February 4, 2015 CRWD Board Packet

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board Of Managers, for Wednesday, February 4, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Materials Enclosed I.

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

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) Permit #15-001 Raymond Avenue Phase II (Kelley) B) Permit #15-003 A-Line BRT (Kelley) C) Permit #15-004 McDonough 12-Plex (Kelley) D) Approve Quit-Claim Deed for 14-025 East 7th Mississippi Market (Kelley) E) Permit Program/Rules Update – Authorize 45-day Review Period for Draft Rules (Kelley)

IV.

Special Reports – Education and Outreach Program Update, Elizabeth Beckman

V.

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the January 21st Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Authorize Full Time Seasonal Technician Position (Fossum) C) AR: Approve Lafayette Campus Stormwater Plan RFP (Fossum)

VI.

Unfinished Business A. Mid Term Watershed Management Plan Review (Fossum) B. Hamline Midway Boulevard Rain Garden Project (Castro)

VII.

General Information A) Administrators Report

VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, February 11, 2015 CAC Meeting B) Wednesday, February 18, 2015 Meeting Agenda Review IX.

Adjournment

W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2015\February 4, 2015 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx

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

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Barb Mundahl City of St. Paul 25 W. 4th Street (900 CHA) St. Paul, MN 55102

Permit 15-001 Raymond Avenue Consultant: N/A

Description: Reconstruction of Raymond Avenue from Hampden Avenue to Energy Park Drive Stormwater Management: Applicant Proposes to utilize volume reduction bank credits District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 2.16 Acres Impervious Area: 2.1607 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 1 Condition: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve withdrawal of 7,059 cf of volume reduction credits from the St. Paul Public Works bank.

Permit Location Permit Report 15-001

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 02/04/2015

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

15-001

Review date:

January 29, 2015

Project Name:

Raymond Ave Phase II

Applicant:

Barbara R. Mundahl City of St. Paul Public Works 651.266.6112 Barbara.mundahl@ci.stpaul.mn.us

Purpose:

Reconstruction of Raymond Avenue

Location:

Between Hampden Ave. and Energy park Dr.

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 1 Condition

Volume Bank Recommendation:

Approve withdrawal of 7,059 cf of volume bank credits from St. Paul Public Works bank

EXHIBITS: 1. Raymond Avenue Watershed Permit Submittal, by City of St. Paul, dated 1/12/15, recd. 1/21/15.

2. Preliminary Construction Plans, by City of St. Paul, dated 1/9/15, recd. 1/21/15.

3. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, by American Engineering Testing, Inc., dated 8/12/14, recd. 1/21/15.

4. Drainage Map, by City of St. Paul, not dated, recd. 1/21/15.

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.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-001 Raymond Ave Phase II\15-001 Raymond Ave PII_Review_01.doc

Page 1 of 3

 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 one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 94,121 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)

7,059 None 4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested due to existing treatment and poor soils. a. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard. b. The applicant proposes to comply with the volume retention standard at an offsite location 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 not been reached.

5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.

6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement is not required.

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 known floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. Compensatory storage is not needed.

3. It is not known if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

However, sufficient conveyances have been provided to allow the storm sewer system to function as or better than it did prior to the project.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-001 Raymond Ave Phase II\15-001 Raymond Ave PII_Review_01.doc

Page 2 of 3

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 landdisturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. 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. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and satisfies NPDES requirements.

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 1 Condition Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve withdrawal of 7,059 cf of volume bank credits from St. Paul Public Works bank W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-001 Raymond Ave Phase II\15-001 Raymond Ave PII_Review_01.doc

Page 3 of 3

1/29/2015 Account: Transaction Requested Deposit Withdrawal Withdrawal Deposit Withdrawal Withdrawal Deposit Withdrawal Deposit Withdrawal Deposit Withdrawal 3/16/2010 Withdrawal 4/14/2010 Deposit 5/26/2010 Withdrawal 2/2/2011 Deposit 2/25/2011 Withdrawal 2/25/2011 Withdrawal 2/25/2011 Deposit 9/7/2011 Transfer 10/14/2011 Deposit 11/16/2011 Deposit 1/4/2012 Withdrawal 1/4/2012 Deposit 5/2/2012 Deposit 9/19/2012 Withdrawal 12/19/2012 Withdrawal 2/6/2013 Withdrawal 2/6/2013 Deposit 5/15/2013 Withdrawal 7/10/2013 Withdrawal 9/18/2013 Deposit 2/19/2014 Withdrawal 3/5/2014 Withdrawal 3/19/2014 Withdrawal 9/3/2014 Withdrawal 2/4/2015

Volume Banking Credits Saint Paul Public Works Approved 4/4/2007 4/4/2007 1/22/2008 Pending 8/20/2008 8/20/2008 Pending 3/18/2009 Pending 6/3/2009 Pending 5/5/2010 5/19/2010 Pending 2/2/2011 Pending 4/20/2011 4/20/2011 Pending 11/16/2011 Pending 1/4/2012 Pending Pending Pending 12/19/2012 2/6/2013 2/6/2013 Pending 7/10/2013 9/18/2013 Pending 3/5/2014 3/19/2004 9/3/2014 2/4/2015

Permit NA 07-009 08-001 07-008 08-003 08-004 08-016 09-004 09-009 09-011 09-017 10-005 10-011 10-014 11-002 11-004 11-005 11-006 11-021 09-031 11-027 NA 11-030 12-004 12-018 12-029 13-001 13-002 13-014 13-021 13-018C 14-004 13-033 14-001 14-028 15-002

Project Deposit Withdrawal Balance (cf) Chatsworth-Goodrich 10,532 10,532 Davern 0 5,717 4,815 Selby Avenue 0 3,790 1,025 Hubbard-Griggs 9,386 10,411 Seventh-Bay 0 8,278 2,133 Ashland-Pascal 0 20,069 -17,936 Payne Avenue 2,576 -15,360 East Sixth Street 0 6,044 -21,404 Victoria Street 1,991 -19,413 Magnolia-Earl 0 18,356 -37,769 Knapp-Ramond 2,338 -35,431 Seventh-Douglas 0 17,462 -52,893 Davern-Jefferson 0 39,308 -92,201 Front-Victoria 14,791 -77,410 Fairview 18,034 -95,444 Blair-Griggs 5,935 -89,509 Howell-Goodrich (revised 15,238 to Zero) 0 -89,509 Davern-Jefferson II 25,611 -115,120 College Park 99,457 -15,663 Wells and Russell 116,436 100,773 Hewitt-Tatum 4,067 104,840 St. Albans-Arundel Trenches 35,710 140,550 Prior-Goodrich TBD 140,550 Wheelock Parkway Bridge 391 140,941 Hamline Library Pervious Alley 7,100 148,041 Arlington-Rice 28,035 120,006 Hatch-Agate 22,216 97,790 Hamline Avenue Bridge 6,697 91,093 Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary 103,455 194,548 Jefferson-Griggs Bike Routes 5,881 188,667 Prince Street 7,303 181,364 Hampden Park 24,908 206,272 Fairview-Bohland 16,626 189,646 Montana-Greenbrier 11,091 178,555 Highland Village Streetscape 487 178,068 Raymond Ave Phase II 7,059 171,009 439,073 268,064 171,009

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Peter De Muth Metro Transit 560 North 6th Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55411

Permit 15-003 A-Line BRT Consultant: Justin Woffinden Kimley Horn 2550 University Ave West St. Paul, MN 55114

Description: Construction of new bus rapid transit stations along Snelling Avenu Stormwater Management: Applicant proposes contribution to the Stormwater Impact Fund District Rule: Stormwater Impact Fund—C E F Disturbed Area: 2.34 Acres Impervious Area: 2.34 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Receipt of $70,200 payment to the CRWD Stormwater Impact Fund.

Larpenteur

Ford Parkway Permit Location Permit Report 15-003

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 02/04/2015

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

15-003

Review date:

January 29, 2015

Project Name:

A Line BRT Construction Project

Applicant:

Metro Transit 560 North 6th Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55411

Purpose:

Construct arterial bus rapid transit stations

Location:

Snelling Ave (between Larpenteur Ave and Ford Pkwy) and Ford Pkwy (between Snelling Ave and Woodlawn Ave)

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 3 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Permit Narrative, by Kimley-Horn, dated 01/13/15, recd. 01/21/15.

2. Permit Application, by Kimley-Horn, recd. 01/21/15.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: The project adds 15 arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) stations throughout Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD). The stations are located within the public right-of-way with limited space for infiltration or stormwater storage. The applicant had several conversations with CRWD on how to manage stormwater from the project. After discussing several options, it was decided the project would pay into the District’s Stormwater Impact Fund to cover the cost of implementing volume reduction elsewhere in the District.

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\2015\15-003 A-Line BRT\15-003 A Line BRT.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 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 one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 101,882 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)

7,641 None c. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested due to site constrictions. d. Banking of excess volume retention of not proposed.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested. a. The applicant did not 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 requests to contribute $70,200 to the Stormwater Impact Fund. i. Metro Transit representatives met with the CRWD, City of St. Paul, Metro Transit, and MnDOT on December 19, 2014 to discuss stormwater management options. ii. Metro Transit staff discussed the possibility of increasing stormwater management capacity within MnDOT’s planned mill and overlay on Snelling Avenue. This project is planned to be bid in the spring of 2015 and constructed in the summer of 2015. It was determined that the project would not be able to add stormwater management capacity to account for the required volume reduction for the A Line BRT project. iii. CRWD proposed the use of additional infiltration areas for the project through the use of curbside rain gardens. The rain

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-003 A-Line BRT\15-003 A Line BRT.doc

Page 2 of 4

gardens, however, would fall into the “no infiltration” area established by MnDOT in their right-of-way. iv. Other projects located within the CRWD were discussed as potential options for meeting the required volume reduction for the project, but these projects were found to not be able to provide the capacity required for the A Line project.

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 not a floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is not known if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

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 wetlands are 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 landdisturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. 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.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-003 A-Line BRT\15-003 A Line BRT.doc

Page 3 of 4

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard ďƒ˜ 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 proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are proposed.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide final plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Receipt of payment to the CRWD Stormwater Impact Fund.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-003 A-Line BRT\15-003 A Line BRT.doc

Page 4 of 4

A LINE BRT MnDOT SP 6215-99 SNELLING AVENUE RESURFACING BRIDGE REDECKING ADA IMPROVEMENTS 90% DESIGN REVIEW SET NOVEMBER 12, 2014

PROJECT TEAM OWNER METRO TRANSIT 560 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55411-4398 PHONE: (612) 349-7772 FAX: (612) 349-7600

ENGINEERS KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, SUITE 238N ST. PAUL, MN 55114-2006 PHONE: (651) 645-4197

M-P CONSULTANTS 5775 WAYZATA BOULVARD ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 PHONE: (612) 567-2667

RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT

Roseville

35W

GRASS LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

Rosedale

36

County Road B Roselawn

Falcon Heights MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

Larpenteur Hoyt/Nebraska

Gre en Lin e

LR T

Saint Paul

Snelling Avenue

280

Como CAPITAL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Hewitt Minnehaha

University Dayton

Minneapolis e Blu

Grand

e Lin

Ford Parkway

Legend

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

Station

A Line BRT

Blue Line LRT

Fairview

Kenneth

Randolph Finn

Woodlawn

45th/46th

St. Clair

Minnehaha

46th Street Station

LRT MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT

94

35E

Highland

Green Line LRT Watershed District Boundaries

A Line BRT Watershed Districts

RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT

Roseville

35W

GRASS LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

Rosedale

36

County Road B Roselawn

Falcon Heights MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

Larpenteur Hoyt/Nebraska

Gre en Lin e

LR T

Saint Paul

Snelling Avenue

280

Como CAPITAL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Hewitt Minnehaha

University Dayton

Minneapolis e Blu

Grand

e Lin

Ford Parkway

Legend

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

Station

A Line BRT

Blue Line LRT

Fairview

Kenneth

Randolph Finn

Woodlawn

45th/46th

St. Clair

Minnehaha

46th Street Station

LRT MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT

94

35E

Highland

Green Line LRT Watershed District Boundaries

A Line BRT Watershed Districts

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Dave Lang St. Paul Public Housing Agency 261 East University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55117

Permit 15-004 McDonough 12 Plex Consultant: Tim Setala Pierce Pini and Associates 9298 Central Avenue NE, Blaine, MN 55434

Description: Addition of two new buildings and new parking lot Stormwater Management: Applicant proposes an underground infiltration pipe gallery District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 1.2 Acres Impervious Area: 0.52 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 7 Conditions: 1. Receipt of documentation that maintenance agreement has been recorded with Ramsey County 2. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

4. Specify washed, crushed, angular rock material (no limestone or carbonate rock).

5. Specify no fabric below infiltration practice.

6. Revise Detail 4 on Sheet C7.1 to correspond with HydroCAD model. HydroCAD lists the outlet invert as 868.25. Detail 4 lists the outlet as 867.5.

7. Remove the label on Sheet C5.0. Label states “Proposed Underground Stormwater Management System Has Not Been Sized at this Time”.

