1. law, govt and politics
2. government

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Phone: 507-295-5201
Fax: 507-372-8363
[email protected]
315 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 757
Worthington, MN 56187-0757
“In cooperation with our citizens, we improve the quality of life for individuals
families and communities by fostering a healthy economy and environment.”
“Looking forward with purpose”
COUNTY BOARD - PROPOSED AGENDA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015, 9:00 A.M.
1.0
Call to Order (9:00 a.m.)
2.0
Pledge of Allegiance
3.0
Visitors & Guests (Welcome)
4.0
Review and Approve Agenda (Action)
5.0
Review and Approve Minutes
5.1 January 20, 2015 Regular Meeting (Action)
6.0
Presentations
6.1 Excellence In Performance Award – Cheryl Easterday (9:02 a.m.)
6.2 2014 MSCIC Investigator of the Year Award Recognition –
Lonnie Roloff (9:05 a.m.)
6.3 Sheriff – Kent Wilkening (9:10 a.m.)
A. Out-of-State Airline Travel Request (Action)
6.4 Library – Julie Wellnitz (9:15 a.m.)
A.
Request for Leave of Absence (Action)
6.5 Community Services – Stacie Golombiecki/Terri Janssen (9:20 a.m.)
A.
Southwest Initiative Foundation – Grant Acceptance Agreement (Action)
6.6 Assessor – Pam Friesen (9:25 a.m.)
A. Requisition for Personnel – Temporary Help (Action)
6.7 Human Resources – Sue Luing (9:35 a.m.)
A.
Retention Schedule (Action)
6.8 Board of Water and Soil Resources – Donald Buckhout (9:45 a.m.)
A. Performance Review and Assistance Program (PRAP) (Information)
FIRST DISTRICT
Marvin Zylstra
SECOND DISTRICT
Gene Metz
FOURTH DISTRICT
Robert Demuth Jr.
THIRD DISTRICT
Matt Widboom
FIFTH DISTRICT
Donald Linssen
7.0
County Administration – Tom Johnson (10:10 a.m.)
7.1 Northland Securities MOU (Action)
7.2 Government Center Stair Replacement (Action)
7.3 April 7th, 2015 Meeting Time Change (Information/Action)
7.4 2015 Boards, Committees & Commissions –
Citizen Appointments (Action)
7.5 Meetings & Conferences - Travel Expenses (Action)
8.0
MN/DOT – Greg Ous and Gordon Regenscheid (11:00 a.m.)
8.1. Informational Meeting – Upcoming Projects (Information)
9.0
Inter-Agency Reports / Announcements (Information)
9.1 Committee and Board Reports
A. District I - Marvin Zylstra
B. District II - Gene Metz
C. District III - Matt Widboom
D. District IV - Robert Demuth Jr.
E. District V - Donald Linssen
F. Management Team
G. County Administrator – Tom Johnson
9.2 Correspondence
9.3 Calendar
10.0 Accounts Payable
10.1 Auditor’s Warrants
10.2 Commissioners’ Warrants
A. General Government
B. Public Works Fund
C. Family Services Fund
11.0 Other / Future Business
NEON (Nobles Economic Opportunity Network)
Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 5:30 p.m.
Biotechnology Advancement Center, 1527 Prairie Drive, Worthington MN
12.0 Adjournment
Attachment 5.1
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 6.1
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 6.2
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 6.3 A.
Attachment 6.4 A.
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 6.5 A.
Attachment 6.6 A.
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 6.7 A.
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 6.8 A.
Level II Performance Review
Kanaranzi-Little Rock Watershed District
Local Government Unit Final Report
December 22, 2014
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-0768
www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
This page was intentionally left blank.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
ii
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
iii
Table of Contents
Report Summary ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Findings .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Conclusions--Action Items—Commendations ............................................................................................... 4
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 5
LGU Comments and Response ....................................................................................................................... 6
Appendix A Plan Accomplishments................................................................................................................ 7
Appendix B Performance Standards .............................................................................................................. 9
Appendix C Survey Results Summary........................................................................................................... 10
Appendix D LGU Comment Letter ................................................................................................................ 12
Appendix E Program Data ............................................................................................................................ 14
This report has been prepared for the Kanaranzi-Little Rock Watershed District by the Minnesota Board of Water
and Soil Resources (BWSR) in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.102,
Subd.3.
Prepared by Don Buckhout ([email protected]; 651-296-0768).
This report is available in alternative formats upon request.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
PRAP Level II
iv
Kanaranzi-Little Rock Watershed District
Report Summary
What is a PRAP
Performance Review?
The Board of Water and
Soil Resources supports
Minnesota’s counties,
watershed districts and
soil and water
conservation districts
that deliver water and
related land resource
management projects
and programs. In 2007
the Board set up a
program (PRAP) to
systematically review
the performance of
these local units of
government to ensure
their effective operation.
Each year BWSR staff
conduct routine reviews
of several of these local
conservation delivery
entities. This document
reports the results of
one of those reviews.
Key Findings and Conclusions
A general conclusion of this performance review is that the
KLRWD is not currently living up to its potential for putting
good conservation in priority areas. Their successful
implementation of federal ARRA and PL566 projects through a
coordinated effort with other Nobles local governments is a
prime example of the KLRWD’s capabilities. Plan
implementation has been somewhat diminished and the lack of adherence to basic
administrative and communication practices indicates a lack of enthusiasm for their
mission. Hopefully, this is a temporary state because in the recent past the district
has demonstrated their ability to accomplish projects and work successfully with
partners.
The KLRWD has the benefit of working among strong local government partners.
Landowners have actively participated in these programs in the past and apparently
there is still a lot of interest. A locally successful district program would be easy to
build on in the future, by leveraging state and local resources with the district’s
substantial operating fund surplus. This review reveals that the district has a
number of willing partners among local organizations and agencies.
While it is somewhat understandable that with the pending change in district
administrative support the managers’ attention would be turned away from project
implementation right now, the need for district services has not diminished.
Resource Outcomes
The KLRWD watershed plan (i.e., Nobles County Local Water Management Plan)
does not include targets or measureable outcome objectives assigned to the district.
Consequently, there is no report of resource outcome accomplishments in this
performance review.
Recommendations
Obtain administrative services that will support an expanded district project and
program effort.
Address Action Items
Action Items
There are five action items for the district to address.
Commendations
The KLRWD is commended for meeting two of BWSR’s benchmark performance
standards.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
1
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
Introduction
This is an information document prepared by the staff
of the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) for
the Kanaranzi-Little Rock Watershed District (KLRWD)
located in the southwestern corner of Minnesota in
Nobles and Rock Counties. It reports the results of a
routine performance review of that organization’s
water management plan implementation and overall
organizational effectiveness in delivery of land and
water management projects and programs.
BWSR has reviewed the KLRWD’s reported
accomplishments of their management plan action
items, determined the organization’s compliance with
BWSR’s Level I and II performance standards, and
surveyed members of the organization and their
partner organizations.
This review is neither a financial audit nor investigation
and it does not replace or supersede other types of
governmental review of local government unit
operations.
While the performance review reported herein has
been conducted under the authority granted to BWSR
by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B.102, this is a staff
report and has not been reviewed or approved by the
BWSR board members.
What is PRAP?
PRAP is an acronym for BWSR’s Performance
Review and Assistance Program. Authorized by the
2007 Minnesota legislature, the PRAP purpose is to
support local delivery of land conservation and
water management by periodically reviewing and
assessing the performance of local units of
government that deliver those services. These
include soil and water conservation districts,
watershed districts, watershed management
organizations, and the local water management
functions of counties.
BWSR has developed four levels of review, from
routine to specialized, depending on the program
mandates and the needs of the local governmental
unit. A Level I review annually tabulates all local
governmental units’ compliance with basic
planning and reporting requirements. In Level II,
conducted by BWSR once every ten years for each
local government unit, the focus is on the degree
to which the organization is accomplishing its
watershed management plan. A Level II review
includes determination of compliance with BWSR’s
Level I and II statewide performance standards, a
tabulation of progress on planned goals and
objectives, a survey of board or water plan task
force members and staff of the factors affecting
plan implementation, a survey of LGU partners
about their impressions of working with the LGU,
and a BWSR staff report to the organization with
findings, conclusions and recommendations.
BWSR’s actions in Levels III and IV include elements
of Levels I and II and then emphasize assistance to
address the local governmental unit’s specific
needs.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
2
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
Findings
This section describes what BWSR learned about the
performance of the KLRWD.
The KLRWD was formed in 1981 as the local sponsor
for a federal Department of Agriculture P.L. 566
project for land conservation and erosion control. The
310 square mile watershed that the district manages
includes the headwaters portions of two tributaries
that drain to the Missouri River system in both Nobles
and Rock Counties in the southwestern corner of
Minnesota. The district has a five member board of
managers, four from Nobles and one from Rock
County, and contracts with the City of Adrian for
administrative services and has a joint powers
agreement with the Nobles Soil and Water
Conservation District for certain technical services.
There are no district staff.
Resource Outcomes
The KLRWD watershed plan does not include
targets or measureable outcome objectives
assigned to the district. Consequently, there is
no report of resource outcome accomplishments
in this performance review.
Six of those action items are assigned to the KLRWD
for implementation. Accomplishments reported by
the district show that three of the action items are
being addressed and three others have not been
started or only minimally pursued. BWSR has applied
a progress rating to each action item. These details
are described in Appendix A, pages 6-7.
Findings Part 2: Performance Standards
Findings Part 1: Plan Implementation
This part of the performance review describes what
the KLRWD has accomplished based on the content of
its long-range watershed management plan.
The KLRWD is one of four local governments with
water management responsibility that have adopted
the 2009-2018 Nobles County Local Water
Management Plan as their long-range management
plan. The other three are the Nobles Soil and Water
Conservation District, Nobles County and the OkabenaOcheda Watershed District. This plan attempts to
balance the requirements of each water management
organization to achieve a useful, strategic document
that is easily understandable and useful for both
decision makers and residents. This provides a means
for readily assessing progress in plan implementation.
While this report covers those plan action items
assigned to the KLRWD, BWSR has also assessed the
performance of the three other local water
management entities and prepared reports for them.
Taken together, these reports give a comprehensive
overview of the progress being made in implementing
the Nobles County Local Water Management Plan.
The plan identifies three priority concerns—Surface
Water Quality, Drainage Management, Public Water
Supply—for which 100 detailed action items have been
defined. Many of the action items contain quantified
annual targets (e.g., install 2 stormwater retention
structures per year).
This part of the review reports the KLRWD’s
compliance with a set of performance standards
developed by BWSR that describe statutory
requirements and best operating practices for
watershed districts in greater Minnesota (non-metro).
The standards address four areas of operation:
administration, planning, execution, and
communication/coordination. They are further
categorized as basic and benchmark standards. The
basic standards describe practices that are either
legally required or fundamental to watershed district
operations. The benchmark standards describe
practices that reflect a high level of performance.
While all watershed districts should be meeting the
basic standards, only the more ambitious ones will
meet many benchmark standards. The results for the
KLRWD are listed in Appendix B, page 8.
BWSR tracks all 46 watershed districts’ compliance
with four of the basic standards each year. This Level I
PRAP review is reported in a publically accessible
database on the BWSR website. Looking back over the
past five years of compliance tracking, the KLRWD had
problems meeting the standards for preparing an
annual activity report and audit the first two years, but
has shown good compliance with the four Level I basic
standards during the past three years.
For this Level II review, BWSR tracks compliance with
all of the 11 applicable basic standards and 14
benchmark standards. Because the district does not
employ staff there are some basic standards that do
not apply. The KLRWD meets six of the basic
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
standards and two benchmark standards. Most
notable among the basic standards compliance is the
extensive rule revision process the district has
undertaken this year. On the other hand there are
several key basic standards that the district does not
meet. These are discussed further in the Action Items
section on page 5 and in the Recommendations on
page 6.
While not an explicit non-compliance issue, the
district’s large fund balance exceeds the guidelines
from the State Auditor’s office. Those guidelines
recommend a balance of 3-6 months of operating
expenses in the general fund. For the KLRWD, that
would be approximately $60,000. However, as
reported in the 2013 audit report, the district had an
unrestricted fund balance of approximately five times
that amount at the end of 2013.
Findings Part 3: LGU Self-Assessment
This part uses a survey designed and administered by
BWSR to obtain information from board members and
staff about the recent successes and difficulties in
implementing the management plan and about their
ideas for improved district effectiveness. All five board
members and the district executive secretary were
invited to take the survey. However, only three
responded and only two of those provided answers for
all the questions. This is not a strong enough sample
of the district managers to support conclusions about
performance.
In summary, the responses to questions about recent
successes indicated the use of federal ARRA funds and
the partnership with the Nobles Soil and Water
Conservation District as successful. The only difficulty
identified by respondents was the recent rule revision
process. These people also identified generally good
collaboration with Nobles County and the Nobles
SWCD and with neighboring watershed districts. They
also identified the potential for benefits from stronger
partnerships with Rock SWCD, the Luverne NRCS
office, and the watershed districts.
When asked for suggestions for improvements in
district operations the one idea was for closer
relationship with the Nobles SWCD.
Findings Part 4: Partners’ Assessment
Partner organization representatives were identified
by the district executive secretary and invited by BWSR
to take a survey that focused on those people’s
3
working relationship with the KLRWD. Of the 15 actual
or potential partners surveyed, 12 responded, a very
good response rate. The full responses from partners
are in Appendix C (pages 9-10) and a summary is
included in this Part.
In analyzing the 12 respondents’ familiarity with the
work of the district, the survey asks how frequently
they’ve interacted with KLRWD during the past three
years and how long they have been in their current
position. Most respondents (83 percent) reported
contacting the KLRWD “several times a year” or less.
This infrequency of contact is somewhat compensated
for by the same percentage of respondents having
been with their current organizations for at least five
years.
In their opinions about the district’s work in four key
areas, shown in the table below, the partners were
mixed in their assessments of the district. Responses
from “strong” to “poor” showed up in each category.
Partner Ratings (percent)
Strong
Good
Acceptable
Poor
Communication
8
17
25
50
0
Quality of
Work
8
25
33
25
8
Relations
with
Customers
8
17
33
17
25
Timelines/
Follow
through
17
8
33
25
17
Performance
Area
Don’t
Know
Regarding the potential for work in partnership with
the KLRWD, 80 percent said there is potential for them
to do more with the district. In rating their overall
working relationship with the district respondents
were mixed, with a few reporting a “powerful” or
“strong” relationship and most reporting that there is
room for improvement. A general theme that showed
up in partners’ comments is best summarized by one
respondent who stated: “They seem not to have a
general idea of their purpose. They also need to
depend on themselves more and remove the mindset
of ‘can’t somebody else do that?’ “
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
4
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
General Conclusions
A general conclusion of this performance review is that
the KLRWD is not currently living up to its potential for
putting good conservation in priority areas. Their
successful implementation of federal ARRA and PL566
projects through a coordinated effort with other
Nobles local governments is a prime example of the
KLRWD’s capabilities. Plan implementation has been
somewhat diminished and the lack of adherence to
basic administrative and communication practices
indicates a lack of enthusiasm for their mission.
Hopefully, this is a temporary state because in the
recent past the district has demonstrated their ability
to accomplish projects and work successfully with
partners.
The KLRWD has the benefit of working among strong
partners. Nobles County is well positioned with
technical staff and knowledge to deliver conservation.
Nobles SWCD was able to leverage ARRA funds to
secure a Clean Water Fund grant to extend those
federal and local dollars with state funds. The KLRWD
was an active partner in that effort. This collaboration
led to their current joint powers agreement with the
Nobles SWCD. Landowners have actively participated
in these programs in the past and apparently there is
still a lot of interest. The Nobles SWCD has a backlog
of projects waiting for funding. The Part 4 survey of
district partners supports the contention that the
district has great potential for more collaboration with
several local organizations and agencies.
A locally successful district program would be easy to
build on in the future, by leveraging state and local
resources with the district’s substantial operating fund
surplus. The mind set of maintaining the status quo
and waiting for the next federal allocation does not
take advantage of present needs and resources.
Watershed-One Plan initiative are implemented in
future years.
Action Items
Action Items are BWSR basic practices performance
standards which the district does not currently meet.
These are based on the analysis of KLRWD’s
compliance shown in Appendix B, page 8.





Data practices policy: exists and reviewed/updated
within last 5 years.
Engineer Reports: submitted for DNR & BWSR
review
Website: contains annual report, financial
statement, board members, contact info, grant
report(s), watershed management plan.
Functioning advisory committee:
recommendations on projects, reports, maintains
2-way communication with Board.
Communication piece sent within last 12 months.
See Recommendation 2, page 5.
Commendations
The KLRWD is commended for meeting the following
benchmark performance standards.


