August 12, 2020 CAC Meeting

Citizen Advisory Committee 7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 12, 2020 – Held Electronically Until further notice Citizen Advisory Committee meetings will only be available via telephone and/or the web-based application Go To Meeting. You will not be able to attend meetings in person. You can join the meeting electronically by clinking on this link https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/587818093 and following the directions or dial in using your phone: +1 (646) 749-3112 Access Code: 587-818-093 Please visit www.capitolregionwd.org to get additional CRWD COVID-19 information.

Agenda 7:00

I)

Welcome, Announcements, Updates, and Introductions

7:05

II)

Public Comment for Issues Not on the Agenda (3 minutes per person)

7:08

III)

Approval of the Agenda

7:09

IV)

Approval of Minutes A) Approval of the July 15, 2020 Minutes

7:10

V)

8:10

VI)

8:20

VII)

8:50

VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:55

IX)

9:00

X)

Materials Enclosed

District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recommendations

A) Responses to Comments on the Draft Watershed Management Plan (Eleria) B) Review and Comment on the Preliminary 2021 Budget and Levy (Doneux)

CAC Initiatives

A)

Diversity and Inclusion (All)

Project and Program Updates A) Ford Site Redevelopment Update (Fossum) B) Public Art Program Update (Schwantes) C) Master Water Stewards Update (Schwantes)

Discussion A) New & Old Issues B) CAC Observer for August 19, 2020 and September 1, 2020 Board of Managers Meetings Adjourn

Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present: Nicole Soderholm, remote Bob Simonet, remote Cheryl Braun, remote Mike MacDonald, remote Steve Duerre, remote Mary Lilly, remote Michelle Ulrich, remote David Arbeit, remote Gwen Willems, remote Richard Weil, remote Tom Elko, remote

Others Present: Mark Doneux, CRWD, remote Anna Eleria, CRWD, remote Mary Texer, CRWD, remote Bob Fossum, CRWD, remote

I. Welcome, Announcements, and Updates Ms. Soderholm opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. by videoconference. Ms. Soderholm asked for any announcements or updates. There were none.

II. Public Comment for Issues Not on the Agenda Mr. Arbeit commented on the ecosystem being impacted as it relates to lake treatments. Mr. Fossum replied that data is being collected and thanked Mr. Arbeit for bringing it up. Mrs. Willems commented on environmental funds being held up and recommended talking to legislators.

III. Approval of Agenda, as amended CAC 20-19 Motion: To approve the CAC July 15, 2020 agenda Duerre/Lilly Unanimously approved IV. Approval of Minutes A. June 10, 2020 CAC Meeting Minutes

“Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.� 1

CAC 20-20 Motion: To approve the June 10, 2020 CAC Meeting Minutes with one minor edit.

Willems/Duerre Unanimously approved V. District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recommendations A. 2020 Watershed Management Plan Update (Arbeit) Mr. Arbeit commented that at the May 2020 meeting of the CRWD Citizens Advisory Committee, a subcommittee was tasked to coordinate the review of the Draft 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan and prepare a recommendation to the Board of Managers for consideration by the full CAC at the July 2020 meeting. The subcommittee invited all CAC members to submit written comments as part of the review process. The following is a compilation of comments received. Individual reviews are compiled into a common format but have otherwise been unchanged. The full list is submitted as part of the resolution supporting endorsement of the Watershed Management Plan with the recommendation that comments will be considered in making edits for the final version of the Plan.

The consensus of reviewers is that the Draft 2021-2030 WMP is an exceptionally thorough and readable document that conveys the Watershed District’s commitment to continue fulfilling its mission during the next decade. It builds upon the strong record of achievement since the last WMP while also outlining strategies to do even better, not solely from a technical perspective but in terms of service to all of the district’s residents and stakeholders. The CAC commends CRWD staff for its work.

Mr. Arbeit highlighted three areas for consideration: The commitment to “equity” and “underserved” areas or population are appropriate and apparent, but their meaning and how they might be measured are not.

Partnerships and collaboration are established as keys to success, but some reviewers considered the terms overused or unclearly defined within the narrative.

Concerns for budget management, including contingencies for possibly prolonged economic stress, are not adequately reflected in future revenues, levies, and tax rates.

The CAC recommends that the Draft 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan be reviewed and revised to reflect the issues identified by CAC members and then submitted to the Board of Managers with full endorsement by the CAC. CAC 20-21 Motion: The CAC recommends that the Draft 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan be reviewed and revised to reflect the issues identified by CAC members and then submitted to the Board of Managers with full endorsement by the CAC. Simonet/Weil Unanimously approved

“Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.” 2

VI. CAC Initiatives Ms. Soderholm commented that staff and board have been working on Diversity Implementation Plan for the District. Ms. Soderholm asked for ideas on how to promote and recruit. Mr. Arbeit replied that the organizations that we work with that they might be interested in giving back and inquired about reaching out to the award recipients to routinely interact to encourage them to join the CAC. There was a larger discussion on recruiting ideas, social media efforts and forums or round table. In addition, Mr. Doneux will present the full Implementation Plan to Staff, Board and CAC at a future meeting.

VII. Project and Program Updates A)

Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary Update (Fossum)

Mr. Fossum provided an update on Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary. The City completed the final step of installing the lift station. Mr. Fossum provided summary background and use information about the site. Mr. Simonet observed that the habitat will attract wildlife. Mr. Simonet asked if there is an increased diversity in wildlife from a qualitive standpoint.

Mr. Fossum replied that assessments have been made and there is a significant increase in dragonfly population, a significant toad and frog population, along with turkey and deer. Mr. Elko commented on homelessness issue to keep in mind of other issues that intersect the work of the District. The CAC thanked Mr. Fossum for his update.

B)

2021 Budget update (Doneux)

Mr. Doneux provided an update and comparison of the 2020-2021 Budget.

VIII. CAC Observer Update Ms. Lilly Attended the June Board meeting and provided an update. Mr. Simonet attended the July 8th Board Meeting and provided an update.

IX. Discussion A. New & Old Issues Mr. Duerre commented on the Burns Ave Boulevard Rain Gardens project an asked for an update. Mr. Doneux replied that some new homeowners have little interest in maintaining the existing gardens. Mr. Doneux replied that part of the outreach is making sure there are active and engaged homeowners.

B. CAC Observer for July 22, 2020 and August 5, 2020 Board of Managers Meetings Mr. Simonet volunteered for July 22, 2020 Ms. Willems volunteered for August 5, 2020.

X. Adjourn CAC 20-22 Motion: To adjourn the July 15, 2020 CAC Meeting.

Lilly/Duerre “Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.� 3

Unanimously approved The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Belinda Gardner

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Minutes\2020/July 15, 2020.doc

“Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.� 4

August 12, 2020 CAC Meeting V. A) Responses to Comments on Draft Watershed Management Plan (Eleria)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

August 6, 2020 CRWD CAC Members Anna Eleria, Division Manager Response to Comments on Formal, 60-Day Draft 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan

Background In mid-May 2020, the District’s Board of Managers approved the draft 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan and authorized a formal, 60-day comment period. The draft WMP was distributed to plan review agencies, District cities, Ramsey County, other government partners, CAC, community organizations, past WMP meeting attendees and survey respondents, and many others. The plan was also posted on the District’s website and promoted through our social media channels. Two community meetings were held in June to present the draft WMP, answer questions and receive comments.

Issues The District received over 160 comments on the draft WMP including over 90 from the CAC. The most significant comments were the following:   

Add more measurability to plan goals to assess progress towards meeting goals; Provide clarity in the District’s theme of community equity and engaging underrepresented groups; and Provide a discussion on fiscal management and health.

Enclosed are two comment and response tables for Board review and approval. The first table includes comments from the technical advisory committee (TAC) and community members and proposed responses to comments. The other table has the CAC comments and proposed responses. Staff will discuss the main comments and proposed responses to comments, answer any questions and receive CAC feedback on the District responses. The District’s Board of Managers reviewed and approved the responses to comments with minor edits at their August 5th meeting.

Action Requested None, for your information only Enc.

TAC and Community WMP Comments and CRWD Response to Comments Table CAC WMP Comments and CRWD Response to Comments Table

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\Board-CAC Memos\CAC Response to Comments on Draft 2021-2030 WMP 08-12-2020.docx

Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

TAC and Public Comments on Draft CRWD WMP 60‐Day Version 30‐Jul‐20

Comment No.

Commenter

Section/ Page

Topic

1

Ramsey County

NA

Groundwater

2

Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District

Ramsey County is pleased to see there is mention of support of a county groundwater plan.

Yes

Medium

No

No Change

NA

Low

No

Medium

Yes

No Change

NA

Medium

Yes

No Change

NA

Thank you. The District looks forward to coordinating with the City of Saint Paul and other partners in evaluating potential updates to District Rules for sites less than 1 acre.

No Change

NA

As this activity will be driven by the interests of the City, the District has made the requested change in activity language.

Low

Yes

No Change

NA

Thank you.

Existing District cost share programs primarily focus on water quality improvement, however, native, pollinator friendly plants are incorporated into District‐designed rain gardens and other natural resource projects. The District will consider this comment as we update the District grant programs for 2021. We will add this consideration to the program description #210A on page 81.

80

The District agrees with your comment and the draft WMP is set up to address the recurring E. coli issue.

Goal WQ‐2 references the Lake McCarrons Management Plan and notes the Districts intent to "Reduce Water Quality ‐ There is a need for partnership in addressing the recurring E. coli problem for Lake McCarrons and managing other non‐point source pollutants (e.g., bacteria, chloride, trash, sediment)." Action 313F (Shoreline Lake McCarrons the large volume of geese that tend to congregate at this particular lake.

Management Plan and Implementation) includes collaboration between the District and County to assess lakeshore conditions and develop buffers which should assist in reducing bacterial loading from geese.

Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District

NA

4

Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District

89

Groundwater

5

Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District

NA

Como Lake

6

Saint Paul Port Authority

Executive Summary

7

Saint Paul Port Authority

79

8

Saint Paul Port Authority

79

9

Saint Paul Port Authority

62

City of Saint Paul

Low

Response

Consider including investment in pollinator habitats and native planting. Clean water grants cannot fund Grants and Cost pollinator habitat without direct water quality benefit. Additional funding could support habitat corridors Share throughout the District.

3

10

No Change

Change Will Be Made NA

Comment

Page 89 identifies District support of a “more thorough well inventory.” Ramsey County has signed an agreement with the University of Minnesota to update the Ramsey County Geologic Atlas, which was set to begin in 2021 and will include an update of the well inventory.

Thank you.

The District is interested in working with partners on Como Lake water‐based recreation activities as indicated by Fund #305H ‐ Water‐based Recreational Activities Support. We would be open to this discussion of a formal boat launch if desired and initiated by partners.

The District agrees with your comment and will include climate change trends, in particular, rainfall patterns as a consideration during the periodic District Rules Evaluation and Update (Fund #208E). In addition, several examples of how climate change may be addressed by the District are provided in the bullets on page 35.

District work related to climate change noted in activity 370O includes "research, planning, communications, and engagement."

It would be nice to discuss establishing a more formal boat launch at Como Lake.

The incorporation of the effects of Climate Change in management planning and associated regulation is crucial to meet future water quality and sustainability goals. The Draft Plan does identify Climate Change in Climate Change; the Executive Summary as a Plan Theme, but does not speak to how increasing storm runoff, etc. might be Regulation incorporated in future policy or regulations. Some mention of incorporation plans would be helpful to regulated communities.

