Policy Ad Hoc Committee members: John Barten (Vice Chair), Gary Burdorf, Pam Blixt (Chair), Warren Formo, Gene Merriam, Victoria Reinhardt

Transcription

1 Policy Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council (Council) May 27, :00-2:30 MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN MPCA Conference Room Policy Ad Hoc Committee members: John Barten (Vice Chair), Gary Burdorf, Pam Blixt (Chair), Warren Formo, Gene Merriam, Victoria Reinhardt 10:00 Regular Business Approve agenda Chair and Staff update Review the Council s 2014 Policy Recommendations Update on Policy Committee membership 10:10 Clean Drinking Water: Source to Tap Minnesota Department of Health Discuss a narrowed down list of potential policy approaches. 11:30 Lunch 12:00 Protecting Water Resources and Forestland Conversion Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Background on how forestland conversion in Minnesota impacts surface water and groundwater resources. Discuss challenges to protect forests on private and public lands and potential policy approaches that could address those challenges. 1:00 Shoreland Rules Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Debrief on shoreland rules presentation and revisit ideas shared with the Council related to shoreland rules. Decide whether to pursue this policy topic. 2:00 New Business Update on Drainage topic and Drainage Work Group John Barten Update on Cover Crops (Insurance) topic Warren Formo Review the Policy Topic spreadsheet, Timeline, and June meeting date/time 2:30 Adjourn The next Policy Ad Hoc Committee meeting will be held on Friday, June 24, The Policy Ad Hoc Committee web page can be found at

2 Clean Water Council Final Policy Recommendations Approved August 17 th, 2014 The Clean Water Council recognizes that Clean Water Fund dollars alone will not be able to meet the expectations of Minnesota citizens for clean water. A variety of policy issues were presented to the Council during 2013 and The Council selected two of these issues for which to make policy recommendations. The two policy issues chosen in 2014 are water retention, storage, and infiltration and riparian buffers. These policy recommendations, if adopted, should accelerate the adoption of water quality improvement practices. Riparian Buffers It has been demonstrated that buffers of perennial grasses and vegetation can reduce sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen significantly. Currently, state law recognizes the importance of buffers. Buffers are addressed in three areas of law (MN Rules Chapters 6120 and 8420 and MN Statutes 103E) and many different state and local entities overseeing the requirements. There have been several studies that have evaluated compliance with buffer requirements and indicate that buffer requirements are oftentimes inconsistently applied and enforced. In order to accelerate the pace of progress in protecting and improving water quality, the State must have consistent perennial vegetative buffers along our riparian areas. Policy Statement: The Clean Water Council recommends that the State require maintained vegetative buffers along public waters and public ditches, including private ditches that drain to public ditches to protect water quality. Buffer width should be determined based on conditions on the ground (e.g. soil type and slope) and the differences in the type of water body. There should be one state agency that develops model ordinances for local governments to apply, oversees local implementation, and requires reporting. We recommend the state fund both local implementation and enforcement. Water Retention, Storage, and Infiltration Through efforts to drain water in order to make it suitable for agriculture, transportation, and economic and urban development, the natural hydrology of the landscape has been significantly altered. This can lead to moving water off the land faster and in greater amounts, and carrying sediment, nutrients and other pollutants. It has also altered the flow regime of our rivers, streams and ditches modifying both the frequency and magnitude at which the banks and beds of our rivers, streams and ditches erode. To address this problem, it will be necessary to re-create storage, retention, and infiltration in watersheds to hold back the power and force which destabilizes these systems and contributes to water quality problems. There are many ways that water retention and infiltration can be achieved. Note that watersheds in the 7-County Twin Cities Metro Area are already required by MN Rules Chapter 8410 to develop watershed plans and stormwater controls. Policy Statement: The CWC recommends the State require all major (8-digit HUC) watersheds outside the 7-County Twin Cities Metro Area of the state to develop local comprehensive watershed management plans. These plans must establish water storage goals, expressed in acre-feet, and standards for water storage, retention, and infiltration. lr-cwc-1sy14b