Coordination with County Board and
City/Township officials.
Partnerships: cooperative projects/tasks with
neighboring districts, counties, soil and water
districts, non-governmental organizations.
While it is somewhat understandable that with the
pending change in district administrative support the
managers’ attention would be turned away from
project implementation right now, the need for district
services has not diminished. (See Recommendation 1,
page 5.)
The KLRWD already has a planning structure in place
with the county, SWCD and Okabena-Ocheda WD to
help identify and prioritize the areas needing
attention. Additional state resources will be brought
to bear when the MPCA’s Watershed Restoration and
Protection Strategies and, potentially, BWSR’s One
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
5
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
Recommendations
This section contains recommendations offered by
BWSR to the KLRWD board of managers to enhance
the organization’s service to the residents of the
district and its delivery of effective water and related
land resource management. BWSR financial assistance
may be available to support the district’s
implementation of some of these recommendations.
Recommendation 1: Obtain administrative services
that will support an expanded district project and
program effort.
In obtaining administrative services to replace those
provided by the City of Adrian, the managers should
explore opportunities with organizations they already
know or have worked with, that operate in the same
watershed, and that have similar program priorities.
As stated in the conclusions section above, the KLRWD
has the potential, with the right support staff, to be a
more effective conservation and water management
partner in an area with on-going needs. There are
several options that could be successful depending on
the commitment and motivation of all parties. The
actual arrangement could be a contract for services
with one or more organizations that have strengths in
areas of program priorities, or even hiring one or more
district staff with the skill sets to promote their
mission and goals.
2c. An advisory committee is a statutory requirement
of all watershed districts in Minnesota. An advisory
committee exists to provide broad citizen and interest
group input to district decisions and planning and can
serve as a means to get the message out to the public
on watershed district business.
2d., e. For both the district website and
communication piece items, these are a means to both
maintain accountability with the residents of the
district and to keep them informed and educated
about watershed management. With some editing
and condensing, the district’s annual report could
serve as a brochure or flyer that is sent to district
residents, posted on community bulletin boards, or
placed on countertops at agencies and business where
the primary clients are likely to see it. The district
websites, which are currently hosted by both the state
association and the Nobles SWCD, need updating and
expansion at the very least. Ask the website manager
to add the district’s annual report, financial statement
and meeting minutes. Or, consider contracting for
development of the district’s own website that could
be easily maintained by an administrator or website
development specialist. The website is an important
public information and district accountability tool.
While not a specific action item, the district should
consider how to use the current fund surplus to fund
more conservation and water management projects
and programs. That is the primary purpose for those
funds.
Recommendation 2: Address Action Items
After completing the rule revision process and securing
a new administrative support agreement, the
managers should address the action items identified in
this performance review (see page 4).
2a. The data practices policy is a straightforward
document that states how the district will respond to
information requests consistent with the Minnesota
Data Practices Act. Neighboring districts, such as the
Heron Lake WD, could be consulted for examples of
such a policy that could be adapted to the specific
situation in the KLRWD.
2b. The district has not submitted the preliminary
engineers report for the Nobles Ditch #11
improvement project to BWSR, as required. All project
engineers reports must be submitted to both BWSR
and the DNR for review and comment.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
6
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
LGU Comments and
BWSR Responses
The KLRWD submitted written comments on
November 21, 2014. The comments from that letter
are summarized here with a comment response from
BWSR. The full text of the LGU comments is in
Appendix D, page 12.
KLRWD Comment: The demeanor of the language used
in the draft report differed in tone from the in-person
comments and discussion by BWSR staff at the
September 18, 2014 board of managers meeting. The
language in the written report seemed quite stern and
did not summarize the overall review as well as the
dialogue at that meeting. It is requested that anyone
reading the review consider KLR’s contrasting opinion
regarding the choice of wording in the report.
BWSR Response: Comment noted. BWSR reviewed
the language of the draft report and made a few
revisions in this final report to reflect the discussion, as
noted in the comment.
staff and administrative support services will serve the
district well in this regard.
KLRWD Comment: Many recommendations reference
the Nobles County Local Water Management Plan. The
managers agree that the plan should be used as a
basis for strategic planning and that plan will be used
to attain KLRWD’s goals.
BWSR Response: Comment noted.
KLRWD Comment: The report referenced the need for
the KLRWD to improve communication with
constituents. The KLRWD will work to do that. The
pending change in administrative staff, moving from
part-time, to an entity which works with water and soil
resources every day, should improve communication.
BWSR Response: Comment noted. While the district
has been well-served administratively under the past
contract with the City of Adrian, the move to an entity
with expertise in land and water conservation will be a
benefit to the effectiveness of the organization.
KLRWD Comment: The managers agree that the
KLRWD has been a long-standing funding partner for
district landowners. Managers believe they are still
acting in the best interests of the watershed area and
its residents. While historical and effective water and
soil projects were funded with the PL566 and ARRA
programs, the reduction and delay of “like” grant
opportunities have led to recent reduced project
spending. The majority of recent grant awards have
gone to those who had the high tax capacity to afford
expensive engineering studies as part of their grant
applications. You recommend that the KLRWD perform
similar studies to improve the chance of grant funding.
While we appreciate this recommendation we ask
BWSR to consider the economic capability of various
WDs. The grant writers’ credentials and the cost of
preparing a grant application do not necessarily speak
to the needs throughout the state.
BWSR Response: The current grant climate is more
competitive than in previous years. However, the
available funds for good projects has increased
substantially. As noted in this report, the KLRWD has
the advantage of operating in Nobles County where
there are several water management entities that
know how to partner and obtain funding in this new
environment. The managers’ decision to shift their
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
7
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
Appendix A. Plan Accomplishments
LGU Name: Kanaranzi Litte Rock Watershed District
Date of This Assessment: 7/2/2014
Type of Management Plan: Nobles County Local Water Management Plan
Date of Last Plan Revision: 2008, updated in 2013
Goal 1: Prevent further degradation of stream and lake water quality, with a priority for shoreland, TMDL-listed waters, and
unsewered communities.
Objective 1.c: Promote Ag Best Management Practices (AgBMPs).
Planned Actions or Activities
1.c.6 Provide incentives for sign up of 100
acres of buffer strips along ditches and
streams within the Des Moines, Rock,
Kanaranzi-Little Rock Watersheds.
Proposed
Timeframe
Actual
Timeframe
Accomplishments to Date
Progress
Rating
2014-2018
Have not started buffer strip incentive
programs.

2014-2018
Funded 2 Sediment Basin cost-share
contracts totaling $31,877.26, approved
conservation use acres agreements for 6
landowners totaling $6,000 and paid
engineering costs for 2 streambank
projects in 2013 to Southwest Prairie TSA

Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Enrollment – $15,000/year
1.c.8 Promote Cost share programs and
designate funds to watershed district costshare programs
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Enrollment – $75,000/year
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Next Steps
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
8
GOAL 2: Restore more natural flow in the drainage system, with a priority for Shoreland
Objective 2a: Improve Shoreland and Impervious surface areas
Proposed
Actual
Planned Actions or Activites
Accomplishments to Date
Timeframe Timeframe
2.a.2 Administer and promote Watershed
District rules.
Progress
Rating
2014-2018
Administered and promoted Watershed
District rules. Managed Permitting Process.
Began Rules Update Process.

2014-2018
Minimal progress has been made to
adopting provisions for conservation
design and low-impact development.

Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Next Steps
Audience – 2000 landowner and
operators/year
2.a.6 Consider adopting provisions for
conservation design and low impact
development in local plans and zoning
ordinances.
Cities have adopted floodplain ordinances
and the City of Adrian has constructed a
berm to reduce damage due to flooding.
Outreach- Personal contacts, public meetings
Audience – City and County officials and staff
Objective 2b: Improve Flood Control, drainage systems and storm water retention :
Proposed
Actual
Planned Actions or Activities
Accomplishments to Date
Timeframe Timeframe
2.b.6 Facilitate City of Adrian efforts to
improve storm water drainage.
Outreach- Personal contacts, public meetings
Audience – City residents and officials,
County officials and staff
2.b.12 Seek additional funding for water
retention structures within the KanaranziLittle Rock watershed.
Enrollment - 2 practices/year; $40,000/year
Progress
Rating
2014-2018
KLR has provided input regarding the
construction of a berm in 1994 and the
design of storm-water discharge areas in
the Adrian Campground in 2010.

2014-2018
The Nobles SWCD applied for CWF grant
funding for additional conservation
practice funding and feedlot funding in
2013.

Indicator symbol for Progress Rating: =not started/droppped
=on-going progress
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Next Steps
=completed/target met
9
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
Appendix B. Watershed District Performance Standards
Administration
Performance
Area
LGU Name:
Performance Standard
Planning
Execution
Level of Review
 Benchmark standard
n Basic practice or Statutory requirement
I Annual Compliance
II BWSR Staff Review &
Assessment
(see instructions for explanation of standards)
Yes, No,
or Value
YES NO
Annual report: submitted by mid-year
I
Financial audit: completed within last 12 months
I
Drainage authority buffer strip report submitted on time
I
eLink Grant Report(s): submitted on time
I
Rules: date of last revision or review
II
Personnel policy: exists and reviewed/updated within last 5 yrs
II
Data practices policy: exists and reviewed/updated within last 5 yrs
II
Manager appointments: current and reported
II
Administrator on staff
II
NA
NA
2014
NA
X
X
X

Board training: orientation & cont. ed. plan and record for each
board member
Staff training: orientation & cont. ed. plan and record for each staff
person
Operational guidelines exist and current
II
X
X
X
NA
II

 Public drainage records: meet modernization guidelines
n Watershed management plan: up-to-date
 Biennial Budget Request submitted within last 24 months
II
X
NA
II
I
X
II
X
 state and local watershed priorities
 Local water plans reviewed
n Engineer Reports: submitted for DNR & BWSR review
II
X
n Total expenditures per year (past 10 yrs)
 Water quality trends tracked for priority water bodies
 Watershed hydrologic trends monitored / reported
II
Strategic plan identifies short-term activities & budgets based on
n
n
Website: contains annual report, financial statement, board
members, contact info, grant report(s), watershed mgmt plan
Functioning advisory committee: recommendations on projects,
reports, maintains 2-way communication with Board
Website: contains meeting notices, agendas & minutes; updated
after each board mtg; additional content
 Obtain stakeholder input: within last 5 yrs
 Track progress for I & E objectives in Plan
 Coord with County Board and City/Twp officials
2006
121065
2007
170210
2008
81621
2009
90297
see below
II
X
II
X
I
X
II
X
II
X
II
X
II
X
X
II
Partnerships: cooperative projects/tasks with neighboring districts,
2005
172073
X
II
n Communication piece sent within last 12 months

0
II
 counties, soil and water districts, non-governmental organizations
2004
149462
Rating
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n


