September 14, 2016 cac packet

Citizen Advisory Committee 7:00 PM, Wednesday, September 14, 2016 – Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, Saint Paul, MN 55108 Agenda

Materials Enclosed

7:00

I)

Welcome, Announcements and Updates – Introductions

7:05

II)

Public Comment for issues not on the Agenda (3 minutes per person)

7:08

III)

Approval of the Agenda

7:09

IV)

Approval of Minutes A) Approval of the August 10, 2016 Minutes

7:10

V

District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recommendations A) Ford Site Sustainable Stormwater Analysis, Bob Fossum B) Diversity Plan, Mark Doneux

8:20

VI)

CAC Initiatives A) 2016 CRWD Watershed Steward Award Program B) Fall Moos Family Lecture Series with Freshwater Society

8:40

VII)

Project and Program Updates A) Snelling Midway Redevelopment Project Update B) Transforming Central High School Project Update C) 2016-2017 Construction Projects

8:50

VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:55

IX)

Discussion A) New & Old Issues B) CAC Observer for September 21 and October 5, 2016 Board of Managers Meetings C) 2016 Meeting Schedule

9:00

X)

Adjourn

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2016\September 14, 2016 CAC Agenda.docx

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

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, August 10, 2016 – 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present: Bill Barton Pat Cavanaugh Mike MacDonald Rick Sanders Kathryn Swanson Nicole Soderholm Richard Weil Gwen Willems

Others Present: Mark Doneux, CRWD Joe Collins, CRWD Board President Belinda Gardner, CRWD Lindsay Schwantes, CRWD

Members absent: David Arbeit, w/ notice Claudia Hochstein, w/notice Michelle Ulrich, w/notice Steve Duerre, w/notice

Welcome, Announcements, and Updates Ms. Willems opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Willems asked for any announcements or updates.

No announcements or updates III. Approval of Agenda Ms. Willems asked for any additions or changes to the Agenda.

Mr. Doneux suggested moving agenda item VI. A. directly after agenda item V. A. CAC 16-023 Motion: To approve the CAC August 10, 2016 agenda with changes.

Soderholm/MacDonald Unanimously approved IV. Approval of Minutes A) July 13, 2016 CAC Meeting Minutes

1

CAC 16-024 Motion: To approve the July 13, 2016 minutes with an update to the History Study section and one typo in section IX. A. Cavanaugh/MacDonald Unanimously approved

V. District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recommendations A)

Master Water Steward Program

Ms. Schwantes reviewed the Master Water Steward Program. Ms. Schwantes discussed the efforts to expand outreach program. Ms. Schwantes reviewed a Master Stewards sample site plan and asked for interest and if anyone had recommendations or ideas for recruitment to the program. There will be an intro night on September 6, 2016. Mrs. Schwantes will send an email to the CAC. Ms. Cavanaugh confirmed the night of week classes are held and Ms. Willems asked about the workload.

Mrs. Schwantes confirmed that the classes are held on Tuesday and that there is a heavy workload, but they are making improvements to the curriculum and that there are online resources. Mrs. Schwantes confirmed there’s a $200 registration fee, but they will be refunded after course completion. Ms. Willems asked about previous projects. Mrs. Schwantes reviewed two of the four projects. Ms. Swanson asked about the feasibility of projects. Mrs. Schwantes replied that there’s a process for completing the Capstone, but a feasibility study is an option.

B)

2016 CRWD Awards Program

Mrs. Schwantes provided an update on the proposed timeline for awards ceremony and nomination form.

Award categories are the same as last year. Asking to move forward with another awards program to be held at the District’s annual meeting.

Ms. Cavanaugh asked about Master Water Steward’s recognition at the awards ceremony. Mrs. Schwantes mentioned that the Stewards will be acknowledged. Mrs. Schwantes mentioned that the posters from the projects should be available at the ceremony.

Motion 16-025: To approve the 2016 Awards Ceremony.

Macdonald/Sanders Unanimously approved C)

2017 CRWD Draft Budget

Administrator Doneux provided an update on the signed purchase agreement on a building on Aldine and Thomas. The District has started the 120 day due diligence period.

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

2

Mr. Doneux reviewed that at the August 2nd Board Workshop staff reviewed the draft 2017 Budget and Levy. The Board of Managers have approved a draft budget for review and comment and have set the public hearing for Wednesday, August 17th at 6:00 PM. The draft 2017 budget is $12,323,266 which is $3,498,431. The proposed 2017 tax levy is $4,915,672 which is $$647, 901 or 15% more than 2016. Trout Brook repairs and the new office building account for much of these increases.

Mr. Collins stated that the District is cautious about how the budget increases. Ms. Swanson mentioned that the plan sounds good especially with the tax levy down 15%.

Motion 16-026: To support the 2017 Draft Budget.

Cavanaugh/Swanson Unanimously approved VI. CAC Initiatives A) Fall Moos Family Lecture Series with Freshwater Society Administrator Doneux has a list of potential speakers and will be working with the CAC to promote the event.

VII. Project and Program Updates A) Snelling Midway Redevelopment Project Update Mr. Doneux reviewed the Snelling Midway project. The City Council public hearing was on August 3rd and we can expect an announcement. The District wrote a letter and on June 10, 2016 Mr. Doneux testified at the planning commission. The planning Commission approved the site plan with some conditions.

VIII. CAC Observer Update Ms. Soderholm observed the August 17th Board of Managers meeting and provided an update that Ms. Bromelkamp is working on a Crisis Communication Plan and Mrs. Schwantes discussed the Master Water Stewards Program.

Ms. Cavanaugh observed the August 3rd meeting and provided an update that Mr. Fossum presented on the Storm Water Management report at the Ford Site. The St. Paul staff is using the plan to determine its zoning and she recommended that the CAC review the plan. Mr. Doneux agreed to add a Ford Site presentation to the CAC agenda.

IX. Discussion A) New & Old Issues “Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.�

3

B) CAC observer for September 7, 2016 and September 21, 2016 Board of Managers Meetings C) 2016 Meeting Schedule A) New & Old issues None B) CAC Observer for the Board of Managers Meetings August 17, 2016 and September 7, 2016.