Wheelock

Jackson

Permit Location Permit Report 15-004

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 02/04/2015

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

15- 004

Review date:

January 29, 2015

Project Name:

McDonough Twelve-Plex

Applicant:

Dave Lang, St. Paul Public Housing Agency 261 East University Ave St. Paul, MN 55130

Purpose:

Addition of two new buildings and new parking lot

Location:

Intersection of Jackson St. and Timberlake Road, St. Paul, MN

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 7 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. CRWD Permit Application, by Pierce Pini & Associates, recd. 01/21/15.

2. Civil Plan Set (sheets C1.0, C2.0, C3.1, C3.2, C3.3, C3.4, C4.0, C5.0, C6.0, C7.0, and C7.1), by Pierce Pini & Associates, dated 1/13/15, recd. 01/21/15.

3. Stormwater Calcuations, by Pierce Pini & Associates, dated 1/12/15, recd.

01/21/15.

4. Geotechnical Evaluation Report, by Braun Intertec Corporation, dated 1/07/15, recd. 01/21/15.

5. Addendum I to Geotechnical Evaluation, by Braun Intertec Corporation, dated 1/12/15, recd. 01/21/15.

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\2015\15-004 McDonough Twelve-Plex\15-004 McDonough Homes_Review_01.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 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 achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 22,825 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.)

BMP Volume Below Underground Infiltration 2,561 cf Total 2,561 cf 1,712 (2,561 cf is runoff volume from 2” rainfall. Volume provided is 2,920 cf.) c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Infiltration volume and facility sizes have been calculated using the appropriate hydrological 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.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested.

5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.

6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement has not been submitted.

Adequate maintenance access is provided for underground system.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-004 McDonough Twelve-Plex\15-004 McDonough Homes_Review_01.doc

Page 2 of 4

 All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

Findings 1. There is not a floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

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 landdisturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. 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. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted.

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.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-004 McDonough Twelve-Plex\15-004 McDonough Homes_Review_01.doc

Page 3 of 4

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

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 7 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of documentation that maintenance agreement 2. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

4. Specify washed, crushed, angular rock material (no limestone or carbonate rock).

5. Specify no fabric below infiltration practice.

6. Revise Detail 4 on Sheet C7.1 to correspond with HydroCAD model. HydroCAD lists the outlet invert as 868.25. Detail 4 lists the outlet as 867.5.

7. Remove the label on Sheet C5.0. Label states “Proposed Underground Stormwater Management System Has Not Been Sized at this Time�.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-004 McDonough Twelve-Plex\15-004 McDonough Homes_Review_01.doc

Page 4 of 4

February 4, 2015 III. Permit Applications D) Approve Quit-Claim Deed for 14-025 Mississippi Market Maintenance Agreement (Kelley) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

January 30, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Forrest Kelley, Regulatory and Construction Program Manager Approve Quit-Claim Deed for 14-025 Mississippi Market Maintenance Agreement (Kelley)

Background Permit 14-025 East 7th Mississippi Market was approved at the August 6, 2014 meeting Issues A maintenance agreement was recorded with the property prior to the permit being issued on October 16, 2014. However, the legal description of the property was mistakenly listed as the entire parcel owned by the City of St. Paul. The southern half of the property was sold to Dominium for the East 7th Senior Housing project, and must be removed from the legal description so that a maintenance agreement can be recorded as a separate document for that permit. Attorney Mogen has been consulted and as recommended approval by Board motion.

Action Requested Approve Execution of the Quit-Claim Deed to Correct the Legal Description for the East 7th Mississippi Market Maintenance Agreement.

Enc:

Quit-Claim Deed

cc: Jim Mogen, Ramsey County Attorney’s Office W:\07 Programs\Permitting\Board Memos\2015-1-21 Permit Closeout Board Memo.docx

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

February 4, 2015 Regular Board Meeting III. Permits E) Authorize 45-day Review Period for Draft Rule Amendments (Kelley)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

January 29, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Forrest Kelley, Regulatory and Construction Program Manager Authorize 45-day Review Period for Draft Rules

Background Proposed rule revisions were included in the October 1, 2014 board packet and were sent out for infor ma l TAC review in early November. The Joint Rules Technical Advisory Committee met on January 29, 2015 to discuss the response to comments received during the informal review and comment period.

Discussion Staff reviewed the response to comments and the proposed changes with TAC at the meeting. The proposed schedule for official review and comment was also discussed, and staff request the Board authorize distribution of the attached revised rules for 45-day review and comment beginning Friday, February 6th and ending Monday, March 23, 2015 and to set a public hearing date of March 4, 2015.

Staff will discuss the proposed rule amendments at the meeting and answer any questions the Board of Managers may have.

Requested Action Authorize distribution of proposed draft rule revisions for formal 45-day review and comment period ending March 23, 2015 as required by MN Statute 103D.341 Schedule a public hearing on the proposed draft rules for Wednesday March 4, 2015 at 6:00 pm

enc:

Draft Amended Rules

W:\07 Programs\Rules\2015\Board Memo Authorize 45-day review Draft Rule Amendment..docx

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

Capitol Region Watershed District Rules Adopted 09/06/2006 Effective 10/01/2006 Revised 04/18/201204/01/2015 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

243

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

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 of the lakes and other water resources throughout the District. The Mississippi River is the principle receiving water for all runoff from the District and is listed by the EPA and 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.

In these rules the District seeks to protect the public health and welfare and the natural

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

2

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 adoption of a local water management plan approved by the District 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 any amendments, revisions or recodification of such sections. References in these Rules CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

3

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 Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (MBWSR, 1988); Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (MPCA, 2000); and Minnesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2005): as such documents may be amended, revised or supplemented.

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.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

4

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.

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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

5

hazard to human health, safety, property, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

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- storm water 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.

Illegal Discharge. Any direct or indirect non-storm water 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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

6

repair/replacement done in conjunction with a mill/overlay project shall not be considered land disturbance.

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.

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, storm water, 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 ยง 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 ยง 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 on 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 Agency to study stormwater runoff from urban development.

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 that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

7

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 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 and yard wastes; refuse, rubbish, garbage, litter, or other discarded or abandoned objects, ordnances, 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: gas stations, petroleum wholesalers, vehicle maintenance and repair, 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 Value Credit. Wetland replacement credit that can only be used for the portion of wetland replacement required above a 1:1 ratio.

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

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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

8

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 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 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.

A document which describes the best management practices and activities to be implemented by a person or business 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.

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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

9

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, 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 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 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: 1.

PERMIT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

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 information and exhibits as may be required by these rules. Permit applications shall be signed by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent, 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. One full set, one set reduced to 11”x17”, and one electronic set in .pdf format shall be submitted.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

10

2.

FORMS. Permit applications must be submitted on the form provided by the District. Applicants may obtain these forms at the District office or Internet 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 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 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 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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

11

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 Districts entry upon the land for field inspections and monitoring, or for performing any work necessary to bring the activity into compliance at the permittee 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 of 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, 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.

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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

12

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:

(a) Reduce runoff rates to levels that allow for stable conveyance of flow throughout the water resources of the District.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

13

(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. (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. (c) RUNOFF VOLUME -- Stormwater runoff volume retention shall be retained be achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to 1.1 inches of the runoff generated from one a 1.1 inch rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. The required stormwater runoff volume reduction shall be calculated as follows:

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

14

Required Volume (ft3 ) = Impervious surfaces (ft2 ) x 1.0 1(in) x 0.9 coefficient 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 (1)(2) When usingFor infiltration of the required stormwater runoff for volume reduction, the following requirements must be met: (i) The required stormwater runoff storage volume storage shall be provided within the storage below the invert of the low overflow outlet of the BMP (perforated drain pipes for filtration systems will not be considered the low overflow outlet). (ii) Runoff infiltrated or filtered during a rain event will not be credited towards the volume reduction requirement. (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) The applicant may complete double-ring infiltrometer test 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.

Table 1. Design Infiltration Rates Hydrologic soil Infiltration rate Soil Corresponding Unified Soil group (inches/hour) textures Classification

A

1.63

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

A

0.8

sand SP - gap-graded or uniform sands, loamy sand gravelly sands sandy loam

B

0.45

CRWD RULES

SM - silty sands, silty gravelly sands

4/18/2012

15

Hydrologic soil group

Infiltration rate (inches/hour)

B

0.3

C

0.2

D

0.06

Soil textures loam, silt loam Sandy clay loam

Corresponding Unified Soil Classification MH - micaceous silts, diatomaceous silts, volcanic ash ML - silts, very fine sands, silty or 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 TABLE 1--Design Infiltration Rates Soil Group Soil Textures A

Gravel, sand, sandy gravel, silty gravel, loamy sand, sandy loam

B

Loam, silt loam

C

ASTM Unified Soil Rate Class Symbols 1.63 in/hr GW, GP 0.80 in/hr GM, SW, SP 0.60 in/hr SM 0.30 in/hr ML, OL 0.20 in/hr GC, SC

Sandy clay loam Clay, clay loam, silty clay loam, D CL, CH, OH, MH sandy clay, silty clay Source: Minnesota Stormwater Manual, November 2005.

0.00 in/hr

(iv)(v) The infiltration area shall be capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours for surface and subsurface BMPs. (v)(vi) Infiltration areas shall be limited to the horizontal areas subject to prolonged wetting. (vi)(vii) Areas of permanent pools tend to lose infiltration capacity over time and will not be accepted as an infiltration practice. (vii)(viii) 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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

16

sizing and approaches can be found in application guidance materials. (viii)(ix) Design and placement of infiltration BMPs shall be done in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health guidance called “Evaluating Proposed Stormwater Infiltration Projects in Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas.� http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/stormwater.pdf (ix)(x) 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.

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

Land Use Limitations

CRWD RULES

Specific Site Conditions

Infiltration Requirements

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

Prohibited

Low Permeability (Type D Soils)

Restricted- 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 Karst Areas

Restricted- Soil borings required Restricted- Soil borings required

Utility Locations

Concerned- Site Map with detailed utility locations

Adjacent Wells

Restricted- Well Locations

4/18/2012

Prohibited Prohibited

Restricted- Soil borings required

17

TABLE 2--Alternative Compliance Site Conditions* Type Specific Site Conditions Submittal Requirements Potential Contamination

Physical Limitations

Land Use Limitations

Potential Stormwater Hotspots (PSHs) Contaminated Soils

PSH locations and flow paths

Low Permeability (Type D Soils) Bedrock within 3 vertical feet of bottom of infiltration area Seasonal High Groundwater within 3 vertical feet of bottom of infiltration area Karst Areas

Soil Borings Soil Borings

Utility Locations Adjacent Wells

Site Map Well Locations

State Permitted Brownfield Documentation, Soil Borings

Soil Borings

Soil Borings

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

(2)(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, the following Alternative Compliance Sequencing may be achieved by any combination of the sequence below, but shall be explored in order presented.steps shall be taken in the order shown: (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 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 filtration with 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).

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

18

• •

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.

(i)(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 through the use of qualified banking credits as determined by Rule C – 3.c.4.

•

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.

(ii)(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 will be set by the Board annually.

CRWD RULES

•

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.

4/18/2012

19

(3)(4) Volume reduction provided in excess of the 1.1-inch requirement may be banked for use on another project. Excess banked volume reduction amounts shall not exceed the volume of two inches over the impervious surfaces of the drainage area to the BMP or the volume provided within the BMP, whichever is less. 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.

(4)(5) 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. (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). 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) 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. (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.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

20

(e) For linear projects, costs specific to satisfying the volume reduction and water quality standards 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. The District may contribute the 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) MAINTENANCE -- 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. 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 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. (c) Aerial photo showing the locations of water bodies downstream of site. (d) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities location, alignment, and elevation. (e) Delineation of existing onsite wetland, marshes, shoreland, and floodplain areas. (f) Identification of existing and proposed normal, ordinary high and 100-year water elevations onsite.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

21

(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. (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.

5.

(q) All plan sheets shall be signed by a Minnesota licensed professional appropriate for the project.

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. (ii) Is greater than 10,000 square feet and is adjacent to a wetland, stream, public water, or public water wetland., public water or 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 unless the land disturbing activity or the development of land alters the drainage boundaries shown in the District’s Watershed Management Plan.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

22

(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. (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 water body, public water, or public water wetland without first obtaining a permit from the District.

3.

CRITERIA. (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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

23

Condition

Water Bodies with Piped Outlets and Mississippi River 

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

New Habitable Buildings



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

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

Water Bodies 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.

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.



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 or one foot above the emergency overflow elevation.



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



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



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



Freeboard requirement set by road authority.

Freeboard requirement set by road authority.



Underground Parking Structures

Public Roadway



Freeboard requirement set by road authority.

(2) For water bodies without a piped outlet: i. The normal water level of a water body 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 CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

24

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 water bodies without piped outlets, mottled soils may be considered in establishing a water body’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 water body 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: 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 water body to the next downstream water body and away from buildings.

4.

EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.

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.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

25

(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 shall be prepared and signed by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer. Study shall include a figure of receiving water bodies 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.

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.

(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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

26

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 "local government unit" for administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, unless a particular local government unit 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 permit application.

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.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

27

(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.

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

Rule F: 1.

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

POLICY.

CRWD RULES

It is the policy of the Board of Managers to require the preparation

4/18/2012

28

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 of 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 amended. (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 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, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site shall be properly managed and disposed of so they will not have an adverse impact on water quality. (e) 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) 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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

29

undergone final stabilization and has received an approved certificate of completion.