Communication
&Coordination
KANARANZI-LITTLE ROCK
2010
246990
2011
125767
II
X
II
X
2012
98113
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
2013
131917
10
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
Appendix C. Summary of Survey Results
Survey Overview:
The survey was developed by BWSR staff for the purpose of identifying information about the local government
unit’s performance from both board members and staff and from the unit’s partner organizations. The KanaranziLittle Rock WD executive secretary identified their current board members and partner organizations with which
they have an on-going working relationship. BWSR staff invited those people to take the on-line survey and their
responses were received and analyzed by BWSR staff. Board members and staff are given different sets of
questions than the partners. The identity of survey respondents is unknown to both BWSR and the local
governmental unit.
In this case, of the five board members and support staff, only three responded to the survey. Of those only two
people answered all the questions. On the other hand, of 15 partner organization representatives invited to take
the survey 12 people responded (80%), a strong response rate. Because of the low response from people within
the KLRWD, only the partner organization responses are listed here. The board responses are summarized in the
main body of the report on page 3. Some responses were edited for clarity or brevity.
KLRWD Partner Organization Questions and Responses
Question: How often have you interacted with this organization during the past three years?
Select the response closest to your experience. (response percent)
Not at all
0
A few times
75
Several times a year
8
Monthly
0
Almost every week
17
Daily
0
Is the amount of work you do in partnership with this organization…(percent)
Not enough, there is potential for us to do more together
80
About right
20
Too much, they depend on us for work they should be doing for
themselves
0
Too much, we depend on them for work we should be doing ourselves or
with others
0
Additional comments:
-Tough to answer. We work with them on projects. Instead of using their own cost-share dollars they try to direct
the request to state or federal cost-share sources.
-There is potential to do more; however, the board is reluctant to spend money.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
11
Based on your experience working with them, please rate the organization as a partner with you in
the following areas:
Performance Characteristic
Rating (percent of responses)
Strong
Good
Acceptable
Poor
I don’t
know
Communication (they keep us informed; we
know their activities; they seek our input)
8
17
25
50
0
Quality of work (they have good projects and
programs; good service delivery)
8
25
33
25
8
Relationships with Customers (they work well
with landowners and clients)
8
17
33
17
25
Timelines/Follow-through (they are reliable and
meet deadlines)
17
8
33
25
17
How is your working relationship with this organization? (percent)
Powerful, we are more effective working together
9
Strong, we work well together most of the time
18
Good, but it could be better
27
Acceptable, but a struggle at times
36
Poor, there are almost always difficulties
9
Comments from Partners about their working relationship with the KLRWD.
-Administrator is good to work with and has contacted me with questions; rarely interaction with the WD
-Need to work on their goals and intentions; don’t seem to have a general idea of their purpose; need to depend
more on themselves instead of trying to shift the work to others (e.g., “Can’t somebody else do that?)
How long have you been with the organization you currently serve? (percentage)
Less than 5 years
17
5 to 15 years
58
More than 15 years
25
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
Appendix D. Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD Comment Letter
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
12
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
13
PRAP Level II Report: Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD
Appendix E. Program Data
Time required to complete this review
KLRWD Staff time: 4 hours
BWSR Staff: 45 hours
Schedule of Level II Review
BWSR PRAP Performance Review Key Dates
n July 9-25, 2014: Survey of Board/Committee, staff and partners
n September 11, 2014: Presentation of Draft Report to Board of Managers
n December 22, 2014: Transmittal of Final Report to LGU
NOTE: BWSR uses review time as a surrogate for tracking total program costs. Time required for PRAP
performance reviews is aggregated and included in BWSR’s annual PRAP report to the Minnesota Legislature.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
14
Level II Performance Review
Nobles County Environmental Services
And
Nobles Soil and Water Conservation District
Joint Local Government Unit Final Report
November 25, 2014
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-0768
www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
This page was intentionally left blank.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
ii
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
iii
Table of Contents
Report Summary ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Findings .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Conclusions--Action Items—Commendations ............................................................................................... 5
Recommendations and LGU Comments and Response ................................................................................ 6
Appendix A Plan Accomplishments................................................................................................................ 7
Appendix B Performance Standards ............................................................................................................ 27
Appendix C Survey Results Summary........................................................................................................... 29
Appendix D Nobles County and SWCD Comments ...................................................................................... 37
Appendix E Program Data ............................................................................................................................ 38
This report has been prepared for the Nobles County Environmental Services Department and the Nobles Soil
and Water Conservation District by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.102, Subd.3.
Prepared by Don Buckhout ([email protected]; 651-296-0768).
This report is available in alternative formats upon request.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
PRAP Level II
iv
Nobles County Environmental Services Department
and
Nobles Soil and Water Conservation District
Report Summary
What is a PRAP
Performance Review?
Key Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
The Board of Water and
Soil Resources supports
Minnesota’s counties,
watershed districts and
soil and water
conservation districts
that deliver water and
related land resource
management projects
and programs. In 2007
the Board set up a
program (PRAP) to
systematically review
the performance of
these local units of
government to ensure
their effective operation.
Each year BWSR staff
conduct routine reviews
of several of these local
conservation delivery
entities. This document
reports the results of
one of those reviews.
This performance review reveals solid performance by two
local water management entities that provide
complementary services to the people and for the resources
of Nobles County. Their progress in the implementation of a
comprehensive local water management plan has been
consistent, with many planned targets met or exceeded. The
plan itself reflected the intent of all the local water management entities in the
county, including the watershed districts, to collaborate in the complex tasks of
watershed based planning and management.
In particular, the joint powers arrangement between the SWCD and the KanaranziLittle Rock watershed district exemplifies that collaboration.
The ESD and SWCD show good compliance with BWSR’s basic and benchmark
performance standards, another indicator of well-managed organizations.
The partners who responded to the PRAP survey provided consistently high marks in
their judgment of the performance of both LGUs.
Resource Outcomes
The Nobles Local Water Management Plan contains many action items with specific
quantitative goals, but none of these are for specific improvements in natural
resource characteristics, such as surface water quality parameters or habitat quality.
Recommendations
Joint Recommendation 1: Explore the option of the One Watershed-One Plan
concept in the next plan revision..
County Recommendation 1: Ensure that the next version of the local water
management plan provides targeting of action items by watershed. (Action
Item.)
SWCD Recommendation 1: Continue and expand operational and technical
support for the watershed districts in Nobles County.
SWCD Recommendation 2: Develop and adopt a district data practices policy
(Action Item).
Commendations
Nobles County received commendations for meeting 11 of BWSR’s benchmark
performance standards.
Nobles SWCD received commendations for meeting 7 of BWSR’s benchmark
performance standards for SWCDs.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
1
Introduction
This is an information document prepared by the staff
of the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) for
both the Nobles County Environmental Services
Department (ESD), in particular its local water
management responsibilities, and for the Nobles Soil
and Water Conservation District (SWCD). It reports
the results of a routine performance review of those
organizations’ water management plan
implementation and overall organizational
effectiveness in delivery of land and water
conservation projects and programs. BWSR has
conducted and reported a joint review of both entities
because they both use the same local water
management plan to guide their respective activities.
For this review BWSR has analyzed the LGUs’ reported
accomplishments of their local water management
plan action items, determined the organization’s
compliance with BWSR’s Level I and II performance
standards, and surveyed members of the organizations
and their partner organizations.
This review is neither a financial audit nor investigation
and it does not replace or supersede other types of
governmental review of local government unit
operations.
While the performance review reported herein has
been conducted under the authority granted to BWSR
by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B.102, this is a staff
report and has not been reviewed or approved by the
BWSR board members.
What is PRAP?
PRAP is an acronym for BWSR’s Performance
Review and Assistance Program. Authorized by the
2007 Minnesota legislature, the PRAP purpose is to
support local delivery of land conservation and
water management by periodically reviewing and
assessing the performance of local units of
government that deliver those services. These
include soil and water conservation districts,
watershed districts, watershed management
organizations, and the local water management
functions of counties.
BWSR has developed four levels of review, from
routine to specialized, depending on the program
mandates and the needs of the local governmental
unit. A Level I review annually tabulates all local
governmental units’ compliance with basic
planning and reporting requirements. In Level II,
conducted by BWSR once every ten years for each
local government unit, the focus is on the degree
to which the organization is accomplishing its local
water management plan. A Level II review includes
determination of compliance with BWSR’s Level I
and II statewide performance standards, a
tabulation of progress on planned goals and
objectives, a survey of board or water plan task
force members and staff of the factors affecting
plan implementation, a survey of LGU partners
about their impressions of working with the LGU,
and a BWSR staff report to the organization with
findings, conclusions and recommendations.
BWSR’s actions in Levels III and IV include elements
of Levels I and II and then emphasize assistance to
address the local governmental unit’s specific
needs.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
Findings
This section describes what BWSR learned about the
performance of the Nobles ESD and the Nobles SWCD.
The ESD implements the County's Comprehensive
Water Plan and provides water testing for private
wells. It also enforces the Wetland Conservation Act
and provides oversight of agriculture and weed
inspection issues. The department also has oversight
of feedlot applications and enforcement of the State
Feedlot Rules. It coordinates the overall
administration of the Nobles County Comprehensive
Plan through the County Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations in the unincorporated areas of
the county. This office issues land use permits and
provides inspections and permits for the on-site septic
system program. County solid waste and recycling
services are managed by ESD as well. The
department’s goal is “to continue to enhance our
environment by safeguarding our natural resources.”
The ESD is headed by a director who manages two
department technical staff.
The Nobles SWCD was organized in 1954 as a legal
subdivision of the state. The District is governed by a
five-member Board of Supervisors which is responsible
for directing all District activities and establishing
operational policies. A four-person staff carries out
the day-to-day activities of the SWCD. By utilizing a
combination of available local, state and federal
assistance, the district directs conservation programs
to service the resource management needs of all those
who live within Nobles County. Priority Initiatives for
the Nobles SWCD include: water quality protection,
water erosion protection, wind erosion control, flood
control, resource management, education, and wildlife
habitat creation and enhancement.
Findings Part 1: Plan Implementation
The findings in this part describe the local water plan
action items assigned to the ESD and the SWCD and
the accomplishments to date for each organization.
The Nobles Local Water Management Plan (20082018) is one document that serves as the long-range
plan for four separate local water management
entities: Nobles County, the Nobles SWCD, the
Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District, and the
Kanaranzi-Little Rock Watershed District. This plan
attempts to balance the requirements of each water
management organization to achieve a useful,
strategic document that is easily understandable and
2
useful for decision makers and residents of Nobles
County. This provides a means for readily assessing
progress in plan implementation.
The assigned action items and reported
accomplishments for the two watershed districts are
described in separate performance review reports
prepared for each of them. Taken together, these
three reports give a comprehensive overview of the
progress being made in implementing the Nobles
County Local Water Management Plan.
The Nobles County Local Water Management Plan
identifies three priority concerns—Surface Water
Quality, Drainage Management, Public Water Supply—
for which 100 detailed action items have been defined.
Many of the action items contain quantified annual
targets (e.g., install 2 stormwater retention structures
per year). In many of those cases, this report of plan
implementation identifies whether those targets have
been met.
The ESD has lead agency responsibility for 49 of the
100 action items in the plan. The county reports
completing or making progress on 44 of the 49 actions
(90%). Two items have not been started and three are
not reported. Notable is the fact that the ESD has
completed or met the targets for 9 of its 49 action
items.
The SWCD is the lead agency for 38 of the 100 action
items. That organization reports completion or ongoing progress on 34 of the 38 (89%). The SWCD has
completed or met the targets for 10 of their action
items.
A full description of the goals, objectives, action items,
accomplishments and next steps is contained in
Appendix A, pages 7-26.
Resource Outcomes
The Nobles Local Water Management Plan
contains many action items with specific
quantitative goals, but none of these are for
specific improvements in natural resource
characteristics, such as surface water quality
parameters or habitat quality.
Findings Part 2: Performance Standards
BWSR has developed performance standards that
describe both basic and benchmark best management
practices related to the overall operation of local
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
water management entities. These standards are
different, depending on the type of LGU.
Nevertheless, each set of standards addresses four
areas of operation: administration, planning,
execution, and communication/coordination. The
basic standards describe practices that are either
legally required or fundamental to county or SWCD
operations. The benchmark standards describe
practices that reflect a high level of performance.
While all local government water management entities
should be meeting the basic standards, only the more
ambitious ones will meet many benchmark standards.
Each year for the Level I PRAP review, BWSR tracks all
241 water management LGUs’ compliance with a few
of the basic standards. The results of this statewide
review are reported in a publically accessible database
on the BWSR website (http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/
PRAP/reporting/index.php). Both Nobles LGUs show
100 percent compliance with the Level I basic
standards during each of the past six years.
For this Level II review, which includes the full range of
performance standards, the county reports
compliance with 10 of 11 basic standards and 10 of 12
benchmark standards. The SWCD reports compliance
with 11 of 12 basic standards and 7 of 15 benchmark
standards. The detailed lists of performance standards
with the scores for each LGU are in Appendix B, pages
27-28.
The county does not meet the basic standard for
having a local water management plan with the
priority concerns, objectives, or action items organized
by major or sub-watershed. The one basic standard
for which the SWCD does not meet the requirement is
having a current data practices policy.
Findings Part 3: LGUs’ Self-Assessment
This part and the next of the performance review are
based on a survey of county water plan committee
members, selected commissioners, the SWCD
supervisors, the staff of both LGUs, and
representatives of the partner organizations with
which they work. This part summarizes the results of
the internal survey of both the county and SWCD. The
survey questions are designed to elicit information
about LGU successes and difficulties in implementing
plan goals and objectives and assessing the extent and
quality of partnerships with other related
3
organizations. Full survey responses are in Appendix
C, pages 29-36.
A total of seven county water plan committee
members, commissioners and staff were invited to
take the on-line survey and six submitted responses.
However, only 2 of the six answered all the survey
questions. For the SWCD, a total of eight supervisors
and staff were invited to take the survey and only
three responded. These are both very low response
rates. Therefore, the results obtained could not be
considered representative of each organization and
should be verified with follow-up discussions by both
LGUs’ lead staff.
In summarizing the survey responses, the county staff
and/or water plan committee members who
responded are most satisfied with accomplishments in
various cost-share programs, feedlot and wastewater
treatment projects. They cited collaboration and good
working relationships for those successes. The SWCD
supervisors and staff who responded mentioned Clean
Water Fund grants in each of the past several years,
terrace and waterways projects, the tree program,
RIM and CRP signups, and state cost-share as
successes. Reasons given are good landowner
knowledge and participation, hardworking staff, and
strong partnerships with others.
Projects and programs that have been difficult to
implement are, on the county side, adoption of soil
erosion and feedlot ordinances and delays in the
county local water plan revision. For the SWCD,
projects on hold have been erosion control and feedlot
practices, rain garden work, partnering with the
Kanaranzi-Little Rock WD and Lake Ocheda water
quality improvement. Reasons given included
resistance to new ordinances, watershed district
organizational changes, lack of funding, and the need
for targeting resources to projects.
In identifying organizations with which they have a
good working relationship, both LGUs listed each other
as well as the three surrounding watershed districts
and the NRCS. Others with whom they would like a
better relationship include the Minnesota DNR and
PCA. The SWCD also mentioned the Kanaranzi-Little
Rock WD as a partner with room for a better working
relationship.
The county and SWCD identified a few ways to
improve the effectiveness of their respective
organizations. For the county, the One WatershedOne Plan initiative is seen as a potentially helpful
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
approach to future water planning. For the SWCD,
additional staff in the area of education and outreach,
better communication between supervisors and staff
and goals for staff development were listed as
potentially advancing district effectiveness.
Findings Part 4: Partners’ Assessment
A total of 39 partners or potential partners from a
variety of governmental and non-governmental
organizations were invited to take an on-line survey of
their opinions regarding the work of the Nobles ESD
and the SWCD and their relationship with each of
those entities. Partners were invited to complete the
survey for one or both LGUs depending on their work
experience and familiarity with each one. Fifteen of 39
responded as ESD partners and 9 as SWCD partners.
Individual survey respondents are not identified so
there is no count of which respondents, if any
submitted information for both LGUs. Full survey
responses are in Appendix C, pages 29-36.
SWCD Partner Ratings (percent)
Strong
Good
Acceptable
Poor
Communication
33
33
33
0
0
Quality of
Work
44
56
0
0
0
Relations
with
Customers
44
44
0
0
11
Timelines/
Follow
through
33
56
11
0
0
Performance
Area
Don’t
Know
4
The tables on this page show the opinions of partners
ESD Partner Ratings (percent)
Strong
Good
Acceptable
Poor
Communication
29
50
21
0
0
Quality of
Work
36
36
29
0
0
Relations
with
Customers
50
21
21
0
7
Timelines/
Follow
through
21
64
7
0
7
Performance
Area
Don’t
Know
regarding four aspects of each LGU’s performance.
The results show that the ESD’s and the SWCD’s
partners rate their performances equally well.
Likewise, the partners rate the overall working
relationship for each LGU as positive. What is
noteworthy in all these responses is their overall
positive nature with no partners offering a “poor”
rating or any negative comments.
In general both LGUs received similar marks from the
partners who responded. Familiarity with the LGUs
was based on responses to questions about frequency
of contact with each LGU and the number of years in
which the respondent has been with their current
organization. Both sets of respondents reported
sufficient experience to be familiar with the ESD and
the SWCD.
Partners rated the amount of work they do with the
LGUs to be about right, with a few indicating they
would like to do more.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
General Conclusions
This performance review reveals solid performance by
two local water management entities that provide
complementary services to the people and for the
resources of Nobles County. Their progress in the
implementation of a comprehensive local water
management plan has been consistent, with many
planned targets met or exceeded. The plan itself
reflected the intent of all the local water management
entities in the county, including the watershed
districts, to collaborate in the complex tasks of
watershed based planning and management.
5
reflect above average operational effectiveness and
level of effort.
Nobles ESD is commended for:

LWM Implementation Plan completed within 5
yrs. of plan adoption

Water quality trend data used for short- and
long-range plan priorities

State $ leveraged at least 1.5 times in nonstate $

Data collected to track outcomes for each
priority concern
In particular, the joint powers arrangement between
the SWCD and the Kanaranzi-Little Rock watershed
district exemplifies that collaboration. (See SWCD
Recommendation 1, page 6.)

Water quality trends tracked for priority water
bodies

Obtain stakeholder input: within last 5 yrs.
The ESD and SWCD show good compliance with
BWSR’s basic and benchmark performance standards,
another indicator of well-managed organizations.

Partnerships: liaison with SWCDs/WDs and
cooperative projects/tasks done

Annual report to water plan advisory
committee on plan progress

Coordination with state watershed-based
initiatives

County local water plan on county website

Water management ordinances on the county
website.
The partners who responded to the PRAP survey
provided consistently high marks in their judgment of
the performance of both LGUs.
Action Items
Action items are based on the LGUs’ compliance with
BWSR’s basic practice performance standards (see
Findings, Part 2 and Appendix B. page 27-28). LGUs
are given an Action Item in this section to address lack
of compliance with one or more basic standards.
Nobles SWCD is commended for:

Strategic plan sets priorities based on resource
trend data and available capacity

Annual Plan of Work: based on long-range or
strategic plan

Website contains additional content beyond
minimum required

Obtain stakeholder input: within last 5 yrs.

Annual report communicates progress on plan
goals

Partnerships: cooperative projects/tasks with
neighboring districts, counties, watershed
districts, non-governmental organizations

Coordination with County Board by
supervisors or staff.
Nobles County has one action item:

Organize LWM plan priority concerns,
objectives and/or action items by major
watershed.
See County Recommendation 1, page 6.
Nobles SWCD has one action item:
 Develop a data practices policy.
See SWCD Recommendation 2, page 6.
Commendations
Commendations are based on compliance with BWSR’s
benchmark performance standards (see Findings, Part
2 and Appendix B, pages 27-28). These practices
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
Recommendations
This section contains recommendations offered by
BWSR to the Nobles County ESD staff and to the
supervisors and staff of the Nobles SWCD to enhance
both organizations’ service to the residents of the
county and their delivery of effective local water
management.
Joint Recommendation 1: Explore the option of the
One Watershed-One Plan concept in the next plan
revision.
Nobles County LGUs have already demonstrated a
willingness to develop a local water management plan
that incorporates and coordinates the interests of four
of the local water management entities operating in
the county. Authorizing legislation enacted since the
Noble County local water management plan was
adopted has made it easier to integrate multiple LGUs
in a comprehensive watershed management plan. For
the next plan revision, the LGUs should consider
whether the One Watershed-One Plan option is a
viable approach. The characteristics and issues
affecting the various LGUs and watersheds will have to
be carefully evaluated.
County Recommendation 1: Ensure that the next
version of the local water management plan provides
targeting of action items by watershed. (Action Item)
If the county adopts the One Watershed-One Plan
approach to the next iteration of the local water plan,
that process will direct how issues and actions are
organized. If not, then the water plan task force
should use watershed boundaries as the means for
identifying issues, priority concerns and defining the
implementation for the next version of the local water
management plan.
6
managers to develop a short-term strategic plan to
guide the activities of that organization until the next
watershed management plan is developed.
SWCD Recommendation 2: Develop and adopt a
district data practices policy (Action Item).
Within the next three months the supervisors should
adopt a data practices policy to ensure consistent
treatment of all who may request information from
district files. Policies in effect in neighboring districts
can serve as examples for the SWCD to modify, if
needed, and adopt.
LGU Comments and
BWSR Responses
The Nobles County Environmental Services
Department submitted written comments on the draft
of this report. The comments from that email are
summarized here with a comment response from
BWSR. The Nobles SWCD did not have any comments
on the draft report. The full text of the responses from
both LGUs is in Appendix D, page 33.
County Comment: The Planning and Zoning
Commission concurs with the BWSR 2014 Level II PRAP
report. We look forward to aligning our next water
plan on major watershed boundaries. Nobles County
believes the one watershed, one plan option will be
beneficial for the county and allow us to better
identify, prioritize and target implementation
programs and practices.
BWSR Response: Comment noted.
SWCD Recommendation 1: Continue and expand
operational and technical support for the watershed
districts in Nobles County.
The Nobles SWCD has a good track record of providing
technical support to the Kanaranzi-Little Rock
Watershed District. The potential exists for that
support to expand to include administrative support as
well. BWSR supports that expansion and encourages
the SWCD staff to work with the watershed board of
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
7
Appendix A. Plan Accomplishments
LGU Names: Nobles County (ENVS) and Nobles Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Type of Management Plan: County Local Water Management Plan
Date of Last Plan Revision: 2013
Date of this Assessment: June 2014
GOAL No. 1: Improve Surface Water Quality
Page 29
Objective 1.a
of Mgmt. Plan
Address TMDL Impaired Waters
Proposed
Timeframe
Actual
Timeframe
1.a.1 Review land use plans and ordinances to
insure minimal development impacts on
surface waters. ENVS
2013-2018
2014
Staff reviewed and completed

Completed
1.a.2 Provide public information on water
quality.
Outreach – Booths and Displays at County
Fair and Farm & Home Shows, Direct
mailings, news releases, personal contacts
Audience – 2,500 landowners, operators and
residents /year; $2,500/year ENVS
1.a.3 Provide technical and administrative
assistance to MPCA on impaired waters
listings and water monitoring
Outreach – Provide Technical Assistance.
Target-Assist with water quality assessments
and monitoring; $5,000/year ENVS
1.a.4 Work with MPCA, BWSR, DNR and
USFWS to improve quality of waters entering
Heron Lake. SWCD
Target- Targeting and prioritizing water
quality projects and activities; $5,000/year
1.a.5 Work with MPCA and private wildlife
and sportsmen’s organizations to improve
quality of waters entering Okabena, Ocheda
and Bella lakes SWCD
Target- Targeting and prioritizing water
quality projects and activities.; $5,000/year
2013-2018
2013-2018
Provide public information on water
quality at county fair and yearly
newsletter, articles in On The Farm and
Daily Globe.

