revised February 2023

Watershed-Based Implementation Funding (WBIF) is a major element in Minnesota’s transition to watershed-based local water management. WBIF grants are large, performance-based (per appropriation language), and non-competitive. BWSR will seek funding to make grants available to each partnership with an approved plan every two years.

WBIF grants comprise a substantial portion of the Clean Water Fund budget. BWSR and local governments must demonstrate accountability and results associated with the use of these funds. Assurance measures go beyond BWSR’s established grant compliance system (which ensure money is spent in accordance with grant-related statutes and policies) to analyze how grantees use WBIF dollars.

Purpose

BWSR established assurance measures for three purposes:

  1. to fulfill the legislative requirement of performance-based grants
  2. to define BWSR’s expectations for how watershed partnerships use WBIF; and
  3. to demonstrate that WBIF dollars are being spent effectively to address the highest priority clean water needs in a watershed.

BWSR has a robust grants management and accountability system, including the use of past performance in our grant management decisions, per §M.S. 103B.3369. The assurance measures bring transparency to BWSR’s grant management work in the context of these large, noncompetitive grants.

BWSR’s vision is that local partnerships will use their watershed plan* to guide expenditures of WBIF to make significant progress toward their goals. This is a shift from the competitive grant process, in which the state requires more “front-end” information identifying specific items to be funded. 

Because WBIF grants are performance-based, BWSR is empowering local partnerships to choose implementation activities identified in the plan and demonstrate success at the “back end” of the grant life cycle.  Assurance measures allow BWSR to define what “success” looks like.

*“Watershed plan” refers to state approved and locally adopted comprehensive watershed management plans developed under the One Watershed, One Plan Program, watershed management plans as required under Minnesota Statutes §103B.231, county groundwater plans authorized under Minnesota Statutes §103B.255, or soil and water conservation district comprehensive plans developed under Minnesota Statutes §103C.331, Subd. 11.

Audience

BWSR will use the measures to summarize and consistently communicate about the use of WBIF in accelerating clean water outcomes primarily to the BWSR Board, Clean Water Council, and legislature. BWSR will provide grant recipients with feedback about their use of grant funds relative to BWSR expectations.

Approach

After grant closeout, BWSR will analyze reported data from eLINK and supplemental information if needed for each completed WBIF grant. BWSR will share the preliminary evaluation with the grantees prior to finalization, giving grantees an opportunity to provide additional context if needed. Evaluations may be conducted with individual grantees or watershed partnerships as a whole, depending on the structure of the partnerships and/or distribution of grant funds. Assurance measures will not be used to compare watershed partnerships to one another. Assurance measures will not replace or duplicate regular grant monitoring efforts.

 

Assurance Measure 1: Prioritized, targeted, and measurable work is making progress toward achieving clean water goals

Description: This measure compares pollution reduction estimates from the WBIF workplan to completed pollution reduction estimates. When pollutant reductions are not an appropriate measurement or not available (e.g., actions to protect high quality waters), outputs (projects, programs, policies, etc.) may serve as surrogates for outcomes. Note: BWSR uses the same indicators for this assurance measure and for the Legislative Coordinating Commission reporting.

Justification: Demonstrating measurable outcomes is a key requirement for all Legacy Funds. BWSR is required to report proposed and actual measurable outcomes to the Legislative Coordinating Commission; this information is posted on their website.  WBIF work plans must demonstrate that proposed work will contribute to measurable goals in the watershed plan by including estimates of pollution reductions or other outcomes that will result from funded work.

Considerations: The purpose of WBIF is to achieve meaningful resource outcomes, including improvements in water quality or successful protection efforts; BWSR acknowledges that there is a time lag between actions and measurable outcomes, and that external factors (e.g., land use, weather patterns) can impact water quality.

Metric: Percentage of measurable outcomes proposed in the grant work plan (current/amended, if applicable) that were completed.

Indicator (select one):

  • Achieved proposed outcomes (achieved 90% or more of what was proposed)
  • Achieved most proposed outcomes (achieved between 70% and 90%)
  • Achieved some proposed outcomes (achieved between 50% and 70%)
  • Did not achieve proposed outcomes (achieved 49% or less of proposed outcomes)

BWSR Expectation:

  • Achieved proposed outcomes; or
  • Achieved most proposed outcomes

Data Sources:

eLINK data:

  • Work plan:
    • Proposed measurable outcomes (narrative)
    • Activity types and numbers
    • Pollution reductions or surrogates/outputs as applicable
  • All Details Report:
    • Activity types and numbers
    • Activity outcomes
    • Other information (milestones, journal entries, etc.) as needed

Other Data Sources:

  • Watershed plan goals
  • Context Questions (optional, if needed):
    • What helped or hindered the partnership in achieving the goals of the grant work plan?
    • Is there anything else you want BWSR to know about implementation in this grant period?
Assurance Measure 2: Programs, projects, and practices are being implemented in priority areas

Description: Watershed grant work plan activities and outcomes compared to high priority sub-watersheds, planning regions, etc. described in the watershed plan or identified in the WBIF grant work plan (in cases where the work plan identified further/refined priority areas).