3 ENSURING SAFE AND SUFFICIENT DRINKING WATER Advancing Drinking Water Protection BEYOND THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT While the Safe Drinking Water Act provides a basic level of protection, emerging threats demand increasing vigilance and timely action. Ensuring safe and sufficient drinking water for future generations requires a series of strategic safeguards from our drinking water sources to the taps in our homes. Protecting our drinking water at the source rivers, lakes, and groundwater is the most costeffective and equitable approach because it prevents both known and unknown contaminants from entering the water supply, protects both public and private wells, and does not rely on costly treatment or individual action. At the tap, increases in our understanding of lead toxicity (there is no safe level,) and success in reducing children s exposure to lead in dust and paint challenge us to increase consumer awareness and reduce the potential for lead in drinking water. Policy Statement In order to address the variety of issues facing our drinking water, the State should establish a Drinking Water Think Tank to address threats to Minnesota s drinking water in both public water supply systems and private wells. The Drinking Water Think Tank s charge is to assess drinking water needs and challenges; identify regulatory, technological, and behavioral barriers; and translate emerging science and monitoring results into protective public health policy and concrete actions for all partners in drinking water protection; state agencies, local governments, public water suppliers, and citizens. Specific challenges for the Drinking Water Think Tank to address include (but are not limited to): Increased support and flexibility for land uses in wellhead protection and surface water intake areas that are protective, economically viable and provide multiple benefits. A robust and flexible monitoring system to identify unregulated contaminants in drinking water sources and appropriate risk assessment and management strategies. A strategic plan to identify and address sources of lead in drinking water throughout the state, including a better understanding of the costs and benefits of lead service line removal and heightened consumer awareness of effective actions. Enhanced protection for Minnesotans who drink from private wells through increased education and outreach, characterization of water quality issues, and water testing at property transfer. Produced at the request of the Ad Hoc Policy Committee of the Clean Water Council, May 27, 2016.

4 Area of MN forestland (million acres)

5 FIA data showing % change in forest cover by County

6 Retaining MN Forests Major Goal of the MN Forest Resources Council: Minnesota's forest land base is enlarged and protected. No net loss of forest land occurs and some previously forested areas are returned to forest cover. The forest land base is protected from decreases and fragmentation caused by land use changes.

7 Tools Private forest landowner assistance Education Technical Cost share Tax incentives Conservation easements Fee title acquisition

8 Protecting Water Quality in Forest Management MFRC Site Level Guidelines Incorporating water quality BMPs Site Level Guideline Monitoring Watershed based Funded by CWL

9 Private Forest Management The focus is on providing education, individual plans and costshare assistance to family forest landowners 2016 DNR PFM System Framework Plan Provides guidance to system partners to increase the number of private landowners choosing to manage their forests in a sustainable manner MNDNR Stewardship Program Land management planning from the landscape down to the site for private landowners (750,000 acres currently, 100,000 acres annually)

10 Private Forest Management Tax incentive Programs Sustainable Forests Incentive Program (SFIA) provides a financial incentive to landowners in return for no development or conversion for a minimum of 8 years (20 and 50 year options still need Governor signature) 2C managed forest tax law provides a reduction in property tax for a 1 year commitment of no development, parcel subdivision or conversion.

11 Private Forest Management State Costshare and Federal Farm Bill Programs CRP, WRP, EQIP are all popular federal costshare and/or set aside programs for private landowners MNDNR Forestry State costshare program provides financial assistance to private forest landowners with a management plan for activities recommended in their plan.

12 Private Forest Management Targeted Clean Water Legacy funded efforts using PFM tools: Tullibee Lakes Program Location: North Central MN Goal: 75% protection of high quality Tullibee lake sheds Tools: education and outreach management plan SFIA enrollment Costshare Healthy Forests for Healthy Waters Program Location: Southeast MN Goal: Protection and/or sustainable management of high diversity, high WQ impact private forests of certain SE MN watersheds Tools: education and outreach management plan 2C enrollment Costshare

13 Targeted Watersheds for water quality protection. Goal is to achieve 75% protected land in high quality Cisco (Tullibee) lakes. Currently lakes are between 45 75% protection lelvels. Taking the Tullibee Lakes CWL project to another level through conservation easements.

14 The Minnesota Forest for the Future Program (MFF) and Federal Forest Legacy Program Focus is protecting and conserving forests through the use of permanent conservation easements and fee title. Programs have protected nearly 360,000 acres since Priority is on protecting the largest, most intact forest blocks that will result in increased forest land consolidation, landscape connectivity, forest health and resilience of Minnesota s lands and waters and provide multiple public benefits (ecological and habitat, recreational, and economic.

