The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutThe State of Watershed E DII S Hp 1111 II r . , _ S _ .. _ _.. _: THE STATE OF WAT E R WATER - QUALITY J MANAGEMENT IN MINNESOTA i d� 3 „•''°,J .+ ,-. ;../-, ✓°`�R�r"rte ......!.. + a. iti%'46:t,e,- 4V//cc,t/i.-4"4, 444. ,,, ---c:f.--, - //,',/,,,,‘;'',Ze.„4.---/. .„._-_,4a...71--' , ,i 4,,4//c<A..t.c`,' 77/,c t Le_..-.e I, .,c c w I,A a, ., , 7 iic.c.,fr._,L.47 I LW°. . ..''', : . ';.!!4;,_% - ' , C''' ,- • ,'L . '' ' Al'. 47. { ‘,..;';';.,''',.-i;;;;'"",`,: ',•,) '" n ti$ a „�>� �< >ry, ,,=r y " * a a aq «°aa yYxr «t ' '''',''',4-144,',''''''' r, '' +r 2 z 1 &,ti k £t • --#5'3 r:kj 4 ;a ',y 1•G..u!�* �J ,'$ a t,'-,'`" ' .w-,:se .. a 4�Y A 4. #„,w ..✓-:riot} {Q 6 s .. x d '�q r ,.. w e xi �'f,' *.; r' ,I �f;> '� ,ain i, s^d ¢ t x a'^ ,. .�'� ' .,;„:,„4 d v. + 14.,/,'....' Ftt ` P a;fiZ. w*. s , 0. t ,a',,34- ' 4n � � w. saw Na `i r e// 47/,j/ 5 ,:y+�f:i :V.', .. .C• j"�5T^a , `,. 3 •'',', •t3`5 ''ed -a N' ',`". ;%Si'r . u v" .. ,a „,,,A,,,,...,,,,,..-.,"?a,-,..,,,,,T:,,,,,-,11., "1 '}�i s<+'��yq ga:"`7� .q'r1 •.i:,. r -i;'• `.1,,,,, 'j,ip�33'figs,.fs”' s ,;r2, ,q� -,'`" ' `�" '• ".t� .Mi '�'� x3; lx 9'8t' r Y t,C,s' 7 L,: s X w: sad $Y vr3" yaa i..44,s y xt`+ � rtt k2� :�, re ,pr ,7 `a + y e'". ., �,.Ra-. "' . ?. F.s• si r p"-:a37, y +Sa% sf§�'3:J+ ;Y- tx p�;:�F`1>�,: .r e AI"; o +.' a1, .,t,,4{:. .Hm� .il 4r k+ 3 ' � �e 1sr ' tr,� .bl ✓- 41 N+� 0 " • 41: 0 0 1 The State of Watershed Water Quality Management in Minnesota � ht Foundation and approved by the rovided by The Mc l g ro ect wasp Ch. 216 Sec. 15, Subd. 6doa as Funding for this p 1997 Minnesota Laws, Minnesota Legislature, recommendedCommission on Minnesota Resources from the by the Legislative Minnesota Future Resources Fun i I I 1 SUMMARY 10 Minnesota has diverse and thriving local citizen-led watershed organizations. These s are uniquely situated to take the lead in improving water quality at jothe he loca watershed group l, gi'assroots level. The decisions that watershed managers make can havea mto their impacton water quality. An urgent need therefore exists to identify the barriers effectiveness and determine the resources they need to succeed. are formally organized groups. Three The organizations that were selected for this study Watershed Districts,Watershed categories of these are regulated by state mandate: the other by federal tax laws: non- Management Organizations and Joint Powers Boards;shed level. Although there are many ' profits. All of the groups studied, function on a watershed s in the state working on water quality,those that were not organized other active groups u p on the local watershed landscape were not considered. The report is divided into five main sections:watershed organizations in the national • Section one provides a synopsis o context, • to Section two provides brief history of the evolution of the state's approach watershed management, • Section three has four main divisions that give detailed descriptions of each of Minnesota's four types of watershed based organizations.Discussed here ares ir Minnes ir as well the pro s mandates, process of formation, authorities available to them, involved in terminating them, • Section four discusses the results of the project, ction ve compares strategies of Highly Successful vs. Inactive organiza• tions for Se .� managing water quality,• r quality in Section six provides some overall recommendations for managing water Minnesota through the formation and activity of watershed organizations. 1 1 This report is written for anyone with an interest or stake in managin wate includes, but is not limited to decision makers from watershed or g r quality. This environmental ganizations, groups, state legislators, staff from government agencies and citizens interested in learning about how water quality in their watershed is, or in the State of Minnesota. could be managed TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS.................................................... 3 MINNESOTA IN THE NATIONAL CONTEXT....................................... .................................. TheFederal Landscape...................................................................................................... 3 The Minnesota Strategy ............................................................ EVOLUTION OF THE STATE'S APPROACH TO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT...............................6 Comprehensive Water Planning in Minnesota.................................................................... 6 Minnesota Watershed Management Emerges....................................••"'""•""" 7 WATERSHED BASED ORGANIZATIONS IN MINNESOTA...........................................................10 Watershed Districts............................ ..... ...................................................14 Joint Powers Boards...................................................... Watershed Management Organizations.............................................................................16 Comparison of WMOs and Watershed Districts.................................................................21 ........................... Watershed Based Non-profits............................. ............SUCCESS AND MINNESOTA'S WATERSHED ORGANIZATIONS AT WORK EFFECTIVENESS, 25 FAILURE Gathering Information25 27 Indicators of Effectiveness....................................................................... 27 Reasons For Non-Inclusion of Biophysical Parameters.................................................. Organizational Organizational Capacity......................................................................... Individual Capacity.............................. Implementing Water Quality Efforts..................................................................................39 ANATOMY OF A SUCCESSFUL WATERSHED ORGANIZATION ...................................................43 Infrastructure......................................................... ExternalInputs.................................................................................................................45 Interaction and Awareness of Watershed Community........................................................ ...................••.••""'" 48 Conclusion........................................................................................................................49 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... ............. Don't Reinvent the Wheel: Build on existing options........................... . .. . .................... 49 Organizations....•••••••50 Continue the Tradition:Make the Most of Local, State-Empowered, 51 Don't Mandate: Voluntary Organizations are More Successful.................................. Watershed Effectiveness Evaluation......................................................................... I APPENDIX 1: WATERSHED ORGANIZATIONS IN MINNESOTAI..................................................55 APPENDIX 2: CASE STUDIES..... . . .. REDWOOD COTTONWOOD RIVERS CONTROL AREA...............................................................63 CANNON RIVER WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP..........................................................................68 YELLOW MEDICINE RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT..................... VADNAIS LAKE AREA WMO... ..............................................................................................80 PELICAN RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT.................................................................................86 BROWNS CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT........... .......................................................... •••••••....93APPENDX 3:WATER QUALITY EFFORTS............................................................... APPENDIX 4:WAS ANIZATION 1 QUALITY EFFORTS BY WATERSHED ORG 197 BIBLIOGRAPY......................................................................................... 1844 1 LIST OF ACRONYMS First Appearance Acronym Explanation BERBI Blue Earth River Basin Initiative 35 BMPs,BMP Best Management Practices 38 BWSR Board of Water and Soil Resources 10 CAC Citizens Advisory Board 81 COE Army Corps of Engineers 99 1789 CRP/RIM Conservation Reserve Program/Reinvest in Minnesota CRWP Cannon River Watershed Partnership 68 CWP Clean Water Partnership Grant(provided by the 29 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) DSW Discharge to surface water 3 EPA Environmental Protection Agency 104 EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive Program 103 JPA Joint Powers Agreement 15 13 JPB Joint Powers Board LCMR Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources 66 MAWD Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts 96 4 MN DNR, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR 72 MN DOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 34 MPRB Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board 126 NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 33 PRWD Pelican River Watershed District 86 RCRCA Redwood Cottonwood Rivers Control Area 29 RDC Regional Development Commission 111 6 tete.of 14 te.rsn2ct 70,544.147rittr vxtitm 1nCrn644eral4nt 4,4 Ainnesctbi, RRMB Red River Management Boa2rd 104 SEMWRB South East Minnesota Water Resources Board 14 SPWU St. Paul Water Utility 80 SWCDs Soil and Water Conservation Districts 17 USDA United States Department of Agriculture 33 USF&W United States Fish and Wildlife Service 72 USGS United States Geological Survey 110 VLAWMO Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Org. 80 WDs Watershed Districts 16 WMOs, Watershed Management Organizations WMO 5 WQ Water Quality 40 YMRWD Yellow Medicine River Watershed District 75 • $i a-te of wxterskut q.se water Evutliti7 141.xnagePne.gt iu 70iinnesr'„�,. 3 I MINNESOTA IN THE NATIONAL CONTEXT THE FEDERAL LANDSCAPE Watershed"initiatives" are notable for the variety of organizational forms and structures. S t o es. The diverse nature of watershed organizations is a natural outgrowth of the Y eke and Kenney, 1997). landscapes, issues and available organizations and resources � n and between states. Many different types of watershed organizations exist both wit in from informal One state may employ multiple watershed management strategies ranging local groups to statewide formal watershed divisions. For many, watershed management is viewed as simply a reorientation of federal or state geographic focus. This means, in practical terms, resource scientists and regulators employed at the federal, state or county level are assigned specific watershed areas in which to work. There is disagreement on the most appropriate organizational forms for watershed management. Dr.Kenney (Natural Resource Law Center,Pers. Comm., 1998)is steadfast in his belief that watershed organizations should be strictly informal ad hoc s that come together for creative brainstorming,without the burden of rules of groups p order,funding, staff or other formal authorities. Others feel that informal watershed or organizations exploit citizens' time and effort without any formal decision making authority over watershed issues. Several states are reorienting many of their programs towards the watershed, particularly in regards to water quality. The State of New Jersey, for example, has delineated the state into watersheds(96),Watershed Management Areas (20), and Water Regions(5). The five Water Regions will be the regulatory basis for watershed permitting of discharge to surface water(DSW), and Stormwater Management Plans. The twenty Watershed Management Areas will develop watershed plans that include pollutant-trading agreements. 5 txte.o1 s.vi'yte.rsCeu4 f Sed'via to y xlitu, mronrigerAe. r in.Minrfresot 4 In New Jersey, Michigan, California, Kentucky and many other states, the reorganization by watershed focus reflects a desire to increase stakeholder involvement (Clements and 4: Colton, 1998; Cowles, 1998; Jewell et al., 1998; New Jersey DEP, 1997). TEE MINNESOTA STRATEGY The Minnesota landscape is defined by the presence of water. Although Minnesota is known the"land of 10,000 lakes,"there are in fact 11,842 lakes 10 acres or larger, which are larger than 5,000 acres g , 62 of DNR, 1997). In addition, the state has more than 10 million acres of wetlands. Almost 25%of state's 85,000 square miles of surface area are covered in water(MN DNR, 1997). This figure does not include the 92,000 miles of streams and rivers, including the Minnesota, the Mississippi, the Red River and the St. Croix. This abundance of water has spawned a society intensely interested in outdoor recreation and consequently in the state of natural resources. Managing this water resource for recreation as well as other needs such as agriculture and drinking water supply can prove to be an daunting task. However, Minnesota is well situated to handle the challenge, given it's base of watershed organizations. There are 77 watershed organizations in this state, although 36 are organized on a subwatershed level in the metropolitan area of the Twin cities. Minnesota's watershed groups vary in both structure and mode of action. Three of the organizational types discussed in this study, Watershed Districts, Joint Powers Boards and Watershed Management Organizations are legislated by the state to manage water at thegrassrootst level, emphasizing local capacity and local responsibility. The fourth type is a tershed based non-profit. Watershed Districts, representing the largest number(44) of watershed-based organizations, were created in the 1950s by state mandate. At that time their primary purposes were managing floods and drainage, but since 1981 have been moving towards 5txte.o�IVAter5A.u( xser{f'i ter tuxiitN Mi v tfreo nt in Ati .nesc>`., . 5 water quality. The next largest group (23) are the Watershed Management Organizations (WMOs). These were created in the 80's by the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act in the Twin Cities Metro area to implement watershed management. The final two organizational types are Joint Powers Boards which are formed by interjurisdictional agreements(9) and watershed based non-profits(3). The working styles of these organizations are as different as the tools provided to them by law are varied. Consequently, they draw upon numerous resources to help them accomplish their goals. For instance, Joint Powers Boards frequently work with Soil and Water Conservation District staff to help with their one-on-one farmer oriented projects. Non-profits draw on state agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for technical assistance. Projects to improve water quality range from large capital improvement projects to land use Best Management Practices on individual farms. Funding strategies are varied as well among these groups. Some may tax as a source of revenue, other groups may depend entirely on grants from foundations. Whatever form the organization may take or strategy it may utilize, one commonality remains among all-how best to manage Minnesota's rich water resource heritage. Stc-te. W ter5ic2 9tsec x7I te,but pit pr:F"yvrlilerati.nt AtiRr.e$OtA 6 II EVOLUTION OF THE STATE'S APPROACH TO WATERSHED 3 MANAGEMENT Early water management in Minnesota was primarily focused on drainage for agriculture and public health purposes. Little energy was directed towards conservation or water quality protection and improvement. The number of Minnesota laws regulating drainage systems is a testimony to this early mindset. Chapters 139 and 230 of Minnesota law passed in 1883 and 1905 allowed for the drainage of lakes not more than four feet deep and allowed the county boards to drain meandering lakes if they were unsuitable for navigation. In 1907 the State Drainage Commission was created and in 1919, the Department of Drainage and Waters, both of which regulated draining of lakes and wetlands. This latter organization was headed by the Commissioner of Drainage and Waters, an individual who was mandated by the Legislature to determine the topographical feature of the major watersheds in the state, including the Minnesota and Mississippi, and to "secure proper drainage outlets for lands in each basin." (Report of • the Legislative Interim Commission, 1955)It was not until 1937 that state began to recognize the need to conserve water, and to develop some kind of water policy that would aid in this conservation. COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING IN MINNESOTA • Comprehensive water planning arose in 1953 with the formation of the Interim Commission on Water Conservation, Drainage and Flood Control by the state Legislature. This commission was charged with examining existing laws and making recommendations to the legislature relating to water management in the state. The interest in forming this commission was rooted in then recent floods, as well as in the increasing demands made on the water supply by a growing population. There were also $tAte 144iteri Dscsea san erEvo iitum.(XYLIlf�ert int iYt �S^�i;27r.25t�tiv f 7 Minnesota Water issues related to expansion that needed resolution serious drainage 1 Resources Board, 1974). t all issues related to flooding were under federal managed at the local level. The Interim Commission determined related water issues were jurisdiction, and any other non-flood governments little coordination between the federal, state and local had At this time there was management.When the report was released in 1955,the Commission ommin a state. These on water identified fourteen organizations that dealt with water related issues included, among others:• In Waters between Minnesota and International Joint Commission to the Boundary Canada, • of Engineers, a e the U.S. Corp North and South Dakota to man g • • Tri-State Waters Commission of Minnesota, flooding in the Red River valley, Minnesota Division of Waters to oversee lakes and ioneams, and streams, • The 1VI1 pollution• Water Pollution Control Commission to regulatep Board of Heath to handle sanitation issues. • HU NESOTA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT EMERGES "no ' io management of water was issue driven with no According to the Interim Commission, water and ' to coordinate governmental efforts in matters of 'ssion adequate state authority problems at any level." The comm clear cut policy for dealing with these recommended that the management of water resources be undertaken at a watershedof level,that is following the contours of a natural watershed rather than the boundaries ent units. They stated: happens to the waters, local governor entityfor what « often necessary to treat the watershed an watershed may affect the entire It of a the land,the forests or the wildlife in any part drainage basin." 1955). (Report of the Legislative Interim Commission, ;� P of water 6_14, mtancute tem'�'4" ' tsrt.nesar �`R�f�e.v��a"ters � 8 The Interim Commission recommended that deficiencies1 Conservancy Act be corrected. The Legislature however in the 1919 Drainage and the Drainage Act as a basis, created went a step further, 1 and passed a new law: the ' and using To facilitate management of water resources on this Minnesota Watershed Act. crossed county lines and followed the con his basis, hydrological boundaries , tour of natural watersheds, were delineated that across the state. In 1955 a new unit of government, the Watershed , ated mandated to manage Minnesota's watersheds. District, was 'it 1974). (Minnesota Water Resources Board, The Interim Commission then recommended that to integrate the activities of the Watershed Districts into state policy, a board be formed that would have appellate responsibility when it came to forming, operating and dissolvinghd Districts. In 1955, the Legislature established the these Watershed which became the Board of WaterMinnesota Water Resources Board, and Soil Resources in 1987, after merging withthe Soil and Water Conservation Board. Since the creation of Watershed Districts in 1955, ch have significance for watershed m other types of organizations management also have been legislated. hseincl d These include: Joint Powers Boards have been organized in several Chapter 471.59 of the Mi regions of the state based on nnesota Statutes. They are formed by agreements entered by county or city goveriirients for a specific into was not intended specifically for the pose. Although p Y gh the original legislation used bypurpose of water management, it has since been a number of local governments to that end. Watershed Management Organizations were formed Metropolitan Water Management Act after the 1982 passage of the g (Minn. Stat. §103B). watershed planning and management in the seven conn This law is the basis for local tY metropolitan area of the twin cities. Individual WMps can be created through specific Joint Powers Agreements. . taste of w o.terske. 1 acserr water oLi situ pn mr t �eroce;�;,in.Min%2esnt4t. 9 Other organizations have been formed through federal legislation. Environmental non- of federal tax laws. There are three watershed ' profits are recognized under 501(c)(3) ' based organizations of this type active in Minnesota. • • .5tc-te.of vvwters p¢sea Water`Ntitu prt mallekKent in Min rs.esttw 10 III WATERSHED BASED ORGANIZATIONS IN MINNESOTA 1 4 WATERSHED DISTRICTS Watershed Districts, created by legislation in 1955, are the only form of local government formed on watershed boundaries. Their mission is to "to conserve the natural the state by land use planning, flood control and other conservation projectsby using of using sound scientific principles for the protection of public health and welfare and t provident use of natural resources" (Minn. Stat. §103D.201). he Watershed Districts active across the state. At present there are 44 Mandate According to legislation, Watershed Districts can be formed to addres of the following issues: s any one or more • Control and alleviate damage from flood waters, • Improve stream channels for drainage, navigation and any other publicu • Reclaim or fill wet and overflowed land, p rpose, • Provide water supply for irrigation, • Regulate the flow of streams and conserve the stream's water, • Divert or change all or part of watercourses, • Provide or conserve water for domestic, industrial a • Provide for sanitation and public health and regulate use or other public use, watercourses to dispose of waste, of streams and other • Repair, improve, modify or abandon all or part of drainage systems within a Watershed District, • Control or alleviate soil erosion and siltation of watercourses, State wute.rs .es ;;Auq water la,satitii akuuren.cenct ire sii nesnta 11 owners of the beds,banks, and shores or Regulate improvements by riparian property ublic use, and wetlands for the preservation and beneficialp ' lakes, ower generation, r • Provide for hydroelectric p uality in watercourses or water basins, groundwater and regulate its use to preserve it for r • Protect or enhance the water q P provide for the protection of • beneficial use. (Minn. Stat. §103D.201) Originally Watershed Districts primarily dealt with issues pertaining to water quantity, expanded to water and flood control.In 1981,their mandate was expan flood control,includeour water that ist drainage still focus While many Watershed District projects issue of concern. quality. surpassed flood control as the primary showed that water quality had sure the Red River Valley where floods occur with This is especially true in areas such as some frequency. establishment Watershed District a petition. This estab Forming A a Watershed District is securing proposed watershed,abor by The first stepanincreatingrosed district, by put forwaxd by half of the counties within thevthnthe p p allpetition can be ro Sed district, counties that have fifty percent or more of their territory rs fro m within the p po fifty or more resident own the majority of the cities, §103D.205).The petition is then submitted to Stat. or any combination of the four(Minn. to public`welfare and interest. the Board of Water and Soil Resources(BWSR).BWSR holds a hearing to assess the need for the District and its potential benefit 'on to establish a Watershed District is made, BWSR appoints the initial Once the decision recommendations or individual initiative. Thereafteru recomm board of managers based on county bythe county commissioners for three-year appointed directly inre some managers are although the s.Watershed managgenerally run by three to five managers, terms. Districts are g substantially higher. The manager position is voluntary regions this number can be substan iAteofW tet 12 however a small per diem of up to $55 a day is paid for the time spent on official watershed business. 1 Watershed District Authorities 4 The authorities granted to Watershed Districts are and Permitting. quite extensive and includes taxation Districts can levy an ad valorem This is a tax that is levied on all properties tax to cover administrative expenses. iis at, co P perties within the ding mmercial and industrial r Participating counties, including included are official tax properties. The only properties that are not exempt properties. Counties are re Districts requests uprequired to le 41 to a cap set by the legislature, 0.02418% levy the'Watershed $125,000 whichever is lower. g ' of taxable market Capital expenses spes values or assessment. This assessment is based on the estimated value of the benefit to the projects do however vary. In the Red valorem tax is levied. Half of the River Valley, an� with the tax money goes to the Red Board This moneyand the other half remains can then be used by the district to pay for their Terminatio projects. g a Watershed District Terminating a Watershed District is fairly submitted to BWSR. complicated, and begins with a This petition can onlypetition existence five years, be submitted after the District and then can only be submitted once in a has been in petition requires signatures from 25% or five' more of the resident o Year period. This the signatures are collected, a copy of the owners in the district. who then determine petition is submitted to the coup Once mune whether the signatures are from county auditors, authentication, the petitioners resident o must submit a bond to B owners. tee costs and expensesBWSR to Following signature associated with the to guarantee wereoto fail. BWSR termination payment for the then sets up proceedings even if the the hearing and proceeding effect. Once it has been established duringthePublishes a notice in papers Districttthat not benefit public interest or welfare, only hearing that the Watershed does then can BWSR issue a termination order. This S tate of wAt.terske4;Ases(writer orugtati,nr.x Ct SLE; t in 1. i r e$p f. l 3 efore it becomes effective °f state b tercnination order has to be filed with the Secretary 1� Minn. Stat. §10313 2� r • 50,: .e-F ysltvtCiSr SPv 14 Joh POWERS Boons Joint Powers Board for facilitation and coo a organizations address coordination ns that use interjurisdictio water quantity n so that 1 multi nal agreementscoordinating quality pro g local units o f y issues. They se went units can Primarily grams can be avoided. government and local serveaImportant fu work together to 41 d al°rgations such t function in The application of the J • that conflicting used across Joint powers Bo the state. Not all ofthes over the years For e,pard��PB)statute for w quality issues this study we focused ocus s were successful andater management has b on ABs that had thrivedmay have been dissolved been Forming in dr The g a Joint Powers B addressing water oars/ Minnesota Joint Exercise ofPower we r Legistation, enables the formation ormation °fJoint powersBoards• It states:"TwDor more governmental units, by a� ement entered into through action of their governing bodies, ayjointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting or any similar powers, Including those which a the same except fo rthe territorial limits which they may be exercised,(Miru. Stat. § 47.1.59) The original Boards were Joint Exercise o fpo�,er not initially Legislation between units of gove lY created for any water was Passed in 19 to accomplish ally cr t ter related 43. Joint Powers across whcounties, villages, °ss jurisdi es, viii agreements jurisdictional boundaries or mission.city or school district Currently there are two management: specific mission. rite metro and types ofJ omtpo °utstate. vers Boards Watershed Mann active Organizations in watershed �a ,�` natio g� writer ns or�'MO uatz ,r s were hi 15 formed by MN Legislation 103B.20, the 1982 Metropolitan Water Management Act,to address the problems of water management in the metropolitan area of the twin cities. This type of organization will be discussed in the following section. The other type of Joint Powers Board is located outside of the seven county metropolitan area and is formed to address specific issues or problems. For instance, the Mississippi Headwaters Board(a JPB of the first eight counties on the Mississippi River)was created to"protect and preserve the natural, cultural, scenic, scientific and recreational values of the river's first 400 miles" (Mississippi Headwaters Board,1996).Project River Bend Board, a now defunct organization, was created to help designate a stretch of the Minnesota River as 'Wild and Scenic'. There are a total 9 Joint Powers Boards active in Minnesota. Mandate The legislation guiding the programs for these organizations varies depending on the needs of the region.Each JPB can set their own mission and mandate as put forward in the Joint Powers Agreement. For example the Mississippi Headwaters Board is guided by 103F.367, which states that"the Mississippi Headwaters Board...is established as a permanent board with authority to prepare, adopt and implement a comprehensive land use plan designed to protect and enhance the Mississippi River and related shoreland areas situated within the counties." (Minn. Stat. §103F.367) Authorities Funding for Joint Powers Boards is allocated by each of the participating counties in the original Joint Powers Agreement. The counties may give these organizations taxing authority, but most have elected not to do so. Since 1997 organizations such as the Southeast Minnesota Water Resources Board(SEMWRB)have obtained moneys directly from the Legislature. SEMWRB looks to Minnesota Statutes 103B. 3361 and 103B.3369, the Local Water Resources Protection and Management Program, to obtain funding for it's programs(Pers. Comm. Bea Hoffman,.1998). However this money is often contingent on receiving a match at the local level. County funds are used primarily for tate.of WAte.r$ -PASO.Writer ucitit Pre G"iinfertcent; iiri.nesrr:,A, 16 administrative expenses. Funding for special projects is obtained from grants or appropriations. Terminating a Joint Powers Board Terminating a JPB is much simpler than for a Watershed District. All the participating counties need to do is agree not to sign another Joint Powers Agreement (WA) when it comes up for renewal, and the organization is officially dissolved. There are JPBs such as the Redwood Cottonwood Rivers Control Area that have a clause requiring consideration of renewal of the JPA every two years. This leaves an avenue open for the participating counties to dissolve JPA at that point (Pers. Comm. Bob Finley, 1999). WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS All citizens of seven county metro area of the Twin Cities are also citizens of a WMO. The passage of the 1982 Metropolitan Water Management Act mandated that comprehensive surface water management plans be developed for the 46 sub-watersheds in the seven county metro area. This planning is undertaken by 36 local authorities called Watershed Management Organizations(The planning for ten watersheds has been taken over by the respective counties, primarily Scott and Carver and the Aquarius study underway in Washington County will determine the fate of the WMOs located there). Each organization has the responsibility of writing an individual plan for their watershed. Thirteen of these organizations are also Watershed Districts. This means that they have the responsibility of a WMO and have adopted,through petition, the authorities of a Watershed District. This strategy of combining WMO and Watershed District authorities and responsibilities is increasingly used in the metro area. Evidence includes the dissolution of four WMOs- Browns Creek, Cottage Grove Ravine, Southwest Ramsey and Central Ramsey-to form three Watershed Districts, Brown's Creek, South Washington and Capital Region Watershed District. The remaining 23 WMOs work under Joint Powers Agreements State.of WuterSke ot5er Wester A 4 .iit prem erne;2t 7.tinn.esntp;. 