in the SWCD database. WMO funding was used on 437 of 495 projects.

Local funding through the WMO for TACS projects is leveraged along with other funds. The WMO total

in Figure 1 includes grant funds from sources such as State Clean Water Fund grants and USEPA 319

grants. For example, in 2016 the WMO provided $453,468 to the SWCD for TACS projects approved that

year. Of this, $180,716 was from State grants to the WMO, $31,440 from USEPA 319 grants, with the

balance of $240,312 (roughly 53%) from local WMO dollars. 2015 was similar with roughly 51% of the

dollars provided to the SWCD coming from local dollars and the balance coming from State and Federal

grants to the WMO.

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

Federal Total State Total SWCD Total WMO Total Landowner Share

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

5

Figure 2. Funding sources for seven practices with most total cost. This includes projects completed between 2006 and beginning of 2017.

Figure 3. Funding sources of 16 practice types with least cumulative total cost. This includes projects completed between 2006 and beginning of 2017.

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800Fu

nd

ing

(th

ou

san

ds)

Landowner Share

WMO Total

SWCD Total

State Total

Federal Total

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

Landowner Share

WMO Total

SWCD Total

State Total

Federal Total

6

TACS Programs

In total, 30 different practice types have been implanted using assistance offered through the TACS

program since 2006. The number and type of projects completed in each year is listed in Appendix A.

Repair projects and projects that have not been completely closed out (74 in total) are not included in

the analyses completed for this report. Of the remaining 601 completed projects, over half (302) are

comprised of the top three most popular practices; filter strips, native grass, and water and sediment

control basins. Phosphorus and sediment reduction estimates are available from 12 practice types and

runoff reduction estimates are available from native grass. Phosphorus and sediment reduction from

practices addressing sheet and rill erosion use a combination of the Pollution Reduction Spreadsheet

developed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and RUSLE2 program developed by USDA.

Practices addressing gully erosion used the Pollution Reduction Spreadsheet by BWSR only. Runoff

reduction estimates are based on land use changes and published runoff curve numbers. The following

section is arranged from the most to least used practices.

Box plots are used frequently in this report to condense several pieces of information into a single

figure. An example boxplot is given in Figure 4. Where phosphorus and sediment reduction estimates

are available, both the average project cost per unit reduction, or efficiency, is given along with the

weighted average efficiency. The weighted average divides the sum of all the costs of a project type by

the sum of all the phosphorus or sediment reduction for that project type. The non-weighted average

efficiency uses the average of each project so that the results of each project have an equal weight. This

non-weighted average gives small projects a disproportionate representation and can skew the results.

The range of individual project efficiencies is also given to provide better context.

Figure 4. Example box plot. The box plow show a sample set’s maximum, 3rd quartile value (75% of samples below this value), median, 1st quartile value (25% of samples below this value), and minimum observed values.

7

Filter Strips

The filter strip practice involves establishing and maintaining permanent vegetation along a stream,

wetland, or other environmentally sensitive area. Typically long and narrow features, filter strips are

specifically designed to slow runoff and capture suspend contaminants that would otherwise discharge

into the protected resource. Filter strips can capture sediment, organic matter, nutrients, and

pathogens.

Of all the TACS projects have been completed since 2006, the greatest number has been filter strips. A

total of 194 filter strips have been installed since 2006. This accounts for nearly 1/3 of all TACS projects in

that time, and it includes original projects and projects that were re-enrolled after the original project

funding contract expired.

Due to the enactment of the 2015 water quality buffer law, all of the public waters and jurisdictional

ditches in Scott County require a buffer. As a result, there are fewer miles of watercourses eligible for

the filter strip program. There will likely be a decrease in filter strip projects in the coming years as

landowners come into compliance with the buffer law on their own without cost share assistance.

Figure 5. Phosphorus and sediment reduction box plots. Of the 194 filter strip projects completed since 2006, 152 of those had phosphorus reduction estimates and 150 had sediment reduction estimates. The axis is in log scale due to the large range in estimated values. Filters range in size from 0.3 to 29.6 acres.

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

P Before P After P Reduced

Ph

osp

ho

rus

(lb

s/ye

ar)

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

Sed Before Sed After SedReduced

Sed

ime

nt

(to

ns/

year

)

8

Table 1. Filter strip practice efficiency. Values are given per year of contract. Thirteen contracts were ten years and one contract was fifteen years. There are 147 projects covering 743.3 acres.