No volunteers C) 2016 Meeting Schedule Sediment and In-Lake Analysis and Awards program. Ford site presentation.

X. Adjourn CAC 16-027 Motion: To adjourn the August 10, 2016 CAC Meeting.

Sanders/MacDonald Unanimously approved The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 PM. Respectfully submitted, Belinda Gardner W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Minutes\2016\August 10, 2016 Draft Minutes.doc

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

4

September 14, 2016

V. District Initiatives A) Ford Site Sustainable Stormwater Analysis

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

September 9, 2016 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Program Manager Ford Site Sustainable Stormwater Analysis

Background At the March 4, 2015 Board meeting, the Managers approved the Ford Site Stormwater Evaluation, Phase 1 with Barr Engineering Co. for an amount not to exceed $35,000. At the July 27, 2015 Board Meeting, the Managers approved the scope of work and budget for Ford Site Stormwater Evaluation, Phase 2 for an amount not to exceed $73,600. At the March 2, 2016 Board meeting, the Managers approved the Phase 3 for $36,000. At the August 3, 2016 Board meeting the Managers approved of the Ford Site Sustainable Stormwater Analysis Issues The Ford Site Sustainable Stormwater analysis evaluates the costs and benefits associated with two stormwater management scenarios to inform decision making relative to the City of St. Paul’s Public Realm and Infrastructure Plan for the Ford Site. The two stormwater management scenarios to be analyzed are: 1.

Baseline or conventional; and 2. Centralized or Hidden Falls Headwaters. A key component of the analysis was to monetize ALL of the costs and benefits of each scenario. District staff will review the report with the CAC members.

If you would like a printed copy of the report please contact the CRWD office staff.

Requested Action Information only enc: Sustainable Stormwater Management: Alternatives Analysis for the Future Ford Site Development (If you would like a printed copy of the report please contact the CRWD office staff.)

W:\06 Projects\Ford Site\2015 Stormwater Phase 2\Report\CAC Memo - Ford Site Report 09-08-2016.docx

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

Sustainable

Stormwater Management Alternatives Analysis for the Future Ford Site Development Capitol Region Watershed District 2016

Sustainable Stormwater Management Alternatives Analysis for the Future Ford Site Development

About this project Starting with the Model T and ending with the Ranger pickup, the Ford Motor Plant in Saint Paul turned out vehicles for nearly 90 years. Even before the last truck rolled off the line in 2011, planning has been underway for redevelopment of this site. Its proximity to the Mississippi River and vibrant residential neighborhoods makes it a valuable resource, demanding careful planning to manage energy, waste, transport, landscape, information, and water needs (see figure below).

Project conducted by the Capitol Region Watershed District in partnership with the City of Saint Paul

This sustainable stormwater assessment for the Ford site, conducted by the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) in partnership with the City of Saint Paul, has been performed in parallel with three other City assessments related to district energy, transportation, and real estate. Combined, these efforts will inform a City plan for publicly owned spaces and facilities at the Ford site.

This report prepared by Barr Engineering Co.

The scope of this stormwater assessment is to compare two alternatives for managing stormwater. The goal is to better understand the trade-offs and relative value each alternative may provide the City, community, and future developer.

ENERGY Geothermal Hydroelectric Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Oil Refinery Wind Solar Biomass

WATER Potable Water Capture Storage Water Reuse Stormwater Flood Control

WASTE Solid Waste Recycling Hazardous Waste Collection and Transfer

TRANSPORT Airports Roads Highways Bikes Pedestrians Railways Public Transit Ports Waterways

LANDSCAPE Public Realm Parks Ecosystem Services

INFORMATION Telecommunications Internet Phones Satellites Data Centers Sensors

SCOPE

Contents 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................i 2.0 Stormwater Management Planning for the Ford Site..................................................................1 2.1 Ford Site Redevelopment and Hidden Falls.................................................................................3 2.2 Sustainable Stormwater Management at the Ford Site...............................................................4 2.3 Two Stormwater Management Alternatives .................................................................................5 3.0 Assessment Factor: Hidden Falls Restoration and Hidden Falls Creek ....................................7 3.1 Assessment Factor: Cost Estimates for Construction/Operation and Maintenance ................9 3.2 Assessment Factor: Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCA) .........................................................11 3.3 Assessment Factor: Sustainable Return on Investment.............................................................13 3.4 Assessment Factor: Saint Paul Sustainability Indicators ...........................................................15 4.0 Assessment Results.......................................................................................................................17 5.0 Findings and Recommendations.................................................................................................18

Project Scope The scope of this assessment was to compare two stormwater infrastructure alternatives for managing runoff at the Ford site. The goal is to better understand the trade-offs and relative value each alternative may provide the City, community, environment, and future developer.

The vision for the redeveloped Ford site is a livable, mixed-use neighborhood that looks to the future—using clean technologies and high-quality design for energy, buildings, and infrastructure. Sustainability is a key principle guiding the Ford site redevelopment. The goal is to create a site that is a “regional, national, and global model for sustainable planning, design, and day-to-day living that protects our air, water, and natural resources for future generations.”

This assessment will inform the City’s Zoning and Public Realm plan. The report provides a quantitative performance analysis of stormwater infrastructure, demonstrating which alternative best supports sustainable redevelopment and maximizes water resource protection.

1.0 Executive Summary Stormwater runoff from the former Ford site primarily drains to one discharge point: Hidden Falls Creek, which flows to the nearby Mississippi River. Historic maps indicate the creek existed on the site until the 1800s. It was buried prior to construction on the site and eventually paved over for the assembly plant.

Since then, impervious surfaces at the Ford site have sent uncontrolled runoff downstream without treatment, destabilizing the creek and carrying pollutants into the river.

Stormwater management during redevelopment will mitigate existing impacts, but the approach must align with principles of sustainability.

This requires re-evaluating Saint Paul’s parcelby-parcel, project-by-project approach and considering comprehensive regional stormwater systems that can add value by creating shared, stacked function green infrastructure as a publicrealm feature.

