Lower Mississippi River WMO Watershed Restoration and Protection (WRAP) Study. Revised Work Plan (August 8, 2012)

Transcription

1 Lower Mississippi River WMO Watershed Restoration and Protection (WRAP) Study 1. Project summary Revised Work Plan (August 8, 2012) Project Title: Lower Mississippi River WMO Watershed Restoration and Protection (WRAP) Study Organization: Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) Contractor/Grantee Contact Name: Laura Jester Title: LMRWMO Administrator Address: c/o Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) th St. West, Suite 102 City: Farmington State: MN ZIP: Phone #: Fax: Subcontractor(s)/Partner(s): Barr Engineering Company, Greg Wilson and Janna Kieffer Address: 4700 West 77 th Street City: Minneapolis State: MN ZIP: Phone #: (Greg Wilson), (Janna Kieffer) Fax: (Greg Wilson), (Janna Kieffer) Braun Intertec for Laboratory Analysis Address: Hampshire Avenue South City: Minneapolis State: MN ZIP: Phone #: Fax: Agenda Item VII d. LMRWMO Meeting Revised Work Plan MPCA Contact Name: Barb Peichel Title: Project Manager Address: 520 Lafayette Road City: St. Paul State: MN ZIP: Phone #: Fax: Major Watershed (if applicable): Lower Mississippi River Latitude/Longitude for center of project area: Latitude = , Longitude = County: Dakota Total Project Costs: $ 189, , Project Dates: April 2, 2012 to December 31, 2013June 30, 2014 Water Bodies (AUID#): Sunfish ( ), Thompson ( ), Pickerel ( ), Rogers ( ), Augusta ( ) 1

2 Sunfish Lake ( ) and Augusta Lake ( ) have has been on the MPCA s draft list of impaired waters since 2010 for an aquatic recreation impairment (pollutant is nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators). The remaining three lakes are either un-assessed or protection lakes. 2. Statement of Problems and Existing Conditions In 2010, Sunfish Lake and Augusta Lake in Dakota County was were placed on Minnesota s 303(d) List of Impaired Waters for aquatic recreation due to excessive nutrients. Thompson, Pickerel and Rogers Lakes were selected for inclusion in a WRAP Study by the LMRWMO and its member cities. Barr Engineering prepared water quality modeling and feasibility studies for the watersheds to three of these lakes in for the LMRWMO; however, the watershed modeling needs to be updated and in-lake water quality modeling needs to be developed. These efforts are needed for evaluating waste loads identifying restoration and protection measures for WRAP Plan development and submittal to MPCA/EPA. In accordance with the federal Clean Water Act, the MN Clean Water Legacy Act states that Public agencies and private entities shall encourage participation by the public and stakeholders, including local citizens, landowners and manager, and public and private organizations in identifying impaired waters, in developing TMDLs, in planning, priority setting and implementing restoration of impaired waters. (2011 MN Statute Section 114D.35). The civic engagement objective of this work plan fulfills the program s policy requiring active solicitation of public input on all public notices. Figure 1 identifies the approximate watersheds for each of the four five waterbodies to be included in the WRAP Study. The four five lakes and their watersheds are briefly described below. Sunfish Lake Sunfish Lake is a 51-acre lake located in the city of Sunfish Lake, with a maximum depth of 32 feet. The Sunfish Lake watershed is approximately 235 acres. Land use within the watershed is primarily low density residential or undeveloped and the homes surrounding the lake are serviced by Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS). The lake has been monitored through the Metropolitan Council s Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) since Sunfish Lake has a high overflow outlet, constructed in about 1997, that conveys water to Friendly Marsh and Interstate Valley Creek. The outlet is located above the Ordinary High Water elevation (OHW), so discharge from the lake is typically limited to seepage. Augusta Lake Augusta Lake is a 44-acre lake located in the city of Mendota Heights, with a median depth of 18 feet and maximum depth of 33 feet. The Augusta Lake watershed is approximately 410 acres. Land use within the watershed is primarily open space, commercial, and residential (low and high density). The lake was monitored through the Gun Club Watershed Management Organization in 2007 and The lake is currently land-locked. Rogers Lake Rogers Lake is a shallow 107-acre lake located in Mendota Heights, with a maximum depth of 8 feet. The Rogers Lake watershed is approximately 414 acres, with land use comprised of highway, low-density residential and park land. Although there is no public access on this lake, there is a city park on the lake with picnic grounds, trails, and play areas that also provides opportunities for non-motorized boating. Outflows from the lake reach Friendly Marsh and Interstate Valley Creek. The lake was monitored through Metropolitan Council s CAMP in 2007, 2009, 2010 and Pickerel Lake Pickerel Lake is a shallow, 90-acre lake located in Lilydale and St. Paul, with a maximum depth of 11 feet. The lake, located in the Lilydale-Harriet Island Regional Park complex, receives drainage from Ivy Falls Creek and the wetland south of the lake. The 1,500-acre watershed to Pickerel Lake includes the municipalities of St. Paul, Lilydale, Mendota Heights, and West St. Paul. In addition to the park, land use in the watershed is mostly low density residential, with some high density residential and institutional land use. 2