17 (Table 2.1 provides a comparison of WDs and WMOs). This section will discuss only the • Watershed Management Organization, as Watershed Districts have been discussed in some length in the previous section. Mandate WMOs were mandated to help communities in the seven county metro area with local water plans. Given a choice of forming either a Watershed District or a Joint Powers Board, most of the communities chose the Joint Powers Model. WMOs were created for eight varied duties. These include: • To protect, preserve and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems, • Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems, • Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality, • Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management, • Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems, • Promote groundwater recharge, • Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities and, • Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater. (Minn. Stat. §103B.201) The development of a watershed plan is the single most important function of the WMO. It is required by law and the sole reason for existence of many of the WMOs. The watershed plan must include the following components: • Description of the existing and proposed physical environment and land use, 5tote.(74.; 4 torsi PMec{s 7 ter au .t4tu,, m(avulgewrct 7'tircneintav 18 • A definition of the drainage areas and the volumes, rates and paths of stormwater runoff, • Identification of areas and elevation for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan, • Definition of water quality and water quality methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan, • Identification of regulated areas, • An implementation plan, including a description of official controls and as appropriate a capital improvement program. (Minn. Stat. §103B.235) While the organization has discretionary powers on the implementation of specific programs, planning is mandatory. In addition, there are no penalties to the WMO for not • taking any real action such as implementing projects, as long as the goals and objectives laid out in the original watershed plan developed by the WMO are met either by the WMO or by the city. This lack of accountability for implementation on the part of the WMO leads to some confusion as to the role of WMOs as there is no consistent WMO model. Some of the WMOs see their function limited to developing a watershed plan and just having oversight of the individual cities or townships carrying out the plan. Other WMOs function like Watershed Districts using authorities to not only plan, but implement projects when considered necessary. This could be due to a number of possible reasons including connections to Soil and-Water Conservation Districts(SWCDs) and other agencies, support(both monetary and personnel)from the counties and cities, and more active citizen involvement. Authorities Legally WMOs have access to the same taxing authorities that are inherent to Watershed Districts(Table 2.1). The taxing structure does differ to a certain extent between the State of wd:.trrsi 4ofitseq Wt.ter- rtte uute-ot;nt%t ' innesatx i , 19 organizations. WMOs can levy tax to pay for capital improvements and have so have unlimited ad valorem tax authority. They are, however, bound by the language spelled out in their original Joint Powers Agreement. As most communities that form Joint Powers Boards do not want to hand over that authority, more often than not, taxing authority has not been included. Two WMOs have applied for taxing authority, and one of them, Middle Mississippi WMO, can now levy on a subwatershed basis if this becomes necessary to implement projects. In most other cases each WMO sets a budget, and the individual communities incorporate the costs into their own budgets and assessments (Pers. Comm. Doug Thomas, 1998). Table 2.1: Comparison of Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organization Authorities Structure Watershed District Joint Powers/WMO Board appointment Managers appointed by county Managers appointed by members of the board JPA (first board is appointed by BWSR) Number of Board 3-9 managers Any number, usually 1 per local unit of government Board Member Managers cannot be public Manager limitations are defined in the Limitations officers of county, state or JPA, generally includes public officers* federal government Funding Caps Administrative fund up to a No limit except as defined in JPA cap of$125,000, $200,000 in the metro area. Watershed Districts operating as a WMO may levy with no limit,to implement an approved project Funding caps Organizational expense fund No limit except as defined in JPA up to a cap of 60,000 Watershed Districts operating as a WMO may levy with no limit, to implement an approved project Project Establishment Project Establishment: Project Establishment Basic water management Capital improvement projects defined in project plan By Petition Basic water management projects 5torte ofIdixtersirle4Cpmek147xter 61.$xtitti PnMknc geerten t in Minnese t . 20 By petition Taxing Can tax by subwatershed Can tax by subwatershed Policies Programs and policies defined Program and policies defined in plan in plan Levy Counties must levy what WD County may veto capital improvements requests(statutes place when county funding is proposed limitations on amounts) (Adapted from BWSR Unpublished Manuscript, 1998) *After 12/31/99, staff of local units of government that are members of the WMO are not eligible to be appointed to the board(action of the 1999 Legislature) Terminating a WMO Termination of the WMO can occur if BWSR determines that the organization has been non-compliant, that is if it does not follow the goals outlined in the watershed management plan. In this situation, BWSR notifies the WMO and then attempts to work with the organization to bring it into compliance. However if this effort fails, BWSR sends a letter to the WMO notifying them to adopt a compliant Joint Powers Agreement. Copies of this letter are also sent to the affected counties. If the WMO fails to adopt a compliant JPA, BWSR will assume the organization as "non-compliant." This has happened to a number of WMOs in recent years. All of the WMOs in Carver County have been dissolved and the county has taken over the water planning responsibility. Four WMOs, as mentioned earlier, were re-formed as Watershed Districts. However, in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, if a WMO was dissolved, a Watershed District is required by law to be formed (Minn. Stat. §103B.231, Subd. 2B). In the other five counties,the counties can choose whether they would prefer to take on water planning or petition to form a Watershed District. State of wwte.rske.4 A.ser{IVc'ter Euxtitti fr.. ,nxeresient an 71innesntj;. 21 COMPARISON OF WMOS AND WATERSHED DISTRICTS The following section outlines the duties and responsibilities of WMOs and compares them to Watershed Districts. As mentioned earlier, the majority of the WMOs formed under a Joint Powers Agreement signed by local governments, the remainder are Watershed Districts. The rationale for this decision to form WMOs was that Watershed Districts were looked on less favorably in the Metro area and were perceived as adding another layer of government. WMOs, on the other hand are cooperative bodies that do not remove authority from local governments. In addition, while Watershed Districts are formed in response to a particular issue or need, WMOs were legislated, which meant local units of government did not necessarily perceive any real need to hand over these authorities. Table 2.2: Comparison of Duties and Responsibilities of Watershed Districts and JP/WMOs Duties and Responsibilities Watershed District Joint Powers/WMO Adopt watershed management plan Mandatory Mandatory Prepare annual report Mandatory Mandatory Appoint a citizen advisory Mandatory Mandatory* committee Manage transferred drainage systems Mandatory DiscretionarY Receive drainage system improvement and establishment petitions Mandatory Discretionary Adopt watershed management Mandatory Discretionary rules Receive petitions for projects Mandatory Discretionary Conduct hearing on annual budgets Mandatory DiscretionarY S tote.v�47 tetsnzc secx 47ter•aualatt!:e:An ge:� nt in,AtinneSetx 22 Hire employees Discretionary Discretionary Enter into contracts and agreements Discretionary Discretionary Regulate development Discretionary** Discretionary Initiate projects Discretionary Discretionary Approve local water plans Mandatory Mandatory Financing authorities: Watershed Ad Valorem Tax Discretionary Discretionary *** Subwatershed Tax Discretionary Discretionary Special Assessments Discretionary Discretionary Storm water Utilities Discretionary Discretionary (Adapted from Unpublished Manuscript BWSR, 1998) * The Joint Powers Agreement must identify a procedure for establishing citizen and technical advisory committees. ** Watershed District rules may only apply in the absence of the particular county or municipal ordinance. *** A JPB/WMO may be given direct taxing authority, but only through the power granted to it by its original Joint Powers Agreement. All JPB currently leave taxing authority with its member communities. 5totte.of wr4terSke poi sedwG'.tert140vtit ratWieWis�erbta;2tiYLl•'tinier,esc.+ttii f 23 I I I • TERSI3ED BASED NON PROFITS znent of individuals to address a W A empower force in focus on l a individuals driving that non-profit organizations increasingly For areas n°n-p Non-profit organizations are 1998) Traditionally, rlon-p (Hewitt, have societal issues. country variety of sO in in many areas of the non-profit organization may making a non-p agencies would decision mental agencies, meat watershed st o f govern where governgrants distrust issues situated to receive have a historical specific watershed uniquely situ to address sp a also the credibility organizations are organizations. Nonprofit organo fund government meet with resistance.and others that do n Zing citizens• from foundations an la an unique in the state. ue role in organizing rg�active non-profits play based non-profits based ices of, watershed organized watershed cusp In Minnesota, orated as,or are under the the State are at least three formally org incorporated registered in There these have sand reg rofits, federal tax law all other non-profits, defined by a Cannon giver Watershed As with organizations S0Gene) These include th Another group,the private suchproject. meet General's Office as ver Stewardship Development Comm Attorney prairie gt formed by prairie Regional D never and the Longnon-profit,they have Partnership project was non p giver Watershed function as a in their h they extremely diverse Chippewanon-profit and although varies,however beenf ssion, a non-p These organizations are organizations as one. of the organ>z For example, each incorporatedndcture Formation ent. been formallyin thea stru government.even the federal g work and set down by scope of guidelines they all need to follow d of directors. 1990 by a core formed in must have a boar artnership was Cannon giver.The The Cannon giver Watershed P reserving the ed about p federal and AS an example, concernstate, environmentalists 600 citizens but the group of citizen entre gr membership from d was state,discussed,with mem diverse since�°�'n overs Boar to bring organization has a joint P pity of forming non-profit and the opportunity groups.The option non-p be crossed private gi flexibility of a not normally parties liked the es that would law. involved dais guided by federal Dips together, crossing hour non-profit is also gr o f a non-p tiw�,�ifi Creation and dissolution ,�,��,�c 24 II 1 SummaryII As we have described, there i address waters s a variety of formal four main or The next sectio organizations organizational t n well describe that can be established to the most effective in types, and killa the results of o mann 1 provide a closer urstudy on the g ng water quality look at which organizations are SLyyte of meters, baser(water foal" a9ehcerc i irt At iri:aesnLr 25 I r INT T WORK: ATIONS A W ATEIZSgED ORGANIZND FAILURE MINNESOTA' EFFECTIVENESS,SUCCESS A Minnesota's Innes the basic characteristics of Ni of watershed ion of this report outlined the capacity of the determines motivation The previous sect This chapter here�s the and organizations. Addressed available watershed°rg� water quality issues. resources ort and address5 d the support some specific Issues organization to water resources an to improve quality at the local level. organization ll manage water Q needed to successfully raised were: Availability of funding and funding strategies, • • Staff resources, • Access to information, Level of implementation and • act on the watershed landscape. • Level of imp INFORMATION needs of local GATHE�G� effectiveness and n of inforrt'ation• ne the needed to determine variety of sources information ed at a varl atu of watershed quality,we look surveys and To gather the :: s1ao tealtiter ,addressingtechri rees, eds lemen shed pwaimin hemss,field studies on watershed projects, Th selves, some of the most successfulfellows. els them information organizations decision mak case studies with s of collecting finally,in-depthtion°f each°f these mean A brief description organizational the state. technical literaturelegislation, Original legislation fine the enabling Collections were researched to determ enabling organizations. �Iistorical Data tans wete reseal d watershed p vibes of local watershed reports an acts t;zti . tescLw authorities and Le�� snsibilities, m; ae resp w,.��tgrs ��'sea,��l`e;�f,�.l4t� 26 I Survey o floc 1 al Watershed Organizations: III local watershed decision ns' In order to management makers gain first hand . to 580 ' we developed and information from organizations staffand board sent a ns statewide members in each survey eron watershed Appendix For a complete list of °f the 79 different 1 The response to the survey Minnesota' watershed Minnesota Surveys watershed Center Was remarkable organizations See the information. Which assisted inaccording to the oration. Of the 79 the University of development Overall 7 o Organizations s mailing and collection of response r individuals returned the sure 8/returned urnhe at least survey, well above one the ex survey, and Petted 40 to 50% Field Stuck To find local watershedorganizations, out what projects and or practiCes quality projects. ThThma t ons, we spent the summer are actually being implemented m le results oft er of e: p mented by • a comprehensive his field research 8 looking at local nsive list of local include: water • contactwater de: information for quality projects statewide,gauge similar ge of the extent of water quality organization. water efforts, and Appendix 3 c quality activities for each watershed atershed another that lists hes two tables: one that lists water quality Bonzes watershed organizations r quality efforts efforts by practices and ganizations in terms ertaken by each organization. Appendix 4 Case Stu of water quality activities as dies: To gain in-deof 1998 organizations among pth information on s Joint Powers Boards, the Watershed ome of the most The re and Nonprofit on ro Districts' Watershed a successful watershed sults of the case P fit Organizations Management O studies we conducted Organizations, are detailed in A detailed ' Appendix 2, case studies. ;atelwater ttsAli,.�xf .[., As-yyt3,irebtakiYinMin 4esn;.x 1 27 1 1 ' INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVENESS 1 anization or program. II effectiveness are the road signs to a successful org III Indicators of include the following: IP Indicators utilized for the analysis in this study 1. Organizational capacity authorities, and infrastructure that an Organizational capacity refers to the resources, efforts Information was collected quality including implement water q organization has available to imp of authorities(� legislation to determine the full range u use by vinous by looking at the enabling g are not used). The survey asked which authorities are putboard many that capacity include the staffing, organizational utg,er boardaccess, and organizations. Other aspects of org and comp strength and involvement, infrastructure such as office spacewhich resources, Watershed decision makers were asked to identify financial resources. W were adequate or lackinS• information, staff or funding 2. Individual capacity protecting and preserving a resource as valuable as are charged with When local people length of important to understand the abilities of those citizens to the waters of the state, it is imp a level of education,quality issues. Factors such as age, professionalatioexperience ofe address complex water q Y organization, time with the organization, motivation to serve the r picture of who are ti occupation were all included to obtain a his study,both staff and board and current makers. For Minnesota's local watershed decision managers are considered decision makers. quality issues 2a. Concern for and interest in water q ty in their watershed was as Each individual's level of concern for water quality as:how the decision maker assessed. Information was collected on such issues what they believed to believed that water quality in their watershed had changed; and the main sources of pollution in their watershed; issues.whether theirevident in the be organization had the resources to tackle water quality rSr bA, X141 t�%J.. taitti Pat ML44e-irotEYLvin,l.itynv-ei0'1t v Ste.o;G WrAts . 28 I results presented later, motivation turns out to be an ' ' positive changes in the important factor inI watershed. making ' 3. Implementin 1 Implementing Water Quality Efforts I A key indicator of water quality activities is the implementingamount of resources water quality efforts. This info andh time devoted to gleaned from information was requested in the survey, annual reports, and most importantly, confirmed throw quality projects statewide. Watershed decision �field visits to local to describe some of their projects, the level of watermakers were II given the opportunity and the flow of resources between water quality activity ff their organization, drainage) quality and water quantity g ) management. (flooding and 4. Biophysical Indicators Biophysical parameters such as dissoly measurements of watershed or ed oxygen and were however not included turbidity organization effectiveness. They are the ideal e or ani in determining the effectiveness of these g' nations, for the three reasons discussed Instead we used the implementation of water u water quality improvement, including quality projects as the indicator of improvement projects. education, Best Management Practices and capital p J Until a long term commitment is gal to monitor outcomes, we looked to actions as made and programs are designed an indication of progress. Reasons For Non-Inclusion of Biophysical Parameters 1. Time lag There is a time la g from the point at which a r which results can be noticed project has been instituted to and recorded. This lagthe time in many organizations find it difficult to a may be a period of several to the efforts of their attribute an improvement in water years so, group. quality directly 5Lu-te.cfwxtQrs`ies( water ter•Euxtit ai"'n'muuiErDte;Z.t in 74ir;nBSrtti 29 2. Overlap of organizations groups working to The watershed r organizations included in this study are not the only servation Districts quality in Minnesota. Others such Soil and ate improve water q Y non-profits are also active on the r (SWCD), lake associations, and environmental overlap, and so it becomes landscape. It is common for the jurisdiction of these groups improvements difficult to pin-point int exactly which specific organization is responsible for imp in water quality. 3.Lack of individual watershed data watersheds. Often the data available Water quality monitoring has been sporadic many dic to indicate any trends in water quality. In order to isolate may be too recent or spora in water quality parameters,the whether activities within a single watershed are changing watersheds would need to be monitored at their outlet and at Chet 81 individual water q Y subwatershed level in the metro area. This level of comprehensive monitoring is not in place and perhaps is not realistic. ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY 1. Access to funding Watershed decision makers differed b type of organization in their responses when Y � ams,Non-profit board and asked about the stability of funding for their projects and Pro gr as having less stable sources of funds than do other staff perceive their organizations is enerally driven by decision makers(Chart 1). This is because their funding g watershedorganization every yeaz� ants that have a time limit and may not be available to the org gr There are exceptions, such as the Cannon River Watershed Partnership, in which some monies do come from membership fees. a �P te. sv► 4 pooer_Water cgPre kcnai t :pct�'w i,v.esot Lxte• i 30 ' Chart 1 : Decision m:kers perceived stability of fundingt 100 w : 75II0 4t 0 50 v.:v{ a 25 Watershed WMOs JPBs Districts Non-Profits Watershed Districts are the most stable with regard to funding, taxing authority. Smaller outstate districts do not have the largem large p due to their to metro area Watershed Districts and therefore employa variety tax base that is available minimize shortfall. For example, the Yellow Medicine Dive Wof strategies to help funding for their Lake Shaokatan Project throw atershed District received gh a Clean Water P (CWp). The Pelican River Watershed District strategy involy artnership Grant storm water permit system that would allow collection es developing an innovative watershed. of fees from residents in the Joint Powers Boards often look to grants to fund their major a guaranteed (but limited) source of income from member contributions.cts, although they have Bob Finley, Executive Director of the Redwood Cottonwood Control Accordingto (RCRCA), this system works well for him. If Rivers Area his organization were not able to secure a grant one year, he has the abilityto fall back on the guaranteed member county contributions. Having that funding available allows him to take ri innovative programs. sks with more Watershed Management Organizations(WMOs)that are structured Boards (JpBs) also have the same as Joint Powers guaranteed, but limited, source of income from 4, member counties. Only one WMO, Middle Mississippi, has been taxing ability. Other WMOs turn to accorded a very limited grants and especially to CWPs to fund projects. S i Atte.of wAte.rsh. otse sy0,.t er Euatitz.+Ph.xehzent'ill 1 tinne softy 31 rVadnais Lake Area WMO takes advantage of a partnership that it has formed with the St. Paul Water Utility for project support. The utility often provides technical assistance and other in-kind services. 2. Information and decision making sources Watershed decision makers were asked about their primary sources of information as well as the factors that influenced their decision making. They were asked if their organization had access to current water quality data and how important the information was that they received from federal and state agencies, engineers, consultants,trade associations and journals as well as from their own experiences and those of their staff. Access to Current Water Quality Data For planning and implementation of projects, it is crucial for organizations to have access to current data. Ninety percent of decision makers from JPBs, Watershed Districts and non-profits said that they had the access to this information. In addition, it seemed significant that although 75% of WMO board and staff said they had access to data, almost 20% said that they did not know. This could be attributed to poor communication or a general lack of interest in project design and implementation. Consultants Watershed decision makers were asked how frequently recommendations from consultants influence their decision making. There has been some concern about how much certain organizations depend on the expertise of engineers or consultants. In particular,there have been questions about turnover of firms and the likelihood of long term relationships to remain in place. The results given in Chart 2 show that Watershed Districts and WMOs were significantly different from the types of organizations on this question. The two types of organizations regularly work with engineering consultants, Non-profit organizations and JPBs, on the other hand utilize federal, state and other local agencies for their technical assistance. 5 tate.of 147ry-te.r5v hxse4.Water pn loin'ffer4144 L an Minne-snt 32 3 This high level of dependence on consultants by Watershed Districts and WMOs may be due to several factors. In the case of Watershed Districts, this dependence relates to their original mandate to address flood control. The level of technical input required for flood control projects require the type of expertise that engineering firms provide and that would be difficult for the smaller, isolated, rural watershed organizations to easily maintain on staff. As watershed organizations became involved in water quality projects, many of the established relationships with consultants have been transferred. Because both water quality and quantity projects are time sensitive, employing a private firm bound by contract to a schedule is essential. Craig Leiser, manager on the Browns Creek Watershed District Board, particularly emphasized this point. He strongly believed that if left up to the DNR or another agency, the projects would move more slowly through approval and implementation. He emphasized as the client, he could set a deadline for engineering consultants and receive a product by that deadline. He also said that the longevity of relationship was of importance because the engineering firm then knew the organization's needs, were familiar with their working styles and also knew the watershed area well. For WMOs the issue may be that many do not have the resources to hire full time staff. Many of their projects are undertaken with the help of city engineers and consultants. Chart 2: Perceived importance of information from engineers and consultants 3- o .‹,mn.n.:.• ff ftti 1 jii CO • z° 6tGlte o�wxtemf-i-e4:6,se4 ' t - titu. Aint gasti ntix.7Ytiruesn M. 33 I 10 � numerically ranking each level, (3-very, ' Level of importance was created by and 0=not at all.) Non-profits and JpBs 1-somewhat, 1-not very significantly different from Non-p * Watershed Districts and WMOs are sig in the import ance placed on information from consultants. for organizations outstate information low as a source of Internet source of ranked the Internet very non-profits versus the four watershed groupsBs and Overall, slight difference between 1P 3).There was a the two primarily °utstate groups information(Chartnon-profits,W1VIOs. JPBs and non-p Watershed Districts and ranked the Internet's usefulness a her than did CIOs and Watershed Districts. ance of information from the Internet higher Chart 3: Perceived in►P°� 3 • o v # oo Ii J - N N 1 N m c o t 15 2 a z o- N •L N+ N c'" 0 the other two• s and Joint Powers Boards are different from the olther two. Non Profit numerically ranking Level of importance was created by 2=somewhat, 1=not very and 0----not at all.) agencies are as a Federal Agencies important federal decision makers were asked about how Watershed are shown to obtain more information from W ate 4, non-profits source of information. In Chart � `�i58 �a�r�u y��.itz''rn.th.n6�g2`rwe%'y�;,�.ty��titiv�eitr`c.b, $iy�te.ofw�ers `� . ______mmegiiimismilowillill 34 federal agencies than an reasons for this trend:any of the other three types of organizations. There are two 4 other limited financial resources. The main Aeration with other groups, and the , other is their obtain the ex second of these expertise of outside puts them in a situation of agencies. A similar trend was noted for A W . This again is due the organizations' staffed by SWCD representatives, g ganizations working therefore have more o frequently work in the field with farmersg styles. Pportunity to coo CSand USDA. This Aerate with agencies such as the NRCS type of one-on-one contact is not frequentlyseenand urban based. with WMps which are Chart 4: Perceived importance of information from Federal Agencies 3 v e o r oO iylF XI rH O m o a. i 13 Level of importance was compared b 2=somowhat 1=--not numerically ren mot very and 0--=not at all.) g each level, (3.