July 15, 2020 CAC Packet

Citizen Advisory Committee 7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 15, 2020 – Held Electronically Until further notice Citizen Advisory Committee meetings will only be available via telephone and/or the web-based application Go To Meeting. You will not be able to attend meetings in person. You can join the meeting electronically by clinking on this link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/854791693 and following the directions or dial in using your phone: +1 (571) 317-3112 Access Code: 854-791-693 Please visit www.capitolregionwd.org to get additional CRWD COVID-19 information.

Agenda 7:00

I)

Welcome, Announcements, Updates, and Introductions

7:05

II)

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

7:08

III)

Approval of the Agenda

7:09

IV)

Approval of Minutes A) Approval of the June 10, 2020 Minutes

7:10

V)

District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recommendations A) 2020 Watershed Management Plan Update (Arbeit)

8:00

VI)

CAC Initiatives

Materials Enclosed

A) Diversity and Inclusion (All)

8:20

VII)

Project and Program Updates A) Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary Update (Fossum) B) 2021 Budget update (Doneux)

8:50

VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:55

IX)

Discussion A) New & Old Issues B) CAC Observer for July 22, 2020 and August 5, 2020 Board of Managers Meetings

9:00

X)

Adjourn

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

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, June 10, 2020, 7:00 p.m.

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

Others Present: Mark Doneux, CRWD Anna Eleria, CRWD, remote Mary Texter, CRWD, remote Rick Sanders, CRWD, remote Joe Collins, CRWD, remote Britta Belden, CRWD, remote Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD, remote Michelle Sylvander, CRWD, remote Lindsay Schwantes, CRWD, remote

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

II. Night at The Movies Virtual TOUR Ms. Belden introduced the CAC’s virtual tour. District staff conducted a virtual tour of the following District projects : • Como Lake Curly Leaf pondweed/alum treatment (presented by Ms. Belden) • Parkview Center School Stormwater Improvement Project (presented by Mr. Zwonitzer) • Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (presented by Ms. Eleria) • Snelling Midway/Allianz Field Stormwater Management System (presented by Ms. Eleria) • In Progress presents Our Sacred Waters (presented by Ms. Schwantes) III. Public Comment for Issues Not on the Agenda Ms. Willems asked for comments not on the agenda. Mr. Arbeit commended Manager Seitu Jones on receiving the 2020 McKnight fellowship for visual artist award. Ms. Soderholm commented on the District’s newsletter

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

in which it remembered George Floyd, standing with its residents against racism. Ms. Soderholm suggested that the CAC make diversity and inclusion a priority in its brochure materials.

IV. Approval of Agenda, as amended CAC 20-16 Motion: To approve the CAC June 10, 2020 agenda as amended, removing item VI. District Initiative for Review from agenda consideration.

Weil/Duerre Unanimously approved V. Approval of Minutes A. May 13, 2020 CAC Meeting Minutes CAC 20-17 Motion: To approve the May 13, 2020 CAC Meeting Minutes.

Arbeit/Soderholm Unanimously approved VI. CAC Initiatives Mr. Arbeit on behalf of the CAC subcommittee on the District’s draft watershed management plan asked CAC members to provide the subcommittee their comments on the draft Plan for consideration at the CAC’s July 15, 2020 meeting.

VII. Project and Program Updates Discussion of Project and Program Updates will be provided at the CAC’s July 2020 meeting.

VIII. CAC Observer Update No CAC observer update. Manager Texter provided a brief update of the Board’s June 3, 2020 meeting, which focused on the District’s 2020 draft Watershed District Management Plan and the District’s preliminary 2021 budget and potential levy for pay 2021 taxes.

IX. Discussion

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

A. New & Old Issues No issues presented.

B. CAC Observer for June 17, 2020 and July 8, 2020 Board of Managers Meetings Ms. Lilly volunteered to attend the June 17, 2020 Board meeting. No volunteers for July 8, 2020.

