June 28, 2017 board meeting packet

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, June 28, 2017 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Materials Enclosed

I.

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

II.

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

III.

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

A) B) C) D) E) F) G) H) I) J) K)

Permit 08-005 Rice Street McDonald’s – Closeout (Hosch) Permit 13-019 Hamline Station – Closeout (Hosch) Permit 13-022 MSU Parking Ramp – Amendment (Hosch) Permit 13-027 Vintage on Selby – Closeout (Hosch) Permit 14-016 W. 7th McDonald’s – Closeout (Hosch) Permit 14-031 Seven Corners (Opus) – Partial Closeout (Hosch) Permit 15-012, Pierce Butler Route Demo – Closeout (Hosch) Permit 17-013 Great River School 60-day Review Period Extension (Kelley) Permit 17-014 Grand Avenue Residence Inn 60-day Review Period Extension (Kelley) Permit 17-016 Smith Avenue Bridge Rehab (Kelley) Permit 17-017 Dickerman Park (Kelley)

IV.

Special Reports- Community Curb Cleanup Model – Janna Caywood, Como Active Citizen Network

V.

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the May 17, 2017 Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve Accounts Payable/Receivable for the Month of June 2017 (Sylvander) C) AR: Approve CRWD MS4 Annual Report for 2016 and Public Meeting (Eleria) D) AR: Approve Phalen Creek Corridor Study (Fossum) E) AR: Approve Como Lake Loading Evaluation (Fossum) F) AR: Approve Cancellation of July 5, 2017 Board Meeting

VI.

Unfinished Business A) FI: AIS Plan update (Fossum) C) FI: 2018 Budget (Doneux)

VII.

General Information A) Building Update

VIII. Next Meetings A) Board Workshop, Monday, July 10, 2017, 4:30 PM Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

B) C) IX.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017 CAC Meeting (new building tour at 5:00pm) Wednesday, July 19, 2017 Board Meeting

Adjournment

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

June 28, 2017 III. Permit Applications A.-B., D.-G. Permit Close Outs (Hosch)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

June 19, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Elizabeth Hosch Permit Closeouts

Background Construction activity is complete for permits #08-005 Rice Street McDonald’s, #13-019 Hamline Station, #13-027 Vintage on Selby, #14-016 W. 7th McDonald’s, #14-031 Seven Corners (Opus), and #15-012 Pierce Butler Route Demo.

Issues Rice Street McDonald’s #08-005 This permit was issued for the reconstruction of a McDonald’s restaurant and associated infrastructure along Rice Street in St. Paul. The stormwater is treated on site through one underground filtration system.

The project is complete, the site is stable, and the filtration system is functional and being maintained. $3,704 of surety is available to return ($3,750 less $46 recording fee).

Hamline Station #13-019 This permit was issued for the construction of new multi-use commercial/residential buildings at Hamline and University in St. Paul. The stormwater is treated on site through one underground infiltration system.

The project is complete, the site is stable, and the infiltration system is functional. $9,200 of surety is available to return.

Vintage on Selby #13-027 This permit was issued for the demolition of the existing Associated Bank and construction of a new mixed use development at Snelling and Selby in St. Paul. The stormwater is treated on site via underground filtration/infiltration and onsite reuse for irrigation. The project is complete, the site is stable, and the SW treatment systems are functional. $15,300 of surety is available to return.

West 7th McDonald’s #14-016 This permit was issued for the demolition and reconstruction of a McDonald’s restaurant and associated infrastructure along West 7th Street in St. Paul. The stormwater is treated on site through one surface filtration basin. The project is complete, the site is stable, and the filtration basin is functional. $4,700 of surety is available to return.

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

Seven Corners (Opus) #14-031 This permit was issued for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a new mixed use building at Chestnut and West 7th in St. Paul. The stormwater is treated on site through one underground filtration system. The Opus side of the project is complete and stable, and the filtration system is functional. There is a permit transfer for the hotel portion of the site (Weis builders) that remains open for some final stabilization needs. The overall permit will remain open until the Weis side is complete, with $7,175 of surety currently available to return to Opus ($10,650 less $3,475 previously returned following partial transfer of hotel portion).

Pierce Butler Route Demo #15-012 This erosion/sediment control permit was issued for the demolition of buildings at Pierce Butler Route and Dale in St. Paul. One of the two buildings has been demolished. The site is currently stable and the timeline for this additional demo work is unknown, awaiting some future materials testing and planning for onsite contamination. No surety was required.

Action Requested Approve Certificate of Completion and $3,704 surety return for permit #08-005 Rice Street McDonald’s.

Approve Certificate of Completion and $9,200 surety return for permit #13-019 Hamline Station.

Approve Certificate of Completion and $15,300 surety return for permit #13-027 Vintage on Selby.

Approve Certificate of Completion and $4,700 surety return for permit #14-016 West 7th McDonald’s.

Approve $7,175 surety return for permit #14-031 Seven Corners (Opus portion).

Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #15-012 Pierce Butler Route Demo.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\Board Memos\2017-06-28 Permit Closeout Board Memo.docx

2

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Daniel Hambrock Metro State University 700 East 7th Street Saint Paul, MN 55106

Amended Permit 13-022 MSU Parking Ramp Consultant: Kraig Klund TKDA 444 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101

Description: Construction of a new parking lot section, part of previously constructed ramp project Stormwater Management: Previously constructed underground filtration system District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 1.307 Acres Impervious Area: 0.862 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

First Street Second Ave

Permit Location Permit Report 13-022

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 06/28/2017

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

13-022-Amendment

Review date:

6/19/17

Project Name:

MSU South Surface Lot Expansion Calculations and Maps

Applicant:

TKDA 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 651.292.4400

Purpose:

South Surface Lot Construction Amendment

Location:

The block bounded by Bates Ave, East 6th St, East 7th St, and Maria Ave in St. Paul

Applicable Rules:

C and F

Recommendation:

Approve

EXHIBITS: 1. Construction Plans for Metropolitan State University, by TKDA, dated 5/5/17, rcvd 6/13/17.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: Previous Impervious Proposed (sf) 155,640

New Impervious Proposed (sf) 154,594

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.  Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Scanned Board Packets PDF\2017\June 28, 2017\13-022 Permit Report - Amendment II.doc Page 1 of 3

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

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

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 154,594 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)

11,594 cu. ft.

None.

Filtration of runoff provided due to contamination: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)

15,072 cu. ft.

16,677 c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Filtration volume and facility size has been calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design filtration rate. e. The filtration area is capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. f. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested.

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

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

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

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Scanned Board Packets PDF\2017\June 28, 2017\13-022 Permit Report - Amendment II.doc Page 2 of 3

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

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are not protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Originally planned disturbed area was greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required.

Recommendation:

Approve.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Scanned Board Packets PDF\2017\June 28, 2017\13-022 Permit Report - Amendment II.doc Page 3 of 3

June 28, 2017 III. Permit Applications H) 17-013 Great River School and I) Permit 17-014 Residence Inn 60-Day review Extensions

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

June 20, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Forrest Kelley, PE 60-day Review Period Extension for Permits 17-013 Great River School and 17-014 Grand Ave Residence Inn

Background The 60-day review period for Permit 17-013 Great River School expired 6/20/17 and the review period for 17-014 Grand Ave Residence Inn will expire 6/23/17 Issues Both applicants requested extensions to their 60-day review period before they expired.

Requested Action Approve 60-day review period extension for permit 17-013 Great River School expire 8/19/17 Approve 60-day review period extension for permit 17-014 Grand Ave Residence Inn to expire 8/22/17 W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2017\17-014 Residence Inn Grand Ave\Brd Memo Extension 17-017 Residence Inn.docx

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

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Bryce Fossand MnDOT 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113

Permit 17-016 Smith Avenue Bridge Consultant: NA

Description: Bridge deck and street reconstruction.

Stormwater Management: Applicant has requested use of banked volume reduction credits District Rule: —C, D, F Disturbed Area: 10.15 Acres Impervious Area: 0.68 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

2. Revise the SWPPP or erosion control plans to include the following: a. Specific BMPs to be utilized at the staging area, including restoration plans. b. All haul routes and specific construction entrance locations. c. Specific location and BMPs proposed to manage saw-cutting slurry and dust. d. Dewatering provisions. e. Possible stockpile locations. f. Perimeter control for stockpiles, downstream drainage ways, other areas that aren’t below grade, etc. g. Plan for temporary stabilization.

3. Provide practices to achieve gross pollutant removal. Potential locations for sump catch basins, manholes, or swirl separators at the following structures: a. 5443 b. 5329 c. 5354 d. 5343 e. 5357 f. 5361

Permit Location Permit Report 17-016

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 06/28/17

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

17-016

Review date:

June 16, 2017

Project Name:

State Project 6223-20 TH 149

Applicant:

Bryce Fossand Metro District Water Resources Minnesota Department of Transportation 1500 West County B2 Roseville, MN 55113

Purpose:

Bridge deck and street reconstruction.

Location:

TH 149 High Bridge St. Paul, MN

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 3 conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Civil plans by KLJ, dated 6/1/17, revd. 6/14/17.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards ➢ Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates. ➢ Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site. ➢ Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area. ➢ Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2017\17-016 Smith Avenue Bridge\17-016 Permit Report-fjk.doc Page 1 of 4

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

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

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1-inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 29,621 square feet. b. Volume retention required: 29,621 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 2,715 ft3 Volume Volume 1.1 inch 2 inch Retention Retention BMP Runoff Runoff Required Provided below (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) outlet (cu. ft.)

Volume credit withdrawal has been requested 2,715 4. Alternative compliance has been requested due to the project location within the Uppertown Historic District, space constraints, and bedrock at the site location. a. The applicant did not comply with the volume retention standard on site. b. The applicant complied with the volume retention standard through the use of qualified banking credits. c. The applicant has not submitted money to be contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund. d. The project is linear, and the cost cap has not been reached.

5. The use of banking credits allows the project to achieve gross pollutant removal rather than 90% TSS removal.

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

Findings 1. There is floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. Temporary fill up to a depth of 6” will be placed in the floodplain. This material will be removed upon completion of the project.

3. Compensatory storage is not needed.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2017\17-016 Smith Avenue Bridge\17-016 Permit Report-fjk.doc Page 2 of 4

4. It is unknown if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

However, adequate conveyance has been provided to prevent flooding.

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

Findings 1. There are no wetlands located adjacent within the project limits RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards ➢ A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a landdisturbing activity. ➢ Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

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

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are not protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

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

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

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

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

Recommendation:

Approve with 3 Conditions

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2017\17-016 Smith Avenue Bridge\17-016 Permit Report-fjk.doc Page 3 of 4

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

2. Revise the SWPPP or the erosion control plans to include the following: a. Specific BMPs to be utilized at the staging area, including restoration plans. b. All haul routes and specific construction entrance locations. c. Specific location and BMPs proposed to manage saw-cutting slurry and dust. d. Dewatering provisions. e. Possible stockpile locations. f. Perimeter control for stockpiles, downstream drainage ways, other areas that aren’t below grade, etc. g. Plan for temporary stabilization.

3. Provide practices to achieve gross pollutant removal. Potential locations for sump catch basins, manholes, or swirl separators at the following structures: a. 5443 b. 5329 c. 5354 d. 5343 e. 5357 f. 5361

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2017\17-016 Smith Avenue Bridge\17-016 Permit Report-fjk.doc Page 4 of 4

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

David Ronzani St. Paul Parks and Recreation 400 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102

Permit 17-017 Dickerman Park Consultant: James Landini Washington Conservation District 455 Hayward Ave N. Oakdale, MN 55128

Description: Construction of a new park along University Avenue from Fairview to Wheeler Stormwater Management: Applicant proposes directing runoff to mulched planting and turf areas District Rule: C,D, F Disturbed Area: 1.1 Acres Impervious Area: 0.3 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 4 Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

2. Revise SWPPP to include permit report items 2a-2c 3. Revise plans to include permit report items 3a and 3b.

4. Increase the total retention volume to achieve the requirement. a. Revise plans to direct additional runoff to mulched planting and pervious turf areas. The proposed plan indicates there are approximately 3,400 square feet of sidewalk that is “directly connected� to University Avenue. b. Revise grading plans and Details 5 and 6 on Sheet L10 and Details 6.1 and 6.5 on Sheet L11to clearly show the adjacent turf grass is recessed below the outside, upper lip of the concrete and paver sidewalks. c. Increase and clearly show sidewalk cross-slopes to maximize impervious disconnection.

Wheeler St University Ave

Permit Location Permit Report 17-017

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 06/28/17

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

17-017

Review date:

June 21, 2017

Project Name:

Dickerman Park

Applicant:

David Ronzani City of St. Paul 400 City Hall Annex, 25 West 4th St Saint Paul, MN 55102 (651) 226-6410

Purpose:

Renovation of existing city park.

Location:

North of University Ave from Fairview to Aldine Street, St Paul, MN

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 4 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Landscape plans (L1-L8), by City of St. Paul, dated 4/25/17, recd. 6/12/17.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards ➢ Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates. ➢ Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site. ➢ Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area. ➢ Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2017\17-017 Dickerman Park\17-017 Permit Report_1bfjk.doc Page 1 of 4

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory was used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

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

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1-inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 13,068 square feet. b. Volume retention required: 13,068 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 1,198 ft3 Volume Volume Retention Retention 1.1-inch 2-inch Required BMP Provided Runoff Runoff (cu. ft.) below outlet (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.)

Mulch and Planting Soil 1,411 219 399 Disconnected Impervious 0 N/A 417 1,198 Routed to Pervious Pervious Pavers 159 76 138 Total 954 N/A: The 2-inch rainfall event is not used by the MIDS Calculator to calculate retention volume from disconnected impervious.

c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Infiltration volume and facility size has been calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate. e. The infiltration areas are capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. f. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. If the applicant meets the volume retention requirements, the practices will likely achieve 90% removal.

5. A recordable executed maintenance agreement does not need to be submitted for the proposed BMPs. RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards ➢ Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain. ➢ All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2017\17-017 Dickerman Park\17-017 Permit Report_1bfjk.doc Page 2 of 4

Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

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

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

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

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

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

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are not protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

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

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

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

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2017\17-017 Dickerman Park\17-017 Permit Report_1bfjk.doc Page 3 of 4

Recommendation: Approve with 4 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

2. Revise SWPPP to include the following: a. A plan for temporary stabilization of disturbed soils. b. Erosion control practices shall remain in place until the final completion of the project or vegetation has been established (whichever is later). c. Native soils in infiltration areas shall be de-compacted to a minimum depth of 18 inches prior to placing engineered soil.

3. Revise plans to include the following: a. Provide inlet protection for the proposed catch basins immediately downstream of disturbed areas. b. A note requiring the contractor to clean permeable pavers and remove accumulated sediment at the end of the project.

4. Increase the total retention volume to achieve the requirement. a. Revise plans to direct additional runoff to mulched planting and pervious turf areas. The proposed plan indicates there are approximately 3,400 square feet of sidewalk that is “directly connected� to University Avenue. b. Revise grading plans and Details 5 and 6 on Sheet L10 and Details 6.1 and 6.5 on Sheet L11to clearly show the adjacent turf grass is recessed below the outside, upper lip of the concrete and paver sidewalks. c. Increase and clearly show sidewalk cross-slopes to maximize impervious disconnection.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2017\17-017 Dickerman Park\17-017 Permit Report_1bfjk.doc Page 4 of 4

June 28, 2017 Board Meeting

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

June 22, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Lindsay Schwantes, Community Outreach Coordinator

IV. Special Reports – Community Curb Cleanup Model Report (Schwantes)

Community Curb Cleanup Model Report

Background Residents of the Como neighborhood have been coordinating fall leaf cleanups throughout the community since 2009. The District has supported this initiative for several years through our Partner Grant Program.

Pollutant load reductions achieved through this community led group and program are significant. The fall 2016 cleanup effort resulted in an estimated 13 lbs. of total phosphorus removed from streets and prevented from entering storm drains and Como Lake. The District would like to see other communities initiate a similar model.

Issues District staff identified multiple clean streets initiatives as part of our Targeted Watershed Program grant proposal to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The District plans to implement clean streets initiatives such as boulevard rain gardens, Adopt a Drain and community curb cleanups as strategies for outreach and pollutant load reductions in the Como Lake and Lake McCarrons subwatersheds.

The attached report includes a summary of the work completed by the Como Active Citizen Network (CACN) and a proposed model outline based on the Como Curb Cleanups project. Staff plan to reach out to leaders of the Lake McCarrons community with this information and make modifications to initiate a community-led cleanup in that community.

Staff are also evaluating ways to integrate Adopt a Drain and the Community Curb Cleanup Model and building strategies so the programs can work in conjunction considering the planned expansion of Adopt a Drain to Roseville for fall 2017.

