October 9, 2019 CAC packet

Citizen Advisory Committee 7:00 PM, Wednesday, October 9, 2019 – Capitol Region Watershed District 595 Aldine Street, Saint Paul, MN 55104 Agenda

Materials Enclosed

7:00

I)

Welcome, Announcements, Updates, and Introductions

7:05

II)

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

7:08

III)

Approval of the Agenda

7:09

IV)

Approval of Minutes A) Approval of the September 11, 2019 Minutes

7:10

V)

District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recommendations A) BMP Inspection and Maintenance Update (Funke) B) Watershed Management Plan: Goals and Objectives (Eleria)

8:10

VI)

CAC Initiatives A) Service Learning Student Update (Lilly)

8:20

VII)

Project and Program Updates A) Master Water Stewards Update (Van Sant) B) Social Media Update (Van Sant) C) Grand Opening Update (Van Sant)

8:45

VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:50

IX)

Discussion A) New & Old Issues B) CAC Observer for October 16 and November 6, 2019 Board of Managers Meetings C) Grand Opening, October 11, 2019, 3:00 – 7:00 PM

9:00

X)

Adjourn

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

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 2019, 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present: Pat Cavanaugh Mary Lilly David Arbeit Bob Simonet Richard Weil Cheryl Braun Nicole Soderholm Gwen Willems Tom Elko

Others Present: Anna Eleria, CRWD Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD Jessica Bromelkamp, CRWD Shirley Reider, Board Manager

Members absent: Mike MacDonald, excused Michelle Ulrich, excused Steve Duerre, excused I. Welcome, Announcements, and Updates Ms. Willems opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Ms. Willems asked for any announcements or updates.

None were given.

II. Public Comment for Issues Not on the Agenda Mr. Arbeit asked about the turnout for the recent Como Lake tour. Ms. Bromelkamp replied that ten people attended, possibly due to rainy weather, but participants were engaged and interested. Ms. Bromelkamp announced there is a 2nd Como Lake tour planned on Sep 25th at 6pm in addition to a Willow Reserve tour. Ms. Eleria commented that after the tour, people approached Britta with good feedback and also followed up via e-mail. Ms. Willems shared that she is disappointed to see the news about AIS in Lake McCarrons. Mr. Zwonitzer commented that there will be two tours of Willow Reserve, Saturday at 10am and Sep 23rd at 6pm. He explained that CRWD is not hosting the tour, but they are partnering with the North End Neighborhood Organization. North End will provide a history of the site, and Mr. Zwonitzer and a consultant will lead a walk-through to discuss the restoration. There is no need to RSVP, just show up if interested. CRWD has done some promotion for the tours.

III. Approval of Agenda Simonet/Weil Unanimously approved 1

CAC 19-020 Motion: To approve the CAC September 11, 2019 agenda with changes.

Arbeit/Soderhom Unanimously approved IV. Approval of Minutes A.

August 14, 2019 CAC Meeting Minutes

Ms. Willems commented that Item IV.A should be ‘June 12, 2019 CAC Meeting Minutes’ instead of ‘May 8, 2019 CAC Meeting Minutes.’ In addition, CAC 19-017 Motion would read: “To approve the June 12, 2019 meeting minutes.’

Arbeit/Lilly Unanimously approved CAC 19-021 Motion: To approve the August 14, 2019 CAC Meeting Minutes.

Soderholm/Arbeit Unanimously approved V. District Initiatives for Review, Comment, and Recommendations A. 2020 Watershed Management Plan (Eleria) Ms. Eleria presented on the 2020 Watershed Management Plan (WMP) stakeholder engagement process: CRWD developed a stakeholder engagement plan earlier this year in order to engage a number of different audiences/groups. The process began with formulating a Technical Advisory Group/Committee (TAC). CRWD solicited input from an initial notification letter back in Feb and held a workshop in May to receive ideas and engage in an interactive exercise with approx. 25 members of the TAC. CRWD held a workshop with the CAC in June to get ideas and feedback.

CRWD held a workshop for staff in June to get their input, and a workshop with the Board of Managers in early August to share with the board all the input received so far. The approach for soliciting input used the 2010 WMP structure. Issues, goals, and objectives were organized in 8 different categories: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Education/outreach Urban stormwater management Monitoring and data Future trends Funding and organization Regulation and enforcement Ecosystem health

Posters were displayed for each category, and participants used Post-It notes for new ideas/issues under those broad categories. Staff received comments from different stakeholder groups, then voted on the top 10 issues across all categories.

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

2

Community engagement took place through 4 watershed community events, 3 Saint Paul District Council meetings, 6 face-to-face meetings, 8 community events, and an online survey. Ms. Eleria will be meeting with the Macalaster-Groveland Council in October. To date, staff have received comments from over 200 people.

The top comments/issues from the TAC: water quality, ecosystem health. The most voted issue was coordination on regulatory issues. The top comments/issues from the CAC: education and outreach, ecosystem health, and funding and organization. The most voted issue was coordination on regulatory issues. The top comments/issues from CRWD staff: education and outreach, water quality, water quantity, and funding and organization. The most voted issue was regulating sites less than 1 acre.

The top comments/issues from the community conversations: ecosystem health, quality of life/recreation. The top comments/issues from the District planning councils: ecosystem health, water quality.

Feedback from the community organizations: green space is important, CRWD grant programs are valuable, many community members don’t know what they can do individually to address water issues, a lack of resources to adopting BMPs/behaviors is a barrier, government is perceived to be challenging to work with, there could be additional education/engagement opportunities like water education at community celebrations, increased public signage, and continued implementation of green infrastructure projects.

Survey responses indicated that parks, water, and lakes are most valued among participants.

Participants also indicated they are most concerned with Como Lake and the Mississippi River. Top issues are invasive plants/wildlife, trash in water bodies, and pollutants (road salt, dirt, fertilizer).

Staff aggregated hundreds of comments to review, categorize, and sort. Top 10 conclusions: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

The issues addressed in the 2010 CRWD Plan remain relevant in 2019.

Community audiences emphasized issues related to quality of life and recreation.

CRWD-affiliated stakeholders highlighted regulatory and maintenance issues.

Strong emphasis on/concern for green space, vegetation, ecosystem health.

Strong emphasis on water quality, though specific concerns vary.

TAC-specific concerns about flooding Focus on inclusive engagement and community action Climate change and climate resilience are over-arching issues affecting all CRWD activity Assessment of progress Opportunities for partnership

The gathered input will inform the development of issue statements for prioritization and goals for the upcoming plan. Ms. Eleria will come back to the CAC with a draft list of issues, goals, and objectives in Oct. Ms. Eleria asked for questions/comments.

Ms. Willems asked if there was any surprising feedback. Ms. Eleria replied that the emphasis on trash was surprising. Ms. Eleria added that she heard from the TAC a desire for CRWD to have a more defined role in natural resource mgmt./restoration. “Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.�

3

Ms. Bromelkamp shared that people mentioned connections to parks/green spaces and the health benefits associated with them. It was a good reminder that people connect with our work for different reasons.

Mr. Arbeit commented that it’s helpful to consider those surprising issues/comments received. There appeared to be a marked difference in the ranking of issues between groups close to or within the organization vs. the community groups that were engaged. Collectively we should be asking these groups: Looking back 10 years since the last plan, what have you perceived has changed? Has there been enough improvement? Should we be more active? Mr. Arbeit added that he still hears residents complaining about algae in Lake Como.

Ms. Bromelkamp added that the face-to-face meetings were very telling and often represented new relationships for CRWD. It is clear that there is a lot of room to grow with these audiences, and the conversations gave insight about where we need to be looking to reach new people.