X. Adjourn CAC 20-18 Motion: To adjourn the June 10, 2020 CAC Meeting.

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

Respectfully submitted, Michelle Ulrich

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Minutes\2020/June 10, 2020.doc

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

DATE: May 8, 2020 TO: Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Watershed Management Plan Review Subcommittee RE: Draft 2021 – 2030 CRWD Watershed Management Plan Update Overview During the preparation of the Draft WMP, staff has made several presentations to the CAC, ranging from overviews to specific details about key elements. Members had the opportunity to ask questions and offer suggestions for improving this work in progress. The current public review draft, however, is the first complete and fully formatted document that has been reviewed by the CAC. At the May 2020 CAC meeting, a subcommittee was tasked to review of the Draft 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan and prepare a recommendation to the Board of Managers for CAC consideration. The subcommittee invited all CAC members to submit written comments as part of the review process. The individual reviews have been compiled into a common format and attached. The compiled list is referenced in a draft resolution to endorse the Watershed Management Plan.

Comments should be addressed in making revisions and edits for the final version of the Plan.

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

However, reviewers recommend that the issues identified and compiled during the review should be addressed to help improve the final version of the WMP. They include text edits, suggestions for improving clarity, and perceived omissions. The following are prominent among the issues identified: • • •

The commitment to “equity” and “underserved” areas or population are appropriate and apparent, but their meaning and how they might be measured are not.

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

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

Actions Requested: Review and discussion of subcommittee recommendation for resolution to the Board of Managers. The recommended resolution reads as follows: The CAC recommends that the Draft 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan be reviewed and revised to reflect the issues identified by CAC members and then submitted to the Board of Managers with full endorsement by the CAC.

CAC Review of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020

CAC MEMBER REVIEW COMMENTS DRAFT CRWD 2021-2030 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW COMPILED BY CAC PLAN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE FOR 7/15/2020 MEETING At the May 2020 meeting of the CRWD Citizens Advisory Committee, a subcommittee was tasked to coordinate the review of the Draft 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan and prepare a recommendation to the Board of Managers for consideration by the full CAC at the July 2020 meeting.

The subcommittee invited all CAC members to submit written comments as part of the review process.

The following is a compilation of comments received. Individual reviews are compiled into a common format but have otherwise been unchanged. The full list is submitted as part of the resolution supporting endorsement of the Watershed Management Plan with the recommendation that comments will be considered in making edits for the final version of the Plan.

REVIEWER 1 OVERALL ASSESSMENT OR IMPRESSION This draft plan is impressively comprehensive and well-presented and, with minor adjustments, should serve as a clear roadmap for the Water District’s work during the next decade. It clearly communicates the District’s mission and the depth of its commitment to fulfilling it with collaboration and support from its partners and stakeholders. The readability of its challenging content is greatly enhanced by the document’s formatting and graphic treatment. The importance of partnerships and commitment to equity are apparent, but I felt that “working with partners” is an overused phrase and that the commitment to equity concept needs clarification. There is almost no attention to prudent fiscal management, which seems especially important as tax bases may erode and budgets of governmental partners, businesses and residents become increasingly under stress.

MOST USEFUL The Implementation Plan (Section 3) is especially well-done. The narrative is clear and thorough and illuminates the detailed budget. Although the ten-year budget is exceptionally detailed and probably not for general consumption, it is a necessary “high level” overview of the District’s planned activities.

It is presented in a well-organized format, with clear connections to issues, goals and activities described in the narrative. The classification into priorities potentially offers guidance if the economic and/or fiscal climate requires future budget reductions. It should be used as a functional framework for managing District activities and continually updated as events unfold and as part of the adaptive management process. The concise category by category description and key back to the document’s sections are very helpful Maps provide helpful orientation for narrative; photos provide nice tangible evidence and context for projects and programs.

MOST INTERESTING The map of historic wetlands shows them as quite expansive. But there’s no explicit followup: Are they gone forever or will there be specific initiatives that attempt to restore or take advantage of them? Or CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 1 of 12

do they limit what can be done to treat stormwater, for example by limiting infiltration because the water table is close to the surface?

NOTABLE GAPS, SHORTCOMINGS OR OMISSIONS The Executive Summary should provide a solid basis for informing the public about the District.

Probably written last, it should not read as an afterthought and be capable of standing alone. It should be carefully reviewed to ensure that all major themes are clearly captured and communicated that it can stand alone as its own document.