$/lb. Phosphorus Reduced/Year

$/Ton Sediment Reduced/Year

Average $75.74 $172.01

Weighted Average $15.28 $6.82

Individual project range $0.49 – $1,300 $0.47 – $4,750 Note: Very small projects can skew average results. The weighted average provides a better estimate.

Native Grasses

The native grass practice involves establishing native prairie ecosystems that were once characteristic

throughout Minnesota. The purpose is primarily to moderate stream flows by reducing runoff volumes,

and secondarily to improve water quality by eliminating sources of sediment and other pollutants.

Though emphasis is on grass species, restoration projects will include numerous native forb (wildflower)

species as well. A balanced mix of grasses and forbs provides for vegetative diversity which enhances

habitat quality for all wildlife species including bird and pollinators, as well as natural landscape

aesthetics.

Since 2006, 60 native grass projects have been completed totaling 475.1 acres. Cost information is

available for 58 projects and runoff reduction estimates are available for another 33 projects. Payments

for 58 projects, over 408 acres, averaged $242.68/acre/year. Projects ranged in scale from one acre to

46.7 acres. Contract lengths were either five or ten years.

Figure 6. Native grass runoff reduction estimates. Runoff estimates were available from 33 projects covering 712.4 acres.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Runoff Before Runoff After Runoff Reduced

Ru

no

ff (

acre

-fe

et)

9

Table 2. Restoration and Management of Declining Habitats cost of runoff reduction. Costs given per year of contract with all contracts of ten year length. This includes estimates from 33 projects totaling 200.9 acres.

$/Acre-Ft Runoff Reduced/Year

Average $705.31

Weighted Average $329.33

Individual project range $44.37 – $3,130

Water and Sediment Control Basins

A water and sediment control basin is an earthen embankment or a combination ridge and channel

constructed at the head of an ephemeral (annual recurring) gully. The embankment is designed to

temporarily impound water from the contributing area, and slowly release it through an underground

outlet structure, typically a tile line. This serves detain runoff and reduce peak volume and discharge

rates, which not only prevents topsoil erosion but also traps sediment and other pollutants to improve

downstream water quality.

Figure 7. Water and sediment control basin funding sources. Cost information is available for 45 of 58 projects.

Table 3. Water and Sediment Control Basin efficiency. Values are given per year of contract. This includes estimates from 87 structures from 43 projects since 2006.



Average $62.46 $61.94


Individual project range $5.67 – $278.56 $5.67 – $278.56

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

WMO Total State Total Federal Total LandownerShare

SWCD Total Total

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

10

Figure 8. Water and Sediment Control Basin phosphorus and sediment removal. Data is available from 87 WASCBS installed between 2006 and 2016. All but a few projects had estimated a complete reduction in phosphorus and sediment.

Grassed Waterways

A grassed waterway is a shaped or graded channel that is established with suitable vegetation to convey

runoff from terraces, diversions, or other water concentrations at non-erosive velocities to a stable

outlet. This practice is used to repair or prevent ephemeral (seasonal) or continual gully erosion, and to

protect water quality.

Of 32 projects, the average project cost was $10.32/linear foot. However, the weighted average cost of

all grassed waterways was $7.60/linear foot. This discrepancy indicates smaller projects cost more per

foot, as would be expected.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0


Ph

osp

ho

rus

(lb

s./y

ear

)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Sed Before Sed After Sed Reduced

Sed

ime

nt

(to

ns/

year

)

11

Figure 9. Grassed waterway project cost and length. Project cost and length information was available for 32 projects.

Figure 10. Grassed waterway estimated phosphorus and sediment reductions. Reduction estimates were available for 31 grassed waterway projects.

y = 6.0094x + 1422.8 R² = 0.6096

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Pro

ject

Co

st (

tho

usa

nd

s)

Linear Feet

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Lbs/Year P Reduced

Ph

osp

ho

rus

(lb

s/ye

ar)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Tons/Year Sediment Reduced

Sed

ime

nt

(to

ns/

year

)

12

Table 4. Grassed Waterway efficiency. Cost is broken down per year. All contracts are ten year length. Estimates are based on 31 projects covering 25,482 ft.



Average $28.89 $29.01


Individual project range $2.62 – $132 $2.62 – $132

Grade Stabilization

A grade stabilization (or control) structure is a practice used to prevent formation or advancement of

gullies or head cuts where the elevation difference between two points in a natural or artificial channel

is severe within a relatively short distance. In addition to protecting water quality by eliminating a

significant source of sediment, grade control structures may also help improve public safety and reduce

infrastructure hazards resulting from severe washouts.

