Revised August 2025
- General Information
Q: How are WBIF dollars allocated?
A: WBIF dollars are allocated statewide using a formula of 90% private (non-federal, non-state, non-tribal) lands and 10% public waters (lakes, streams, wetlands, ditches). The formula also includes a base amount for each watershed planning area.
Since BWSR receives only a portion of the appropriation in the first year of the biennium, watershed planning areas are designated a fiscal year in which funding is available to them. BWSR may change the timing and availability of funding based on the timing of plan approval, readiness to proceed, partner coordination, commitment of nonstate match, or expenditure of previously awarded Watershed Based Implementation Funds.
Q: Is there a spending limit for administration cost or technical costs?
A: No, there are no specific spending limits per grant budget category. However, costs must be reasonable as well as directly related to and necessary for grant activities. The grant agreement includes a clause that requires grantees to minimize administration costs. Grantees should ensure costs are allocated to the appropriate budget category.
- Activity Eligibility - Structural and Non-Structural Practices and Activities
Q: Is chloride reduction equipment eligible?
A: Yes, this type of equipment is eligible.
Q: Are flood damage/control projects eligible for funding?
A: The primary purpose of activities funded through this program must be to protect, enhance, and restore surface and ground water quality. WBIF may be used to fund one or more component(s) of a project for flood control, provided the primary benefit of the WBIF-funded component(s) element is/are water quality.
Q: Replacement, realignment or creation of bridges, trails or roads is ineligible. What about costs associated with repairing or replacing of bridges, trails or roads related to as part of an eligible activity installation?
A: Repair or replacement is allowed as part of a project that needs to remove a road, trail, etc. Examples could include sealing a well under a sidewalk or building an access road to a project site. Any replacement must be reasonable; not upgrades to premium materials or additional amenities.
Q: What are BWSR’s expectations for grants related to street sweeping?
A: BWSR funds should be used for targeted street sweeping that can provide more effective pollutant removal compared to basic street sweeping. There have been recent advances in mapping and pollutant reduction estimate methodologies by Minnesota researchers and practitioners that help local governments create “enhanced street sweeping plans.” These plans identify critical urban areas (e.g. roads, parking lots, etc.) for street sweeping, the best times of year, sweeping frequency, and potentially the type of equipment that will most effectively capture pollutants for priority water resources. Prior approval for equipment purchases over $10,000 is required. Grantees requesting funds to purchase a street sweeper or pay for additional sweeping should detail how the new/additional sweeping will maximize pollution reductions relative to current sweeping activities. Refer to the MN Stormwater Manual and the University of MN Water Resources Center for more information.
Q. Are all forestry management practices eligible?
A. No. To be eligible, the purpose/outcome of the practice must be to protect, enhance, or restore the water quality of a lake, stream, or river or protect groundwater from degradation. A water resource concern should be documented and the end goal for management should be identified before the practice or combination of practices is chosen. In order to be eligible, the use of forestry practices individually or in combination need to be listed in the implementation section of an eligible plan, result in measurable progress toward plan goals, and support activities (projects, practices, programs, and policies) that address clean water priorities in the watershed plan.
- Activity Eligibility - AIS; In-Lake or In-Channel Treatment
Q: Is AIS programming, control, and management eligible?
A: No, except for non-native rough fish management that has a primary benefit of water quality.
Q: When does a feasibility study have to be completed if an entity proposes to implement in-lake treatment practices (e.g. alum treatment, non-native rough fish management) with WBIF funds?
A: A feasibility study must be completed, reviewed and approved by BWSR staff prior to these activities being proposed in a grant work plan.
Q. Is the dredging of lake, river, or stream sediments eligible?
A. It is unlikely that these activities are eligible. Dredging activities need to have a primary purpose of protecting, enhancing, or restoring the water quality of the waterbody. The activities also need to be listed in the implementation section of an approved and locally adopted water plan (as listed in the Board Order) to be eligible.
In addition, a feasibility study is required and needs to be approved by BWSR prior to proposing in-lake or in-channel treatment in a WBIF grant work plan (see the full list of feasibility study requirements in a separate FAQ below).
Q: What does a feasibility study for proposed in-lake treatment projects need to include?
