The Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program (CPL) has funding available for the Expedited Conservation Projects (ECP) grant cycle. $600,000 remains for Fiscal Year 2016 and applications will be accepted through mid-May, or until funds run out. 

This grant program funds conservation projects that restore, enhance, or protect forests, wetlands, prairies, or habitat for fish, game, and wildlife in Minnesota. The expedited grant cycle provides a simplified application and review process for smaller, standard habitat projects. These grant requests may range from $5,000 to $50,000 and require a 10-percent match of non-state funds. Applicants must be either a nonprofit organization or a government entity. Partnerships are encouraged.

To be eligible for these funds, projects must be on public lands or waters open to all seasons of hunting and fishing. The next application deadline is Nov. 18 at 4 p.m. 

Questions? Please email lscplgrants.dnr@state.mn.us.

The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources whittled its recommended 2016 proposal list to 88 at its Oct. 20 meeting. The proposals total $45.4 million from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund derived from lottery and investment proceeds.

The commission originally received 186 proposals totaling $130.9 million and  heard presentations on 97 proposals totaling $70.4 million. About $46.3 million is expected to be available for projects to begin July 1, 2016.

The commission will meet in December to finalize its funding recommendations package for submittal to the 2016 Minnesota Legislature for review and approval. Visit the commission’s proposal and funding process webpage for additional information.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) received $1 million of Clean Water Funds to support the Forever Green Agricultural Initiative at the University of Minnesota for fiscal year 2016. The program selected 11 projects which focus on incorporating perennial and winter annual crops into existing agricultural practices through a request for proposal process administered by the University. The MDA will oversee the distribution of funds and coordinate reporting on progress results and outcomes.

 The following research projects were selected for funding:

• Advanced Management Practices for Enhancing Profitability of Intermediate Wheatgrass  
• Advancing Hazelnut Micro-Propagation
• Agronomics Development of Winter Annual Oilseeds in a Field Corn Production System
• Developing Genomic Resources for Helianthus Divaracatus to Facilitate the Development of Perennial Sunflower for Food Production and Wildlife Services  
• Effect of Cover Crops on Water Use and Nitrogen Leaching in Corn and Soybean Cropping Systems
• Effect of Refinement and Dough Conditioners on the Quality of Intermediate Wheatgrass for Food Applications
• Field Pennycress Breeding Project Support  
• Integrating Winter Annual Cover Crops into Corn and Soybean Rotations in Minnesota
• Intermediate Wheatgrass Breeding Support using Phenotypic and Genotypic-based Selection Methods
• Population Dynamics of Soybean Cyst Nematode in Winter Annual Oilseeds  
• Sustaining Hazelnut Breeding and Agronomic Research at the University of Minnesota

According to the university’s website, “Most of our current crops are 'summer-annuals' that are grown during the summer. By selectively adding winter-annual and perennial crops to our agricultural landscapes to create new crop production systems, we can enhance the prosperity of Minnesota agriculture, support rural communities, and provide major benefits to all Minnesotans.”

Photo above: Radish cover crop in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is requesting comments through Jan. 26 on topics relating to the state’s proposed Nitrogen Fertilizer Rule designed to protect groundwater. This rule will address agronomic crops that require significant amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. These crops include corn, small grains, edible beans, sugarbeets, and irrigated potatoes grown in the crop rotation.

The purpose of this request for comments is to solicit stakeholder feedback on a variety of proposed topics related to the rule. The proposed Nitrogen Fertilizer Rule will require the regulatory provisions discussed in the state’s blueprint for preventing or minimizing the impact of nitrogen fertilizer on groundwater, called the Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan (NFMP).

The rule will consist of two parts:

• The first will apply to areas of the state overlying vulnerable groundwater areas where nitrogen fertilizer applications in the fall or to frozen soils will have restrictions.
• The second will apply to areas where measured nitrate levels in groundwater are elevated and the state has determined that nitrogen fertilizer Best Management Practices (BMPs) are not being adopted. Restrictions will vary for different regions and soil types, and will be based on the nitrogen BMPs developed by the University of Minnesota and adopted by the MDA.

