November 14, 2018 CAC Packet

Citizen Advisory Committee 7:00 PM, Wednesday, November 14, 2018 – Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, Saint Paul, MN 55108 Agenda

Materials Enclosed

7:00

I)

Welcome, Announcements, Updates, and Introductions

7:05

II)

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

7:08

III)

Approval of the Agenda

7:09

IV)

Approval of Minutes A) Approval of the October 10, 2018 Minutes

7:10

V)

District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recommendations A) Como Lake Management Plan Update (Fossum)

8:35

VI)

CAC Initiatives A) Watershed Steward Award Program (Bromelkamp) B) Service Learning Student Update (Lilly)

8:40

VII)

Project and Program Updates A) Seminary Pond (Eleria) B) 2018 Rules Revisions (Kelley)

8:45

VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:50

IX)

Discussion A) New & Old Issues B) CAC Observer for November 20, 2018 and December 5, 2018 Board of Managers Meetings D) 2018 Agenda Plan

9:00

X)

Adjourn

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

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, October 10, 2018 – 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present: Nicole Soderholm Mike MacDonald Bob Simonet Mary Lilly Michelle Ulrich Kathryn Swanson Steve Duerre Carol Zierman

Others Present: Mark Doneux, CRWD Belinda Gardner, CRWD Joe Collins, Board of Managers Cheryl Braun, guest Megan Frisvold, GreenCorps member Britta Belden, CRWD

Members absent: Pat Cavanaugh, w/notice Gwen Willems, w/notice David Arbeit, w/notice Tom Elko, w/notice Richard Weil, w/notice William Barton, w/notice I. Welcome, Announcements, and Updates Mr. Duerre opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Duerre asked for any announcements or updates and introductions.

II. Approval of Agenda CAC 18-028 Motion: To approve the CAC October 10, 2018 agenda.

MacDonald/Soderholm Unanimously approved III. Approval of Minutes A) September 12, 2018 CAC Meeting Minutes CAC 18-029 Motion: To approve the Septemeber 12, 2018 minutes.

Soderholm/Ulrich Unanimously approved 1

IV. District Initiatives for Review, Comment, and Recommendations No updates.

V. CAC Initiatives B) Watershed Steward Award Program Update (Doneux) Mr. Doneux announced that date for the awards ceremony to be held on January 24th. Administrator Doneux reminded the group that an email went out for Watershed Steward Awards nominations. Ms. Lilly asked about nominations of the partners and she asked for more information about the partners.

Administrator Doneux agreed that developing a list with more information would be helpful to the CAC. VI. Project and Program Updates A) 595 Aldine Building Update (Doneux) Administrator Doneux mentioned the Anniversary event went well and provided a brief update on the building.

B) Targeted Watershed Program Update (Doneux) Administrator Doneux provided a summary of the grant award. He also discussed the approach and reviewed Como and Parkview projects, project-clean streets initiatives and Adopt a Drain and Curbside Cleanup.

C) Como Lake Management Plan (Doneux) Mrs. Belden provided a Como Lake Management Plan Update. She reviewed the issues and goals statement and provided the schedule with key dates. Ms. Belden commented that community input and agency partners are critical for the plan. The District identified four major themes: physical, recreational, social and administrative. Mrs. Belden will be sending an email with the final list of issues and goals. Mrs. Belden reviewed the schedule and next steps.

Mr. Collins asked if there’s a definititon of a healthy shallow lake. Mrs. Belden replied that there is a definition of a healthy lake and she mentioned that part of the educational opportunity is to teach people what a healthy lake is along with aquatic facts. Ms. Swanson asked how deep Como Lake was prior to development. Mr. Simonet volunteered to be the alternate to David Arbeit. Mrs. Belden reminded the group that Como Lake website and everything they need to know is on our homepage.

D) GreenCorps Member Administrator Doneux introduced Megan Frisvold who is a Greencorps member, she graduated from Iowa State University. She will spend her time with the District on Diversity implementation.

VII. CAC Observer Update Mr Collins reviewed that Barr Engineering will help work on the 10 year WMP plan.

VIII. Discussion a. New & Old Issues b. CAC observer for October 17, 2018 and November 7, 2018 Board of Managers Meeting c. 2018 Agenda Plan “Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.”

2

A) New & Old issues Administrator Doneux reviewed upcoming events.

B) CAC Observer for the Board of Managers Meetings October 17, 2018 and November 7, 2018 C) 2018 Agenda Plan Administrator Doneux reviewed the 2018 agenda plan.