Scheduled for
continuing
implementation.
2013-2018
2013-2018
Worked with Rock River TMDL partners
and also funded testing on Indian Lake
done by SWCD.

Continue partnering
and monitoring.
Working with MPCA, BWSR, DNR and
USFWS by participating in WFDRB WRAP’s
process as well as assisting agencies in
targeting project locations and landowner
contacts.
Work with MPCA, Okabena Ocheda
Watershed District and Nobles County
Pheasants Forever to improve quality of
waters entering Okabena, Ocheda and
Bella lakes specifically through the
promotion of buffer and habitat programs.

Continued participation
in WRAP’s and other
state and federal
agency programs

Continued promotion of
buffer and habitat
programs in addition to
promotion and
installation of water
quality projects.
Planned Actions or Activities
2013-2018
2013-2018
Accomplishments to Date
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Progress
Rating
Next Steps
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
1.a.6 Provide technical assistance for the Des
Moines River TMDL, Rock River TMDL,
Missouri River TMDL and other TMDL
preparation and implementation plans as
needed. SWCD
Outreach – Provide Technical Assistance
8
2013-2018
Provide technical assistance for the Des
Moines River TMDL, Rock River TMDL,
Missouri River TMDL and other TMDL
preparation and implementation plans as
needed.
Objective 1.b: Prevent soil erosion
Proposed
Actual
Planned Actions or Activities
Timeframe Timeframe
1.b.1 Assist with coordination and funding of
environmental education events for the
students of Nobles County. These include
(but not limited to) Environmental Fair, Fifth
Grade Conservation Days, Earth Day and
Arbor day Events. ENVS
Target Audience - 2,500+ area students/year;
$2,000/year
1.b.2 Promote, assist, seek funding and install
field windbreaks, living snow fences and
farmstead windbreaks to reduce the amount
of wind erosion. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Enrollment – 0.5 miles windbreaks and 10
acres shelterbelts/year; $10,000/year
1.b.3 Promote conservation practices and
programs to landowners in Nobles County.
These include State Cost-Share, RIM,
RIM/WRP, CRP, EQIP, CSP and others. SWCD
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Target Audience – 2,500 landowners/year –
20 sign-ups/year; $3,000/year
2013-2018
2013-2018
Accomplishments to Date
Environmental fair annual event, Nobles
County fair displays. Contracted for 2013
&2014 with Heron Lake Ecology Bus to go
to Nobles County Schools. Brewster,
Ellsworth and Adrian schools completed
last year.

Continue to provide
technical assistance to
implementation
activities and
participate in planning
and grant programs as
needed
Progress
Next Steps
Rating
Scheduled for

continuing
implementation
2013-2018
Promote, assist, seek funding and install
field windbreaks, living snow fences and
farmstead windbreaks to reduce the
amount of wind erosion. Installed 23.1
acres of Farmstead shelterbelts in 2013.

Continues promotion
and landowner
assistance with
installation of field
windbreaks,
shelterbelts and living
snow fences.
2013-2018
Promotion of conservation practices and
programs to landowners in Nobles County.
These include State Cost-Share, RIM,
RIM/WRP, CRP, EQIP, CSP and others. One
newsletter sent out in 2013 on action item,
direct contact with landowners throughout
year.

Continued promotion of
conservation practices
utilizing annual/semiannual newsletters,
direct mailers, personal
contacts and utilizing
local newspapers when
available.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
9
1.b.4 Promote, assist, seek funding and install
practices that reduce erosion in ravines, on
working lands, reduce gully erosion, decrease
sediment as well as reduce flooding. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Enrollment – 20 projects/year; $6000/project
1.b.5 Promote, assist, seek funding and install
Critical Area Plantings on meandered
intermittent streams with less than 0.5%
grade. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Enrollment – 1000 feet/year; $4,000/year
1.b.6 Promote, assist, seek funding and install
practices that reduce erosion on working
lands, reduce gully erosion and decrease
sediment loading to surface waters. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Enrollment –5 projects/year; $6,000/project
2013-2018
Promotion of practices and installation of
practices that reduce erosion in ravines, on
working lands, reduce gully erosion,
decrease sediment as well as reduce
flooding. Installed 10 Grassed waterways,
and 25 Terraces and sediment basins in
2013

2013-2018
Promote, assist, seek funding and install
Critical Area Plantings on meandered
intermittent
streams with less than 0.5% grade.
Installed 1 Critical area Planting in 2013.

2013-2018
Promotion and education of farm
operators on practices that reduce erosion
on working lands, reduce gully erosion and
decrease sediment loading to surface
waters.
4575 reported acres of conservation tillage
in 2013

1.b.7Promote and seek funding for the
installation of alternative tile intakes. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Enrollment – 10 intakes/year; $3,500/year
2013-2018
Promoted and sought funding for the
installation of alternative tile intakes. No
alternative intakes installed in 2013.

Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Continued promotion
and installation of
conservation practices,
goal of installing 7
grassed waterways and
installing 13 terraces
and sediment basins in
2014.
Continued promotion
and installation of
Critical area plantings.
Goal to install 3 Critical
area plantings in 2014.
Continued promotion
and education of farm
operators on practices
that reduce erosion on
working lands, reduce
gully erosion and
decrease sediment
loading to surface
waters. Goal of 8000
acres of conservation
tillage in 2014
Continued promote and
seeking funding for the
installation of
alternative tile intakes.
Goal to install 15
alternative intakes in
2014.
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
10
1.b.8 Promote, assist and seek funding for the
installation of streambank stabilization
projects. SWCD
Outreach-Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Enrollment-5 projects/year; $20,000/project
2013-2018
Promoted projects and sought funding for
the installation of streambank stabilization
projects. Over 2,500 feet of streambank
was protected in 2013.

1.b.9 Inventory status of all stream and ditch
buffers on DNR Protected Waters and Public
Ditch Systems. SWCD
Target – Assist in identification and mapping
of existing buffer systems $10,000/year
2013-2018
Began the buffer inventory status of all
stream and ditch buffers on DNR Protected
Waters and Public Ditch Systems in Nobles
County in 2014. Inventory is based on a 50’
required buffer.

1.b.10 Enforce filter strips according to state
statutes ENVS
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Target – Compliance with existing state
statutes relating to buffer requirements
$1,000/year
1.b.11 Develop a Soil Loss Ordinance, for
Nobles County, that addresses soil loss
related to agricultural production, drainage
and other possible causes of reductions in
water quality. Hiring of technical personnel to
investigate and resources to complete work
by present staff in developing plan. New
Staff-$60,000/year ENVS
Technology – Data collection
Research – Compiling information and data
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Target Audience –Nobles County residents
and County officials
2013-2018
2013-2018
Follow-up on complaints sent 2 letters and
made 2 more personal contacts resulting in
compliance.

2013-2018
2015-2018
Talked to Nobles County Commissioners on
need for and advantage of soil loss
ordinance.

Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Continued promotion of
projects and the
seeking of funding for
the installation of
streambank
stabilization projects.
Goal of protecting 500
feet of streambank in
2014.
Continue the buffer
inventory status of all
stream and ditch
buffers on DNR
Protected Waters and
Public Ditch
Systems in Nobles
County.
Continue to enforce and
encourage compliance
Continuing in discussion
stages.
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
11
Objective 1c. Promote Ag Best Management Practices (AgBMPs)
Planned Actions or Activities
Proposed
Timeframe
Actual
Timeframe
Accomplishments to Date
Progress
Rating
Next Steps
1.c.1 Promote buffer strips along ditches,
streams and lakes within Nobles County
utilizing available conservation programs and
incentives. SWCD
Technology – LiDAR, Stream Power Index,
others
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Target Audience – 300 landowners/year;
$1,000/year
2014-2018
Promotion of buffer strips along ditches,
streams and lakes within Nobles County
utilizing available conservation programs
and incentives. Installed and re-enrolled
274.4 of CRP buffers and installed 173.6
acres of permanent buffers in 2013.
Newsletter information was sent in 2013 to
over 2000 county residents and continued
direct contacts and estimates sent
thorough year.

Continued promotion of
buffer strips along
ditches, streams and
lakes within Nobles
County utilizing
available conservation
programs and
incentives. Goal to
installed and reenrolled 200 of CRP
buffers and install 20
acres of permanent
buffers in 2014
1.c.2 Assist, seek funding and install acres
into a buffer strip program along ditches,
streams and lakes. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Enrollment – Provide Incentive 20 acres/year;
$40,000/year
2014-2018
Promotion of buffer strips along ditches,
streams and lakes within Nobles County
utilizing available conservation programs
and incentives. Installed and re-enrolled
274.4 of CRP buffers and installed 173.6
acres of permanent buffers in 2013.
Newsletter information was sent in 2013 to
over 2000 county residents and continued
direct contacts and estimates sent
thorough year.

Continued promotion of
buffer strips along
ditches, streams and
lakes within Nobles
County utilizing
available conservation
programs and
incentives. Goal to
install and re-enrolled
200 acres of CRP buffers
and install 20 acres of
permanent buffers in
2014
1.c.3 Assist and seek funding to enroll riparian
land into a perpetual buffer program. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Enrollment – 15 acres/year; $6,000/acre
2014-2018
Assisted and sought funding to enroll
riparian land into a perpetual buffer
programs. Installed 173.6 acres of
permanent buffers in 2013.

Goal to install 20 acres
of permanent buffers in
2014 and continue
promotion of
permanent buffer
programs.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
1.c.4 Assist producers in applying for cost
share opportunities for conservation
practices SWCD
Outreach – personal contacts, provide
technical assistance..
Target – 100 landowners/year; $10,000/year
12
2014-2018
Assisted producers in applying for cost
share opportunities for conservation
practices. Over 100 landowners received
assistance from SWCD regarding buffer
contracts or engineered practice contracts.

Continue to provide
landowner assistance in
providing cost-share
opportunities. Goal to
assist over 100
landowners in receiving
cost-share assistance in
2014.
Objective 1.d: Facilitate compliance of nutrient management, feedlots & SSTS with state and federal requirements.
Proposed
Actual
Progress
Planned Actions or Activities
Accomplishments to Date
Next Steps
Timeframe Timeframe
Rating
1.d.1 Conduct yearly meetings with township 2014-2018
2014-2018
Completed in 2013 and 2014 annual
Scheduled for future

officials to discuss nutrient management.
ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings and personal
contacts
Audience – 100 township officials/year
1.d.2 Promote, assist and seek funding for
livestock producers with feedlots containing
300-999 animal units to develop and maintain
a compliant manure management plan.
SWCD
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts
Plans – 20 plans/year; $12,000/year
1.d.3 Inspect 10% of all registered feedlots
per year to verify they are in compliance with
MN Statute 7020. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings and personal
contacts
Audience – Feedlot Owners and Operators
30 inspections/year; $6,000/year
1.d.4 Provide technical assistance for feedlot
improvements. ENVS
Outreach –personal contacts, provide
technical assistance.
Enrollment – 10 projects/year; $3,000/project
meeting with township supervisors in April.
Water issues, feedlots, solid waste and
weeds addressed.
2014-2018
2014-2018
2014
2014-2018
2014-2018
meetings.
Spring 2013 newsletter educating
operators regarding manure management
plans and manure application setbacks.
Applied for and received CWF grant
application to provide Level III feedlot
inventory and manure application
inspections within the Rock River
Watershed District. 6 CNMP’s completed in
2013
Completed. Made 37 inspections last year.
Made 75 personal contacts and 205 direct
mailing and one additional mailing to all
feedlot owners and operators.

Continued education of
operators within Nobles
County regarding
manure management.
Start CWF feedlot
inventory grant. Goal to
complete 5 CNMP’s in
2014.

Scheduled for
continuing
implementation
Provided technical assistance for 20 feedlot
improvements in 2013 and 2014. Demand
for assistance is high, many producers
expanding.

Work is proceeding and
ongoing.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
13
Spring 2013 newsletter educating
landowners on the availability of costshare assistance and technical assistance
available to Nobles County feedlots.
Assisted 5 landowners with feedlots in
2013. Applied for CWF funds for 3 feedlots
in 2013.
Project has not started as of this date

Continued landowner
education, Goal of
assisting 3 feedlots on
improvements in 2014.

2014-2018
Completed Delta reporting for 420 verified
feedlots in Nobles County

Work with Nobles ENVS
on completion
/updating of land
application records. As
part of level III feedlot
inventory in Rock River
Watershed in 204/2015
Monthly through the
Nobles County Feedlot
Licensing program.
2014-2018
2014-2018
Provide manure sample kits to livestock
producers when asked. News article,
newsletter and personal contacts made.

Scheduled for
continuing
implementation
2014-2018
2013-214
90 % complete

Will complete last 10%
in 2014 and seek
funding for problem
sites.
2014-2018
2014-2018
59 packets given out last year

Scheduled for
continuing
implementation
1.d.5 Promote, assist and seek
implementation funding through EQIP, CSP,
State Cost-Share and Clean Water fund for
livestock waste management BMPs. SWCD
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts
Enrollment – 2 BMPs/year; $200,000/year
1.d.6 Maintain a GIS layer of all registered
feedlots and manured acres. SWCD
Audience – Feedlot Owners and Operators
Target – 125 feedlots/year $5,000 year
2014-2018
1.d.7 Continue Delta reporting for registered
feedlots in Nobles County. ENVS
Outreach - Personal contacts
Audience – Feedlot Owners and Operators
Target - 80 records/year; $4000/year
1.d.8 Provide manure sample kits to livestock
producers. ENVS
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts
Kits –50 kits/year; $5,000/year
1.d.9 Assist the HLWD with a Level III
Inventory and onsite inspection for the
WFDMR and Heron Lake TMDL
Implementation Plan. ENVS
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts
Audience – Livestock producers
Sites – 32 sites/year; $6400/year
1.d.11 Provide an informational packet
regarding septic system maintenance to every
landowner who installs a new SSTS. ENVS
Outreach-Personal Contacts
Target-50 New and Replacement SSTS
Homeowners; $250/year
2014-2018
2014-2018
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
1.d.12 Inventory all individual sewage
systems locations in Nobles County in a GIScompatible database. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Target – 4 townships/year; $10,000/year
1.d.13 Upgrade 15 non-compliant septic
systems per year. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Enrollment – 3 upgraded systems/year;
$10,000/system
1.d.14 Seek additional funding from USDA
and other sources for SSTS improvements.
ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical assistance
1.d.15 Work with cities to assure appropriate
sewage treatment is available. ENVS
Outreach – personal contacts, provide
technical assistance.
1.d.16 Proactively inspect SSTS and enforce
compliance by complaint and zoning trigger
such as property transfer. Pending County
Commissioner approval, an inspection
schedule for county wide inspections will be
arranged. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Target – 4 townships/year; $60,000/year
1.d.17 Keep public informed on the Nobles
County SSTS Ordinance and Ordinance
changes. ENVS
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts
Audience – 2500 county residents/year;
$500.00/year
14
2014-2018
2014-2108
Worked to complete with help from with
SWCD. Currently project is 80 % complete

Complete last two
townships in 2014
2014-2018
2014-2018
Upgraded 47 non-compliant systems by
taking on AG BMP program. This increased
demand and participation. Also received
Rock River loan authorization for an
additional $150,000.

Scheduled for
continuing
implementation
2014-2018
2014-2015
Worked with MAP to get community of
Reading $60,000 TA Grant.

Work with engineer to
complete assessment
this summer.
2014-2018
2013-2014
Worked with city of Dundee on
development of city wide collection
system.

Construction to start
late 2014 or early 2015.
Followed up on 9 complaints. County is
one of a few in area that require
inspections on property transfers.

Continue program and
begin discussion with
Commissioners about
county wide inspections
Ordinance requirements highlighted in
newsletter and town board meetings.

Send reminder letter to
loan agencies, real
estate professionals and
attorneys.
2014-2018
2014-2018
2014-2018
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
15
GOAL 2: Restore more natural flow in the drainage system, with a priority for shoreland.
Objective 2.a. Improve Shoreland and Impervious surface areas
Proposed
Actual
Planned Actions or Activities
Accomplishments to Date
Timeframe Timeframe
2.a.1 Administer and promote shoreland
zoning regulations. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Audience – 2000 landowner and
operators/year
2.a.3 Promote, assist and seek funding for the
installation of streambank and lakeshore
stabilization projects and educate landowners
regarding lakeshore and streambank BMP’s
SWCD
Outreach-Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Audience- 50 landowners/year
Enrollment- 5 projects/year; $50,000/year
2014-2018
2.a.4 Provide educational material on the
proper application of fertilizer, minimizing
impervious surfaces, fire pit placement, and
rain gardens. ENVS
Outreach-Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Audience – 4500 county residents/year;
$3,000.00/year
2.a.8 Consider County ordinance provisions
encouraging soil erosion mitigation during
construction. ENVS
Outreach- Personal contacts, public meetings
Audience - County officials and staff
2014-2018
2014-2108
2014-2108
Administer and enforce shoreland zoning
regulations. Held several CUP and
variances hearings. Responded to 4
complaints. Did article in Daily Globe with
Okabena Ocheda Watershed
Progress
Next Steps
Rating
Scheduled for

continuing
implementation
Promotion of streambank and lakeshore
stabilization projects and educate
landowners regarding lakeshore and
streambank BMP’s. 2,500 feet of
streambank was protected in 2013.