This measure recognizes that work in priority areas falls in two categories:

Category A: Effort spent in priority areas on project development (marketing, outreach, landowner contacts, preliminary design)

Category B: Project activities and outcomes accomplished in priority areas (on-the-ground activities that yield water quality benefits)

Justification: WBIF supports activities (projects, practices, programs, and policies) that address the highest clean water priorities in the watershed plan. This assurance measure provides BWSR with a way to systematically evaluate the extent to which funds are used in priority areas as described in the watershed plan.

Considerations: BWSR recognizes unforeseen circumstances or challenges associated with voluntary conservation may arise during implementation. Significant departure from implementation in priority areas and/or towards measurable goals should not be undertaken lightly and should be documented through work plan adjustments or grant amendments. The extent to which a plan clearly identifies geographic priorities may vary.

Metrics:

Category A: Proportion, type, and quality of project development effort made in priority areas (even if contacts did not result in a project)

Category B: Proportion of outcomes achieved in priority areas

Indicators (select one from each category):

Category A:

  • Project development was in priority areas (90% or more)
  • Most project development was in priority areas (between 70% and 90%)
  • Some project development was in priority areas (between 50% and 70%)

Category B:

  • Outcomes were achieved in priority areas (90% or more)
  • Most outcomes were achieved in priority areas (between 70% and 90%)
  • Some outcomes were achieved in priority areas (between 50% and 70%)

BWSR Expectation:

Category A:

  • Project development was in priority areas

Category B:

  • Outcomes were achieved in priority areas; or
  • Most outcomes were achieved in priority areas (between 70% and 90%)

Data Sources:

eLINK data:

  • Work Plan: Priority areas for implementation (if applicable)
  • All Details Report:
    • Narrative information about project development
    • Pollution reduction estimates per waterbody (as identified in the All Details Report)
    • Activity locations
    • Other information (milestones, journal entries, etc.) as needed

Other Data Sources:

  • From plan: priority locations/waterbodies/subwatersheds for issues addressed by the work done in the grant
  • Optional: data from local tracking systems (if grantee wants to share it – attach in eLINK
  • Context Questions (optional, if needed):
    • Does the partnership (or individual LGUs in the partnership) have a landowner contact tracking system?
    • If more information is needed about project development: What was the level of effort in high priority areas?
    • Who and how many landowners did you contact?
    • What kind of contact was used, and which methods were the most successful?
    • How did partners contribute (time, money, etc.) to the implementation effort?
    • How did landowners become engaged in actions related to water issues?
    • What have you done to better understand what motivates the landowners in your area?
    • What was the rationale for implementing actions in areas not designated as high priority?
    • Are there other practices, projects and programs the groups would like to highlight that were not directly funded by WBIF?
Assurance Measure 3: Grant work is on-schedule and on-budget

Description: Completed expenditures will be compared to the original work plan schedule and budget. 

Justification: WBIF exists because local governments need reliable funding to implement their plans. Funders want to know the money is fulfilling that need and is being spent efficiently.

Considerations: BWSR recognizes that extenuating circumstances may arise during the grant period that delay or change some actions and may require work plan adjustments or grant amendments. Strong project management skills and readiness are required to implement at the level of funding that’s being made available. Effective partnerships have enough range/depth of plan implementation items and capacity that these extenuating circumstances should not result in an inability to spend WBIF dollars.  Consultations between recipients and BWSR staff, eLINK annual reporting, and grant monitoring documentation of any delays or plan changes will be part of the assessment process. 

Metrics:

Category A (on schedule): Whether or work plan activities were completed within the original grant time frame

Category B (on budget): Whether or not funds were returned.

Indicators (select one from each category):

Category A (on schedule):

  • Work plan activities were completed according to the original schedule
  • Work plan activities were completed with extra time
  • Work plan activities were not completed, even with extra time

Category B (on budget):

  • Funds were not returned 
  • Funds were returned

BWSR Expectation:

Category A (on schedule):

  • Work plan was completed according to the original schedule; or
  • Work plan was completed with extra time

Category B (on budget): BWSR expects that if funds can’t be used to implement targeted and measurable activities in priority areas, partnerships will return funds in a timely manner so BWSR can make them available for other implementation.

Data Sources:

eLINK data:

  • Work Plan:
    • Time frame (original and whether amendments or documented adjustments were made)
    • Budget by major category (original or amended)
  • All Details Report:
    • Time frame for grant completion
    • Expenditures by major category
  • Other information (milestones, journal entries, etc.) as needed

Other Data Sources:

  • Context Questions (optional, if needed):
    • How much money was encumbered when the grant was extended?
    • If there were changes to the work plan schedule or budget, what was the context/primary cause?
    • What did the partnership do to set itself up for success (e.g. staffing plans, landowners lined up, communication plans, studies already completed for targeting)?
    • What lessons were learned that will influence the next grant work plan?
Assurance Measure 4: Leverage of non-state funds

Description: The emphasis of this assurance measure is on efforts to secure additional funding by watershed partnerships and BWSR using WBIF as leverage – not a detailed accounting of leveraged funds. Funding opportunities pursued will be evaluated relative to opportunities available (see example list below) and other factors such as local capacity and plan goals. This measure will be used to track overall programmatic success and will not be used to set expectations or evaluate performance for partnerships.

