February 6, 2019

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, February 6, 2019 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota.

I.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) A) Attendance B) Review, Amendments, and Approval of the Agenda

Materials Enclosed

II.

Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.)

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4) Board Discussion and Action.)

A)

19-001, Fairview Ave 2019 – (Hosch)

IV.

Special Reports – 2020 WMP Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Eleria)

V.

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the January 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve Diversity and Inclusion Statement (Doneux) C) AR: Approve 2019 Lake Monitoring Agreement with Ramsey County (Wein)

VI.

Unfinished Business A) 2018 Rules Revisions (Kelley) B) Watershed Steward Awards (Bromelkamp) C) 2018 Lakes Update (Wein) D) Master Water Stewards (Schwantes) E) Building Update (Eleria)

VII.

General Information A) Board of Manager’s Updates

VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, February 13, 2019 CAC Meeting B) Wednesday, February 27, 2019 Board Meeting IX.

Adjournment

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

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Barbara Mundahl St. Paul Public Works 25 West Fourth Street (CHA 900) St. Paul, MN 55102

Permit 19-001 Fairview Ave 2019 Consultant: NA

Description: Street reconstruction of Fairview Avenue from Shields to University.

Stormwater Management: One underground infiltration trench, cost cap is met.

District Rule: —C, D, F Disturbed Area: 1.25 Acres Impervious Area: 1.13 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 4 Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Revise plans to address items a.-d. in the 1-21-19 permit report.

4. Provide additional soil boring information to support the proposed design or plan notes to investigate during construction.

First Street Second Ave

Permit Location Permit Report 19-001

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 02/06/2019

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

19-001

Review date:

January 21, 2019

Project Name:

Fairview Ave 2019

Applicant:

Barbara Mundahl St. Paul Public Works 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 651-266-6112 barbara.mundahl@ci.stpaul.mn.us

Purpose:

Street reconstruction of Fairview Ave from Shields to University.

Stormwater management consists of one underground infiltration trench. Cost cap is met.

Location:

Fairview Ave from Shields to University, St. Paul, MN

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 4 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plans (21 Sheets), by City of St. Paul Public Works, dated 1/7/19, recv. 1/11/19.

2. Project Narrative, by City of St. Paul Public Works, dated 1/11/19, recv. 1/11/19.

3. Drainage Map, by City of St. Paul Public Works, not dated, recv. 1/11/19.

4. Report of Geotechnical Exploration, by AET, dated 10/26/18, recv. 1/11/19.

5. SWPPP, by City of St. Paul Public Works, not dated, recv. 1/11/19.

6. Cost Spreadsheet, by City of St. Paul Public Works, not dated, recv. 1/11/19.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-001, Fairview Ave 2019\19-001 Permit Report_R1b.doc Page 1 of 4

 Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.  Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is not used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1-inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious is 49,406 square feet. b. Volume retention required: 49,406 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 4,529 ft3 Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse).

Volume Volume Retention 1.1-inch 2-inch Retention BMP Provided below Runoff Runoff Required outlet (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.)

Infiltration Trench 3,240 4,871 8,857 4,529 Total 3,240 cf c. Banking of excess volume retention of is not proposed. d. Infiltration volume and facility size has been calculated using the appropriate hydrologic soil group classification and design infiltration rate. e. The infiltration area is capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. f. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas. g. The Hantush groundwater mound spreadsheet predicts a mound depth of approximately 1.1’ at the house footprint on 409 Fairview Ave N. MnTopo shows surface elevation of 912’ at house. Assuming 8 ft basement depth (904’), and bottom of trench at 899’, there is sufficient separation and no anticipated impacts.

4. Alternative compliance has been requested due to cost cap of a linear project. a. The applicant did partially comply with the volume retention standard. b. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard at an offsite location or through the use of qualified banking credits. c. The applicant has not submitted money to be contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund. d. The project is linear, and the cost cap has been reached (1.13 ac * $30,000/ac = $33,900). The anticipated cost of the proposed infiltration trench is $74,955.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-001, Fairview Ave 2019\19-001 Permit Report_R1b.doc Page 2 of 4

5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis. However, the project is linear, and the cost cap has been reached.

6. A memorandum of agreement for maintenance of stormwater facilities exists between the City of St. Paul and the CRWD. Adequate maintenance access is provided for the underground system.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is unknown if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. However, adequate conveyance has been provided to prevent flooding.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. It is not known if erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition.

3. It is unknown if wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Disturbed area is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and is sufficient.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-001, Fairview Ave 2019\19-001 Permit Report_R1b.doc Page 3 of 4

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard  Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

Recommendation: Approve with 4 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Revise plans to address the following: a. Revise erosion and sediment control plan to show location and type of all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs (inlet protection and perimeter control). b. Add note to cross-section detail on Sheet 11 in plans stating that fabric shall be excluded from the bottom of the infiltration practice. c. Revise rock specification for the infiltration trench shown on Sheet 11.

Specification shall include the following according to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (These notes are listed on the SWPPP, but should be included in the plans): i. Double-washed, angular, uniform (uniformity coefficient of 2 or smaller) aggregate between 1.5 and 3.0-inch diameter. ii. Acceptable rock types: igneous and crystalline metamorphic (granite, rhyolite, gabbro, basalt, quartzite). iii. Unacceptable rock types: carbonate (limestone, dolomite, dolostone) and non-crystalline metamorphic (shale). d. Clarify sump depth. Sheet 10 shows 2’ sumps, where sheet 21 indicates 6’ sumps. The sump depth shall be four times larger than the outlet pipe per EPA guidance. Spreader pipe is 1’, which would require a 4’ or greater sump depth.

4. Provide additional soil boring information to support the proposed design or plan notes to investigate during construction.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-001, Fairview Ave 2019\19-001 Permit Report_R1b.doc Page 4 of 4

February 6, 2019 Board Meeting IV. Special Report – WMP Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Eleria)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 1, 2019 CRWD Board of Managers Anna Eleria, Division Manager CRWD 2020 WMP Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Background In December 2018, CRWD’s Board of Managers approved a consultant services agreement with Barr Engineering for updating CRWD’s Watershed Management Plan.

Issues One of the first tasks of the Plan is to develop a stakeholder engagement plan that defines the goals of our engagement, our stakeholders and target groups, engagement strategies and methods, and schedule.

Enclosed is the draft engagement plan. CRWD staff will discuss and seek comment on the draft plan from the Board.

Action Requested None, for your information Enc.

Draft CRWD 2020 Watershed Management Plan: Stakeholder Engagement Plan

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\Board Memos\BM WMP Stakeholder Engagement Plan 02-06-2019.docx

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

2020 Watershed Management Plan: Stakeholder Outreach Plan

Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN Barr Engineering Co.

January 31, 2019

2020 Watershed Management Plan: Stakeholder Outreach Plan January 31, 2019

Contents 1.0

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0

Targeted Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.0

Engagement Strategies and Methods ............................................................................................................................. 3 3.1

Plan Update Notification .......................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2

Project Story Map and Website Updates .......................................................................................................... 3

3.3

Online Survey ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

3.4

Watershed Workshops .............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.4.1

Watershed Workshop Programming - Methods ........................................................................... 6

3.5

Initial Planning Meeting ........................................................................................................................................... 8

3.6

Targeted Focus Group (Under-represented Groups).................................................................................... 9

3.7

CRWD internal workshops (CAC, TAC, Board of Managers, and CRWD staff) .................................... 9

3.8

Strategic Plan Situation Assessments ................................................................................................................. 9

3.9

Partner/External Community Events and Meetings ....................................................................................10

3.10 Stakeholder Engagement after Initial Input Phase ......................................................................................10 4.0

Schedule ....................................................................................................................................................................................11

5.0

Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................................12

i P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621304 Watershed Management Plan Upda\WorkFiles\Outreach Plan\Outreach_Plan_01312019.docx

List of Tables Table 1

Matrix of Recommended Engagement Strategies by Target Audience(s) ................................... 4

List of Figures Figure 1

Approximate Geographies for Watershed Workshops ........................................................................ 6

Figure 2

Flowchart of Stakeholder Engagement Strategies...............................................................................11

ii

Certifications I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.

January 31, 2019 Erin Anderson Wenz

Date

PE #: 41255

iii

1.0

Introduction

In developing its 2020 Watershed Management Plan (WMP, Plan), Capitol Region Watershed District (District, CRWD) has an opportunity to engage and receive input from a broad, diverse group of stakeholders that reflect the demographics of CRWD. CRWD values the perspectives and ideas that different races, cultures, genders and ages can offer for consideration in updating CRWD’s 10-year plan.

CRWD seeks a WMP stakeholder engagement process that is meaningful, relevant, accessible, inclusive, and equitable so that CRWD’s communities are represented, engaged, heard and empowered throughout the WMP update process.

Consideration of stakeholder input is an important step in establishing Plan priorities and is key in fostering the community support and cooperation necessary to successfully implement CRWD projects and programs. This memorandum details the proposed methods by which CRWD staff, in cooperation with Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) staff, will engage stakeholders throughout Plan development.

1

2.0

Targeted Stakeholders

CRWD has strong, existing relationships with its member cities, Ramsey County, and state/regional environmental agencies (the Plan review authorities). Most recently, the development of CRWD’s Strategic Plan included interviews and communications directed at many of these authorities, which shall be considered in the WMP update. Because the relationships between CRWD and the Plan review authorities are well-established and initial, big picture input was recently received, the Plan stakeholder engagement efforts will be focused on establishing relationships and obtaining input from stakeholders not represented or under-represented in past planning efforts, programs and projects, specifically: -

Residents in the central and eastern portions of CRWD

-

People of color, recent immigrants, young adults, and youth

CRWD will engage with all stakeholders listed below but the majority of time and effort will be spent on strategies that target under-represented community members. CRWD staff are compiling a list of potential neighborhood, cultural, and community groups to engage with in the WMP update process and other CRWD programs and projects.

•

Residents – property owners and tenants

•

Businesses and developers

•

Neighborhood organizations, faith based organizations and community groups (e.g., CEZ Arts Zone, neighborhood associations, lake associations, St. Paul District Councils, cultural organizations)

•

Non-governmental organizations (e.g., University of Minnesota)

•

Local governmental units (LGUs) within the District including: the Cities of St. Paul, Roseville, Lauderdale, Falcon Heights and Maplewood, Ramsey County, Ramsey County Soil and Water (formerly Ramsey Conservation District), Saint Paul Regional Water Services (these entities will be represented through a Plan technical advisory committee, or TAC)

•

Adjacent Watershed Management Organizations (WMOs)

•

State agencies including: the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), and MN Department of Transportation (MnDOT).

•

Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)

•

CRWD Board of Managers (Board)

•

CRWD staff

Parties listed above in bold are referred to in Minnesota Rules 8410 as “Plan review agencies.” Minnesota Rules 8410 also defines “Plan review authorities” as the Plan review agencies and additional entities identified above in italics.

2

3.0

Engagement Strategies and Methods

We recommend several concurrent strategies to obtain meaningful and representative input from a diverse group of Plan stakeholders. These strategies are listed below and described in the following sections. Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota Rules 8410 also include minimum stakeholder engagement strategies required as part of Plan development. Required tasks are included and noted among the strategies described herein.

Table 1 lists each recommended engagement strategy and the targeted audiences, however, all audiences are welcome to participate in any of the engagement strategies.

3.1

Plan Update Notification

A notification of the Plan update must be sent to the Plan review agencies and the Plan review authorities, as required by MN Rules 8410.0045 Subp. 3 and Subp. 4, respectively. The notification is typically sent as an electronic letter. The notification must request that the recipients provide information about their respective priority issues, goals, and data relevant to the Plan updated. Additionally, the notification sent to the Plan review authorities must request information about programs and official controls (e.g., rules, ordinances, permit programs). CRWD must allow review agencies 60 days for responses to the notification letter. CRWD anticipates sending out the notification letter to Plan review agencies and authorities in early February, 2019.

3.2

Project Story Map and Website Updates

Throughout Plan development, we recommend using the project story map and CRWD website to promote and encourage stakeholder participation in the plan update and document progress, including the results of stakeholder engagement strategies. This may include: •

Basic information about CRWD – who we are (organization and resource) and what we do

•

Information about upcoming engagement events (i.e., watershed workshops, booth-hosting events),

•

Visualization of stakeholder locations (e.g., municipal boundaries, planning districts)

•

Online survey (See section below)

•

Infographics depicting survey results and key outcomes of Plan development activities

•

Draft Plan content for review and comment

CRWD anticipates launching the project story map in March, 2019 to leverage its use in advertising watershed workshops and other engagement opportunities. Information presented in the project story map will be updated throughout Plan development.

3

Table 1

Matrix of Recommended Engagement Strategies by Target Audience(s)

X

X

X

Online survey

1-4

Mar – Jun

X

X

X

Watershed workshops

1-7

Apr – May

X

X

X

Initial planning meeting1

1-7

May

X

X

X

Targeted focus group(s)

--

Mar – Apr

X

X

X

CRWD internal workshops (Board, Staff, CAC and TAC)

1-8, 1-9, 1-11

May – Jul

Strategic Plan situation assessments

1-2

-- 2

Partner/external community events

--

Feb –

Formal Plan review1

3-2

2019

X

X

Non-governmental X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

organizations

CRWD board

Mar –

CRWD Staff

1-6

CAC

Story map/website updates

State Agencies

Feb – Mar

Adjacent WMOs

1-5

TAC

Plan update notification1

& Community Groups

Timeline

Neighborhood Orgs.

Strategy

Business owners

Engagement

Scope Phase and Task

Residents

Stakeholder

Property owners/

Audience

X X

(1) Required per MN Rules 8410 and/or MN Statutes 103B (2) Already completed and will be considered as part of Plan update

4

X

X

X

X

3.3

Online Survey

We recommend that the CRWD website host an online survey to obtain information from residents, property owners, business owners, and other individuals who live, work, or recreate in the District. We will work with CRWD staff to develop a short list of questions generally asking them what they view as assets in their neighborhood and any interactions with and/or concerns about local water and natural resources.

The survey will contain voluntary demographic questions to assist CRWD staff and the Board in determining representativeness of the data and a brief explanation of how these questions relate to CRWD’s diversity and inclusion goals for the WMP stakeholder engagement process.

The online survey questions shall be similar to the questions asked during face-to-face stakeholder interactions (e.g., watershed workshops, partner/community events) to ensure consistency in our inquiry.

Information obtained through the survey will inform identification of issues in the Plan and may be used to tailor future education and outreach strategies. CRWD staff will leverage existing communication tools as well as relationships with neighborhood associations and community groups to advertise the online survey. The online survey will be made available from March through June, 2019.

3.4

Watershed Workshops

The most valuable stakeholder input is typically received in-person, through one-on-one or small group discussion. CRWD will plan and host four “watershed workshops” at difference locations within the watershed and receive input from attendees. Four approximate locations have been selected targeting different geographies and populations within the District. These areas are shown in Figure 1 and include: •

North/Northwest - Saint Paul neighborhoods of Hamline-Midway, St. Anthony, and Como and cities of Roseville, Lauderdale, Falcon Heights, and Maplewood. This will also serve as the first stakeholder engagement meeting for Lake McCarrons Management Plan.

•

Central – Frogtown, Capitol, Rondo, Summit Hill, Summit-University, and Downtown neighborhoods in Saint Paul

•

South/Southwestern – Union Park, Highland Park, Mac-Groveland, West 7th, and Downtown neighborhoods in Saint Paul

•

East/Northeast - North End, Phalen Creek, Payne-Maryland, and Dayton’s Bluff neighborhoods in Saint Paul

Potential meeting locations include CRWD office, libraries, recreation centers, and partner/cultural organization facilities. CRWD staff will handle all logistics for the four watershed workshops, including: identifying and reserving the locations, advertising the event, addressing technology needs, and providing refreshments, childcare and possibly other incentives during the events.