3 Pickerel Lake normally discharges to the Mississippi River, but is located in the river floodplain. When river levels are high enough, the Mississippi River completely inundates or backs up into Pickerel Lake, which can greatly affect the water quality of the lake. The MPCA monitored the water quality of Pickerel Lake in 2010 and Thompson Lake Thompson Lake is a 7-acre lake located in the City of West St. Paul, within the Thompson County Park. The Thompson Lake watershed is approximately 182 acres, comprised of commercial, institutional, low density residential and park land use. Thompson Lake was monitored by Dakota County in the summer of 2011 and will also be monitored by the County in Goals, Objectives, Tasks and Sub-tasks Goal: The overall goal is to complete a comprehensive study, following a rational, step-wise process of data analysis, response modeling and comparison to the water quality standards, followed by impairment diagnosis, modeling of improvement and protection options, and development of a WRAP Report and Implementation Plan for the four five lakes. Following the study and stakeholder/public participation process, the local stakeholders will know: The extent and statistical significance of degraded water quality conditions, including the magnitude, duration, and frequency of water quality goal exceedances The trophic status of each lake, and how its water quality compares to a minimally impacted, background or reference condition The potential interrelationships between phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, Secchi disc transparency, dissolved oxygen, and the dynamics of lake mixing The magnitude of the seasonal and annual variations in the lake How the climatic conditions for the current, representative water-quality-monitoring periods compare to the entire period of record How the pollutant loadings (or concentrations/readings) and potential pollutant sources within each subwatershed area compare, based on watershed modeling and any historical monitoring data collected at each monitoring location Whether there are trends in the historical water-quality-monitoring data and considerations that need to be made for future management and water quality goal setting Whether there are gaps in the current scientific knowledge base The uncertainty associated with the analysis and the likelihood that water quality goals will be met under varying (wet, dry, and average) climatic conditions What phosphorus load reductions and future efforts will be needed and the relative priority for each action to maintain or improve water quality and provide follow-up assessment The feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the recommended BMPs and in-lake improvement options included in the TMDL/lake protection and Implementation Plan documents Objective 1: Monitoring and Sediment Analysis Task A: Monitoring will follow the MPCA-prepared Quality Assurance Protection Plan (QAPP), which will be developed prior to any monitoring. In conformance with the anticipated QAPP, the annual sampling data will be submitted to the MPCA EQuIS system by November 1st of each year of the project. Figure 1 identifies the proposed monitoring to be pursued as part of this project. Table 1 shows the water quality sampling frequency and parameters for each monitoring location. One year of in-lake water quality monitoring will be collected in 2012 and analyzed for eutrophication parameters (total phosphorus (TP), ortho-phosphorus (OP), Secchi depth and chlorophyll-a) and surface-water field measurements (dissolved oxygen, temperature, specific conductivity, ph and turbidity) in each lake system Sunfish, Rogers, Pickerel, and Thompson lakes, as well as qualitative aquatic plant 3