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

The treatment of equity is important but at times seems somewhat superficial. The geography of race and poverty are discussed in the introduction and areas of concentration cited as underserved “due to prior District work” on high impact areas. This almost implies negligence, though that’s certainly not what is meant. Moreover, what’s meant by “underserved?” Visit Como any day of the week and you’ll find that users are disproportionately African-American, Hmong, and other minorities that are likely to live in areas identified as “underserved.” Race and poverty are noted as important factors in targeting east side watersheds, but there’s not much direct reference regarding how they affect opportunities or exposure to environmental risks. We show where contaminated sites are identified by the PCA. Do they affect who’s impacted and/or how that might affect our decisions? Will we invest in mitigating contaminated sites?

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

UNCLEAR OR CONFUSING CONTENT While the draft plan is well-organized and well-written, it needs a text edit and a review for some language redundancy. A few suggestions follow: •

•

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

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

CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 2 of 12

•

• •

• •

• • • • • • •

•

• • •

P11 – Last bullet reference to underserved followed by “due primarily to District work focused on . . . .” This issue is important but poorly communicated. This wording is extracted from text that appears later and needs to be changed so as not to imply blame on other priorities. I don’t have a suggestion other than an easy fix would be to put a period after underserved.

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

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

P29 – Need date for map.

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

P35 – “The District is uniquely positioned . . . “ is presumptuous. This appears in a number of places and should be changed to “well positioned.”

P36 – “uniquely positioned” should be changed – perhaps to The District is committed to convening stakeholders . . . .”

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

P40 – Narrative referring to Fig 2-2 identifies landmarks not obvious on the map, notably BNSF. P42 – “The District is tracking several large-scale redevelopment opportunities . . . .” This would be a good place for a sidebar that identifies some of the most important. This is especially true for those in the “underserved” East Side areas.

P44 – Figure 2-4 is very interesting. Can we say anything here about attention to “underserved” areas?

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

P50 – WQ7,8,9,11 all repeat “Work with partners to . . . .” Why is this needed? The document clearly states the commitment to work with partners to achieve CRWD goals. Using this language for these goals suggests that we do not work with partners to achieve other goals. Dropping the language takes nothing away from the goal.

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

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

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

CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 3 of 12

• • • • • • •

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

P62 – This is a good place to show staff inspecting a project site. However, consider finding a photo that doesn’t show staff discussing a client’s broken hand – that’s not how compliance should work.

P64 – Last sentence is very confusing. Edit for clarity.

P65 – IM5 is repeated twice. Renumber and also drop the “Work with partners” phrase.

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

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

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

CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 4 of 12

REVIEWER 2 OVERALL ASSESSMENT OR IMPRESSION • Photos and graphics are both useful and add interest/”personality” to the WMP content • Document is organized well and captures many of CRWD’s initiatives and plans for tracking progress • Many references back to specific sections within the content which helps readers who want to do a deeper dive into the information • Minor grammatical errors that were not identified as part of this review but could easily be corrected to ensure the document reads well throughout • It was encouraging to see equity as a main theme throughout the watershed issues and goals section.

• The implementation plan identified achievable projects/initiatives that addresses CRWD’s issues and goals without attempting to pile too much in to a 10-year plan MOST USEFUL • Executive Summary ‘Stakeholder Engagement and Plan Themes’ (pg. 9-10) is really well done and provides a clear and interesting preview of the plan and its content. Also helpful for the reader to know about the leg work done on the front end for stakeholder engagement.

• The District’s Mission, Vision, and Values give the reader a good feel for the organization as a whole • ‘Rain as a Resource’ (pg.27-28)- takes a zoomed out look at CRWD’s role in the greater Mississippi watershed • Issue Statements in the ‘Watershed Issues and Goals’ section is helpful for a condensed look at the challenges CRWD faces • Section 3.4.2- Criteria for grant application awards—it is helpful to have this spelled out in order to highlight the goals of the program and maintain consistency for funding one project over another • Implementation Plan as a whole MOST INTERESTING • Executive Summary ‘Plan Themes’ (pg. 9-10) are highlighted with a different color text box and photos—helps to draw attention to the themes which are very well-written and cover a broad scope of topics.