Figure 11. Grade stabilization funding amounts by source. Project cost data is available for 30 projects.

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

Landowner WMO Federal SWCD State Total

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

13

Figure 12. Grade stabilization estimated phosphorus and sediment per project reduction. Reduction estimates were avialabel for 29 projects.

Table 5. Grade Stabilization efficiency. Cost is broken down per year. All contracts are ten year length. Estimates are based on 28 projects with 30 grade stabilization structures.



Average $56.49 $255.54



Well Decommission

Well decommissions are the sealing and permanent closure of inactive, abandoned, or inoperable water

wells. This practice protects groundwater resources by preventing contaminated water or other

potentially harmful fluids from flowing or being dumped into the well.

The SWCD does not calculate cost benefit with well decommissions with regard to phosphorus,

sediment, or runoff reduction. Capping an unused well is a risk mitigation practice that reduces the

chance of contaminating groundwater with surface contaminants. Abandoned wells can be a primary

pathway for groundwater contamination, especially for confined aquifers with little other surface water

connection.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

P Reduced

Ph

osp

ho

rus

(lb

s./y

ear

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Sed Reduced

Sed

ime

nt

(to

ns/

year

)

14

Figure 13. Well decommission funding sources. Funding sources summed from 33 well decommission

projects sealing 39 wells.

Figure 14. Well decommission cost from 39 well decommissions.

Streambank Protection

The streambank protection practice is used to stabilize and protect banks of streams or constructed

channels and shorelines of lakes, reservoirs, or estuaries. The purpose is to prevent the loss of land or

damage to land uses or facilities adjacent to the banks of streams or constructed channels, shoreline of

lakes, reservoirs, or estuaries. This includes the protection of known historical, archeological, and

traditional cultural properties.

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

WMO State Federal Landowner Total All Sources

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

Project Total Cost

Ind

ivid

ual

Pro

ject

Co

sts

15

Table 6. Streambank Protection. Cost is broken down per year. All contracts are ten year length. Estimates are based on 27 projects covering 6,519 ft.



Average $51.07 $50.40



Figure 15. Streambank protection cost per linear foot. Total cost of project includes landowner share and all cost share sources. Cost information is available from 27 projects.

y = 39.261x + 8161.3 R² = 0.1256

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Tota

l Pro

ject

Co

st (

tho

usa

nd

s)

Linear Feet

16

Figure 16. Streambank protection estimated phosphorus and sediment reduction per project. Reduction estiamtes are availabe from 27 projects. It is assumed that this practice causes a complete reduction in phosphorus and sediment loss.

Raingardens

A raingarden is a small and relatively inexpensive landscape feature that individual homeowners,

neighborhoods, and businesses can install to help improve the quality of nearby lakes, rivers, and

wetlands. They are constructed in a location where rain and snowmelt from rooftops, sidewalks,

driveways and other impervious surfaces can collect. Water contained in the raingarden will soak or

"infiltrate" and replenish groundwater. Perennial vegetation planted in the raingarden is carefully

selected to not only beautify the landscape but also help filter out pollutants that runoff may have

picked up along the way.

Raingardens provide benefits of runoff, phosphorus, and sediment reduction. However, the SWCD does

not calculate those benefits for this practice. Since 2006, there have been 34 raingarden projects with

36 raingarden structures completed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Phosphorus Reduced

Ph

osp

ho

rus

Re

du

ced

(lb

s./y

ear

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Sediment Reduced

Sed

ime

nt

Re

du

ced

(to

ns/

year

)

17

Figure 17. Raingarden funding source. Landowner and WMO were the only two sources of funding for

raingardens. Total cost data was available for 24 projects completed since 2006.

Table 7. Raingarden average costs. Since 2006, 34 raingarden projects were installed. However, cost information is available in our database for 24 raingarden projects.

N Average Cost WMO Share Landowner Share

Raingardens 24 $580.40 61% 39%

Underground Outlet

An underground outlet is a conduit or system of conduits installed beneath the surface of the ground to

convey surface water to a suitable outlet. The purpose is to carry water to a suitable outlet from

terraces, water and sediment control basins, diversions, waterways, surface drains, or flow

concentrations without causing damage by erosion or flooding.