Requested Action Accept the draft community curb cleanup model report.

enc:

Draft Model for Community-led, Place-based Phosphorus Source Reduction Inside Watersheds

W:\07 Programs\Edu-Outreach\Clean Streets Outreach\TWP Clean Streets Project\2017 Clean Streets Development\Board Memo_Community Curb Cleanup Model Report.docx

A Model for Community-led, Place-based, Phosphorus Source Reduction Inside Watersheds Based on a case example from the Como neighborhood in St. Paul, MN

Project Team: Jessica Bromelkamp, Capitol Region Watershed District jessica@capitolregionwd.org Janna Caywood, Blue Cat Consulting LLC janna.caywood@gmail.com Lindsay Schwantes, Capitol Region Watershed District lindsay@capitolregionwd.org

June 19, 2017

Funded by Capitol Region Watershed District

Table of Contents Introduction and Summary

3

SECTION 1: History and context - citizen-led, place-based, phosphorus source reduction

4-12

1.1 Background and Context 1.1a Minnesota’s statewide challenge – nonpoint source pollution 1.1b The role of watershed community residents 1.1c Rethinking the resident role 1.1d The Como Story 1.1e Redefining the problem and solution

4-7 4 4 5 5 6

1.2 Describing the Como Active Citizen Network (CACN) 1.2a The leadership team 1.2b The demonstration house (DH) 1.2c DHs networked together to maximize impact 1.2d CACN partners across sectors in collaborative watershed governance

7-9 7 7 8 8

1.3 Describing the Como Curb Cleanup solution strategy 1.3a Why focus on Como Lake’s watershed 1.3b Solution strategy basics

9-11 9 9

1.4 Highlights of changes and lessons learned 1.4a Structural and conceptual changes 1.4b Procedural and logistical changes

11-12 11 12

1.5 Looking ahead – CACN plans for 2017

12

SECTION 2: Develop a model for community-led, place-based, pollution source reduction

13-21

2.1 Recap of statewide context

13

2.2 Model overview 2.2a Organize and develop small lead team 2.2b Learn and frame the issue and its impact 2.2c Organize and develop network of neighbors 2.2d Design and implement a solution strategy

13-17 13 15 15 16

2.3 Example solution strategy 2.3a How it works 2.3b Helpful tools

17-19 17 19

2.4 Pathways for sharing the model 2.4a Offer post-program opportunity for Master Water Stewards 2.4b CRWD staff kick off initial lead team organizing

19-20 19 20

2.5 Final Thoughts Introduction

20

2

Lindsay Schwantes and Jessica Bromelkamp, staff members at Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) initiated this project. CRWD, a special purpose unit of government located in the Twin Cities metro-area of Minnesota, works to protect, restore, and improve water resources in a highly urbanized portion of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Together Lindsay and Jessica lead CRWD’s watershed education and outreach work in several metro-area cities, including most of St. Paul and parts of Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Maplewood, and Roseville.

Lindsay has worked for many years with Janna Caywood, a resident of St. Paul’s Como neighborhood and a place-based organizing consultant. With grant support from CRWD, Janna and her neighbors have honed an approach for organizing themselves into a collaborating network of 108 households (as of 2016), called the Como Active Citizen Network (CACN). The CACN synchronize their practices on their home blocks that reduce phosphorus sources in streets that pollute nearby Como Lake, most notably in an initiative called the Como Curb Cleanup. In 2016, the CACN calculated a reduction of 13.7 pounds of phosphorus from residential streets in Como Lake’s watershed and beyond as a result of their collective work.

In 2017, Lindsay and Jessica teamed with Janna to create a model, based on the success in Como, to share with other neighborhoods throughout the Capitol Region Watershed District.

Summary In Section 1 of this report, we set the context. We begin with a description of Minnesota’s greatest water pollution challenge – nonpoint source pollution. We describe the role of watershed residents, as traditionally defined, in our state’s approach to addressing this challenge and then describe a study conducted by the civic nonprofit, Citizens League, which revealed a need to rethink the role of watershed residents in the face of this diffuse pollution source. The study inspired the launch of a collaborative watershed governance experiment in St. Paul’s Como neighborhood that resulted in the formation of the Como Active Citizen Network and the Como Curb Cleanup. Both the network and the strategy, which are described herein, provide the framework for the model presented in Section 2. We also describe in this section changes and lessons learned over the eight-year period of experimentation in Como.

In Section 2, we outline a model, drawing from the Como experience, for watershed residents of other neighborhoods to organize themselves into a collaborating network of neighbors who collectively reduce water pollution sources on residential streets. We then discuss possible pathways for sharing the model with interested neighborhood residents and share some final thoughts.

3

SECTION 1: History and context of community-led, place-based, phosphorus source reduction in St. Paul’s Como neighborhood 1.1: Background and context In order to understand why the residents of the Como neighborhood in St. Paul felt they needed to organize themselves into a network of collaborating households, and why the Como Curb Cleanup initiative, their primary phosphorus source reduction strategy, evolved in the way that it did, it’s helpful to understand the larger context of water pollution in Minnesota statewide and how the citizen-resident role is traditionally conceived.

1.1a: Minnesota’s statewide challenge – nonpoint source pollution “Nonpoint” source pollution, as the name implies, comes from everywhere. Human activity and our built environment create land-based pollutants that move quickly and efficiently, thanks to modern flood control infrastructure, into our waterways in quantities that are unnatural and that damage or degrade the health and ecological functioning of our waters. All Minnesota communities, without exception, create pollution of this type. This is our generation’s greatest water quality challenge. It is a complex problem to solve, because it occurs in an open system with many interdependent, dynamic subsystems – natural systems, economic systems, and political systems. As a state, Minnesota spends billions of dollars every year to mitigate the impact of nonpoint source pollution on our valuable water resources.

Minnesota’s approach to governing our shared waters has evolved over time and today places the lion’s share of responsibility on government agencies. By way of example, Como Lake, a small, shallow lake embedded within a regional park in an urban neighborhood, has multiple government agencies – state, county, and city – with some slice of responsibility for some aspect of Como Lake’s water quality health and ecological and recreational functioning. Very few responsibilities are placed on the residents who live within the communities where pollutants originate.

All landowners contribute, knowingly or not, to the issue of nonpoint source pollution. In urban neighborhoods like Como, there are many, small private properties owned by residents, businesses, churches, schools, and nonprofit organizations. Given the reality of how diffuse nonpoint sources of pollution are, it’s simply not reasonable to expect government agencies to solve this problem alone.

Because nonpoint sources of pollution are diffuse, our solution strategies need to be diffuse. All sectors have a role to play in reducing sources of water pollution.

1.1b: The role of watershed community residents The way in which watershed residents are involved in addressing the issue of water pollution has also changed over time. Today, there is great emphasis by government on engaging and educating citizens about water pollution and providing a menu of options for how they might contribute to solutions.

Common ways citizens are invited to contribute to solutions include: • Consuming educational information and implementing recommended practices, primarily on one’s home property.

• Taking part in a project or program, typically managed by government or nonprofit staff.

• Applying for cost-share grants from government or nonprofits to install structures on one’s property that will capture and/or filter polluted runoff.

• Attending public meetings or commenting online to provide feedback to government about 4

•

local or state water management plans.

Joining a citizens advisory committee to advise government or nonprofits on their work.

More recently, new programs have been developed to provide citizens with deeper training in the science of watersheds, so they can be a local water science resource in their community.

1.1c: Rethinking the resident role In 2008, the civic non-profit, Citizens League, convened a one-year study committee I participated in, made up of 25 Minnesota citizens, to explore Minnesota’s water quality challenges and the public policies in place to address them. Committee members had a wide range of perspectives and experiences with water and water policy, but all were asked the same question: What is the citizen role in protecting and restoring our state’s water resources.

The committee’s work revealed both a challenge and an opportunity. Government agencies bear an enormous and complicated responsibility for protecting and restoring our shared water resources, while the average watershed resident, those who live inside the communities where water pollutants originate, bear little to no responsibility, even though they are most impacted by polluted local waters.

The role of the watershed resident, when it is defined at all, is often marginal, vague, or ambiguous, which reinforces the perception that government can and should fix the problem alone.

There are reasons why our water governance system has evolved in this way. Residents in a community often are viewed as a mass of separate households, far too numerous for government agencies to partner with individually in any serious or effective way. There’s also a perception that residents are not willing or don’t have the knowledge or expertise needed to take on an important governance role within their home watershed. And our state’s approach to addressing nonpoint source pollution tends to focus primarily on science-based, technical solutions that require professionals with expertise in those fields to design and implement treatment strategies.

That said, much has changed in recent decades. Many communities are experiencing a renewed interest in local capacity building. They want to tackle larger public issues that are impacting them at the local scale. Government agencies also are focusing more resources on community involvement opportunities.

And there is growing connectivity between residents in many Minnesota communities, thanks to advancements in electronic communication technology and an explosion of inexpensive and free web and social media sites, making community-wide collaboration more possible.

The Citizens League’s committee concluded the timing was right for Minnesota to rethink our expectations for watershed residents. The committee reframed the problem to be solved as not just a technical problem of pollutants moving from land to waters, but also as a governance system in need of recalibration. In order to address the modern challenge of nonpoint source pollution, Minnesota needed to expand responsibility for our waters “upstream, to the source,” to include residents making impactful decisions in watershed communities. Therefore, the committee’s priority recommendation was for Minnesota to experiment with new forms of collaborative watershed governance.

1.1d: The Como Story In the summer of 2009, I invited eight of my neighbors from St. Paul’s Como neighborhood to meet in my living room and talk about Como Lake’s water quality condition. Como Lake is a small, shallow, urban lake at the center of the Como neighborhood. It’s poor water quality health is caused by excessive 5

phosphorus and resulting algal blooms. 2009 was a year when Como Lake’s water levels were low, causing the algae to appear especially gooey and slimy as it inundated much of the shoreline edges and water’s surface. Not only was it sad for the neighbors to watch wildlife trying to live in this environment, it also reduced the appeal of walking the lake path and boating on the lake, which meant less interaction between neighbors and with nature.

This was not a new problem. Como Lake had been suffering from an overgrowth of algae for decades. In fact, Como Lake’s condition had prompted a group of Como citizens in the late 90s to petition the state to form Capitol Region Watershed District. And much work has been done to improve Como Lake’s condition and fate. But the neighbors could see the lake was still struggling.

The group decided they needed to learn more – what was happening, why was it was happening, what was government doing already, and what could residents of the surrounding neighborhood do, to advance Como Lake’s restoration. After spending several months learning about Como Lake’s water quality challenges and the causes of those challenges, the neighbors concluded the best place for them as residents to focus their effort was on the abundance of autumn leaf litter that covered Como’s residential streets each year. This, they learned, was a major source of the excessive phosphorus that entered Como Lake each year via underground storm sewer pipes and fueled the overgrowth of noxious algae.

As luck would have it, in the spring of 2010, the nonprofit organization, Freshwater Society, began hosting workshops to teach community groups a project model for group cleanups of leaves in streets.

Two Como neighbors attended and that spring, with the help of funding from Capitol Region Watershed District and collaboration from City of St. Paul, the neighbors conducted their first leaf cleanup project.

Thus began an 8-year experiment of local residents learning the ups and downs of organizing themselves, developing and refining their own role in the effort to restore an ailing lake, and building a collaborating network of neighbors for synchronized and maximized phosphorus source reduction at the neighborhood-scale. Each year they tweaked the project and each year it grew larger. As of 2016 the neighbors, who now call themselves the Como Active Citizen Network (CACN), are 108 Como households strong. The leaf removal initiative, which is now neighborhood-wide and called the Como Curb Cleanup, is successful enough that Capitol Region Watershed District is interested in developing a model from the Como experience that can be shared with other neighborhoods interested in developing their own role in restoring and protecting local waters.

1.1e: Redefining the problem and the solution All of the eight Como neighbors who gathered in the summer of 2009 had been involved in at least one, often more than one, of the traditional options for community involvement in water management (see 1.1b). The group determined it was time to move beyond other organizations taking the lead and the responsibility for the resident role. They wanted to develop a role for themselves that was self-defined, self-led, and that would build their capacity – as individuals and as a community - to solve difficult problems impacting the neighborhood.

As mentioned, the neighbors embarked on several months of learning about the particular water quality challenge for Como Lake. At the end of that initial learning, the “problem to be solved” as defined by the residents was focused not on changing the behavior of watershed residents, as was the traditional problem definition for most citizen engagement programs, but rather on changing the resident role – as perceived by residents themselves and as perceived by government agencies and nonprofit 6

organizations. The group understood all sectors had a leadership role to play in addressing nonpoint source pollution. The resident role was not well defined in Como. Therefore, the group reframed the problem to be solved this way: PROBLEM FRAMING • Too much phosphorus is moving from the neighborhood that surrounds Como Lake into the lake’s water via the street storm drainage system.

• The reason this problem persists is two-fold: o Citizens who live “at the source” (the streets where runoff flows into drains) don’t see themselves as having a leadership role to play in reducing phosphorus sources in streets. o Carrying out this role individually is not strategic, nor sustainable.

SOLUTION FRAMING • We will invite our fellow neighbors to join us in a coordinated practice – removing leaves from street gutters in front of our homes - thereby reducing phosphorus “at the source” - our home blocks. Through our invitation, we’ll make the case that building the citizen-resident role inside the neighborhood is necessary if we want to restore Como Lake for the long-term.

• In order to synchronize and maximize our citizen-resident impact on this problem at the neighborhood-scale, a collaboration network will be developed, to organize ourselves, our collective work, and our partnerships with other sectors working on the problem.

1.2: Describing the Como Active Citizen Network (CACN) As mentioned, the initial group of eight Como neighbors grew over time and now the CACN includes 108 households that span all of Como. By collaborating across households, across blocks, and with local partners, CACN is experimenting with a new form of “collaborative watershed governance” – collaboration among neighbors and collaboration between residents and government agencies. CACN residents see themselves as accountable for pollution source reduction inside their watershed community and their efforts are having a measurable impact.

1.2a: The leadership team or LT CACN is led by a team of five Como neighbors. Each was invited to join the LT by the founding neighbor because of their qualities in 3 important areas: • • •

Interest in community life and in playing a role to address community issues Able (or willing to learn how) to organize and lead fellow neighbors in collaborative learning and collective action Possess (or are willing to develop) one or more skills needed to lead a growing network of neighbors (i.e., communications, research, project management, cross-sector partnering, strategic planning, community deliberation, and neighborhood organizing)

The most important role of the LT is to organize other neighbors into the CACN collaborating base. The team also leads communications with the network, distills research and learning into novice-friendly language, manages a simple website, and leads ongoing learning, issue framing, strategy development and strategy implementation.

1.2b: The demonstration house (DH) 7

The heart of the CACN and its most fundamental element is the demonstration house (DH). A DH is a Como household – an individual, a couple, or a family - who owns or rents a small (less than one acre) private property within the Como neighborhood. Typically a DH joins the CACN because they heard about the network through neighborhood e-communications or because a CACN neighbor personally invited them.

As a member of the CACN a DH agrees to lead by example and demonstrate (model to neighbors on their block) household decisions and practices that help solve the community issue of focus for the CACN. Because the current issue is Como Lake’s water quality and because the CACN has developed the Como Curb Cleanup as the primary strategy for reducing Como watershed phosphorus sources, they agree to remove leaves from the street in front of their home throughout leaf drop season.

More specifically, to demonstrate citizen-led phosphorus source reduction a DH will: • • • • •

Place a lawn sign (provided by CACN) in front of their home declaring themselves a DH – this is primarily for the benefit of other DHs to “see” one another in the community.

Monitor the accumulation of leaf litter along the curb (street gutter) that borders their property during the months of October and November.

Remove any leaf litter accumulation at least once a week.

Compost collected leaves in their backyard or take them to a county yard waste site.

Respond to the online survey (sent via email by the CACN lead team) at the end of leaf drop season to report how much curb footage they were able to take responsibility for that year.

This is where the actual “practice” of phosphorus source reduction takes place – at the household-level.

The practice is self-led: DHs use their own tools (with the exception of a large leaf bag provided by CACN), they do the work on their own schedule and they compost the material collected on their own.

For introverts this is especially attractive, as they don’t have to talk with anyone if they don’t want to and can still be part of a collective solution strategy – a nice advantage if we want to expand beyond the choir of traditional neighborhood advocates who often need to be extroverted.

1.2c: DHs are “networked” together to maximize their phosphorus reduction impact What makes this individual household practice strategic, scalable, and sustainable is the fact all DHs are connected via an organized, neighbor-network structure – the CACN. By joining with other neighbors in a collaborating network a DH is able to do a number of things that would be much harder individually: • • • • • •

Synchronize their phosphorus source reduction with other property owners/renters in Como.

Stay motivated because they know they’re not doing this work in isolation, they are maximizing their impact by doing this work collectively.

Be recognized by fellow neighbors – by virtue of the lawn sign - as someone who values local waters and is willing to do their part to manage the health of community assets.

Expand their awareness and interest in employing other watershed-friendly practices on their home property and home block.

