November 18, 2020

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, November 18, 2020, 6:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting).

Until further notice Board meetings will only be available via telephone and/or the web-based application Go To Meeting. You will not be able to attend meetings in person. You can join the meeting electronically by clinking on this link https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/933905837 and following the directions or dial in using your phone: 1 (646) 7493112 Access Code: 933-905-837 Please visit www.capitolregionwd.org to get additional CRWD COVID-19 information.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

I.

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

II.

Public Comment A) 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) 19-020 Harambee Elementary Addition and Remodel – Closure (Martinkosky) IV.

Special Reports – Como Lake Management Plan Implementation Update (Belden)

V.

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the November 4, 2020 Workshop and Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve Accounts Payable/Receivables for October (Sylvander) C) AR: Approve Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application for the TBI Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study (Zwonitzer) D) AR: Authorize CRWD Annual Meeting Delegates to vote on MAWD Resolutions consistent with Resolutions Committee Recommendations (Doneux) E) AR: Approve new date and time for reschedule December 2nd Board Meeting (Doneux)

VI.

Unfinished Business A) Science Museum of Minnesota Update (Zwonitzer) B) Willow Reserve Update (Zwonitzer) C) Midway Peace Park Update (Eleria) D) Seminary Pond Update (Eleria) E) Board Bylaws and Committee Update (Doneux)

VII.

General Information A) Board of Manager’s Updates

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

VIII. Next Meetings A) Next Board Meeting Date and Time TBD - No Workshop and Regular Meeting Only B) Wednesday, December 9, 2020 - 7:00 PM - CAC Meeting IX.

Adjournment

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

November 18, 2020 III. Permit Applications A. Permit Close Out (Martinkosky) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 12, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Luke Martinkosky Permit Closeouts

Background Construction activity is complete for permit #19-020 Harambee Elementary Addition and Remodel.

Issues Harambee Elementary Addition and Remodel This permit was issued for the construction of two building additions, reconstructed sidewalks and bituminous parking lot, and related utilities. Stormwater is treated via one filtration basin on the north side of the school. The site is stable and the stormwater treatment systems have been confirmed functional. There is no surety to return.

Action Requested Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #19-020 Harambee Elementary Addition and Remodel.

Z:\07 Programs\Permitting\Board Memos\2020-11-18 Permit Closeout Board Memo.docx

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

November 18, 2020 IV. Special Reports— Como Lake Management Plan Implementation Update (Belden) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 12, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Britta Belden, Water Resource Project Manager Como Lake Management Plan Implementation Update

Background The Como Lake Management Plan (CLMP) was adopted by the Board of Managers on May 15, 2019. The CLMP presents an adaptive management plan framework for achieving water quality goals for Como Lake through in-lake, watershed, and community actions over the next 20 years.

As part of the CLMP adaptive management approach, a short-term implementation plan was developed that defines actions to be implemented over the first three years (2019-2021). For the actions in the 2019-2021 shortterm implementation plan, each were assigned a general schedule for implementation (i.e. 2019, 2020, 2021, or ongoing). The short-term implementation plan will be evaluated and revised every three years based on how the lake responds to implemented actions. Then, an updated short-term implementation plan will be defined for the following three years (2022-2024), and so forth.

Issues Throughout 2020, staff have been working on the implementation of several actions identified in the current short-term implementation. Specifically, in the last year staff have either implemented or been in the development stages of the following actions: • • • • • • • •

Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (February 2020) Herbicide Treatment of Curly-leaf Pondweed (April 2020) Alum Treatment (May 2020) Annual Lake Monitoring – Chemical, Physical, Biological (April-November 2020) Shoreline Assessment (September 2020) Shoreline Management Plan (In Progress, anticipated: December 2020) Fisheries Management Plan Development (In Progress, anticipated: December 2020) Community Engagement Efforts – Water Wildlife Signage/Stencils, Walking Tour, etc.

Staff will provide an update to the Board of Managers by reviewing the specifics of each Como Lake project listed above.

Requested Action None requested.

W:\06 Projects\Como Lake Projects\2018 Como Lake Management Plan\Board & CAC\Brd Memo_CLMP Implementation Update_11-12-20.docx

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

November 18, 2020 Regular Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of November 4, 2020 Board Workshop (Sylvander)

Board Workshop of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, November 4, 2020, 5:00 p.m. (Board Workshop) via telephone and/or the web-based application Go To Meeting.

BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES I.

A)

Call to Order of Board Workshop (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins, remote Hawona Sullivan Janzen, remote Shawn Murphy, remote Rick Sanders, remote Mary Texer, remote

B)

Staff Present Public Attendees Mark Doneux, CRWD Bob Simonet, CAC Forrest Kelley, CRWD, remote Michelle Sylvander, CRWD, remote James Mogen, Ramsey County Attorney, remote

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda.

Motion 20-200: Approve the Agenda of November 4, 2020.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved II.

Board Governance

Administrator Doneux reviewed that in 1999, the Board of Managers establish the first Bylaws that provide rules for governing and the conduct and procedure of business for the Board. This was one (1) year after the formation of the District and prior to hiring staff. The Bylaws were updated in 2004 and last updated 11 years ago in 2009. In 2002, the Board first established several Board Committees to conduct business of the organization. At that time seven (7) committees were formed. Since 2002, the Board has expanded the number of committees to thirteen (13).

In evaluating the current District Bylaws, they appear, in large part, to be effective and functional.

However, since our move we should update Article I, A. Office. In reviewing the Article III District Board of Managers, Section C. Duties of Officers, these appear to be somewhat outdated. Over time, staff have taken on many of the administerial duties of some Board Officer positions. Since 2017, the District has welcomed three (3) new Managers to the Board so a review and update would be appropriate at this time.

Administrator Doneux drafted a Board Governance Summary and Recommendations document for the managers to review and consider when evaluating the Bylaws. Like the Bylaws, the Board Committees have evolved and expanded overtime. In considering the current list of Board Committees, Administrator Doneux recommended reducing the number of committees and broadening out the topics for more meaningful committee assignments.

Managers discussed addressing meetings being held remotely due to COVID-19. Attorney Mogen recommended continuing to treat offsite board meetings as a one-time event. Managers discussed the 48hour notification noted in the Bylaws. Manager Texer asked for clarification about canceling a meeting.

Attorney Mogen replied that a meeting cannot be conducted until it is properly called to order.

Manager Texer and Manager Sullivan Janzen agreed to serve on the Nominating Committee. Administrator Doneux made recommendations for updating some of the committee names such as changing education & communications to communications and outreach. The committee for Real Estate to be changed to Building Operations.

Administrator Doneux added if the Board were to make changes to either the Bylaws and/or Committees, those changes should be done in time for the annual meeting to be held on December 16th.

No Action was taken. Workshop for informational and discussion only.

III.

Adjourn Board Workshop

Motion 20-201: Adjournment of the November 4, 2020 Board Governance workshop at 6:00P.M. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander

November 18, 2020 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of November 4, 2020 Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, November 4, 2020, 6:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting) via telephone and/or the web-based application Go To Meeting.

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) A) Attendance

Managers Joe Collins, remote Shawn Murphy, remote Rick Sanders, remote Hawona Sullivan Janzen, remote Mary Texer, remote

B)

Staff Present Public Attendees Mark Doneux, CRWD Brandon Eleger Anna Eleria, CRWD – remote Bob Simonet, CAC Rachel Funke, CRWD - remote Elizabeth Hosch, CRWD – remote Luke Martinkosky, CRWD - remote Michelle Sylvander, CRWD – remote James Mogen, Ramsey County Attorney, remote

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda.

Motion 20-202: Approve the Agenda November 4, 2020. Remove 6A Ford site update Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved II.

Public Comment

No Public Comments.

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates A) 16-024 Hmong Academy Expansion– Closure (Hosch)

Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #16-024 for Hmong Academy Expansion. This permit was issued for the construction of a school expansion and new athletic fields. Stormwater is treated via three unground infiltration systems. The site is stable, and the stormwater treatment systems have been confirmed

functional. One small area of erosion on the border with the adjacent railroad will be addressed by the railroad this fall as coordinated with the applicant. There is a $29,445 surety to return.

Motion 20-203: Approve $29,445 surety return and Certificate of Completion for permit #16-024, Hmong Academy Expansion.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved B) 18-015 Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer – Closure (Martinkosky) Mr. Martinkosky reviewed permit #18-015 for Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer. This permit was issued for sanitary sewer rehabilitation in Roseville and Saint Paul. The permit for the portion of the project within Villa Park in Roseville was transferred to the City of Roseville via permit amendments on November 12, 2019 and July 8, 2020. The area of the project outside of Villa Park was approved for closure by the Board on August 19,2 020. The site stormwater is treated through stabilization of two eroding hillsides and withdrawal of 485 cubic feet from the City of Roseville volume bank, approved by the Board of Managers on August 19, 2020. The portion of the site within Villa Park is stable. No surety was required for this public project.

Motion 20-204: Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #18-015, Met Council Villa Park Sanitary (Portion within Villa Park).

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved C) 20-023 2383 University (Hosch) Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #20-023 for 2383 University. The applicant, Kraus-Anderson Development will demo the existing building and associated parking lot. Construction of multi-level apartment complex with sub-grade parking and associated utilities. 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 1.58 acres with 1.23 acres impervious surface.

Motion 20-205: Approve with 4 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of $6,100 surety.

2. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County.

3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

4. Update operations and maintenance plan to include the Storm Filter device and a calculation that supports an annual maintenance schedule.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved

D) 20-032 MnDOT TH94 (Hosch) Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #20-032 for MnDOT TH94. The applicant, MnDOT will construct a noise wall along the south side of I94 between Prior Avenue and Fairview Avenue. 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 1.36 acres with .03 acres impervious surface.

Motion 20-206: Approve with 3 Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Revise erosion control plan on Sheet 30 to show location(s) of vehicle tracking BMPs. Sheets 12 and 28 indicate the presence of a construction exit to minimize sediment track out, but the locations are not shown on Sheet 30.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved Manager Murphy asked about banking of credits being sellable. Ms. Hosch replied that it is not very common and has not seen.

Motion 20-207: Approve withdrawal of 120 ft from MnDOT’s volume credit bank.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved E) 20-034 Marydale Wetland (Martinkosky) Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #20-034 for Marydale Wetland. The applicant, Semple Excavating and Trucking, Inc. will replace wetland impacted from trail construction. 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 .15 acres with no impervious surface.

Motion 20-208: Approve with 5 Conditions: 1. Adjust the end of Section 1.2 Presence of wetland hydrology to read “within 12 inches of the surface for at least 14 consecutive days during the growing season.”

2. Add the following note to Section 1.2 Presence of wetland hydrology: “If the documented hydrology within the wetland meets the above criteria for two consecutive years with normal to drier than normal precipitation, hydrology monitoring may be discontinued for the area.”

3. Also include the following in the annual site monitoring reports: a. Total vegetative cover b. Hydrology data (see Condition 5) c. Comparison of observations to performance criteria 4. Specify that the Year 5 monitoring report will include a delineation of the wetland mitigation area based on the most current versions of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, current version) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (USACE, current version).

5. Provide a hydrology monitoring plan in Section 3.1. Hydrology monitoring may be accomplished by installation of a shallow water table monitoring well within the mitigation area in accordance with the Hydrologic Monitoring of Wetlands (BWSR, 2013) or monitoring the water surface elevation of Loeb Lake or the adjacent Type 3 wetland using a staff gauge. Surface or groundwater elevations should be recorded at least twice weekly during the first 2 months of the growing season and at least weekly thereafter.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved IV.

Special Reports – 2020 BMP Inspection Results Summary (Funke)

Ms. Funke provided the Managers with an update on the 2020 BMP Inspection Results. Ms. Funke reviewed that each year, CRWD staff complete inspections of completed grant projects to ensure their function and to offer maintenance advice to grantees. From June through August, CRWD staff and Minnesota Water Stewards completed inspections of clean water projects completed through the Saint Paul Streets (SPS) program and the Stewardship Grant program. In total, 333 projects were inspected.

CRWD staff and Minnesota Water Stewards completed inspections of all SPS boulevard curb-cut rain gardens, resulting in 250 inspections. CRWD staff also completed inspections of Stewardship Grant projects completed in the past five years, totaling 83 inspections. Stewardship Grant project types included rain gardens, permeable pavers, and shoreline buffer plantings.

In total, 92% of the 333 clean water projects inspected received an A or B grade, meaning that the projects needed no or only light maintenance. The most common maintenance needs included weeding, clearing rain garden inlets, and replacing plants.

Although most projects were in good condition, there were some common issues that emerged as barriers to successful maintenance. Though analysis of inspection results and grantee feedback, staff determined several common roadblocks for grantees. With this information in mind, CRWD plans to expand its support available to grantees in multiple ways.

Although the responsibility of the property owner, CRWD decided to implement several improvements to existing grant-funded projects. These improvements included renovation of five rain gardens that were part of a 2012 Special Grant project along Burns Avenue and the removal of tall grasses at multiple 2008 SPS boulevard rain gardens. Improvements are also planned for the 2014 Montreal Avenue SPS rain gardens in Spring 2021. CRWD staff plan to continue inspections and maintenance programming to ensure the water quality benefit of the District’s BMPs and to provide meaningful support to grantees.

Manager Sanders recommended a plant sale/exchange for stewards. Ms. Funke replied that staff has been in contact with partnering groups to coordinate a plant sale that would focus on plants for rain gardens.

No Action was taken. Workshop for informational and discussion only.

V.

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the October 21, 2020 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 20-209: Approve the Minutes of the October 21, 2020 Regular Meeting.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved B) AR: Adopt CRWD 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan (Eleria) Ms. Eleria shared that after two years of work the 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan is ready for adoption. On October 28th, the 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan has been reviewed and approved by the MN Board of Water and Soil (BWSR). President Collins was in attendance.

In early September, CRWD’s Board of Managers approved the final draft 2021 – 2030 Watershed Management Plan, which encompasses the priority issues, focus areas, measurable goals and implementation activities for CRWD over the next ten years.

For over a month and a half, the final draft Plan underwent review by BWSR staff, Central Region Committee members and the full BWSR Board. CRWD staff presented the plan to the Central Region Committee in midOctober. The committee then recommended its approval to the full BWSR Board. Key comments from BWSR staff, Central Committee and Board included praise for undergoing a thorough and inclusive Plan update, creating a visually appealing, well thought out and plain language Plan, and focusing on engagement and service to underserved areas and communities in the District.

CRWD staff are conducting one final review of the Plan to identify minor edits (e.g. spelling errors, formatting issues, grammatical errors, and minor information updates). Ms. Eleria shared that the final draft will be available in Dec. President Collins added, BWSR was very pleased with the plan, and the Diversity plan being the first of its kind being recognized in a plan.

Motion 20-210: Adopt the CRWD 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan subject to minor edits approved by the Administrator.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously approved VI.

Unfinished Business A) Ford Site Redevelopment (Fossum)

Removed from agenda.

B) Possible Rescheduling of December 2, 2020 Board Meeting date and time (all)

The MAWD annual meeting is scheduled for Dec. 1-4. CRWD has a board meeting scheduled to be held on Wednesday, December 2nd. Administrator Doneux suggested omitting a workshop so the meeting could have a later starting time. Manager Texer suggested moving the meeting to November 30th with a 3:00pm start time. President Collins suggested keeping the meeting to essential agenda items. Motion will be made at the November 18th Board Meeting.

VII.

General Information A) Board of Manager’s Updates

Manager Sanders share a documentary that he recently saw called “Kiss the Earth”.

Next Meetings A) B)

Tuesday, November 10, 2020 – 7:00 PM – CAC Meeting – Manager Murphy will attend.