4 surveys to identify curlyleaf pondweed and/or the presence of other native species during the same growing season. The Gun Club Water Management Organization conducted water quality monitoring of Augusta Lake in 2007 and No additional water quality monitoring is included in this work plan, with the exception of qualitative aquatic plant surveys to be conducted in late-summer 2012 and early-summer 2013 (for identification/verification of curlyleaf pondweed). Continuous lake level monitoring will also be conducted in 2012 for each Sunfish, Rogers, Pickerel, and Thompson lake basins during the same year. In conjunction with the lake monitoring, one year of stormwater runoff and baseflow monitoring will be conducted for Ivy Falls Creek with collection of up to 25 grab samples, representative of the range of flow conditions, analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS) and total and dissolved phosphorus (TDP). The stormwater runoff monitoring will include continuous recording of stream stage and the development of a stage-discharge relationship based on a series of stream flow readings collected during the monitoring season. The Ivy Falls Creek monitoring station will be established at a control location directly upstream of Pickerel Lake. In conjunction with the Ivy Falls Creek stormwater monitoring, flow depths will be noted and grab samples collected from water discharging into Pickerel Lake from the southwest wetland and analyzed for TP, TDP and TSS. All lake and stream water quality samples will be analyzed by Braun Intertec. Table 1. Water Quality Monitoring Summary Monitoring Location Number of Water Quality Samples TP OP/TDP 1 Chlorophyll-a TSS Sunfish Lake surface Sunfish Lake 1-meter intervals to bottom 100 Rogers Lake surface Pickerel Lake surface Thompson Lake surface Ivy Falls Creek Pickerel Lake inflow from southwest wetland Lake samples and inflow to Pickerel Lake from southwest wetland will be analyzed for ortho-phosphorus (OP). Samples from Ivy Falls Creek will be analyzed for total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) Shallow sediment cores will be collected from Sunfish and, Pickerel, and Augusta Lakes and analyzed during the spring fall of 2012 to quantify phosphorus fractions for comparison with lake sediment core data from previous studies. The sediment monitoring comparison will be used to assess the potential for sediment phosphorus release. This information, along with the historical water quality monitoring data, will be used to estimate the amount of phosphorus loading potential to the lakes from sediment release under existing conditions and the appropriate allocation fraction for future management considerations. Barr Engineering will assume responsibility for all activities associated with sediment sampling and phosphorus related analysis, including phosphorus fractionation, organic matter and solids content. 4

5 Objective 1 Responsible Parties: Project manager, hydrologist, water quality modeler, field technician Objective 1 Cost: $56, , Objective 1 Timeline: April SeptemberDecember 2012 Objective 1 Deliverables: Additional monitoring data for submittal to EQuIS and approved Quality Assurance Project Plan. Objective 2: Watershed Modeling Task A: Existing project databases will be updated after compiling, reviewing, and analyzing all existing and newly collected water-quantity, quality, and biological information that pertain to each lake watershed, including flow, lake levels, water quality, phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophyte surveys, background technical information, and relevant geographic, soils, and climatic data. It is expected that likely sources of data will include all regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) entities (Cities of St. Paul, West St. Paul, Lilydale, Sunfish Lake, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT)), MPCA, Inver Grove Heights, South St. Paul, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR), Dakota County SWCD, National Park Service, and any other available information. As part of this task, the following will also be completed: Compile existing and proposed land-use/land-cover, imperviousness data in GIS format Obtain specific data on urban stormwater runoff inputs and current implementation of BMPs Compile existing and newly collected water- quality, quantity, and biological data Summarize past studies Summary of past/current watershed BMP implementation efforts and monitoring Analyze the water quality variability on a seasonal and annual basis, including the potential magnitude, duration, and frequency of water-quality-goal exceedances Comparing current lake water quality with reference or background conditions estimated by diatom reconstructions (Edlund, 2005), MINLEAP (Heiskary and Wilson, 1990), and/or Vighi and Chiaudani (1985) Evaluating annualized trends and accounting for seasonality Determining the critical conditions for compliance with the water quality goals with respect to climatic condition and Barr s internal phosphorus loading estimates Identification of the potential pollutant sources, magnitudes, and resulting water quality in relation to previously established goals or reference conditions are some of the first objectives in this study. Further problem identification and targeting of water-quality-improvement efforts will include an evaluation of watershed loadings under various flow and seasonal conditions and the resulting changes to in-lake water quality. The available watershed monitoring data that are considered to be representative