Develop a stronger sense of ownership and accountability for shared community assets.

Organize other neighbors to be part of collective solution strategies.

1.2d: CACN partners across sectors in “collaborative watershed governance”

8

What makes the CACN and the Como Curb Cleanup strategy an example of “collaborative watershed governance” is the collaborative partnerships developed with local organizations. Examples of local organizations the CACN has developed ongoing, cooperative partnerships with include: • Capitol Region Watershed District • City of St. Paul Parks Department • Ramsey County Environmental Health • District 10 Como Community Council • University of MN Scientists • Citizens League • Two churches: Bethel Lutheran and Mission Orthodox In these partnerships, the CACN defines the resident role in solving the shared concern of Como Lake’s water quality condition and each partner defines their role. Working together, the roles are coordinated for maximum impact. Without exception, each organization has discussed with the CACN LEADERSHIP TEAM ideas for how they can further leverage their own resources to advance even more the shared goal of improving Como Lake’s water quality. This is the beauty of collaborative watershed governance – each sector is able to provide a unique role, unique decision-making authority, and a unique set of resources that are maximized in terms of impact when applied in strategic cooperation with one another.

1.3: Describing the Como Curb Cleanup solution strategy As discussed, the CACN is the organizing structure that brings neighbors and other sectors into ongoing collaboration with each other. The particular “solution strategy” that the CACN developed to reduce phosphorus sources from Como neighborhood streets is the Como Curb Cleanup. The CACN structure is arguably the more important element as this provides the means for the people who do the actual work to organize themselves and align their practices strategically. Many different strategies beyond the Como Curb Cleanup could be developed and employed by the network. But this particular strategy has many aspects that make it an excellent “first” strategy, one that builds capacity for designing and implementing other future strategies.

1.3a: Why focus on Como Lake’s watershed?

As mentioned, the primary nonpoint source pollution problem plaguing Como Lake is excessive phosphorus (and more recently excessive chloride – a new problem to be taken up by CACN soon!).

Although the phosphorus that’s already in Como Lake’s water is contributing to the overgrowth of algae that are seriously impacting the lake’s health, solving that problem will require more technical solutions developed by water resource scientists and engineers. The problem of new phosphorus that continues to flow into Como Lake each year from the surrounding communities is a problem that will not truly be solved unless residents develop their role and lead actions on source reduction inside the watershed. It also will be an easier argument to make to taxpayers that investing in expensive in-lake treatment is wise if incoming phosphorus is curtailed. Otherwise the impact of in-lake strategies will be short lived if the influx continues unabated.

1.3b: Solution strategy basics The Como Curb Cleanup is referred to as a “solution strategy” to reinforce the idea that this citizen-led effort is an important aspect of Como Lake’s restoration. The way it works is this: 9

• • • •

CACN demonstration houses are called into action in the fall by CACN’s leadership team Each DH monitors the “curb” (street gutter) that borders their home property during all of leaf drop season, usually October through November Once a week, if there is any accumulation of leaf litter along their swath of curb, they remove it, thereby separating a major phosphorus source from stormwater flows Collected leaves are composted in DH’s backyard or taken to a Ramsey County yard waste site.

Logistically, this is what goes into coordinating the Como Curb Cleanup: Email call to action. Beginning in early October, the CACN leadership team calls into action via email the network of DHs. This initial email details dates for the effort, any new tweaks to the strategy, and provides a link to the updated website.

Website. CACN’s LT has developed a simple website with information about the CACN, Como Lake’s water quality challenges, the Como Curb Cleanup strategy, and the DH role. The website provides a convenient, online space for info sharing, photos and maps (map of DHs, map of the watershed), and for CACN contact info.

Lawn signs. DHs are given a lawn sign to mark their home as a demonstration house. What they are demonstrating is the household practice of removing leaves from the street gutter. The primary purpose of the lawn sign is to allow DHs to see each other scattered throughout the neighborhood. But the CACN URL is also on the sign, for the benefit of neighbors who are curious what these DH neighbors are up to.

Leaf bags. For DHs who would like it, a large leaf bag (135 gallon capacity) is provided, to make it easier to manage leaves in the street and on their property. In the past, both CRWD and District 10 Community Council have funded the bags. In future iterations of the Como Curb Cleanup, CACN will conduct neighborhood fundraising to cover the cost of the bags and the lawn signs.

Composting. Over the years, CACN has experimented with different tactics to help network members compost collected curb leaves. This particular aspect of the initiative – what to do with leaves once collected - remains a challenge. For a time, CACN coordinated a community dumpster and then later the “service” of curbside leaf pickup. Both were discontinued due to capacity limitations of the leadership team and because this was setting up a consumer/service provider relationship between leadership team neighbors and the broader network of DHs. Today the leadership team strongly promotes backyard composting and helps connect DHs to other DHs who can help with transporting of leaves to the county yard waste site. CACN continues to explore ideas.

Communications. Periodic communications are sent to network members from the lead team during the fall, to keep momentum going, reinforce the feeling of being part of a group effort, and provide helpful information (such as rain alerts) as needed. At the end of the season a final message is sent with a link to a Survey Monkey questionnaire where DHs can report how many feet of curb they cleaned that year and provide feedback on the strategy itself.

Organizing. Bringing in new neighbors to join the network and the strategy is the priority activity of the leadership team. A combination of tactics are used. Local social media helps flush interested neighbors out of the bushes. Once identified, one-on-one conversations between LT neighbors and interested neighbors begin the development of deeper relationships. Also, DHs themselves play an important role in organizing new neighbors, on their own block or through their own network of neighbor relationships.

10

Measuring impact. Thanks to a relationship developed with University of Minnesota scientists, Dr. Sarah Hobbie and Dr. Jacques Finlay (who also are Como neighbors and CACN members), the CACN uses a formula they developed to measure the phosphorus reduction impact of each DH, which is then summed in an aggregated “community impact.” Based on stormwater research they’ve done, Dr. Hobbie and Dr. Finlay developed the following for estimating citizen phosphorus prevention: • Each foot of curb cleaned of leaves in Como (based on known tree canopy) throughout leaf drop season (assumes once a week cleaning for 8 weeks) will prevent .00125 pounds of phosphorus from leaching out of leaves into runoff that flows to Como Lake and the Mississippi River via storm sewer pipes.

• Example: in 2016 participating Como households cleaned 10,980 feet of curbage. 10,980 x .00125 = 13.73 pounds of phosphorus prevented from the lake and river.

1.4: Highlights of changes and lessons learned CACN neighbors developed the first iteration of the Como Curb Cleanup (CCC) strategy with the help of a model provided by Freshwater Society, called Community Cleanups for Water Quality. The model suggested a group cleanup be coordinated on a given day in a given place within the neighborhood and that nearby homes be given a flyer to encourage they remove leaves from the curb in front of their home. This approach worked for a time and was a good starting place. CACN was able to compose a Como-specific brochure, grounded in recent science, to hang on doorknobs within a defined area. The project area and participating neighbors expanded each year. Soon, word of the project spread and volunteer groups began contacting CACN to help with the effort.

The challenge that appeared and grew is that the small group of neighbors who launched the CACN and the Como Curb Cleanup soon found themselves spending all their time coordinating a project that was increasing in complexity. This left no time to organize a larger network of collaborating neighbors, which was the original purpose. Because the project was centrally planned and implemented most work was done by the small group of neighbors, which also was slowly shrinking (not everyone likes project management). This unintentionally put the CACN on an unsustainable path. The fast growth of the project quickly overwhelmed the group’s capacity. Over time, several changes were made to course correct.

1.4a: Structural and conceptual changes Leadership training. CACN lead team neighbors received civic leadership training from the Citizens League and Minnesota Active Citizenship Initiative (graciously funded in part by CRWD). This helped the neighbors (now only 2) reconnect with their original purpose – to develop the resident role in helping to solve a difficult water quality problem and grow a network of problem solvers. The training also provided theory and practice in organizing through the lens of citizenship and in building the needed network infrastructure to organize across blocks and sectors and build collaboration capacity.

Focus shifted from project organizing to network organizing. Rather than think of the cleanup as an event, carried out by a group or groups of “volunteers” (including outside groups), the initiative was reframed as a citizen-resident practice carried out by households who are decision-makers on their own properties. This meant the organizing of demonstration houses was now the priority of the leadership team and the actual activity of curb cleaning could be self-led by DHs themselves. This was a deliberate move, to shift away from a centrally planned and coordinated “event” to organizing DHs who can 11

synchronize (seasonally, not by their watches) their curb cleaning. Impact is increased by increasing the size of the network rather than the complexity of the project.

Message reframed as an invitation. CACN learned that the language used to describe the household practice of curb cleaning – on our website, in neighborhood online forums, in emails - was more appealing if it was framed as an invitation. We simply were informing neighbors about what WE were doing, why we were doing it collectively, and inviting others to join us if they were interested. This was a deliberate shift away from appearing to educate neighbors about what they should be doing. Instead we only educate ourselves – those in our network – or we answer questions, but only if asked. We leave the “mass” educating to other organizations, who do it much better than us anyway.

Let go of funding from CRWD. In 2016, CACN made the decision to let go of funding from CRWD. For three reasons: 1). It was time consuming to apply for and report results for a grant; 2.) Costs had to be carried by the lead organizer until the following year when reimbursement was made; and 3). It did not seem fair that CRWD should continue funding what we wanted to be a “resident role.” As of 2017 CACN will do its own fundraising to cover costs.

1.4b: Procedural and logistical changes Streamlined the practice. Because curb cleaning carried out by DHs was now the focus (no more organizing of volunteer groups), this allowed for streamlining of logistics. DHs provide their own tools, determine their own schedule for when to clean their curb, and compost the collected leaves themselves.

Expanded to two months. One day of leaf cleaning was not nearly enough to impact the magnitude of the phosphorus source problem and was sometimes constrained by weather on “the” day. The initiative expanded to a full week and then to all of leaf drop season – about a six to eight-week period.

Discontinued curbside pickup of leaves for DHs. One of the biggest drains on capacity was coordinating the transport of collected leaves to the county yard waste site. This proved to be far too time consuming, involved too many different organizations, and had the unfortunate effect of setting up the perception that leadership team neighbors were there to “serve” other DHs. It took some time, but the leadership team managed to deconstruct this perception and forge a new relationship based on neighbor-to-neighbor collaboration.

Continue to seek a strategy for composting leaves. The question of what to do with the leaves once collected remains a challenge. Not all neighbors have the space to compost in their yards. And some don’t like the idea of using compost with street pollutants in their gardens. We continue to work on creative ideas with our network of DHs and with our partners, especially our Ramsey County Environmental Health partners (they run the yard waste sites and know a great deal about composting and transport).

1.5: Looking ahead – Plans for the Como Active Citizen Network in 2017 In 2017, the CACN will organize a “CACN Potluck and Summit” in July. The gathering, held in the yard of a lead team neighbor, will provide opportunity for DHs to meet each other, hang out as neighbors, and enjoy shared food. The summit also will provide information – via posters - to discuss proposed 2017 goals, make decisions on network trajectory, make a plan for learning about Como Lake’s chloride impairment, and agree on changes to the 2017 Como Curb Cleanup and divide up coordination work.

12

SECTION 2: Develop a model for community-led, place-based, pollution source reduction to be shared with neighborhoods in Capitol Region Watershed District.

2.1: Recap of the broader context Minnesota’s statewide challenge of diffuse sources of water pollutants necessitates diffuse solution strategies carried out by all sectors, including communities. Citizens who live within watershed communities with impaired or threatened waters have a key role to play, but in many communities that role needs to be developed. The most strategic role for watershed citizens is reducing sources of pollution on streets where they live. Residents leverage their proximity to the multiple source points (storm drains) that carry pollutants to local waters, the time they spend on their home block (daily), and their relationships with other neighbors inside their community, including churches, schools, nonprofits, and businesses. Framing this “work of the citizen” as not only about reducing pollution sources, but also about building the citizen role allows us to frame the problem as not just about hydrological and ecological concerns, but also about the need for collaborative, cross-sector governance.

2.2: Model Overview Drawing from what has worked (and what has not worked) in St. Paul’s Como neighborhood in creating a community-led, place-based, pollution-source-reduction strategy, the below model is divided into four categories: •

ORGANIZE and DEVELOP a small team of residents to lead the organizing of other residents for water pollution source reduction inside the watershed community.

•

LEARN and FRAME a clear understanding of the particular water pollution issue and how it is impacting a particular place – the neighborhood where the residents live.

•

ORGANIZE and DEVELOP a network of neighbors that can grow over time to increase residentled impact on the issue.

•

DESIGN and IMPLEMENT a solution strategy, led by residents that is collaborative, scalable to community-wide, and advances the larger Minnesota goal of tackling nonpoint source pollution.

These model components should be considered a starting point. Ideally, this model and approach can be tested within different CRWD neighborhoods, neighbors can build on what works for them, tweak what doesn’t work, and adpat the model in ways that maximize their capacity to lead pollution source reductions activities inside residential watersheds.

2.2a: ORGANIZE and DEVELOP a small lead team Leadership Team Begin with a small group of neighbors who can lead. Most successful “change” efforts begin with a small group of thoughtful, committed people who believe they can change the world – or in this case, their 13

home community. This could begin with one or two people. An ideal number is five. This leadership team works best if they have (or develop) these qualities: • Open to a shared process – their role is to guide, not control • Communicate clearly, with enthusiasm and inspiration • Curious about the condition of local waters • Curious about the role of citizens in source reduction efforts • Stay focused on building a coalition of the willing - not everyone will be willing • Spend priority time organizing neighbors – leave the action to households As the team grows and a larger network of neighbors is organized, the team will want to develop additional skill sets: • Fact-based research • Project management • Cross-sector partnering • Strategic planning • Community deliberation • Deeper neighborhood organizing Where to find the team In most communities there is a resident or a group of residents who are known for their interest in community life. They may be active in local groups or clubs, or may simply be a neighbor who is well known as someone with their finger on the pulse of neighborhood happenings. Begin with local organizations focused on community issues and ask to be introduced to neighbors who are “active.”

Check neighborhood papers that report on people doing interesting projects in the community. Finding just one person to connect with is a great start. That person likely knows of other residents to reach out to. In some instances, starting with staff from a local organization might be the best group to connect with, if no obvious active residents can be found initially.

Host a coffee chat Bring together one to five active neighbors for a coffee chat to explore the viability of building neighborled, source-prevention efforts within their community. Extend a personal invitation to each and encourage them to bring another neighbor along. Have a clear message for what the coffee chat will be about. For example: “We are seeking to form a small team of (neighborhood name) residents who are interested in learning about the health of (local lake/river name) and in building a neighbor-led strategy to address challenges from within the neighborhood setting.”

How to frame the conversation Key to a successful community conversation is to prepare open-ended questions for discussion that are shared in advance of the conversation. This makes clear the purpose of the gathering and allows neighbors to think ahead about what they’d like to share and know. The focus of this conversation could be: • What questions and/or concerns do neighbors have about local waters?

• What does the resource mean to the community and how is it used?

14

•

How connected is the community in general?

Make the “ask” At the end of the discussion, ask if they’d be interested in forming a small team to explore the issue further and develop a neighbor-led solution strategy to pilot in their community. And if they themselves are not, ask if they can suggest other neighbors to talk with.

Establishing this small team is the first step toward organizing a larger network of households. The team should take the time to educate themselves about the issue and about the citizen-resident role before bringing in new neighbors. This also will allow time to develop trusting relationships between team members and ensure the issue is explored from multiple views.

2.2b: LEARN and FRAME the issue and its impact Host one or more learning sessions.

Once a small group (2 to 5) is identified as being interested in exploring the issue further, one or more future gatherings may be needed to educate the team in more detail about the local resource, its challenges, and the source of those challenges. Ask the team to put together questions they have and share in advance – what else would they like to know? Based on their questions, set up one or more learning sessions, inviting local government or other neighborhood experts to address questions of the team.

Examples questions might include: • How healthy is (name of local lake or river) • What’s the cause of the condition?

• What is already being done (by government, other stakeholders)?

Include learning about the role of citizens in water pollution source reduction It may be helpful for the team to learn from another community that’s currently building their own role in source reduction and how they’ve approached organizing a network of neighbors. This would also establish a collaborative relationship between communities, which is helpful for ongoing sharing of ideas and strategies.

Ground the issue in “place” Framing of the issue should be specific to the particular neighborhood in which the lead team lives and focused on the particular way the issue is impacting their community. Neighbors who live in a given community will have an attachment to their “home” environment and a vested interest in making that place more healthy, including healthy water resources.

2.2c: ORGANIZE and DEVLOP a network of neighbors Determine interest in building a network of other neighbors to tackle the local issue.

Once the small group has gained sufficient knowledge about the local issue impacting their community, ask if they’d like to begin developing a “network of neighbors” to tackle the issue of concern 15

collaboratively AND if they’d be willing to lead such an effort.