• ‘Watershed Issues and Goals’ (pg. 11)—Listing the challenges applicable to CRWD is a helpful and honest look at what efforts can be completed or continued going forward • District History (pg. 20-22) provides an interesting and helpful look back at CRWD’s establishment and past work • Introduction (pg. 30) offers an honest/transparent look back at the proportion of projects completed in underserved neighborhoods compared with the rest of the District • Section 3.4.1 (pg. 78) referencing regulatory redundancy and the need to streamline processes for stakeholders involved • Section 3.4.1 (pg. 80) engagement activities with permittees, deicing rules, green infrastructure incentives, water reuse policy support CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 5 of 12

• • • • •

Section 3.4.2 (pg 82) District Watercorps position Section 3.4.3 (pg 84) non-structural BMP effectiveness studies Section 3.5.1 (pg 89) Infiltration-Groundwater Quality Study + chloride monitoring Section 3.5.7 (pg 101) Wetland Restoration Planning Section 3.5.11 (pg 108) Great River Passage- River Learning Center

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

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

• Introduction (pg 22)- last paragraph: Include a link to ‘Protecting, Managing, and Improving the Waters…’—can’t remember if this is a document or a video?

• Section 1.2.2 (pg. 24)- Provide links to the other implementation plans listed as complete in 20192020 if readily available • Section 2.5 Ecosystem Health Goals- Has any analysis been done with regard to maintaining/reestablishing wildlife corridors?

• Section 3.4.2- Might be interesting for readers if there is a link to the map of previously installed grant projects or reference to it available on the website UNCLEAR OR CONFUSING CONTENT • List of Abbreviations (pg. 6): Verify the intent is for ‘SWPPP’ to refer to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program or alternatively Plan which the MPCA uses.

• Section 2.2 – define impervious/imperviousness for the average resident • Runoff vs. Retention graph (pg. 28) shows an increase in the % runoff despite less recorded precip and more BMPs in the ground than previous years—What is the explanation for that? Should there be a short caption that explains the results?

• Implementation Plan section (Subwatershed Plans)- Briefly explain the nature and purpose of alum treatment in a “reader-friendly” way • Section 2.3- Briefly explain the outcomes of sediment loading and how sediment contributes to observable impacts to water quality. This is done for TP most thoroughly, but many may not realize why sediment is an issue

CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 6 of 12

REVIEWER 3 OVERALL ASSESSMENT OR IMPRESSION Overall, the WMP is an impressive collection of data about CRWD activities and intentions. It offers a large amount of information with clear and positive writing, a nice design (laid out neatly with easy navigation, color-coded sections, and interesting photos). The executive summary makes it accessible for any reader who has a limited amount of time to spend with it.

MOST USEFUL ELEMENTS The specific information in the program/project implementation table 3-5 starting on page 119 is perhaps the most practical in terms of being useful for staff members, but coming from the perspective of a CAC member, I also appreciate the themes, issues, and goals sections.

MOST INTERESTING ELEMENTS Especially interesting sections for me are CRWD history, overall themes and goals, maps of CRWD keyed to different topics such as impervious surfaces, and the map of CRWD as part of the Mississippi River Watershed.

GAPS, SHORTCOMINGS OR OMISSIONS • p. 9 – Under “Community equity…” theme, add “and continue to be” after “…have been underserved." Also the targeted groups – “residents in the central and eastern portions of the District, people of color, recent immigrants, young adults, and youth” – seem too limited. Not even the poorer residents who are discussed on p. 30 of the plan? Why recent and not all immigrants?

Diversity and underrepresented groups include a lot more people. I think the plan needs to be carefully worded on this topic.

• p. 9 – Under “Rain as a resource” theme, change “minimizing” to “reducing,” which I think more accurately reflects CRWD’s capabilities.

• p. 10 – Under “Partnerships” theme, I’d like to see “individual residents” spelled out in the stakeholder list.

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

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

• pp. 26 and 99 – Both pictures of the Trout Brook Nature Center don’t give a sense of the scope of the project, which is impressive. Do you have a photo that shows more of the creek length, bridge, and path?

• p. 30 – Re. “Community equity...,” I know that this is important to word most carefully and appropriately, but it seems that here or in another place it would be helpful to add the overall goal (something like “so that Watershed District residents of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, geographic areas within the Watershed, ages, abilities, and incomes will be served”).

• p. 63 – The colors in the key don’t seem to match those in the map.

CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 7 of 12

• •

p. 76 – I know this page was organized based on numbers in the budget, but the managers have a photo and are notably missing a paragraph of description of them. p. 107 – Where is the pictured Zero Abuse Project? At the Science Museum? It would be good to add that to the photo caption.