Electronic Only Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:00 PM – Regular Meeting – Electronic Only

VIII. Adjournment Motion 20-211: Adjournment of the November 4, 2020 Regular Board Meeting at 7:35 P.M. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander

November 18, 2020 Board Meeting V. Action Items – B) Accounts Payable & Budget Update (Sylvander)

DATE: November 12, 2020 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager RE: October 2020 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Administrative/Program Budget Report _________________________________________________________________________________

Enclosed are the Accounts Payable/Receivable and the Administrative/Program Budget Reports for the Month of October 2020.

Summary of Budget Report: (October Only Expenses) Administrative Budget (100’s) Program Budget (200’s) Project Budget (300’s) Capital Improvement Budget (400’s) Debt Service (500’s)

$ $ $ $ $

90,248.13 206,000.13 48,594.99 198,954.51 23,828.59

TOTAL

$

567,626,.35

Summary of Accounts Payable/Receivable Report through October 31, 2020: (Past, present and future months) (October 2020 Only)

Accounts Payable Accounts Receivable

$ $

607,689.51 18,704.14

Request Action Approve October 2020 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Budget Report and direct Board Treasurer and President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments. enc:

October 2020 Accounts Payable October 2020 Budget Report

2020 Operations and CIP Monthly YTD Expenditures to Budget $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

April

May

Jun

July

August

Sept

Oct

2020 Operations Budget

Operations Cumulative Expenditures

2020 CIP Budget

CIP Cumulative Expenditures

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Board Memos\Board Memos 2020\BD Memo AP Budget Report 11182020.docx

Nov

Dec

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From Nov 1, 2020 - Nov 30, 2020

Date 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20

Payee Anchor Solar Investments, LLC Applied Ecological Services, Inc. ArchKey Technologies Barr Engineering Benefit Extras, Inc. Bernthal, Karen Born, Dennis C Lanphear Design Canteen Cinch Web Services Coleman, Laura Colonial Life Comcast Business Comcast Business - VM Cable Dwaynes Lawn & Snow Care Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Floyd Total Security Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Forrest J. Kelley Fortin Consulting, Inc. Gopher State One Hamline United Methodist Church Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. Health Partners Group Health - Worksite HealthPartners Holiday Fleet Imagine Twin Cities INGCO International, Inc. Inhabit Landscapes Ioana Stoian Jim Richter Joseph Collins Kathryn Burden Kennedy & Graven Maintenance Team, Inc. Marco - HP Marco-Minolta Mazanec, Michael McCaren Designs, Inc. Meg Dhur Mennards MetLife Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MSR Design Nelson Cheese & Deli Northern Battery

Total 165.43 1,317.50 360.00 38,529.64 92.25 300.00 500.00 637.50 26.97 324.00 3,574.00 878.62 413.40 2,389.03 2,350.00 3,065.00 399.14 769.06 1,440.00 3,000.00 51.30 10,229.00 689.15 250.00 23,552.20 185.37 158.24 746.92 14,348.13 1,163.91 816.00 1,250.00 639.83 292.50 995.13 13,680.00 997.06 750.00 555.28 525.70 155.47 336.06 23,828.59 191.25 140.00 1,759.49

Page 1 of 2

Check # 20965 20966 20967 20968 20969 20970 20971 20972 20973 20974 20975 20976 20977 20978 20979 20980 20981 20982 20983 20984 20985 20986 20987 20988 20989 20990 20991 20992 20993 20994 20995 20996 20997 20998 20999 21000 21001 21002 21003 21004 21005 21006 21007 21008 21009 21010

Description Solar Leasing Willow Reserve Restoration Mgt. Besch Grant B October Engineering Expense Monthly Benefit Administration Rain Garden/1969 Standford Well Sealing Grant Water Wildlife Signs Rent - Brewer Machine Website Maintenance BMP/Permeable Driveway Employee Benefits Voice & Internet Bundled Services Snow Removal 2020 Continuing Disclosure Security Camara Rentals Conductivity Logger Office Cleaning Winter Maintenance Refresher Email Tickets BMP/1514 Englewood Avenue Detailed Feasibility Study Webinar Employee Benefits Fuel for Vehicles Leopard Frog Stencil Test Translation Services Planting/Landscape Contract Rain Garden/1118 Edmund BMP/1222-1224 W. 7th St. Manager Per Diem/Expense BMP/1150 Edmund Ave. Procurement Contracting Project Technician/Facilities Management Copier Lease/M-Files Software Copier Contract Well Sealing Grant Monthly Horticulture Services BMP/223 Colborne St. Supplies Employee Benefits Clean Water Partnership Loan MSR Design for CRWD Office Salt Certification Training Supplies

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From Nov 1, 2020 - Nov 30, 2020

Date 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20 11/18/20

Payee Peyman Missaghi Pitney Bowes - Financial Services Premier Electrical Corporation Rachel Contracting Ramsey County Property Tax Services Ramsey County Public Works Ramsey County Soil & Water Conservation Ramsey County Soil & Water Conservation Ramsey County -Attorney Redpath & Company, Ltd. Richards, Thomas Ryan Companies US Inc. Rymark Sky Candy Studios St. Paul Regional Water Services Staples Business Advantage Story Teller Media & Communications Syscon, Inc. The Hendrickson Apartments This Is Folly Verizon Wireless Walters Wenck Associates, Inc. Witt, Benjamin Xcel Energy Xcel Energy US Bank SUB-TOTAL: OCTOBER A/P

Total 2,446.00 500.00 24,700.00 84,135.49 26.24 42,444.74 1,265.00 21,546.00 2,295.00 4,975.00 750.00 7,000.00 6,690.00 1,020.00 194.18 50.77 5,115.00 161.25 5,000.00 2,000.00 655.20 170.90 19,628.02 750.00 27.91 25.02 1,720.37

Check # 21011 21012 21013 21014 21015 21016 21017 21018 21019 21020 21021 21022 21023 21024 21025 21026 21027 21028 21029 21030 21031 21032 21033 21034 21035 21036 21037

Description BMP/1736 Mississippi River Reserve Account Deposit Power Conduct/Repair Broken Conduits Como Zoo & Golf Course Property Taxes CRWD Analysis Costs Canada Goose SWCD Services Attorney Services October Accounting & Payroll Well Sealing Grant Surety Return Managed Services Como Golf Course & Seminar Water & Sewer Wireless Keyboards Como Lake Video Project Sage Support Surety Return Creating Stencil Files Monthly Cell Phone Service Trash/Recycling Inspections/Permit Program/Como Lake Well Sealing Grant Electrical Services-Kittson St. Electrical Services-Maryland Ave. Monthly Credit Card

$394,110.21

WIRE RANSFERS: 11/19/20 J. E. Dunn Construction Company 11/19/20 J. E. Dunn Construction Company OCTOBER PAYROLL/BENEFITS:

OCTOBER TOTAL:

$22,159.00 51,009.00

Final Pay Application-Materials Final Pay Application-Labor

140,411.30

$607,689.51

APPROVED FOR PAYMENT:

11/18/2020

OCTOBER, 2020 RECEIPTS Gillette Childrens MAWD Workshop Refund Hope Community Academy Xcel Energy Common Bond Community Highland Bridge Comcast 4M Fund-General 4M Fund-Bonds

$8,300.00 5,034.54 55.00 2,000.00 505.96 500.00 2,000.00 167.53 105.47 35.64

OCTOBER RECEIPTS:

$18,704.14

Page 2 of 2

Surety Office Rent Refund Permit Fee Refund Permit Fee Permit Fee Refund October Interest - General October Interest - Bonds

Capitol Region Watershed District October 31, 2020 Comparison

Check Register Totals Accounts Payable Checks

$394,110.21

Wire Transfers

73,168.00

Payroll & Benefits

140,411.30

TOTAL:

$607,689.51

Pre-Paid Expenses:

($24,766.68)

Void Check/Credit:

($3,296.48)

Surety Returns:

($12,000.00)

OCTOBER ONLY:

$567,626.35

Pre-Paid Expenses: Colonial Life - Ck. #20976 HealthPartners - Ck. #20989 MetLife - Ck. #21006

$878.62 23,552.00 336.06 $24,766.68

Rymark - Ck. #20946 (void) Northern Battery - Ck. #21010 (credit)

$3,110.00 186.48 $3,296.48

Ryan Companies US Inc. - Ck. #21000 The Hendrickson Apartments - Ck. #21029

$7,000.00 5,000.00 $12,000.00

Void Check/Credit:

Surety Return:

Page 1 of 1

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST RECAP FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2020 ‐ OCTOBER 31, 2020

19970 ‐ General Administration 20970 ‐ General Administration 20975 ‐ Aldine Operations 20976 ‐ 1736 Thomas Operations 19978 ‐ MAWD 17985 ‐ CRWD History Study 00000 ‐ Administration Allocation

JOB COST #/NAME

2020 ANNUAL BUDGET ‐ 722,700.00 64,000.00 55,800.00 5,000.00

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 ‐ Future Trends: Research and Positioning 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 330 ‐ Mississippi River Subwatershed 370 ‐ Watershed Management Plan 390 ‐ Special Projects & Grants TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND: 405 ‐ Como Lake BMP's 410 ‐ Lake McCarron's BMP's 413 ‐ Loeb Lake BMP's 415 ‐ Trout Brook BMP's 425 ‐ Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 430 ‐ Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMP's 440 ‐ Special Projects & Grants 450 ‐ Future Trends: Implementation TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 14960 ‐ Debt & Loan Service 15 TOTAL DEBT SERVICES: TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ 84,415.97 5,406.78 425.38 ‐ ‐ (357,670.00) ‐ $489,830.00 $90,248.13 236,062.00 ‐ 8,280.00 2,853.46 12,750.00 1,601.00 390,790.00 29,160.13 786,810.00 52,650.75 657,830.00 95,270.87 548,260.00 21,913.57 65,730.00 765.34 121,070.00 640.43 50,390.00 730.36 36,000.00 414.22 $2,913,972.00 $206,000.13 121,608.00 ‐ 8,000.00 1,624.05 113,540.00 12,244.27 68,720.00 2,680.68 49,880.00 161.21 410,360.00 3,154.86 28,860.00 2,529.00 385,120.00 7,244.89 155,510.00 2,599.60 99,050.00 16,356.43 $1,440,648.00 $48,594.99 $4,844,450.00 $344,843.25 1,447,610.00 93,101.80 755,540.00 726.62 13,540.00 1,871.81 566,250.00 4,734.00 30,000.00 ‐ 1,344,650.00 24,448.69 1,677,700.00 ‐ 50,000.00 74,071.59 $5,885,290.00 $198,954.51 1,057,243.00 23,828.59 $1,057,243.00 23,828.59

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES 17,985.91 928,609.73 100,848.59 45,424.35 1,953.23 7,000.00 ‐ $1,101,821.81 731.08 16,615.74 30,307.80 298,460.04 231,686.26 467,645.94 230,594.79 31,559.47 35,933.35 13,055.04 14,790.32 $1,371,379.83 ‐ 44,885.90 71,930.80 33,016.11 461.23 73,265.39 6,651.74 115,238.37 123,757.27 83,525.99 $552,732.80 $3,025,934.44 1,676,973.37 302,153.57 40,623.96 5,004.24 330,000.00 138,158.71 67,078.54 81,013.03 $2,641,005.42 1,003,397.81 $1,003,397.81

BALANCE OF BUDGET REMAINING (17,985.91) (205,909.73) (36,848.59) 10,375.65 3,046.77 (7,000.00) (357,670.00) ($611,991.81) 235,330.92 (8,335.74) (17,557.80) 92,329.96 555,123.74 190,184.06 317,665.21 34,170.53 85,136.65 37,334.96 21,209.68 $1,542,592.17 121,608.00 (36,885.90) 41,609.20 35,703.89 49,418.77 337,094.61 22,208.26 269,881.63 31,752.73 15,524.01 $887,915.20 $1,818,515.56 (229,363.37) 453,386.43 (27,083.96) 561,245.76 (300,000.00) 1,206,491.29 1,610,621.46 (31,013.03) $3,244,284.58 53,845.19 $53,845.19

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 128.49% 157.58% 81.41% 39.06% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 224.94% 0.31% 200.67% 237.71% 76.37% 29.45% 71.09% 42.06% 48.01% 29.68% 25.91% 41.08% 47.06% 0.00% 561.07% 63.35% 48.04% 0.92% 17.85% 23.05% 29.92% 79.58% 84.33% 38.37% 62.46% 115.84% 39.99% 300.03% 0.88% 1100.00% 10.27% 4.00% 162.03% 44.87% 94.91% 94.91%

$11,786,983.00

$567,626.35

$6,670,337.67

$5,116,645.33

56.59%

Fund Balance FUND BALANCES @ 12/31/19 Operations 1,891,112.34 Capital Improvement 3,078,008.95 Debt Service 186,690.88 Building/Bond Proceeds 1,685,217.80 TOTAL FUND BALANCE: $6,841,029.97

2020 Fund Transfers ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $0.00

Year‐to‐Date Revenue 2,463,927.90 2,664,011.33 537,387.10 ‐ $5,665,326.33

Year‐to‐Date Expenditures $3,025,934.44 2,641,005.42 1,003,397.81 ‐ $6,670,337.67

Fund Balance @ 10/31/20 1,329,105.80 3,101,014.86 (279,319.83) 1,685,217.80 $5,836,018.63

Page 1 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2020 ‐ OCTOBER 31, 2020

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ 84,415.97 5,406.78 425.38 ‐ ‐ (357,670.00) ‐ $90,248.13 TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: $489,830.00 20000 ‐ Administration Allocation 236,062.00 ‐ 19000 ‐ District Permit Program ‐ ‐ 20099 ‐ District Permit Program 191,540.00 10,007.37 20101 ‐ Permit Tracking & Database Management 14,850.00 ‐ 19102 ‐ Construction Inspection ‐ ‐ 20102 ‐ Construction Inspection 148,650.00 609.67 19103 ‐ Permit Closure & Post Construction Inspection/Maintenance ‐ ‐ 20103 ‐ Closure & Post Construction Inspection 35,750.00 387.68 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐ Permits ‐ 18,155.41 19120 ‐ Evaluate Rules/TAC Meetings ‐ ‐ 20120 ‐ Evaluate Rules/Hold TAC Meetings 12,750.00 1,601.00 19130 ‐ Groundwater Protection ‐ Well Sealing ‐ ‐ 20130 ‐ Groundwater Protection ‐ Well Sealing 8,280.00 2,853.46 18143 ‐ Stewardship Grants ‐ ‐ 19143 ‐ Stewardship Grants ‐ 2,619.74 20143 ‐ Stewardship Grants 432,450.00 47,127.35 19144 ‐ Partner Grants ‐ ‐ 20144 ‐ Partner Grants 130,200.00 534.28 20145 ‐ Inspiring Communities Program 20,540.00 ‐ 20146 ‐ SPS Rain Garden Projects 20,150.00 339.24 16147 ‐ TWP Blvd. Rain Gardens 183,470.00 2,030.14 19200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ ‐ 20200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring Data Collection 327,070.00 51,407.10 19205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ ‐ 20205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 105,190.00 42,797.47 19210 ‐ Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ ‐ 20210 ‐ Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection 32,900.00 370.23 19215 ‐ Wetland Bio‐Monitoring ‐ ‐ 20215 ‐ Wetland Bio‐Monitoring 20,050.00 ‐ 20220 ‐ WISKI Database Website 57,480.00 ‐ 20225 ‐ Remote Data Access & Set Up 14,680.00 116.21 19230 ‐ BMP Monitoring ‐ ‐ 20230 ‐ BMP Monitoring 50,050.00 579.86 17232 ‐ Midway Office WH Monitoring 30,050.00 ‐ 19250 ‐ General Outreach & Communications ‐ ‐

19970 ‐ General Administration 20970 ‐ General Administration 20975 ‐ Aldine Operations 20976 ‐ 1736 Thomas Operations 20978 ‐ MAWD 17985 ‐ CRWD History Study 10000 ‐ Administration Allocation