In general, leading other neighbors in a collaborative effort requires these basic skills: • Communicating well in writing (i.e., over email) • Tracking and organizing information (in a simple spreadsheet) • Working with external groups/partners (mainly local government) • Coordinating occasional gatherings (informal house parties or block parties) • All lead team members should be comfortable talking with neighbors one-on-one Would training be helpful?

The experience of leading other neighbors in a collaborative effort is itself a great opportunity to learn and build leadership skills. But if the lead team feels they are struggling it’s a good idea to seek leadership training sooner rather than later. Referrals to training opportunities in neighborhood organizing and leadership can be provided.

Begin organizing a network of collaborating “households” Ideally, neighbors in a collaborating network see themselves as representing their home property and the decisions that are made on that home property. This is distinct from a neighbor joining a committee that works on an issue of interest. In the latter, the person is donating their time and energy as a “volunteer” for a given issue, usually through a project. Typically project volunteers don’t link their work to their role as decision makers on their home property or the impact of those decisions on the broader neighborhood.

Organizing begins simply by lead team members reaching out to nearby neighbors, one at a time, and inviting them to join with fellow neighbors (the team) who are addressing a water quality issue that’s impacting the neighborhood. The message is better received if it’s framed as “We are doing this….

Here’s why…. Would you like to join us?” In this way, the ask is emphasizing the importance (and fun) of joining with other neighbors in a collaborative effort, as opposed to focusing on their willingness to engage in a particular practice.

In the beginning this may feel like slow work, but building up a network neighbor-by-neighbor will result in a network based on trusting relationships. Spending time talking with neighbors one-on-one, as feasible, is a great way to learn in depth about that neighbor’s interests, their perspective on the community, what they’re good at, what resources or relationships they can contribute or leverage, and what ideas they have to further expand the vision of the network. Having this be the primary role of the leadership team makes it possible to spend this kind of quality time.

If government agency staff have been the one’s getting a lead team started, this would be the point at which agency staff should shift from “leading” to “supporting” – the goal is for neighbors to begin leading themselves as soon as they can.

2.2d: DESIGN and IMPLEMENT a solution strategy Agree on a problem statement Once sufficient learning has taken place, the leadership team should spend some time defining the 16

problem to be solved. Ideally, this should be articulated in terms that convey how the issue is impacting their home community. In small group settings, coming to agreement on this usually can be accomplished informally through conversation. Though the team should feel free to seek out deliberation processes that are more structured. Many “deliberative democracy” organizations offer such guides that can be found online.

Based on the learning phase, the team can review what they’ve learned and identify which aspect of the problem they feel best suited to address. In most cases, neighbors will focus on residential streets where pollution sources accumulate in the community. This is where neighbors already spend a great deal of their time and where they have authority to make decisions and take action – on their own properties and home blocks. But it is worth writing out a clear problem statement so there’s no ambiguity around what the group is addressing (and what they are not addressing, to avoid mission creep).

Agree on a solution strategy that addresses the problem statement The solution strategy should ideally have these characteristics: • Matches the problem statement • Leverages local “resources” such as neighbor knowledge, energy, time, relationships, and proximity to the source • Can be carried out by individual households on their own property and/or block • Can be carried out at a time of a household’s choosing • Is in alignment with house and yard caretaking they’re already doing • Does not involve much, if any, investment in special equipment • Can be easily synchronized with other neighbors • Is easy to scale up simply by adding more households to the “network” As new neighbors are brought into the network the strategy can grow. The leadership team may decide to define specific “project management” roles for network members willing to take on special tasks. But it’s important to always keep “capacity” front of mind. The sophistication should not drive the activities of the network. Rather the purpose of the network should drive how strategies and projects evolve.

Stay focused on building the citizen role It’s easy to be pulled into work by other organizations that are eager to have an organized network of neighbors advance a program or project they’ve developed. Therefore, it’s important to have a clear network purpose clarity on how priority time should be spent. Maybe a program of another organization is a good fit for the network’s goals. The lead team may decide to try that program, or a version of it. But the resident should always be in the lead. Otherwise “developing the citizen role” will easily fall to the wayside and residents will revert to consuming programs and letting other organizations and agencies assume accountability and responsibility for the problem being addressed.

2.3 Example Solution Strategy – Collaborative Curb Cleaning If the problem to be solved is too many sources of nutrient pollution accumulating on neighborhood streets AND a need to develop the resident role in taking the lead on source reduction, then collaborative curb cleaning during leaf drop season is an easy strategy to try.

2.3a: How it works:

17

The lead team develops a written description of the issue and the collaborative solution Based on what they’ve learned about the impact of leaf litter in streets on local water resources the team can extend invitations to fellow neighbors to JOIN THEM in a synchronized effort among households to remove any accumulated leaves, at least once a week, from the curb in front of their own home. This is done October through November.

How to invite neighbors A simple postcard invitation can be developed and shared with neighbors in a small project area, or a simple online forum message can be shared with the broader neighborhood. Interested neighbors will need to reply to the invitation by sending an RSVP to one of the lead team members. This lead team member will compile a list of email addresses. This begins the “network” list of collaborating neighbors.

What is the primary message A brief description of the local problem to be solved should be included, but the larger message is to explain WHY the neighbors extending the invitation are taking on the role of removing leaves from street gutters in front of their home – They spend time daily on their home block and can therefore monitor leaf accumulations each week – just the small section of curb that borders their own property.

This decentralizes the task of leaf removal, prevents leaves from sitting in gutters for weeks on end releasing nutrients each time it rains, and significantly augments the neighborhood-wide, once-a-season street sweeping done by the municipality.

What are neighbors asked to do?

Simply monitor the leaf litter accumulation along the stretch of curb (street gutter) in front of their home. Once a week, if leaf litter has accumulated, remove it and add it to other yard waste to be composted.

Lead team can send occasional email messages to the network Occasional e-communications to cheer neighbors on, to give “rain alerts,” or to share relevant information (such as announcing new neighbors who’ve joined the effort) helps reinforce the feeling of being part of a community-wide effort.

How to tally results At the end of leaf drop season a simple online survey can be emailed to participating households asking them to report how many feet of curb they took responsibility for. Capitol Region Watershed District has a formula that can be used to calculate how much phosphorus was prevented from local waters based on feet of curb cleaned, in the aggregate, by “network” households. The final community impact can be shared with all neighbors in the network and with the broader community.

Evaluate success The same online survey that asks for feet of curb cleaned can also be used to solicit feedback for ideas to improve the strategy. Three simple questions work great: “What worked well?” “What did not work 18

so well?” And “What ideas to you have for improvements?”

2.3b: Helpful Tools.

Sub-watershed Map This can usually be provided by Capitol Region Watershed District. It’s helpful for neighbors to locate their own house within a watershed, so they know which local water body receives the stormwater runoff from their home block.

Lawn signs Providing each participating household with a lawn sign marking their home as a “Curb Cleaner” is a great way to motivate those who are taking part – they can “see” each other throughout the neighborhood by virtue of the signs. The signs also piques the curiosity of other neighbors, so contact information should always be included. Lawn signs require funding if done through a printer, so it may not be feasible for all communities. Participating households may opt to create their own lawn signs by hand, at least in the beginning, until a larger network of neighbors makes it feasible to do fundraising for supplies.

Lawn bags For neighbors who need a large bag to manage their leaves, it can be helpful to find an inexpensive source for large, reusable yard waste bags. As with the lawn signs, they cost money, so they might only be worth investigating once there is a large enough network to raise funds.

Online space for information sharing It’s helpful to have a central place online where lead team members can share more in-depth information about the issue they’re addressing and about how to join with other neighbors working on the problem. Something as simple as a Facebook page could be set up, or even a basic webpage – reserving a URL is not terribly expensive and free templates make content creation easy.

List of local organizations for potential partnerships As the network grows and with that the size of the solution strategy grows it might be useful to team with local organizations who can provide supports for the neighbor-led effort. For example, the watershed district, the city, the county, any local community-oriented organizations, churches, schools, and businesses with property in the sub-watershed. This is the ultimate goal with any solution strategy – to figure out ways to collaborate with others working on the same problem, so positive impact can be maximized.

2.4: Pathways for Sharing the Model There are two primary pathways CRWD could consider for sharing this model with other neighborhoods.

2.4a: Offer a “post-program” neighborhood leadership and organizing opportunity to Master Water Steward alumni 19

Master Water Stewards have a program requirement to complete a capstone project in their home community. Assuming fellow neighbors are engaged in completing the project, the MWS might be interested in continuing the relationships they’ve begun. They could form a small leadership team from these relationships and explore organizing an ongoing, more permanent network of neighbors who work collaboratively in reducing pollution sources.

If interested, the Stewards could decide how they want to approach this. They could form a small group, bring that group up to speed on the local issue on their own, and then begin implementing a strategy with the small team, slowly organizing more neighbors over time.

If they are more ambitious and know they are interested in organizing a community-wide network of neighbors, CRWD could refer the steward to Janna Caywood for one-on-one, place-based-organizing mentoring and guidance on developing a roadmap for launching a neighbor network in their own community. This could include an apprenticeship with CACN and their work in Como.

2.4b: CRWD staff kick off the initial organizing If CRWD has particular neighborhoods they’ve identified as priority areas in need of organized residents to work on pollution source reduction, then it may be more expedient for CRWD staff to pull together an initial team of residents to try out the model. There could still be a role for Master Water Stewards in this scenario. Perhaps they work with CRWD staff as an intern.

2.5: Final Thoughts There is great potential in focusing attention and resources on developing the role of citizen-residents inside watersheds. Not just through volunteer opportunities that are optional or have low accountability, but through more purposeful roles that include genuine governance responsibility, require capacity development, new social structures like neighbor networks, and collaboration with other local stakeholders.

Working with people in their home communities can seem daunting to organizations that have not had the benefit of training in modern public involvement theories and methodologies. The relationship between communities and government agencies can be contentious at times, especially when residents see their relationship with government as one of consumer/service-provider. Viewed through this lens, residents tend to behave like customers and treat government staff as though they are there to serve the will of the people. This leaves government in an awkward spot – trying to reconcile the many different wants and demands of a fickle and unstable “public opinion,” while also responsibly managing public resources.

But the world is changing. As mentioned at the outset of this report, many communities today have a renewed interest in developing their own, local capacity to tackle issues that are impacting them, including issues that have traditionally been seen as “government’s job.” Issues like water pollution can be incredibly complex, but watershed residents need not become experts in the science and technology of watersheds to have an important governance impact on the problem. The expertise of residents is grounded in the role and accountability of being a neighbor and of having both a personal and public attachment to place. Residents have a vested interest in community assets like neighborhood lakes and rivers remaining or becoming healthy. And they can leverage their neighborly relationships to organize fellow residents to act collectively in the interest of the common good. Many are willing. They just need 20

the right supports inside their home communities to make true collaboration possible.

21

June 28, 2017 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of June 7, 2017 DRAFT Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, June 7, 2017, 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

A)

Call to Order of Annual Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins Seitu Jones, absent w/notice Shirley Reider Mary Texer

B)

Staff Present Mark Doneux, CRWD Anna Eleria, CRWD Forrest Kelley, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD

Public Attendees Julie Kimble, Kimble Consulting Mitchel Cookas, Solution Blue

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Collins asked for additions or changes to the agenda. Administrator Doneux requested the addition of Action Item F. Approve Special Grant for the 428 Rainwater Harvesting Project.

Motion 17-112: Approve the June 7, 2017 agenda with the addition of action item F Special Grant for the 428 Project.

Reider/Texer Unanimously Approved II.

Public Comment

No comments.

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates A) Permit #17-004 St. Thomas Stadium (Kelley)

Mr. Kelley reviewed permit #17-005 Wheelock Parkway. The applicant, City of St. Paul, plan reconstruction of Wheelock Parkway and bikeway addition from Victoria Street to Danforth. The applicable rules are Stormwater Management (Rule C), Flood Control (Rule D), and Erosion and Sediment Control (Rule F). The disturbed area of this project is 3.34 acres with 3.34 acres’ impervious surface.

Motion 17-113: Approve permit #17-004 St. Thomas Stadium with 8 conditions:

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

1. Provide a site-specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices.

2. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

4. Submit a SWPPP for the proposed project. Ensure the SWPPP or the erosion control plan contains items 4a4j in the attached report.

Reider/Jones Unanimously Approved IV.

Special Reports – No Special Reports

V.

Action Items A)

AR:

Approve Minutes of the May 17, 2017 Regular Meeting (Sylvander).

Motion 17-114: Approve Minutes of the May 17, 2017 Regular Meeting with two noted corrections.

Jones/Reider Unanimously approved B)

AR:

Approve Minutes of the May 30, 2017 Board Workshop (Sylvander)

Motion 17-115: Approve Minutes of the May 30, 2017 Board Workshop.

Reider/Texer Unanimously approved C)

AR:

Approve Trout Brook Interceptor Stormsewer Phase II Hydrologic (Eleria)

Ms. Eleria stated that in Fall 2016, CRWD’s Board of Managers approved the first phase for updating the TBI hydrologic/hydraulic (H/H) model. Phase I involved utilizing Atlas 14 precipitation data and updated impervious coverage data and storm sewer data in the existing model and reviewing the 2016 precipitation and monitoring data to determine the level of effort necessary for calibrating the model (Phase II).

Barr Engineering has completed the first phase of the model update. The TBI model is now capable of capturing and conveying the Atlas 14 10-, 100- and 500-year storm events. In addition, based on Barr’s preliminary review of 2016 precipitation and flow monitoring data, they have determined that the level of effort for calibrating the model at five different stations, ranges from low to high.

Barr submitted a proposal for the complete model update (Phases I and II). The second phase of the project is needed to calibrate the model with recent and more monitoring data and prepare flood inundation maps for the three-storm events. The estimated cost of Phase II work is $27,600. The 2017 TBI modeling budget (#315-17554) is $39,070.

Motion 17-116: Approve amendment to TBI Work Order No. 11 for Phase II of the TBI H/H Model Update in an amount not to exceed $27,600 and authorize Administrator to execute change orders up to a total amount of $3,000.

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

Unanimously approved D)

AR: Authorize Public Comment Period for Trout Brook Interceptor Stormsewer – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Eleria)

Ms. Eleria, reviewed that as a regulated operator of a small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), CRWD is required to prepare and submit an annual report of activities and accomplishments associated with its stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) by June 30th to MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). CRWD must solicit public comment on the MS4 annual report and hold an annual public meeting to present the SWPPP activities and accomplishments made each year.

CRWD staff have summarized CRWD’s stormwater management activities and accomplishments in 2016 in an MS4 Annual Report Form provided by MPCA and CRWD’s 2016 Annual Report submitted to BWSR earlier this year. CRWD staff propose that the public comment period on CRWD’s 2016 SWPPP work commence on June 8th and end on June 28th and the public meeting for presenting this work occur at the second June Board meeting, June 28th. Announcements of the public comment period and public meeting will be published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press and CRWD’s website. The 2016 annual report will be available on CRWD’s website.

Motion 17-117: Authorize public comment period on CRWD’s MS4 Annual Report for 2016; and approve the June 28, 2017 Board meeting as the public meeting date for the annual report.

Texer/Jones Unanimously approved E)

AR: Approve Board Workshop for Monday, July 10th, with an alternative date Wednesday, July 19, 2017 (Doneux)

Motion 17-118: Approve Board Workshop for Monday, July 10 2017 with an alternative date of Wednesday, July 19, 2017.

Texer/Jones Unanimously approved F)

AR: Approve Special Grant for the 428 Rainwater Harvesting Project.

Mr. Zwonitzer reviewed the Special Grant project of the renovation of the former Woolworth building in downtown St. Paul. Staff were contacted by Kimble Consulting who represents the developer renovating the former Woolworth building at 428 Minnesota Street in downtown St. Paul. Their goal is to create a LEED certified and WELL compliant building with five floors of office space and potentially retail on the main floor. They are interested in harvesting rainwater from approximately 8,500 square feet of rooftop, storing the water in four 1,000 gallon tanks in the basement, and using treated rainwater to flush toilets on all floors of the building. With approximately 525 anticipated regular occupants, the system would offset nearly 120,000 gallons of potable water each year. The grant application was submitted to CRWD with a request of $262,500 to install the project and digital education displays in the building.

Staff used cost and performance information from CHS Field and Great River School as a basis for determining a potential grant award. CRWD funded those projects at an average rate of $1.07 per gallon saved per year. That rate applied to the benefits achieved by The 428 equates to an award of roughly $130,000. Given the short timeline for review, limited number of similar projects available to compare value, limited available funding, and that the project was submitted outside of the typical grant solicitation window, staff recommend an award of Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

$130,000 for the 428 Rainwater Harvesting project. Ms. Julie Kimble of Kimble Consulting and Mitchel Cookas, of Solution Blue were in attendance. Ms. Kimble shared that the building has been vacant for the last twenty-three years.