We commend the District’s commitment to streamline the permit process to minimize the duplication of Thank you.

Regulation NPDES and SWPPP permit application information and processing.

We remain concerned that smaller and smaller parcels are becoming subject to the District ‘s regulations. We request that the District’s Plan include an exception such that a 10,000 square foot area of disturbance or The District has noted SPPA's recommendation for future, potential land disturbance threshold. During the more is the consistent threshold for both erosion control and stormwater management permitting Rules evaluation (activity 208E), the District and its partners will consider and determine appropriate permit requirements. thresholds including greater than 10,000 square feet. We may also consider a general permit for Regulation maintenance and repairs of dockwalls and other shipping operations during our Rules Evaluation and This change is necessary for our tenants who disturb soils, in excess of 10,000 square feet, in the process of Update. We note it in the narrative for activity #208E. performing dockwall maintenance and repairs (not site expansion or construction), at our river shipping operations, to not be required to continue to obtain District permits for potentially routine work covered by Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers permits.

Regulation

79

Regulation

11

City of Saint Paul

Action 370F

Saint Paul Watershed Governance Exploration

12

City of Saint Paul

88

Infrastructure Management

We commend the district for establishing the Regulation Goals R‐2, R‐3, R‐4, R‐8, R‐9 and R‐10 (See Pg.62) as Thank you. they are extremely important to continued redevelopment and construction across the city and region.

Regarding regulation (208G), the city continues to evolve towards a green infrastructure program including robust local requirements for water quality and volume control on sites less than 1‐acre. Our respective agencies have discussed this topic at great length over several years. We affirm our interest in collaborating on this topic to determine implementation strategies.

As it pertains to watershed governance (Fund #370F), the draft plan appropriately reflects the city’s discussions surrounding stormwater management and watershed options for our West Side neighborhood.

This remains an on and off topic at the staff level, typically driven by circumstance. As such we respectfully request modifying the following sentence on page 108 to reflect that context by replacing the word “shall” with “may” or “expects to” or similar.

Regarding infrastructure management (222), the city looks forward to engaging on this topic in the coming years, including establishing effective and efficient long‐term approaches for publicly‐owned systems.

Specifically, we affirm our Sewer Utility Division’s support for the scope contemplated within 222C: CRWD’s evaluation and consideration of assuming ownership of the Como Lake overflow, Willow Reserve ponding area, Arlington‐Jackson ponding area, and the last ½ mile of Trout Brook storm sewer.

Page 1

Thank you. The District looks forward to coordinating with the City of Saint Paul in completing Fund #222C.

Significance

13

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Table 2‐2

14

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Table 2‐2

15

Lower Mississippi River WMO

Action 370F

16

Lower Mississippi River WMO

Action 370F

17

Lower Mississippi River WMO

Action 370F

18

Lower Mississippi River WMO

Action 370F

19

Lower Mississippi River WMO

Action 370F

20

Lower Mississippi River WMO

Action 370F

21

Lower Mississippi River WMO

Action 370F

22

Lower Mississippi River WMO

Action 370F

23

Metropolitan Council

NA

24

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

NA

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Table of Contents Executive Summary

25 26

The footnote number (3) indicates not enough E. coli samples are collected to determine exceedance of applicable water quality standards. The E. coli standard contains two parts. The first being E. coli levels may not exceed 126 organisms per 100 mL as geometric mean of not less than five samples representative of the condition with any calendar month. The second part of the standard states nor shall more than ten percent Water Quality The table will be revised to reflect E. coli measurements as exceeding the acute water quality standard of of all samples taken during any calendar month individually exceed 1,260 organism per 100 mL. There is no Monitoring Data 1260 organisms per mL regardless of the number of samples. minimum number of samples required. While the District may not have collected five samples in a month, the very high values of the geometric mean listed in table 2‐2 would indicate that exceedance of the 1,260 organisms per 100 mL had been exceeded more than 10% of the time. Therefore the column should be highlighted indicating that the levels exceed the water quality standard in the Mississippi River.

Water Quality It should be also noted that footnote number (3) appears in the wrong column, as it appears in the “Lead” The footnote has been corrected.

Monitoring Data column when it refers to E. coli.

The LMRWMO is supportive of the City of Saint Paul’s current efforts to implement jurisdiction wide stormwater management requirements as it relates to private development and public capital Saint Paul improvements. It is the LMRWMO’s understanding that consistent application of requirements across the Watershed The District recognizes the LMRWMO's expectation that the intended benefits and opportunities afforded entirety of Saint Paul is a goal of the CRWD and the City. Consistent regulation, coupled with the existing Governance

by Fund #370F may be achieved without a change in jurisdictional boundaries. services already provided by the LMRWMO including: grant administration, public education efforts, Exploration landscaping for clean water programs, etc. should address the concerns of CRWD without a jurisdictional boundary change.

The LMRWMO has not been asked to be involved in any interagency work group discussions on how to Saint Paul As indicated in Fund #370F, the City, with support from the District, shall work with all agencies involved implement stormwater management requirements consistently across the City of Saint Paul. Should these Watershed conversations continue, the LMRWMO requests that all affected Watershed Management Organizations and including LMRWMO and other affected WDs/WMOs in discussion and evaluation of watershed governance Governance Watershed Districts which intersect the City of Saint Paul are included in discussions and evaluation of in Saint Paul's West Side neighborhood.

Exploration varying watershed management requirements.

Saint Paul The LMRWMO is hopeful that the CRWD will revise its intent to no longer facilitate the annexation of the Watershed This activity (Fund #370F), as written, does not indicate an intent to annex the West Side area. The City, with West Side of St. Paul into the CRWD through over $63,000 in funding for the mentioned technical Governance District support, will engage all affected parties in assessing all possible options. memorandum.

Exploration Saint Paul The LMRWMO is opposed to a governance or boundary change when the current LMRWMO/ CRWD Watershed The District recognizes the LMRWMO's interest in maintaining a jurisdictional boundary consistent with boundary is aligned with hydrologic boundaries, common sense intercommunity flow boundaries and Governance hydrologic boundary. agreements, and resource‐based concerns.

Exploration Saint Paul Modifying watershed boundaries to include an entire City under a Watershed District does not constitute a The District recognizes the LMRWMO's interest in maintaining a jurisdictional boundary consistent with Watershed resource‐based concern. This situation occurs across many metro Cities and the LMRWMO does not see any hydrologic boundary.

Governance issues that would necessitate such a change.

Exploration Saint Paul The LMRWMO Board and Joint Powers Agreement establishing the LMRWMO, which has been in effect since Watershed Noted.

1985, serves as a valuable conduit for collaboration among the LMRWMO member Cities with unique Governance intercommunity drainage and stormwater issues, including the City of Saint Paul.

Exploration Saint Paul The LMRWMO reiterates that it is not within the purview of adjacent Metro Watershed Organizations such as The District seeks to work with the City of Saint Paul in its evaluation of consistent city‐wide water Watershed governance. We understand that any change in water management boundaries must be initiated by BWSR CRWD to evaluate water resource management outside their own boundaries. MN State Statute 103B Governance dictates that responsibility and authority to be with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. and subject to BWSR's process.

Exploration Saint Paul Watershed The LMRMWO remains open to shared information and collaboration with CRWD if opportunities or shared Thank you. The District will continue to coordinate with the LMRWMO to address shared goals and Governance resources. resource concerns arise.

Exploration The District has developed an excellent plan for a fully developed urban watershed that is consistent with General Thank you.

Council policies, and the Council’s Water Resources Policy Plan.

In reviewing the Plan, we noted that several of the Hyperlinks did not work. For example, the links to the General various appendices, links to some of the plan sections and some of the links to Minnesota Rules 8410. Please Hyperlinks will be fixed in future versions of the Plan. double check all links and fix any broken ones.

We appreciate the extra effort in providing the “Acknowledgements, Information on Clean Water Land and General Thank you.

Legacy Amendment projects and the Abbreviations list.

Executive Revise the Executive Summary as needed to be consistent with any revisions made to the main body of the The Executive Summary will be revised to reflect edits made throughout the remainder of the Plan Summary plan as a result of the 60‐day comments received. document.

Page 2

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

Low

Yes

No Change

NA

Medium

Yes

The District will add measurable outputs (e.g. numeric criteria) to the plan goals and/or implementation plan table where feasible. These measurable outputs will be used to evaluate the District's progress in In general, many of the goals as stated are not very measurable. The specific lake water quality goals being achieving its goals. Note that some goals relate to partner activities where the measurable outputs will be better but still needing work. The current goal statements mention what the District intends to do but not driven by partner priorities, opportunities, and schedule ‐ this may limit the estimation of measurable Goal Measurability what it expects to accomplish, when (i.e. during the 10‐yr Plan life, long term) and what will be the expected outputs. The specific lake water quality goals come directly from highly‐vetted lake management plans with result of accomplishing the goal. Please revise all goal statements so they are more measurable. two of them developed within the past year. Instead of establishing arbitrary targets that are not based on science and have not been reviewed by our partners, the District will strive to achieve the lake management goals within the 10‐year plan timeframe.

The term “make progress towards something” isn’t really measurable unless the statement also defines how The District will remove the phrase "make progress towards something" and strive to achieve the goals Goal Measurability within the 10‐year timeframe. much progress will be made and when it will be made by.

27

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 2 ‐ Goals

28

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 2 ‐ Goals

29

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 2 ‐ Goals

To help with the goal statements we suggest that the draft progress evaluation/assessment form mentioned in the comment on 3.8.2 be developed first based on the current goals. This in coordination with the Section Goal Measurability 2.10 Goal Measurability and Measurable Outputs identified in Table 3‐5, should help in the development of measurable goal statements.

30

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 2.1

Issue Identification

31

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 2.8; page 46

32

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 2.8; page 49

33

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 2.3; WQ‐4

34

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 2.4; Flood Risk Goals There are two FL‐1 goals identified.

FL‐1

35

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

36

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

37

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

38

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

39

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 2.9; Page 67

The District will more clearly correlate the implementation outputs (included in Table 3‐5) with the goals that they address through example tracking spreadsheets. The District will develop a sample tracking spreadsheet for one resource‐based goal and one organization goal. The District intends to use this format to estimate progress towards goals and biennial self assessment.

The District should be commended on the thorough process and stakeholder engagement they went through Thank you. to identify issues and develop issue statements for the eight resource issue areas developed.

The lake management plans are referenced with links in the References section as well as the appropriate Lake Management Page 46, last sentence mentions that the District has developed individual lake management plans. A list of sections of the Land and Water Resource Inventory Appendix. Hyperlinks to the lake management plans will these completed Plans and links to their location on the District website needs to be provided.

Plans be provided if available on District and/or partner websites.

There are no goals identified for Little Crosby Lake. Is there a reason for that? Since the District is Specific goals for Little Crosby Lake are not included in the Plan because resource‐specific goals were not Water Quality monitoring the lake it seems reasonable to assume that the District must have some 10‐yr and long‐term identified in the development of the 2012 Crosby Lake Management Plan. Goals for Little Crosby Lake may Goals goals for the lake. be considered during the planned update to the Crosby Lake Management Plan (Fund #317C).

Water Quality Goals

Organization Issues

Goal WQ‐4 states that the District will manage Loeb Lake to "maintain or improve water quality." Thus, while WQ‐4, Loeb Lake is already significantly better than the shallow lake standards, why isn’t the goal something numeric targets reference MPCA shallow lake standards for regulatory consistency, the District will evaluate more stringent than the state standards, which would result in maintaining existing water quality? water quality data and prioritize action relative to existing water quality. This approach will be defined in the updated Loeb Lake Management Plan (activity 315A).