JOB COST #/NAME

2020 ANNUAL BUDGET ‐ 722,700.00 64,000.00 55,800.00 5,000.00

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 17,985.91 (17,985.91) 928,609.73 (205,909.73) 100,848.59 (36,848.59) 45,424.35 10,375.65 1,953.23 3,046.77 7,000.00 (7,000.00) ‐ (357,670.00) $1,101,821.81 ($611,991.81) 731.08 235,330.92 9,391.68 (9,391.68) 113,090.79 78,449.21 ‐ 14,850.00 76.18 (76.18) 13,594.44 135,055.56 479.66 (479.66) 3,739.86 32,010.14 158,087.43 (158,087.43) 2,802.98 (2,802.98) 27,504.82 (14,754.82) 2,267.25 (2,267.25) 14,348.49 (6,068.49) 206.07 (206.07) 18,471.99 (18,471.99) 170,175.15 262,274.85 983.80 (983.80) 19,933.26 110,266.74 ‐ 20,540.00 3,362.72 16,787.28 18,553.27 164,916.73 29,179.55 (29,179.55) 332,287.23 (5,217.23) 234.60 (234.60) 49,036.59 56,153.41 2,465.02 (2,465.02) 5,474.36 27,425.64 5,301.35 (5,301.35) 1,482.65 18,567.35 17,760.55 39,719.45 1,199.27 13,480.73 7,764.64 (7,764.64) 15,460.13 34,589.87 ‐ 30,050.00 10,947.96 (10,947.96)

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 128.49% 157.58% 81.41% 39.06% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 224.94% 0.31% ‐‐‐ 59.04% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 9.15% ‐‐‐ 10.46% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 215.72% ‐‐‐ 173.29% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 39.35% ‐‐‐ 15.31% 0.00% 16.69% 10.11% ‐‐‐ 101.60% ‐‐‐ 46.62% ‐‐‐ 16.64% ‐‐‐ 7.39% 30.90% 8.17% ‐‐‐ 30.89% 0.00% ‐‐‐

Page 2 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2020 ‐ OCTOBER 31, 2020

JOB COST #/NAME 20250 ‐ General Outreach & Communications 20255 ‐ Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 20260 ‐ Municipal Training 19262 ‐ Youth Outreach 20262 ‐ Youth Outreach 20263 ‐ Communications Training 19265 ‐ Sponsorships & Partnerships 20265 ‐ Sponsorships & Partnerships 19268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 20268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 19270 ‐ Website & Social Media 20270 ‐ Website 19271 ‐ Master Water Stewards 20271 ‐ Master Water Stewards 17274 ‐ TWP Communications 19275 ‐ Events 20275 ‐ Events 16277 ‐ TWP ‐ Adopt a Drain 16278 ‐ TWP Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 19279 ‐ Social Media 20279 ‐ Social Media 20280 ‐ 595 Aldine Education & Outreach 19285 ‐ Awards & Recognition Programs 20285 ‐ Awards Program 20300 ‐ Plan Review & Tech Committee 19303 ‐ BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 20303 ‐ BMP Database 20330 ‐ District Research Program 19333 ‐ Public Art Program 20333 ‐ Public Art Program 20334 ‐ 595 Aldine Art 20335 ‐ Diversity & Inclusion 20336 ‐ Climate Change Impacts ‐ Research and Action 19370 ‐ GIS Program Development 20370 ‐ GIS Program Development 19390 ‐ Safety Training 20390 ‐ Safety Training 19395 ‐ Safety Program Updates/Audits 20395 ‐ Safety Program Updates/Audits 20396 ‐ Safety Equipment

2020 ANNUAL BUDGET 259,510.00 10,460.00 14,820.00 ‐ 10,870.00 10,070.00 ‐ 28,420.00 ‐ 18,530.00 ‐ 24,990.00 ‐ 30,840.00 7,140.00 ‐ 15,060.00 4,460.00 6,460.00 ‐ 7,530.00 85,000.00 ‐ 14,100.00 15,050.00 ‐ 50,680.00 50,850.00 ‐ 29,560.00 10,640.00 10,000.00 20,020.00 ‐ 50,390.00 ‐ 13,430.00 10,630.00 ‐ 11,940.00 TOTAL PROGRAMS: $2,913,972.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 13,795.06 ‐ 3,140.00 ‐ 277.33 ‐ ‐ 958.29 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,771.59 ‐ 660.45 207.53 ‐ 631.77 ‐ ‐ ‐ 471.55 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 765.34 54.12 ‐ 354.45 ‐ 231.86 ‐ ‐ 730.36 ‐ 250.00 ‐ 164.22 ‐ $206,000.13

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 131,158.24 128,351.76 347.93 10,112.07 3,140.00 11,680.00 34.57 (34.57) 2,437.78 8,432.22 ‐ 10,070.00 189.93 (189.93) 13,007.38 15,412.62 2,386.54 (2,386.54) 10,317.09 8,212.91 223.58 (223.58) 8,045.56 16,944.44 34.57 (34.57) 20,515.80 10,324.20 2,099.07 5,040.93 189.81 (189.81) 8,444.75 6,615.25 31.97 4,428.03 ‐ 6,460.00 99.15 (99.15) 3,322.02 4,207.98 6,723.00 78,277.00 6,830.20 (6,830.20) 67.89 14,032.11 487.46 14,562.54 553.54 (553.54) 30,518.47 20,161.53 28,022.90 22,827.10 172.43 (172.43) 6,958.17 22,601.83 ‐ 10,640.00 779.85 9,220.15 ‐ 20,020.00 158.29 (158.29) 12,896.75 37,493.25 108.47 (108.47) 5,880.83 7,549.17 264.72 10,365.28 5,651.25 (5,651.25) 2,885.05 9,054.95 1,371,379.83 $1,542,592.17

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 50.54% 3.33% 21.19% ‐‐‐ 22.43% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 45.77% ‐‐‐ 55.68% ‐‐‐ 32.20% ‐‐‐ 66.52% 29.40% ‐‐‐ 56.07% 0.72% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 44.12% 7.91% ‐‐‐ 0.48% 3.24% ‐‐‐ 60.22% 55.11% ‐‐‐ 23.54% 0.00% 7.80% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 25.59% ‐‐‐ 43.79% 2.49% ‐‐‐ 24.16% 47.06%

Page 3 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2020 ‐ OCTOBER 31, 2020

JOB COST #/NAME 30000 ‐ Administration Allocation 20405 ‐ St. Paul Natural Resources Intern Program 19605 ‐ Lower Phalen Creek/Rush Line 19421 ‐ Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 20421 ‐ Como BMP Maintenance 20424 ‐ Como Lake Aquatic Plant Management 20425 ‐ Como Pond Optic RTC O & M 18427 ‐ Como Lake Management Plan 20427 ‐ Como Lake Shoreline Management 19428 ‐ Como Lake Aquatic Plant Management 19470 ‐ AIS Management 18476 ‐ Upper Villa Maintenance 19476 ‐ Upper Villa Maintenance 19477 ‐ TWP ‐ Lake McCarron's Management Plan 20477 ‐ Parkview O & M 20478 ‐ Williams St. Pond O & M 20510 ‐ Willow Reserve Management 19550 ‐ Inspection & Annual Maintenance 20550 ‐ TBI Inspection and Maintenance 14552 ‐ TBI Easement Verification & Documentation 20560 ‐ TBI Subwatershed Study 20570 ‐ NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program 18575 ‐ Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Program 20575 ‐ Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination 20620 ‐ Green Infrastructure for Innovation Districts 19621 ‐ Snelling Midway Redevelopment O & M 18622 ‐ Ford Site Planning 18623 ‐ Ford Site Area C 18624 ‐ CCLRT BMP Maintenance 19624 ‐ Green Line BMP Maintenance 20624 ‐ Geenn Line BMP Maintenance 20625 ‐ Snelling Midway Site 19630 ‐ Gortner Avenue Feasility Study 19 19631 ‐ Highland Ravine Maintenance 20631 ‐ Highland Ravine BMP Maintenance 18650 ‐ 2020 Watershed Management Plan 19660 ‐ Special Grants ‐ Project Development 20660 ‐ Special Grants ‐ Project Development 19662 ‐ 1919 University Avenue 19665 ‐ Science Museum Feasibility

2020 ANNUAL BUDGET 121,608.00 8,000.00 ‐ ‐ 26,120.00 45,400.00 9,800.00 ‐ 32,220.00 ‐ 14,100.00 29,160.00 ‐ 10,700.00 9,800.00 4,960.00 49,880.00 ‐ 180,000.00 150,250.00 50,050.00 10,060.00 ‐ 20,000.00 75,070.00 49,570.00 150,900.00 31,300.00 ‐ ‐ 34,530.00 43,750.00 ‐ ‐ 28,860.00 155,510.00 ‐ 99,050.00 ‐ ‐ TOTAL PROJECTS: $1,440,648.00 TOTAL OPERATING FUND: $4,844,450.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ 1,624.05 ‐ 6,624.08 120.05 ‐ 1,631.54 ‐ 3,868.60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,680.68 ‐ ‐ 161.21 ‐ 3,045.39 ‐ ‐ 109.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,916.88 271.87 ‐ ‐ 4,056.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,529.00 2,599.60 11,658.43 2,968.11 ‐ 1,729.89 $48,594.99 $344,843.25

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING ‐ 121,608.00 ‐ 8,000.00 44,885.90 (44,885.90) 416.30 (416.30) 18,776.25 7,343.75 4,572.63 40,827.37 3,498.20 6,301.80 7,067.39 (7,067.39) 3,298.97 28,921.03 34,301.06 (34,301.06) 46.05 14,053.95 3,444.11 25,715.89 18.81 (18.81) 29,507.14 (18,807.14) ‐ 9,800.00 ‐ 4,960.00 461.23 49,418.77 1,898.49 (1,898.49) 68,104.09 111,895.91 ‐ 150,250.00 1,531.61 48,518.39 1,277.40 8,782.60 209.08 (209.08) 244.72 19,755.28 166.17 74,903.83 49,344.84 225.16 29,919.90 120,980.10 13,849.20 17,450.80 484.50 (484.50) 357.87 (357.87) 20,466.18 14,063.82 415.11 43,334.89 234.60 (234.60) 168.56 (168.56) 6,483.18 22,376.82 123,757.27 31,752.73 22,206.26 (22,206.26) 45,460.58 53,589.42 168.51 (168.51) 15,690.64 (15,690.64) 552,732.80 $887,915.20 $3,025,934.44 $1,818,515.56

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 71.88% 10.07% 35.70% ‐‐‐ 10.24% ‐‐‐ 0.33% 11.81% ‐‐‐ 275.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.92% ‐‐‐ 37.84% 0.00% 3.06% 12.70% ‐‐‐ 1.22% 0.22% 99.55% 19.83% 44.25% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 59.27% 0.95% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 22.46% 79.58% ‐‐‐ 45.90% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 38.37% 62.46%

Page 4 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2020 ‐ OCTOBER 31, 2020

JOB COST #/NAME 20702 ‐ Como Lake BMP Engineering 19703 ‐ Como Lake In‐Lake Management 16705 ‐ TWP Como BMP McMurray 19706 ‐ Como Lake Alum Treatment 16715 ‐ TWP Como Sr. High 16720 ‐ Willow Reserve Restoration Project 16752 ‐ TWP ‐ McCarrons BMP ‐ Parkview 19790 ‐ Loeb Lake Shoreline Restoration 16815 ‐ TBI Repairs ‐ St. 0+00 ‐ 28+49 20820 ‐ TBI Repair ‐ Station 28+65 ‐ 50+72 19850 ‐ Land Conservation Funding 13852 ‐ Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary 16881 ‐ Green Line Redevelopment BMP's 16886 ‐ Lauderdale Subwatershed Stormwater Improvement Project 19889 ‐ Gortner Avenue Feasibility Study 19890 ‐ Midway Peace Park 20891 ‐ Ford Site 20892 ‐ Science Museum of Minnesota 18910 ‐ Special Grants 19910 ‐ Special Grants 16912 ‐ Selby Milton Victoria 20913 ‐ Project Initiatives 16917 ‐ Swede Hollow Construction 16920 ‐ TWP Grant Administration 19925 ‐ Springboard for the Arts Headquarters 17926 ‐ Adams Spanish Immersion 17929 ‐ Wilder Square Condo 16950 ‐ New Office Facility TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 14960 ‐ Debt & Loan Service TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

2020 ANNUAL BUDGET 149,840.00 357,550.00 940,220.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 755,540.00 13,540.00 ‐ 566,250.00 30,000.00 ‐ 0.00 500,250.00 ‐ 20,000.00 749,600.00 74,800.00 ‐ 402,900.00 ‐ 1,270,000.00 ‐ 4,800.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 50,000.00 $5,885,290.00 1,057,243.00 $1,057,243.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ 1,202.33 86,740.43 5,115.00 44.04 1,871.81 726.62 ‐ ‐ 4,734.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 23,701.77 ‐ 746.92 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 74,071.59 $198,954.51 23,828.59 23,828.59

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$11,786,983.00

$567,626.35

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING ‐ 149,840.00 10,935.30 346,614.70 1,470,422.40 (530,202.40) 195,528.14 (195,528.14) 87.53 (87.53) 40,623.96 (40,623.96) 302,153.57 453,386.43 ‐ 13,540.00 59.45 (59.45) 4,944.79 561,305.21 ‐ 30,000.00 330,000.00 (330,000.00) 678.54 (678.54) 119,859.24 380,390.76 0.00 17,620.93 2,379.07 388.92 749,211.08 44.04 74,755.96 0.00 8,566.04 394,333.96 0.00 ‐ 1,270,000.00 40.57 (40.57) 1,367.91 3,432.09 86.38 (86.38) 56,500.00 (56,500.00) 84.68 (84.68) 81,013.03 (31,013.03) $2,641,005.42 $3,244,284.58 1,003,397.81 53,845.19 $1,003,397.81 $53,845.19 $6,670,337.67

$5,116,645.33

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.00% 3.06% 156.39% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 39.99% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 0.87% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 23.96% ‐‐‐ 88.10% 0.05% 0.06% ‐‐‐ 2.13% ‐‐‐ 0.00% ‐‐‐ 28.50% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 162.03% 44.87% 94.91% 94.91% 56.59%

Page 5 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2020 ‐ OCTOBER 31, 2020 PERMIT NUMBER 9017 9028 10009 11008 11014 11017 11029 12003 12017 12023 13003 14018 14025 14026 14029 14034 14041 15030 16012 16016 16019 16020 16021 16024 16025 16026 16028 16029 16032 16033 17001 17002 17003 17008 17013 17014 17015 17018 17020 17022 17023 17024 18001 18002 18004 18007

PERMIT NAME Knapp‐Raymond Gillette AACC Como Park HS Total Tool Supply AGAPE School Hmongtown Market Schmidt Brewery Cretin‐Derham Hall Cayuga Ford Site Demo MN Pass Frogtown Farms E. 7th Mississippi Market Pleasant Ridge St. Agnes School East 7th Senior Apartments Higher Ground Farrington Estates St. Paul Police Facility Willow Reserve Habitat of Humanity Roselawn Cemetary Dorothy Day Place 2300 Territorial Apartments Hmong Academy Expansion Snelling Midway St. Anthony Park Elementary Adams School Boaters Outlet SPJCC Addition AET Campus Expansion Horace Mann Elementary Highland Park Elementary Como Park Sr. High School SPA Expansion Great River Schools Residence Inn Grand Avenue Wheelock Dale Victoria Exchange Street Apartments Transfer Road Storage Regions Birth Center Weyerhaeuser Apts.