2014-2018
Let Watershed District and TMDL group
take lead and developed material.
Promoted and attended cover crop field
day with HLWD and Rock River partners..

2104-2018
Completed for Worthington, City of
Worthington, Contracted with Okabena
Ocheda Watershed to enforce local
ordinance. No support from the City of
Adrian

2014-2018
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Continued promotion of
streambank and
lakeshore stabilization
projects and well as
continued education
efforts. Goal to
protect/restore an
additional 500 feet of
lakeshore and stream
bank in Nobles County
in 2014.
Continue to seek out
addition education
material on these types
of BMPs.
Approach Adrian and
Commissioner again in a
few years.
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
16
Objective 2.b Improve Flood Control, drainage systems and storm water retention
Proposed
Actual
Planned Actions or Activities
Accomplishments to Date
Timeframe Timeframe
2.b.1 Administer the Floodplain Ordinance to
protect public health, safety and welfare.
ENVS
Outreach-Direct mailings and personal
contacts
Audience-500/year; Floodplain landowners
2.b.2 Inform the public on dangers of flooding
and benefits of floodplain preservation. ENVS
Outreach-Newsletters, news releases,
personal contacts
Audience- 500/year; Floodplain landowners;
$500/year
2.b.3 Review plans and zoning ordinances
against updated floodplain maps to limit
development in areas prone to flooding.
ENVS
Outreach-personal contacts
Audience- 500/year; Floodplain landowners
2.b.4 Cooperate with City of Rushmore
efforts to improve storm water drainage.
ENVS
Outreach- Personal contacts, public meetings
Audience – City residents and officials,
County officials and staff
2.b.7 Develop a GIS layer of all public
drainage systems and include: system name,
watershed size, outlets, date established,
system type, repair history, improvement
history, and other relevant data. ENVS
Technology – GIS
Target Audience – Nobles County Drainage
Authority and County Residents
2014-2018
2014-2018
Two articles in Daily Globe to raise
awareness. Held public meeting to review
new maps.
Progress
Next Steps
Rating
Scheduled for

continuing
implementation
2014-2018
2014-2018
New ordinance mentioned in county wide
newsletter and radio stations.

Talk about new maps in
county wide newsletter
2014-2018
2014
Completed. Adopted new ordinance and
maps April 2014. Held public hearing (2) on
new maps and ordinance.

Enforce new ordinance
and maps
2014-2018
2014-2018
Worked with City of Rushmore efforts to
improve storm water drainage on County
Road 13.

Work with City of
Rushmore about
drainage concerns on
Ivers Avenue
2014-2018
2014-2018
A GIS layer of all public drainage systems
has been completed

Need to add additional
information on size and
slope of the tile.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
17
Landowner assistance regarding urban
storm water protection projects. No
projects completed in 2013.

Continued promotion of
and technical assistance
for storm water
retention projects.
Worked with HLWD on project in Bloom
Township on tile intake grant project and
on Heron Lake Meadows Project.
Promoted Heron Lake Watershed
Alternative Tile Intake Cost Share Program.

Continue to seek
funding and promote
grant tile grant for that
portion in HLWD.
2014-2018
Sought funding for the installation of storm
water retention projects within the Jack
Creek and Elk Creek (Des Moines). 6
Sediment basins funded and installed in
2013.

2.b.11 Seek additional funding for water
retention structures within the OkabenaOcheda watershed SWCD
Enrollment - 2 practices/year; $40,000/year
2014-2018
Sought for and received funding for 6
sediment basins within the Okabena
Ocheda Watershed District.

2.b.12 Seek additional funding for water
retention structures within the KanaranziLittle Rock watershed. SWCD
Enrollment - 2 practices/year; $40,000/year
2014-2018
Sought funding for and received funding
for water retention projects through the
2013 Clean Water Fund. Unsuccessfully
sought for funding through the 2014 CWF
grant application process.

Continue to seek
funding for storm water
retention projects
within the Jack Creek
and Elk Creek
watersheds.
Continue to seek
funding for water
retention structures for
within the Okabena
Ocheda Watershed
District.
Continue to seek
funding for water
retention projects
within the Kanaranzi
Little Rock Watershed
District.
2.b.8 Promote, assist and seek funding for the
installation of storm water retention projects
such as rain gardens to reduce peak storm
event flows. SWCD
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Target Audience – 2 landowners/year
Enrollment-2 structures/year; $60,000/year
2.b.9 Promote conservation drainage
practices in Nobles County. Seek incentive
funds and cost-share to assist producers with
the installation of conservation drainage
practices; these practices include alternative
tile intakes, structures to control tile drainage
and bioreactors. High priority areas would
include impaired water bodies and reaches of
impaired water bodies. ENVS
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Enrollment - 20 practices/year;
$160,000/year
2.b.10 Seek funding for the installation of
storm water retention projects within the
Jack Creek and Elk Creek (Des Moines). SWCD
Enrollment - 2 practices/year; $40,000/year
2014-2018
2014-2018
2014-2018
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
18
2.b.13 Seek additional funding for water
retention structures within the Rock and
Little Sioux Watersheds. SWCD
Enrollment - 2 practices/year; $40,000/year
2.b.14 Promote, assist and seek funding for
the installation of Urban BMPs, to individuals
and the communities of Worthington, Adrian,
Ellsworth, Rushmore , Reading, Brewster,
Lismore, Wilmont, Leota and Round Lake, as
found in the MN Stormwater Manual. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Enrollment – 5 BMPs/year; $5,000
2.b.15 Promote, assist and seek funding for
the installation of grass waterways. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Enrollment – 7000 ft/year; $28,000/year
2014-2018
Unsuccessfully sought funds for water
retention projects through the 2014 CWF
Process.

2014-2018
No actions made in the past year in regards
to urban BMP’s in Nobles County.

2014-2018
Promotion of and sought funding for the
installation of grass waterways in Nobles
County. 10 Grassed Waterways installed in
2013 utilizing cost-share.

2.b.16 Promote, assist and seek funding for
the installation of water and sediment control
structures. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Enrollment – 5 Systems/year; $50,000/year
2.b.17 Develop a Comprehensive Drainage
Management Plan (DMP), for Nobles County,
that addresses present and future drainage
needs as well as methods to mitigate the
unintended consequences of agricultural
drainage on water quality. Hiring of technical
personnel to investigate and resources to
complete work by present staff in developing
plan. SWCD
Technology – Data collection
Research – Compiling information and data
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Target Audience – Nobles County Drainage
Authority and County residents
New Staff-$60,000/year
2014-2018
Promotion of and sought funding for the
installation of grass waterways in Nobles
County. 25 Grassed Waterways installed in
2013 utilizing cost-share.

2014-2018
No actions made in the past year in regards
to developing a drainage management
plan.

Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Continue to seek funds
for water retention
projects in the Rock and
Little Sioux Watersheds.
Promotion of Urban
BMP’s through annual
/semi-annual
newsletter and
education of city
personnel regarding
urban BMP’s
Continued promotion
and installation of
Grassed waterways in
Nobles County. Goal to
install 7 grassed
waterways in 2014.
Continued promotion
and installation of
Grassed waterways in
Nobles County. Goal to
install 13 grassed
waterways in 2014.
Work with public
officials regarding
promoting the need for
a Comprehensive
Drainage Management
Plan.
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
2.b.18 Redetermination of Benefits. Continue
the redetermination of benefits on all public
ditches and tile systems. SWCD
Technology – Data collection
Research – Compiling information and data
Outreach - Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Target Audience – Nobles County Drainage
Authority and County residents
Cost for drainage viewers and associated
costs estimated at $3.00 per acre
19
2014-2018
Participated in the process regarding
multiple ditch improvement projects in
Nobles County. Promoting the countywide
redetermination of benefits.

Continued participated
in the process regarding
ditch improvement
projects. Continued
promotion of a
countywide
redetermination of
benefits.
Objective 2.c. Encourage Wetland Restoration and Protection of natural habitat
Planned Actions or Activities
2.c.1 Administer the Wetland Conservation
Act and assemble Technical Evaluation Panel
(TEP) to minimize the amount of wetland
acres lost county wide. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Audience – 2000 landowner and
operators/year
2.c.2 Work with DNR and USF&WS to expand
or enhance wetland in existing wildlife areas.
Educate landowners on the benefits of
converting drained wetlands back to a
permanent native vegetated state, using
RIM/WRP and CRP or other long term
conservation program. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Audience – 2000 landowners and
operators/year
Proposed
Timeframe
Actual
Timeframe
Accomplishments to Date
Progress
Rating
Next Steps
2014-2018
Administered the Wetland Conservation
Act and assembled Technical Evaluation
Panel (TEP) as needed to minimize the
amount of wetland acres lost county wide.
Assisted over 650 landowners in 2013
regarding wetland compliance.

Continue to administer
the Wetland
Conservation Act to
minimize the amount of
wetland acres lost
county wide.
2014-2018
Educated landowners on the benefits of
converting drained wetlands back to a
permanent native vegetated state, using
RIM/WRP and CRP or other long term
conservation program. Education through
newsletters, direct contacts and
newspaper articles.

Continue to educate
landowners on the
benefits of converting
drained wetlands back
to a permanent native
vegetated state, using
RIM/WRP and CRP or
other long term
conservation program.
Education through
newsletters, direct
contacts and
newspaper articles.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
2.c.3 Promote, assist and seek funding to
enroll marginal land into available wetland
restoration programs including RIM/WRP and
CRP or other long term conservation
program.
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts. SWCD
Audience – 2000 landowners and
operators/year
Enrollment – 1 contract /year; 50 acres/year;
$300,000/year
2.c.4Provide information to landowners on
benefits of appropriate natural cover on
habitat for threatened and endangered
species. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Audience – 2000 landowners and
operators/year; $2000/year
2.c.5 Consider benefits of wildlife habitat in
project prioritization. SWCD
Outreach- Personal contacts, public meetings
Audience – SWCD, County and Watershed
officials and staff
20
2014-2018
Enrolled marginal land into available
wetland restoration programs including
RIM/WRP and CRP or other long term
conservation program. Assisted with the
enrollment of 2 large RIM/WRP wetland
restoration projects in Nobles County in
2013.

Continue to promote
and seek funding for
projects that convert
marginal land into
wetland improvement
and protection
programs. Goal to enroll
20 acres of land into
Wetland CRP contracts
in 2014.
2014-2018
Promoted wildlife habitat efforts in Nobles
County regarding the Topeka Shiner and
incorporated habitat improvement efforts
into streambank restoration projects.

Continue to education
landowners as needed.
Incorporate education
efforts into annual/
semi-annual newsletter.
2014-2018
Considered benefits of wildlife habitat in
project prioritization through Local Work
Group Process and EQIP prioritization in
2013.

Continue to considered
benefits of wildlife
habitat in project
prioritization through
Local Work Group
Process and EQIP
prioritization in 2014
and future years.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
21
GOAL 3: Assure long-term quality and quantity of public water supplies, with a priority for DWSMAs and areas not currently
served by public/community systems. (Page
Objective 3.a Support Well Head Protection planning and implementation
Proposed
Actual
Planned Actions or Activities
Accomplishments to Date
Timeframe Timeframe
3.a.1 Assist cities with completing and
implementing their Wellhead Protection Plan.
Outreach – Direct mailings and personal
contacts. ENVS
Audience – Contact City Department heads
each year
3.a.2 Protect DWSMA and surficial aquifer
areas from agricultural and industrial
contamination through zoning ordinances.
Manure management plans to be completed
and followed in DWSMA and surficial
aquifers. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings and personal
contacts.
Audience – 10 landowners/year
3.a.3 Educate landowners and residents on
DWSMAs and measures to protect the
groundwater. Emphasis on City of
Worthington, Adrian, and Ellsworth DWSMA
ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Audience – 100 landowners-residents/year
3.a.4 Protect long-term water supply by
enforcing zoning ordinances through
Conditional Use Hearings for municipal,
industrial, irrigation and public water supply
wells. ENVS
Outreach – Permitting and public hearings,
Direct mailings and personal contacts
Audience – Planning Commission, Cities,
Water Suppliers, landowners; $50/year
2014-2018
2014-2018
Working with city of Worthington on
updating their wellhead protection plan.
Contacted and worked with Adrian,
Worthington and Ellsworth on well
protection issues.
Progress
Next Steps
Rating
Proceed to contact all

cities and work with
cities and rural water.
2014-2018
2014-2018
Reviewed manure management plans in
DWSMA and surficial aquifers. Held
variance and CUP for feedlots in DWSMA

Continue to enforce
county land use policy
and review conditions,
put on feedlots in
DWSMA
2014-2018
2014-2018
Worked with Okabena Ocheda Watershed
for promotion in Daily Globe article.
Testified at five public hearings involving
feedlots and DWSMA.

ongoing
2014-2018
2014-2018
Protected long-term water supply by
adding conditions on three conditional use
hearings for new feedlots near municipal
wells.

Continue to enforce
county feedlot
ordinance.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
3.a.5 Continue to cooperate with Rural Water
Systems on the expansion of the rural water
systems and advise the public about County
programs that will help manage potential
contamination sources. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Audience –25 landowners-residents/year
3.a.6 Promote, assist and seek funding to
enroll eligible acres (highly vulnerable
wellhead areas) into the RIM Wellhead
Protection Program and Continuous
Conservation Reserve Program. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Enroll – 20 acres/year; $120,000/year
3.a.7 Support water conservation by using
existing educational materials. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, farm and home show, and
county fair
Audience – 2,000 county residents/year;
$500/year
3.a.8 Monitor water level elevations in MN
DNR Observation Wells as part of a state wide
effort to measure depth to aquifer. SWCD
Target – 4 wells- 10 readings each/year
22
Worked with City of Luverne, Worthington,
Rock County and Lincoln Pipestone rural
water to ensure funding for Lewis & Clark
project.

Continue to lobby
federal and state to
provide their share of
promised funds for
Lewis & Clarke
project.
2014-2018
Promoted RIM wellhead program to 5
Nobles County Landowners in the
Ellsworth and Adrian Wellhead areas.

Continued promotion
of programs and
education of
landowners within
wellhead protection
areas.
2014-2018
No actions made in the past year in regards
to urban BMP’s in Nobles County.

Plan to incorporate
educational materials
in a newsletter in the
near future.
2014-2018
Monitored water level elevations in MN
DNR Observation Wells as part of a state
wide effort to measure depth to aquifer in
2013.

Continue to monitor
water level elevations
in MN DNR
Observation Wells as
part of a state wide
effort to measure
depth to aquifer in
2014 and future
years.
2014-2018
2014-2018
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
23
Objective 3.b page 39 Prevent groundwater contamination from unused wells, gravel pits and fertilizer application
Proposed
Actual
Progress
Planned Actions or Activities
Accomplishments to Date
Next Steps
Timeframe Timeframe
Rating
Scheduled for
3.b.1 Work with well contractors to promote
2014-2018
2014-2108
Have list of well sealers to provide on

proper well protection and sealing. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings and personal
contacts.
Audience – Well Contractors (Nobles and
surrounding counties) $50/year
3.b.2 Inventory unused wells in GIS layer
Technology – GIS, $10,000/year ENVS
Target Audience – County Officials and Staff
as well as County Residents
3.b.3 Protect ground water supply by
enforcing zoning ordinances through
Conditional Use Hearings for permitted gravel
pits. ENVS
Outreach – Permitting and public hearings,
Direct mailings and personal contacts
Audience – Planning Commission,
landowners; $50/year
3.b.4 Promote, assist and seek funding to
prevent contamination of groundwater by
providing cost-share for the sealing of unused
wells. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Enrollment – 20 wells/year; $4,000/year
3.b.5 Provide information to County residents
concerning proper well protection and sealing
programs. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Audience – Well Contractors (Nobles and
surrounding counties) $500/year
continuation of well
sealing program
request. Promote cost share program with
well sealers and also in newsletter and
meetings
2014-2018
2014-2018
Have not started

Will seek grant
funding
2014-2018
2014-2018
All gravel pits go through a conditional use
process every 6 years. On-site review
yearly and public meetings every 3 years. 1
new pit and 4 renewals last year

Scheduled for
continuing
implementation
2014-2018
2014-2108
Provided cost sharing on 29 wells last year
alone.

Budgeted for
continuing
implementation
2014-2018
2014-2108
Provide information to County residents
concerning proper well protection and
sealing programs at county fair, township
meetings and countywide newsletter.

Continue education
efforts.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
3.b.6 Conduct annual free clinics for testing
nitrate levels in well water. ENVS
Outreach – County Fair, Direct mailings, news
releases, personal contacts.
Audience – 2,000 county residents/year;
$800/year
3.b.7 Promote proper application of fertilizers
and pesticides and partner with local crop
consultants. ENVS
Outreach –Producer Workshop, Direct
mailings, news releases, personal contacts.
Audience – 25 landowners/year
3.b.8 Promote, assist and seek funding to
assist landowners and operators with
nutrient management plans. ENVS
Outreach – Crop Consultants, Direct mailings,
news releases, personal contacts.
Plans – 12 plans/year; $9,600/year
3.b.9 Promote AgBMPs along ditches, rivers,
lakes and streams. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts.
Audience – 100 landowners/year; $400/year
24
2014-2018
2014-2108
With Minnesota Dept. of AG held free
Water Nitrate testing clinic at county fair,
used Daily Globe and radio to promote.