Manager Jones asked what the budget is. Ms. Kimble replied that the owner is investing $17, million dollars for the renovations. And shared that the owner will most likely do the water reuse project without help from CRWD. The project has a very tight timeline and budget. This project is the first of its kind. Ms. Kimble shared that the hopes are to do this project well and encourage other building renovation projects to reuse water. Ms. Kimble replied to concerns about visibility for reuse signage by sharing that the building plans to lease space to a ground level coffee shop and include a display in this area. Manager Reider asked about the 2017 funding. Mr. Zwonitzer replied that it would be a combination of 2017 and 2018 funding. Administrator Doneux, added that this project competes with other project funding in the amount of time that CRWD has to review. President Collins asked what the timeline for this project. Ms. Kimble shared that demolition is expected to be done in July with the goal to have occupancy in one year from now. Ms. Eleria is currently exploring additional funding sources. The Met Council is interested in the project and may possibility be interested in providing a grant to CRWD. Administrator Doneux noted that a meeting is scheduled with the Met Council to discuss grant funding. Ms. Kimble shared that the owner is also looking for additional funding ideas. Ms. Kimble stated that she is happy to be working with CRWD. Motion 17-119: Approve 2017 Special Grant award for the 428 Rainwater Harvesting Project in the amount of $130,000 and authorize Board President and Administrator to execute an agreement pending approval of Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Reider/Texer Unanimously approved VI.

Unfinished Business A) Highland Ravine Update (Eleria)

Ms. Eleria shared an update on the outlet for Highland Ravine. Ms. Eleria reviewed photos of icing problems creating unusable sidewalks. A manhole was installed with a grate to collect run off from the ravine. The City of St. Paul required the replacement of an existing manhole which was completed this spring. Excel Energy provided a cost share to the sidewalk replacement.

B) 2018 Budget (Doneux) Administrator Doneux provided a brief update on the budget. A draft budget will be available in July with bigger questions to be addressed at a workshop.

VII. A)

General Information Building Update

Administrator Doneux reviewed a spreadsheet outlining expenses and revenues. Estimated expenses are just over $9,600,000. Manager Texer asked how long construction to the building is anticipated to take.

Administrator Doneux replied 4-5 months. Administrator Doneux may need to talk to Landlord about lease extension once more details are finalized with building plans and time line. Administrator Doneux will forward the spreadsheet with the Board of Managers for further review. Manager Reider asked about the Brownfield Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

Cleanup and if the cost in the budget is a good estimate. Administrator Doneux replied that the estimate is from Barr Engineering and that CRWD will not know about any additional costs till further clean up begins.

VIII.

Next Meetings

A)

Wednesday, June 14, 2017 CAC Meeting – Tour leaving office at 5:30 President Collins will be attending, Managers Reider and Texer will not be able to attend Wednesday, June 28, 2017 Board Workshop Wednesday, June 28, 2017 Board Meeting

B) C)

Motion 17-119: Adjournment of the June 7, 2017 Regular Board Meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Texer/Reider Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander W:\04 Board of Managers\Minutes\2017\June 7, 2017, Board Meeting DRAFT.docx

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

May 17, 2017 Board Meeting V. Action Items – B) Accounts Payable & Budget Update (Sylvander)

DATE: May 10, 2017 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager RE: May 2017 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Administrative/Program Budget Report _________________________________________________________________________________ Background Enclosed are the Accounts Payable/Receivable and the Administrative/Program Budget Reports for the Month of May 2017.

Issues Summary of Accounts Payable/Receivable Report: (Total Expenses)

Accts Payable Accounts Receivable

Summary of Preliminary Budget Report: (May Expenses)

Administrative Budget Program Budget Project Budget Capital Improvement Budget Debt Service TOTAL

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$515,711.36 $ 81,992.04 $ 86,892.12 $143,608.75 $ 38,614.05 $116,056.29 $ 50,921.88 $436,093.09

2017 Operations and CIP Monthly YTD Expenditures to Budget $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $Jan

Feb

March

Operations Expenditures

April

May

Jun

Operations Budget

July

August

Sept

CIP Expenditures

Oct

Nov

Dec

CIP Budget

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

Request Action Approve May 2017 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Budget Report, direct Treasurer and Board President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments. enc:

May 2017 Accounts Payable May 2017 Preliminary Budget Report

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Board Memos\Board Memos 2017\BD Memo AP Budget Report 6.28.17.docx

2

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From June 1, 2017 - June 30, 2017

Date 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17

Payee Al's Coffee Applied Ecological Services, Inc. Barr Engineering Ben Meadows Company Benefit Extras, Inc. BRBM Engineers Bond Trust Services Corporation C Lanphear Design City of St. Paul Financial Services City of St. Paul Park & Rec Comcast Business Comcast Business - VM Cable Comcast Business - VM Cable Comcast Business - VM Cable Computer Revolution Digi-Key Do-Good Biz, Inc. E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. Energy Park Plaza Engineering & Construction Innovations Ford Motor Credit Fresh Color Press Hamline University HealthPartners Houston Engineering, Inc. Impressive Print In-Situ Inc. Integra-Repairs JL Theis, Inc. Kim Moon League of MN Cities Ins. Trust Limno Tech Marco - Minolta McDonald's Franchise Foods Systems McGough Construction Co. Menards MetLife Metropolitan Council Minnesota State Auditor MSC Industrial Supply MSR NEDU LLC Northern Battery Opus Design Build, LLC Outdoor Lab Pioneer Press Pitney Bowes Global Financial PPL Hamline Station LLC Promo Direct Quality Snowplowing & Lawn Ramsey County-Attorney Redpath & Company, Ltd.

Amount 20.00 918.75 53,360.15 207.92 84.75 562.50 50,921.88 750.00 100.00 75.00 318.64 243.43 127.03 252.99 1,817.00 63.71 510.50 3,868.00 8,550.07 10,200.00 8,840.18 470.00 6,145.72 18,517.28 1,066.50 1,284.00 420.00 75.00 55,720.00 368.47 31,356.00 6,157.50 726.23 3,704.00 5,250.00 148.69 710.90 7,643.25 12,994.00 1,001.19 46,228.09 6,350.00 148.37 7,175.00 3,825.00 76.20 367.71 9,200.00 253.00 148.40 2,380.00 4,204.00

Check Total 20.00 918.75 53,360.15 207.92 84.75 562.50 50,921.88 750.00 100.00 75.00 318.64 243.43 127.03 252.99 1,817.00 63.71 510.50 3,868.00 8,550.07 10,200.00 8,840.18 470.00 6,145.72 18,517.28 1,066.50 1,284.00 420.00 75.00 55,720.00 368.47 31,356.00 6,157.50 726.23 3,704.00 5,250.00 148.69 710.90 7,643.25 12,994.00 1,001.19 46,228.09 6,350.00 148.37 7,175.00 3,825.00 76.20 367.71 9,200.00 253.00 148.40 2,380.00 4,204.00

Page 1 of 2

Check # 18194 18195 18196 18197 18198 18199 18200 18201 18202 18203 18204 18205 18206 18207 18208 18209 18210 18211 18212 18213 18214 18215 18216 18217 18218 18219 18220 18221 18222 18223 18224 18225 18226 18227 18228 18229 18230 18231 18232 18233 18234 18235 18236 18237 18238 18239 18240 18241 18242 18243 18244 18245

Description Water Cooler Filter Professional Services May Enginering Expense Supplies Employee Benefits Feasibility Study Bond Payment/Series 20007A/2013A Design Work Electrical Service Fee Bugs Night Out Permit Phone Service Internet Security System Internete/Voice Line Managed Services/Outlook Issues Olympian Lte/Cellular Post Card Mailing Survey Office Rent Final Payment 2014 Focus-Payoff CRWD Flyers Center for Global Education Employee Benefits Poster Adopt-A-Drain Hangers/Cards/Envelopes HydroVu VM Extension/120 Hamline-Midway Rain Garden Rain Garden Reimbursement Annual Insurance Como Lake Analysis Copier Contract Surety Return Surety Return Monitoring Supplies Employee Benefits Lab Analysis 2016 Audit Si[[;oes Schematic Design/Graphics Surety Return Batteries Surety Return Clean-Up/Maintenance Legal Notice Copier Lease Surety Return Logo Coffee Mugs Lawn Service Legal Expense May Accounting/Audit

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From June 1, 2017 - June 30, 2017

Date 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17 06/28/17

Payee Robert Fossom Roseville Area Schools Ryan Companies US, Inc. SA Fleet Shingobee Builderes, Inc. St. Paul Regional Water Services St. Paul Stamp Works, Inc. Staples Business Advantage Tierney Brothers, Inc. Verizon Wireless Viking Industrial Center Walters Waste Management Wenck Associates Wright Hennepin Coop.

Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy US Bank

May A/P: May Payroll/Benefits MAY TOTAL:

Amount

Check Total

667.25 463.50 15,300.00 226.02 4,700.00 271.43 73.85 479.78 120.55 317.76 496.25 60.42 45.42 26,214.41 30.08 22.57 37.21 208.30 620.87 601.00 4,832.83

667.25 463.50 15,300.00 226.02 4,700.00 271.43 73.85 479.78 120.55 317.76 496.25 60.42 45.42 26,214.41 30.08 22.57 37.21 208.30 620.87 601.00 4,832.83

$431,696.50

$431,696.50

$84,014.86

$84,014.86

$515,711.36

$515,711.36

Check # 18246 18247 18248 18249 18250 18251 18252 18253 18254 18255 18256 18257 18258 18259 18260 18261 18262 18263 18264 18265 18266

Description Employee Reimbursement 4th Grade/Water Quality Trip Surety Return Fuel for Vehicles Surety Return Water Services Name Badges Office Supplies Photo Paper Remote Monitoring Supplies Recycling Service Trash Service May Enginering Expense Security/Aldine & Thomas Electricity Servcie Electricity Servcie Electricity Servcie Electricity Servcie Electricity Servcie Monthly Credit Card

APPROVED FOR PAYMENT:

6/28/2017

May, 2017 RECEIPTS Snelling-Midway/Surety Miscellaneous Income St. Thomas/Surety 4M Fund

$73,000.00 79.00 7,300.00 1,613.04

MAY RECEIPTS

$81,992.04

Surety Employee Apparel Surety April Interest

Page 2 of 2

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST RECAP FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2017 - MAY 31, 2017 2017 ANNUAL BUDGET 670,120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (337,700.00) $332,420.00 222,882.00 7,160.00 308,720.00 503,840.00 574,340.00 425,990.00 40,540.00 79,840.00 35,250.00 31,370.00 $2,229,932.00 114,818.00 8,000.00 258,710.00 94,750.00 224,910.00 24,850.00 149,340.00 $875,378.00 $3,437,730.00 27,240.00 151,730.00 101,600.00 120,690.00 1,006,100.00 85,350.00 620,280.00 969,273.00 5,531,000.00 $8,613,263.00 368,918.00 $368,918.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 0.00 85,448.80 864.13 579.19 $86,892.12 0.00 35,082.41 64,306.56 19,137.11 21,267.03 610.49 2,340.19 445.87 419.09 $143,608.75 13,202.24 837.27 7,170.47 5,204.00 12,200.07 $38,614.05 $269,114.92 1,935.15 1,381.72 1,245.88 11,037.80 140.08 7,775.50 3,420.72 89,119.44 $116,056.29 50,921.88 $50,921.88

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$12,419,911.00

$436,093.09

$4,094,684.05

$8,325,226.95

32.97%

TOTAL FUND BALANCE:

Fund Balance @ 12/31/16 1,912,724.98 3,377,758.66 80,792.59 $5,371,276.23

2017 Fund Transfers $0.00

Year-to-Date Revenue 69,057.85 3,909.11 27.29 $72,994.25

Year-to-Date Expenditures $1,187,885.07 2,578,376.63 $328,422.35 $4,094,684.05

Fund Balance @ 05/31/17 793,897.76 803,291.14 (247,602.47) 1,349,586.43

JOB COST #/NAME 16970 - General Administration 16 17970 - General Administration 17 17975 - Aldine Operating Expense 17976 - Thomas Operating Expense 17980 - Diversity Plan 00000 - Administration Allocation TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: 200 - Administration 201 - Groundwater 207 - Rulemaking/Rule Revisions 208 - Permitting 210 - Stewardship Grants 211 - Monitoring & Data Collection 220 - Education & Outreach 225 - Technical Resources & Information Sharing 228 - Innovative BMP's Research 230 - Geographic Informatin Systems (GIS) 240 - Safety Program TOTAL PROGRAMS: 300 - Administration 301 - Shoreline & Streambank Maintenance 305 - Como Lake Subwatershed 310 - Lake McCarron's Subwatershed 313 - Loeb Lake Subwatershed 315 - Trout Brook Subwatershed 317 - Crosby Lake Subwatershed 325 - Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 330 - Mississippi River Subwatershed 370 - Watershed Plan Audit TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND: 401 - Shoreline & Streambank Restoration 405 - Como Lake BMP's 410 - Lake McCarron's BMP's 413 - Loeb Lake BMP's 415 - Trout Brook BMP's 417 - Crosby Lake BMP's 425 - Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 430 - Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMP's 440 - Special Projects & Grants 450 - Future Trents: Implementation TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 15104 - Debt & Loan Service 15 TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

FUND BALANCES Operations Capital Improvement Debt Service

YEAR-TO-DATE BALANCE OF BUDGET EXPENDITURES REMAINING 10,664.71 (10,664.71) 299,536.25 370,583.75 23,415.23 (23,415.23) 11,684.65 (11,684.65) (13,000.00) 13,000.00 (337,700.00) $358,300.84 ($25,880.84) 222,882.00 606.32 6,553.68 157,005.18 151,714.82 131,880.85 371,959.15 175,741.56 398,598.44 117,698.17 308,291.83 9,399.80 31,140.20 6,544.05 73,295.95 3,315.73 31,934.27 6,704.42 24,665.58 $608,896.08 $1,621,035.92 114,818.00 47.49 7,952.51 116,185.89 142,524.11 3,879.76 90,870.24 41,700.38 183,209.62 7,102.13 17,747.87 51,772.50 97,567.50 $220,688.15 $654,689.85 $1,187,885.07 $2,249,844.93 49.16 27,190.84 20,081.55 131,648.45 47,642.24 53,957.76 52,424.75 68,265.25 967,008.85 39,091.15 1,887.54 83,462.46 9,220.16 611,059.84 48,047.74 921,225.26 1,432,014.64 4,098,985.36 $2,578,376.63 $6,034,886.37 328,422.35 40,495.65 $328,422.35 $40,495.65

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED --44.70% ------0.00% 107.79% 0.00% 8.47% --50.86% 26.18% 30.60% 27.63% 23.19% 8.20% 9.41% 21.37% 27.31% 0.00% 0.59% 44.91% 4.09% --18.54% 28.58% --34.67% --25.21% 34.55% 0.18% 13.24% 46.89% 43.44% 96.11% --2.21% 1.49% 4.96% 25.89% 29.93% 89.02% 89.02%

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2017 - MAY 31, 2017 2017 ANNUAL BUDGET 16970 - General Administration 17970 - General Administration 670,120.00 17975 - Aldine Operating Expense 17976 - Thomas Operating Expense 17980 - Diversity Plan 10000 - Administration Allocation (337,700.00) TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: $332,420.00 20000 - Administration Allocation 222,882.00 17130 - Groundwater Protection - Well Sealing 7,160.00 16000 - District Permit Program 17000 - District Permit Program 150,870.00 17101 - Permit Tracking & Database Management 16102 - Construction Inspection 17102 - Construction Inspection 135,900.00 17103 - Permit Closure & Post Construction Inspection/Maintenance 21,950.00 --------- - Permits 16143 - Stewardship Grants 17143 - Stewardship Grants 313,830.00 16144 - Partner Grants 17144 - Partner Grants 113,810.00 16145 - Inspiring Communities Program 17145 - Inspiring Communities Program 17,440.00 16146 - RSVP Rain Garden 16 17146 - RSVP Rain Garden Projects 26,130.00 16147 - TWP Blvd. Rain Gardens 17147 - TWP Blvd. Rain Gardens 32,630.00 13200 - Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection 16200 - Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection 17200 - Baseline Monitor & Data Collection 273,240.00 16205 - Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 17205 - Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 66,020.00 16210 - Villa Park Monitoring 16 17210 - Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection 36,500.00 16215 - Wetland Bio Monitor 0.00 17215 - Wetland Bio-Monitoring 12,900.00 17220 - Long -Term Monitoring Database Development 12,030.00 17221 - Data Analysis & Reporting Tool 74,700.00 17225 - Remote Data Access & Set-Up 18,020.00 16230 - BMP Monitoring 17230 - BMP Monitoring 71,430.00 15231 - AHUG Exfiltration Monitoring 9,500.00 17232 - Midway Office WH Monitoring 16250 - General Ed & Outreach 17250 - General Ed & Outreach 79,130.00 17255 - Clean Streets Outreach 19,830.00 JOB COST #/NAME