4.

EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.

One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11"x17"; and a copy of all submittals in electronic .pdf format. (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) 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) 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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

30

(2) Is adjacent to a wetland, stream, public water, or public water wetland. public water wetland, public water or wetland. (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;

(e)

Not allow new direct connections or Interceptor or other components of the cause or exacerbate water conveyance, including but not limited to surcharging

other impacts to the Trout Brook District’s MS4 if the connection will or structural problems in the system, 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 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

31

Brook Interceptor. new connection. (b)

Enlargement of existing connections is considered a

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)

(c)

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.

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

32

(d)

Monitoring of Discharges.

(1) Applicability. This section applies to all facilities that have storm water 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 Practices.

(1) 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 of 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.

(1) 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 owned

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

33

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. (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 storm water pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property; (v) Payment of a fee to cover administrative and remediation costs; (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

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

34

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.

(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.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

35

(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.

4.

5.

EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the 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 ground water, ground water infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated pumped ground water, 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.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

36

(c)

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

(d)

Any non-storm water 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.

Rule H:

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: 1.

VARIANCES

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.

CRWD RULES

4/18/2012

37

2.

PROCEDURE. (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 insure 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

38

February 4, 2015 Board Meeting Special Report – 2015 CRWD Education and Outreach Plan Update (Beckman)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

January 29, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Elizabeth Beckman Special Report – 2015 CRWD Education and Outreach Plan Update (Beckman)

Background In August 2013, Board Managers approved the 2014-15 Education and Outreach Plan which was developed with the assistance of HDR Engineering.

Issues In December 2014, CRWD staff reviewed and summarized 2014 outreach activities and restated 2015 goals and tasks. Prior to discussion of the 2015 plan at the February 4 meeting, staff will present a brief overview of 2014 activities and results.

The 2015 Education and Outreach Plan is intended to focus staff activity to increase the depth and quality of community involvement and organizational partnerships, increase the diversity of the groups and individuals with whom we work, improve our existing outreach and communication tools, and ultimately, reduce water pollution within CRWD. We ask the Board to review the draft Plan and Table, consider the questions below, and provide feedback at the February 4 meeting: Is anything missing from the Plan?

What, if anything, should be eliminated?

What should be staff’s highest outreach priority in 2015?

Request Action Approve the 2015 Education and Outreach Plan with incorporated Board edits.

Enc:

2015 CRWD Education and Outreach Plan 2015 CRWD Education and Outreach Plan – Table

W:\07 Programs\Edu-Outreach\Admin-Workplan\Ed Plan\2015 Ed Plan\BM Ed Plan 2015 Update.docx

2015 CRWD EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PLAN – February 4, 2015 In December 2014, CRWD staff reviewed and summarized 2014 Education and Outreach activities and restated 2015 projects, goals, audiences and tasks. The 2015 Education and Outreach Plan is intended to focus staff activity, increase the depth and quality of community involvement and organizational partnerships, increase the diversity of the groups and individuals we serve, and improve our existing outreach and communication tools to ultimately, reduce water pollution within CRWD. CRWD staff hope the Citizen Advisory Committee, Board Managers, a small number of contracted consultants and community volunteers will assist in the implementation of the tasks in this Plan, but it is understood that the majority of the work will be completed by CRWD Education and Outreach staff.

Staff Resources • Full-time staff – 2080 hours • Part-time staff – 1560 hours Project Name Each project name denotes an area of Education and Outreach work with its corresponding budget code number.

Goals Our goals in carrying out these projects are: • Reduce nonpoint source pollution (NPS Pollution) • Increase public participation (Participation) • Increase public action to protect clean water (Action) • Increase public knowledge of water resource issues (Knowledge Increase) Project descriptions General Education and Outreach – 220-15150 The activities within General Education and Outreach meet all four goals, NPS Pollution Reduction, Participation, Action and Knowledge Increase.

1. Displays – Educational displays and supporting materials will be used at all CRWD events, and loan of the displays is promoted to partner and community groups. Staff will develop a survey tool to measure effectiveness of the displays.

2. Newsletters – Staff will develop a bimonthly electronic newsletter (six per year).

3. Print materials & electronic media – Staff will maintain the existing Facebook page using increased links to CRWD’s website, partner pages and online stories.

W:\07 Programs\Edu-Outreach\Admin-Workplan\Ed Plan\2015 Ed Plan\2015 EO Plan Report FINAL DRAFT.docx

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Staff will expand the use of storytelling and increase calls for action (e.g. “Get Involved.” “Do Your Part.” “Pitch In.”) in its print and online materials.

Citizen questions and response – Staff will promptly (within 24 hours) respond to citizen inquires. Staff will issue and tally feedback surveys for CRWD events.

Annual Report – Staff will coordinate the printing of CRWD’s Annual Report.

IDDE education program – Staff will target audience(s) in Trout Brook – West Branch for an IDDE education program and accompanying materials.

Contact database – Staff will use a Sage™ consultant to assist with launch and population of the customer relationship management (CRM) system to track both print and digital distribution and to help report Education and Outreach activity.

Strategic Communications Plan with RWMWO and MWMO – Staff from the three organizations will jointly supervise Fourth Sector Consulting, LLC in the development of a Strategic Communications Plan to share costs, reduce replication of effort and improve the effectiveness of outreach communication between our three organizations.

Community Capacity Assessment – 220-15253 Through the implementation of findings from the Community Capacity Assessment, Participation and Action goals will be achieved.

1. Project Advisory Team management – Staff will coordinate with and advise the work of the researchers and manage the Project Advisory Team to refine research methods for the next phases of the Assessment.

2. Events – Staff will participate in events or group activities of Assessment participants and strengthen ties with organizations whose members make up the Project Advisory Team.

3. Findings – Staff will increase the number and improve the quality of events and outreach to Green Line businesses and residents in adjacent neighborhoods based on findings of the Assessment.

Clean Streets Outreach – 220-15255 Through the Clean Streets Outreach project, staff hopes to achieve all four goals, NPS Pollution Reduction, Participation, Action and Knowledge Increase.

1. Street sweeping study – Staff will codevelop a paired watershed study of enhanced street sweeping techniques with a collaborative team of University of Minnesota researchers from the departments of Ecology Evolution & Behavior and Biosystems Engineering. Staff will coordinate planning meetings, support other CRWD staff as well as the research team.

2. Street sweeping outreach – Staff will investigate models and methods for the development of a plan for resident outreach accompanying the enhanced street sweeping portion of the study.

Municipal Outreach – 220-15260 Through the Municipal Outreach project Education and Outreach goals of Reducing NPS Pollution, Action and Knowledge increase are achieved.

2

1. Coordinate winter maintenance training - Staff will sponsor winter maintenance trainings for City of Saint Paul Public Works Street Maintenance and Parks and Recreation staff.

2. Summer maintenance and turf management training - Staff will sponsor and cocoordinate summer maintenance and turf management training program for City of Saint Paul Parks and Recreation staff.

Youth Outreach – 220-15262 Through Youth Outreach, Education and Outreach goals of Participation, Action and Knowledge Increase will be achieved.

1. Classroom presentations – Staff will present water quality and NPS pollution reduction lessons to K-12 classrooms on an on-demand basis.

2. Tours – Staff will collaborate with teachers or program staff from schools or groups such as Urban Roots or Great River Greening to organize tours of CRWD projects.

3. Event support and promotion – Staff will support other community water quality education events through printing, advertising or promotion.

Partnerships – 220-15265 Through Partnerships, Education and Outreach goals of Participation and Action and will be achieved.

1. Event support – Staff will help promote and serve as a table host for Blue Thumb’s 2015 Landscape Revival Native Plant Sale on June 6, 2015.

2. Program support – Staff will support and advise WaterShed Partners program planning. Staff will also support the Blooming Saint Paul Awards by contributing financial support and submitting program donations.

3. Sponsorships – CRWD will make contributions to Blue Thumb, Friends of the Mississippi River, WaterShed Partners, and Blooming Saint Paul.

Website – 220-15270 Through website enhancement, Education and Outreach goals of Participation and Knowledge Increase will be achieved.

1. Content update – Staff will review and update content on the website to increase readability, consistency and navigability.

2. Add tools – Staff will work with Fourth Sector Consulting, LLC to add interactive tools to the website such as an event calendar, interactive project maps and videos.

3. Analytics – Staff will work with Fourth Sector Consulting, LLC to interpret and report on website visit information from Google Analytics.

4. Site map review and update – Staff will direct Fourth Sector to review the existing website map and update page names and locations.

Events – 220-15275 Through Events, Education and Outreach goals of Participation, Action and Knowledge will be achieved. Through its coordination of Events, CRWD also increases racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and geographic diversity of its service audiences.

1. Event coordination – CRWD will organize and host three public outreach events.

3

2. Event feedback – Staff will gather feedback from participants to evaluate knowledge increase that will be used for planning future events and outreach programs.

Watershed Steward Awards – 220-15285 Through CRWD’s Watershed Steward Awards, Education and Outreach goal of Participation will be achieved.

1. Program promotion and administration - Staff will administrate the Watershed Steward Awards including program promotion, managing nominations and the review process.

2. Awards ceremony – Staff will coordinate the Watershed Steward Awards Ceremony with the CAC Awards Committee.

Partner Grants – 210-15144 Through the Partner Grants Program, Education and Outreach goals of NPS Pollution Reduction, Participation, Action and Knowledge Increase will be achieved. Through its relationships with Partner Grants organizations, CRWD also increases racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and geographic diversity of its service audiences.

1. Program development and support – Staff will capitalize on existing K-12 student venues and programming through work with Mary Johnson at Public Art Saint Paul, Jana Larson at Hamline’s Center for Global and Environmental Education (Adopt-aDrain) and Jenny Eckman at Harambee Elementary to develop and support water quality education programming to their identified audiences.

2. Printing, advertising and promotion – Staff will help Public Art Saint Paul, Saint Paul Parks and Recreation, CGEE, Asian Economic Development Association, Harambee and Frogtown Green with printing, and promoting of events that are a part of approved partner grant projects.

RSVPs – 210-15146 Through RSVP Boulevard Rain Garden Program, Education and Outreach goals of NPS Pollution Reduction and Knowledge Increase will be achieved.

1. Planting event coordination – Staff will coordinate a planting event for RSVP homeowners in collaboration with CRWD Urban BMP staff, District Planning Councils, neighborhood organizations and, where applicable, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District.

2. Homeowner communication and education – Staff will manage communication with RSVP homeowners including postal mail, email and phone conversations to answer event and plant questions. Staff will also host a public open house for Hamline Midway Boulevard Rain Garden Project homeowners.

See attached 2015 Capitol Region Watershed District Education and Outreach Plan -- TABLE

4

February 4, 2015 Board Meeting Special Report: Education and Outreach Update (Beckman)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

January 29, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Elizabeth Beckman Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with RWMWD (Beckman)

Background In summer 2014 at the invitation of Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), CRWD staff explored the possibility of a partnership between RWMWD and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO) to jointly hire a communications consultant in order to share costs, reduce replication of effort and improve the effectiveness of outreach communication of the three watershed organizations. In August 2014, staff from the three organizations selected the firm Fourth Sector Consulting, LLC to provide strategic communications services including the development of a shared Strategic Communications Plan.

Issues In December 2014, Fourth Sector Consulting, LLC independently completed a communications audit for CRWD and recommended improvements for our print materials and the addition of various digital tools. Reports summarizing these recommendations are attached.

CRWD staff proposes entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with RWMWD to manage the contract for work products to be shared by the three organizations. The goal is to create one master communications plan with a focus on shared messaging. Individual work tasks include onboarding days, stakeholder interviews, best practices research and final recommendations. Other tasks include the facilitation of a working session to review recommendations and the development of a calendar and workplan for 2015 communications activities. CRWD agrees to pay RWMWD $13,242.00 for its portion of the work and fees to develop the plan. This work and corresponding fees are described in the attached workplan and budget and are included as part of the MOU. Request Action Review and approve the MOU for the development of a shared Strategic Communications Plan with RWMWD. Enc:

CRWD Communications Audit and Digital Tools recommendations Draft MOU with RWMWD Strategic Communications Plan Workplan and Budget, Task One

W:\07 Programs\Edu-Outreach\Admin-Workplan\Communications Plans\Comm Partnership w RWMWD\BM 2015 Comm Partnership w RWMWD.docx

MEMO TO: Elizabeth Beckman and Lindsay VanPatten, Capitol Region Watershed District FROM: Katie Eukel, Amber Collett and Tom Elko, Fourth Sector Consulting SUBJECT: Capitol Region Watershed District Communications Audit DATE: December 12, 2014 Following is a comprehensive audit of the Capitol Region Watershed District website and printed materials, with focused recommendations on improving and streamlining both resources.

PRINTED MATERIALS AUDIT What’s Working Design Consistency: Branding, color and fonts are consistent throughout all printed materials. Branding and layout matches the website very well and the materials used are of appropriate quality. ● Quality Content and Resources: Educational materials are well written, well organized and additional information, such as maps, is included when needed. ● Local and Vibrant Images: Images are colorful and easily recognized as local to the watershed district. There are no over-used images or images of poor quality. ● Multi-Lingual: At least four documents are available in multiple languages to connect with local communities. ●

What Could Be Improved ● Calls To Action: Consider action-oriented language when telling residents how they can get involved. “Get Involved” or “Pitch In” are more assertive than “How You Can Help” ● Self-Promote: Call out your website and Facebook page more. Going from holding the pamphlet to visiting the website is the first step for many new volunteers and participants.