of current land-use/land-cover conditions and documented levels of BMP implementation will be used in the P8 Urban Catchment Model (P8) to estimate the observed surface-water loadings of phosphorus and solids for each available water year. The P8 model will then be developed for the Thompson Lake and Augusta Lake watersheds and updated for each of the other lake watersheds, with the Ivy Falls Creek model optimized to the observed pollutant loadings, to estimate the phosphorus and solids loadings for each of the tributary subwatersheds. If the Ivy Falls Creek loadings are not representative of the remaining study areas, uncalibrated P8 modeling will be applied to the remaining subwatersheds. At a minimum, the P8 watershed modeling will be run for all of the water years that correspond with the representative in-lake water quality data for each lake. The calibrated/validated phosphorus deliveries predicted by P8 will be used in combination with long-term climate data or precipitation probability functions to predict the tributary loadings under the flow conditions that are important for degraded water quality in each lake. 5

6 Objective 2 Responsible Parties: Project manager, hydrologist, water quality modeler Objective 2 Cost: $12, , Objective 2 Timeline: April SeptemberDecember 2012 Objective 2 Deliverables: Summaries of monitoring data and P8 modeling results for each lake watershed will be prepared and included in the Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan. Written summary of past monitoring will include graphs and tables depicting past and current lake water quality along with graphs and tables summarizing hydrologic and nutrient loading quantities from inflows; ongoing and completed BMP installation in the watershed will also be summarized, as well as recommended management activities from previous studies. Draft deliverables will be available for stakeholder meetings. Objective 3: Lake Water Quality Modeling Task A: Further problem identification and targeting of water-quality-improvement efforts will include an evaluation of watershed loadings under various flow and seasonal conditions and the resulting changes to in-lake water quality. The results of the P8 watershed modeling will be used as inputs into a daily mass-balance spreadsheet model for the in-lake response modeling of phosphorus, chlorophyll-a and Secchi disc transparency for each of the study lakes. A modified version of Vollenweider s (1969) mass balance equation will be used in each lake model for the critical condition affecting growing season water quality in each lake. The magnitude of the net internal phosphorus load to each lake will be determined by comparing and optimizing the observed water quality in the lake to the water quality predicted by the in-lake model under existing conditions. Key calibration parameters for the in-lake modeling include the apparent sedimentation rate and estimation of the net internal load that affects the phosphorus concentration in the water column during the growing season. Where applicable, the internal load production from carp and curlyleaf pondweed senescence will be determined using empirical relationships based on the density of each component and the potential sediment release rate of TP will be determined from the lake sediment mobile phosphorus and labile organic phosphorus (mobile P content) and a regression equation relating mobile P and the maximum possible sediment TP release rate will be used to estimate sediment release rate of TP during anoxic conditions at the sediment surface (Pilgrim et al., 2007). Water and lake phosphorus budgets will be determined and summarized for each water year to evaluate the relative contributions from the direct subwatersheds, atmospheric deposition and other internal sources of phosphorus. The modeling results from each water year will be used to evaluate the water quality variability and the probability that various trophic state levels can be attained under the current conditions, including the magnitude, duration, and frequency of water quality goal exceedances. For Pickerel Lake, the magnitude and frequency of water quality impairment will be evaluated as a result of historical Mississippi River flood frequencies and associated water quality obtained from the downstream monitoring station at downtown St. Paul. Potential sources of modeling error will also be evaluated. The calibrated watershed and lake modeling will be used to evaluate the phosphorus load reductions that would be required from various watershed and internal sources to meet the applicable water quality standards or goals set for each of the lakes identified for restoration and protection. Reference or background conditions for goal setting would likely be based on the water quality estimated from MINLEAP (Heiskary and Wilson, 1990) and/or Vighi and Chiaudani (1985). The phosphorus load reductions required to meet the state water quality standards will be presented to and discussed with project stakeholders. For Pickerel Lake, phosphorus load reduction estimates will include an assessment of the expected water quality improvement associated with the application of a Mississippi River load allocation that meets the river nutrient standard. For those lakes that may already be meeting the state water quality standards, additional goals to promote lake protection may also be considered. 6