“Shared, stacked function” refers to situations where green infrastructure is intended to provide service for more than one parcel (public or private) on a development site, and the entire facility functions to provide additional amenities beyond stormwater management.

The vision for the Ford site is to re-create the historic Hidden Falls Headwaters feature, fully naturalize the existing downstream creek, reconnect the future neighborhood to the river by means of an open-water flow path, and create a model for sustainable and resilient infrastructure redevelopment.

i

Approach Two conceptual stormwater infrastructure alternatives were included in this assessment.

A “baseline” alternative assumes a businessas-usual stormwater management approach that meets current standards (city, watershed, state). Runoff from individual parcels would be managed separately on each development parcel in underground storage systems.

A “centralized” Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative assumes enhanced stormwater management goals to strengthen downstream protection. Runoff from the entire site would be managed in a centralized green infrastructure corridor which re-creates the buried Hidden Falls Headwaters feature.

A range of quantitative and qualitative indicators is presented in this analysis to assess and compare performance of the two stormwater infrastructure alternatives. Sustainable return on investment (SROI) is used to account for and compare each alternative’s triple bottom line—its full range of economic/financial, environmental, and social impacts. Environmental performance is also estimated using a life cycle assessment (LCA) which quantifies the total energy, greenhouse gas, and water footprint associated with each alternative.

Findings The Hidden Falls Headwaters stormwater infrastructure alternative best supports sustainable redevelopment and the protection of water resources. Monetizing social and environmental benefits illustrates the full value of this investment.

Trade-offs associated with the Hidden Falls Headwaters approach have also been considered and include the following:

• The baseline and Hidden Falls Headwaters alternatives have construction costs of similar magnitude.

• U p to 6 acres of land of the 134acre site will be required for green infrastructure; however, the elimination of underground storage would likely allow for denser development on the remaining developable land.

• T he Hidden Falls Headwaters approach greatly outperforms the baseline. It is superior on 17 of 18 sustainability indicators. This approach:

• Runoff from adjacent neighborhood(s) will need to be routed to the Hidden Falls Headwaters to control all flows to Hidden Falls Creek.

o Doubles the overall benefit-to-cost ratio when considering economic, social, and environmental factors. o Is nearly 75% more effective in protecting Hidden Falls Creek downstream. o Is more successful in mitigating urban heat island effects (25%) and reducing air impacts (27%). o Reduces the energy and materials used to create stormwater infrastructure by up to 32%. o Reduces the unit cost (capital dollars per acres served) required to manage stormwater by up to 40% (see page 10).

• The Hidden Falls Headwaters approach facilitates “naturalized” flows to Hidden Falls Creek; recreating the historic headwater feature to Hidden Falls is also feasible and paramount to achieving

Benefit-to-Cost Ratio

naturalized flows downstream.

0.4

Baseline

0.9

Hidden Falls Headwaters

Next Steps •

Concept Refinement

o Further develop water budget for Hidden Falls Headwaters feature.

• The green infrastructure will demand greater operation and maintenance expense.

o Develop the phasing scenario(s). o Further evaluate design constraints

• T he Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative will require additional policy support because it reflects above-standard outcomes.

(e.g., grading, bedrock, soil, or groundwater impacts).

o As planned development patterns

become known, further optimize the system to fit seamlessly into the development.

Recommendations The Zoning and Public Realm plan should include:

2x

•

Conceptual Design Development

• The Hidden Falls Headwaters approach to stormwater infrastructure, recognizing the significant sustainable benefits which result.

•

Zoning Master Plan

•

Preliminary/Schematic Design Development

• U se of design standards herein which use the Atlas 14 precipitation estimates for maximum storm discharge (cfs).

•

Detailed Design Development and Construction Documents

•

Construction

• A benchmark SROI of not less than a 0.9 cost-benefit ratio for any stormwater design or alternative used on this site.

ii

2.0 Stormwater Management Planning for the Ford Site This analysis builds on almost a decade of planning, research, and reporting. The stormwater concepts presented in this report were developed in two phases (described below). The development of these concepts has required effective collaboration among City leaders and staff, public organizations, stormwater management experts, and citizens (see sidebar at right).

Phase 1 (the big picture)

Phase 2 (the details)

• Preliminary research and reports were completed to provide data and background information.

• Additional stormwater modeling was done to advance the definition of the project.

• A stormwater model was built—identifying big-picture design parameters.

• Conceptual designs and renderings representing a redeveloped Ford site were completed (see page 2).

• City of Saint Paul and CRWD staff worked together to define the features/functions of two stormwater management alternatives: Baseline and Hidden Falls Headwaters (pages 5–6).

• City and CRWD staff came to a consensus about features that should be included in each of the two stormwater management alternatives.

• Cost, benefit, and sustainability tradeoffs were analyzed to show social, environmental, and economic benefits for both plans (pages 7–18).

• The concepts were presented to the public at an open house on June 23, 2015.

PHASE 1 Preliminary Visioning 2009–2012 X

1

PHASE 2 Stormwater Analysis 2015

Workshop and Meetings, Oct. 2015

Report 2016

o X

o

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

Public Process

Aspirational Renderings of a “Centralized” Stormwater Management Approach (Concept presented to the public at an open house on June 23, 2015, to test ideas)

URBAN ZONE

Everything we’ve talked about— streets, parking, bikes, jobs, housing—revolves around the creek.

Stormwater Treatment Train

Ford Parkway

[Resident comment from June 2015 public meeting, referencing the importance of Hidden Falls Creek]

North (urban)

The type of stormwater infrastructure built at the Ford site will say something about the community’s priorities and preferences. For that reason, numerous public engagement opportunities have occurred throughout the planning process to provide information and solicit opinions. The consensus?

Integrated stormwater management is important to residents.

Transition

South (naturalized)

TRANSITION ZONE

NATURAL ZONE

Hidden Falls

Ninety Saint Paul seventh graders discuss stormwater management at the Ford site.