Goals will be renumbered.

The District has not estimated the cost of fully achieving all goals. The issue statement reflects the reality that some in‐resource water quality goals have timelines longer than this Plan, some goals are dependent on partner action/resources, and the likelihood some unforeseen issues will arise requiring re‐allocation of #6 on page 67 states that “All District Goals cannot be achieved due to insufficient funding”. Has the District resources. The issue statement will be revised to state: All District goals cannot be fully achieved due to determined how much it would cost to achieve all District goals? If so, this would be good information to insufficient funding. provide.

We also note that the numbering of issues on page 67 is incorrect. We will renumber the five issues starting with #1.

The text will be revised to note the correlation of goals to measurable outputs included in the This section needs some more detail and explanation as to how the District will measure progress towards its implementation table, and to reference the sample tables that more directly correlate goals to applicable Section 2.10 Goal Measurability goals. actions/outputs (see also responses to BWSR comments on Section 2).

We are not exactly sure of the difference between indicators and outcomes and why one can only be used for quantitative goals and the other for qualitative goals. The terminology doesn’t seem to be consistently The text of Section 2.11 will be revised to maintain consistency with the identification of "outputs" and/or "indicators" in Table 3‐5. used between this section, the goal statements and the implementation Table 3‐5. Regardless, if using Section 2.11 Goal Measurability indicators or outcomes to measure progress towards goals then they should be incorporated into the goals statements and the goal should identify what the indicator or output will be for that goal at the 10‐yr life of See also response to BWSR comments on Section 2 related to goal measurability. the plan and if possible long term.

The first paragraph on page 71 indicates that the District has already completed many planning/study projects and capital improvement projects (we assume this is referring to feasibility or design studies) but in the plan only one (Como Lake Management Plan) is identified and linked to in the Plan. Since these studies Links to existing lake management plans are included in the Land and Water Resources Appendix and will be are the basis for proposed implementation projects for this plan, it is highly recommended that they be Section 3.1; Implementation added to Section 2.3. Many of the feasibility studies are intended for internal/partner use and are not called out in the plan in a table and that a link to their location on the District website be provided. Then the Page 71 Plan currently hosted on the District website. Where applicable and feasible, links to associated studies will be District should establish a procedure to update the table and formally adopt new implementation related provided in the implementation section. studies into the plan (most likely through the minor amendment process). Having this information in the Plan and linked to on the website will make the information easier to find for the reader and make for stronger future grant applications.

Section 3.1

Cost Summary

We appreciate the estimated cost summary by program provided in Table 3‐2.

Thank you.

Page 3

High

Yes

High

Yes

High

Yes

No Change

NA

Low

Yes

Medium

No

Medium

No

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

High

Yes

High

Yes

Medium

Yes

No Change

NA

40

41 42 43

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources MN Board of Water and Soil Resources MN Board of Water and Soil Resources MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 3.2

Section 3.2 Section 3.2 Section 3.3

44

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 3.4.1

45

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 3.4.2

The Plan indicates that activities may not be completed during the Plan period, but does not specifically identify critical activities. It included all classifications. Reasons for not completing activities may include Prioritization and Page 74 second paragraph indicates that activities classified as “critical” may not be implemented during the limitations discovered during feasibility studies, partner availability, funding constraints, and others. Critical Targeting 10‐yr life of the plan. Why is this the case? activities, based on their ranking, will be pursued above other activities, but are not immune to the above reasons that can delay completion.

Prioritization and Page 74 third paragraph. FYI, abandonment of a project identified in the Implementation Plan would likely Noted.

Targeting require a plan amendment.

Prioritization and Page 74 bottom of page, list of targeted geographic areas. Please try to clarify if these are listed in order of The text will be revised to note that these are "equally important" geographic priority areas.

Targeting priority.

Remove the word “minor” from the last sentence as any amendment resulting from the evaluations might Action 101D The word "minor" will be removed to reflect the possibility of a regular amendment process. require a regular amendment.

Examples of potential triggers will be noted in the text and may include: ‐ Updates to state or partners standards (e.g., MIDS, MS4 permit) Activity 208E Please identify what triggers the periodic evaluation of District rules. ‐ Request of partners ‐ Monitoring and/or study results (e.g., TMDLs) ‐ Updated information about rainfall trends Grants Program Very nice summary of the District Grant and Cost Share Program.

46

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 3.4.4

Activity 220A

How often will the District evaluate this program and against what criteria?

47

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 3.4.5

Activity 222

Identify when will the facility management program be developed?

48

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Section 3.5

300/400 Level Activities

49

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

50

51

52

53

54 55

56

No

No Change

NA

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

No Change

NA

High

No

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

Noted. The District has included known and reasonably anticipated CIPs in this Plan. CIPs identified by future studies may be added via amendment if the District intends to complete them during this Plan period.

No Change

NA

A sample goal assessment form will be developed for resource‐based goal tracking and it will be included in the Plan.

High

Yes

No Change

NA

Links to MN Rules 8410 will be revised. Where appropriate, section specific references to MN Rule 8410.XXXX will be made (note that some references are intended to refer to the overall document, versus specific sections).

Low

Yes

This section will be revised to include the referenced schedule.

Low

Yes

No Change

NA

Low

Yes

High

Yes

Thank you.

Several of the proposed projects and studies state that the District will provide support. However, the level and type of support is not described.

Section 3.5.4 Activity 315E/415E FYI, adding a new CIP will require a Plan amendment.

The first paragraph, second sentence discusses the format of the evaluation, and does a fairly good job of describing the evaluation. However, the plan really needs at least an example of what the evaluation form Section 3.8.2 might look like, consistent with the description. This form would also help in understanding the proposed measurable goals and how they relate to the implementation activities.

We noted that the District mentions that they anticipate only significant changes or additions etc. will prompt the District to seek a Plan amendment. We want to make sure that the District is aware that MN Board of Water and Plan Amendments Section 3.9 8410.0140 Subp. 1a. allows for certain changes to the Plan that do not require an amendment. We also Soil Resources and Updates suggest that the District consult with their BWSR Representative regarding any potential changes or amendment to the Plan for input as to the recommended process to follow.

Local Water MN Board of Water and Several of the links to Minnesota Rules 8410 did not work. Also, when making reference to portions of Section 3.10.2 Management Soil Resources Minnesota Rule 8410 please include the complete reference to the section being referred to.

Plans This section needs to include the schedule for implementation of local plans called for in M.R. 8410.0105 Local Water Subp.9.B. requiring all local water plans to be adopted not less than two years before the local MN Board of Water and Section 3.10.3 Management comprehensive plan is due. Extensions to local comprehensive plan due dates do not alter the schedule. It Soil Resources Plans also needs to include 8410.0160 Subp. 6 for adoption and implementation of local plan.

Table 3.5 is nicely laid out, concise yet still providing the information needed. It was also very helpful having MN Board of Water and Implementation Table 3.5 the previously provided summary descriptions for the various implementation activities organized by Soil Resources Table program/fund number.

MN Board of Water and Implementation Table 3.5 For the first column heading is “Fund” the correct title? Table 3‐3 identifies it as program Number.

Soil Resources Table The “Measurable Outputs” column really contains the “measures” or “metrics” used to measure progress towards goals and implementation activities. It doesn’t really identify the quantity that is needed towards the established goals. This may need to be changed depending on how our previous comments pertaining to Implementation the need for measurable goals are addressed. Also, the District might want to revisit the measurable output MN Board of Water and Table 3.5 Table Soil Resources chosen by comparing against the program/project summary and the related goal. For example, 208‐G the project is to develop a Stormwater rule that applies to sites less than an acre. Yet the measurable output is # of permits approved, and volume retained annually. So wouldn’t the measurable output be the adoption of the new rule?

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Low

Progress Assessment

Page 4

The District developed and approved a Communications and Engagement Plan in early 2020. The plan outlines the goals, strategies, tactics and measurements for different C&E related activities, which has been incorporated into the District WMP. Similar to other District program and project initiatives, we will conduct a bi‐annual assessment and will use the measurable goals and outputs as the criteria for evaluating the program.

The District currently manages and maintains a number of infrastructure facilities and BMPs. We will bring this work under one program at the start of implementation of this Plan and will be developed over time.

The narrative of Fund #222 will be revised to note that this activity is "beginning in 2021."

Where applicable, text will be revised to note technical and/or financial support. Financial support is reflected in the cost estimates included in the implementation table.

Noted. Thank you.

Thank you.

This column will be titled "Program Number/Fund" The District will review outputs for measurability relative to the associated action and make changes as needed to ensure that the outputs are correlated to program/project activity and goal.

Where possible, the District will identify the intended number, or range of numbers, to be achieved within the 10‐year Plan life in the "outputs" column.

Note that some goals relate to partner activities where the measurable outputs will be driven by partner priorities, opportunities, and schedule ‐ this may limit the estimation of measurable outputs.

57 58 59 60

61

MN Board of Water and Soil Resources MN Board of Water and Soil Resources MN Board of Water and Soil Resources MN Board of Water and Soil Resources

Barb Thoman

Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Appendix A Appendix A

Pages 12, 14, 60, 62, 79, 86, 89, 109

62

Barb Thoman

Pages 10, 11, 35, 41, 42

63

Barb Thoman

Pages 12, 13, 85

64

Barb Thoman

Pages 26, 27, 100

65

Capitol River Council

General

66

Capitol River Council

General

67

Gloria Dei Church

General

68

Community Comment

General

69

Community Comment

General

70

Community Comment

General

Implementation Suggest using the Program number and letter in the first column, when identifying projects in the table. (i.e.

This column will be revised to include the number and letter.

Table use 101‐A rather than just A).

Implementation Table 3‐6 is a useful table. Was it intended to be named the same as Table 3‐5?

The table name will be revised to Table 3‐6. and Goals The cover of the document with the appendices should identify the other appendices that are included in the This will be revised in future drafts. document in addition to Appendix‐A. Provide information on water quality trends per 8410.0060 Subpart 1, F. Knowing the water quality trend Discussion of water quality data will be revised to include assessment of trends (improving, stable, or Water Quality (positive or negative) can help on deciding when there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. declining).

Chloride

I strongly support the District in undertaking a major effort toward chloride reduction. I believe chloride pollution could cause the next silent spring. I am encouraged that the District will be developing a watershed‐ specific chloride management plan but I hope the timeline can be greatly accelerated. You propose to take 1‐ 3 years to develop a plan, after which (in years 4 and 5) you would develop reduction strategies (page 79).

We can’t wait this long. As part of the District’s chloride reduction effort, I hope you will: ‐ Set a goal of 100% participation in Smart Salt training by City public works staff ‐ Partner with municipalities (as you propose to do on page 82) to help them purchase more sophisticated winter maintenance equipment ‐ Encourage the city of Saint Paul to adopt an ordinance requiring all public and private sector winter maintenance applicators that operate in the city to be Smart Salt trained and certified. ‐ Undertake an extensive public education program using the informative materials you have developed (partner with SPRWS)

There are a number of policy changes that would have dramatic impacts in reducing impervious surface in the city of St. Paul: ‐ Support the city of Saint Paul when it proposes to reduce parking minimums and institute maximums. ‐ An incentive program to convert underutilized parking to rain gardens? ‐ Could commercial property owners be charged an annual impervious surface fee?