7 Objective 3 Responsible Parties: Project manager, hydrologist, water quality modeler Objective 3 Cost: $19, , Objective 3 Timeline: July December 2012March 2013 Objective 3 Deliverables: P8 watershed and in-lake water quality models for use in subsequent work tasks to assess water quality goals and management actions. Modeling methods and results, calibration/validation statistics and uncertainty analysis, loading capacity for various trophic state goals, phosphorus loading components by phosphorus source and water year, critical conditions and recommendations for future model improvements and/or alternative approaches to address the model limitations will be summarized for inclusion in the final project report. Documentation of modeling input data and results will be included in the final project report, in conformance with MPCA guidance. Objective 4: Develop WRAP Plan Task A: This task involves development of management actions that will protect and improve water quality conditions in each lake to prevent or mitigate impairment from nutrient pollution and ensure that the water quality goals are met. P8 modeling will be used to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of potential BMP practices, including the amount of potential load reduction that could be recognized from implementation of various BMPs at various locations throughout the watershed. The lake s response to the expected load reduction determined in the P8 analysis will then be evaluated with the calibrated daily mass-balance spreadsheet model. Potential in-lake improvement options will also be evaluated with the lake spreadsheet model. This process allows for the evaluation of the direct effect of a specific BMP or in-lake improvement option on each lake s water quality and will be used in developing a cost-benefit analysis as well as an Implementation Plan for the watershed-wide load reduction required to meet the goals. This task will also include an assessment of BMP feasibility so that the stakeholders understand what specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) and in-lake improvements can be implemented to ensure that the water quality goals are met, and a proper dialogue about cost-benefit and feasibility can occur, before the management plan is developed. Stakeholders involved in this dialogue will generally include the affected regulated MS4s, LMRWMO, MPCA, MDNR, BWSR, Metropolitan Council, interested citizens, and any other interested parties affected by the management decisions. For this task, it is assumed that multiple drafts (one each for MPCA review, EPA preliminary review, stakeholder review, public notice) and two final versions (for MPCA and EPA approval) of the WRAP Report and Implementation Plan will be prepared that summarize the results of the above tasks, with appropriate tabulations, colored maps, charts, figures, and attachments. The final report will be prepared by incorporating the project partner and informal EPA comments on the draft project report. The actual WRAP format will follow United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/MPCA policy and guidance for the impaired waterbodies and will include elements outlined in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Summary Table on the State s Impaired Waters website ( The WRAP report will then be placed on public notice. The final WRAP Report, following necessary revisions based on public comments, will be submitted to the MPCA and USEPA for their approval. The final WRAP Report will include a TMDL equation and allocations for each impairment, including all the required elements in the USEPA review document for TMDLs. Electronic copies of the report will be submitted for MPCA staff and stakeholder review and comments. Objective 4 Responsible Parties: Project manager, hydrologist, water quality modeler Objective 4 Cost: $33, , Objective 4 Timeline: October 2012 June Objective 4 Deliverables: Fifteen hard copies of one draft and one final version of the WRAP Report and Implementation Plan will be submitted for use by LMRWMO, MPCA, cities, stakeholders, and the interested public. This effort will produce recommendations for when specific activities should be done, and who might implement each respective activity or project. The report will include a listing of all waterbodies in the watershed, their impairment status, and monitoring needs. Cost estimates for the purposes of budgeting capital work will also be developed, along with an assessment of feasibility. 7