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 85,448.80 864.13 579.19 $86,892.12 11,698.36 474.44 355.46 22,554.15 64,054.06 75.24 46.06 131.20 (8,793.48) 254.57 19,763.23 1,476.78 1,628.85 63.64 32.42 63.71 2,354.76 540.54 1,752.09 8,776.17 538.87

YEAR-TO-DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 10,664.71 (10,664.71) 299,536.25 370,583.75 23,415.23 (23,415.23) 11,684.65 (11,684.65) 13,000.00 (13,000.00) (337,700.00) $358,300.84 ($25,880.84) 222,882.00 606.32 6,553.68 5,512.54 (5,512.54) 52,154.00 98,716.00 1,704.75 (1,704.75) 154.50 (154.50) 1,278.11 134,621.89 21,950.00 96,201.28 (96,201.28) 1,325.09 (1,325.09) 120,387.90 193,442.10 549.32 (549.32) 5,451.55 108,358.45 49.16 (49.16) 2,890.71 14,549.29 318.56 (318.56) (288.00) 26,418.00 1,196.56 (1,196.56) 32,630.00 (8,793.48) 8,793.48 20,959.72 (20,959.72) 122,049.18 151,190.82 990.16 (990.16) 59,116.40 6,903.60 1,623.52 (1,623.52) 2,272.94 34,227.06 6,348.00 (6,348.00) 12,900.00 176.65 11,853.35 3,598.87 71,101.13 2,311.25 15,708.75 2,520.15 (2,520.15) 5,858.78 65,571.22 2,526.83 6,973.17 6,395.39 (6,395.39) 3,668.46 (3,668.46) 40,211.35 38,918.65 834.60 18,995.40

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED --44.70% ------0.00% 107.79% 0.00% 8.47% --34.57% ----0.94% 0.00% ----38.36% --4.79% --16.58% ---1.10% --0.00% ----44.67% --10.46% --6.23% 0.00% 1.47% 4.82% 12.83% --8.20% 26.60% ----50.82% 4.21%

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2017 - MAY 31, 2017

JOB COST #/NAME 16260 - Municipal Outreach 17260 - Municipal Outreach 17262 - Youth Outreach 17263 - Media Training 16265 - Sponsorship & Partnerships 17265 - Sponsorship & Partnerships 16268 - Adopt A Drain 17268 - Adopt A Drain 16270 - Website & Social Media 17270 - Website & Social Media 16271 - Master Water Stewards 17271 - Master Water Stewards 16275 - Events 17275 - Events 17276 - Strategic Communication Plan 16277 - TWP - Adopt a Drain 17277 - TWP - Adopt a Drain 16278 - TWP Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 17278 - TWP Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 17279 - Social Media 16285 - Awards & Recognition Programs 17285 - Awards & Recognition Programs 17300 - Local & Agency Plan Review & Tech Committee 16303 - BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 17303 - BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 16330 - District Research Program 17330 - District Research Program 17333 - Public Art Program 15370 - GIS Program Development 16370 - GIS Program Development 17370 - GIS Program Development 17375 - Data Acquisition 17390 - Safety Training 16395 - Safety Updates 17395 - Safety Program Update/Audits 16396 - CSE Equipment 17396 - CSE Equipment 30000 - Administration Allocation 17405 - St. Paul Natural Resources Intern Program 15420 - Como Reg Park Stormwater Plan 16420 - Como Reg Park Stormwater Plan 16421 - Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 16426 - Como Lake, In-Lake Management Assessment

2017 ANNUAL BUDGET 21,410.00 15,360.00 13,640.00 23,460.00 21,810.00 74,880.00 53,630.00 39,180.00 23,740.00 8,400.00 12,900.00 7,150.00 11,470.00 19,610.00 20,930.00 54,500.00 25,340.00 0.00 24,750.00 10,500.00 7,970.00 9,540.00 13,860.00 TOTAL PROGRAMS: $2,229,932.00 114,818.00 8,000.00 47,090.00 99,620.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 137.08 606.97 352.74 7,446.33 117.91 473.83 2,528.87 131.56 156.70 340.68 269.81 2,080.98 259.21 445.87 69.09 350.00 $143,608.75 344.74 8,608.63

YEAR-TO-DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 75.00 (75.00) 3,789.93 17,620.07 1,957.66 13,402.34 13,640.00 15,090.01 (15,090.01) 11,545.06 11,914.94 150.01 (150.01) 8,894.03 12,915.97 478.50 (478.50) 2,131.77 72,748.23 30.04 (30.04) 20,751.61 32,878.39 90.89 (90.89) 4,317.85 34,862.15 23,740.00 383.34 (383.34) 8,400.00 1,072.89 (1,072.89) 12,900.00 694.35 6,455.65 1,530.82 (1,530.82) 11,470.00 1,387.72 18,222.28 2,344.75 (2,344.75) 5,667.33 15,262.67 344.76 (344.76) 4,898.28 49,601.72 1,301.01 24,038.99 117.46 (117.46) 49.16 (49.16) 3,149.11 21,600.89 10,500.00 4,417.96 3,552.04 214.14 (214.14) 47.66 9,492.34 159.98 (159.98) 1,864.68 11,995.32 608,896.08 $1,621,035.92 114,818.00 47.49 7,952.51 43.33 (43.33) 35,284.47 11,805.53 98.32 (98.32) 52,220.66 47,399.34

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED --17.70% 12.75% 0.00% --49.21% --40.78% --2.85% --38.69% --11.02% 0.00% --0.00% --0.00% 9.71% --0.00% 7.08% --27.08% --8.99% 5.13% ----12.72% 0.00% 55.43% --0.50% --13.45% 27.31% 0.00% 0.59% --74.93% --52.42%

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2017 - MAY 31, 2017

JOB COST #/NAME 17421 - Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 17425 - Curtis Pond Opti RTC O & M 16430 - TWP Como Lake Project Development 17430 - TWP Como Lake Project Development 16432 - TWP Como Lake Project Dev. 17435 - North & East Subwatershed Study 15471 - Aquatic Invasive Mgt Plan 15 16471 - Aquatic Invasive Mgt Plan 15 17470 - AIS Management 17475 - Lake McCarron's Internal Loading Assessment 17476 - Upper Villa Maintenance 16477 - TWP - Lake McCarron's Project Development 17477 - TWP - Lake McCarron's Project Development 14552 - TBI Easement Verification & Documentation 16550 - Inspection & Annual Maintenance 17550 - Inspection & Annual Maintenance 15554 - TBI Hydraulic/Hydrolic Model 17554 - TBI Hydraulic/Hydrolic Model Calibration & Update 17570 - NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program 17575 - Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Program 17578 - East Branch Subwatershed Study 14625 - Eustis St. Stormwater Improvement 16631 - Highland Ravine Maintenance 17631 - Highland Ravine Maintenance 16620 - Green Line Redevelopment SSGI Design 17621 - Snelling Midway Redevelopment 15622 - Ford Site Planning 17622 - Ford Site Planning 17624 - CCLRT BMP Maintenance 16660 - TWP Grant Admin 16 TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND: 16681 - Ravine Stablization Projects 17681 - Ravine Stablization Projects 17705 - TWP Como BMP McMurray 16710 - TWP Como BMP McMurray 16715 - TWP Como Sr. High 12751 - Upper Villa Park Stormwater Improvement Project 16752 - TWP - McCarrons BMP - Parkview 17752 - TWP - McCarrons BMP - Parkview 16720 - Willow Reserve Restoration Project 16815 - TBI Repairs - St. 0+00 - 28+49 16853 - Victoria Park Water Features 16881 - Green Line Redevelopment BMP's 15882 - East Kittsondale Retrofit Project

2017 ANNUAL BUDGET 38,600.00 7,300.00 16,100.00 50,000.00 18,600.00 10,000.00 33,070.00 16,980.00 16,100.00 41,480.00 101,260.00 39,070.00 5,080.00 13,020.00 25,000.00 24,850.00 17,890.00 29,270.00 63,560.00 38,620.00 $875,378.00 $3,437,730.00 27,240.00 151,730.00 1,600.00 100,000.00 120,690.00 1,006,100.00 85,350.00 535,150.00 -

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 2,799.17 1,449.70 756.81 80.46 1,158.18 2,666.70 2,594.91 472.48 278.20 5,204.00 195.34 5,430.83 4,113.29 2,460.61 $38,614.05 $269,114.92 1,935.15 667.33 714.39 1,245.88 11,037.80 140.08 -

YEAR-TO-DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 9,104.49 29,495.51 1,868.47 5,431.53 15,478.68 (15,478.68) 16,100.00 2,087.47 (2,087.47) 50,000.00 1,490.48 17,109.52 294.35 (294.35) 776.00 9,224.00 33,070.00 41.66 16,938.34 1,277.27 (1,277.27) 16,100.00 2,858.34 38,621.66 3,663.05 (3,663.05) 17,998.14 83,261.86 8,106.00 (8,106.00) 8,275.33 30,794.67 472.48 4,607.52 327.04 12,692.96 25,000.00 24.57 (24.57) 250.10 (250.10) 6,827.46 18,022.54 8,168.11 9,721.89 25,527.27 3,742.73 (2,660.33) 2,660.33 11,793.84 51,766.16 3,547.38 35,072.62 75.57 (75.57) 220,688.15 $654,689.85 $1,187,885.07 $2,249,844.93 49.16 (49.16) 27,240.00 151,730.00 75.57 (75.57) 20,005.98 (20,005.98) 46,355.46 (44,755.46) 1,286.78 (1,286.78) 100,000.00 52,424.75 68,265.25 967,008.85 39,091.15 1,887.54 83,462.46 49.16 535,100.84 75.57 (75.57)

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 23.59% 25.60% --0.00% --0.00% 8.01% --7.76% 0.00% 0.25% --0.00% 6.89% --17.77% --21.18% 9.30% 2.51% 0.00% ----27.47% 45.66% 87.21% --18.56% 9.19% --25.21% 34.55% --0.00% 0.00% ----2897.22% --0.00% 43.44% 96.11% 2.21% 0.01% ---

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2017 - MAY 31, 2017 2017 JOB COST #/NAME ANNUAL BUDGET 16886 - Lauderdale Subwatershed Stormwater Improvement Projectg 85,130.00 16887 - Midway Stadium 16910 - Special Grants 590,890.00 17910 - Special Grants 16912 - Selby Milton Victoria 17912 - Selby Milton Victoria 1,820.00 16914 - Maryland Payne Pocket Neighborhood 14916 - Central High School 376,563.00 15916 - Upper Villa Park Wetland 15918 - Midway Stadium Redevelop.

15919 - Swede Hollow Final Design 15920 - Rondo Education Complex 14922 - Model Cities - Brownstone 17925 - Highland Park Sr. High 17926 - Adams Spanish Immersion 17928 - Jimmy Lee Play Area 17929 - Wilder Square Condo 16950 - New Office Facility 17950 - New Office Facility 5,531,000.00 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: $8,613,263.00 17001 - Debt & Loan Service 368,918.00 TOTAL DEBT SERVICES: $368,918.00 TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$12,419,911.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 7,775.50 46.06 3,065.70 58.72 37.74 78.30 96.46 37.74 89,119.44 $116,056.29 50,921.88 $50,921.88 $436,093.09

YEAR-TO-DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 8,600.43 76,529.57 495.00 (495.00) 2,688.89 588,201.11 15,349.63 (15,349.63) 116.08 (116.08) 1,820.00 28,246.60 (28,246.60) 720.08 375,842.92 37.74 (37.74) 94.46 (94.46) 84.01 (84.01) 117.45 (117.45) 155.19 (155.19) 173.45 (173.45) 37.50 (37.50) 113.31 (113.31) 113.35 (113.35) 1,432,014.64 (1,432,014.64) 5,531,000.00 $2,578,376.63 $6,034,886.37 328,422.35 40,495.65 $328,422.35 $40,495.65 $4,094,684.05

$8,325,226.95

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 10.10% --0.46% ----0.00% --0.19% --------------0.00% 29.93% 89.02% 89.02% 32.97%

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2017 - MAY 31, 2017 PERMIT NUMBER 7008 8003 8005 9003 9010 9027 11013 11019 11029 11030 12017 12023 12028 13030 14003 14018 14022 14026 14031 14033 14035 14039 14040 14041 15003 15004 15007 15010 15013 15018 15030 15032 15033 15034 15036 15038 15039 15041 16002 16003 16004 16005 16006 16007 16008 16009

PERMIT NAME Hubbard-Griggs RSVP Seventh-Bay Rice Street McDonalds Cretin-Goodrich Waldorf School Frogtown Square Beacon Bluff Parcel 2 Fed Ex Schmidt Brewery Prior-Goodrich Cayuga Ford Site Demo Madison-Benson Western U Plaza State Trunk Highway 5 Resurface Frogtown Farms Victoria Park Stormwater Pleasant Ridge Seven Corners Iron Workers Union Hall Ford Parkway Randolph Avenue Snelling Avenue Higher Ground A-Line BRT McDonough 12-Plex Ramsey County Building Demo Como Chatsworth Jamestown Homes Highland's Assisted Living Farrington Estates Victoria Park East Trail MacQueen Equipment TH 94 & West 7th Regions Ambulance Canopy Highland Mixed Use Permit Sunrise Banks Office Building Raymond Ave. Phase 3 Triangle Lot St. Paul College Health/Science Xcel Pipeline 2016 Como-Chatsworth Phase II Larpenteur Avenue Trail Community School of Excellence Keg & Case Market Jackson Street

PERMIT FEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 1,680.76 434.49 184.44 380.04 110.77 897.53 733.26 795.05 241.92 171.97 933.15 91.20 816.53 1,440.39 471.85 742.12 363.37 440.72 32.58 1,033.27 217.89 36.27 289.89 1,533.35 1,248.50

YEAR-TO-DATE EXPENDITURES 638.40 477.80 86.67 329.00 34.75 1,764.40 546.46 486.80 588.14 449.50 2,495.81 985.99 480.90 1,505.30 380.04 241.50 1,170.50 2,297.73 1,213.15 316.90 475.60 639.70 630.18 259.49 43.33 52.96 1,562.87 402.00 4,465.59 394.70 219.19 1,233.78 183.70 1,770.49 1,523.64 2,885.52 2,124.78 779.99 32.58 2,748.50 1,082.49 294.00 602.53 2,168.37 2,353.97 3,093.70

BALANCE OF PERMIT REMAINING (638.40) (477.80) (86.67) (329.00) (34.75) (1,764.40) (546.46) (486.80) (588.14) (449.50) (2,495.81) (985.99) (480.90) (1,505.30) (380.04) (241.50) (1,170.50) (2,297.73) (1,213.15) (316.90) (475.60) (639.70) (630.18) (259.49) (43.33) (52.96) (1,562.87) (402.00) (4,465.59) (394.70) (219.19) (1,233.78) (183.70) (1,770.49) (1,523.64) (2,885.52) (2,124.78) (779.99) (32.58) (2,748.50) (1,082.49) (294.00) (602.53) (2,168.37) (2,353.97) (3,093.70)

% OF PERMIT EXPENDED 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2017 - MAY 31, 2017 PERMIT NUMBER 16010 16011 16012 16013 16015 16016 16017 16018 16019 16020 16021 16022 16024 16025 16026 16027 16028 16029 16030 16031 16032 16033 16099 17001 17002 17003 17004 17005 17006 17007 17008 17009 17010 17011 17012 17013 17014 17015

PERMIT NAME

PERMIT FEE

Wheelock Parkway McMurray Field St. Paul Police Facility Maryland Bridge Como Transportation II Willow Reserve Habitat of Hum. Rivoli Redevelopment 601 Prior Demo Roselawn Cemetary Dorothy Day Place 2300 Territorial Apartments 901 Burke Avenue Hmong Academy Expansion Snelling Midway St. Anthony Park Elementary River East School Adams School Boaters Outlet Willow Reserve No-Loss Como Avenue 2017 SPJCC Addition Campus Expansion Permitting SOP Horace Mann Elementary Highland Park Elementary Como Park Sr. High School St. Thomas Stadium & Field Ford Parkway Bridge Erosion Snelling Multi-Familyh Joy of the People Field Improvement SPA Expansion Jackson Street Reconstruction Swede Hollow BNSF Kittson St. Drainage Nova Academy School Great River Schools Residence Inn Grand Avenue Wheelock Dale Victoria TOTAL PERMITS:

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR-TO-DATE EXPENDITURES

BALANCE OF PERMIT REMAINING

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

57.02 925.67 643.45 236.57 28.50 755.99 65.18 48.88 710.44 48.87 44.79 34.13 105.70 998.32 967.60 18.50 162.00 8.11 81.77 18.50 1,001.20 271.65

746.24 1,081.09 2,451.42 17.66 936.01 332.94 3,203.94 17.66 736.89 1,287.50 195.10 52.96 924.85 5,535.41 8.64 2,200.03 2,268.95 83.32 130.00 311.66 1,496.30 1,765.60 346.67 3,621.26 2,609.02 2,661.99 3,787.24 1,025.32 1,048.16 808.96 1,395.47 726.51 1,213.97 273.70 415.90 696.70 1,001.20 271.65

(746.24) (1,081.09) (2,451.42) (17.66) (936.01) (332.94) (3,203.94) (17.66) (736.89) (1,287.50) (195.10) (52.96) (924.85) (5,535.41) (8.64) (2,200.03) (2,268.95) (83.32) (130.00) (311.66) (1,496.30) (1,765.60) (346.67) (3,621.26) (2,609.02) (2,661.99) (3,787.24) (1,025.32) (1,048.16) (808.96) (1,395.47) (726.51) (1,213.97) (273.70) (415.90) (696.70) (1,001.20) (271.65)

$0.00

22,554.15

96,201.28

($94,634.66)

% OF PERMIT EXPENDED 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

June 28, 2017 Board Meeting V. Action Item – C) CRWD MS4 Annual Report for 2016 and Public Meeting (Eleria)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

June 22, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Anna Eleria, Division Manager Approve MS4 Annual Report for 2016

Background As a regulated operator of a small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), CRWD is required to prepare and submit an annual report of activities and accomplishments associated with its stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) by June 30th to MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). CRWD must solicit public comment on the MS4 annual report and hold an annual public meeting to present the SWPPP activities and accomplishments made in the previous year.