Continue clinic
annually at county
fair.
2014-2018
2014-2018
Did article in On The Farm with Rock River
TMDL partners and had field day in
Edgerton. Promoted and attended field day
with Heron Lake watershed in Heron Lake.

Continue public
education and
participation in field
days.
2014-2018
2014-2018
Seeking funding

Continue to seek
funding
2014-2018
2014-2018
Working with SWCD to promote AgBMPs
along ditched, river lakes and streams in
newsletter and personal contacts.

Continue public
education by articles
and personal
contacts.
Objective 3.c. Facilitate land retirement in critical areas.
Planned Actions or Activities
3.c.1 Work with water suppliers to identify
opportunities to permanently retire lands in
vulnerable areas. ENVS
Outreach-Direct mailings and personal
contacts.
Audience-Contact water suppliers each year.
3.c.2 Consider benefits of wildlife habitat and
recreation in project prioritization. ENVS
Audience-County, SWCD and WD officials and
staff
Proposed
Timeframe
Actual
Timeframe
Accomplishments to Date
Progress
Rating
2014-2018
[no information provided]
??
2014-2018
[no information provided]
??
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Next Steps
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
3.c.3 Establish public and private partnerships
to take advantage of opportunities to retire
land as they become available. ENVS
Outreach-Direct mailings and personal
contacts.
Audience-County residents/public and private
environmental organizations
Purchase/Enroll-20 acres/year; $200,000/yr.
3.c.4 Seek additional funding from State and
Federal resources and other sources for land
retirement. SWCD
Outreach – Direct mailings and personal
contacts.
Audience – County Residents/public and
private environmental organizations
Enroll – 20 acres/year; $200,000/year
25
2014-2018
[no information provided]
??
2014-2018
Assist state organizations in efforts in
obtaining additional funds for RIM program
for Nobles County.

Continue to Assist state
and federal
organizations in efforts
in obtaining additional
funds for RIM programs
and other funding
resources land
retirement programs
for Nobles County.
Objective 3.d. Support rural water systems and long-term water supply.
Planned Actions or Activities
3.d.1 Support efforts of public water suppliers
to secure additional sources of water. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings and personal
contacts.
Audience – County Residents/public and
private environmental organizations
3.d.2 Support funding for Lewis & Clark
Regional Water System. ENVS
Outreach – Direct mailings, Press Releases
and personal contacts.
Audience – State and Federal Officials, water
suppliers
Proposed
Timeframe
Actual
Timeframe
2014-2018
2014-2018
2014-2018
2014-2018
Accomplishments to Date
Held two public hearings for Worthington
Pubic Utilities and Lincoln Pipestone Rural
Water to allow interconnection hookups.
Held one meeting each for City of Brewster
and City of Round Lake to allow
connections to LPRW.
Received bonding opportunity to get water
to Luverne
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Progress
Rating
Next Steps

Completed

Continue to lobby
state and federal
officials.
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
26
3.d.3 Promote water conservation.
Outreach – County Fair, Direct mailings, news
releases, personal contacts. ENVS
Audience – 2,000 county residents/year;
$800/year
2014-2018
2014-2016
Worked with City of Worthington,
Worthington Public Utilities and OkabenaOcheda Watershed to raise awareness thru
articles and PW newsletter

Continue to promote
conservation
3.d.4 Monitor groundwater and review all
available monitoring data and information
ENVS
2014-2018
2014-2018
Member of MN Ground Water Association
(MGWA) receive quarterly newsletter and
white papers, review all DNR permit
applications and attended climate change
meeting on how it will affect water
resources.

Continue to review
information and
educate
commissioners on
scientific aspects of
groundwater.
Indicator symbol for Progress Rating: =not started/dropped
=on-going progress
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
=completed/target met
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
27
Appendix B. Performance Standards
COUNTY LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Planning
Admin
Performance
Area
LGU Name:
NOBLES
Performance Standard
n Basic practice or statutory requirement
I Annual Compliance
 Benchmark standard
II BWSR Staff Review &
Assessment
(see instructions for explanation of standards)
Execution
Rating
Yes, No,
or Value
YES NO
n eLINK Grant Report(s): submitted on time
I
X
n Drainage authority buffer strip report submitted on time
I
X
n NRBG Allocation and Contribution Report submitted & approved
II
X
 Public drainage records: meet modernization guidelines
II
n Local water mgmt plan: current, with 5-year update
n Metro counties: groundwater plan up-to-date
n Biennial Budget Request submitted on-time
I
LWM Plan organizes priority concerns, objectives and/or action
n items by major watershed
LWM Implementation Plan completed within 5 yrs of plan
 adoption
X
X
NA
I
I
X
X
II
II
X
 priorities
n Progress on plan priority concern #1
n Progress on plan priority concern #2
n Progress on plan priority concern #3
 State $ leveraged at least 1.5 times in non-state $
 Data collected to track outcomes for each priority concern
 Water quality trends tracked for priority water bodies
II
X
II
II
good
good
good
X
X
II
X
n Grant report(s) posted on website
n Communication piece: sent within last 12 months
 Obtain stakeholder input: within last 5 yrs
I
X
II
X
II
X
II
X
 progress
 Track progress for I & E objectives in Plan
II
X
 Coordination with state watershed-based initiatives
II
X
 County local water plan on county website
II
X
 Water management ordinances on county website
II
X
Water quality trend data used for short- and long-range plan
Communication &
Coordination
Level of Review
Partnerships: liaison with SWCDs/WDs and cooperative
 projects/tasks done
Annual report to water plan advisory committee on plan
II
II
II
X
II
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
28
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Administration
Performance
Area
LGU Name:
Performance Standard
n
n
n
n
n
n


Planning
Execution
Rating
I Annual Compliance
II BWSR Staff Review &
Assessment
(see instructions for explanation of standards)
n
Communication &
Coordination
Level of Review
n Basic practice or Statutory requirement
 Benchmark standard