Ms. Eleria replied that she will reflect on specific comments to figure out what may be missing from this engagement process and if there’s anything else we should be considering. Ms. Eleria reminded that this is 10-year plan so we must prioritize and be able to give rationale for our selected priorities.

Ms. Cavanagh asked if staff have a good idea of where flooding issues are. Ms. Eleria responded that the hydrologic model for the Trout Brook subwatershed has been updated, and CRWD prioritizes flooding locations in those drainage areas. The goal is to evaluate high priority areas and implement solutions in the next 10 years. Ms. Eleria added that cities have identified specific areas to be looking at, and solutions can be technically complicated. Ms. Cavanagh responded that with climate change, this is a new condition with mega rainfalls. It will be interesting to see over time if flood control becomes more of an issue and how to decide on solutions.

Ms. Reider added that there have been two recent flooding’s in Roseville and Falcon Heights that were unexpected including Curtiss Field which flooded but went down within a day due to the installation of CRWD’s stormwater BMP. Ms. Reider indicated plugging in the pipes or a rising water table could have contributed to the slow drawdown. This is a good reminder that adaptive management is crucial.

Mr. Zwonitzer confirmed the flooding events and explained that the design intended to contain water on the field in the event the pipe gallery was full. This is to allow for protection of nearby properties.

Mr. Zwonitzer added that staff are expecting it to flood again tomorrow with the rain coming. It is doubtful that the pipes are plugged because of extensive pretreatment. There may be some mounding of groundwater where we’ve concentrated infiltration. There have also been 2-3 wetter than normal years in a row, so there is lots of water in that area. It is important to consider climate resiliency when designing these projects.

Mr. Arbeit commented that the Next-Door app posting about Curtiss Field flooding received many comments and some complaints on the thread. Mr. Arbeit noted that Forrest Kelley replied on the thread to explain the ponding is an intentional part of the design. Mr. Arbeit noted that it was good that CRWD was aware of this and could respond in a timely manner. Ms. Bromelkamp indicated that if the CAC has questions, they can feel free to reach out to staff. CRWD strives to be responsive and helpful in providing facts/information. Mr. Arbeit wondered if CRWD could get ahead of the upcoming rainfall and notify people via What’s App that the flooding may happen again. Ms. “Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.”

4

Bromelkamp indicated that CRWD will develop staff protocol for responding to public comments to ensure consistency in messaging and transparency.

Ms. Willems commented that the input around government being a barrier is interesting. Does the public perceive that CRWD is government? Ms. Cavanaugh commented that for community groups, CRWD may seem more like a nonprofit than a government agency.

Ms. Lilly commented that if the public is saying that recreation is a high priority, then CRWD’s messaging should be using the public’s words. We must frame CRWD’s technical work and activities and relate it to how it serves quality of life and recreation for the community. Ms. Lilly added that some top issues involve infrastructure and water quantity that require outside funding. How do we accomplish our goals when funding is a huge piece of the puzzle, and the city doesn’t have the resources? Ms. Reider replied that the city has been looking to CRWD for funding projects. The average resident may not know how we get our funding. Is that something we need to emphasize more for continued public support?

Ms. Eleria responded that CRWD is always looking for new and different sources of funding. It is important to establish new partnerships and leverage resources from different groups. CRWD relies heavily on public tax dollars and has been successful in getting grants, but maybe there are new sources of funding to explore. Ms. Reider added that this issue is on the radar of the board as they think about long-term planning. Some of the existing funding sources will not be contributing moving forward, so we need to look at building investment. Water in Minnesota will be the biggest issue in the future.

CAC 19-022 Motion: To approve the recommendation of the 2020 Watershed Management Plan.

Weil/Cavanaugh VI. CAC Initiatives A. Watershed Steward Awards Program (Bromelkamp) Ms. Bromelkamp announced that CRWD is preparing to begin promoting the nomination period for the Watershed Steward Awards and would appreciate CAC help in getting the word out and to submit nominations. There is a Watershed Steward Awards page on the website. We will need two volunteers for the Steward Awards Program Committee which will meet in Nov. Ms. Braun and Mr. Elko volunteered. Ms. Willems commented that it’s becoming more difficult to come up with nominees. Staff may be aware of more projects and partners. Ms. Bromelkamp confirmed that nominations are a collective effort and that staff are also involved.

VII. Project and Program Updates A. Partner Grant Program (Bromelkamp) Ms. Bromelkamp indicated CRWD is doing a big push on social media to highlight current partner grantees. We will need two volunteers this year for the Partner Grant Program Committee: Ms. Cavanaugh and Mr. Arbeit volunteered.

B. Parkview Center School Filtration BMP (Zwonitzer) “Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.”

5

Mr. Zwonitzer introduced a project that CRWD has been working on for several years, and construction is around the corner. The site in question was identified in a subwatershed study for the targeted watershed grant. Infiltration is not possible due to soil conditions. CRWD proposed an underground filtration pipe gallery with underground vault and proprietary PhosphoSorb filtration cartridges. Mr. Zwonitzer explained that the media is designed to target dissolved phosphorus.

CRWD is partnering with Ramsey County, Roseville Area Schools, and City of Roseville on this project. CRWD has developed a monitoring program to verify the effectiveness of the cartridges and to monitor long-term performance. CRWD will be testing untreated stormwater at the inlet to system, at the inlet to the filter vault, and leaving the filter vault to isolate the performance of the filtration cartridges. CRWD will assess maintenance frequency needs based on monitoring. Mr. Zwonitzer highlighted the advantage of partnerships for this project which needed a Cooperative Construction Agreement. CRWD will own BMP and will be cost sharing on maintenance with the city and the school. CRWD bid the project in June and selected low bidder S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. Mr. Zwonitzer summarized project costs through the planning, construction, and long-term maintenance phases. Substantial completion will be Feb 2020. The sledding hill will be moved to the east to allow for continued use.

Mr. Simonet asked about failsafe mechanisms that have been incorporated into the design in the event of a deluge of water. Mr. Zwonitzer replied that there’s a bypass overflow that will function like a curb cut rain garden where rain will continue to flow down County Road B in the event the system is full. There is also a valve system in place such that staff can control water levels and draw it down for maintenance, etc.

Mr. Arbeit asked if the manufacturer of the filtration cartridges guaranteed they will meet a certain pollutant removal standard. Mr. Zwonitzer replied that CRWD would have grounds to challenge the manufacturer if the cartridges do not perform. This is the first time CRWD has used these cartridges in one of their one projects, but others have used it on permit sites. Mr. Zwonitzer has high confidence that the cartridges will perform as intended but that staff will still conduct our own testing.

C. 2020 Water Quality CIP Grants (Zwonitzer) Mr. Zwonitzer indicated that CRWD requests grant applications once a year for larger, more expensive projects. The emphasis on these projects is high visibility, innovative projects with water quality benefits. Applications are due Oct 31st and the committee will review them afterwards. One volunteer is needed for the CIP Grants Committee: Ms. Willems volunteered. Mr. Simonet will be an alternate.

D. McCarrons AIS (Fossum) Ms. Eleria provided an update on the zebra mussels discovered in Lake McCarrons by a trained citizen in late July. The DNR followed up with surveys and confirmed their establishment in the lake.

Ramsey County and CRWD did a more extensive follow-up survey this summer. Ms. Eleria “Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.”

6

explained that the mussels were initially found near boat launch. There’s not likely a high density, but they are widespread spatially throughout the lake. CRWD and Ramsey County will conduct followup monitoring to assess density. The zebra mussels have likely been in the lake for 2+ years. There is public signage at the boat launch to raise awareness. The county is increasing watercraft inspections, and there will be a community meeting mid-late Oct.