Table 8. Underground outlet efficiency. Cost is broken down per year. All contracts are ten year length. Estimates are based on 24 projects including 96 outlets.



Average $69.46 $75.31



$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

WMO Landowner Share Total

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

18

Figure 18. Underground outlet phosphorus and sediment reduction estimates per project. Estimates are available from 26 projects.

Shoreline Stabilization

This practice is used to stabilize and protect shorelines from erosion. In certain situations hard armoring

such as rock riprap is required; however, the use of native plants and other "soft" practices is preferred.

In many cases, shoreline protection practices will also benefit water quality by eliminating direct source

of sediment.

A total of thirteen shoreline stabilization projects were completed since 2006. Shoreline stabilization

projects ranged in size and cost from 25 to 200 linear feet and $1,368 to $47,817. The WMO paid an

average of 55% of total project cost in cost share or incentives.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


Ph

osh

oru

s (l

bs/

year

)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Sed Before Sed After Sed Reduced

Sed

ime

nt

(to

ns/

year

)

19

Figure 19. Shoreline protection/stabilization project cost per linear foot. Cost information is available from 13 projects.

Table 9. Shoreline stabilization efficiency. Cost is broken down per year. All contracts are ten year length. Estimates are based on eight projects covering 755 ft.



Average $554 $535

Weighted Average $121 $134

Individual project range $38 – $2,487 $38 – $2,487

Natural Shoreline Restoration

Natural shoreline restorations involve restoring the riparian zone along a shoreline to a natural

condition using native vegetation rather than turf grass or hard armoring such as rip rap. A total of five

shoreline restoration projects were completed. The SWCD does not estimate sediment or phosphorus

reduction from the shoreline restoration projects. These projects create natural habitat important to

birds, amphibians, and pollinators. They also enhance the resiliency of the system to weather and

natural events. Ensuring stability is a necessary component of natural shoreline restoration and prevents

sediment and phosphorus from washing into lakes. These projects ranged in size and price from 70 to

900 linear feet and $100 to $766. The WMO payed an average of 37% of shoreline protection cost in

cost share or incentives. Average cost was $1.89/foot.

Wetland Restoration

A wetland restoration involves the rehabilitation of a degraded wetland where the soils, hydrology,

vegetation, and habitat are returned to the natural condition to the extent practicable. The purpose of

this practice is to restore some of the natural ecosystem functions and values that have been

diminished. These ecosystem functions include providing habitat to support wildlife, flood mitigation by

y = 132.88x - 5973.4 R² = 0.3288

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

0 50 100 150 200 250

Tota

l Pro

ject

Co

st

(th

ou

san

ds)

Project Linear Feet

20

providing storage and reducing runoff, and water quality improvement by trapping sediment,

phosphorus.

Figure 20. Wetland restoration funding source. Cost information is available for five of the ten wetland restorations completed since 2006.

Table 10. Wetland restoration. Cost is broken down per year. Most contracts are ten year length but one contract was 15 years. A total of ten projects of 29.1 acres were completed since 2006. However, estimates are based on the five projects covering 11.3 acres that have cost information.

Cost per Acre per Year

Average $230.14


Individual project range $100 – $376

Phosphorus and sediment reduction estimates were not typically calculated and are only available for

the most recent project. Results from one project should not be assumed representative. In this case

11.3 lbs. of phosphorus was reduced at a cost of $50.35 per lb/year. Sediment was reduced by 5.6

tons/year at a cost of $101.60 per ton/year. Other qualitative benefits include habitat restoration and

flood mitigation by increasing watershed storage.

Closure of Waste Impoundment

Closure of waste impoundments, treatment lagoons, or waste storage ponds is a risk mitigation practice

to protect the quality of surface water and groundwater resources. These impoundments that are no

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

WMO Federal Landowner Total

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

21

longer in use pose a contamination risk to water quality and human health and should be closed in a

safe, environmentally responsible manner.

A total of ten (100 closures of waste impoundment projects occurred since 2006. These ten projects

included twelve (12) waste pits. Of these, five projects had cost information in our database. These

projects averaged $6,687. WMO did not fund any of these five projects.

Figure 21. Closure of waste impoundment project funding by source. Cost information was available for five projects.