Impervious area ‐ St Paul has boulevards that are asphalt. This practice should be prohibited. ‐ Could the District suggest St. Paul prohibit end of alley homes from constructing driveways to the street (vs alley)? ‐ Could driveways over a certain size, be required to be permeable? ‐ Could you work with cities to help made the case for narrower roadways?

I strongly support the District’s plans to develop efforts to address trash getting into the stormwater system Pollutant Source and into lakes, rivers, and wetlands. As you note on page 85, the Adopt a Storm Drain program could be expanded. Could more frequent street sweeping be done? The deteriorating condition of the streets in Saint Control Paul contributes to excess sediment getting into storm drains in my neighborhood.

Bring the water Such exciting ideas about daylighting streams in this section!

Back I would be interested in knowing if there are ways to look at Downtown and identify places where it could be feasible to install conservation practices that would provide benefits for water quality and / or surface water Urban BMPs management. I’m sure it’s difficult due to the mix of landowners in Downtown (including public sector entities and very large companies that are based in other states).

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

Medium

Yes

Thank you. The District agrees with you about the urgency of watershed‐wide chloride plan and will start developing a chloride plan in 2021 and anticipates completion in late 2021/early 2022. It will take approximatey a year to year and a half to complete. We will consider if and how some implementation strategies could be implemented on an accelerated timeline during chloride plan development. Also the District will consider the potential strategies noted in your comment when developing the chloride management plan.

Medium

No

Thank you for your suggestions on policy changes to reduce imperviousness. Please note that the District currently offers grant funds for reduction in impervious surfaces. As we update our Stewardship Grant Program, we will consider targeting promotion to sites with underutilized parking lots and will list this as a consideration in our plan (Fund #210B). Regarding the other comments, the District will keep your suggestions in mind during relevant conversations with District city staff.

Medium

Yes

The District plans to work with cities to identify pollutant loading hot spots for targeted source control (e.g., street sweeping), see activity 305F.

Medium

No

No Change

NA

Medium

No

Low

No

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

No Change

NA

Thank you.

Downtown is challenging due to the mix of landowners as noted but also because its fully built out with few open spaces and tight ROW corridors with many underground utilities. The District will continue to seek out public‐private partnership opportunities to address water resource management in the Downtown area.

There is value in planting container gardens with native plants. These small areas serve as important components of a habitat corridor between larger greenspaces with native plants in the area (e.g. Bruce Are pollinator‐friendly plants only valuable in a relatively large space, like a rain garden on a residential lot or Vento Sanctuary, Swede Hollow, Crosby Farm Park). The District will continue to partner with St. Paul Parks Urban BMPs boulevard? Are there opportunities for native plantings in parks or balcony spaces? and Recreation and its other partners to consider improvement opportunities in parks and other public spaces in Downtown. The District offers Stewardship Grants available to property management companies and residents for raingarden projects that include native and pollinator friendly plants.

The update suggestions include responding to underserved communities with non‐traditional partnerships to The District agrees with your comments that rain gardens and greenspaces offer more benefits than water spread the message of water quality. That effort could very well provide the safe spaces called for in the quality. The themes of the 2020 Plan, including quality of life, recreation and community equity and plan. In a time of cultural challenge, we would love to see more green spaces and rain gardens like ours: engaging underrepresented groups, speak to those benefits as mentioned. As we plan and implement future Community equity healing places of beauty that make our world a healthier place. These spaces often do more than filter our projects and activities throughout the District, we will be keeping those in mind and promoting them to our water ‐ they afford places of repose and recreation and nurture a return of wildlife long gone from our urban partners and stakeholders. sites.

Very detailed plan with goals, explanations, background info, maps, charts etc. Thorough complete plan. If General questions should arise as time goes on, the plan allows opportunity to check back and see data used to set Thank you. goals, plan and guidelines for implementation.

Looks well thought out and comprehensive. I generally agree with the issues identified and goals established, General Thank you. no major concerns.

General While I could not review the entire plan, I do appreciate items/programs 211H, 211I, and 211J Thank you.

Page 5

71

72

Community Comment

Community Comment

General

General

I reviewed the plan to find details about equity goals and how CRWD planned to implement these goals. I am glad to see them stated, but I know real outcomes in this area require deep organizational commitment. I Community equity encourage CRWD to make sure that diversity goals are not just I onto a plan, but worked into each level of the orgs work.

More often than not, I am amazed by CRWD implementation of projects and I have a high degree of trust that the WD is doing right by installing BMP's throughout my city, county and district. However, I find the maintenance of these installations can be lacking in rain garden/meadow areas. It isn't really enough to expect your grantee, or contracted entity who are not horticulturists or gardeners by training, to have success in maintaining these plantings. My suggestion is that CRWD also support these new landscapers BMP Maintenance through training, programming and supplies. If boulevard raingardens or highly visible installations like the infiltration pond at Hmongtown Market look terrible, or don't actually function, then motive for others to install their own will flounder. Individual gardeners and property owners need support to understand plants, soil and water best practices. I encourage CRWD to bolster that side of their programming, not just installing new gardens.

Page 6

The District appreciates your comment and agrees that a deep organizational commitment is required in diversity and equity work. To that end, the District has recently completed a diversity and equity implementation plan to embed the goals, objectives and actions of the diversity and equity strategic plan into the different areas and levels of our work and help guide staff in its implementation.

High

No

The District agrees with you that it is not enough to expect grantees to maintain rain gardens. Two years ago, the District began conducting annual rain garden maintenance workshops for grantees and other interested property owners. Last year, we revamped our grant inspection and maintenance outreach program to make it more efficient and useful for the District and grantees. We inspect grantee projects from the past five years on an annual basis and then biannually until year 10. We offer maintenance site visits, technical assistance and in some cases where warranted, financial resources, to assist BMP owners. The District will continue to evaluate and improve our efforts in BMP maintenance as we recognize that this is a growing need in our community. We are investing in this effort in Fund #210C.

High

No

CAC Comments on CRWD Draft WMP 60‐Day Review Version 30‐Jul‐20

Comment No.

Commenter

Section/ Page

Topic

1

#1

1.2.3

Partnerships

2

#1

3.7

Funding

3

#1

2.5

Wetland Management

4

#1

NA

Executive Summary

5

#1

1.1

Introduction

6

#1

1.2.3

7

#1

1.2.3

8

#1

3.7

9

#1

NA

Response

Significance

Change Will Be Made

The importance of partnerships and commitment to equity are apparent, but I felt that “working with partners” is an overused phrase and that the commitment to equity concept needs clarification.

The phrase "working with partners" was included in many goals because we sought to make it clear that the District is not the lead organization of those goals or that it would require more than the District to succeed in accomplishing the goal. Since the drafting of the goals, we have identified partner roles ‐ lead or partner in the implementation. With that said, we will review the use of the phrase and eliminate where it makes sense.

Low

Yes

There is almost no attention to prudent fiscal management, which seems especially important as tax bases may erode and budgets of governmental partners, businesses and residents become increasingly under stress.

The District conducts sound and prudent financial management during its annual budgeting and working planning, which is based on the District's needs and requirements and external economic factors. The District uses its annual tax levy and property tax impacts as a measure of being fiscally prudent and responsible. We have historically and will continue to be sensitive to our government partners, businesses and residents as we set the annual tax levy. We will add this text to the plan.

High

Yes

The map of historic wetlands is useful in the following ways: 1) understand underlying soil and groundwater conditions; 2) help explain drainage issues; 3) indicate potential opportunities for re‐creating wetlands. We will add a comment about how we plan to use this information in Sec. 2.5.

Medium

Yes

We will review and edit closely the Executive Summary after all the other plan changes have been made.

Medium

Yes

We will highlight regulatory program, communications and engagement, and other program accomplishments over the past 10 years to the existing list of accomplishments and include a statement about the many awards CRWD has received for its work.

Medium

Yes

High

Yes

High

Yes

High

Yes

Low

Yes

High

Yes

High

Yes

Medium

Yes

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

Comment

The map of historic wetlands shows them as quite expansive. But there’s no explicit followup: Are they gone forever or will there be specific initiatives that attempt to restore or take advantage of them? Or do they limit what can be done to treat stormwater, for example by limiting infiltration because the water table is close to the surface?

The Executive Summary should provide a solid basis for informing the public about the District. Probably written last, it should not read as an afterthought and be capable of standing alone. It should be carefully reviewed to ensure that all major themes are clearly captured and communicated that it can stand alone as its own document.

This is a forward looking document but a stronger expression of completed and ongoing work would be useful. The Introduction includes a short description of projects since 2010 but this section could and should be stronger. A map or two, table with permits or inspections/year, or something about historical staffing and budget seems needed to communicate growth and impact. Also, consider including something about the many awards CRWD has received for its work.

The treatment of equity is important but at times seems somewhat superficial. The geography of race and poverty are discussed in the introduction and Community equity and areas of concentration cited as underserved “due to prior District work” on high impact areas. This almost implies negligence, though that’s certainly not engaging underrepresented what is meant. Moreover, what’s meant by “underserved?” Visit Como any day of the week and you’ll find that users are disproportionately African‐ groups American, Hmong, and other minorities that are likely to live in areas identified as “underserved.”

The District understands the need and importance to better explain and clarify the language about diversity, equity and the areas underserved by the District and to minimize negative inferences. When we refer to underserved, we are referring to "underserved by the District" and to the fewer structural and non‐structural BMP projects in the central and eastern portions of our watershed that overlap with higher concentrations of black, indigenous, and people of color and people with lower household incomes. While there are some large‐scale BMPs in these underserved areas (e.g., Willow Reserve, Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary, and Green Line), our BMP tracking data shows that there are far fewer residential/neighborhood scale BMP projects constructed via our Stewardship Grant Program. We seek to implement more smaller scale BMP projects on individual sites and neighborhoods in the central and eastern portions of the District that will serve BIPOC in their neighborhoods.

We will add language that explains how race, ethnicity and poverty may affect financial abilities, awareness, time and property ownership for implementing or engaging in clean water activities. The map of potential pollutant sources is found in Sec. 2.3, Community equity and Race and poverty are noted as important factors in targeting east side watersheds, but there’s not much direct reference regarding how they affect page 44. This map is useful during the feasibility and site investigation phase of sites for clean water projects. We will add a engaging underrepresented opportunities or exposure to environmental risks. We show where contaminated sites are identified by the PCA. Do they affect who’s impacted and/or how statement in the plan about how this information is used. During the 10‐year timeframe of the plan, we will not be investing in groups that might affect our decisions? Will we invest in mitigating contaminated sites? mitigating contaminated sites. It is a broader environmental issue beyond water that the State and others are better equipped to lead and coordinate multiple partners from different topics and sectors.

The absence of any serious discussion of historic budget growth and its impact on the levy , especially as we project another decade of growth, seems to ignore one of the basic tenets of good planning: “Hope for the best but plan for the worst.” As important as our work may be, we need to consider how to See response to comment #2.

Funding sustain that work during an economic downturn.

P9 – Blue background meant to highlight themes should be deleted. It’s an important list but it stands out as though it were separate from the text Executive Summary Agree, we will remove the blue background. following “These include:” I found myself skipping past it to look for the list following the colon

10

#1

NA

Executive Summary

11

#1

NA

Executive Summary

12

#1

NA

Executive Summary

13

#1

1.1.2

District History

14

#1

1.2.3

P9 – This is the first place that “underserved” is used. I’m struck by the conflation of community equity and engaging underrepresented groups. If “community” is defined by geography rather than demographics then they are two different things. How are we going to measure “level of service?”