VIII. CAC Observer Update Ms. Cavanaugh attended the September 4th board meeting. Ms. Cavanaugh commented that it was a very short meeting. Britta gave an update on the Como Lake Management Plan. There was an update on Lake McCarrons, and the board approved the annual contribution to the MN Stormwater Research Council. Ms. Reider added that Seitu Jones and Mark Doneux are working on incorporating a land acknowledgement into the Grand Opening celebration and are requesting Native American tribal input.

IX. Discussion A. New & Old Issues None B. CAC Observer for September 18 and October 2, 2019 Board of Managers Meetings Ms. Soderholm volunteered to attend the 9/18 board meeting. Ms. Cavanaugh volunteered to attend the 10/2 board meeting.

C. Grand Opening, October 11, 2019

X. Adjourn CAC 19-023 Motion: To adjourn the September 11, 2019, CAC Meeting.

Cavanaugh/Willems Unanimously approved

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 PM. Respectfully submitted, Nicole Soderholm W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Minutes\2019\September 11, 2019.doc

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

7

October 9, 2019 CAC Meeting

V. A) BMP Inspections and Maintenance Update (Funke)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

October 3, 2019 CRWD Citizen Advisory Committee Rachel Funke, Urban BMP Technician BMP Inspections and Maintenance Update

Background In August, CRWD staff completed an analysis of Green Line BMP inspection and maintenance data collected over the past five years to determine the actual level of effort in terms of labor and material costs and identify the most frequent maintenance activities and any issues related to implementation of our inspection and maintenance program. This analysis was presented at the EWRI Operations and Maintenance of Stormwater Control Measures Conference in August.

Additionally, since May, inspections of the following CRWD grant funded BMPs have taken place: • • • •

Saint Paul Streets (formerly RSVP) curb-cut boulevard rain gardens; Stewardship Grant BMPs from 2014-2018; Special Grants BMPs; and Saint Paul Inspiring Communities Program (formerly NSP) rain gardens.

Issues The Green Line BMPs have been online for over five years. Examining inspection and maintenance data and costs and current inspection and maintenance procedures is helping to inform improvements that need to be made to ensure the Green Line BMPs are functioning as designed and costs are kept to a minimum. In addition, the lessons learned from this project can be applied to the inspection and maintenance work of other BMP projects.

Saint Paul Streets rain gardens were inspected, as in previous years, by CRWD staff and Master Water Stewards. Stewardship Grant sites completed within the past five years were also inspected. Special Grant and Inspiring Community BMPs had never been formally inspected prior to this year. In total, 458 BMPs were inspected this summer. Enclosed is the Green Line O&M Analysis Report as well as a map of BMPs inspected in 2019.

Action Requested None, for your review and comment Enc.

Green Line O&M Analysis Report and Map of Inspection Locations

W:\07 Programs\Planning Projects Grants Division\Rachel Funke\CAC Meetings\BMP Inspection Updates 10-9-2019.docx

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

Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis Report

Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN August 12, 2019

Project Introduction The construction of the Green Line Light Rail System provided an opportunity for Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) to implement stormwater best management practices (BMPs) in a highly visible urban area. Completed in 2014, the Green Line is an 11-mile, two-way light rail system that connects downtown Minneapolis to downtown Saint Paul. It runs through a highly urbanized area that contributed significant volumes of polluted runoff to the storm sewer system that drains to the Mississippi River.

CRWD viewed the development of the Green Line as an opportunity to concurrently reduce pollutant loads and provide green space in a highly trafficked and diverse area. CRWD worked with City of St. Paul and Metropolitan Council to design and install a series of boulevard green infrastructure practices (rain gardens and stormwater planters) at seven side street locations (Figure 1). Metropolitan Council constructed over five miles of tree trench and installed over 1,000 trees to meet CRWD permit requirements for stormwater management. Additionally, two side street infiltration trenches were constructed by the City of St. Paul. CRWD has inspected, maintained and monitored the functionality of the rain garden and stormwater planter green infrastructure practices since their completion in 2013.

Fourteen BMPs (Table 1) were constructed along seven side streets adjacent to the Green Line to reduce pollutant loading and minimize stormwater runoff. Stormwater planters were installed in locations where the boulevard width was too narrow (<10 feet) to construct a rain garden with the appropriate 3:1 side slope. The vertical concrete walls of the stormwater planter allow for a deeper and more narrow design while serving the same function as a rain garden. According to CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2019 Green Line BMP Performance Analysis, these best management practices have reduced stormwater volumes and pollutant loads by over 50%.

Table 1. Monitored BMPs Rain Gardens Pillsbury N Pillsbury S Marion NW Marion SW Marion E Syndicate

Stormwater Planters Aldine Albert E Albert W Griggs M Griggs N Griggs S Oxford N Oxford S

Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|1

Figure 1. Green Line BMP Locations Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|2

Purpose CRWD has collected over five years of inspection and maintenance data on the Green Line Green Infrastructure Practices in order to assess their aesthetics, plant health, structural integrity, and stormwater management function and determine what type and level of maintenance and care is necessary. By examining these data and current maintenance procedures as well as the 2019 Green Line Side Street BMP Performance Analysis, improvements can be made to ensure the Green Line BMPs are functioning as designed and costs are kept to a minimum.

Inspection and Maintenance Procedures CRWD has been inspecting and maintaining these BMPs since 2013. CRWD inspects each BMP on a monthly basis. Contracted maintenance crews perform frequent maintenance on a regular schedule that has varied from monthly to bi-weekly and perform additional infrequent maintenance as determined by CRWD. Both maintenance crews and CRWD staff complete inspections when on site. Additionally, maintenance crews annually perform a Spring Clean Up and a Fall Clean Up. Inspections and maintenance are done only as needed during the winter.

Frequent maintenance tasks are those that are a part of the contractor’s annual maintenance contract and can be completed every time maintenance crews are onsite. Non-frequent tasks often require more significant repair and advance planning, materials, or tools to correct and are therefore corrected at less frequent intervals. Maintenance crews also measure and record the amount of sediment, organics and trash removed from each BMP when conducting frequent maintenance activities. Inspectors take note of the items listed in Table 2 when conducting a site visit. Inspection items are generally positive meaning in good condition.

Table 2. Maintenance Inspection Items Frequent • BMP and surrounding area free of trash & debris • BMP clear of dead plant material (including leaves) • BMP is free of accumulated sediment (if not, take measurement) • BMP weed free • Inlet(s) and pretreatment clean • Outlet clear of trash and debris • BMP free of graffiti or other vandalism • Quantity of sediment and organics removed (gallons) • Quantity of trash removed (gallons)

Infrequent • Adjacent pavers or other hardscape in good condition • BMP is free of standing water (24 hours after rainfall) • Decorative inlet grate(s) present and intact • Mulch evenly distributed and 2"-3" deep • Railings secured, intact, and free of damage (bent, dented, chipped paint) • Seating area(s) clean and in good condition • Site fully vegetated with healthy plants • Soil stable and free of erosion

Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|3

Response options include Yes, Corrected, Requires Follow-Up, or Not Applicable. The ‘Yes’ response indicates that the inspection item was in good condition upon arrival. ‘Corrected’ responses indicate that the inspection item was not in good condition upon arrival and maintenance work on an item was completed at the time of the site visit. The ‘Requires Follow-Up’ response indicates that maintenance is required that could not be completed at the time of the site visit. See the flow chart below for a visual representation of inspection responses.

OK upon arrival?

Inspection Item Maintenance needed upon arrival?

Yes Corrected same day?

Corrected

Additional work required?