5

Figure 1

Approximate Geographies for Watershed Workshops

It will be challenging to get significant attendance at these events. CRWD staff will work with Barr to develop a brief advertisement for the watershed workshops. CRWD staff will advertise the events using social media, CRWD website and e-newsletter, and other media (e.g. postcards and/or posters at community gathering spaces). Advertisements for the workshops will note the time, date, and location for all workshops to maximize the opportunity for stakeholders to attend. CRWD staff will focus advertising efforts to promote participation from typically under-represented groups. CRWD staff will reach out to St. Paul planning districts, neighborhood associations, community groups, and other identified parties to promote the workshops through their respective organizations. CRWD anticipates these workshops will occur in April and May, 2019.

The program planned for each workshop may take a variety of forms, each designed to generate a comfortable atmosphere where participants are encouraged to share their thoughts.

3.4.1

Watershed Workshop Programming - Methods

The watershed workshops will be a thoughtful approach to public outreach that is positive and inclusive, and will be designed to promote productive discussion between participants. This discussion will be 6

documented and summarized to communicate to CRWD staff and the Board important issues and ideas that may be included in the updated Plan. There are a number of ways that public meetings can be hosted to promote this desired outcome. Below is a menu of methods to consider for each watershed workshop, however, this is not an exhaustive list and other creative methods shall be explored.

The exact method(s) for each meeting will be determined as each meeting’s target audience and location are further defined and input is received from partner organizations. For example, if English is a second language for the target audience(s), an exercise that requires rapid responses, such as the “brainsprinting” method below, would not be appropriate for that audience.

The Art of Hosting (www.artofhosting.org) offers several methods that can be effective (and that Barr has used in the past). Some of examples of these methods are described below:

The Circle Way (from the Art of Hosting) In the Art of Hosting practice, meetings are often begun and concluded in a circle – it helps the process if participants can “check in” at the beginning about why they are participating, and “check out” at the end by reflect on what we’ve accomplished. Meeting in circle can be especially helpful when getting to know each other and the issue at hand, or as a means for deep reflection or consensus making.

World Café (from the Art of Hosting) World Café consists of small groups (4 or 5 people) conversing together around tables. In this exercise, a cluster of small groups are in conversation about a common issue that matters to them or some work they are trying to do together. After the first conversation, someone stays at the table as ‘host’, while the others move to a new table, taking their previous conversations with them. In this way, the threads of the various conversations are woven together and everyone gets a sense of what is most important to the community at the event, including ideas for implementation. This method was used at the Water Reuse Workshop hosted by the Freshwater Society at CHS Field.

Open Space Technology (from the Art of Hosting) The Open Space format aims to harness the power of a group – especially a diverse one with many interests and skills – to meet a present challenge. Convened around a core calling question, the group is made aware of any topic boundaries or goals and then the space is opened for attendees to pose a session topic. Over the course of the meeting, people are free to choose which session(s) they most want to participate in, bringing maximum enthusiasm and commitment for conversation and action. In this method, the issues that are the most compelling are discussed, since the topic ideas come from the attendees themselves, and not the meeting facilitators. This method was used at a Water Reuse workshop held at Barr as a way to help people think through what was preventing them from pursuing water reuse projects.

Appreciative Inquiry (from the Art of Hosting) Instead of taking a problem-solving approach, Appreciative Inquiry offers a possibility focus, a move from “what is” to “what could be”. Based on a powerful, affirmative question, people interview each other to 7

uncover experiences that resemble what we want to create. Such experiences hold the keys to how we might bring about the future we’re visioning.

Basic data collection on who is in the room (example): At the first point of participation, each participant is given a colored dot and instructions to locate their residence on a large map of the District. At the sign-in table, participants are also given 3”x 5” cards with instructions to answer each of three strategic questions which are shown on a large projection screen.

Questions should be similar to the online survey questions that are designed to help us understand community assets and concerns and the intersection with water. Completed 3” x 5” cards are collected and information tabulated and presented at the end of the meeting. This method was utilized by RamseyWashington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) as part of its WMP community engagement efforts.

“Brainsprinting”: The “brain sprinting” exercise is a timed effort that focuses on gathering responses in a rapid, repeating sequence. The first round of the exercise focuses on generating the key issues/concerns in relation to the District water resources, such as invasive species, animal habitats, stormwater and other pollutants, water quality, water levels, aquatic vegetation (macrophytes), increased development/impervious surfaces and the need for education and maintenance. Participants write their list of issues on the first row of the table and then hand their table to the person to their left, who reads the entries, and fills out a line below that expands upon the first row of entries. This sequence is followed several times to help evoke new ideas among people around the table. The second round of the “brain sprinting” exercise is to identify potential solutions to the issues identified in the first round. The “brain sprinting” responses are tabulated on preprinted sheets that are gathered at the end of the meeting. After the exercise, each of the small groups are given a chance to discuss some key issues and solutions from their table, selecting one issue and solution to share with the larger group. This method was utilized by RWMWD as part of their community engagement for updating their WMP.

3.5

Initial Planning Meeting

Per Minnesota Rules 8410.0045 Subp.5 CRWD must notice and host an “initial planning meeting presided over by the organization’s governing body to receive, review, and discuss input” on the Plan update. The meeting must occur after the 60 days in which the Plan review authorities may respond to the Plan update notification (see Section 1.1). Written notification must be made to the Plan review authorities, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and “known stakeholders.” Legal notice must be posted on the organization's Web site and comply with open meeting law requirements. All notifications must occur at least two weeks before the meeting.

Among the strategies described in this plan, Barr and CRWD staff will host a TAC workshop seeking input on the Plan update (see Section 3.7). The TAC workshop will engage all of the Plan review authorities required to be noticed for the initial planning meeting; the workshop will also be publically noticed. The TAC workshop will not be presided over by the CRWD Board, however, in the interest of promoting honest dialogue and feedback. We recommend CRWD staff request that BWSR staff allow the TAC workshop to serve as the initial planning meeting described in MN Rules 8410, with consideration of the 8

additional stakeholder engagement strategies described herein. If BWSR staff determine an initial planning meeting is required to satisfy the requirements of MN Rules 8410.0045 Subp. 5, the Board will notice and host such a meeting as part of a regularly scheduled Board meeting.

3.6

Targeted Focus Group (Under-represented Groups)

CRWD seeks to engage and obtain input from under-represented groups, including people of color and recent immigrants. CRWD staff will form a focus group comprised of 10-12 interested residents, business owners, and community leaders from these under-represented groups. CRWD will reach out directly to St. Paul planning districts, community groups, and known leaders for assistance in soliciting focus group participants and hosting the meeting at a location and time to maximize attendance. The focus group will be facilitated by a partner organization or community leader using small group discussion and other strategies to understand neighborhood, water and natural resource issues of priority to traditionally under-represented communities in CRWD and other information relevant to Plan development. The focus group will convene prior to the watershed workshops (see Section 3.4) in the hope that focus group participants will spread the word and encourage others to attend the watershed workshops. CRWD anticipates development and meeting of the focus group to occur in March and April, 2019.

3.7

CRWD internal workshops (CAC, TAC, Board of Managers, and CRWD staff)

As part of the stakeholder engagement process, Barr will facilitate workshops with CRWD’s existing Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and a Plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of staff from District cities, Ramsey County Soil and Water, and Ramsey County. Barr will solicit input from these groups on priority issues to be addressed by the Plan and recommendations on how CRWD should engage these groups through Plan implementation. Given the small size of these groups, Barr will facilitate these workshops as informal, small group discussions. The CAC and TAC workshops are anticipated to take place in April and May, 2019 Following the watershed workshops, CAC workshop, and TAC workshop, Barr will summarize stakeholder input received to date (including online survey results, responses to the Plan notification, and information gleaned from the Strategic Plan situation assessments). Barr will facilitate a workshop where the results of the stakeholder engagement strategies completed to date are presented and discussed with CRWD staff.

CRWD staff feedback will be incorporated into summary of stakeholder engagement. Barr will then facilitate a Board workshop to present the information and solicit feedback from the Board regarding the alignment of stakeholder input, staff recommendations, and Board opinions. While stakeholder input is an integral part of Plan development, the Board of Managers remain the ultimate decision makers with respect to Plan priorities, content, and implementation. Workshops with CRWD staff and the Board are anticipated to occur in June and July, 2019, respectively.

3.8

Strategic Plan Situation Assessments

An outside consultant has surveyed and interviewed CRWD staff, Managers, and partners as part of a “situation assessment” created as part of CRWD Strategic Plan development. Information from the 9

situation assessment will provide useful stakeholder input on topics relevant to the Plan, including priority issues, and implementation considerations. Barr will review the situations assessments and summarize information relevant to Plan development.

3.9

Partner/External Community Events and Meetings

Community events within the District present ready-made opportunities for CRWD to engage with potential stakeholders. Concurrent with the online survey and watershed workshops, CRWD staff will attend select community events to share information about the Plan update and solicit input from community members. CRWD staff will bring materials (e.g., poster, handouts) presenting a brief introduction to CRWD and Plan update process, and advertising watershed workshops. CRWD staff will ask interested individuals questions similar to those developed for the online survey and document any feedback provided.

Attendance at community events is anticipated to begin in late February and extend throughout the Plan update process. Attendance at community events through June will focus on collecting stakeholder input.

3.10 Stakeholder Engagement after Initial Input Phase The stakeholder engagement strategies described herein are concentrated at the beginning of the Plan update process to maximize use of the data throughout Plan development. However, CRWD will continue to engage stakeholders through the following strategies: Story Map and CRWD Website (see also Section 3.2) – CRWD will use the story map and its website to communicate important steps in Plan development. This information may include the results of phase I stakeholder engagement strategies, draft Plan content, and details about upcoming Plan update events.

Partner/External Community Events and Meetings (see also Section 3.9) – CRWD staff will continue to attend select community events (see Section 3.9) after the initial stakeholder engagement phase. CRWD will communicate the results of the initial stakeholder engagement phase and continue to build awareness of CRWD within the community. CRWD staff may update stakeholders on Plan progress and solicit information relevant to Plan implementation.

Ongoing CAC/TAC Workshops – Additional workshops with the CAC and TAC are planned following the initial stakeholder engagement phase. These workshops will shift the focus from “What should the Plan address?” to “How should the Plan address it?”

Formal Plan Review – Consistent with Minnesota Statutes 103B.231 Subd. 7, CRWD must submit the draft Plan to the Plan review authorities for a 60-day formal review. The Plan review authorities will provide comments on the draft Plan, which CRWD must address in writing prior to hosting a public hearing. During the review period, CRWD will also make the complete draft Plan for available on the CRWD website for public comment. CRWD is not obligated to respond to public comments received during the 60-day formal review period.

10

4.0

Schedule

Many of the stakeholder outreach strategies occur early in Plan development during the initial stakeholder engagement phase. Several of these strategies are scheduled concurrently. Figure 2 presents the planned sequence of stakeholder engagement strategies.

Figure 2

Flowchart of Stakeholder Engagement Strategies

11

5.0

Summary

Meaningful input from stakeholders is an important element of Plan development, informing issues, priorities, programs and projects. The strategies described herein are intended to sample a broad crosssection of Plan stakeholders. The strategies are concentrated in the early stages of Plan development from March through June so the results may be used to inform future tasks to the greatest extent possible.

Ongoing stakeholder engagement through attendance at community events, content hosted on the CRWD website and story map, and formal Plan review will increase CRWD visibility within the community and strengthen relationships that may benefit CRWD during Plan implementation.

12

February 6, 2019 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of January 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

A)

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (Vice President Mary Texer)

Managers Joe Collins Seitu Jones Shirley Reider Rick Sanders Mary Texer

B)

Staff Present Jessica Bromelkamp, CRWD Mark Doneux, CRWD Anna Eleria, CRWD Bob Fossum, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD Jim Mogen, Ramsey County Attorney

Public Attendees Pat Cavanaugh, CAC Julie Markel, Lower Phalen Melanie Klies, Lower Phalen Jacob Jurss, LPCP Jonathan Kusa, Interfluve Sarah Robertson, Hamline University

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda.

Motion 19-005: Approve the Agenda of January 16, 2018.

Reider/Sanders Unanimously Approved II.

Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda

Ms. Cavanaugh, shared information about a play at the Landmark Center on February 14-16th regarding diversity. The play is titled “Not in Our Neighborhood. Manger Jones added that CRWD Diversity group will be attending as a group and he would like to attend the play with the group.

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates

No Permits.

IV.

Special Reports - Phalen Creek Daylighting Study Update (Fossum)

Mr. Fossum provided the managers with an update of the Phalen Creek Corridor study. In 2017, the District received a project proposal for a Phalen Creek Daylighting Study from the Lower Phalen Creek

Project (LPCP). The District has moved this study forward as a separate project in partnership with the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) and the City of St. Paul. The Phalen Creek Corridor is ranked high in the District’s Stream Corridor Restoration Plan for all three evaluation factors (Opportunity Rating, Constructability, and District Goals). At the June 28, 2017 Board meeting, the Managers approved the Phalen Creek Corridor Study with Lower Phalen Creek Project, for an amount not to exceed $30,000. Lower Phalen Creek Project and its partners have completed both the technical review and community input/engagement components of the project. Mr. Fossum introduced Ms. Meanie Klies from the Lower Phalen Creek Project. Ms. Klies reviewed the partners involved and provided historic information about the area. Ms. Klies shared survey results from residents as to what they would like to see in the area.

Manger Jones asked if any lift stations would be needed. Mr. Kusa replied the plans include redirecting the water flow and would not require any lift stations. Manager Jones asked how much land would need to be acquired? Mr. Kusa replied that most of the land is public and already owned by the county or a city. Ms. Klies explained how they are keeping the community engaged and informed with activate volunteers. Manager Reider endorsed keeping the volunteers in other areas. Manager Jones recommended working together with CRWD and train volunteers to be water stewards. Manager Sanders suggested talking to schools. Ms. Klies shared how outreach has included schools & teachers near the area. Ms. Klies thanked the board of managers for their support V.

Action Items A)

AR:

Approve Minutes of the January 2, 2019 Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander).

Motion 19-006: Approve the Meeting Minutes of the January 2, 2019 Regular Board Meeting.

Reider/Sanders Unanimously approved B)

AR:

Approve December 2018 Accounts Payable/Receivable (Sylvander)

Motion 19-007: Approve December 2018 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Budget Report, direct Treasurer and Board President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments.

Reider/Collins Unanimously approved C)

AR:

Approve 2019 Special Grants (Zwonitzer)

Mr. Zwonitzer reviewed that each year CRWD budgets funds for Special Projects. The District typically sets a preliminary budget amount and then solicits applications for projects to fund.

Applications for 2019 Special Grant funds were due on October 31, 2018. CRWD received three project applications totaling $316,360. CRWD received fewer applications than usual, and the three projects are relatively small and simple compared to previous grant applications. Staff reviewed the projects and developed an award recommendation that was shared with the review committee consisting of two board

members and two Citizen Advisory Committee members. The review committee agreed with the staff recommendation and did not need to meet.