8 Objective 5: Civic Engagement Civic Engagement Goals The goal of the civic engagement process is to work directly with the residents, businesses, cities and other stakeholders to ensure that their ideas, concerns and visions for future conditions are understood and utilized throughout the WRAP process. The WRAP is most likely to be successful when average citizens play a greater role in helping to frame the water quality issues in their own community as well as in the creation of the solutions to those problems. The stakeholder participation process within this project will include two primary components, a technical stakeholder participation process and a citizen engagement process. A diagram depicting these processes in relation to Project Objectives 1 through 4 is included as Figure 2. The projects are also described in further detail below. The technical stakeholder participation process will include Sunfish, Augusta, Rogers, Pickerel and Thompson lakes. The citizen engagement process will include each of the lakes, with exception of Augusta Lake, as the original workplan and citizen engagement budgeting was completed prior to the addition of Augusta Lake to the current workplan. Task A: Technical Stakeholder Process. The LMRWMO WRAP Technical Stakeholder Group (TSG) will include interested LMRWMO board members, technical representatives from member cities and other regulated MS4s, Dakota County SWCD, St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department (Pickerel Lake), Dakota County Parks Department (Thompson Lake), National Park Service (Pickerel Lake), MDNR, BWSR, Met Council, and MPCA. The purpose of the technical stakeholder group is to share local knowledge about problems and to guide the development of potential implementation strategies based on technical data. A project kickoff meeting will be held to introduce the project to the WRAP TSG. The project kickoff meeting will include presentation of the monitoring plan, the proposed modeling approach and relevant input data, plus a discussion of potential approaches for developing TMDL wasteload allocations (WLAs) for the MS4s. Given the uniqueness of each of the four five targeted lakes and their respective watersheds, Barr will work with the LMRWMO and the MPCA to develop unique technical stakeholder groups for each lake, which will generally be a subset of the WRAP TSG as well as interested citizens. Following the monitoring (Objective 1), watershed modeling (Objective 2), and lake modeling (Objective 3), a meeting will be held with each group to describe the known impairments and to discuss preliminary modeling results and potential implementation alternatives (see Figure 2). The work scope and budget estimate assumes that the meetings for each individual lake will be held back-to-back to minimize staff attendance costs. The work scope and budget estimate also assumes that the stakeholder group and meeting will be combined for Rogers and Augusta lakes. Upon completion of the water quality assessment process, a 2nd meeting will be held with each lake-specific stakeholder group to communicate the study results and to hear comments and concerns about these findings. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to review the draft WRAP report and comment on potential treatment options for each lake. The workplan includes a 3rd project meeting with each lake-specific stakeholder group (as needed) to further discuss the outcomes of the WRAP study, the load allocations (if applicable) and the proposed implementation program. The technical stakeholder process for Sunfish, Rogers, Pickerel, and Thompson lakes will conclude with a final implementation workshop held jointly with resident participants. Our intent is for the attendees and format of each meeting to be mutually agreed upon by the MPCA and LMRWMO. Our goals for the technical stakeholder meetings will be to educate the group on the process, receive relevant information from stakeholders pertaining to the lakes and their respective watersheds, and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process. Stakeholder meetings will likely be held in a convenient watershed location. It is assumed that LMRWMO staff will lead these meetings and Barr will present the technical information. This Task will be completed by the project manager, hydrologist, modeler, and LMRWMO Administrator. The cost for this Task is $20,