The District is defining "community" by both geography and demographics. Nearly three years ago, the District analyzed the distribution of Stewardship Grant funded BMPs and found that they were less in the central and eastern portions of our watershed. Then we overlaid information about race, ethnicity, and income in the District to the Stewardship Grant BMP map and found that areas of racially concentrated poverty correspond with the central and eastern portions of our watershed that lack Stewardship Grant funded BMPs and fewer large scale BMPs. To illustrate this point, we will update Figure 1‐7, the District ACP50 map, to include the distribution of Stewardship Grant Projects. The District will measure success of our efforts by identifying # of projects in the central and eastern portions of the watershed, determining grant participant demographics via voluntary surveys, types and numbers of non‐traditional methods for promotion, and surveying interested residents who end up not adopting BMPs on the reasons why they did not participate in the grant program.

P11 – Last bullet reference to underserved followed by “due primarily to District work focused on . . . .” This issue is important but poorly communicated.

This wording is extracted from text that appears later and needs to be changed so as not to imply blame on other priorities. I don’t have a suggestion other We will update the text accordingly based on responses to comments #6 and #10. than an easy fix would be to put a period after underserved.

P12 – “Manage District lakes as ecologically healthy lakes” is a misleading expression. Most are not ecologically healthy lakes, as we show later. This might Agree, we will make this change. be more aptly expressed as something like “Manage District lakes to improve and then sustain their ecological health.”

P21 – Green background for sections of text, similar to the blue background used on P9, is a distraction from the formatting conventions used in the rest of Agree, we will remove the green background. the document, where section heads and figures are highlighted by background color.

Community equity and engaging underrepresented P29 – Need date for map. groups

Agree, a date will be added to the map.

Page 1

Comment No.

Commenter

Section/ Page

15

#1

1.2.3

16

#1

1.2.3

17 18 19

#1 #1 #1

1.2.3 1.2.3 2.2

20

#1

2.2

21

#1

2.3

Topic

#1

2.3

Water quality goals

23

#1

2.3

Water quality goals

High

Yes

Agree, we will make the change as suggested.

Low

Yes

Low Low Low

Yes Yes Yes

We will provide a list of the large‐scale redevelopment projects that we currently are of, which include Ford Redevelopment Site, Sears Redevelopment Site, Great River Passage Projects, Towerside and Creative Enterprise Zone innovation districts. These projects are also identified in the implementation plan section.

Low

Yes

The District does not plan to address broader environmental pollutant sources within the target areas of the watershed. This map serves as a guide for potential pollutant sources as we identify projects and other opportunities.

Low

No

Medium

Yes

Low

Yes

Medium

No

No Change

NA

Low

Yes

Medium

No

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

We will make the suggested change.

Low

Yes

Comment has been noted and we believe fiscal health will be addressed in Sec. 3.7 with the response to comment #2.

High

Yes

We will add the following statement, "Selection of high priority areas for targeting District work does not preclude work in other areas of the watershed. The District will continue to pursue opportunties to implement water and natural resource programs and projects throughout the watershed especially where and when partners anticipate activities complementary to District goals."

Low

Yes

High

Yes

Low Low

Yes Yes

Low

Yes

No Change

NA

Low

No

Low Low

Yes No

Low

Yes

List of Abbreviations (pg. 6): Verify the intent is for ‘SWPPP’ to refer to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program or alternatively Plan which the MPCA uses. We verified that SWPPP refers to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

Low

No

Section 2.2 – define impervious/imperviousness for the average resident

Low

Yes

P42 – “The District is tracking several large‐scale redevelopment opportunities . . . .” This would be a good place for a sidebar that identifies some of the most important. This is especially true for those in the “underserved” East Side areas.

P49 – WQ1 through WQ4 all use boilerplate language “Manage _____ Lake as an ecologically healthy ____ lake and make progress towards . . . .” Except for Loeb and McCarrons, none of them is yet an ecologically healthy lake so there needs to be more to those statements. For Como, for example: “Establish We will change the text for Como and Crosby to "Establish _ lake as an ecologically shallow lake Como Lake as an ecologically shallow lake” or “Manage the transition of Como Lake to an ecologically SL . . . . “ Something similar for Crosby. McCarrons and Loeb are fine.

P50 – WQ7,8,9,11 all repeat “Work with partners to . . . .” Why is this needed? The document clearly states the commitment to work with partners to We will remove the phrasing "Work with partners…." It was originally added to the goal statements to indicate that the District achieve CRWD goals. Using this language for these goals suggests that we do not work with partners to achieve other goals. Dropping the language takes was not working independently on those goals and/or leading the efforts to achieve those goals. The current draft identifies lead nothing away from the goal. and support role for CRWD and its partners on implementation activities listed in Table 3‐5.

Pp51‐52 – Does map show 7.44” floodplains or 10+” floodplains? Which do we plan for? If we’re still working off of old floodplain estimates, then we’re already behind the 8 ball.

The 100‐year floodplain presented in Figure 2‐7 reflects the Atlas 14 100‐year event (7.44 inches). The 500‐year floodplain is also presented and corresponds to a precipitation depth of approximately 10.5 inches. Floodplain mapping is presented based on the Atlas 14 100‐year event as that is the current performance standards referenced in District Rules and local and state regulations.

Goal FL‐5 notes that the District will design projects with consideration of future climate and precipitation trends.

24

#1

2.4

25

#1

2.5

Ecosystem issues and goals P56 – Historic resources map shows extensive historic wetlands. Do they affect our thinking about issues and/or opportunities related to those areas?

Yes, see response to comment #3.

26

#1

2.5

Ecosystem issues and goals P57 – EH1 and EH3 language assumes that Como and Crosby are already ecologically healthy as noted on P49.

Duly noted, we will make similar changes to these goals as done for the lake water quality goals. See response to comment #22.

27

#1

2.7

28

#1

2.7

29

#1

2.8

30

#1

2.8

31

#1

2.9

Water Quantity Goals

We will update the text accordingly based on responses to comments #6 and #10.

Agree, we will make the change as suggested.

We will change text to reflect the labels in the diagram.

We will add railroads to Figure 2‐2.

Water quality issues and P44 – Figure 2‐4 is very interesting. Can we say anything here about attention to “underserved” areas? goals

22

Change Will Be Made

Response

Community equity and P30 – “Underserved due to prior District work focused on high‐impact projects located in limited areas.” This is repeated many times, as mentioned engaging underrepresented elsewhere. As elsewhere, “underserved” is not really defined and could have many meanings; attribution using “due to . . . “ is vastly oversimplified and groups should be expressed in some other way.

Climate change and P35 – “The District is uniquely positioned . . . “ is presumptuous. This appears in a number of places and should be changed to “well positioned.” community resiliency Partnerships P36 – “uniquely positioned” should be changed – perhaps to The District is committed to convening stakeholders . . . .”

Adaptive management P37 – Diagram is useful but labeling doesn’t correspond to text to its left. Make them compatible without a need to translate terminology.

Built environment P40 – Narrative referring to Fig 2‐2 identifies landmarks not obvious on the map, notably BNSF. Built environment

Significance

Comment

Regulation

In this section, we will keep the phrasing "work with partners" because its important for our partners to see that we will be working closely with them on stormwater regulation updates, coordination efforts, and new potential requirements.

P62 – R2 through R8 start with “Work with ____ partners . . . .” Is that needed, as described above?

P62 – This is a good place to show staff inspecting a project site. However, consider finding a photo that doesn’t show staff discussing a client’s broken hand Regulation We will replace the photo with a different inspection photo.

– that’s not how compliance should work.

We will change the last sentence to the following, "The District will explore opportunities to coordinate inspection and Infrastructure Management P64 – Last sentence is very confusing. Edit for clarity. maintenance of BMPs to ensure continued BMP functionality and performance over their life spans. Coordinated efforts will improve efficiency and reduce costs of inspecting and maintaining BMPs." Infrastructure Management P65 – IM5 is repeated twice. Renumber and also drop the “Work with partners” phrase.

Funding

32

#1

3.2

33

#1

3.7

Funding

34 35

#2 #2

NA NA

NA NA

36

#2

NA

Executive Summary

37

#2

NA

Executive Summary

38

#2

1.1.2

District History

39 40

#2 #2

1.2.2 2.5

41

#2

3.4.2

Grants Program

42

#2

NA

NA

43

#2

2.2

Built environment

P67 – “Fiscal Health” should be identified as an issue.

Prioritization and Targeting P75 – Five targeted watersheds are highlighted. Say something about the rest of the district so the rest of us don’t feel neglected.

P112 – This is one of those places where contingency planning for economic/fiscal risk is identified and discussed. Basic math: Increasing the tax levy (total raised) when total property values continue to increase doesn’t dramatically affect the tax rate; increasing the levy during periods when tax bases decline Refer to our response on comment #2. can cause a dramatic increase in the tax rate.

Minor grammatical errors that were not identified as part of this review but could easily be corrected to ensure the document reads well throughout We will review the plan for minor edits.

Good suggestion. We will add hyperlinks to the CWF projects.

Acknowledgements/Certifications (pg. 2): Hyperlinks to project‐specific information on the list of Clean Water Land and Legacy funded projects Executive Summary (pg 8): Would be helpful to label the area of downtown St. Paul since it’s highly impervious, since other large areas like U of M/State Fair We will label Downtown Saint Paul on the map. are called out.

‘Notable Plan Goals’ under Water Quality category (pg 12)—Chloride reduction refers only to Como Lake‐ Is there a reason for this?

Como Lake is the only lake in the District listed as impaired for chloride. While it is the only waterbody in the District that has a measurable goal for chloride, the District has identified District‐wide chloride reduction goal and chloride‐reduction implementation activities.

Introduction (pg 22)‐ last paragraph: Include a link to ‘Protecting, Managing, and Improving the Waters…’—can’t remember if this is a document or a video? It is a document that if it gets posted on our website, we will provide a hyperlink.

Plan Development Section 1.2.2 (pg. 24)‐ Provide links to the other implementation plans listed as complete in 2019‐2020 if readily available Ecosystem issues and goals Section 2.5 Ecosystem Health Goals‐ Has any analysis been done with regard to maintaining/reestablishing wildlife corridors?

Section 3.4.2‐ Might be interesting for readers if there is a link to the map of previously installed grant projects or reference to it available on the website

We will add hyperlinks if those completed reports are available online.

An analysis on establishing and maintaining wildlife corridors has not been conducted.

Our website does not currently have a map of previously installed grants. It was not included in the website redesign. However we will update Figure 1‐7 to include the distribution of Stewardship Grant funded projects.

We will add definitions for impervious/imperviousness.

Page 2

Comment No.

Commenter

Section/ Page

Topic

44

#2

2.2

Built environment

45

#2

3.5

Implementation plan

46

#2

2.3

Significance

Change Will Be Made

Low

No

Low

Yes

Medium

Yes

We will make the suggested change to add "and continue to be." We will also eliminate "recent" in front of immigrants and add poor.

Low

Yes

We will make the suggested change.

We will make the suggested change.