15 Forest Conservation Easements: Perpetual working forests easements; Prevent conversion of forests to nonforest uses keeping forests as forests; Restrict development/subdivision Forest Legacy Program (FLP) National Program established 1990; This program works in partnership with the US Forest Service who provide matching funds for priority projects. 2.5 Million acres nationally. Minnesota Forests for the Future (MFF) Established by Legislature in 2008 (ML84.66).This is a state program funded by state and private funds. Long Term Targets: The 25 year target is to protect up to 530,000 acres (500,000 in the Laurentian Mixed Forest and 30,000 acres in the Eastern Broadleaf Forest. The primary protection tool is a perpetual conservation easement with fee title secondary.

16 Koochiching/Washington Project Large scale project Single Landowner This 51,000 acre project helps connect and create a conserved area of nearly 500,000 acres. Project protects not only forest but 3 lakes, 90 small ponds, and 43 miles of rivers and streams. Additional benefits include public recreational access and sustainable certified timber management practices.

17 Cisco Lake Watershed Protection UPM (2010) & Sugar Hills (2007) In addition, over 30 miles of state designated trout streams, more than 100 miles of other streams, over 130 miles of lake and pond shoreline and thousands of acres of intact wetlands were protected by these two projects (190,000 acres total).

18 Pinelands Sands Hubbard, Cass, Wadena Counties - Pine to Potato Conversions 12,000 have been or are proposed for conversion; an additional 20,000 acres may be at risk for conversion; thousands of acres of other private lands are similarly at risk. Protection: Fee purchases DNR and Partners (TPL, MDHA, Cass County) have received funds through OHF to protect high conservation value parcels in the Pinelands Sands Aquifer region of west central Minnesota. Of the 60,000 acres of industrial timberlands present, funding received to date will protect over 10% or just over 6,000 acres with fee title acquisitions. MNDNR Assessment: Conversion Risk of Potlatch Parcels in Pinelands Sands Aquifer We need other creative solutions to address forest conversion!

19 Context Forests cover >30% of Minnesota Water quality from forested landscapes is generally high Priority 1: Maintain or expand forest land base Primary landuse type is forestry Priority 2: Minimize impacts to WQ associated with forest management

20 Forest management and WQ Direct and indirect effects on water Direct WQ as related to forest management practices at the individual site scale Aerial view of stream buffers Indirect WQ as related to cumulative management effects at the watershed scale

21 Forest Management Guidelines BMPs designed to minimize impacts to WQ Cost-effective, easy to implement Designed for all ownership groups Broadly embraced by forestry community

22 Guideline monitoring is essential DNR s monitoring program directly assesses both modes of impact Monitor guideline use at forest harvest sites All ownerships (including private) Watershed (HUC-8) scale estimates of implementation Incorporates forest disturbance patterns and hydrologic factors

23 Field estimates of guideline implementation at watershed scale Relevant scale for WQ Relative risk of WQ impact Estimates of forest disturbance patterns for every HUC 8

24 Important tool to maintain WQ Maintain or improve guideline use in at-risk watersheds Avoid harvest configurations detrimental to WQ Utilize monitoring assessment for effective, targeted outreach efforts Watershed planning Regional landscape planning Continuing education programs Stakeholder groups

25 Understanding Nitrogen Dynamics When Converting Forest/Managed Timber to Irrigated Agricultural Production Bruce Montgomery MN Department of Agriculture

26 Drastic Land Use Changes Such as Plowing Virgin Prairie or Woodlands Will Have Temporal Impacts on the Release of Organic Nitrogen These Changes Are Rarely Documented

27 Understanding Nitrogen Behavior Is Critical

28 Implications Of Land Conversion within the Pineland Sands Area?

29 Byron Township Demonstration Site Cass County, MN Anticipating many environmental questions from the public, the foundation for a very unique partnership and water quality demonstration site began in 2013

30 Byron Township Demonstration Site Cass County, MN

31 Typical Long Term Installation Field Design Used by the MN Department of Agriculture >24 deep Installation Notes: All piping placed below the depth of tillage operations Lysimeters pull water from a depth of 4-6 feet deep Below the crop root zone

32 Demonstration Goals at the Byron Site Starting with NEAR PRISTINE CONDITIONS Quantify the magnitude of temporal N flushes from the conversion of managed timber to irrigated production; Quantify nitrate leaching losses over multiple rotations which would include seed potatoes once every 3 rd or 4 th year; Minimize inputs and potentially reducing N losses by integrating low input crops within the rotation; Use cover cropping systems to the fullest extent possible to control off season losses AND to minimize the use of soil fumigants such as Vapam.