Mr. Zwonitzer reviewed the three applications. The Zero Abuse Project green/solar roof combination located in downtown Saint Paul is being recommended for partial funding. The Neighborhood Development Center requested funding for a green roof at a University Ave/Dale Street redevelopment site. The site will have many other stormwater management features funded by others including Metropolitan Council. Full funding for the green roof is recommended contingent on all other stormwater elements being installed and CRWD being recognized as contributing to the entire site’s stormwater management. President Collins said that he supports this project. This is a good example of what other buildings can do.

An application for Springboard for the Arts’ new building on University Ave. near Marion St. is not currently recommended for funding because it is early in the design phase. Mr. Zwonitzer shared that staff will continue working with the applicant to refine their designs and may recommend funding for the project in the future.

The Neighborhood Development Center at NW University & Dale is requesting funding for a green roof redevelopment site. The site will have many other stormwater management features funded by other including Metropolitan Council. Full funding for the green roof is recommended contingent on all other stormwater elements being installed and CRWD being recognized as contributing to the entire site’s stormwater management.

Manager Jones abstained from the motion.

Motion 19-008: Approve 2019 Special Grant awards as outlined in the following table and authorize Board President and Administrator to execute agreements pending approval of Assistant Ramsey County Attorney: Reider/Sanders Unanimously approved D)

AR:

Authorize New 2019 Staff positions (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux reviewed that the 2019 Work Plan and Budget includes 5 full-time employees for new positions within each of the five Divisions at CRWD (Administration, Communications, Planning, Projects and Grants, Regulatory and Monitoring and Research). The budget also included, again, two seasonal technicians, one for monitoring and one for the Regulatory Division. The positions have not changed from 2018 and will be advertised and filled as part of the second-round of 2019 staffing and hiring.

Each of these positions are entry level at Grade 6 with a salary range of $37,800 - $56,800. Diversity Plan elements that are included in this round include updates to the position description that reflect our intentions for diversity and inclusion in hiring. We will incorporate an external panelist for interviews.

All interview panelists will undergo implicit biased training. Promote positions and employment opportunities to new organizations

Motion 19-008: Approve new staff positions for Administrative Assistant, Water Resource Technician and Communications Associate and authorize staff to advertise and fill these positions.

Reider/Jones Unanimously approved E)

AR:

Adopt Resolution to Update CRWD Watershed Management Plan (Eleria)

Ms. Eleria reviewed that in late December 2018, the managers approved Barr Engineering Co. as the consultant to assist CRWD in updating its 10-year watershed management plan. The timeline for updating the plan spans a 20-month period from January 2019 to September 2020.

Motion 19-009: Adopt resolution to update CRWD’s Watershed Management Plan.

Reider/Jones Unanimously approved VI.

Unfinished Business A) 2018 Watershed Stewards Awards Update (Bromelkamp)

Ms. Bromelkamp shared an update on the Watershed Stewards Awards planned for Thursday, January 24th, 2019. The reception will begin in the lobby at 6:00 pm. The Design Team will be giving tours and the program will take place from 7:00 -8:00 pm. The event will be catered by Breaking Bread. Photos of the Board, Staff and CAC will take place from 8:00-8:30 pm. Ms. Bromelkamp will develop a script to be share with Managers.

An Open house is planned for Thursday January 31st from 3:00 – 5:00 pm. Managers are welcome to attend.

B) Targeted Watershed Program Update (Zwonitzer) Mr. Zwonitzer provided an update on the Targeted Watershed Program. There are currently two projects, the Como Region Park and Golf lot BMP. The goal of the Como Regional Park project is to treat runoff from park. Meetings are planned with the St. Paul Parks Department and Sewer Department next week. The Golf Lot BMP site has a number of challenges including a low pipe causing double treatment of runoff. Construction is scheduled to begin in mid-October 2019 and anticipated to be complete by July of 2020.

BWSR wants to amend the end date of grant funding. CRWD will try to meet new deadline of August 4, 2020.

VII. A)

General Information

Board of Managers Updates

Manger Texer will be attending the Environmental Initiative A public hearing is set for Friday, January 25, 2019 regarding the Ford site. Mr. Fossum and staff are aware of the meeting.

B)

Building Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux shared that the lighting designer is currently in town from Denver working on automatic shades and lighting programing. The cistern should be complete this week. A few punch list items still remain but overall the building should be in good shape for the Awards Ceremony on January 24th. A Building Manager has been selected. Manager Texer asked about the solar panels.

Administrator Doneux replied that they will be installed within the next month or two. The final artwork is getting installed this Friday. The pocket park will be installed in the spring.

Manager Texer shared that the 2019 IRS reimbursement mileage rate has changed to .58/mile.

VIII. Next Meetings A) B) C) D) E)

Thursday, January 24, 2019 CRWD Awards Program 6-8 pm, Program starts at 7:00 pm Tuesday, January 29, 2019 Metro MAWD 7:00 pm Thursday, January 31, 2019 CRWD Open House 3:00-5:00 pm Wednesday, February 6, 2019 Board Meeting, Workshop at 5:00 pm.

Wednesday, February 13, 2019 CAC Meeting 7:00 pm. President Collins will attend

IX.

Adjournment

Motion 19-010: Adjournment of the January 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting at 6:45 p.m.

Reider/Sanders Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander

February 6, 2019 V. Action Items B) Adopt Revised Diversity Statement (Doneux) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 1, 2019 CRWD Board of Managers Mark Doneux, Administrator Diversity Statement

Background In 2010, CRWD’s Board of Managers developed the following diversity statement.

“The Capitol Region Watershed District embraces and values diversity and seeks to recruit, promote and retain employees that reflect the community we serve. We believe that a diverse mix of employees enrich the workplace and enhance the quality of our service. The Capitol Region Watershed District encourages all qualified to apply for open positions.”

Issues As part of the 2019 Best Hiring Practices staff requested a review of the current job description. Dana Mitchell Assistant Ramsey County Attorney reviewed and revised the diversity statement as part of her review. Ms. Mitchell made the following suggestion: Capitol Region Watershed District embraces and values diversity and inclusion. CRWD seeks to recruit, promote and retain employees that reflect the community we serve. We believe that diversity enriches the workplace and enhances the quality of our service. We are committed to a team that represents a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and skills. Capitol Region Watershed District encourages anyone who is interested and qualified to apply for open positions.

Action Requested Adopt the revised Diversity Statement.

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

W:\04 Board of Managers\Diversity Plan\Diversity Strategic Planning\Board Memo_Diversity Strategic Plan 8-15-18

2

February 6, 2019 Board Meeting V. C. Approve 2019 Lake Monitoring Agreement with Ramsey County (Wein)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 6, 2019 CRWD Board of Managers Sarah Wein, Water Resource Technician Approval of 2019 Lake Monitoring Agreement with Ramsey County

Background Ramsey County Public Works (RCPW) has been conducting in-lake water quality testing on all Ramsey County lakes, including CRWD’s five District Lakes (Como, Crosby, Little Crosby, Loeb, McCarrons).

At each lake, water quality data is collected twice monthly from May-September. The data collected includes chemical, physical, and biological parameters that are measured along a depth profile at set sampling locations on each lake. The data is provided by RCPW to CRWD for analysis and reporting.

CRWD has provided financial support to RCPW for lake sampling services since 2005.

Following recommendations outlined in the 2014 Monitoring Program Review and the Como Lake Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study, CRWD has worked with RCPW to increase monthly monitoring of District lakes to include April and October sampling. This extension of the sampling season is intended to capture early- and late-season water chemistry fluctuations, which helps to inform in-lake processes.

Overview With assistance from the Ramsey County Attorney, RCPW has developed an annual cooperative agreement for all services related to CRWD Lake monitoring. This annual contract from RCPW is being proposed for all 2019 lake water quality sampling and requires approval. The estimated cost for 2019 Baseline (Exhibit C) and Extended Baseline (Exhibit D) sampling is $41,938.07.

Staff will review and recommend approval of the agreement and key elements with the Managers.

Requested Action Approve 2019 Lake Monitoring Agreement with Ramsey County. enc:

Ramsey County Agreement with CRWD for 2019 Lake Monitoring Services

"W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\2019 Monitoring\2019 Lakes\2019 RCPW Contract\2019_RCPW Contract Board Memo_020619_FINAL.docx"

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

Agreement PUBW2019-01R RAMSEY COUNTY AGREEMENT WITH THE CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED for 2019 LAKE MONITORING SERVICES This Agreement is between the Capitol Region Watershed District, a local special purpose unit of government (“Watershed”) and Ramsey County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, ("County") for the testing of water quality, within the Watershed, within Ramsey County.

RECITALS 1. County is in possession of water quality testing facilities and capability.

2. Watershed desires County, upon request, to perform water quality testing on its behalf.

3. Watershed is willing to pay County costs and expenses for such tests.

4. All tests requested by Watershed will be within the Watershed’s boundaries and within Ramsey County.

AGREEMENT 1. Scope of Agreement 1.1. County will perform a water quality testing protocol for Watershed pursuant to the 2009 Ramsey County Lake Management Program Sampling Protocol (“Baseline Request”) at the locations and according to the parameters as listed in Exhibit A. Baseline testing will be performed eight times per year at each location between the dates of May 1st and September 30th.

1.2. Upon request, and subject to staffing or other limitations, County will perform Additional Testing as directed by the Watershed. Additional Testing will be performed within 2 weeks of receiving request.

1.3. Watershed has made a special request for an extended water quality testing protocol as identified in Exhibit D (“Extended Baseline Request”).

1.4. This agreement is limited to the services requested and provided between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019.

2. Water Quality Testing Services

1

2.1. County staff will collect samples, preserve and transport samples and perform water quality tests or otherwise arrange for testing in accordance with Section 3 herein.

2.2. All tests will be performed in accordance with accepted industry standards. The designated standards for each test is identified in Exhibit B. 2.3. Nothing herein is intended to transfer any statutory duties or responsibilities.

3. Sub-contracting for Testing Services 3.1. If the County is unable to perform the testing, County may sub-contract for the water quality testing to be performed by a qualified third-party.

3.2. Qualified sub-contractors will comply with industry standards and will be solicited in accordance with state law and County procedures. The County will maintain a list of qualified sub-contractors.

3.3. Prior to submitting a sample for testing to a qualified sub-contractor, County will obtain a quote for the procedure and specific number of samples, and will provide the specific quote and the identity of the contractor to Watershed. County will not proceed with testing until it receives written approval by the Watershed to proceed.

If Watershed does not provide approval, Watershed will continue to responsible for the Baseline Request Fee, as provided in Section 5.1.

4. Test Reports and Samples 4.1. County will deliver test reports to Watershed within 30 days of availability, or when otherwise requested.

4.2. Upon transmittal to Watershed, County is not responsible for maintaining a record of the sample, the test or its results.

4.3. County and Watershed shall be considered joint owners of the tests, and may use, share or distribute the same in any non-commercial manner. The samples will be disposed of at the County’s discretion.

5. Water Quality Test Fees 5.1. Except as provided in Section 5.2, County will perform the sampling, transportation, and testing for the Baseline Request and the Extended Baseline Request, if any, at a flat rate. The flat rate is based on the quantity of testing done in the previous year and the current year’s labor and testing rates, plus a pro rata portion of the County’s identified equipment costs. The flat rate for the current year is provided and itemized in Exhibit C.

2

5.2. The flat rate fee identified in Section 5.1 will be credited for any test performed by a sub-contractor pursuant to Section 3. The credit will be equal to the per sample cost identified in Exhibit B. 5.3. County will perform Additional Testing, as provided in Section 1.2, at the rate provided in Exhibit B or the rate quoted by the qualified sub-contractor, for any requested collection, transportation, or testing.

5.4. Watershed will reimburse County for any testing performed by qualified subcontractor at the rate charged, with no mark-up.

6. Payment Schedule 6.1. County will invoice for the Baseline Request, and any Extended Baseline Request, fees, less any credit, in November following the testing season.

6.2. County will invoice for any Additional Testing services in November, along with the invoice for the Section 6.1 fees.

6.3. County will invoice Watershed for any third-party costs as incurred.

6.4. Watershed will pay all invoices within 60 days of receipt.

7. The Watershed shall be responsible for ensuring County has access to the property listed in Exhibit A, and grants license over any property owned by the Watershed, as needed, to perform any services under this agreement.

8. The Watershed and County shall indemnify, defend, and hold each other harmless against any and all liability, losses, costs, damages, expenses, claims, or actions, including attorney’s fees, which the indemnified party, its officials, agents, or employees may hereafter sustain, incur, or be required to pay, arising out of or by reason of any act or omission of the indemnifying party, its officials, agents, or employees, in the execution, performance, or failure to adequately perform the indemnifying party’s obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver by the County or the Watershed of any statutory or common law immunities, liability limits, or exceptions on liability 9. County will maintain all records pertaining to fees or costs incurred in connection with the services for six years from the date of completion of the services. County agrees that any authorized Watershed representative or the state auditor may have access to and the right to examine, audit and copy any such records during normal business hours.

10. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. Any amendment must be in writing.

3

Capitol Region Watershed District By: _______________________________ Administrator

Date:______________________

RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA _________________________________ Ryan T. O’Connor, County Manager

Date: ____________________________

Approval recommended: _________________________________ Ted Schoenecker, Director Public Works Department

Date: ____________________________

Approved as to form: _________________________________ Assistant County Attorney

4

Exhibit A: Baseline Request Lake Sites to be Tested Under Baseline Agreement Lake Name

DNR Lake ID

DNR Lake Site ID

Crosby

62-0047

201

McCarron

62-0054

101

Como

62-0055

102, 201, 202

Little Crosby

62-0225

201

Loeb

62-0231

201

Water Parameters to be Tested • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Ammonia Nitrogen Chloride Chlorophyll a Dissolved Oxygen Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen pH Phytoplankton Community Analysis Secchi Disk Depth Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Specific Conductivity Temperature Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids Total Volatile Solids Turbidity Zooplankton Community Analysis

Exhibit B: Laboratory Analysis Methods and Rates Procedure

Method

Method Year

Cost/Sample*

Alkalinity

SM 2320B

2011

$8.51

Ammonia

EPA 350.1 rev 2.0

1993

$11.55

Chlorophyll-a

SM 10200-H

2017

$35.00

Chloride

SM 4500-Cl- B

2011

$9.40

Coliform, Total and E. Coli

SM 9223B(Colilert)

2004

$33.00

Hardness

SM 2340 C

2011

$7.51

Nitrate plus Nitrite

SM 4500-NO3 H

2011

$10.81

Ortho Phosphorus (SRP)

EPA 365.1

1993

$15.85

pH

SM 4500-H+ B

2011

$4.32

Phytoplankton Analysis

SM 10200 F

2017

$61.25

Total Dissolved Phosphorus

EPA 365.1

1993

$16.89

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

EPA 351.2 rev 2.0

1993

$15.00

Total Phosphorus

EPA 365.1

1993

$10.26

Total Suspended Solids

SM 2540 D

2011

$17.00

Total Volatile Solids

EPA 160.4

1971

$3.92

Turbidity

EPA 180.1

1993

$5.49

Zooplankton Analysis

SM 10200 G

2017

$61.25

Labor

$81.49

*Rates subject to review on an annual basis. Rates may be changed with approval by both parties.