A: The study must include the following:
a. Lake/stream and watershed information based on data that has been collected within the last 10-years (at minimum, include lake morphology and depth, summary of water quality information, and the assessment of aquatic invasive species).
b. A description of original internal load vs. external load nutrient reductions needed to meet the state’s water quality standard and approximate external and internal reductions remaining.
c. A history of projects completed in the lake’s/stream’s watershed (if none have been completed, that should be stated), as well as other in-lake/in-channel activities, if applicable.
d. A cost benefit analysis of all options considered, and justification for the proposed activities.
e. The projected effective life of the proposed activities.
f. The expected water quality outcome of the proposed activity.
g. A plan for monitoring water quality to assure the proposed activity’s total phosphorus goal will be achieved during its effective life (monitoring plans should include monitoring through the effective life).
h. A description of how the proposed practices could change the population and diversity of native and non-native aquatic vegetation, what outreach occurred with stakeholders about these potential outcomes, and whether a vegetation management plan exists or is proposed to be completed.
i. An explanation of how propeller wash generated by motorized recreational boats (e.g. wakesurf boats) and non-native rough fish may impact the longevity of proposed practices, and
j. For activities related to non-native rough fish management, (e.g., carp), the feasibility study must also include:
i. An estimate of adult and juvenile rough fish populations and method(s) used.
ii. Description of the known interconnectedness of waterbodies (lakes, ponds, streams, wetlands, etc.).
iii. Identified nursery areas.
iv. Methods used to track rough fish movement.
v. Proposed actions to limit recruitment and movement.
vi. Proposed actions to reduce adult rough fish populations.
Q. What types of monitoring does BWSR recommend after an alum treatment is completed and the grant is closed?
A. BWSR recommends two types of monitoring. The first is to conduct routine lake sampling which includes monitoring lake water for total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and water clarity according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s guidance. Routine sampling should happen at least every couple of years for the effective life of the alum treatment. The second type of monitoring is to collect and analyze lake sediment cores to determine the treatment’s effectiveness in reducing the phosphorus release rate. These monitoring activities are not eligible activities for WBIF.
- Activity Eligibility - Streambank Stabilization or Stream Restoration
Q: How should grantees address project assurances for streambank stabilization or stream restoration projects?
A: To meet project and practice assurance requirements, BWSR suggests that grantees commit to providing financial assurance for repairs and maintenance prior to installing the project. BWSR recommends setting aside at least 20 percent of total project cost from local sources to ensure the project remains effective.
Q: What are BWSR’s expectations of grantees proposing streambank/stream channel restoration projects?
A: Streambank and stream channel restoration projects will be more successful if there is a detailed assessment of the channel, floodplain, and watershed conditions that are causing pollution issues, clear approach to channel design, substantial early coordination efforts with landowners, partners, and permitting agencies, and appropriate multi-disciplinary restoration team expertise such as geomorphology, hydrology, plant and animal ecology, construction site assessment, and engineering.
- Activity Eligibility - Feedlots
Q. How do I determine if activities related to feedlots and/or livestock waste management facilities are eligible?
A. Eligibility details for these types of projects are listed in the “Program Requirements” document posted on the WBIF web page (the same information is in “Exhibit A” of your grant agreement). BWSR recommends that you use this supplemental feedlot worksheet to ensure eligibility.
Q: Are MINNFARM pollution estimates based on the pollution problem at the existing feedlot today or the reduction of pollution after the fix has been implemented?
A: Both. For the purposes of measurability, grantees must provide the MINNFARM pollution data (index and loading numbers) from the existing feedlot that is currently a pollution problem. For funded projects, the pollution reduction achieved from implementing the fix must be entered into eLINK during the reporting phases of the grant.
- Activity Eligibility - Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems
Q: Can SSTS systems be replaced on commercial property?
A: Imminent Threats to Public Health Systems (ITPHS) or SSTS that are not protective of ground water must be located on “homesteaded” property for programs administered by local governments. Tribal Governments may define criteria for replacing ITPHS SSTS.
Q: What is BWSR’s additional expectations for funding eligible SSTS projects?
A: BWSR expects a local government to exhaust all grant funding from the MPCA prior to utilizing WBIF.
- Seven-County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA)
The General FAQs above apply to WBIF used in the TCMA. The following FAQs relate only to metro WBIF grantees.
Q: What is the deadline for having an approved metro WMO or WD watershed management plan, soil and water conservation district comprehensive plan, or metropolitan groundwater plan (if it is in the process of a plan update) or an amendment to a plan?