---very, *Non-profits and JPBs are than importance significantly higher the other p ante they plaCe on info gtwo or ortrmation agencies. from federal a organizations in the es. Interaction with state agencies In Chart S, non-profits are shown to place t agencies as compared the most-importance on to the other or information from Watershed Districts organizations. Joint Powers Boards, m state Cts place somewhat less value on ssources of and state agencies as of sia.te.o�1,44L.tersn.ec'$aseri:water . tr;�f ��Rii �'•xna9er,ent ire.Atiki.vtsotO. 35 1111111111.11111111111111111.1 — uory I on several factors. Watershed Districts have apollution may be basedor Minn ' information. need turn to the DNR authority, and so may have less frequent Control Agency (MPCA). Chart 5 .perceived importance of information from State Agencies PO 3 d 0 0.E 2{ . t/ o J � � 1 o am o 0 sr 7 V r. 7 Z a Rr.g significantly different from the other three groups in the �Ir Non-profit organizations are sig state agencies. importance that they place on information from p were currently decision makers were then asked about the support that they Watershed what a of assistance should be increased. type Ther CA and the DNR andtion's receiving from the NIP agencies statistical difference noted between the r as from state significant ort they received o was no sig responses. They all indicated that the level of ke more financial support. but that they would was adequate in most areas, Watershed organizations flow of information from State agencies tow information they One waybelieved that the i the N1PCA and Watershed decision makers were asked if they monitoring and other projects was utilized by gathered through their own m concerns about the involvement of the�°the ed out on DNR. The responses received reflected for overlapping work to be cam agencies in monitoring and the potential r��"� 'vJG��"�u�'l dt��+^•.�,:�.eotev�r.t in��ti;.�.y,.BStr`c.bt� S LA,�.0��.t�fN'�C't'Sy�,ryR.S�tt 36 watershed landscape. More than half of the decision makers from each type concern es as being of pecially if monitoring used. This result may be of some g is being duplicated by the state and local o Sta,ffis important in decision making There was no significant difference in the level of importance places on information from staff that each organization places on decision MI the grows rated staffly. T �. makers said that theyPinput very frequently1 'hi advice when e project decisions. depend on staff making 3. Planning does not necessarily There was no correlation between l to implementation Implementation. developing a watershed Seventy-six percent of plan and project updated watershed WBs decision makers said that they Plan, although they ranked the have an o organizations implementinghighest in a water quality weighted ranking score of percent of organizations implementing projects. Non-profits, which ranked second in have a watershed plan, ��° 57% water quality Projects my replying e 1 ' , were the least likely to of WMps said that theyp Ying that they have an updated percentfar ethe other three a had an updated plan. fell p plan but their implementation level fell organizations. 4. Staff Resources The four organizations utilize different strategistaffes for stamen work out of an established o g Therevidare thirty groups who with a strong public identity office. This and ensures or provides the organization feasible for roan organizational continuity. Y of the smaller organizations, nor is it a Y This were formed staff model is not to function throughpprOPriate for organizations hire cooperative effortsonthat that staff are Blue Earth An example of or River Basin Initiative organizations River Watershed Partnership, �BERBI), Bois de Ramse - Sioux WD Ca WMp. Y Washington Metro WD and Vadnais Lake Area Area SL`xtQ,Df Wii,tPTS"e4JL3E Water r ivalitt fin.a nagefIce•:t ? Mih vein;a D I 37 I The second strategy is maintaining part-time staff or staff throughan of agency exiscino programs consulting engineer. This may mean that, although implementation and other projects is generally aggressively pursued, the organization lacks an independent, publicly accessible office; in some cases, the board is also closely involved in the daily operation of the organization. Examples of such organizations include Browns Creek WD,Elk River JPB and Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WD. The third strategy is the board or other members take on more responsibility, often including the daily work activities of staff. There may also be some collaboration s with agencies or other groups that allows for certain goals to be accomplished, such aonee projects, water quality monitoring or other research efforts.Examples of thistype • organization are Black Dog WMO,Elm Creek WMO,Forest Lake WMO, Sand Hill Rives n and Thirty Lakes WD. The fourth strategy he limited use of consultants. This may revolve around mandated duties such as maintenance.ty_,,testing structures, permitting or oversight of member communities, and ditch inspections.Examples here include,Buffalo Creek WD, Grass Lake WMO, High Island WD, Joe River WD and Lower Rum River WMO. When level of staffing was compared to a weighted rank of organizations implementing hve water quality efforts, we found that the two are directly correlated. WMOs whit ve the lowest level in staffing also have the lowest implementation rate. INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY Concern for Water Quality Watershed decision makers statewide were asked to rank their level of concern forwater ran quality as serious, moderate,minor or none. The results were striking. WMOs rofits or JPBs.Non p significantly lower than Watershed Districts,concern for water quality. Alleve Moesler of the organizations had the highest level of co to te.ot u?wter-5k2 'based Writer V Paitt kit Aatilepne- tY in 1,Stikt•neint A, I 38 Cannon River Watershed Partnership explained the difference as "non-profit organizations are formed by people who are concerned about water quality and they surrounded themselves with people who share the same concern. In addition they are driven by a philosophy of activism rather than by state mandate". It is also interesting to note that level of concern for water quality is correlated with project implementation rate for each organization type. The higher the concern for water quality, the higher the level of implementation. Holding the ground on water quality Watershed decision makers widely believe that they are holding the ground on water quality. When asked if they believed that water quality in their watershed had improved, deteriorated or remained the same, for the time period that they were associated with that watershed, the majority of them felt that it had remained the same. Only 7% of decision makers believed that it had worsened. However, twice as many non-profit watershed decision makers believed that water quality had worsened. This may be due to bent of many of the respondents, although one of the non-profit watershed decision activist makers did say that it was difficult to prove any changes in water quality over the short- term. Interestingly, although the first reaction of the study participants seems to be that there was no change in water quality during the tenure of respondents with their organizations, when asked about specific aspects of water quality such as fishing, swimming and aesthetics, the responses were slightly more pessimistic. It should be kept in mind when motivating people to be active in the watershed, it is important to link water quality to specific use or enjoyment. Watershed decision makers have an accurate perception of pollution sources. As a whole they pointed to non-point sources of pollution such as agricultural and urban runoff as the txte v1 vxtersive Imsed witter-ivalittl m.a-n ehve it 1n Atinnesnt . 39 major causes of deterioration in water quality. Almost none of the respondents said that point source was a problem. This is supported by water quality data from 1976-1980 and from 1988-1992. The data gathered by MPCA, shows a reduction in biological oxygen demand as well as an increase in dissolved oxygen, indicating a reduction in pollution that is a by-product of industrial and municipal wastewater systems. However, since the common mid-seventies there has been no significant change in the level of phosphorus,arun off non point-source pollution problem(MPCA 1992). This indicates that non point and erosion have not been controlled to the extent of improving water quality. Th is corresponds to the responses of watershed decision makers on sources of pollution. The breakdown of pollution sources was influenced by location of the respondent. For ointed to urban runoff as being of the example, WMOs entirely an urban based group p onon-profits perceived greatest concern(52.5%.)Thirty-seven percent of JPBs and 46% of agriculture as causing the most problems in water quality. Watershed Districts were especially on target as their responses were perfectly split between agriculture and urban runoff, 23.3%for each category. This is because Watershed Districts are located in o urban and rural areas of the state (13 urban and 30 rural.) IMPLEMENTING WATER QUALITY EFFORTS The level of implementation of an organization's water quality initiatives has been utilized as a measure of effectiveness. This provides a picture of what each organization is attempting in order to improve water quality. Information for this section wasdrawn from both survey and field study results. Organizations were ranked by the level oefforts in implementing water quality projects,but the particular type of project, such as use of land use Best Management Practices(BMPs) or capital improvement projects, were equally ranked. Watershed decision makers were asked about the water quality and water quantity projects undertaken by their organization. Watershed Districts believed that about State. s4,7xterscve,O aci writes voviitvi Prtmullewnt iso 74i!►n.turt& 41 41 40 411 their projects were water quantity and half water quality. They also believed that their I I resources were equally divided as well, approximately 50% of funds went towards water quantity and 50% water quality. The other three organizations differed slightly. WMOs claimed that their projects were 57% water quality and 40% water quantity. Their resources were divided accordingly. JPBs and non-profits had a greater percentage of water quality projects 80% and 71%respectively. This result from the survey was almost in direct opposition from field results. Watershed Districts were seen to be actively implementing water quality efforts ranging from monitoring to large scale capital improvement projects. As far as the number of organizations implementing water quality efforts we see that Watershed Districts lead the rest of the organizations (Chart 6). Although non-profits rank highly in level of implementation of water quality efforts, there are only two and therefore have a very limited reach. Similarly there are only nine JPBs, some of which have overlapping jurisdictions, the defunct groups were not included in this study. Although results for Watershed Districts were weighed down by several inactive groups, the active groups numbered 35 and were found across the state indicating a larger sphere of influence. 5 t..te.o;'r Atersi j7used wa ter- i xtitii pr:.re n efne- t in.MiPmesptx rmommENNENNEEN----- 4 Chart 6: Water Quality Efforts Statewide 36 32 ®Organizations actively 0 28 implementing WQ projects N 24 0 Some WQ projects and rn 20 monitoring 0 16 0Limited WQ projects n 12 ❑Developing WQ projects E z 8 4 0 WD WMO JPB NP It was interesting to note that when watershed decision makers were asked if finances were not a limiting factor,would they increase their organization's water quality projects, 90%of JPBs said that they would, as did 95% of non-profits.However, only 66% of both T Watershed Districts and WMOs said that they would increase water quality forpwhich is lower number may be attributed to two possible factors.First,the mandate Watershed Districts were formed primarily is focused on issues related to flooding. Second with the taxing authority available to Watershed Districts, finances may not be as limiting as it would with the non-profits. This was evidenced by the fact 10.6% of Watershed Districts decision makers said that finances were not limiting to them. Landowners change practice in response to water quality projects Watershed decision makers, when asked if landowners changed practices as a result of their projects, differed in their responses. A significantly larger percentage of othe and non-profits believed that landowners had changed practices. This may be due State Q svxterske4'msg.147efita c�u1lit m(4ntuTeYttie;2t i n.7tinn esc'tx 42 • 41 working styles of these organizations. Both JPBs and non-profits work in the field and have close contact with the landowners, however WMOs being primarily urban based do not have the same opportunity. Watershed Districts focus on capital improvement projects and collaborate with SWCDs on landowner practices. Chart 7: Watershed decision makers perception of landowners changing practice L 3 IDcm � F i ;f • co eu f�if{ u '�F ��iiFf _.. ff f%,r�'� ;�s as 0 0- ' n1 "�s � a c :6.- z a.m N * Joint Powers Boards and Non-profits are significantly different from Watershed Districts and WMOs Landowners changing practice was created by numerically ranking each level, (3=many, 2=some, 1=---very few and 0=none. Stoltz a�w;.ters e Mser{Wi ter-Eua,titu ynrnagehtantirt.mi .nesoiw II II 43 ANATOMY OF A SUCCESSFUL WATERSHED ORGANIZATION n the previous section, the four types of watershed organizations were compared with regard to their ability to manage water quality. In this section, we will develop a composite of the attributes that characterize a successful organization. Included in this picture are the resources available to successful groups, their staffing strategies and financial stability, as well as their infrastructure and information a lcess. This information can be used to develop a conceptual model for future su ccessf watershed organizations. for successful organizations,based Several criteria were used in developing the ranki998. These criteria include: g on a field study of organizations and projects in • Scope and scale of projects/programs • Sustained, continued activity • Diversity and range of projects/programs • Impact on landscape • Funding source • Sense of organizational identity • Individual initiative Based on the above criteria, the organizations were ranked as shown in the chart below. She for' n g of Organizations 0 No mer t projects .a ve i:sgiftiD lop War ualx y of a oprng 2 Limited Water Quality Projecs(Loted.Activity 3=S�Wier�!u� p ects'nd Monttorng ade�ray A�0ey d 1n'i? ater ual ty Progr ghly dive) i. t�te o;'Wwterskut yo.sed 470,-te;Lu Nlitii ln.rvnczlersties:t an 7vtin.nss•tiv 1 4441 In the analysis of the survey data, we found several characteristics that clearlyI differentiated the highest-ranking groups from the others. However, none of the organizations fell solely into one group or another, and none achieved enough consistently high marks to qualify them as "the model for a successful organization." All of the watershed organizations were distributed across the five categories. The following discussion provides more detail about the various attributes that defined the groups' core strengths and weaknesses. INFRASTRUCTURE 1. Staffing Nearly all of watershed decision-makers in the most active or successful organizations hire staff. Field data confirms that the majority of Highly Active organizations have staff, but have full time staff working out of an established office. ons not only When compared to the other groups, a distinct trend is evident: The least active organizations are least likely to have staff The presence of local staff in an established office is clearly and positively associated with increased water-quality activity. »:.:.:.:.:.:<:.:.::.:.::.:::>:: .:::.: .:.«.::.:::: :.;::>:::;.:.: :.:.:.:.:.::::::.:..:::............... . ............ ..... .est • • potirm*.ipiigigiiiiiiiiiigro*.oioo i iltioiiiiiii ii pow,. . . :. . ...:...:....::..::>.,..<:.::....::.;::..:::.::.;:.;:«::.:�:.:::.;>.: : . :::.;:;fit..,;.;:::.:.: ...... ...... . :amu .. .... : .mi iii :...., ::.,,<.:,:::.::.::.::::::.<;.:::::::.::.:. ::<.:�:::::::::.. •::.:.:;;.::: �:fix $tate of wxtersii..e4 S.Pcser wester Luxti,pn. .su gehve,ct in.1di .nesr vx 2. Office Space and Equipment 45 Overall, more than half of the watershed decision-makers statewide said that they hold their board meetings in their office. As mentioned earlier Highly Active organizations have greater access to an office space, infrastructure and equipment such as computers and fax machines. This result emphasizes that organizations need to have adequate infrastructure in order to be successful in implementing water-quality activities. 3. Funding Stability Interestingly, watershed decision-makers' perceptions of their organization's funding stability does not correlate with the level of their water-quality efforts. More watershed decision-makers from Inactive Organizations felt their funding was stable than did • respondents from the Highly Active Organizations. This can be attributed to the fact that some of the organizations categorized as Inactive for water quality still had active flood- control programs and very stable funding. A good deal of water quality funding has yet to ID be institutionalized in local organizations and depends instead upon grants from government and foundations. r EXTERNAL INPUTS 0 1. Access to Information Access to current water-quality information is an important factor in the success of 0 organizations. Ninety-two percent of watershed decision-makers from the Highly Active g Y ' organizations say that they have this access. Access to water-quality information ' decreases with level of activity, with only 51% of watershed decision-makers from the / Inactive group claiming access to current water quality data. 0 2. Sources of Information Information sources seem to have no real bearing on the success of an organization. I When asked about the level of importance they placed on information sources such as the I state, agencies and consultants, watershed decision-makers' from all the groups ranked federal agencies and consultants fairly low. State agencies rank higher, but it is primarily Ltc to of wiite..rskmeq 1s7t ierauA.titu, Pr..!.in geb,,e12tiu1>Ei .resntx 46 the Inactive and Limited Activity organizations that rate state agencies as a very important source of information. INTERACTION AND AWARENESS OF WATERSHED COMMUNITY 1. Level of Concern for Water Quality The level of water-quality concern expressed by watershed decision-makers is strongly correlated with their organization's level of implementation of water-quality projects and programs. Sixty percent of decision-makers from the Highly Active Organizations rank water quality as a serious concern. However this figure falls to 15%for Inactive Organizations. Concern for water quality is directly correlated to the level of activity undertaken by the organizations. 410a 2. Monitoring II 111Water quality monitoring clearly relates to organizational success in implementing water quality projects and programs. Eighty-five percent of the decision makers from the Highly Active organizations claim to have programs for monitoring water quality in their watershed. This figure declines with the other organizations. , 41 Monitoring generates data for effective decision making, and also provides internal 1 evaluation of projects and programs. II' 4 3. Interest in and Outreach to Citizen Participation 4 Citizen participation does relate to the success of watershed organizations. The more 4 successful organizations are those more interested in increasing citizen participation in their projects. Three-quarters of decision makers from the Highly Active organizations say that they would like to see participation increase,while in the Inactive organizations, only one-third of decision makers would like to see participation increase. i $tt-te.of Wc*tersn24 Pl.5e4.water v tvt its prtNruutatte.nt in 7 inneset,x 47 Not only would the active groups like to increase participation by citizens, they are motivated to pursue that goal. Decision-makers in Highly Active organizations are most .......::::..:..:...:::.:..:..::.:..::..:.:..... #ave:444P.. . ... :.. .....:::..... <.:. .:.:....::.... ...::::::.: :::..:::.::..:.::::;::::::::::;.:::::::<.;:::::.::::.::::::.::.<.:::::::::::;:::.::.:::..:;.;:.:::.:::::::::::.::.: 1,11*41:11!1040.4*...>;:::«:::«:;<::::::>:�»<>;::::::;:;,>::::::..:::::::::......: ........ . :. .. :.. .. .�,..:�l fictive.: :. .. ,....,..:.;.;,;::.:.:<•>::::..::;:>:.;;..:.:•;>:.«::::::::.;;:.»>.::.:::.:;<.;:::.::::.;;:.:.:. • Ag000tw0000toggtooptwogolgot ;;:...:.:.::<.:.:,;;;•;:;;:;>.;,.;:;.;:.;;;:.:�:.:;:.;;:.::;;;:«.;;;:;<:.:.;:.;;:.;:.:<.;;�:«:.;:;.;;;;:.:.;:.:;:.;>•:;<.;;;::<.:;.:;;;:.;:.;;:.;;•;:<.:;<.:;.... .... kers ::;01....ped.:.::.; :.: . ..:... :: ...,;..:..:;.:::;::.:::.:::.;:;::. :: 4.::: :.;::::::::.:.: .;:.;:::::::::::.::::::.::<.;:.>;::::::::.:::.:::.::::,<.::.;«::::.:.::.::;::::.:::«;.; .0 ::.::. .:.::.:...atmos.:.::.:,:...:::.:.:.. likely Y to i ......................... ....................... . .. .. ........................................... . P outreach to citizens in their watershed, primarily through the news media, education programs, brochures and newsletters. 4. Reason for Involvement in Organization Perhaps the most compelling factor in a watershed-organization success is the reason given by its decision-makers(on both staff and board)when asked why they first became involved with the organization. In Highly Active organizations, the majority of decision- makers say that they became involved with their organization because they were interested in watershed issues. However, in the Inactive to Moderately Active organizations, only a minority of the decision-makers was interested in watershed issues. StatewA.terskas(b .se wi ter ,•c.t%ys1. ,gepne..ris >€irrgseta 48 It stands to reason that if concern for watershed issues is combined with an interest in the organization,the chances for success would also rise. This result has implications for selecting board and staff with high levels of interest in watershed issues, and more specifically, interest in water-quality issues. CONCLUSION In summary,there are a several key factors that can be attributed to the success of an organization. These factors, when combined with the motivation and enthusiasm of the staff and board, go a long way toward ensuring that water quality on the watershed landscape is being well managed. t st f ucc ssi a rs1 g • 3 411 Full-time ploy sta l sh ice space and pent level of conc or er quality �er»qual monitoring program in plate cation public outreach , tvely engaging cites Sate.o1•Wxterske4 SYLStetli7evar a uwiitir;r.. .nellerttent Mif neSet14 L4 9 RECOMMENDATIONS DON'T REINVENT THE WHEEL: BUILD ON EXISTING OPTIONS Minnesota has a variety of successful citizen-led watershed or in implementing water-quality organizations that are effective q y programs and projects at the local level. Many examples of successfully organized and operated watershed organizations can be fo amongst existing Watershed Districts, JPEs and Non-profits. and The diversity of watershed organizations available to the citizens of Minnesota strengthens our state's efforts to improve water quality. Each organizationa has ID unique advantages: Watershed Districts have fundinID � efforts across governments; Non-profits specialize cializeg stability; JPBs have cooperative p in citizen involvement. Successful ' organizations have learned to draw upon their strengths and use them as the basi ' further progress. s for r 1 In general, citizen watershed decision-makers appear to be knowledgeable about the quality data, and are both concerned with and activel ss to information and water y engaged in implementing water quality measures. In this information age, local watershed decision-makers have good access to e resources they need in order to make informed, intelligent decisions about specific quality issues. In the future, water quality improvement will likely be driven bylocal and individual efforts to confront non-point source-pollution efforts. and Minnesota has the local capacity and the organizational infrastructure to address water quality issues. these tit to o�WAtersive 'frat•sec(14711.ter Euxtitta m.,wviler►cent in tins--esatx 50 Any efforts to create alternative or new forms of watershed organizations mutiost already acknowledge and build upon the existing strengths and diversity oforg available in Minnesota. Minnesotans Before reorganizing or forming any new types of watershed organizations, innesotanity wat should look to the successful models that have evolved statev�det situations,between Watershed l issues. While no single organizational type is ideal for gland road maps can be found. Districts, JPBs, and Non-profits, many valuable models We recommend: 1. Utilizingand building upon the existing local watershed-based organizational options; 2. Exg x andin watershed efforts statewide using the organizational types currentlyofit available to Minnesotans(Watershed Districts, Joint Powers Boards and Nonprofit Organizations). ' 1 1 THE MOST OF LOCAL,STATE-EMPOWERED, Ti. r 41 CONTINUE THE'TRADITION: MAKE ORGANIZATIONS I Beginning in the 1950s,the State of Minnesota enacted legislation that empowered watershed organizations with authorities and responsibilities at the local level. This form of local organization has worked to the benefit of the people and should be continued and supported. e has an important role in supporting local watershed organizations. State support The Stat for watershed organizations takes many forms, including technical assistance, information, enforcement coordination and financial assistance. State.of e.V14terSke417Msect water 4Aliti;,nCti,.Luger� nein miyi.v�`esc� 51 State agencies rank high as a source of information on which watershed-based decisions tec ,are made information and Watershed decision-makers indicate that theyv, financial su ould like more pport overall. One key improvement objective is to developa For the most part, watershed decision- better sense of two-way makers are c Y CO�uheir n. water-quality findings currently not certain whether their g are known or used at the state level. They voice concern about the • involvement of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the De monitoring and about the Partment of Natural Resources in on the watershed landscape. potentiafor overlapping work to be carried out It seems evident that watershed or ani efforts in their g zations can serve as local registers of water u particular watershed. In areas where multiple effortsq ality watershed organizations areations can work to ensure that efforts are underway, not being duplicated. We recommend: 1. An enabling(as opposed to directive)approach toward building local watershed management capacity; 2. Improved communication from local organizations to state agencies; 3. Greater utilization of local watershed organizations as a resource for addressing water-quality issues. Dff. DON'T MANDATE: VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS ARE Of the four types of or MORE SUCCESSFUL organizations studied for this project, only the WMOs mandate. The other organisations(Watersheds were formed all formed by local actions. Districts, JPBs and The WMOs have not achieved the objectives)profits)beforewere them and, in the 17 years since their enablinglegislation � es laid out in number from was enacted, they an original 36 to a current 22. This have declined level of attrition could be due to the tG!�2 til N4 t£7Y sb Sq water yJG{ x u,. L ,rrsAinalgyyte.nY 3iins-,.e3vtfi;. 52 fact that the VVMOs did not arise from a local need to address local issues,but rather from a government mandate. his report,COs ranked the lowest in terms of organizations reviewed fort p level of Of all the organiz citizen involvement,board involvement, quality efforts, u implementation of water q fundamentals such as their decision-makers concern for water " y. staffing and even fundaxne t question: "What should be done about W1ViOs? This leads us to confront an important 414 I recommend: hed Management Organization staff, ' We r Waters he Convening a Citizen Jury comprised of an axray of issues and selected others to meet and addressuld then make a 11 board, advocates, detractors The fury should facing urban`watershed planning and implementation. recommendation on the fate of WMOs- with authority granted voluntarily-formed watershed organizations— tions. 