Low Low

Yes Yes

Medium

No

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

High

Yes

Low

Yes

Comment

Response

Most years show approximately similar breakdown of runoff vs retention. There are several possible reasons for the annual variability. The most likely reason is the annual variability in storm intensities. Infiltration and storage BMPs retain an initial depth Runoff vs. Retention graph (pg. 28) shows an increase in the % runoff despite less recorded precip and more BMPs in the ground than previous years—What of preceipitation, above which precipitation becomes runoff. A year with a lot of smaller storms will therefore generate a lower is the explanation for that? Should there be a short caption that explains the results? percent runoff than a year with fewer, more intense storms like 2018. Also, the data presented in Figure 1‐5 is limited to the Trout Brook watershed and may not as representative of other areas of the District where more BMPs have been implemented.

Implementation Plan section (Subwatershed Plans)‐ Briefly explain the nature and purpose of alum treatment in a “reader‐friendly” way

We will add an explanation of alum to this section. Language may include: Alum (aluminum sulfate) is applied to lakes to reduce phosphorus being recycled inside of the lake. The treatment is expected to dramatically reduce algae growth and improve water clarity and quality. Alum is commonly used in drinking water treatment and has been a safe lake management tool for decades.

We will explain the impacts of sediment loading, which includes poor water clarity that affects vegetation growth, sediment Water quality issues and Section 2.3‐ Briefly explain the outcomes of sediment loading and how sediment contributes to observable impacts to water quality. This is done for TP most deposits onto stream and lake beds impacting aquatic habitat, and it is the substrate in which phosphorus and other pollutants goals thoroughly, but many may not realize why sediment is an issue bind to.

47

#3

NA

Executive Summary

48 49

#3 #3

NA NA

Executive Summary Executive Summary

p. 9 – Under “Community equity…” theme, add “and continue to be” after “…have been underserved." Also the targeted groups – “residents in the central and eastern portions of the District, people of color, recent immigrants, young adults, and youth” – seem too limited. Not even the poorer residents who are discussed on p. 30 of the plan? Why recent and not all immigrants? Diversity and underrepresented groups include a lot more people. I think the plan needs to be carefully worded on this topic. p. 9 – Under “Rain as a resource” theme, change “minimizing” to “reducing,” which I think more accurately reflects CRWD’s capabilities. p. 10 – Under “Partnerships” theme, I’d like to see “individual residents” spelled out in the stakeholder list.

50

#3

NA

Executive Summary

p. 11 – Under “Issues and Goals,” I’d like to see climate change given more emphasis than the mention in the third bullet. It could be a separate bullet point, “Impact of climate change and increasing awareness and knowledge of it.”

The third bullet is an issue statement and we frame those by listing the issue "effect" and then the "cause" of the issue. Climate change is a major reason for peak runoff rates and total runoff volumes. We do emphasize climate emphasize in one of the goals highlighted in the Executive Summary, "Adapt to changing climate by evaluating flood risk and designing District projects under present and future cimate and precipitation trends. The District also has placed emphasis on climate change by identifying it as one of the plan themes that is described in the Executive Summary and Introduction.

51

#3

NA

Executive Summary

p. 14 – Under “Implementation Plan,” the fifth bullet would be improved if this was added to the end of the sentence: “and ease with which residents can communicate with the District.”

We will make the suggested change.

52

#3

1.2.3/3.5.6

53

#3

1.2.3

54

#3

2.8

55

#3

3.3

Implementation plan

p. 76 – I know this page was organized based on numbers in the budget, but the managers have a photo and are notably missing a paragraph of description We will include a brief description of the Board of Managers in the General Administration section. of them.

Low

Yes

56

#3

3.5.10

Implementation plan

p. 107 – Where is the pictured Zero Abuse Project? At the Science Museum? It would be good to add that to the photo caption.

Low

Yes

57

#3

NA

General

Medium

Yes

58

#4

2

General

Low

Yes

59

#4

NA

Executive Summary

Low

Yes

60

#4

3.5.11

Implementation plan

P. 110, Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation 470P: Confused as to why developers get to go ahead with projects if they don’t meet district rules.

To the maximum extent practicable, the District requires developers to meet volume reduction requirements on‐site. If that is not practicable, there are a series of alternative sequencing steps in order of preference. Stormwater Impact Fund is the last alternative available. Rarely has this alternative been used. We will clarify that the SW impact fund is the last option in a servies of options for meeting District Rules.

Medium

Yes

61 62

#4 #4

Page 3‐36 1.1.2

Executive Summary Plan history

P. 10: In subheading “Partnerships,” the word “cities” doesn’t need to be capitalized.

P. 22: Caption doesn’t match the photo as there is no one petitioning in the photo.

We will change "cities" to lowercase.

We will change the caption to "Como Lake Pavilion"

Low Low

Yes Yes

Figure 1.5 (p.28) – why was 2018 such a bad year for retaining precipitation?

The characteristics and timing of each storm have a large impact on the percent of runoff vs. retention. More intense storms may generate more runoff than less intense storms with a similar total precipitation depth. A year with a lot of large, intense storms (e.g., 2018) will generate a higher percent runoff than years with less intense storms but similar total precipitation. In 2018 there were 10 days with one inch or more of rain (versus an average of about 6.5 in the 9 prior years). Note that 2019 data (not presented in the 60‐day draft but available for the final draft) indicates a runoff percent of approximately 60%, which is closer to the 2009‐2017 average of about 50%.

Low

No

We will increase the size of the legend dots.

Low

Yes

The table is described in Sec. 3.2. It is missing the definitions of L and P. We will add that to the table description.

Low

Yes

63

#4

1.2.3

64

#4

Figure 1‐6

65

#4

Table 3‐5

Plan pp. 26 and 99 – Both pictures of the Trout Brook Nature Center don’t give a sense of the scope of the project, which is impressive. Do you have a photo that Themes/Implementation We have an aerial photograph of the Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary. We will use it on one of those pages. shows more of the creek length, bridge, and path?

Plan Community equity and p. 30 – Re. “Community equity...,” I know that this is important to word most carefully and appropriately, but it seems that here or in another place it would Good point. We will add a sentence similar to what is suggested. engaging underrepresented be helpful to add the overall goal (something like “so that Watershed District residents of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, geographic areas within the Watershed, ages, abilities, and incomes will be served”). groups Infrastructure Management p. 63 – The colors in the key don’t seem to match those in the map.

Rain as a Resource

We will fix the colors to ensure the map and legend colors match.

The Zero Abuse Project is located on Jackson Street in Downtown Saint Paul. We will add Downtown Saint Paul to the caption.

This draft still needs a thorough copy editing, which I assume is in the works. Problems such as singular‐plural errors, inconsistent use of serial commas, and We will have a copy editor review the revised draft plan after all other changes have been made. missing periods tripped me up as I was reading.

Section 2 ‐ Watershed issues and goals. Each point (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc, is well described in the narrative. However, it might be worth editing the longer paragraphs to make them less dense, perhaps by using bullet points. It is a lot to read as a regular citizen, but might not be for more knowledgeable, We will review Section 2.0 and determine if and where to break up dense text. technical readers.

In the Executive Summary, the text refers to Section 2, however the Table of Contents (TOC) doesn’t assign section numbers (I assumed it was Watershed We will add Section numbers for the main sections.

Issues and Goals). Might be good to label it also as Section 2 in the TOC.

Community equity and engaging underrepresented P. 29: The colored dots in the legend could be bigger. groups Implementation plan table P. 119‐146, a brief explanation of these tables could be useful. Where are (L) and (P) defined?

Page 3

Significance

Change Will Be Made

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

As noted, most government reports including watershed management plans do not include conclusions. MN State Statute does Have you considered adding a conclusion? Most government reports don't have one but I always thought it tied everything up well and was a good way for not require a conclusion section for watershed management plans. We anticipate that most readers will focus on the Executive the reader to finish a report.

Summary and Implementation Plan table so we will not include a conclusion section.

Medium

No

Should the actual tax levy mill rate be included somewhere? Maybe it is but I missed it.

We do not intend to include our tax levy mill rate because it is unknown and poorly understood by the general public.

Medium

No

I saw a lot of comments about working with the "partners" and "stakeholders," but unless I missed it didn't really see these defined. An exception is the tribes mentioned on page 60, but that's about it. Would it be worth having a paragraph more clearly defining who you mean?

We define partners and stakeholders in the Partnerships theme in section 1.2.3, page 36. We are going to remove the phrasing "working with partners" as described in response to comment #1. We also identify the types of partners for each implementation activity in Table 3‐5.

Medium

No

Low

Yes

Low Medium

Yes Yes

Medium

Yes

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

Comment No.

Commenter

Section/ Page

Topic

Comment

Response

66

#4

Table 3‐5

Implementation plan table

67

#4

Table 3‐6

68

#4

2.7/3.4.5

69

#5

NA

General

70

#5

3.7

Funding

71

#5

1.2.3

Partnerships

72

#5

Section 2.3.2

Water Quality Goals

Frogtown Green, Urban Roots, and Compas are local community groups who have received Partner Grant funding from the Several groups were shown in illustrations but never really explained. On page 11 is Frogtown Green, 17 is Urban Roots, 60 is Compass and what is the "bug District. We will acknowledge them as Partner Grantees on page 3. Bug Bonanza is a macroinvertebrate and dragonfly sampling bonanza" on pages 58 and 113? event for youth. We will replace the name of the event with this brief general description.

73 74

#5 #5

2.7 na

Regulation Executive Summary

P62 mentions a "small site" as being exempt but never defines quite what that is.

Should you be more specific about who the “partners” and “stakeholders” actually are? Just a little done on page 60 with the tribes.

75

#5

NA

Executive Summary

P11 ‐ What is frogtown green?

76

#5

NA

Executive Summary

P14 ‐ Does public art tie in here?

77

#5

1.1

Introduction

78

#5

Section 2.3.2

Water Quality Goals

79

#5

Section 2.3.2

Water Quantity Goals

80 81 82 83 84 85 86

#5 #5 #5 #5 #5 #5 #5

2.7 NA NA NA NA NA 3.7

Regulation Executive Summary Executive Summary General Executive Summary Acronyms Funding

87

#6

NA

Executive Summary

88

#6

2.3

Water Quality

89

#7

NA

General

When printing the tables, notice where the page breaks occur. For example, P.119, Table 3‐5, I suggest moving the heading “Programs” and the line of the subheading “208 Regulatory Program” to P. 120, which is where the data is. Keep at least line A. Same with P. 149. Once the reader has already turned the We will make sure the heading and subheadings are printed at the top of each table page. page, it’s better if the heading and subheading are there so they don’t have to turn the page back. There’s room to spare on P. 154 if you alter the formatting a bit to accommodate this suggestion.

Implementation plan table Table 3‐6: Put the notes (on P. 154) at the top of the table on P. 147 so reader knows ahead what the notes are.

Good suggestion. We will move the notes to the top of Table 3‐6.

Goals and Implementation Same photo on P. 61 and P.88 (Allianz Field). Might there be a different photo for one of the pages?

We will select a different photo for one of those pages. plan

90

#7

NA

Typos

91

#7

NA

Abbreviations

P17 ‐ Urban Roots. How about a list of organizations partnered with? Section 206 is vague here P60 ‐ Compas is another unknown organization P58 ‐ What is bug bonanza? Also P113

A small site is less than one acre and we will add this definition to page 61.

See response to comment #71.

Frogtown Green in a volunteer, resident‐led organization that seeks to make the Frogtown neighborhood greener and healthier.

See response to comment #72.

On page 15, Public Art Saint Paul is mentioned. It is a local non‐profit promoting, advocating and offering art in Saint Paul. See response to comment #72.