A: It is in the best interest of each local government to have an approved plan prior to the start of the metro convene meetings. However, it is up to each metro partnership if it wishes to entertain projects identified in a draft plan or plan amendment awaiting approval. However, a plan or plan amendment must be approved and locally adopted prior to the submittal of the funding request to BWSR.
Q: Can you verify what is meant by “up to two municipalities” must participate in the convene process?
A: The board order approving WBIF states: “...Participants, including one representative from each watershed district, watershed management organization, soil and water conservation district, county with a county groundwater plan, and up to two municipalities, must coordinate within the designated watershed planning areas before submitting a watershed-based implementation funding budget request.”
Two municipal representatives should be self-selected by the municipalities in each metro watershed allocation area. If additional municipalities wish to attend the convene meetings they may, but they will not be part of the decision-making process.
Q: Are cities and townships within the TCMA eligible for this funding?
A: Cities and townships with approved local water plans under §103B.235 are eligible to receive funds. Eligible activities, as defined by the WBIF program requirements, “must be identified in the implementation section of a state approved, locally adopted comprehensive watershed management plan developed under §103B.801; or in the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area: watershed management plan required under §103B.231, county groundwater plan authorized under §103B.255, or a soil and water conservation district comprehensive plan authorized under §103C.331 as revised in 2024 (i.e., to be eligible, 103C plans must be approved by the BWSR Board).”
Q: The program requirements state that eligible activities must be identified in the implementation section of an eligible plan. Metro groundwater plans don’t typically contain an implementation section, so where must activities be identified?
A: Activities must be related to the stated goals, objectives, scope, and priorities of groundwater protection in the county groundwater plan.
Q: Some watersheds (e.g., Cannon River Watershed) span areas within the TCMA and non-metro areas. Can WBIF funding from a metro allocation area be spent outside the TCMA?
A: Yes, metro allocation area dollars may be spent outside of the TCMA as long as those activities are identified in a comprehensive watershed management plan developed under MINN. STAT. §103B.801 and there is agreement amongst the metro partnership to spend all or a portion of this funding in this manner through the metro convene process. Participation requirements for metro partnerships are defined in the board order approving the program and allocating the funds.
Q: Should the budget request for WBIF be submitted to BWSR by the metro partnership or each local government proposed to receive funding?
A: A budget request must be submitted by each local government that will hold a grant agreement with BWSR. Upon completion of the convene process, if there are multiple grantees, a list including grant amounts shall be submitted to BWSR for review.
Q: What happens if local governments in a metro partnership decide to enter into separate grant agreements with BWSR and one local government is not able to use the funds granted to them?
A: It depends. If the grantee has an additional project(s) that is similar in nature (e.g. comparable pollution reductions to the same water resource) and the convene partnership is in agreement, the work plan could be revised and the grant agreement could be amended. If a local government has no similar projects, then the funds would need to be returned to BWSR and the funds may be redistributed through the WBIF Program. Please contact BWSR staff and refer to the Grant Agreement Amendments and Work Plan Revisions section of BWSR’s Grants Administration Manual.
Q: For metro areas with approved Comprehensive Watershed Management Plans (e.g., Lower St. Croix, Cannon, Rum, South Fork Crow, Lower Minnesota River East) developed through the One Watershed, One Plan program, how can allocated funds be used?
A: Decision-making representatives that form metro partnerships through the convene meeting process will be able to decide to use all, a portion, or none of their funding on activities in comprehensive watershed management plans and/or eligible metro water plans as explained in the BWSR Board Order.
Q: Can metro partnerships pool their WBIF dollars from more than one allocation area for larger-scale or regional activities?
A: Decision-making representatives that form metro partnerships through the convene meeting process will be able to decide to pool their WBIF from more than one allocation area if those activities are in the implementation section of eligible plans as explained in the BWSR Board Order. This decision must be a joint decision in each metro watershed allocation area, and it must be communicated to the BWSR board conservationist in writing prior to submitting a funding request.
Q: What process should partnerships use to select activities for funding?
A: Partnerships can use the examples provided in the Metro Convene Process Guidance document to select activities. Or they can propose an alternative approach in consultation with the BWSR board conservationist prior to submitting a funding request. Early communication with BWSR staff on potential ideas is recommended.