UNCLEAR OR CONFUSING CONTENT This draft still needs a thorough copy editing, which I assume is in the works. Problems such as singular-plural errors, inconsistent use of serial commas, and missing periods tripped me up as I was reading.

REVIEWER 4 OVERALL IMPRESSION Beautiful document, nicely laid out, visually attractive photos that illustrate the work of CRWD and show members of the community engaging with its projects. Very comprehensive (and a bit overwhelming).

MOST USEFUL ELEMENTS The executive summary, the list of abbreviations, and the many charts, graphs, and maps. Good examples: pp. 9-10, p. 25. As a non-technical person, these elements make the document accessible and interesting.

MOST INTERESTING ELEMENTS Section 2 - Watershed issues and goals. Each point (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc, is well described in the narrative.

However, it might be worth editing the longer paragraphs to make them less dense, perhaps by using bullet points. It is a lot to read as a regular citizen, but might not be for more knowledgeable, technical readers.

CONFUSING • I couldn’t find the appendices. They aren’t labeled in the paper document. Maybe they were purposely omitted for this printing. If so, then ignore comment.

• In the Executive Summary, the text refers to Section 2, however the Table of Contents (TOC) doesn’t assign section numbers (I assumed it was Watershed Issues and Goals). Might be good to label it also as Section 2 in the TOC. • P. 110, Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation 470P: Confused as to why developers get to go ahead with projects if they don’t meet district rules.

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

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

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

• P. 29: The colored dots in the legend could be bigger.

CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 8 of 12

• • •

•

P. 119-146, a brief explanation of these tables could be useful. Where are (L) and (P) defined?

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

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

Same photo on P. 61 and P.88. Might there be a different photo for one of the pages?

CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 9 of 12

REVIEWER 5 OVERALL IMPRESSION I was really impressed with this work. It's easy to read, has excellent maps that line up and is beautifully organized throughout. My comments are pretty minor, but maybe they'll be of some use to what is already a fine job. (Incidentally I spot checked the links and they worked fine, except to the appendices, which as you know aren't there.)

MOST USEFUL MOST INTERESTING GAPS, SHORTCOMINGS, OMISSIONS • Have you considered adding a conclusion? Most government reports don't have one but I always thought it tied everything up well and was a good way for the reader to finish a report.

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

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

• Several groups were shown in illustrations but never really explained. On page 11 is Frogtown Green, 17 is Urban Roots, 60 is Compass and what is the "bug bonanza" on pages 58 and 113?

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

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

• P11 - What is frogtown green?

• P14 - Does public art tie in here?

• P17 - Urban Roots. How about a list of organizations partnered with? Section 206 is vague here • P60 - Compas is another unknown organization • P58 - What is bug bonanza? Also P113 • P62 - what is a “small site”?

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

• P14 - mentions "public art". Is that a group?

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

CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 10 of 12

REVIEWER 6 I have completed reviewing the WMP and want to emphasize that my comments come from a layperson's perspective. Overall I was extremely impressed with the organization and clarity of the material presented.

MOST USEFUL • The list of all interested parties in the 1st page acknowledgements.

• The list of abbreviations.

• The references and links to additional information throughout the document.

MOST INTERESTING • Information on our response and need to adapt to climate change.

• Statements on inclusion and diversity.

• Floodplain chart and information.

• GREAT charts/maps!

GAPS, SHORTCOMINGS, OMISSIONS • The last sentence on page 10......the editor in me is looking for a colon after that sentence given the verbage "the following". Yet the colon seems awkward. Possible revision "This information helped to inform the watershed issues and goals." This leads to the headline of the next section.

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

UNCLEAR OR CONFUSING CONTENT I found nothing to be unclear or confusing.

CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 11 of 12

REVIEWER 7 OVERALL IMPRESSION In general I agree with the plan and the proposed work. Wonder if we can reduce the cost of things. I dislike raising the levy every year, just because we can. But that is not a discussion for this document.

MOST USEFUL MOST INTERESTING GAPS, SHORTCOMINGS, OMISSIONS UNCLEAR OR CONFUSING CONTENT Need to do a spellcheck as there are some typos (page 136 last line Swdede is misspelled).

Why does it list the full name of BWSR, define the abbreviation and then 2 pages later do it again? Page 112 and 114. It is in their list of abbreviations (pg 6).

CAC Review Comments of 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan July 8, 2020 Page 12 of 12