Urban Roots is a community development services organization based in the East Side of Saint Paul. It offers youth environmental programs. See response to comment #72.

Compas is an art education organization in Minnesota. See response to comment #72.

We will replace Bug Bonanza with a general description of the event, which is a macroinvertebrate and dragon fly monitoring event for youth.

See response to comment #73 We will add MNRRA to the abbreviations list.

We will add LWMP to the abbreviations list.

Conclusions are not typically provided in a watershed management plan. See response to comment #69.

See response #76 We will add those abbreviations to the list.

See response to comment #70.

P62 ‐ what is a “small site”?

P6 ‐ MNRRA defined on here, as not defined until 108 P6 ‐ LWMP not defined till 117 P119 ‐ How about a conclusion?

P14 ‐ mentions "public art". Is that a group?

The definitions on page 6 are useful but miss MNRRA (page 108) and LWMP (page 117) Should the actual tax levy mill rate be included somewhere? Maybe it is but I missed it.

The last sentence on page 10......the editor in me is looking for a colon after that sentence given the verbage "the following". Yet the colon seems awkward.

Agree, we will make the change as suggested.

Possible revision "This information helped to inform the watershed issues and goals." This leads to the headline of the next section.

Add to the abbreviation list "TSS" as referred to on pg 48.

We will add TSS to the abbreviation list.

In general I agree with the plan and the proposed work. Wonder if we can reduce the cost of things. I dislike raising the levy every year, just because we Duly noted. can. But that is not a discussion for this document.

We will review copy for typos.

Need to do a spellcheck as there are some typos (page 136 last line Swdede is misspelled).

Why does it list the full name of BWSR, define the abbreviation and then 2 pages later do it again? Page 112 and 114. It is in their list of abbreviations (pg We will make changes to define BWSR once and use its acronym afterwards.

6).

Page 4

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low

Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

No Change

NA

Low

Yes

Low

Yes

August 19, 2020 V. B) 2021 Budget Presentation (Doneux)

DATE: August 5, 2020 TO: CAC Members FROM: Mark Doneux RE: 2021 Preliminary Budget and Levy _________________________________________________________________________________ Background Each year the Board of Managers must establish a plan of work for the upcoming year, establish a budget based upon the work plan, and establish a levy for the budget. The Board of Managers discussed the current 202 budget and revenue at the May 6th and 21st Board meetings. The also reviewed the preliminary 2021 Work Plan along with the budget and levy at Board workshop on June 3rd and July 8th as well as at Board Meetings on June 17th and July 22nd, 2020.

Issues The Board approved the Preliminary 2021 budget and levy for Public Comment and set the Public Hearing date for August 19, 2020 at 6:00 PM. As part of the public review and comment process the Board is seeking comment from the CAC. Staff will review the draft 2021 budget and levy with the CAC and solicit comments at the meeting. The preliminary 2021 budget is $9,077,610. The proposed 2021 tax levy is $8,277,699. Documents enclosed for your review include: 1) 2)

Preliminary 2021 Budget (Project List) Preliminary Budget and Levy Summary

Requested Action Review enclosed documents. Provide comments on proposed 2021 Budget and Levy. enc:

1) 2)

Preliminary 2020 Budget (Project List) Preliminary Budget and Levy Summary

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Budget - 2021\CAC Memo 2021 Budget Review 8-5-20.docx

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

2021 Capitol Region Watershed Budget Fund # Fund Name

101

Administration

Project #

101-21970 101-21975 101-21976 101-21978 101-21980 101-21985 101-21890 101-21895

2020 WMP Ref.

A E I F B C G H

Project Name

General Administration 595 Aldine Operations 1736 Thomas Operations MAWD Citizen Advisory Committee External Funding Opportunies Safety Program Diversity and Inclusion Program Administrative Allocation*

Preliminary 2021 Budget August 5, 2020

Priority / Comment

Date Printed

2020 Project Budget

Project Description

ADMINISTRATION Critical Critical Critical Important Critical Critical Critical Critical Ongoing

$ General Admin. of Operations for CRWD General Operations for 595 Aldine General Operations for 1736 Thomas Provide support to MAWD Support Citizen Adviosry Committee Identify and Pursue External Funding Opportunities Provide Safety Training, Equipment and Updates Provide for the Diversity and Inclusion Efforts at the District Total Administrative Costs Annual Cost Allocation to Project and Programs

744,700 150,000 85,800 5,000 10,000 5,000 35,000 15,000 1,050,500 (251,400)

Net Administrative Costs

208

210

211

Regulatory Program

Grants Program

Monitoring, Assessment and Research

PROGRAMS

208-21000 208-21102 208-21103 208-21104 208-21105 208-21107 208-21109 208-21111

A B C D E I K L

General Permitting Implementation Coordinated Erosion and Sediment Control Permittee Post Construction BMP Inspections Engagement Activities with Permittees Rules Evaluation and Update Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Industrial Stormwater Permitee Coordination Water Reuse Policy Support

Critical Critical Critical Important Critical Important Important Critical

Continue Implementing District Permit Program Coordinate Erosion and Sediment Control Inspections with Partners Inspect completed permit projects for compliance and maintenance Engagement Activities with permitees, developers, engineers and Evaluate and consider updates to Rules Implement IDDE Program Support and Coordinate with ISW Permittees Support the advancement of SW Reuse through Policy Initiatives

$

209,770 193,900 72,730 6,220 20,690 42,490 4,970 5,850

210-21143 210-21150 210-21152 210-21153 210-21155 210-21160

A E B C F G

Stewardship Grants ROW Projects-Boulevard Rain Gardens Stewardship Grant Outreach Grant Project Inspection and Maintenance Well Sealing Grants Large Scale Site Planning Grants

Critical Important Important Important Beneficial Important

Administer, promote, and outreach on Stewardship Grants Provide Grants to Partners and Residnets for Blvd Rain Gardens Provide outreach for Stewardship Grant Program Assist grantee's with inspection and maintenance support Provide grant reimbursement for well sealing Provide grant reimbursement for large-scale planning projects

$

510,550 38,670 17,380 74,040 10,430 53,630

211-21200 211-21205 211-21230 211-21220 211-21215 211-21221 211-21225 211-21230 211-21235

A B C D E F G H I

Stormwater Monitoring & Data Collection Lake Monitoring & Data Collection BMP Performance Monitoring Monitoring Database and Reporting Tool Wetland Biological Integrity Monitoring Monitoring Trend Analysis and Reporting for Citizen Science Monitoring Program Research Program Emerging Contaminents and Water Quality

Critical Critical Critical Critical Important Important Important Important Important

Monitoring of stormwater baseline, water level and rain gauge sites Monitor lakes for chemical, biological and qualitative parameters Monitor BMP sites for performance Long term monitoring database for effective data management Monitor wetlands for IBI, water quality and data analysis Conduct trend analysis with reporting for the general public Train and support citizens interested in monitoring Develop and implement or support comprehensive stormwater research Review and assess emerging contaminents

$

393,120 106,460 131,350 26,280 14,390 19,450 9,250 46,850 14,000

Page 1

2020 Fund Total

$

799,100

$

556,620

$

704,700

$

761,150

2021 Capitol Region Watershed Budget Fund # Fund Name

220

222

Communications and Engagement

Facility Management Program

Project #

2020 WMP Ref.

220-21250 220-21252 220-21255 220-21260 220-21270 220-21271 220-21265 220-21275 220-21285 220-21262 220-21267 220-21279 220-21278 220-21280

A B C D E F G I J K H L M N

General Communications and Engagement Project Communications Clean Streets Maintenance Workshops for Clean Water Digital Communications Volunteer Programs Sponsorships Events Awards Program Youth Outreach Programs Partnerships Partner Grant Program Public Art Program 595 Aldine Communications and Engagement

222-21305 222-21310 222-21315 222-21303

A B C D

District-Owned Facility Management Shared Ownership Facility Management Partner Owned Facilities BMP Database

Project Name

Preliminary 2021 Budget August 5, 2020

Priority / Comment

Date Printed

2020 Project Budget

Project Description

Critical Critical Important Critical Critical Important Important Important Beneficial Important Critical Important Important Important

$ Provide general Communications and Engagement for the District Provide for project specific Communications Implement Adopt a Drain and other resident led clean street initiaties Provide workshops for municipal and agency staff Maintain and provide content for CRWD digital communciations Implement Master Water Stewards and other volunteer programs Sponsor and support partner organizations Support Community and CRWD-sponsored events and activities Support CRWD Recognition Program Develop and Implement Outreach Prgramming to District Youth Foster relationships with existing and new partners Provide grants to community organziations that raise awareness about loca Support Watershed Artist in Residence program Provide for Education and Outreach at 595 Aldine

236,310 28,190 46,340 15,420 63,900 36,260 31,500 24,390 16,090 20,720 20,800 164,980 31,000 51,060

Critical Critical Critical Critical

$ Inspect, maintain and repair District-Owned Facilities Inspect, maintain and repair facilities with shared maintenance Provide maintenance support of partner owned facilities Develop a program with District partners to identify consistent, reasonable

234,150 53,440 62,060 45,930

Administrative Allocation

Page 2

PROGRAMS TOTAL

2020 Fund Total

$

786,960

$ $

395,580 165,924

$

3,370,934

2021 Capitol Region Watershed Budget Fund # Fund Name

Project #

2020 WMP Ref.

Project Name

Preliminary 2021 Budget August 5, 2020

Priority / Comment

Project Description

Date Printed

2020 Project Budget

2020 Fund Total

PROJECTS 302

305

310

313

Groundwater Projects

Como Lake Subwatershed

Lake McCarron's Subwatershed Loeb Lake Subwatershed

315

Trout Brook Subwatershed

317

Crosby Lake Subwatershed

325

Wetland, Stream, and Ecosystem Restoration

331

332

333

375

Mississippi River Gorge Subwatershed Mississippi River Confluence Subwatershed Mississippi River Downtown Subwatershed Watershed Wide Planning, Assessment and Implementation

301-17400

Lake McCarrons Shoreline Restoration Project

Important

Implement shoreline restoration project around Lake McCarrons

$

-

305-16420 305-21423 305-21424 305-21425 305-21427 305-21430 305-21434 305-21436 305-21440

A B C D E F H I J

Como Lake Water Quality Model AIS Management Como Lake Aquatic Plant Management Como Lake Fisheries Management Shoreline Management Street Sweeping Program Water-based Recreation Management Como Subwatershed Infrastructure Future stormwater management planning

Critical Critical Critical Important Important Important Beneficial Important Important

$ Update the Water Quality Model for Como Lake Manage AIS in Como Lake Management of Nusiance Aquatic Plants Support and collaborate on establishing and maintaining a balanced Develop and implement a shoreline management program Develop and implement a street sweeping program Support partners efforts to maintain water-based recreation Work with partners to improve O&M of drainage infrastructure Identify and study potential opportunities for implementation of stormwater

15,740 12,370 9,870 25,370 22,740 22,370 50,110 19,980

310-21470 310-21476 310-21480

D B C

Lake Vegetation and AIS Management Villa Park Wetland System Evaluation Watershed Hydraulic and Hydrolgic Modeling

Important Important Important

Manage Nuisance and Invasive Aquatic Plants Evaluate the Villa Park Wetland System Conduct Flood Risk Assessment Modeling of Watershed