WEBSITE AUDIT The website audit was conducted with the understanding that the primary audiences for the website include residents of the district and watershed partners (e.g. other watershed districts, elected officials, etc.).

What’s Working Design Consistency: Branding, color and fonts are consistent throughout the entire site. ● Quality Content and Resources: Educational materials throughout the site are high quality and provide target audiences with background and timely resources. You’re not short on compelling content! ● Open: Contact information is easy to find. Members of the staff, committees and board are well presented. ●

What Could Be Improved Flow of Website. The website features redundant information – several pages link back to the same content. We’d recommend streamlining the website and reducing the amount of navigation required to access key information. To achieve this, we recommend a thorough review of website analytics to answer the following questions: Who is using this website? Why are they using it? What do they most need to see? ● Photo Quality: Some of the photos are high quality and relevant to their page content, while others are grainy or outdated. We recommend establishing photo quality standards, ensuring that visuals used on the website represent the vibrancy of work occurring in the Capitol Region Watershed District. ● Website Segment Links: Links are used inconsistently in the main segments of the website header. For example, “Press” takes you to the press page, but “Our Work” is not an actual link until the drop down menu. ●

Recommended Short-Term Fixes (Q1) ● ● ● ● ●

●

Remove redundant links (e.g. “What is the Capitol Region Watershed” is listed under About Us and Watershed Information); Update photos throughout the site; Combine “How You Can Help” and “Volunteer” pages; Make sure the “Search” bar is always in the upper right-hand corner of pages; Remove outdated information (e.g. meeting notes older than one year, if you are not required to list this information on the website) and replace with updated information, as necessary; Remove 2013 event information.

Recommended Long-Term Fixes (Q2-4) Review website analytics to determine how users are currently navigating the website; ● After analytics review is complete, create a new site map that maps to user behavior, streamlines navigation and organizes content more effectively; ● Audit all website text to match new messaging frameworks; ●

Depending on what is learned from the analytics review, we may recommend an increased focus on storytelling. There’s a significant focus on connecting people to information (which user behavior may tell us is important), but less focus on celebrating the good work accomplished in the Capitol Region Watershed District; ● Increase image sizes and select new images; ● Include a “Contact Us” form rather than staffer emails; this may help filter general requests, so a specific person can ensure that information reaches the correct staff member. ●

PAGE-BY-PAGE WEBSITE RECOMMENDATIONS HOME More photos, less text on main page; potentially a great place for a monthly storytelling focus on an issue or accomplishment ● Make sure all bullet points are consistent in style. ●

ABOUT US What Is the Capitol Region Watershed District? ●

Looks good!

Board of Managers Confirm that Managers want their addresses publicly displayed; Take head shots of each Manager; this will ensure that they are consistent in quality and appearance; ● Include one to three sentence biographies on each manager. ● ●

Citizen Advisory Committee ● ● ● ● ● ●

Capitalize the ‘a’ in application; Check for consistent (or non-) use of bullet points; Make headers bolder; Put CAC members in order of rank and then alphabetically; Include one to three sentence biographies for each CAC member; Is it required to list meeting minutes dating back to 2010?

Staff ● Great layout – maybe try similar layout for CAC and Board pages?

Directions ● Have map visual also link to Google Maps.

Jobs/Internships ● This could also be a convenient place to link to active RFPs. Contact Info

● Insert a Contact form?

Press ● Looks great, but duplicative of “Press” section on homepage navigation.

Recommend removal.

WATERSHED INFORMATION (Delete blank landing page) What is a Watershed? ● Looks great!

What is a Watershed District? ● Check for use of “Minnesota”, “Minn.” and “MN” – decide on uniform standard and ensure all pages conform.

What is the Capitol Region Watershed District? ● REPEAT PAGE – Also linked in “About Us”. It may be worthwhile to remove from one of the header sections, once an analytics review is completed to determine how users are accessing this information most often.

Water Resources in CRWD ● Looks great!

Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor ● Looks great!

Are You in the Watershed? ● Looks great!

Recreation in the Watershed ● Make headers bolder.

OUR WORK Monitoring and Mapping ● Looks great!

Water Resource Improvement Projects ● Looks great!

Grants ● Change spelling of page header: “Why participate in our grants programs?”

Technical Assistance ● Could the information on this page be included in the Grants and Improvement Projects pages to cut down on size of site?

CRWD Reports ● Looks great!

PERMITS ● Looks great!

Permitting Overview ● Looks great!

Watershed Rules ● Looks great!

Application Information and Materials ● Looks great!

Stormwater Guidance Material ● Looks great!

Education CRWD Education Offerings ● Looks great!

Volunteers ● Combine “Volunteers” and “How You Can Help” page.

Partnerships ● Looks great!

Stormwater 101 ● Looks great!

How You Can Help ● Looks great!

Educational Resources ● Looks great!

Snow Removal and Salting ● Looks great!

PRESS (Perhaps change to Media?)

U of M Leaf Study ● Still important to elevate to the level of a subheader? Or are there things that might be more interesting to the press at this time?

In the Press (Change to In the Media) ● REPEAT PAGE: Also linked in About Us; we recommend removing from the About Us section.

Newsletters ● Looks great! There’s likely a lot of good information in here, which might not be accessible to search engines. May want to elevate content from current newsletter into HTML form, then keep links to previous year of newsletters on the website.

CRWD Reports ● Looks great!

Public Notices ● Looks great!

Links (may not be necessary as a header) 2013 Clean Water Summit ● Remove; old content.

2013 International Low Impact Development Symposium ● Remove; old content.

Metro MAWD Information ● Could this information be moved elsewhere on the website? Perhaps the Education section? Could the MAWD Awards be included in this section?

MAWD Awards ● Could this information be moved elsewhere on the website? Perhaps the Education section? Could the MAWD Awards be included in this section?

Audience Sidebars An analytics review could help us understand whether these sections are heavily trafficked or not. In our work with other clients, we’ve found that these types of website sections are often used less often than one may think. We may recommend removal of this section, depending on findings from an analytics review.

Residents ● This might be a good section to link to resources and information most requested by residents, rather than highlighting resident stories.

Students

● “Students” covers a broad age range – from preschool to post-graduate researchers. Perhaps change to “Youth”?

Developers ● This might be a good section to link to resources and information most requested by residents, rather than highlighting resident stories.

Report a Problem ● Link to a “Contact Us” form, rather than including a direct email link.

MEMO TO: Elizabeth Beckman, Lindsay Van Patten FROM: Tom Elko, Fourth Sector Consulting SUBJECT: Capitol Region Watershed District Digital Tools Recommendations DATE: January 5, 2015

Following are several recommendations for digital tools to best serve the Capitol Region Watershed Districts communications needs.

Forms Due to the variety and complexity of the forms needed by CRWD and associated programs, it is recommended that digital forms be created in Survey Monkey, an online form service, and embedded into CRWD’s web pages as needed.

WordPress forms are simple and require html knowledge, making it less than ideal for applications beyond basic contact forms.

Analytics Google Analytics is set up for the CRWD website, but not accessible due the lack of access to the associated Google account. CRWD will attempt to locate this information for access to past data.

If this information can not be found, a new account will be created and applied to the CRWD website for future data collection.

Calendar Upcoming events are currently listed as the primary item in the main body section of CRWD’s home page. Creating a visual calendar of events will be easy enough, but placement of this calendar needs to be considered along with what content will replace existing event info in the body of the home page. It is recommended that CRWD consider how it would ideally like to present events to users for consideration during a future website refresh/redesign.

Contact Management The Sage CRM system has recently been implemented in other departments at CRWD, and could eventually be a powerful tool for contact and mailing management. These features are available with the Sage CRM On Premise package, so clarification between Sage representatives and CRWD on weather this is included with the current package is needed.

February 4, 2015 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of January 21, 2015 DRAFT Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, January 21, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota REGULAR MEETING I.

A)

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins Shirley Reider Seitu Jones Mary Texer Mike Thienes

B)

Staff Present Mark Doneux, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD Forrest Kelley, CRWD Elizabeth Hosch, CRWD Bob Fossum, CRWD Nate Zwontizer, CRWD Britta Suppes, CRWD Jim Mogan, Ramsey County Attorney

Public Attendees Nathan Campeau, Barr Engineering Daniel Jones, Barr Engineering

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Collins asked for additions or changes to the agenda. No changes were requested.

Motion 15-009: Approve the January 21, 2015 agenda.

Reider/Texer Unanimously approved II.

Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda

There were no public comments.

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates A)

Permit #14-037 YMCA 60-day Review Extension

Mr. Kelley reviewed Permit #14-037 YMCA. Staff have received updated plans to address comments provided to the applicant on November 20, 2014. The applicant is currently working through the City’s Site Plan Review process.

Motion 15-010: Approve a 60-day extension to permit #14-037 YMCA, for the City’s Site Plan review period.

Jones/Reider Unanimously approved Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

B)

Permit # 14-040 Snelling (Kelley)

Mr. Kelley reviewed Permit #14-040 Snelling Avenue. The applicant MnDOT is reconstructing Snelling Avenue including mill and overlay, ADA improvements, sidewalk replacement, and curb and gutters. The applicable rules are Stormwater Management (Rule C), Flood Control (Rule D), and Erosion and Sediment Control (Rule F). The disturbed area of this project is 4.724 Acres with 4.724 Acres of impervious surface.

Motion 15-011: Approve with 6 Conditions: 1.

2.

3.

Provide updated plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit when it has been acquired.

Revise HydroCAD or Construction Plans to correspond: a. HydroCAD labels the infiltration basin pretreatment as “PB Pond,” sheet 295 of the Construction Plans labels it as “Pretreatment Basin,” sheet 294 labels it as “Pierce Butler Pond.” Remain consistent in labeling in order to prevent confusion. b. The Construction Plans indicated that structure 5321 has a 24” RCP outlet pipe that may control flows. Revise the HydroCAD model to route overflow through this pipe. c. The HydroCAD model has two horizontal orifice outlets: one at elevation 919.25 and one at elevation 920.05. The applicant has indicated that the orifices are meant to model a sloped grate, but the full diameter of structure 5321 was used for both orifices. Revise HydroCAD model to better simulate the hydraulics of the sloped grate.

4. Provide additional detail for the area west of the infiltration basin including a grading plan and invert elevations of culverts. This information should demonstrate that water will not pond west of the infiltration basin.

5. Provide planting plan for the infiltration/filtration basin bottom, or provide an alternative methods to limit inundation and ensure seed will survive during the establishment period.

6. Provide a procedure for determining infiltration basin function and conditions that would necessitate filtration modification.

Note: Consider maximizing treatment capacity with the space and drainage available. Volumes in excess of the requirement up to two inches can be banked for future projects with site constraints Texer/Reider Unanimously approved C)

Permit Close Outs – 08-029 Mississippi Market (Hosch)

Ms. Hosch reviewed that the construction activity is complete for permit 08-029 Mississippi Market. The final inspections were conducted in the summer of 2014. All temporary BMPs have been removed and soils stabilized. Construction as-builts have been submitted and the BMPs were installed as approved. The Maintenance Agreements for the onsite stormwater management practices have been recorded with Ramsey County.

Motion 15-012: Approve Certificate of Completion for permit 08-029 Mississippi Market and the $5,100 Surety Return.

Reider/Texer Unanimously approved, President Collins and Manager Jones abstained from voting.

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

D)

Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley)

Mr. Kelley reviewed that in early 2014 a number of items were brought before the joint Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). A TAC meeting will be held on January 29, 2015 to discuss revisions and discuss comments. Mr. Kelley invited members of the Board to attend the TAC meeting. Mr. Kelley reviewed a list of the informal rule amendments that were made on January 13, 2015. Mr. Kelley requested feedback from the Board of Managers.

President Collins inquired about clarification on the 1.1 inches volume reduction. Mr. Kelley replied that the current rule is .9 inches of reduction over impervious surfaces. The staff are recommending 1.1 inch of run off without using an initial abstraction. President Collins asked if any other watersheds have the 1 inch liner standard. Administrator Doneux replied that most other watersheds have a 1 inch linear standard or do not have a standard.

The City of Roseville commented filtration credits and the increased cost to make a filtration basin larger and enhancements, not achieving pollution removal benefit.

Ms. Texer said the report was very well done. Manager Thienes plans to attend the TAC meeting on January 29th meeting. Mr. Kelley thank the Managers for their feedback.

III.

Special Reports – District 6 Natural Resource Inventory (Zwonitzer)

Mr. Zwonitzer reviewed that in 2014, CRWD partnered with the City of St. Paul and the District 6 Planning Council to complete a natural resource inventory within a targeted area of District 6. CRWD contracted Barr Engineering to complete the inventory and develop a report. The goal of the report is to document existing natural resources and their condition, identify opportunities for resource protection/restoration, and provide recommendations on how to increase resource connectivity by creating natural resource corridors.