EXHIBIT C: BASELINE REQUEST ESTIMATED PROGRAM AND FLAT FEE 2019

CRWD baseline Analysis 2019

Count

Cost/$

Subtotal/$

TP-MG/L

212

$10.26

$2,175.12

SRP-MG/L

212

$15.85

$3,360.20

TDP-MG/L

0

$16.89

$0.00

108

$9.40

$1,015.20

pH

0

$4.32

$0.00

ALK-MG/L

0

$8.51

$0.00

TURB-NTU

212

$5.49

$1,163.88

0

$7.51

$0.00

TKN-MG/L

136

$15.00

$2,040.00

NH3-MG/L

136

$11.55

$1,570.80

NO3-NO2-MG/L

136

$10.81

$1,470.16

TSS-MG/L

16

$17.00

$272.00

VS-MG/L

16

$3.92

$62.72

CCHLA-MG/M3

112

$35.00

$3,920.00

E. coli/Tot coli.

0

$33.00

$0.00

Zooplankton

40

$61.25

$2,450.00

Phytoplankton

40

$61.25

$2,450.00

$9,761.00

$1,638.38

$81.49

$7,171.12

Subtotal 1

$30,759.58

CL-MG/L

Hardness

Equipment Labor

17% 88

EXHIBIT D: EXTENDED BASELINE REQUEST PROGRAM CRWD spring/fall Analysis 2019

2019 Count

Cost/$

Subtotal/$

TP-MG/L

78

$10.26

$800.28

SRP-MG/L

78

$15.85

$1,236.30

CL-MG/L

46

$9.40

$432.40

TURB-NTU

78

$5.49

$428.22

TKN-MG/L

54

$15.00

$810.00

NH3-MG/L

54

$11.55

$623.70

NO3-NO2-N-MG/L

54

$10.81

$583.74

CCHLA-MG/M3

46

$35.00

$1,610.00

Zooplankton

13

$61.25

$796.25

Phytoplankton

13

$61.25

$796.25

TSS-MG/L

10

$17.00

$170.00

VS-MG/L

10

$3.92

$39.20

Labor

35

$81.49

$2,852.15

Subtotal 2

$11,178.49

February 6, 2019 Regular Board Meeting

VI.) Unfinished Business A) 2019

Rule Revision Update (Kelley)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 1, 2019 CRWD Board of Managers Forrest Kelley, PE Regulatory Division Manager 2019 Rules Informal Review and Comment

Background The Joint Rules Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on September 19, 2018. Including watershed district staff, twenty-five individuals attended the meeting.

Issues CRWD and RWMWMD distributed the attached documents to the TAC on January 23rd and requested preliminary comment on the draft rule revisions by February 6th. Staff will review comments received with the Board at the meeting Comments will be incorporated into the final draft of the proposed revisions as appropriate staff anticipate a request for Board authorization for 60-day review period on March 6th, 2019.

Requested Action None, for review and comment only Enc:

Request for Informal Review Memo (electronic copy only) 09-19-18 TAC Meeting Notes (electronic copy only) Wenck Cost Cap Memo (electronic copy only) Barr Stormwater Impact Fund Memo (electronic copy only) 2019 CRWD Draft Rule Revisions (electronic copy only)

W:\07 Programs\Rules\2019\Board Memo Informal Rule Review 02-06-19.docx

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

DATE:

January 23, 2019

TO:

Technical Advisory Committee

FROM:

Paige Ahlborg, RWMWD Forrest Kelley, CRWD

SUBJECT:

Rule Amendment Informal Review and Comment

The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) and Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) adopted stormwater management rules effective October 1, 2006. Since then the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has regularly convened to review the rules and provide comments on potential amendments to the rules. In September 2018, a number of items were brought before the TAC for review. The attached Draft Rules address items presented in September as well as comments and suggestions given by the TAC. The following is a list of proposed changes to the rules.

• • • • • • •

Clarifications to language in Table 3- Flood Control and Freeboard Requirements.

Increase runoff cap on volume reduction designs and banking credits from 2” to 2.5”.

Increase Stormwater Impact Fund contribution to $100,000 per acre of impervious.

Pending rule approval, this will go into effect January 1, 2020. Please start budgeting accordingly.

Increase linear cost cap to $75,000 per acre of impervious. Pending rule approval, this will go into effect January 1, 2020. Please start budgeting accordingly.

Add language to allow regional compliance.

Revise application requirements to allow for electronic submittals.

Miscellaneous minor grammar and formatting corrections and clarifications not tracked in this version. If you would like to review the entire redlined version, please contact Paige Ahlborg.

Please submit comments to forrest@capitolregionwd.org or paige.ahlborg@rwmwd.org by February 6, 2019. Comments will be reviewed and incorporated where feasible prior to the formal review period. The 60 day formal review period is expected to start in March with final rules going into place in June 2019.

DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

October 10, 2018 Technical Advisory Committee Paige Ahlborg, RWMWD Forrest Kelley, CRWD September 19, 2018 TAC Meeting Summary

Attendees: Jesse Freihammer, Roseville/Falcon Heights Chris Buntjer, Oakdale Emily Stephens WSB/Woodbury Pat Murphy, St. Paul Barb Mundah,l St. Paul Wes Saunders-Pearce, St. Paul Jen Sorensen, DNR Ava Langston-Kenney, Port Authority Beth Neuendorf, Mn/DOT Ben Meyer, BWSR Joe Mulcahy, Met Council Todd Shoemaker, Wenck Eric Osterdyk, Wenck

Steve Love, Maplewood Brandon Barnes, Barr Erin Anderson-Wenz, Barr Molly Churchich, Ramsey County Forrest Kelley, CRWD Elizbeth Hosch, CRWD David Dahle, CRWD Mark Doneux, CRWD Nicole Soderholm, RWMWD Paige Ahlborg, RWMWD Tina Carstens, RWMWD Anna Beining, RWMWD

Watershed district staff presented the attached power point outlining the potential rule amendments and clarifications being considered: Flood Control and Freeboard Barb: • City Streets are designed for the 5-year event. Floodproofing underground storage systems to the 100-year HWL is an added expense.

Wes: • Consider better distinguishing Local WD flood rule from FEMA to minimize confusion.

Forrest clarified new definition is based on FEMA’s. Upon further review and discussion, general agreement with proposed changes. Nothing further.

Joe: • How many variances have been approved? CRWD Database indicates 6 variances approved from freeboard requirements.

Increase maximum runoff depth for BMP sizing from 2” to 2.5” • Minimal Discussion Cost Cap and Stormwater Impact Fund Analysis – Increase from $30,000 to $75,000/impervious acre and $40,000 to $100,000/impervious acre, respectively.

Barb/Pat: • Cost cap increase has a big impact on budgeting, 2019 funds have been allocated. Can it be increased incrementally? Forrest indicated the increase would not go into effect until 2020.

• Consider including gross pollutant removal in the costs attributed to the cost cap.

• University Ave project – St. Paul spent $95k on gross pollutant removal and still had to withdraw from bank. Seems unfair to require both.

Wes: • Are private roads eligible for cost cap? Forrest noted that private linear projects are rare, but that the rules do not differentiate between public and private, but it the cost cap has generally not been “advertised” in conversations on private linear projects.

Mark: • Costs are increasing, and the cap has stayed the same, resulting in less treatment, In addition to increasing the cap, new cost effective designs should be explored to achieve more treatment, more cost effectively.

Regional Compliance Language.

• Minimal Discussion Other Administrative Clarifications Steve: • Is there any guidance on the definition of ‘additional engineering’ when it comes to infiltration restrictions, in DWSMAs for example? District’s would defer to guidance from MDH, but level of additional engineering will likely depend on specific details of each scenario.

Sidewalk Impervious Exemption Request Barb: • Green Infrastructure on streets was a frequent topic a few years ago. St. Paul is now moving towards being more pedestrian-friendly, bicycle friendly, which means more sidewalks and bike lanes. Many competing interests.

• Having to treat stormwater for sidewalk impervious increases costs. The 3’ sidewalk exemption in the current rules would not be approved for ADA. The boulevards are so compacted from people walking on them that they are practically impervious already.

Forrest: • Watershed Districts have reviewed some trail and sidewalk projects as being disconnected impervious through the guidance within the MN Stormwater Manual Steve: • Is there a variance for treatment (including rate control) for stand-alone sidewalk projects? It’s difficult to achieve if the roads aren’t being torn up.

Forrest: • CRWD has issued 5 variances for rate control on small linear projects that increased impervious surface, but utilized banked credits for volume.

Request to amend Filtration Credit Paige: • Extensive review of existing data on filtration practice effectiveness was completed as part of the 2015 amendments. No changes proposed at this time.

Additional Considerations Beth: • Mn/DOT does not recommend collecting surety from contractors on public projects.

They have performance bonds that can be used to enforce contract requirements.

Jesse: • Roseville collects sureties and deducts for non-compliance Wes: • Acknowledged the amount of work put into ensuring compliance on construction sites, and closing permits out.

• Consider implementing a requirement that stormwater O&M plans be signed by the property owner and/or acknowledged receipt

Technical Memo To:

Mr. Forrest Kelley, Capitol Region Watershed District

From:

Todd Shoemaker, PE, CFM Eric Osterdyk, EIT

Date:

September 27, 2018

Subject: Research for Potential 2018 Permit Cost Cap Changes Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District staff met on December 18, 2017 to discuss potential changes to their permit program rules. Staff tasked Wenck with researching and providing information regarding cost cap adjustment. Our research and recommendations are presented below.

Determine if Cost Cap Adjustment is Necessary and, if so, by How Much.

1. Issue a. Cost cap has not been adjusted since March 2008. b. Should the cap amount be adjusted?

2. Considerations a. National Numbers: 1. Chesapeake Bay = $150k/imp acre 2. San Francisco = $600k+/imp acre 3. Pittsburgh = $150k – 200k/imp acre a. (http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/pwsa/7._Cost_Estimates_Development.p df) 4. New York = $129k/imp acre a. Water Environment Federation (WEF) http://stormwater.wef.org/2015/12/real-cost-green-infrastructure/ b. Filtered list such that only linear projects that hit the cost cap were included in analysis.

1. Of the projects considered, two were constructed when the cost cap was $20,000 per acre. Resolution increasing the cost cap to $30,000 per acre was adopted on March 5, 2008 (Resolution #08-03-07). Permits 07-011 and 07-013 were approved in 2007.

2. The oldest project with the $30,000 cost cap is 10-003 (CCLRT).

3. Four projects were excluded: one because it resulted in extremely high $175/cf and three that provided bank credits, which resulted in 195%, 325%, and 1,925% of required volume.

4. Volumes used in charts/calculations below reflect “equivalent” volumes.

Equivalent Volume = Volume Retained + Volume Filtered / 1.82

Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com

Mr. Forrest Kelley Regulatory Division Manager Capitol Region Watershed District September 27, 2018

Figure 1. Cost estimate per effective storage.

Based on Figure 1: 5. Increasing trend but poor correlation (R2 value is 0.15).

6. In 2008, one cf of storage cost approximately $15.

7. In 2018, one cf of storage costs approximately $37.

8. The increase from $15 to $37 over ten years corresponds to an average increase in cost of 9.7%/yr. Average US inflation rate over the same period was about 2.7%/yr.

2 S:\Permit Inspection\2018\TAC\Informal Review\M - Kelley, Forrest re Rules Research_V5.docx

Mr. Forrest Kelley Regulatory Division Manager Capitol Region Watershed District September 27, 2018

Figure 2. Storage provided per impervious acre.

Based on Figure 2: 9. Decreasing trend but poor correlation (R2 value is 0.10).

10. In 2008, approximately 3,316 cf of storage was provided per impervious acre.

11. In 2018, approximately 2,117 cf of storage will be provided per impervious acre.

3. Options a. Option 1: Set cost cap to $75,000/impervious acre.

1. This was determined by taking the 2008 cost cap ($30,000/imp acre) plus the average increase of stormwater management cost (9.7%) over the past 10 years.

2. $75,000 in 2018 achieves approximately 2,017 cf of storage or 0.56” runoff depth off impervious.

3. For reference, 0.56” is approximately the abstraction depth (0.55”) recommended by MIDS for linear projects. b. Option 2: Set cost cap to $150,000/impervious acre.

1. This was determined by taking the 2018 cost/cubic ft trendline from Figure 1.

2. $150,000 in 2018 achieves approximately 3,993 cf of storage or 1.1” runoff depth off impervious.

3 S:\Permit Inspection\2018\TAC\Informal Review\M - Kelley, Forrest re Rules Research_V5.docx

Mr. Forrest Kelley Regulatory Division Manager Capitol Region Watershed District September 27, 2018

c. Option 3: Set cost cap to $112,000/impervious acre (halfway between options 1 and 2 above) 1. $112,000 in 2018 achieves approximately 3,005 cf of storage or 0.83” runoff depth off impervious. d. Option 4: No cost cap, applicant will be required to meet full 1.1” of runoff regardless of cost.

4 S:\Permit Inspection\2018\TAC\Informal Review\M - Kelley, Forrest re Rules Research_V5.docx

Memorandum To: From: Subject: Date: Project: c:

Paige Ahlborg & Nicole Soderholm, RWMWD Brandon Barnes Stormwater Impact Fee Assessment October 26, 2018 23-62-0031.16-180-010 Tina Carstens RWMWD Forrest Kelley, Elizabeth Hosch, CRWD Erin Anderson Wenz, Barr

Rule C: Stormwater Management Section 3(c)(2) describes the Alternative Compliance Sequencing for sites where the volume reduction standard cannot be fully met onsite with infiltration BMP. Section 3(c)(2)(iii) allows, as a last alternative, for the applicant to pay a stormwater impact fee (SIF) into the District’s Stormwater Impact Fund to cover the cost of implementing equivalent volume reduction elsewhere in the watershed. The Rule states that, “the required amount to contribute to the Stormwater Impact Fund shall be set by the Board annually.” RWMWD last set the SIF at $40,000 per acre of impervious area in 2008, and are interested in updating the SIF based on current construction costs.

Barr and RWMWD staff considered construction costs for several types of BMPs. Construction costs included in the evaluation were selected based on the following criteria. 

The BMP was constructed between 2015 and 2018. Barr and RWMWD staff selected a cutoff of 2015 because that is when the District adopted the current rules and the volume reduction requirement was revised from 0.9-inches of runoff to 1.1-inches of runoff from new and disturbed impervious surfaces.



Only above ground infiltration and filtration BMPs were considered. Typically more expensive BMPs such as tree trenches, green roofs, and porous pavement were not considered.



Costs data for both public and private projects were included in the evaluation.



Costs were limited to construction costs. Costs associated with future maintenance of a regional BMP were not considered

Construction costs were converted to 2018 dollars using ENR Construction Cost Indices. Costs were then normalized based on the infiltration volume provided by each BMP. Figure 1 shows the construction cost per cubic foot of infiltration volume provided for the 68 BMPs evaluated.

Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Paige Ahlborg & Nicole Soderholm, RWMWD Brandon Barnes Stormwater Impact Fee Assessment October 26, 2018 2

BMP Cost Evaluation $/CF $200 $180 $160 $140

$/CF

$120 $100 $80 $60

$40

Average $27.11/cf

$20 $0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BMP No.

Figure 1.

Construction Cost per Cubic Foot of Volume Reduction Provided

The District’s current volume reduction requirement of 1.1-inches for new and disturbed impervious surfaces is equivalent to 3,993 CF of infiltration volume per impervious acre. Based on the average construction cost of $27.11/CF of infiltration volume provided, the SIF would be $108,250 per impervious acre (i.e., $27.11/CF x 3,993 CF/acre of impervious area = $108,250).