St. Catherine Library Lot Sylvan Park Improvements Menards Trnasload Terminal Como Paving 2018 Woodlawn Jefferson

PERMITTING BUDGET ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 28.36 ‐ 28.36 42.54 ‐ ‐ ‐ 92.92 99.28 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 366.96 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14.27 707.73 ‐ 121.17 1,027.19 ‐ ‐

416.10 1,117.90 234.80 847.85 1,030.40 64.80 266.99 177.70 75.60 9,981.33 70.90 113.90 475.10 210.00 291.30 323.20 850.38 28.36 301.20 49.64 821.55 775.30 270.48 610.37 2,206.62 99.28 440.30 92.92 249.70 147.60 1,294.90 620.32 557.42 415.80 418.20 485.90 340.40 907.60 143.07 3,985.06 5,895.23 350.67 254.49 3,144.60 229.50 359.47

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Page 6 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2020 ‐ OCTOBER 31, 2020 PERMIT NUMBER 18008 18009 18011 18012 18013 18014 18015 18016 18017 18018 18020 18021 18022 18023 19001 19004 19005 19006 19009 19010 19011 19012 19013 19014 19015 19016 19017 19020 19023 19024 19025 19026 19028 19029 19030 20001 20002 20003 20004 20005 20007 20008 20009 20010

PERMIT NAME Vomela Beacon Bluff Seal Island at Como Zoo Hendrickson Apartments Scheffer Community Center Beacon Bluff Opus Morning Star Met Council Villa Park Sanitary O'Gara's Mixed Use Cathedral Hill Payne Building Development Albion Senior Community Parkview Filtration Surcharge Rivoli Phase III Roseville Aldi Fairview Avenue Wheelock 4, Western to Rice Midway Peace Park McCarrons Hill St. Thomas Iverson Center Raymond Station Summit Avenue Bridge Reconstruction UST 2nd Year Housing St. Paul Gateway Mixed Use 104 MRB Waterford Bay Dale Street Bridge Reconstruction Urban Academy Addition Harambee Elementary School Audit AgroPur 2019 Lexington Parkway Realingment Lower Landing Tumble Fresh Coin Operated Laundry Hidden Falls Flood Clean Up Como Avenue Trail Project Five Star Storage Dickerman Park Site Improvements Tedesco St. Paving Project SPPS Service Facility Addition Griggs‐Scheffer Street Project Washington Tech HS Field Improvement Xcel County Road B Tamarack Pathway Ford Site Redevelopment Enclave at McCarrons Lake

PERMITTING BUDGET ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES

135.46 328.48 ‐ 35.69 ‐ 64.24 28.55 49.96 387.58 348.28 14.19 ‐ 49.77 ‐ ‐ ‐ 496.91 464.60 209.98 496.91 213.28 42.82 21.41 ‐ 348.83 42.82 28.55 21.41 ‐ 213.38 78.13 509.21 153.23 387.88 276.58 160.18 1,413.47 484.61 1,747.65 328.48 259.43 ‐ 812.47 ‐

2,137.33 4,742.33 1,152.46 2,355.53 241.50 3,109.09 99.45 1,248.08 772.26 432.92 466.79 81.96 3,878.45 1,078.78 155.20 256.64 2,429.33 1,559.87 1,213.20 1,247.03 2,999.77 876.88 509.85 19.04 2,262.70 1,056.79 769.02 1,655.43 163.92 2,569.41 481.79 3,982.71 938.04 2,207.91 2,658.51 2,243.76 4,567.11 3,815.63 4,772.34 2,979.51 1,403.67 451.29 4,503.77 84.63

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Page 7 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2020 ‐ OCTOBER 31, 2020 PERMIT NUMBER

PERMIT NAME

PERMITTING BUDGET

20011 20013 20014 20015 20016 20017 20018 20019 20020 20021 20023 20024 20025 20026 20027 20028 20029 20030 20031 20032 20033

Randolph Square ‐ Riverbend Business Ford Site Redevelopment Stormwater University & Dale Affordable Housing Ford Site Redevelopment Wetland Ayd Mill Road Hamm's Brewery 2227 University Mixed Use Marshall & Finn Apartments Wilder Square Hope Community Academy 2383 University Seminary Pond Wetland Highland Bridge Lot 1 Block 3 Hmong Academy Middle School Hidden Falls South Gillette POP22 Fairview & University MnDoT SP 6282‐231 TH 94 Highland Bridge Rowhomes Model MnDot SP 6282‐190 Th 94 Exeter Territorial Road

20000

Sub‐Total: Permits General Permitting

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ TOTAL PERMITS: 191,540.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

‐ ‐ 28.36 ‐ 426.87 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 499.95 296.03 507.70 ‐ 888.65 208.90 100.00 ‐ 822.10 419.80 773.85

2,668.48 12,025.09 1,838.13 484.91 2,156.59 1,126.50 1,075.90 1,612.00 2,096.20 1,145.60 1,814.13 296.03 1,063.10 2,101.05 3,212.34 1,588.75 783.50 282.90 846.70 419.80 773.85

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

18,155.41 10,007.37 28,162.78

158,087.43 122,482.47 280,569.90

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ($89,029.90) 146.48%

Page 8 of 8

November 18, 2020 Board Meeting V. Action Item - C) HMGP Application for TBI Flood Modeling Study (Zwonitzer)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 9, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Nate Zwonitzer, Water Resource Project Manager Approve HMGP Grant Scope and Application for the TBI Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study

Background CRWD’s 2020 and 2021 budgets include funding to conduct additional detailed modeling of Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI) and the 8,150-acre Trout Brook subwatershed. This expands on the Atlas-14 model update completed in 2018 by adding spatial resolution to the model particularly in the City of Saint Paul and includes evaluating storm sewer capacity issues, areas of flooding, and watershed pollutant loading.

The results will help CRWD and its partners identify and prioritize future mitigation efforts.

Issues Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds are available through the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM). The grant program reallocates remaining funds from previous federal (FEMA) emergency declarations in the state for projects that prevent future emergencies. CRWD and Barr Engineering staff have been communicating with HSEM staff about the eligibility of the Trout Brook Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study.

The grant application (to be completed with HSEM guidance) and project scope are enclosed. The study includes building detailed and calibrated XP-SWMM (hydraulic) and P8 (water quality) models and updating TBI flood prioritization areas. The study also includes a more detailed flood mitigation study of one high priority flood area (Task 5). HSEM staff indicated the entire project may be eligible for 75% funding. At an estimated $500,000 to complete the project, $375,00 could be covered by the grant with $125,000 to be covered by CRWD. Finalizing the application requires a resolution establishing an authorized representative for CRWD as well as a letter of commitment for local (match) funds. If approved for funding, staff will coordinate execution of the grant agreement with the state/FEMA, refine the scope of work with project partners, and will come back to the Board for approval of a contract with Barr Engineering to complete the work. HSEM staff indicated it may take 6-9 months for FEMA to process applications due to staffing shortages. The project is estimated to take about two years to complete.

Action Requested Approve Hazard Mitigation Grant Program application and scope for the TBI Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study and authorize the Administrator to be the CRWD Representative for grant administration.

Enc.

HMGP application and scope for TBI Modeling Feasibility Study

W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\Modeling\2020 Hydraulic-Hydrologic-WQ Modeling\HMGP Grant\BM HMGP Grant for TBI Modeling.docx

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

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM ADVANCE ASSISTANCE PROJECT APPLICATION Applicant Information 1. Applicant Legal Name: Mark Doneux 2. Organizational Unit: Capitol Region Watershed District 3. Project Title: Trout Brook Interceptor Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study 4. Applicant Type:

Local Government

State Government

Private Non-Profit (attach copy of Form 501c3)

5. Is this a new or revised application?

New

If revised, check appropriate box:

Revised

Funding Change

Timeline Extension

Change in Scope of Work

Other (specify below):

Using preliminary modeling performed 2 years ago, the Capitol Region Watershed District and its municipal partners plans to develop detailed modeling of the approximately 8,150-acre watershed to the Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI), a former stream that served as the outlets for Como Lake in Saint Paul and Lake McCarrons in Roseville. TBI was buried in a tunnel over 100 years ago and the City of Saint Paul developed around it and is fully urbanized with many known flooding areas. In 2018, CRWD completed a modeling effort and flooding identification and priorization exercise. This effort identified almost 200 potentially impacted structures, about 70 of them residential, associated with TBI flooding. CRWD plans to add significantly more detail to the watershed model in order to reassess the flood areas and develop structural flood mitigation solutions for the highest priority flood areas. This also includes a feasibility study for the highest priority flood area.

6. Proposed Project Total Cost:

$ 500,000.00

Federal Share (75.00%): $ 375,000.00

Local Share (25.00%): $ 125,000.00

Certifications: The undersigned assures fulfillment of all requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program as contained in the program guidelines and that all information contained herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The governing body of the applicant has duly authorized the document, and hereby applies for the assistance documented in this application. Also, the applicant understands that the project may proceed ONLY AFTER FEMA APPROVAL is gained.

Title

Typed Name of Authorized Representative/Applicant Agent

Signature of Authorized Representative/Applicant Agent

1|P a g e

Telephone Number

Date Signed

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM ADVANCE ASSISTANCE PROJECT APPLICATION

Answers to both 7 and 8 must be “YES� to be considered eligible for HMGP funding.

7. Does your community have a current FEMA approved multi-hazard mitigation plan?

Yes

No

8. Title of the Plan: Ramsey County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9. Adoption date:

07/01/2012

10. Location of proposed project in mitigation plan strategies: Page -53 Flooding 11. Is the project type covered in the State 322 Plan:

Yes

Page 0

Section 5.2.1 Section

12. Does the community participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)?

Is the community in good standing with the NFIP?

13. Tax ID Number: XXX-XX-XXXX Community ID Number (6 digit): ###### 14. US Congressional District:

Yes

Yes

No

No

FIPS Code (5 digit): ##### DUNS Number: Congressman Name:

15. State Senatorial District:

Senator Name:

16. State Legislative District:

Representative Name: Representative Name: Representative Name: Representative Name:

17. Primary Point of Contact The Primary Point of Contact is the person responsible for coordinating the implementation of this proposal, if approval is granted.

Ms.

Mr.

Mrs. First Name: Nate

Last Name: Zwonitzer

Title: Water Resource Project Manager Address Line 1: 595 Aldine Street Address Line 2: City: St. Paul

State: MN

Office Phone: 651-644-8888

Zip: 55104 Mobile Phone: 651-341-6113

Fax Number: 2|P a g e

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM ADVANCE ASSISTANCE PROJECT APPLICATION 18. Authorized Applicant Agent The Authorized Applicant Agent MUST be the chief executive officer, mayor, etc. This person must be able to sign contracts, authorize funding allocations or payments, etc.

Ms.

Mr.

Mrs. First Name: Mark

Last Name: Doneux

Title: Administrator Address Line 1: 595 Aldine Street Address Line 2: City: St. Paul

State: MN

Office Phone: 651-644-8888

Zip: 55104 Mobile Phone:

Fax Number: Email Address: mdoneux@capitolregionwd.org

4|P a g e

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM ADVANCE ASSISTANCE PROJECT APPLICATION Project Narrative – Advance Assistance The Capitol Region Watershed District requests Advance Assistance for DR-4442 pursuant to Section 1104 of the SRIA of 2013 to accelerate implementation of HMGP. The sub-applicant will use Advance Assistance to develop mitigation strategies and obtain data to prioritize, select and develop a future complete HMGP application in a timely manner, as described in the Project Description (Scope of Work) below.

Scope of Work (Project Description) List proposed activities, estimate costs and deliverables.

Item

Activity

Deliverable(s)

1

Collect data and build detailed model of 8,150 acre watershed

Uncalibrated watershed model and report

$310,000.00

2

Calibrate XPSWMM model

Calibrated model and report

$40,000.00

3

Update flood prioritization

Flood area prioritization

$5,000.00

4

Develop calibrated P8 water quality model to assist with feasibility study

P8 results and report

$95,000.00

5

Flood mitigation study of highest priority flood area

Feasibility report

$50,000.00

6

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

$

7

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

$

8

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

$

9

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

$

10

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

$

11

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

$

12

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

$

13

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

$

14

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

$

5|P a g e

Estimated Cost

Total Estimated Cost

$500,000.00

100%

Federal Share

$375,000.00

75.00%

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM ADVANCE ASSISTANCE PROJECT APPLICATION Non-Federal Share

$125,000.00

25.00%

Work Schedule Following is a schedule of proposed milestones by quarter for all major activities by which the subapplicant proposes to monitor progress for Advance Assistance: Quarter

Activity

Milestone

Deliverable

1

Collect data and build detailed model of 8,150 acre watershed

10 months

Uncalibrated watershed model

2

Calibrate XPSWMM model

2 months

Calibrated model

3

Update flood prioritization

2 months

Flood area prioritization

2 months

P8 model

6 months

Feasibilty Report

4 5

Develop calibrated P8 water quality model to assist with feasbility study Flood mitigation study of highest priority flood area

6

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

7

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

8

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

9

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

10

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

11

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

12

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

13

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

14

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

15

Describe activity, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

Describe, 75 character limit

6|P a g e

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM ADVANCE ASSISTANCE PROJECT APPLICATION Line Item Budget The sub-applicant may request that FEMA obligate Advance Assistance funds incrementally, based on when the sub-applicant needs the funds. Please list the obligation schedule by activity Activity

Initial Amount Requested

Second Amount Requested

Third Amount Requested

Total Requested

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

Describe, 75 character limit

$

$

$

$

7|P a g e

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM ADVANCE ASSISTANCE PROJECT APPLICATION Non-Federal Funding Share (25% of Total Project Costs) List all sources and amounts utilized in the non-federal share including all in-kind services. In-Kind services may not exceed the 25% non-federal share. If any portion of the non-Federal share will come from non-applicant sources (donated services, private donation, etc.), attach letters of funding commitment for each non-applicant source.

Source

Name of Source Agency

Type Funding

Local Funds

Capitol Region Watershed District

Budgeted funds for consulting

Describe, 60 character limit

Describe, 100 character limit

Describe, 60 character limit

Describe, 60 character limit

Describe, 100 character limit

Describe, 60 character limit

Describe, 100 character limit

Amount $125,000.0 0

Commitment Letter Attached Yes

No

$

Yes

No

Describe, 60 character limit

$

Yes

No

Describe, 60 character limit

$

Yes

No

Required Documentation Attached Jurisdiction Details Form Detailed budget with narrative Funds commitment letter which lists the sources and amounts utilized in the non-Federal share requirement, including all in-kind services. Fund commitment letters from non-applicant sources.

Assurances → SF-424b → 112-0-3C or 20-16C → SF-LLL (only if engaging in lobbying activities)

Completed SF-424, signed by the authorized representative of the jurisdiction. (optional for sub-applications in HMGP) Non-Construction Budget (SF-424a) (optional for sub-applications in HMGP) Designated Authorized Agent Documentation, designating the Chief Executive Officer or Mayor, to be able to sign contracts, authorize funding allocations or payments, etc. and signed by the ruling body of the applicant.

8|P a g e

Trout Brook Interceptor Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study Narrative and Budget To: Cc: From: Date:

HSEM Nate Zwonitzer, Water Resource Project Manager, Capitol Region Watershed District Nathan Campeau, P.E. and Michael McKinney, P.E., Barr Engineering Co. November 12, 2020

This memorandum provides a project outline for development of detailed water quantity (XP-SWMM) and water quality (P8) modeling of the Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI) and tributary watershed areas spanning the cities of Falcon Heights, Roseville, Little Canada, Maplewood, and Saint Paul, as well as the

development of a flood mitigation study. Following is a description of project tasks and services, along with a schedule and budget for work completed.

Statement of Understanding and Project Goals We understand that CRWD and project partners wish to develop detailed watershed modeling of the TBI

watershed (Figure A) to evaluate storm sewer (TBI, municipal, and other) capacity issues, areas of flooding and flood mitigation opportunities, watershed pollutant loading and water quality improvement

opportunities, and capital improvement needs. This study area spans approximately 8,150 acres and

encompasses land within the following cities and organizational jurisdictions: Saint Paul, Falcon Heights,

Roseville, Little Canada, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT)

right of way, the University of Minnesota, and CRWD. To achieve these goals, CRWD and their partners wish to add detail to the existing hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) XP-SWMM TBI model and develop

water quality P8 models of the study area using utility storm sewer data, stormwater best management

practice (BMP) data, bathymetric survey information, site development plans, and other information (e.g., LiDAR, 2015 Ramsey County Impervious Surface data, CRWD monitoring data, etc.) available from CRWD and project partners. CRWD and partners wish to then update the flood priority areas identified in 2018

by the previous modeling and then perform one flood mitigation study on one of the highest priority flood area.

Project Background and Scope CRWD originally developed an XP-SWMM model of the TBI as part of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer

Interceptor Hydraulic Evaluation in June of 2005 (TKDA, 2005). Since creation of the original XP-SWMM

model, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) has revised and updated the XP SWMM model for a number of projects and calibration efforts. Below is a list of major projects and updates completed by Barr:

Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com

Subject: From: Date: Page:

• • • • •

Trout Brook Interceptor Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study Nathan Campeau, P.E. and Michael McKinney, P.E., Barr Engineering Co. November 12, 2020 2

TBI calibration project (2012); Minor model revisions associated with the TBI realignment project (2012); Farrington and Cottage Streets subwatershed study (2014); Willow Reserve subwatershed study (2016); and TBI Atlas 14 update, calibration, and flooding area prioritizations project (2018).

CRWD and project partners plan to (a) update the calibrated TBI XP-SWMM model to provide additional

spatial resolution (particularly in the City of Saint Paul) to the modeled hydraulic network and associated hydrologic subwatershed divides; (b) create a detailed water quality P8 model of the TBI watershed; (c)

update the 2018 flood prioritization effort, and (d) perform a flood mitigation feasibility study on one of

the highest priority flood area.

The following sections outline all tasks.

Task 1: Collect Data and Build a Detailed XP-SWMM Model of TBI Watershed Task 1.1 Consolidate data, resolve data gaps, and define the pipe network CRWD and project partners plan to collect and review best available storm sewer utility and water quality

BMP data. Based on this review, data gaps should be defined and strategies developed to fill data gaps

and perform the following subtasks: 1.

Coordinate with CRWD and project partners to obtain best available storm sewer utility data, pond bathymetric data, and available record drawings within the TBI watershed.

2.

Evaluate collected datasets and define data gaps. It is Barr’s understanding based on previous modeling efforts that utility data from Saint Paul typically includes all parameters required for modeling, while datasets from Maplewood, Roseville, and Falcon Heights may contain only pipe diameter data (i.e., no invert elevation data).

3.

Develop strategies to fill data gaps. Because over 30% of the TBI watershed (~2,800 acres) is within municipalities with limited or no utility elevation data (i.e., invert data), there will likely be data gaps in a significant portion of the model network. Strategies to fill data gaps may include field survey, record drawing review, relative depth data assumptions, and reducing model resolution in areas of significant data gaps.

4.

Perform limited field survey to (a) perform relative-depth survey to fill critical data gaps; (b) collect average pond depths; and (c) field verify subwatershed divides. Relative-depth survey involves recording depth to invert from rim surface and estimating invert elevations by comparing to LiDAR. Barr will collect and use average pond depth to estimate bathymetric volume for any water bodies without bathymetric volume survey data. As part of this effort, Barr estimates that up to five (5) days of field work will be necessary. Additional field work for this task will require additional budget beyond what this memo describes.

5.

Attendance at up to one (1) meeting with CRWD and project partners, including preparation of meeting materials at CRWD’s offices: a.

Kickoff meeting to present data gaps and discuss strategies to fill data gaps.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362944\WorkFiles\2020 XP-SWMM\FEMA Grant\TBI Detailed Modeling Scope Memo 202001112.docx

Subject: From: Date: Page:

6.

Trout Brook Interceptor Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study Nathan Campeau, P.E. and Michael McKinney, P.E., Barr Engineering Co. November 12, 2020 3

Fill all data gaps and define the model pipe network.

Deliverables: •

Periodic communications and emails.

•

Figure (PDF) showing data gaps within the TBI watershed.

•

Kickoff meeting to define strategies to fill data gaps.

Task 1.2 Bathymetric Survey CRWD and project partners plan to collect detailed bathymetric survey data for modeled ponds and lakes within the study area to improve the accuracy of the water quality modeling. Bathymetric survey data will be directly incorporated into study area water quality modeling for all wet ponds and lakes within the study area by completing the following subtasks: 1.

Determine which lakes, wet ponds, and wetlands will be surveyed as identified through coordination between CRWD and project partners.

2.

Determine what parties will be responsible for bathymetric surveys on each water body (i.e., CRWD, project partners, or Barr).

3.

Collect bathymetric survey data, digitize, and incorporate into study area modeling efforts.

Deliverables: •

Figures (PDFs) showing bathymetric contours for surveyed ponds.

Task 1.3: Delineate subwatersheds and develop XP-SWMM hydrologic inputs The next task is to add resolution to subwatershed divides within the TBI watershed and generate

hydrologic inputs for modeling in XP-SWMM by completing the following subtasks: 1.

Delineate subwatersheds to all potential areas of surface flooding (e.g., sag areas along roads and intersections) and groupings of catch basins (i.e., catch basin clusters).

2.

Review Saint Paul permits (private connection and rate control) and incorporate into subwatershed divides.

3.

Develop a draft figure (PDF) of subwatershed divides, provide to CRWD and project partners, and incorporate one (1) round of comments into final subwatershed divides.

4.

Develop hydrologic inputs using the methodology and data sources from the TBI Atlas 14 update and calibration project (Barr, 2018). Note: calibration methodology developed for the 2018 calibration project would not be applied initially, but would be evaluated during calibration of the XP-SWMM model.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362944\WorkFiles\2020 XP-SWMM\FEMA Grant\TBI Detailed Modeling Scope Memo 202001112.docx

Subject: From: Date: Page:

Trout Brook Interceptor Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study Nathan Campeau, P.E. and Michael McKinney, P.E., Barr Engineering Co. November 12, 2020 4

Deliverables: •

Periodic communications and emails.

•

Figure (PDF) showing draft subwatershed divides for CRWD review.

Task 1.4: XP-SWMM model update Starting with the XP-SWMM model from the TBI Atlas 14 update and calibration project (Barr, 2018), the next task is to update and increase the hydraulic and hydrologic resolution of the model by completing

the following subtasks: 1.

Incorporate the reviewed pipe network tributary to the TBI from Task 1.1.

2.

Incorporate subwatersheds and hydrologic inputs from Task 1.3.

3.

Generate model storage for all subwatersheds using 2011 Ramsey County LIDAR.

4.

Run the 24-hour, 500-year storm (10.4 inches) in the model using the MSE3 rainfall distribution, building in storage and overflows to contain all flooding in the model. Note: the cumulative depth of 500-year design storm is approximately equal to both the 95th percentile 100-year design storm and the projected 2050 100-year event (from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District).

5.

Run the 24-hour, 2-, 10-, and 100-year Atlas 14 design events (2.8, 4.2, and 7.4 inches, respectively).

6.

Convert the model to Saint Paul hydrologic methodology.

7.

Create figures (PDFs) of 10-, 100-, and 500-year flooding using uncalibrated event for use at Task 3 meeting with CRWD.

8.

Perform preliminary review of flood prioritization areas identified in the TBI Atlas 14 update, calibration, and flooding area prioritization project (Barr, 2018).

9.

Develop reporting and figures for final report.

10. Attendance at up to one (1) meeting with CRWD and project partners, including preparation of meeting materials at CRWD’s offices: a.

Draft XP-SWMM review meeting following construction of updated XP-SWMM model.

b. Review the 10-, 100- and 500-year inundation results.

Deliverables: •

Periodic communications and emails.

•

Figure (PDF) showing draft 10-, 100- and 500-year event inundation areas for CRWD review.

•

Draft XP-SWMM review meeting to review uncalibrated results and preliminary review of floodprioritization areas.

•

Report text

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362944\WorkFiles\2020 XP-SWMM\FEMA Grant\TBI Detailed Modeling Scope Memo 202001112.docx

Subject: From: Date: Page:

Trout Brook Interceptor Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study Nathan Campeau, P.E. and Michael McKinney, P.E., Barr Engineering Co. November 12, 2020 5

Task 2: XP-SWMM model calibration Using the uncalibrated model developed 3, the next task is to calibrate the XP-SMMM model to

monitoring data collected by CRWD by completing the following subtasks: 1.

Review precipitation data and monitoring data from TBI monitoring locations (raw and processed data) and determine if data can be used for XP-SWMM model calibration.

2.

Compare rating curves from 2018 calibrated model to the uncalibrated model at the 2020 calibration locations to determine likely level of effort needed to calibrate model.

3.

Review flow and rainfall monitoring data and identify candidate events for calibration efforts.

4.

Using flow monitoring data collected at several locations by CRWD and project partners for the rainfall events selected in Task 3, attempt a recalibration of the TBI model (two calibration events and one validation event).

5.

Run the 24-hour, 2-, 10-, 100-, and 500-year Atlas 14 storms through the calibrated model.

6.

Develop calibrated inundation figures for the TBI system using the 24-hour, 2-, 10-, 100-, and 500year Atlas 14 model runs.

7.

Develop reporting and figures for final report.

Deliverables: •

Periodic communications and emails.

•

Meeting to review monitoring data, selection of rainfall events, and draft calibration and associated inundation figures.

•

Documentation of calibration efforts and results in final report.

Task 3: Update TBI flood prioritization Using the updated TBI XP-SWMM model, CRWD plans to update the flood prioritization analysis

developed for the TBI Atlas 14 update, calibration, and flooding area prioritization project (Barr, 2018).

1.

Using the calibrated XP-SWMM model from Task 4, evaluate and re-score the nine (9) TBI flood prioritization areas (Barr, 2018).

2.

Develop reporting and figures for final report

Deliverables: •

Periodic communications and emails.

•

Table summarizing the updated scoring values for each flood prioritization area.

•

Report text

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362944\WorkFiles\2020 XP-SWMM\FEMA Grant\TBI Detailed Modeling Scope Memo 202001112.docx

Subject: From: Date: Page:

Trout Brook Interceptor Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study Nathan Campeau, P.E. and Michael McKinney, P.E., Barr Engineering Co. November 12, 2020 6

Task 4: P8 model development and calibration Using the updated TBI XP-SWMM model, the next task is to develop P8 water quality modeling spanning the TBI watershed by completing the following subtasks: 1.

Using the updated XP-SWMM model from Task 3 (or optionally, the calibrated XP-SWMM model from Task 4), develop P8 hydrologic inputs (SCS curve number) and hydraulic inputs for area BMPs and pipe devices.

2.

Group XP-SWMM subwatersheds into larger catchments for use in the P8 models (P8 has a limit of 250 catchments per model).

3.

Determine the number of P8 models required to provide complete model coverage of the TBI watershed (limit of 250 catchments and 75 hydraulic devices per model).

4.

Create the P8 models, incorporating best-available data from existing P8 models that exist in the TBI watershed.

5.

Run P8 models for continuous 50-year period.

6.

Generate figures (PDFs) showing the raw pollutant loading and loading post-BMP removal (i.e., effective loading).

7.

Calibrate P8 model: a.

Review precipitation, flow, and pollutant monitoring data from TBI monitoring locations (raw and processed data) and determine if data can be used for P8 model calibration. b. Convert event-based monitoring of flow and pollutant loading into total loading values for the monitoring period. If needed, coordinate with the CRWD and project partners on strategies for developing loading totals for unmonitored events. c. Using precipitation, flow, and pollutant monitoring data collected by CRWD and project partners, attempt to calibrate TBI P8 models to loading totals for the monitoring period (note: calibration will be performed to observed runoff and pollutant total loading for the monitored period, rather than individual events). d. Run the calibrated P8 models for the continuous 50-year period. e. Generate figures (PDFs) showing the raw pollutant loading and loading post-BMP removal (i.e., effective loading).

8.

Develop reporting and figures for final report.

9.

Attendance at up to two (2) meetings at CRWD’s offices with CRWD staff and other stakeholders or project partners, including preparation of meeting materials: a.

Draft P8 review meeting.

b. Calibrated P8 review meeting.

Deliverables:

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362944\WorkFiles\2020 XP-SWMM\FEMA Grant\TBI Detailed Modeling Scope Memo 202001112.docx

Subject: From: Date: Page:

Trout Brook Interceptor Flood Modeling and Mitigation Feasibility Study Nathan Campeau, P.E. and Michael McKinney, P.E., Barr Engineering Co. November 12, 2020 7

•

Periodic communications and emails.

•

Figures (PDF) showing draft and calibrated total and effective pollutant yield.

•

Meetings to review draft and calibrated P8 model results.

•

Report text

Task 5: Flood mitigation study of high priority flood area After the flood prioritization has been updated, CRWD plans to develop a feasibility study for one of the

highest priority flood areas to develop improvement to TBI itself and surrounding infrastructure to reduce the risk of flooding and protect property and infrastructure. The feasibility study will also look at

incorporating water quality improvements into a flood mitigation solution to provide multiple benefits.

The full scope will be determined after the flood area has been identified, and for now, a $50,000 cost has been assumed, similar to other feasibility efforts CRWD has performed along TBI. Deliverables: •

Periodic communications and emails.

•

Feasibility report.

•

Up to 2 meetings with CRWD and project partners to review goals and results of the feasibility study.

Estimated Project Schedule and Budget The following table summarizes the estimated cost and schedule associated with each task described in the project scope of services.

Tasks Task 1: Collect data and build detailed model of TBI watershed Task 2: Calibrate XP-SWMM Model Task 3: Update Flood Prioritization Task 4: P8 model development and calibration Task 5: Flood mitigation study of high priority flood area Final report and deliverables

Duration

Hours

Budget

10 months

2,700

$310,000

2 months

450

$40,000

2 months

50

$5,000

2 months

900

$95,000

6 months

400

$50,000

22 months

4,500

$500,000

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362944\WorkFiles\2020 XP-SWMM\FEMA Grant\TBI Detailed Modeling Scope Memo 202001112.docx

November 18, 2020 Board Meeting V. Action Items – D) Authorize CRWD Annual Meeting Delegates to vote on MAWD Resolutions consistent with Resolutions Committee Recommendations (Doneux) DATE: October 30, 2019 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Mark Doneux, Administrator RE: Authorize CRWD Annual Meeting Delegates to vote on MAWD Resolutions consistent with ___________________________________________________________________________________ Resolutions Committee Recommendations Background As part of the annual meeting of the Minnesota Association of Watershed District (MAWD), delegates are asked to consider and take action resolutions submitted to the membership. This year several resolutions are being considered at the annual meeting.

Issues Attached are the recommendations of the MAWD Resolutions/Policy Committee to MAWD membership for the 2020 MAWD Annual Meeting.

The MAWD Resolution committee will meet at the Annual Meeting on Friday, December 4, 2020 to entertain any questions regarding their recommendations from the proposing watershed district or other member districts and review any Board of Director's Resolutions. This meeting will be held virtually.

The Board of Managers should provide direction and recommendations to the CRWD delegates, Mary Texer and Rick Sanders on how to vote on year’s slate of resolutions.

Requested Action Authorize CRWD Annual Meeting Delegates to vote on MAWD Resolutions consistent with Resolutions Committee Recommendations

enc:

2020 MAWD Resolution packet

W:\08 Orgs-Cities-Agencies\MAWD\MAWD 2020 Annual Conference\Bd Memo MAWD Resolutions 2020.docx

Resolutions Hearing Packet DATE:

November 2, 2020

TO:

MAWD members

FROM:

MAWD Board and Resolutions Committee

RE:

Resolutions Hearing

The Resolutions Committee met online at 2 p.m. on Friday, September 18, 2020 to review the resolutions submitted by MAWD members this year. There were six resolutions: one was a renewal of a resolution that was set to expire, two were repeats from last year, and 3 were new. The MAWD Board recommended two resolutions at their board meeting on September 25th meeting that were reviewed by the committee via email. The committee feedback is summarized in the table below and are discussed further after each resolution. Members (2 delegates from each watershed organization) will vote on the resolutions at the annual business meeting on December 4, 2020.