2. Encouraging atewide or regionwide mandated forms of organza by the State—over st IV. `WATERSHED EFFEC'TIVENESS EVALUATION In order to de s,watershed monstrate the effectiveness of local watershed progams tools to help them agencies must have self organizations and state and federal a$ chart their progress towards their program goals. Evaluation the public,public Watershed including the impacts of watershed organizations' Evaluation is needed to show watershed constituencies— the outcomes officials, funders and others— funders and other supports must be made aware oft e projects and programs.Potential fun to accomplish this is through tions' accomplishments. One effective way orgamza systematic evaluations. r"� tie;2 t i%��,-tivcv�e5c�'tt� Stlt-te-of,awte.rs4 bt 5ed Water S,Nati Ot tsvl xge 53 All watershed organizations would benefit from setting up evaluation tools wit criteria by which all of their programsh specific can be assessed. This will help watershed decision- makers determine for themselves which projects and programs are successful and which are failing to deliver. Rather than focusing solely on traditional criteria such as impacted and dollars spent, criteria can bexpanded to eacres pinclude such factors as: • Changes in public attitudes; • Changes in behavior and practices; • Actual services and activities performed; • Efficient use of resources, staff skills and time. Monitoring Although monitoring can fit into the category addressed separately. One cannot over-emphasize of self-evaluation, it deserves to be p asize the importance of good and accurate data on water quality. One of the most important conclusions that can be drawn research is that successful organizations all undertake a program of monitoring. this S Well-designed watershed monitoring at locations representing the headwaters outlets will provide valuable information about fluctuations in water qualityo and the er well as information about differences between various watersheds. Local watershed time, as t organizations should also identify and take advantage of state or federal agencies t monitoring within their watershed. The local watershed organizations can then access are data and prevent an overlap in monitoring work. ccesthis Evaluation by Agencies Evaluation of local watershed efforts would aid state and even with decisions on providing technical, financial and enforcement some port to agencies l organizations. We recommend the development of a standardized watershede evaluation tool that meets state objectives and, as stated earlier, goes beyond the traditional sometimes misleading criteria of dollars spent and acres affected. and tate of Wctersne4:6•sec water Er4a.titu Pre.analecrtie .tire AiinYdesrrtA. We recommend that: 54 1. Watershed organizations develop a system of periodic self-evaluation; or work 2. Watershed organizations develop and implement a monitoring program with state and federal agencies to accomplish effective monitoring; • 3. State and federal agencies develop a standardized evaluation to assess watershed organizations 4 5-tote.of s. Aterske417Med vJl�4-er eigitii;nNnAlar.e.nt ivy7vtinnesi7tx 55 D ORGANIZATIONS IN MINNESOTA APPENDIX 1:W ATERS� 1 p R r"�'gored Wat r2sgi'tti firtmy etKe-nttin Minn-tie tG�te.�yi7Gi�tP•f 5� o ,11 3 p =,.,i,U=VOC~ .•= t"=+ 3oc4 Q$,y 6' � e a c� g4. y. O et •± bAN , O ^, U Rf ba � : fa U ' U0 ia O O O '3 'CG - 3 i4-14 O 00O Ow O w fi'Cw owal E 0 "�jo� tpOUo s " " Oa,Ucat as Q)bq 5_, O tiW �• -•rw U> O a� O O;2 C3e4 0 0 .om � N �= O «t ,.aCV 0 ' 0� 0o .a •0 ;Et y oA O � �tt aa a) CUw y p • � 0O O _ C CCy w� H� p 0 0 OO jp ,C www0 ..k.Sttt•\. ill I�.,, 1'11 O 0aE bp =Ucts O O ,"•" a ~ �0O O OO ig > = .Np4O scrO O pOO O t.., : = i 0 IniAl ..,t, T, o ,,,. wv rq ,4 • OC a) U a) - UCC 4 - ), g aa) 0-1 O w � 0 Ucoo � =.:-. a Is Id . v) CO� coU � ti 0 y 0 c.i 0 0. •U a) _ a) O lit -0 0 ed .3 _ 0 0 0 -0 -o .—! =1 0 3 N — H y cn h r) V 0 0 1=-. FC"'-i 4/7 - ,- cl 0 0 2" .. - y z > "moo 8 00 nODo-. o c0' S 3 3 cd 3 0 za `o 0 0 ',, e 0 8 .o e -� 0 0 0 0 O N ti 0 0 M O ,4 O '.0 4-, V 0 O 0 v O O '> + 'O 0 .a II 9 ... .m O O N 0 ad •O ,Ei y _Si ^0 0 wC-� w00.A � A � � 31a vic) 3wa. ss. 0 � -c waw c VI • O C V t., CI O 4 O O Z cd 20 04. O O = a) y — --+ -0 O O cct • bob O .-� -o p .1=1 o 0 I .28g g ci a til .O e 0 b 110 = O N 0 p B" a3 0 0 z •> 0 .0 c°) y CO 3 = a r CO o 2 Cd y 00 ;� = 0 0 >, 0 O - s.1 o .= 0 . i 'O a) 0dn ra o o Q' 0- c ° = 0 ,. 1 ,n - -o a) o o i O o a w a' ed 44T10 -85 0 .� 0 0 cd o 0 0 es 0 0 0 a•' z cVs 0) 0 o a' 4 o Q.'a 0. ' 0 y o ' 'a .m .m 0 o 00 cd , 0 0 O 0 ct 0 ". 5 ,.: o i. �. 0 cd = 6. w is w w ,� ` w... L.) 3 0 .0A � 3 1.. awAA •-aa = W ,t, f ON el ON eel w No oma. 'r 00� O � N N `o S 1- / 0\ ON ON ON ON a\ rn °` °� o\ 4-., - - N rn — — o v; o a) is c 0 > �. 0 i U 3 .> 0 - 0 P4 ›; ° rn ° ct ° ¢, ° i 0 0 aa) V U 0 a) v1 ao > CS 0 > •I-I,' > 0 3 0 0 `" Q� (1), -o 0 t = o 0 -O 0 0 U . zzo wawa a w rn L"' U lil O., 0 LI U 0 'O 0 — U ^C3 15 0 c bA C )U r.+ O c c4 4. o 'G p U t". O 00 cd R3 N rn w' a� 3 a) a) as .o E = ami �" O 4. -54) s. N •4+ o O � s'd-0 0 ° le. bp a 3 . OC cz, 44, OA 3 � CU Uoc� 0 O �^0 a � y O 0 r O r� c9, co c°� A � '�5 °? zAw4.1 3v) z w 0 w 4 wA � oA t. r. s oios 0 8 ,41 L. . a) 3 0 o a U 0 po 00 ce 00 0 s. 0 U O IC � � O O O O O.o go y S 8 0 -16-0 I3 � a0esescoc = -o a tcr .0 ,ai cis ' 'wAww `Aa w eh- Aw ww a$ as O 1 1 nn opo rn 00 N N 00 M 00 .-. s, t 00 Vo kr) %o ‘o ‘c v:) �n — , 1 I. I o U ; 6 as 3 0 v i a O > > ww+ 0) a) �o a > V:1• 0 h U .. �•, s, O y y ca = g TJ a`�„ �O a) N e� co w 0 ' i� G) U al w tU. 6., to bq xa E ' 3 0 U .at NUU 0 U Ce CZ 0 0 ° ..E = a *a ma) o va /) v) v) r� E-1 E-+ E-. A > � � �+ � O � � C� Ra 0 O -t0 o a) O C •O .,_, v OD ,�^'v c� .-. 0 E O ./ . fn Cd L. 77) at CP4 t=0 0 0_ a) .O O _,>', = .0 cn bA c�C 'O ^C Fci a9 O 01 6. OCI) CZ N ,� s. y 3.. � ..., «i E 'c) E •R = › � o E E aci 0 y a, 0oo. ° = �. O 0 ti ,� ee O "a) bp.O 44 O b00 0 0 a) -0 F cd U "C2 E 0 '�bQ �M «3 •i v' ti L: -7y' Q. Com• 1.' et 'v, 01 0 �i 01 ON 01 01 E 01 01 O1 0 N 0 01 .y O .Sp 0 E o �" = CO O N a) ca"CS 70 N 0 td a' cd N Q. C3, 0 .- x > 0 O. cu C 0 fm. -0 • > o > > 3a) 3 o00oW0 �a0i � ' ? bo 6. ica0i3coE o 0 000 +� EEE •.� �, a; a� a, a ."� •5 C) �' r 0 "C 0 Cd aa)) a) rn O 4 cd CO 0 • O a3 ai 9 a0i O AAc° AAA � � gEZ a(2AAAZ 0SA - a c'y � OA .� a c) L d ca O E t:. 0 E 0 E 4 2 0 4. , i� 0 0\en z — 4 -Cf "0 -0 't3 "0 "O "C3 "C "O "O 70 "C "O 70 70 "O "O 70 "O "0 O C) 0 O C) O O C) O C) C) C) C) 0 a) C) 0) (L) a) 0 -C' CC a: ed CO CtS ad CS al Ce ed CO CS CZ$ al cti ezt 03 03 ce 03 22 22222 2 2222 . ii 222 2 222 2 r 00 ten in 00 00 \ oo co \ cen In* 0000 0000 °�° 0000 °0° acro 00 opo - -. o�Mo 3 0°° N N N °°°° N 01 N 01 01 O1 D\ D\ 01 N N N `� °b °b .-, 00 '--� .-. — \0 N .-r N .-.. ,--i .-. .-. ,--i .-. ,-r c 415 4-1 u. 0 O 0 cis cA y cn ▪O O a0) cd " 0 i .-. x 0 x1 EU • �; 0 V a/ V .� 9 .may. 1 _O .O 2 g C%] O V] cd 6,• cd 0 y Vcts N s". 0" Z.350S." 0 4. 0 C) 00 00041W w° V.' C7x � �oaa t ▪ Za a c a) � 'y 00 ad m E Oco a)E '� °� CA a) a)a) cd a) 1., Cl. m s,. 0+ rte', a) U •= 0 a) �-. ce Cd 0 C4. 'VJ o V y Q. 0 3 2 cn bA m O a) I. "C p vi h --1 cd tri a) tea) 4.4 at - a) V Cl.,• p O Clo c 0 a) .> "3 ` .� 9 3 0 U N U CrO p 0 ._ 9 a)6. "p �''" U - AAv � � a) A ° Aogg wa N w s.,m0 S. G a) Cn a o e „ o .. 0 . a. cd -da .-, o 0O 0 e › +Z"". tt 0 0 = 0" cd ,; .° w .� A H ° ... w . "o "o -a) "va) "0a) 'C "0 -0 o "v IS =a: o 3 a a) co cd cd cd cd 00 cd coa) �+ cd cd c U 9 C CS' o 0 0 0 0 0 �0" �0.. �0 cCC3i .cid �0 0 �CD O ' a) a) � 0 cd et cd cd cd cd cd cd a3 s.. .0 cd aS M. 0 ¢+ cd ai O t). 't:' 1 1/40 vD coMN N N "-. M �t L 00 m O CT ON oo ON N ON CT 0 C' 00 ON 0 } N o 0\ 00 ,a t. tt 4.1 L'} L: ,0 act cd 0 M &. L. PA 1-1 va s� 0 a)mco a co 0 N >~ . 0 Cid 0 Cil A, ra) = 0te" x.W � 2 .463 ' E � a ' 3 o0. ' � � a � 0tr0 .a) �te � � 4 0 To U •-c: o a Q."o y c c aU d n� .O : O o Q" aa ,° . UZv � � � � vsA > > ; aaS " I 1 IIIo O cd t 1 7§ 3 vi 0 .c,.> bA v. 0r 4.4 A. cn cct �, c�0 s- v. O id o «3 i, 0 co "C U C/1 Ct 0) N , : "',... 0 --. ... cil ,-- O la 0 cis as '� o °0 "0 8 is °1:4 °�' o D o 4 o i ami °� � C 0 0 C 5 a) a c� o O la N0))LUtn 4. 0 .o '�. a °� t.a •a bA .- s-. O ^O t. 'O .o r. N o Q+ O O cd w y U U cd asU 0 >, L. U ... 0.i .. U 74 to 0 : c� U +�' o O �0 N 0) G) S • O O '--4 ° ° ° H O c.1-4 +-' o3-0 - 5 fd Or. imc O « WUo p ,o C 3 in 0 . N , . O U Ri *� O L. `a "1:3v edU � N ed o + 5 O -c O di p 3 , ei) � O a 3 U ogw a zo , rn UU trs Oi O\ I O O0 MEs- 00 • . �+ Ln O sU. a0i F-+ t. 4 0 Ca .O ril c� a -o V ') -o 0 a cn O 0 0y0 ca ed N "t3 N y N t/] NO 0 0 0 •CO +U', '° C 0 0 'o O ,- �. L? o 300 o w Cl- o ¢. a, v' O '-o 0) o .9.... . 0 o .= aa 3 z v 0za Z � � 1 62 APPENDIX 2: CASE STUDIES 111 3a State of s atersitea bA-secf Wi-ter 11::Xliti1 ittanalanent i 7Kint-scsvta 63 CASE STUDY OF THE: REDWOOD COTTONWOOD RIVERS CONTROL AREA Interviewee: Bob Finley, Executive Director, January 22, 1999 Redwood Cottonwood Rivers Control Area Joint Powers Board, is an organization The ement, focusing on pub that has taken a successful approach to water quality manag idance of education and BMP implementation by individual landowners.Under the gu Executive Director Bob Finley,who has been with RCRCA since its inception, and a change in the supportive Board invested in the idea of working together to effect positive pp great advantage in capitalizing watershed,RCRCA has used its distinct status to with the group's progressive and outside funding sources. Successful fundraising, along effective leadership, lies at the root of RCRCA's success. BACKGROUND The impetus for the formation of RCRCA in 1983 can be traced to two minfaof the ctors: flooding concerns and available state and federal funding. The commissioners eight counties involved,Brown, Cottonwood, Lincoln,Lyon,Murray,Pipestone, Redwood and Yellow Medicine., decided to form a joint powers board instead of a Watershed District, as they did not desire another layer of government. The eight Soil Wate and Water Conservation Districts were also signatory RCRCA as something of an experiment.namembers of the Joint Powers Agreement. The members seem to have form theyapparently viewed the future role of the organization as a coordinating and While PP entity,they did not have a firm concept of the exact role that RCRCA tial fund-raising members most efficiently play. They left this question up to Bob. The d b a�°e requirement that hesitation about the need for such an organization is evidenced �mous board vote. This is still the JPA must be renewed every two years through a the situation, although there has been talk of amending the policy. State of taAterske41 b9.se4 wwter rnkviviuteU nt in Aii r.nesottc 64 1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE In terms of staff, Bob Finley is certainly one of the major reasons for the organization's stability and success. RCRCA's additional in-house staff was limited until the ation's implementation phase of the first CWP began in 1990, and the current six full-time are an indication of the organization's staff growing capabilities. Although there is a fairly high employee turn-over rate, Bob credits the staff for the organization' and innovative approach to water quality management. RCRCA also maintains v looking close contact with other agencies and organizations such as the MPCA, DNR,tams very county water planningMRCS, and groups and environmental offices. The smooth working relationship between the board and staff has, from offered Bob and his coworkers much flexibility in accomplishing the organization's the beginning, goals. Although the Board is not as engaged in strategic planning as Bob might they are currently discussing ways in which to become more actively involved.t Whileh the counties are aware of how they individually benefit from RCRCA'sB says, of"what's in it for them"), they also have a strong activities(as Bob work together and to take action on a watershed level. Unlike mome other ion of the need both to boards that get tangled up in individual agendas, the RCRCA Board sharesjoint powers of purpose and continues to allow the staff the support they need to move forw ear sense the organization's range of programs. �'d with g P grams. The Board clearly contributes to RCRCA's success. SUCCESS As FUNDRAISER RCRCA's ability to receive outside monies, however, is perhaps the most significant factor in its'success. Because the organization has so effectively tapped into sources scant independent funding and looks to its member communities for only limited su rt, of RCRCA does not have to face the more typical and oftentimes fatalpolitically-motivated pp°rt, funding difficulties ofjoint powers boards. In RCRCA's case, approximately75% o 75% of state.of iters 'M wg,ter134t ti it.a.nagenu:.4t in Alin Ates ata 111111111111111.111111 11, 65 total funding comes from grants monies(state, federal, and private), and only 25% from county appropriations. This stands in direct contrast to,for instance, Vadnais Lake WMO, which receives only 10% of its total funding from outside grants. While a reliance on "soft money" may lead to insecurity about the organization's long-term stability in terms of staff and projects, RCRCA has been amazingly successful remaining amply and reliably funded through outside sources. The joint powers board structure itself has a role in RCRCA's financial success. As Bob points out,the joint powers board has a matching fund source built in to the organization in the form of the member counties' contributions. For grants that require a local ma this is a great advantage. Other organizations often must go out and raise matching funds. When asked why RCRCA has been so successful in receiving these grants in the first place,Bob Finley's explanation of their fundraising strategy was very illuminating. He said that a creative, innovative idea and the ability to convey it are critical. The concept must be thoroughly researched and developed, a clear idea of how the money will be used is essential to success in receiving grants. In addition,the organization must know what money is available, and be ready to take advantage of it when the opportunity so arises. He added that it is important to keep in mind that the funders of a project want to look good, and that projects sometimes take on the band-wagon effect," with different groups getting involved because the project is"new" and "trendy." A reputation for a good product and proven results is key to maintaining funding sources. This factor is clearly circular, for an organization must have money to implementthe e of reputation of which B b projects to prove itself successful and thus win the typ is established and obtaining spoke. As an organization's momentum builds, a reputation initially,but if funds only gets easier. Some"luck" may be involved in obtaining grants an organization is able to develop innovative ideas and stay continually aware of the funds available, its odds of being successful increase greatly. $illy of wA,terscu `basedwxtery tit +r ,y,-416H :rvantivc7,fiin respE'at 4 66 1 RCRCA is the perfect example of an organization that has built a strong reputation through wise and progressive planning, and whose success today is proof of the effectiveness of this model. After its formation in 1983, the organization spent a few years of exploring and researching implementation strategies and funding resources, leading to the receipt of the first CWP grant of its kind in 1989 for the Redwood River. In addition to this money, which was through the former Soil Conservation Service, RCRCA also received funds from DNR, the LCMR, BWSR(through the MN River fund), and the Northwest Area Foundation, a private foundation. Bob said that the results of the intensive initial Redwood River CWP planning and study set everything in motion, providing the information with which they were able to develop and sell a viable, progressive implementation plan that was successful enough to entice a broad array of funders. The relationship with the Northwest Area Foundation seems to have been particularly fortuitous for RCRCA. At the time of the first CWP, this generous organization strongly encouraged innovation and experimentation, and made it possible for RCRCA to work relatively unimpeded by concerns about money. RCRCA was thus allowed a huge flexibility in designing and adjusting the specifics of its program. Because it w do this so effectively, its reputation was established, and continues to contributeto to success. This raises another advantage of outside funding; namely, that the use of is foundation money also allows the organization a certain freedom that other governmental-type organizations do not always have. The water quality programs and projects that RCRCA has implemented on the landscape to date, revolve around the Redwood River Clean Water Project, the project that began with the CWP grant and has since expanded greatly. The extensive Phase II portion of the project focuses on one-on-one landowner contacts and a wide-spread public education and information campaign to encourage BMP implementation. RCRCA offers 75% cost- share and technical assistance to participating farmers; as of June, 1999, approximatel 350 individual BMg gassed Ps had been implemented, includiny waterways, conservation Stite o watersne.:ho-secl.W4cter2.4r titu management in Minnesota 1111111111111111111111111111111111.1.11.1.........w- 67 basins diversions, and agricultural waste projects. The public education tillage, sediment , les. effort has been approached creatively and from a variety of ang meetings hosted by An excellent example of this is the "Coffee on the Project" morninginformal discussion of RCRCA in which landowners and others can come for coffeean Restoration has recently projects and issues. The Phase I study for the Cottonwood been completed, and implementation will follow. Despite its successes, it is certainly not the case that RCRCA is resting on its laurels. To the contrary,Bob Finley emphasized the need to remain at the fore-front of developingi ways of thinking about watershed management This introduces another crud newcircumstances. Bob aspect of a successful organization: the ability to adapt to changing that strategies must p implying spoke of seeking the "next generation of watershed project," continually be updated and modified. For RCRCA,this will likely involve increasing p the urban population. public commitment to watershed issues, particularly among CONCLUSIONood board, The success of RCRCA, is tied to many factors. Bob summed these up as a g a clear sense of purpose, an emphasis on the idea that the entire group strong leadership, place,the n together, and good and/or lucky timing. When these elements are in is working S will be established, supportive political alliances will be formed wit h group s reputationh will become other groups and agencies, staff stability will increase, and financial strengt more and more consistent. State of waiters .et{7mac?w ' ter trn w: nt isti fit isnesvtA. 68 1 CASE STUDY OF THE: CANNON RIVER WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP ' I Interviewees: Allene Moesler, Executive Director, February 5, 1999 Greg Wright, Constituent and Executive Director, River Bend Nature 411 Center,February 5, 1999 Greg Carlson, Board Member, February 5, 1999 The Cannon River Watershed Partnership (CRWP) is the only non-profit included in this study that has been able to sustain a successful waterp organization lity Despite funding limitations inherent to its non-profit status, CRWP has a effectively program. established ties with existingectively groups and funding programs, working in close cooperation with them to utilize existing programs efficiently and supplement them qualitywhen With a membership of 600 citizens and close contact with a number of state, eoerible. private groups, CRWP offers an array of water federal, and programs mainly focused on public education, working with individual landowners on land-use management 1 d use practices and planning, and coordination of existing resources. BACKGROUND CRWP was incorporated as a non-profit in 1990. According to Gre g Car original citizens involved and a current board member, the or g lson, one of the cooperative effort between The Nature Conservancy, DNR, andgamzation grew out of a Nature Conservancy took the initiative to contact people and conduct BWSR though The local support for such a group, citizens were closely involved in the process from the a survey to examine start. The option of forming a joint powers board was discussed, but the involved parties liked the flexibility of a non-profit and the opportunity it offered to together, crossing boundaries that would not normally be crossed. Greg g diverse galso said that i xte. w .ters6►a �otself Water 1,14 ten.a nagehcen iu A(iune3 x 1 0 69 ' �� organization upon the governmental structure and ' ' they did not want to "impose another p that they wanted citizens to be able to participate directly. In the initial stages of CRWP's existence, much time was necessarily consumed in • p ex loring and discussing the role that the organization should play.Unlike othed structure watershed groups, particularly Watershed Districts, there was no pre-deternu 10 110 or p osition on which CRWP could model itself. The organization instead had to discover 110 its own niche and determine the means by which it could operate most effectively. This process included formulating a firm direction for the organization and becoming familiar diverse oups involved. While the main goal at formation was to encourage with the � citizen involvement,the best strategy for accomplishing this in a diverse community was more complicated, as was the necessity of acquiring funding. Through utilizing the strengths of its members and collaborators and listening to the community CRWP has achieved success in both of these areas. It has determined the most effective function it can perform within its organizational constraints and has established this identity in the community. The mission statement reflects this particular role; it now reads: To protect and improve the surface and groundwater resources and natural systems of the Cannon River Watershed by: existing local and state government and citizen resources in implementation -coordinating of local water plans information and special events -instilling a sense of watershed pride through education, -providing for cooperative management and protection of the watershed." CRWP's array of projects and programs reflects this vision of the organization. These include various wetland and prairie restorations implemented in cooperation with many other groups, an extensive cost-share program, and the development of nutrient management and forestry stewardship plans with individual landowners. In terms of manag public education, CRWP has employed a variety of methods, such as a bimont y p 5 xte of 147trtersike 41,5c4 vtl ter ov.gal') eft gew-nt in 70tin ;.esv2'A 70 I newsletter distributed to 1,000 people, an annual Cannon River Summit, the develo ' men of interpretive trails, signs, and curricula for River Bend Nature Center p t , water quality monitoring training and equipment to middle and high schools.providing ' er interesting and unique component of its public education effort has been assisting citizens to form their own watershed protection groups. Allene Moesler, Executive Director, said d that they want to empower people to address their own water quality concerns and m said away from depending on the DNR and other groups to "fix everything." ove I ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The large Board created at formation reflects the diverse interests involved in conception of CRWP. the Although the Board make-up is currently being reexamined, it was a sizable 26 people as of February 5, 1999. It was established to consist of one representative from each of the six member counties and SWCDs(Dakota, Goodhue Le Sueur,Rice, Steele, and Waseca Counties), one from the North Cannon River WMO, thirteen citizens. Greg Carlson emphasized the fact that, although CRWP isa O, and nt powers board, it has maintained very close ties to the counties in the watershed omjoith beginning. He said that allowing the counties direct influence was a political decisione for their "moral support" was crucial in developing CRWP as a viable, sustainable , organization. The depth of the Board in its inclusion of the county and other public and citizen interests also clearly reflects CRWP's organizational approach: a focus on bringing a broad spectrum of people together with the idea of working coo erativel towards a common goal. This p Y greatly increases the organization's resource base in terms of ideas, technical assistance, and support within the community. As Allene stress also ideally enables each member to contribute his/herparticular strengthsed, it his/her areas of interest. to The current discussion of the Board make-up mentioned by both Allene and Greg Carlson is a perfect example of the way in which CRWP is continually working itself as an organization and ensure that it is running as effectivelypossible. as os ' to refine the Board's size was important at formation for the organizational ndpoliticalaAlthough need to State of 1474tersned,bXserZIVAter E4tilitil finA xilehtent in 7.1iniusosc p ' 71 have connections to each county and the agricultural community, the situation has changed now that CRWP has established its credibility. The Board's responsibilities have become less policy-oriented and more managerial. Therefore, in an effort to utilize each member's resources and limited time efficiently, they are exploring ways in which P g to modify the current Board structure. Allene mentioned one proposal for the restructuring of the Board which would create four separate groups: a 12-person Board of Directors that would meet monthly, a larger Policy Committee that would meet much less frequently, a Technical Advisory Committee that would meet bimonthly or as needed, and a Program Advisory Committee that would also meet bimonthly or as needed. By adapting to changing circumstances in this way, CRWP hopes to maintain its efficient use of existing resources and continue the search for a balance of pragmatic leadership and activism. In addition to the Board, CRWP is managed by two full-time and three part-time staff members. According to Greg, the relationship between the Board and staff is very close. While the Board is responsible for increasing membership, securing donor support, and providing the staff with direction and support,the staff focuses on applying for grants, organizing local fund drives, and coordinating and implementing CRWP's many programs. The organization has worked with an engineering consultant on one project, and, while it appreciated the immediate and high quality work, found that the cost benefit wasn't there. CRWP relies instead on a variety of different agencies who possess the resources it needs and to whom it can likewise offer assistance. The approach here is one of"mutual support." SUCCESS AS NETWORKERS The close working relationship that CRWP has with a variety of other agencies and organizations is one of the major reasons that it is able to function so successfully. As a State v iiterske lysed v1..ter 53:a,liti1 ntd .a44:e4vent i 7441 rnzsotA 1 72 1 non-profit, it is particularly dependent on the support of other organizations. Greg and Alleve agreed that it has always been the organization's major focus; as Allene 4 commented "We're a partnership that's what we do." Greg said that they view P p - themselves as a coalition and,to a certain extent, as a coordinator of the diverse cooperating groups involved in their programs. The list of collaborators, indeed, is impressive. It includes DNR, SWCD,NRCS,USF&W,MNDOT, sportsmen's clubs, 4 lake associations,McKnight Foundation, Carolyn Foundation,League of Women Voters, I Rivers Council, LCMR,River Bend Nature Center, and others. 1 Y The distinctive approach CRWP takes to networking is its emphasis on being able to offer something back to its cooperators. This has been instrumental in developing lasting and effective relationships with other groups. CRWP therefore has focused on applying for grants that allow it to structure its programs around collaboration and enhancement of existing programs. A good example of this is the LCMR funding it receives which it has used largely in cooperation with the SWCD and DNR to develop an extensive cost-share program focusing on the implementation of BMPs and other conservation practices. CRWP uses funds from other sources to supplement the program when necessary as well. As of February 5, 1999, implementation included 107 acres of buffer strips, 860 feet of shoreline restoration on a project involving 8 landowners, cattle exclusion on 2 miles of shoreline through donations from the Tri-Lakes Sportsmen's Club, nutrient management plans completed for 36 farmers, and forestry stewardship plans for 124 sites. The case of the forestry stewardship plans is particularly notable, for the U.S. Forestry Service provides this assistance to landowners,but only for plots of 20 acres or more. CRWP saw this gap and has stepped in to fill it, performing this service for smaller acreage's. Cooperation with the agencies is crucial on these projects, for,while the agencies may not have the resources to offer some of these programs, they do have the landowner contacts and background information necessary to implement them. Through close contact with the technical advisory committee, CRWP looks to the agencies for direction StM2 a W ttrsivea:b0secc IVA,ter 6-�zc�titti Inctntx4ie fl.t in Minvaesvtt 73 and offers them,in turn, additional and often more flexible funding to on these programs programs. supplement and expand their existing p °utstate watershed supp to some of the Wp functions in a manner similes he see a similar ents then, CR Partnership program. rovem In this way, n with the Clean watershed Part implement 'W e s e a s working agencies to imp however,is Distracts with the ag case of CRVJP, working closely The difference in the Districts are strategy of w er contacts. 'While Watershed D theflexibility le individual landown funding sources afford it. 