• Coordination and administration of a wetland research project for a small, sub-watershed of the Redwood. It includes two components: a questionnaire administered to residents, and a mapping/modeling exercise to show relationships between wetland restoration and downstream flooding. Several federal and state agencies and private nonprofit organizations are involved in this effort.

• An informational meeting for SWCD supervisors and staff and NRCS staff was held in December. This was done to enhance communication with these groups, both of which are central to the programs offered through the project.

• Continued staff training and development.

• Ongoing technical committee and DNR Watershed Management Team meetings.

• Continued staff training and development.

• Work session for Board and staff held in November. This was a daylong meeting to review Project and organizational missions, and to identify new directions. One outcome was common understanding of accomplishments and expectations.

• Revitalization of a wetland restoration study in a sub-watershed.

• Revised our work plan to concentrate on three best management practices: wetland restoration, conservation tillage, and buffer strips. Focusing our resources on these practices will help achieve greatest water quality benefits.

• Began the process of integrating the Redwood River clean Water Project and the Cottonwood River Restoration Project into a unified RCRCA work plan.

• Worked with state agencies and other groups in the Minnesota River basin to create systems patterned on the Redwood River Clean Water Project, an approach that is often cited as a model for emerging watershed projects.

With the undertaking of a project as large as this one, varieties of methods have been used in each of our different program elements. Some approaches have been more successful than others. Listed below is a summary from the past three years about the lessons learned and obstacles overcome since the beginning of the Redwood River Clean Water Project.

• It is very important to establish and maintain supportive working arrangements with appropriate federal, state, and local resource management agencies. This has been accomplished in various ways, ranging from informal meetings to creation of a special DNR, Watershed Management Team, for the Redwood River.
• Technicians have noted several factors affecting the willingness of farmers/landowners to adopt best management practices. The most significant seem to be age, absentee ownership, financial, cumbersome paper work and basic knowledge or awareness of various practices.

• The Clear Creek Water Quality Incentive project (WQIP) taught us something about change and introduction of new concepts. It started out slowly with respect to landowner interest. Encumbering the funds and finding willing landowners to participate in the early part of the sign-up period was not very fruitful. However, by the end of the sign-up period, interest started to exceed the amount of funds available. Since this was a new program, there were a few landowners that recognized the potential for their operation. They, in turn, talked to their neighbors about the benefits of participating, and interest increased. The lesson learned was that landowners are more willing to listen to practicing landowners about new conservation programs. We recognize that having landowners that participate with the Redwood River Clean Water Project as spokespersons add more credibility to the goals that we are trying to achieve.

• Farmers are responsive to personal visits. The time and effort needed to make these contacts pays off in the long term. Emphasis on personal, one-on-one contacts has proven to be a successful strategy for getting farmers to participate in the cost-share program. Understandably, it is very labor intensive. Group meetings are necessary, but they don’t have sufficient impact.

• A big obstacle that has occurred over the past three years has been turnover. Original employees have moved to other positions to further their careers. As with any transition of this type, it takes a lot of time and energy to locate prospective people and educate them about the project.

• Water quality monitoring is a long term project. The best we can hope for is that over three to six years we will identify a trend. In the short term, sampling results provide little insight. This is not easily understood by the public. On the other hand, more watershed residents are asking questions about water quality, and asking project staff to gather additional water quality data.

• Nature dictates some of the success of the monitoring program. Rainfall event amounts, and duration, affect the amount of overland flow and stream discharges. During 1995, although there was an average amount of rainfall for the area, it fell in one-half inch to one-inch increments in the watershed, limiting the number of event samples collected. In 1997, the early spring produced high flows due to melting snow. This was followed by a relatively dry summer and fall. Despite conditions, monitoring goals were achieved for each station. There is need, however, to collect flow data earlier in the spring during periods of high flows resulting from spring runoff. The danger of waiting to do the high flow readings during the growing season is that we run the risk of not getting the data we would like, due to low precipitation.

• The 1995 fish population assessment with the MnDNR showed encouraging results. The number of species sampled increased over the number sampled in 1991. A correlation can be made between the types of species found and the amount of riparian buffer strips on each side of the river. Most of the gamefish were found where there was at least a fifteen-foot buffer providing shade, habitat, and streambank stabilization. Carp and other rough fish were plentiful where the river was straightened and there was no buffer on either side of the river. In these areas, there was no habitat for fish, the water temperature was high, and the banks of the river were exposed to erosive forces.

• An ongoing lesson is that of data management. It becomes imperative to keep track of where information is going, in order for others to be able to find the data. When this isn’t done, it causes a headache for others as time is lost or information is duplicated simply because it wasn’t known that the information was already available

• Repetition is the most effective way to overcome public apathy. Newsletters are effective, providing everyone involved with Project information, but repeated personal contact is most effective.

• It is imperative that all involved with the Project have a solid understanding of exactly how it will operate. This includes who will be doing what, where, when and how. Continued interaction among co-sponsors, supporters, staff and other key players is needed from the onset of the planning phase all the way through implementation.

• Committees are sometimes viewed as ineffective, yet they can be a useful way to involve project co-sponsors.

• A project of this size is subject to continual scrutiny. Care must be taken to keep a large number of people informed about what’s going on.

• Since beginning the project, we have tried to adhere to a set of techniques for securing citizen participation, both to gather input and to explain our program. We have been reasonably successful in achieving our goals. Obvious techniques are newsletters, public meetings, technical and advisory committees, etc. Nevertheless, whatever you do, it is never enough. The importance of this project component, citizen participation, which includes various special interest groups as well, cannot be over emphasized. Nor, can one accurately predict the amount of time it requires. It must be an integral part of any large, complex project such as ours.

• Considerable time has been devoted to administrative/management functions. Such things as budgeting, record keeping, reporting, supervision, evaluation, and conflict resolution activities have required more attention than anticipated. Obviously, these activities are essential, but they tend to get in the way of the Project’s mission and purpose.

• We are frequently asked to participate in conferences/workshops to explain our project. Again, this involvement takes us away from our mission.

The Redwood River Clean Water Project has achieved a name for itself by striving to carry out new and innovative ideas. Working in partnership with other organizations and citizens is the only way that this project can be as successful as everybody involved with it hopes it can be. Consequently, data we have collected, intensive land use improvements implemented, and citizen involvement through various programs can be used as a solid foundation for ourselves and others to continue and build new programs into the new millenium. The more success that we achieve together, the more success we can expect.

Redwood River