As a reminder, the objective of the resolutions committee is to complete the following tasks: 1. Determine if any proposed resolutions are duplicative of current policy. If so, they should not be forwarded to the members for a vote at the annual meeting.

2. Determine if any resolutions are so similar that they should be combined into one. If so, MAWD staff will work with the watersheds who submitted the resolutions to rewrite them into one resolution.

3. Determine if the “THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED” statements are written in a way that directs HOW or WHEN to do the work. If so, the committee should propose new language that simply states what the organization supports or opposes.

4. Debate the merits of each resolution and make recommendations to the membership on whether each resolution should be adopted or rejected. A summary committee position is forwarded to members with the resolutions. Note: the committee is not responsible to determine if MAWD resources are to be allocated for an issue. The committee only recommends whether the resolution fits the mission of MAWD and its members. If a resolution is adopted as MAWD policy, it just means we support the idea. It is up to the MAWD Board to determine how much time, money, and energy is put behind each area.

Resolutions Committee Recommendations # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Resolution Title Creating an Easier Appeals Process for Corrections to the Public Waters Inventory Limiting Wake Boat Activities that Directly Cause Shoreline Erosion and Spread Aquatic Invasive Species Banning the Use of Carcinogenic Pesticides and Herbicides on Residential and Commercial Lawns Requiring Soil Health Goals in Watershed Management Plans and Ten-Year Plan Amendments Limiting Excessive Use of Groundwater for the Purpose of Watering Urban and Suburban Landscapes During the Summer Months Permitting Water Storage on Wetlands Controlled by the DNR During Major Flood Events Watershed Districts Agriculture Drainage Bond Funding Watershed-Based Implementation Funding through Coordinated Comprehensive Watershed Plans

Committee Recommendation Support Oppose – voted down Dec 2019 Oppose – voted down Dec 2019 Oppose – one size doesn’t fit all Oppose – one size doesn’t fit all Support Support Support

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

1|Page

BACKGROUND INFO on MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-01

Creating an Easier Appeals Process for Corrections to the Public Waters Inventory Proposing District: Contact Name: Phone Number: Email Address:

Upper Minnesota River WD Amber Doschadis 320-839-3411 Amber.Doschadis@midconetwork.com

Background that led to submission of this resolution: Public waters are all water basins and watercourses that meet the criteria set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, subd. 15 that are identified on Public Water Inventory maps authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.201.

The MN DNR website states the following regarding corrections to the inventory“Anyone who wants to challenge inclusion of a watercourse segment in the public waters inventory should provide documentation that the watercourse in question did not meet the definition of a public water at the time of the inventory. This information should be submitted to DNR’s area hydrologist, along with a request to remove the watercourse segment from the public waters inventory.

DNR will review the information provided, along with information from our public waters designation files and other relevant information (e.g., aerial photographs, USGS maps, original land survey information). We will determine if the public watercourse segment being challenged was designated in error.

If we determine the watercourse segment was designated in error we will remove it from the public water inventory and buffer protection map. If we determine it was correctly designated a public water, it will remain in the public water inventory and on the buffer protection map. Those who request removal of waters from the public waters inventory will be informed of DNR’s decision and will be given our reasons for the decision.”

We submit this resolution to show our support for future legislation that would provide landowner’s with a more formal process to appeal DNR’s decision including the right to fair representation in a process such as a contested case proceeding which would allow landowners an option to give oral arguments or provide expert witnesses for their case.

Ideas for how this issue could be solved: Anticipated support or opposition from other governmental units?

This issue is of importance (Check one): To the entire State: X Only our Region: Only our District:

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

2|Page

MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-01

Creating an Easier Appeals Process for Corrections to the Public Waters Inventory WHEREAS, the Public Water Inventory (PWI) maps were created in the late 1970s when the best topographical information available were USGS topographic maps with 10’ contour lines; and WHEREAS, today’s technology more accurately predicts the flow of water by utilizing maps with one-foot contours lines; and WHEREAS, the PWI incorrectly classifies some land as meeting (and conversely not meeting) the definition of public water in MN Statute 103G.005; and WHEREAS, in some circumstances, incorrect classifications require some land to be set aside in 50’ buffers when 16.5’ buffers would be adequate; and WHEREAS, there is no mechanism to update errors made by analyzing drainage patterns determined using the 10’ contour maps.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that MAWD supports legislation that would provide landowners with a more

formal process to appeal decisions made by the DNR regarding the designation of public waters including the right to fair representation in a process such as a contested case proceeding which would allow landowners an option to give oral arguments or provide expert witnesses for their case.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: The resolutions committee recommends adoption of this resolution.

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

3|Page

BACKGROUND INFO on MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-02

Limiting Wake Boat Activities that Directly Cause Shoreline Erosion and Spread Aquatic Invasive Species Proposing District: Contact Name: Phone Number: Email Address:

Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Claire Bleser, Administrator 952-607-6512 cbleser@rpbcwd.org

Background that led to submission of this resolution: Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District seeks to address erosion and shoreland health challenges through the water quality strategies included in its 2018 10-Year Watershed Management Plan, issues that fall within one of the plan’s primary focus areas: improving and protecting water quality. In its Watershed Management Plan, the District maintains that healthy shoreland areas are a key element of healthy hydrologic systems and provide habitat to support wildlife viability. Shoreland benefits can be compromised by erosion and sedimentation, among other resource threats.

The District seeks to minimize the negative impacts of erosion and sedimentation – decreasing water depth, degrading water quality, smothering of fish and wildlife habitat – that result in major contributions to water pollution, recognizing that erosion and sedimentation are often accelerated by human activities. The District also seeks to minimize the spread and reduce the adverse ecological impacts of aquatic invasive species (AIS).

Public groups and the scientific community have observed water quality issues, including scouring of lake bottoms by boat waves, sediment disturbance and damage to aquatic plants, damage to shoreline areas, and negative impacts to aquatic animals, that are linked to the large wakes created by wake boats on lakes. The current design of many wake boat ballast tanks does not enable the tanks to be completely drained or fully decontaminated, presenting an additional concern about transport of AIS. While most of the discussion has focused on wake boats, the same issues may arise with any water craft designed or operated in a manner to create wakes larger than wakes created by ordinary boats, including but not limited to boats with ballast, fins, trim tabs, or similar design features.

A 2019 University of Minnesota Aquatic Invasive Species Research Center study showed that that large volume water holding ballast tanks of wake boats, which have the capacity to take on the most water of similar recreational boats, provide zebra mussels and larvae the greatest opportunity for inter-lake transport. These boats are not designed to fully drain all ballast tank water. 1 A 2018 report from the Oregon State Legislature summarizes studies on the various effects of wake boats, noting that boat speed is a primary factor in influencing wave size. 2 Also cited in this report is a report by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Bay Program that demonstrates a positive correlation between the size of boat wakes and the extent of shoreline erosion as well as sediment resuspension and nearshore turbidity. 3 A report to the City Council of Prior Lake, Indiana assesses environmental impacts from high speed boats on the state’s lakes. The report summarizes studies focused on ecological impacts caused by waves, including shore and bank erosion, decreased water clarity, water quality degradation, and harm to aquatic plant and animal species. Shallow waters feel 1

Dave Orrick. (2019) Zebra Mussel’s Best Friend: Wakeboard Boats, New U Study Finds. Livewell also Tested. Accessed through the Minnesota Aquatic Invasive Species Research Center (MAISRC), https://www.maisrc.umn.edu/news/wakeboards.

2 Item E: Staff report on safety around wake sports statewide. (2018) Oregon State Legislature. Available online: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2018R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/144261.

See also Sara MercierBlais & Yves Prairie. (2014) Project evaluation of the impact of the waves created by the type of boats wakeboat on the shores of Lake Memphremagog and Lovering; Ruprecht, Glamore, Cogland. (2015) Wakesurfing: Some Wakes are More Equal than Others. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294799932_Wakesurfing_Some_Wakes_are_More_Equal_than_Others.

3 Id. See also USDA NRCS. (1997) Slope Protection for Dams and Lakeshores: Minnesota Technical Note 2 (reviewing shoreline erosion processes and causes).

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

4|Page

the most direct impacts of boat wakes, as well as shoreline areas adjacent to less than 1,000 feet of open water, making near-shore habitat where water depth is approximately 10 feet or less– the littoral zone—the most important to protect. 4 In spring 2019, Vermont considered legislation presented in Senate Bill 69 “to restrict or prohibit the use of wake boats in certain public waters.” 5 The bill as introduced proposes to limit wake boat speed within 200 feet of shoreline, imposing a $500 fine per violation, and proposes to restrict use of wake boats in certain public waters based on the size of the water body, the use of adjacent land, scenic beauty, or other recreational factors. 6 While the bill did not progress in the 2019 session, it may be re-introduced during a future session.

Ideas for how this issue could be solved: We have identified three potential concurrent solutions: 1. Limiting wake boats to areas of lakes sufficiently distanced from shorelines to allow boat-generated waves to adequately dissipate and lessen energy before coming into impact with lake shorelines; and 2. Banning wake boats wakes in shallow lake areas where waves created by wake boats detrimentally impact sediment, aquatic vegetation, and aquatic habitat; and 3. Requiring wake boats to be designed, and existing boats to be modified, to enable complete drainage and decontamination of ballast tanks to stop the spread of AIS. Anticipated support or opposition from other governmental units?

Minnesota DNR is already engaged in an education campaign, “Own Your Wake – for Everyone’s Sake,” encouraging responsible boat use near shorelines. DNR also actively promotes state AIS law, requiring boat ballast tanks to be emptied by a shoreline or waterway before being transported. We anticipate seeking DNR support for and leadership of legislation reflecting joint ideas of how to solve issues caused by wake boating.

This issue is of importance (Check one): To the entire State: X Only our Region: Only our District:

4

City of Prior Lake, Agenda Item #16. Information Item: A review of environmental impacts from high speed boats on Indiana’s public freshwater lakes; Administrative Cause no. 10-029V. Available online: https://www.cityofpriorlake.com/documents/WSUM/info17.pdf.

5 Bruce Durgin. (2019) Wakeboard Boats Believed to Damage Lakes. The Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds. Available online: http://vermontlakes.org/wp-content/uploads//FOVLAP-Newsletter-Spring-2019-Final-digital.pdf 6 Vermont Legislature (2019). Bill as Introduced: S.69. Available online: https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/S-0069/S0069%20As%20Introduced.pdf

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

5|Page

2020 MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-02

Limiting Wake Boat Activities that Directly Cause Shoreline Erosion and Spread Aquatic Invasive Species WHEREAS, watershed districts engage in conserving the state’s natural resources “by land use planning, flood control, and other conservation projects by using sound scientific principles for the protection of the public health and welfare and the provident use of the natural resources.” Minn. Stat. 103D.201, subd. 1; WHEREAS, wake boats driven in Minnesota lakes result in scouring of lake bottoms, disturbance of lake sediment and damage to aquatic plants, erosion of lake shoreline, disturbance of and damage to aquatic animals, and transfer of water in boat ballast tanks – many of which are not designed to drain completely or to be decontaminated – that results in transfer of aquatic invasive species (AIS) among Minnesota lakes; WHEREAS, opportunities to limit the water quality impacts of wake boats include: restricting where within and in what waterbodies wake boats are allowed; defining the depth of water in which wake boats are allowed to create a wake; and requiring wake boats to be designed, and existing boats to be modified, to enable complete drainage and decontamination of ballast tanks to stop the spread of AIS; Whereas the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is engaged in an education campaign, "Own Your Wake - for Everyone's Sake," encouraging responsible boat use near shorelines, and also actively promotes state AIS law, requiring boat ballast tanks to be emptied by a shoreline or waterway before being transported; WHEREAS, the University of Minnesota’s St. Anthony Falls Laboratory plans to measure the height and energy of waves generated by wakesurfing boats and other large watercraft, as well as the turbulence created by propellers, to provide insight into the impact of wakesurfing boats on Minnesota lakes and shorelines; WHEREAS, other states have begun to regulate wake boat minimum distance from shoreline requirements and limit in what water bodies wake boating may take place; these regulations can serve as guidelines for regulations in Minnesota;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that MAWD supports legislation:

a) limiting wake boating to areas of lakes sufficiently distanced from shorelines to allow boat generated waves to adequately dissipate and lessen energy before coming into impact with lake shorelines; b) banning wake boats wakes in shallow lake areas where waves created by wake boats detrimentally impact sediment, aquatic vegetation, and aquatic habitat; and c) requiring new and existing wake boats to be able to completely drain and decontaminate their ballast tanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: The resolutions committee recommends RPBCWD withdraw the resolution since members voted this down less than one year ago and no substantial changes were made since that time. They oppose the resolution.

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

6|Page

BACKGROUND INFO on MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-03

Banning the Use of Carcinogenic Pesticides and Herbicides on Residential and Commercial Lawns Proposing District: Contact Name: Phone Number: Email Address:

Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Claire Bleser, Administrator 952-607-6512 cbleser@rpbcwd.org

Background that led to submission of this resolution: Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District seeks to address groundwater health challenges through the strategies included in its 2018 10-Year Watershed Management Plan to promote the sustainable management of groundwater resources. The District recognizes that groundwater can be contaminated by fertilizer and pesticide applications, and that surface water and groundwater resources are interdependent. (10-Year Plan, 2.3.6.2, 2-21). While these relationships are challenging to quantify, contaminated water from one source can impact the water quality of the other. The District is focused on prevention of groundwater contamination through best management practices, recognizing that groundwater clean-up, when feasible, is both expensive and complex.

Pesticides and herbicides used on both commercial and residential lawns have been linked to human health problems, and some studies have connected pesticides and herbicides with carcinogenic properties, including promotion of tumors. 7 A variety of pesticide and herbicide products pose health concerns, and some pesticides include known endocrine-disrupting compounds that affect how natural hormones function in the body and interfere with the body’s regulation of the endocrine system. 8 There are two primary pathways to pesticide and herbicide exposure, both directly and via drinking water through groundwater contamination. Contaminated surface water moving through the soil carries pollutants into groundwater resources, resulting in an underground plume of polluted groundwater that may become unsuitable for drinking water. 9 In Minnesota, pesticides shown to disrupt hormone activity have been detected in surface waters. 10 Some municipalities in Canada have restricted pesticide use for aesthetic purposes, including on golf courses, due to health effects concerns including the relation between surface-applied pesticide exposure and occurrence of cancer. 11 A 2006 study reviewing medical literature on herbicide and pesticide exposure notes that “the balance of epidemiological research suggests the 2,4-D [a common herbicide used to kill weeds in grass] can be persuasively linked to cancers, neurological impairment and reproductive problems. These may arise from 2,4-D itself, from breakdown products or dioxin contamination, or from a combination of chemicals.” 12 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center also notes that, although evidence is limited, the International Agency for Research on Cancer linked certain herbicides, such

7

Dich, J., Zahm, SH, Adami, HO. (1997). Pesticides and Cancer. Cancer Causes Control. May; 8(3), 420-43.

Swackhamer, D. et al. (2010). Understanding Sources of Aquatic Contaminants of Emerging Concern. LCCMR Project Addendum. Available online: https://www.lccmr.leg.mn/documents/peer_review/2010/addendums/subd_5a_swackhamer_v1.pdf.

9 See Joyce Latimer, Mike Goatley, Greg Evanylo, Bonnie Appleton. (2009). Groundwater Quality and the Use of Lawn and Garden Chemicals by Homeowners. Virginia Tech and Virginia State University: Virginia Cooperative Extension. Available online: https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/426/426-059/426-059.html.

10 Swackhamer, D. et al. (2010). Understanding Sources of Aquatic Contaminants of Emerging Concern. LCCMR Project Addendum. Available online: https://www.lccmr.leg.mn/documents/peer_review/2010/addendums/subd_5a_swackhamer_v1.pdf.

11 Loren D. Knopper & David R.S. Lean. (2010) Carcinogenic and Genotoxic Potential of Turf Pesticides Commonly used on Golf Courses. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B. Vol. 7, 2004: 4, 267-279.

Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937400490452697?scroll=top&needAccess=true.

12 Meg Sears, C. Robin Walker, Richard HC van der Jagt, Paul Claman. (2006) Pesticide assessment: Protecting public health on the home turf.

Pediatrics & Child Health, vol. 11: 4, 229-234. Available online: https://academic.oup.com/pch/article/11/4/229/2648275.

8

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

7|Page

as those containing glyphosate (2,4-D) with an increased risk of cancer. 13 According to the non-profit group Beyond Pesticides, of the 36 most commonly used lawn care pesticides registered prior to 1984, “14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 15 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive defects, 24 with neurotoxicity, 22 with liver or kidney damage, and 3 are sensitizers and/or irritants.” 14 Additionally, “[a] child in a household using home and garden pesticides is 6.5 times more likely to develop leukemia than in a home that does not.” A 2012 National Institute of Health study of companion animals exposed to lawn care products demonstrated an association between use of specific law care products and a greater risk of canine malignant lymphoma. 15

Ideas for how this issue could be solved: We have identified one potential solution: 1. Ban the use of carcinogenic pesticides and herbicides on residential and commercial lawns and encourage adoption of alternatives such as PRFCT lawns.

Anticipated support or opposition from other governmental units?

Minnesota Department of Health lists pesticides as a chemical of special concern to children’s health and many be interested in partnering on legislation. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture offers voluntary turfgrass pesticide use Best Management Practices “to bring awareness to homeowners and lawn care companies on proper and judicious use of pesticides for homeowners, lawn care companies, and gold course managers to help protect water resources, humans, and non-target organisms including pollinators.” These BMPs include using non-chemical pest control methods.

This issue is of importance (Check one): To the entire State: X Only our Region: Only our District:

13

Kellie Bramlet. (2016) Lawn Care and Your Cancer Risk. University of Texas MS Anderson Cancer Center. Available online: https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/lawncare-cancer-risk.h26Z1590624.html.

14 Beyond Pesticides. Commonly Asked Questions About Chemical Lawn Care. Available online: https://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/lawns-and-landscapes/overview/faq-chemical-lawn-care.

15 Takashima-Uebehlhoer BB, Barber LG, Zagarins SE, Procter-Gray E, Gollenberg AL, Moore AS, Bertone-Johnson ER. (2012) Household chemical exposures and the risk of canine malignant lymphoma, a model for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 112:171-176. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222006.

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

8|Page

MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-03

Resolution to Ban the Use of Pesticides and Herbicides that are Known Carcinogens on Residential and Commercial Lawns WHEREAS, watershed districts engage in conserving the state’s natural resources “by land use planning, flood control, and other conservation projects by using sound scientific principles for the protection of the public health and welfare and the provident use of the natural resources.” Minn. Stat. 103D.201, subd. 1; WHEREAS, human and environmental health concerns arise from the use of health harming and potentially carcinogenic pesticides and herbicides on commercial and residential lawns because surface application exposes humans and animals to potential carcinogens, and surface water carries pesticide and herbicide pollution through soil and into groundwater sources that can affect drinking water and environmental health; WHEREAS, eliminating the use of specific pesticides and herbicides on lawns will reduce surface interaction with these health-harming, potential carcinogens, and limit their entry into groundwater; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Health lists pesticides as a chemical of special concern to children’s and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture promotes turfgrass pesticide use BMPs including using non-chemical pest controls.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that MAWD supports legislation banning the use of carcinogenic pesticides and

herbicides on residential and commercial lawns.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: The resolutions committee recommends RPBCWD withdraw the resolution since the members voted this down less than one year ago and no substantial changes were made since that time. They oppose the resolution.

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

9|Page

BACKGROUND INFO on MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-04

Requiring Soil Health Goals in Watershed Management Plans and Ten-Year Plan Amendments Proposing District: Contact Name: Phone Number: Email Address:

Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Claire Bleser, Administrator 952-607-6512 cbleser@rpbcwd.org

Background that led to the submission of this resolution: Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District seeks to address the decline of soil health, “the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans,”16 and the closely related negative impacts to water quality, due to the spread of impervious surfaces and general compaction of urbanized soils.

Excessive rainfall and resultant flooding, threatening food security, public health, and natural resources, are anticipated as rainfall amounts continue to increase. Soil organic matter is a known effective antidote to the negative water resources impacts of soil erosion and flooding that accompany increased rainfalls.17 For example, a 1% increase in soil organic matter has the ability to hold 20,000 gallons of additional water per acre. Increasing the organic carbon content in soil significantly benefits water quality, along with the public health more broadly.18 Healthy soils contain “a diverse population of beneficial organisms, high levels of decomposed organic matter, low levels of toxic compounds, adequate (rather than excessive) levels of nutrients, a sufficiently porous surface, and good tilth.”19 According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Soil helps control where rain, snowmelt, and irrigation water goes. Water and dissolved solutes flow over the land or into and through soil... The minerals and microbes in soil are responsible for filtering, buffering, degrading, immobilizing, and detoxifying organic and inorganic materials, including industrial and municipal byproducts... Soil structure provides a medium for plant roots.” 20 Currently, Minnesota Rule 8410.0800 lists required goals for water management plans and ten-year plan amendments, including for water quantity, water quality, public drainage systems, groundwater, and wetlands. Missing from this list of required goals is soil health.

Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.231, subd. 4(c) states: (c) The [metropolitan watershed management] plan shall contain the elements required by subdivision 6. Each element shall be set out in the degree of detail and prescription necessary to accomplish the purposes of sections 103B.205 to 103B.255, considering the character of existing and anticipated physical and hydrogeologic conditions, land use, and development and the severity of existing and anticipated water management problems in the watershed. [emphasis added.]

Natural Resources Conservation Service - Soils. Soil Health. USDA. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/.

17 See Desai, Danika. 2018. Soil Conservation in California: An Analysis of the Healthy Soils Initiative. NYU Environmental Law Journal.

Available online: https://www.nyuelj.org/2018/02/soil-conservation-in-california-an-analysis-of-the-healthy-soils-initiative/ 18 Bryant, Lara. 2015. Organic Matter Can Improve Your Soil’s Water Holding Capacity. NRDC. Available online: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-bryant/organic-matter-can-improve-your-soils-water-holding-capacity.

19 Id. 20 Natural Resources Conservation Service - Soils. Soil Health. USDA. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/.

16

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 10 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

Section 103B.231, subd. 4(c) provides a statutory basis for revising Minnesota Rule 8410.0080 to include soil health goals in watershed management plans, given the hydrogeologic connection between soil health and impervious surface water runoff and compaction of urbanized soils;

Ideas for how this issue could be solved: Ask the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources to amend Minnesota Rule 8410.0080 to include a goal for soil health in watershed management plans and ten-year plan amendments. A metropolitan watershed district would then be required to include soil health in its watershed management plan or ten-year plan amendment, and to implement policies to assess, protect, and restore soil health within the district.

Anticipated support or opposition from other governmental units?

This issue is of importance (Check one): To the entire State: X Only our Region: Only our District:

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 11 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-04

Requiring Soil Health Goals in Watershed Management Plans and Ten-Year Plan Amendments WHEREAS, watershed districts engage in conserving the state’s natural resources “by land use planning, flood control, and other conservation projects by using sound scientific principles for the protection of the public health and welfare and the provident use of the natural resources.” Minn. Stat. 103D.201, subd. 1; WHEREAS, soil health, “the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans,” 21 is connected to the health of water resources, specifically water quality, and soil health has declined in urbanized areas due to the spread of impervious surface and the general compaction of urbanized soils; further, improving soil organic matter in soil can significantly help to absorb additional water due to excessive rainfall, reducing erosion and flow rates to water resources; Whereas Minnesota Rule 8410.0060 includes soil inventory as a required element of a metropolitan watershed plan, but Minnesota Rule 8410.0080, listing goals to be included in watershed management plans and ten-year plan amendments, does not include soil health among the listed goals of water quantity, water quality, public drainage systems, groundwater, and wetlands; Whereas Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.231, subd. 4(c) provides a statutory basis for revising Minnesota Rule 8410.0080 to include soil health goals in watershed management plans by providing that watershed management plans consider “the character of existing and anticipated physical and hydrogeologic conditions, land use, and development and the severity of existing and anticipated water management problems in the watershed”;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that MAWD supports amending Minnesota Rule 8410.0080 to include a

goal for soil health in watershed management plans and ten-year plan amendments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: The resolutions committee does not support the resolution because soil health may not be a focus area of some watershed districts. Local priorities determine why a district exists and directs the type of work it completes.

Natural Resources Conservation Service - Soils. Soil Health. USDA. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/.

21

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 12 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

BACKGROUND INFO on MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-05

Limiting Excessive Use of Groundwater for Urban and Suburban Landscapes During the Summer Months Proposing District: Contact Name: Phone Number: Email Address:

Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Claire Bleser, Administrator 952-607-6512 cbleser@rpbcwd.org

Background that led to the submission of this resolution: Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District seeks to address depletion of valuable groundwater resources in Minnesota. 60% of homeowners with irrigation systems in the Twin Cities Metro Area used far more water than they needed to water their lawns 22. The use of groundwater to irrigate urban and suburban lawns during particular hours of the day during the summer poses needless use of such water during times when evaporation rates are highest, thus wasting precious water resources, many of which take thousands of years to replenish.

Watering lawns (either via landscape irrigation system or manual watering) between noon and sundown generally results in higher evaporation rates than watering morning hours. Watering lawns in the evening has the potential to make lawns susceptible to disease when hot and humid conditions are combined with excess moisture. Watering lawns in the early morning is the most ideal as evaporation demands are low and wind deflection is less of an issue. 23 Irrigating urban and suburban lawns during or shortly after precipitation events, when soils are saturated, not only wastes a significant amount of groundwater, but also increases runoff and potential pollution of streams, lakes and wetlands.

Ideas for how this issue could be solved: Encourage the Department of Minnesota Natural Resources to investigate statewide regulations of urban and suburban lawn watering practices. Including but not limited to: • Restricting the hours during which irrigation of lawns is allowed (with the exception of irrigation from water capture and reuse systems) • Enforcement of Minnesota State Statue 103G.298 requiring that “all automatically operated landscape irrigation systems shall have furnished and installed technology that inhibits or interrupts operation of the landscape irrigation system during periods of sufficient moisture. The technology must be adjusted either by the end user or the professional practitioner of landscape irrigation services.”

• Require all companies engaged in the installation or maintenance of landscape irrigation systems to be trained and certified in the installation and use of EPA water sense technologies.

• Require all companies engaged in the installation or maintenance of landscape irrigation systems to register with the DNR and pay an annual fee to be divided among the cities and counties in which they do business based upon the amount of business done in each city and county.

• Require all companies engaged in the installation or maintenance of landscape irrigation systems to certify that the systems comply with restrictions regarding sensor technology as well as time restrictions.

University of Minnesota Extension, Planting Grass Seed? Most Twin Citians water lawns ‘way too much’, 2017, https://twin-cities.umn.edu/planting-grass-seed-most-twin-citians-water-lawns-way-too-much 22

University of Minnesota Extension Turfgrass Science and Metropolitan Council, Efficient Water Use On Twin Cities Lawn Through Assessment, Research, and Demonstration, 2016, https://metrocouncil.org/WastewaterWater/Publications-And-Resources/WATER-SUPPLY-PLANNING/Twin-Cities-Lawn-Irrigation-System-Surveys-AndAss.aspx 23

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 13 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

Anticipated support or opposition from other governmental units?

Cities faced with providing adequate water supplies should support reasonable restrictions on the use of ground water to avoid the expense of drilling new wells and building new treatment facilities.

This issue is of importance (Check one): To the entire State: X Only our Region: Only our District:

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 14 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-05

Limiting Excessive Use of Groundwater for Urban and Suburban Landscapes During the Summer Months WHEREAS, groundwater resources are often used in excess to water urban and suburban landscapes, primarily lawns; WHEREAS, evaporation rates are highest during the hours between noon and dusk and watering landscapes in the evening has the potential to increase susceptibility to plant diseases; WHEREAS, the ideal time to water lawns and urban and suburban landscapes is in the early morning, due to the low evaporation demands and lessened effects of wind deflection; and WHEREAS, excess watering of urban and suburban landscapes can cause increased runoff and therefore pollution to streams, wetlands, and lakes.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that MAWD supports statewide regulations of urban and suburban lawn

watering practices including but not limited to: • Restricting the hours during which irrigation of lawns is allowed (with the exception of irrigation from water capture and reuse systems).

• Requiring all companies engaged in the installation or maintenance of landscape irrigation systems to be trained and certified in the installation and use of EPA water sense technologies.

• Requiring all companies engaged in the installation or maintenance of landscape irrigation systems to register with the DNR and pay an annual fee to be divided among the cities and counties in which they do business based upon the amount of business done in each city and county.

• Requiring all companies engaged in the installation or maintenance of landscape irrigation systems to certify that the systems comply with restrictions regarding sensor technology as well as time restrictions.

• Enforcement of Minnesota State Statue 103G.298 requiring that “all automatically operated landscape irrigation systems shall have furnished and installed technology that inhibits or interrupts operation of the landscape irrigation system during periods of sufficient moisture. The technology must be adjusted either by the end user or the professional practitioner of landscape irrigation services.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: The resolutions committee opposed the resolution because it is the responsibility of each municipality to review water usage and set their own guidelines based on the specifics of their systems. A one-size-fits-all approach does not seem appropriate.

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 15 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

BACKGROUND INFO on MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-06

Permitting Water Storage on Wetlands Controlled by the DNR during Major Flood Events Proposing District: Contact Name: Phone Number: Email Address:

Wild Rice WD Kevin Ruud, Administrator 218-784-5501 kevin@wildricewatershed.org

Background that led to submission of this resolution: The Red River Basin is an international, multi-jurisdictional basin of approximately 45,000 square miles, with 80% of the basin contained within the United States and the remaining 20% of the basin located in Canada. The region is frequently impacted by flooding along the Red River and its tributaries like the Wild Rice River. Impacts experienced along the Red River main stem are a result of combined tributary sub-watershed contributions, which includes the Wild Rice Watershed.

The increase in frequency and magnitude of flooding in the Red River basin is unmistakable. The spring flood of 1997 decimated the metro center of Grand Forks-East Grand Forks and gravely threatened many other areas throughout the basin. Since 2000, the basin has experienced damaging flooding in nearly every year. Since 1997, most sites along the mainstem have seen levels of flooding at or close to 100-year levels and many tributary areas have experienced up to 500-year flood levels.

After the record Red River Floods of 2009 state legislators in North Dakota and Minnesota asked the Red River Basin Commission (RRBC), as an international basin-wide organization, to spearhead the effort to develop a comprehensive, proactive plan that responds to and mitigates flooding throughout the watershed.

The Red River Basin Commission’s Long-Term Flood Solutions Plan identifies a 20% peak flow reduction goal along the Red River main stem that includes flow reduction goals for the Wild Rice Watershed District (WRWD).

To assist in addressing both local and regional flood damages, the WRWD has a desire to cooperatively work with other state agencies to promote temporarily storing flood water from major events on land which is already publicly owned.

The WRWD believes that entities can work together to incorporate flood storage on these state owned properties to maximize benefits to the residents and wildlife living in and around the lands.

Ideas for how this issue could be solved: Districts could work together with agencies to incorporate gated and ungated storage on public lands to enhance wildlife habitat areas and also maximize flood storage potential. This effort could be completed on a state-wide basis to assist in providing additional flood damage reduction and wildlife enhancement.

Anticipated support or opposition from other governmental units?

We feel that the DNR would favor partnering to enhance publicly owned land to maximize benefits for citizens and wildlife within the State. This effort would also receive support from the Red River Watershed Management Board and Red River Basin Commission since it would greatly assist in them achieving their goals and objectives. Other watersheds state-wide could benefit from a similar effort in their watersheds.