'Wh are often more constraints t and s there duties exict l that its statusa or funding sources, mandated fl number of limited by their structure They also have a num not exactly much of their rules to follow. cases consume will be more which It placed upon them andmaintenance that in many areas in such. floodRW control and ditch m ick and choose the other hand,is able to p that will be most beneficial. M CRWp, on the with other groups time and the collaborations most effective of groups in a project with array alternative solution 's ability to involve an As an example of CRe�' ver Marsh. the god for A striking of Straight Ri improvement,all is the restoration upland through mutual benefit to water quality and wildlife habitat o associated problems and a w wetland and 500 acres 1999, 16 to drainage p restore 1200 acres°£w OT As of August, is to with M D owners, this project work additional property contacts and working with 30 ad pT,the personal landownerwp was w Besides property ow downers had enlisted and CR already been restored. end Nature Center, landowners site had D�USF&w�River B OT wetland mitigation the McKnight re Cent and a�D include SwC � eprogram, this proles the Wetland Reserve collaborators on has come through and 1CS. Funding and USF&w Service. NCS is also a good example Foundation, Center(RB SC) Wright,Executive with the River Bend N to Greg ofthe close relationship groups. According other as well as with other gr advocates for each the ties it developsorganizations act as they do so in different the two orgy or at RBNC� address similar issues, together mainly on Direct they aspire to have worked Although They collaborators. complement each other. ways and so are able to comp +in,r5y�e , 7W c.u?r�ter y, itt kikro �s?e 'ti. r 74 the Big Woods the forest Project, and CRWP has forestry stewardship contributed b People to p planning. It has by guiding the restoration egoits see what forest also created a forest restoration and forestry stewardship/mann ation trail to allow for cooperation and advice. Greg gement looks like RBN C lo CRWP the expertise they bring to the r ks to project is also a CONCLUSION Despite the fact that the funding non-profit model among the or may appear to great advantage. organizations we have the 1 age It studied, CR east stable types of interestsathas been amazingly 'has clean in a co success y used its distinct status to efforts. � because they all have Allene point from an array of � network ed out, this is a hu a stake in the surrounding huge advantage organization and its g and supporting age that non- net network s r the g them continuallyprofits possess: the can, same time ensures their survival. challenges ges them to do the best they CRWP has also utilized the comparative freedom m of the non- adapt and ch g to the needs that profit model, Its ab change is much arise in the community. allows it organizations greater than that whose at of soIts ability to function and structure me other types of established CRWP has truly ructure have Y been able to already lar given us a newengage its co largely been said, [ted. community perspective." lens through which to look at what As Greg Wright said, "[the were all doingY]have here-aregional State°f u'ate'x! b4ser'k' ter valitti htliiI4temeyjt ire Minnesota 75 CASE STUDY OF THE: YELLOW MEDICINE RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT Grre oire,Board Member, January 22, 1999 Interviewees: Doug g 22, 1999 Delmar Mamer,Board Member, January John Boulton,Board Member, January 22, 1999 Dennis Swedzinski, Constituent, January 22, 1999 Leo Moorse, Constituent,January 22, 1999 Terry Renken, Administrator, January 22, 1999 Cindy Potz, Office Manager, January 22, 1999 YMRWD) is a fairly large district of The Yellow Medicine River Watershed District nnesota. Despite the organizational and 685 square miles located in outstate western Mi greatly limit an organization's political constraints of the rural setting that in some casesa iculties and actively pursue effectiveness, YMRWD has managed to overcome the improvement program. Unlike some of the other out-state an involved water quality ant money to develop this Watershed Districts, it has been able to use outside grconcerns,nor has aggressive program. Its scope has not been limited to water quantityconcerns, resources. the organization been rendered ineffective by limited human andmonetary staff members, one Instead,this is a smoothly operating organization with two full-time project in its beginning hugely successful project under its belt, and a new very ambitious stages. The move to this more aggressive approach to water quality began in 1991 with the receipt of its first Clean Water Partnership grant,the Lake Shaokatan Restoration Project. This probe ct which involved the closure and relocation of three feedlots, was amazingly lake. succ essful in revitalizing the lake's water quality and thus life centered around t e BACKGROUND State of sVotte.r51:1,44 boot water eNtittil dcnage %.#ire Minktz50171., I 76 YMRWD's formation in 1971 was due primaril y to flooding concerns. The SWCD and II NRCS, who have been active cooperators since inception, urged for a watershedII I approach to the floodingproblems 111 facing the area, and a Watershed District was formed. For the first ten years of existence, the Watershed District was mainly concerne , 41 water quantity. It worked closely with the Armyd with NRCS to build ten dams and implement other Corps of Engineers, DNR, SWCD, and 41 flood reduction measures. As environmental issues became increasingly important however, the organization began to look seriously at water quality. As many of the Watershed District's larger flood control projects were halted due to environmental concerns and water quality problems in the district were becoming more and more evident, the focus of the or Its growing interest in water quality culminated in the Lake Shaokatan organization RestorationsClea. Water Partnership, a project that the Watershed District took on at the re uest ofd Clean constituent Lake Association. After the highly successful completion of the first o the organization is now beginning a comprehensive Phase I diagnostic studyCWP, watershed. Although the district continues to maintain the ten dams and 19 ditchesa entire jurisdiction, a commitment to water qualityis clearlya large in its $ Part of the WD's future direction. YMRWD is also committed to becoming more visible to theP ublic. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The YMRWD Board is composed of five members, all of whom are once per month, and their role includes dealing with the public, providing They meet the tail; and making decisions on tilingpermits and p n$direction for water retention projects. In commenting on his dealings with the Board and the public's perception of the grow a constituent of the watershed mentioned that, as the area is largelya P� district primarily works with farmers, the fact that all of the board members and the have a farming background makes them approachable and easy to do business with.h According to John Boulton, current Board Member, the Board has a very smooth workin relationship with the staff, due largely to open lines of communication. g State of s atersti.e4:unser ►daterq xtitri filan�iyte.knr nt in Jifinnesota 77 � Te Renken,District Administrator, and employees: n�' hired as The staff consists of two full-time emwas a member of the Board before being sta Cindy Potz, Office Manager. Terry final CWP and handled much of the work involved in the Dana the Board's in the fall of 1998 Medicine River CWP With Greater Yellow With the new and much largerrealized that they needed someone in the office growing desire to be more visible, they process and more hire Terry. He was both familiar with the CWI'd oce consumed a large and decided to eaoutside firm wo excellent rapport with board members and • his role economically feasible than a consultant.santo portion of the CWP budget. He h understands the issues on a first-hand basis. Inaddition constituents alike, and es to farm 400 acres. at YMRWD,Terry continues close ties to the SWCD, piece in this organizational picture is the group's final them as technical assistance resources, and Theoften uses unity support for their efforts. Terry commented rTRCS, and counties. 5�� depends upon them to encourage comm that the SWCD is a particularly important ally. LEIVJENT NG RURAL WATERSHED DISTRICT SUCCESS AS AN ACTIVELY Ilv� 's success is the Lake Shaokatan Restoration qualitynimprovement in The most visible indicator of has in a stung lake water the Project CWP, a projecond ct that resultedbegan in 1991. According to Cindy, diagnostic phase ear span since the WD intervention; she described it as the eight-year prior to YMR were unhappy,the water was of tell- talebeinition of the lake was horrendous du roperty owners Through the CVS Lakeshorep clea being essentially dead. CW appearance, and recreational use had basically ceased. The water quality "pea-usoup" appbeach, revitalize efforts,however,the lake has been dramatically�t 10%, and a swimming isnoupce now excellent, property prices have increased by at und, and trails for public use have been built. campground, The first o a number of factors,two of which stand out. with This great successegcan attributedimplementation strategy adopted by the Board. This began aggressive ho and dairy of these is the age study,which revealed surrounding g the intensive Phase I diagnostic �.vc��esvt� rs p0.6e,WNW-114 lit v owi nt�;c Stt��?f u'tt� `�t 78 operations to be thei major source of YA'IRWD developed pollution. The bold implementation plan that 4 directly help of the agencies and a consultant out of St. Paul y addressed these problem another was cut do areas. In the end, down considerably, one hog operation was relocated, nthese a y, and major improvements were extreme implementation made toadairy That themeasures were taken farm. especiallyin light of the fact that rural, seems quite remarkable, traditionally take a largely agricultural areas such more conservative approach to water as this one this is the only instance of direct feedlot rel quality. As relocation that we have co a point of reference, me across. In describing the remarkable process that led to the successful implementation Plan, Terry repeatedly emphasized the close communicationP ementation of the tried to maintain with involved Lando that the Watershedo District Participation in landowners. In approaching the project, the Boardg the landowners about their participation iotion adopted the and specific nu strategy ofpresenting tubers on their g them with solid infdegradation. This allowed them property's contribution to the lake's to realize for themselves, in a very ' contribution to the problem. The Board also offered real along with the dollar values them way, their attached in a number of possible solutions, landowners, as Te ' an attempt to "leave eve Terry put it. Two of the threer3'door open"for the major feedlot relocations or improvements lardowners involved in the friends were very angry at first, but, and neighbors, Te Lando ny said they eventually ats thei urging of landowners apparently knew what came to a better understanding. effect real had been happeningg The change. The Watershed District but were unable financially to Terry, the Board offered them this opportunity. didn't attempt to enforce the Y According to pragmatic, common-sense a measures or "rattle swords;" approach. they used a The second factor that Terry mentioned ' SWCD. The fact that this rs the Support of the agencies group was on the Watershed District's particularlygroupthe advantage in terms of broad co side was a as this.nmmunity support, a variable w great y�WD also worked closelyloch is crucial in cases such with the 1VRCS, taking advant g resources. age of their technical and fundin :sate of waters,'`e4643eri:wxter624a.litti tnanx ge'Y1t,L`+/t t in Mirt'1'teSO#n 79 The current Greater Yellow Medicine River CWP, looks to address the water quality problems across the entire watershed in a similarly aggressive fashion. Terry said that, after conducting a watershed-wide feedlot inventory, the project will work to bring the whole area into compliance with the water quality standards that it establishes. This will likely involve buy-outs and major improvements of the type found in the Lake Shaokatan project. Technology new to the district is being used to coordinate all of this, and YMRWD is also working closely with the counties to synchronize their data sources. CONCLUSION YMRWD has overcome any barriers or limitations to pursuing an active water quality program that it may face as an outstate, rural Watershed District. It has compensated for its relative lack of funding by pursuing outside funding sources. YMRWD implements aggressive and politically charged improvement measures by keeping all sides of the 110 issue informed and respected throughout the process. Dennis Swedzinski, a constituent of the watershed, gave a great tribute to YMRWD when he said that it serves the very rimportant purpose of providing a neutral space in which involved parties can come 1111 together to have open meetings and discuss what is best for everyone concerned. This method, though obviously not fool-proof, has been able to get people invested in their watershed and more ready to take responsibility for their role within it. According to Terry, this type of local involvement and personal accountability is a great advantage of Watershed Districts. Judging by the example that YMRWD provides, it certainly seems to encourage the pursuit of effective, acceptable solutions to difficult water quality issues. I r 0 Sete o f u74tersl�e4:;Weri P2Gaitil rnc,. .ig,gs e t in Minnesota a 80 CASE STUDY OF THE: VADNAIS LAKE AREA WMO Interviewees: Stephanie McNamara, Staff, January 25th 1999. Joan Brainerd, Citizen Advisory Committee Member, January 25th 1999. Jim Haugen, Board Member, St. Paul Water Utility Representative, Feb. 22, 1999 BACKGROUND Watershed Management Organizations(WMOs) across the metro area of the Twin Cities 1 are being declared non-compliant by the Board of Water and Soil Resources at an . unprecedented rate. Those declared non-compliant have been completely dissolved, are pending further study or have been converted into Watershed Districts. Since 1997, eleven WMOs have been dissolved, several others are under review. There are only a III handful of these WMOs that are managing carry out, let alone grow beyond, the mandate for which they were created. One such example is the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed i Management Organization(VLAWMO), a organization encompassing only tiny area of 23.5 sq. miles in Ramsey County. Since their formation in 1983, they have successfully41 worked on two Clean Water Partnerships, the first almost ten years ago. They are presently working on a wetland management plan. Part of the reason for their success has been a partnership with the St. Paul Water Utility. , There has always been a representative of SPWU serving on the VLAWMO board because of the importance of the Vadnais Lake watershed to the city water supply. This , watershed has the unique role of providing drinking water to all of the customers of 411 SPWU. That water either starts in that watershed or flows through the watershed after being pumped through an elaborate pipe system from the Mississippi River. I 5txte.af lot tarsi imse'ivP.ter v.i.titstAn.At ent i.t in 74in>;,esotc. 81 Despite their successes, there are some challenges that the organization needs to overcome to be truly successful. Primary among these is board dynamics which slows the progress of many of their projects. However, with an enthusiastic and active board president and an involved Citizens Advisory Board, VLAWMO seems to be safe in the near future from the malaise that has struck other WMOs. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The board of VLAWMO is composed of 7 members, one representative from each of the six participating communities, City of White Bear Lake, City of Vadnais Heights, City of North Oaks, White Bear Township, City of Lino Lakes and City of Gem Lake as well as one representative from the SPWU. The organization also has one staff person, Stephanie McNamara. VLAWMO has a citizens advisory committee that were involved with the organization when the WMO was putting together its watershed plan. Their role diminished through time, and they were sidelined from the organization. In recent months, Stephanie McNamara, VLAWMO staff person, has been responsible for jump starting the committee and getting them to take a more active role. She ensures that the citizens committee is kept apprised of all of the activities of the organization. She attends all their meetings and is the go-between for the regular board and the CAC, although some members do attend board meetings. According to Joan Brainerd, CAC member, the citizens advisory committee members are dedicated to VLAWMO. They would like to take on more responsibility, especially in the area of oversight. This was effectively demonstrated at a recent watershed evaluation training session, where almost all the VLAWMO attendees were CAC members, there were no board members. VLAWMO also has a technical evaluation panel consisting ofBWSR and SWCD staff. This panel was actively involved in the formation of the WMO, providing technical advice on a monthly basis. However, the group has not been active for almost six years. State of wattersne 1 Wiser wter134xtitu,na.,srge ni nt in.AIinnziat4 J 82 VLAWMO has a consulting engineer that they now work with on a regular basis and are considering putting him on retainer. Funding for the organization comes from a few different sources. The participating communities provide the majority of the funds for the organization's operating costs. The group has also obtained two Clean Water Partnership Grants,the matching funds for which were provided by the SPWU. Some moneys have also been provided by Ducks Unlimited and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, although SPWU is the organization's biggest contributor. The water utility provides not just cash but also in-kind services like staff time, technical expertise and laboratory facilities. SUCCESS AND CHALLENGES Two of the lakes in the watershed, Vadnais and Pleasant, had taste and odor problems from frequent algae blooms. VLAWMO found that sedimentation and nutrient loading were responsible. To alleviate this the water utility with the help of the organization, installed aerators and have been using copper sulfate to help with some of nutrient loading problem. VLAWMO has also pursued and obtained Clean Water Partnership grants,the first of which was obtained in 1990. From 1990-1992, a Phase I was completed. This included computer modeling, sediment coring and a ground water study. From 1992-1995, a Phase II was instituted,the focus of which was on restoring two wetlands, the 126 acre Rice Lake and the 67-acre Grass Lake. This involved building control structures that stabilized water flow in and out of the basins. VLAWMO has been active in other areas as well. They recently completed a field assessment and inventory of 335 wetlands that are located in the watershed. Their staff person, Stephanie, was hired specifically to facilitate this process. The organization also coordinates a citizen's lake monitoring program on six lakes in the watershed. There are Stwte of wAtersne t sea,'wr ter 134 Ntitif BnanP4tana it i'rc MinntSot i. , 83 database of water quality in the watershed. Public years haveb recent plans t utilize sothinformation an important mporta o of the viO's activities. t they omen °rt'� p conjunction with the League educationais also ence oissues to both citizens and educatorsmn erence on groundwater issues in held a Theyinto provide educational materials on water _sewers that drain directly and\TotThey and they have been providing funds for stenciling lakes or rivers. mandate.They art of the organization's m water plans is p erosion encouraging Oversight si member communities' o community ies' development plans including o water rate andquality are responsible for the comma The W1\40 establishes stormce the ement practices. Technical assistan standardscontrol best and the expected to comply. al and agency personnel the communities are exp s for municipal development and workshop planning phases of local also offered. on erosion control and wetland protection are One of the been involved with have been smooth. turn of the O has At Not all the projects that VLAWM face now is a wetland restoration project.cke into theheir water have to White Bear would greater century,the utility The water utility water utility built a series of ditches from wands• their centum. drained a series of ualtty yii In the process they improve water q system. hope it would White Bear Lake never did materialize. now like to restore those wetlands as theyfrom A.cc system and because the need for water the VI-AW�O board,the JimHaugen,who represents the water utility those now drained v''board, h are ' pro eat ha to dampness The residents who live problems with damp project has been dragging.see project move forward.They The VLA O board,with the very reluctant tos and thep could flood. push for are concerned that they are in enthusiastic, reluctant to slow their basements and would fu the board president who is active and constituents exception of angering their mean ang ago,it has been dormant the project becauseSit would conceptualized a year development. So although the project was since then. 5iwte. uoc'tersh.eti,bfi sed. v 84 This stalemate has caused no end of Watershed hat frustration for the was in charwater utility. The point. Jim bDiest cs that it is difficult of the project it Y believe that if a would have been completed by this 40 a week to for the board play the role of members who hoursoud a watershed board are city officials e much prefer that the member for 2 board be comprisedhours a month. He who would have of environmental more concern for water quality group orepresentatives present board does. Jim also mentioned that he would like to see a �O, or if that failed, the group could Watershed District be lapsedtake the suplach as the Ramsey Washington or into neighboring Rice Creek. A g districts such as and conservative part from being frustrated by nature of the and con. Theyboard, the water utility the ineffectiveness but realize that a Watershed District rs tired of being of fads t with t a large contributor Y in that area, aging authority would ease their respCONCLUSION Despite the fact that VLAWM0 floundersmanagesThey in some areas take full advantage areas, it is an organization that mann g state a of resources available to themstill funding fromoststate ff genies. They have the sir especially appears to be revitalizing support of the SpWU(at least the towards resurrecting g the or for now) ush The adsting the citizens organization as evidenced b desire to make advisory Committee. by the push the board more accountable and This group of enthusiastic organization active. provide the i people impetus for keeping the The main difficulty they will need to overcome now to trul nsure that the board Y have a highly active organization is to a each board member looking works for the ng out for the interests of theirindividualved as a whole rather than state legislation may provide a push in the communities. units anon right direction. Recent rnrrient that are As ofDecember 1999 to localhe boardnof that members of the Vp , staff of moo. Due to this legislation, the bo are nof eligible to be appointed State o � F and of VI'AWMO will turnover esters ted,b=,se4?'pi,xterEug,titst tnut 111111111111111111.111.1111.1.1.1.1.1 85 half of their members.However, hen the organization board to further strengthen to other citizens as well, with individual communities representation should be opened up taking turns to serve. • vxter54 7 .5e vJwter PYtit14 rhtdtvlvtie vabt 11,0•44;ze5atdc 86 CASE STUDY OF THE: PELICAN RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT Interviewees: Dr. Richard Hecoc k, District Administrator, March 1, 1999 Jarrod Christen, Water/Wastewater Supervisor,rvis°r, City of Detroit Lakes, March 1, 1999 The Pelican River Watershed District is a small lake-filled MN. Unlike the other outstate Watershed Districtse-filled district based out ofDetroit formed solely out of water quality in Minnesota,pRWD wasconcerns. Itis remarkable in that it has been able to m maintain and expand this focus despite the resource limitations ations facin g outstate Watershed rt Districts. There are a number of factors involved in its leadership, a tradition of citizen involvement, success, including far-sighted thirty years of its existence and dedication to water quprogressive fundin41g strategy. In the and refined a sustainable, innovative approach to water PRWD has thus developed , Programs dealing primarily with squality, and offers an array of tormwater and sewage treatment, lakeshore resident land-use practices, and public education. BACKGROUND PRWD was created in 1967 out of concern for the water As the document "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,quality of the watershed's lakes. the District was formed "for the Order" ofMa 27 1966 general eu Y states, of waters and other natural resources, to reduceof conserving and making the pollution of the watersf theprovPelican use Pe River Chain of Lakes, to slow down the eautrification levels in the Pelican River Chain of Lakes, to enhance of the lakes, to regulate the water teerr protect and improve the scenic beauty thereof to improve recreational facilities, audio Prove the needed drainage, to provide needed soil and water conservation practices on the land" The District's formation was spear-headed by two cit' and one a group of concerned individuals. 1zen groups, one a lake association In addition to their worries about water quality Sate af svictersne ivoe Pc,xter D,xtaxa,hnana ,. 87 degradation,they e treatment approach. Lakes' sewage the City of Detroit were troubled by the city sometime earlier. The District arose, ht a lawsuit against s Tension between had, in fact,brought roup • They litigation and contention between g ears great oftime to time,but in recent y then, in this interestshasenvironment continued g to be an issue from ecocar District the two been has parties to work cooperatively. Dr.Richard H made by both p to improve relations with the city effort hashave worked hard Water/Wastewater Supervisor the City of Administrator,mentioned that they Ovate Jarrod Christen, relationship oft that theyy and with Lakes,ealsoCemphasized the mutually beneficial working emphasized Detroit have developed. at the time of formation,but, according to or emphasisoint point source-nonp Point source issues were the mate last ten years to a combination p nt from septic Dr.Hecock,this has shifty, focused on studies of nutrient pollution source approach. Initially,P improvements to the sewage effluent. The latter resulted in imp harvesting and removal tames and the city's sewageaquatic vegetation hary 1988 in treatment plant. The District also initiatedce d a Clean Water Program grant Clean tpeat this day. It r by which continues to and Sallie Clean Lakes Project,programfollowed These extensive Phase I of the Detroit implemented.for the e a ne measures still being imp Partnership funding for the Phase II elation, installation of Water Partbio-manipulation,measures have included wetland enhancement, public education. alum treatments,stormwater detention sites, Although it has another major area of activity for the District. equal as management is was not producing results o chosen notmwater manag authority as the systemantes and it looks at variances not to retain permittingimplementation,involved in its imp basisto and makes recommendations to the city, the amount of time and energy instigated the formationcof is on a review It also conditional use pen" water management issues. issioners input andj county, and DNR on storm regularly offers planning comm and interagency stormwater task force andre and guidance. tvAtaskeOmed,.14ixta vAtitmYrArLGwo32$LSti (znft250t 5tixte.of 88 Public education has been a crucial aspect produces evducation ions hasbroes P t of the District's approach since formation. w About Wetlands" and and pamphlets such as "What Lake ResideIt Know "Green lawns, Clean lakes? Residents Shouldts About Fertilizer What L Know " distributed to a Lakeshore Residents element of the Drs approximately Should District's public education e Y 2000 residents. Another award-winning effort is the Water major Stung program provides interdisciplinary Watch Pro a middleThis and high school students who �'watershed and that they producewater quality educationn to are currently plan an annual report. Dr. lookingg to enhance theirHecock mentioned at using different public education 1 extensive set ino ° rnds of media, a monthly program, are fact sheets." Y article for newspapers, arida more ' II ORGAATIONAL STRUCTURE The Pelican River Watershed Board consists of seven people, been the subject of some controversyin P ple, the make-up property owners whothe the past ten years zealouslakeshore which has were impetus behind formationAs the their involvement in and leadership of the District traditionally heomen on 1 of the or a have maintained akeshore residents organization, PRWD ctor band not on the f 's emphasis has contributing to this phenomenon is that the f arming COumty. Another watershed is limited and marginal. U arming that takes place in the erd t all othe Board, p until 1988, therefore and there were only farming interestsrs. the enot for a due apparently y five Board members. coria al Boardchangey to pressure from the Com With the push members from �'Commissioners, two recentda the agricultural communit acquisition of ditch authority Y joined the p The District's cet acquents are lakeshore further shifted the group. akeshore residents, perception that PR WD's submitted la two and in another attempts Primary rant proposals to develop to bridge the landowners in the 1 partnerships gap, trhe District planning of lake ps involving non- riparianprotection measures. Par ran according to Dr. Hecoc works veryThe Board smoothlymeets monthly and together. In addition to Dr. Hecoc� who currentlyffice Works part-time as Administrator, the in-house secretary, an aquatic plant harvesting meager, and a recently Stxte Jf K'4ters`'e4 base ',yxter-tisu.titif yn, �sniilensent an Mi:2 :,sst:1n IIP 89 hired full-time assistant administrator. Dr. Hecock sees the staffs job as keeping managers informed and encouraging them to make decisions that move the District in the direction of its stated objectives. PRWD often uses a consulting district engineer who is a great help in providing technical assistance on stormwater and other projects. It has used consultant firms for special purposes, but generally has not been so happy with this method. Free-lance consultants, and one in particular who is a civil engineer and aquatic biologist, have been much more effective for the District. Another important piece of the organization is its close contact with the agencies. Dr. Hecock particularly emphasized the "considerable and consistent help from DNR staff- fisheries, hydrologist, forester, wildlife specialists, and from MPCA limnologists and engineers." BWSR has also helped in wetland controversies and in the District's development of a stormwater utility as an alternate funding source. PRWD also maintains close contact with the lake associations in the watershed. SUCCESS AS AN OUTSTATE WATERSHED DISTRICT FOCUSING SOLELY ON WATER QUALITY PRWD's sole focus on water quality since 1967 is particularly striking in light of the fact that "water quality" per se was not incorporated into the mandated Watershed District responsibilities until 1981. It is also remarkable that PRWD as an outstate Watershed District has been able to maintain this exclusive emphasis, for the general trend with outstate districts is for water quantity concerns to take precedence and for funding limitations to hamper the development of sustainable, comprehensive water quality programs. PRWD and the broad water quality program that it has been building since 1967 have never been affected by either of these factors; from the beginning, they were beyond them. :State a f wAtersne Ipmal water vv.A.ljti rntr,ao,ge;ne.nt in 74 in newti. 