2004
279174
NOBLES SWCD
Yes, No,
or Value
YES NO
X
X
X
Financial statement: annual, on-time and balances
I
Financial audit: completed within last 3 yrs or $500K
I
eLINK Grant Report(s) submitted on-time
I
Data practices policy: exists and reviewed/updated within last 5 yrs
II
Personnel policy: exists and reviewed/updated within last 5 yrs
II
Technical approval authorities: reviewed and reported annually
II
Operational guidelines exist and current
Board training: orientation & cont. ed. plan and record for each
board member
Staff training: orientation and cont. ed. plan and record for each
staff member
Comprehensive Plan: updated within 5 yrs or current resolution
adopting unexpired county LWM plan
II
X
II
X
II
X
n Biennial Budget Request submitted on time
LWM or Comp Plan organizes priority concerns, objectives and/or
 action items by major watershed
X
X
X
I
X
I
X
X
II
Strategic plan sets priorities based on resource trend data and
 available capacity
 Annual Plan of Work: based on long-range or strategic plan
n State cost share $ spent in high priority problem areas
n Total expenditures per year (over past 10 yrs)
n Months of operating funds in reserve
 State $ leverage at least 1.5 times in non-state $
 Certified wetland delineator: on staff or retainer
 Outcome trends monitored and reported for key resources
n Website contains all required content elements
 Website contains additional content beyond minimum required
 Track progress on I & E objectives in Plan
 Obtain stakeholder input: within last 5 yrs
 Annual report communicates progress on plan goals
II
X
II
II
X
100%
II
see below
II
10.1
X
X
II
X
II
II
I
II
X
X
X
II
II
II
X
X
 counties, watershed districts, non-governmental organizations
II
X
 Coordination with County Board by supervisors or staff
II
X
Partnerships: cooperative projects/tasks with neighboring districts,
2005
266804
2006
272960
2007
291760
2008
273802
2009
310101
2010
263348
2011
563757
2012
819605
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
2013
432510
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
29
Appendix C. Summary of Survey Results
Survey Overview:
The survey was developed by BWSR staff for the purpose of identifying information about the local government
unit’s performance from both board members and staff and from the unit’s partner organizations. Nobles County
Environmental Services and the Nobles SWCD identified, at BWSR’s request, their current board or water plan
committee members, staff and partner organizations with whom they have an on-going working relationship.
Seven county staff and water plan committee members were invited to take the survey and six responded.
However, most skipped the majority of survey questions so the substantive response rate was low. Eight SWCD
supervisors and staff were invited to take the survey and only 3 responded (36%), also a low response rate.
Because many of the partner organizations work with both LGUs, each of them was invited to take the survey
twice, focusing on each LGU in separate responses. A total of 39 partner organization representatives were
invited to take the survey. Fifteen (15) people responded as county partners (38%) and nine (9) people responded
as SWCD partners (23%). These are both below average response rates. The responses are summarized below:
first the county responses (blue/dark gray), then the SWCD responses (gold/light gray).
The identity of survey respondents is unknown to both BWSR and the local governmental unit. Some responses
were edited for clarity or brevity.
County Environmental Committee Members and Staff Questions and Responses
How often does your organization use some sort of master plan to guide decisions about what you
do?. (response percent)
Always
0
Usually
100
Seldom
0
Never
0
Additional Comments:
Financial concerns sometimes seem to take precedence over plan objectives.
List your organization’s most successful programs and projects during the past 3-5 years.
Low interest rates for BMPs via state revolving loan program; providing cost-share programs for well sealings;
provide assistance for wastewater treatment in small communities; implementation of EPA 319 grant; level III
feedlot inventory in the WFMDR.
Water Management Plan and the collaboration between the groups; the best tool is asking questions and
someone at the county or SWCD is always willing to assist.
What things have helped make these projects and programs successful?
Positive working relationships with DOA, MPCA, Heron Lk. WD, MAP and others.
Collaboration and the wide array of agency involvement as a good knowledge/database center.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
30
During the past 3-5 years, which of your organization’s programs or projects have shown little
progress or been on hold?
Adopt soil erosion ordinance; enforce feedlot ordinance.
Normal delays in the water plan revision, not really noteworthy. It takes time to reference items and organize
another meeting.
List the reasons why the organization has had such difficulty with these projects and programs.
No one, neither staff nor elected officials, like ordinances or enforcement.
Nothing noteworthy and only time of reference and implementation is the only issue to wait for.
Regarding the various organizations and agencies with which you could cooperate on projects or
programs…
List the ones with which you work well already
BWSR, SWCD, O&O WD, Heron Lake WD, KLR WD
Nobles SWCD, NRCS, O&O WD, KLR WD
List the ones with which better collaboration would benefit your organization
KLR WD; DNR; MPCA
What could your organization do that would make you more effective in accomplishing your plan
goals and objectives?
Embrace the One Watershed-One Plan so we can prioritize areas and focus where implementation will
matter most.
How long have you been with the organization you currently serve? (percentage)
Less than 5 years
50
5 to 15 years
0
More than 15 years
50
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
31
Nobles County Environmental Services Partner Organization Questions and Responses
Question: How often have you interacted with this organization during the past three years?
Select the response closest to your experience. (response percent)
Not at all
0
A few times
21
Several times a year
50
Monthly
29
Almost every week
0
Daily
0
Is the amount of work you do in partnership with this organization…(percent)
Not enough, there is potential for us to do more together
14
About right
86
Too much, they depend on us for work they should be doing for
themselves
0
Too much, we depend on them for work we should be doing ourselves or
with others
0
Comments:
-Nobles County is relying on our technical, financial, and managerial expertise in wastewater project
planning and development.
Based on your experience working with them, please rate the organization as a partner with you in
the following areas:
Performance Characteristic
Rating (percent of responses)
Strong
Good
Acceptable
Poor
I don’t
know
Communication (they keep us informed; we
know their activities; they seek our input)
29
50
21
0
0
Quality of work (they have good projects and
programs; good service delivery)
36
36
29
0
0
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
32
Relationships with Customers (they work well
with landowners and clients)
50
21
21
0
7
Timelines/Follow-through (they are reliable and
meet deadlines)
21
64
7
0
7
How is your working relationship with this organization? (percent)
Powerful, we are more effective working together
36
Strong, we work well together most of the time
43
Good, but it could be better
21
Acceptable, but a struggle at times
0
Poor, there are almost always difficulties
0
Comments from Partners about their working relationship with the Nobles County Environmental Services:
-Have always had a great working relationship and appreciate their support and partnership.
-Wayne S. and Mark K. have been excellent staff to work with as it related to water quality issues.
How long have you been with the organization you currently serve? (percentage)
Less than 5 years
7
5 to 15 years
57
More than 15 years
36
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
33
Nobles SWCD Supervisors and Staff Questions and Responses
How often does your organization use some sort of master plan to guide decisions about what you
do? (response percent)
Always
0
Usually
67
Seldom
33
Never
0
Additional Comments:
-I would like to see more emphasis placed on where agenda items for meetings fit into the water plan. That
will make it clear we are working off the “master plan” during our meetings.
List your organization’s most successful programs and projects during the past 3-5 years.
CWF grant projects funded in 2011/12/13/14; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Technical Assistance;
flood relief damage improvements after the 2010 flood; successful RIM program participation; successful CRP
signups and re-enrollments.
Terrace and waterways first; tree program continues to exceed sales expectations; partnering with EQIP
projects; CRP re-signups looks good.
State cost-share
What things have helped make these projects and programs successful?
Excellent landowner knowledge and participation through extended education programs and historical
participation; hardworking, devoted staff; strong partnerships with Nobles Co. ES, NRCS and watershed
districts; excellent guidance and assistance from BWSR BC Mark Hiles.
Close working with NRCS staff; hiring good staff
Partnerships with watershed districts and NRCS
During the past 3-5 years, which of your organization’s programs or projects have shown little
progress or been on hold?
Due to lack of project funds we have had several erosion control and feedlot practices put on hold.
KLR partnership has been treading water; rain garden work has disappeared; water quality improvement with
Lake Ocheda has been at a standstill.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
34
List the reasons why the organization has had such difficulty with these projects and programs.
Lack of financial resources.
KLR is an organizational issue that we may have a solution to if their board acts on it. Drought may have slowed
interest in the rain gardens. The OOWD may bet the ball rolling on Ocheda water quality but the SWCD could
target more effort for projects in that subwatershed.
Regarding the various organizations and agencies with which you could cooperate on projects or
programs…
List the ones with which you work well already
Nobles county, Heron Lake WD
NRCS, OOWD, HLWD, Environmental Services, BWSR, other county SWCDs
NRCS, OOWD, Heron Lk WD, KLR WD, Nobles County Environmental Services
List the ones with which better collaboration would benefit your organization
OOWD, KLR WD, DNR, MPCA
KLR WD
State agencies
What could your organization do that would make you more effective in accomplishing your plan
goals and objectives?
Additional staffing resources including education/outreach personnel and additional engineering personnel
would be beneficial, but financial resources are limiting. Other than the additional staff I feel the SWCD as an
organization does an excellent job of providing the equipment, training and education necessary to have a
foothold in completing plan goals and objectives.
I think we do a very good job at meeting our goals. Keeping our objectives up in the forefront while meeting
each month may help.
Better communication between board and staff members, long-term as well as short-term goals for staff
development to compliment conservation goals.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
35
How long have you been with the organization you currently serve? (percentage)
Less than 5 years
33
5 to 15 years
33
More than 15 years
33
Nobles SWCD Partner Organization Questions and Responses
Question: How often have you interacted with this organization during the past three years?
Select the response closest to your experience. (response percent)
Not at all
0
A few times
22
Several times a year
33
Monthly
22
Almost every week
22
Daily
0
Is the amount of work you do in partnership with this organization…(percent)
Not enough, there is potential for us to do more together
22
About right
78
Too much, they depend on us for work they should be doing for
themselves
0
Too much, we depend on them for work we should be doing ourselves or
with others
0
Comments:
After April 2013 ice storm we could partner in replacing trees throughout the town.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
36
Based on your experience working with them, please rate the organization as a partner with you in
the following areas:
Performance Characteristic
Rating (percent of responses)
Strong
Good
Acceptable
Poor
I don’t
know
Communication (they keep us informed; we
know their activities; they seek our input)
33
33
33
0
0
Quality of work (they have good projects and
programs; good service delivery)
44
56
0
0
0
Relationships with Customers (they work well
with landowners and clients)
44
44
0
0
11
Timelines/Follow-through (they are reliable and
meet deadlines)
33
57
11
0
0
How is your working relationship with this organization? (percent)
Powerful, we are more effective working together
44
Strong, we work well together most of the time
33
Good, but it could be better
22
Acceptable, but a struggle at times
0
Poor, there are almost always difficulties
0
Comments from Partners about their working relationship with the Nobles SWCD:
-We have a great working relationship. Appreciate their support and partnering efforts.
How long have you been with the organization you currently serve? (percentage)
Less than 5 years
22
5 to 15 years
44
More than 15 years
33
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
Appendix D. Nobles County and SWCD Comment Letters
Nobles County Environmental Services comments (submitted by email November 3, 2014):
The Nobles County Planning and Zoning Commission met on October 8 2014 to review the
preliminary draft of the level II performance review for Nobles County Environmental
Services and Soil and Water Conservation District. The Planning and Zoning Commission
concurs with the BWSR 2014 level II PRAP report. We look forward to aligning our next
water plan on major watershed boundaries. Nobles County believes the one watershed,
one plan option will be beneficial for the county and allow us to better identify, prioritize
and target implementation programs and practices.
Nobles Soil and Water Conservation District comments (submitted by email September 29, 2014):
The fact that there aren’t any real huge concerns and things seem to be running smoothly,
I’m guessing they do not need to supply comments.... I do not expect to have written
comments from my board.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
37
PRAP Level II Report: Nobles County and Nobles SWCD
38
Appendix E. Program Data
Time required to complete this review
Nobles County Staff: 37 hours
Nobles SWCD Staff: 48 hours
BWSR Staff: 52 hours
Schedule of Level II Review
BWSR PRAP Process Milestones:
n June 17-July 11; Aug. 21-Sept. 5, 2014- Surveys of Partners and Board/staff, respectively
n August 20, 2014 Present Draft PRAP Joint Report to County Water Plan Task Force Members and staff and
SWCD Supervisors and staff.
n November 25, 2014: Submit Final Joint Report to Nobles County ESD and Nobles SWCD
NOTE: BWSR uses review time as a surrogate for tracking total program costs. Time required for PRAP
performance reviews is aggregated and included in BWSR’s annual PRAP report to the Minnesota Legislature.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Level II Performance Review
Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District
Local Government Unit Final Report
December 22, 2014
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-0768
www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
This page was intentionally left blank.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
ii
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
iii
Table of Contents
Report Summary ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Findings .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Conclusions--Action Items—Commendations ............................................................................................... 5
Recommendations and LGU Comments and Response ................................................................................ 6
Appendix A Plan Accomplishments................................................................................................................ 7
Appendix B Performance Standards ............................................................................................................ 11
Appendix C Survey Results Summary........................................................................................................... 12
Appendix D Okabena-Ocheda WD Comment Letter ................................................................................... 16
Appendix E Program Data ............................................................................................................................ 17
This report has been prepared for the Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District by the Minnesota Board of Water and
Soil Resources (BWSR) in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.102, Subd.3.
Prepared by Don Buckhout ([email protected]; 651-296-0768).
This report is available in alternative formats upon request.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
PRAP Level II
iv
Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District
Report Summary
What is a PRAP
Performance Review?
The Board of Water and
Soil Resources supports
Minnesota’s counties,
watershed districts and
soil and water
conservation districts
that deliver water and
related land resource
management projects
and programs. In 2007
the Board set up a
program (PRAP) to
systematically review
the performance of
these local units of
government to ensure
their effective operation.
Each year BWSR staff
conduct routine reviews
of several of these local
conservation delivery
entities. This document
reports the results of
one of those reviews.
Key Findings and Conclusions
The Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District has been a
consistent performer in delivering projects and programs
commensurate with planned objectives and available
resources. The leaders have a high degree of consensus on
what has been accomplished, what still needs to be done,
and where the challenges lie. This indicates an
organization with a shared sense of mission, good
communication among its members, and a common
understanding of the issues and needs within their area of jurisdiction.
The managers and staff identified partnerships and collaboration with other local
government partners as the keys to their success. Based on that awareness they
should be able to take advantage of existing partnerships and build new ones. It is a
clear formula for continued effectiveness. This level of effective coordination would
not be possible without the services of a full-time administrator. BWSR commends
the managers for making this financial commitment.
The OOWD’s partners have confirmed the value of the role the district plays in local
water management. Their survey responses calling for additional opportunities to
work with the district are one indication of that value.
In looking ahead, the OOWD managers and staff suggested that improving public
outreach and education efforts would boost the district’s program effectiveness.
Nearly half the partners surveyed confirmed that there is room for improvement in
the district’s relationship with clients and landowners.
Resource Outcomes
The OOWD watershed plan does not include targets or measureable outcome
objectives assigned to the district. Consequently, there is no report of resource
outcome accomplishments in this performance review.
Action Items and Commendations
The OOWD has two action items to address to meet BWSR’s basic performance
standards.
The OOWD is commended for meeting 8 of 14 benchmark standards that indicate
high performance practices.
Recommendations
 Maintain and expand upon the strong partnerships that managers and partners
have identified as district strengths. Consider watershed-based planning for the
next plan update.
 Address Action Items.
 Consider strategies for enhancing public outreach, information and education
to address priority issues.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
1
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
Introduction
This is an information document prepared by the staff
of the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) for
the Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District (OOWD). It
reports the results of a routine performance review of
that organization’s water management plan
implementation and overall organizational
effectiveness in delivery of land and water
conservation projects and programs.
BWSR has reviewed the OOWD’s reported
accomplishments of their management plan action
items, determined the organization’s compliance with
BWSR’s Level I and II performance standards, and
surveyed members of the organization and their
partner organizations.
This review is neither a financial audit nor investigation
and it does not replace or supersede other types of
governmental review of this local government unit’s
operations.
While the performance review reported herein has
been conducted under the authority granted to BWSR
by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B.102, this is a staff
report and has not been reviewed or approved by the
BWSR board members.
What is PRAP?
PRAP is an acronym for BWSR’s Performance
Review and Assistance Program. Authorized by the
2007 Minnesota legislature, the PRAP purpose is to
support local delivery of land conservation and
water management by periodically reviewing and
assessing the performance of local units of
government that deliver those services. These
include soil and water conservation districts,
watershed districts, watershed management
organizations, and the local water management
functions of counties.
BWSR has developed four levels of review, from
routine to specialized, depending on the program
mandates and the needs of the local governmental
unit. A Level I review annually tabulates all local
governmental units’ compliance with basic
planning and reporting requirements. In Level II,
conducted by BWSR once every ten years for each
local government unit, the focus is on the degree
to which the organization is accomplishing its
watershed management plan. A Level II review
includes determination of compliance with BWSR’s
Level I and II statewide performance standards, a
tabulation of progress on planned goals and
objectives, a survey of board or water plan task
force members and staff of the factors affecting
plan implementation, a survey of LGU partners
about their impressions of working with the LGU,
and a BWSR staff report to the organization with
findings, conclusions and recommendations.
BWSR’s actions in Levels III and IV include elements
of Levels I and II and then emphasize assistance to
address the local governmental unit’s specific
needs.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
2
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
Findings
This section describes what BWSR learned about the
performance of the Okabena-Ocheda WD (OOWD).
The OOWD was formed in 1960 to work on flood
control, drainage, pollution and groundwater supply
issues. The District's 76 square miles include
agricultural land, urban land, rural residences, wildlife
areas, lakes, streams, wetlands and drainage ditches.
During the district's first twenty-five years, activities
focused on flood control, establishing public drainage
projects, regulating private drainage, diverting water
to maintain lake levels, and protecting and enhancing
Worthington's water supply. Recent projects have
focused on protecting surface and groundwater quality
by reducing and treating runoff, establishing grassed
buffers along streams and around lakes, protecting
and restoring wetlands and retiring marginal
agricultural land in high priority areas.
The district is governed by a five member Board of
Managers. The managers employ one staff person,
the district administrator, to carry out the day-to-day
operations of the district.
Findings Part 1: Planning
This part of the performance review describes what
the OOWD has accomplished based on the goals of its
long-range watershed management plan.
The OOWD is one of four local governments with
water management responsibility that have adopted
the 2009-2018 Nobles County Local Water
Management Plan as their long-range management
plan. The other three are the Nobles Soil and Water
Conservation District, Nobles County and the
Kanaranzi-Little Rock Watershed District. The plan
attempts to balance the requirements of each water
management organization to achieve a useful,
strategic document that is easily understandable and
useful for both decision-makers and residents. This
provides a means for readily assessing progress in plan
implementation.
While this report evaluates progress on those plan
action items assigned to the OOWD, BWSR has also
assessed the performance of the other three local
water management entities and prepared reports for
them. Taken together, these reports give a
comprehensive overview of the progress being made
in implementing the Nobles County Local Water
Management Plan.
The plan identifies three priority concerns—Surface
Water Quality, Drainage Management, Public Water
Supply—for which 100 detailed action items have been
defined. Many of the action items contain quantified
annual targets (e.g., install 2 stormwater retention
structures per year).
Resource Outcomes
The OOWD watershed plan does not include
targets or measureable outcome objectives
assigned to the district. Consequently, there is
no report of resource outcome accomplishments
in this performance review.
For eight of those action items the OOWD has lead
responsibility for implementation, either solely or in
cooperation with other plan partner agencies. The
district provided information about what has been
accomplished for these eight items and one additional
action item for which the district has a supporting role
in its implementation. BWSR has analyzed this
information and applied a progress rating to each
action item. These details are presented in Appendix
A, pages 7-10. In addition to the Nobles County Local
Water Management Plan, the district also writes an
annual work plan to guide day-to-day operations.
The review of plan accomplishments shows that the
OOWD has met planned targets for two of their eight
actions, is making progress on six others, including the
action item for which they have a supporting role.
Most of these actions are on-going, meaning that they
need continual attention over the life of the plan.
There is one item that has not yet been addressed.
This item encourages the development of provisions
for conservation design and standards for low-impact
development to guide city and county land use
decisions.
Findings Part 2: Performance Standards
This part of the review reports the OOWD’s
compliance with a set of performance standards
developed by BWSR that describe statutory
requirements and best operating practices for
watershed districts in greater Minnesota (non-metro).
The standards address four areas of operation:
administration, planning, execution, and
communication/coordination. They are further
categorized as basic and benchmark standards. The
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
basic standards describe practices that are either
legally required or fundamental to watershed district
operations. The benchmark standards describe
practices that reflect a high level of performance.
While all watershed districts should be meeting the
basic standards, only the more ambitious ones will
meet many benchmark standards. The results for the
OOWD are listed in Appendix B, page 11.
BWSR tracks all 46 watershed districts’ compliance
with four of the basic standards each year. This Level I
PRAP review is reported in a publically accessible
database on the BWSR website. Looking back over the
past five years of compliance tracking, the OOWD has
met the applicable standards each year for a 100
percent Level I compliance rating.
For this Level II review, BWSR tracked the OOWD’s
compliance with all of the 11 applicable basic
standards and 14 benchmark standards. The OOWD
meets nine of the basic standards and eight
benchmark standards. Most notable among the basic
standards compliance are the recent rule review,
having a full-time administrator, and the active,
functioning advisory committee. There are two
important policy standards—personnel and data
practices--that the district does not meet. These are
discussed further in the Action Items section on page 5
and in the Recommendations on page 6.
Findings Part 3: LGU Self-Assessment
This part uses a survey designed and administered by
BWSR to obtain information from OOWD managers
and staff about the recent successes and difficulties in
implementing the management plan and about their
ideas for improved district effectiveness. All five
managers and the administrator were invited to take
the survey. Four of the six responded.
In describing success, almost all the respondents
mentioned the wellhead protection efforts and water
retention basin development. Other successes listed
were waterway buffers, education efforts and
lakeshore stabilization. In listing the reasons for these
successes, managers and staff were unanimous—
partnerships and collaboration.
The projects or programs that have been more difficult
to implement, according to the respondents, have
been lake water quality improvements and ditch bank
stabilization. The reasons given are lack of time and
expertise in addressing lake water quality on the part
of the district and the lack of enthusiasm on the part
3
of lakeshore property owners to collaborate on
programs.
Managers and staff agreed strongly that their best
partners are the City of Worthington, Nobles County
and the E. O. Olsen Trust. One person thought that
the district would benefit from more guidance from
the DNR on certain projects.
For ideas on how to improve district effectiveness, the
two respondents who answered this question offered
the same idea—better education of the public on
watershed issues and solutions.
All of the manager/staff survey responses are reported
in Appendix C, pages 12-15.
Findings Part 4: Partners’ Assessment
Partner organization representatives were identified
by the district administrator and invited by BWSR to
take a survey that focused on those people’s working
relationship with the OOWD. Of the 16 partners
invited, 15 responded, an excellent response rate. The
full responses from partners are in Appendix C (pages
12-15). This section contains a summary of those
responses.
In determining the 15 respondents’ familiarity with the
work of the district, the survey asks how frequently
they’ve interacted with OOWD during the past three
years and how long they have been in their current
positions. Nearly half (47 percent) reported
interacting with the district monthly or more
frequently. Eighty percent of respondents have been
with their current organizations for at least five years.
Consequently, the partner responses are based on
good awareness of the district and its programs and
performance.
Over 70 percent of the respondents characterize their
working relationship with the OOWD as “powerful” or
“strong.” While more than half said the amount of
work they do in collaboration with the district is
“about right,” a significant one-third of respondents
believe there is potential for doing more together. In
rating the performance of the district in four key areas:
communication, quality of work, relationships with
customers, and timelines/follow-through, the
partners’ responses were more mixed. The table on
the next page shows the partners’ opinions.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
4
Partner Ratings (percent)
Strong
Good
Acceptable
Poor
Communication
33
33
27
7
0
Quality of
Work
33
40
20
7
0
Relations
with
Customers
33
13
47
0
7
Timelines/
Follow
through
33
33
27
0
7
Performance
Area
Don’t
Know
For communication, quality of work and
timelines/follow-through, two-thirds or more of the
partners give the district a “strong” or “good” rating.
In their relationships with customers, which includes
the ability to work well with landowners and clients
who are recipients of district services, nearly half the
partners rated the district’s performance as only
acceptable. These results are discussed further in the
Conclusions section on the next page.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
5
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
General Conclusions
The Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District has been a
consistent performer in delivering projects and
programs commensurate with planned objectives and
available resources. The survey of managers and
administrator conducted as part of this review, reveals
leaders with a high degree of consensus on what has
been accomplished, what still needs to be done, and
where the challenges lie. This is indicative of an
organization with a shared sense of mission, good
communication among its members, and a common
understanding of the issues and needs within their
area of jurisdiction.
The managers and staff identified partnerships and
collaboration with other local government partners as
the key to their success. Based on that awareness they
should be able to take advantage of existing
partnerships and build new ones. It is a clear formula
for continued effectiveness. This level of effective
coordination would not be possible without the
services of a full-time administrator. BWSR commends
the managers for making this financial commitment.
Action Items
Action items are basic practices performance
standards which the district is not currently meeting.
(See Appendix B., page 11.) These become items for
future board action to ensure that the district complies
with applicable statutes and rules. The OOWD has two
action items:


Adopt a data practices policy
Adopt a district personnel policy.
See Recommendation 2, page 6.
Commendations
Commendations are issued for meeting BWSR’s
benchmark performance standards that reflect
practices above-and-beyond basic district operations.
The OOWD is commended for:


The OOWD’s partners have confirmed the value of the
role the district plays in local water and related land
resource management. Their survey responses calling
for additional opportunities to work with the district
are one indication of that value. This collaboration
applies to planning as well as project implementation,
as demonstrated by their willingness to adopt the
Nobles County Local Water Management Plan as the
district’s watershed management plan. This sets the
district up well for future planning related to BWSR’s
One Watershed-One Plan initiative, should the LGUs
choose that option when it’s available. (See
Recommendation 1, page 6.)

The OOWD shows strong compliance with BWSR’s
performance standards, meeting all but two policyrelated basic standards and receiving several
commendations for compliance with the benchmark
standards.