Requires FollowUp

CRWD and maintenance crews both enter data using a mobile application. Detailed maintenance inspection protocols are available here. Data are then uploaded to a custom BMP database. This database also tracks BMP specifications and maintenance expenses, and all data can be exported to Excel for analysis.

Assessment/ Analysis Inspection Item Responses When conducting an inspection, staff select responses from a drop-down list of options including Yes, Corrected, Requires Follow-Up, and Not Applicable. However, from for four years, only a fraction of maintenance items were marked as Corrected, even though invoices show that work was completed during that time. After speaking with maintenance crews in the spring of 2019, it was revealed that crews often responded Yes instead of Corrected after making repairs. As a result, the number of Yes responses to most inspection items is artificially high and the number of Corrected responses is artificially low. However, the number of Requires Follow-Up responses remains reflective of true site conditions.

Inspection Frequency From 2013-2018, 127 site visits have been conducted along the Green Line (Table 3, Figure 2). This number includes visits from both maintenance crews and CRWD staff. All 14 BMPs are usually inspected during each site visit. From 2013 to 2016, maintenance crews were contracted for weekly maintenance.

In 2017, CRWD reduced maintenance frequency to a monthly schedule. In 2018, it was determined that the rates of trash and sediment accumulation warranted more frequent maintenance, and crews changed to a schedule of every other week.

Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|4

Table 3. Number of Site Visits by Year Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Number of Site Visits 19 26 25 27 11 19 127

30

Number of Site Visits

25 20 15 10 5 0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Year

Figure 2. Number of Site Visits by Year Follow-Up Action At the end of each inspection, inspectors responded Yes or No to the question â&#x20AC;&#x153;No Follow-Up Action Requiredâ&#x20AC;?. If any items require prompt maintenance action, this response should be No. There has been variability year-to-year of whether this question was answered, so to correct for these data gaps in this analysis, if any of the frequent maintenance activities were marked as Requires Follow Up, this response was automatically marked as No. Otherwise, the response was Yes. The results show that maintenance items along the Green Line require follow up more frequently as time passes (Figure 3). In a typical setting, rain garden maintenance needs decrease over the years as plants mature and crowd out weeds.

However, plants in this more urban environment have had difficulty establishing, which may explain why follow-up needs have increased over time.

Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|5

80%

Frequency of Response

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Year

Figure 3. Frequency of Follow-Up Action Needed 2013-2018 The most frequent items marked as requiring follow-up were mulch (69%), accumulated sediment (35%), and plant health (33%) (Table 5). The mulch and plant health values are high in part because these items were marked as requiring follow-up week after week even though these items are only corrected certain times of year. Plants are replaced in the fall to reduce the amount of watering required, and mulching is done in the spring to provide the most benefits. However, this still shows that the BMPs look less aesthetically pleasing intended for long periods of time.

Although sediment is removed from the surface sumps every time maintenance crews are out, it is more difficult to remove sediment from the basins of the BMPs, which may explain why follow-up is high for this item. Items requiring the most frequent follow-up are described in more depth in the sections below.

Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|6

Table 5. Follow-Up Needs 2013-2018 Maintenance Item Mulch evenly distributed and 2"-3" deep BMP is free of accumulated sediment (if not, take measurement) Site fully vegetated with healthy plants BMP is free of standing water (24 hours after rainfall) Adjacent pavers or other hardscape in good condition Railings secured, intact, and free of damage (bent, dented, chipped paint) Soil stable and free of erosion Inlet(s) and pretreatment clean Seating area(s) clean and in good condition BMP clear of dead plant material (including leaves) BMP weed free Outlet clear of trash and debris BMP and surrounding area free of trash & debris Decorative inlet grate(s) present and intact BMP free of graffiti or other vandalism

Required Additional Follow-up 69% 35% 33% 14% 12% 11% 11% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 2% 1%

Trash, Sediment, and Organics Maintenance crews record the volumes of trash, sediment, and organics removed from the surface of each BMP. Using this information, it was possible to correct the response errors and accurately determine how frequently trash and sediment were removed from the BMPs (Table 4). Responses were updated to Corrected in instances where measurements were recorded, and all zeros were corrected to Yes responses. Any Requires Follow-Up responses were left as-is.

Table 4. Trash and Sediment Accumulation 2013-2018.

OK Upon Arrival BMP and surrounding area free of trash & debris BMP is free of accumulated sediment

Maintenance Required Upon Arrival Corrected Required Additional Same Day Follow-Up

40.7%

55.3%

4.0%

48.3%

16.9%

34.9%

The results show that trash needed to be collected almost 60% of the time crews were onsite. Sediment needed to be removed over 50% of the time. Trash was almost always picked up during the site visit, but sediment often required follow up. This may be because sediment in the pretreatment basins is easily removed, but sediment in the basin of the BMP is more difficult to remove and is done less frequently.

Sediment, trash, and organics are removed and measured from the surface sumps every time maintenance crews are onsite. The amount of sediment removed above ground from the BMPs has increased gradually from 2013 to 2018 (Figure 5). The amount of trash removed from the BMPs has decreased slightly. The amount of organics removed increased greatly in 2015, then declined Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|7

Quantity of Materials Removed (Gallons)

afterwards. Some 2015 outliers were removed from this dataset because they were duplicated when the data were collected. In total, almost 3,000 gallons of material have been removed from the surface sumps in six years.

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Year Quantity of Trash Removed (gal)

Quantity of Sediment Removed (gal)

Quantity of Organics Removed (gal)

Materials Removed Total (gal)

Figure 5. Sediment and Trash Quantities by Year Catch Basins Sediment accumulates in both above ground surface sumps and below ground catch basins. Sediment from the catch basins is removed twice a year (spring and fall) using a HydroVac truck. There are seven catch basins along the Green Lineâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; five are associated with raingardens and stormwater planters and two are associated with tree trenches. Efforts have been made to quantify the amount of sediment removed from each catch basin before it is cleaned out. The 2018 data show that 82% of the total sediment removed from monitored BMPs was captured in the catch basins (Table 5). The catch basins have been monitored since 2012, but too inconsistently to show a trend over time.

Table 5. 2018 Sediment Removal

Albert SWP NE Albert SWP NW Aldine SWP Pillsbury RG - North Pillsbury RG - South Grand Total

Catch Basin Volume (gal) 20.20 13.02 36.36 19.30 40.84 129.71

Surface Sump Volume (gal) 2 2.25 8 8 9 29.25

Total Volume (gal) 22.20 15.27 44.36 27.30 49.84 158.96

% CB of Total 91% 85% 82% 71% 82% 82%

Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|8

Plant Replacement 20% of the original plants have been replaced in between 2012 and 2018. The original planting plans included a diverse mix of grasses, sedges, forbs, and trees (Table 6). Some of these species have shown themselves to be more resilient than others when faced with warmer runoff water temperatures and additional pollution and sediment in this urban setting. Road salt has been especially damaging to many of the forbs. Plants that have been successful along the Green Line include Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass, Heavy Metal Switchgrass, Walkerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Low Catmint, and Kentucky Coffeetree. Flame grass has also been successful but has potential to become invasive, so it is not recommended for future plantings.

Plants that have not fared as well include Hot Lips Pink Turtlehead, Fox Sedge, Swamp White Oak, and many of the showier flowering forbs.