Mr. Daniel Jones from Barr Engineering provided an overview of the report and the twenty four areas of interest. Barr Engineering completed a desktop analysis, field investigations, land cover evaluation, tree canopy cover estimates, and vegetation surveys to identify critical natural resource areas. In addition to identification and inventory, Barr developed management goals, strategies, and opportunities for the study area. Goals include protection of open green space, enhancing habitat, and establishing corridors of natural vegetation. Specific parcels were identified for potential future acquisition to create corridors, while other parcels were identified for invasive species removal or creation of a small “pocket park�.

The Board of Managers provided comments on the parcels as they were reviewed. In the NW corner of parcel 1, Manager Texer wanted to know who owns the land and commented that this parcel would be important to protect. Manager Jones agreed that controlling that parcel would be the best way to ensure protection of this area. Administrator Doneux noted that this area has a history of filling.

Motion 15-013: Accept the District 6 Natural Resource inventory, subject to final revisions.

Texer/Reider Unanimously approved

V.

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

A)

AR:

Approve Minutes of the January 7, 2015 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 15-014: Approve Minutes of the January 7, 2015.

Reider/Jones Unanimously approved B)

AR:

Accounts Payable & Budget Update (Sylvander)

Motion 15-015: Approve the December 2014 Accounts Payable/Receivable and December Budget Report and direct Treasurer and Board President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments.

Thienes/Reider Unanimously approved C)

AR:

Award Bid for Remote Data Access (Suppes)

Ms. Suppes reviewed that at the April 16th, 2014 Board meeting, the Managers approved the Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations, including Recommendation 8: Install AC power and remote data access at baseline sites. Also at the April 16th, 2014 Board meeting, the Managers reviewed the Monitoring Station Power and Communication Improvement Plan, where the project cost was estimated at $12,300.

Staff have worked with Wenck Associates to develop a request for quotations (RFQ) to be distributed to three electrical contractors (Hunt Electric, Muska Electric Company, and Peoples Electric) to complete AC power installation at the three Trout Brook monitoring site locations (Trout Brook-East Branch, Trout Brook-West Branch, and Trout Brook Outlet). The Engineer’s estimated cost for this work was $32,740.

The Board and the Ramsey County Attorney approved the RFQ at the October 15, 2014 meeting. The RFQ was distributed to the three contractors on November 17, 2014. A pre-quote meeting was held on November 24, 2014. The RFQ closed on December 8, 2014. CRWD received quotes back from Muska Electric Company and Hunt Electric. Muska Electric Company was the lowest bidder at $27,535, which includes estimates for Trout Brook-East Branch, Trout Brook-West Branch, and Trout Brook Outlet. Wenck has reviewed the Muska Electric Company quote and recommends CRWD enter into a contract with Muska Electric Company to complete the project as designed in the plans and specifications. Manager Thienes ask that all bids be shown with recommendations.

Motion 15-016: Award Alternate Bid: Site #1 and Base Bid: Site #2 for the Electrical Power Installation to Water Quality Monitoring Stations Project to Muska Electric Company for an amount not to exceed $27,535.

Reider/Jones Unanimously approved Motion 15-017: Authorize the Board President and Administrator to execute a Notice of Award and an Agreement with Muska Electric Company for the Electrical Power Installation to Water Quality Monitoring Stations Project subject to the review and approval of the Ramsey County Attorney.

Reider/Thienes Unanimously approved Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

Manager Thienes asked if the work will be completed before the spring monitoring season begins. Ms. Suppes replied that the goal is to have the power installed as soon as possible. The permitting has added a number of details.

VI.

Unfinished Business A) Metro MAWD Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux provided the Board of Managers with an update on the recommendations that were made at the January 20, 2015 MAWD meeting. CRWD is being recommended for a $200,000 Clean Water Legacy grant for the East Kittsondale Project and $175,000 for the Central High School. The City of St. Paul was awarded a $695,000 grant to fund the installation of a lift station at the Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary. The Managers were very pleased with this news.

Motion 15-018: To move into a closed session for the Annual Performance Review of the Administrator.

Texer/Thienes Unanimously Approved VII.

General Information A) Closed session for Annual Performance Review of Administrator

Motion 15-019: To exit the closed session.

Texer/Thienes Unanimously Approved Motion 15-020: Approve Administrator salary increase of 5%.

Collins/Reider Unanimously Approved VIII. Next Meeting A) Wednesday, February 4, 2015 Meeting B) Wednesday, February 11, 2015 CAC Meeting Motion 15-021: Adjournment of the January 7, 2015 Regular Board Meeting at 8:15 p.m.

Thienes/Jones Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander

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

February 4, 2015 Action Item V. B) Authorize Full Time Seasonal Technician (Fossum)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

January 29, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Program Manager Full Time, Temporary Water Resource Technician Position

Background The 2015 Work Plan and Budget included a 0.25 FTE Seasonal Water Resource Technician (Monitoring).

Issues I have draft a Full-Time, Temporary Water Resource Technician Position Description and it is attached to this memo. The position would be non-exempt (hourly) and the pay range would be from $12-$14/hour. The period of employment would be roughly May through August. This position would not accrue PTO nor provide benefits. The total cost is estimated to be $8,500 and funding would come from the budget 0.25 FTE ($11,750) position in the Monitoring Program Budget.

Requested Action Authorize the MRM Division Manager to advertise and fill the full-time, temporary Water Resource Technician position. enc:

Water Resource Technician, Full Time Temporary position description

W:\03 Human Resources\POSITIONS\Interns Water Resource\Seasonal Technician 2015\Brd Memo - 2015 Seasonal Technician 1-29-15.docx

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

WATER RESOURCE TECHNICIAN, Full Time, Temporary POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT and POSITION DESCRIPTION Revised, January 8, 2015

Position Title: Water Resource Technician, Full Time, Temporary The Water Resource Technician, Full Time, Temporary is an opportunity for a currently enrolled student pursuing a career in water resources, limnology, biology, or other related field to gain experience in water resource management and fieldwork. This position is full time meaning 40 hours a week but temporary in nature because the positions are funded through the summer field season of June through August.

Position Available: One Full Time, Temporary Technician will be hired. The position will be filled for the time period from approximately May 18, 2015 through Late August/Early September 2015. This time period is approximate and will be negotiated with the successful candidate. Full time is defined as meaning the positions are generally 40 hours a week with time and ½ paid for authorized hours worked over 40 each week. Temporary means the positions will last for approximately three (3) months.

General Duties: Primary duty would be to assist Watershed District Technicians in the operation and maintenance of storm water quality monitoring sites. The Technician will work under the supervision of the Monitoring, Research and Maintenance Division Program Manager. Most work activities will be field work with some office work downloading and storing data collected in the field.

Position Description: The Water Resource Technician, Full Time, Temporary will assist with storm water quality monitoring of the Capitol Region Watershed District. The individual responsibilities will include: Assist with the installation, operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment. This will include stormwater discharges at key outlets to the Mississippi River and stormwater Best Management Practices.

Accurately record and store all data collected from monitoring program. Assist with the monitoring, maintenance and inspections of the District stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). The majority of the technician’s time will be spent outdoors participating in field monitoring and preparing and/or delivering samples to lab.

Hours of Work: The position requires 40 hours per week. Work hours will be 7:30—4:30, Monday through Friday, during the summer months of June-August. Flexibility is allowed for students to complete course work in the spring.

Compensation: $13.00 per hour, depending on qualifications and experience. This position does not include benefits or paid time off. Limited, un-paid time off may be allowed with prior approval.

Application: Send cover letter, resume and transcript to Bob Fossum at bob@capitolregionwd.org no later than 4:00pm, February 17, 2015 Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

Background and Experience Requirements: Students with water quality monitoring experience preferred, but not required. Students from Water Resources, Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, or Biology would be particularly suited.

Prerequisites:  A currently enrolled student.  Individual must provide their own clothing, rain gear, boots, etc.  Interest in pursuing a career in water resources, including water quality monitoring and fieldwork.  Has completed water resources coursework (e.g. limnology, hydrology, water chemistry, public health, ecology).  Ability to work full-time during June – August.  Experience using Excel and MS-Word software.  Ability to communicate effectively and work independently.  Must possess a valid driver’s license.  Requires frequent lifting of items weighing up to 60 pounds and walking in rough terrain.  Job requires working in all weather conditions.

W:\03 Human Resources\POSITIONS\Interns Water Resource\Seasonal Technician 2015\Seasonal Water Resource Technician Position Descipiton 5-2714.docx

2

February 4, 2015 Action Item V. C) Lafayette Campus Stormwater Plan RFP (Fossum)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

January 29, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Program Manager Lafayette Campus Stormwater Feasibility Study RFP

Background In 2008, CRWD partnered with the MPCA on an unsuccessful Legislative and Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) funding request. The LCCMR request was for planning and construction of green infrastructure BMPs at the MPCA building site to reduce pollutant loading to the Mississippi River and provide an outdoor educational exhibit for stormwater BMPs. Issues Over the past several months, staff have once again met with the MPCA and the owner the property of the MPCA, BWSR, DNR, and other State of Minnesota office buildings and associated parking (see attached Map). Discussions have related to a feasibility study to retrofit the campus with a variety of stormwater management projects to reduce stormwater runoff. Completing a Stormwater Feasibility Study for this area represents a great opportunity to retrofit an existing site within the District with a willing landowner and tenant. The total project area is approximately 36 acres that now all drains untreated to the Trout Brook Storm Sewer and then to the Mississippi River.

Staff will review the RFP and recent discussions staff have had with MPCA staff and the property owner with the Managers.

Requested Action Authorize staff to distribute the RFP for the Lafayette Campus Stormwater Feasibility Study. enc:

Request for Proposals (RFP)-- Lafayette Campus Stormwater Feasibility Study (Draft)

W:\08 Orgs-Cities-Agencies\MPCA\LCCMR Lafayette Campus\Brd Memo - Lafayette Campus RFP 1-29-15.docx

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

LAFAYETTE CAMPUS STORMWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS January 26, 2015--DRAFT Background Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) in partnership with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) seek proposals from interested engineering firms for a feasibility study of strategic stormwater management solutions on a multiple parcel area containing several state of Minnesota office buildings and associated parking for several state agencies. The Lafayette Campus is defined as the area bound by Lafayette Road, East 7th Street, and the BNSF Railroad Line in Saint Paul.

A map of the project area is enclosed.

No redevelopment is planned in the short-term for the existing buildings on the Lafayette Campus.

Proposed stormwater improvements will likely focus on the non-building portions of the study area.

However, analysis of the entire site will be required to have a good understanding of how water moves on and across the site.

Proposal Description The study of the Lafayette Campus will focus on identifying and evaluating green infrastructure practices that could be constructed on the Campus. Green infrastructure is a system in which stormwater runoff generated is treated in landscape features, infrastructure, and/or natural processes that manage and/or treat stormwater. The benefits of these practices extend beyond stormwater and may include improved aesthetics, new greenspace, shared infrastructure, such as parking, allowing for more efficient land use, reduction of urban heat island effect, and creation of wildlife habitat.

CRWD seek to conduct an engineering feasibility study to evaluate the opportunities and constraints for implementing green infrastructure practices and develop Green Infrastructure concepts on the Lafayette Campus. Public art concepts should also be considered and incorporated into the Green Infrastructure designs. The engineering firm shall identify an artist to engage as a partner in the study.

Below is the preliminary scope of work for the study that includes tasks, deliverables, timeline, and level of effort (represented in dollars). Interested engineering firms should prepare a proposal that contains a detailed scope of work and budget. Instructions for preparing and submitting the proposal are located at the end of this document.

Preliminary Scope of Work Task 1 – Existing Data Collection and Review

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

The selected engineering firm will gather and review the available, relevant data and information of the project area that would be useful for assessing existing site conditions and siting and selecting green infrastructure practices. Information may include soils, storm sewer system, land use, property ownership, easements, trees, utilities and other conflicts. An evaluation of this information will assist in determining any data gaps and the necessary field work to conduct for this study.

Task 2 – Field Work At a minimum, the field work shall topographic survey as needed and locating utilities to determine the above and below ground conflicts for green infrastructure practices. The engineering firm shall conduct a soils field investigation in existing greenspace and paved areas to determine soil type and hydrologic function. At least two soil borings collected in the field investigation shall also include environmental screening of the soils. The data and information collected will assist in the development of the conceptual designs.

Since the study area is mostly privately owned, coordination with the property owner will be required to ensure property access permission is obtained prior to field work. CRWD and MPCA will take the lead in obtaining permission to access private property.

Task 3 – Preliminary Conceptual Designs Using data and information obtained from Tasks 1 and 2, the engineering firm will develop conceptual designs of green infrastructure practices with a desired goal of managing/ treating runoff from the entire to MIDS standards. The areas identified for green infrastructure practices may include but are not limited to parking lots, alleyways/circulation, plaza or outdoor space, surface or structured parking, landscaping, public art and/or snow storage. A minimum of six preliminary green infrastructure concept designs should be prepared. The conceptual designs should incorporate the need to maintain parking capacity at levels near existing. A design workshop with key study partners should be held for developing the preliminary green infrastructure concepts.