33 Some Evidence of a Temporal Nitrate Flush During the First Production Year But Dissipated Relatively Quickly Average Nitrate N Below the Root Zone (Crop: Soybeans No Commercial Nitrogen Applied)

34 Proposed Alternative Rotation at Byron Potential N Inputs Reduced: 70 80% Potential Irrigation Use Reduced: 30 40% Soybeans Dark Red Kidney Beans Peas Seed Potatoes

35 Additional Rotations Proposed in Phase 2 of the Special Study (State Agencies) Late Season Potatoes Rotated with Low Impact Crops Traditional Irrigated Rotation Crops No Potatoes Late Season Potatoes with Conventional Rotation Existing Byron Site Low Impact Crops with Seed Potatoes

36 Today s Take Home Message The unique partnership and associated demonstration site is well positioned to answer some probing nitrogen related questions about timberland conversion and the long term substantiality of a highly input reduced rotation; Outcomes will help refine agricultural practices across Minnesota s irrigated acres; Additional sites are highly recommended to accurately reflect agricultural practices and rotations currently practiced across the Pineland Sands;

37 Byron Township Water Quality Study: Managed Timber to Row Crop Agriculture Monitoring soil nitrate movement in a field from the point of land use conversion A multi-partner effort to study nitrate nitrogen movement that occurs below an agricultural field recently transitioned from managed timber production to irrigated row crop production has now been underway for two cropping seasons. The landowner, R.D. Offutt Company, has made the property and their staff available to better understand the movement of water and nitrate-nitrogen through the soil following this type of land use transition. This study is unique. It is the first instance in the state, and perhaps nationally, where groundwater impacts from irrigated agriculture have been studied from the first year of production. Findings from the study will be valuable as additional timber land in Minnesota s Central Sands region is transitioned for other purposes a trend that has started and likely will continue as Potlatch Corporation sells off its land holdings in Minnesota. The study will help researchers, ag industry, and government better understand the potential groundwater quality impact of such land use transitions. The study is also unique in its team of talented and dedicated partners: R.D. Offutt Company (RDO) University of Minnesota Extension (U of M) Central Lakes College, Staples (CLC) Northwest AqwaTek Solutions (NWATS) Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota (SFA) The 160 acre site known as Byron #1 is located in Byron Township, Cass County, 12 miles north of Staples, Minnesota. The soil is loamy sand, and groundwater occurs at depths of 10 to 20 feet. RDO plans to grow seed potatoes and peas as part of a four-year rotation, and Central Lakes College will grow barley, soybeans, or possibly edible beans during the other two rotational years. The land was cleared in 2013, soybeans were planted in 2014 in the first crop production year, corn was grown in 2015, and soybeans are planned for If not utilized by plants or retained in soil organic material, nitrate from nitrogen fertilizer or breakdown of organic matter is moved by water down through the soil and into groundwater. Since water moves quickly through sandy soil, the potential for nitrate contamination of groundwater in much of Minnesota s Central Sands region is high. Because of this potential, RDO and CLC are using innovative cropping practices to reduce nitrate loss on this site, including the use of nitrogen fertilizer best management practices, planning a crop rotation that will include only low-nitrogen demanding crops seed potatoes, peas, barley, soybeans, and edible beans also using slow release nitrogen fertilizers, and using cover crops to capture and hold excess nitrate in the rooting zone until the following season. Byron Township Study Site This aerial photo was taken before clearing operations were completed. The site known as Byron 1 is located 12 miles north of Staples, Minnesota in Byron Township, Cass County. The photo shows the locations of monitoring equipment and irritation water wells. Bordering the site to the north is Tower Creek. Possible impacts on the flow of Tower Creek from the pumping of irrigation water is being monitored by RDO/NWATS with oversight by the DNR.