Stormwater Runoff Control

Stormwater runoff control projects limit the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff. The

purpose is to minimize erosion and sedimentation during and following construction activities. Since

2006, eight stormwater runoff control projects have been completed. Most of these projects were

complete by Cities. City of Savage had three projects for a green roof, pervious pavement, and

raingarden as part of innovative practices when building the McColl Pond Environmental Learning

Center. The City of Prior Lake had a bush raingarden installed, as well as innovative practices of adding a

stormwater retrofit pond, constructing a collection and reuse system for stormwater irrigation at the

Ponds Park Athletic Complex, and a adding a bioretention basin next to the school track field. The SWCD

did not estimate runoff, phosphorus, or sediment reductions for these projects. The average stormwater

runoff control project cost $59,684 with a range of $6,838 to $223,000. All contracts were ten years in

length.

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

Federal Landowner Total

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

22

Figure22. Stormwater runoff control project funding by source. Cost information is available for eight projects.

Lined Waterway or Outlet Structure

A lined waterway or outlet structure is a waterway or outlet having an erosion-resistant lining of

concrete, stone, synthetic turf, reinforcement fabrics, or other permanent material. The purpose is to

provide for safe conveyance of runoff from conservation structures or other water concentrations

without causing erosion or flooding. A total of eight (8) of these projects have been completed since

2006.

Table 11. Lined waterway efficiency. Cost is broken down per year. All contracts are ten year length. Efficiency estimates are available for six of eight projects completed covering 1,216 ft.



Average $75.91 $75.08



$0.00

$100.00

$200.00

$300.00

$400.00

$500.00

$600.00

WMO State Landowner Total

Pro

ject

Fu

nd

ing

(th

ou

san

ds)

Stormwater Runoff Control Funding Source

23

Figure 23. Lined waterway or outlet structure phosphorus and sediment reduction estimates per project. Reduction estimates are available for six of the eight projects completed since 2006.

Figure 24. Lined waterway funding sources. Cost information is available from seven of eight projects.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

P Reduced

Ph

osp

ho

rus

(lb

s/ye

ar)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Sed Reduced

Sed

ime

nt

(to

ns/

year

)

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

WMO Landowner Federal State SWCD Total

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

Lined Waterways

24

Figure 25. Lined waterway cost and project size. Cost information is available from seven projects. Total project cost includes life of contract.

Riparian Herbaceous Cover

Riparian herbaceous cover is comprised of grasses, sedges, rushes, ferns, legumes, and forbs tolerant of

intermittent flooding or saturated soils. These plants are established or managed as the dominant

vegetation in the transitional zone between upland and aquatic habitats. The purpose is to improve and

maintain water quality, establish and maintain habitat corridors, or enhance stream bank protection as

part of stream bank soil bioengineering practices.

Figure 26. Riparian herbaceous cover cost and project size. Cost information is available for six projects.

y = 17.809x + 5714.3 R² = 0.5427

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Tota

l Pro

ject

Co

st

Lined Waterway Linear Feet

y = 2091.6x + 13215 R² = 0.2806

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Tota

l Pro

ject

Co

st (

tho

usa

nd

s)

Acres

25

Figure 27. Riparian herbaceous cover project funding. Cost information is available for six projects.

Phosphorus and sediment reduction estimates were available for only one riparian herbaceous cover

project and should not be assumed representative. In this case 2.5 lbs. (70%) of phosphorus was

reduced at a cost of $780 per lb./year. Sediment was reduced by 0.7 tons (70%) at a cost of $2,786 per

ton/year. The project was 13 acres in size and had a total cost of $19,500 under a ten year contract.

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning applies controlled fire to a predetermined area. The purpose is to improve wildlife

habitat or to restore native plant communities. The goal is not to reduce phosphorus or sediment and so

there is no cost benefit analysis in these areas. The benefit of improved ecosystem health is important

but difficult to quantify for this practice.

Table 12. Prescribed burning project cost. Four projects were completed since 2006. Estimates are based on the three projects covering 38.4 acres where cost information is available.

Cost per Acre

Average $93.98


Individual project range $50 – $131.93

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

State WMO Landowner Total

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)


26

Figure 28. Prescribed burning funding sources. Cost information is available for three projects.

Terrace

A Terrace is an earth embankment, or a combination ridge and channel constructed across the field

slope. The purpose is to reduce sheet and rill soil erosion. Since 2006, three terrace projects were

completed for a total length of 7,280 linear feet. However, cost and phosphorus and sediment reduction

information is only available for one on these projects. In this case, the terrace was very effective and

reduced phosphorus by 84% (263 lbs./year) and sediment by 89% (258 tons/year). The cost information

for this project is summarized in the table 13.

