3/15/2010 - Sherburne Soil & Water Conservation District

Mississippi St. Cloud Watershed Project Meeting
Palmer Town Hall
March 15 th , 2010
Meeting Minutes
Attendees:
Mark Basiletti, Sherburne SWCD
Tiffany Determan, Sherburne SWCD
DeAnna Doran, Sherburne SWCD
Gerry Maciej, Benton SWCD
Joe Jacobs, Wright SWCD
Roger Stradal, DNR Sauk Rapids
Sue McGuire, Stearns Environmental Services
Annie Felix, Benton SWCD
Nick Proulx, MN DNR
Chuck Johnson, MPCA
Dennis Fuchs, Stearns SWCD
Rebecca Kluckhohn, Wenck
Joe Stewig, MN DNR, Montrose
Nicki Blake-Bradley, City of Elk River
Lynn Waytashek, Sherburne County
Lee Sundmark, MN DNR, Hutchinson
Dennis Loewen, Clearwater River Watershed District
Ronda Adkins, MPCA
Phil Votruba, MPCA
Introductions: Each attendee introduced themselves and stated the organization they represent.
Mississippi St. Cloud Project Update
• Work Plan (Planning & Coordination Phase)
• Contracting
• Anticipated Timeline (Project Start-up)
Phil Votruba presented a number of slides covering the progress that has been made on the watershed
planning to this point. Phil indicated that the Phase I year 2 work plan has not been approved by the
contract department yet; contracts will request the work plan once they are ready. Once approved, the
Phase I Year 2 work plan contract will be amended later this spring to incorporate the work plan and
contract for Phase II (Major Watershed Project). Funds allocated for the watershed project total
$225,000; the Phase I contract will include nearly $50,000.00 and Phase II will cover the remaining
funds. Phil stated that the first year of Intensive Watershed Monitoring took place over 2009, this

included biological and chemical sampling. The data is in the process of being analyzed and the results
will determine information to be collected over subsequent phases.
Discussion of LGU Fiscal Agent for Project
The Elk River Watershed Association expressed their interest in becoming the fiscal agent for the
project. Because the agency acting as the fiscal agent for the project will need to have ample cash at
hand to disburse to its partners the ERWSA would likely administer the funds via Sherburne SWCD.
CRWD, Stearns SWCD, Wright SWCD were asked if they had any objections to the ERWSA acting as the
fiscal agent: there were no objections. All partners agreed on the fiscal agent.
It was determined that the fiscal agent would also act as the local project coordinator; hereinafter
referred to as the LPC (Tiffany Determan, Watershed Coordinator, Sherburne SWCD).
The Crow River Watershed is currently in the watershed planning process and they have already
completed their work plan and organizational strategy. The LPC will contact the fiscal agent (C.R.O.W.)
to gain perspective on the process as not to recreate the wheel.
Discussion of current planning & Coordination priorities with project
Chuck Johnson explained the MPCA’s plans for the remainder of the project. He explained that TMDLs
will no longer be done individually as they were in the past; waters currently listed on the 303(d) list will
have TMDLs completed on them utilizing existing data only. Rivers and streams will be completed
collectively on a watershed scale using the HSPF or other existing watershed model. At this point HSPF
has not been built on the Elk River and Clearwater; existing watershed models will be utilized for these
portions of the watershed until the next go-around (8-9 years). The MPCA will work with local partners
to effectively build and run the models. Lake TMDLs will likely be done in batches utilizing BATHTUB;
again utilizing existing data and land use information. For lakes currently meeting water quality
standards (protection) either BATHTUB or MinLeap will be run to determine loading limits. BATHTUB
models may be completed either by hiring a consultant to run batches of lakes at a reduced price or by
utilizing existing skills of the LPC.
Discussion of Level of Involvement with Project
Some discussion was had about the project activities identified in the Phase I Year 2 work plan. LGU’s
were concerned about who would gather and compile the data. It was determined that the LPC would
request data as needed from LGUs. The LPC then would house the data and compile reports before
passing the information collectively as needed to the MPCA. For instance, the LPC may request local
water plans from LGUs, the LGU would summarize the priorities in their plans and send them to the LPC;
the LPC would summarize all of the water plan priorities into one watershed summary document and
then pass that information as needed to the MPCA. (CRWD is currently undergoing revision of their
comprehensive plan and will provide us with summary, Wright County is also updating their water plan).

Discussion between the local project coordinator and the MPCA project manager will take place to
further determine how tasks may be split up. This will take place prior to contract signing incase work
plan changes need to be edited.
Monitoring Plan for spring 2010
MPCA explained that they do not want to miss out on the 2010 field season data; because funds are
currently not available to LGUs for staff time reimbursement the MPCA will use a Department of Health
grant to pay for lab analysis; MPCA will collect the samples (unless it has been determined that a LGU
already has plans to collect data at the predetermined site). MPCA will also run the gauging stations in
the watershed until funds are available. For gauging stations that are currently being run by LGUs
(Clearwater River, Silver Creek) MPCA will work with the LGU to ensure that the data can be loaded into
HYDSTRA.
DNR voiced interest in assisting with stressor ID and geomorphology work. MPCA stated that they will
complete additional biological work in 2011.
Next Steps
Get contract! A remark was made regarding concern that the fiscal agent should allocate a set number
of hours to the LGU’s for each task in the work plan so that when the LGU’s send their invoice to the
fiscal agent there is not an overload of hours that cannot be reimbursed. The LPC will work with the
MPCA Project Manager to determine how to split up the hours. In the meanwhile, each LGU that plans
to participate in this process should be thinking about how they can become involved.
Questions
It was determined that questions were covered throughout the meeting.
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held upon or within the approval process of the Phase I Year 2 Work Plan and
contract. Communication between the partners will continue to take place.