9 Task B: Citizen Engagement Process There are two main strategies that support the goal of citizen involvement in water policy-making activities within their watersheds. One is to share information about water quality problems and general lake ecology with residents living on or near the four lakes subject to this study. The other strategy is to listen to citizens that care about the future of these lakes. Through engagement and dialogue with citizens during this process, we hope to better understand the emotional, physical and financial barriers that may be keeping people from taking actions that could improve water quality. Engaged and supportive citizens can also help us to secure the commitment of other citizens in achieving a vision for water quality. This task will be completed by the project manager, hydrologist, water quality modeler, stakeholder involvement specialist/facilitator, GIS specialist, and the LMRWMO Administrator. The cost for this Task is $40, $40, Following is a description of the activities involved in this task: Survey. A paper survey will be mailed to all parcel owners in the four subwatersheds (Pickerel, Thompson, Sunfish and Rogers) during the first half of An electronic on-line version will also be available for citizens as an additional option to increase response rate. The purpose of the survey is to assess and analyze community knowledge, capacity and stakeholder development opportunities. Specifically, the survey will assess awareness of lake water quality issues, feelings/values around importance of water quality issues, interest in citizen involvement and to gather data about existing land use practices that may be impacting their lake/watershed. The mailing will also include general information on water quality issues and a flyer announcing a series of community conversation events. The mailing will also seek to gather addresses for communicating project progress and for recruiting individual participation for future citizen events and to become citizen members of the technical stakeholder group. As described above a subset of this group will be formed for each of the four watersheds/lakes. Cost: $14, $14, Community Conversations. Three community conversations are proposed to share information and listen to residents throughout 2012 and Technical stakeholders will participate in each conversation. However, they will be asked to listen and gather insight into plan development and to avoid becoming conversation experts. These events will provide opportunities for citizens to learn about water quality problems, the WRAP project and discuss their role in solving water quality problems. The proposed agenda for each event is shown below along with proposed topics: 1 st Community Conversation Summer Fall 2012 Overview of WRAP project and introduce players Summarize survey results Conversation on issues, knowledge and connection to each lake (Break out tables for each lake) Conversation on water quality issues to gain specific insight on the level of knowledge within the community (including sectors that may not have answered survey), and to have a dialogue to fully understand knowledge base beyond the broad questions posed in the survey. 2 nd Community Conversation Fall Winter 2012/2013 Update on WRAP project Present information on lake ecology (urban runoff, stormwater 101) Conversations on each lake s WQ challenges (break out tables). Presentation of WQ data and get feedback on solutions and responsibility. 9

10 3 rd Community Conversation Winter 2012/Spring 2013 Update on WRAP project Present modeling results Conversations on preliminary strategies on the following topics in order to identify audiences for education and outreach and discuss barriers to doing the right thing and strategies to remove them: 1. Education 2. Behavioral change 3. Best management practices 4. Funding 5. Role of governmental jurisdictions in implementing these strategies Completion of a survey to track changes in knowledge and attitudes compared to status documented in first survey. Cost: $15, $15, and Website Updates. Two updates will be sent out to all residents on the list to inform them about highlights from the community conversations and WRAP progress. The project website will be maintained and updated with timely and appropriate information including progress on the overall project and details about upcoming events. Cost: $2, Communications Plan. A communications plan will be developed to guide ongoing communications to support successful implementation of best management practices and public involvement and public education programs. Insight gained from the three community conversations will guide the development of key messages. Cost: $3, Implementation Workshop. This will be an evening meeting hosted by the LMRWMO, and will bring together members of the technical stakeholder group, residents who have participated in the community conversations as well as any other interested residents. At this meeting the proposed draft implementation plan for each watershed/lake will be presented. The purpose of the workshop is to engage technical stakeholders and citizens in dialogue about priorities and selecting among alternative BMP and program strategies. Strategy priorities were discussed at the 3 rd community conversations. Clarification of these discussions and decisions on mutually exclusive strategies will be provided at this meeting to finalize the implementation plan. The focus of the workshop will be on plan elements that have