The engineering firm shall evaluate the performance of the BMPs using the MIDS calculator or similar method and provide estimates of volume and pollutant reductions for each option. The base level of performance for stormwater shall be retention of the volume of runoff from 1.1 inch rainfall (anticipated revised CRWD stormwater rule, currently 1.0 inches). The engineering firm will identify base performance standards for other functions of infrastructure. All conceptual designs will need to be evaluated for feasible traffic circulation to ensure that they are implementable. In addition, conceptual level costs of final engineering, construction and operation and maintenance should be provided.

A draft technical memorandum should be prepared and shall include study background, summary of the study tasks, preliminary conceptual designs, and SSGI costs and performance costs. The study partners will review the conceptual designs and select a preferred conceptual design to finalize and consider for final engineering and design.

Deliverables: Draft technical memorandum that includes three preliminary conceptual designs, green infrastructure performance data for each option, and cost estimates for each option 2

Task 4 – Final Conceptual Designs Based on comments from the study partners, the engineering firm will finalize the selected conceptual design(s) that may serve as the foundation for final design and engineering. The volume and pollutant reduction estimates and cost estimates will also be revised. All of this information should be included in a final technical memorandum.

Deliverables: Final technical memorandum that includes selected final conceptual design(s), preliminary conceptual designs, green infrastructure performance data, and cost estimates Task 5 – Project Coordination and Meetings This project will require significant coordination between CRWD, MPCA, selected engineering firm, the property owner, an artist, and other building tenants in this study area. CRWD, MPCA, and the engineering firm will ensure the study partners have had the opportunity to provide input and approval of the selected conceptual designs.

It is anticipated that there will be seven meetings for the feasibility study. The engineering firm will be expected to assist in organizing and facilitating the meetings and preparing meeting minutes. The seven meetings include: • • • • • • •

Building owner meeting (introduction) Kick-off meeting with key staff to discuss existing plans, feasibility study scope of work and available data and information; Design workshop with study partners to discuss redevelopment needs and goals and develop preliminary conceptual designs; Meeting with study partners to present preliminary conceptual designs and receive comments; Meeting with study partners to present the final conceptual design and discuss project next steps; Presentation to CRWD’s Board of Managers of preliminary conceptual designs for comment; and Meeting with other advisory group, as needed.

Deliverables: Meeting agendas and minutes Estimated Level of Effort CRWD anticipates the level of effort for this project ranges from $50,000 to $75,000.

Anticipated Timeline • Feasibility Study RFP Distribution – February 6, 2015 • Proposal Submittal Deadline – February 27, 2015 • CRWD Approves Engineer – March 18, 2015 • Feasibility Study Start – April 2015 • Study Completion – October 2015 3

Instructions for Preparing and Submitting Proposal Firms are required to follow the outline below for their proposal. Failure to respond to any of the following technical submittal requirements may disqualify the proposal. Proposals should include: 1. Firm’s name, address, contact person phone number and email address and basic firm information.

2. Description of the firm’s approach to completing the study.

3. List of specific individual(s) who will work on this study and include brief descriptions of their professional qualifications, experience on similar projects and availability.

4. A detailed scope of work, budget, and schedule to complete the study, including billing rates and hours for staff proposed. The proposal must include a budget consistent with the enclosed example budget spreadsheet. It is not necessary to complete the exact budget spreadsheet, however, CRWD requires similar pieces of information as shown in this example. Outside costs, not identified in the preliminary scope of work, shall be listed separately in the budget proposal.

5. Brief descriptions of recent similar projects successfully completed by the firm that demonstrate your ability to design and engineer similar types of projects.

Please submit an electronic copy of your cover letter and proposal. Your proposal may not exceed ten (10) pages in length. Staff resumes and project descriptions may be included in the appendices and are not limited in length. Proposals shall be submitted to CRWD office no later than 12:00 PM, Friday, February 27, 2015 to Bob Fossum, CRWD Water Resource Program Manager, bob@capitolregionwd.org.

Selection Process CRWD will review proposals, which will be evaluated based on the following criteria: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Experience of key personnel who will be involved in the project; Recent similar design projects; General approach to urban stormwater BMP design; and Detailed scope of work and budget.

Based on the merits of the proposals, CRWD will consider selecting one firm as the Engineer for this project. After a firm has been selected, a professional services agreement (see enclosure) will be executed.

Enclosures • Study Area Map • Example proposal budget spreadsheet • CRWD Professional Services Agreement (template)

4

February 4, 2015 Board Meeting V. Unfinished Business, A) MidTerm WMP Review (Fossum)

DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

January 29, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Water Resource Program Manager 2010 Watershed Management Plan Mid-Term Review

Background On September 1, 2010, the Board of Managers adopted the District’s Watershed Management Plan (WMP).

The plan covers the term from 2010—2020. As the District is currently at the half-way point in the term of the WMP, it is a good time to evaluate implementation of the plan and consider adjustments (if any) to the WMP. Issues The District’s 2010 WMP is structured from general to specific as follows: Themes—Issues—Goals— Initiatives. The mid-term review should consider all of these elements and evaluate process towards addressing/achieving them over the past 4+ years (2010-2014). The evaluation will need to be qualitative as well as quantitative. This could include evaluation: 1. Has the District used the 5 Themes to guide/focus its work 2. What progress has been made on addressing the 20 Issues listed in the WMP 3. What progress has been made on addressing the 39 major Goals listed in the WMP 4. What initiatives (listed in the Implementation Plan) have been completed?

5. How have the expenditures planned for in the WMP compare to actual expenditures?

Based on the evaluation, the District will want to look ahead to the next 5 years of the WMP term and consider questions such as the following: 1. What Issues and Goals should be more of a focus in the next five years?

2. What Initiatives should be budget/workplan priorities in the next five years?

3. What Themes/Issues/Goals can receive less attention in the next five years?

Staff will review the basic framework of the mid-term review with the Managers. Staff intend to bring back a final workplan, schedule and budget for this project at the February 18th Board Meeting for review and approval.

Requested Action Provide staff feedback on the 2010 WMP mid-term review process enc:

2010 WMP Issues and Goals Section (pgs. 15-34) 2010 WMP Implementation Table (pgs. 113-116)

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2010\Mid-Term Review\Brd Memo WMP Mid-term Review, 01-29-2015.docx

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

ISSUES AND GOALS

Themes – Our Approach for Action During the development of the District’s second Watershed Management Plan, the organization has taken the opportunity to reflect on where it has been and to challenge itself on where it is going during the next 10 years and beyond. As part of that process, the District identified key visions and themes to promote positive change in the watershed. The key themes are woven throughout the District’s activities. The icons shown below appear alongside the initiatives within this Plan that exemplify the respective theme. The icons are used to provide a visual indicator for themes throughout the Plan.

Bring Water Back to St. Paul From the beginning of this planning effort, the theme “Bring Water Back to St. Paul” has been a centerpiece. The concept applies to both the physical restoration of water resources within the urban watershed as well as bringing water back into the consciousness of the community.

Partnership and Community Connections During the public input process of the Plan developing and engaging partnerships was a recurring theme. Partnerships and community connects vital to the successful implementation of the Plan due to the diversity within the District.

Innovation and Emerging Trends As new technologies develop and the water resources management and engineering fields continue to evolve, the District is responsible for staying aware of trends in science, design, and climate, and to interpret those trends for practical application. It is a priority of the District that programs and projects in the Plan be innovative and that the District anticipate emerging technological trends.

Adaptive Management Adaptive management refers to the feedback loop of performance evaluation and update of management strategies. Adaptive management initiatives are those that incorporate monitoring, evaluation, and assessment followed by revisions in process, design, or management.

New Information Technology The District plans new initiatives notable for their use of technologically advanced information management systems. Use of new information technology is necessary for the District to maintain a leadership role in urban water resource management and effectively implement the Plan.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

15

Issues and Goals Issue Identification The identification of issues forms the basis of the District’s watershed management plan. At the beginning of the management plan development process, residents, stakeholders, District staff, board members and other interested parties were asked to identify concerns about the watershed and water quality. The issues identification process documented the concerns of stakeholders and was used to formulate issue statements, goals, and implementation activities for the watershed management plan.

This section of the plan describes the public involvement aspect of the issues identification process, and explains how comments and/or concerns shared with the District translated into the issue statements and goals contained in the watershed management plan. It should be noted that the comments and concerns identified in past plans completed by the District and its partners since the last watershed management plan in 2000 were incorporated into the issues identification process.

Initial Public Involvement Process The public involvement portion of the issues identification process began with a series of meetings held with the District’s existing Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a Community Advisory Group developed specifically for the watershed management planning process, and individual community members. One of the main objectives of the process was to reach as many constituents as possible in an effort to solicit issues, needs and concerns reflective of one of the most culturally and economically diverse watershed districts in the State of Minnesota. A detailed description of the District’s efforts to reach a diverse audience during the watershed management planning process is contained in Appendix B.

Each of the meetings held during the issues identification process began with an educational presentation from District staff. During this presentation, participants were introduced to a number of watershed management topics, the District’s current role in addressing these topics and what the District has done to address these topics to date. The objective of this portion of the meeting was to provide participants with a base level of understanding in an effort to provide the proper context to share their experiences and desires for future watershed management activities.

The educational presentation covered the following topics: • Urban Stormwater Management • Funding and District Organization • Monitoring and Data Assessment • Regulations and Enforcement • Future Trends

• Ecosystem Health • Education and Outreach

Following the educational presentation, participants were asked to voice concerns, comment on issues, ask questions, and discuss the topics. Meeting minutes were recorded to document the discussion (see Appendix B).

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

16

Development of Issues and Goals During the public involvement process all comments, concerns, issues, and ideas were documented in meeting minutes, which were summarized in an issues identification matrix that tracked the source of all comments and how the comments were utilized throughout the issue identification process (see Appendix C). Issues identified in previous CRWD plans, and the plans of other community groups and partner agencies were also added to the matrix to ensure that all potential issues related to watershed management were considered during the planning process.

All comments and issues entered into the matrix were categorized into one of the previously identified issue topics, or a new topic. Each comment was classified as an issue, a goal, or a specific implementation initiative. Issue statements were then crafted to encompass all comments received on each particular topic. The issue statements identify what needs to be addressed within the timeframe of the watershed management plan. Issue statements guide the development of the District’s goals, and implementation activities. The issues matrix was used as an organizational tool that allowed transparent documentation of what input the District collected and how it responded.

With issue statements defined, the categorized comments were used to write goals, and implementation initiatives for each issue statement. Goals are statements of what the District intends to achieve in order to address each specific issue. There may be several goals needed to address a given issue statement. The specific actions taken are classified as implementation initiatives. As with the issues identification process, the goals identified in previous CRWD plans and plans from the cities within the District and Ramsey County were archived in a matrix and utilized in the development of goals.

A draft of this section of the plan was provided to the District’s CAC, TAC and the Community Group for their review and input. Participants from these groups submitted over 100 comments in response to their review of the section. Many of the comments provided suggestions on how to improve the Issues Identification and Goal Setting section, while others provided suggestions on implementation activities aimed at reaching various goals.

Cooperation – The Guiding Principle During the review process for the Issues and Goals section cooperation with District partners to achieve the District goals was a recurring theme. Cooperation with partners within the District as well as partners in adjacent jurisdictions will yield benefits to all parties. The need to work with the District partners to identify stormwater management retrofit opportunities was initially identified as the first issue, however, the need for cooperation was repeated in virtually all of the subsequent issues. It was determined that this concept should be highlighted as an overriding principle of the plan.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

17

The District recognizes that it does not bear the sole responsibility for stormwater management within the watershed. Also, the District does not possess all the resources ‐ financial, regulatory authority, or knowledge ‐ needed to meet the challenge of managing water resources. District partners can provide access to opportunities to incorporate stormwater management practices throughout the watershed. An example of this type of cooperation is the Arlington Pascal Project where the District was able to add a significant amount of stormwater treatment in conjunction with a City of St. Paul street improvement project. Another benefit of cooperation is the more efficient completion of common tasks and meeting common goals. Working together also allows sharing of knowledge and information about new technologies and innovative approaches. The District has overlapping missions, goals and responsibilities with many of its partners. Coordination of efforts results in greater efficiency and a reduction in expenditure.

In addition to collaborating with partners, the District recognizes the important role that residents play in watershed management. The goal of improved water quality by applying stormwater management practices throughout the District is best accomplished by recruiting residents to apply these practices at the individual home level. When residents manage their own stormwater runoff it minimizes the need for large stormwater management projects. In cases where larger stormwater management practices are needed, or when opportunities arise to bring water features back to the landscape of the District, it is critical that there is support from the residents. The District intends to utilize the energy and skills of its residents to promote local initiatives to bring water back.

District Partners • Municipalities

• Ramsey County • University of Minnesota • Ramsey Conservation District • Minnesota State Fair Board

• State Agencies (MnDOT, DNR, PCA, BWSR) • Federal Agencies (EPA, COE)

• Metropolitan Council • Water Utilities

• Local businesses and institutions • People who live, work, or recreate in the • Other watershed organizations District

Organizational Structure of the Issues and Goal Section This section of the plan is organized by issue topic and begins with a narrative of the topic: what is the status of this topic today, and why does the District need to address this topic during the next ten years. The narrative goes on to explain what issues or concerns were raised during the public involvement process for each particular topic.