2

[ 0

500

1,000 Feet

2.1 Ford Site Redevelopment and Hidden Falls

An Opportunity to Naturalize Flows 1800s Pre-Settlement

Undeveloped land on the Ford site allowed a natural, more sustained flow for Hidden Falls Creek

1925–2011 Operating Ford Plant

The creek on the Ford site was buried; high stormwater runoff volumes resulted in erosion below Hidden Falls and decreased resource value

2016 + Future Development

3

Opportunities to mimic pre-settlement runoff rates on the Ford site with green infrastructure and to restore Hidden Falls Creek

The Ford site sits above the Mississippi River bluffs in the midst of the vibrant mixed-use Highland Park neighborhood. Redevelopment of the 134-acre site offers a unique opportunity to create what Mayor Chris Coleman terms a “21st century community.” Regardless of the type and density of structures that will come to occupy this site, effective management of stormwater will be required.

Redevelopment of the Ford site also offers the opportunity to protect and restore some of the area’s natural resources: Hidden Falls Creek and Hidden Falls. The creek, which once meandered across the Ford site to Hidden Falls, was buried prior to the plant’s construction and operation (1925). As a result, high stormwater runoff volumes have eroded the area below the falls.

Green infrastructure plans that include strategic stormwater solutions can facilitate:

Minneapolis

Saint Paul

PROJECT LOCATION MSP International Airport

The Ford site, above the Mississippi River bluffs, is located in Saint Paul’s Highland Park neighborhood.

• Restoration of Hidden Falls Creek with a more naturalized flow regime.

• Reduction of stormwater runoff rates to their pre-settlement levels—subsequently reducing erosion, returning the surface water-groundwater connection, and improving resiliency.

• Development of a natural corridor amenity, linking the redeveloped area to Hidden Falls Creek and Hidden Falls.

Stormwater management is just one part of the City’s vision. A balanced blend of grey and green infrastructure will optimize use of developable land and ensure that residents and businesses benefit from a livable community, while impacts to the area’s ecosystem are reduced.

Increased stormwater runoff has created significant bank erosion at Hidden Falls Creek and increased pollutants released to the Mississippi River.

2.2 Sustainable Stormwater Management at Ford Site The purpose of this document is to present the two conceptual stormwater management alternatives developed for the Ford site in Saint Paul: B

A baseline conventional stormwater management alternative (see page 5)

H

A centralized stormwater management alternative, termed “Hidden Falls Headwaters” (see page 6)

Benefits, costs, and trade-offs were characterized to compare the two alternatives relative to the following factors:

Restoration Restoration and protection of Hidden Falls and Hidden Falls Creek, including a natural connection to the Ford site—increasing recreation opportunities and public awareness of these resources

Stormwater Treatment Treat stormwater as a resource, not a waste stream

Part Science, Part Art The Barr Engineering Co. team worked with City of Saint Paul staff to make reasonable assumptions about how development at the Ford site might occur over time.

Limited project definition at this early stage makes a comparison of stormwater management options part science and part art. The driving question is how managing rainwater as a vital resource within the urban landscape—instead of a neglected waste stream—could factor into future planning.

The alternatives developed are concepts (not designs) and are intended to inform the vision for development that will take shape on the Ford site.

Sustainability A qualitative and quantitative comparison of City of Saint Paul sustainability indicators for the Ford site

Increase Community Benefits Enhance community amenities while reducing big-picture impacts and conserving energy, water, and resources

Costs, Life Cycle, and Return on Investment A tool-based quantitative comparison of sustainability indicators for the Ford site (Life Cycle Assessment and AutoCASE® sustainable return on investment) 4

2.3 Two Stormwater Management Alternatives

Stormwater Alternatives Baseline Stormwater management under ground This alternative uses a conventional approach to meet current City of Saint Paul and CRWD stormwater requirements. As the market drives development, each parcel controls its own stormwater, typically with underground systems designed to meet minimum requirements.

As the transportation network is introduced, runoff from the right-of-way would be managed with above-grade features. In essence, fewer amenities and benefits would be accepted for a greater acreage of developable parcels. •

Underground systems: Vaults and tanks are used for the storage of stormwater (see diagram below). Vaults are typically pipe arrays or structural facilities designed to provide stormwater treatment through infiltration/filtration.

B

Baseline

6 acres of developable parcels (5.3 acres impervious

Map Key

instead of centralized green/ blue feature as in Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative)

Open water Green infrastructure Underground storage Impervious surface in study extent

Typical parcel-by-parcel underground stormwater management (9.62 acre-feet) for runoff

134 acres site extents

2.1 acres bioretention

(Stormwater management for runoff from right-of-way)

Hidden Falls

175 cfs 2-year peak 362 cfs 100-year peak

M

iss

Existing degraded creek with bank armoring erosion protection

iss

ip

pi

Riv

er

5.3 Acres

Impervious 5

Limited public access from Ford site to Hidden Falls Park due to poor trail connection

2.1Acres 3.3 Acres Biofiltration

Green Space

10.7Acres Study Area Extent

H

Hidden Falls Headwaters

Hidden Falls Headwaters 4.8 acres bioretention

Map Key

(for runoff from entire site)

Open water Green infrastructure

Re-created Hidden Falls Headwaters Enhanced public spaces along green spine

134 acres site extents 2.4 acres retention pond 35 acres of existing residential watershed area to south treated on the Ford site Hidden Falls

M

iss

3.5 cfs 2-year peak 129 cfs 100-year peak

iss

ip

pi

2.4 Acres Pond

Stormwater management above ground With this alternative, runoff from the entire site would be managed with above grade features (see examples below) in a “centralized” green infrastructure corridor. The corridor re-creates the original headwaters feature. Downstream, Hidden Falls Creek would be restored and associated natural areas linked to the development. The community would benefit from green space and developers would not be required to manage stormwater on individual parcels.

This option exceeds City and CRWD stormwater management requirements.

•

Bioretention: A shallow area planted with deep-rooted plants and grasses; water flows into the garden, then soaks back into the ground and is filtered/released (see illustration below).

•

Hardscape pavement: Pavement built with materials that convey water to bioretention facilities.