the greatest impact on citizens. The meeting will include two parts. The first part would discuss priorities and strategies common to all watersheds.the second part would include break out meetings by each watershed/lake to discuss priorities and strategies specific to each watershed/lake. The WRAP implementation plan will include public involvement and education strategies including a communications plan, civic engagement and performance tracking to manage public involvement for at least six years of plan implementation. Cost: $5, Objective 5 Responsible Parties: LMRWMO Administrator, project manager, hydrologist, water quality modeler, stakeholder involvement specialist/facilitator, GIS specialist Objective 5 Cost: $60, , Objective 5 Timeline: April 2012 JuneOctober 2013 Objective 5 Deliverables: One formal project kick-off meeting with the LMRWMO TSG, three additional meetings with each of the individual lake-specific TSGs, resident survey summary, three community conversation events, and website updates, communications plan and implementation workshop summary. 10

11 Objective 6: Project Management TASK A: Monthly communications with MPCA and LMRWMO staff are proposed to discuss the progress on the work effort and incorporate recommendations. Monthly communication will be in the form of , telephone, or in-person meetings following the regular LMRWMO monthly meetings. In addition, we will make use of technical memoranda, , and phone calls to share information with MPCA as the need arises. Electronic files and other pertinent project materials, including GIS and modeling files, will be provided to the MPCA and the LMRWMO during the project. Monthly summaries of project accomplishments and a breakdown of the staff hours spent per task by each staff member assigned to the project will be submitted. These summaries will be submitted using the Project Status Report for reimbursement each month. Two semi-annual progress reports will be submitted by Barr Engineering to the MPCA each year on February 1st and August 1st. A final progress report using the MPCA Clean Water Partnership/319/TMDL Final Report format will be submitted to the MPCA at the end of the project. Objective 6 Responsible Parties: LMRWMO Administrator, project manager, and hydrologist Objective 6 Cost: $7,160 Objective 6 Timeline: April 2012 December 2013June 2014 Objective 6 Deliverables: Monthly summaries of project accomplishments and a breakdown of the staff hours spent per task by each staff member assigned to the project will be submitted using the Project Status Report for reimbursement each month. Two semi-annual progress reports will be submitted each year on February 1st and August 1st. A final progress report using the MPCA Clean Water Partnership/319/TMDL Final Report format will be submitted to the MPCA at the end of the project. 4. Measureable Outcomes Outcomes: The ultimate outcome of the WRAP study is improved or protected water quality in the waterbodies within the Lower Mississippi River WMO. A comprehensive study of 4five lakes will include the following: 1. Water quality monitoring, sediment analysis and data collection 2. Response modeling 3. Impairment assessment 4. Modeling of improvement and protection options 5. Development of a WRAP Report and Implementation Plan The WRAP study will also identify future monitoring needs for other waterbodies within the Lower Mississippi River WMO. In addition to the study on the lakes, there is a civic engagement component to this project. The expected civic engagement outcomes include the following: 1. LMRWMO has an understanding of stakeholder attitudes and knowledge towards water resources to implement programs and make progress towards changing behaviors. 2. Stakeholders have sufficient awareness of water resource problems and understand how the solutions in the WRAP implementation plan address the problems. 3. Increased capacity for communication among city, WMO and residents. 4. The LMRWMO has adequate data and information to implement an ongoing civic engagement or public involvement program. 5. Project staff and the Technical Stakeholder Group (TSG) understand the causes leading to water quality problems. 6. The WRAP implementation plan identifies projects with a high probability of improving water quality. 11

12 Measures: Indicators that will help track the progress of outcomes above include the following: 1. Water quality monitoring is completed following the Quality Assurance Project Plan 2. Completed and distributed WRAP Report and Implementation Plan 3. A response rate greater than 25% is achieved on the civic engagement survey 4. Increasing numbers of citizens participate in each successive community conversation. Awareness and understanding of water quality issues improves over course of civic engagement process (as assessed in second survey completed at 3rd community conversation). 5. Gantt Chart Separate Document 6. Project Budget- Separate Document 12