Table 13. Terrace project efficiency. Cost and phosphorus and sediment reduction estimates are available for only one project. The cost is reported per year of a ten year contract.

Project Linear

Feet $/Linear

Foot $/lb. Phosphorus

Removed $/Ton Sediment

Removed

Terrace 3200 1.4 16.98 17.31

Herbaceous Wind Barriers

Herbaceous wind barriers consist of tall grass or other non-woody plants established in rows or narrow

strips in a field and across the prevailing wind direction. Herbaceous wind barriers reduce soil erosion

from wind, protect growing crops from damage by wind-borne soil particles, enhance snow deposition

to increase plant-available moisture, and reduce particulate emissions to the air.

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

Landowner WMO Federal Total

Pro

ject

Fu

nd

ing

Sou

rce

(th

ou

san

ds)

Prescribed Burning

27

Three herbaceous wind barriers were completed since 2006. All three were finished in 2009 or 2010 and

do not have project cost information in our database. In total, 9,490 linear feet of herbaceous wind

barrier was installed between these three projects. The smallest project was 870’ and the largest was

7,470’.

Windbreak/shelterbelt renovation

This practice consists of widening, partial replanting, releasing, removing, and replacing selected trees

and shrubs to improve an existing windbreak or shelterbelt. The purpose is to restore or enhance the

function of existing windbreaks or shelterbelts.

Figure 29. Windbreak/shelterbelt renovation funding sources. Cost information is from three projects.

Table 14. Windbreak/shelterbelt renovation cost per project. Three projects were completed since 2006 covering 4,370 ft.

Cost per Linear Foot

Average $0.20


Individual project range $0.54 – $0.36

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

Federal State Landowner Total

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

Windbreak/Shelterbelt Renovation

28

Field Border

A Field Border is a strip of permanent vegetation established at the edge or around the perimeter of a

field. Vegetation consists of adapted grasses, legumes, and/or shrubs. A field border is used to reduce

erosion from wind and water, protect soil and water quality, manage harmful insect populations,

provide wildlife food and cover, and improve air quality.

Only two field border projects were completed since 2006. Both of these projects were done in 2013.

The first project was 1.4 acres with a cost of $300/acre per year for ten years. The second was 1.5 acres

at a cost of $250/acre per year for ten years. All funding for these projects was paid as incentives by

SWCD.

Table 15. Field border efficiency. Cost is broken down per year. Two projects were completed since 2006, both in 2013, covering 2.9 acres Both contracts are ten years in length.



Average $9.95 $15.24



Critical Area Planting

A critical area planting is a practice to establish permanent vegetation on sites that have, or are

expected to have, high erosion rates and on sites that have physical, chemical, or biological conditions

that prevent the establishment of vegetation with normal planting practices.

29

Figure 30. Critical area planting funding sources. Cost information is from two projects.

Table 16. Critical area planting efficiency. Cost is broken down per year. Two projects were completed since 2006, both in 2012, covering 1.2 acres. Both contracts are ten years in length.



Average $58.60 $58.60



Total cost of critical area plantings ranged from $2,321 to $5,966 and had a weighted cost per acre of

$6,906.

Wildlife Habitat Management

Wildlife habitat management is comprised of two practices; upland wildlife habitat management and

wetland wildlife habitat management. Upland wildlife habitat management provides and manages

upland habitats and connectivity within the landscape for wildlife. The practice treats upland wildlife

habitat concerns identified during the conservation planning process that enable movement or provide

shelter, cover, and food in proper amounts, locations, and times to sustain wild animals that inhabit

uplands during a portion of their life cycle.

The purpose of wetland habitat management is to improve habitat for water dependent wildlife such as

migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic mammals. Shallow water bodies are

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

WMO Landowner State Total

Fun

din

g (t

ho

usa

nd

s)

Critical Area Planting

30

from six inches to six feet deep with the majority of the water less than 18 inches. Proper management

can increase and maintain desirable foods for waterfowl and other species of wildlife.

Two upland projects were completed since 2006. A Sand Creek Township project of 6.5 acres and a

Cedar Lake Township project of 4.8 acres for a total of 11.3 acres. There is no cost or nutrient and

sediment reduction information available in the SWCD database.