Improved recreation trail connection

Riv

er

4.8 Acres

Biofiltration

3.5 Acres

Green Space

10.7Acres Study Area Extent

6

3.0 Assessment Factor: Hidden Falls Restoration and Hidden Falls Creek

Historical Perspective The current condition of Hidden Falls Regional Park and Hidden Falls Creek represents the geological history along the Mississippi River, as well as recent activity associated with the Ford site. Prior to the development of the Ford Motor Company complex, a stream originated near what is now Cleveland Avenue and Ford Parkway—flowing southwest across the Ford site to Hidden Falls. That stream was buried during subsequent development, flowing through a culvert beneath Mississippi River Boulevard and daylighting at Hidden Falls.

B Baseline With the Baseline alternative little change or intervention for Hidden Falls Creek or Hidden Falls Park is anticipated.

• Peak flow: Will be modestly reduced from present-day conditions • Restoration: Hard armoring with little ecological value

• Floodplain: Would remain disconnected • Riparian zone: Little disturbance to the existing riparian and wetland environments; continued natural evolution of these systems may be limited by lack of lateral connectivity to floodplain and disturbed flow regimes

• Erosion: Incision and active erosion may decrease along the creek (both bank and channel degradation)

Hidden Falls Ford site

The hydrology of Hidden Falls Creek is primarily generated as stormwater runoff from the surrounding watershed. The urbanization of the watershed, in conjunction with the nearly 100foot elevation change from the falls to the river, has created a high-energy stream system.

Flow of Stormwater Natural historic stream flows

Upper Step Pools

P above ground

F Historic stream flows beneath site through a pipe

Approximate location of the Ford site and Hidden Falls Regional Park

Typical stormwater management

B using underground storage and bioretention

Green infrastructure would mimic H historic hydraulic regime and recreate stream on Ford site.

Storm Event Maximum Discharge (cfs) Development Period P Pre-settlement (past)

Map of Ramsey County, 1867 (Winchell) 7

2 Year 4

10 Year 31

100 Year 161

Ford assembly plant in F operation (recent past)

233

401

792

B Baseline (future)

175

268

362

3.5

31

129

Hidden Falls

H Headwaters (future)

streambed and P Natural stream bank Concrete-lined streambed;

F mortared walls line bank

Concrete-lined streambed;

B mortared walls line bank Natural stone replaces

H mortared walls on east side, improved trail connection; concrete streambed replaced with natural materials

Key Takeaways

H Hidden Falls Headwaters The Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative more closely reflects pre-settlement conditions.

• Peak flow: Flow rates are reduced to presettlement conditions; more naturalized streambed created to promote filtration and infiltration of water • Restoration: Anticipated within the lower reach of the stream (reshaping the channel and connecting it to a floodplain bench)

• Floodplain: Improved connection to the floodplain system restores ecological interaction among stream, wetland, and upland communities

F Recent peak flow 233 cfs

• Riparian zone: Higher functioning is anticipated; replacing the upper-reach concrete channel bed with a stone bed may support more diverse vegetation and macroinvertebrate populations

(2-year event)

B Peak flow 175 cfs (2-year event)

• Erosion: Reduced by increasing stability of naturalized stream banks—improving stream access and providing a more stable environment for visitors, wildlife, and plants

Lower Step Pools

The Chute Reach (Pedestrian Bridge)

Step pools naturally forming and

P changing over time

Concrete-lined streambed and F stone walls lock step pools in place Concrete-lined streambed and

B stone walls remain

Natural stone step pool sequence

H installed to lock step pools in place

The Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative restores natural hydrology that improves the resource value of Hidden Falls and Hidden Falls Creek.

H

Peak flow 3.5 cfs (2-year event)

DAYS

Alluvial Fan

Pedestrian Bridge

Stream carved into natural substrate to

P create Hidden Falls ravine

Lower reach continually evolves due to

F erosion and sedimentation

Lower reach evolves unpredictably due

B to flash erosion and sedimentation

Channel reshaped to stabilize banks

H and improve floodplain connection and habitat value

Floodplain Mississippi River

P Natural sediment and nutrient loads Flashy urban runoff results in

F erosion and sediment deposition Reduced stormwater runoff rates

B may result in reduced erosion

Drastically reduced stormwater

H runoff rates better mimic natural conditions

8

3.1 Assessment Factor: Cost Estimates for Construction/O&M

Notes about Cost Estimates Estimated costs were benchmarked against similar projects in the region. The construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs include a 30% contingency, but do not include planning, engineering, design, or construction management. An assumed life of 25 years was used to estimate life cycle O&M costs. The assumed interest rate of 4% is based on current City of Saint Paul practice. General conclusions are illustrated on the bar graph to the right.

When estimating costs for conceptual designs, it is important to acknowledge that any estimate is a “most likely” value within an anticipated accuracy range. As project definition increases, the uncertainty in any estimate may decrease and the range may narrow. The Ford site project definition of 5% conceptual design could be associated with a range of -50% to +100%, depending on future investigations and how designs are implemented (ASTME2516-11).

How much do stormwater management systems cost?

•

Typical City of Saint Paul costs for underground stormwater management systems are on the order of $20 per cubic foot.

•

Typical CRWD costs for bioretention systems are between $12 and $22 per square foot depending on complexity, aesthetics, etc.

9

The estimated construction costs of the Baseline and centralized Hidden Falls Headwaters alternatives are similar in order of magnitude, though costs for the centralized approach appear to be less.

Above Ground

Million B $13.7 Construction Cost Hidden Falls Creek

Biofiltration

Stormwater Management Conveyance

Below Ground Stormwater Management and Conveyance

Trunk Storm Sewer

Underground Stormwater Systems on Individual Parcels

An estimated 80% of construction costs for the Baseline alternative are for underground stormwater management, yielding limited public benefits aside from allowing development over the storage area (typically parking).

& = $100–200,000/Year B Operation Maintenance

Key Takeaways

Baseline and Hidden Falls Headwaters alternatives have similar estimated construction costs; the Hidden Falls Headwaters option may be 5–10% less.

The Hidden Falls Headwaters approach serves a larger drainage area; thus, construction cost per acre is 40% less than the Baseline alternative.

The Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative is nearly 75% more effective in providing downstream protection of Hidden Falls Creek and has lower capital costs.