$

20,110 20,480 40,110

313-11513

B

Loeb Lake Stormwater Pond Performance

Important

Investigate the performance of the stormwater pond at the southeast

315-14552 315-21554 315-21570

E C B

TBI Easement Verification & Documentation TBI Model Update NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program

Important Critical Important

Conduct TBI easement verification, acquisition and documentation work Complete update and calibration of TBI H/H Model Implement MS4 SWPP

317-20631

Highland Ravine BMP Maintenance

Critical

A E G

Phalen Creek Daylighting Feasibility Study Willow Reserve Signage and Access Wetland Restoration Planning

Critical Important Important

Conduct Feasibility Study for the Daylighting of Phalen Creek Develop and Install Signage and Access for the Wilow Reserve Develop Wetland Restoration and Management Plan

331-18622 331-18623

B C

Ford Site Planning Ford Site - Area C

Critical Important

Provide Design and Planning Assistance for Former Ford Site Plan Review and Comment on Area C

375-21651 375-21652 375-21655 375-21658 370-21656

Vacant D E F B K

Partner Agency Plan Review GIS Program St Paul Watershed Governance Great River Passage District Chloride Assessment and Prevention Pl

$

53,450 30,960 78,360 20,550 25,700 -

Vacant

XXX-XXXXX

100,850 350,140 10,120

Maintain Gully Stabilization BMPs

325-21605 325-21610 325-21615

XXX-XXXXX

20,850

$

-

$

178,550

$

80,700

$

20,850

$

461,110

$

-

$

162,770

$

46,250

$

-

$

-

Important Important Important Important Important

Provide review and comments on partner agency plan reviews Manage and update District GIS Resources Support the City in it's exploration of watershed governance for the West S Support the City of St. Paul with feasibility and planning studies for GRP Work with partners to develop watershed specific chloride management pla Administrative Allocation

PROJECTS TOTAL

Page 3

20,100 30,470 10,060 30,000 54,950

$ $

$

145,580 85,476

1,181,286

2021 Capitol Region Watershed Budget Fund # Fund Name

Project #

2020 WMP Ref.

Preliminary 2021 Budget August 5, 2020

Priority / Comment

Project Name

Project Description

Date Printed

2020 Project Budget

2020 Fund Total

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 402

Groundwater Projects

405

Como Lake BMP's

410

Lake McCarron's BMP's

413

Loeb Lake BMP's

415

Trout Brook BMP's

417

Crosby Lake BMP's

425

Wetland, Stream, and Ecosystem Restoration

431

432

433 475 490

Mississippi River Gorge Subwatershed BMPs Mississippi River Confluence Subwatershed BMPs Mississippi River Downtown Subwatershed BMPs Watershed Wide Capitol Improvement Projects Debt Service

405-16705 405-21712 405-21711

A F B

TWP - Como BMPs Gotfried's Pit Improvements Como Pavillion BMPs

Critical Important Critical

511,700 50,700 150,000

Design and construct stormwater BMPs in Como Golf Course Plan, design and construct improvements at Gotfried's Pit Lift Station Plan and design BMPs for Como Pavillion Parking Lot

XXX-XXXXX

Vacant

-

XXX-XXXXX

Vacant

-

415-20820

A

XXX-XXXXX

430-16886

TBI Repair - Station 28+65 to 50+72

950,250

Engineering Design and Construction for next segment of TBI Repairs

Vacant

D

Lauderdale (Seminary Pond) Stormwater Improvement Project

432-20891 432-16853

B C

Ford Site Victoria Park

433-20892

C

Science Museum of Minnesota

470-14960

Critical

E

Debt and Loan Service

$

$

-

712,400

$

-

$

-

$ $

950,250 -

$ Critical

Critical Critical Important Critical

Design and Construct Improvements to Seminary Pond

Support the construction of water features on the Ford Site Support water features at Victoria Park

$ $

Annual Payments for bonds and loans

CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TOTAL

Page 4

296,750 510,960 105,480 50,450

Support design of Science Musem Water Management Features $

-

1,100,000

$

296,750

$

616,440

$

50,450

$

1,100,000

$

3,726,290

2021 Capitol Region Watershed Budget Fund # Fund Name

Project #

2020 WMP Ref.

Project Name

BUDGET SUMMARY

Preliminary 2021 Budget August 5, 2020

Priority / Comment

2020 Project Budget

Project Description

2020 Fund Total 2021 Fund Total

Fund

ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS PROJECTS

$ $ $

799,100 3,370,934 1,181,286

$

5,351,320

CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

$

3,726,290

TOTAL 2021 BUDGET

$

9,077,610

OPERATIONS TOTAL

Update Notes May 6, 2020 May 20, 2020 June 3, 2020 June 17, 2020 July 8, 2020 July 22, 2020 August 5, 2020 August 12, 2020 August 19, 2020 September 2, 2020 December 2, 2020 December 16, 2020

Date Printed

Board Meeting - 2020 Budget Update and Overview Board Meeting - 2020 and 2021 Budget Update and Overview Board Workshop - Review and discussion of 2021 Budget and Financing Board Meeting - Review and discussion of 2021 Budget and Financing Board Workshop - Review and discussion of 2021 Budget and Financing Board Meeting - Review and discussion of 2021 Budget and Financing Regular Board Meeting - Authorize Public Comment Draft Budget, set public hearing Citizen Advisory Committee mtg on Budget Public Hearing on 2020 Budget and Levy Board Adopts Preliminary Budget and Levy Final Budget Amendments Board Adopts Final Budget and Levy

* Administrative Allocation = Within General Adminstration (101-2197) 90% of Operating costs + 50% of Contractual costs + 90% of Equipment/Supplies are charged back to Programs (66%) and Projects (34%) on a prorated basis

Page 5

2021 CRWD Expenditure, Revenue and Levy Summary 7/30/2020 Operations and Capital

OPERATIONS

OPERATIONS

Revenue

Expenditures

Fund Balance

(1)

2018 Actual

Tax Levy Intergovernmental (MVHC) Fees Interest Income Other Total

$

Administration Programs Projects Total

$

Beginning Balance Ending Balance

(2)

Fund Balance Policy Amount Difference % of Policy CAPITAL

2019 Actual $

$

3,471,248 12,900 43,102 56,288 3,583,538

$

658,516 2,247,976 596,878 3,503,370

$ $ $ $

$

2,071,267

$

$

$ $ $

3,504,968 26,605 27,400 55,756 29,159 3,643,888

$

2,211,785 $ ok 1,751,685 $ 460,100 $ 126% 2018 Actual

CAPITAL

Revenue

Expenditures

Fund Balance (unencumbered)

Property Tax Levy (1) Intergovernmental (MVHC) Other Bond Proceeds Parkview Partner Revenue Met Council/MNDOT (TBI) Como Subwater 7 Partner Funding (8) Clean Water Grant - East Kittsondale Other - Clean Water Grant (9) Targeted Watershed Program Grant Stormwater Impact Fund Interest Income Total

2020 Adopted

$ $

$

4,514,609 15,000 1,000

$

4,752,220 15,000 20,000 1,000

$

$

4,530,609

$

4,788,220

774,310 2,177,780 952,120 3,904,210

$ $ $ $

578,550 2,855,417 1,410,483 4,844,450

$ $ $ $

719,806 1,720,868 832,322 3,272,996

$ $ $ $

799,100 3,370,934 1,181,286 5,351,320

2,211,785

$

1,891,112

$

1,891,112

$

3,148,725

1,891,112 $ not ok 1,952,105 $ (60,993) $ 97%

1,891,112 $ not ok 2,422,225 $ (531,113) $ 78% 2020 Adopted $3,525,479

$3,466,802

3,148,725 $ ok 1,636,498 $ 1,512,227 $ 192% 2020 Estimated

$

50% of Budget 2,585,625 $2,675,660 not ok not ok 2,675,660 $ 90,035 (90,035) 97%

$3,525,479 $ $58,000

$150,000

$258,649 $500,000 $700,000 $

$128,915 13,536,087

$

9,706,602

$880,738

$50,000 4,775,479 $

$15,000 4,394,943 $

$15,000 3,723,479

3,965,834

6,942,533

$

5,470,893

$

3,726,290

6,942,533

$

5,470,893

$

3,726,290

$

9,706,602

$

3,965,834

Beginning Balance Revenue less expenditures

$ $

1,225,434 3,829,485

$ $

5,054,919 $ (126,843) $

Ending Balance

$

5,054,919

$

4,949,916

$2,000,000 $3,054,919 253%

$125,000

$113,540 3,838,991 $

Total

$2,000,000 $2,949,916 247%

$

$

4,949,916 $ (2,167,054) $ 2,782,862 $2,000,000 $782,862 139%

$

4,949,916 $ (1,075,950) $ 3,873,966 $2,000,000 $1,873,966 194%

0.00%

2021 Proposed

$3,349,205

$9,997,239

Capital Improvement Program

Fund Balance Policy Amount Difference % of Policy

2021 Proposed

4,752,220 45,000 20,000 1,000 4,844,450

2019 Actual

2,978,321 431,612

2020 Estimated

$

3,873,966 (2,811) 3,871,155 $2,000,000 $1,871,155 194%

8/5/20207:53 PM

0.00%

2021 CRWD Expenditure, Revenue and Levy Summary 07/30/20 Combined Operations and CIP

Combined Operations and CIP Budget 2019 Actual 2020 Adopted 2018 Actual Revenues

Expenditures

Fund Balance

(1)

Property Tax Levy $ Bond Proceeds Partner Funding Met Council Intergovernmental Fees Other Other - Clean Water G Interest Income Fund Balance Total $

17,179,975

$

Administration $ Programs Projects Capital Improvement Total $

658,516 2,247,976 596,878 9,706,602 13,209,972

$

$

Beginning Balance Ending Balance

TAX LEVY Operations Capital Improvement Total Difference from previous year % Change Historical Adopted Levy Increase Debt Levy General Levy Total Levy

(2)

6,938,050 97,000 200,000 12,900 100,000 156,642 56,288 7,560,880

$

$

$

774,310 2,177,780 952,120 3,965,834 7,870,044

3,296,701

$

$

7,266,704

$ $

2018 Actual 3,504,968 2,978,321

6,483,289 9,997,239

2020 Estimated

8,277,699 500,000 125,000 20,000 700,000 51,000 9,673,699

$

$ $ $

$

578,550 2,855,417 1,410,483 6,942,533 11,786,983

7,266,704

$

$

6,841,028

$

$

2019 Actual 3,471,248 3,466,802

$

458,217 27,400 29,159 184,671

$6,483,289 $ $1,627,471 $ 33.52% 32.85%

$

$ $ $

$

150,000

15,000 880,738 $

16,000 8,925,552

$

8,277,699 58,000 15,000 20,000 125,000 16,000 8,511,699

$ $ $

$

719,806 1,720,868 832,322 5,470,893 8,743,889

$

799,100 3,370,934 1,181,286 3,726,290 9,077,610

6,841,028

$

6,841,028

$

7,022,691

4,673,974

$

7,022,691

$

6,456,780

2020 Adopted $ 4,752,220 3,525,479

6,938,050 $ 454,761 $ 7.01% 7.01%

7,863,814

2021 Proposed

2020 Estimated $ 4,514,609 3,349,205

8,277,699 $ 1,339,649 19.31% 19.31% 8,277,699 8,277,699

7,863,814

2021 Proposed $ 4,752,220 3,525,479 $ $

8,277,699 0.00% 0.00%

$ $ $

1,100,000 7,177,699 8,277,699

8/5/20207:53 PM