Retreat Notes Sweet Water Strategic Planning Committee May 27, 2011 at We Energies Present: Nancy Frank (facilitating),

Tom Grisa, Mike Hahn, David Lee, Jeff Martinka, Peter McAvoy, and Kevin Shafer 1. Review of Goals for the Day Achieve a comprehensive list of the issues and opportunities facing Sweet Water; Reach agreement on the key issues that we need to work on with our Steering Council and stakeholders in an expanded strategic planning session during the summer; In general terms, identify the projects, programs, and activities that we want to propose to the Joyce Foundation for meeting at end of June; Begin a discussion of a vision for Sweet Water for 2014 and objectives for 2012-2014

2. Agenda overview 3. On-line Sweet Water Stakeholder survey results 4. Observations from Joyce partner NGO EDs (reviewed written comments and thoughts from meetings with Jeff) 5. Internal Issues Jeffs standard Sweet Water areas of initial success: o Development of implementation plans for the KK and Menomonee watersheds and start of BMP project work Funding and startup of work to create a watershed-based storm water permit in the Menomonee River watershed Role in producing the framework for water quality trading (Joyce grant, MEA work with Policy Committee) Initial watershed-based nonpoint source pollution public outreach efforts Root River Watershed Restoration Plan launch, a cross-jurisdictional effort

Lack of critical core staff; staff too limited to fulfill even the original lean and collaborative vision of Sweet Water. Lack of core staff is acutely felt in limited fundraising capacity. Steering Council vacancies need to be filled in a more timely fashion. Involvement of Steering Council members in Sweet Waters work is too uneven across members. Need to set expectations and balance the involvement. The original membership MOU process and meaning of membership is not serving Sweet Water as well as it needs to. The level of NGO-to-NGO cooperation varies.

6. External factors affecting Sweet Waters work Funding drying up: state, federal, local, and foundations Policy changes (phosphorus rules, NR 151), if enacted, could change the assumptions that originally drove the Sweet Water policy research agenda Good relations with WI DNR and US EPA, and other government agencies Low profile at both the local, state, and national level Challenges that are at the core of our mission are huge; the problems are big and collaboration is hard work. Fund for Lake Michigan is a tremendous resource for our work. Despite the Menomonee Watershed-based Permit work, engagement of municipalities as partnersespecially on projectshas not taken off yet.

7. Activities or initiatives that should be placed on hold or abandoned as outside Sweet Waters mission or capacity Hold off on pursuing Watershed Restoration Plans in additional watersheds until after the Root WRP and the TMDL efforts are completed. Abandon the idea of finding funding to support watershed-wide, comprehensive monitoring. Reconsider or reconfigure Sweet Waters capacity to coordinate the TMDL outreach.

8. Financial issues

Need to diversify funding sources Need implementation funding Need to find time or staff to pursue grant-writing more intensively Government units typically need to lead on implementationdue to federal source funds, project scope, etc. Potential local partners are experiencing severe funding constraints.

9. Key issues Funding needs to be much larger to partner with stakeholders in on-theground projects. Staffing is too limited, especially the lack of staff time available for grantwriting and outreach to potential partners. The involvement of Steering Council members is uneven; need to engage all members to the full extent of their capacity. Despite the WAT implementation plans, the overall scope of Sweet Waters workfrom mini-grants to outreach to projectsleads to a need for greater focus on key priorities. Sweet Water needs to expand its activity in on the ground projects, working through partners, but actively expanding the number of projects that are being done in SE Wisconsin, especially in our priority watersheds. We need to be more purposeful in integrating planning, policy, outreach, and projects.

Parking Lot Issues Approach the farm couple that Kevin and Jeff met on the watershed tour with EPA/NRCS etc., about serving on the Steering Council. Form WATs in other portions of the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds in advance of pursuing WRPs or other second level planning

Look at some additional sources of funding: o o o o National Fish and Wildlife Foundation ($1.5 million possible in 2012) American Farmland Trust (Molly could introduce?) Crown Family Foundation (Molly could introduce?) NRCS

CWAA Conference Root River WRP

High Priorities for Sweet Water that are likely funding targets for new Joyce grant: 1. Water policy work Watershed-based permit implementation Water quality trading (funding to produce initial trades and learn from the experience) As part of trading, complete a model (framework) for trades that is acceptable to DNR and to the EPA. Study the cost-benefit of achieving state policy changes on rainwater harvesting and reuse

2. Maintain Sweet Waters capacity to coordinate activities within the watersheds, attract new funding, and disseminate lessons learned

Sweet Water staffing needs Create a narrative about Sweet Water that will help to advance our work as a national model Broadcast the Sweet Water message nationally.

3. Lead efforts to make accelerated progress in nonpoint, runoff, and stormwater management

Develop model MS4 ordinances and DNR rule guidance on the use of green infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements. Agricultural runoff innovations Outreach to agricultural stakeholders, taking implementation funding and innovative approaches to them. Create an ag stakeholder coordinating council

4. Implement pilot projects within the priority watersheds

Implement project priorities from Menomonee and KK WRPs (e.g., take neighborhood BMPs work to scale; identify cost-effective means of monitoring effectiveness, etc.) Develop a template or methodology to document successful outcomes from project implementation and describe how to take them to scale. Larger-scale implementation projects to see if the approach(es) identified at the smaller scale will work and the resources required to make it work once the learning curve is behind us. Pilot projects requiring coordination between NGOs and municipalities (e.g., illicit connections, find-and-fix) Public outreach Urban stormwater education Outreach to municipalities for projects involving trading, green infrastructure, and multi-jurisdictional cooperation Engage in neighborhood organizing for small projects, monitoring, etc. Provide capacity-building support for small organizations, such as subwatershed level WATs

High priorities for Sweet Water, but poor fit for Joyce grant

Clean Rivers, Clean Lake conference support Mini-grant support: BMPs, green infrastructure, capacity-building Root River WRP Unrestricted funding Major project funding

Higher priorities for Joyce than for Sweet Water Advocacy for policies that are focused on intensifying the standards for our waters, including advocacy for retaining the new Phosphorus rule Funding models for lateral inspection and replacement or municipal find and fix programs

Low priorities for both Sweet Water and Joyce Foundation Expanded monitoring (both would like it, but scale of need is beyond our capacity) Additional WRPs (at this time) for Milwaukee River, Oak Creek