The Hidden Falls Headwaters approach may require double the annual operation and maintenance investment to maintain the green infrastructure amenities.

The possible shift of maintenance responsibilities from private to public entities and source of maintenance funding should be considered in further planning.

H $12.4 Million Construction Cost Hidden Falls Creek

Above Ground Stormwater Management Biofiltration and Pond

The majority of costs for the Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative are for surface green infrastructure, walls, and hardscape features that provide benefits to the entire community beyond stormwater management and enhance public space.

Below Ground Stormwater Management and Conveyance Public Space Hardscape and Walls

Trunk Storm Sewer

&= H Operation Maintenance $200–400,000/Year

Living green infrastructure creates a public realm greenspace amenity which requires more regular maintenance than an underground stormwater system; estimated operation and maintenance costs for the Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative could be double those of the Baseline alternative.

10

3.2 Assessment Factor: Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCA)

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) LCA is a “cradle-to-grave” assessment method that considers how energy and materials are used across the stages of a product’s life—from raw material extraction through end-of-life (see figure below). Environmental performance can be enhanced by targeting factors that contribute to greenhouse gas, pollutants, embodied energy, water, and ecological footprints.

Typically, LCA estimates are used to obtain insights about trade-offs and inform decision making, planning, and design.

LCA can also be used to implement internal sustainability programs or pursue project credentials/certifications such as: •

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®), a worldwide “green building” certification program.

•

The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure’s (ISI) Envision® system, a sustainability rating system for civil infrastructure.

•

MPCA green and sustainable remediation guidelines designed to reduce the impacts of contaminant investigation and remedial tasks.

The potential environmental impacts of the two stormwater management alternatives for the Ford site are significantly different.

Contributing factors can be targeted for reduction during future planning and design efforts. In general, greater big-picture impacts are observed for projects that require materials derived from intense extraction or

fold

Lif of d

Item

B

Baseline

H Hidden Falls

Headwaters

Excavation/ Earthwork

134,000,000 lbs

280,000,000 lbs

Biofiltration

2.1 acres

4.8 acres

Haul/Transport soil

133,000,000 lbs

200,000,000 lbs

Pond

None

2.4 acres

Reinforced concrete pipe 3,500 linear feet (RCP) trunk sewer

Bituminous pavement

7,000,000 lbs

1,000,000 lbs

4,100 linear feet

Concrete pavement

0 lbs

1,900,000 lbs

RCP, manholes, catch basins

59

63

CIP concrete walls

0 lbs

6,000,000 lbs

Developed impervious

4.3 acres bituminous

None

Cast-in-place (CIP) walls

None

1,800 linear feet

Stone walls

None

1,000 linear feet

Hidden Falls Creek

Armored bank erosion protection

Streambank restorations and recreational trail

Electricity

None

Stormwater recirculation pumping

Decorative hardscape

None

4,000 square yards

e

/U se ra tio n pe

O

En

on cti Co

ns

tru

t or sp

uf an M

Tr an

tu re ac

on cti tra

Headwaters

None

fold

Ex

H Hidden Falls

9.62 acre-feet

fold

11

B Baseline

Estimated Quantities*

Underground storage

fold

]

INVENTORY

Design Parameters Feature

manufacturing, or processes that regularly require significant energy, fuel, or potable water. The tables below show the elements that comprise the Baseline and Hidden Falls Headwaters alternatives, as well as the resource inventory related to those features (inputs of raw materials, energy and water, and emissions to air, water, and land).

Steel reinforcement 0 lbs

225,000 lbs

Precast concrete

4,000,000 lbs

5,000,000 lbs

Iron castings

65,000 lbs

20,000 lbs

Corrugated metal storage pipe

3,000,000 lbs

0 lbs

Polypropylene fabric

20,000 lbs

1,000 lbs

Riprap, large stone, aggregates

91,000,000 lbs

26,000,000 lbs

Polyethylene pipe

1,000 lbs

2,000 lbs

* L ife cycle inventory for mined and manufactured products.

Resources for growing plants not included. Electricity for pumping not included; district energy study for generation mix allocation pending.

Estimated Embodied Energy Footprint (kWH) 25M

Estimated Greenhouse Gas Footprint (kg C02e)

24,100,000 kWH

6,200,000 kg CO2e 6M

RCP Other

20M

5M

Haul Earth Aggregate

15M

Estimated Water Footprint (ft3)

RCP Bituminous Pavement

4M

12M

4,200,000 kg CO2e Other

Aggregate

RCP

Haul Earth

CIP Concrete

0

B Baseline

2M

Aggregate

CMP UG Storage

5M

H Hidden Falls

Aggregate CMP UG Storage

Earthwork

1M 0

Headwaters

Embodied energy: The total energy consumed by a product during its life cycle: from the mining/milling of raw materials to product manufacturing, transportation, installation, and end of life

Aggregate

10M

3M

10M Haul Earth

13,200,000 ft3 Aggregate

RCP

Other Earthwork

15,400,000 ft3

14M

RCP Haul Earth

16,300,000 kWH

16M

Bit. Pavement Other

CIP Concrete

B Baseline

8M

RCP

6M

Haul Earth

Headwaters

Greenhouse gas footprint: The total amount of greenhouse gases (measured in units of carbon dioxide) produced by human activities to furnish a good or service; units above represent kgs of CO2-equivalent per year

Other Conc. Pavement

4M

CMP UG Storage

2M

Bit. Pavement

CIP Concrete

B Baseline

H Hidden Falls

0

H Hidden Falls

Other

Haul Earth

Headwaters

Water footprint: The water footprint of a product or service is defined as the total volume of fresh water used to produce the goods and services consumed, as measured over the entire life cycle.

Key Takeaways

The Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative results in a lower footprint for three sustainability indicators; resource-intensive elements can be targeted for reduction during future planning and design efforts.

32%

Reduction

32%

Reduction

14%

Reduction

This screening-level streamlined LCA is intended for City of Saint Paul internal planning purposes. ISO-14040 standards establish the methodology by which LCAs are to be performed.