For comparison, RWMWD and CRWD staff presented Stormwater Impact Fees from other areas of the country at the September 19, 2018 TAC meeting. Stormwater Impact Fees presented included: 

Chesapeake Bay: $150,000 per acre of impervious area



San Francisco: $600,000+ per acre of impervious area



Pittsburgh: $150,000 to $200,000 per acre of impervious area



New York: $129,000 per acre of impervious area



Roseville, MN: $89,842.50 per acre of impervious area

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362031\WorkFiles\RWMWD_2018\PermitReview\_BMP_cost_summary\Memo\SIF_Update_10-26-2018.docx

Capitol Region Watershed District Rules Adopted 09/06/2006 Effective 10/01/2006 Revised xx/xx/2019 Table of Contents Certification of Rules

2

General Policy Statement

2

Relationship to Municipalities

3

Rule A. Definitions

4

Rule B. Permit Procedural Requirements

10

Rule C. Stormwater Management

13

Rule D. Flood Control

20

Rule E. Wetland Management

24

Rule F. Erosion and Sediment Control

26

Rule G. Illicit Discharge and Connection

28

Rule H. Enforcement

34

Rule I. Variances

34

Rule J. Severability

35

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

Commented [FK1]: Update page numbers

1

Certification of Rules

I, ___________________, Secretary of the Capitol Region Watershed District Board of Managers, certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the Rules of the Capitol Region Watershed District having been properly adopted by the Board of Managers of the Capitol Region Watershed District.

Dated: _____________________

General Policy Statement

The Capitol Region Watershed District (District) is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, established under the Minnesota Watershed Law, Minnesota State Statute 103d. The District is also a watershed management organization as defined under the Minnesota Metropolitan Water Management Program and is subject to its directives and authorizations. Under the Watershed Law and the Metropolitan Water Management Program, the District exercises a series of powers to accomplish its statutory purposes.

The District's general statutory purpose as stated in 103d.201 is to conserve the natural resources of the state by land use planning, flood control, and other conservation projects by using sound scientific principles for the protection of the public health and welfare and the provident use of the natural resources.

As required under the Metropolitan Water Management Program, the District has adopted a Watershed Management Plan, which contains the framework and guiding principles for the District in carrying out its statutory purposes. It is the District's intent to implement the Plan's goals and policies in these rules.

Land alteration affects the rate, volume, and quality of surface water runoff which ultimately must be accommodated by the existing surface water systems within the District. The watershed is 40.6 square miles and highly urbanized.

Land alteration and urbanization has and can continue to degrade the quality of runoff entering the waterbodies of the District due to non-point source pollution. Sedimentation from ongoing erosion processes and construction activities can reduce the hydraulic capacity of waterbodies and degrade water quality. Water quality problems already exist in all ofall the lakes and other water resources throughout the District. The Mississippi River is the principalle receiving water for all runoff from the District and is listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as “impaired�. Como Lake, a high priority water resource of the District, is also listed as impaired.

Projects that do not address the increased rate or volume of stormwater runoff from urban development can aggravate existing flooding and water quality problems and contribute to or create new ones. Projects which fill floodplain or wetland areas without compensatory storage can aggravate existing flooding by reducing flood storage and hydraulic capacity of waterbodies, and can degrade water quality by eliminating the filtering capacity of those areas.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

2

In these rules the District seeks to protect the public health and welfare and the natural resources of the District by providing reasonable regulation of the District's lands and waters to: 1) reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water, 2) to preserve floodplain and wetland storage capacity, 3) to improve the chemical, physical and biological quality of surface water, 4) to reduce sedimentation, 5) to preserve waterbodies' hydraulic and navigational capacity, 6) to preserve natural wetland and shoreland features, and 7) to minimize future public expenditures to avoid or correct these problems.

Relationship of Capitol Region Watershed District to Municipalities

The District recognizes that the primary control and determination of appropriate land uses is the responsibility of the municipalities. Accordingly, the District will coordinate permit application reviews involving land development with the municipality where the land is located. The District is the primary water quality and stormwater runoff management entity within the watershed boundaries, however, cities are also actively involved in water resource management projects and programs.

The District intends to be active in the regulatory process to ensure that water resources are managed in accordance with District goals and policies. The District began implementing rules effective October 1, 2006. All developments that did not have municipal approval on or before October 1, 2006 will require a District permit under these Rules. Municipalities have the option of assuming a more active role in the permitting process after the adoption of a local water management plan approved by the District, and by adopting and implementing local ordinances consistent with the approved plan.

The District will also review projects sponsored or undertaken by municipalities and other governmental units, and will require permits of the contractor in accordance with these rules for governmental projects which have an impact on water resources of the District. These projects include but are not limited to: land development, road, trail, and utility construction.

The District desires to serve as technical advisor to the municipalities in their preparation of local surface water management plans and the review of individual development proposals prior to investment of significant public or private funds. To promote a coordinated review process between the District and the municipalities, the District encourages the municipalities to involve the District early in the planning process.

Rule A:

DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, the following words and terms have the meanings set forth below.

References in these Rules to specific sections of the Minnesota Statutes or Rules include CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

3

any amendments, revisions or recodification of such sections. References in these Rules to manuals, plans, rules, assessments, modeling methods, technical guidance or District policies shall include any revisions or amendments.

The words “shall” and “must” are mandatory; the word “may” is permissive.

Adjacent. An area of land that has a common boundary or edge with a water resource or development.

Alteration or Alter. When used in connection with public waters or wetlands, any activity that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of public waters or wetlands.

Applicant. Any person or political subdivision that submits an application to the District for a permit under these Rules.

Atlas 14. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) precipitation event frequency and magnitude estimates. Replaces TP-40.

Banking Credits. Volume reduction in excess of the standard for use on subsequent projects unable to meet the standard onsite.

Best Management Practices (BMPs). Measures taken to minimize negative effects on the environment including those documented in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual.

Board or Board of Managers. The Board of Managers of the Capitol Region Watershed District.

Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), and any subsequent amendments thereto.

Common Plan of Development or Sale. A contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct land disturbing activities may be taking place at different times, on different schedules, but under one proposed plan. One plan is broadly defined to include design, permit application, advertisement or physical demarcation indicating that land disturbing activities may occur.

Compensatory Storage. Excavated volume of material below the floodplain elevation required to offset floodplain fill.

Criteria. Specific details, methods, and specifications that apply to all permits and reviews and that guide implementation of the District's goals and policies.

Critical Duration Storm Event. The storm duration that produces the largest peak discharge rates within a channel or storm sewer system and the highest water surface elevation within a water body.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

4

De Minimis. An amount so small or minimal in difference that it does not matter or the law does not take it into consideration.

Development. Any land disturbance, redevelopment affecting land, or creation/replacement of impervious surface, including but not limited to, road and/or parking lot construction or reconstruction.

District. The Capitol Region Watershed District established under the Minnesota Watershed Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D. Drainage Way. All water conveyance systems including but not limited to storm sewers, ditches, culverts, and open channels.

Erosion. The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of wind, flowing water, ice movement, or land disturbance.

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. A plan of BMPs or equivalent measures designed to control runoff and erosion and to retain or control sediment on land during the period of land disturbance in accordance with the standards set forth in these Rules.

Excavation. The artificial displacement or removal of soil or other material.

Fill. The deposit of soil or other earth materials by artificial means.

Floodplain. The area adjoining a watercourse or natural or man-made water body, including the area around lakes, marshes, and lowlands, that is inundated during a 100year flood.

Freeboard. The vertical distance between the regulatory high-water elevation calculated by hydrologic modeling and the regulatory elevation on a structure or roadway.

Gross Pollutants. Larger particles of litter, vegetative debris, floatable debris and coarse sediments in stormwater runoff.

Habitable. Any enclosed space usable for living or business purposes, which includes but is not limited to: working, sleeping, eating, cooking, recreation, office, office storage, or any combination thereof. An area used only for storage incidental to a residential use is not included in the definition of "Habitable."

Hazardous Materials. Any material, including any substance, waste, or combination thereof, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may cause, or significantly contribute to, a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, safety, property, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

5

Illicit Connections. An illicit connection is defined as either of the following: 1. Any drain or conveyance, whether on the surface or subsurface, which allows an illegal discharge to enter the storm drain system including but not limited to any conveyances which allow any non- stormwater discharge including sewage, process wastewater, and wash water to enter the storm drain system and any connections to the storm drain system from indoor drains and sinks, regardless of whether said drain or connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or approved by a political subdivision.

2. Any drain or conveyance connected from a commercial or industrial land use to the storm drain system that has not been documented in plans, maps, or equivalent records and approved by a political subdivision.

Illicitegal Discharge. Any direct or indirect non-stormwater discharge to the storm drain system, except as exempted in Paragraph 5 of Rule G in these Rules.

Impaired Waters. A waterbody that does not meet water quality standards and designated uses because of pollutant(s), pollution, or unknown causes of impairment.

Impervious Surface. A surface compacted or covered with material so as to be highly resistant to infiltration by runoff. Impervious surface shall include roads, driveways and parking areas, sidewalks or trails greater than three feet wide, whether or not paved, patios, tennis and basketball courts, swimming pools, covered decks, and other structures.

Infiltration. A stormwater retention method for the purpose of reducing the volume of stormwater runoff by transmitting a flow of water into the ground through the earth’s surface.

Infiltration Area. An area set aside or constructed where stormwater from impervious surface runoff is treated and disposed of into the soil by percolation and filtration, and includes, but is not limited to: infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, dry wells, underground infiltration systems, and permeable pavement.

Iron-Enhanced Sand. Any Best Management Practice (BMP) that incorporates filtration media mixed with iron to remove dissolved phosphorus from stormwater.

Land Disturbance. Any activity on property that results in a change or alteration in the existing ground cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to: development, redevelopment, demolition, construction, reconstruction, clearing, grading, filling, stockpiling, excavation, and borrow pits. Routine vegetation management, and road milling/overlay activities that do not alter the soil material beneath the road base, will not be considered land disturbance. In addition, in-kind catch basin and pipe repair/replacement done in conjunction with a mill/overlay project shall not be considered land disturbance.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

6

Landlocked Basin. A basin that does not have a natural outlet at or below the 100-year flood elevation, as determined by the 100-year ten-day runoff event.

Linear Project. Roads, trails, and sidewalks that are not part of a common plan of development or sale.

Low Floor. The finished surface of the lowest floor of a structure. The floor of the lowest enclosed area including the basement. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area shall not be considered a building’s lowest floor.

Low Opening. The elevation of the lowest hydraulically connected entry point to a structure such as a door or window

Commented [FK2]: Added language for clarification and consistency with FEMA definitions. No regulatory change proposed.

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). The conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutter, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains): 1. Owned and operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to state law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other wastes, including special districts under state law or such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian organization, or a designated and approved management Agency under section 208 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C § 1288) that discharges to waters of the United States; 2. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; 3. Which is not a combined sewer; and 4. Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR § 122.2.

Municipality. Any city wholly or partly within the Capitol Region Watershed District.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit. A permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the State.

Non-Point Source Pollution. Pollution that enters a water body from diffuse origins inon the watershed and does not result from discernable, confined, or discrete conveyances.

Non-Stormwater Discharge. Any discharge to the storm drain system that is not composed entirely of storm water.

NURP. Nationwide Urban Runoff Program developed by the Environmental Protection AgencyEPA to study stormwater runoff from urban development.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

7

Ordinary High-Water Level (OHW). The elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high-water level is commonly thethat point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the OHW level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the OHW level is the operating elevation for the normal summer pool. For Public Waters and Public Waters Wetlands, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) determines the OHW. Owner. A person or entity who has legal title to a parcel of land or a purchaser under a contract for deed.

Parcel. A parcel of land designated by plat, metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditor’s subdivision, or other acceptable means, and separated from other parcels or portions by its designation.

Permittee. The person or political subdivision in whose name a permit is issued pursuant to these Rules.

Person. Any individual, trustee, partnership, unincorporated association, limited liability company, or corporation.

Political Subdivision. A municipality, county, or other political division, agency, or subdivision of the state.

Pollutant. Anything which causes or contributes to pollution. Pollutants may include, but are not limited to: paints, varnishes, and solvents; oil and other automotive fluids; non-hazardous liquid and solid wastes; yard wastes; refuse, rubbish, garbage, litter, or other discarded or abandoned objects, ordinances, and accumulations; so that same may cause or contribute to pollution; floatables; pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers; hazardous substances and wastes; sewage, fecal coliform, and pathogens; dissolved and particulate metals; animal wastes; wastes and residues that result from constructing a building or structure; and noxious or offensive matter of any kind.

Potential Stormwater Hotspots (PSHs). Commercial, industrial, institutional, municipal, or transportation related operations that may produce higher levels of stormwater pollutants, and/or present a higher potential risk for spills, leaks, or illicit discharges. PSHs may include, but are not limited to: gas stations, petroleum wholesalers, vehicle maintenance and repair facilities, auto recyclers, recycling centers and scrap yards, landfills, solid waste facilities, wastewater treatment plants, airports, railroad stations and associated maintenance facilities, and highway maintenance facilities.

Public Waters. Any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 103G.005, Subdivision 15.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

8

Public Waters Wetlands. Any wetlands as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 103G.005, Subdivision 15a.

River Dependent. An activity or land use that relies on direct access to or use of the Mississippi River.

Runoff. Rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water flowing over the ground surface.

Seasonal High Groundwater. The highest seasonal elevation in the ground that has soil voids being that filled with water.

Sediment. Soil or other surficial material transported by surface water as a product of erosion.

Sedimentation. The process or action of depositing sediment.

Sequencing Flexibility. Deviation from the standard sequencing process as described in MN Rule 8420.0520, Subp. 7a.

Sewage. Waste produced by toilets, bathing, laundry, or culinary operations, or the floor drains associated with these sources.

Special Interest Subwatershed. An area in which protection or improvement of water quality has been given a high priority.

Standards. A preferred or desired level of quantity, quality, or value.

Storm Drain System. Publicly-owned facilities by which storm water is collected and/or conveyed, including but not limited to: any roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, gutters, curbs, inlets, piped storm drains, pumping facilities, retention and detention basins, natural and human-made or altered drainage channels, reservoirs, and other drainage structures.

Stormwater. Any surface flow, runoff, and or drainage consisting entirely of water from any form of natural precipitation and resulting from such precipitation.

Stormwater Management Plan. A plan for the permanent management and control of runoff prepared and implemented in accordance with the standards set forth in these Rules.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A document which describes the best management practices and activities to be implemented by a person or businesspermittee to identify sources of pollution or contamination at a site and the actions to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges to stormwater, stormwater conveyance systems, and/or receiving water bodies to the maximum extent practicable.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

9

Stream. A body of water continuously or intermittently flowing in a channel or watercourse, as a river, rivulet, or brook.

Structure. Anything manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures, earthen structures, roads, water and storage systems, drainage facilities, and parking lots.

Subdivision or Subdivide. The separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, or lots.

Trout Brook Interceptor. That portion of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer that is owned and operated by the District.

Wastewater. Any water or other liquid, other than uncontaminated stormwater, discharged from a facility.

Water Basin. An enclosed natural or created depression with definable banks capable of containing water that may be partly filled with public waters.

Waterbody. All water basins, watercourses, and wetlands as defined in these Rules.

Watercourse. A natural or improved stream, river, creek, ditch, channel, culvert, drain, gully, swale, or wash in which waters flow continuously or intermittently in a definite defined direction.

Watershed. Region draining to a specific watercourse or water basin.

Wetland. Land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 103G.005, Subdivision 19.

Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.