Table 6. Original Species Composition of BMPs

5 5 8 5 4 16 5 1 42 64 24 3 63 54 17 20 36 1 7 17 5 4 7 5 2

Aldine: Flame Grass Heavy Metal Switchgrass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Griggs N: Flame Grass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Kentucky Coffeetree Marion NW: Flame Grass Heavy Metal Switchgrass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Kentucky Coffeetree Prairie Dropseed Walker's Low Catmint Pillsbury N: Fountain Spray Moor Grass Hot Lips Pink Turtlehead Prairie Dropseed Swamp White Oak Tufted Hair Grass Walker's Low Catmint Oxford N: Flame Grass Heavy Metal Switchgrass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Kentucky Coffeetree

5 5 8 5 4 16 5 1 50 80 25 3 62 52 24 20 62 1 3 20 5 4 9 5 1

Albert E: Flame Grass Heavy Metal Switchgrass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Griggs M: Flame Grass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Kentucky Coffeetree Marion SW: Flame Grass Heavy Metal Switchgrass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Kentucky Coffeetree Prairie Dropseed Walker's Low Catmint Pillsbury S: Autumn Joy Sedum Hot Lips Pink Turtlehead Prairie Dropseed Swamp White Oak Tufted Hair Grass Walker's Low Catmint Oxford S: Flame Grass Heavy Metal Switchgrass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Kentucky Coffeetree

5 5 8 5 4 16 5 1 38 51 16 3 73 29 7 5 50 50 4 14 5 14 6 58 7 9 14

Albert W: Flame Grass Heavy Metal Switchgrass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Griggs S: Flame Grass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Kentucky Coffeetree Marion E: Flame Grass Heavy Metal Switchgrass Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head Kentucky Coffeetree Prairie Dropseed Walker's Low Catmint Syndicate: Autumn Fire Sedum Black-eyed Susan Blue Grama Grass Buffalograss Carl Foerster Grass Caterpillar Sedge Fox Sedge Kobold Liatris Little Bluestem Prairie Smoke Purple Dome Aster Stella D' Oro Daylily Tussock Sedge

Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|9

Replacement plantings have adapted to include more resilient grasses and sedges, and less forbs. Plant replacement has increased as time has passed. Original plants that did not survive were often replaced with a different, more hearty species. After 2017, it was determined that Hot Lips Pink Turtlehead is not successful in this environment, and it is no longer being used as a replacement species. Replacement plants are listed below (Table 7). Inspectors did indicate a need for plant replacement in 2015 and 2016, but no plants were replaced.

Table 7. Plant Replacements for all BMPs August 2013 August 2014 27 Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head* 7 Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head* 2 Heavy Metal Switchgrass 21 Prairie Dropseed 5 Prairie Dropseed 18 Heavy Metal Switchgrass 8 Fountain Spray Moor Grass 6 Walker's Low Catmint 2 Swamp White Oak* 2 Kentucky Coffeetree 10 Autumn Joy Sedum 62 46 *Unsuccessful replacement species

21 50 14 20 36 29

August & October 2017 Hot Lips Pink Turtle Head* Fox Sedge Walker's Low Catmint False Indigo Prairie Blazing Star Big Bluestem 170

Maintenance Activities The most frequent type of maintenance completed was annually contracted maintenance which includes weeding, trash, and sediment removal from the surface sumps (72.0% of maintenance activities). Cleaning the catch basins was the next most frequent activity (10.4%). Mulch replacement was the least frequent correction and made up 2.4% of maintenance activities (Figure 4, Table 8).

4.0%

2.4%

4.8%

6.4%

Regular Maintenance Activities HydroVac Catch Basins Watering

10.4%

Replace Plants Other 72.0%

Replace Mulch

Figure 4. Maintenance Frequency by Type Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|10

Table 8. Maintenance Frequency by Type Maintenance Type Regular Maintenance Activities HydroVac Catch Basins Watering Replace Plants Other Replace Mulch

Frequency 72.0% 10.4% 6.4% 4.8% 4.0% 2.4%

Cost Annual maintenance costs for all rain gardens and stormwater planters have totaled approximately $18,000. In the 2014 Green Line (CCLRT) Green Infrastructure Practices Construction Report, an engineerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s estimate placed annual O&M costs at $33,000 for all BMPs. Actual annual costs have totaled only 44% of the original estimate. The estimate included routine O&M costs with no major replacement costs. Since CRWD maintenance data are collected each by individual cell, while the estimates were calculated by BMP, costs were combined to accurately reflect engineerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s estimates.

The average annual maintenance cost per BMP has averaged $1,993 (Figure 6). This was calculated by finding the total cost of maintenance for each BMP from 2014-2018, dividing that number by five years, and averaging that value across all the BMPs. Note that 2012 and 2013 costs were excluded from these calculations since frequent maintenance costs were $0. $6,000.00

Average Annual Cost

$5,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $-

Aldine

Albert NW

Albert NE Syndicate Pillsbury* Griggs*

Oxford*

Marion Marion E SW/NW*

BMP Location Actual

Estimate

Actual Average

Estimated Average

Figure 6. Average Annual O&M Costs (2014-2018) *Cost data has been grouped by BMP Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|11

Regular maintenance costs in 2013 were $0 because work was completed by volunteers including EcoRangers, Youth Job Corps, and Conservation Corps Minnesota. The estimated value of this volunteer labor is over $10,300. Frequent maintenance costs were lower in 2017 because maintenance crews were reduced to a monthly schedule that year. Non-frequent maintenance costs were higher in 2014 because of replacement plantings and subsequent watering ($5,139 in total).

Annual Maintenance Cost

$25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Year Infrequent Maintenance

Regular Maintenance Activities

Grand Total

Est. Value of Volunteer Labor

Figure 7. Annual Green Line BMP Maintenance Costs The average cost per occurrence for each type of maintenance task was calculated (Figure 7, Table 9).

The most expensive maintenance task was catch basin cleanout (avg. $1,011 per occurrence). By comparison, mulch replacement was least expensive maintenance task (avg. $139 per occurrence).

Across all tasks, the average cost of maintenance was $758 per occurrence.

Original catch basin HydroVac invoices were not available for several occurrences in 2012 and 2013. In these cases, timing and cost of cleaning the catch basins were estimated based on the dates and costs of catch basin cleanout for other capital improvement projects. Additionally, the costs in the original invoices include two catch basins that are a part of the tree trench BMPs, which is outside the scope of this report. For this reason, HydroVac costs were adjusted to reflect only the five catch basins associated with rain gardens and stormwater planters.

Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|12

$1,200

Average Cost per Occurence

$1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $-

Hydrovac Sumps

Routine Replace Plants Maintenance Activities

Watering

Other

Replace Mulch

Maintenance Type

Figure 7. Average Maintenance Cost per Occurrence Table 9. Average Maintenance Cost per Occurrence

Maintenance Task HydroVac Catch Basins Annual Maintenance Contract Replace Plants Watering Other Replace Mulch Average Across all Types

Average Cost per Occurrence $1,011.81 $796.65 $764.92 $500.25 $182.03 $139.00 $758.16

Conclusion and Recommendations Over the past five years, CRWD has overseen the maintenance of raingardens and stormwater planters along the Green Line. Examination of the data collected through inspections and invoices has revealed aspects of Green Line maintenance that are successful as well as opportunities for improvement.

Maintenance costs are below estimated across all BMPs and years, and pollutant loads have been reduced by over 50%. However, follow-up needs have increased over time, data collection has not been consistent, and some maintenance items (trash and sediment removal, plant replacement) require frequent repairs. Staff suggest the following recommendations to ensure the Green Line BMPs are functioning as designed with minimum maintenance and costs: Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|13

Recommendation 1: Recommendation 2: Recommendation 3: Recommendation 4: Recommendation 5: Recommendation 6:

Recommendation 7: Recommendation 8: Recommendation 9:

Assess current plant selection and move toward graminoid-dominated planting plan.

The data have shown that many forbs are not tolerant of the Green Line environment.

Make improvements and repairs more often on items that frequently require followup as well as highly visible items.

Install or replace pretreatment sumps on all BMPs. This will allow for easier sediment and trash removal.