12

3.3 Assessment Factor: Sustainable Return on Investment

Sustainable Return on Investment (SROI) Sustainable return on investment (SROI) is a systematic process for calculating and comparing the benefits and costs of a project to justify an investment or compare one project’s merits to another’s. The SROI process accounts for a project’s triple bottom line—its full range of economic/ financial, environmental, and social impacts.

Using AutoCASE® to assess SROI AutoCASE® is a web-based tool that assigns monetary figures to infrastructure and building projects based not only on construction costs, but benefits and sustainable design features.

The tool allows designers to: • •

Project Cash Impacts

Noncash Impacts

Revenue, Operational Savings

Water Quality

Flood Risk Reduction

Recreation Value

Heat Island Mitigation

Criteria Air Contaminants

Value of Time

Capital Costs, O&M Costs

Water Quantity

Shadow Wage Benefit

Property Value Uplift

Health and Safety

Green House Gasses

Other

Financial Return Sustainable Return on Investment By considering a broader range of big-picture social and environmental benefits accrued during the project life, a more complete characterization of value for each stormwater alternative can be obtained. The figures below summarize anticipated benefits associated with both alternatives.

AutoCASE® Stakeholder Benefit Summary

AutoCASE Envision® Benefit Summary

Estimated benefits by stakeholder group

Estimated community benefits by infrastructure sustainability categories established by Envision® ratings

Key

Key

Understand triple-bottom-line values without costly economic consulting.

Benefits to Environment

Climate and Risk

Benefits to Community

Natural World

Achieve more sustainable, cost-effective results in less time.

Benefits to Government

Resource Allocation

•

Reduce push back and costly delays by addressing community concerns.

•

Present their case with confidence (backed by credible data).

•

Build more resilient projects.

•

Prioritize competing projects for financing based on societal value.

13

Triple Bottom Line SROI Framework

Quality of Life

Natural World

B Baseline

Hidden Falls

H Headwaters

B Baseline

Hidden Falls

H Headwaters

AutoCASE® Cost and Benefit Summary

Benefit-to-Cost Ratio

H Hidden Falls Headwaters (+$18.9 Million) Benefit-to-Cost Ratio = 0.9

22M

Other

18M

Air Pollution Reduction

0.4 14M

10M

6M

Dollars

2M

Water Resource Value

B Baseline (+$6.3 Million) Benefit-to-Cost Ratio = 0.4 Air Pollution Reduction Water Resource Value Recreation

Other

Recreation

Flood Risk Reduction and Stormwater

Flood Risk Reduction and Stormwater

Construction Costs

Construction Costs

B

Benefits, as calculated by AutoCASE®

-6M

-10M Off-Site Construction Costs

-14M

-18M

-22M

Off-Site Construction Costs Operation and Maintenance Costs (25 years)

$16.5 Million

Operation and Maintenance Costs (25 years)

Construction and operation and maintenance costs

0.9

H

Key Takeaways

-2M

2x

The benefit-to-cost ratio for the Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative is twice that of the Baseline alternative. Significant estimated benefits make the return on investment for the Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative more attractive. These include:

• The community value of green infrastructure and ecosystem services.

• Larger and enhanced public spaces and recreation.

• Improved connection to Hidden Falls Park.

• Restoration of Hidden Falls Creek.

$21.2 Million 14

3.4 Assessment Factor: Saint Paul Sustainability Indicators

Sustainability Indicators One way to measure the successful attainment of value on a redeveloped Ford site is to compare how redevelopment alternatives perform relative to the City’s listed goals, metrics, and indicators of success.

Prior to this effort, the City developed “sustainability indicators” for the Ford site.

These measure how well the City addresses the community’s present and future economic, social, and environmental needs—understanding that all of these factors are interrelated. A comparison of the stormwater management alternatives relative to their ability to satisfy specific sustainability indicators is provided at right. The centralized Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative was designed to meet as many indicators as possible.

The indicator list used here is not intended to be exhaustive. Many additional indicators related to waste management, social fabric, and sourcing are critical to the overall success of the final project but not included in the scope of this stormwater assessment.

15

Indicator Sustainable return on investment (SROI)

Restore Hidden Falls

Improved site connection to Hidden Falls

B Baseline

Stormwater System Standard

Sustainable net present value (SNPV) = -$10M

Standard

Rate control 175 cfs for a 2-year event

None

H Hidden Falls Headwaters

Stormwater System

Improved

Sustainable net present value (SNPV) = -$2.3M (+$7.7M greater)

Improved

Rate control 3.5 cfs for a 2-year extended duration event (mimics pre-settlement flow)

Improved

Connection

Build biodiversity and natural capital

Standard

Green space

Improved

Green space and Hidden Falls Creek

Balance open space and development

Standard

Open space acres (16) with recreational park

Improved

Open space acres (21) with recreational park

Reduce greenhouse gas footprint

Standard

Footprint

Improved

32% footprint reduction

Reduce energy footprint

Standard

Footprint

Improved

32% footprint reduction

Reduce water footprint

Standard

Footprint

Improved

14% footprint reduction

Reduce life cycle impacts

Standard

Outperforms Hidden Falls Headwaters in three EPA TRACI LCA impact indicators

Improved

Outperforms Baseline in six EPA TRACI LCA impact indicators

Reduce air impacts to human health

Standard

AutoCASE® $800,000 benefit

Improved

AutoCASE® $1.1 million benefit

B Baseline Stormwater System

Indicator Manage stormwater as a resource with green infrastructure

Standard

Underground stormwater management (grey infrastructure)

Restore urban forest

Standard

Canopy cover

Mitigate urban heat island effect

Standard

Developable acres

Improved

Enhance biodiversity and habitat

Use efficient district systems

H Hidden Falls Headwaters

Stormwater System

More

Surface stormwater management with layered uses/benefits and living systems

Improved

Canopy cover (+50% or more)

AutoCASE $300,000 benefit

Improved

More trees (+ 50%) increased $ benefit (+25%, Auto CASE® $400,000 benefit)

Increased acres (+6.9)

Fewer*

®

Standard

Ecological connection of Ford site to Hidden Falls Park not improved

Standard

Standard stormwater management practices ($95,000/acre)

Improved

Increased natural area (3x), +$3.3M benefits to environment

Improved

Uses centralized stormwater features ($68,000/acre)

Standard

Green spaces

Improved

Green space centrally connected through site (3x community benefit, +$9M)

Recreation

Standard

Potential

Improved

Potential includes link to Hidden Falls Creek

1 Improved indicator

Where Did They Come From?