1 90 There are a number of reasons for PRWD's distinct position as a water quality-driven outstate Watershed District. The first and most basic is the geography and demographics of the area. PRWD, as has been mentioned, is a small district consisting almost entirely of lakes. The agricultural land that is present in the watershed is for the most part small- scale and not very productive, which means that agricultural interests in this area do not have the visibility or political clout that the lake interests do. In terms of demographics, Detroit Lakes is a fairly sizable city for outstate Minnesota and the Lakeshore resident population is significant as well. For these reasons,Dr. Hecock said that PRWD in some ways operates more like a Metro Watershed District in that it primarily deals with development and stormwater issues as opposed to agricultural issues. It also has more of a tax base to work with than would be found in other parts of rural Minnesota. And finally, in the lakeshore residents concerned about their own lakes, it has a much more sizable and vocal community group advocating water quality. Another factor involved in PRWD's success is its leadership and the vision of the people involved in the District's management. Dr. Hecock gives great credit to the Board in this regard; indeed, he believes that the organization's most successful component is "intelligent managers who are in general agreement on the District's mission and the means to achieve it." The roots of this level of managerial involvement in and concern with water quality are of course found in the circumstances under which the organization formed: a group of"spirited" citizens reacting out of an immediate, very personal concern for the water quality of the lakes on which they lived. Proceeding from this strong precedent, the Board, as has been mentioned, has largely been composed of lake association leaders throughout the years. Their shared common goal and close ties to the District's lakes have ensured its progressive view and continued water quality focus. The intelligence and foresight that Dr. Hecock brings to the organization are also certainly an element of its success. He assists and guides the Board in operating with the District's goals always in mind, and he has done much in the way of expanding the public 5twte of Waters ke-4:v,�se4 vvwter ei4c tit is r. e ..::tin Mintissys..A. 91 education campaign. Jarrod Christen also mentioned that he has "made a world of difference" in improving relations between the city and the Watershed District. PRWD's success is also attributable to its innovative approach to funding. Its pursuit and acquisition of various types of outside funding for studies and projects have allowed it more freedom in developing its water quality program than many other outstate Watershed Districts are afforded. The best example of its progressive approach, however, is the stormwater utility that it is currently putting in place. In order to compensate for the fact that it is located in a fairly rural community and does not have the ability to levy an extensive ad valorem tax to pay for larger stormwater capital improvement projects as do Metro Watershed Districts, PRWD is will begin collecting stormwater utility fees in June of 2000. This utility will be in addition to the existing city utility, and the Watershed District will use the collected fees to implement stormwater treatment measures. Dr. Hecock commented that this new II source of funding is quite a shift from the traditional rural Watershed District funding approach. With the new legislation, the District has only to prove that a stormwater contribution is beingmade, whereas before absolute proof of cost benefit was necessary. 0 As Dr. Hecock said, "We have become convinced that the stormwater utility is a reasonable alternative to traditional 'projects' The difference is that project assessments must be based on economic benefits, which are hard to defend in wateruali / while the stormwater utility is based u on the am q tY terms, P ount of contribution to the problem (e.g. runoff or nutrient loading). We also see the stormwater utility as an alternative to employing the ditch law or funding water quality improvements with ditch assessments 1 or ad valorem funds." Limited taxing authority has traditionally limited outstate Watershed Districts' ability to address large scale water problems; outside of applying for grants(which many outstate Watershed Districts don't have the resources to do), incorporating water quality into ditch improvements and permitting have really been their only means of consistently impacting 5t .te at 147 :isr5h.e4::bdLSC Writer p2G tata4 aeAno,garrvent in.Min::.2.5asa 92 water quality. As PRWD is attempting to show,the new stormwater utility offers these organizations an alternative means of developing sustainable water quality programs. Dr.Hecock emphasized the fact, however, that this is an experimental project and that the "jury is still out" on whether or not it will be successful. CONCLUSION Due to a distinct combination of factors,PRWD began as an organization dedicated to water quality and has been able to maintain this identity despite the resource limitations often facing rural areas. With some slight modifications, it has remained true to its original objectives; as the mission statement revised in 1994 reads, "The mission of the Pelican River Watershed District is to enhance the quality of water in the lakes within its jurisdiction. It is understood that to accomplish this,the District must ensure that wiseoundwater, decisions are made concerning the management of streams,wetlands, lakes, gr , and related land resources which affect these lakes." The District's physical have characteristics, the circumstances at the time of formation, the dynamic leaders been involved, its innovative approach to funding-all of these factors have made PRWD the progressive, successful water quality-driven organization that it is today. I State of u1GtterSnxt(1,Mec,1,04, r vt.lit1+YwAnFLRepasent in Minne.5vtG 93 CASE STUDY OF THE: BROWNS CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Interviewees: Craig Leiser, President, Browns Creek Watershed District, Feb. 19, 1999 Mark Doneux, Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District, Feb. 19, 1999 Jane Harper, Physical Development Planner, Washington County, Feb. 19, 1999 BACKGROUND Browns Creek Watershed Management Organization is one of the WMO's that have fallen by the way-side since the state mandated the WMO model into existence. The group was formed in 1985 and dissolved a scant 12 years later. Like many other WMOs the group never progressed beyond its mandated duties of helping communities with their local water plan. Their board was fragmented and received no support from the signatory communities and as a result when faced with a real crisis, the WMO found themselves unable to cope. In 1997, BWSR was called in to take stock of the situation and mediate between several angry citizens and communities. As a result of that process, the WMO was declared non-compliant and the responsibilities of the WMO were turned over to the county. Six months later,the county petitioned BWSR to form a Watershed District and in September of 1997, the Browns Creek Watershed District was formed. STRucruRE Browns Creek Watershed District is structured like the other metro area Watershed Districts. The board is composed of five managers, that were initially appointed by BWSR and later by the county. They have no full-time staff but the regular administrative work is undertaken by the Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD.) Their meetings are held in the SWCD offices as well. Mark Doneux is the contact person between the SWCD and the WD board. • Sti to o f wxtersko:booecl,mixter 614xiitti a . .gen•. .t asp Ai-ina-tesa:A 94 Although Browns Creek is a recently formed Watershed District, they already have an established relationship with an engineering firm. Craig Leiser, Board President, believes that this would be best for the organization as the firm would get to know the organization's needs and be familiar with their working styles. He puts little stock in the ability of the DNR or another agency to get the projects done. He believes that if left up to those agencies,the projects would move slowly through approval and implementation, and in water related projects as the ones that the Watershed District handles, time is o the essence. TRANSITION FROM FAILING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION TO THRIVING WATERSHED DISTRICT Browns Creek WMO operated smoothly when there were no problems facing the organization, but the intense rains of the winter of 1995 followed by more huge storms in the summer of 1996 proved too much for the organization. Roads were flooded, 3 basements were flooded, wells and septic systems failed, and it soon became clear that there really wasn't a secure system in place to deal with these problems. There were I townships, cities, and the WMO,but jurisdictions became confused, and nobody stepped , forward to assume responsibility. After the individual townships and cities had been unsuccessful at alleviating the problem through smaller projects,the town boards turned to the WMO and it finally declared a ' State of Emergency. It was at this point that the weaknesses of the WMO became , apparent, for it really had no power to do anything. As Craig Leiser pointed out, even ' though the state legislation was in place for an "enhanced WMO" that could levy tax, go ' through condemnation to secure property, hire employees, and contract an office, it still relies on its member communities and is subject to any disagreements about funding, 1I implementation, etc.that they may, and most likely will, have. I Grant Township,which was being incorporated at the time, is where Craig Leiser lives and is an area that was hit particularly hard by the storms. Their representative to the _Ztxte of 144tersi `imse4%/Mara :xlitv!knx icHanent in Minnocrtx 95 WMO board wasn't present at the meeting in which the State.of Emergency was declared and they were angered that this action had been taken, so they came to the next meeting with an attorney claiming that the WMO had not right to make that decision. After discussions and public forums, it was decided that if the WMO wished to take appropriate action, it would have to go back and levy an assessment against those in the watershed. The City of Grant did not want to levy another tax on its citizens, some of whom were already under the jurisdiction of Valley Branch and Carnelian-Marine SWatershed Districts and paying taxes to them. The other option, the dissolution of the WMO, was suggested, and the city of Grant wasn't satisfied with that solution either. r The WMO basically came to a stale-mate and could not take action in any direction. At this point, BWSR stepped in to investigate the WMO. They did an evening of fact- finding which involved much heated discussion, and ultimately declared the WMO non- compliant. The operation of the organization was then turned over to Washington County, and the county turned the day-to-day operation over to the SWCD. The citizens had high hopes that the county would turn the organization around, but, as it was only acting as a WMO, it ran into the same problems that the WMO had faced before. The county was uncomfortable with its new position, and was hesitant to use its power as a county to do WMO business. It did have an engineering report done on drainage and drafted plans for two capital improvement projects, but problems with its position were continually being raised. The attorneys questioned the fact that, although it was acting as county, it was only benefiting a small area. They also found the county's proposed condemnation of land for drainage problematic. It also appeared that the legislature would not allow the county to take these steps. After six months of this type of confusion, the county petitioned BWSR to form Browns Creek Watershed District. The September 9, 1997petition was granted, a five-person Board was selected, and the organization was empowered on October 22, 1997. In terms Stxti Q f sVattersl.e.:imsol v.' ter pi Citi f.A axile.neat Aiinne4vsa 96 of various interests' reaction to the formation of a Watershed District, Craig said that responses were mixed. The people who had been seeking change and a more effective means of management were pleased, the governmental units were generally glad to be have turned the responsibility over to another body, and Stillwater and Grant townships were unhappy. The transition has not been an easy one, however. The Board,which was so suddenly created out of a tense situation, has had to become familiar with one another and determine how the members can best work together. They have been meeting twice/month for at least 4 hours, but Craig said this still is not enough time to get everything accomplished. As all of these positions are volunteer ones, the balance of111 how much time the members can be expected to invest is still being negotiated. Another problem they have had is a general lack of awareness about the process. Although they can identify what needs to be done,the avenues which they must use such as the DNR, MPCA, and BWSR, "take an unconscionable amount of time," according to Craig. He at least has become very frustrated with the legalistic and bureaucratic aspects of their responsibilities. Despite these complications, there are a number of factors in their favor. The Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts(MAWD)has been a great resource for the organization. They were able to provide input during the transition from WMO to Watershed District. They provided information on the rules and regulations governing Watershed Districts and have also been a tremendous networking resource. The Browns Creek Board through MAWD has the opportunity to interact and learn from other Watershed District boards statewide. The Washington County SWCD has also been very beneficial to the district. They 4 provide both administrative and technical support. They help the group in their outreach efforts and have provided in their offices, space for the district. This allows the district a Statefwattrsket%h9+•se w terauc�li ~�?f np4erMMt7iirca•wota€ 97 central location in which they can hold their meetings as well as a contact point for citizens who need to get in touch with the group. 401/ CONCLUSION Things are still on very shaky ground for the Watershed District despite their enthusiasm • and motivation. Washington County, where the district is located is one of the smallest metro-area counties, however they have the largest number of watershed based groups in their jurisdiction. They have also been saddled with several defunct WMOs. At present, through their Aquarius r study, they are conducting a review of these watershed groups to 111 determine their fate. Several of the options that have been put forward involve combing Browns Creek with other organizations to form larger water management units. The county hopes this would clearly delineate the responsibilities of each unit and prevent duplication in functions and costs. Stx e f sVatersiveti;Wer t'p.ter 34xlitti rre.arcuger„s:rc#.irr Min aesota 1111111111111.111.11.1.1 98 APPENDIX 3: WATER QUALITY EFFORTS a I I 1 I `tate of 144tters .e4, used stlxter ttm.4Lg 4.14.1 i 7etirtai,00tx bo U 0 o pW C �, a C ,� E O UN , 0 0� ,N O U O v 0 = O' .o y •U U b4 U N E•, •'a F ctsO c z L: i. *.:' U -. E e 0 V y pp p 0 (...) E — a) -6 4-, 0 3 — Ts zi � 3tri 0T$. ° ° III 0- 3 ECCy" ° o 'a " U 3 oyO -- .0 "- -�w 7, 0 ct= MS .r� a �i0 ,_. . � y00z' a aio ., a) U t~ .a ~' w O �+ 0 p eti + 4-+ O � OU . U at tO r •� - bA y •' . . y . •. �, CU C aare30" � o U � . .51 ,1o ,-- 1 U `114 ON ~ b0 -' Is. • r+ a = •u. •. U = A4 bQ O .0 O •� cn 0rO . C' 0 0aT O , *" p U .r � t i .0 • . t., to ^• ,, y .• 0,0 ,i_, 0 OA (1) O p ,ett 0 E g , go„ c,.. „se2 E ,,,-. •,- •••:, 04 ,.., — = za" EEo4 = mooyo c°� fri0 .. o y o bA a� ce ,_, O ~ y I 03 w tiu yaw031 1 e�y o > a� . 4715 ILI !1 Zi I it 44. f. p tt I H way Ia � o I�)g.‘ O Val y O0 a O w C O U 'eV Ey 4.) z . .t: _ y co c3 0 Oy .,., to i as 3 i, ,w O 'p ia 00 a) 0 0 0p. , d9. dv r C0w 0 c4 5 I \ 4.• C.) 2 5 r; t g O. 0 --, 0 cl 0 \ .0 P—,-5, 41,) y w a) a1 Q yU O b = y 41 Q. v' .t, ed t ^ •, a) Ua) .5' sa+ 5 O • a) O 4.1 I ce -ria .e a a�'i go a�°i ,. " ani 0 '0 4 o C..:""i t a1a) i 11) aOC Ute' +' U 1' O m ° ; ai . y o p � ° � mCo a) . o ° 0 mi" a s IA ' 4+ N p = v 0 `n Ai-. 0 4-)\ -2 +a +' VSO y as = >~r LT. S� , 'O " - . pOA a .X0 3 . a,14 cg guh = VI s C0 Az \ ay \ ., C ' o es O hi Ire .� C w s S o ta 4,1 ^" O O \ -5s. 44O O V U -0 4.. •O O O I •.' i—o Po \ i ele^�I W a) I1 r et I 0.4 y I o � 7-14- N � 4 ON O = ami 00 01" cp va ,>« i Tx., cn et CO T U „:".q a) ctf w � z, -� - a -0 -SI •y O o c,� ': O ° IIIa 3 .N o .a; o -. 4 g 0 .= -0 O 4_Oi rx-+-+ +.� cFr y tsm O z O Icu co ° y > 0cD^ 4 E a) 00 , a) c O .0 O I O C1, = .-, • a~ 0 E W O , •= v- ° .O U O 1 .. 0E a� 0 ~ o U 0 ca o 0 a4.4 mi o in o h •"' � °` 3 � x ate' o o � N ° -a .. 4 3 ' •L^�' eo O U z. a a Li oWE •-. o y .o � app ts � °' ° CCI as ° .o 3s � ^'+ i0� = ,., 3a 3a. ai44 $.* 0 = 0 = • ra `, O (Jew —. 0 0 , tr' wet y am4 ° '.t0. 0 ' �. •vl •• E = 0 -F, = -4= E +- g" s. h of -. pCC O 4 s. >1 CO) ••.. '0 y = = U 0 w' eI tO =V 'd ° O s-. yU " 0 e-. p EP U euVU t1. y ' O v ,sC 1 ta' �' , 4 -3 .0 $..' O x p wUO " ° a. r. •:: O .O 04 co 71 IX, s� ° 4,) 0 • co c 1 t. .-, •�> " Oto 3 p y +VI E U-- Q" boo y bq bA _O s.. O Q --. ec vi et s,„ to = •''' rf 1..1 •g C.) V i w 0 s.. .`n+ O O y 1 cC c.i a) -a U O O •0 . ^C L J.r'i .C Q+ �z to Com" p w' •~ V. m" ,r te.' I 200 1.hDi ,' • •0 Z. 00 y MQ• M L. L0 c4.• II r 1 13 cm oy ' O.. CU a)a oE-0 op 0 os acid - 0 w a� y ap 4-, � z ; .E = te s~ N 1 O a? a5 4.4 et P4 lejo Wcen - 1--1o \*I) ci, o o cd 0 s-. 5 w fO (� 4� O • "" 41 O O y vi N y vi . � O\ .zw VO .a ' y O ° oco at I 4 � [� yO Q 44 y c:A 0 AE p iUemO Q � > � OceUcct Ovs, y1741 . , O5 C, U O • „ 4) 4E4 "0 "O •.r.) N � 0 .- u to O -5 O 'lee-1 . 41 'IM a 8 cA � .2 N y O y .1 c'` * = yb � 4 v cgO y p " � t 1 c4 0., N .,... .0 yr .6, >,..81 ,41). E ° N 1•h� t ¢ ° -o0EN p C4.4 gma ~ ° �a0rn •• %so0.4)0" v, o � cr. O. U ... .x z ' -0 as a) , W ' ;ItO = v °" y `13 \ ..„ d r-+ I 1 k5 a \\ LS, .r N = t Oet Qv d ,.c...)., .1 c: O ,,\% s -IF) 2 , I ,:,, t,, .6. „,_. \ ,. .., , I4y C \I IO , as :2 ------------ 0 d — - 0 Cd rn 0 Cd a) az M 01) ` tl) -0 a.) 0 = �.43 �Zy Q..6 i-.) 1-a 0 w T 0 T � TbA E Tan ,-, E " o y Cd›, ,,, cs Imo.. Q, 3.. 0\ co y • bp �' y o .1..2., ao coy "35 Zo � .fl "i yTj Ny74ed ZUWQ � )C N :Ey V0 .. 1 h, GA cd t3.0 5oOA N.. 0 y ... cd y cd o 5 N 2 y o , cd o IIH I—+ c.m.i 0 y ^ N 0bA 1 O,-. •gW - 0QCd 0 al a i a. 1 z 1 I DAeZ` O C; v 5 v•-• O .d41 .44t `sr d C it 7.1 N d lk yt 44h y ... iw i I I y 1 I C4 I N .= ..N.. V1 ed 3 bA 1 Od _ __. , r I a) cri rn44U U 0 = 'o a) a) TQ U N O U "� - i=4 .040, 2 .0 0. ....;#4, Off" +U�+ +.+ OA rn . 0000 :o r - p "Cl O y = •= - 0 lai a) Q am vUi ' + a) +-' a) y "� 'r3 Q) •-e i 0 = b �° ami . 3 0 - 'o ' 3 a i 0U � Q) a) P" 0) as a) 0. '� o at .0. `" dU &; j S. aa) a� `0 i at '0 a) � V) .0 ad � > o �. o» ter ern a3 �' Ci h 1. bA O0 w0 1:10 cd p O = .w - l i•• as it a?„� O W CI) ril v y p 4r at f3.'� y O 0 = a> 4~ 2 g ' G O "C7 U a� O TJ a) Q" a) •S. .= a) a3 a) p .' .O a3 i. '� O y •.. d m cm g- . a .-iO � yh Uia) p0U OO A4) � OO O v V . O O op' � - CyCC ; • • U a" N..wi � aUOOU . ...4 O\ Q. .1 • a O 00 MbA at UO p ". 00U o zzI I � 0 I o in ti Ii'co y 0 a 3 .H M ,� C ' WI �'I J. GM aU 44 0. at 0 4 0 w 4 0 0 a, 65 a)ac2 Go "O cd 00 ' tit at v, 0 1 I1 I ft CA CA Cd 0 U d03cto °ao q ,.cv, 5 ., 0E 0cd A � u A o-ti = al v"= 0. T w° c . 0 > Q '? nn c? 5 751 4c-,4 � - wl x .4 to o 0. � �� oyo h � . � •' to 011 Ca. 0 rA .U = sem'. S PA = a '2 a C -� y I, 46- - yoc eto o � '� � o , o = o � , wed , I 6 •o 1 Q a, c°) 0 o a) = O, 8 4) 0 Q Q. o I p. a TA o T3to.. o..4c°.) •o T � -c � ± ^ w 0 5 ad op O" 4-� I to vO O 0 m C 9, •0 ^ Q r O et O t N Oa) Z. C) 4 Z O O N Li. 0 -o o r. cn -o Q. Q. ed U -0 as Q, C-O 0 1 0 o 4) 1-, .0 o 41 0 WI 8 oh eS o a .0 � -ced ° 6. 0c [-Li 6. 4-4 ' a) el) `^ in N il y 1 VI 1i. Q II .... is -0 Oco �F ' 00 VI w -o ' 0 a g a�°") 0 y U C)� ND\ 0 O0\N Cl a. O- 40 0 Q T�, a PQ v] .--4al V 'o t) �ao� y 'a g d 'o y �o 'o .2 co0 .. = ,_ Ire ,, 3 0 a; -a0 ° ' E . oEE200"� o Ch � i1-eU Cr a ; Ot.n �U7:3u. o0= ' ao� 3 aa ° .yj 0D lb ° 4 .848tirn P., O +' CZo O U .. cd Tg • U ( -+ p . U r+ p c •� w 4) rn C cd = o ° °o ti 0 alLl ,.o = , . a) o ..o C U -o "o re ego y ..... v i = �" O0cn = U .� a, 0 � ^ 3 ° foo � �, o 1 0 0 o o " Tii 8 8 •,= 3 a U T � .., � . o Tragi � ;~ T3 34, U y a? O I O d p to U OOOC zt tep •p =:: U d „G ) O = y 2j C T. . O I yam. •` 0 a V • y ,.., 4 V M. C UO 4) •'G = d 41 i tddq U cr trA O G) ti ,:.t 11.ON, g .-. vp`. - C'E i r 4 a.. o I .. C I . 0 C. t 73 0 - y w 4 C --= 41 r° 41 -8 W I ed O4 Qt ++ co C -, I 0 at al f. (I 00 'C •V -45 N oA Ocz V] L, �. o c. O O tr cd 0 O O Is 'r:'4 to;P., w �° mow, oN . � y � i � � °�' gig .o . � °�'"' la' o 0 0 0 O Ocn bA O' 6-' Q,^O �,Z. Q rte, ill. 112 Ez .171 .yO U SEft c,dCn 1.9 , oh c� o O . O O O d 48 ' Ls. L. �� y� � oo -0s.., cn ..C � co„ a0 = 300 � .N 'E ° 0 .0" ° o IS o to FAct o •g a4 6. cd an — o to o .,4 a cid 3 0 t 4 { . O . p N v +p• e a E4o . �' T .� �. Tr�. 3aA•— � ts. 33 � oa, w � 0 0 to " 3 1 300tt .o a 0 oA y a •.� C) 0 ' 'fl O "a cd o0 d -. O a, 3 .5. .5 'a a, s . a. 4 •F, C E:: 0. �' �"" p , 0 co .^j tib 1." 'r-+ y.y = Z .r".. d v p ct A c 3 .F' a Q, OD G' `1 4 `� C/1 �' 4 1 44 .41 i. ce 8 o Ovi 3 •ird V t ami p te 6, Q. ISI E II v o . z y � '� Z �1r iii y •3~.i ci O V y at 3 o ice., O cd U , w a °� va — v, U O a) CM 6" O U O 0 .G O CNO V � ti O ' O o C O O ., O 0 ' E N C O 'O . O UV �. OtoO030 = OOi. . . -0 o y \D U 0 N a) tn w co O YO",.., .-: (j a 8 c `*" 5 0 � ^ 0 � • aai oo 0O � , - U � ay5t1 0 t 00. oi ° . a) CL an c0 p .N ��, y .� ti .� O O U p v 0 – •a) y r., o O a �,' an aQi o •� el .� °� a`i 3 -00 «1 t�. aA o 3 G 1 IOC• c v00 00 N 5 O LA U p •7.1 LV., N N p .4 o+ 0 d 2 O -o u) O I" .= O s. O ,� = a) U 9 s...-, U O 0 y nz a� O 0 y ' C' cm h V 8 V] O 3 S�, y ti E = a) 0 ti s"' '�, "� 0 O O +-A ed 0 ,; U ` v o z 0z ° a a) CO o ao i � aa) f otei. O � rO td O .O .. 4 u . Q o 04 C.44 W COcd 4 a 1 tt 4 eau v s� :kr o O as a. 44 M O O `� t. O ..' R Eel4.0 I...1 WI 1 o a O e NI W CC• .0 CO e O 13 ___ ani 0 74 nn ani V c O U W u. u. O • "0 C3 0 = ° "0 0 0 ... 0 \ CA 0 N a) y cC .O c� Ocd A++ 5 bA0 �t T3 cl 0 Q .� O c� t 0 O O c� V '_C o 5 y 'o ti y Q 0 bQ > ° 't 'G 'a 0 2 Abp�cd a C 0 p 5 cd ,., O O cd ¢, O r, O s.. i O "' -6 a) t .... I aQi a, . > O t 0 v t, - 0 = i� a) i › .— 5 0 co 0 I X0 0 a i °4-' -O � .5- a 0o cd -o a� X0502 -o w 'i0. VV O, V ..r w > .O y a) N vc° •i ^ y. a) 0, Oy ' 0105 p .r2VO ...g 5 O OO0 cd\ al O t '>ca. . O . ObU•�� a) "d viO a . .am II n aU ,., a > .ID ,za� 5A., 5o 5 , Oco .50, 70, T � ii a. T� w 3 IP 0 °� ad v 0 I - �. a I bO d ed 0 c) o•a al +' > O, s 0. o \cs a� a) 11-4 I 1 tra \:nl = 5 - 1 tt O I t U \\ I O w rte+ \1I 0 ed0 iii • 3N T. O Vi C i § 00 • M >~ ;6. t/) O I W o ,c e IU 1-� w A - T3a� 0 � A a0 o col as C.) � �, O OS a) : g a� y 0 CO co) ; ? g • a ogt o o •i WO r-+ p bq w i .I 1 .fl f 3 7. ions- 8 = E w c .a Voli .- •... ill � y .. 33 . 000 ; � °` . , � °�' � iT Ci 6 ni ty'v, "a, p .N ft 'o -� yU a�, ,� ami 4 a � � � °'L. A0� � ft- ° >96 ° •tea a' t � 41 41 w g. ,..,m -o § Z. " v ...., cd --, b,r, cn g P i .1 a aw w Ocoo9; � wAsy �' , - 'E I ce iI ,. i = E 8 Iv OA 1-, --� •.," 0.0 0 0 a)I i o a) 0 t" 0.0 0 0 a)I i o a) 0 t.) ^ > c 'p^ (> •t0 O p cat ►""+ O V -0 Q 0 Q+ +7 tea) 1 I ,= I �' rI bio'C3 MiaIIIIIIIIII I EMI o ' Q• w o C 3 -c I C s, 0 a� h rn Io C p 1:4 CC G �" «3 "0 0 O Ga Oa 0. x '000 U a, c? 0 -0 vi :a' ,cc 00go` zs i ok f� .E NNE ai ..tC <C : 0: TZ ,o w sp ctE ix Vs y y . " O ca O .O C� cd o O\ " O .ys" «t 0 a) 0 • 0 V =''' ,.0,--4,' Oa3cd a > 0 � Es ,. � ocdao ai � ' 0• ... c.) i 0 i0 � emO O aa) c0O OO. m p . 0, s" N "O t . — O' i� 'S .,..P"0-1 a)y 'a o O vO a) y p � - 0aU 0 '�deC "p in.0 >, > ety '—i s., > ,0 0 op = m cy,. ,.., 0 O s,„ c I >, h = " U -oO ea, a) aQ1. O 68 0 __, p �) .Ov c C6 2 O2 p,,P 4" O p, R ^ � y V p ^ O p p ~ y 0 -aN0a . M i �0 O. ° -0 -r1 a -c) g p o• v2, IC IF cr. li c as . , CI3 D y A'b rn O Ua) . ed OU • 'LaUd a 0 p �O O a) y E ' •O ,o > r0• N = 3U � v ..a. 4a.. d m O iV1 " O . = "� O - 00pc) octo ° .0 °a. 0 C0 v) T - T :� oEE-- ° . 8a1O � .4-, II '0 .O 0 .61 tt .1-.1 e�O • r" Oai U4" R, O , O � op z Cwc1O a) O - . A Q4 1 " Q'- �:w = r.,- . = " Ca.. y.. , .'4'II — c ; rO a -y"8 O e ° 0. � 4a > " = O 0.y" E . . a 2 y" 8 a. 0 -0 a) •• a� 0 ea '"• 'O p 0 p cU p "0cT y�6. p p ° • C.) a) 0 bA O c.) 4,11 tt 1ou y Al 1 L os 1 y al 1 = +', 4.5e0E 44 p O .�' oO ce O ...N4 1 � a ami et a G" I. , a a o E 1." c; 1 •0• IiA cit 7:1• 4 CI ed ' 7i Cd 0 CA ' 0 U <C r 0 J I Et •=›,w4 -0 cd OO40 y .40 es ti O ii•O �CUQ .� q �O �'. U "O ' I E UO 0)= 4r +30 at Et 0 cd ceC ▪ 'O ~Q..OU Ft Ca U O ele • Ui . E O~ S .., U a 0 7. rd y O jL ! ! O U qqr ` } 'e0 Ii1Hh1 . q 0" ^ 44 ili • •• *, p 1O. g ^ U > 'L1, CD > 0 ▪ > moi. �. Z 3 V +i' en cdMI 4 3 I.a V as ed ed O..y., ... "o .,. W .., en U T U "O ++ U 44 .4.4 .—is , 41 a w410 t4 44 s O 4. , 4 I q41L to 0 0 r. 44 4 tt a\ 1 ISN I V: 1 q 1 e i tat 4- y 4 -as0 0�+ ' ..., .Tr y ' O 4 I 4 I 11 Eo 7 1 � ' 1 }' Of) OA .^O N bA a) T3 ca, ), gl. Et t. 09 .0 .8 4.: o ,,:� VJ •O 'O U •R3 VJ •RZ iy " .�-r �+ E bA S••', i.i y g a) iii a) > a) .- �+ a) _U ,-�� a)r .O rn a3 � �,' qvj U 'V� i0. .r, a) v1 .0 ° -5w `� «s cn O «i USI U 6 7° ' =cr�Cr .5' ..al 11 , a) a .., 2 U bA'� E1 U U S .9.,5 co ., "0 2 0 U �O„,S..' 4 U .. 3 " 4 ' "Cla.. = U U ., . S +4 = o ° E a, G7 � •oC ° LO3 . � . H � .- � -v .—E • Tn. sacci ' T 8 4, w a) S � P. ' szwa� V of 1 tt ., .5 • aa, -r3 ' a-a)) 01 •= o .4 = aa)) ;; 4 O e ) , 000 = ..Jo � cnad , o^ g1 a L X 0 a) zcd 71, N bOA Q'•a cri �' o NA c) a) U El)-O 3 m 0 0 = 0 el •o AoE � 43y -ti 3v 4-4 .0 �� c. C E as u z. v; '75 ar' a)" = O 19 0.0 ad U e a Es • o A = 1 o 4 N s a • ._ es 3U a1 °o: . o •• o O a ° ce , U pQ in nI i a a bA ''" O / ^CI 74 D, 4 Fmi � 9 < � 1 "' a) -0 4 cn _ocn ma � - 04 4 c Ire aa al cn y � o ' c") ..17::11 a e y t .,-+ o 5 co flIt:' b0 O > 11.5 0 O O p cn c 1 i la �r .Na- ,4 •ctZ Vli ^i � co 412 N r Sap 'O+ V Qn .�q a . 1wV J 11 d" N N "O p , O O y0 rwC 3ft. Art3 ,a33 � T :4 _ O a, TE-, a. seo 1a -o e kln Cud .q 4. 0 4• .a O a)z 00 0 C inO w a)• N m0) . = 04 o-o QUI o E > a `o Itt • Oyy 0 .et 3 —, j V] B" 5 Q..-i.. o .. 76 a • a, -o o ' Ilo Y73 a 0 0 0 a C.2 W 15 2 4 i a & cl t.„€,.... O .#;. I WI N IO io 1 �4- a3 o o 0 a1 O 1~ 005 W II 6 a) �, U I a E o � � � o `O 1 0 .e -0 N 0 . ... 0 QO Ua � A E c = g c- 0' en a4 . .4, = 4rn a U' oU 0 6 ow •� -° 4) a ppV Ew .a 4 r..' O -O r'' • U v. O rU. .4 O U 00 v3 Ct. "O t], cn 00 cd cn U °) o 40 C — u.) b� N ♦•�1 =O •, •y i L r14� � � '�6 � ow � ' 1 i s0. y .0 O C N C .E E c2 G) `�' ti O O ' ti c'0 O ao ¢ U °' a 0 -o o 4 o bq bU. K •� Z �a0 0 'w o I0 L (..1 0 O cd 0000 Obi Z V w Z ? O bap sU, / c'l `ti ' C O U cOj y 0 0 -O O N cn a TOm4)4 a ° 3t,..15 }5. x S.X T.:3 7:3 O , ,345 y440 ' oN030 •ob1D0c a� .a ? a a O00o , oA s.r) re. aamt . ." ,: : 0 i:'. N O O, O :.' Ua, sE .= . edcsbocdcO � Ota4 = wcav) . c : — 4. 1 OCb 3 0 °-t-' t g ct O : g E c/100-. 0 - . ,... =4 (41 �.� NCn O cn • 1 .T. r o ° 4-0 o o IE 4,74 H Occi B" y L, U r0.' i., 0 N N bQ••N, II00 II E II y av .0 O r0. 4 :� � .� o y y II °' N i", y O1 az a) 0 III CC .0 �, o o f�4HU y O I 0 r w3 wr4 � Uvl 4 4 4 4 to I 4 c 4 w 4 a) p Hbhh yE C , ; . 1U 2E 11) o -o a4 ce 4-4 .40. o •may aE a ° moa' y3030 ° � 8g w1 � � ,..., , oa = eg . g .0 . -a O .. •v ;SI aa= O rn 'L .O -,:s +- 1 st c ., 0, v4. zov > 4 .� .14 o A To •00 Qa� LP 723 c ,�a •E 't ° t ' o, . • NO O 10pCr ,N 'o - • • h5 ...o •• a) >, t. rt.W -4,5 ta ct cT, 02 .-.,,. —,,, w4),,CC N W et - aOo > O v L y O1 ms o 1 c4 o O x Q �, tvD a.) tt 4 b0 y = .E 8 E = e.O o s 3 = s-, "0 s�, 0 t.; 1 w 8 °- CID 0" C3" yti S S cla cil 1 4 h O a 4 .:42= = U o 0 41 eg Eo 2 Eo0o 1 o w a - 4 i E›, I 1 1 1 cn� 0 I � t1.0-0 .00 - ; l -0 Ectrt543 `4 ,t (Drn ► � 0 A et r c,.., . y • C0 O p 0 000 , 300 ° .0 . I E = our. o c 0 a = rn :~ o ► a) 0 a) W y •+.., ., ,.. p p cd 4. ed .. 0 d0 O • -0 cd 4" 0 o 0 +p+ 1.y ° v 8 8 0 ° ^ o ' o g = . = o o, E N .- AU ... td L" a) s -0 V cd .s; a) cd -0 U ce 4.1 o = = C01 opo •5 ,• oo Voocicd3 ,� -mo o2 o � � r. o o, cd y rn , > vs 0 5, o a C U a, cd aa) �, 3 •.. 0 CO Cd Cd Z aa 0 o U' p r+, ' a�� A a a 'a,p to ., a a) a 1 3 � a .0 T <4 '6. .= i ci TT -8p - ct Tx 73, I CA p ° Z e bo oo � 6 ► r, .� Oet 0 o oa ° > > ' o o 3oo0cdcr-c:31 s s1 ► i U ? a cd ► CZ C o › o , 1 o 0 ^-� cd a) 0 = w t I x IN �_ � 4 _ c 4' vl 1 w o 0 ► = _i 1 C. tTA ax 0OD ami 11 tie - j I at E x a)at as 3 czj I a yo , y yo 00 bot a) • 0.) m cd R 0 O w° 3w00 ° � 63a � I I I I I I ' >� aCZ .4.4~ - wE EE w d a)c a. a Fwh 1 3 .5 4 E =I 00 T w y 0 1 = c° 0 o . ap I Cd., a� C) � 0 3 �, � la U ',� �O -o ti. t" �, +� 0 ate') O «3 s0-, .� 73, 0 " v 0 0 y .)cr w °' 7.1 x CCa � y '0 0 Q E 0 r✓T S Iiii .y cidwC0 I.. O c v� RCVv ✓i V ; C ° '-� h • cvi 1 0 .. edF� a ' o re..y •• >. j i E ao 0 a T 'g �. T 'w" C) TEwg CD (t C) Tc4e) °` 5 ., 3cdy s 1 y ° y � + ' ~ o •- I. -4-a Cd .rd s•. :171 •O" p "•' S] a) O r V V. .6 " cA a ) 0O � . ,G? ,..., O cCi O U .— .-04... = a ~ O w ot 0 •� N . te _ ° OOO00 > r.+ � O" O _ _ - cd O y 0 0 s." O U .N ce O y CD [0 y E 60 O E cd � O C az" az s S•'. 3 G' aQ ,9" 15 73 " L" 8 it O 5 O O 2 2 R3 '� ^3 C� �.•Q .i fir . I I ' 7. N as �" 1 S: O" E g .° O O S:. O r O 0 v A y a H °a. 0 0 s . a0 ai 0r. 1 3 ca NN ^O" qk I m- E 7 I i 75 4 le VI 0 0 0 1 a, bo 0 *1 y a w 1 = 1 a) a) il al IE a p = 3 O = = I to C.. 0�0 as cpsa) 0 N O al C W x x N I 1 I 4 5 a) 1. of) ,° ..g, -.5 ki -,:, i ,.... cs . sr Cgs 4_._.. a) 0 el ›,• a) 0 0 a) cC 6, 0 sem. ^0 ' ti O y E 0 ^0 "r v, E sN i-r 0 ". U Mt VJ VD n •,›, Ply _Q„ 5" - 6. N V-i U ad O Q" ;-, Q V1 .,^'-, y.� •. s°. vii o cn c P4 v . 4; 0 ``� 0-.-- ci) 0 0 •4. N 0 0 w .0 N E v' 9, E oO V 0 y N M E ›, bet �„ 55' •- y� U ��, y „�. T's 4,� L�y 0 •y U 0O 4 .yam 2 " rA 41 . B `-1. O U 9.0 cd 5 C. �. 0 O V] cd ti tn ^� •U 0 .�" 4 a; U ' y o 't7 O vNi � a c a� ".4.'s � vj a� � -5 g2 : - mo: 4_, y : : off ' v" '0 7' 9 v ~ 4 9 '� 4-v '� •sem. y 5 1 cn CA ' 3 8, U O. ... Qom/W .:. Q. bA.