Administrator on staff
Biennial Budget Request submitted within last 24
months
Strategic plan identifies short-term activities &
budgets based on state and local watershed
priorities
Local water plans reviewed
Water quality trends tracked for priority water
bodies
Watershed hydrologic trends monitored /
reported
Website: contains meeting notices, agendas &
minutes; updated after each board meeting;
additional content
Coordination with County Board and
City/Township officials
Partnerships: cooperative projects/tasks with
neighboring districts, counties, soil and water
districts, non-governmental organizations.
In looking ahead, the OOWD managers and staff
suggested that improving public outreach and
education efforts would boost the district’s program
effectiveness. Nearly half the partners surveyed
confirmed that there is room for improvement in the
district’s relationship with clients and landowners.
(See Recommendation 3, page 6.)
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
6
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
Recommendations
This section contains recommendations offered by
BWSR for the Okabena-Ocheda WD managers and
staff to enhance the organization’s service to the
residents of the district and its delivery of effective
water and related land resource management. These
are not presented in any priority order. BWSR financial
assistance may be available to support the WD’s
implementation of some of these recommendations.
governments by finding those entities in the area that
have an effective public outreach and education
component. Consult with them as to how to adopt
their successful strategies or consider a shared services
agreement to use their expertise for district programs.
Another potential source of both ideas and people is
the district’s Advisory Committee. They may have
suggestions and/or time to help with this need.
Recommendation 1: Maintain and expand upon the
strong partnerships that managers and partners have
identified as district strengths. Consider watershedbased planning for the next plan update.
The district should take full advantage of the existing
collaborative mechanisms, such as the county
environmental services advisory committee. The
district has already taken a big step toward
collaborative long-range planning by signing on to the
Nobles County local water management plan back in
2007. Watershed-based planning is the current trend.
Even though the next plan update is a few years away,
the managers and staff should monitor BWSR’s One
Watershed-One Plan initiative and begin discussions
with partner entities and neighboring districts in the
Missouri River drainage basin regarding the potential
for a true watershed plan.
Recommendation 2: Address Action Items.
Within the next six months the managers should adopt
both a personnel policy, which provides guidance for
hiring, dismissing, reviewing, and compensating staff,
among other staffing issues, and a data practices
policy. Consult with other local governments in the
vicinity, such as the Heron Lake WD or Nobles County,
for examples of such policies that can be adapted to
the specific needs of the district.
Recommendation 3: Consider strategies for
enhancing public outreach, information and
education to address priority issues.
LGU Comments and
BWSR Responses
The OOWD submitted written comments on the draft
version of this report. The full text of their comments,
dated November 6, 2014, is included in Appendix D,
page XX. The comments are summarized in this
section with a BWSR response, where appropriate.
OOWD Comment: We do not have an official data
practices policy. We wil develop and adopt one by
March 15, 2015.
BWSR Response: Comment noted.
OOWD Comment: The district’s personnel policies
handbook was approved in early 2008 but has not be
reviewed since then. We will review, make changes as
needed and approve an updated personnel policies
handbook by March 15, 2015.
BWSR Response: Comment noted.
OOWD Comment: As the draft report recommends, we
will also continue to look for ways to strengthen our
local partnerships and improve public outreach.
BWSR Response: Comment noted.
Managers and partners have both identified a need for
improving public outreach, education and
communication with clients. Managers and the
administrator should take advantage of the district’s
strength in building partnerships with other local
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
7
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
Appendix A. Plan Accomplishments
LGU Name: Okabena-Ocheda Watershed District
Type of Management Plan: District Management Plan/Nobles County Local Water Plan
Date of Last Plan Revision: 2013
Date of This Assessment: June 2014
GOAL No. 1: Prevent further degradation of stream and lake water quality, with a priority for Shoreland,
TMDL-listed waters, and unsewered communities. (Page 31 of Plan)
Objective 1c.: Promote Ag Best Management Practices (AgBMPs)
Proposed
Actual
Planned Actions or Activities
Accomplishments to Date
Timeframe Timeframe
1.c.7. Promote and Provide incentives for
300 acres of filter strips in the OOWD –
2009-2018
1.c.8. Designate cost-share funds and
promote cost-share programs in the
OOWD
2009 -2018
2009 to
present
2009 to
present
Indicator symbol for Progress Rating: =not started/dropped
Beginning in 1998, paid incentives to
landowners with eligible CRP filter strip
contracts $50 to $150 per acre per
year. Paid incentives for 340.6 acres
totaling $34,825.50 in 2014.
Worthington pays half the cost of
incentives for filter strips in the Lake
Okabena watershed. Have paid a total
of $157,307.50 for these incentives
since 2009.
District has spent $61,201.14 on costshare incentives for eligible BMPs
since 2009. Cost-share program is
mostly promoted through one-on-one
contacts in the district and through
Nobles SWCD.
=on-going progress
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Progress
Next Steps
Rating
The OOWD will pay

annual incentives for
the life of the existing
CRP contracts. New
and re-enrolling
contracts will be paid
$150 per acre per
year for the life of the
contract.

The district will
continue to budget
$10,000 to $15,000
annually for eligible
BMPs. Eligible
projects will be funded
as requested and the
annual budget allows.
=completed/target met
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
8
GOAL No. 2: Restore more natural flow in the drainage system, with a priority for Shoreland.
Objective 2.a.: Improve shoreland and impervious surface areas.
Proposed
Actual
Planned Actions or Activities
Accomplishments to Date
Timeframe Timeframe
2.a.2. Administer and Promote Watershed
District Rules
2009 to 2018
2.a.5. Promote and implement the
Worthington MS4 SWPPP.
Outreach-direct mailings, news releases,
personal contacts, provide technical
assistance.
Audience-2500 county residents/year
2009 to 2018
2009 to
present
District has issued 138 permits for
projects from agricultural drainage to
construction site erosion and sediment
control since 2009. District regularly
inspected 96 construction sites for
compliance with district rules during
that period. District permitting program
is promoted though word of mouth, the
OOWD website, SWCD and
Worthington Community Development
Department
2009 to
present
Worthington contracts with the OOWD
to write and print three stormwater
factsheets per year to be distributed by
Worthington Public Utilities to its 4800
customers. The factsheets are also
published on Worthington’s stormwater
webpage. The OOWD leads high
school and community college classes
on urban and rural stormwater tours
annually. The Daily Globe does at
least one story annually about urban
stormwater pollution prevention, usually
in conjunction with Lake Okabena’s
annual algae bloom. Approximately
1000 storm sewer markers have been
installed by OOWD staff since 2009.
The OOWD has monitored and
inspected 96 construction sites for
compliance with city, state and district
erosion and sediment control rules.
Worthington pays the district to inspect
construction sites impacting an acre or
more.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Progress
Next Steps
Rating
Awareness of


activities regulated by
the district and
compliance with the
permitting program is
generally good.
OOWD is considering
a rules revision to
make rules more
enforceable when
landowners are noncompliant.
The district continue
to work with
Worthington to
provide regular
stormwater pollution
prevention education
opportunities for the
public.
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
2.a.6. Consider adopting provisions for
conservation design and low impact
development in local plans and zoning
ordinances.
2.a.7. Promote and enforce construction
site erosion control rules in the OOWD
and Heron Lake Watershed District.
9
2009 to 2018
2009 to 2018
2009 to
present
Not started.

Worthington requires landowners and
contractors to apply for a district permit,
when needed, before issuing building
permits. The Heron Lake WD and
OOWD have adopted the same rules to
regulate construction activities. Both
districts issue permits for small and
large construction sites. The OOWD
works one-on-one to educate
homeowners and contractors and
regularly monitors construction sites for
compliance during construction.

The district will
continue this
successful program.
Objective 2b: Improve flood control, drainage systems and storm water retention.
Proposed
Actual
Planned Actions or Activities
Accomplishments to Date
Timeframe Timeframe
2.b.5. Implement urban flood control
measures on County Ditch 12.
Enrollment: 5 projects/year; $60,000/yr.
2014 to 2018
2.b.11. Seek funding for water retention
structures in the OOWD.
2014-2018
2012 to 2020
Progress
Next Steps
Rating
Worthington installed stormwater ponds
Worthington will

and in-channel storage in CD 12 during
the 2012 and 2013 construction
seasons to prepare for increased flow
as larger culverts are installed upsteam.
The district monitored the construction
site’s compliance with the project’s
SWPPP.
2014unknown
Three sites have been identified where
rural runoff enters Worthington. The
city will be required someday to store
and treat this runoff somewhere outside
of city limits before it enters the existing
stormwater infrastructure. Since this
land will store stormwater, normal
conservation money sources are not
available for these sites.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us

continue in channel
improvements, flood
water storage and
culvert improvements
as funding allows.
The city will seek
future state bonding
money for the project.
The district will lend
whatever moral
support is needed.
At this time these
sites are low priority
to Worthington. The
District will encourage
the city and maybe
pay a portion of
easement and land
acquisition costs for
the needed property.
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
10
GOAL No. 3: Assure long-term quality and quantity of public water supplies, with a priority for DWSMAs
and areas not currently served by public/community systems.
Objective 3c: Facilitate land retirement in critical areas.
Proposed
Actual
Planned Actions or Activities
Timeframe Timeframe
3.c.3. Establish private and public
partnerships to take advantage of
opportunities to retire land as they
become available.
Purchase/enroll: 20 acres/year.
2009 to 2018
2009 to 2018
Indicator symbol for Progress Rating: =not started/droppped
Accomplishments to Date
Between 2009 and 2014 the district
worked with Pheasants Forever,
Worthington Public Utilities (WPU) and
the DNR to purchase and retire 469
acres of marginal agricultural land in
the Lake Bella aquifer’s high priority
protection area. Approximately 50% of
the cost was paid by the RIM Critical
Habitat Match program and the rest of
the money came from PF, the district
and WPU. The land was donated to
the state and is now a part of two
Wildlife Management Areas. The most
recent purchase of 147 acres for
wellhead protection was completed in
2014 for $855,000.
=on-going progress
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
Progress
Next Steps
Rating
The district will

continue to work with
local, state and
federal partners to
purchase marginal
land in areas critical
for groundwater
protection as it
becomes available.
=completed/target met
11
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
Appendix
B. Greater
MN Watershed
Performance
Standards
GREATER
MN WATERSHED
DISTRICTDistrict
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
Administration
Performance
Area
LGU Name:
OKABENA-OCHEDA
Performance Standard
 Benchmark standard
n Basic practice or Statutory requirement
I Annual Compliance
(see instructions for explanation of standards)
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

I
Financial audit: completed within last 12 months
I
Drainage authority buffer strip report submitted on time
I
Planning
Execution
Rating
Yes, No,
or Value
YES NO
X
X
eLink Grant Report(s): submitted on time
I
Rules: date of last revision or review
II
Personnel policy: exists and reviewed/updated within last 5 yrs
II
Data practices policy: exists and reviewed/updated within last 5 yrs
II
Manager appointments: current and reported
II
Administrator on staff
II
NA
NA
2010
X
X
X
X
II
X
II
X
Board training: orientation & cont. ed. plan and record for each
Staff training: orientation & cont. ed. plan and record for each staff
 person
 Operational guidelines exist and current
 Public drainage records: meet modernization guidelines
n Watershed management plan: up-to-date
 Biennial Budget Request submitted within last 24 months
Strategic plan identifies short-term activities & budgets based on
state and local watershed priorities
Local water plans reviewed
II
X
NA
II
I
II
X
X
II
X

n Engineer Reports: submitted for DNR & BWSR review
II
1
II
N/A
n Total expenditures per year (past 10 yrs)
 Water quality trends tracked for priority water bodies
 Watershed hydrologic trends monitored / reported
II
see below
n
Communication
&Coordination
II BWSR Staff Review &
Assessment
Annual report: submitted by mid-year
 board member

Level of Review
n
Website: contains annual report, financial statement, board
members, contact info, grant report(s), watershed mgmt plan
Functioning advisory committee: recommendations on projects,
reports, maintains 2-way communication with Board
n Communication piece sent within last 12 months
Website: contains meeting notices, agendas & minutes; updated
 after each board mtg; additional content
 Obtain stakeholder input: within last 5 yrs
 Track progress for I & E objectives in Plan
 Coord with County Board and City/Twp officials
Partnerships: cooperative projects/tasks with neighboring districts,
 counties, soil and water districts, non-governmental organizations
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
$58,914 $98,501 $128,394 $209,909 $133,059
II
X
II
X
I
X
II
X
II
X
II
X
II
X
X
II
II
X
II
X
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
$124,977 $139,798 $254,834 $160,638 $159,545
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
12
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
Appendix C. Summary of Survey Results
Survey Overview:
The survey was developed by BWSR staff for the purpose of identifying information about the local government
unit’s performance from both managers and staff and from the unit’s partner organizations. The OkabenaOcheda WD administrator identified, at BWSR’s request, the current board members, staff and partner
organizations with whom the district has an on-going working relationship. BWSR staff invited those people to
take the on-line survey and their responses were received and analyzed by BWSR staff. Managers and staff
answered a different set of survey questions than the partners.
In this case, 6 managers and staff and 16 partner organization representatives, were invited to take the survey.
Four responses were received from managers/staff (67%) and 15 from partners (94%), an excellent response rate.
The identity of survey respondents is unknown to both BWSR and the local governmental unit. Both sets of
responses are summarized below. Some responses were edited for clarity or brevity.
Okabena-Ocheda WD Managers and Staff Questions and Responses
How often does your organization use some sort of master plan to guide decisions about what you
do? (response percent)
Always
50
Usually
50
Seldom
0
Never
0
Additional Comments:
-We review our plan yearly and use it as a tool to measure progress.
List your organization’s most successful programs and projects during the past 3-5 years.
Water retention ponds
Purchase of wellhead protection land
Securing property in our wellhead protection zone and planting the sites to grasses to prevent erosion; worked
with partners to create a new desilting basin in Worthington.
Waterway buffers, sediment basins, education, lakeshore stabilization, wellhead protection, land acquisitions.
What things have helped make these projects and programs successful?
Partnerships with other local entities (3)
Collaboration
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
13
During the past 3-5 years, which of your organization’s programs or projects have shown little
progress or been on hold?
Ditch bank stabilization
Lake water quality improvements in one of the lakes (2)
Clean water
List the reasons why the organization has had such difficulty with these projects and programs.
Lack of time, need for education, lack of expertise in lake water quality; meetings not generating excitement
only once per month; slow to get responses from consultants.
Cost
Property owners along these waters
Regarding the various organizations and agencies with which you could cooperate on projects or
programs…
List the ones with which you work well already
City of Worthington (3); Pheasants Forever; Public Utilities; E.O. Olsen Trust (2)
Nobles County (2)
DNR; other watersheds
List the ones with which better collaboration would benefit your organization
We could use the guidance of DNR on some projects.
What could your organization do that would make you more effective in accomplishing your plan
goals and objectives?
Continue the effort/place more emphasis on educating the public on watershed issues and solutions (2)
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
14
How long have you been with the organization you currently serve? (percentage)
Less than 5 years
50
5 to 15 years
25
More than 15 years
25
Okabena-Ocheda WD Partner Organization Questions and Responses
Question: How often have you interacted with this organization during the past three years?
Select the response closest to your experience. (response percent)
Not at all
0
A few times
20
Several times a year
33
Monthly
13
Almost every week
27
Daily
7
Is the amount of work you do in partnership with this organization…(percent)
Not enough, there is potential for us to do more together
36
About right
57
Too much, they depend on us for work they should be doing for
themselves
0
Too much, we depend on them for work we should be doing ourselves or
with others
7
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
15
Based on your experience working with them, please rate the organization as a partner with you in
the following areas:
Performance Characteristic
Rating (percent of responses)
Strong
Good
Acceptable
Poor
I don’t
know
Communication (they keep us informed; we
know their activities; they seek our input)
33
33
27
7
0
Quality of work (they have good projects and
programs; good service delivery)
33
40
20
7
0
Relationships with Customers (they work well
with landowners and clients)
33
13
47
0
7
Timelines/Follow-through (they are reliable and
meet deadlines)
33
33
27
0
7
How is your working relationship with this organization? (percent)
Powerful, we are more effective working together
36
Strong, we work well together most of the time
36
Good, but it could be better
21
Acceptable, but a struggle at times
7
Poor, there are almost always difficulties
0
Comments from Partners about their working relationship with the Okabena-Ocheda WD.
-The O&O is a great partner. I wished we worked on more projects together.
How long have you been with the organization you currently serve? (percentage)
Less than 5 years
20
5 to 15 years
40
More than 15 years
40
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
Appendix D. Okabena-Ocheda WD Comment Letter
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
16
PRAP Level II Report: Okabena-Ocheda WD
17
Appendix E. Program Data
Time required to complete this review
OOWD Staff: 7 hours
BWSR Staff: 34 hours
Schedule of Level II Review
BWSR PRAP Performance Review Key Dates



July 9-25, 2014: Survey of Managers, staff and partners
October 7, 2014: Presentation of Draft Report to Managers and staff
December 22, 2014: Transmittal of Final Report to OOWD
NOTE: BWSR uses review time as a surrogate for tracking total program costs. Time required for PRAP
performance reviews is aggregated and included in BWSR’s annual PRAP report to the Minnesota Legislature.
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 7.0
ADMINISTRATION
Phone: 507-295-5201
Fax: 507-372-8363
[email protected]
315 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 757
Worthington, MN 56187-0757
“In cooperation with our citizens, we improve the quality of life for individuals,
families and communities by fostering a healthy economy and environment.”
“Looking forward with purpose”
To:
Board of Commissioners
From:
Tom Johnson, County Administrator
Date:
January 29, 2015
Subject:
Items Requiring Board Action
7.1
Northland Securities MOU
An RFP was released in 2014 to allow interested firms to provide proposals for services
as Financial Advisor for the County. Issuance costs are provided for your review.
Consider authorizing the County Administrator to sign, on behalf of Nobles County, a
Memorandum of Understanding with Northland Securities for services as Financial
Advisor. (Attachments)
7.2
Government Center Stair Replacement
Consider authorizing the County Administrator to enter into a contract, on behalf of
Nobles County, with Wilcon Construction, Inc., as lowest responsible bidder, to complete
the stair replacement project as designed and bid. (Attachment)
7.3
April 7th, 2015 Meeting Time
Consider discussion on changing the April 7th, 2015 regular Board meeting to be held at
3:00 pm rather than 9:00 am due to the 6:00 pm public hearing for tax forfeited
properties.
7.4
2015 Boards, Committees & Commissions – Citizen Appointments
Consider an appointment to the Personnel Board of Appeals. John Faber’s term expired
12/31/14 and he does not wish to continue serving in this capacity. (Attachment)
7.5
Meetings & Conferences – Travel Expenses
Consider approving county department travel expenses. (Attachment)
(Attachment)
Attachment 7.1
Attachment 7.2
Attachment 7.4
Attachment 7.5
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 8.1
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 9.0
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 9.2
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 9.3
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Attachment 10.0
Attachment 10.1
Attachment 10.2 A.
Attachment 10.2 B.
Attachment 10.2 C.