Address mulch and plant replacement and railing repair issues sooner. Consider adding mulch replacement to annual Spring Clean Up tasks.

Explore other tools available to collect inspection data that can be integrated with current database. A GIS-based application may allow for easier data collection.

Change inspection format to require or auto-populate fields when appropriate and use simple, objective phrasing when developing questions. Current setup allows for answers to be left blank and some questions are unclear or subjective, leading to errors in reporting.

Provide updated maintenance protocols to contractors and schedule periodic reminders.

Assess maintenance results annually and adapt protocols accordingly. Some errors in the data have gone unnoticed for some time, leading to reduction of valuable data.

Update records as frequently and thoroughly as possible to prevent future data gaps.

There is an opportunity to gain insight from additional data that is currently lacking.

Green Line BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Analysis August 12, 2019|14

2019 Grant Inspection Locations

! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ( ! (! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !! ( ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

( !! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! ! ( ( ! (! ! ( (

! ! (! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! (! ! ( ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! (! ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! !( ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (! ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! (! ! ! ( ! ( (! ! ! ( ( ( ( ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! (! (! ! ( ( ( ! ! (! (! ! ( ( !! ( ( ! ! ! (! ( (( (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ! (! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! (! ! ( ( ! (! ( ( ! ! ( ! ! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ! ( ( (! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ( ( ( ( ( ! ! ( ( ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ( ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( (! (! ! ! ( ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ! ! (( ! ( ( ! ! (( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ! ( (! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! (! (! ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ( ! (! ! ! ! (! ! ! ( ( ( ( ( ( ! ! ! ! ! (! ! ( ( ( ( ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ( ( ( (! ( ( ! ! ( (! ! ( ! ! ! (! ( ( ! (( ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! (

! (

! (! (

! ( ! (

! ! (! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ( ! (! ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

(! ( !! (

! (

! (! (

! ( ! ! ! (! ( (! ( (! ( (! (! (! (! ( ! ! ( (! (!

! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ( ! (!

E

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

0

1

2

4 Miles

! (

Special Grants (17)

! (

RSVP Curb-Cuts (257)

! (

Stewardship Grants 2014-2018 (89)

! (

Inspiring Communities (81)

! (

Green Line BMPs (14) CRWD Boundary

October 9, 2019 CAC Meeting V. B) Draft 2020 WMP Goals and Objectives (Eleria)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

October 3, 2019 CRWD Board of Managers Anna Eleria, Division Manager Draft Goals and Objectives for the 2020 Watershed Management Plan

Background Last month, CRWD staff presented a summary of the comments, findings and recommendations from the extensive stakeholder engagement process conducted from April through June for development of the 2020 Watershed Management Plan (WMP).

Issues CRWD and Barr Engineering staff have utilized the input from the stakeholder engagement process and information from CRWD plans and studies, including the Strategic Plan, Diversity Strategic Plan, draft Communication and Engagement Plan, lake management plans, and subwatershed studies, to inform identification and development of priority issues, goals and objectives for CRWD’s next generation WMP. In addition, CRWD considered information from partner plans and studies including city local surface water management plans, TMDLs, and other water resource related plans.

Enclosed is a memorandum of the draft 2020 WMP goals and objectives for CAC review and comment.

As opposed to waiting for a complete draft WMP for CAC review, staff is seeking your review of goals and objectives at this time to ensure that all of the major ones are identified before we begin development of the 10-year implementation plan (e.g. programs, projects, CIPs). We will focus our discussion at the CAC meeting on what’s missing, what you are uncertain about, and what you don’t agree with. After updating the document based on CAC comments, there will be ample opportunity to refine and edit the goals and objectives as we move through the process of developing the complete draft WMP. Action Requested None, for your review and comment Enc.

Draft WMP Issues, Goals and Objectives Memorandum dated Sept. 13, 2019

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\Board Memos\CAC WMP G-Os 10-03-2019.docx

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

Memorandum To: From: Subject: Date: Project: c:

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers Greg Williams and Erin Anderson-Wenz Draft Issues, Goals, and Objectives for the 2020 CRWD Watershed Management Plan September 13, 2019 23621304.00-200Anna Eleria, CRWD Division Manager

The following are draft issues, goals, and objectives developed for inclusion in the 2020 Watershed

Management Plan. The goals, issues, and objectives were developed in cooperation with CRWD Staff and are subdivided into the following categories: • • • • • • • •

Water Quality

Ecosystem Health

Water Quantity and Flood Risk

Built Environment

Communications and Engagement Regulation

Infrastructure Management

Organization

In reviewing the goals, issues, and objectives in this document, please note that in addition to the goals, issues, and objectives, there are eight “overarching themes” that are interwoven into this document and

will be described in narrative within the Plan. These items are included as themes because it is anticipated

that they will pervade nearly every aspect of CRWD work over the next 10 years. The eight themes include: • • • • • • • •

Bring water back to St. Paul

Community equity and engaging underrepresented groups Recreation

Quality of life

Climate change and resilience

Partnerships Innovation

Adaptive Management

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

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers Greg Williams and Erin Anderson-Wenz Draft Issues, Goals, and Objectives for the 2020 CRWD Watershed Management Plan September 13, 2019 2

1.0

Water Quality

1.1

Water Quality Issues

1.1.1

The quality of water in the Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River is negatively impacted by stormwater runoff and other factors.

1.1.2

Poor water quality limits recreation and other designated uses of the Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lakes, wetlands, and the Mississippi River and surrounding areas.

1.2

Water Quality Goals

1.2.1

Reduce pollution to District lakes, wetlands, and the Mississippi River

1.2.2

Achieve measurably cleaner lakes, wetlands, and Mississippi River and make progress towards achieving water quality goals of the River and District lakes to support designated and other intended uses

1.3

Water Quality Objectives

1.3.1

Manage Como Lake as an ecologically healthy shallow lake and make progress towards the following goals identified in the Como Lake Management Plan: a. b. c. d. e. f.

1.3.2

Make progress towards the following goals identified in the Lake McCarrons Management Plan: a.

1.3.3

Maintain in-lake summer average TP concentration less than 60 ug/L Reduce watershed phosphorus loading by 60% Reduce internal phosphorus loading by 95% Reduce other non-point source pollutants (e.g., chloride, trash, sediment) Reduce the occurrence of curlyleaf pondweed to <10% during period of peak abundance Establish and maintain native aquatic vegetation with >8 species richness and at least 3 species >20% frequency of occurrence TBD

Manage Crosby Lake as an ecologically healthy shallow lake appropriate to its proximity to the Mississippi River and make progress towards the following goals identified in the Crosby Lake Management Plan: a. Maintain in-lake summer average TP concentration less than 60 ug/L b. Reduce watershed phosphorus loading by 47% c. Develop and work toward long term targets for fish and aquatic plan diversity

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\2020 WMP\Issues-Goals-Objectives\Drafts\Fourth (Board) 09-13-2019\CRWD_Draft_GIO_09132019_clean.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers Greg Williams and Erin Anderson-Wenz Draft Issues, Goals, and Objectives for the 2020 CRWD Watershed Management Plan September 13, 2019 3

1.3.4

Maintain or improve water quality (i.e., TP, clarity, chlorophyll a) of Loeb Lake and other District Lakes meeting water quality standards

1.3.5

Reduce sediment loading to the Mississippi River and make progress towards the site-specific standard and other recommendations in the South Mississippi River Turbidity TMDL

1.3.6

Reduce total phosphorus loading to the Mississippi River

1.3.7

Work with partners to reduce the amount of trash entering District lakes, wetlands, ponds, and the Mississippi River