This issue is of importance (Check one): To the entire State: X Only our Region: Only our District: 2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 16 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-06

Permitting Water Storage on Wetlands Controlled by the DNR During Major Flood Events WHEREAS , the Wild Rice Watershed District (WRWD) discussed the frequent, severe floods within the State of Minnesota and the desire to devise plans to reduce flood impacts; and WHEREAS, it is the WRWD's desire for watershed districts and other drainage authorities within the State of Minnesota to develop a plan with the DNR to temporarily store water on existing wetlands controlled by the DNR in the times of major flood events as so doing would reduce flood impacts to both private and public property.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that MAWD supports temporarily storing water on existing wetlands controlled by the DNR in times of major flood events.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: The resolutions committee supports the renewal of this resolution.

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 17 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

BACKGROUND INFO on MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-07 Agricultural Drainage Financing for Watershed Districts

Proposing District: Contact Name: Phone Number: Email Address:

MAWD Board Mary Texer, President or Emily Javens, Executive Director 320-979-0084 metexer@gmail.com or emily@mnwatershed.org

Background that led to submission of this resolution: There is one watershed district struggling to find permanent financing for a petitioned drainage improvement project.

Once a project has met all statutory requirements, a watershed district provides notice to the county and the county will bond for the project. In this instance, the county has refused to do so stating they do not have capacity to finance it given their current and projected debt load. They believe the drainage project should have been stopped and deemed infeasible based on this. Since rural WDs can only assess up to a $250,000 general levy per year, the bond companies charge higher rates and they quickly reach their own bonding limits. Since most of the drainage systems across Minnesota are 100 years old and many of them are in dire need of improvement, it is projected this could easily impact the ability of watershed districts and counties to conduct the work assigned to them in drainage law.

Ideas for how this issue could be solved: Several ideas could be explored in further detail including setting up a revolving loan program for drainage improvements, increasing WD levy limits to support greater levels of bonding, etc.

Anticipated support or opposition from other governmental units?

This issue is of importance (Check one): To the entire State: X Only our Region: Only our District:

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 18 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-07

Agricultural Drainage Financing for Watershed Districts WHEREAS, watershed districts have assumed authority of all or some of their local agricultural drainage ditches within their boundaries; WHEREAS, watershed districts have relied on the counties involved to utilize their bonding authority to provide revenue to properly repair and improve said drainage ditches on behalf of the landowners, WHEREAS, at least one county has been unwilling to provide bond funding for watershed district drainage ditch repairs or improvements due to their present or planned high bonding indebtedness; WHEREAS, watershed districts need access to bonding authority to comply with our duties as drainage authorities; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that MAWD supports administrative, legislative, or legal solutions in conjunction with other stakeholders to resolve this agricultural drainage bond funding issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: The resolutions committee recommends adoption of this resolution.

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 19 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

BACKGROUND INFO on MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-08

Watershed-Based Implementation Funding through Coordinated Comprehensive Watershed Plans Proposing District: Contact Name: Phone Number: Email Address:

MAWD Board Mary Texer, President or Emily Javens, Executive Director 320-979-0084 metexer@gmail.com or emily@mnwatershed.org

Background that led to submission of this resolution: The MAWD Board and many members were disappointed that BWSR allowed annual SWCD work plans to be listed as eligible plans for watershed-based implementation funding. These plans did not meet the same rigorous requirements outlined in statute for comprehensive watershed management plans. They were not approved by the BWSR Board and there was very little access and response for public comment.

To be clear, this resolution would not say SWCD projects would not be eligible for watershed-based implementation funding. It simply states that the work must be coordinated and identified in a comprehensive plan that has provided adequate opportunities for public comment and approved by the BWSR Board.

Ideas for how this issue could be solved: If metro SWCD programs and projects are not already identified in a watershed’s comprehensive plan, one option would be for the SWCD to work with the watershed to coordinate their work and get the work added to the plan through an amendment.

Anticipated support or opposition from other governmental units?

The SWCDs may oppose this process.

This issue is of importance (Check one): To the entire State: X Only our Region: Only our District: Although the issue started in the 7-county metro area, the same policy could potentially be applied to the rural counties.

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 20 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

MAWD RESOLUTION 2020-08

Watershed-Based Implementation Funding through Coordinated Comprehensive Watershed Plans WHEREAS, watershed districts are responsible for developing comprehensive watershed management plans that outline the work to protect and restore natural resources within their boundaries; WHEREAS, watershed districts are required to solicit public participation to prioritize work that is done in the watershed; WHEREAS, once developed, the comprehensive plans are put out for public comment and reviewed by state agencies and boards; WHEREAS, comprehensive watershed plans must be approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources and updated every ten years; WHEREAS, the Clean Water Fund has allocated millions of dollars to directly fund the work in comprehensive watershed management plans; WHEREAS, in Fiscal Years 20-21, the MN Board of Water and Soil Resources made an exception to the watershed based implementation fund program to allow annual metro Soil and Water Conservation District work plans to be equally eligible for funding in the program; WHEREAS, the annual plans written by Soil and Water Conservation Districts do not require the rigorous effort to solicit and consider public input and do not require state board-level approval; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that MAWD opposes watershed-based implementation fund program dollars being distributed for work not coordinated with a multi-year comprehensive watershed management plan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: The resolutions committee recommends adoption of this resolution.

2020 Resolutions Committee Meeting Packet 21 | P a g e MN Association of Watershed Districts | 595 Aldine St, Saint Paul MN 55104 | 651.440.9407

November 18, 2020 Board Meeting V. E) Board Bylaws and Committee Update (Doneux)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 12, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Mark Doneux, Administrator Board Bylaws and Committee Update Board Governance

Background In 1999, the Board of Managers establish the first Bylaws that provide rules for governing and the conduct and procedure of business for the Board. This was one (1) year after the formation of the District and prior to hiring staff. The Bylaws were updated in 2004 and last updated 11 years ago in 2009 (enclosed).

In 2002, the Board first established several Board Committees to conduct business of the organization.

At that time seven (7) committees were formed. Since 2002, the Board has expanded the number of committees thirteen (13). At the November 4, 2020 Board Workshop, the Bylaws and Committee assignments were discussed.

Issues At the Board Workshop on November 4th, the Board discussed many aspects of the Bylaws that needed updates. There was discussion of updating Article I, Office and Article VII, Financial Matters. Most of the focus was on the Board Officers and their duties. The Board supported the basic changes proposed at the workshop to the Duties of the Officers with some additional comments and changes.

The Board also reviewed and discussed a possible realignment of Board Committees. The Board agreed that reducing the number of committees would be better and generally agreed with he proposed alignment of new committees. The Board did feel that a Communications and Community Committee would be better if it were separate from the proposed Program Committee.

The Board asked staff to return to a future meeting with an updated draft set of Bylaws and Committees for further review and consideration. If the Board were to make changes to either the Bylaws and/or Committees, those changes should be done in time for the annual meeting to be held on December 16th.

Action Requested No Action Requested. Provide input and feedback on draft Board Bylaws and Committees. enc.

Draft Bylaws of the Capitol Region Watershed District, dated November 12, 2020 Proposed Board Committee, November 12, 2020

W:\04 Board of Managers\Governance\VI. F) Board Bylaws and Committee Update - Board Memo and Enclosures 11-12-20.docx

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

BYLAWS OF THE CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT Adopted November 18, 1999 Amended September 2, 2004 Amended November 30, 2004 Amended February 18, 2009 Amended November 30, 2020

These bylaws establish rules governing the conduct and procedure of business by the Board of Managers (Board) of the Capitol Region Watershed District (District) of Ramsey County.

ARTICLE I: OFFICE Section A.

The place of business for the District and its principal office is located at 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, MN 55104. The District’s official records will be maintained at its principal office. The Board may change the location of its principal office.

Section B.

Regular meetings will take place at the principal office. The Board may conduct District meetings at other meeting places or by other means following procedures found in Article V: MEETINGS.

ARTICLE II: DEFINITION OF TERMS Section A.

For the purposes of these bylaws, the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings given them.

Section B.

‘District’ means, the operational body created by the formation of the Capitol Region Watershed District. The Capitol Region Watershed District shall be a public agency of its Board.

Section C.

‘Board’ means the District Board of Managers {Article III (DISTRICT BOARD of MANAGERS)}.

Section D.

‘Officers’ means those persons designated to perform the duties as noted in Article IV (OFFICERS) of these bylaws.

Section E.

‘Official Business’ will include: Official Business is attending Annual, Regular, Special or emergency meetings called for the purpose of conducting District business which has been properly posted.

Official Business, also, includes the assignment of a manager to special duties or meetings which the District Board of Managers has pre-approved for reimbursement or retroactively approved by authorizing payment of -1-

meeting expenses. Official Business will include attendance at meetings of the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, Inc. (MAWD), Metro MAWD, and other educational opportunities which relate to or required for watershed business.

ARTICLE III: DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS Section A.

The District Board of Managers shall be comprised of at least five (5) District Managers who are appointed by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners pursuant to Minnesota Statutes (M.S.) chapter 103B.227(1), (2) and M.S. chapter 103D.311 as amended. A District Manager’s term continues until a successor is appointed.

Section B.

Terms, Election, Unexpired Term

1)

Terms of the Officers shall be for one (1) year, commencing on the date of the election. No manager shall hold more that one office at a time. Election of the Officers shall be held at the District’s Annual Meeting.

2)

Annually the President shall appoint a nominating Committee to solicit candidates for officer positions and committee assignments. The Officers shall be elected annually and shall not serve for a period of more than (3) successive terms, unless unanimously elected by the Board of Managers at the Annual Meeting.

3)

In the event of an unexpired term of a manager, the Board shall immediately elect from among its members an individual who will perform the duties of that officer for the unexpired portion of the term.

Section C. 1)

Duties of Officers The President shall: a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

2)

Presides at meetings of the board Signs documents and contracts as approved by the board May serve as spokesperson for the board Meets regularly with the Administrator to receive progress reports Reviews agendas for meetings in cooperation with the Administrator Oversees the yearly evaluation of the Administrator Signs checks

The Vice President shall: a) b) c)

Prepares to assume the office of the board president Steps into the office of board president should the board president be absent or if that office becomes vacant Assists the board president in the execution of his or her duties -2-

d) 3)

The Secretary shall: a) b) c) d) e) f)

4)

Assures that an agenda has been prepared and that the agenda is distributed in advance of the meeting.

Oversees the distribution of background information for agenda items to be discussed.

Certify levies, records and proceedings of the District.

Reviews the official minutes of the meeting that records motions, discussion votes on motions, decisions made.

Reviews written minutes to board members in advance of the next meeting and records any changes or corrections to the minutes.

Assures that documents required under 103B and 103D are filed and are accessible to members

The Treasurer shall: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h)

5)

Works closely with the board president to transfer knowledge and history to prepare for leadership

Serves as chair of the finance committee and financial officer of the organization Signs checks Manages, with the finance committee, the board’s review of and action on its financial responsibilities Works with the Administrator to ensure that financial reports are distributed to the board in advance of meetings Leads discussion of the financial reports at board meetings Assists the Administrator in preparing the annual budget and presenting the budget to the board for approval Reviews the annual audit and answers board members’ questions about the audit.

Assists with the development and review of the annual budget

The Communication and Engagement Officer shall: a) b) c) d) e)

Act as board liaison to CAC, Water Stewards and other volunteer groups; Coordinate educational opportunities for Board Members.

Coordinate the dissemination of information regarding District programs and projects by way of District communications under 103B.227.

Coordinate attendance of Board members at C.A.C. and TAC Meetings.

Ensure open communications between Board, C.A.C. and staff.

-3-

ARTICLE V: MEETINGS Section A.

Regular meetings shall be held by the Board for the purpose of conducting the general business of the District. The frequency, dates and times of such meetings will be set and posted by the Board, and may be changed at any time by action of the Board. The meetings of the Board shall be open meetings.

Section B.

Special meetings of the Board are any meetings called by any Manager for the purpose of conducting certain specified business, and the Managers shall only consider such matters. Special meetings shall be conducted the same as regular meetings and public notice of the special meeting shall be posted.

Section C.

Emergency meetings can be called by any Manager on twenty four (24) hour notice whenever the life, safety or significant property of any resident within the District shall be threatened by flooding or the failure of any control structure within the jurisdiction of the District. Whenever practical, a request for such a meeting should be made in writing to the Secretary, who will notify all other Board members as quickly as possible, and public notice of the emergency meeting shall be posted.

Section D.

Annual Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District shall be held the last regular meeting in December or at a date and time designated by the Board. The minutes of the Annual Meeting shall be reviewed and approved at the next regular meeting of the District. The Board shall provide sufficient advance notice of the meeting to residents of the District. Whenever practical, this notice should be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the meetings.

The District Board of Managers during this meeting shall:

Section E.

1)

Elect from among its members its Officers. Election shall be by majority vote;

2)

Appoint or reappoint for the coming year a bank or depository for funds of the District and such other professional assistance as the District may require.

Miscellaneous explanations for meetings: 1)

Quorum for the Board of five (5) managers shall be three (3). No action shall be taken or motion approved with out three managers voting in favor.

2)

Posting of the notice of meetings other than the regular monthly meeting shall be posted in a conspicuous place at its legal place of business at least seventy two (72) hours before said meeting.

3)

There shall be no proxy voting by Managers. All votes by Managers shall be in person.

-4-

4)

All open and public meetings shall comply with the statutes and rules requiring open and public meetings.

5)

The conduct of all meetings of the Board shall be governed by a “Simplified Version of Robert’s Rules of Parliamentary Law”.

ARTICLE VI: COMMITTEES Section A.

The Board may appoint full committees for the purpose of assisting the Board in the performance of its duties.

Section B.

Advisory Committee shall be appointed as stated in M.S. Chapter 103D.331 and Technical Advisory Committee in M.S. Chapter 103D.337.

ARTICLE VII: FINANCIAL MATTERS Section A.

Fiscal year of the District shall be from January 1 to December 31.

Section B.

Goods and services purchased for use by the District must follow the District’s purchasing guidelines approved of the Board.

Section C.

Approval of payment of every invoice, bill or any other form of indebtedness incurred by the District must have approval of the Board.

Section D.

The Board will solicit proposals or quotations for such services, according to M.S. Chapter 103B.227 subd. 5. This paragraph is not meant to be applied to any contract for a professional service which is for a specific project, the nature and scope of which requires work to be performed or services rendered over a period of more than two (2) years.

Section E.

Compensation and Reimbursement for District Managers shall be given for Official Business as defined in the Bylaws, Article II: Definition of Terms, Section E.

ARTICLE VIII: MISCELLANEOUS Section A.

The District Board of Managers shall prepare an annual report as is stated in MN Chapter 103D.351.

Section B.

Bylaws. These bylaws shall be adopted by a majority vote of the managers. These bylaws shall be required to be amended, suspended or repealed by the approval of four (4) Managers.

Section C.

In all points not covered by the rules, the managers shall be governed by a “Simplified Version of Robert’s Rules of Parliamentary Law”.

-5-

Adopted by the Board of Managers of the Capitol Region Watershed District, this ____ Day of __________, 2020.

Board of Managers ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________

-6-

Proposed Board Committees November 12, 2020 This document identifies a possible update to the Board Committees.

Possible New Committees and Committee Topics Board Committees Personnel Finance Operations Programs

Communications and Community Capital Improvements, Projects & Partnerships

Committee Topics Human Resources Benefits Budget Financial Planning Bonding Real Estate (595 Aldine & 1736 Thomas) Building Management (Aldine and Thomas Buildings) Safety Program Regulatory (Rule Amendments) Monitoring and Research (Research Funding Policy) Planning, Projects and Grants (Stewardship Grants) Facility Management (BMP O & M) Communications and Engagement Partner Grants Awards Diversity Capital Improvement Program Special Grants WMP and Amendments

Other Appointments 1) Annual - Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts (MAWD) Annual Meeting Delegate (2) and Alternate 2) Quarterly – Metro MAWD 3) Monthly - CAC

Board Committees

November 12, 2020

Page 1 of 1