Following the narrative is one or more issue statements addressing the topic. These issue statements include all comments received for a particular topic. (See issues matrix, Appendix C) Below the issue statements are goals that reflect the comments and concerns expressed during the public involvement process. In many cases, further detail of the approach for reaching the goal is provided.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

18

Education and Outreach, Issues and Goals

Although nonpoint source pollution has become a more prominent issue in the last several years, there is still a lack of understanding by the general public about the role of stormwater runoff in water pollution. There is a lack of awareness that everyone who lives, works, and recreates in that landscape is part of the solution. This lack of awareness is particularly pronounced in the District because the level of development has limited the connections people have with water. Because water quality is a function of how people go about their everyday activities, educating the general public about how to modify those activities is an important goal for improving water quality. A watershed, with its natural boundaries dictating the flow and fate of water through the landscape, provides a logical context for educational efforts.

Creating an informed community and thereby empowering those citizens to be stewards of the land and water resources where they live, is the goal of watershed education. Individuals within the community can make a significant difference in protecting our water resources. Effective education programs and making information available to the public enhance participation in District activities and increase public knowledge relative to water.

The comments received throughout the issues identification emphasized the need for continued education throughout the District. Specifically identified was the need to target groups that have not previously been reached by education and outreach programs. The District is a diverse watershed and in the past not all communities have been involved in District activities. It will be important for the District to be aware of varying uses, values, ideas and celebrations of water that exist in the District. The District will need to continually seek input from the diverse communities within the District to maintain this understanding. Educational approaches will need to be developed to serve the needs of each community in different ways.

An additional issue identified was the overarching problem of residents not feeling a personal connection with water. Water is taken for granted and not seen as a finite resource. The District’s programs will not only need to educate the public about the local water resources, water quality, stormwater management, and the role of the District, but will also need to create a sense of ownership for the residents and invoke a change in people’s perceptions of and their behaviors related to water.

The District developed an Education and Outreach Plan which was adopted on May 6, 2009. The Plan is found in Appendix E.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

19

Education and Outreach Issues and Goals Issue 1

Many District residents, businesses and institutions do not feel a personal connection with water and natural resources and therefore do not have a sense of responsibility or ownership which negatively impacts their ability to change behaviors and increase stewardship

Goal 1.1

Increase the awareness of water

1.1.a

1.1.b

Determine the baseline knowledge level regarding basic watershed and stormwater concepts

Increase the understanding of basic watershed, stormwater, groundwater and water pollution concepts through watershed education and outreach

1.1.c

Measure the change in knowledge and behavior as a result of the education and outreach efforts

Goal 1.2

Increase public knowledge and appreciation for local water resources in the District

1.2.a

Goal 1.3

Issue 2

Goal 2.1

Utilize District infrastructure to increase awareness and appreciation of water resources and watershed management

Raise an awareness of the District and increase the interest and public participation in its activities The District’s diverse community has a wide range of cultural, social and political relationships with water, community interests, priorities, and opinions of the District’s water resources Increase communication and encourage long term involvement with groups not previously involved in District programs

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

20

Urban Stormwater Management, Issues and Goals

A significant portion of the District is made up of impervious surfaces. These impervious surfaces increase the volume of stormwater runoff and the pollutant load being discharged to District wetlands, lakes and the Mississippi River with detrimental effects on water quality. The increased volume of runoff also increases the likelihood of flooding, which threatens public safety and increases the potential for infrastructure damage. Both historic and current development practices have contributed to compacted soils, the placement of fill material, the underground disposal of waste materials, and the presence of contamination. These factors and others make Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other green infrastructure techniques more challenging to implement.

The urban stormwater management category received the most comments during the issue identification process. The primary focus was water quality protection for District water resources.

All groups identified the need for on‐going management and maintenance of District resources and stormwater management facilities as an important issue for the watershed management plan. In addition, all groups strongly expressed that the District should lead the investigation of the effectiveness of new stormwater management techniques. The promotion of green infrastructure and identification of opportunities to increase the level of stormwater management were also identified as key roles for the District. Existing storm sewer infrastructure capacity and corresponding flooding problems was also identified as an issue that needs to be addressed in the next ten years, as was the need to develop a better understanding of the role stormwater management has on groundwater resources.

The District’s lake management plans for Como Lake, Loeb Lake, and Lake McCarrons identified goals for the future condition of these vital resources. Numerical goals were set for loading of total phosphorus to Como Lake and a target in‐lake total phosphorus concentration was established for Lake McCarrons. These performance standards have been incorporated into Goal 2.1 as originally stated in those plans.

Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires that states establish pollutant Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. The loading limits are to be calculated such that, if achieved, the water body would meet the applicable water quality standard.

Como Lake and the Mississippi River are listed on the 2008 303(d) list of impaired waters.

Downstream of the District, there are impairments within the Mississippi River for turbidity, PFOS, PCBs, and mercury. In addition, Spring Lake and Lake Pepin, located downstream of District, are impaired for excess nutrients and biological indicators.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

21

In 2010, the District converted the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan into a TMDL for Como Lake. The MPCA is currently working on the Lake Pepin TMDL which includes the turbidity impairments within the Mississippi River between the confluence with the Minnesota River and Lake Pepin and also a Bacteria TMDL for the Mississippi River between the Lower St. Anthony Falls and Lock and Dam #1 and between the confluence with the Minnesota River to the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul.

Urban Stormwater Management Issues and Goals

Issue 3

Regular maintenance is critical to the success of stormwater BMPs and is not consistently performed to achieve desired performance

Goal 3.1

Work to improve the short‐ and long‐term maintenance of stormwater BMPs

3.1.a

Coordinate the development and implementation of a multi‐ jurisdictional BMP management plan that includes identifying responsible parties, define roles and determining maintenance schedules for all stormwater BMPs located in the District

Issue 4

The pollutant load of stormwater has impacted the quality of water in the District’s lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River

Goal 4.1

Reduce the chemical pollutant load to District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River

4.1.a

4.1.b

Achieve a Phosphorous Trophic State Index (TSI‐P) of 60 for Como Lake by reducing the average annual total phosphorus load to Como Lake by 60%

Achieve the summer average lake concentration of total phosphorus at 33 parts per billion (ppb) or less for Lake McCarrons

4.1.c

Maintain water quality of Loeb Lake at current conditions (nondegradation)

4.1.d

Achieve the District’s total phosphorus loading requirements for the Lake Pepin TMDL in the Mississippi River

4.1.e

Develop a target reduction for metals, pesticides, nutrients, chloride, organic contaminants, etc, discharged to District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River and work towards reaching that target

4.1.f

Identify and manage the internal phosphorus load in District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River

4.1.g Identify and eliminate illicit discharges into District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

22

Goal 4.2

Reduce physical pollutant load to District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River

4.2.a

Develop a target reduction for the amount of trash entering District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River and work towards reaching that target

4.2.b

Develop a target reduction for sediment entering District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River and work towards reaching that target

Achieve District load requirement established in the turbidity component of the future Lake Pepin TMDL

4.2.c

4.2.d

Identify and eliminate illicit discharges into District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River

Goal 4.3

Reduce bacteria pollutant load to District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River

4.3.a

Develop a target reduction for the amount of waterfowl and pet waste entering District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River and work towards reaching that target

4.3.b

Identify and eliminate illicit discharges into District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River

4.3.c

Meet the District’s bacteria load requirement established in the future Upper Mississippi River bacteria TMDL

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

23

Issue 5

The quantity of runoff from a highly urbanized area increases the risk of flooding and puts added strain on the infrastructure within the District

Goal 5.1

Minimize existing and potential flooding problems

5.1.a

Work to identify existing and potential infrastructure capacity issues and flooding problems

5.1.b

Utilize structural and nonstructural flood control techniques to improve infrastructure capacity and reduce flooding problems

5.1.c

Evaluate the impact of climate change on infrastructure capacity in the future and identify potential flooding issues

5.1.d

Preserve existing floodplain storage capacity and prohibit floodplain filling unless compensatory storage is provided

5.1.e

Identify opportunities to reestablish lost floodplain areas

Goal 5.2

Manage the volume of water in the Trout Brook storm sewer Interceptor to protect the integrity of District infrastructure.

Issue 6

Within an urbanized area, runoff from impervious surfaces is directed to storm sewers and discharged to surface waters rather than infiltrating into the ground resulting in reduced groundwater recharge and impacts to receiving waters

Promote groundwater recharge through increased use of infiltration techniques to manage stormwater

Goal 6.1

6.1.a

6.1.b

Develop incentives/regulations to promote the use of stormwater infiltration techniques

Identify those portions of the District most conducive to stormwater infiltration

Goal 6.2

Protect the groundwater resource

6.2.a

Support and collaborate with Ramsey County, state and regional agencies to better understand and monitor District groundwater resources

6.2.b

Support and collaborate with Ramsey County, state and regional agencies on groundwater quantity and quality protection

6.2.c

Avoid infiltrating stormwater in areas of contaminated soils

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

24

Monitoring and Data Assessment, Issues and Goals

To evaluate the quality District water resources, a monitoring program was initiated in 2004. The monitoring data helps determine the type and quantity of pollutants discharged to surface waters of the District. This baseline data is the ultimate report card for the District. As Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented, it is important to collect data and monitor the effectiveness of the BMPs in managing and treating stormwater. The monitoring data will be used to guide future management decisions and to calibrate the District’s hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality loading models, which are tools used to evaluate current conditions and predict future conditions.

Monitoring and data assessment are key roles of the District. The information collected is utilized to make management decisions not only by the District but by the local communities and neighboring watershed management organizations. In addition, the monitoring program data are used to convey information about stormwater management and water quality to the residents through education and outreach programs.

During the issue identification process, comments and concerns related to monitoring and data assessment focused on two fundamental issues: the need to improve dissemination of collected data, and the need to expand the monitoring program to collect additional data.

The District needs to improve the way in which information is delivered to the public by making monitoring data available in user friendly formats. Comments were also received about the District becoming a “clearinghouse” of information about current water issues. The District should compile published research from local, national and international sources for use by the District and its partners.

The second issue identified was regarding the need to continue the monitoring program and add additional monitoring locations. Currently, the District has an extensive monitoring program that collects data at four major outfalls to the Mississippi River, specific water resources, and several BMPs in the District. See Figure 5 for locations of monitoring sites. Expansion of the monitoring and data assessment program would allow the District to gain additional information about groundwater, wetlands, soils, and other types of BMPs.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

25

Monitoring and Data Assessment Issues and Goals

Issue 7

Monitoring and research data are needed to understand the watershed, identify problems, and determine appropriate watershed management approaches within the District

Goal 7.1

Collect monitoring data and perform research to gather valuable information about the District

7.1.a

Collect data on selected BMPs installed in the District and evaluate performance, maintenance, and longevity

7.1.b

Monitor the condition of District surface waters and major subwatersheds to establish baseline conditions and determine trends

7.1.c

Identify and support a program to collect soil and geologic data in order to assess the infiltration potential within the District

Goal 7.2

Goal 7.3

As part of the annual budgeting process, review and refine the monitoring and data assessment program to improve efficiency and utilize the best technology Utilize data as part of a regular evaluation of current water issues, performance of District programs and District rules

Issue 8

Monitoring and research data are difficult for the public to access and understand

Goal 8.1

Make monitoring and research data available and understandable to a broader audience

Serve as a clearinghouse for water resource management information to assist District stakeholders and partners

Goal 8.2

Goal 8.3

Establish partnerships to improve the District’s ability to increase access and understanding of monitoring and research data

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

26

Future Trends, Issues and Goals

The District recognizes that in order to stay at the forefront of the rapidly changing field of watershed management, it is necessary to be aware of new information, technology and methods that will inform management decisions.

Maintaining a forward‐thinking approach and anticipating changes is critical. By staying proactive on emerging issues rather than reactive, the District will realize cost savings and more effective stormwater management.

During the issues identification process, a number of future trends were identified for inclusion in the plan. All of the groups in the public involvement process identified climate change as an issue that needs to be addressed in the next ten years. While it is unclear what the District’s role should be in addressing climate change, it is necessary for the organization to evaluate and coordinate mitigation efforts.

The need to be at the forefront of emerging trends in watershed management is accentuated due to the dense urban development of the District. The highly developed nature of the District results in limited opportunities to incorporate traditional stormwater management practices, since these typically require large areas for implementation. Because of this limitation, it is vital that the District investigate new, innovative approaches to stormwater management that utilize techniques appropriate to highly urbanized areas. An example of this type of alternative practice is the use of ‘green infrastructure’ where vegetation is used to compliment traditional approaches to stormwater management. The level of imperviousness of the District also makes it more susceptible to changes in hydrologic patterns that may arise in the future.

Future Trends Issues and Goals Issue 9

Future watershed management strategies need to be responsive to emerging issues resulting from climate change and technological advances

Goal 9.1

Develop a better understanding of climate change, its impacts to District natural and water resources and adaptive management strategies to address this emerging issue

9.1.a

Participate in climate change working groups/forums

9.1.b

Determine the District’s strategies in addressing climate change impacts on watershed management

Goal 9.2

Be a leader in conducting original research and reviewing existing research on new stormwater management technologies to facilitate decision making by the District and its partners

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

27

9.2.a

The District will evaluate innovative stormwater management techniques, information management techniques, and monitoring and modeling techniques used locally, nationally, and internationally

9.2.b

The District will conduct research on stormwater management BMP performance, applicability in different settings, and long‐term maintenance needs.