38 Key components of the study: Collection of soil water samples with suction tube lysimeters During growing seasons, soil water is being collected weekly from 15 suction tube lysimeters, and samples are analyzed for nitrate-nitrogen. The lysimeters were installed at a 4-foot depth to collect soil water that has moved past crop rooting depth and could potentially move down to groundwater. The tips of the lysimeters are made of a porous ceramic material that water flows through when suction is placed on the tubes (diagrams below). Far left: Installation of lysimeters at Byron Township site. Lysimeters are installed in holes at the bottom of the trench. PVC pipe protects plastic sampling lines from rodents. Immediate left: See-through diagram of a suction tube lysimeter. Below: Graph of 2014 & 2015 nitrate-nitrogen concentrations from soil water collected from lysimeters. Drain gauges Installed below the crop rooting zone, at a depth of four feet, drain gauges measure the volume of water that moves through the soil profile. This information combined with nitrate-nitrogen concentration data from lysimeters can provide an estimate of groundwater loading in terms of pounds of nitrate-nitrogen per acre. Monitoring wells As part of this field study, seven shallow monitoring wells were installed around the field perimeter in early November Over time, these wells will enable us to better understand the movement of shallow groundwater below this field and also provide access to measure the nitrate concentration of this water throughout the year. For more information, please contact: Ryan Perish, MDA, , ryan.perish@state.mn.us April 2016

39 Jeff Forester, Minnesota Lakes and River Advocates Protection shoreland development standards Passing stronger minimum standards for shoreline development has proven to be politically impracticable. Stronger shoreline rules are difficult and expensive to enforce and the intent is often short circuited by local variance boards. Also, stronger shoreland development minimum standards do not help us restore land that has already been poorly developed. The Governor's new riparian buffers will have little impact on the problem of runoff on lakes due to the "mowable vegetative cover" language. I would like to present the idea of using a Sustainable Shorelands Incentive Act, similar to the Sustainable Forestry Incentive Act, but revenue neutral for the state and local governments, to provide incentives for riparian owners to protect or restore their shoreline properties. Current grants for shoreland restoration (through SWCD or Watershed Districts) can help qualified owners restore the shoreline in their care beyond the current minimum standards. Using Conservation Easements to accomplish this is often difficult for many owners since CE s do not usually impact property taxes, and it is market driven property tax increases that drive the bulk of the seasonal property sales. Some years ago MLR commissioned an independent researcher to look at seasonal property owners intended actions on their property. We discovered that the average household income of a seasonal property owner in Minnesota was $58,000 annually. Here are some further results from the independent survey commissioned by Minnesota Lakes and Rivers. Advocates in 2005: Only 8% of Minnesota seasonal property owners purchase recreational property as an investment. 72% purchase their seasonal property for recreational and retirement use while 20% of seasonal property owners inherited their property or purchased it from a family member. 86% of Minnesota seasonal property owners indicated that they would not sell their property in the next three years. In fact, 30% of the 86% said that they would pass or have passed their property on to a family member. Some seasonal property owners are fourth generation owners of some seasonal property. 6% of property owners said they may possibly sell their property in the next three years because it is no longer affordable for them to keep their property. Despite these findings, lakeshore cabins are being sold at an alarming rate, usually driven by market value induced property tax increases. In the last decade the average size of a seasonal lot (including hunting lands) has fallen by 50%. When shoreline is redeveloped typically large lots are subdivided, old ma and pa cabins are replaced with four season homes to the detriment of the water quality. Once development pressure reaches a certain level, the water quality cannot be fully restored. It is almost impossible, as the BWCAW exemplifies, to undevelop a lake. To protect our lakes from the overdevelopment, or poor development of lakeshore, I would suggest an incentive program for shoreline owners that restore or protect the riparian areas they steward beyond the current State minimum shoreland standards. In order to qualify, the owner would work with an approved water resource manager at the SWCD, WD or MN DNR (that the owner pays for) to write a shoreline management/restoration plan. There is already a largely underutilized grant program to help owners restore shoreline that can help partially defray the costs. They can file a certificate with the assessor, sign a 90 year covenant, and qualify for the reduced tax rate. Every so often (5 10 years perhaps) the project would need to be recertified to make sure that the protection or enhancement is continuing to provide public benefits.