Rule B:

PERMIT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

1. APPLICATION REQUIRED. Any person, or political subdivision, undertaking an activity for which a permit is required by these Rules shall, prior to commencing work, submit to the District a permit application, engineering design data, plans, specifications and such other applicable information and exhibits as may be required by these Rules. Permit applications shall be signed by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent and submitted online via the District’s website., except for activities of a political subdivision which may be signed by either an authorized agent of the political subdivision or the general contractor. Three copies of all supporting materials, including site plans, narratives and hydrologic calculations, shall be submitted with the completed application.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

10

Commented [FK3]: Insert “or created”

One full set, one set reduced to 11”x17”, and one electronic set in shall be submitted.

.pdf format

2. FORMS. Permit applications must be submitted on the form provided by the District. Applicants may obtain and submit these forms onlineat the District office or Internet at the District’s website: www.capitolregionwd.org. Web site.

3.

TIME FOR APPLICATION. A complete permit application which includes all required exhibits shall be received by the District at least 21 calendar days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting date of the Board of Managers. Late submittals or submittals with incomplete exhibits will be scheduled to a subsequent meeting date.

4.

ACTION BY BOARD. The Board of Managers shall approve or deny an application containing all required information, exhibits and fees, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99, as amended.

5.

ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. The Board of Managers shall issue a permit only after the applicant has satisfied all requirements for the permit, has paid all required District fees, and the District has received any required surety. All activity under the permit shall be done in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

6.

COMPLIANCE. Issuance of a permit based on plans, specifications, or other data shall not prevent the District from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in the approved plans, specifications and data, or from preventing any activity being carried on in violation of these Rules.

7.

EXPIRATION. A permit shall expire and become null and void if the approved activity is not commenced within one year from date of approval by the Board, or if the approved activity is suspended or abandoned for a period of one year from the date the activity originally commenced. Before an activity delayed one year or more can recommence the permit must be renewed. An application for renewal of a permit must be in writing and state the reasons for the renewal. Any plan changes and required fees must be included with the renewal application. There must be no unpaid fees or other outstanding violations of the permit being renewed. The Board shall consider the application for renewal on the basis of the Rules in effect on the date the application is being considered for renewal.

Any permittee may apply for an extension of time to commence the approved activity under an unexpired permit when the permittee is unable to commence the activity within the time required by these Rules. An application for an extension of a permit must be in writing and state the reasons for the extension. Any plan changes and required fees must be included with the extension application. There must be no unpaid fees or other outstanding violations of the permit being extended. The application must be received by the District at least 30 days prior to

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

11

Commented [FK4]: Updated language to incorporate electronic submittals.

the permit’s expiration. The Board shall consider the application for an extension on the basis of the Rules in effect on the date the application is being considered.

The Board may extend the time for commencing the approved activity for a period not exceeding one year upon finding that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action from being taken.

8. MODIFICATIONS. The permittee shall not modify the approved activity or deviate from the plans and specifications on file with the District without the prior approval of District staff. Significant modifications to the approved plans and specifications shall require Board approval.

9. INSPECTION AND MONITORING. After issuance of a permit, the District may perform such field inspections and monitoring of the approved activity as the District deems necessary to determine compliance with the conditions of the permit and these Rules. Any portion of the activity not in compliance shall be promptly corrected. In applying for a permit, the applicant consents to the District’s entry upon the land for field inspections and monitoring, or for performing any work necessary to bring the activity into compliance at the permittee’s expense.

10. SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION. The District may suspend or revoke a permit issued under these Rules wherever the permit is issued in error or on the basis ofbased on incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any provision of these Rules, or if the preliminary and final subdivision approval received from a municipality or county is not consistent with the conditions of the permit.

11. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION. The District shall certify completion of an activity for which a permit has been issued under these Rules and authorize the release of any required surety upon inspection and submittal of information verifying completion of the activity in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of the permit. Verification of stormwater practice functionality such as a flood test or other in field test or observation shall be conducted in the presence of district staff or other authorized third party, orparty or documented in a report submitted to the District before completion can be certified and any surety released. Copies of documents, with evidence of recording where appropriate, that provide for maintenance of structures required by the permit shall be filed with the District before completion can be certified and any surety released. All temporary erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs (such as silt fence) must be removed following approval of a Certificate of Completion before any surety can be released. No activity may be certified as complete if there are any unpaid fees or other outstanding permit violations. If the District fails to make a determination as to compliance of an activity with the conditions of the permit within 60 days after submittal of the foregoing information verifying completion, the activity shall be deemed complete and any surety shall thereupon be released, unless seasonal conditions prohibit verification of stormwater practice functionality.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

12

12. PERMIT TRANSFERS. The District may allow the transfer of a permit approval. No permit shall be transferred if there are any unpaid fees or other outstanding permit violations. Transfer of a permit does not alter the requirements of the permit or extend the permit term. In the event that a permit is transferred, the original permittee shall remain liable for the permit requirements unless (1) the transferee and transferor submit a Permit Transfer Form to the District or (2) the District approves a new permit for the transferor.

13. PERMIT FEES. The District shall charge the permit processing fees in accordance with a schedule adopted annually by written resolution of the Board of Managers and conforming to Minnesota Statutes 103D.345. (a) Applicant must submit the required permit processing fee to the District at the time it submits its permit application. (b) The processing fees described above shall not be charged to the federal government, the State of Minnesota, or a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. (c) Any person or political subdivision performing an activity for which a permit is required under these Rules without having first obtained a permit from the District, shall pay, in addition to such fines, court costs, or other amounts as may be payable by law as a result of such violation, a field inspection fee equal to the actual cost of the District for field inspections, monitoring, and investigation of such activity, including services of engineering, legal and other consultants. The field inspection fee shall be payable within 10 calendar days after issuance of a statement by the District. No permit shall be issued for the activity if there are any unpaid field inspection fees or other outstanding violations of these Rules.

14. PERFORMANCE SURETY. To assure compliance with these Rules, the Board will require the posting of a performance surety where it is shown to be reasonable and necessary under the particular circumstances of any permit application filed with the District. A performance surety will not be required of the federal government, the State of Minnesota, or a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.

15. OTHER PERMITS AND APPROVALS. The applicant shall promptly provide the District with copies of all environmental permits and approvals required by other governmental entities, upon request.

Rule C: 1.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

13

(a) Reduce runoff rates to levels that allow for stable conveyance of flow throughout the water resources of the District; (b) Require rate control practices on development to preserve runoff rates at a level that will not cause the degradation of water resources; (c) Limit runoff volumes by utilizing site designs that limit impervious surfaces or incorporate volume control practices such as infiltration; (d) Minimize connectivity of impervious surfaces to the stormwater system; (e) Require the use of effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs in development projects; (f) Protect and maintain downstream drainage systems to provide permanent and safe conveyance of stormwater. Reduce the frequency and/or duration of potential downstream flooding; (g) Reduce the total volume of stormwater runoff to protect surface water quality and provide recharge to groundwater; and (h) Remove sediment, pollutants, and nutrients from stormwater to protect surface water quality.

2.

REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall commence a land disturbing activity or the development of land one acre or greater, unless specifically exempted by Paragraph 5 below, without first obtaining a permit from the District that incorporates and approves a stormwater management plan for the activity or development.

3.

CRITERIA. Stormwater management plans must comply with the following criteria: (a) Hydrograph Method. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory shall be used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. Reservoir routing procedures and critical duration storm events shall be used for design of detention basins and outlets. (b) Runoff Rate. Runoff rates for the proposed activity shall not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year critical storm events using Atlas 14 precipitation depths and storm distributions, or as approved by the District. Runoff rates may be restricted to less than the existing rates when the capacity of downstream conveyance systems is limited.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

14

(c) Runoff Volume. -- Stormwater runoff shall be retained onsite in the amount equivalent to 1.1 inches of runoff over the new and reconstructed impervious surfaces of the development. The required stormwater runoff volume shall be calculated as follows:

Commented [FK5]: Not a change, added language for clarification.

Required Volume (ft3) = Impervious surfaces (ft2) x 1.1(in) x 1/12 (ft/in) (1) Stormwater reuse systems shall be allowed an approved credit as calculated by the Stormwater Reuse Calculator found in the application guidance materials, or other approved calculator.

Commented [FK6]: Move to be consistent with RWMWD,

(2)(1) For infiltration of the required stormwater runoff volume, the following requirements must be met: (i) Infiltration volumes and facility sizes shall be calculated using the appropriate hydrologic soil group classification and design infiltration rate from Table 1. Select the design infiltration rate from Table 1 based on the least permeable soil horizon within the first five feet below the bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration BMP. (i)(ii) The required stormwater runoff storage volume shall be provided below the invert of the low overflow outlet of the BMP. (iii) Runoff infiltrated during a rain event will not be credited towards the volume reduction requirement. (ii) Volume reduction credit shall not exceed the volume of 2.5 inches over the impervious surfaces of the drainage area to the BMP or the volume provided within the BMP, whichever is less. (iii) Infiltration volumes and facility sizes shall be calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate from Table 1. Select the design infiltration rate from Table 1 based on the least permeable soil horizon within the first five feet below the bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration BMP. (iv) Table 1. Design Infiltration Rates Table 1. Design Infiltration Rates Hydrologic soil group

A

CRWD RULES

Infiltration rate (inches/hour)

1.63

Soil textures

Corresponding Unified Soil Classification

GW - well-graded gravels, sandy gravels gravel GP - gap-graded or uniform sandy gravels, sandy gravels gravel GM - silty gravels, silty sandy silty gravels gravels SW - well-graded gravelly sands

4/18/2012

15

Commented [FK7]: Move to be consistent with RWMWD

Commented [FK8]: Increase from the current 2� max Move from Alternative Compliance Sequencing to Rule C Criteria.

Table 1. Design Infiltration Rates Hydrologic soil group

Infiltration rate (inches/hour)

A

0.8

B

0.45

B

0.3

C

0.2

D

0.06

Soil textures

Corresponding Unified Soil Classification

sand SP - gap-graded or uniform sands, loamy sand gravelly sands sandy loam SM - silty sands, silty gravelly sands loam, silt MH - micaceous silts, loam diatomaceous silts, volcanic ash Sandy clay ML - silts, very fine sands, silty or loam clayey fine sands

clay loam silty clay loam sandy clay silty clay clay

GC - clayey gravels, clayey sandy gravels SC - clayey sands, clayey gravelly sands CL - low plasticity clays, sandy or silty clays OL - organic silts and clays of low plasticity CH - highly plastic clays and sandy clays OH - organic silts and clays of high plasticity

Source: Minnesota Stormwater Manual (v) The applicant may complete double-ring infiltrometer testing to the requirements of ASTM D3385 or other District approved infiltration test measurements at the proposed bottom elevation of the infiltration BMP. The measured infiltration rate shall be divided by the appropriate correction factor selected from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. This test must be completed by a licensed soil scientist or engineer. (vi) The infiltration area shall be capable of draining infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours for surface and subsurface BMPs. (vii) Infiltration areas shall be limited to the horizontal areas subject to prolonged wetting.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

16

Commented [FK9]: Differs from RWMWD version which was modified to be consistent with NPDES Permit. Further discussion needed to clarify discrepancy between MN SW Manual guidance and NPDES Permit.

(viii) Areas of permanent pools tend to lose infiltration capacity over time and will not be accepted as an infiltration practice. (ix) Stormwater runoff must be pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration areas. Additional information on sizing and approaches can be found in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. application guidance materials. (x) Design and placement of infiltration BMPs shall be done in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health guidance and requirements. called “Evaluating Proposed Stormwater Infiltration Projects in Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas.� http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/stormwater.pdf (xi) Specific site conditions may make infiltration difficult, undesirable, or impossible. Some of these conditions are listed in Table 2 and may qualify the applicant for Alternative Compliance Sequencing. The applicant may also submit a request to the District for Alternative Compliance Sequencing for site conditions not listed below. All requests shall indicate the specific site conditions present and a grading plan, utility plan, and the submittal requirement listed in Table 2.

Commented [FK10]: Changes in table intended to achieve consistency with NPDES permit standards.

Table 2. Alternative Compliance Site Conditions*

MPCA has limitations for constructing infiltration BMPs if it will receive discharges from or be constructed in these areas of concern. These conditions will apply to this permit.

Type

Potential Contamination

Physical Limitations

CRWD RULES

Specific Site Conditions

Potential Stormwater Hotspots (PSHs)/Industrial Facilities Contaminated Soils Vehicle Fueling and Maintenance Areas

Infiltration Requirements Prohibited

Prohibited Prohibited

Low Permeability (Type D Soils)

RestrictedProhibited- Soil borings required

Bedrock within 3 vertical feet of bottom of infiltration area Seasonal High Groundwater within 3 vertical feet of bottom of infiltration area Type A Soils with infiltration rates greater than 8.3 inches/hour Karst Areas

RestrictedProhibited- Soil borings required RestrictedProhibited- Soil borings required

4/18/2012

Restricted without soils amendments RestrictedProhibited- Soil borings required

17

Land Use Limitations

Utility Locations

Concerned- Site Map with detailed utility locations

Adjacent Wells

Restricted- Well Locations

* Alternative Compliance is allowed for the volume reduction portion of Rule C only.

(2) Stormwater reuse systems shall be allowed an approved credit as calculated by the Stormwater Reuse Calculator found in the application guidance materials, or other approved calculator.

Commented [FK11]: Not necessarily considered alternative compliance, so moved up earlier in Rule C.

(3) Alternative Compliance Sequencing. To the maximum extent practicable, the volume reduction standard shall be fully met onsite. If it is not possible because of site conditions listed above, Alternative Compliance may be achieved by any combination of the sequence below but shall be explored in the order presented. (i) First, the applicant shall comply or partially comply with the volume reduction standard to the maximum extent practicable on-site through alternative volume reduction methods as listed below and in the application guidance materials, or as approved by the District. If the applicant meets these requirements, the project is compliant, and no further sequencing steps are necessary.

• If filtration of the water quality volume is deemed necessary through alternative compliance sequencing, the required stormwater runoff volume shall be multiplied by 1.82 (i.e. 55% filtration credit) and the filtration BMP shall provide this storage volume below the invert of the low overflow outlet of the BMP (perforated drain pipes for filtration will not be considered the low overflow outlet).

• If iron-enhanced sand is used as a filtration media, the required stormwater runoff volume shall be multiplied by 1.25 (i.e. 80% filtration credit), and the filtration BMP shall provide this storage volume below the invert of the low overflow outlet of the BMP (perforated drain pipes for filtration will not be considered the low overflow outlet).

• Iron-enhanced media shall include a minimum of 5% of iron filings by weight and shall be uniformly blended with filtration media.

• Other enhanced filtration media may be considered and credited at the sole discretion of the District. (ii) Second, for the remaining volume reduction required to fully meet the standard, the applicant shall comply or partially comply with the volume reduction standard at an offsite location or

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

18

through the use of qualified banking credits as determined by Rule C – 3.c.4. If the applicant meets these requirements, the project is compliant, and no further sequencing steps are necessary.

•

Volume reduction may be accomplished at another site outside of the project area or through the use of banked credits as long as it yields the same volume reduction benefit and is approved by the District prior to construction. When possible, offsite compliance and banking credits shall be achieved in the same drainage area as the project site in the same sub-watershed as the project site. Projects that propose to construct stormwater BMPs to achieve volume reduction credits require District permit application, review and approval.

(iii) Third, as a last alternative, for the remaining volume reduction required, the applicant shall pay into the District’s Stormwater Impact Fund to cover the cost of implementing equivalent volume reduction elsewhere in the watershed. The required amount to contribute to the Stormwater Impact Fund willshall be set by resolution of the Board annually.

