Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Cedar River Watershed District

SWIFT Contract Number B12436

Project Name SWAG

Project Number (if applicable) CR1618

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The Cedar River Watershed District is a 435 square mile watershed district in Southeastern Minnesota comprising of Mower, Freeborn, Dodge, and Steele Counties. The district was formed in 2007 to improve water quality and reduce the flooding that has troubled the region. The watershed currently has 3 sites that are listed on the MPCA’s impaired waters list for turbidity. Those sites are being investigated through a TMDL beginning in the spring of 2008.

The purpose of this grant project is to better understand turbidity, flow and nutrient loading throughout the watershed and complete the impairment assessments for these 11 sites within the district boundaries. The monitoring will provide valuable information to the watershed district that will be used in the modeling process. This data would also be useful downstream in Iowa where the Cedar River is listed as impaired for nitrogen and aquatic life.
The district is requesting grant funding to enhance and complete nutrient and turbidity impairment assessments for 11 sites within the district boundaries. This funding will pay for staff to do 20 samples per sampling season (April to October) at each of the 11 sites. We will be coordinating and training volunteer stream monitors on these sites and potentially more. Funding will also cover lab costs, shipping fees, staff time and day to day administration.
The Mower Soil and Water Conservation District and its staff will be responsible for the collection of the water samples. The staff has been trained and will be receiving more training from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Collected data will be submitted to STORET and the CSMP staff on an annual basis.

Lab samples will be collected by using the open bucket method. Collected lab samples will be sent to Minnesota Valley Testing Labs (MVTL), a certified testing lab, in New Ulm for analysis for TSS, Sulfate, ammonia, nitrogen, nitrate-nitrite, TP, OP, Chloride, and TKN. A YSI 650 MDS field meter will test for DO, pH, conductivity, temperature, and turbidity. Staff will be using a flow meter to collect flow data when possible. Volunteers will be using transparency tubes, stream staff gages, rainfall gages, and will also be making observations as stated in the citizen stream monitoring program guide. All data collected will be submitted to STORET and the CSMP staff on an annual basis.

The recently formed district has public support with many prepared to volunteer. This grant would provide an opportunity for the public to remain involved. We would like to use the grant to improve the watersheds citizen stream monitoring participation of which there are currently only 2. Our hope is that the volunteer work will increase the public’s ownership of the watershed as well as enhance our knowledge of the Cedar River. We would also hope that the volunteer monitoring would continue beyond the length of the grant and be used as long term monitoring sites.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 03/20/2008 - 00:00

Original end date Wed, 06/30/2010 - 00:00

Actual end date Wed, 06/30/2010 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $111336.00

Amendments $0

Contract total $111336.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 100 E710 WY2

Is this a sole source contract? No

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) {Empty}

Evaluator Name Lee Engel

Evaluator Email Address lee.engel@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Good

Evaluate the contractor's quality Good - The grant was relativly easy to manage and the grantee was responsive when questions arose. The grant made good use of volunteers and many sites were sampled.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Good

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Good

Would you engage the contractor's services again? Yes

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): {Empty}

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied