July 16, 2014 cac meeting packet

Citizen Advisory Committee 7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - Capitol Region Watershed District Office Agenda 7:00

I)

Welcome, Announcements and Updates – 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

Materials Enclosed

Approval of the May 14 and June 11, 2014 Minutes 7:10

V)

District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recomendations A) East Kittsondale Subwatershed:Urban Stormwater Retrofit Assessment

8:15

VI)

CAC Initiatives A) CAC Framework and Orientation Packet – Next Steps, Doneux B) Discuss the September 18th Event with Freshwater Society, Dr. Jay Famiglietti, Dwindling Groundwater Reserves as Viewed from Space C) Discuss 2014 Awards Program

8:45

VII)

Project and Program Updates A)

2014 CRWD Construction Project Udpates

8:50

VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:55

IX)

Discussion A) B) C) D)

9:00

X)

New & Old Issues Identify CAC Observer for July 23rd and August Board of Managers Meetings August 13th CAC Agenda Overview 2014 Meeting Schedule

Adjourn

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2014\May 14, 2014 CAC Agenda.docx

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

Draft

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, May 14, 2014 – 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present: Gwen Willems Bill Barton Mike MacDonald Richard Weil Janna Caywood Ted McCaslin Michelle Ulrich Steve Duerre

Others Present: Mark Doneux, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD Lindsay VanPatten, CRWD Britta Suppes, CRWD Bob Fossum, CRWD Mary Texer, Board Manager

Members absent: David Arbeit, w/notice Pat Byrne, w/notice Kathryn Swanson Welcome, Announcements, and Updates Ms. Willems opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with a request for any announcements.

Administrator Doneux shared that he was contacted by Mr. Arbeit about a foamy substance seen on Como Lake. Administrator Doneux will have staff follow up on this report.

Public Comments There were no public comments.

Approval of Agenda Ms. Willems asked for any additions or changes to the Agenda. No additions or changes were made.

CAC 14-049 Motion: To approve the CAC May 14, 2014 agenda.

Caywood/MacDonald Unanimously approved Approval of the April 9, 2014 CAC Minutes Ms. Willems requested any changes or corrections to the minutes. A couple of corrections were noted.

CAC 13-050 Motion: To approve the CAC April 9, 2014 CAC Minutes with corrections.

Barton/Weil Unanimously approved

1

District Initiatives A)

2013 Stormwater and Lakes Monitoring Reports (Suppes)

Ms. Suppes reviewed that since 2005, CRWD has been collecting and analyzing water quality data through the District Monitoring Program. During the 2013 monitoring period (January-December), stormwater monitoring sites located throughout six of the sixteen major subwatersheds were monitored for flow and water quality. Water quality samples were analyzed for a variety of parameters including nutrients, solids, metals, bacteria, and chloride. Conclusions and recommendations from 2013 will help guide monitoring performed in 2014.

For the first time this year, there will be two monitoring reports: Stormwater Monitoring Report and Lakes Monitoring Report. Ms. Suppes reviewed the Stormwater Monitoring report with the CAC highlighting key findings from the monitoring efforts. Ms. Suppes reviewed graphs with record high precipitation in 2013.

On June 21, 2013 an intense storm measured 1.13 inches of rain in 15 minutes, with a total of 2.85 inches in 24 hour period. This storm accounted for twenty five percent of the annual rain fall. Two new monitoring stations have been added to the Trout Brook area. Ms. Suppes shared annual e coli average or loading, Sarita subwatershed showed a very high increase. This area is located near the Minnesota State Fair Grounds and typically does have higher pollutants due to the number of livestock in the subwatershed. Ms. Suppes noted that for the first time Chloride was evaluated in the spring primary snow melt. Ms. Caywood suggested further education and discussion on the topic of chloride.

The CAC thanked Ms. Suppes for her presentation.

CAC Initiatives A) Adoption of CAC Orientation Packet Administrator Doneux reviewed the development of the CAC Orientation Packet. The orientation packet committee consists of: Michelle Ulrich, Steve Duerre, and Gwen Willems. Administrator Doneux reviewed comments and changes made by the Board of Managers. On the Roster page a note will be added that members are appointed by the Board of Managers. A statement of Expectations page will also be added.

Members discussed adding a geographic map of the current CAC members to help focus on recruitment efforts.

CAC 14-051 Motion: Adopt CAC Orientation Packet.

Ulrich/MacDonald Unanimously approved B) Discuss the September 18th Event with Freshwater Society, Dr. Jay Famiglietti, Dwindling Groundwater Reserves as Viewed from Space.

Administrator Doneux reviewed the event planned for September 18, 2014. CRWD will partner with Freshwater Society. Barr Engineering will also be co-sponsoring the event. Elizabeth Beckman will be contacting Freshwater Society for information about having an educational table at the event and a few minutes to talk about CRWD. Ms. Texer suggested inviting City Officials and other watershed districts.

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

2

C) Discuss 2014 Awards Program As part of the survey results from CAC members on initiatives, members felt it would be very beneficial to sponsor an awards program to recognize outstanding water and soil project in the district.

At the annual meeting in 2013, Jerome Wagner and Manager Mike Thienes were recognized for their work with Capitol Regional Watershed District. CRWD currently partners with the City of St. Paul for the Blooming St. Paul Award. Ms. Caywood suggested an award that is somehow linked to the mission statement. A sub committee was formed by Mike MacDonald and Janna Caywood.

D) Discuss June Tour Sites Administrator Doneux reviewed plans for the June 11th Annual CAC site tour. This years’ theme will be the Trout Brook Valley area. The tour will start at CRWD office at 5:30 with a presentation on the history of the Trout Brook Valley area. The tour will include a tour of the Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary, Trout Brook Monitoring site, 35E Realignment Project, and the Lowertown Ballpark.

Project and Program Updates A)

2014 CRWD Construction Project Updates (Doneux)

The Curtiss Pond project is currently out to bid and has nine bidders at this time. The Highland Ravine is also out to bid with three bidders.

CAC Observer Update Ms. Texer gave a brief update on the May 7th Board of Managers Meeting where the Curtiss Pond project and Lowertown Ball Park were main topics of discussion. The Curtiss Pond project has gone out to bid.

This project involves a storage tank and pumping system. The level of the pond will be lowered prior to rainfall events. The Lowertown Ball Park would reuse stormwater from the roof of the Metro Transit building. The water would be stored and used for irrigation and flushing toilets. A system like this would be the first of this kind.

Discussion – A) New & Old Issues There was no discussion.

B) Identify CAC Observer for the May 21st and June 4th Board of Managers Meeting No members were identified.

C) June 11th CAC Agenda Overview The June 11th meeting will be the annual CAC tour. This years’ theme will be the Trout Brook Valley area.

The tour will start at CRWD office at 5:30 with a presentation on the history of the Trout Brook Valley area.

The tour will include a tour of the Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary, Trout Brook Monitoring site, 35E Realignment Project, and the Lowertown Ballpark.

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

3

D) 2014 Meeting Schedule Adjourn – CAC 14-052 Motion: To adjourn.

MacDonald/Weil Unanimously approved The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 PM. Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Minutes\2014\May 14, 2014 Draft Minutes.doc

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

4

Draft

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting -Site Tour Wednesday, June 11, 2014 – 5:30 p.m.

CAC Members Present: Gwen Willems Bill Barton Richard Weil Michelle Ulrich David Arbeit Pat Byrne

Members absent: Kathryn Swanson Mike MacDonald Janna Caywood Ted McCaslin Steve Duerre

Others Present: Mark Doneux, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD Anna Eleria, CRWD Bob Fossum, CRWD Forrest Kelley, CRWD Joe Sellner, CRWD Mary Texer, Board Manager Shirley Reider, Board Manager Joe Collins, Board Manager Seitu Jones, Board Manager Linda Jungwirth John Jungwirth Shirley Erstad – Friends of the Parks & Trails Dennis Lienke

The June 11th CAC meeting started at 5:30 PM at the CRWD office. The annual tour included a variety of projects in the Trout Brook Valley area. Ms. Shirley Erstad of Friends of the Parks and Trails provided a presentation on the History of the Trout Brook Valley area. In the late 1800’s, the railroad came thru the Trout Brook corridor. The land was not viewed for its resources but as the most efficient route of travel. Many ponds and low laying areas were filled in by the railroad.

The group boarded a mini bus and proceeded to the City of St. Paul Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary. Mr. Fossum reviewed with the group the contributions CRWD has had in the Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary planning and execution. The goal of this project is to return water to the surface for wildlife conservation. The Nature Sanctuary will include walking trails and is scheduled to be open for the public in 2015.

Mr. Sellner met the group at the next stop, the Trout Brook Stormsewer Monitoring Systems. Mr. Sellner showed how the monitoring crew collects samples at the West Trout Brook Stormsewer. The information collected at various monitoring sites is used in feasibility studies for future projects.

Ms. Eleria was on site at the next location, the Cayuga Interchange/35E/MN Pass and the Trout Brook Realignment Project. Ms. Eleria reviewed how the storm sewer lines were connected. The project involved removal and replacement of the railroad tracks within a 30 hour window.

The last stop of the tour reviewed some of the Lowertown Projects including the Union Depot, Lowertown Ballpark, Lafayette Bridge, and Green Line OMF Building. The tour adjourned at 9:15pm.

Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander 1

July 16, 2014 V. District Initiatives for Review A) East Kittsondale Stormwater Retrofit Assessment (Zwonitzer)

DATE: July 10, 2014 TO: CRWD Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist RE: East Kittsondale Stormwater Retrofit Assessment

Background In 2013, CRWD contracted with the Ramsey Conservation District (RCD) to complete a stormwater retrofit analysis of the East Kittsondale subwatershed. Monitoring data shows that water quality of stormwater runoff in East Kittsondale is consistently the poorest in the watershed. The goal of the retrofit analysis is to identify potential water quality improvement opportunities, develop preliminary cost estimates, model pollutant removals, and generate a prioritized list of project opportunities based on cost-effectiveness.

Issues A variety of projects were identified in the report (enclosed). Some of the projects are very site-specific, and some are general concepts (alley treatments) that could be applied throughout the subwatershed. The next step is for CRWD staff to further explore and pursue the high priority opportunities. Since CRWD does not own land, staff will need to develop partnerships with property owners where projects are identified. The results of the report allows CRWD staff to pursue projects that provide the biggest “bang for the buck� systematically, and it provides much needed information when applying for grants. The information provided in the report is tremendously helpful for planning District activities, and additional areas for stormwater retrofit analysis are being considered.

Requested Action 1. Feedback on the East Kittsondale Stormwater Retrofit Assessment and approach 2. Recommendation to the CRWD Board to consider funding for implementation of identified projects and future stormwater retrofit assessments.

Enc: East Kittsondale Subwatershed: Urban Stormwater Retrofit Assessment

\\CRWDC01\Company\06 Projects\East Kittsondale Retrofit Analysis\CAC Memo East Kittsondale Retrofit Analysis.docx

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

East Kittsondale Subwatershed: Urban Stormwater Retrofit Assessment

Prepared by:

for the Capitol Region Watershed District Funded in part by the Metro Conservation District from Clean Water Funds

East Kittsondale Subwatershed: Urban Stormwater Retrofit Assessment Prepared for the Capitol Region Watershed District by: Samantha Kreibich, Ramsey Conservation District CRWD Staff: Gustavo Castro, Water Resource Specialist

Mark Doneux, Administrator Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager Bob Fossum, Program Manager Britta Suppes, Monitoring Coordinator Corey Poland, Water Resource Technician - Permit Inspector Elizabeth Beckman, Education & Outreach Coordinator Forrest Kelly, Regulatory and Construction Program Manager

Joe Sellner, Water Resource Technician Jordan Jessen, Water Resource Technician Lindsay VanPatten, Education and Administrative Assistant Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist Sarah Wein, Water Resource Technician

CRWD Board of Managers: Joseph Collins, President Mary Texer, Vice President

Seitu Jones, Secretary Shirley Reider, Manager

Michael Thienes, Treasurer

Front photograph: Courtesy of the Capitol Region Watershed District

3 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Contents Map of Study Area....................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 8 Project Rankings and Page Numbers .................................................................................................. 12 Project Rankings and Page Numbers .................................................................................................. 13 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Retrofit Scoping ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Desktop Retrofit Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 14 Retrofit Reconnaissance Investigation.................................................................................................... 14 Design Your Own Detention or Infiltration Systems ............................................................................... 14 Capitol Region Watershed District Rule C ........................................................................................... 15 Treatment Analysis/Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................ 15 Retrofit Neighborshed Delineation ..................................................................................................... 15 Retrofit Modeling & Sizing .................................................................................................................. 15 Retrofit Types ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Retrofit Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................................... 16 Catchment Retrofit Results ......................................................................................................................... 16 East Kittsondale: Catchment 1 ................................................................................................................ 17 Project ID: EKD1-Residential Rain Gardens......................................................................................... 19 Project ID: EKD1- Commercial Underground Infiltration Trenches .................................................... 20 Underground Infiltration Drainage Areas ............................................................................................... 21 EKD1- Commercial Underground Infiltration Trenches (Sites 101, 121, and 122) and ...................... 21 School Underground Detention and Reuse (Site 115) ........................................................................ 21 Project ID: EKD1-School Underground Detention and Reuse............................................................. 22 Project ID: EKD1 Alley Project ............................................................................................................. 23 East Kittsondale: Catchment 2 ................................................................................................................ 25 Project ID: EKD2- Residential Rain Gardens ........................................................................................ 27 Project ID: EKD2-Alley Project............................................................................................................. 28 East Kittsondale: Catchment 3 ................................................................................................................ 30 Project ID: EKD3-Residential Rain Gardens......................................................................................... 32 Project ID: EKD3-Institutional Projects ............................................................................................... 33 Project ID: EKD3-Multifamily Rain Gardens ........................................................................................ 34

4 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD3-Commercial Projects................................................................................................ 35 Project ID: EKD3-Park Projects ............................................................................................................ 35 Project ID: EKD3-Alley Project............................................................................................................. 36 East Kittsondale: Catchment 4 ................................................................................................................ 38 Project ID: EKD4-Residential Rain Gardens......................................................................................... 40 Project ID: EKD4-Multifamily Projects ................................................................................................ 40 Project ID: EKD4-Institutional Projects ............................................................................................... 42 Project ID: EKD4-Alley Project............................................................................................................. 43 East Kittsondale: Catchment 5 ................................................................................................................ 45 Project ID: EKD5-Residential Rain Gardens......................................................................................... 47 Project ID: EKD5-Commercial Projects................................................................................................ 47 Project ID: EKD5-Alley Project............................................................................................................. 49 East Kittsondale: Catchment 6 ................................................................................................................ 51 Project ID: EKD6-Residential Rain Gardens......................................................................................... 53 Project ID: EKD6-Commercial Pervious Pavement ............................................................................. 54 Project ID: EKD6-Alley Project............................................................................................................. 55 East Kittsondale: Catchment 7 ................................................................................................................ 57 Project ID: EKD7-Residential Rain Gardens......................................................................................... 59 Project ID: EKD7-Multifamily Projects ................................................................................................ 59 Project ID: EKD7-Alley Project............................................................................................................. 61 Project ID: EKD8-Residential Rain Gardens......................................................................................... 63 East Kittsondale: Catchment 8 ................................................................................................................ 63 Project ID: EKD8-Multifamily Rain Gardens ........................................................................................ 65 Project ID: EKD8-Institutional Underground Infiltration..................................................................... 66 Project ID: EKD8-Alley Project............................................................................................................. 67 Project ID EKD9-Residential Vegetated Swales................................................................................... 69 East Kittsondale: Catchment 9 ................................................................................................................ 69 References .................................................................................................................................................. 72 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................. 73 WINSLAMM Standard Land Use Codes................................................................................................... 74 RESIDENTIAL LAND USES ................................................................................................................ 74 COMMERCIAL LAND USES ................................................................................................................ 74

5 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment INDUSTRIAL LAND USES .................................................................................................................. 75 INSTITUTIONAL LAND USES ............................................................................................................ 75 OTHER URBAN LAND USES .............................................................................................................. 75 FREEWAY LAND USES ...................................................................................................................... 75 Appendix B: ................................................................................................................................................ 76 Curb cut raingarden, with 1.5-2ft perimeter wall, in a residential area. ...................................... 76 Bioretention Design .......................................................................................................................... 76 Residential Rain Garden - WinSLAMM Design ........................................................................................ 77 Underground Infiltration - WinSLAMM Design....................................................................................... 78 Appendix C................................................................................................................................................ 78

6 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

This page is intentionally left blank

7 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

8 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Executive Summary This study will examine optimal locations for placing cost-effective water quality improvements within a highly developed region in the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), known as the East Kittsondale (EKD) subwatershed. This subwatershed is an 1860-acre portion of land located in the southeast corner of Ramsey County and St. Paul, Minnesota. It consists primarily of high-density residential areas with portions of commercial and institutional land use. Consisting of nearly 70% residential land use, there are also large portions of major urban highways, including Ayd Mill road, which follows the railroad, Interstate 94, located near a commercial development, and Interstate 35E. The EKD subwatershed does not consist of any natural or constructed water bodies and instead is connected by an extensive stormsewer system which ultimately discharges to the Mississippi River. This section of the CRWD has consistently demonstrated increased levels of runoff volume and pollutants, particularly Total Phosphorous (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS).

The result of this analysis will be a prioritized list of the most cost-effective locations for retrofitting water quality improvement projects or best management practices (BMPs). Over 200 projects were identified in the following report. These projects will help improve existing water quality, provide benefits to the impaired Mississippi River, and enhance the quality of a surface water drinking source that serves a large portion the metropolitan population, including the entire southern half of Ramsey County. Due to the highly developed nature of the EKD subwatershed, locations for BMP projects were limited; therefore, this study focused primarily on placing residential boulevard rain gardens, pervious pavement, and underground infiltration trenches. These BMPs are appropriate because of their effectiveness in removing TP while requiring minimal space.

Approaches outlined in the analysis will focus on ranking projects based on the total project cost per pound of phosphorous removed for each project. The outlined projects are merely a model and are meant only as a starting point for future watershed planning. Other considerations for installation prioritization should include areas prone to flooding, timing of future construction, and project visibility.

While the proposed projects aim to reach these considerations, more elaborate planning and research should be completed prior to the installation of any of these projects. Significant efforts, however, were made to provide the most accurate and precise estimates for pollutant loading and reduction, along with estimated costs to reach these removal rates.

Areas that drain to the Mississippi River were delineated using GIS subwatershed information which was previously determined, as well as maps of stormwater conveyance features. The subwatershed was further divided into 9 smaller stormwater drainage areas, or catchments. For each catchment, modeling of stormwater volume and pollutants was completed using the software WinSLAMM. The program calculates pollutant and stormwater volume loads based off specific land use and reductions based off specified BMPs. Land use areas were delineated, then modeled based off the calculated area of each land use. Any existing BMPs found in the catchments were modeled to calculate pollutant reductions, which helped us determine base loading for each catchment. Portions of the subwatershed have preexisting underground infiltration trenches. These were installed as part of the City of St. Paul’s, RSVP programs, or Residential Street Vitality Program. Projects identified were modeled with existing treatment, including street sweeping, to determine the overall pollutant reductions achieved for each proposed site. The results of the 60 most cost-effective projects are summarized in the table below.

Catchment Key

EKD3 MF_RG

EKD3 MF_RG

EKD8 Alley_ UG

EKD4 Res_RG

EKD1 Res_ RG

EKD3 Alley_PP

EKD8 Alley_UG

EKD1 Res_ RG

EKD2 Alley_PP

EKD2_Res RG

EKD2 Res_ RG

EKD6 Alley_UG

EKD2 Res_ RG

EKD6 Alley_UG

EKD9 Res_Swale

EKD6 Alley_UG

EKD9 Res_Swale

EKD9 Res_Swale

EKD7 Res_RG

Simple Bioretention

Simple Bioretention

Underground Infiltration

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Permeable Pavement

Underground Infiltration

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Permeable Pavement

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Underground Infiltration

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Underground Infiltration

Swale

Underground Infiltration

Swale

Swale

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Retrofit Type

8

4

3

7

6

6

7

3

1

10

6

19

3

9

1

4

3

2

2

1

Identified

Projects

TP

TSS

Volume

1.9

1.0

2.5

1.9

1.5

3.7

3.6

0.8

5.0

3.4

2.2

22.3

1.4

12.5

0.8

9.6

2.1

1.5

2.5

2.3

(lb/yr)

559

293

792

620

466

1,927

1,111

257

1,570

1,063

628

6,570

389

3,713

117

2,821

290

209

749

715

(lb/yr)

6.2

5.7

1.9

1.2

1.1

4.6

2.6

0.7

3.7

2.6

1.8

19.2

1.1

10.9

0.2

7.9

0.5

0.3

1.9

1.8

(ac-ft/yr)

Reduction Reduction Reduction

$14,558

$8,014

$33,748

$12,063

$10,548

$65,568

$44,622

$5,274

$65,568

$20,950

$13,158

$209,377

$7,314

$99,412

$2,954

$44,622

$4,786

$3,676

$5,016

$3,348

Cost

Total Project (30-year)

Maintenance

$600

$300

$270

$630

$450

$450

$360

$225

$75

$750

$450

$1,710

$225

$810

$75

$360

$225

$150

$150

$75

$1,941

$1,936

$1,761

$1,665

$1,720

$1,679

$1,663

$1,560

$1,440

$1,362

$1,415

$1,323

$1,205

$1,111

$1,483

$655

$1,326

$1,304

$423

$261

1,000lb-TSS

(2012 Dollars)

Estimated cost/

Estimated Operations &

* Pollution reduction benefits and costs can not be summed with other projects in the same catchment because they are alternative options for treating the same source area.

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

EKD7 Res_RG

ID

Rank

1

Catchment

Project

$571

$567

$558

$543

$534

$527

$513

$501

$452

$422

$402

$390

$342

$330

$207

$192

$184

$180

$127

$81

lb-TP (30-year)

cost/

Estimated

9 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Catchment Key

EKD8 Res_RG

EKD5 Res_RG

EKD5 Comm_UG

EKD4 Res_RG

EKD6 Res_RG

EKD3 Park_RG

EKD5 Comm_UG

EKD3 Res_RG

EKD5 Alley_UG

EKD6 Res_RG

EKD5 Res_RG

EKD5 Alley_UG

EKD3 School RG

EKD4 School_UG

EKD3 Res_RG

EKD5 Alley_UG

EKD6 Res_RG

EKD3 Res_ RG

EKD1 Alley_ UG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Modereately Complex

Underground Infiltration

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Underground Infiltration

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Underground Infiltration Trench

Moderately Complex

Modereately Complex

Underground Infiltration Trench

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Underground Infiltration

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Underground Infiltration

Moderately Complex

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex

Retrofit Type

5

7

2

30

25

1

1

50

6

12

3

4

1

1

25

2

5

12

12

15

Identified

Projects

TP

TSS

Volume

0.9

1.4

9.2

6.2

4.8

1.0

7.7

10.5

37.5

2.4

0.7

37.2

0.3

18.3

5.7

33.0

1.1

2.9

0.8

3.7

(lb/yr)

226

407

2,869

2,019

1,396

239

1,930

2,827

12,574

705

189

12,539

102

6,899

1,538

11,146

322

796

257

1,230

(lb/yr)

0.9

1.2

6.8

3.8

4.1

5.7

5.5

15.2

25.5

2.1

0.6

25.3

5.5

15.7

10.6

22.5

0.9

8.0

0.7

2.4

(ac-ft/yr)

Reduction Reduction Reduction

$8,835

$12,063

$22,984

$50,174

$43,950

$15,930

$12,609

$98,870

$88,431

$20,016

$5,722

$44,622

$3,418

$275,403

$50,170

$22,984

$8,790

$24,846

$21,096

$25,242

Cost

Total Project (30-year)

Maintenance

$375

$630

$5,924

$2,700

$1,875

$150

$4,818

$3,750

$22,198

$900

$270

$21,998

$75

$2,250

$1,875

$19,576

$375

$900

$900

$25,242

$2,962

$2,536

$2,332

$2,166

$2,393

$2,849

$2,714

$2,492

$2,000

$2,274

$2,438

$1,873

$1,852

$1,657

$2,306

$1,825

$2,075

$2,171

$1,900

$1,782

1,000lb-TSS

(2012 Dollars)

Estimated cost/

Estimated Operations &

* Pollution reduction benefits and costs can not be summed with other projects in the same catchment because they are alternative options for treating the same source area.

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

EKD4 Res_RG

ID

Rank

21

Catchment

Project

$744

$737

$727

$703

$696

$681

$680

$671

$671

$668

$658

$631

$630

$625

$622

$616

$607

$596

$594

$592

lb-TP (30-year)

cost/

Estimated

10 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Catchment Key

EKD4 Alley_ PP

EKD7Alley_UG

EKD1 Alley_ UG

EKD4 Alley_ UG

EKD4 Alley_UG

EKD5 Alley_PP

EKD5 Alley_PP

EKD5 Comm_UG

EKD8 Res_RG

EKD2 Alley_UG

EKD3 Alley_PP

EKD3 Comm_ RG

EKD2 Alley_ UG

EKD5 Alley_PP

EKD4 MF_RG

EKD3 Park_RG

EKD8 Res_RG

EKD2 Alley_PP

EKD8 Res_RG

Pervious Pavement

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Pervious Pavement

Pervious Pavement

Underground Infiltration

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Underground Infiltration

Permeable Pavement

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Underground Infiltration

Pervious Pavement

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Permeable Pavement

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Modereately Complex

Retrofit Type

13

1

2

5

5

4

6

1

2

5

13

9

3

2

3

4

20

3

10

14

Identified

Projects

TP

TSS

Volume

12.5

0.9

1.8

5.4

5.4

6.1

12.5

14.6

0.4

6.3

5.9

1.5

5.1

3.8

0.5

1.6

3.2

5.9

1.7

2.7

(lb/yr)

3,856

272

576

1,599

1,599

1,922

3,937

4,256

118

1,954

1,831

748

1,589

1,225

177

386

809

1,831

426

777

(lb/yr)

9.3

0.7

1.4

4.6

4.6

4.3

8.8

12.6

0.4

4.7

4.3

1.6

3.8

2.5

0.6

6.2

3.4

4.3

1.7

2.3

(ac-ft/yr)

Reduction Reduction Reduction

$382,975

$12,690

$22,984

$55,545

$55,545

$187,246

$373,247

$110,398

$7,254

$55,545

$129,456

$19,002

$33,748

$94,463

$5,722

$30,390

$33,540

$129,456

$16,978

$23,585

Cost

Total Project (30-year)

Maintenance

$975

$566

$1,202

$3,999

$3,999

$300

$600

$10,960

$150

$4,080

$975

$675

$3,320

$150

$225

$300

$1,500

$225

$750

$1,260

$3,563

$3,637

$3,417

$3,659

$3,659

$3,403

$3,313

$3,440

$3,320

$3,036

$2,889

$1,749

$2,797

$2,693

$2,349

$3,402

$3,236

$2,480

$3,089

$2,633

1,000lb-TSS

(2012 Dollars)

Estimated cost/

Estimated Operations &

* Pollution reduction benefits and costs can not be summed with other projects in the same catchment because they are alternative options for treating the same source area.

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

EKD5 Res_RG

ID

Rank

41

Catchment

Project

$1,099

$1,099

$1,094

$1,083

$1,083

$1,072

$1,043

$1,003

$979

$943

$903

$872

$868

$868

$831

$821

$818

$775

$774

$758

lb-TP (30-year)

cost/

Estimated

11 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

12 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project Rankings and Page Numbers

Project Rank

Catchment ID

Retrofit Type

Projects Identified

Page Number

1

EKD7 Res_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

1

59

2

EKD7 Res_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

2

69

3

EKD9 Res_Swale

Swale

2

71

4

EKD9 Res_Swale

Swale

3

71

5

EKD6 Alley_UG

Underground Infiltration

4

55

6

EKD9 Res_Swale

Swale

1

77

7

EKD6 Alley_UG

Underground Infiltration

9

55

8

EKD2 Res_ RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

3

27

9

EKD6 Alley_UG

Underground Infiltration

19

55

10

EKD2 Res_ RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

6

27

11

EKD2_Res RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

10

27

12

EKD2_Alley PP

Permeable Pavement

1

29

13

EKD1 Res_ RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

3

20

14

EKD8 Alley_UG

Underground Infiltration

7

69

15

EKD3 Alley_PP

Permeable Pavement

6

38

16

EKD1 Res_ RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

6

20

17

EKD4 Res_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

7

41

18

EKD8 Alley_ UG

Underground Infiltration

3

69

19

EKD3 MF_RG

Simple Bioretention

4

35

20

EKD3 MF_RG

Simple Bioretention

8

35

21

EKD4 Res_RG

Moderately Complex

15

41

22

EKD1 Alley_ UG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

12

20

23

EKD3 Res_ RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

12

33

24

EKD6 Res_RG

Moderately Complex

5

53

25

EKD5 Alley_UG

Underground Infiltration

2

51

26

EKD3 Res_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

25

33

27

EKD4 School_UG

Underground Infiltration

1

43

28

EKD3 School_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

1

34

29

EKD5 Alley_UG

Underground Infiltration

4

51

30

EKD5 Res_RG

Moderately Complex

3

47

13 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Project Rankings and Page Numbers

Project Rank

Catchment ID

Retrofit Type

Projects Identified

Page Number

31

EKD6 Res_RG

Moderately Complex

12

53

32

EKD5 Alley_UG

Underground Infiltration

6

51

33

EKD3 Res_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

50

33

34

EKD5 Comm_UG

Underground Infiltration

1

49

35

EKD3 Park_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

1

37

36

EKD6 Res_RG

Moderately Complex

25

53

37

EKD4 Res_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

30

41

38

EKD5 Comm_UG

Underground Infiltration

2

49

39

EKD5 Res_RG

Moderately Complex

7

48

40

EKD8 Res_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

5

65

41

EKD5 Res_RG

Moderately Complex

14

48

42

EKD8 Res_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

10

65

43

EKD2_Alley PP

Permeable Pavement

3

30

44

EKD8 Res_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

20

65

45

EKD3 Park_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

2

37

46

EKD4 MF_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

3

42

47

EKD5 Alley_PP

Pervious Pavement

2

51

48

EKD2 Alley_ UG

Underground Infiltration

3

30

49

EKD3Comm_ RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

9

36

50

EKD3 Alley_PP

Permeable Pavement

13

34

51

EKD2 Alley_UG

Underground Infiltration

5

30

52

EKD8 Res_RG

Moderately Complex Bioretention

2

67

53

EKD5 Comm_UG

Underground Infiltration

1

49

54

EKD5 Alley_PP

Pervious Pavement

6

51

55

EKD5 Alley_PP

Pervious Pavement

4

51

56

EKD4 Alley_UG

Underground Infiltration

5

45

57

EKD4 Alley_ UG

Underground Infiltration

5

45

58

EKD1 Alley_ UG

Underground Infiltration

0

24

59

EKD7Alley_UG

Underground Infiltration

1

63

60

EKD4 Alley_ PP

Pervious Pavement Alley

13

45

14 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Methods In this analysis, the methods used were based on models developed by the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). In summary, these investigative methods included Retrofit Ranking, Retrofit Scoping, Desktop Retrofit Analysis, and a Retrofit Reconnaissance Field Investigation. After these methods were completed, a Treatment Analysis based on cost estimates was completed for each project. In addition to the CWP methods, a design tool developed by Contech solutions, known as, Design Your Own Detention or Infiltration Systems, was used in order to model sizing for underground infiltration trenches. A summary of the methods used are described below.

Retrofit Scoping Each catchment was analyzed using standard land use files within WinSLAMM to determine a base load of TP. The WinSLAMM parameters and standard land use files used are in Appendix A. These base loads were calculated in order to determine which catchments had the greatest pollutant loads, which would give them first consideration when deciding which identified retrofit practices to install. Although the pollutant base loads may be higher than in reality, the consistent parameters were used in the modeling so that an overall precise comparison could be made between the catchments. More accurate and precise pollutant loads for each retrofit opportunity found within the drainage areas were calculated and are discussed below in the Treatment Analysis/Cost Estimates.

Desktop Retrofit Analysis A desktop search was conducted for each of the nine catchment areas to identify potential retrofit opportunities before completing a field reconnaissance. GIS layers including topography, hydrology, soils, watershed/subwatershed boundaries, parcel info/boundaries, high-resolution aerial photography and the storm drainage infrastructure data were reviewed to determine potential retrofit placement.

Several factors and key locations were considered during the desktop analyses which were conducive to retrofitting opportunities. These locations included areas well known for installing retrofit projects including schools and churches.

Retrofit Reconnaissance Investigation After identifying potential retrofit sites through the desktop search, a field investigation was conducted to evaluate each site. During the investigation, the drainage area and stormwater infrastructure mapping data were verified. Site constraints were assessed to determine the most feasible retrofit options as to eliminate sites from consideration. The field investigation also revealed additional retrofit opportunities which were unnoticed during the desktop search, specifically those which dealt with poor drainage. These areas were considered a priority and became a potential project location.

Design Your Own Detention or Infiltration Systems Contech Solution's Design Your Own Detention or Infiltration Systems offered a useful tool for designing and sizing infiltration trenches. To determine the sizing, the underground infiltration trenches were modeled based off a site by site analysis by using the calculated impervious area, and the CRWD Rule C which provided the required treatment needed to treat 1 inch of runoff.

15 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Capitol Region Watershed District Rule C

Treatment Analysis/Cost Estimates Retrofit Neighborshed Delineation After the retrofit sites were identified, each of their individual drainage areas or “neighborsheds,� consisting of runoff from surrounding streets, buildings, parking lots, and landscaped areas, etc., were delineated using drainage data gathered in the field and GIS contour data. See example below. This information, in conjunction with the NRCS soil survey data, was used to model the pollutant loads from each of the sites. A representative residential "neighborshed" was delineated to determine the percentage of streets, landscaped areas, roads, sidewalks, and buildings. These source area percentages were then applied over the whole residential land use. The source area acreages were manually entered into the WinSLAMM program under the appropriate land use type in which the site was located. To maintain consistency, all file data used in WinSLAMM, listed in Appendix A, was the same for each site modeled.

Retrofit Modeling & Sizing The retrofit type and dimensions, conducive to the landscape and size of each neighborshed, was then chosen and incorporated into the WinSLAMM model to determine its capability to reduce TP. The retrofit types identified include: simple bioretention, and moderately complex bioretention. The majority of residential bioretention BMPs modeled were all sized at 120 square feet. Only boulevards larger than 8 feet were considered in this analysis. The soil class determined which type of bioretention cell could be installed for each location.

An example neighborshed and the source areas that are entered in to WinSLAMM

Retrofit Types Bioretention: The bioretention referred to in this report, also referred to as curb cut rain gardens, takes stormwater runoff off line for treatment and utilizes the current stormwater conveyance system for overflow. Depending on the soil type at the location being constructed, the bioretention basins consist of a depression utilizing native soils for infiltration or replacing current soil with an engineered soil and native vegetation plantings more conducive to infiltration. At some sites, an underdrain with connection to the existing stormsewer system may be needed if infiltration capability is limited by underlying soils or if infiltration cannot be allowed due to soil compaction or other conditions. It is

16 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment important to properly design and install the engineered soils so that the bioretention basins take no less than 24 hours but no more than 48 hours to drain. The bioretention basins fell within the categories, listed below, depending on where the site was located within the landscape. 

Simple Bioretention - includes native vegetation, a curb cut and forebay, but no engineered soils or under-drains. May include a retaining wall if the grade is steep.



Moderately Complex Bioretention - includes native vegetation, engineered soils, a curb cut, forebay, and no retaining walls.

The soils in this area are composed of urban land that consists primarily of silty-sand components. Due to the urban landscape, the area was modeled as a silt-loam and any bioretention features would require engineered soils to provide adequate drainage. A schematic of the retrofit types and example modeling parameters used within WinSLAMM of each retrofit type are in Appendix B. Pervious Pavement: Pervious pavement is pavement which allows for water to seep through and infiltrate into the natural substrate. In general, pervious pavement can treat 1/3 of the total impervious area. This criteria was used for site analysis. Design is available in Appendix B. Underground Infiltration: Underground infiltration systems allows runoff to be stored in underground piping, then via void space, allows the water to percolate into the subsoil This treats the water as it infiltrates. Design is available in Appendix B. Retrofit Cost Estimates Each retrofit identified was then assigned an estimated materials, design, and installation cost given its square foot of treatment. These cost estimates were derived from The Center of Watershed Protection manuals and recent installation costs were provided by personal contacts. A unit promotion and administrative costs were calculated with a total project cost and annual maintenance. A 30 year term cost/TP-removed for each retrofit was then calculated for the life cycle of that retrofit, which was calculated from the total cost + (30 year * annual maintenance) / (30 year * TP (lb/yr)).

Catchment Retrofit Results CATCHMENT Area (acres) Volume ac-ft/year

EKD1 240.5 259.4

EKD2 121.0 87.4

EKD3 454.4 357.9

EKD4 300.2 182.7

EKD5 164.3 132.0

EKD6 273.0 222.8

EKD7 22.9 19.2

EKD8 242.1 188.4

TSS (lb/year) TP (lb/year) POLLUTANTS/ACREAGE TSS(lb/acre) TP (lb/acre)

93,333 234.1

31,756 97.0

93,709 350.2

56,084 208.4

45,335 149.8

75,568 249.2

4,958 18.3

60,997 12,716 209.1 40.2

388.1 0.97

262.4 0.80

206.2 0.77

186.8 0.69

275.9 0.91

276.8 0.91

216.4 0.80

251.9 0.86

EKD1 .97 EKD1 309.4

EKD6 .91 EKD6 276.8

RANK TP TP (lb/acre) RANK TSS TSS(lb/acre)

EKD9 .98 EKD1 388.1

EKD5 .91 EKD5 275.9

EKD8 .86 EKD2 262.4

EKD2 .80 EKD2 251.9

EKD7 .80 EKD7 216.4

EKD3 .77 EKD3 206.2

EKD9 41.1 27.7

309.4 0.98

EKD4 .69 EKD4 186.8

17 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

East Kittsondale: Catchment 1 Catchment 1 Description

Existing Catchment Summary Acres Dominant Land Cover Parcels Volume (acre-feet/yr) TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr)

Catchment 1 is the farthest upstream from the rest of the catchments and begins the East Kittsondale subwatershed. This catchment is the most commercial catchment of the subwatershed and consists of large areas of industrial, residential, highway, and institutional land use. A section of Interstate 94 runs adjacent to a large commercial and industrial development. Portions of Concordia University are also included in this catchment.

240.50 Commercial 416 259.4 234.1 93333

Existing Treatment Besides bi-annual street sweeping which takes place in the spring and the fall, there are no other existing stormwater treatment practices in this catchment. Therefore, any projects identified in this catchment would be a beneficial improvement to the water quality in this uppermost catchment.

Treatment

Existing Conditions TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Base Loading

Treatment

Net Treatment %

Existing Loading

234.1 93,333 259.4

4.5 3940 0

2% 4% 0%

229.6 89,393 259.4

1 Bi-Annual Street Sweeping

Retrofit Recommendation During a field reconnaissance, several areas were discovered which were lacking proper drainage and treatment. Multiple underground infiltration trenches were identified in order to remediate drainage issues in the limited space available, including trenches in parking lots, roadways, and a sports field.

Specifically, corroded intersections off Hamline Avenue crossing Interstate 94 were in need of serious drainage improvements. The commercial development in the northeast corner of the catchment was built prior to stormwater regulations and therefore consists of a high percentage of impervious area that remains untreated. Retrofitting underground infiltration trenches into existing storm sewer infrastructure could provide added treatment while being minimally invasive to commercial parking.

Even though these features are underground, informational signage could provide educational outreach in this highly visible area. In addition to numerous residential curb cut rain gardens, an underground detention system was identified which could serve as stormwater treatment and sports field irrigation for a large portion of Concordia University and the surrounding landscape.

18 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

19 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD1-Residential Rain Gardens Drainage Area: 45 Residential Acres Location: South of Interstate 94 from Snelling and Hamline Ave Map Sites: 104-113 Description: To treat the residential neighborhoods within Catchment 1, twelve curb cuts rain garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin. To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 3, 6, and 12 rain gardens were modeled. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD1_Residential Rain Gardens 6

3 New trtmt 0.8 257 0.7

Net % 2% 4% 0%

New trtmt 1.5 466 1.1

3 360

Net % 3% 5% 0% 6

sq. ft.

720

12

New trtmt 2.7 844 2.1

Net % 2% 4% 0% 12

sq. ft.

1,440

sq. ft.

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$5,004 $270 $5,274 $225 $1,560 $501

$10,008 $540 $10,548 $450 $1,720 $534

$20,016 $1,080 $21,096 $225 $3,612 $1,160

20 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD1- Commercial Underground Infiltration Trenches Drainage Area: 75 Commercial Acres Cub Foods at University Avenue| Area UG: 4.1 acres | Hamline Ave N | Area UG: .82 acres Hamline Ave S |Area UG: .6 acres Location: North of Interstate 94, along railway Cub Foods at University Avenue| Map Site: 101 | Hamline Ave N |Map Site: 121 Hamline Ave S |Map Site: 122 Description: Several underground infiltration projects were identified in commercial parking lots and streets. The first is a parking lot at Cub Foods located off University Ave in the Northern portion of the catchment. If installed, this project would help treat the runoff coming off a large impervious area. Other underground trench locations were identified off Hamline Ave, just North and South of where the road passes over Interstate 94. These areas were identified as having poor drainage, which causes large corroded areas on the roadways. If either of these projects are installed, they will help to improve not only water quality, but will increase the road quality as well. Given the similar sizes of the infiltration trenches, they were modeled as 1 individual trench, and then together as 2 trenches.

Cost

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

EKD1_Commercial Underground Infiltration Cub Foods Hamline N and S Hamline N New trtmt 5.1 3,039 12.17

Net % 4% 7% 5% 1

New trtmt 1.8 576 1.4

Net % 2% 5% 0%

New trtmt 1.1 359 .9

2 600

3% 5% 1% 1

BMP Size/Description

1,680

BMP Type

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

$154,140 $233 $154,373 $10,603 $5,182 $3,088

$55,050 $495 $55,545 $1,202 $7,390 $2,412

$33,030 $718 $33,748 $802 $4,040 $1,293

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

sq. ft.

Net %

sq. ft.

360

sq. ft.

21 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Underground Infiltration Drainage Areas

EKD1- Commercial Underground Infiltration Trenches (Sites 101, 121, and 122) and School Underground Detention and Reuse (Site 115)

22 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD1-School Underground Detention and Reuse Location: Barnes Field, Concordia University located at Selby and Hamline Ave | Map Site: 115 Drainage Area: 32 Institutional Aces, 23 Industrial Area UG: 18 Acres Description: A large area of Concordia University and the surrounding industrial development is connected through stormwater infrastructure which runs directly through Barnes Field, making it an ideal location for capturing stormwater for treatment and reuse. This could be made possible by placing an underground detention and irrigation system in the sports field. If installed, this project would help treat runoff from 18 acres of industrial and institutional land use. Specifically for this project, as it deals with irrigation and detention times, additional progressive modeling and analysis would be required prior to any installation.

Cost

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

EKD1_Institutional and Industrial Detention/Reuse 1 New trtmt 11.7 5,537 11.48

Net % 7% 10% 4% 1

BMP Size/Description

6,048

BMP Type

Underground Infiltration

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

sq. ft.

$554,904 $495 $555,399 $10,001 $5,147 $2,436

New trtmt

Net %

New trtmt

Net %

23 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD1 Alley Project Location: Any of the 5 Alleys shown in Catchment 1, see map below Drainage Area: .66 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .22 acres each Description: Scenarios of 3, 2, and 1 alleys found in Catchment 1 were modeled as pervious pavement and underground infiltration trenches to compare the cost-benefit for each type of water quality improvement project. The results are summarized below. The analysis demonstrates that the underground infiltration is the most cost-effective project.

Map of alley located in Catchment 1

24 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/lb-TP 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS

EKD1_Alleys Pervious Pavement 2

1 New trtmt 2.5 804 1.8

Net % 3% 5% 1%

New trtmt 3.0 962 2.3

1 9,583

Net % 3% 5% 1%

3

New trtmt 3.20 1,013 2.3

2 sq. ft.

19,166

Net % 3% 5% 1% 3

sq. ft.

28,750

sq. ft.

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

$95,832 $1,680 $97,512 $75 $4,136 $1,330

$191,664 $1,680 $193,344 $150 $6,855 $2,198

$287,496 $1,680 $289,176 $225 $9,738 $3,083

1 New trtmt 1.1 359 0.9

EKD1_ Alleys Underground Infiltration 2 3 Net % 2% 5% 0%

New trtmt 1.8 576 1.4

1 120

Net % 3% 5% 1%

New trtmt 2.3 733 1.84

2 sq. ft.

240

Net % 3% 5% 1% 3

sq. ft.

360

sq. ft.

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

$11,010 $1,599 $12,609 $802 $1,111 $3,403

$22,020 $964 $22,984 $1,202 $1,094 $3,417

$33,030 $718 $33,748 $1,600 $1,185 $3,717

25 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

East Kittsondale: Catchment 2 Catchment 2 Description

Existing Catchment Summary

Catchment 2 lies downstream from Catchment 1 and upstream from Catchment 3. This area is the third smallest of the catchments and land use is primarily high-density residential with areas of urban roads and railways. Ayd Mill Road runs through the center of the catchment along the railway and historic Summit Avenue runs through the southern part of the catchment.

Acres Dominant Land Cover Parcels Volume (acre-feet/yr) TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr)

121 Residential 437 87.40 97.0 27,847

Existing Conditions In addition to the bi-annual street sweeping, 13 residential rain gardens were identified during desktop analysis reconnaissance. These rain gardens were used to determine the pollutant loading for the existing conditions. Existing rain gardens provide 1680 sq. feet of treatment, treating 1.4 lbs of total phosphorous, 3,909 pound of suspended solids, and 1.1 acre-feet of runoff.

Treatment

Existing Conditions TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Base Loading

Treatment

Net Treatment %

Existing Loading

102.9 31,756 89.1

5.9 3,909.0 1.7

6% 12% 2%

97.0 27,847 87.4

14 13 Rain Gardens totaling 1680 sq. ft 1 Bi-Annual Street Sweeping

Retrofit Recommendations The majority of the projects identified in Catchment 2 were residential curb cuts. Overall, more than 10 sites were identified as possible locations for curb cut rain gardens. Scenarios for 10, 6, and 3 rain gardens were modeled and are described below. A rain garden placed on Summit Avenue could offer a highly visible project which could provide public education and outreach.

26 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

27 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Project ID: EKD2- Residential Rain Gardens Location: Residential Boulevards from Dayton Ave to Summit Ave| Map Sites: 201-213 Drainage Area: 95 Acres of High-Density Residential Description: To treat the residential neighborhoods within Catchment 2, thirteen boulevard rain garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin. To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 3, 6, and 10 rain gardens were modeled. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD 2_ Residential Rain Gardens 6

3 New trtmt 1.4 389 1.1

Net % 7% 14% 3%

New trtmt 2.2 628 1.8

3 360

Sq. Ft

Net % 8% 14% 4%

10

New trtmt 3.4 1,063 2.6

6 720

Net % 9% 16% 5% 10

Sq. Ft

1,200

Sq. Ft

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$5,004 $2,310 $7,314 $225 $1,205 $342

$10,008 $3,150 $13,158 $450 $1,415 $402

$16,680 $4,270 $20,950 $750 $1,362 $422

28 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Project ID: EKD2-Alley Project Location: Any of the 9 Alley Locations in Catchment 2 Drainage Area: 4.04 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .4 acres each Description: Scenarios of 5, 3, and 1 alleys found in Catchment 2 were modeled both as pervious pavement and underground infiltration trenches in order to compare the cost-benefit for each type of water quality improvement project. The results are summarized below. Analysis demonstrated that underground infiltration is the most cost-effective option.

Alley locations in Catchment 2

29 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD 2_ Alleys Pervious Pavement 3

1 New trtmt 5.0 1,570 3.7

Net % 11% 17% 6%

New trtmt 5.9 1,831 4.3

1 6,389

Net % 11% 18% 7%

5

New trtmt 6.2 1,927 4.6

3 Sq. Ft

12,778

Net % 12% 18% 7% 5

Sq. Ft

19,166

Sq. Ft

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

$63,888 $1,680 $65,568 $75 $1,440 $452

$127,776 $1,680 $129,456 $225 $2,480 $775

$191,660 $1,680 $193,340 $375 $3,539 $1,104

EKD 2_ Alleys Underground Infiltration 1 3 5 New trtmt 2.6 1,063 3.4

Net % 8% 16% 6%

New trtmt 5.1 1,589 3.8

1 120

Net % 11% 17% 6%

New trtmt 6.3 1,954 4.7

3 Sq. Ft

360

Net % 12% 18% 7% 5

Sq. Ft

600

Sq. Ft

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

$11,010 $1,599 $12,609 $90 $480 $198

$33,030 $718 $33,748 $270 $878 $272

$55,050 $495 $55,545 $450 $1,178 $366

30 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

East Kittsondale: Catchment 3 Catchment 3 Description Catchment 3 is the largest in East Kittsondale and is composed of high-density residential areas, with portions of commercial development along Grand and Summit Avenue. Ayd Mill road and the rail way run directly through this catchment. A multifamily townhome development, Wilder Park, lies in the southeast corner of the catchment and provided ideal locations for placing bioretention.

Existing Catchment Summary Acres Dominant Land Cover Parcels Volume (acre-feet/yr) TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr)

454.40 Residential 1664 357.90 350.20 93,709

Existing Conditions As part of the City of Saint Paul’s RSVP program, three underground infiltration trenches were installed beneath the roadways to treat the street runoff. In total, the three underground infiltration trenches along with street sweeping treated 21 pounds of phosphorous, 5.3 acre-feet of runoff. These trenches were modeled based off as-built data provided by the CRWD and the City of Saint Paul.

Treatment

Existing Conditions TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Base Loading

Treatment

Net Treatment %

Existing Loading

371.8 108,617 371.8

21.6 14,908.0 5.3

6% 14% 1%

350.2 93,709 357.9

4 Bi-Annual Street Sweeping 3 Underground Infiltration Trenches

Retrofit Recommendations The majority of projects identified in this catchment were residential rain gardens because the land use is primarily residential and multifamily. The most visible projects would be located along Summit Avenue. One underground detention project was identified which could double as field irrigation for Saint Paul Summit School. In addition, two underground infiltration areas were identified in alleys which lie along in commercial developments. Areas of pervious pavement were also identified.

31 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

32 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD3-Residential Rain Gardens Location: Residential Boulevards throughout the Catchment Map Sites: 302-316 and 318-358 Drainage Area: 341 Acres of High-Density Residential Description: To treat the residential neighborhoods within Catchment 3, nearly 70 boulevard rain garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin. To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 12, 25, and 50 rain gardens were modeled. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD 3_ Residential Rain Gardens 25

12 New trtmt 2.9 796 8.0

Net % 7% 14% 4%

New trtmt 5.7 1,538 10.6

Net % 7% 15% 4%

12 1,440

Sq. Ft

50

New trtmt 10.5 2,827 15.2

25 3,000

Net % 9% 16% 5% 50

Sq. Ft

6,000

Sq. Ft

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$20,016

$41,700

$83,400

$4,830

$8,470

$15,470

$24,846 $900 $2,171 $596

$50,170 $1,875 $2,306 $622

$98,870 $3,750 $2,492 $671

33 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD3-Institutional Projects Location: St. Thomas More Church, Summit Ave| Map Sites: 359 Mt. Zion Temple, Summit Ave |Map Site: 374 Saint Paul Academy and Summit School| Map Site: 362 Drainage Area: 19 Total Acres of Institutional Land Use Description: To treat the institutional land use in this catchment, 3 different types of projects were identified, including pervious pavement, rain gardens, and underground infiltration. St. Thomas More Church has a large parking lot which could be converted into pervious pavement to help treat the stormwater runoff in a limited space. A rain garden located off a parking lot near Mt. Zion Temple on Summit Avenue could help treat a large, currently untreated parking lot. Lastly, an underground infiltration site at the Saint Paul Academy and Summit School could provide a unique opportunity for stormwater reuse for irrigation for the sport's field. More extensive modeling and analysis would be required for stormwater reuse.

EKD 3_ Institutional 1

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis

TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

New trtmt 1.7 884 7.8

Net % 6% 15% 4%

New trtmt 0.3 102 5.5

1 19,602

UG Detention & Reuse

1 Net % 6% 14% 3%

New trtmt 3.9 1,640 7.8

1 Sq. Ft

120

Net % 7% 15% 4% 1

Sq. Ft

1,200

Sq. Ft

Permeable Pavement

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Underground Infiltration

$196,020 $1,680 $197,700 $75 $7,540 $3,921

$1,668 $1,750 $3,418 $75 $1,852 $630

$110,100 $298 $110,139 $6,800 $6,385 $2,685

34 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD3-Multifamily Rain Gardens Drainage Area: 16 Acres of Multifamily Land Use Location: Wilder Park Townhomes off Ayd Mill Road and Lexington Ave |Map Sites: 354-358 Lexington Commons Homeowner Association |Map Sites: 372-373 Other Apartments |Map Sites: 367-368 Description: Wilder Park Townhomes are located in a low-lying area, with little stormwater infrastructure.

Lexington Commons is located just North of Wilder Park and had ideal locations for placing rain gardens. These rain gardens were modeled as simple bioretention because there is no curb to consider in these areas. Other rain garden locations were positioned at various apartment complexes throughout the catchment.

Multifamily site locations

Cost

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

EKD 3_ Multifamily 8

4 New trtmt 1.0 293 5.7

Net % 6% 14% 3%

New trtmt 1.9 559 6.2

4

6% 14% 3% 8

BMP Size/Description

480

BMP Type

Simple Bioretention

Simple Bioretention

$5,424 $2,590 $8,014 $300 $1,936 $567

$10848 $3,710 $14,558 $600 $1,941 $571

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Sq. Ft

Net %

960

Sq. Ft

New trtmt

Net %

35 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD3-Commercial Projects Drainage Area: 22 Acres of Commercial Land Use Location: Spectacle Shoppe, Grand Ave | Map Site: 360 Karuna Chiropractic, Saint Clair Ave | Map Site: 317 Description: Due to the limited space available in commercial areas, boulevard rain gardens and pervious pavement was found to be the most feasible projects in these areas.

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/lb-TP 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS

EKD 3_ Commercial 9

1 New trtmt 0.7 377 1.1

Net % 6% 14% 2%

New trtmt 1.5 748 1.6

1 720

Sq. Ft

Net %

New trtmt

Net %

6% 14% 2% 9

1,080

Sq. Ft

Permeable Pavement

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$7,200 $1,680 $8,880 $450 $1,066 $1,979

$15,012 $3,990 $19,002 $675 $872 $1,749

Project ID: EKD3-Park Projects Drainage Area: 10.5 Acres of Park Land Use Location: Summit Ave and Marshall Ave | Map Site: 301, 313-316 Description: Summit Avenue has large boulevard space, making it an ideal location for a large rain garden. Based on homeowner participation, scenarios for 2 and 4 rain gardens were identified. Rain gardens located in this area would provide excellent exposure and outreach for citizens; however, given that Summit Avenue is in a historic district, additional planning and cooperation would be required. Additionally, parking stalls along Marshall Ave could utilize pervious pavement to help capture street runoff.

36 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

Park PP: Site 301 New trtmt 0.1 47 5.3

BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Net % 6% 14% 3%

EKD 3_ Park Park RG New trtmt 1.0 239 5.7

1 1,350

Sq. Ft

Net % 6% 14% 3%

Park 2 RG New trtmt 1.6 386 6.2

1 1,000

Net % 6% 14% 3% 2

Sq. Ft

2,000

Sq. Ft

Permeable Pavement

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$13,500 $1,680 $15,180 $75 $12,362 $5,810

$13,900 $2,030 $15,930 $150 $2,849 $681

$27,800 $2,590 $30,390 $300 $3,402 $821

Project ID: EKD3-Alley Project Location: Any of the 52 Alley Locations in Catchment 3 Drainage Area: 14.5 Acres of Alleys Description: Scenarios of 26, 13, and 6 alleys found in Catchment 3 were modeled both as pervious pavement and underground infiltration trenches to compare the costbenefit for each type of water quality improvement project. For underground infiltration design, see Appendix B. The analysis determined that the underground infiltration would be the most costeffective option (results summarized below).

Alley locations in Catchment 3

37 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD 3_Pervious Alleys 13

6 New trtmt 5.0 1,570 3.7

Net % 11% 17% 9%

New trtmt 5.9 1,831 4.3

6 6,389

Net % 11% 18% 10%

26 New trtmt 6.2 1,927 4.6

13

Sq. Ft

12,778

Net % 12% 123% 128% 26

Sq. Ft

19,166

Sq. Ft

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

$63,888 $1,680 $65,568 $450 $1,679 $527

$127,776 $1,680 $129,456 $975 $2,889 $903

$191,664 $1,680 $193,344 $1,950 $4,356 $1,358

6 New trtmt 4.7 1,457 9.4

EKD 3_ Alleys Underground Infiltration 13 26 Net % 7% 15% 4%

6 720

New trtmt 6.2 1,920 10.1

Net % 7% 15% 4% 13

Sq. Ft

1,560

New trtmt 7.0 2,161 10.3

Net % 8% 16% 4% 26

Sq. Ft

3,120

Sq. Ft

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

$66,060 $433 $66,493 $8,200 $7,149 $2,216

$143,130 $246 $143,376 $8,800 $7,073 $2,190

$286,260 $149 $286,409 $9,000 $8,583 $2,650

38 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

East Kittsondale: Catchment 4 Catchment 4 Description Catchment 4 is the 2nd largest in the subwatershed and is a great area for families as it consists of residential, park, and institutional land use. Small portions of commercial land use lie along Randolph Avenue in the southern portion of the catchment. Edgcumbe Park and Cretin Durham Hall are located in this catchment. Multiple apartment complexes completely lack any on-site stormsewer infrastructure, and instead rely on drainage to the streets.

Existing Catchment Summary Acres Dominant Land Cover Parcels Volume (acre-feet/yr) TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr)

300.2 Residential 1420 182.7 208.4 56,084

Existing Conditions As part of the City of Saint Paul’s RSVP program, four underground infiltration trenches were installed beneath the roadways to discretely treat urban runoff. These trenches help remove 76 pounds of phosphorous, 56,084 pounds of suspended solids, and 47.8 acre-feet of runoff. In addition to street sweeping, these trenches were modeled for their pollutant removal rates within the catchment. The table below outlines the base conditions and the treatment provided by the existing features.

Treatment

Existing Conditions TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Base Loading

Treatment

Net Treatment %

Existing Loading

284.4 84,836 230.5

76.0 28,752.0 47.8

27% 34% 21%

208.4 56,084 182.7

4 4 Infiltration Trenches Totaling 52272 c.f.

Bi-Annual Street Sweeping

Retrofit Recommendations The majority of projects outlined in this included boulevard rain gardens. A few opportunities for underground infiltration exist, which would add to the pollutant removal success of the existing RSVP trenches. Another treatment option is for current RSVP trenches located south of Edgcumbe Recreational Area be retrofitted as stormwater reuse and irrigation.

39 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

40 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD4-Residential Rain Gardens Location: Residential Boulevards throughout the catchment Map Sites: 401-2, 404, 406-16, 427-34, 436, 439, 440-1 Drainage Area: 243 Acres of High-Density Residential Description: To treat the runoff from residential neighborhoods within Catchment 4, over 30 boulevard rain garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin. To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 7, 15, and 30 rain gardens were modeled. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD4_Residential Rain Gardens 15

7 New trtmt 1.9 620 1.2

Net % 27% 35% 21%

New trtmt 3.7 1,230 2.4

7 840.00

Net % 28% 35% 22%

30

New trtmt 6.2 2,019 3.8

15 Sq. Ft

1,800

Net % 29% 36% 22% 30

Sq. Ft

3,600

Sq. Ft.

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$11,676 $387 $12,063 $630 $1,665 $543

$25,020 $222 $25,242 $1,350 $1,782 $592

$50,040 $134 $50,174 $2,700 $2,166 $705

Project ID: EKD4-Multifamily Projects Location: Apartments off Randolph Ave, Edgcumbe Rd, and James Ave | Map Sites: 419-422 Drainage Area: 6.9 Acres of Multifamily Residential Description: Pervious pavement and rain gardens were ideal projects to treat the runoff from multifamily neighborhoods within Catchment 4. Pervious pavement was used in areas which were lacking open space for bioretention. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

41 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Apartments located off Randolph Avenue, ideal locations for pervious pavement

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD4_Multifamily BMPs 3

3 New trtmt 0.5 177 0.6

Net % 27% 34% 21%

New trtmt 1.1 688 1.9

3 360

Sq. Ft

Net % 27% 35% 22% 3

27,138

Sq. Ft

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Permeable Pavement

$5,004 $718 $5,722 $225 $2,349 $831

$271,380 $1,680 $273,060 $20,354 $42,813 $26,778

New trtmt

Net %

42 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD4-Institutional Projects Location: Edgcumbe Recreational Center | Map Sites: 435, 417 and 423 Drainage Area: 30 Acres of Institutional Land Use Area UG: 7 Acres Description: To treat the runoff from institutional areas within Catchment 4, underground infiltration, rain gardens, and pervious pavement were ideal projects for these locations. Pervious pavement was used in areas which were lacking drainage and open space. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD4_Institutional Sites 2

1 New trtmt 18.3 6,899 15.7

Net % 33% 42% 28%

New trtmt 0.3 190 0.6

Net % 27% 34% 21%

1 3,000.00

1 New trtmt 0.2 167 0.0

Net % 27% 34% 21%

2 Sq. Ft

360

1 Sq. Ft

392

Sq. Ft.

Underground Infiltration

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Permeable Pavement

$275,250 $153 $275,403 $2,250 $1,657 $625

$5,004 $718 $5,722 $270 $2,425 $1,536

$3,920 $674 $4,594 $294 $2,678 $2,236

43 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD4-Alley Project Location: Any of the 51 Alley Locations in Catchment 4, see map below Drainage Area: 10.4 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .202 acres each Description: Scenarios of 26, 13, and 5 alleys found in Catchment 4 were modeled both as pervious pavement and underground infiltration trenches to compare the cost-benefit for each type of water quality improvement project. The results are summarized below, underground infiltration was analyzed as being the most cost-effective.

Alley locations in Catchment 4

44 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Cost

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

Treatment

5 New trtmt 4.5 1,437 2.9

Net % 28% 36% 22%

New trtmt 12.5 3,856 9.3

Net % 31% 38% 25%

5

26

New trtmt 16.7 5,149 12.7

Net % 33% 40% 26%

13

14,665.20

BMP Type

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

$146,652 $1,680 $148,332 $375 $3,702 $1,182

$381,295 $1,680 $382,975 $975 $3,563 $1,099

$762,590 $1,680 $764,270 $1,950 $5,326 $1,642

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Sq. Ft

5 New trtmt 5.4 1,599 4.6

38,130

26

BMP Size/Description

Cost/Removal Analysis

Cost

EKD4_ Alleys Pervious Pavement 13

76,259

Sq. Ft.

EKD4_Alleys Underground Infiltration 13 26 Net % 29% 36% 23%

New trtmt 11.1 3,365 8.8

5 600.00

Sq. Ft

Net % 31% 38% 25%

New trtmt 16.2 4,955 12.6

13 Sq. Ft

1,560

Net % 32% 40% 26% 26

Sq. Ft

3,120

Sq. Ft.

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

$55,050 $495 $55,545 $450 $3,659 $1,083

$143,130 $246 $143,376 $1,170 $3,704 $1,123

$286,260 $149 $286,409 $2,340 $4,142 $1,267

45 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

East Kittsondale: Catchment 5 Catchment 5 Description Existing Catchment Summary

Catchment 5 lies upstream from Catchment 9 and 8. Like the entirety of the subwatershed, it is primarily residential, but it also encompasses commercial areas near Grand Avenue. Drainage and grading seemed to be an issue in this area, so ideal projects in this location included underground infiltration.

Acres Dominant Land Cover Parcels Volume (acre-feet/yr) TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr)

164.30 Residential 503 132.00 149.80 45,335

Existing Conditions Bi-annual street sweeping is the only existing treatment throughout this catchment. Any projects installed in this catchment would cause pollutant reductions and water quality improvements.

Treatment

Existing Conditions TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Base Loading 151.5 46,890 132.0

Treatment

Net Treatment %

Existing Loading

1.7 1555.0 0.0

1% 3% 0%

149.8 45,335 132.0

1 Bi-Annual Street Sweeping

Retrofit Recommendations Several underground infiltration trenches were identified in commercial areas due to poor drainage in these areas. The Grand Ave commercial parking lot had major flooding issues due to poor grading and lack of infrastructure. Infiltration trenches were identified as a possible solution in order to maintain parking capacity while providing solution to drainage and pollutant loads.

46 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

47 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD5-Residential Rain Gardens Location: Residential Boulevards throughout the catchment | Map Sites: 501-515 Drainage Area: 122 Acres of High-Density Residential Description: To treat the runoff from residential neighborhoods within Catchment 5, 15 boulevard rain garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin.

To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 3, 7, and 14 rain gardens were modeled. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

Cost

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

EKD5_Residential Rain Gardens 7

3 New trtmt 0.7 189 0.6

Net % 2% 4% 0%

New trtmt 1.4 407 1.2

3

2% 4% 1%

New trtmt 2.7 777 2.3

7 840

Net % 3% 5% 2% 14

BMP Size/Description

360

BMP Type

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$5,004 $718 $5,722 $270 $2,438 $658

$11,676 $387 $12,063 $630 $2,536 $737

$23,352 $233 $23,585 $1,260 $2,633 $758

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Sq. Ft

Net %

14

Sq. Ft

1,680

Sq. Ft

Project ID: EKD5-Commercial Projects Location: Juut Salon at Grand Avenue| Map Sites: 516 Goodrich and Victoria Ave| Map Site: 517 Fairmount and Avon Alley | Map Site: 518 Drainage Area: 20.9 Acres of Commercial Grand - Area UG: .97 acre Goodrich & Victoria Ave - Area UG: .22 Acre Fairmount and Avon Alley - Area UG: .22 acres Description: To treat the runoff from commercial areas in Catchment 5, underground infiltration projects were identified. These projects would help solve the drainage areas in this large parking area which lacks infrastructure.

48 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD5_Commercial UG Alley 1

1 New trtmt 14.6 4,256 12.6

Net % 11% 12% 10%

New trtmt 7.7 1,930 5.5

1 1,200

Sq. Ft

Net % 6% 7% 4%

2

New trtmt 9.2 2,869 6.8

1 120

Net % 7% 9% 5% 2

Sq. Ft

240

Sq. Ft

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

$110,100 $298 $110,398 $10,960 $3,440 $1,003

$11,010 $1,599 $12,609 $4,818 $2,714 $680

$22,020 $964 $22,984 $5,924 $2,332 $727

Example location of Grand Ave parking lot, near Juut Salon. An infiltration trench would treat the green shaded area.

49 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD5-Alley Project Location: Any of the 16 Alley Locations in Catchment 5, see map below Drainage Area: 5 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .32 acres each Description: Scenarios of 8, 4, and 2 alleys found in Catchment 5 were modeled both as pervious pavement and underground infiltration trenches to compare the cost-benefit for each type of water quality improvement project. For underground infiltration design, see the Appendix B. The analysis found underground infiltration as being the most cost-effective solution. The results are summarized below.

Alley locations in Catchment 5

50 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Cost

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

EKD5_Alley Pervious Pavement 4

2 New trtmt 3.8 1,225 2.5

Net % 4% 6% 2%

New trtmt 6.1 1,922 4.3

2 9,278

Net % 5% 7% 3%

8

New trtmt 12.5 3,937 8.8

4

Sq. Ft

18,557

Net % 9% 12% 7% 8

Sq. Ft

37,157

Sq. Ft

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

$92,783 $1,680 $94,463 $150 $2,693 $868

$185,566 $1,680 $187,246 $300 $3,403 $1,072

$371,567 $1,680 $373,247 $600 $3,313 $1,043

EKD5_Alley Underground Infiltration 4

2 New trtmt 33.0 11,146 22.5

Net % 23% 27% 17%

New trtmt 37.2 12,539 25.3

2

26% 30% 19% 4

480

Net % 26% 30% 19% 8

BMP Size/Description

240

BMP Type

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

$22,020 $964 $22,984 $19,576 $1,825 $616

$44,040 $582 $44,622 $21,998 $1,873 $631

$88,080 $351 $88,431 $22,198 $2,000 $671

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Sq. Ft

Net %

8

New trtmt 37.5 12,574 25.5

Sq. Ft

960

Sq. Ft

51 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

East Kittsondale: Catchment 6 Catchment 6 Description

Existing Catchment Summary

Catchment 6 is located just south of Interstate 35E. This is the furthest catchment downstream, and ultimately discharges the entire subwatershed into the Mississippi River. The 273 acre subwatershed consists primarily of residential land use with commercial areas along the southern portion of the site, following West 7th St. Institutional areas are scattered throughout this area.

Acres Dominant Land Cover Parcels Volume (acre-feet/yr) TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr)

273.00 Residential 1219 222.84 249.20 75,568

Existing Conditions Besides bi-annual street sweeping, no other treatment type exists. If any of the identified projects were installed, they would increase the water quality in this catchment. A summary of the existing conditions is provided below.

Treatment

Existing Conditions TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Base Loading

Treatment

Net Treatment %

Existing Loading

256.3 81,887 222.8

7.1 6,319.0 0.0

3% 8% 0%

249.2 75,568 222.8

1 Bi-Annual Street Sweeping

Retrofit Recommendations Because of the residential nature of this catchment, placing many curb cut rain gardens in boulevards was identified as an ideal treatment option for the residential areas. Commercial develpments surrounding West 7th St offered limited space for projects, so pervious pavement was often the best solution.

52 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

53 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD6-Residential Rain Gardens Location: Residential Boulevards from Monroe Ct to Otto Ave| Map Sites: 601-626 Drainage Area: 206 Acres of High-Density Residential Description: To treat the runoff from residential neighborhoods within Catchment 6, over 25 boulevard rain garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin. To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 5, 12, and 25 rain gardens were modeled. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD6_Residential Rain Gardens 12

5 New trtmt 1.1 322 0.9

Net % 3% 8% 0%

New trtmt 2.4 705 2.1

Net % 4% 9% 1%

5 600

25

New trtmt 4.8 1,396 4.1

Net % 5% 9% 2%

12 Sq. Ft

1,440

25 Sq. Ft

3,000

Sq. Ft

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$8,340

$20,016

$41,700

$450

$1,080

$2,250

$8,790 $375 $2,075 $607

$21,096 $900 $2,274 $668

$43,950 $1,875 $2,393 $696

54 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD6-Commercial Pervious Pavement Location: Commercial Areas surrounding West 7th Map Sites: 631-634 Drainage Area: 22 Acres of Commercial Development Description: To treat the runoff from commercial areas, several pervious pavement location were identified. These locations would help treat runoff where limited space is available. Scenarios were analyzed for pervious pavement 1, 2, and 4 different locations.

Example location of pervious pavement

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD6_Commercial Pervious Pavement 2

1 New trtmt 0.4 234 0.7

Net % 3% 8% 0%

New trtmt 0.5 322 0.9

Net % 3% 8% 0%

1 2,178

4

New trtmt 0.7 424 1.2

Net % 3% 8% 1%

2 Sq. Ft

4,356

4 Sq. Ft

8,712

Sq. Ft

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

$21,780

$43,560

$87,120

$1,680

$1,680

$1,680

$23,460 $75 $3,662 $2,143

$45,240 $150 $5,149 $3,316

$88,800 $300 $7,689 $4,657

55 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD6-Alley Project Location: Any of the 37 Alley Locations in Catchment 6, see map below Drainage Area: 5 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .23 acres each Description: Scenarios of 4, 9, and 19 alleys found in Catchment 6 were modeled both as pervious pavement and underground infiltration trenches to compare the cost-benefit for each type of water quality improvement project. The results are summarized below; analysis revealed that underground infiltration is the most cost-effective option.

56 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Cost

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Treatment

4 New trtmt 1.9 609 1.5

Net % 4% 8% 1%

New trtmt 2.1 652 1.6

4 11,805

Net % 4% 9% 1%

19

New trtmt 4.3 1,351 3.2

9

Sq. Ft

26,528

Net % 4% 9% 1% 19

Sq. Ft

56,192

Sq. Ft

BMP Type

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

$118,048 $1,680 $119,728 $300 $7,046 $2,258

$265,280 $1,681 $266,961 $675 $14,684 $4,559

$561,924 $1,682 $563,606 $1,425 $14,961 $4,700

Cost/Removal Analysis

Cost

EKD6_Alley Pervious Pavement 9

TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

EKD6_Alley Underground Infiltration 9 19

4 New trtmt 9.6 2,821 7.9

Net % 7% 11% 4%

New trtmt 12.5 3,713 10.9

4

8% 12% 5%

New trtmt 22.3 6,570 19.2

9 1,080

Net % 11% 16% 9% 19

BMP Size/Description

480

BMP Type

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

$44,040 $582 $44,622 $6,900 $2,973 $874

$99,090 $322 $99,412 $9,479 $3,445 $1,023

$209,190 $187 $209,377 $16,683 $3,602 $1,061

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Sq. Ft

Net %

Sq. Ft

2,280

Sq. Ft

57 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

East Kittsondale: Catchment 7 Catchment 7 Description Existing Catchment Summary

At only 22.91 acres, Catchment 7 is the smallest catchment, but has the greatest pollutant load. This is likely due to the large arterial roads such as Lexington Pkwy and Randolph Ave passing through the area. The large number of urban roads greatly limited project locations. Land use is primarily residential, with a large multifamily development in southern most portion of the catchment.

Acres Dominant Land Cover Parcels Volume (acre-feet/yr) TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr)

22.91 Residential 96 19.23 18.30 4,958

Existing Conditions Besides bi-annual street sweeping, no other treatment exists. Any projects installed would improve the water quality in this catchment. The table below outlines the existing conditions for the catchment.

Treatment

Existing Conditions TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Base Loading

Treatment

Net Treatment %

Existing Loading

19.3 5,901 19.2

1.0 943.0 0.0

5% 16% 0%

18.3 4,958 19.2

1 Bi-Annual Street Sweeping

Retrofit Recommendations Only 6 projects were identified in this catchment, due to lack of capacity for anything more. The arterial roads provided limited locations for placing boulevard rain garden. Other project types were considered.

The downhill sloping nature of the multifamily development resulted in limited drainage areas, as the site did not include any infrastructure. Pervious pavement and a rain garden were identified as treatment options to help alleviate any drainage issues that occur on site.

58 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

59 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD7-Residential Rain Gardens Location: Residential boulevards off Lexington Pkwy | Map Sites: 702-703 Drainage Area: 16 Acres of High-Density Residential Description: To treat the runoff from residential neighborhoods within Catchment 7, 2 boulevard rain garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin.

To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 1 and rain gardens were modeled. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD7_Residential Rain Gardens 2

1 New trtmt 2.3 715 1.8

Net % 17% 28% 9%

New trtmt 2.5 749 1.9

Net %

Net %

18% 29% 10%

1 120

New trtmt

2 Sq. Ft

240

Sq. Ft

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$1,668

$3,336

$1599

$964

$3,348 $75 $257 $80

$5,016 $150 $392 $117

Project ID: EKD7-Multifamily Projects Location: Lexington Pkwy and Randolph Ave | Map Sites: 704-706 Drainage Area: 4.35 Acres of Multifamily Description: To treat the runoff from the multifamily neighborhoods within Catchment 7, 3 projects were identified, including rain gardens and pervious pavement. The current site lacked drainage, so any installed projects would help alleviate any drainage issues.

60 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

1 Lot New trtmt 0.6 349 1.0

Net % 8% 22% 5%

New trtmt 0.4 250 0.7

Net % 7% 20% 3%

1

BMP Size/Description

10,890

BMP Type

Cost

EKD7_Multifamily BMPs 1 Alley

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

1 RG New trtmt 0.3 177 0.5

Net % 7% 19% 3%

1 Sq. Ft

2,875

1 Sq. Ft

480

Sq. Ft

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$108,900

$28,750

$6,672

$1,680

$1,680

$582

$110,580 $75 $10,777 $6,268

$30,430 $75 $4,357 $2,723

$7,254 $75 $1,790 $1,056

Location of projects in multifamily development

61 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment Project ID: EKD7-Alley Project Location: Any of the 3 Alley Locations in Catchment 7, see map below Drainage Area: .66 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .23 acres each Description: Scenarios of all 3 alleys found in Catchment 7 were modeled both as pervious pavement and underground infiltration trenches to compare the cost-benefit for each type of water quality improvement project. The results are summarized below, and analysis revealed that underground infiltration is the most cost-effective option.

Alley Locations in Catchment 7

62 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Cost

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Treatment

1 New trtmt 1.4 422 1.0

Net % 12% 23% 5%

New trtmt 1.5 451 1.1

1 10,149

Net % 13% 24% 6%

3

New trtmt 2.2 673 1.6

2

Sq. Ft

20,299

Net % 17% 27% 8% 3

Sq. Ft

30,448

Sq. Ft

BMP Type

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

$101,495 $1,680 $103,175 $233 $8,703 $2,623

$202,990 $1,680 $204,670 $467 $16,162 $4,859

$304,484 $1,680 $306,164 $700 $16,205 $4,957

Cost/Removal Analysis

Cost

EKD7_Alley Pervious Pavement 2

TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

EKD7_Alley Underground Infiltration 2

1 New trtmt 0.9 272 0.7

Net % 10% 21% 3%

New trtmt 1.2 375 0.9

1

11% 22% 5% 2

240

Net % 14% 25% 7% 3

BMP Size/Description

120

BMP Type

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

$11,010 $1,599 $12,609 $566 $3,627 $1,096

$22,020 $964 $22,984 $781 $4,127 $1,290

$33,030 $718 $33,748 $1,112 $4,188 $1,316

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Sq. Ft

Net %

3

New trtmt 1.7 534 1.3

Sq. Ft

360

Sq. Ft

63 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

East Kittsondale: Catchment 8 Catchment 8 Description

Existing Catchment Summary

Catchment 8 is primarily residential land use, with commercial areas and portions of institutional land use surrounding Grand Ave. A large park development, Linwood Community Recreation Center, is located in the catchment, just north of Interstate 35E. Interstate 35E runs through the southern part of the catchment, cutting the catchment in half.

Acres Dominant Land Cover Parcels Volume (acre-feet/yr) TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr)

242.10 Residential 793 188.38 209.10 60,997

Existing Conditions As part of the City of Saint Paul’s RSVP program, two underground infiltration trenches were installed beneath the roadways to treat the street runoff. Along with street sweeping, the two underground infiltration trenches treat approximately 9 acre-feet of volume, 7,912 pounds of suspended solids and 17 total pounds of phosphorous. In addition to bi-annual street sweeping, these trenches were modeled as existing conditions.

The sizing of the Net Base Existing Treatment Treatment Existing Conditions infiltration

Treatment

Loading

trenches was based off as-built data provided by the CRWD and the City of Saint Paul.

TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

226.2 68,909 197.4

% 17.1 7912.0 9.0

8% 11% 5%

Loading 209.1 60,997 188.4

3 2 Underground Infiltration Trenches Bi-Annual Street Sweeping

Retrofit Recommendations Projects identified in this catchment included rain gardens and an infiltration trench. Projects located in institutional areas offer great opportunities for grant funding Project ID: EKD8-Residential Rain Gardens Location: Residential Boulevards from Lincoln Ave to James Ave Map Sites: 803-5 ,809, 811-2, 815, 817-25 Drainage Area: 153 Acres of High-Density Residential Description: To treat the runoff from residential neighborhoods within catchment 8, over 20 boulevard rain garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin.

To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 5, 10, and 20 rain gardens were modeled. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

64 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

65 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD8_Residential Rain Gardens 10

5 New trtmt 0.9 226 0.9

Net % 8% 12% 5%

New trtmt 1.7 426 1.7

Net % 8% 12% 5%

5 600

20

New trtmt 3.2 809 3.4

Net % 9% 13% 6%

10 Sq. Ft

1,200

20 Sq. Ft

2,400

Sq. Ft

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$8,340

$16,680

$33,360

$495

$298

$180

$8,835 $375 $2,962 $724

$16,978 $750 $3,089 $774

$33,540 $1,500 $3,236 $818

Project ID: EKD8-Multifamily Rain Gardens Location: Boulevards located at Goodrich Ave to Linwood Ave | Map Sites: 806-8, 810, 813-4, 816, 822 Drainage Area: 11.4 Acres of Multifamily Residential land use Description: To treat the runoff from multifamily developments within Catchment 8, 8 boulevard rain garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin. To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 2, 4, and 8 rain gardens were modeled. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

66 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type

EKD8_Multifamily Rain Gardens 4

2 New trtmt 0.4 118 0.4

Net % 8% 12% 5%

New trtmt 0.6 204 0.7

Net % 8% 12% 5%

2 480

8

New trtmt 1.2 376 1.4

Net % 8% 12% 5%

4 Sq. Ft

960

8 Sq. Ft

1,920

Sq. Ft

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

Moderately Complex Bioretention

$6,672

$13,344

$26,688

$582

$351

$212

$7,254 $150 $3,320 $979

$13,695 $300 $3,708 $1,261

$26,900 $600 $3,3980 $1,247

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Project ID: EKD8-Institutional Underground Infiltration Location: St. Paul Childhood Center off Grand Ave | Map Site: 834 Drainage Area: 10.1 Acres of Institutional, UG Drainage: 1.61 Acres Description: To treat the runoff from institutional areas in Catchment 8, an underground infiltration trench was identified. This location is in a 1.6 acre lot near the Grand Ave commercial development.

The site has poor drainage due to inadequate grading and lack of infrastructure. An infiltration trench would alleviate drainage issues while providing adequate treatment and parking locations. Pictures of the site location are available in Appendix C.

St. Paul Childhood Center underground infiltration project location

67 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment EKD8_School UG Infiltration

Treatment

Cost Removal/Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

1 New trtmt 1.6 956 2.7

BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Net %

New trtmt

Net %

New trtmt

8% 13% 6% 1

600

Sq. Ft

Underground Infiltration $11,010 $1,599 $12,609 $2,340 $2,887 $1,725

Project ID: EKD8-Alley Project Location: Any of the 26 Alley Locations found in Catchment 8, see map to the right.

Drainage Area: 6.5 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .25 acres each Description: Scenarios of 3, 7, and 13 alleys found in Catchment 8 were modeled as both pervious pavement and underground infiltration trenches to compare the cost-benefit for each type of water quality improvement project.

Analysis revealed underground infiltration as being the most cost-effective. The results are summarized below.

Alley Locations in Catchment 8

New trtmt

68 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Cost

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Treatment

3 New trtmt 1.5 485 0.9

Net % 8% 12% 5%

New trtmt 3.0 947 2.2

3 10,890

Net % 9% 13% 6%

13

New trtmt 4.0 1,237 2.9

Net % 9% 13% 6%

7

Sq. Ft

25,410

13 Sq. Ft

47,190

Sq. Ft

BMP Type

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Permeable Pavement

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

$108,900 $1,680 $110,580 $225 $8,064 $2,607

$254,100 $1,680 $255,780 $525 $9,558 $3,017

$471,900 $1,680 $473,580 $975 $13,550 $4,190

Cost/Removal Analysis

Cost

EKD8_Alley Pervious Pavement 7

TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

EKD8_Alley UG 7

3 New trtmt 2.5 792 1.9

Net % 9% 13% 6%

New trtmt 3.6 1,111 2.6

3

9% 13% 6%

New trtmt 4.1 1,275 3.0

7 480

Net % 9% 13% 6% 13

BMP Size/Description

360

BMP Type

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

Underground Infiltration

$33,030 $718 $33,748 $1,640 $3,491 $1,106

$44,040 $582 $44,622 $2,300 $3,409 $1,052

$143,130 $246 $143,376 $2,640 $5,819 $1,810

Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

Sq. Ft

Net %

13

Sq. Ft

1,560

Sq. Ft

69 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

East Kittsondale: Catchment 9 Catchment 9 Description Existing Catchment Summary

This catchment consists primarily of highway and railway, with Interstate 94 and 35E running through the majority of the catchment. Pleasant Arena, an ice skating area, is also located in this catchment. Due to the nature of this catchment, locations for runoff treatment off major roads were limited. Unlike the rest of the catchments, no alley improvement projects were analyzed.

Acres Dominant Land Cover Parcels Volume (acre-feet/yr) TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr)

41.087 Highway 437 27.73 40.20 12,716

Existing Treatment Bi-annual street sweeping is the only existing treatment in this area; therefore, if any of the identified projects were to be installed they would help improve the water quality of stormwater coming from this catchment. The table below outlines the existing conditions.

Treatment

Existing Conditions TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's

Base Loading

Treatment

Net Treatment %

Existing Loading

40.2 13,132 27.7

0.0 416.0 0.0

0% 3% 0%

40.2 12,716 27.7

BMP Size/Description

1 Bi-Annual Street Sweeping

Retrofit Recommendations Only 3 projects were identified in this catchment, due to limited appropriate locations. It is recommended that all of these projects are installed due to the treatment they provide and the low cost of installation and maintenance.

Project ID EKD9-Residential Vegetated Swales Location: Pleasant Avenue, just off Interstate 35E | Map Site: 901-3 Drainage: 3.5 Acres of Residential Land Use Description: Vegetated swales along Pleasant Avenue could provide treatment for street runoff at a low maintenance and total cost.

70 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

71 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Treatment

Cost/Removal Analysis TP (lb/yr) TSS (lb/yr) Volume (acre-feet/yr) Number of BMP's BMP Size/Description

Cost

BMP Type Materials/Labor/Design Promotion & Admin Costs Probable Project Cost Annual O&M 30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS 30-yr Cost/lb-TP

EKD 9_Residential Vegetated Swales 2

1 New trtmt 0.8 117 0.2

Net % 2% 4% 1%

New trtmt 1.5 209 0.3

Net % 4% 5% 1%

1 120

Sq. Ft

3

New trtmt 2.1 290 0.5

Net % 5% 5% 2%

2 240

3 Sq. Ft

360

Sq. Ft

Simple Bioretention

Simple Bioretention

Simple Bioretention

$1,356 $1,598 $2,954 $75 $1,483 $207

$2,712 $964 $3,676 $150 $1,304 $180

$4,068 $718 $4,786 $225 $1,326 $184

72 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

References Barr Engineering, Best Management Practices Construction Costs, Maintenance Costs, and Land Requirements. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. June 2011.

Capitol Region Watershed District, BMP Performance and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Arlington Pascal Project 2007-2010. Prepared by Capitol Region Watershed District. March 9, 2012.

City of Saint Paul, Stormwater Permit Annual Report - 2012 Activities and 2013 Workplan.

Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. June 2013 Design Your Own Detention or Infiltration System. Urban Green Stormwater Solutions from Contech.

Contech Solutions. Accessed March 2014.

Schueler et. al. 2005. Methods to Develop Restoration Plans for Small Urban Watersheds. Manual 2, Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Schueler et. al. 2007. Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices. Manual 3, Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. WSB & Associate, Inc. 1995. 2012 Stormwater Quantity and Quality Monitoring Report.

Prepared for City of Saint Paul, MN. January 17, 2013.

73 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Appendix A. WINSLAMM modeling parameters and files used in the assessment File Name

Date Created/ Last Modified

Created By

Description

“CPZ:” These files contain the sediment particle size distributions developed from monitored data. The files area used in the evaluation of control practices that rely upon particle settling for pollution control.

NURP.CPZ

5/16/88

Pitt/UA

Summarizes NURP outfall particle size data

“PPD” (Pollutant Probability Distribution) files describe the pollutant concentrations found in source areas.

USGS/DNR pollutant probability distribution file from Wisconsin monitoring data.

“PRR” (Particulate Residue Reduction) files describe the fraction of total particulates that remains in the drainage system (curbs and gutters, grass swales, and storm drainage) after rain events end due to deposition. This fraction of the total particulates does not reach the outfall, so the outfall values are reduced by the fraction indicated in the .PRR file.

USGS/DNR particulate residue reduction file for the delivery WI_DLV01.prr 7/8/01 Horwatich/USGS system from Wisconsin monitoring data.

WI_GEO01.ppd

11/26/02

Horwatich/USGS

“RSV” (Runoff coefficient file). These coefficients, when multiplied by rain depths, land use source areas, and a conversion factor, determine the runoff volumes needed by WinSLAMM. WI_SL06 Dec06.rsv

12/18/06

Horwatich/USGS

USGS/DNR runoff volumetric coefficient file from Wisconsin monitoring data. Use for all versions of WinSLAMM starting from v 9.2.0.

“STD” (Street Delivery File): These files describe the fraction of total particulates that are washed from the streets during rains, but are subsequently redeposited due to lack of energy in the flowing water.

WI_Com Inst Indust Dec06.std

12/12/06

Horwatich/USGS

WI_Res and Other Urban Dec06.std

12/07/06

Horwatich/USGS

Freeway Dec06.std

7/12/05

Pitt/UA

USGS/DNR street delivery file from Wisconsin monitoring data.

Use for all versions of WinSLAMM starting from v 9.2.0 for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional land uses.

USGS/DNR street delivery file from Wisconsin monitoring data.

Use for all versions of WinSLAMM starting from v 9.2.0 for Residential and Other Urban land uses.

Street delivery file developed to account for TSS reductions due to losses in a freeway delivery system based upon early USDOT research. Renamed Freeway.std

“PSC” (Particulate Solids Concentration): Values in this file, when multiplied by source area runoff volumes and a conversion factor, calculate particulate solids loadings (lbs).

WI_AVG01.psc

11/26/02

Horwatich/USGS

USGS/DNR particulate solids concentration file from Wisconsin monitoring data.

“RAN” (Rain Files): MN Minneapolis 59.RAN

NA

NA

A n event-record of rainfall for the year 1959, considered as an average year, in the form of Start Date, Start Time, End Date, End Time and Rainfall (in inches).

Settings

Parameter

Description

Start/End Date

Defines the modeling period in reference to the rain file data. In this case, the entire one year period was selected (i.e., 01/02/59-12/28/59).

Winter Season Range

Set to begin on November 7th and end on March 17th.

Drainage System

Set to “Curb and gutter, valleys, or sealed swales in fair condition.

74 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

WINSLAMM Standard Land Use Codes RESIDENTIAL LAND USES          

High-density Residential without Alleys (HDRNA): Urban single family housing at a density of greater than 6 units/acre. Includes house, driveway, yards, sidewalks, and streets.

High-density Residential with Alleys (HDRWA): Same as HDRNA, except alleys exist behind the houses.

Medium Density Residential without Alleys (MDRNA): Same as HDRNA except the density is between 2 - 6 units/acre.

Medium Density Residential with Alleys (MDRWA): Same as HDRWA, except alleys exists behind the houses.

Low Density Residential (LDR): Same as HDRNA except the density is 0.7 to 2 units/acre.