•

Money contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund from a local government unit shall be spent within that local government unit’s jurisdiction to the extent possible.

•

Money contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund shall be allocated to volume reduction projects by the District according to the Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation Plan as approved by the District Board.

The volume reduction achieved by these projects will offset the volume reduction that was not achieved on the permitted development.

(4) Regional Stormwater Treatment Facilities: (i) For projects within the drainage area of an existing or planned future regional stormwater facility, the sequencing requirements may be waived if it has been determined by CRWD that the benefits are equivalent or greater than an onsite treatment practice. (ii) Applicants must either utilize volume reduction credits from projects within the same drainage area or contribute to the Stormwater Impact Fund.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

19

Commented [FK12]: Language removed from RWMWD version. Further analysis and discussion required.

Commented [FK13]: Allows for regional compliance opportunities.

(5) Volume reduction providedcredits in excess of the 1.1-inch requirement may be banked for use on another project or used to compensate for under-treated drainage areas within the same project.

Excess banked Vvolume reduction amounts credit shall not exceed the volume of two2.5 inches over the impervious surfaces of the drainage area to the BMP or the volume provided within the BMP, whichever is less.

Commented [FK14]: Language added for clarification. Not a regulatory change.

Commented [FK15]: Current rules dictate 2”. Proposed increase to 2.5”.

(4)(6) Transfer of banked volume credits between applicants is allowed.

Applicants shall submit a letter to the District outlining the conditions of the transfer and confirming the volume of the transfer. The District must review and approve all credit transfers.

(5)(7) If an applicant determines during the course of planning, design or construction of a linear project that the required volume reduction cannot be achieved onsite and the applicant does not possess sufficient excess volume reduction credits to offset the volume required, the District may allow the applicant to defer the construction of volume reduction BMPs to a future identified project that the applicant will complete within two years of the date of the permit application. Failure to provide the required volume reduction by that date would obligate the applicant to pay into the Stormwater Impact Fund at the rate applicable at the time payment is made into the fund.

Commented [FK16]: In practice, this has been allowed for phased non-linear projects as well.

(d) Water Quality. Developments shall incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated by a NURP water quality storm (2.5” rainfall)site.

Runoff volume reduction BMPs may be considered and included in the calculations showing compliance with achieving the 90% TSS removal requirement. Water quality calculations, documentation and/or water quality modeling shall be submitted to verify compliance with the standard.

(1) Drainage areas that directly discharge to a wetland waterbody shall meet the water quality standard onsite.

Commented [FK17]: Proposed change for consistency with RWMWD and increased wetland protection

(1)(2) For linear projects utilizing offsite locations, banking credits, or the stormwater impact fund to meet the volume reduction standard; (i) If any portion of the development falls within a Special Interest Subwatershed as shown on the map in the application guidance material, the development shall meet the water quality standard onsite. Offsite or banked BMPs located within the same Special Interest Subwatershed as the development may be considered.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

20

(ii) If the entire development falls outside of a Special Interest Subwatershed, the water quality standard shall be met onsite to the maximum extent practicable as determined by the District. At a minimum, BMPs shall be placed in each drainage area of a development to remove gross pollutants. (e) Linear Projects. For linear projects, cCosts specific to satisfying the volume reduction and water quality standards on linear projects shall not exceed a cost cap which will be set by the Board annually. The cap shall apply to costs directly associated with the design, testing, land acquisition, and construction of the volume reduction and water quality stormwater BMPs only. Unit costs for construction shall be set by the Board annually and shall be used to determine the cost of the volume reduction and water quality BMPs and must be reviewed and approved by the District. The District may contribute the an amount above the cap in order to meet the volume reduction and water quality standards or it may allow the applicant to partially comply with the standards when the cap is met. (f) MAINTENANCEMaintenance. All stormwater water management structures and facilities, including volume reduction BMPs, shall be maintained to assure that the structures and facilities function as originally designed. Applicants shall submit a site-specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management BMPs. The maintenance responsibilities must be assumed by either the municipality’s acceptance of the required easements dedicated to stormwater management purposes or by the applicant executing and recording a maintenance agreement acceptable to the District. Documentation of the recorded agreement must be submitted to the District prior to issuance of permit. Public developments will require a maintenance agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement or an approved Local Water Management Plan that details the methods, schedule, and responsible parties for maintenance of stormwater management facilities for permitted development. A single Memorandum of Agreement for each local government unit may be used to cover all stormwater management structures and facilities required herein, including volume reduction BMPs, within the LGU’s jurisdiction.

4.

EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the online permit application. One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11"x17”; and a copy of all submittals in electronic .pdf format. (a) Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant. (b) Delineation of the drainage areas contributing runoff from off-site, proposed and existing sub-watersheds onsite, emergency overflows, and drainage ways.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

21

(c) Aerial photo showing the locations of water bodies downstream of the site. (d) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities’ location, alignment, and elevation. (e) Delineation of existing onsite wetlands, marshes, shoreland, and floodplain areas. (f) Identification of existing and proposed normal, ordinary high, and 100-year water elevations onsite. (g) Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations with at least a 2-foot contour interval including offsite contours where overflows are directed. (h) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management facilities, including design details for outlet control structures. (i) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analysis for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100year critical storm events, existing and proposed. (j) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed to design the proposed stormwater management facilities. (k) Narrative addressing incorporation of stormwater BMPs, including individual BMP storage volumes and pretreatment method(s) used. (l) For non-linear projects, site-specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices. (m) Onsite soil borings indicating soil type for purposes of infiltration design. (n) For applications proposing infiltration area(s), information shall include identification, description (soil group and texture), and field evaluation of soil permeability in accordance with ASTM 3385 procedure and delineation of site soils to determine existing and proposed conditions suitable for percolation of stormwater runoff from impervious areas. (o) For applications proposing alternative compliance sequencing, the required exhibits listed in Table 2. (p) District Volume Reduction Worksheet. (p) All plan sheets shall be signed by a Minnesota licensed professional appropriate for the project.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

22

5.

EXCEPTIONS. (a) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to development less than 1 acre in size for all land uses unless the development: (i) Is part of a common plan of development or sale that will ultimately exceed one acre in size; or. (ii) Is greater than 10,000 square feet and is adjacent to a wetland, stream, public water, or public water wetland. (b) Rule C and its requirements shall not apply to land disturbing activity or the development of land that post construction creates 100% pervious surfaces post construction, unless the land disturbing activity or the development of land alters the drainage boundaries shown in the District’s Watershed Management Plan. (c) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to construction on individual lots within a residential subdivision approved by the District, provided the activity complies with the original common plan of development. (d) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to bridges. (e) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for farming, research, or horticulture.

Rule D: 1.

FLOOD CONTROL

POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a) Encourage water quantity controls to ensure no net increase in the impacts or potential for flooding on or off the site and encourage, where practical, controls to address existing flooding problems; (b) Discourage floodplain filling for new non-river dependent developments; and (c) Only allow floodplain development in a manner that is compatible with the dynamic nature of floodplains.

2.

REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall alter or fill land below the 100-year flood elevation of any waterbody, public water, or public water wetland without first obtaining a permit from the District.

3.

CRITERIA.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

23

(a) Placement of fill within the 100-year floodplain is prohibited unless compensatory storage is provided. Compensatory storage must be provided on the development or immediately adjacent to the development within the affected floodplain.

(1) Compensatory storage shall result in the creation of floodplain storage to fully offset the loss of floodplain storage. Compensatory storage shall be created prior to or concurrently to the permitted floodplain filling. (b) All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with the following flood control and freeboard requirements: (1) See Table 3 below for freeboard requirements.

Table 3. Flood control and Freeboard requirements Condition

Waterbodies with Piped Outlets and Mississippi River 

New Habitable Buildings

 Existing Habitable Buildings – Adjacent to and Potentially Affected by Flood Waters

 Underground Parking Structures

CRWD RULES

Low floor must be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.

Low opening must be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.

Low opening must be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.

Waterbodies without Piped Outlets 





Low floor must be a minimum of 5 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.

Low opening must be a minimum of 5 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.

Low opening must be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.

4/18/2012

Subsurface Stormwater Management BMPs 

Low floor must be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation or one foot above the emergency overflow elevation unless flood proofing measures are constructed with the building; and



Low opening must be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation or one foot above the emergency overflow elevation.



Low floor must be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation or one foot above the emergency overflow elevation unless flood proofing measures are constructed with the BMP; and



Low opening must be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation or one foot above the emergency overflow elevation.



Low opening must be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation or one foot above the emergency overflow elevation.

24

Roadway shall not flood when adjacent to stormwater storage basin designed to store the 100year storm event.



Freeboard requirement set by road authority.Roadway shall not flood when adjacent to stormwater storage basin designed to store the 100-year storm event. Freeboard requirement set by road authority.

Public Roadway

Roadway shall not flood when adjacent to stormwater storage basin designed to store the 100-year storm event. Freeboard requirement set by road authority. Roadway shall not flood when adjacent to stormwater storage basin designed to store the 100-year storm event.

Freeboard requirement set by road authority.



(2) For water bodies without a piped outlet: i. The normal water level of a waterbody without a piped outlet shall be determined by a qualified licensed geologist or hydrogeologist. A ground water analysis using existing or installed monitoring wells on or near the site and soil conditions in the basin shall be used. Ideally, the peak groundwater elevation over a continuous three-year monitoring period shall be considered the normal water level of a basin without a piped outlet, provided soil conditions allow full drainage of recent storm event within 48 hours. ii. For existing waterbodies without piped outlets, mottled soils may be considered in establishing a waterbody’s normal water level in lieu of groundwater analysis. iii. An emergency response plan shall be developed for addressing potential flooding in homes below the overland emergency overflow swale around each waterbody without a piped outlet.

The plans shall be adopted by the City and be included in a maintenance agreement for the development.

(3) For underground parking structures:

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

25

Commented [EH18]: Format changes to avoid duplication and to be consistent with RWMWD format.

i. Underground parking structures shall be flood protected to minimize impacts from high groundwater during flood events. ii. All drainage structures within underground parking shall include an anti-backflow device to prevent stormwater from surcharging into the area.

(4) Emergency overflow swales or areas shall be constructed to convey the peak 100-year discharge from each waterbody to the next downstream waterbody and away from buildings.

4.

EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the online permit applications in . One set, full size; two sets, reduced to 11" x 17"; and copies of all submittals in electronic .pdf format. (a) Site plan showing the property lines, location, delineation of the work area, existing elevation contours of the work area, ordinary high-water elevations, and 100-year flood elevation. (b) Bench marks, including datum used, to establish vertical control. (c) Grading plan showing any proposed elevation changes including low floor elevations of adjacent buildings and 100-year flood elevations resulting from proposed development. (d) Utility plans and details. (e) Roadway plans and details. (f) Preliminary plat of any proposed land development. (g) Stormwater management plan showing all data and computations used in estimating runoff, drainage areas, stormwater storage, and flood elevations for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events for both existing conditions and post development conditions. Study The plan shall be prepared and signed by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer. PlanStudy shall include a figure of receiving waterbodies downstream of the site. (h) Computation of change in flood storage capacity resulting from proposed grading. (i) Erosion control plan. (j) All plans shall be signed by a Minnesota licensed engineer.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

26

Rule E: 1.

WETLAND MANAGEMENT

POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a)

Manage wetlands to achieve no-net loss of acreage and values and where possible, strive to enhance the functions and values of existing wetlands within the District;

(b)

Identify wetland restoration and creation sites to enhance water quality and/or restore natural habitats; and

(c)

Interact with cities in the administration of the Wetland Conservation Act if desired by the cities.

2.

REGULATION. No person may fill, drain, excavate or otherwise alter the character of a wetland without first obtaining a permit from the District.

3.

CRITERIA. (a) Wetlands shall not be drained, filled wholly or in part, excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland. Wetland impacts shall be evaluated based on the following principles in descending order of priority: avoid the impact to the wetland, minimize the impact to the wetland, replace the wetland that was impacted. Projects that propose wetland impacts shall follow the requirements provided in the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and associated rules with the following amendments: (1) The de minimis size will be zero.

(2) Sequencing Flexibility will not be allowed.

(3) Permanently impacted wetlands shall be replaced through creation of new wetland, restoration of drained wetlands, or expansion of existing wetlands of the same type (Circular 39) at a minimum 2:1 ratio.

(4) All WCA non-temporary impact exemptions to wetlands will not be allowed.

(5) All wetland replacements shall be within the District’s boundaries. (b) A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent District approved un-manicured vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

4.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. The District intends to serve as the "lLocal

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

27

Ggovernment Uunit (LGU)" for administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, unless a particular local government unitLGU in the District has elected to assume that role in its jurisdictional area. Notwithstanding the above, the District will continue to require wetland alteration permits under this rule.

5.

EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the online permit applicationapplications .

One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11"X17" and a copy of all submittals in electronic .pdf format. (a) Site plan showing: (1) Property lines and, corners, and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.

(2) Existing and proposed elevation contours with at least a 2-foot contour interval, including the existing runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet, and spoil disposal areas.

(3) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, excavated, or otherwise altered. (b) Complete delineation of the existing wetland(s), supported by the following documentation: (1) Identification of the delineation method used in accordance with the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Manual.

(2) Identification of presence or absence of normal circumstances or problem conditions.

(3) Basin classification using the Cowardin method and Circular 39.

(4) Inventory of wetland vegetation using Eggers, Steve D., and Donald M. Reed. 1997. Wetland plants and communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin.

(5) Wetland data sheets, or a report, for each sample site, referenced to the location shown on the delineation map. In each data sheet/report, applicant must provide the reasoning for satisfying, or not satisfying each of the technical criteria and why the area is or is not a wetland.

(6) A delineation map showing the size, locations, configuration and boundaries of wetlands in relation to identifiable physical characteristics, such as roads, fence lines, waterways, or other identifiable features.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

28

(7) The location of all sample sites and stakes/flags must be accurately shown on the delineation map. Delineations submitted by applicants will normally be field-verified by District staff knowledgeable in wetland identification. Applicants must leave stakes in the field to aid review of the site. (c) A replacement plan, if required, outlining the steps followed for the sequencing process and including documentation supporting the proposed mitigation plan. (d) A wetland functions and values assessment comparison before and after project. (e) An Erosion Control Plan.

6.

EXCEPTIONS. Rule E and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated and used for farming, research, or horticulture, unless the activity results in draining or filling the wetland.

Rule F:

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

1.

POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to require the preparation and implementation of erosion and sediment control plans to control the export of sediment off site, which impacts surface water quality.

2.

REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall commence a land disturbing activity orf the development of land one acre or greater, unless specifically exempted by this Rule, without first obtaining a permit from the District that incorporates and approves an erosion and sediment control plan for the activity or development.

3.

CRITERIA. Erosion and sediment control plans shall comply with the following criteria: (a) Erosion and sediment control measures shall be consistent with best management practices, and shall be sufficient to retain sediment onsite as demonstrated in the MPCA manual, “Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas�, as amendedMinnesota Stormwater Manual. (b) Erosion and sediment control measures shall meet the standards for the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated With Construction Activity Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit Program, Permit MN R100001 (NPDES

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

29

General Construction Permit), issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, except where more specific requirements are required. (c) The activity shall be phased when possible to minimize disturbed areas subject to erosion at any one time. (d) All construction site waste, such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, pavement or masonry cutting slurry, chemicals, litter, and sanitary and hazardous waste at the construction site shall be properly managed and disposed of so they will not have an adverse impact on soil or water quality.

Commented [FK19]: Additions to the definition.