1.3.8

Identify sources and reduce bacterial loading to District lakes, wetlands, ponds, and the Mississippi River (Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL)

1.3.9

Work with partners to reduce chloride loading through actions identified in the Twin Cities Metro Area Chloride Implementation Plan

1.3.10

Reduce loading of metals, pesticides, organic contaminants, and other pollutants to District lakes, wetlands, ponds and the Mississippi River

1.3.11

Work with partners to identify and track emerging water quality issues or pollutants (e.g., microplastics)

1.3.12

Monitor water quality of District resources to document baseline conditions, identify trends, prioritize and target areas for reducing pollutant loading, and evaluate progress towards achieving water quality goals

1.3.13

Manage stormwater runoff with green infrastructure practices and other approaches that mimic natural hydrology

1.3.14

Conduct subwatershed-level planning outside of Como and McCarrons subwatersheds to identify and prioritize water quality improvement projects

1.3.15

Support and collaborate with appropriate agencies on groundwater quality protection

2.0

Ecosystem Health

2.1

Ecosystem Health Issues

2.1.1

Ecological functions of District wetlands, lakes, ponds, natural areas, and the Mississippi River are degraded by pollutant loading, invasive species and loss of connectivity.

2.1.2

Loss and reduced connectivity of natural areas and green space limits the ability of these resources to support wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities.

2.1.3

Present and future climate trends threaten ecological health and function of natural resources in the District.

2.1.4

Development within the watershed has diminished the extent, quality, and connectedness of natural resources.

2.1.5

Invasive species threaten the ecological integrity of District resources.

2.2 2.2.1

Ecosystem Health Goals Protect and improve the ecological integrity and function of District lakes, wetlands, ponds, and the Mississippi River

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\2020 WMP\Issues-Goals-Objectives\Drafts\Fourth (Board) 09-13-2019\CRWD_Draft_GIO_09132019_clean.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers Greg Williams and Erin Anderson-Wenz Draft Issues, Goals, and Objectives for the 2020 CRWD Watershed Management Plan September 13, 2019 4

2.2.2

Preserve and improve natural areas and green space within the District to restore habitat, protect water quality, mitigate impacts of climate change and enhance communities

2.2.3

Improve accessibility to and movement between natural areas in the District

2.2.4

Protect, restore and manage native plant communities to achieve ecological benefits and mitigate the impacts of climate change

2.2.5

Minimize the extent and impact of invasive species in District lakes, wetlands and other natural resource areas.

2.2.6

Re-establish historic or previously lost water resources

2.3

Ecosystem Health Objectives

2.3.1

Identify opportunities to restore portions of historic streams of the District by providing surface flow where water is currently conveyed through an underground pipe

2.3.2

Support the creation of access points for people to better connect with the water and natural resources of the District

2.3.3

Work with partners to promote healthy and balanced fish communities

2.3.4

Promote vegetated buffers around water resources beyond the minimum requirements of CRWD and other applicable rules

2.3.5

Identify and restore wetland resources of the District

2.3.6

Restore grassland and woodland communities to increase wildlife diversity and habitat in and around District water and natural resources

2.3.7

Promote conversion of turf grass with native plant communities

2.3.8

Support the creation of travel corridors between natural areas for wildlife

2.3.9

Develop ecological inventories, assessments, and management plans to guide actions for improving ecosystem health

2.3.10

Manage reestablished native plant communities and control invasive species in Willow Reserve and Highland Ravine

3.0

Water Quantity and Flood Risk

3.1

Water Quantity and Flood Risk Issues

3.1.1

Runoff from a highly urbanized watershed creates flood risk and stresses infrastructure.

3.1.2

Current and future climate and precipitation trends may increase flood risk, overwhelm the capacity of existing infrastructure and damage property.

3.2

Water Quantity and Flood Risk Goals

3.2.1

Minimize existing and potential flood risk and associated impacts

3.2.2

Reduce runoff rates and volumes to minimize flood risk and impacts to infrastructure and property and help build community resiliency

3.2.3

Operate, manage, maintain, and repair the Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Trout Brook storm sewer interceptor to adequately and safely convey stormwater flows

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\2020 WMP\Issues-Goals-Objectives\Drafts\Fourth (Board) 09-13-2019\CRWD_Draft_GIO_09132019_clean.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

3.3

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers Greg Williams and Erin Anderson-Wenz Draft Issues, Goals, and Objectives for the 2020 CRWD Watershed Management Plan September 13, 2019 5

Water Quantity and Flood Risk Objectives

3.3.1

Identify high priority flood prone areas in the Trout Brook subwatershed and implement flood mitigation solutions as defined in the TBI H/H Modeling Report

3.3.2

Work with partners to identify and prioritize existing and potential infrastructure capacity issues and flood risk concerns throughout the District

3.3.3

Work with partners to identify and implement structural and nonstructural flood control techniques to reduce flood risk and impacts and help build community resiliency

3.3.4

Consider present and future climate and precipitation trends when evaluating flood risk and designing District projects

3.3.5

Maintain existing floodplain capacity (i.e., no net loss) and identify opportunities to increase floodplain capacity

3.3.6

Support and collaborate with appropriate agencies on groundwater quantity issues

4.0

Built Environment

4.1

Built Environment Issues

4.1.1

Urban development within the watershed threatens the ability of the landscape to provide water quality benefits through infiltration, filtration, and other natural processes.

4.1.2

Increased impervious surfaces increase runoff rates and volumes and decreases infiltration that leads to increasing flood risk and stress on stormwater infrastructure

4.2

Built Environment Goals

4.2.1

Implement green infrastructure practices to restore the natural hydrologic cycle and ecological functions in the watershed

4.2.2

Reduce impervious surfaces to improve water quality and minimize flood risk

4.3

Built Environment Objectives

4.3.1

Develop and implement incentives and/or regulations to promote the use of stormwater infiltration and other green infrastructure practices

4.3.2

Identify areas for regional stormwater management systems and work with partners to leverage these opportunities

4.3.3

Cooperate with partners to identify stormwater management opportunities on redevelopment sites and explore private-public partnerships to implement projects with water quality, other environmental and community benefits

4.3.4

Develop incentive and/or regulatory programs aimed to reduce the impervious area within the watershed

4.3.5

Identify pollutant loading hot spots and implement source control in high priority areas (e.g., street sweeping)

5.0 5.1

Communications and Engagement Communications and Engagement Issues

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\2020 WMP\Issues-Goals-Objectives\Drafts\Fourth (Board) 09-13-2019\CRWD_Draft_GIO_09132019_clean.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers Greg Williams and Erin Anderson-Wenz Draft Issues, Goals, and Objectives for the 2020 CRWD Watershed Management Plan September 13, 2019 6

5.1.1

The capacity of the community to engage in water and natural resources stewardship is not fully realized and may be due to many factors, including lack of awareness, interest, and/or opportunity.

5.1.2

Many in the community are not aware of CRWD and its role.

5.1.3

Long-term partnerships are not fully realized due to lack of consistent engagement and proactive communication.

5.1.4

The language used in CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public-facing communications is too technical making it difficult for a variety of audiences to understand.