IX. Adjourn CAC 18-27 Motion: To adjourn the October 10, 2018 CAC Meeting.

Swanson/Ulrich Unanimously approved The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Belinda Gardner W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Minutes\2018\October 10, 2018 Draft Minutes.doc

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

3

November 14, 2018 CAC Meeting V. A) Como Lake Management Plan Update (Fossum) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 8, 2018 CRWD Citizen Advisory Committee Britta Belden, Water Resource Project Manager Como Lake Management Plan Update – Potential In-Lake & Watershed Management Actions

Background The development of the Como Lake Management Plan has been underway since April 2018. The CRWD Board of Managers and the Citizen Advisory Committee have been involved throughout the development process by providing input and guidance on key deliverables along the way. In addition, two stakeholder groups were established to inform the development of the Como Lake Management Plan—the Agency Advisory Group (AAG) and the Public Advisory Group (PAG). The first meetings for both the AAG and the PAG and were focused on gathering input on Como Lake issues and goals. The second meetings for both groups are being held fall 2018 and will focus on reviewing potential actions for in-lake management and watershed management to achieve total phosphorus (TP) load reductions in Como Lake.

Issues Staff have been evaluating potential actions for in-lake and watershed management for Como Lake. These will be reviewed at the fall 2018 meetings with the AAG (11/8/18) and PAG (12/6/18). Please find enclosed the guidance review document that was shared with the AAG that provides context and background of the potential in-lake and watershed management actions.

Staff will review the lists of potential actions for in-lake and watershed management that were developed for Como Lake with the CAC. Requested Action Review and comment on the potential in-lake and watershed management actions tables. enc: Guidance document for reviewing the Como Lake potential in-lake and watershed management actions tables

W:\06 Projects\Como Lake Projects\2018 Como Lake Management Plan\Board & CAC\CAC Memo_CLMP_Nov 2018 Update_11-14-18.docx

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

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 5, 2018 Como Lake Management Plan Agency Advisory Group (AAG) Britta Belden, Water Resource Project Manager Guidance document for reviewing the Como Lake potential in-lake and watershed management actions tables

Background The development of the Como Lake Management Plan has been underway since April 2018. Two stakeholder groups were established to inform the development of the Como Lake Management Plan—the Agency Advisory Group (AAG) and the Public Advisory Group (PAG).

The first meetings for both the AAG and the PAG were held in this past summer 2018 and were focused on gathering input on Como Lake issues and goals. The second meetings for both groups are being held fall 2018 and will focus on reviewing potential actions for in-lake management and watershed management to achieve total phosphorus (TP) load reductions in Como Lake. The second AAG meeting is scheduled for November 8th, 2018 (10am-12pm). The PAG meeting will be held on December 6th, 2018 (6pm-8pm).

Purpose of Memo The purpose of this memo to provide guidance to the AAG for reviewing the potential in-lake and watershed management actions. The potential actions for both in-lake and watershed management are organized into a series of tables which are included as enclosures in this memo. Ahead of the AAG meeting on November 8th, it is requested that the AAG review each table and come prepared to discuss them. Each table includes a significant amount of technical information, so this memo can be used as a guide for review and provides interpretation of the purpose of each table and what the numbers and descriptions represent. At the meeting, we will be seeking feedback on: •

•

Which action(s) do you think has the best potential to achieve goals in Como Lake and why?

Any action that isn't on this table that should be considered and why?

Potential In-Lake Management Actions Table 1 is a list of potential in-lake management actions that could be considered for Como Lake. Eventually, in-lake management actions will be selected from this table based on their ability to meet the stated goals and objectives in the Como Lake Management Plan. This is not a table of recommended actions specifically for Como Lake, but instead presents a menu of options for more detailed consideration. Once actions are selected from this menu of options, they will be further refined into recommended strategies (i.e. timing of selected actions and/or combination of actions in the near-term and long-term). The final Como Lake Management Plan will include Table 1 to show that many common in-lake management actions were appropriately considered.

The options listed in Table 1 under “Management Action” are a suite of literature-based lake management strategies that are typically applied to lakes for reducing internal phosphorus loads, managing algae, and restoring ecosystem balance. For each management action listed, the table describes the intended “control type” of the action (biological, physical, chemical), a brief description of what each action entails, and what Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

component of the in-lake water quality driver is being targeted by the specific management action (e.g. algae, anoxia, food web, internal P load, etc). In addition, the table identifies which actions could realistically be applied to Como Lake, the reliability of that action for being effective, the time commitment required for each action, and a general magnitude of cost to be expected. Pros and cons are also listed to assist in understanding the implications and limitations of each action. From this table of potential in-lake management actions, we will select actions that will work towards identified goals that are applicable for conditions in Como Lake.