Issues The June 28th Board meeting serves as CRWD’s annual public meeting for its SWPPP. CRWD staff will give a brief presentation of CRWD’s stormwater management accomplishments and accept comments from the public. Any comments received at the meeting or in writing will be considered and if appropriate, incorporated into the annual report.

Action Requested Approve CRWD’s MS4 Annual Report for 2016 and authorize the Administrator to submit the report to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

enc:

Draft CRWD MS4 Annual Report for 2016

W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\NPDES MS4 Permit\Board Memos\BM MS4 Annual Report Public Meeting 06-28-17.docx

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

MS4 Question Worksheet for 2016 Annual Report

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Reporting period January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Due June 30, 2017 Copy of questions – Not for submittal Instructions: This form is for your personal use only. Complete the online Annual Report to provide a summary of your activities under the 2013 MS4 Permit (Permit) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. The online Annual Report and additional information can be found on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) website at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/submitting-ms4-annualreports.

Questions: Contact Cole Landgraf (cole.landgraf@state.mn.us, 651-757-2880) or Megan Handt (megan.handt@state.mn.us, 651-757-2843).

Contact information MS4 General contact information Full name:

Anna Eleria

Title: Division Manager

Mailing address: 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4 City: Phone:

Saint Paul

State: MN

651-644-8888

Zip code: 55108

Email: anna@capitolregionwd.org

Preparer contact information (if different from the MS4 General contact) Full name:

Title:

Mailing address: City:

State:

Phone:

Zip code:

Email:

Minimum Control Measure (MCM) 1: Public education and outreach The following questions refer to Part III.D.1. of the Permit.

2.

Did you select a stormwater-related issue of high priority to be emphasized during this Permit term?

[Part III.D.1.a.(1)]

3.

If ‘Yes’ in Q2, what is your stormwater-related issue(s)? Check all that apply.

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Local businesses Residential best management practices (BMPs) Pet waste Yard waste Deicing materials Household chemicals Construction activities Post-construction activities

Yes

No

Other (describe): 4.

Have you distributed educational materials or equivalent outreach to the public focused on illicit discharge recognition and reporting? [Part III.D.1.a.(2)]

Yes

No

5.

Do you have an implementation plan as required by the Permit? [Part III.D.1.b.]

Yes

No

www.pca.state.mn.us • wq-strm4-06a • 1/23/17

651-296-6300

•

800-657-3864

•

Use your preferred relay service

•

Available in alternative formats Page 1 of 9

6.

How did you distribute educational materials or equivalent outreach? [Part III.D.1.a.] Check all that apply in table below.

7.

For the items checked in Q6 below, who is the intended audience? Check all that apply in table below.

8.

For the items checked in Q6 below, enter the total circulation/audience in table below (if unknown, use best estimate).

Q6. How did you distribute

Q7. Intended audience? (Check all that apply.)

educational materials?

(Check all that apply):

Residents

Local businesses

Developers

Students

Q8.

Employees

Total circulation /audience:

Other

Brochure

10,000

Newsletter

4,000

Utility bill insert Newspaper ad

205,138

Radio ad

128,571

Television ad Cable access channel Stormwater-related event

6,000

School presentation or project

1,000

Website

12,000

Other (1): describe Workshops

250

Other (2): describe BMP Tours

150

Other (3): describe For Q9 and Q10, provide a brief description of each activity related to public education and outreach (e.g., rain garden workshop, school presentation, public works open house) held and the date each activity was held from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016.

[Part III.D.1.c.(4)] 9.

10.

Date of activity in table below Description of activity in table below Q9. Date of activity Q10. Description of activity

11.

4/22/16

Watershed and NPS pollution demonstration as part of Girl Scouts Earth Day event.

5/2/16

Water reuse workshop with water resource professsionals, and water organizations and staff.

6/24/16

Macroinvertebrate and plant survey event at restored nature sanctuary for local youth and community members.

7/24/16

Watershed demonstration and residential best practices exhibit at the Little Mekong Night Market Festival

11/9/16

Winter maintenance training for municipal and public school facility management staff

Between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your public education and outreach program? [Part IV.B.]

Yes

No

If ‘Yes,’ describe these modifications:

MCM 2: Public participation/involvement The following questions refer to Part III.D.2.a. of the Permit.

12.

You must provide a minimum of one opportunity each year for the public to provide input on the adequacy of your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). Did you provide this opportunity between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016? [Part III.D.2.a.(1)]

Yes

No

13.

If ‘Yes’ in Q12, what was the opportunity that you provided? Check all that apply.

Yes

No

Public meeting Public event www.pca.state.mn.us • wq-strm4-06a • 1/23/17

651-296-6300

•

800-657-3864

•

Use your preferred relay service

•

Available in alternative formats Page 2 of 9

Other

14.

If ‘Public meeting’ in Q13, did you hold a stand-alone meeting or combine it with another event?

Stand-alone Combined

15.

Enter the date of the public meeting:

June 15, 2016

Enter the number of citizens that attended and were informed about your SWPPP:

1

If ‘Public event’ in Q13, describe:

Enter the date (mm/dd/yyyy) of the public meeting: Enter the number of citizens that attended and were informed about your SWPPP: 16.

If ‘Other’ in Q13, describe:

Enter the date (mm/dd/yyyy) of the public meeting: Enter the number of citizens that attended and were informed about your SWPPP: 17.

Between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, did you receive any input regarding your SWPPP?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

If ‘Yes,’ enter the total number of individuals or organizations that provided comments on your SWPPP. 18.

If ‘Yes’ in Q17, did you modify your SWPPP as a result of written input received? [Part III.D.2.b.(2)] If ‘Yes,’ describe those modifications.

19.

Between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your public participation/involvement program? [Part IV.B.] If ‘Yes,’ describe those modifications.

MCM 3: Illicit discharge detection and elimination The following questions refer to Part III.D.3. of the Permit.

20.

Do you have a regulatory mechanism which prohibits non-stormwater discharges to your MS4?

[Part III.D.3.b.]

Yes

No

21.

Did you identify any illicit discharges between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016?

[Part III.D.3.h.(4)]

Yes

No

22.

If ‘Yes’ in Q21, enter the number of illicit discharges detected.

23.

If ‘Yes’ in Q21, how did you discover these illicit discharges? Check all that apply and enter the number of illicit discharges discovered by each category.

4

Public complaint Staff 24.

If ‘Public complaint’ in Q23, enter the number discovered by the public:

www.pca.state.mn.us • wq-strm4-06a • 1/23/17

651-296-6300

•

800-657-3864

•

Use your preferred relay service

3 •

Available in alternative formats Page 3 of 9

25.

If ‘Staff’ in Q23, enter the number discovered by staff:

1

26.

If ‘Yes’ in Q21, did any of the discovered illicit discharges result in an enforcement action (this includes verbal warnings)?

Yes

No

27.

If ‘Yes’ in Q26, what type of enforcement action(s) was taken and how many of each action were issued between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016? Check all that apply. For each of the below checked, enter the number that were issued.

Yes

No

Yes

No

Verbal warning: 3 Notice of violation: Fine: Criminal action: Civil penalty: Other: describe

28.

If ‘Yes’ in Q26, did the enforcement action(s) taken sufficiently address the illicit discharge(s)?

29.

If ‘No’ in Q28, why was the enforcement not sufficient to address the illicit discharge(s)?

30.

Do you have written Enforcement Response Procedures (ERPs) to compel compliance with your illicit discharge regulatory mechanism(s)? [Part III.B.]

Yes

No

31.

Between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016, did you train all field staff in illicit discharge recognition (including conditions which could cause illicit discharges) and reporting illicit discharges for further investigations? [Part III.D.3.e.]

Yes

No

32.

If ‘Yes’ in Q31, how did you train your field staff? Check all that apply.

Email PowerPoint Presentation Video Field training Other: describe

The following questions refer to Part III.C.1. of the Permit.

33.

Did you update your storm sewer system map between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016?

[Part III.C.1.]

Yes

No

34.

Does your storm sewer map include all pipes 12 inches or greater in diameter and the direction of stormwater flow in those pipes? [Part III.C.1.a.]

Yes

No

35.

Does your storm sewer map include outfalls, including a unique identification (ID) number and an associated geographic coordinate? [Part III.C.1.b.]

Yes

No

36.

Does your storm sewer map include all structural stormwater BMPs that are part of your MS4?

[Part III.C.1.c.]

Yes

No

37.

Does your storm sewer map include all receiving waters? [Part III.C.1.d.]

Yes

No

38.

In what format is your storm sewer map available: Hardcopy only GIS CAD Other: describe

www.pca.state.mn.us • wq-strm4-06a • 1/23/17

651-296-6300

•

800-657-3864

•

Use your preferred relay service

•

Available in alternative formats Page 4 of 9

39.

Between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) program? [Part IV.B.]

Yes

No

If ‘Yes,’ describe those modifications.

MCM 4: Construction site stormwater runoff control The following questions refer to Part III.D.4. of the Permit 40.

Do you have a regulatory mechanism that is at least as stringent as the Agency’s general permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (CSW Permit) No. Minn. R. 100001 (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=18984) for erosion and sediment controls and waste controls? [Part III.D.4.a.]

(Permit can be found on the MPCA website at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/constructionstormwater (titled ‘Minnesota NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit’).

Yes

No

41.

Have you developed written procedures for site plan reviews as required by the Permit? [Part III.D.4.b.]

Yes

No

42.

Have you documented each site plan review as required by the Permit? [Part III.D.4.f.]

Yes

No

43.

Enter the number of site plan reviews conducted for sites an acre or greater between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016.

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

44.

What types of enforcement actions do you have available to compel compliance with your regulatory mechanism? Check all that apply and enter the number of each used from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016.

Verbal warning, Number that were issued: Notice of violation, Number that were issued: 1176 Administrative order, Number that were issued: Stop-work order, Number that were issued: 0 Fine, Number that were issued: Forfeit of security of bond money: 0 Withholding of certificate of occupancy Criminal action, Number that were issued: Civil penalty, Number that were issued: 0 Other: describe. , Number that were issued:

45.

Do you have written Enforcement Response Procedures (ERPs) to compel compliance with your construction site stormwater runoff control regulatory mechanism(s)? [Part III.B.]

46.

Enter the number of active construction sites an acre or greater that were in your jurisdiction between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016:

47.

Do you have written procedures for identifying priority sites? [Part III.D.4.d.(1)]

48.

If ‘Yes,’ in Q47, How are sites prioritized? Check all that apply.

Site topography Soil characteristics Types of receiving water(s) Stage of construction Compliance history Weather conditions Citizen complaints Project size Other: describe

49.

Do you have a checklist or other written means to document site inspections when determining compliance? [Part III.D.4.d.(4)]

50.

Enter the number of site inspections conducted for sites an acre or greater between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016.

www.pca.state.mn.us • wq-strm4-06a • 1/23/17

651-296-6300

•

800-657-3864

•

Use your preferred relay service

•

33

63

1176

Available in alternative formats Page 5 of 9

51.

52.

53.

Enter the frequency at which site inspections are conducted (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly).

[Part III.D.4.d.(2)]

weekly

Enter the number of trained inspectors that were available for construction site inspections between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016.

4

Provide the contact information for the inspector(s) and/or organization that conducts construction stormwater inspections for your MS4. List your primary construction stormwater contact first if you have multiple inspectors.

(1) Inspector name: Organization: Forrest Kelley, CRWD Phone (office):

651-644-8888

Phone (work cell): Email:

forrest@capitolregionwd.org

Preferred contact method:

email

(2) Inspector name: Organization: Elizabeth Hosch, CRWD Phone (office):

651-644-8888

Phone (work cell): Email:

ehosch@capitolregionwd.org

Preferred contact method:

email

(3) Inspector name: Organization: Mary F. Pate-Holt Phone (office):

651-395-5225

Phone (work cell): Email:

mpate-holt@wenck.com

Preferred contact method:

email

54.

What training did inspectors receive? Check all that apply.

University of Minnesota Erosion and Stormwater Management Certification Program Qualified Compliance Inspector of Stormwater (QCIS) Minnesota Laborers Training Center Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Installer or Supervisor Minnesota Utility Contractors Association Erosion Control Training Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC) Certified Professional in Stormwater Quality (CPSWQ) Certified Erosion Sediment and Storm Water Inspector (CESSWI) Other: describe

55.

Between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your construction site stormwater runoff control program? [Part IV.B.]

Yes

No

If ‘Yes,’ describe those modifications:

MCM 5: Post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment The following questions refer to Part III.D.5. of the Permit.

56. Do you have a regulatory mechanism which meets all requirements as specified in Part III.D.5.a. of the Permit?

Yes

No

57. What approach are you using to meet the performance standard for Volume, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Total Phosphorus (TP) as required by the permit? [Part III.D.5.a.(2)] Check all that apply.

Refer to the Technical Support Document (TSD) at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/viewdocument.html?gid=17815 for guidance on stormwater management approaches. The TSD can be found on the MPCA website at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/municipal-stormwater-ms4 (refer to the Post Construction Stormwater Management section under the ‘Guidance and BMPs’ tab).

Retain a runoff volume equal to one inch times the area of the proposed increase of impervious www.pca.state.mn.us • wq-strm4-06a • 1/23/17

651-296-6300

•

800-657-3864

•

Use your preferred relay service

•

Available in alternative formats Page 6 of 9

surfaces on-site Retain the post-construction runoff volume on site for the 95th percentile storm Match the pre-development runoff conditions Adopt the Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) An approach has not been selected Other method (Must be technically defensible - e.g., based on modeling, research and acceptable engineering practices) If ‘Other method,’ describe: Retain 1.1" volume over new and newly constructed impervious, remove 90% TSS, no increase in reate for the 2, 10, and 100-yr events 58. Do you have written Enforcement Response Procedures (ERPs) to compel compliance with your postconstruction stormwater management regulatory mechanism(s)? [Part III.B.]

Yes

No

59. Between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your post-construction stormwater management program? [Part IV.B.]

Yes

No

62. Have you developed an alternative inspection frequency for any structural stormwater BMPs, as allowed in Part III.D.6.e.(1) of the Permit?

Yes

No

63. Based on inspection findings, did you conduct any maintenance on any structural stormwater BMPs? [Part III.D.6.e.(1)]

Yes

No

65. Do you own or operate any stockpiles, and/or storage and material handling areas? [Part III.D.6.e.(3)]

Yes

No

66. If ‘Yes’ in Q65, did you inspect all stockpiles and storage and material handling areas quarterly? [Part III.D.6.e.(3)]

Yes

No

67. If ‘Yes’ in Q66, based on inspection findings, did you conduct maintenance at any of the stockpiles and/or storage and material handling areas?

Yes

No

Yes

No

If ‘Yes,’ describe those modifications.

MCM 6: Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations The following questions refer to Part III.D.6. of the Permit.

60. Enter the total number of structural stormwater BMPs, outfalls (excluding underground outfalls), and ponds within your MS4 (exclude privately owned). Enter the number for each category below: Structural stormwater BMPs: 32 Outfalls: 1 Ponds: 0 61. Enter the total number of structural stormwater BMPs, outfalls (excluding underground outfalls), and ponds that were inspected from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 within your MS4 (exclude privately owned) [Part III.D.6.e.]. Enter the number for each category below: Structural stormwater BMPs: 32 Outfalls: 1 Ponds:

64. If ‘Yes’ in Q63, briefly describe the maintenance that was conducted: BMP maintenance included regular removal of sediment, debris and trash and catch basin cleaning twice a year. In the spring, plants and mulch were replaced as needed.