-�. .��" y W a) u, t• ' U d0 tt bO 0 11 1 1 .v N 0 9, O I 4. •o � E n, 0 a 10 O� bA.t s.. cd i cC 0 I S 1 0 � rs, zr `Z 0 ' o O I la - = U t� i, 3/ � 0 • m c w -0 y x •! p N4-1 II ID ,. r 4r a) = cfciill 0 D - . 11 o 0 • eg vl .N i 0-1 a) in 0 xx � vo ^aa ° =o = a `= o w Tw 9 '5 .7:"D' v; y 'C3 a) O y 0 00 O c� a3 ,' •�+ cct ^C7 O ! . 2 •J ! ili U = O aan E E O � ,4 y "O y � O ed = 0 � � -t' b0 +�-' fit: L7 c V ed . ^" '� 8 V 0 O --' 69 s.. O .� a V ° to 0 bA N = O s,. a �' o uJ 't7 00 •= ... � •qq z .�-. 7:3 s•. C • 111 E VO = ti Q. w V] ° 'Vi V' r'' 0 o a5, atza -og ° o ° a,-viz ° ao cc to 44 CA a ° h °�' s:3 b.61 ° ° 0 ii fl .hHIIJUI n'-�, 0 0 8 at s; o0 .= yon v w •zs W -o 0 1 olN II . 41 ItN41e..3 41q A 41 \ w .di 4. Fy .,V..ft y N 4 .a ten CC 3U00 ►moi < ,., I al 2 V i p O tG .. t� ..., O to > m '" Cr, 00 54 ° 4a tt ASU 0 --4s, ci _. .0Ute ?, +13 .� a' U (4 td 3 G 4 o • � � y ¢.o ': > p d � aceU t� O t V Y N bAV . ';, U . i- ' 0..0 ., t, 1 c ., 0 ON 50 5 d .O 2 ' yOon o i co p c0 a -opo aC . c a, .sE O . ' 0g 44 ' ,.,..,'.6 ' . � � . r. at+• v > oax35 � , ed.. x ' GUadaad0. pN O a Q' m •'G' an • 03 ' a' 'yr. h. a, 0 aa 5 oaVoAr N ,4N - 50' ay�' y ono �, a ,z o aD a. :0o a. ad 30 as cd U � w etc � Z � � aia � 3 .o c- 0 Ow ›.+0 \ c. tt p .0 a' op t • \ 4t- A �Urt :-.80 a s � by O PG > . vvpy� "" Ca 1.6 .17. +Ii a' N s \ ,1-1,.co O 0 1,1I o V O 00. I 1. a' 1110 Ch d1 v. c o , N y a' O ,d N sN }+ a0 � cal '. i ad • y AI0.0 W 1..*t O ai II A. ,.0 et a, •N m1 - tl�, O p .et42 �G — to y ca, 'a cfl a - a) " •.5 o 0 -o I w .0 Rt . o d0 Q IE = . , C ag ` �O fi Obi ,� �; ,� 0 .1.:.,) U O ,s �, 0 1 .O C t. w 't ao.° 2 C N O e� I' w 3 e4 k. .ti o .Z o) . = s., �, = moo Inn its �° o � � tgoz7 � t. ,,, a) 4. N O ; ice �ry 0� ? ti;.p 0) S O .14 O b O .W cu Cm w p V o ' m O •� .� ti q O .0 to r4 ._, U cu V ? U y I wy1 w d OOi y ^t O ao �, U U O W .o «t co .p a0i "�j -- „o k ' fi Z r„ O a,) O O'a bo cn = c ' C.L. qOo0 O U ,7 ev U O O O LL1 `. O C..= 3 «i 'Ls v ..e .4 y s., . 0 al 0 04 .S � oo o -vhriciI .y ^ g� - O ^ c‘, O . M • z t�_ • N �; U r.+ N *4 .= :if?i :6„., y 2 r"7,- a)a 0• �° I 1 SO. i d1 5 Iat ° Hi7 cis I, its .o aIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFcI I I oA vn a .5 1 U .?�0., III O ctt E w TOD4° � E 1.4 44 1 46 0 .0 ° t E E 0 = CA 13) a 0 v n • 7, U -Oai a aOO o • 4, 0 O �, U y y y •� 5 ntoQ "C3 'W N U E . 0 6, 0.1 ,.., de 8 .. 73 . N U LL C ". O �3 + y � "0 0 U W • �4 O ea 0 ca � yUiNU o • rnyR on COCO � .8r ' O (4_,1-6 s, yt H t. I. v N o 0 O c3 i 4L Pby ..' OO a) Q. U Eqg p., "cd rF . S de ti, tz, aI Cn t. 61 oen 0 � c ma '� a . y � �>, o 71 © " eel ISO.ti W ' \ ..3 0Wn 0b9 o `VAm.gur. Uo- - 1 3 V1 of}. V1 I a.'. N" O O ^ e. op `� $ o ani °�' ° V L., U E t ti Q.-o at s�. S t I 4» N vs 4.1 i C� H U to - o CU 7.0 • H . - a a i 1o Silo 1 rr a := qp I CSD y M N O M-- --- — I .Q t:11) 15b U i IIIc T T � III 0 O N i i CO •Il C .`n cd O "et .o rA ° �•� cct ° 4-4� • . al =� o 0 = ti Q of I ao y . -a8 ° ay , ocobPoes• ,.c Om so ° Cl. o0 oA H u. 3 ° ° v 4) 0 O y 4)2 ca 120r.+ 1 Op T S 0 8 IT „-cc " 0 ti ° mA° i +. o 1 •.. = >, a ‘. DO - � E te. V1 i.r 0 0 r+ � •IE• iiQg $ flUuit4 ,1. y o o -0 Q. I aa �illr' 0 00 a2 0 al = •y I , . tu .N Mil 1 3 ri) `t. w I CA = 0 OO a ap - p.y . H U -0 •... a , :r a p U r4 p N �rOr 0 1'E ,.. 'v3 r%) g 4.+ 0 g Do a .Q • 0 � nai s.. cu L y ., op p 3 � - 1-1 C.§a 04 C.) 11111111111111111111111111111111111111............. 1 I O t 11 0ri) 3 oCS W•1 -CS °ayvi � ay ... 0 e o° 32 v, Q ., : 0 p _ ti o ' t,) -c o I c,,t c49. 3 cA t3 ctv .� 4 'G fi i •la 0 0 0. � aCd . � . � o °� 00 ., C.) \ Cd �a4) E a . y -o -- i•:-:s. cn s, o v; a) as 5 o 0 cd o - p cg 0 oIt E 9 cd �O cv. O 3 cd y oto o —, a) 0 ` 0 0 cn 0 �;,,\ ,c., u. o g cd � zt '¢" U � b-d is y aa. e ..Q • s, , 3 0 Q. vfn 0 N % ,ocd 0 41 oaT� ' Q ° � 03 � I:4 VI ° d . 5 -° sQ. r T25 .8gcdc3i, ° cal 4 4 0 44 0 a) 0 g 0 -o .0 _ w Eal � ao I505 . . O ...4 U •., !s.r. 0.1 s ,, I $ I: in N °01)?al °G a - naA o .44 44 cA A 5 ... Q. � I 'I4 0 i i O \ : . .t..p-re 00,: ; ; r..:. _4-i, : ‘... 0 : .:' ,.. h. 4::-160::05 : 10 — : —7o ' 0 0; ea0 � o � 0O bA V ...0:0 I x z. I Oy let `" . ~ 0 o en �. " I e� 0 v t11 0 0 ° ;Od rii E 1...I A 3 � \ 0 0 ., oma ,44 I O 9." ° O E .., 1 E o Do 5 I tto C ° aQ ' � Q U cd 4cd _ T , CD a)y . C, .C v� �f w r3 II y `'' a) co +•+ ,.. U 3 0 I 16 ,E E Alo , a h) ..= c� 4s 0s (� „& o a O a) ° .� ° oa oA euE �, oxa, i-_,3 oa' E Ua, � ° 4Ay 's � acec ° � � a 33 � . ° = Vygyaai � oEa0w .. 0 „paEoA y� 0 . . cv .Eao4- �.� a' . Eo v = S o � w 8 ° ; .E ,0— 0 0' •' a E O 2 O t.iV30, = O O b .. O o E 3,FcC0 .c y, a) UO v./60 O ° Q. '•° 75 O C ' o ° 0 a,LM. 8 • '5. Zo ° g ii0iU U � ct Eel)o .«r ao s r.) t U E � ° •° ' oot ,,, .a � -� TET �' . Oc aE � - `da � E 03 Oa ceO L:: I. v14 tke WI A o + ; ZI 0-13E3 � .E4-,0 = 44-1 >> m ICS "CS 1' cd O" 'e' tt 3 ' ' 11Iri ^, a; w opo �.• '`o. 5 w C t. -r. Iau. .zS o oA0 ea . ark a, 3 \ !CL)Co Nel • .g b ! et , .y3 p 0 Ip r � ° 6 Z UWci 5 a) ani 0 u, o 74 on - c d T .2 T .0 ) fro "0 cd bng4\ � •� �O c� bA bO 0 c .E a) / O 0 O O O xCA O / *5 ON t 12 -C Lam., O 1 N O •� ys C N v 1 r g •1 a 0 ON 5 IP NV ' eaco a0y ` O1'O \ P4i OO "O -0 ci ^ , bi • oo 4... rn O O a O JO `nca' O O i Ot.4.t.4... 4-' P.. O •CA PDOO000z.+ 'O C O "C3 NO a a ry. 0.� O N ym, „ vb . w0u., ,,,-- 0 G, 0 - . •a) ca .n.,A., z •� -^ cr bO"I 0 ya) � O '0 y . Lr v 0 21, Q .�b ch , o O . .bd ti O O ON . O a3cd 0 y a - ,.a)aOc � � TTA �a o 5 F oo 3 . 3 a ' � E T.. O t ' v U ], L3 R. C. v I �. Z w I C ; II s� ,-, lO O I, ~i-' d \ 2 \\ o -4)� 4.0s O III I41 I L W � H I I 06it Nas y uIIuIIIuIIIII\ 0 I Ny to 2 \at 00 "C 0 W 1 la at = t ! P 73 -a3gg ccs, o O •y • 0 •� U >~ •0/\ V �." Lre ir U >� iii CCI Cr.y aya orn mow' ox = -c °'° oma cd ca y o : �., `� � 3 �' c. Cry 0a, .� a .a � •c;Cai > ogo `'' .coatoo 0 ;^ . s i may01, I em w t il 0 CN/QC itok w w aC i l.: 1 1 1 Ge /.fl I I ° 47, Iq ie tat I la il114 1 I .27a ge i II I I 1 w ec D � o6 tit Z4 0 -O IDx po U = Twa T . ID w : ...) vi '00 0 O 0, a O O L. omy I . "O . ed D, O d i 0 0 -o. a.) Ca 04 a) WI 4.) Ce o -0 as v c, o 21, , ° Ebo 24) 5 ..› Li) 44 V �'" ss, o e�0. ami o 'd w ani ' U °� �' °� . a� o E %D. y .2 ... .5 y it 5r cc U G) ri A - � Qyy+ ' v V� L Q y0� • �� 00 �j •~s"• 9 O v I e 0 O Q. g 00), U •9. is Q" 0 Q.1 5 cc f+ O bA.� O •O x" o ,,a le .nn N .�.., }G}d�s'._ •,... V1 S"" i '.C= .. ," ..-, `S� .� �✓'1 0 ed 0i i..� .4 O . _'" dQ b., O H O 0 W 0 4' �" O V E 5 O O t0. Q. O .4 .t c C.I. bA 0SCt3 "0 0 'O t"., Vi -0 j.1 v,) C� '.3 +�-' 4-t ii"-F) N 8 S' hi.„, ., ria.,-,,y O v 0 O 2 '7/ ti) a 6, U Ocn '. e. CA .O v -a •O M x O\ - C y 2 3 0 y cd :.� 0 .v, 0 0 .2 0 = 0 F t.0 0 y N - Q,Ta) O � T aa ° T -0TU0ve., .+ � � O . � Tam al 0 o -0x0 ‘. . 0y m U 74 d 0 c 0 bA ri O O .> O z y cc +-, cd 6.. 0 I {- 01) 0 0 � '0 0••-• a C, o°n� o0 cc00 0 0 'a � -� sq icn C1Os cel ( . -0O N — 0 :a y V) 2 O M ;.* ^. p O U ., p., j VI zi .yit y �" � y. O",.. V zi y � c +' O eo U CA0 '0 O 0. 0.f, y O s. 0 ,5 IA-+ V cn cp CD0C r7 -+ G. 'i, L 1-, la.. 0 3 ad o rflcd0 .� s0�. 0 o O ... 0 c0, I s~ ec .-. Mei y 1 1 o .fs' y" N y •yIII I = = .y .O -0 o MMP 0 1�•� MMa) 0 �j,. ON I 1 'U al U 5 ' ok -� •� y..' sem. " O .s gal -4y °�' U -ate 00A 'acn1., c W T aowUW ail co, acl oca toE E 8 II s E 411 V = •d U 4...;� `noy la' cd . , ,..i. .. CA CV 2 • HL � 't • . O c 2 0.1 " ••4p„ Lamy —. " o fo ,o =i 0. tai o 4.4 O E y yyO il0. a)o aO 9CiaO cL7 � � " o .. UU •NQz N -i 3 y 3 , „4 ra] ' flnu a at s. vs 4- a? a� a� vl cN o cz II -� 4" �. a� ti w cd z 4i 3 000._~ ,.. § 3 0 '+••� y Qo, = gq.a.) s.. bp ^; y = o L Q. � Q" ; �' � ;.� o ami 000.E °�,' �o '�. � 00 o o .��. s, o~ = -•. E w p p o 'O E °et 4 o .4 ,0 y b4 «i , ..8 o 'a *C ss.v. c., . ccs -° e cd 'E, T Q aE U I o en Ici 8 °v v.. 4a 0 r La C L ';h 4� m 0 C L F-1 Vl ,0 V ca E •N h etk at La O , I 1 1 II III bi)IIII C ^d • 0 OA 0 y w,, L. c0 y Oy ° Q. t. 'O '4) cd ° 4 .5 ''Ca y " °' -o 0 0 aoi W oed ai v i, o. .o c 0 0 NO "CS.'-' y >, '.' a� " Q.,4 or0 COT) �, � cA �lltt C. • ce s, O .� pip �. .. v C.I. :C > oa 30, g. o. 5 '5 ' 00.) boyoe '= o o � 01g $M � 0 3 3 0 ° •0 >,:� c'$. ° >01 0 0 y °,,' �;0 0 ill 4° • �. 0 0 �. o •— o ,. 5106-0, =. 4, ql Al t tk I •. \ bil) ra 1 -,. II O`^ M 0V 0 a o I , Z o t. I b I4-1 -,r111.11111.1111,1.1.11 -,r1-65 O 4.4 go cm t H GO \I I \ g i \ iTIS 2 CM et hi 1.1 0 414 I 1 1 eo O CIIII > p p cin ,_,4-1 = O .2 .0 es _ a e y el 1 > -0 o ' S'' W °� a; 6 ° ani -o 0 a ° = Oa' c ° -c c,., N �s a� 3 0 �y 0 Ts o y �" y co) o p —a' w 3 U E -c ... ... +•' .. •-• Ll, 51-. O .�" OA a) y p a3 ag e� L, cd y I ;�, s°, O 3 •-, .c y a .fl-4-; 2 �4: 8 .t. p a) p a) ° a.. y c0 1.0 cu Iia "A, V sa. V/ y Tc) O °' caW ,. 00 ° y .y 3 T `.w � � � T ¢53 +; co .. T ¢ E o ° 0 3 ace 61 Q) t.• t 4. — ro ti?, 113' g 0 -a e—_, = 0 i -4 o • y Q. 4.i .ego a) 0 ::"2o v! a t I'o las y1� og p aw o O V EP Is. p Z 0 1 0ed ot �." ct cd coy liz bi gog pc rn ;112 = T as U T c'"%1 Cf-1 _ Wo a) 44 P-1 ' U .= 3 O of +� cd 1S," t", ^C U R, -0 3 174. as g E3 � U E Iia I a) 4. • P a) 44 .0 ,0 5. 1• ^ I � OC'l "ci 44 U. d a+ b ' g ►-1 OC) y i, O o 0-, > = 0 E .— o cd -5.. .;.-.1 •,,, a 0 ON -,-. .1\ ad U C7 Ta, � T .ry as Ile' �� .., � .� a ,t • o•Y G ....•`• ' . N+ 0 • 1O tO •e _ \ .--• = 4. + �5A v p U o q . 5 4 N 0 h > -O -o Q S UO O ..t 0 en •C ' O 8 r v •-fig+ › O 5 O ^3 g •a 0 g 2 "3 ^c�' ^5' Q" AM M C 0 U 0. 0. 0 o 0, y y � � ,. rt .. +4 \ 7F:. c4.4 cd p O 0 a)00 Vi C) 4.4 U 0 I a coa= g 5 g `" eC %-. � 47, rrA \� tt v MOM° „, w 4. O o 6.. v, 1 o I brs a, I M 1 O CV • N \II°:.c e_ '.z. .t C) O O y C 8 I I 4 :1. ms 41 CI y e c� a v. bA ,,., a0 o v) Chi 0 = "Cf =cti cA m'C ›, C .0 ,c O M ;, O U 3 C cD R, = a) ecoE 'a : ar: I ; 41)61 7.50= i.:15.:1 0:I .1.14.:1 at O .LO" .N O 'bq tr; �I�, 41:30 . 3 — U -ce .= y S3, 0 V •45 46 y , O O CAM ccc o 'cc O O N .y C 0 , -6• ts, ` — = 7 O �U g i,.„IL: 026. ..,,c, ,..it 6,.,,,,, i i vd>,,,, . g ! �,R CC .0 .1C t�. ami OD CO .= .� ;04 0 CD, cncri.--:rj -i .__,,..)4) '� 0tt . ECU w, .c �, C -o a, c> `a — = 4 e iiii.E0, g •2,-, 2c u ›..... •.7,- 41 —6_, .;5= 40 O : !..5 4 . � ° yi " 't] rn . c, ^i := .fl ' g O Op O TafT Ito y a Et It 1 WIIo MI 11111111111111111111111111..1 '.$t s Ii CD ----- .....1.1.11.11.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111; 4-1 I I VI ; w I IECm a I= la wE I.Ny e w a L 1 1 1 bA a) / a) 4. 5O O U ° U � 0.0.0cA ,T5, a) , : wi 0 = ' '0 01) 444 ed 3 n E — � � moo ... 45 a� 3 .i ° ed maIil .0° o 0 � ,y "0 0 t ,� O ~ ObA O .. • Ts a) el0 -0 U ' "— �y a0 a) Ti, y X • . .0 •.., O ' Ovi' "O O 'O O ,q, 1 y e, .. Q▪ O ' cd O .. zcd ti ° .y, yi. a) : 0r, 0 > + rd C O O � a) 0 . . cd.- � O E 4 ' 4 .E m Nn 3 O o ° . ° oV mnNn o cd ° ce � � sc ›, � aat -cA tt alO •�+ Q„ .O - •vi U O O" ." Q" E E •O +1 . ril 5 n -0 +-+Z..— CO o 3 mi �' C4.4 MI c a1.., 03 ▪ ma . OT3 o , .� V] p �. O a) .442ai ; "C a3 O t3 •C '- O .O .�'C5 :. •Ut `c .O OOcdOO5 ... •1 ,y. - 0 •� 0 -5Otpyoj ta. rOv 'O..t. O ‘gt. °) * . O fL/T] tr3V g3N . O ° 5 • T 4MQ.. a� .74 .1a) . H � 4. I, 0. � � � ou �" cid -O O N 44 y 0 \ '+I ` 74 •rA. •r, .O c„ d C .- y6. 4s,„ 6 M "0 y >. . U .0 co rA pal Id s., o m a7 v, a. at by O a., ^O O 2t4-4 5 ` .2, 0 I. Q., v, 3 0 0 Cgg' ; = i -.; d � o O v cd 4` 21 I a) y w vt N y I -sr: ^0 i. 5^ O 0 O ' V a) O Q. 8 a) ° by O o t, ,.. o ,S) ,p ca ,E2 Ucc -Ci ° -c5c°) -0Oc°) a) 5m c3 u. ctooano I .' 1 0 44 o d 4 E o4 t-.. p a Z � — — - -- -- - — - I 1 tto C W , 1 44 0=,- tel u. 44 ril ca 2 1 O O y • •q co o• ct . ii ICI tj O •�0.. v� N v� is °' °' .'" ^� ss, .e E o E o 0 3 � �; •= gt „ 0 o o . 0 = o cc°'° �' CA y = o C •Ct E 2"' o g gel 0•�, r'5.+ V� ; c � ;> E o : °o' aVoi CA ' '•fl 14, o CA C 1 Cid «3 0 0 cs a 0 y i-� a) 8 ... -5"Cj G L t a) •0 ami y a� 1" a) w' a, y Q"•= o s. E Z '� i •rs .� a) y •y "0 w = 3 o y ..N4 y = .iii • .S"r �1 y V t'" .r �' OR • � ccl 1, .r = r4 a asC. 0 " 3vv .7, � • 3 ^" —01C y , E Z-, " T - -a ioT .d i •-. UT WOT 4 . xtw.rn d y C% aO a tik yI °• •r e cj 0 asti I y Zli V 1111.1.11 N 4 I 4... L., w I w I at i ~ y i 1 0 o 0 1II N y ag 0 y 1 111I I > o aa) .CS 4-, ) cd IIC -as 0 0 0 I 0a ° ' ¢' ° II Tvw � g3 .� .� g . M r 0 A y = , a) yr o ° 3 � o . °'° ° im .°38bA a) a a' °wC ai + a O � acd aO i ,00 .4_, $-, y , 0 , a) O 0, m O "C p. flU p a, CA a) Ce a) JD 'O .g y U 4s y .rr h U g p N 3 a t - cCj CA co F. LUi 2 0 '8 �, iOr .... U � �"' '� •�-� `3 6~9 � bA � a) cd •� y Lr U � s� a) '� U : .. 44 En : a) �' tt y= CL ^ Z b0 C 44 tap, .0 ti cd Q) ..- t Ucd "la / ›-11. B U o N OO . ev. ...,i.ID gi„ C.) O d a) , .. e: y 0 cA U e ° .4 ° .= z a. y .a; � t 4) .4.-1 V O 4 0., ,c ° .^ O = a0a' ri) " o 1 oT ° a a o oT ¢ aa T F 3 z0TPL, 0 ci � � U oU ct a. acdOa. 0 PO t as 0 cd. 4 '.. O ..to E U cd z M t v O a�p �oa 5 .� N = � ; y_ 0 Cli-'y aA oOCr y . aOi6, 11O ' '4,- c y 0 a (1.) ,..t C13 6, y y ci.)_ Ivl N E 4.: s n. U: hi o = OD Ei0+ No z1-4 c -rs a• 1 ° ' 0U o E, N Z CA Z 0 • 0 t ok as o r 0 oo 4 4 4 ° 0 , ate') bo ° 4 o —›-.1 ..c t•., L. 0 H 5 0 0 a ) o edet 00 w 4-4 U y , o1 oaa .= Ucw 51" °�'cn v) 41 rn '" 0 I 00"0 rn r� rn 0 �. s.. bA 0a) x O G" 0 y CD 0 S. y '� BOO 0 11 oa iitr O h41. •._, 0 �� i �" C) �1 ..V •-. Lr V rte'/] . (4Vi ice+1-i '. ,i; '; r�/1Li "W: .° 'L7 "c: y .fl :=,.: 00 + hQ41 - in. ° O y °' .� a) cid 9 > 0 i }" -C$41)0 ,0 `� O a o , E t) > � r. = C4''' ' 0 � 0as = P � = w1.; = � � fl .� ., ., 0 0 • . cd Q • E a3 `., a a 4-'' 4' $ V' a 14 s . C p a 0 --- 41 3 Co 0..5. ed V L1. O cd A -0 0 0 411 C.) a)-es En "C7 = s. .= "C3 h t-.,, O .i.., U 0 c O ed .--, L.. t O Y' ad a3 0 U 0 ... .0 bA.- 0 0 03 E = ° o3 "o c ° � N waa � tee � 4. ` ti ceo'o ;� z . . .. e � � oo ›•` E ; 4 oA c� 1 ,,..4 = I O �, O 1 = 1▪- ,�, c Q O• as Q, 3 WO 113 ›' czt O O O cd ~ VI �, d y 042 Es "O O � 0 t.+, ed FL) ' . N a, C 4+ cd s. +' •z a3 tHifl ta . c9 > d Cy U+.'O IP 3 0 0 0 as 0 z3 � •C -" N83 � � 3 � .0 -0L 03 X03 -� 0 �°' '� ... ICC R3Q0 0 �. RftL � CCd . V ..• LOd- ' a, ,,c?-i, - i aO O LO w cd � "0 5 y t, 0 O O ' OO0 ' •'C • C _. tOell O V NI• O O .. 2" as + 2 0 cis CO -4 3: as a.I 1 h. 4. r "cd � Od1 al"-a' y Vy y, al. -be . 4. vl 4L p6c. 60T °' y � .0 .0cT -z • �; -0 .. TS• > a �' T p. Q. �,.= -0 0 0 t, o T �+ t 1 z 44 tt G @4 a: a Te = O I , t. cia .11111.1111111111111111111111111111 .,t. s ril I s. I 4° It a 1 cr, .., ., 0 E N y 0 0 a 1 1 .44 D ' C '.a •W 41 E ... 00 ,.., � .on2 •� o49 � � ° .188' xaoU � a� 12 +1 o •1 i Ocie) 4 ..g .511 -733E8 g i :,..1 cr e,0 ,- re) .-ei, go 41 I 4 OD , w 0 L'4� ..n 0 I � .o 4P i 11111111111111 t xt IL4.1 II � IIIIIIIII.III la as I- z LI 16 .re) N E 1 es 3re asL!L !L vi 5 5 % 1 t+ - 3i iy O p a ,,,) by 1 w Toa. aaad ca � ,-, auZWy ' u, -d 0O ,"0 y 1 cct � a� : a? p5. Ox ' av `� cd0a) •. a 0a ai 0 c 0 ._ by• 0 0., •s. v a) OU ) .= 0 O D, N4:1 3 U : .� •^ O II I \ G p aV rn > O O v d o i. s" v . 4:. P. � �, - 3 vi o ° � "al o "c'0, g ••io 0 00.0 C.) g 5 o e a 0 •,- •,i = p. 0 4� s.. =' y bO v «3 Ca�y U ' N }, C 15 3 . O O z ..) . 0 eS OrO d 'U •-+ 0 io 1 CC CC0 > I "4" ' yO > 0P-+ ' >> ae •"� IO � gya) C�3p Q -C I414 •4 ,.,,, Vl t, 44 IhI%h \ t4 r 0 >+ al3 O c .2 \ r.: �• ? Q o o o 0 V t a .Lid 0. \I 4,4 Lr, \ . .. O h CO D G) ..dCIO 00 H 1 r a N cn -, E 00 01p a) ... 0 -0 rn M a) = ss W :~ -.1:1 al �' T ao c� OY i 1 0 ' ' N M O 4+ y =0 Q1 y 4r + CK: +-+ $ a) p O 17. a) O y a) ss. A ° U c4 4 03V) °I ° 4-1 > o • o0 °e y = a) a) . •0e '� ~ /) U lag i • yo Lim ! o arn . a' E a mai ° ei y ag c . cc = . aA � -,z1 � a � 3 �-°� ^ra 0). .o .yaA.-a y3 % � 417'; C1 a) y Ow 19 QN ceL ^yRiQ0 : N C +i = 0 CO cf3 a ^" V a" a a . y i .EIs: g M c6) p N 4r y,O co9 0 -o 4.. 3 - II b0.0 t{ 4.1 c. CI e. N • 'I F43.; N O : OO • 3 U C" p ca) ) i0 � 1:=-9\r- a3 =O U.aZ $^ I4 I 1.-. = .-, a i 1rA rise U+ ° C Li i 3 •• . co o 0 y = a, � a = ate CA ti) st,.a 5 M I m tt c� s I -wGe 42 g a) U cy RS a �, 0 = I 11 1E' o 0) re E N .L' x w ... ,� cO 0,4 coo 1 Nlb4 1 � C " y •O •�Oaa � .0 .y ---- ---------------- OD C 0 14 o -C 0 inO ° CCCS � rO3. O U vi y p ) Qy tV1.0 VI «S 5 3 ° a) cl c -, a ra .., ..° U «S .-..e. 80 O o~ a) O U O `n ^) ch O bA ..c y es o. .., e) y 'c) to cd 45 ci tb'v, E Q. U v O � 0O0 v ' ,,,,0 . b+ 44, C l0. tai" O 4 • cd) 'A O Cl., $6 CC ° ) ; , • . N . O � VO CCS O ) .'' y •� � Vi. t.. ws~ r. vi r., s. U g3)0. 8 ^C n 'o }.� U ;' +� U ?4 C3 O ~ r 40.+ O O O 4] cid U n a Cs = Al U N U o: I w.� 4- in H O a 6 4 y ~ ..r M i } CA^ a. G ee I -ta .11 cl NA H O O • II o! i 1C 44 5 41VI 1111 i 44.1 rD+CL t+ 9. a al N I y 1 E st a 0 0 oQ Ts Tri to U "cl o > > o3wo > > � T0o T ' Tt36 � Tc › iwc'd 0 bq^O ..+ O O y .U co , ' O -9,, -� a) a3 . cd c co 1 >.. O a) ,_, •W I I. s, ..' I '> a3 . p,� O Oy -0 > O 0 -4 U oN 5 .2 y � ' s, rs LI .= c4e) ..! >004) 8 4:/eill" 44C6 C9 .-"Cid 4 e' en 3a-o � � � � � � � 0? a� oa� �, 0 3a, .,,t- so. ^ 4 = .5 o , 5 Z y 5 0..C •IP ; ) 0 - -o a o O 4 D 0, Q 0 O O .O 0\ > C" 0 O A. cd ..; ,0 = g O N 4 4-' 00 a.. h 0 4t v •. a) iHIi 4 e. 1Y. O t Q:- tr N a °� E-+ . .....5: E o a�oi 1' `:� °3' T O ° C7 'o o c .., mt tt 3•,�, o a, a 44 IJ WHh as `...� v3 :0a. 3x .4 s. I s- a) .41 Ts U j O I 0 .0 0ftti cm. ,-0 U 2uo a, `. c°� y � 33gt , N Ai t.• 4.. an co) W ^ o U O = .. -O O A O 6 .fir end V us N L c:' ri N 111111111111111111111111111.11.111.11........m.— 0 bo °` ObA U..., "C$ 5 M . -c-a W ..,t . › <4 ''' '5 vi c„ a Ucd '° ..) 4 ao0 T Teo T .2 T 0 a N ..o to o •5o 1 • • +' y 4 'a .8 '� m O . 0 o bA , L 0 I' U;.11 :: bA s., 4 5 . o eicA „-..,:i): v., at 8 ..0 cg c.,). t 8 0 . 2, aim 8 ,- .4' 16 CI .1.6., e ' a g14 .3 o ' I �” r •y y oig - .� 2 tom/] 5 y I' it 4) '0 o CH �✓+ 0 a� �+ .� '� N t'r to I a' i °d ani o �,.o08is3 o iw 5' .,,.° '~ i y W o 48 3 Z ^5 Y Q. = o 8 is'5' 8 � a� Z aoi � a cie rg a0i T affi � �° 5 Tc� � 3 � � �c„ Tw ¢ ° 0 � TUH 3 T '-. -� \ u.. o �S'ii . 0 0 I a h +-`y C , tt i+ 1.4 W) 0. lit IF..1 WI I Io I 14 4 z I 0 I a IIIIIIII to' W U T OV1 0 C .G .O l ed �' .- r4 O O 1 r! a U . U O G) Q 2 `i 8-, .0 Q „ U tay " IiO 00 : ft , wo -o = w ,,, -o ..' I.' s. O '0 IC/ U = U r'' U . 0 .0 Od m .. _ co21 I U �vr 'L7 "' p O �-+ '-•� I d0 Uil • ! CCA rn E f~•q y El y 2 "rd ,.. .s "7„.' = c6' 'I:: LOy ' i .. O O E t" .� O OA 4e° y U 2 U ' O U s.,, .L ' w U .r" i 74 'aw ' � � a = ' ' ' t.Cif• CCb' .O bo y -U ,�O 'L0 O Qy " "� +° _ U ' y U � �"U n co "4: vi v" + 'C = 4-1 I U bA « O O04i� UUa .ycU ^ ""' 11 w b4-O O m- � p .c 00 ca Q O 0 :5vp 0 ,, 4, 8 � � 0 �- I 6 i = = .2 .E 05y 4.. r.. 1.4: i 4.-+�VUtCO +' g " Cr O U w " ' S,aV O O .= S2, Cd O" oU C.) e woycoo . ,=- o Z. 4;1 i L` o. i t I ,t; p n 4-1 ' Z V i a i0 U O _O UhIIIIIIII aHrz, > N a § ami DE a 5 5. ��05 °a � >w c a4 0 I. a ›, p sae i •' 9. a) w °- 3et5 -o ,6 « g. rib 5 -o ons o ' 4 w o 0 0 0 to O .rn is „ � o i y z 1 E aoiO° � i - 0 , o •� O °At = -o 00cd61 ' oO ° a) ° �I 00000 o 0v)00o ^ 0 380 .- 0 ° ° n °' 0 0 " .4 0 •° rte ¢.'o 6. •" o a. �.- a' on y o tt / ,ca. O cd 32 i' p ti ^o V] bA 0. yi, . N U , o t� ) y -- O ° (7fi�' OQ �. 0 Q" -0 . � v bA 0 -- d III ^ o o � cd .5 •O O +`�' s- -. a) . cd V ' . ., pvi y ;E.., Cd • 34 Sf _o ¢ cc1. ct y YO 1 C aCA b�0VC Vail % O so a� " as � 08 .70, aa. ) t t g •t 7ii „,,4_b a a ir-::' I z� C I •' I O lit-44 Wo I� it V I es 08 J• o I y 1.1 h 4.1 2 tu N = II .— 0 0 cid TUa 'z .: 2 co I 0 ,7, 0 o Ca 64 Imml Imo'+ ' � ' N 0 O44)bp� «iI E 44 —• .cU ° � '0 2`� . °' � ce bp � o -cam k. i iI ^e i"r Qr.= y V1 N y .y 2 L" = 5 M- .3 40^ J, 5 it =" 0 "Ai IEE c E o � ; � �'' Uo `l a 0 ce eD 0 •-. •,, e/, F•O � 1 Ir, o o ' o c, •.. 0 O 0 ccS E ce O 0 y U 0 �l a, �' o .o a c� a� 'zs o o w �°'+ ss.01. = w �" 0 t3 Q +''i t:-.- .. LFT tH O , 0 y E U N cC E ce ry, 'L- 0 .y 4.. 0 �' _ �+ ....i it h+l . ± F. .'�� ° y .D t r a O �'i L" 'C3 G� ~ .E M~-1 0 O 0' it. �+�r g cu L� t. cl, " R3 y 0 y +-� cil 1'' o. ._ g y. p s Ls 'o c1 1 raj' Tao �' 0 ' ani O o h v N cis y ,--. bp O 0 •� O bA tS C �" p � 3 o co cj cis µ Co "O y I� V1.11, •", CICSyI 0 0 .� 0 .J tiii S1 / ye , O I V 00 y a °" o w 3 8 a © io .y 1 09 2 0 3 �j -o au 3c � o° li ami o .? IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 45 w oA en I 'oU = T wo 0 •0 •., O �•� 0 o o 1. 0 .o E 0 � -o C, c, tea? .� N o ° 9 0 v ami 3 ,z , a ,4 O 01 •o °' to 0 �°0o • rAu., > 0"-N. � = r� rn ,� o � o � � 0 `"I o, O 'o o. q " � o ¢. � � � g ;� �� ; .., 0 .. Q, 4.,I 1 ��r+ o 44 o .., o o �. a +: Ill .i .� 0 y.+ 0 y .^, r, x 0 8 0 0 "O 0 c� ,rn co 0 • a O 0 cj� ,�.� i i. 0, to o 0 •U 0 0 O U 0 V O O a.., ,� 0 .O to N ., 0 •0 CD ' e •c c3o � °rilo' 4) .mxa3, 7:i CF a' ° 8 �oTQ+ � P4a+ o0 ,,•4s, yau' T .4 Ia. 3 0 a) tit 0 o 0 E 1,1d 1 \ -.-. .� w 01) we, © 0 . I I s. o .� o ,t. ,. o - 4-1 \ la I� y f 1:14 t � 8 � o 4 o a, N = = _ � 14. eu r4 y wa CO CD 04 .0 tti C2 WC " w a o Aoo w -: 0n-v ° 0.9 o.. = ,. 0 0 0a� T ,: ct .�0 > . T , • f/1 O 0 0 •+ N 'dp O s" ? 3 C C y CI y •yS4-� CtI , p .L ,rO •te:$1, 73 -5'P.4 > .-- ,-,-' -0 `;'' 2 .1' cu .5" .r. ''7 a) +41.- ,-. I ed ! = U .N —/\ = U .r y 0p-4 . Uy i'1 O y 'crt c4 y U 0 . ; o tI. go 0 g I 19 d >, U t, ►r+ y .1=-12440 °'d mo 'C Va % y r O Q 'i U O EC Oe� 4• .. i. 44 ex ' icU � RN .0 / U - y .04. Q 't• 00 yU L ' ' om , a 'fU+ U +- y•.„ y Ll, «3y4O :r "CI CeS V:)"O ...� CUO bo p q O .0 U• p U — P ad .p .p 8 p " C yUU x ^ O ,a .4 .1U C� v U • o ai •r i '3°� g 2 § „;e • x i t z w° $ 8 i �. U . II 0.4 c� ag ° :� � � T4 Q. E ° � .N 0 U • . 1 --, a,N y T ' i 't7 C44cc O y 0 . .›' p U jay °a 13 bQ U 2 U ..•, 0 or R V 5 •r i� O .--� U es 0 U C U v� U = I K on QO w o' O U . b ° 8 U y -2 • I 4.: I LJ N oC3 ' R 0 St w ,44 •8.2 t• E . i. 4.. O p Fr v`; fie "0y g ,N ce I 1p. 2 1 O O y et R7 0 = 1., z «t U U 2 "bcat y a I i I11-14u= w L a 0 � bn5 d � a 4.; o T -2 7.0 O 8 ° Is W _co °' - nli v 0c30 .4 ! at ti -111 .° 11 -5 ..t 0 ° I O. Ia.' 0 a) cd -d �• 5, s., 0. cd cd 4.` TU 0 „, 4' FA cd ") -a '5 ''S q,\ 0 y-o "5 ° 0 0 0 0 ci •cW o 5 -°'c • °`' 0 1 � w a *'' a) 3 O 0 s) .-0 O Li cd C -6 O cd i 6 v S I *.< V 0 cd -o o cd 0 • a cd o O 0 .0 .? 0 0 N .e 0 M 0 "0 0 ^" �O 0 cd ^O 6 "0 0-4.a y y rA td �1 . 0+ iA y ia'.+ .. 'Q" ..0 N Cd a) N 0 •Lam" •- 0 0 on sem- t 0 04 a\ .0 -- ,... - 0 0. -- tA\ •,A J333"' o 0o ° 3 � a) r" °w � 4') � : � -� �o � v. a r5' 11" -4,- 1 0 aby O acd C:1" 0 rA a' U ca a b w I coa �lc, 0c • ° o0N ^ 0 p y ca o. I s - � d � 04 via I •o .. 0 0 IIS h. r. O v II c B I %,,. I a.. c I D It E y ... 40 N y I1 ---------- a 04 en C aIIIIIIIIIIIIII "a C W as 0 as cdVI 03 0 as O pp `'' O `. ,"., 4..„cti v U -, O U 4- U > co ^ a0iow � 121) � ' = c = ESE' = 0 � 0 1 ,bo '" as = ° 8 ..c ;.�5. wa��i - 'c •° *; § 00 '= Eg.� i Ta b ., «t c o - a'q4 0 ° sz•O p O e §S w v 4- v Ii ° 0; 0 «3 0 ,w w y 'u 44 a O r. 0 0 01 R3 a, 46 U .� > .fl e 0 E 0g 0 .- Q..-- -.._, i 4" 7'' .-.37 4 4,, po ..„9 Ls" oc,) g E g ..ci, .2 .= Iii .13 • CO 'tsOVT 3 � 1T4y to:CO 7I � i c4-t II N , illmiu g ti el 0 Ul S 1"X 1.°,° c I Is,.,,,,t, ,tt L ,t,... ��c, is 1 = II 'v~ a I I co to /1 CIS E J C eO w Ii0 Ci -0 420 O 0 I 1 D is I0TaiIII a t1 te i co '48 ›.. ..., › ct ... ,-. ,.., ..c.) _ CO OO 2 446 U HU U O H Ca 4+ O UC '� O O •: a +� mo3p ¢ 5 ,- i. Cn I. •ca .z O N s,E..-, O ' . «S ) a� Ow mt4 46 j y 0) Va •3 -a �. o av o� 0 0° M a> s, ,� a t. h. a) � 53U N9 � a) 11)� ¢„� aIa � � r., -O 'O a) ai O 0 ' 'C3 a.) 0 2 e3 e3 0. a O a) CA .ego w o o '' ,, ^0 0 -.6 � 4-4 0 -o—.-A.5 ° o 0, Tcis0 3 7,- T U o p. 0. 1 � w o ` ' abAO •TTI •.40 004) O Cn ., M Oti ' tio 0C p 0 Ob0 pON " � v, = � m ' 3 �tv ^ � : a. 'o • s os., _a 0 0 § ,..-, v a) m O C� o. O O O I O O C41) 1.-' = 0 .." '" 0 = \ 4:' v c` \MEIy •F M :� ice.' i I I hi 1 = o t:k t -- g 8\ 1-1 h ,_a o o li O 0 GO � . O "g �0 bQ 0 ' 64 z t3 , avo i N .ret y . aU 0p M I C at M I ii C 0 ="I 0 a ..5. ; 4' 0 = W i I I. 1721 0c,a0^O -d O o v at =I o 3O0 = aI, � ao °�' 2 $ 0 o r o, oao' z -so cdi ,� � � la 0 .� y � o � 0� `� � 0 _, � 00 •.. 0 0 0 0 0 a. 0 c. .o o ap Z. C o 0 = �Qn co 'C �., w' ,•�'4. N ,..0 y 0 ._ MI 0 .0 W co ;; Cr O 4.,,,I t$ cr wyci � -o030 1iml."gel -, 0 000a ir , wy - E4_, s, rs. aT 34: T �Ittt v4:9 u41. tu I Gin t tt h 1 C w 1 41 4-4c i i O 0 V. tlN V zi IIIII.IIIIIIIIIIImiiini -t- i t. t...„ S+ VI q O It' I 11111.1111111 iC C 1° 1 1 baiO4 o Q 10 a Ts 5 WI o 1 ; 4:9 Hzvi V En C T3 .a) T ,•.� y + C' .td, 9 9 o il'n -o wc � ° ' CO �� 0 Ii • = = oa a. Os-, GwEC3 ogo met .4cn 1-4 o � o5 tb � � .4210Aya v� ] c .. � U s., Cr Zel 4464 44 4) 0 g4 oa, .pp�� a� a� ° = �, a� rs, a� ayoa� � ° � ' •ti a p ° oA o C a¢", U : 4,-) DA...? U .., WI II o: 6 a� of 0 a V '0ct ce U CC 0 y O 0 0 V ice.• 0 O Ccs 1 y$ 3 10 `� ' � o 41. o 1 Cr w o VI a) 44bo 0 a 00 o 4) A = 1-. a � = = S. a? ) a) ► N .� a 1 .1 64 ._ Ca d�1D rM .° � � x i O a ° R ° N a W o�0t% 1 I I r§ ie a) ti cd ott ° ' 4-o 5 i a .� y o .s v 1' — 4) ‘.. ,... o 0 4 �0 oo rn 4. N Ln(0 C .0 .0 00 0 of no ' E 80 °1' 1°' . 3 00 5 E O C ..., ••• O 0 4, 0ti) rn s; ce .0 f�. a1 or 0 O O 0• 00 ✓ 04 O . .0 0 cd O 3 N .z 0 td 9 �i O ° �0.. CA C ed 0 O Orn • oh g 4 1 E y t. y w ,.. O- "" 00 .,.. ad (L) 0 0.4-N4 i—i ID :1-' -I-' ea I- 5 4.( 0) ..1a. a 4:.1 .0 a, " t ..,•••— ,t 3 , i. , •^0 0 CO, I "4 a iz) t. 0 *CA" C CI 0 VI .4-) 0 -0 ,.1) I=1 4..) v 5 .,... 15 s. ..0 O cd 0 ... 0 3 r. .b 0 0 �+. «3 ti N y ami a a�i p anie. a w `0" �� 4 411 3 t `/Qi G) a T U G) Cd .. 00 00 vO U °�' Li °. °�' w 1 QI V y i "LOQ z4'-. t.-- 'rte Vi g 5 41 C'r",, 00 p L" CC ice. rA cal �+ 1,3+ L��". •�. M S .- `F 41 411 o a) -- 'o d 41Vi 0 4-, 0 RS 4, 0 0 4) e-ta p U •O V .a U y 3.0 Cd O p., = ' ' 0 •, G 44 E �. O t E 0 0 .0 . •Eti X = 55g ° -o V sem. v°i A. Cl. .�+ 5 I 41 it lift 9, 1—i in cr © 1 ca N = 0 C ." U o0 ee ,h4N ' E•4 .r..1 = N p GM 0 CD C/] S I_ 1 1 1 r dr I 1140 -14 att tiO vi I7o 1 5 l w T a) 6. U at 0 11 VJ �. : . o � '" °' ° ma i " owy � ° caca � � ° O 0 . ' e� , a ocoo0 ° ¢= � o . , at as a '0 = - - yomTyyg ° •� `o � •cace = = EE 4 0 g 463 a, � oa � oa110 � ° o ° � o o-541-30. 0 ,208000 `14e), • te a�4 ? Ft, a I v.S o CS :4 in _ • •o� ; r- et.t i... 41 1 3 11 `" � I - -, Zi 10 lin ! 0 44 • o • C O C > r U m "0 , .c,.i t. i eu N � vt 4.1.i. rig., O ; 17Cd eDCU tO � c a S tia hi se 'c O a� I vi OA• CC 15 I UE• O 1 1 00 I WI 4 r3 O r',^ V. 00 0 to 4, ass at c" g A OQ V bA M 1 -o rii o 0 ci O O I E N U 0 y V L 74 yca C+. = 00 _ 1.0 CID 411 sem, � 0 .2 oa,) g ° 3 ›, I av owls. yon �y0 0 • at 4) '� C sm. as U -4 T A V] y . C L as a) .. to 0 i� O, g "C 7.77: O s., :13.1.,,_.;:-.1 O _•c00 IaL i O O s0. �Mcis U +-' • ,� O a 4.. 1.. 0 .0 3 -ci c) .— 0., 0 s. � 4-, tso % O � � a-c as w a) '" o a 3al '+ _ ._ p y , 0 . HID yg ,O aikia Ji 1 o O „� s:a y a) t1, et I 1 y C .r tan . ta . . I ,h 3 li. c = 3-4 W. Oa) cd ›, E. 0. -, 0 0 aa o as C . as f�i lb U � OM° ID E -o a) v Tet .Eyw •C .L s"" CA .O a. an O co .. r4 ] ) ~'0 U fiO O ..ma 'C 4] �) 3 ° O ~ .� y > .cE o v4p oO .o3 Eax � C WI .fl > a) 0 C�i 2 CO CC3 y Q. R! 0 O = !3r 4rczt y \/ U 41 — i. y z~ 2 = c� N -X i 45 E O O r ct 3 ..E � p a) a) V O .14 I • O 3 c..0 y p C C ti 3 3 [-' �, y0 "" p E ..E a) ? 4 cd 5 z etz TUw Ts) cu es 5 3 c" °' rn O rn O y bA cold •^ ~ cc 0 'n cd oma'' ,O y o,�-' 40 i. Q% .� cd "O � Ch 3,.., •o e a, = O z To o .H o 0 ,9.. t' !). - r< 500 -4:10 "0 § by �3 *a. et � i;• V bti) N bn wy c1:1 O O N@ o, ,1:3 O x CCI 5 O N e}, O 9 0• O "O VN ed X .0 � . a W 5o E .045 .0 � o oi moo X 00 50 oma. ens � �. . o, c � � .4., O v .0 .N „ •I. •4. ••=1 E a I cC O cd ^.. t O e 3 5 a,-0 3 . °,3 ss,w geo-a cd 41 s `.. , ... 00 I 3 II'vs bp 4 ~ N s � cW I Ell I roe; Ov°� 3a � - o O O O a)o Lit O w O a) cd F Gq cu to• a" •a T TC) . N �-, C) e4 3 TSN Tal E . « Eo t 0bA . -s aas c ig .°�a y 4.) 'v v 1flhfli ;s m E . .��„ 's� , U � i a3 O )U e, a) ) . U -- ;51 ?cU—2 a ° o . s,.CI a 0 a) oa) A O I1ii 7�' Cr = ' 'J bA U :4 ' en y .Z = .4b4 . 9 � y O ..• � 0 O aa) 2C.) .. aO ...1 I. . O C 0a OeOt ' ^ " 4.co= v� O r7,c O rA `i' bA cd O1ic P. a) •U w .. bA O v� ws-,. •o : 71 TA mt:1 z ° � °„:, . c. , os •= a ' = � � 0 • may .� ° U S 44 O Co4-1 A 0 S II C �; O y •y.O o� ' 3 = 3 �O +.mt •� end tt 111 .E .�. as bA•N = bA bQ '4 e� a " • ber ' = 'OO Q v etA p, • N � ,j - = O. - OpqI c 03 COal r ° t-' rZi CO '� L' 0 U 1 Ga .. 4.1 �° te a' 6. •° Gm •• O el cis 4” •O O O O O 0.4 v' zvCD dU CCW et et OA U I 1 w \ a) I 0 .i y cn a) = .� ee et ftb0 ,4; O � � 3O 0 3 P......0 va O - .., w T ¢ N Ton T IAL, x a� T c 1 CS o o a) on o .0 o o E � o : : ! : :,,, 757. .i I: •,..,•••4 : .(1),.4 1.) .0‘.' : ; ; •; a 1 a . -. [A Ce 0 o • ' O •g O O aa p , + r1 .r a - VvO S1 .= ON Er yN , a) O O -OV . cc . O i °: • o5-'o ^, y ; 13a10 °omao °; .E,gidU8E •4 a 'o .- cI, gi.2y5W � � o8 4. a, -800s.. o � a. 3a � a°, °; Ts,:� T3y � � .ET � yE � � ss. u :� T � � �cy s a 'S N I b I s 3 41 I w 4 a a 0 1 o x 1 ,4 I „ I 4 1 � n / 11 1 ' Iw 1 C. hi j 1 E Ca11 VI I I I;Eao e I N y 1 es .0 0 coIl c E a)• o 'Cs > Qom°' t I i = ..... . 0 0 ON cl.) 1S ;y 8 -O O rtA ° e.i vi -� +O-+ o � 3 � �, .c � a'"i " c ao8 � 3 IR o f .� 1 1 0 0 � •� 1 = � ° o -vow a! .sta,t Z ' e 8 t3 °' ,..,g1 c 3 .a� .& '= a 3 .te a) o � g �' iCr 't7 . 5 lT.+3 4-. c°, ice. 9�C +-+ C/j•�C U r•+ y •^, cal g ,2,,1 e tt) sa.•—•, 1 L. O O V 'L3 cOC Nom, V ed .I !C ` 3a �. � � � Ts,• � Tbog '3 � . Ta, 4.. 8 a � zs O O T x 1 s R: ' Ce '�j (1.) O I al 1:�, e i N 7, 49 'O '- ON O 0.i O phi acn mi Lecr's co II -4 vA i s-1 c CC C 2 =I II O.ZiE=I .cc � I � :, . w a c o V" y U 0.I h a O W o y O .. g a) w al 'L" ...V.d0 3ui.i wtl'Br h O a 5a � I on11.1111. G 0IC I = O I cci io y 'v� �, V 0 y ch I'D cn s. cl y viii0 rn '0 5 5 0 U O 3-i Vi y y al y OO ,l O �O g tIO.O • `d y 0ata, aPO , 4-. 2 ,_4 0 . P., .?....) ."§ .-N 'in 4-‘ 8 g .40 C1)>' 4:19 0 I 1 ; 411 b �o � � � u.-� - 411io � o 6) 6) •o •� a1 � a�iooO � oT � .� T � � w �l x �# O e3 T 4. 0 0 3 c 1 p, c+: v Xa 412 � �p 0. .y . boo .i 74 .0..i '71 5:1,, ^ 1VTIO bb/ I Ien a .� o 0 on -0 0 o . - ce O o C .. .o T. o . v = a E � � = �' 'o s \CD all ••••I �, o ss, q, aoi0 I z, i. p N $i �r y ..= 0 `'.` I 'a \ o g y ae U -o 5 I II _ 4 = o a r 0 on 0000 ~ y I o 1 I� I II a� w ooh yyy a -� � li 0 .fir y 4 O c� L' 00 11 i as •-. c.„1 1 - 11TH 44 ,j � ri U E' go .1- L 0 0 0 14. ' ' 1In w Q °? C.) C•41 1 1 s cis Sal e p U U U >_., O ca CO 110 C E L�., s.o 09 16 rn U O r.+ a) 0 I. 2 0., E Ste+ y ' cd /. U U �+ O "3 V '�' O. 0 O 0 i O =O 75 0 yr ,0 .0 y y S�. r.., 4-) 1,-/I 1.., 1 E 0 O E a)"O 1- by O 00., U L-" U 'C tt " Qm. ' O p O 'p ..., p q8 .N 'O 0 o av 0 c O OQ" 0 c C. U = NQ0 - . Cr M � - E .� , . . 4 E r' I. Cj 0C _ OrO g � O U ;:... E ' aQ .0 .. ...„1 . U yfir — il -0 0 01 .'.'1 - ~ O aUaV •�-tCOC"II 'fill. e 0 4, " O O p .i OA . -ms Q. � �'y >~ o Iy 0 w C "" 0 4.4 p 0 0 G O IDcp 0 O I to = 8 Ucl O 0 "O _ le ' .� O co ;45 O O• 'er r Vco A N W 'Ci rn 1c. ta `rt6'' CA ~ c 4. s. O 6. s~ 0 00 o O U W C 'Li Cr a) a 0 - z Q Ate' o x 6.cA 8 N h• .. at 3y °DU � hi hb ~• y . Lel " o O � m III I I I tI cd Ok , 4 0. 