Funding Request and Work Plan Guidance for Watershed Based Implementation Funding

Purpose

This document describes the procedure for requesting Watershed Based Implementation Funding (WBIF) and guidance for developing work plans.

 
In developing WBIF work plans, implementing partners agree on how to use WBIF grants. In work plan approval, BWSR confirms that the proposed activities are eligible according to the Watershed Based Implementation Funding policy and that they will make progress toward water quality goals in plans.

 
Funding request and work plan information is also used in legislative reporting and WBIF assurance measures (see below).

Eligibility

Please refer to the Watershed Based Implementation Funding Policy for eligible grant recipients, plans, and activities.

Procedure

The table below is an overview of the steps for requesting a WBIF grant. 

Funding Request and Work Plan Guidance

WBIF funding requests and work plans must describe proposed activities and outcomes with enough detail for BWSR to confirm that activities are eligible according to the WBIF grant policy, that the activities are in the implementation section of an eligible plan, and that they will result in progress toward the plan’s water quality goals. 

Proposed Measurable Outcomes (Funding Request)

The funding request must include a summary of proposed measurable outcomes.  Once the funding request is approved, the proposed measurable outcomes summary cannot be changed. This summary will be publicly available on the Legislative Coordinating Commission’s (LCC) website. BWSR will use this summary in determining whether grant outcomes were met (WBIF assurance measure 1). That determination will also be publicly available on the LCC site.

Helpful Hints for Proposed Measurable Outcomes

• Use the same units you will use when you report actual outcomes (e.g., pounds P, tons/y sediment). These units should be consistent with or easily relatable to plan goals. 
• You may use activity counts a.k.a outputs (e, g., number of acres treated, number of wells sealed) if the activity can’t reasonably be related to a pollution reduction or other resource outcome. Including both resource outcomes and outputs helps clearly communicate your expected progress.
• Do not use in-stream or in-lake concentrations or percent reductions without also including load reduction values.
• Estimate measurable outcomes based on the numbers of activities you think you can achieve with the grant rather than estimating based on a proportion  of your plan goals (e.g., 20% of the 10 year goal).
• If possible, use the same estimator(s)/models(s) for proposed and actual outcomes, consistent with methods used to estimate your plan goals.

Example Proposed Measurable Outcomes Statements

Protect 5,000 linear feet of shoreline; reduce phosphorus by an estimated 15 pounds/year; implement soil health practices on 750 acres; write private forest management plans covering 800 acres and implement 10 acres of agroforestry/silvopasture; conduct 4 subwatershed assessments within target watersheds; develop one outreach plan.

Implement a planned 50 agricultural best management practices, resulting in the following cumulative reductions in the priority sub-watersheds: Sediment 620 tons, Nitrogen 45 pounds, and Phosphorus 5 pounds as estimated by PTMApp; develop stormwater management plans for 3 municipalities.

Activity Descriptions

Group descriptions of activities at the eLINK activity level (e.g., Agricultural Practices, Technical and Engineering) under ONE activity.  After work is completed, multiple projects may be reported under a single activity. Please refer to BWSR eLINK guidance on activities and practices.
 

Example Activity Description

Cost share for conservation practices (page 89, Table 3) to reduce sediment loading into Muddy River. Anticipated practices include but are not limited to water and sediment control basins, side water inlets, and grassed waterways. We anticipate completing between 25 and 35 projects, resulting in an estimated 15,000 tons of sediment reduction. At least 70% of outcomes will be achieved in 3 high priority subwatersheds (little south fork, green, and east branch).

Level of Detail in Work Plans

Work plans should include enough detail to ensure individual partners implement activities according to the commitments made in the collaborative decision-making process (e.g., metro convene process).  However, work plans are for BWSR grant management purposes. They should not be used to track additional details not needed by BWSR (e.g., breakdowns of dollar amounts that will go to each organization within a single grant).

 

Proposed Outcomes.

If estimated pollution load reductions will be achieved with more than one activity (e.g., agricultural BMPs and streambank restoration), it is useful to document the contributions of those activities in each of the activity descriptions that contribute to load reductions.  The outcomes listed in each activity should equal the total outcomes in the funding request.  Please note:

•           BWSR recommends one set of indicators summarizing outcomes for projects (e. g., tons of sediment) within each activity unless there is a demonstrated need to list more detail. Estimating load reductions for specific subwatersheds or water bodies at the work plan stage is not necessary.

•           Ensure the narrative clearly states that proposed outcomes are estimated. Use rounded whole numbers or an acceptable range for proposed outcomes; specific numbers with decimals are not appropriate for estimates. 

•           If the partnership/grantee decides to shift funding between activities, the proposed outcomes in the work plan activity descriptions should be modified to reflect the work plan changes (the proposed measurable outcomes in the original funding request cannot be changed).

 

Plan Connections.

Include a plan reference for relevant plan activities. For specific projects or programs (e.g., Happy Dancing Turtle Park water quality improvement project), list the page number where the project appears. For “generic” activities that appear in multiple implementation tables (e.g., agricultural BMPs) the narrative should include at least one reference (enough information to determine the activity is in the plan).

 

Locations.

Ideally, work plan activities should indicate the geography where work will be focused (e.g., subwatersheds). Specific location information may not be necessary depending on the plan structure, whether the partnership uses a project selection system that incorporates plan priority areas, and/or if they have a demonstrated track record of focusing implementation in priority areas in previous WBIF grants.  Please note:

•           If a specific project is in a known location, list the project and location in the work plan. If the activity is generic (BMPs in yet-to-be determined locations), the work plan should indicate how you will select projects to achieve outcomes in priority areas (e.g., scoring and ranking, targeting tool, etc.).  

•           You may fund an activity outside of priority areas if the activity is in the plan implementation section; assurance measures will assess whether > than 70% of outcomes were achieved in priority areas as described in the plan (this is BWSR’s minimum expectation).  “Priority areas” do not include those designated as “low priority.”

•           Certain plan types and funding mechanisms may require more specificity in the work plan to ensure consistency with previously agreed-upon priorities (e.g., between metro WMOs and municipalities). Plans developed under M.S. §103B.231 have a special relationship with municipal plans that may require a higher level of specificity; depending on the funding mechanism used (e.g., county certification under §103B.251), these activities must appear in a M.S. §103B.231/M.R. 8410 (not a §103B.801) plan.

 

Other Information

The BWSR Grants Administration Manual requires the following information to be included in work plans: 
•    Estimated hours (eLINK automatically calculates FTEs)
•    Capital expenditures that exceed $10,000
•    Technical expertise (you may simply note in the technical & engineering section of the WBIF work plan that credential information is available upon request from each partners’ offices)
•    Design standards (you may include a statement that projects will follow NRCS standards, design criteria in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, or other authoritative reference)
 

Please work with your board conservationist to review the WBIF policy and the Grants Administration Manual to ensure you are aware of all aspects of the policy, including additional information that grantees may be required to provide prior to work plan approval (e.g., in-lake feasibility studies and other items) or on request (e.g., technical quality assurance, feedlot calculations, cost share policy and other items).