40 Item Number Topic Original Policy Ideas (2015-early 2016) from Stakeholder Groups or Agencies List of Potential Policy Ideas for the Clean Water Council to Discuss in 2016 REV 5/19/16 Newer Draft Policy Ideas (2016) Notes Next steps 1 Cover Crops (insurance) Assist in advancing the adoption of cover crops by requesting the Federal Risk Management Agency (FRMA) to allow insurability of a crop that has been properly interseeded and to request the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to rewrite their Cover Crop Standard to encompass this practice. Discussed in March. Doug Thomas and Warren Formo will return to the Committee in May with a more complete policy proposal. 2 Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals Manage the cumulative impacts of groundwater withdrawals (1) Support DNR report and/or legislative proposal related to cumulative impacts, (2) Consider rule change related to lake levels and use of surface water vs. groundwater for golf course irrigation Need update from DNR at future Committee meeting on their draft policy proposal (note that as of Discussed in January; Committee March 2016, DNR indicated they will will revisit this topic in June. not be pursuing a policy for the 2016 session). 3 Drainage (1) Develop drainage performance standards and require Best Management Practice treatment where appropriate. (2) Improve watershed resilience through watershed management, including agricultural drainage systems. (3) Leverage local agricultural accountability by creating agricultural management areas and drainage authority accountability at the subwatershed level. Discussed in April. Will discuss in June. Need to discuss how to interact with Drainage Work Group. 4 Drinking Water (1) Prioritize economically attractive living cover in high risk wellhead protection areas. (2) Increase flexibility of permitted land use options in easements that protect groundwater while still providing economic value. (3) Identify a clear pathway for land purchase in high risk wellhead protection areas through MN RIM program based on drinking water protection needs. (4) Promote multiple benefits from land use practices that protect groundwater; pheasant habitat, solar power, or wind farms. (5) Create tax benefits for appropriate land use in wellhead protection areas. (6) Support surface water intake protection through legislative authority and/or dedicated hydrological and planning resources. (7) Build local capacity for groundwater and drinking water protection actions on the land. (8) Develop reconnaissance system for contaminants determined to be of concern in source water in Minnesota, and ensure a robust risk assessment system for new/emerging contaminants is maintained. (9) Establish a Drinking Water Think Tank to translate emerging science and monitoring results into protective public health policy and action. (10) Develop Minnesota-specific risk management practices that address health risks from unregulated contaminants and identify health benefits through public health policy and action recommendations. (11) Require notification of the existence of a lead service line upon property transfer. (12) Inventory and map lead service lines in cities statewide. (13) Require landlords to notify renters if a lead service line is present and provide educational materials on how to reduce exposure. (14) Make lead testing of water available to customers. (15) Provide financing for homeowners to replace lead service lines. (16) Assist cities to plan for and finance full replacement of all lead service lines. (17) Provide funding for fixture replacement or filters. (18) Increase outreach and education activities. (19) Require water testing at property transfer. (20) Recommend further study of contaminant occurrence in private wells. Discussed in April. Committee requested that MDH return in May with a prioritized (shorter) list of potential policy topics.

41 List of Potential Policy Ideas for the Clean Water Council to Discuss in 2016 REV 5/19/16 5 Nonpoint Source Implementation - Animal Management (1) Promote practices to reduce animal (cattle) access to streams (2) Regulations to reduce animal (cattle) access to streams Request that MDA provide guidance to the Committee on the policy ideas in June. 6 (1) Use living cover around wellheads to prevent groundwater contamination. (2) Develop markets for low impact forage and cover crops. Promote the use of alfalfa - in rotation with corn and use to feed beef cattle. Consumers could request that Nonpoint Source beef cattle diet includes alfalfa. (3) Create a market for Implementation - Living profitable perennials versus harvesting corn stover to meet Cover renewable fuel standards. (4) Encourage the use of perennial crops to meet the cellulosic ethanol mandate. (5) Enhance existing markets for perennial-fed beef and dairy products and bioenergy from perennial crops. (6) Provide cost sharing for practices that promote living cover. Discussed in March. Requested that MDA/MDH return to the Policy Committee with more complete policy recommendations in June. 7 Nonpoint Source Implementation - Protection Protect targeted lands from the worst impacts from land use conversion (e.g. require Best Management Practices if x number of acres is converted from forestland to potatoes) Discussed in April. Will discuss in May. 8 Nonpoint Source Implementation - Standard of Care and Best Management Practices (1) Develop performance-based standards for nonpoint pollution sectors (e.g. consider doing this by watershed). (2) Consider policy options that require a basic standard of care for crop agriculture. (3) Promote landscape Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. buffers, BMPs on new tile systems, cover crops, no-till, etc.) for nutrient management. (4) TBD - Address challenges for landowners to implement Best Management Practices Request that MDA provide guidance to the Committee on the policy ideas in June. 9 Nutrients 10 Shoreland Rules (1) Consider a polluter pays principle for nutrient management. (2) Recommend a nutrient accountability program (e.g. fall fertilizer application prohibitions). (3) Recommend adding the word sustainable to maximum return to nitrogen guidelines provided by the University of Minnesota. (4) Institute a fertilizer surcharge to provide compensation for drinking water treatment where contamination has occurred Request that MDA provide guidance to the Committee on the policy ideas in June. Presentation on Shoreland Rules at April Clean Water Council meeting. Will discuss in May.