0 U w T 0 1 03 ° •4 o to - 1 41 yi-� OM , M 4-+ .,O 60 •t" p ! iIfl .0 ,° > ›,;� i1 1 = -v +4 0 a) ,. a) v) as O cd •-y 0 3 ... es . 0 .., to 0 0 A O O o 0 6. ,0 y ,.O i 0 CO ' .�i4 x.4:1 -0 & M 'v' r tom. • ^O .0 ci y -O 1 t .t '^ � on 0 y • bA,� NN . y ..y . � }. � i Zt . .y •. � OO .3 •. > Q O T . ) asi. O o 0,0,,, n3a Tac, � ) cw ..o � � T .0y .06. 0 -. , 4 4, ��, L 03 U 33 , E 044 I. .. II �p • dC ra a O3a O 0 -O O 2 O t.. a i 5 O I vmi . ii. s ' 1 e t I O , VA g E O 0 '�= o1 0 C 0 O 'erti 4,4 45cay C — c,. 'v� to w 0 4-1 -r: 1 , o ° 1 0 a 0 Ge w t.. a) CO es 04 0 a ��30 O 41 P lo 0 oz v cd : 0 = -,7; fft ,4 ' -rd' ti) .—• 4-4 .^..C?, r2 ,0 E > -o ..- cn 7d C-.) 1:1-1 0 0 0 0 c) / -0 .0 0 o rnC)0 o o Ico 10 eu o --. o g_, .... .0 -0 0 0 '° -o . � I. cd ani a G S dQ 6 O . , O0 in ° co 0 O 2 N O.W al c4 bQ 0 ° V cc a .i•. cC V V] 'J 0 �./.O CCS y • .Zi t'"., ."� / � ;. .fl h 0 z p I. 4 U 4 0 0 N 04 E ."" O ' o V S . . to Ns. N N T by N 0 ao1-cd Cd) +. 0. .4 a~' i.mic 0 . ' � o .a000 A 3A ° 11 I3a 0e .-a . ° T = o O o T, rA s �. ¢. H . A � > yT3 �aH8 8 x 0 a 44 0 0 y 3 to a a tup.4., E la 8""ri) cr' E g I ki = 44 0'V .41 ao zi •MMIN4 NE. O w o � 'v -3 .y X ° w O .a ^. s. O w 00cr. i 3 ,0 ,al 1 .4 In 0cn `t alCA c rn 1.: �. as m •52, � cut E . `C o L' w C ..Nn y xg V1 01 3.. • I I U = Aa ih aw �L70.71 5o `lam_1 .59 :.o-- � sem. U bA= 0 O 2 N .. 6 b-4. o ^o p 04 Cri CD 5 o bA ct ... U u boo cd0 co ^p .to 5 .0 o. as as a� 13Iflh10IiHL !3fl ' U .Eo aw." 4sTw .53T5o3T74 44s to o 00 bD o d O 4 O 3 I W C d 1111 I tke 0 a III y Illcuao E , = ›; y I 1 - 0 ° 1 t «3 c0 c E ci w s'~ t $.. a� Q. a y ° 0 a.) -w cc -o l °' 0 o z•� ai .•."° -° y o a ° °r r «s a o �, a) a) 3 a a) bq.� U c ° ° = O y pop ..., , bA .° °" "j ' 'C p„ U al ' e'4 .= bA 8 by bA -6 U O .4 '-"' 9LH y cli •. 0 R 4RO 0 O i 1 ' .'F, b0 �. aabA yy„4ya) tail" #- .= .O y :. W 1..4 O C a) CI) �,•n tt ' ax -, � oe a)ti WQo �� " = AS -. 03 . . = .oCS " � � c 0 > i- f a 8 ara^ •72 1-,-, N y i-, y •y �0+ O _Na Q) .S~.i' = a) ° a, -u 3 s. 3 T ° ' 0 T 0 "0 et TC°G "o T ° = xW o � pp ,'' 6; 45 COA °I: r E bp y U E �" 5 •,=, y ;O" N., O by y ,, i ^" O y O O O .". 0 ei Q O �,' w ea ar E ° ss,.. E., a -441 I . • g vr o o XS o ° ; may er a) 1 3 L. ,_ 'r: Cs. o w ° a) U f' r I w• W U N "C 45,� O ...,• ..v'., E 00 { b64 w- AA a) ,-i No o I w a) a, b I ri 4pq � 3 . � ct) al 5ys"ti - a -O +. ' pO o a) .5 O a? ro •y 0 0 4) g -• Z t4 `rA ed E +' . ' 0 c° - 0 ami pN, •IA.° ° gU .EgcoOc ° 444 4-4 • •�, i"+5 1-4 ca 44 O '�cel 'n8 00c �wzc a,A cd—la > 3AV � as as do so aas op 5 rn W Tc T T crl "t70 p M „� .. 6 cd 7,4O = -5 N ,. v� VA. 4r 00 O O O fy i8r p � �. ��. y c v bA s.” O cs. sem., rn �l O bo �+ .� y by U O a� a� o 4: .5 �; y Si -41) •. ' w v0• t ° = • o w E n-3 0 y es} . o cs " 30 _ o sz,. . ani •O a� •� ' CA CA = , p. 4 6 0 Q. 0..• c,) ani N W 6 cA = 0 a) a� ON . 0 c. O o •—,co +-' .� O . ,,:z .0.. ti cn cn w bp .4-, .''"'.. by 1 O O cd "0 O O « .0 = U n O c a. NCO ;� E '7 . = . z co t. = a. ,_, vo F4 E .s >^. o v •• 3 =� oai oA vl co '# cis 4. 0a)QteU cn bo ar. « -1 ' E .O tO.• . a) O O. S V • " • O 7 cd a) O O O \ OO Ov0O ~ 'L ON a) a) o a) E .70 O O L. co ^ .. U a) o Oa) by . . CS . 4 3 a0 . = Oo " •. o VI = O •.. >, .1 o 00 •.. o 1.1 tt .• y0 =9 00'. OAcd= 00 y 00 yt $. .r, doO 1CA y3 .5 . t •y " E r 1-4 4.O 9 • tA4 oo v U .c et' R.' a. C+. N Op � U 4 > • ^ Oo •O • • i _ • �, N a ON •- '. '.— •s.. O •,.. — cd •• O a) rn • O ObA � . N = .. cd 0 U 3C . O cO n a � s.. 0 S r. O � a � � . Qa) � to pa .To aacso. 30 -a ct. a' .�o � E a .4 Za s. ▪ i 0 ti 1 aii ° a� 4+ = CIS = -:s O '. w o "- S ri! .6 WZ3E3 ti 3 a' o cl)_ VI M c = 4. 41 vl s.. a- a) O s. cd O v. C o 3 vi 40 co E, as $.. O N OO 0 .E : • o = 1g •2.. N .r, ,,v S ctct O •C ;: 0 3 •' a) v. by O 00 �" rn 7:3 �, .fl O O y "O d �O �' 0 V 4 = D+ bA .2 �=tit ^� kn3E „4 .,-.ct 30U0 cn0 C p., -0 0 ..• ..-,-0 -0 0 O ti ._.., 0 C > rA •O = O «3 > O N '15 ...,(10 `2d� 300 � - 0 o �, a,) •:1 › . = *a .� N ti •t c� O CO NI -6 CA x a o •v. 0 • 1UIpa � yOA0 anio I-b ? N . r o ~ -oma O •.F -' wp,n °' •-: c 31 .r ea act iEE " ce. W O 3 ON a r3 __, cd a) .� = 49, E t N 8 .5 ° c •z 4~ = A Mt '� r 4-4a3 C1 co 0s. �+ V O sr +� ^r > ry+ C"" RS 3 ,' C� y " O.. spa U. 0 1:11"0 0 � .ct4 � a0i0 � _ - ,•1, CA CO CISz .0 a. o00 °r � � w �,, 0 mar; a.'o^� o � a� � .� o y cA O J^O ' O — 0 . O O i-+ ... r0 E 'V s aq t� . IW 1. � L � � 0 � 3 0, = :moo = gib ° = 4. = >.,-� 4 =�,y, 0- 1-, 4 j s tt 04 ria x N C .r 0 t.I s. v.w a Zi 8 ,F d- L i. z c CL t. H Ge O y N y Q w 0 0 a0 Cet flit o RI g = T T a: w No � w o y C $.. o In cd 0 0 0 7, rn +' 'o as 3 0 8 AS vCi 3al vO +3-�' O y r`n� bQ•^y" cd "Ccd3 O o�- .. v-, a) .O+ Qtz,+ cd ,.00-+ 3O.. l° oo RI � -o � � -o0vo 1- t 4 = Q. i. O 3 0 .z - . 0 2 o ' O`dEvc,, Ofl`1q IQo ,a,Py :500111. 111. :m -a2OIworn bya E ch O r 5 '.° "RI o .'" cd1 — O ... al IS c. by bU Ts aOa12 CC: tot . ocd61Nac. xo. 4r/ . > O 5 •z 0 o o 5 r c y .2 o 0 s 4 -0a�-.;^o 0 gm R. j � a) by"Z O U s. p � O � a mbaOoDO a _ c, a� a 0 0 � a .So bA ad n �V ^d rU �L cd U7. y O O .0 .‘"0 OO } O O ¢ ' U %. 0. O ii � O � -0o cd 3U 0 .0 rn . i0t T3 +, 0, = c-) 1 4 S C - 0 Cl 0 w y E on O �O p O 0 0 .0 O 0 S� C varn s-1 O E en " 4.4 .' E Q. y " . Oy N orn O 44 a) O N O c,$ .. a) ,... f., 0 0" % S w -oco a) -5003E co ed l 1 • • au o0o —, xs 1 N o ci.1 .: V) N r/7VI I. O o 44 = 0 't3 E � w o V I E 0 0 � 0 tui O ~ 0 a da` to 0 C b0 «3 >, a) o i o Fm+ 3 E tflfl 'w " • e4 to -O O -+ ' O ., a y y p C � O .+ ..y "p nC I � "O C - , .O O • U � .O N U ' =UC Ow , -0 0 0 pU � cobqC� OOO �, O •N T �. 0 w i •L�' 0 0 .. p U O u" ct 0 c"'' '4-' cid M p" U p O y 3 .� •.y, y ." c/' +.a ice, t.+ �.. 'O y 4 tb }.sO cil D -1.2". = bq U h E aa9 O 'C ... .0 O0 . • 'b «t 4- = o -0 .i, y c Cr VJ LI N �+ 0 .0 O ° .— t+ %I g "S y O" V� U - U O 43 °2 I.U y �"' A 'L7 .� OD �O H �' a) O O y y ti a) �" O,^U" S ..+ a) t•„ a C 6, O U U O 'bA cC +4 E z to O~ ' «3 a) .N 4 .O • " V O O -� Q p — >a, a) s., t.., a) to U s.. a) a3 O p +., .. i O O. 8 A ,0 0 C y ed a) 0. 'O V� 4 c, O a) F, . ; 0 =O .o j = g v, _`' a i .., C/] ed T E"•• 3 U U 3 „p �, ; , p a :c o ° a" -0 a s •., i s 1 1 to a a a i'0 = I et low 1O a r. 4, IT `o? 5 L ;h cm D I a. I-0 1.4. I� C O y H• E ,.t2, h 1 qpp 3 L O w 0 a • V C �.n .: N O T 4) 0 N +-' -0 .O .-, ai by t.. 9 y O FA U 0 O ed c� 0 O U "O ..., O 12.. Ge 6- .,.., x <-. 0 0: iHuJi° flui tik L c� 7:, 0 0 ce y s., 3 o p Ori�Q o o .•0 rn �.� «.' .+1 L a, .•0 o 15 '~ N y 0 = C) G CG G ...4 c,) 0 .4-' ..\4 0 7—, .Xti •c74 Tal, a) "0 - ..-• +-. •-• a, cts Tams . o .° ..fl . °' w ^6 3 9 o .cTecA ? ran A � TUI _. s O e 4• O L" +,+ I n C v 00 "O� ~�•. T3 T as 50, 3 � r� .e , 0\ 0 ct s 1 jel 1 q 4 3 0 3 -„-- 1 p GiV OD e r1 �O Ct' vO ed O cd -•� y ! t ' tSin 0 oo ••• ' 0 0 I I Le: h U I a, t 0 I 1 4 C w E N .G' 0 c 0 3 •- � � _ et esO -0 = h. I • HrTIHI U , .. O «t ^.O � y+' . ecW V L O 0 � � O yy . 4 - C II v 1 « Nto, N 0 t. 1 1pb0 . •y '8 g O 1 i . IDS I O y .. x. :i ..� c. d3Ea.w ° Ps T y ...4T3 °' Lu aI I � w d low 1 1 1 stl 1 r 1 = cA , 1 4° y 1 o. :di II I ° E , � I I ea 142 10 0 177 APPENDIX 4: WATER QUALITY EFFORTS BY WATERSHED ORGANIZATION* • 11/ *The organizations engaged in the described activities are not limited to this list State of Iva tersi.eb sec;water 13 ,tituFFianage:,u_;2t-in Minnesota 178 leentrng niiaiiizalinus include' ter quality al ti�us implem nt in A iiiue N.fiiiiies(tfiii.. Agricultural runoff -)Land-use BMPs (generally [leading to implemented through cost- trientpollution share): River WD, Heron Lake and •Conservation tillage •Clearwater WUD Prior Lake-Spring Lake WD,RCRCA, sedimentation] (demonstrations, loans �MN River WD for equipment purchase) pp •Sediment basins , •BERBI, North Fork Crow River WD, a RCRCA, South Two River WD 'Terraces e •BERBI,Heron Lake WD,Kanaranzi- Little Rock WD •Grassed waterways •BERBI,Heron Lake WD,Kanaranzi- Little Rock WD,RCRCA *Buffer strips 1 •Cannon River Watershed Partnership, Clearwater River WI),Elk River JPB, Heron Lake , , WD Red Lake WD,Rice Creek WI), Sauk River WI) •Cattle exclusion •Cannon River Watershed Partnership, ' JPB,North Fork Crow River 1 Elk River WD,Rice Creek WD, Snake River JPB, Yellow Medicine River WD •Channel diversion 1 Elk River JPB, North Fork • RBI BE RCRCA,River WD, RC A, Stockton- 1 Rollingstone WD, Yellow Medicine •Wild rice sediment control River WD structures •Red Lake WD *Incentives for CRP/RIM enlistment -*Clearwater River WI),Heron Lake WD, Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD, Okabena- -*Regulation permits ermits to Ocheda WI) ensure that protective BMPs Sioux WD Buffalo Creek WD, such as buffers and seedin. are -Bois de , State of s tershe4 int•se .water 63,gitri frAi.pwi Wcn+in minrs.eSc' 179 anted gin: npl.'ementmng I :un .lam o anizatrQns inetude Water a��ht3` : S4lntrons P Island WD, l {nnesot . Buffalo Red River WD,High II dueRed Lake 'I established Middle River-Snake River WI), M Sand Hill River �,Roseau River WD, Two Rivers WI), South Two River WD, Medicine i 1 Agricultural runoff • WD,Wild Rice WD,Yellow cont'd River WI) *Nutrient management Watershed River planning -*BERBI, Cannon Partnershi Whitewater JPB -�Bois de Sioux WI),Buffalo Creek WD, � - Ditch improvements for waterh Island WD, qua Drainage including sediment Buffalo-Red River WD,High River basiny, North Fork Crow River WD, basins and traps,reseeding, WI),Red Lake WI),Wild Rice WD � reshaping,buffer strips, cattle exclusions, and monitorin_ -*Coon Creek WD,Forest Lake WMO, .Regulation and enforcement Minnehaha Creek WD,Prior Lake-Spring evelop: W ai La Metro development/ of development site permits in Ramsey-Washington order to establish BMPs such as Lake WD, purgatory-Bluff Creek WD, construction sediment basins, silt fencing, Thirty Lakes WD rock rip-rapping,wetland and reseeding replacement, - Bassett Creek WMO,Elm Creek WMD, Recommendations to Lower MN River WD,Mississippi tans, North Shore municipalities on project p Headwaters Board, zoning and permit decisions Management Board,Pelican River WI), Pioneer-Sarah Creek WMO, Vadnais Lake Area WMO Coon stabilization -+BERBI, Clearwater River WD,Rip-rap Creek WD,Elk River JPB,Heron Lake Erosion: Pelican stroreline r/ WI),North Fork Crow River WD,Pel shoreline River WI),Red Lake WI), Rice k WD, Sauk River WD, Snake River JPB, Upper MN River WD,Wild Rice WI) - Buffalo-Red River WD,Elk River JPB, Bioengineering North Fork Crow River WD,Red Lake WD,Upper MN River WI),Wild Rice WD I -Rock weirs - Red Lake WI) e exclusion - Cannon River Watershed Partnershi s, -*Cattl State.of Wa.te•r5 %+4 bused.W tea'v taitti lin.PI,nolevf4t in.lvtin ne at 1 180 Waterq Solutions Alen rated in I SEE l �tt#e pleAteAtiang organizations'Include► Elk River JPB, North Fork Crow River gi WD Rice Creek ek WD Snake ake River JPB II -*Gabions -*Coon Creek WD Creating shoreline "North Shore Management Board development ordinances as a Erosion cont'd model that counties can ado•t Habitat loss ' Wetland restoration gi Cannon River Watershed Partnership, Clearwater River WD, Elk River JPB, Heron Lake WD, Minnehaha Creek WD North Fork Crow River WI), Prior Lake-Spring WI), Pelican River Lake WD, Ramsey-Washington Metro WD, Red Lake WD, Rice Creek WD i Pur ato , Riley- Purgatory-Bluff uff Creek WD Upper MN River WI), Vadnais Lake Area WMO, Yellow Medicine River WD 'Trout stream restoration/ration/ -1Bro preservatio wns Creek n WD, Valley BranchWD Lower MN River Forestry stewardship planning -*Cannon River Watershed Partnership Native vegetation restoration -*Cannon Canon River Watershed Partnership, Long Prairie River Stewardship Project, Minnehaha Creek WD �, Ramsey-Washington Metro DedaMetro W 'Establishment of green corridor -4Okabena-Ocheda WI), Rice Creek WI) Impact of jZood -*Incorporate water ualitcontrol projects concerns into flood control 'Area II MN River Basin Projects, Inc. projects Bassett Creek WMO, Bois de Sioux WD, Buffalo-Red River WD, Lac Qui Palle- Yellow Bank WI), Minnehaha Creek WD Ramsey-Washington Metro WD, Red Lake Lake WI), Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek " Chemical treatment: WD, Wild Rice WD II eutrophication *Permanent treatment system(alum, ferric LakeBW�kRamsey-Washington Dog WMO, Prior amse p� chloride ,R -W Lake_S g 11 Y ashin on Metro W gt D State of waters; o.sert water Euxiitil m na ehtent in , MsizneScrty;, 181 aterquality Solutions implemented in Implementing organizations include' 1wlrnnesota •Lake applications •Pelican River WD, Minnehaha Creek WD,Rice Creek WD -+Biomanipulation -+Forest Lake WMO, Pelican River WD -+Aeration -+Clearwater River WD, Forest Lake WMO,Pelican River WD Public education -+Distribution of literature All active groups do this to a certain Public education including pamphlets, extent cont'd newsletters, and door-hangers -+Citizen/student monitoring -+Chippewa River Watershed Project, Long Prairie River Stewardship Project, Pelican River WD, Pioneer-Sarah Creek WMO, Sand Hill River WD, South Two Rivers WD, Vadnais Lake Area WMO, Yellow Medicine River WD -+Technical training for agency -+BERBI, Cannon River Watershed personnel, city officials, and Partnership, Mississippi Headwaters other professionals Board, SE MN Water Resources Board, Vadnais Lake Area WMO -.Conferences/workshops for -+BERBI, Cannon River Watershed landowners and members of the Partnership, Mississippi Headwaters • public Board,North Shore Management Board, Pioneer-Sarah Creek WMO,RCRCA, Sauk River WD, Snake River JPB, South Two River WD, SE MN Water Resources Board, Vadnais Lake Area WMO, Whitewater JPB -+Public information -.Cannon River Watershed Partnership, presentations/displays Long Prairie River Stewardship Project, Minnehaha Creek WD, Mississippi Headwaters Board,Prior Lake-Spring Lake WD, Ramsey-Washington Metro WD, RCRCA,Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WD, SE MN Water Resources Board,Whitewater JPB 61-Ate.o1".1v te.rsie4�g.sed xvc'ter ynAmit et ire.7tinnescstx 182 t r qu hty So ut on uap emented�a ' ll�apleaenting orgaa�zaxoas zaelude. esu ll�fuesa .......;: ... -*Scaled watershed -Cannon River Watershed Partnership, reconstruction Prior Lake-Spring Lake WD, SE MN Water Resources Board -*Development of school -*Mississippi Headwaters Board,Pelican curriculum on water quality River WD, Rice Creek WD, SE MN Water awareness Resources Board Urban stormwater -*Detention basins -*Bassett Creek WMO, Lower MN River runoff WD, Minnehaha Creek WD, Pelican River WD, Ramsey-Washington Metro WD, Rice Creek WD, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Urban stormwater Creek WD runoff cont'd —)Storm ceptors -*Ramsey-Washington Metro WD, Shingle Creek WMO (will soon begin to investigate) -*Infiltration techniques such as -*Ramsey-Washington Metro WD, Rice ponding, rainwater gardens, Creek WD,Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek, infiltration swales, and parking Southwest Washington WD lot grading -*Wetland treatment through -*Minnehaha Creek WD, Prior Lake- creation and/or restoration Spring Lake WD, Ramsey-Washington Metro WD, Rice Creek WD, Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek WD, Vadnais Lake Area WMO -*Regulation of permits and -*See list under Erosion: project plans to ensure that development/construction proper measures are taken to minimize runoff;these include overall runoff plans, sediment basins, and size limitations on impervious surface Manure -*Cost-share on waste facilities -*BERBI, Elk.River JPB, Heron Lake management WD, North Fork Crow River WD, RCRCA, Rice Creek WD, Sauk River WD, Snake River WD, Upper MN River WD, Wild Rice WD, Yellow Medicine River WD S gatz of.i tersi 1otsec Wttter twilit-m_anotgehtent ivr 7vtinnesotx 183 Water quality . ;Solutions implemented,in Implementing organizations include jssui . ....:.i.. :l Onnesota . . E I -*Buy-out and/or relocation of -*Yellow Medicine River WI) feedlot operation e ii It 0 010 5 taite(f 14?xters6►e4 4P91.se Witter ly&titli 01./ ente:.tinAtiines t. 184 BIBLIOGRAPY 3 S 3 a a a a $txte of wtcters ,5 4 47 ter Ea a l iti1 r kim-tuteprtvit 1vt inne5e-tx 185 Clements, T. and L. Cotten. 1998. The Kentucky Watershed Management Framework. In: Watershed Management:Moving from Theory to Implementation. Proceedings, WEF. Denver, Co. May 3-6, 1998. Pp. 891-898. Cowles,F.E. 1998. Michigan's Watershed-Based MS4 Voluntary General Permit. In: 10 Watershed Management:Moving from Theory to Implementation. Proceedings, WEF. Denver, Co. May 3-6, 1998. Pp. 745-752. Hewitt,L and S. Born. 1998. The Role of Nonprofit Organizations in Coordinating Integrated Watershed Conservation Efforts: Trout Unlimited in Wisconsin's Kickapoo Valley. In: Watershed Management:Moving from Theory to Implementation. Proceedings, WEF. Denver, Co. May 3-6, 1998. Pp. 587-594. Jewell, P., M. Gildesgame, M. Van Dusen, E. Himlan. 1998. The Massachusetts Watershed Initiative: Opportunities and Challenges in Reshaping Government. In: Watershed Management:Moving from Theory to Implementation. Proceedings, WEF. Denver, Co. May 3-6, 1998. Pp. 849-858. 110 Legislative Interim Commission. 1955.Report of the Legislative Interim Commission on . Water Conservation Drainage and Flood Control. St.Paul. 110 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan, Version 1.0. St. Paul, Minnesota. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Water Resources Committee. 1991.Minnesota Water Plan. St. Paul, Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1992. 1992 Biennial Report to the Legislature. St. Paul, Minnesota. Minn. Stat. §103B Minn. Stat. §103B.201 Minn. Stat. §103B.211 Minn. Stat. §103B.231 Minn. Stat. §10311.235 Minn. Stat. §103B.277 Minn. Stat. §103D. 201 S trt.te of write rSke.4 vvivter-/..1.spaitvir Pr.ci41.€1.gen .tin i iinraset 186 • I Minn. Stat. §103D. 205 3 Minn. Stat. §103D. 271 Minn. Stat. §103F. 367 Minn. Stat. §471.59 Minnesota Water Resources Board. 1974.Minnesota Water Resources Board and Watershed Districts:A Report Submitted to the Legislature and the Governor of the State Of Minnesota. St.Paul, Minnesota. Office of the Legislative Auditor. 1991. Pollution Control Agency. St. Paul, Minnesota. Pers. Comm. Robert Finley,Redwood-Cottonwood Rivers Control Area, 1999 Pers. Comm. Bea Hoffman, South East Minnesota Water Resources Board, 1998 Pers. Comm. D.Kenney,Natural Resources Law Center, 1998 , Pers. Comm. Doug Thomas,Board Of Water and Soil Resources, 1999 1 Rieke, B. and D. Kenney. 1997. Resource Management at the Watershed Level. An ' Assessment of the Changing Federal Role in the Emerging Era of Community-Based . all Watershed Management. Report to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission. 41 I 411 Sources for Survey 1 Kelly, Tim and Ron Sushak. 1996. Using Surveys as Input to Comprehensive Watershed Management:A Case Study from Minnesota.North Central Forest Experiment Station- USDA. St. Paul, Minnesota. Litwin,Mark S. 1995.How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks. . McCrossman, Liz. 1984.A Handbook for Interviewers. Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 1 London. 1 Wing-Hung Lo, Carlos and Tang Shui-Tan. 1994. Institutional Contexts of 1 Environmental Management: Water Pollution Control in Guangzhou, China. Public Administration and Development. 14: 53-64 6tfitte.of WAters 'frt.sec wcvter foA.titu III Nntileotemt in 7iinneseti , 41 • • • • • • • 44111111-40,1 • • Environmental Ground,Inc. is an environmental and agricultural research and development group ' dedicated to serving the Y' needs of local government, nonprofit organizations and private industry by providing both practical solutions and , long term vision.The Principal'Investigators for this project were Kathryn �: 3raeger,Shanaz Padamsee and Jessica Melson. f 1..'"'"--,_„,,,,,.-ke . Bo err reel . ,' i ,. 1"' y'�",'r :::•,..,,",,,..',„,,, �„"'� 7313A7 e s.. " rk ,fid P # ,-. s 4T;.xb* "` Pv`Iiraa � f � �,Vr� ,,-;!: ; a f y..' �� .g„ d J 7 ...„;:,,:,,4Z-4:f.;74::-..Y.:. x �. X tit -, E ' 3.tI S #�. r s a.� a 8 x s'� �- . .� > � ` Iu ar X x#�. Y' ,�., :f rK:.• """ a'S:wj' r v x , a, .,, W nil rs � '',.--,-;-,....!',.:4,74%'''..114.1'43;.-7,',' r' 'd' F 1: '' ', "-',^^ '"u r r ,:' t:. ar; ' 31x`` : 1 h .+ t k t tivw" .r S „i A� r ',b� a�y,, aw5.<,,AY ^"Y`x',i",}° e `.., f£ w 9 A + r'`r $t, $� ,.x,#�+ i3 r' # b`4v3 .i _, .yf?„�gk 1 , „ �.4,. i rc fi i s,y ff'�,t, � s,. e,.. �"`� :t.�� 5 -'..:;7:'';'-**:1''''''''1:T.'•;'''' '',:;,':,' r '�!hrt � .' r '`.: A.,,... 4'.. ` �� r� d�:a tt.. ^�:.a � :r`a��.. �t'�ai.� y t�.�*t kyr :5.� r r ., ,�. `y t�'r' `�tk# e'+'� "'� $ L�f xa«� X% ,i x ,x.} ..r-ac,i axe,1.,'.,',',,,, ' .Y ' ° ',1z. .,3g1.l� "C£” s y{ t ' ..:,`A';`,.':- ...',"'N.-y- •n. t '� T7-;',7.,,',,,' --- --.. . „,„.“ rce..e c . vvG/ '�'VG ii ''. ., •''. Ill.. ,' . 1 LC, . t ! 1 1 1 1• I bud Ward,N, j tr&S7.Pau/Pori' , Dec bar 29, 2004 County wants elected officials on Water board III Letter outlines several comprised. of elected offici,aJ.s Ideas for St. Croix frnmi the communities it serves. Water Management The watershed. make St. Croix Beach, St Mary's By JUDY SPOONER Point,Stillwater,Bayport,part Staff Writer of Baytown,Oak Park Heights, West r ale lannd, Lakeland and. Lakeland Shorts. In.a recent letter to the Mid- Middle St.Croix is the result • die St. Croix Water. Manage- of a joint powers agreement melt Organization, Washing" among the communities,which, ton. County officials bad. also shares funding. numerous ideas to improve the The count s differences with organization's wok!' mranage- Middle St. Croix stem from an. meet plan, • effort by -county officials to in omnments.on the plan,the have fewer watershed districts county said it would not sup- and merge., wisp bed ° ani- port an effort bg the organza- nations into neighboring dis_ 1, tett to seek legislative approval, . for twang authority unless the organization's management is Please sed COUNTY,page 2A . County: • Watersheds can a ee to g merge Continued from page IA watershed management orga- a means for public input and organization. has a surface nizalions and watershed dis- has no structure for advisory water plan only, although state tricts. tricts only under certain.condi- committees. law states watersheds have the County Administrative Plan- tions. If the organization is Though it has a management authority to protect gronndwe- ner Jane Harper met with inactive,not meeting regularly, plan, it needs spea..fscs on car- ter. • watershed. districts and. man- and has no water management rent water limos in th,e area. The Water Resource and.Wet - agement organizations for more plan., the county ran petition and to actively implementing lands Inventory, done in 1486, thana year before the County the state for a merger programs and projects to,, is Dot up to date, ac ording to . Board approved a water-gover,- Watersheds can merge by address water quality the county department of mance plan in 1929 and 2000, mutual agreement, according There are also no perfor- health and environment. when the county initiated, a to administrative planner Jane mance standards for, priority Though,the'plan lists carr' merger for six watershed dis- Harper. bodies of water. land management as the s' tricts instead of 11. While the county is still lob- There is also no clear point of for maps,the actual. se Board members said. merged bying for watershed mergers, contact for the public. the Minnesota Geolov districts would spend less county action has put the coun- The county also wants the vey. . money for administration and ty on a muchslower track," organization to use the county County eotmnen' consultants. according le County Admirals- Standardized Chart of fy that full tevie• The Minnesota Bureau of trator Jim Schug. , Accounts for. Water. Manage- Croixis requir Water Resources supported.the The County Board, however, merit Organizations to track disturbing r plan. still bee input on. watershed revenue and.expenditures. 10,000 s9' Court action by Middle St management,plans. An. annual i.epert .to•county 'sinus.ve Croix ended the merger. plan. The state bureau has rejected ofliriale is also needed, acarid- any . after the court ruled, the state. Middle, Si;. CroiXie .plan,,and ingio:the'letter. . .. imp, bruresu�did,not beck,.`a itheirity county officials..Reid,it. needs The county wants Middle St. of to merge watersheds more specifics. • _Croix tee deielop'a.�plan to man- e ur.t The dosaid, the'',county ."The joint powers agreement:, age groundwater as well ids one. ane. could petition. for, mergers of drafted in 1,996, does not allow for surfam water. rrrofl The. with fi. i 1 The State of Minnesota Storm Sewer 1 Replacement Project at the State Correctional Facility at Stillwater The House Jobs and Economic Development Committee ' of the Minnesota State Legislature The Honorable Bob Gunther, Chair i J anuary 28,2005 i 1 1 Submitted by: The Middle St Croix Watershed Management Organization 1 John McPherson,Chairman Mike McGuire,Administrator and Fiscal Agent City of Bayport For further information contact: Ed Cain(651)439-7681 or(651)303-2424 I 1 I State of Minnesota Storm Sewer Replacement Project at the State Correctional Facility-Stillwater I "' Bayport, Minnesota Completion of Stage 2 Project Background: • The State of Minnesota Storm Sewer and the DNR Pond 82-301P were constructed in 1907,for the purpose of providing the Stillwater Prison with a reliable water source for drinking water,heading the facility,and the personal use of the prisoners and staff. A dam was cons trusted to form the DNR Pond which captured the water from the natural springs at this site. The flowage from the natural springs I produces 550,000 gallons per day,and up to 13 cubic feet per second. The Prison used the water for prison operations induding drinking water. Until 25-30 years ago,the State used the water to cool the prison boilers. The excess water was then released into the storm sewer and was piped into the St Croix River. The consulting engineers in the early 1900's designed an intricate piping system. I which led from the pond to the prison site. A storm sewer system was then constructed to carry the excess water through vitrified day pipes from the prison site to ' the St.Croix River. The only other outlet from the DNR 301P Pond is by way of Perro Creek,a shallow stream that winds its way through the residential section of the City and into Ithe commercial district before finding its way to the St Croix River. Perro Creek is a decorative stream,quite shallow,which freezes solid during the Winter months. It is • incapable of handling the flowage from the State's DNR Pond when frozen. 111 State Abdicates Their Responsibility for Their Property: sP Y I In 1987,Minnesota State Prison officials contacted the City of Bayport Council, advising them they would no longer maintain or repair the old sewer system. Since then,the system has failed and is no longer adequate to meet the needs of the service 1 area. The last 350 feet of the sewer line has collapsed,and the City officials have had to build a temporary ditch with rip rap. to avoid erosion,through the private property of Andersen Window Corporation to the St Croix. Inspections were made of the remaining lengths of sewer line by the Short- Elliott-Hendrickson hortElliott Hendrickson engineering firm using video cameras extended through the pipes in the remaining areas of the system. The results were not encouraging. They showed that the disintegration of the pipe was continuing throughout the system,and it was only a matter of time until the remaining' day pipes would fail as well. An Unfinished Sewer System Will Create Extensive Losses for Stakeholder= I There are many stake holders that will be seriously affected when the State's storm sewer fails,most of all,the State of 1k.Tinnesota. (1) I I Since the piping network was constructed 98 years ago, the State has constructed a number of major buildings on top of the water/sewer system throughout the prison grounds. If these pipes should rupture during the Winter months as other pipes in the system have failed,the choice would be flood the prison or flood the City. Neither are acceptable options. Other stake holders include Andersen Windows whose operations would be limited because the sewer system abuts and crosses their manufacturing and storage areas. The Union Pacific Railroad delivers thousands of tons of coal every other day to the Excel King Plant County Road 21 and State Highway 95 would be dosed under certain conditions. And the City of Bayport runs the risk of significant residential and Icommercial property loss. History of Events: 1 19Th The City of Bayport has experienced significant flooding along Perro Creek downstream of the Prison Pond about every ten years. An injunction was ordered Iagainst the City which restricts diversion of runoff into Perro Creek. 1987: The Minnesota State Prison officials contacted the City of Bayport Council, advising them they would no longer maintain or repair the old outlet system. Since I then, the system has failed and is no longer adequate to meet the needs of the service area. ' 1993: Following a study by Short .1Faliott Hendrickson (SEH), recommendations were made for an improved outlet whichwas constructed in 1995. The old outlet into Perro Creek was shut down in November,. 1994. The problem was ameliorated somewhat by I the improved outlet, but even with the improvements, the system was unable to keep up with the inflow into the Prison Pond,and the water level continued to rise. 1995: The City of Bayport and Washington County constructed a MO foot, four-foot high earthen levee to prevent the overflow of 11w Prison Pond. The water continues to rise. When the information was shared with MNDOT,they immediately programmed funds to replace the old day sewer pipes that occas Highway 95 when the project construction begins. 1996: City of Bayport sets up temporary pumps within the MTnrvasota State Prison to I divert the runoff from the Prison compound. It is discharged into the prison's downstream storm sewer. This is an expensive process, and is no permanent solution. I The Department of Corrections had.not indicated a willingness to contribute financially to a permanent solution of the problem. 1997: SEH completes study to determine the most cost effective permanent solution to the problem. Three additional outlet options were reviewed. The firm recommends a new underground sewer system to avoid freezing and flooding,with adequate capacity to maintain a constant level in the?As' on Pond,and an alternate outlet on Perna Creek. I The discharge will flow into a settling pond be we entering the St Croix River,mann* improved environmental conditions. I (2)