Visit the MDA’s Nitrogen Fertilizer Rule website for more information, or contact Larry Gunderson at larry.gunderson@state.mn.us or Katie Wolf at katie.wolf@state.mn.us.

Facing escalating costs to denitrify its drinking water, taken from the Raccoon River, the Des Moines Water Works is suing three upstream counties over nitrate levels in the river.

The utility provides drinking water for 500,000 urban and rural customers in central Iowa. To meet federal standards, it had to denitrify its water for a record 148 days in one year, according to Bill Stowe, CEO and General Manager of the utility. That’s up from the previous record of 108 days.

Stowe recently spoke in St. Paul and Mankato as part of a lecture series held by the Freshwater Society.

The utility is suing three Iowa counties and their drainage districts. alleging they discharge nitrate pollutants into the river, and fail to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The complaint seeks to declare the drainage districts as “point sources,” meaning they are subject to regulation and required to have a permit under federal and Iowa law.

Though more than 30 counties make up the drainage area for the Raccoon River, Des Moines Water Works named the three counties of Buena Vista, Sac and Calhoun in the lawsuit because water monitoring shows high nitrate concentrations in drainage tile in those counties where the only source is agriculture. There are no other sources such as wastewater treatment plants and golf courses, Stowe said.

The utility chose to sue because it is spending more than $1 million a year to denitrify its drinking water to safe consumption levels. If nitrate trends in the Raccoon River continue to climb, then the utility will need to build a new denitrification facility, estimated to cost between $76 million and $183 million.

Stowe said he understands the need to drain water for agriculture, but it’s being done with no regard to the quantity and quality of water being moved downstream. According to Iowa State University researchers, corn and soybean fields are the primary cause of nitrate levels in Iowa waterways.

 “No other business besides ag can run a pipe without regulation to a water of the state,” Stowe said.

With a permit, the drainage districts would need to meet pollutant limits for their discharges. Stowe cited conservation practices like nitrogen stabilizers and saturated buffers that could reduce nitrate levels in streams.

“We don’t want to bankrupt agriculture. We want to put the cost of taking out the nitrate off our customers and back on the people benefiting from it,” he said. “This not an issue that’s going to go away on voluntarism.”

According to news reports, Iowa farm leaders say solutions like cover crops and bioreactors that reduce nitrogen leaching take time to get in place. Also, the law firm representing the counties argues that the drainage districts have no power to direct how landowners use or manage their properties, nor control over what goes through the drainage tiles.

The lawsuit is scheduled to be heard in federal court in Sioux City in August 2016.

Photo above: Agricultural drainage systems in Sac County, Iowa, from Stowe’s presentation.

The MPCA and local partner groups have developed a plan to restore and protect water quality in the Goose Creek watershed. Goose Creek watershed, located north of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, includes portions of Chisago and Pine counties. The Goose Creek Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) report and Goose Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report are available for public review through Dec. 4.

Water quality monitoring and analysis has shown that high levels of bacteria and phosphorus are present in many water bodies within the Goose Creek watershed. The TMDL report quantifies the pollutant levels, identifies the sources of the pollution, and proposes ways to bring water quality back to an acceptable level.

The WRAPS report identifies impaired water bodies and those in need of protection, and recommends steps needed to achieve and maintain water quality. For example, to reduce the amount of nutrients such as phosphorus in the watershed, stream buffers must be re-established along the lakes, streams, and ditches to reduce runoff, and the amount of phosphorus runoff from agricultural and rural lands must be reduced.

Many groups are participating in restoration and protection efforts, including the Chisago County Soil Water Conservation District, Pine County Soil and Water Conservation District, Chisago County, local governments, lake associations, and several state agencies. Individuals are always encouraged to get involved.

The MPCA encourages those interested in the Goose Creek Watershed to review and provide feedback on the reports. Comments on the reports should be submitted in writing by Dec. 4, to Christopher Klucas, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 (651-757-2498).

Written comments must specify which report you are commenting on, and should include a statement of your interest in the report and the action you wish the MPCA to take, including specific references to sections of the draft report you believe should be changed. You must state the specific reasons for your position.