42 11 Soil Erosion 12 Soil Health List of Potential Policy Ideas for the Clean Water Council to Discuss in 2016 REV 5/19/16 Assist in advancing reforms that will require on Highly Erodible Land (HEL) a conservation plan or system which will prevent water and wind erosion from exceeding tolerable soil loss limits as identified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture s Field Office Technical Guide. Adopt a soil health policy statement similar to other state policies related to water. Needs to address both urban and rural areas. Discussed in March. Doug Thomas and Warren Formo will return to the Committee in June with a more complete policy proposal. Discussed in March. John Barten and Doug Thomas will return to the Committee in June with a more complete policy proposal. 13 Water Storage (1) Revisit Council 2014 policy recommendation (2) public land issues (3) wildlife versus storage (4) wetland design (5) fairness (1) Expand the current Council policy on water storage and retention to add guidance to agencies and/or local governments, (2) consider developing a set of recommendations/principles designed to integrate all of the pieces such as soil health, living cover, conservation cropping systems, and water storage (3) a statewide soil health watershed policy (4) BOC discussed this idea in March where appropriate, require comprehensive watershed management plans that use the One Watershed, One Plan framework to include water volume reduction (or storage) goals. (5) There is so much overlap on these topics should also consider developing a more overarching policy. For example, a policy recommendation that watershed plans have water quantity (storage) and water quality goals/requirements. Committee would like agencies to discuss policy ideas in further detail at a future meeting. Discussed in January; revisit in June

43 Policy Ad Hoc Committee Draft Timeline REV 5/19/16 December 14, 2015 Developed Committee Charter Organized list of potential topics and reduced list of topics (from 27 to 16 topics) Elected Vice Chair o Developed factors to consider when selecting policy recommendations (e.g. capacity for responsible parties to implement, cost benefit relationship, leveraging opportunities exist, likely champions to lead efforts, politically feasible, technical information is available to implement) January 22, 2016 Presentations/Discussion of the following policy topics: o Contaminants of Emerging Concern o Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals o Sustainable Water Use o Water Storage March 25, 2016 Presentations/Discussion of the following policy topics related to nonpoint source implementation (note this will be more high level discussion) o Living Cover o Certification o Soil Health o Soil Erosion o Cover Crop (Insurance) April 22, 2016 Potential topics o Drinking Water Protection o Drainage o Nonpoint Source Implementation Protection (high level discussion) o Shoreland Rules o Narrowed down list of topics (from 23 topics to 13 topics) *On April 22, 2016 the Policy Committee decided not to pursue the following topics this year. Members noted that these were still very important topics to discuss in the future but they already have plenty of topics to discuss for this year. Feedlot Management Septic System Management Local Water Governance and Planning Chloride Urban Stormwater Point Source Implementation 1

44 May 27, 2016 Potential topics o Protection Forestland Conversion o Revisit Drinking Water o Revisit Shoreland Rules o Revisit the following topics Cover Crops (insurance) o TBD may need to revisit additional topics June 24, 2016 Potential topics o Discuss whether to pursue Nonpoint Source Implementation Standard of Care, Animal Management and Nutrient topics o Revisit the following topics Soil Health, Soil Erosion, Living Cover, Cumulative Impacts of Groundwater and Water Storage o TBD may need to revisit additional topics July 22, 2016 Potential topics o TBD may need to revisit additional topics o Narrow down list to 2 3 topics to bring to the full Council August 26, 2016 Draft/discuss more detailed policy recommendations Present more detailed draft policy recommendations to full Council September 23, 2016 Revise policy recommendations based on full Council comments October 28, 2016 Present final policy recommendations to full Council for vote 2