(e) All turbid or sediment-laden waters related to dewatering must be discharged to a temporary sediment basin on the project site unless infeasible. Permittees must provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to water discharged to a surface water such that the discharge does not adversely affect the receiving water or downstream properties. Permittees must continuously monitor discharge to any surface water to ensure adequate treatment has been achieved. Discharge points must be adequately protected from erosion and scour through accepted energy dissipation methods. (f) Use of temporary sediment basins are required where 10 or more acres of disturbed soil drain to a common location. Basin design and construction must comply with NPDES General Permit requirements. (e)(g) Erosion and sediment controls necessary at the beginning of the project shall be installed before commencing the land disturbing activity, and shall not be removed without District approval or until the District has issued a certificate of completion. Applicants may phase installation of erosion and sediment controls provided the phasing plan is included in the approved erosion and sediment control plan. (f)(h) The permittee shall be responsible for proper operation and maintenance of all erosion and sediment controls, and soil stabilization measures, in conformance with Best Management Practices and the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit. The permittee is responsible for the operation and maintenance of temporary erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs at the site over all of the areas of the site that have not been fully stabilized until the District has transferred the permit to another permittee, or until the site has undergone final stabilization as reviewed and approved by the District has and received an approved certificate of completion.

4.

EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the online permit application . One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11"x17"; and a copy of all submittals in electronic .pdf format.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

30

Commented [FK20]: Added language to achieve consistency with MS4 and NPDES permits.

(a) An existing and proposed topographic map which clearly shows contour elevations with at least 2-foot contour intervals on and adjacent to the land, property lines, all hydrologic features, the proposed land disturbing activities, and the locations of all runoff, erosion and sediment controls, and soil stabilization measures. (b) Plans and specifications for all proposed runoff, erosion and sediment controls, and temporary and permanent soil stabilization measures.

(1) Temporary erosion and sediment control measures which will remain in place until permanent vegetation is in place, shall be identified.

(2) Permanent erosion and sediment control measures such as emergency overflow swales shall be identified. (c) Detailed schedules for implementation of the land disturbing activity, the erosion and sediment controls, and soil stabilization measures. (d) Plans and specifications for dewatering methods and outlet of stormwater. (e) Plans and specifications for management and containment of all solid and liquid wastes, including hazardous wastes and concrete materials. (f) Plans, specifications, and maintenance thresholds for temporary sediment basins if required by the permit.

Commented [FK21]: Added language to achieve consistency with MS4 and NPDES permits.

(e)(g) Detailed description of the methods to be employed for monitoring, maintaining, and removing the erosion and sediment controls, and soil stabilization measures. The name, address, and phone number of the person(s) responsible shall also be provided. (f)(h) For projects over one acre of disturbed area, documentation that the project applicant has applied for a NPDES General Construction Permit shall be submitted as well as the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the NPDES permit.

5.

EXCEPTIONS. (a) Rule F and its requirements will not apply to development less than 1 acre in size for all land uses, unless such development is greater than 1,000 square feet and: (1) Is within the 100-year floodplain; or (2) Is adjacent to a wetland, stream, public water, or public water wetland.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

31

(b) Rule F and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for farming, research, or horticulture.

Rule G: 1.

ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION

POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a)

Regulate the contribution of pollutants to the District’s municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) by any user;

(b)

Prohibit Illicit Connections and Discharges to the District’s MS4;

(c)

Establish legal authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance, and monitoring procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this Rule;

(d)

Require a District permit for new direct connections, significant changes to existing hydrology, and other impacts related to the proper function, access, and maintenance to the District’s MS4 or easements; and

(e)

Not allowProhibit new direct connections or other impacts to the Trout Brook Interceptor or other components of the District’s MS4 if the connection will cause or exacerbate water conveyance, or structural problems in the system, including but not limited to surcharging and flooding.

2.

REGULATION. This Rule shall apply to all water entering the storm drain system of the District’s MS4 generated on any developed and undeveloped lands unless explicitly exempted by the District. A permit and stormwater management plan is are required under this rule for new direct connections, replacement of existing connections, changes to existing hydrology, or other impacts to the Trout Brook Interceptor, the District’s MS4, or its easements.

3.

CRITERIA. (a)

Connection to the District’s MS4 System.

(1) New direct connections and replacement of existing connections will be completed using a method that is approved by the District.

(2) Peak flow rate, the total volume of flow, and the timing of the flow for new connections must be managed to not cause new water conveyance problems or exacerbate existing water conveyance problems in the Trout

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

32

Brook Interceptor. Enlargement of existing connections is considered a new connection. (b)

Discharge Prohibitions.

(1) Prohibition of Illegal Discharges. No person or political subdivision shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the municipal storm drain system or watercourses any materials, including but not limited to pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards, other than storm water.

(2) Prohibition of Illicit Connections. The construction, use, maintenance, or continued existence of illicit connections to the storm drain system without a District permit is prohibited. (i) This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit connections made in the past, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection. (ii) A person is considered to be in violation of this Rule if the person connects a line conveying sewage to the District’s MS4 or allows such a connection to continue.

(c)

Suspension of MS4 Access.

(1) Suspension due to Illicit Discharges in Emergency Situations. The District may, without prior notice, suspend MS4 discharge access when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present imminent and substantial danger to the environment, or to the health or welfare of persons, or to the District’s MS4 or Waters of the United States. If the violator fails to comply with a suspension order issued in an emergency, the District may take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the District’s MS4 or Waters of the United States, or to minimize danger to persons or the environment.

(2) Suspension due to the Detection of Illicit Discharge. Any person discharging to the District’s MS4 in violation of this Rule may have their MS4 access terminated if such termination would abate or reduce an illicit discharge. The District will notify a violator of the proposed termination of its MS4 access. The violator may petition the District for a reconsideration and hearing. A person commits an offense subject to enforcement if the person reinstates MS4 access to premises terminated pursuant to this Section, without the prior approval of the District.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

33

(d)

Monitoring of Discharges.

(1) Applicability. This section applies to all facilities that have stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, including construction activity.

(2) Access to Facilities. (i) The District shall be permitted to enter and inspect facilities subject to regulation under this Rule as often as may be necessary to determine compliance with this Rule. The discharger shall make the necessary arrangements to allow access to representatives of the District. (ii) Facility operators shall allow the District ready access to all parts of the premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling, examination, and copying of records that must be kept under the conditions of an NPDES permit to discharge storm water, and the performance of any additional duties as defined by state and federal law. (iii) If the District has been refused access to any part of the premises from which stormwater is discharged, then the District may seek issuance of a search warrant from any court of competent jurisdiction.

(e)

Requirement to Prevent, Control, and Reduce Stormwater Pollutants by the Use of Best Management PracticesBMPs. The owner or operator of a commercial or industrial establishment shall provide, at their own expense, reasonable protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into the municipal storm drain system or watercourses through the use ofby these structural and non-structural BMPs. Any person responsible for a property or premise, which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required by the District to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and non-structural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system.

(f)

Watercourse Protection. Every person owning property through which a watercourse passes, shall keep and maintain that part of the watercourse within the property free of trash, debris, and other obstacles that would pollute, contaminate, or significantly retard the flow of water through the watercourse. In addition, the owner or lessee shall maintain existing privately ownedprivately-owned structures within or adjacent to a watercourse, so that such structures will not become a hazard to the use, function, or physical integrity of the watercourse.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

34

(g)

Notification of Spills. Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as soon as any person responsible for a facility or operation, or responsible for emergency response for a facility or operation has information of any known or suspected release of materials which result or may result in illegal discharges or pollutants discharging into storm water, the storm drain system, or water of the U.S., said person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the containment and cleanup of such release. In the event of such a release of hazardous materials, said person shall immediately notify emergency response agencies of the release. In the event of a release of nonhazardous materials, said person shall notify the District in person or by phone or facsimile no later than the next business day following discovery of the release.

(h)

Enforcement.

(1) Notice of Violation. Whenever the District finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this Rule, the District may order compliance by written notice of violation to the responsible person. Such notice may require without limitation: (i) The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting; (ii) The elimination of illicit connections or discharges; (iii) That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall cease and desist; (iv) The abatement or remediation of stormwater pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property; (v) Payment of a fee to cover administrative and remediation costs; and/or (vi) The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs. (2) Abatement. If abatement of a violation and/or restoration of affected property is required, the notice shall set forth a deadline within which such remediation or restoration must be completed. Said notice shall further advise that, should the violator fail to remediate or restore within the established deadline, the work will be done by a designated governmental agency or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be charged to the violator.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

35

(3) Appeal of Notice of Violation. Any person receiving a Notice of Violation may appeal the determination of the District. The notice of appeal must be received within 5 days from the date of the Notice of Violation. Hearing on the appeal before the District Board of Managers shall take place within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal. The decision of the District shall be final.

(4) Enforcement Measures after Appeal. If the violation has not been corrected pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Notice of Violation, or, in the event of an appeal, within 3 days of the decision of the District Board of Managers, then representatives of the District are authorized to take any and all measures necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the property. It shall be unlawful for any person, owner, agent or person in possession of any premises to refuse to allow the District or its agents to enter upon the premises for the purposes set forth above.

(5) Cost of Abatement. The District may assess costs of abatement. Within 30 days after abatement of the violation, the District shall notify the property owner of the cost of abatement, including administrative costs.

The property owner may file a written protest objecting to the amount of the assessment within 10 days. If the amount due is not paid within a timely manner as determined by the decision of the municipal authority or by the expiration of the time in which to file an appeal, the charges shall become a special assessment against the property and shall constitute a lien on the property for the amount of the assessment.

(6) Injunctive Relief. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Rule. If a person has violated or continues to violate the provisions of this Rule, the District may petition for a preliminary or permanent injunction restraining the person from activities which would create further violations or compelling the person to perform abatement or remediation of the violation.

(7) Violations Deemed a Public Nuisance. In addition to the enforcement processes and penalties provided, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Rule is a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance, and may be summarily abated or restored at the violator's expense, and/or a civil action to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be taken.

(8) Relation to Other Rules. None of the enforcement provisions of this Rule shall abridge or alter the right of the District to seek remedies provided for under Rule H herein.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

36

4.

5.

EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the online permit application. One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11”x17”; and a copy of all submittals in electronic .pdf format. (a)

Property lines and delineation of lands identifying ownership and easements.

(b)

Proposed and existing stormwater facilities’ location, alignment and elevation.

(c)

Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations with at least a 2-foot contour interval.

(d)

Construction plans and specifications of the proposed connection, including design details, connection method, and timing of connection.

(e)

Stormwater runoff volume and rate analysis for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical events, existing and proposed conditions.

(f)

Narrative addressing incorporation of stormwater BMPs.

(g)

On-site soil boring indicating soil type.

(h)

Construction dewatering plan and construction water control and treatment plan.

EXCEPTIONS. (a)

The following discharges are exempt from discharge prohibitions established by this Rule: water line flushing or other potable water sources, landscape irrigation or lawn watering, diverted stream flows, rising groundwater, groundwater infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated pumped groundwater, foundation or footing drains (not including active groundwater dewatering systems), crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs, non-commercial washing of vehicles, natural riparian habitat or wet-land flows, swimming pools (if dechlorinated - typically less than one PPM chlorine), fire fighting activities, street wash water, and any other water source not containing Pollutants.

(b)

Discharges specified in writing by the District as being necessary to protect public health and safety.

(c)

Dye testing is an allowable discharge but requires a verbal notification to the District prior to the time of the test.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

37

(d)

Rule H:

Any non-stormwater discharge permitted under an NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and administered under the authority of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations, and provided that written approval has been granted for any discharge to the storm drain system.

ENFORCEMENT

1.

MISDEMEANOR. A violation of these Rules, an order, or stipulation agreement made, or a permit issued by the District is a misdemeanor subject to penalties as provided by Minnesota law.

2.

METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT. The District may exercise all powers conferred upon it by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D. A rule, order, or stipulation agreement made or a permit issued by the District may be enforced by criminal prosecution, injunction, action to compel performance, restoration, abatement, and other appropriate action.

3.

PERMIT REQUIREMENT. Pursuant to the terms of the permit, the District may issue a cease and desist order when it finds that a proposed or initiated activity or project presents a serious threat of soil erosion, sedimentation, or an adverse effect upon water quality or quantity, or violates any rule of the District.

4.

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS. In any civil action arising from or related to these Rules, an order or stipulation agreement made or a permit issued or denied by the District, the court may award the District reasonable attorney fees and costs.

5.

ILLICIT DISCHARGE. In addition to the remedies provided for in this Rule, the enforcement of Rule G shall be governed by Rule G(3)(h).

Rule I:

VARIANCES

1.

WHEN AUTHORIZED. The Board of Managers shall have the power to grant variances from these Rules where they find that extraordinary and unnecessary hardships may result from strict compliance with these Rules; provided that such variances will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these Rules and the overall plan of the District as adopted.

2.

PROCEDURE.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

38

(a) The Board of Managers will not consider a variance for Rule C until the applicant has completed all of the steps of the alternative compliance section in Rule C. (b) A written request for a variance shall be submitted to the District at least 12 calendar days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting date of the Board of Managers stating the exceptional conditions and the peculiar difficulties claimed. (c) The request shall be referred to the Board and they shall review the request within 30 days of the date the request was filed with the District. (d) In considering requests for variances, the Board shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the entire District and the anticipated effect of the proposed variance upon the overall plan of the District as adopted. (e) If the Board determines that the special conditions which apply to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property, and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the District and that the granting of a variance will not in any way impair or be contrary to the intent of these Rules and the overall plan of the District as adopted, the Board may grant such variances and impose conditions and safeguards to einsure compliance with these Rules and to protect adjacent property. (f) Variances may be denied by Motion of the Board and such Motion shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No application for a variance which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six months from the date of said denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the District.

3.

TERM. The term of a variance shall be concurrent with the associated permit.

4.

VIOLATION. A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a violation of the District rules and shall automatically terminate the variance.

Rule J:

SEVERABILITY

If any provision of these Rules is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of these Rules shall not be affected thereby.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

39

February 6, 2019 Board Meeting VI.C Unfinished Business 2018 Lakes Update (Wein)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 6, 2019 CRWD Board of Managers Sarah Wein, Water Resource Technician 2018 Lakes Update

Background There are five lakes within the boundaries of CRWD: Como Lake, Crosby Lake, Little Crosby Lake, and Loeb Lake in St. Paul, and Lake McCarrons in Roseville. Each lake is collaboratively monitored by Ramsey County Public Works (RCPW), the Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation Division, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and CRWD to evaluate overall health, assess compliance with water quality standards, and determine if each lake supports its designated uses for swimming, fishing, and/or aesthetics. Data has been collected annually on each lake for varying periods of record, with the Como Lake dataset being the longest, dating back to 1984.

Issue In 2018, CRWD, in partnership with RCPW and the Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation Division, collected chemical, physical, and biological data from all five District lakes. Data collected included: dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, temperature, Secchi depth, phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophyte samples, biovolume surveys of vegetation, and continuous water level data.

All of the lakes data collected in 2018 have been analyzed and summarized. Historical lake data and summer average total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and Secchi depth calculations are also available online via the CRWD Water Data Portal. An update will be given on 2018 lake monitoring, 2018 lake quality in comparison to the historical data record, 2018 accomplishments, and 2019 initiatives.

Requested Action None.

W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\2018 Monitoring\2018 Lakes\Board Meeting_02062019\Board Memo_2018 Lakes 02-06-19_FINAL.docx