5.2

Communications and Engagement Goals

5.2.1

Increase community participation in activities that protect and improve water quality and the health of natural resources

5.2.2

Develop ambassadors for CRWD who will promote programs and activities that align with District goals and adopt behaviors and practices that improve the watershed

5.2.3

Increase public awareness of CRWD, its work, and the community benefits CRWD provides

5.2.4

Build and maintain meaningful relationships with community groups, residents, and other partners

5.2.5

Increase community awareness of water and natural resource issues through accessible and engaging information and data

5.2.6

Increase awareness, engagement and relationship building in communities underserved by CRWD

5.2.7

Establish CRWD as a thought leader in water management

5.3

Communications and Engagement Objectives

5.3.1

Create standard branding and messaging, including common language for programs that translate and interpret scientific concepts and language to better engage and inform a variety of stakeholders

5.3.2

Create individual communications and engagement plans for CRWD projects and programs

5.3.3

Develop and manage CRWD owned content (e.g., CRWD website, social media, newsletters) to maximize the reach and impact of communications

5.3.4

Develop and share accessible and engaging content that ties District goals to the interests of stakeholders

5.3.5

Establish and strengthen media relationships to promote awareness of CRWD and community understanding of water and natural resource issues

5.3.6

Build community engagement infrastructure and tools, including long-term program opportunities (e.g., K-12 curriculum, regular volunteer opportunities, citizen science, etc.)

5.3.7

Enhance CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public affairs and community relationships through outreach to neighborhood groups environmental organizations, local businesses, K-12 schools, colleges and universities, and other District audiences

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\2020 WMP\Issues-Goals-Objectives\Drafts\Fourth (Board) 09-13-2019\CRWD_Draft_GIO_09132019_clean.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers Greg Williams and Erin Anderson-Wenz Draft Issues, Goals, and Objectives for the 2020 CRWD Watershed Management Plan September 13, 2019 7

5.3.8

Work with community groups to identify barriers to engagement and develop strategies to overcome those barriers, with an emphasis on traditionally underserved communities

5.3.9

Support community members in promoting and conducting clean water behaviors and practices

6.0 6.1

Regulation Regulation Issues

6.1.1

Stormwater regulation is not consistent across jurisdictions.

6.1.2

Current stormwater regulations may be inadequate to achieve water quality goals in a highly urbanized watershed.

6.1.3

Current stormwater regulations do not target all existing and emerging contaminants of concern.

6.2

Regulation Goals

6.2.1

Work with partners to provide consistent stormwater regulations across jurisdictions at the state, regional, and local level

6.2.2

Work with partners to ensure that stormwater regulations use current research and science to protect and improve water and natural resources

6.3

Regulation Objectives

6.3.1

Work with partners to evaluate and implement options for regulating deicing practices

6.3.2

Work with partners and agencies to create more efficient regulatory controls and requirements (e.g., NPDES)

6.3.3

Work with partners to improve performance standards for development

6.3.4

Work with partners to develop requirements for stormwater management on sites less than 1 acre

6.3.5

Identify and implement ways to improve engagement with developers, engineers and applicants

6.3.6

Identify and leverage opportunities that combine incentives with regulation to address CRWD and partner goals

6.3.7

Work with District partners to coordinate permit applications early in the design stage

6.3.8

Collaborate with partners on inspection and enforcement of erosion and sediment control across jurisdictions

6.3.9

Evaluate and update regulations to address pollutants other than nutrients and sediment

6.3.10

Work with partners to improve coordination and processes to detect and eliminate illicit discharges

7.0

Infrastructure Management

7.1

Infrastructure Management Issues

7.1.1

Regular maintenance and management of stormwater infrastructure is needed to achieve the intended benefits.

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\2020 WMP\Issues-Goals-Objectives\Drafts\Fourth (Board) 09-13-2019\CRWD_Draft_GIO_09132019_clean.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers Greg Williams and Erin Anderson-Wenz Draft Issues, Goals, and Objectives for the 2020 CRWD Watershed Management Plan September 13, 2019 8

7.1.2

Aging stormwater infrastructure that is reaching their expected life will need to be replaced at significant cost.

7.1.3

Inspection and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure is not consistently and adequately performed to achieve desired performance

7.2

Infrastructure Management Goals

7.2.1

Achieve desired performance of stormwater infrastructure through operation, consistent routine and non-routine maintenance, and replacement

7.2.2

Work with partners to prioritize infrastructure for rehabilitation, repair, or replacement

7.2.3

Determine and implement the most effective and efficient long-term management approach for regional stormwater management systems

7.3

Infrastructure Management Objectives

7.3.1

Develop and implement a multi-jurisdiction stormwater infrastructure maintenance and management plan and program that identifies roles, responsibilities, schedules, and funding mechanisms for stormwater infrastructure

7.3.2

Work with CRWD grantees to ensure performance of CRWD-funded stormwater infrastructure

7.3.3

Work with partners to develop and implement program(s) for inspection of privately-owned stormwater infrastructure

7.3.4

Develop and implement education and training program on stormwater infrastructure maintenance

7.3.5

Ensure that longâ&#x20AC;?term maintenance is being performed on stormwater management practices in the District

7.3.6

Work with partners to assess regional stormwater management needs and costs, identify partner roles and develop an approach/program for regional stormwater systems

8.0 8.1

Organization Organization Issues

8.1.1

Prioritization and assessment of all CRWD projects and programs has not been conducted on a regular and/or formal basis to determine progress and success in accomplishing goals in a costeffective manner.

8.1.2

There are multiple entities involved in managing stormwater runoff with different requirements, interests, and needs, creating potential gaps, conflicts, and redundancies.

8.1.3

Funding sources are insufficient to achieve all CRWD goals.

8.1.4

CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s many evolving, diverse communities and stakeholder priorities require greater organizational understanding, focus, and flexibility to effectively broaden implementation of CRWD projects and programs.

8.1.5

CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work has primarily focused on limited geographic areas in the watershed.

8.2 8.2.1

Organization Goals Promote consistent, streamlined, and equitable water governance in and adjacent to the District

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\2020 WMP\Issues-Goals-Objectives\Drafts\Fourth (Board) 09-13-2019\CRWD_Draft_GIO_09132019_clean.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers Greg Williams and Erin Anderson-Wenz Draft Issues, Goals, and Objectives for the 2020 CRWD Watershed Management Plan September 13, 2019 9

8.2.2

Offer and implement CRWD programs and projects equitably across the watershed

8.2.3

Ensure that the most value is derived from funds spent on water management projects.

8.2.4

Develop and maintain partnerships to expand water resource management

8.2.5

Advance the field of water management through research and demonstration of innovative technologies and practices

8.2.6

Strive for organizational excellence by strengthening and expanding CRWD’s role and capacity in water resource management

8.2.7

Implement an adaptive management approach in CRWD’s work

8.3

Organization Objectives

8.3.1

Assess current water governance within and adjacent to the District and make recommendations for consistent, equitable, and efficient water resource management

8.3.2

Work with partners to evaluate current water management in Saint Paul’s West Side and explore its incorporation into the District

8.3.3

Identify and expand public-private partnership opportunities for incorporating water and natural resource improvements into redevelopment projects (i.e., Towerside, Creative Enterprise Zone, Ford)

8.3.4

Continue to pursue grant funding and explore other funding mechanisms to support District and partner activities

8.3.5

Evaluate District progress in achieving WMP goals and implementation actions to determine if adaptation of financial and organizational resources is necessary.

8.3.6

Monitor resources, collect data, and perform studies to inform science-based decision-making (e.g., through trend analysis, BMP performance monitoring, etc.)

8.3.7

Conduct periodic CRWD program reviews to determine if program goals are being met and if adaptation of programs is necessary

8.3.8

Hire, develop and retain high quality staff

8.3.9

Recruit and retain high quality volunteers

8.3.10

Work with partners to identify and conduct research projects and pilot innovative technologies

8.3.11

Evaluate CRWD’s programs and activities through an equity lens and make recommendations for increasing promotion and access to CRWD’s work in underserved communities

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2020\2020 WMP\Issues-Goals-Objectives\Drafts\Fourth (Board) 09-13-2019\CRWD_Draft_GIO_09132019_clean.docx