Justification: A benefit of reliable funding such as WBIF is that it can potentially be used as leverage for additional funds that would not otherwise have been available were it not for the state’s investment. Funders want to know that the WBIF investment is attracting outside funding to increase implementation.

Examples of additional funding sources:

  • USDA NRCS - Regional Conservation Partnership Program
  • EQIP
  • EPA 319 Small Watersheds
  • USDA NRCS – Mississippi River Basin Initiative
  • EPA Great Lakes Initiative
  • Federal infrastructure funds
  • Private funding sources (e.g., Land O’Lakes, Hormel Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever)
  • USDA Forestry Programs
  • County or other LGU contributions for projects
  • Other legacy funds

Reporting Note: Partnerships must document required match in eLINK. Efforts to pursue additional funding and actual leveraged dollars beyond the required match don’t need to be reported in the same detail as the required match (associated with specific practices), but BWSR recommends documenting their leveraging efforts via a narrative summary in eLINK reports.

Considerations: BWSR recognizes that some parts of Minnesota have greater access to additional funding sources than others, and that BWSR can play an important role in securing additional funding for watershed plan implementation. 

Metrics: 

  • Number of additional grants pursued
  • Number of additional grants secured
  • Dollar amount of additional grants secured

How the Measures Will Be Used

WBIF grants comprise a significant portion of the Clean Water Fund budget; there are high expectations that these grants will address important resource needs and deliver results.

Furthermore, watershed partnerships are now empowered to make decisions about how to spend the funds based on their plans rather than a competitive process.

As described in the purpose and audience sections above, assurance measures will allow BWSR to:

  1. fulfill legislative requirement of performance-based grants
  2. demonstrate that WBIF dollars are being spent effectively to address the most prioritized clean water needs in a watershed; and
  3. define BWSR’s expectations for how watershed partnerships use WBIF (performance-based) grants to implement their plans.

Defining expectations for performance-based grants

BWSR has a statutory authority to make performance-based grants (§M.S. 103B.3369).  Partnerships can anticipate receiving the full allocation amount that’s been approved for their watershed based on the amount appropriated by the legislature and the Board’s allocation formula. The following is a description of BWSR expectations related to assurance measures.

AM 1 (Measurable Results) and AM 2 (Priority Areas): BWSR expects that: all or most proposed outcomes will be achieved (AM 1) and that all or most work will be done in priority areas (AM 2).  Partnerships have a great deal of control how they spend WBIF (types and locations of implementation activities they select from their plan).  AM 1 and AM 2 will look at the results of those choices.  

AM 3 (Budget/Schedule): BWSR expects that after the second round of funding, partnerships are putting project management systems in place so that funds can be fully spent without extensions. Grant extension requests are considered in context of the situation at the time of request and performance on previous grants.  In some cases, it may be preferable for partnerships to return funds so they can be used by a partnership that is ready to spend the funds rather than seek a grant extension.

AM 4 (Leveraging): BWSR expects that groups will take advantage of WBIF to leverage more funding; efforts to leverage funds will be used as a measure of the WBIF program’s overall success.

BWSR understands the shift to watershed-based, multijurisdictional planning and implementation is a new way of operating.  Our expectation is that partnerships will adapt and assurance measures will be applied according to the level of experience for each partnership and patterns of success over time.

  • 1st WBIF Grant: get accustomed to working in partnership and using the funds well. Understand gaps and barriers to successful implementation.
  • 2nd WBIF Grant: address gaps and barriers to successful implementation, including good project management, and project development in priority areas.
  • 3rd WBIF Grant and beyond: reflect and refine; have systems in place that ensure BWSR expectations are met.

Assurance measures will be applied in a “big picture,” long term approach, understanding that an array of factors may be relevant: issues with the plan, issues with the partnership, or external factors (e.g., landowner willingness, weather, contractor availability). Partnerships and BWSR can use assurance measures, together with mid-point plan evaluations and BWSR's Performance Review and Assistance Program (PRAP), to assess the specific context for grant performance and understand the best course of action for ensuring successful implementation in future grant rounds.

Demonstrating effective use of WBIF dollars (communication)

BWSR will use the assurance measure indicators to demonstrate the significant, measurable contributions (AM 1) that WIBF is making toward implementation in priority areas (AM 2) described in locally developed comprehensive watershed management plans.  BWSR will also use the assurance measures to demonstrate the extent to which partnerships are efficiently using WBIF funds (AM 3) and leveraging additional funds (AM 4).

BWSR will compile the results of our analysis and indicator selection into a statewide summary for each measure.  This summary could be presented to the following statewide audiences:

  • The BWSR Board
  • Clean Water Fund Interagency Coordination Team (and sub-teams as appropriate)
  • Clean Water Council
  • Legislature (via presentations and/or BWSR’s annual legislative report).