Duplexes (DUP): Housing having two separate units in a single building.

Multiple Family Residential (MFRNA): Housing for three or more families, from 1 - 3 stories in height. Units may be adjoined up-and-down, side-by-side; or front-and-rear. Includes building, yard, parking lot, and driveways. Does not include alleys.

High Rise Residential (HRR): Same MFRNA except buildings are High Rise Apartments; multiple family units 4 or more stories in height.

Mobile Home Park (MOBH): A mobile home or trailer park, includes all vehicle homes, the yard, driveway, and office area.

Suburban (SUB): Same as HDRNA except the density is between 0.2 and 0.6 units/acre.

COMMERCIAL LAND USES 

 



Strip Commercial (SCOM): Those buildings for which the primary function involves the sale of goods or services. This category includes some institutional lands found in commercial strips, such as post offices, courthouses, and fire and police stations. This category does not include buildings used for the manufacture of goods or warehouses. This land use includes the buildings, parking lots, and streets. This land use does not include nursery, tree farms, vehicle service areas, or lumber yards.

Shopping Centers (SHOP): Commercial areas where the related parking lot is at least 2.5 times the area of the building roof area. Parking areas usually surrounds the buildings in this land use.

This land use includes the buildings, parking lot, and streets.

Office Parks (OFPK): Land use where non-retail business takes place. The buildings are usually multi storied buildings surrounded by larger areas of lawn and other landscaping. This land use includes the buildings, lawn, and road areas. Types of establishments that may be in this category includes: insurance offices, government buildings, and company headquarters.

Commercial Downtown (CDT): Multi-story high-density area with minimal pervious area, and with retail, residential and office uses.

75 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

INDUSTRIAL LAND USES 

Medium Industrial (MI): This category includes businesses such as lumber yards, auto salvage yards, junk yards, grain elevators, agricultural coops, oil tank farms, coal and salt storage areas, slaughter houses, and areas for bulk storage of fertilizers.



Non-Manufacturing (LI): Those buildings that are used for the storage and/or distribution of goods waiting further processing or sale to retailers. This category mostly includes warehouses, and wholesalers where all operations are conducted indoors, but with truck loading and transfer operations conducted outside.

INSTITUTIONAL LAND USES   

Education (SCH): Includes any public or private primary, secondary, or college educational institutional grounds. Includes buildings, playgrounds, athletic fields, roads, parking lots, and lawn areas.

Miscellaneous Institutional (INST): Churches and large areas of institutional property not part of CST and CDT. Hospital (HOSP): Multi-story building surrounded by parking lots and some vegetated areas.

OTHER URBAN LAND USES   

Parks (PARK): Outdoor recreational areas including municipal playgrounds, botanical gardens, arboretums, golf courses, and natural areas.

Undeveloped (OSUD): Lands that are private or publicly owned with no structures and have a complete vegetative cover. This includes vacant lots, urban fringe areas slated for development, greenways, and forest areas.

Cemetery (CEM): This land use file covers cemeteries, and includes road frontage along the cemetery, and paved areas and buildings within the cemetery.

FREEWAY LAND USES 

Freeways (FREE): Limited access highways and the interchange areas, including any vegetated rights-of-ways.

76 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Appendix B. Bioretention: Curb cut raingarden, with 1.5-2ft perimeter wall, in a residential area.

Photo Courtesy of Rusty Schmidt.

Bioretention Design

77 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Residential Rain Garden - WinSLAMM Design

78 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Underground Infiltration - WinSLAMM Design

Design for Contech Solutions_Corrugated Metal Pipe Design

79 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Pervious Pavement- WinSLAMM Design

Pervious pavement example

80 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Appendix C

Proposed location for underground infiltration trench at St. Paul Childhood Center (Catchment 8)

Citizen Advisory Committee Orientation Packet

Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN May, 2014

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

Capitol Region Watershed District Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) covers 40 square miles and includes portions of the cities of Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Maplewood, Roseville and Saint Paul. CRWD has a population of 225,000 people located within Ramsey County.

Mission: To protect manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

Vision: Capitol Region Watershed District achieves cleaner waters through strategic initiatives and partnerships, using: • Research-based, informed decision making, • Effective water quality rules and • Education and outreach to promote changed attitudes toward water quality stewardship.

Our Water Resources: The water resources located in CRWD all eventually discharge to the Mississippi River. The four major lakes in CRWD are Como Lake, Crosby Lake and Loeb Lake in Saint Paul and Lake McCarrons in Roseville. All four lakes serve important recreational needs for District residents and visitors, including fishing, boating and swimming.

Groundwater below the surface of the District provides non-drinking water for businesses and institutions in Ramsey County. Few natural wetlands in the District remain because they were removed or altered during urbanization and development over the past century. Woodview Marsh located off Larpenteur Avenue in Roseville, Willow Reserve located off Maryland Avenue in Saint Paul, and Villa Park wetland located northwest of Lake McCarrons in Roseville are the largest tracts of wetlands in the District.

Our Work: CRWD accomplishes its mission through the following programs: • Watershed Rules and Permitting • Stormwater & BMP Monitoring and Mapping • Water Resource Improvement Projects • Education and Outreach • Providing Technical Assistance • Funding water quality improvement projects and programs through our Grants Program

May 2014

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

Introduction Welcome Congratulations and welcome to Capitol Region Watershed District’s Citizen Advisory Committee! We’ve collected this set of documents to help orient you to your new position as a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC).

This booklet includes information on the missions, history and procedures of both Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and the CAC. If you have questions after reading this booklet, please contact Mark Doneux or one of the CAC co-chairs.

CRWD background CRWD originated from a small group of dedicated citizens who wanted to protect Como Lake. They petitioned the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to create a watershed district, and in 1998 CRWD was formed.

CRWD is a special purpose local unit of government created to manage and protect part of the Mississippi River Basin, along with the district’s wetlands, creeks and lakes that drain to the river.

CRWD is governed by a five-member Board of Managers that guides CRWD in the implementation of its Watershed Plan adopted in 2010. The work of CRWD is carried out by 14 staff members.

Contents Introduction.......................................................... 1 CAC framework.................................................. 2 Mission............................................................... 2 Roles and responsibilities........................ 2 Recruitment and appointment............. 2 CAC organization...........................................3 CAC initiatives.................................................3 Expectations of CAC members.............. 4 CRWD organization chart............................. 5 CAC membership roster................................. 6 CAC member bios...............................................7 CRWD map............................................................ 9 Minnesota statute.......................................... 10 CAC Bylaws.......................................................... 11

CAC online: capitolregionwd.org/about-us/ citizen-advisory-committee/

1410 Energy Park Drive, Ste. 4 Saint Paul, MN 55108 651-644-8888 • fax 651-644-8894 capitolregionwd.org

May 2014

1

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

Citizen Advisory Committee framework The CAC framework serves to guide the work of the committee. The framework includes the CAC mission, roles and responsibilities of members, description of member recruitment and appointment, committee organization and initiatives.

Mission of the Citizen Advisory Committee The mission of the Citizen Advisory Committee is to assist and advise the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers (Board) in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes section 103D.331. This is accomplished by reflecting community values in the development of CRWD projects and programs and by providing information and feedback on projects and programs in the District.

Roles and responsibilities • The CAC actively participates in CRWD planning processes, watershed plan preparation and long-term implementation of CRWD programs.

• The CAC is a communication link between the citizenry and the Board.

• Additional roles and responsibilities will be determined jointly by the CAC and the Board. Additional roles and responsibilities can include such things as: > Identify issues that are relevant to the responsibilities of the District. > Assist with the ranking of issues. > Develop projects to bring to the Board and staff for consideration. > Alert the Board and staff about potential projects and collaborations within the community. > Review and comment on the annual budget. > Review and comment on revised work plans and schedules as necessary. > Assist the Board in communicating with various community groups, organizations and citizens on matters affecting the District. > Identify areas where additional education and information could assist the CAC in making recommendations.

Recruitment and appointment Recruitment • It is the Board’s goal that the CAC be diverse and represent multiple stakeholders within the watershed.

• One CAC member residing within Roseville, Falcon Heights, Maplewood and each of Saint Paul’s District Planning Councils shall be recruited.

• CAC members will help recruit new members. All potential CAC members must apply directly to and be appointed by the Board.

• CRWD Board, staff and CAC members will treat each other with respect and give their motions, ideas and suggestions proper consideration.

May 2014

2

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

CAC framework (cont.)

Appointment • An application form will be sent to individuals requesting one or it can be printed from the CRWD website.

• The Board will make a concerted effort to ensure that the CAC includes equal representation from residents throughout the watershed.

• The Board may appoint interested parties who do not reside within the District to serve at their pleasure.

• The Board will appoint new CAC members based on a candidate’s interest, availability, unique skills or experiences and ability to meet the District’s goal of CAC membership diversity.

CAC organization • The CAC will elect its own leadership.

• The CAC will create, update and operate under a set of bylaws that are adopted by the committee and approved by the Board.

CAC initiatives The CAC will undertake, in addition to roles and responsibilities, a number of its own initiatives that enhance its knowledge base and create more cohesion between committee members. These initiatives could include: • Recruit new CAC members and maintain an orientation packet.

• Sponsor guest speakers at CAC meetings.

• Increase interaction with neighborhoods, receiving information and sharing it in two-way communication.

• Interact more with local government units, Saint Paul District Planning Councils, commissions and committees.

• Sponsor an awards program to recognize outstanding District citizens, partners and projects in the District.

• Stay abreast of water resource issues by attending MAWD or other natural resource conferences.

• Attend more tours of projects/features in CRWD, increasing the number of tours in the watershed to at least two per year with the second tour focused on a particular project or facility.

• Participate in legislative activities that impact the District.

• Participate in public education about CRWD and its projects.

May 2014

3

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

Expectations of CAC members Minnesota State Statute 103D.331 Subd.1a describes the duties of advisory committees. The CRWD CAC has also developed their own set of Bylaws to help guide their work.

Subd. 1a Duties of Minnesota statute 103D.331 Advisory Committee (1) elect a chair from its membership; (2) elect a recorder from its membership; (3) establish a meeting schedule, which at a minimum meets annually; (4) consider issues pertinent to the functions and purposes of the watershed district; (5) review and comment on reports, minutes, activities and proposed projects of the managers; and (6) report to the managers the general content of advisory committee meetings and resulting recommendations.

CAC Bylaws, Section V. Participation To ensure the efficient and effective working of the Citizen Advisory Committee, regular attendance at meetings is necessary. Accordingly, if a member fails to attend four consecutive (unexcused) regular meetings or fails to attend eight of the 12 regular monthly meetings without notice, that member will forfeit his/her Citizen Advisory Committee membership. A member in jeopardy due to lack of attendance (above) shall be notified in the Citizen Advisory Committee minutes and by separate memorandum to the member that his/her attendance is required at the next regularly scheduled Citizen Advisory Committee meeting to avoid forfeiture of membership.

An absence shall be deemed excused if the member notified the Chair, another Citizen Advisory Committee member or District staff prior to the meeting. Excused absences shall be noted in the minutes of the meeting Members of the Citizen Advisory Committee may request a leave of absence from the Citizen Advisory Committee by sending a letter to the Board of Managers. The Board of Managers may grant a leave of absence for a period of no less than three months and up to a maximum of one year. While a member is on leave of absence, they shall not be eligible to vote, and shall not be counted towards quorum.

Members shall communicate their intention to resign in writing to the Citizen Advisory Committee Secretary, who in turn will notify the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Board of Managers.

Advisory Committee members are encouraged to attend Board of Managers’ meetings and functions.

May 2014

4

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

CRWD organization chart Intro sentence here.

Capitol Region Watershed District Board of Managers Ramsey County Board of Commissioners

Joseph Collins, President Mary Texer, Vice President Michael R. Thienes, Treasurer

Citizen Advisory Committee Members

Seitu Jones, Secretary Shirley Reider, Education/Information

Staff Members Mark Doneux, Administrator Elizabeth Beckman, Education & Outreach Coordinator Gustavo Castro, Water Resource Specialist Anna Elera, Water Resource Project Manager Bob Fossum, Program Manager Jordan Jessen, Annual Water Resource Technician Forrest Kelley, Regulatory Program Manager Corey Poland, Water Resource Technician Joe Sellner, Water Resource Technician Britta Suppes, Monitoring Coordinator Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager Lindsay VanPatten, Education & Administrative Assistant Sarah Wein, Water Resource Technician Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist

May 2014

5

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

CAC membership roster and CRWD Board Updated: May 2014 David Arbeit, Co-Chair 1384 E. Como Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55117 (651) 489-6452 (H) darbeit@msn.com Michael MacDonald 1391 Almond Ave. St. Paul, MN 55108 (952) 201-2845 mrmacpc@yahoo.com Richard Weil 25 Charles Ave. St. Paul, MN 55103 (651) 698-7288 (H) (651) 210-5059 (O) nauen002@umn.edu

RCD Supervisor Liaison Gwen Willems, Co-Chair 1880 Tatum St. Falcon Heights, MN 55113 (651) 646-8854 wille002@umn.edu Pat Byrne 243 S. Lexington Pkwy.

St. Paul, MN 55104 (612) 224-3183 (H) byrneblankfamily@comcast.net Janna Caywood 1395 Avon St. N. St. Paul, MN 55117 (651) 261-7416 janna@watercircles.org

William Barton 533 Cretin Ave. St. Paul, MN 55116 (763) 551-3391 (O) (651) 699-5478 (H) bartonwf@yahoo.com

Steven Duerre 76 Bates Ave. St. Paul, MN 55106 (651) 771-6001 (H) (651) 757-2318 (O) steve.duerre@state.mn.us

Ted McCaslin 1675 Lilac Ln. Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 644-4389 (612) 716-1502 tedmccaslin@gmail.com

Kathryn Swanson 1879 Portland Ave. St Paul, MN 55104 (612) 590-0121 kathryn.v.swanson@gmail.com

The Citizen Advisory Committee meets the 2nd Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m.

Michelle Ulrich, Secretary 1561 Lincoln Ave. St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 699-9845 mu224@aol.com Board Manager Joe Collins 534 W. Orange Ave. St. Paul, MN 55117 (651) 488-5108 (H) joe.collins@ci.stpaul.mn.us Board Manager Mary Texer 113 Farrington St. St. Paul, MN 55102 (612) 224-2919 (H) mtexer@visi.com Board Manager Mike Thienes 284 S. McCarrons Blvd.

Roseville, MN 55113 (651) 489-1998 (H) mthienes@comcast.net Board Manager Seitu Jones 629 Kent St. St. Paul, MN 55103 (651) 227-9328 (H) seitu.jones@comcast.net Board Manager Shirley A. Reider 1725 Fairview Ave. N. Falcon Heights, MN 55113 (651) 644-7845 (H) (651) 647-6250 (O) s.reider@pobox.com

May 2014

6

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

CAC member bios CRWD strives to have CAC members from various areas of the watershed and diverse backgrounds to represent the population of the District. Below are current members of the CAC. David Arbeit, Co-Chair David Arbeit is a charter member of the CAC, appointed shortly after CRWD was established. As a member of St. Paul’s District 10 Community Council, David wrote the petition to the state that resulted in establishing CRWD. He has served several terms as CAC co-chair and advocated for environmental issues as chair of the District 10 Community Council. David is retired and enjoys living in the Como Lake watershed.

Bill Barton Bill Barton has lived in Saint Paul’s Highland Park neighborhood for 30 years.