Goal 9.3

Promote the use of emerging technologies and innovative watershed management techniques

9.3.a

9.3.b

Promote Green Infrastructure initiatives.

Determine optimal balance of incentive‐based strategies and regulatory‐based watershed management strategies

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

28

Funding and Organization, Issues and Goals

The District takes its financial responsibility seriously, is sensitive to the economic status of its residents, and is mindful of the importance of maintaining public support for expenditures on water quality improvement. The District levies taxes through its authority under MN Stat. 103D and 103B to fund programs, projects, and capital improvement projects identified in its watershed management plan. The District has also issued bonds and actively pursues outside funding sources to augment its tax levy. The District has been successful in obtaining grants from the State and securing local cost‐share funding from its partners.

The District seeks to create funding partnerships with Ramsey County, municipalities, agencies, and other entities within its jurisdiction that have common goals and responsibilities for resource protection. These partnerships result in greater cost effectiveness and provide the additional benefit of creating ownership of the resources by a broader constituent base.

The District has created several grant programs to make funds available to District partners and residents. The grant programs promote local projects that benefit water resources and serve as models for District residents.

Beyond discussions of the importance of District grant programs, the most prevalent theme heard during the issues identification process was the need for coordination between the District and its partners. The District was encouraged to take a leadership role in identifying opportunities to collaborate on large scale redevelopment projects as well as programmatic approaches to resource protection. The district recognizes the impact of large scale redevelopment projects extends beyond the boundary of the project and intends to identify and capitalize on opportunities adjacent to these projects. Another common theme of the comments from participants in the issue identification process was the need to prioritize District activities to maximize resource protection while minimizing the cost to residents.

Funding and Organization Issues and Goals Issue 10

Goal 10.1

Many District partners and residents are willing to help the District accomplish its mission if assistance is made available Encourage District partners and residents to implement local water resource improvement projects

10.1.a Issue 11

Provide financial and technical assistance for resource protection projects and efforts by District residents and partners The District is uniquely positioned to be able to identify and support collaborations between various partners/stakeholders with compatible projects and programs

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

29

Goal 11.1

Coordinate efforts with partners to ensure the most cost effective uses of funds for water resource management

11.1.a

Coordinate the water resource management efforts that the District and its partners are currently undertaking

11.1.b

Identify opportunities to incorporate water resource management efforts into capital improvement projects and large scale redevelopment projects of District partners

11.1.c

Provide support to District partners for activities with a connection to water resources

11.1.d

Maintain active membership in the Ramsey County Groundwater Partnership

Issue 12

Multiple funding mechanisms and outside funding sources are available for the District to pursue to offset financial needs

Goal 12.1

Increase the funds available to the District to meet its goals and objectives

12.1.a

Identify new and supplemental funding sources

12.1.b

Evaluate the optimal balance of financing options or revenue sources

Issue 13

The District must prioritize programs and projects to ensure that goals are met in the most efficient, and cost effective manner

Goal 13.1

Utilizes long‐term planning and pursue the most cost effective solutions when carrying out resource protection programs and projects

13.1.a

Evaluate the results and costs for programs and projects to demonstrate their effectiveness

13.1.b

Consider initial and life‐cycle costs associated with programs and projects when evaluating their effectiveness

Issue 14

Goal 14.1

An effective watershed organization needs to plan for change, growth, and development Strengthen the District’s capacity to accomplish its mission

Goal 14.2

Strive for excellence, with competent, knowledgeable, committed, and innovative Board members, advisory committees, and staff

Goal 14.3

Goal 14.4

Provide research‐based, informed, mission‐driven decision making Be an open, approachable, facilitator of partnerships to enhance the District’s capacity to protect, maintain and improve water resources

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

30

Regulations and Enforcement, Issues and Goals

The District has the authority to develop and adopt Rules to protect water resources. The District currently regulates development and redevelopment projects. Rules and regulations were established to ensure that water resource management standards are met and that the water resources in the District are protected as development and redevelopment occurs. The District currently implements rules adopted in September 2006 and revised in January 2009. In addition to water quality and quantity, the rules establish standards for erosion and sediment control, wetland protection, connections to the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor, and floodplain management. District Rules and permitting currently require proper stormwater management on all development and redevelopment projects that disturb one acre or greater of land.

The District reviews it rules and permitting program regularly with the District’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). During this process, the District’s Rules are reviewed to assure they are effective, reasonable and implemented as efficiently as possible. The District will demonstrate a willingness to look at alternatives in order to make the Rules as workable as possible.

The public involvement process identified the need for improved Rule compliance, and inspections.

Additionally it was noted that the District needs to maintain clear and efficient rules by utilizing the most current research and science. The need to efficiently coordinate regulatory requirements, specifically those of the NPDES MS4 program, was identified as an area where the District should be the lead agency.

Regulations and Enforcement Issues and Goals

Issue 15

Goal 15.1

The District needs to maintain clear and effective Rules utilizing the most current research and science available Ensure that the rules are regularly reviewed, updated and readily understood by the regulated community.

15.1.a

Ensure effective Rules in meeting the District’s goals while allowing some flexibility

Issue 16 Coordination with District partners on regulatory issues is needed for more efficient and effective stormwater regulation across all jurisdictions

Goal 16.1 Work with District partners to improve the District Rules and other municipal/agency stormwater ordinances

16.1.a

Work with District partners to make ordinances compatible with stormwater management goals and objectives

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

31

16.1.b

Work with District partners to coordinate permit applications early in the design stage

16.1.c

Work with District partners to achieve volume reduction on small sites (disturbing less than one acre) through District Rules or municipal ordinances

Goal 16.2

Collaborate with partners to ensure that proper BMP construction, and erosion and sediment control techniques are being implemented throughout the District

16.2.a

Ensure that effective routine inspections are conducted on all construction in the District

16.2.b

Ensure that appropriate long‐term maintenance is being performed on stormwater management practices in the District

Goal 16.3

Continue to work with surrounding watershed management organizations and state agencies to develop rule language that maximizes effectiveness while ensuring their consistency and ease of use throughout the region/metro area.

16.3.a

Compare District Rule language with that of surrounding watershed management organizations to identify consistencies and inconsistencies

16.3.b

Evaluate the feasibility of addressing inconsistencies in watershed management organization rules in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Goal 16.4

Comply with applicable local, state, and federal watershed regulations

16.4.a Comply with the provisions of the District MS4 permit.

16.4.b Collaborate with all permitted MS4s within with District on TMDL load reduction efforts

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

32

Ecosystem Health, Issues and Goals

It is the primary focus of the District to protect and improve water quality, but the health of the overall ecosystem has been recognized as a complimentary issue. There are ways of managing stormwater runoff that have secondary benefits of promoting healthy and viable natural ecosystems.

Additional partners and collaborations can be identified and utilized when considering an ecosystem approach to water resource management. This help to ensure the ecological integrity of District natural resources are protected and improved in conjunction with water resource improvement.

A consistent message heard throughout the issues identification process was the need for ecological restoration within the watershed to correct mistakes from the past. Stakeholders in this highly urbanized area recognize that the majority of natural areas have been paved or built upon.

Streams that once flowed across the watershed down to the Mississippi River have been converted to large, underground storm pipes. Wetlands and even some smaller lakes in the area were filled in for development.

Many of the remaining natural areas in the District have become significantly degraded over time.

The areas consist primarily of non‐native or invasive species and lack the ecological integrity they once displayed. This degradation has reduced the effectiveness of remaining natural areas’ ability to protect and buffer District water resources.

Comments received from District stakeholders ranged in specificity from identifying the need to develop regional ecological greenways throughout the metropolitan area, to the restoration of historic resources (Bring Water Back to St. Paul), to encouraging native plantings and restoring plant communities at specific locations within the District.

Ecosystem Health Issues and Goals

Issue 17

Goal 17.1

The ecological integrity of many District lakes, wetlands, and the Mississippi River has degraded to a point where the resources are not providing their original level of function or value Improve the ecological integrity of District lakes, wetlands, and the Mississippi River

17.1.a

Restore native plant communities and increase wildlife diversity and habitat in and around District lakes, wetlands, and the Mississippi River

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

33

Issue 18

Goal 18.1

The loss of natural areas has decreased the ability of the watershed to capture, filter and infiltrate rainwater prior to discharging to District lakes, wetlands, and the Mississippi River Support increasing the amount and quality of open space as a means to restore habitat, and protect surface water and groundwater quality

Goal 18.2

Issue 19

Goal 19.1

Mitigate the loss of pervious areas by incorporating green infrastructure into the built environment of the District Reduced connectivity of natural habitat areas in the District limit movement between the District’s resources Coordinate with District partners to improve accessibility to and movement between natural habitat areas within the District

19.1.a

Support the creation of travel corridors between natural areas for wildlife

19.1.b

Support the creation of access points for people to better connect with the water resource of the District

Issue 20

Goal 20.1

The land within the District developed during a time when resource protection was not a priority. As a result, there are a number of opportunities to restore historic resources “Bring water back to St. Paul”

20.1.a Increase awareness of current and historical water resources of the District

20.1.b

Identify and restore historic wetland resources of the District

20.1.c Identify opportunities to restore portions of historic streams of the District by providing surface flow where water is currently conveyed through an underground pipe

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010

34

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan —9/1/2010

40

February 4, 2015 Board Meeting VI. Unfinished Business

B) Hamline-Midway Neighborhood Project (Castro) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

January 29, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Gustavo Castro, Water Resource Specialist Hamline-Midway Neighborhood Project

Background In spring 2014, CRWD was contacted by a homeowner from the Hamline-Midway neighborhood who requested a site evaluation for a potential Stewardship Grant project, specifically a curb-cut rain garden.

After signing the grant agreement in the fall of 2014, the homeowner was having difficulties in finding a contractor willing to do a single curb-cut for his project. CRWD then started working with the HamlineMidway Coalition, and the City of Saint Paul, to plan a neighborhood-level project for all property owners in the Hamline-Midway neighborhood who are interested in having their properties assessed for a curb-cut rain garden.

Issues CRWD Stewardship Grant Program is a reimbursement-based grant program where applicants are reimbursed for part of, or all, the projects expenses after the project has been completed, inspected, and all the required documents submitted for review.

Although classified as a stewardship grant application, the Hamline-Midway neighborhood project differs from the typical grant application mainly because CRWD is acting as a contracting agency for the project. This approach is similar to the Burns Avenue project completed at Lake McCarrons in the summer of 2013. The main differences are: 1. The project has several applicants, instead of a single property owner.

2. The applicants will be asked to pay the difference between the project cost and the grant award prior to the construction start date.

3. CRWD will be responsible for selecting the contractor and paying the contractor for the work done at all sites.

A total of 45 homeowners have requested site evaluations as of December, 2014. Based on the preliminary site evaluations conducted this winter by CRWD and RCD staff, it was determined that 7 properties are suitable for a curb-cut rain garden. In addition, it was discovered that other properties would be suitable if ash trees were removed, or if there was an agreement between neighbors in areas where the rain garden would cross property lines.

Each property owner would be responsible for the maintenance of their own gardens. The community has also demonstrated interest in creating a group to maintain all gardens.

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

Action Requested Provide staff direction moving forward with this approach.

"W:\07 Programs\Stewardship Grant Program\Board Memos\BM 2015 Hamline-Midway Neighborhood Project 02-04-15.docx"te.docx

2

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

January 29, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers and Staff Mark Doneux, Administrator February 4, 2015 Administrator’s Report

1) Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements a) Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Services Agreement with Houston Engineering for maintenance and updates to the BMP database - $10,350.00 b) Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Services Agreement with SRF Consulting for the Lake McCarrons – Upper Villa BMP Project to increase funding by $29,384 – total not to exceed $174,488. c) Partner Grant Agreement with Public Art Saint Paul for water quality themed art programming at Western Sculpture Park - $8,000.00 d) Partner Grant Agreement with Asian Economic Development Association for water quality outreach and education to Little Mekong businesses and the Little Mekong Night Market - $7,000.00 e) Partner Grant Agreement with Urban Roots for youth intern stipends - $12,000.00 f) Partner Grant Agreement with Great River Greening for coordination and evaluation of the Field Learning for Teens program at Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary - $11,000.00 g) Partner Grant Agreement with Frogtown Green / Health Advocates for coordination of clean water outreach and maintenance of the Minnehaha Mall rain garden - $7,000.00 2) Board Approved or Executed Agreements a) No new contracts 3) General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events a) Blooming Saint Paul Awards Ceremony was Monday, January 26, 2015 at Union Depot. Elizabeth Beckman and Lindsay VanPatten presented the Blooming Saint Paul awards for the Clean Water landscaping projects. Board Managers Collins, Texer, Thienes and Jones and Administrator Doneux attended. b) The 21st Annual Great River Gathering is May 14, 2015 at Saint Paul Rivercentre. Early registration ($65) ends March 13, 2015.

4) CRWD events and meetings a) Next CAC meeting is Wednesday, February 11, 2015 from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. b) Next Board meeting is Wednesday, February 18, 2015 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Correspondence\Administrator's Report 2015\Administrator's Report 2-4-15.docx

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