Two projects of wetland wildlife habitat management were completed since 2006. One 3.1 acre project

in Cedar Lake Township and a 10.4 acre project in Helena Township. Neither of these projects has cost

or nutrient and sediment reduction estimates in The SWCD database.

Other available practices

Seven other practices were used since 2006 in very limited quantity. These include riparian forest buffer,

subsurface drain, nutrient management, diversions, water storage facility, mulching, and waste

utilization. A total of ten projects were completed using these practices; three riparian, forest buffers,

two subsurface drains, and one each for the remaining five practices. These practices are seldom used

or seldom used as standalone practices. Diversions and subsurface drains are often used as a

subcomponent of other practices.

Conclusion

Since 2006, the TACS program facilitated completion of over 675 conservation practice projects, of

which 601 were included for analysis in this report. The TACS program has included 30 different

practices, of which 13 have available estimates of runoff, phosphorus, or sediment reductions. The

current 2017 cost share docket includes financial support for 24 of these practices. A total of 377

projects have phosphorus reduction estimates accumulating to 18,312 lbs. reduced per year. Sediment

reduction estimates are available from 369 projects accumulating to 15,730 tons reduced per year.

Lastly, 34 projects have runoff reduction estimates accumulating to 455.2 acre-feet of runoff reduced

per year. Most projects have a ten year contract length. This represents a minimum service life for these

practices and is the basis for per year project costs. In reality, the benefits will likely last beyond the

contract length and make environmental benefits even more cost effective.

A comparison of phosphorus and sediment reduction can be made for the 12 practices with those

estimates (Table 17). Native grass is the only practice with runoff reduction estimates. Field borders

were the most efficient at reducing phosphorus at $9.91/lb. per year. Filter strips were the most

efficient at reducing sediment at $6.82/ton per year.

31

Table 17. Weighted averages of runoff, phosphorus, and sediment reduction cost efficiency.

Practice n $/Acre-ft Reduced

$/lb Phosphorus Reduced/Year

$/ton Sediment Reduced/Year

Native Grass 33 $ 329.33 - -

Field Border 2 - $ 9.91 $ 14.97

Grassed waterways 31 - $ 12.34 $ 12.38

Filter strips 14 - $ 15.28 $ 6.82

Terrace 1 - $ 16.98 $ 17.31

Grade stabilization 28 - $ 27.80 $ 27.99

Underground outlet 26 - $ 33.92 $ 37.08 Water and Sediment Control Basin 43 - $ 41.76 $ 42.14

Streambank protection 27 - $ 45.17 $ 44.52

Critical area planting 2 - $ 61.39 $ 61.39 Lined waterway or outlet structure 6 - $ 71.03 $ 70.54

Shoreline stabilization 8 - $ 121.00 $ 134.00

Riparian herbaceous cover 1 - $ 780.00 $ 2,786.00

32

Appendix A

Table 1. TACS project complete by year.

Practice Type '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 Sum

Filter Strip 23 19 17 33 24 12 22 20 14 6 4 0 194

Native Grass 0 0 1 1 11 6 8 3 7 17 6 0 60

WASCBs 5 2 2 1 0 5 2 6 9 9 7 0 48 Grassed Waterway 8 1 3 4 5 2 0 6 4 4 1 1 39

Grade Stab. Structure 5 0 6 2 6 1 6 3 3 4 0 1 37

Well Decommissioning 0 1 1 7 7 6 7 3 3 0 0 0 35

Streambank Prot. 3 2 9 2 5 1 5 4 2 2 0 0 35

Raingarden 1 2 2 0 0 1 15 4 4 3 2 0 34

Underground Outlet 1 0 1 4 13 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 27

Shoreline Protection 1 0 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 0 18

Wetland Restoration 2 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 10

Closure of Waste Impoundment

0 1 0 0 4 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 10

Stormwater Runoff Control

0 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

Lined Waterway 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 8


0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 7

Prescribed Burning 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 4

Terrace 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3

Herbaceous Wind Barriers

0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Windbreak/Shelterbelt Renov.

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3

Riparian Forest Buffer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3

Field Border 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

Subsurface Drain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

Critical Area Planting 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Upland Wildlife Habitat Mgmt

0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Wetland Wildlife Habitat Mgmt

0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Nutrient Management 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Diversion 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Waste Storage Facility 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Mulching 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Waste Utilization 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Sum 50 32 57 64 84 45 79 59 51 51 27 2 601

New Business




Date post:	18-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Scott County Watershed Management Organization

Documents