He earned degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering and has worked on oil refining, water treatment, controls and heat recovery. Bill now works with pure aluminum plating equipment. The destruction of the ephemeral stream and wetlands in Minnesota motivates him to work to contribute to CRWD as a member of the CAC. Pat Byrne Pat Byrne served on CRWD Board of Managers in 1998-1999 and the CAC from 1999-2001. He was reappointed to the CAC in 2011 and has service continuously since. He is a retired employee of the cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, having worked in engineering, hydrology, hydraulic structures and water resources. Pat thinks of Crosby Lake and Mississippi River at Crosby Park as his home waters, places he often visited with his children.

Janna Caywood Janna lives in the Como neighborhood and is leading the creation of a “Civic Governance” cross-sector network of citizens who work collaboratively on Como Lake’s restoration (with partial funding from CRWD). She has a degree in sociology, is trained in civic organizing and is a freelance consultant, working primarily on community-based citizen leadership development, community governance capacity building and the renewal of democracy.

Steve Duerre Steve Duerre has been a member of the CAC for 13 years. He lives in the Daytons Bluff/Mounds Park neighborhood and has been involved with water quality for most of his life. Steve works for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the Wastewater Operator Training and Certification program.

May 2014

7

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

CAC member bios Michael MacDonald Mike MacDonald has been a CAC member since 2006. He lives near Como Park and joined the CAC to help improve St. Paul. Mike thinks CRWD has done a lot of good work to improve the city’s waters and natural places.

Ted McCaslin Ted has been a CAC member since 2009. He is an environmental planner with a professional background and interest in a range of water quality issues. He is also Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator. Ted is a former resident of CRWD, but remains invested in his former neighborhood and still works and owns property in the District.

Kathryn Swanson Kathryn Swanson has served on the CAC since 2012. She is a graduate student in conservation biology at the University of Minnesota, researching the effects of hydrological change on wetland resilience. Kathryn is also interested in water management and conservation.

Michelle Ulrich, Secretary Michelle Ulrich is a resident of the MacGroveland area of St. Paul and has served on the CAC since 2007. She is a practicing attorney with experience representing metropolitan watershed districts and other public bodies in various aspects of governmental and environmental law.

Richard Weil Richard Weil joined the CAC in 2012. He was born in New York City and went to school in Wisconsin. After marrying his wife they decided to stay in the Midwest. He has a master’s degree in environmental science and a doctorate in geography. Richard teaches math and science in the Twin Cities.

Gwen Willems, Co-Chair Gwen is an elected supervisor with the Ramsey Conservation District Board, which sets policies, directs staff in completion of goals and approves administration and conservation activities. A Falcon Heights resident, she has served on the CAC since 2011. Growing up in small-town rural Minnesota first raised her interest in natural resources and climate issues.

May 2014

8

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

CRWD map

Lake McCarrons

lia

s

y et

DOWNTOWN

te

Victoria

nd

Steven URBAN Wa rn

sis Mis r ive i R ipp iss s ip pi Riv er

Snelling

WEST SEVENTH Otto

CROSBY

in Sa au tP

CROSBY Montreal

l

DAVERN

e Sh

7th

pa

rd

Crosby Lake

Crosby Lake

Ted McCaslin *

Capitol Region Watershed District is home to more than 225,000 people and is 42% impervious surfaces.

Board Manager CAC Member CRWD

0.5

er

WEST SEVENTH

Randolph

DAVERN

0

Duerre

ss Mi

DOWNTOWN

i th

River

Fairview

10

da Va n

ou M

URBAN

Sm

Mississip pi

River Mississippi

Cleveland

6th

GOODRICH-WESTERN

Pat Byrne

EAST KITTSONDALE Edgcumbe

rt Fo

a Laf

GOODRICH Grand WESTERN

t

Mary Texer

12th

r be Ro

St. Paul

EAST KITTSONDALE Saint Clair

Ford

HIDDEN FALLS

ST. ANTHONY HILL

Michelle Ulrich

Jefferson

Richard Weil 52

94

Kathryn Swanson

William Barton

PHALEN CREEK Minnehaha

Seitu Jones

ST. ANTHONY HILL

University

Marshall

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD

PHALEN CREEK

Co mo

Arcade

Prior

Transfer

280

St. Paul WEST KITTSONDALE

HIDDEN FALLS

Loeb Lake

Loeb Lake

Dale

280

Energy Park ST. ANTHONY PARK Pierce Butler

Ivy

TROUT BROOK Rice

Como Lake

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD

TROUT BROOK 35E

Maryland

Horton

ST. ANTHONY PARK

Arlington

Joe Collins

Como Lake

Jackson

COMO

d on

WEST KITTSONDALE

Maplewood

Edgerton

David Arbeit

COMO

94

Maplewood

Larpenteur Wheelock

Michael MacDonald

Summit

Mike Thienes

Earl

Lexington

Lake McCarrons

Proposed d BMP BMP Loc Location ation Propose

Hamline

Falcon Falcon Heights Heights ym Ra

MCCARRONS LAKE

35e

Lauderdale

Little B Canada 35e

Shirley Reider

B

MCCARRONS LAKE

25

Roseville Gwen Willems Roselawn Lauderdale

36

36

Roseville

1

2

3 Miles

Capitol Region Watershed District Watershed Extent and Subwatersheds

Subwatersheds

City Boundary Major Highways

Service Layer Credits: Copyright: Š2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ

Major Waterbodies Parks

Major Highways * non-resident, non-voting member

Roads

Falcon Heights

Major Waterbodies

Lauderdale

Parks

Maplewood

CRWD

Roseville

Subwatersheds

Saint Paul

May 2014

9

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

2013 Minnesota statute 103D.331 ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Subdivision 1.Purpose.

The managers must annually appoint an advisory committee to advise and assist the managers on all matters affecting the interests of the watershed district and make recommendations to the managers on all contemplated projects and improvements in the watershed district.

Subd. 1a.Duties.

For purposes of carrying out its duties under this section the advisory committee shall: (1) elect a chair from its membership; (2) elect a recorder from its membership; (3) establish a meeting schedule, which at a minimum meets annually; (4) consider issues pertinent to the functions and purposes of the watershed district; (5) review and comment on reports, minutes, activities, and proposed projects of the managers; and (6) report to the managers the general content of advisory committee meetings and resulting recommendations.

Subd. 2.Members. (a) The advisory committee consists of at least five members. If practicable, the advisory committee members selected should include a representative from each soil and water conservation district, a representative of each county, a member of a sporting organization and a member of a farm organization. Other advisory committee members may be appointed at the discretion of the managers. The members must be residents of the watershed district, except representatives from soil and water conservation districts and counties, and serve at the pleasure of the managers. (b) In addition, the managers may appoint other interested and technical persons who may or may not reside within the watershed district to serve at the pleasure of the managers.

Subd. 3.Expense reimbursement.

The managers may reimburse members of the advisory committee for actual traveling and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties in the amount as provided for state employees.

May 2014

10

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

CAC bylaws Adopted August 4, 1999 1st Amendment May 2, 2001 2nd Amendment October 3, 2001 3rd Amendment August 11, 2004 4th Amendment February 10, 2010 I. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY The Citizen Advisory Committee is established to advise and assist the Capitol Region Watershed District Board of Managers with: (a) District organizational development, planning processes and program implementation (b) District communications between the citizenry and the Board of Managers (c) Consensus building and conflict resolution (d) Additional roles as jointly determined by the Citizen Advisory Committee and Board of Managers The Citizen Advisory Committee performs its duties in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103D.3311.

II. MEMBERSHIP Citizen Advisory Committee members are appointed by the Board of Managers and serve at the pleasure of the Board.

The Citizen Advisory Committee will be composed of a minimum of five members who are District residents, as required by Minnesota Statutes 103D.331, and a maximum number as required to represent the diverse interests of the District’s communities and neighborhoods. In addition, the Board of Managers may appoint interested and technical persons who are not District residents to the Citizen Advisory Committee to serve in an ex-officio capacity.

The Board of Managers determines length of term for Citizen Advisory Committee membership.

III. MEETINGS Citizen Advisory Committee meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order.

Regular meetings shall be held on the Second Wednesday of each month. Those members present at the prior regularly scheduled meeting may make a variance from this meeting schedule by majority vote. Notice of the date, time, place and proposed agenda of the meeting shall be given at least seven days before the meeting.

Special and/or emergency meetings may be called by the Chair, and shall be limited in subject and scope to meet the need for such a meeting. Notice of special and emergency meetings should include the subject and scope of the meeting and be made 24 hours in advance of the meeting by mail, phone, fax or email.

A quorum to conduct Citizen Advisory Committee business will be the presence of at least five members or a simple majority of the members, whichever is least.

At the discretion of the co-chairs, a subcommittee or taskforce may be appointed to review proposals or to develop recommendations for the Citizen Advisory Committee’s consideration.

May 2014

11

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

CAC bylaws (cont.)

The chair may appoint non-members who have expressed an interest in the topic or who have specialized expertise to a subcommittee or taskforce as appropriate. In the event that a regularly scheduled meeting is canceled or if there is not quorum to conduct business at a regularly scheduled meeting, a subcommittee or taskforce may meet during the time of the regularly scheduled meeting without providing 24-hour notice.

Prior to deliberation on an issue, a member who feels they have a potential financial conflict of interest shall disclose that information to the Chair and members. Members may also identify potential conflicts of interest of other members to the Chair and members. A majority vote of members present will determine whether the conflict of interest is substantial enough to exclude the member from voting on the issue. All conflicts of interest disclosures and the subsequent determination on whether to exclude a member from a vote, shall be noted in the minutes.

All Citizen Advisory Committee meetings shall be public. Public participation at meetings will, to the extent possible, be for the purpose of presenting information or providing comments that were not previously available to the Citizen Advisory Committee.

IV. OFFICERS Officers shall be elected for a one-year term. Elections shall be held during the regular Citizen Advisory Committee meeting in April. Candidates for office shall have been a Citizen Advisory Committee member for at least three months prior to the election. Officers shall be: Two Co-Chairs, and Secretary Duties of the officers: (a) The two Co-Chairs prepare meeting agendas and preside at all regular and special meetings of the Citizen Advisory Committee. The co-chairs shall have the authority to appoint individuals to serve on subcommittees and taskforces as appropriate. (b) One of the Co-Chairs presides at meetings whenever the other Chair is absent. (c) Secretary administers the paperwork at each meeting, prepares and distributes meeting minutes, receives Citizen Advisory Committee members’ expense reports and forwards them to the Board of Managers, handles all Citizen Advisory Committee correspondence and maintains a Citizen Advisory Committee file of pertinent information.

Officers may delegate their duties to other Citizen Advisory Committee members or to District staff.

Any officer whose Citizen Advisory Committee membership ceases prior to the expiration of his/her term as an officer shall be replaced for the balance of his/her term by a special election of the Citizen Advisory Committee. Such special election shall be held during the second regular meeting of the Citizen Advisory Committee immediately following termination of the officer’s membership.

V. PARTICIPATION To ensure the efficient and effective working of the Citizen Advisory Committee, regular attendance at meetings is necessary. Accordingly, if a member fails to attend four consecutive (unexcused) regular meetings or fails to attend 8 of the 12 regular monthly meetings without notice, that member will forfeit his/her Citizen Advisory Committee membership. A member in jeopardy due to lack of attendance (above) shall be notified in the Citizen Advisory Committee minutes and by separate memorandum to the member that his/her attendance is required at the next regularly scheduled Citizen Advisory Committee meeting to avoid forfeiture of membership.

May 2014

12

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

CAC bylaws (cont.)

An absence shall be deemed excused if the member notified the Chair, another Citizen Advisory Committee member or District staff prior to the meeting. Excused absences shall be noted in the minutes of the meeting.

Members of the Citizen Advisory Committee may request a leave of absence from the Citizen Advisory Committee by sending a letter to the Board of Managers. The Board of Managers may grant a leave of absence for a period of no less than three months and up to a maximum of one year. While a member is on leave of absence, they shall not be eligible to vote, and shall not be counted towards quorum.

Members shall communicate their intention to resign in writing to the Citizen Advisory Committee Secretary, who in turn will notify the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Board of Managers.

Advisory Committee members are encouraged to attend Board of Managers’ meetings and functions.

VI. REIMBURSEMENT Citizen Advisory Committee members can be reimbursed for expenses incurred while carrying out the business of the District when such expenses are pre-approved by the Board of Managers. Typical reimbursements will be for travel, lodging, meals and supplies to attend and/or participate in conferences, workshops, tours, and meetings. Costs incurred in attending regular, special and emergency meetings of the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Board of Managers are not normally considered reimbursable expenses but can be reimbursed upon decision of the Board of Managers when need is demonstrated.

VII. AMENDMENTS These bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the members present at any regular meeting of the whole Citizen Advisory Committee, provided that written notice setting forth in detail the content of the proposed amendment(s) has been presented at the prior regular meeting.

These bylaws shall be reviewed for possible changes or updates by approved motion of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee or Board of Managers.

Bylaws and any changes thereto shall be submitted to the Capitol Region Watershed District Board of Managers for comment prior to adoption.

1 Minnesota Statues 103D.331. Watershed District Advisory Committee Subdivision 1. Purpose. The managers must appoint an advisory committee to advise and assist the managers on all matters affecting the interests of the watershed district and make recommendations to the managers on all contemplated projects and improvements in the watershed district.

Subd. 2. Members. (a) The advisory committee consists of at least five members. If practicable, the advisory committee members selected must include a supervisor of a soil and water conservation district, a member of a county Board, a member of a sporting organization, and a member of a farm organization. Other advisory committee members may be appointed at the discretion of the managers. The members must be residents of the watershed district and serve at the pleasure of the managers. (b) In addition, the managers may appoint other interested and technical persons who may or may not reside within the watershed district to serve at the pleasure of the managers.

Subd. 3. Expense reimbursement. The managers may reimburse members of the advisory committee for actual traveling and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties in the amount as provided for state employees.

May 2014

13

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee 2014 Agenda Plan Updated: July 11, 2014

CAC Meeting Date January 15, 2014

District Initiatives Lakes Analysis Audubon Certification Partner Grant Review BMP Database Review -Farrington/Cottage Drainage Study -Stewardship Grant Program Updates -Adopt CAC Duties and Responsibilities -Event Planning -Monitoring Program Review -Curtiss Pond Improvement Project

CAC Initiatives 2014 CAC Meeting Plan

May 14, 2014

-2013 Monitoring Reports

-CAC Orientation Packet -Awards Program Development -Event Planning -CAC Tour Planning

June 11, 2014

Tour of District Projects

July 16, 2014

East Kittsondale Stormwater Plan 2015 Work Plan Development Review and Comment on 2015 Budget Upper Villa Stormwater Reuse Plan Hidden Falls Stream Restoration Study

February 12, 2014 March 12, 2014

April 9, 2014

August 13, 2014 September 10, 2014 October 8, 2014 November 12, 2014 December 10, 2014

2015 Reappointment Recommendations

Pervious Parking Lot Permit Program Update Education Program Update Groundwater Management Pan Update W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2014\2014 CAC Agenda Plan 7-11-14.doc

1

CAC Orientation Packet Discuss 2014 “Event�

How to Be Effective with the Legislature (Date Pending) -CAC Orientation Packet

-Election of Officers -CAC Orientation Packet

-Awards Program Development -Event Planning -Awards Program Development -Event Planning -Awards Program Development -Event Planning