68. If ‘Yes’ in Q67, briefly describe the maintenance that was conducted:

69. Between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, did you modify your BMPs, measurable goals, or future plans for your pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations program? [Part IV.B.] If ‘Yes,’ describe those modifications:

www.pca.state.mn.us • wq-strm4-06a • 1/23/17

651-296-6300

•

800-657-3864

•

Use your preferred relay service

•

Available in alternative formats Page 7 of 9

Discharges to impaired waters with a EPA-approved TMDL that includes an applicable WLA If you have been assigned a Waste Load Allocation (WLA) in a TMDL that was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to August 1, 2013, and were not meeting WLA(s) at the time of your permit application, you must complete the TMDL Annual Report Form, available on the MPCA website at: http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Download_page_with_TMDL_forms.

Attach your completed TMDL Annual report form to the actual Annual Report as instructed within that document. [Part III.E.] 71. [question left blank for you to attach a file]

Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems The following questions refer to Part III.F.3.a. of the Permit. Provide the information below as it pertains to your alum or ferric chloride phosphorus treatment system.

72.

Date(s) of operation: Month

Date(s) of operation (mm/dd/yyyy – mm/dd/yyyy)

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Month

Q73

Q74

Chemical(s) used for treatment

Gallons of alum or ferric chloride treatment

Q76 Q75 Gallons of water treated

Calculated pounds of phosphorus removed

January February March April May June July August September October November December 77.

Any performance issues and corrective action(s), including date(s) when corrective action(s) were taken, between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016:

Partnerships www.pca.state.mn.us • wq-strm4-06a • 1/23/17

651-296-6300

•

800-657-3864

•

Use your preferred relay service

•

Available in alternative formats Page 8 of 9

78. Did you rely on any other regulated MS4s to satisfy one or more permit requirements?

Yes

No

79. If ‘Yes’ in Q78, describe the agreements you have with other regulated MS4s and which permit requirements the other regulated MS4s help satisfy: [Part IV.B.6.]

Additional information If you would like to provide any additional files to accompany your Annual Report, use the space below to upload those files. For each space, you may attach one file.

80.

81.

82.

83.

[Optional space for you to attach a file] [Optional space for you to attach a file] [Optional space for you to attach a file] Optional, describe the file(s) uploaded: CRWD's BWSR 2016 Annual Report, Adopt a Drain Annual Report, Watershed Partners Annual Report and Master Water Stewards Annual Report

Owner or Operator Certification The person with overall administrative responsibility for SWPPP implementation and permit compliance must certify this MS4 Annual Report. This person must be duly authorized and should be either a principal executive (i.e., Director of Public Works, City Administrator) or ranking elected official (i.e., Mayor, Township Supervisor).

Yes - I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete (Minn. R. 7001.0070). I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment (Minn. R. 7001.0540).

By typing my name in the following space, I certify the above statements to be true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, and that information can be used for the purpose of processing my MS4 Annual Report.

Name of certifying official:

The certifying official must electronically sign the online Annual Report form. .

Title:

Administrator

Date:

06/29/2017 (mm/dd/yyyy)

Note: In the online form, you will be prompted to provide the email(s) of the individual(s) you would like to receive the MS4 Annual Report for 2016 submittal confirmation email from the MPCA. After you submit the form, please allow up to three business days to receive this confirmation email.

Email (1)

anna@capitolregionwd.org

Email (2)

mark@capitolregionwd.org

Email (3)

www.pca.state.mn.us • wq-strm4-06a • 1/23/17

651-296-6300

•

800-657-3864

•

Use your preferred relay service

•

Available in alternative formats Page 9 of 9

June 28, 2017 Board Meeting V. Action Items: D. Phalen Creek Corridor Study

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

June 23, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Program Manager Phalen Creek Corridor Study

Background During the last round of Partner Grant applications, the District received a project proposal for a Phalen Creek Daylighting Study from the Lower Phalen Creek Project (LPCP). At the time the District pulled this application out of consideration for Partner Grant Funding so that it could be considered as a separate project in partnership with the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) and the City of St. Paul. This type of work would fall under the District goal of “Bringing Water Back”. The Phalen Creek Corridor is ranked high in the District’s Stream Corridor Restoration Plan (adopted in 2010) for all three evaluation factors (Opportunity Rating, Constructability, and District Goals).

Issues Early in 2017, District staff convened a meeting of RWMWD, LPCP, and multiple City of St. Paul departments to discuss a joint study based on the proposal submitted by LPCP. With support pledged from the City of St. Paul in a letter from Public Works Director Kathy Lantry, staff believe the time is right to move forward with a cooperative study of the Phalen Corridor. Staff intend to implement this project through the Partner Grant program but will have significantly more involvement in the project than typical partner grant projects. Staff will review the project with the Managers.

Requested Action Approve Phalen Creek Corridor Study and authorize Administrator to execute a partner grant agreement with Lower Phalen Creek Project, for an amount not to exceed $30,000. enc:

Phalen Creek Daylighting Feasibility Study Grant Proposal

W:\06 Projects\Phalen Creek Corridor\Brd Memo, Phalen Corridor Daylighting Study, 6-23-2017.docx

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

Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4 Saint Paul, MN 55108 Capitolregionwd.org (651) 644-8888

PARTNER GRANT APPLICATION FORM Please submit form and required materials to: LINDSAY SCHWANTES lindsay@capitolregionwd.org

PROJECT INFORMATION Phalen Creek Daylighting Feasibility Study

APPLICANT INFO

APPLICANT INFORMATION Lower Phalen Creek Project

Melanie Kleiss

55106

Saint Paul

733 East 7th Street

612-581-8636

mkleiss@lowerphalencreek.org

WHAT GEOGRAPHIC AND/OR DEMOGRAPHIC AREA DO YOU SERVE? East Side and Lowertown Saint Paul

HOW MUCH ARE YOU REQUESTING? (BETWEEN $2,000 AND $20,000) $ 26,875

HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT OUR GRANTS? We have applied for and received grants from CRWD in the past, for rain garden construction in our service area.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIBE THE MISSION AND GOALS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION AND HOW YOUR PROJECT HELPS MEET THEM

PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.)

1

Lower Phalen Creek Project’s mission is to strengthen the East Side and Lowertown communities of Saint Paul by developing and maximizing the value of local parks, trails, ecological and cultural resources, and by rebuilding connections to the Mississippi River. Relevant goals and key strategies include connecting people to nature, cultivating community stewards, providing environmental education, and including diverse community members in leadership and volunteer opportunities.

The project proposal is to conduct a feasibility study for daylighting portions of Phalen Creek, which since the 1930s has been piped underground from Lake Phalen to the Mississippi River. The study will prioritize sections that demonstrate technical and legal feasibility, provide water quality benefits, provide environmental education opportunities with a focus on water quality and protection behaviors, and advance racial and economic equity for neighborhood access to green space and open fresh water. For access equity, LPCP will analyze existing access and directly engage the community to raise awareness and receive input on access and environmental education considerations.

The feasibility study will meet LPCP’s mission and goals by engaging and educating the community in the restoration of natural water features that will address water quality, enhance equitable access to nature, provide environmental education, and cultivate diverse environmental stewards who can further promote water protection behavior in the community.

2

2.) DESCRIBE HOW YOUR PROJECT WILL PROTECT OR IMPROVE WATER QUALITY.

The Phalen Creek Daylighting Feasibility Study will directly affect water quality by building awareness of local water quality issues and influencing behavior through engaging the community on proposed daylighting alternatives and the corresponding water quality considerations. The study will indirectly improve water quality through prioritizing daylighted creek sections based on their corresponding (1) potential water quality benefits, and (2) environmental education opportunities. Considerations underlying water quality benefits will include topography, bank stability, vegetative filtration, and pollution sources. The proposed project provides an outstanding opportunity for environmental education within local communities related to the value of clean water resources, local geography, and green spaces as well as promoting water quality protection behavior. Educational opportunity considerations will include proximity of schools and similar institutions, accessibility, variety of natural features, capacity for group learning, and ecological components available.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

3.) IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE LIST OTHER PARTNERS AND THIER ROLE IN YOUR PROJECT.

1. The Saint Paul Public Works Department has experience in daylighting sewer lines and will provide project review.

2. University of Minnesota Landscape Architecture graduate student Piero Protti will take the lead on technical and legal feasibility, water quality benefits, and compilation of the analysis and report. He is willing to provide services at a capped amount of $4,500, with any remaining work to be in-kind.

3. The Center for Global Environmental Education will assist in researching environmental education opportunities, engaging the community to raise awareness and gather input, analyzing educational possibilities that focus on water quality, and composing a report.

4. River restoration consultant Inter-Fluve, Inc. will provide basic engineering services and concept review.

MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION 4.) BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOW WILL YOU MEASURE THE SUCCESS OF YOUR PROJECT?

The production of a robust and comprehensive Phalen Creek Daylighting Feasibility Study that includes ranked project possibilities, project concepts, significant and meaningful resident input, and educational details will be the primary measurement of success of the project.

In addition, LPCP will conduct follow-up surveys of residents who participate in the community engagement process or environmental education focus group to assess participation demographics, the water quality knowledge gained, water quality protection behaviors understood, and suggestions for improvement. Survey results will be collated and analyzed.

Finally, LPCP will present the feasibility study results to the public and gather feedback on the prioritized creek sections identified, equitable access considerations, environmental education opportunities, water quality benefits, knowledge gained, and water quality protection behaviors adopted or committed to.

3

PROJECT TASKS 5.) IN THE SPACE BELOW, PLEASE BREAK DOWN YOUR PROJECT INTO MAJOR TASKS (UP TO 5), BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THEM IN THE SPACE PROVIDED AND ESTIMATE COMPLETION DATE FOR EACH.

TASK NAME: Technical and Legal Feasibility

ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE (M/Y): 9/17

Assess the basic technical feasibility of daylighting sections of Phalen Creek based on current flow in the Beltline and Phalen Creek sewers, potential or actual remediation requirements, and considerations of restoring flow to the surface. Assess legal feasibility based on property ownership and restrictions, land use, and estimated cost.

This task will be completed through the following sub-tasks:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Collect available electronic data from Watersheds and City for the following; - Parcel ownership Data - Land-use data - Contour Data (ground elevations) - Site contamination - Aerial Imagery - Utility Information (includes stormwater, sanitary, water main, and other public utilities) - Roadways and impervious surfaces B. Develop one (1) potential alignment of daylighting C. Develop profile of proposed alignment. a. Provide rough estimates of excavation depth.

D. Identify discreet daylighting reaches based on topography, land-use and other factors.

E. Inter-Fluve will provide guidance and assistance to the Landscape Architect for the development of typical sections for daylighted stream reaches.

F. Develop conceptual cost estimates for each reach.

Deliverables: 1. Plan view of proposed alignment with property ownership and/or land use.

2. Profile of proposed alignment with existing ground surface.

3. Conceptual Cost estimate for each reach.

Assumptions: 1. No field data will be collected. All analysis will be based on available digital data.

2. Typical stream sections will be developed by the Landscape Architect.

3. A GopherOne utility design locate request is not included in scope. No private utilities will be identified or mapped.

Utility information in electronic form (e.g. GIS (including alignment and elevation) provided by others

4

TASK NAME: Community Engagement

ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE (M/Y): 5/18

For the more technically and legally feasible sections of Phalen Creek that may be daylighted, employ LPCP’s community engagement infrastructure to plan and execute an engagement process. The process may include surveys, interviews, meetings, workshops, follow-up surveys, and/or other methods of outreach and input gathering. Outreach will include building awareness of water quality issues, promoting water quality protection behaviors, and publicly presenting results.

This task will be completed through the following sub-tasks: 1. Coordinate contractors performing technical and legal feasibility, water quality assessment, environmental education opportunities, and the report preparation in order to maximize the usefulness of information conveyed to the community as well as to cultivate community stewards who will remain invested and involved through this and future daylighting work.

2. Create and vet stakeholder list for each affected neighborhood.

3. Retain translation services where needed to facilitate engagement by non-English speaking members of the affected neighborhoods.

4. Prepare and execute an outreach plan for each creek section of interest.

5. As much as possible, use existing resources in the community and through partner organizations in order to maximize cost effectiveness.

Deliverables: 1. Outreach plan for each creek section of interest (up to 3).

2. Community engagement report for each creek section of interest (up to 3).

Estimated total hours = 235.

TASK NAME: Environmental Education Assessment

ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE (M/Y): 10/17

Conduct field research on proposed daylighting sites and assess the potential for environmental education including place-based, experiential, or multimedia-based learning for multiple audiences. Lead a community focus group to gather input on potential daylighting sites and environmental education topics that resonate with and are important to community members.

Produce a report.

This task will be completed through the following sub-tasks: 1. Develop site assessment protocol for multiple sites, conduct site visits and photograph each site 2. Identify stakeholders (residents, parks, schools and churches etc.) who have an investment and interest in this topic and assess their needs and interests 3. Develop focus group questions, recruit participants, conduct focus group 4. Assess environmental education needs and opportunities in the service area 5. Identify strategies and pathways to engage the community Deliverable: Environmental Education Assessment Report with an overview of the situation, results of the focus group and list of recommendations.

5

TASK NAME: Compile Analysis and Report

ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE (M/Y): 7/18

Assemble and analyze the results of the information gathered from the above tasks – technical and legal feasibility, community engagement, water quality benefits, and environmental education opportunities. This information will then be overlaid on the spatial information including, but not limited to: • • • • • • • •

Distance to schools and other community gathering places Distance to public transit Presence of pedestrian/bike trails Existing green space Population density along the corridor Crime statistics Potential connectivity to other green space Connectivity to surrounding community

Based on the analysis, prioritize the creek segments that could be daylighted. If factors are weighed differently, weighting rationale will be explained. Estimated total hours = 185.

6

PROJECT BUDGET COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TABLE FOR ALL PROJECT TASKS FOR WHICH YOU WILL BE REQUESTING GRANT FUNDS. NOTE: MATCH FUNDS ARE NOT REQUIRED, BUT PREFERENCE MAY BE GIVEN TO PROJECTS WITH DEDICATED FUNDS. MATCH FUNDS MUST BE CASH (IN-KIND LABOR NOT CONSIDERED).

TASKS TASK 1: Technical and Legal Feasibility

PERSONNEL / STAFF COSTS

$5,200.00

OTHER EXPENSES (MATERIALS / SUPPLIES)

TOTAL COST

$25.00

$ 5,225.00 TASK 2: Community Engagement

$9,400.00

TASK 3: Water Quality Assessment

$1,200.00

$1,200.00 $ 10,600.00

$0 $ 1,200.00

TASK 4: Environmental Education Assessment

$2,500.00

TASK 5: Compile Analysis and Report

$4,625.00

$2,500.00 $ 5,000.00

$225.00 $ 4,850.00

PROJECT FINANCIALS

TOTALS

$ 22,925

$ 3,950

$ 26,875

GRANT FUNDING PLEASE FILL IN THE TABLE BELOW WITH HOW YOU PLAN TO ALLOCATE YOUR FUNDING. NOTE: THE TOTAL COST FROM THE TABLE ABOVE AND THE TOTAL FUDNING BELOW SHOULD BE THE SAME.

TASK

REQUESTED CRWD FUNDING

FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCE

TOTAL

TASK 1: Technical and Legal Feasibility

$ 5,225.00

$ 5,225.00

TASK 2: Community Engagement

$ 10,600.00

$ 10,600.00

TASK 3: Water Quality Assessment TASK 4: Environmental Education Assessment

$ 1,200.00

$ 1,200.00

$ 5,000.00

$ 5,000.00

$ 4,850.00

$ 4,850.00

TASK 5: Compile Analysis and Report

TOTALS

$ 26,875

$ 0.00

$ 26,875

7

June 28, 2017 Board Meeting V. Action Items: E. Como Lake Loading Evaluation (Fossum)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

June 23, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Program Manager Como Lake Loading Evaluation

Background In 2002, the District adopted Como Lake Strategic Management Plan. The plan estimated internal and external phosphorus loading rates to Como Lake. The plan further defined phosphorus reduction goals from both the watershed inputs (external load) and internal sources. Since this plan was adopted the District has completed extensive monitoring and completed better, more sophisticated modeling of phosphorus loading to Como Lake.

Issues The latest phosphorus loading estimates differ from the originally estimated loads in the Como Lake Strategic Plan. Staff are suggesting we engage Barr Engineering to evaluate these new estimates to determine if they are different enough from the original estimates to warrant a revision to the Como Lake TP reduction goals and potentially the Como Lake TMDL. Staff will review the proposed evaluation.

Requested Action Approve Como Lake Loading Evaluation and authorize Administrator to execute an agreement with Barr Engineering for an amount not to exceed $15,000 enc:

Como Lake Loading Evaluation proposal from Barr Engineering dated 6/21/2017

W:\06 Projects\Como Lake Projects\2017 Int Ext Load Eval\Brd Memo Como Loading Evaluation 6-23-17.docx

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