At the AAG meeting, LimnoTech will review each of these possible actions and describe their feasibility for Como Lake.

Potential Watershed Management Actions The watershed recommendations in the 2002 Como Lake Strategic Management Plan (2002 CLSMP) were based on a watershed model calibrated in 2000. Since then, there have been some changes in land use and other model input parameters in the Como watershed. In addition, technology improvements (i.e. improved GIS layers) have resulted in a greater capability to fine-tune the watershed model. To ensure that the best estimates of watershed loads were utilized in the updated Como Lake Management Plan, a model recalibration was completed fall 2018. The watershed model recalibration includes the most recent land use conditions and considers the numerous structural BMPS that have been constructed since the year 2000.

Figure 1 shows a map of the new Como subwatershed delineations and the updated subwatershed naming convention (Como A-M). The new delineations were determined during the model recalibration effort and are based on: 1) storm sewer discharge points (outfalls) to Como Lake, and 2) the subsurface storm sewer network extending upstream of the discharge point.

The storm sewer networks in the Como watershed are complex, particularly in the Como B subwatershed.

Figure 2 is a schematic of generalized flow routing in the Como B subwatershed to help illustrate how overflow is routed through four separate outfalls during certain flow conditions. Under normal flow conditions, all of Como B subwatershed discharges through one outfall to Como Lake. Under high flow conditions, overflow from the Como B subwatershed main pipe is routed to four separate outfall pipes that discharge directly to Como Lake. It is important to understand the Como B subwatershed flow routing during overflow events because the model outputs for TP loads are directly affected. For the model recalibration effort, the Como B subwatershed flow routing was factored into the watershed loading calculations.

Table 2 provides a summary of the Como subwatershed model calibration outputs for TP loads to Como Lake.

The table includes subwatershed name, subwatershed area, baseline TP load (year 2000), and current TP load (year 2018). “Baseline TP Load (Year 2000)” refers to modeled Como subwatershed TP loads in the year 2000 and only includes watershed BMPs that were installed before the year 2000. The “Current TP Load (Year 2018)” refers to present-day modeled TP loads and includes load reductions achieved through BMPs installed since the year 2000. Table 2 also lists TP load reductions achieved since 2000 by BMPs (Baseline TP Load Current TP Load = TP Reduction (lbs)) and the percent TP load reduction achieved (Current) for each subwatershed since baseline.

Since the 2002 CLSMP, several watershed BMP feasibility studies have been completed that evaluate optimal locations for BMP placement within the Como watershed to work toward achieving TP load reductions. Table 3 provides a list of specific potential structural BMP projects that have been identified in these existing feasibility studies and their estimated load reductions by practice in pounds/year. Each potential structural BMP is listed under the Como subwatershed that it would be constructed in. The “BMP Type” is listed for each potential BMP but are generalized into broad structural BMP categories (e.g. Filtration, Infiltration, Bioretention, etc) instead of a specific project description. It is important to emphasize that the BMPs listed in Table 3 are potential projects and have not been constructed to date.

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

Table 4 is the Como Watershed TP Load Reduction Plan and provides a summary of load reductions achieved through existing BMPs (Year 2018) and potential structural and non-structural BMPs to be implemented in the future. The table is set up so that “Baseline TP Load (Year 2000)” is listed in the first row and all following rows of BMPs categorized under “TP Load Reductions (lbs)” are subtracted from baseline to reach the “Total Target TP Load” and “Total Target Reduction (%)”. The “Total Target TP Load” represents the projected TP load to Como Lake by subwatershed following the implementation of the BMPs listed under “TP Load Reductions (lbs)”. There are five different categories of “TP Load Reductions (lbs)” BMPs listed in Table 4: 1. Existing Practices – includes the total TP load reductions from existing BMPs that have been constructed since the year 2000.

2. Structural - Identified – a summation of the total estimated load reductions from potential structural BMPs listed in Table 3 for each subwatershed. These potential projects were identified in existing feasibility studies.

3. Structural – Unidentified – includes unforeseen or unplanned future structural BMP opportunities in the Como watershed, such as curb cut rain gardens or innovative BMP practices.

4. Permit BMPs – includes future potential redevelopment projects in the Como subwatershed that could be subject to CRWD’s permitting rules (i.e. parcels ≥ 1 acre). Potential load reductions from these BMP projects were estimated.

5. Non-Structural – includes a TP load reduction estimate for non-structural BMP practices (e.g. street sweeping, storm drain maintenance, community leaf cleanups) based on enhanced street sweeping studies. The estimation considers the total area of connected impervious in each subwatershed.

The last column “All” sums the total “TP Load Reductions”, the “Total Target TP Load”, and the “Total Target Reduction (%)” from the individual subwatersheds to evaluate reductions on the whole watershed scale. From this, a total target reduction of 68% is achieved for the whole Como watershed if all existing and potential TP Load Reduction BMPs are implemented over time. This exceeds the 60% watershed reduction goal listed in the TMDL. Overall, Table 4 helps guide where continued efforts should be focused on the subwatershed scale to achieve watershed-wide load reduction goals.

Requested Action Please review tables ahead of the second AAG meeting on November 8, 2018 (10:00am-12:00pm) and come prepared to discuss them. If you are unable to attend the meeting, comments or questions may be submitted to Britta Belden (britta@capitolregionwd.org). enc:

Table 1— Potential in-lake management actions for Como Lake Table 2— Subwatershed total phosphorus loads to Como Lake Table 3— Potential structural BMP projects from existing feasibility studies Table 4— Como Watershed Total Phosphorus Load Reduction Plan Figure 1— Map of Como subwatershed delineations (2018) Figure 2— Schematic of the Como B subwatershed generalized flow routing

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

Table 1: Potential in-lake management actions for Como Lake

Management Action

Control Type

Algaecides

chemical

Hypolimnetic aeration/oxygenation

physical

Brief Description of Action

Chemical application to kill standing stock of algae Algae Typically a mechanical system that circulates or oxygenates water Anoxia to prevent anoxia.

Inflow/end-of-pipe chemical treatment (e.g. alum based compounds) chemical Biomanipulation through Fisheries Mgmt biological (Long-term) Biomanipulation through Fisheries Mgmt biological (Short-term)

Treatment of stormwater with a chemical agent that binds with phosphorus before it enters the lake.

Altering of the biological community (typically fish) to increase abundance of predators or herbivores.

Altering of the biological community (typically fish) to increase abundance of predators or herbivores.

Drawdown Shoreline restoration/riparian management

Drains large volumes of water for extended periods of time.

May include bank stablization, erosion control, native plant, and/or habitat restoration actions.

physical physical

P coagulants (Alum & alum-based compounds)

chemical

P coagulants (Ca & Fe)

chemical

P coagulants (Other)

chemical

Dilution and flushing

physical

Mechanical harvesting

physical

Native plant community restoration

Target

Chemical application to the lake with a compound that binds with phosphorus in water column and phosphorus diffusing from sediments.

Addition of metals salts binds with phosphorus making it unavailable to algae.

Addition of proprietary compounds (e.g. Phoslock) that bind with phosphorus making it unavailable to algae.

Reducing the nutrient concentration by adding more water (dilution) and increases the water exchange (flushing).

Would this action work towards Reliability goals for Como Lake?

Duration

Application

General Magnitude of Cost

yes

High

Short

Frequent-Seasonal

Medium

yes

High

Short

Continuous

Medium-High

External P load

yes

Medium

Long

Continuous

High-Medium

Food web

yes

High

Medium

Occasional

Food web

yes

Low

Medium

Food web

yes

Medium

Medium

Habitat, erosion control.

yes

High

Medium-Lon Variable

Pros

Immediate response; cost-effective Effective at improving DO when designed correctly & maintained

Cons Short duration, can promote Cyanobacteria growth, not a sustainable management action Can be costly to maintain

Low-HIgh

Very effective at reducing P load to receiving waters Improves ecological function; can reduce algal density through zooplankton feeding

Need storage capacity / settling basin for flocculated water Requires long-term maintenance; Ineffective w/o additional management actions in eutrophic lakes

Seasonal

Low-Medium

Can improve fishery in short-term.

Short-term responses not expected

Occasional

Low-High

Can be effective for macrophyte control Helps to reduce sediment inputs, improves ecological function.

Can be costly and labor intensive.

Limited cons are action specific.

Needs a buffer in alkaline lakes, which can add to cost. May need multiple applications depending on extent of eutrophication and sediment P. Often under-dosed; requires special handling Implications for pH and dissolved oxgen - requires special considerations; requires special handling Implications for pH and dissolved oxgen - requires special considerations; requires special handling

Low-High

Internal P load

yes

High

Variable

Variable

Medium-low

Internal P load

yes

High

Variable

Variable

Medium-low

Internal P load

yes

High

Variable

Variable

Medium-low

Very effective and safe when dosed properly; well-tested, broadly applied and understood; cost-effective Long-record of application/effectiveness; based on well understood geochemical reactions Long-record of application/effectiveness; based on well understood geochemical reactions

Internal P load

yes

High

Short

Continuous

Low-High

Indirect control of internal P loading observed

Macrophyte control

yes

Medium

Short

Seasonal

Medium-High

biological

Mechanical raking/removal of nuisance, rooted-vegetation.

Removal of nuisance vegetation and establishment of native vegetation.

Macrophytes

yes

Medium

Medium

Variable

Low

Removes dense macrophyte growth in short-term low-effort restoration, community egnagement opportunities

Herbicides

chemical

Chemical application to kill nuisance / invasive macrophytes.

High

Short

Seasonal

Low-Medium

Dredging

physical

Medium

Long

Rare

High

Microbes and enzymes

biological

Algae

no

Untested

N/A

N/A

N/A

Shading Dye

chemical

Dredgeing and removal of sediments.

Typically proprietary compounds that claim to control algae or manipulate nutrients.

Addition of dye to lake to limit light penetration to control algal growth.

Macrophytes yes Reduced internal loading through removal yes of nutrient-rich sediments.

Algae

no

Untested

Medium

Seasonal

Low

Artificial Circulation

physical

Typically a mechanical system that extends the depth of circulated water/prevents anoxia/stratification.

Anoxia

no

High

Short

Continuous

Medium

Hypolimnetic withdrawal

physical

Removal of nutrient-rich hypolimnetic water.

Nutrient reduction

no

High

Long

Continuous

Medium

Some products can be selective Removes P in sediment thereby reducting internal loading

Increased vertical mixing; decreased algal excretory products Operationally difficult; expensive machinery for single lake use; usually requires mulitple applications; not effective from some macrophytes; not species selective may require biotic and abiotic controls to be successful; more challenging when invasive species are problematic Toxicity; public perception; predicting reemergent community Expensive, labor intensive Unknown efficacy

reduces photosynthecally available light; non-toxic

May not control surface or shallow water blooms

Effective at improving DO when designed correctly & maintained; chemical oxydation of reduced substances Reduced anoxic duration, removes nutrients from the system

Some adverse affects could include cyanobacteria promotion, resuspension of particulate P, reduced clarity Thermal imbalance, need storage capacity or treatment option for withdrawn water

Table 2: Subwatershed TP loads to Como Lake - Baseline, current and reductions Current TP Load (Year 2018) (lbs)

Overflow Subwatershed

Como A

--

36.6

2%

11.2

11.2

0

0%

Como Ba

--

1173.9

69%

388.8

294.1

94.7

24%

--

Como B2

51.3

3%

11.5

11

0.5

4%

--

Como B3

78.8

5%

10.2

10.2

0

0%

--

Como B4

177.4

10%

32.2

32.2

0

0%

--

Como B5

814.8

48%

31.6

16.5

15.1

48%

Como C

--

80.8

5%

20.9

18.1

2.8

13%

Como D

--

195.3

11%

98.3

92.5

5.8

6%

Como E

--

72.2

4%

41.3

41.3

0

0%

Como F

--

44.5

3%

25.6

15.6

10

39%

Como G

--

20.7

1%

16.2

6.2

10

62%

Como H

--

17.8

1%

10.5

9.5

0.9

9%

Como I

--

11.7

1%

6.3

3.2

3.1

49%

Como J

--

19

1%

10

10

0

0%

Como K

--

15.4

1%

8.1

8.1

0

0%

Como L

--

0.5

0.03%

0

0

0

0%

Como M

--

16.9

1%

9.4

9.4

0

0%

732.1

589.1

142.9

20%

Total a

Baseline TP Load (Year 2000) (lbs)

Subwatershed

Subwatershed Area (Acres)

1705.3

% of Total Como Watershed Area

TP Reduction (lbs)

TP Reduction %

Como B subwatershed has four overflow subwatersheds that discharge to separate outfalls during certain flow conditions. See Como B schematic for flow routing.

Table 3: Identified Potential Structural BMP Projects and TP Load Reductions from Existing Feasibility Studies Potential Structural BMP Projects

BMP Type

Como TP Load Reduction Target (lbs/year)

Como B Golf Course Parking Lot Reconstruction Lexington & Como Blvd Intersection Como Blvd Reconstruction - Regional Treatment East Golf Course Ponds IESF

1

NW Golf Course Pond - IESF Bench Golf Course Parking Lot Pond - IESF Bench Zoo Combo - Filtration Basin & Infiltration Basin Como Pavilion North - Rain Gardens

Filtration/Infiltration Infiltration Filtration/Infiltration Stormwater Pond Retrofit Stormwater Pond Retrofit Stormwater Pond Retrofit Filtration/Infiltration Bioretention Subwatershed Total

1.8 2.6 40.7 21.7 24.2 18.7 19.5 1.6

Infiltration

8.9

130.8

Como C Como Pavilion south Regional 2 - Infiltration Stream and Underground Infiltration

8.9

Subwatershed Total Como D McMurray Field Capture and Reuse - Regional Treatment Lexington, Como & Horton Ave Median Rain Garden at Horton and Van Slyke

Reuse/Infiltration Filtration/Infiltration Bioretention Subwatershed Total

40.3 5.8 1.0

Filtration/Infiltration Bioretention Bioretention Subwatershed Total

28.9 2.6 0.3

Bioretention Subwatershed Total

1.2

Filtration/Infiltration Subwatershed Total

2.6

Filtration/Infiltration Subwatershed Total

2.5

Filtration/Infiltration Subwatershed Total

2.0

Filtration/Infiltration Subwatershed Total

2.4

47.1

Como E Chatsworth St - Regional Treatment Median Rain Gardens at Argyle and Van Slyke Rain gardens

31.8

Como F Nagasaki Road

1.2

Como H Como Blvd Reconstruction - Regional Treatment1 Como J Como Blvd Reconstruction - Regional Treatment1 Como K Como Blvd Reconstruction - Regional Treatment1 Como M Como Blvd Reconstruction - Regional Treatment1

1

The Como Blvd reconstruction load reduction estimate is based on regional treatment encompassing multiple subwatersheds. The total estimated reduction was apportioned to each subwatershed based on its contributing area.

2.6

2.5

2.0

2.4

Table 4: Como Watershed TP Load Reduction Plan Subwatershed Como A Baseline TP Load (Year 2000) (lbs) Existing Practices (Year 2018) Potential Structural - Identifieda TP Load Reductions Potential Structural - Unidentifiedb (lbs) Future Permit BMPsc Potential Non-Structurald Total Target TP Load (lbs) Total Target Reduction (%)

11.2 0.0 0.0 ?

0.0 0.8 10.4 7%

Como B

Como C

474.3 110.3 130.8 ?

45.4 28.4 159.4 66%

20.9 2.8 8.9 ?

0.0 2.0 7.1 66%

a

Projects evaluated in existing feasibility studies

b

Unforseen or unplanned future opportunities. E.g. curb cut rain gardens, innovative practices

c

Estimated future redevelopment projects subject to CRWD rules

d

Reduction estimates based on enhanced street sweeping studies. Actual practices may vary.

Como D 98.3 5.8 47.1 ?

33.3 3.8 8.3 92%

Como E 41.3 0.0 31.8 ?

0.0 1.9 7.5 82%

Como F 25.6 10.0 1.2 ?

0.6 1.6 12.2 52%

Como G 16.2 10.0 0.0 ?

1.7 0.6 3.9 76%

Como H 10.5 1.0 2.6 ?

0.0 0.9 6.0 43%

Como I 6.3 3.1 0.0 ?

0.0 0.7 2.5 61%

Como J 10.0 0.0 2.5 ?

0.0 1.4 6.1 39%

Como K 8.1 0.0 2.0 ?

0.0 1.1 5.0 39%

Como L 0.0 0.0 0.0 ?

0.0 0.0 0.0 0%

Como M 9.4 0.0 2.4 ?

0.0 1.6 5.5 42%

All 732.1 143.0 229.3 0.0 81.0 44.9 233.8 68%

B5_6a

B5_6b

ComoB5

ComoB4 B5_6c

B4_2

ComoB2 B3_1

B2_1 B5_5a

B5_5b

ComoB3

B5_5j B2_2

B5_5e

B5_4h B5_4k

B5_4j B5_4f

B5_4g

B5_5f

B5_5c

B5_5d

B5_2

B5_5g B5_5h B5_5i

B5_4e

B1_2

B5_4i

A_1

B5_4b

B5_4d

B5_3k

B2_0

ComoB1

B5_4a

B5_4c

B1_3 B5_3a

B5_3b

B5_3j

B1_4

B5_3e

B5_3c

B5_0

B5_1a

K_2 A_2

ComoL K_3 K_1

C_1

B5_3g C_2

C_4b

J_1

A_9 C_6b C_5

ComoI

A_10

C_4d

C_4c

M_2

ComoK

L_1

B5_1b

B5_3f B5_3h

ComoM

M_1

B1_5

B5_3d B5_3i

B4_1

B1_1

ComoC

C_3

I_2

ComoH

A_3

ComoJ

C_4a

H_1a H_1c

C_6a I_1

A_4

D_1

H_1b

A_8

D_2 C_7

D_4e

A_5

D_3b

ComoA

D_4c D_4b D_5d

D_3a D_5c

G_2b

A_7

D_4a

D_4d

A_6 F_1

E_1

ComoG G_1

D_5a F_2

E_2

D_5b

F_3b

ComoE

ComoD

F_3c D_6

G_2a

E_3

F_3a

ComoF F_4

D_7

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

¯

Como Park P8 Subwatersheds

Figure 1 - Como Lake Outfall Subwatersheds

Cities

Scale: AS SHOWN

Outfall Non-Contributing Como2

0

750

1,500

3,000 Feet

Drawn by: HRR

Checked by: AJS

Project No.: 6475-021

Sheet: Date: 10/24/2018 1 of 1

Figure 2: Schematic of the Como B Subwatershed Generalized Flow Routing

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B2

B3

B4

B5

Subwatershed

Golf Course Ponds

B

Normal Flow Overflow

Outfall

November 14, 2018 CAC Meeting VII.) Project and Program Updates

B) 2018 Rule Revisions (Kelley)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 7, 2018 CAC Members Forrest Kelley, PE Regulatory Division Manager 2018 Rule Revision Update

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

Issues CRWD and RWMWD staff presented the attached slideshow to review potential rule amendments. The topic that created the most discussion was proposed increases to the Cost Cap for linear projects and Stormwater Impact Fund contribution to $75,000 per acre and $100,000 per acre respectively. The attached memo from Wenck summarizes the data compiled from past linear projects that met the cost cap.

RWMWD staff provided cost share data for nearly 70 surface stormwater BMPs to determine an average construction cost of approximately $108,000 per acre.

A copy of the draft meeting notes is attached, and staff will review any questions regarding the proposed amendments and surrounding discussion.

Staff intend to provide a draft copy of the revised rules for informal review this fall, prior to going out for official 60-day review period this winter.

Requested Action None, for review and comment only Enc:

September 19, 2018 TAC Meeting Slides (Digital Copy Only) Draft TAC Meeting Notes Wenck Cost Cap Memo

W:\07 Programs\Rules\2018\CAC Memo 2018 Rules Update.docx

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

Joint Technical Advisory Committee for District Rules September 19, 2018

Joint Technical Advisory Committee Discussion Topics • • • • • •

Flood Freeboard Clarifications 2” Runoff Credit Maximum Cost Cap Analysis Regional Compliance Language Electronic Submittals.

Administrative Corrections and Clarifications.

Table 3 – Flood control and Freeboard requirements Condition

New Habitable Buildings

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

Subsurface Stormwater Management BMPs 

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



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



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





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

Low Floors and Underground BMPs

Flood Control and Freeboard Definitions Replace existing Low Floor definition: The finished surface of the lowest floor of a structure.

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

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

Maximum 2” Runoff Depth 



 

Current 2” max BMP sizing criteria created conflict with filtration requirement (1.1 * 1.82 = 2.002 inches) Intent is to ensure BMPs are not oversized, and underutilized Atlas-14 1-year, 24-hour rainfall is 2.46” Increase BMP sizing and banking cap to 2.5”

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/06/25/severe-weather

Cost Cap Analysis 

Compiled Cost data for 23 linear projects that utilized the cost cap Of the 23, two were constructed when the cost cap was $20,000 per acre  Resolution increasing the cost cap to $30,000 per acre was adopted on March 5, 2008  The oldest project with the $30,000 cost cap is 10-003 (CCLRT) 

$/cf Storage Increase Since 2007

Storage Constructed/Impervious Acre Decrease since 2007

1.1� Standard

Cost Cap Analysis 







Cost per cf of storage has increased from $14 to $34/cf over the past 10 years (avg 9.3% increase/yr) Adding average cost increase to current cost cap results is $73,000/acre impervious Estimated cost to treat 1 acre of linear impervious is $136,000 Propose $75,000 linear cost cap

Stormwater Impact Fund (SIF) 

BMP construction cost data analysis 68 BMPs constructed 2015-2018  Above-ground infiltration, filtration  Public and private projects  Does not incorporate maintenance costs  $108,238 per acre of impervious ($27.11/cubic ft) 



Propose SIF of $100,000 per acre of impervious 

Maintains linear cost cap 25% less than Impact Fund rate

BMP Construction Costs $/cf

Impact Fees Elsewhere 

Per acre of impervious: Chesapeake Bay: $150,000  San Francisco: $600,000+  Pittsburgh: $150,000 to $200,000  New York: $129,000  Roseville, MN: $90,000 

Regional Compliance Sequencing Exception 

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

Regional Compliance Example Future BMP

Construction Project

Application requirements to allow for electronic submittals •

•

•

Paper copies no longer required for plans, other application materials RWMWD has permit submittal capabilities on new website Required exhibits, Rule B

Other Administrative Items and Clarifications

• •

Volume credit cap not just for banking Incorporate requirements in NPDES • • •

•

•

Restrict infiltration when rates are > 8.3 in/hr State guidance for infiltration in DWSMAs Rule F additions to comply with NPDES/MS4 requirements: dewatering, hazardous waste management, temporary sediment basins

Cost cap unit costs provided by applicant reviewed per project General grammar, clarifications on definitions

Other Comments 

Request to exempt stormwater management requirements on sidewalks 



3ft width in Impervious surface definition

Request to amend filtration credit

Additional Considerations • •

•

•

Escrow fee for hired contractors on public projects?

RWMWD: Increase in application fee (does not apply to public entities) RWMWD: Increase in inspection/enforcement charges Require site-specific O&M plan for BMPs

Next Steps 

CRWD/RWMWD draft rule revisions following meeting



Send to TAC for informal review: Fall 2018



60 –Day Review Period: Winter 2019



Board approval: Spring 2019

DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regional Compliance Language.

• Minimal Discussion Other Administrative Clarifications Steve: • Is there any guidance on the definition of ‘additional engineering’ when it comes to infiltration restrictions, in DWSMAs for example? Guidance and recommendations are provided in the MN Stormwater Manual from MDH and MPCA. Sidewalk Impervious Exemption Request Barb: • Green Infrastructure on streets was a frequent topic a few years ago. St. Paul is now moving towards being more pedestrian-friendly, bicycle friendly, which means more sidewalks and bike lanes. Many competing interests.

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

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

Forrest:

•

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Memo To:

Mr. Forrest Kelley, Capitol Region Watershed District

From:

Todd Shoemaker, PE, CFM Eric Osterdyk, EIT

Date:

September 27, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equivalent Volume = Volume Retained + Volume Filtered / 1.82

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

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

Figure 1. Cost estimate per effective storage.

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

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

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

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

2 W:\07 Programs\Rules\2018\M - Kelley, Forrest re Rules Research_V5.docx

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

Figure 2. Storage provided per impervious acre.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 W:\07 Programs\Rules\2018\M - Kelley, Forrest re Rules Research_V5.docx

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

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

4 W:\07 Programs\Rules\2018\M - Kelley, Forrest re Rules Research_V5.docx

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee 2018 Agenda Plan CAC Meeting Date January 10, 2018

District Initiatives Friends of the Mississippi River Partner Grant Presentation, Adam Flett Phalen Creek Daylighting Study CRWD Research Program Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary Lift Station.

Saint Paul Natural Resources Partner Grant Programs Adopt a Drain Program 595 Aldine History Project Strategic/Watershed Management Planning

CAC Initiatives 2018 CAC Meeting Plan Watershed Steward Awards Event Service Learning Student Presentation

April 11, 2018

Great River Greening Partner Grant Program Annual Report Update

May 9, 2018

Building Update 2018 Rules Revision Update Como Lake Management Plan Update CRWD History Study Update McCarrons AIS Plan

Election of Officers Student Learner Program Urban Roots-Speechcraft 2018 Tour Draft Itinerary CAC Tour Confirmation Service Learning Student Urban Roots-Speechcraft

June 13, 2018

Tour

Summer Tour

July 18, 2018

2019 Budget Diversity Strategic Plan Strategic Planning Como Lake Management Plan 2019 Budget and Levy Targeted Watershed Program Strategic Planning Session Fall 2018 Committee Assignments PRAP Update Building Update Targeted Watershed Program Update Como Lake Management Plan Update GreenCorps Member Building Update Como Lake Management Plan Update Seminary Pond Update

Service Learning Student

February 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

August 8, 2018 September 12, 2018

October 10, 2018

November 14, 2018

2018 Student Learner Program 2017 Watershed Steward Awards Program Review Service Learning Student Urban Root-Speechcraft Program

2018 Awards Program Adoption Service Learning Student Watershed Steward Awards Program

Watershed Steward Awards Program

Watershed Steward Awards Program Service Learning Student

2018 Rules Revisions December 12, 2018

2017 Reappointment Recommendations 2019 Partner Grants Program Updated: November 7, 2018 W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2018 CAC Agenda Plan 8-8-18.doc

Watershed Steward Awards