Previous documents were reviewed to develop a short list of success indicators relevant to the two stormwater alternatives. A range of quantitative and qualitative indicators was used to capture the big-picture metrics of success, as envisioned by the City of Saint Paul.

Sources used to compile the priority list include: • Hidden Falls Water Resource Development Feasibility Study (2014) • Road Map to Sustainability, Saint Paul Ford Site (2011) • Ford Site Open Space Guidelines, City of Saint Paul (2011)

Network of parks and open space

TOTAL

Sustainability Indicators

17 Improved indicators

* Although the Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative has fewer developable acres, the elimination of underground storage would likely allow for denser development on the remaining developable land, supporting the city’s density goals.

• The Great River Passage Master Plan (2013) • The Ford Site Energy Study Task Force Summary (2015) • Sustainable Stormwater Feasibility Report for Ford Plant Site (2009) • Ford site Green Manufacturing Reuse Study (2009) • Redevelopment of the Ford Motor Company Site: Phase 1 Summary Report (2007)

Key Takeaways

The Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative, conceptualized with the sustainability indicators in mind, appears to perform better on 17 of 18 indicators than the Baseline alternative.

16

4.0 Assessment Results Side-By-Side Comparison of Stormwater Management Alternatives

Comparison Summary The bottom-line comparison between the stormwater management alternatives suggests that the centralized Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative performs better than the Baseline alternative across a range of assessment factors, particularly if CRWD and City of Saint Paul goals are to: •

•

•

•

•

I ncorporate a naturalized Hidden Falls and restored Hidden Falls Creek into the Ford site…

Treat stormwater as a resource, and not a waste stream…

Move toward fulfilling the City’s stated sustainability and public-realm goals for the project…

I ncrease community benefits while reducing big-picture impacts and conserving energy, water, and resources… enerate a higher sustainable G return on investment by providing more big-picture community benefits per dollar invested…

B Restore Hidden Falls Creek

Ongoing maintenance efforts and erosion prevention

Natural Resources Developed Impervious

Stormwater Management

MORE

Underground stormwater management shrinks development potential of natural area Underground stormwater management makes it possible to develop more area but generates more runoff

ABOVE GROUND

100% of runoff from the rightof-way is managed above ground

BELOW GROUND

Developable parcels: 88–100% of stormwater management is below ground

Water Quality Treatment

MORE MORE LESS

SAME

Stormwater management to restore naturalized flows, daylight the creek, and return surface water groundwater connection Improved connectivity, restored Hidden Falls Creek and green infrastructure Some developable area is replaced with green infrastructure with multiple benefits

from the entire site ABOVE Runoff is centrally managed above GROUND ground

1.375” storm event

60% TP, TSS removal

Cost Social and Environmental Benefits

Hidden Falls Headwaters

H

1.375” storm event

60% TP, TSS removal

SAME

Construction= $13.7 million

Construction= $12.4 million

O&M = $100–200,000/year

O&M = $200–400,000/year

LESS

City of Saint Paul Sustainability Indicators 17

Baseline

$0.40 $0.40 in benefits for $1.00 each $1.00 Invested

One improved

MORE

$0.90 Benefits for $0.90 each $1.00 invested $1.00 = 2X benefit/cost

17 improved

5.0 Findings and Recommendations Findings The Hidden Falls Headwater alternative best supports sustainable redevelopment and the protection of water resources. Monetizing social and environmental benefits illustrates the full value of this infrastructure investment.

• Baseline and Hidden Falls Headwaters alternatives have construction costs of similar magnitude.

• The Hidden Falls Headwaters alternative greatly outperforms the Baseline (better on 17 of 18 sustainability indicators). This alternative: o Doubles the overall benefit-to-cost ratio when considering economic, social, and environmental factors. o Is nearly 75% more effective in protecting Hidden Falls Creek downstream. o Is more successful in mitigating urban heat island effects (25%) and reducing air impacts (27%). o Reduces the energy and materials used to create stormwater infrastructure by up to 32%. o Reduces the unit cost (capital dollars per acres served) required to manage stormwater by up to 40% (see page 10).

• Achieving “naturalized” flows to Hidden Falls Creek is feasible; recreating the historic headwater feature to Hidden Falls Creek is also feasible and paramount to achieving naturalized flows downstream.

Trade-offs associated with the Hidden Falls Headwaters approach have also been considered and include the following: • Up to 6 acres of land of the 134acre site will be required for green infrastructure; however, the elimination of underground storage would likely allow for denser development on the remaining developable land.

Implementation Road Map •

o Further develop water budget for Hidden Falls Headwaters feature.

o Develop the phasing scenario(s). o Further evaluate design constraints (e.g., grading, bedrock, soil, or groundwater impacts).

• Runoff from adjacent neighborhood(s) will need to be routed to the Hidden Falls Headwaters to control all flows to Hidden Falls Creek.

• The green infrastructure will demand greater operation and maintenance expense.

• The Hidden Falls Headwater alternative will require additional policy support because it reflects above-standard outcomes.

Recommendations

Concept Refinement

o As planned development patterns

become known, further optimize the system to fit seamlessly into the development.

•

Conceptual Design Development

•

Zoning Master Plan

•

Preliminary/Schematic Design Development

•

Detailed Design Development and Construction Documents

•

Construction

The Zoning and Public Realm plan should include: • The centralized Hidden Falls Headwaters approach to stormwater infrastructure, recognizing the significant sustainable benefits which result.

• U se of design standards herein derived from the Atlas 14 precipitation estimates for maximum storm discharge (cfs).

• A benchmark SROI of not less than a 0.9 cost-benefit ratio for any stormwater design or alternative used on this site.

18

September 14, 2016 VI. CAC Initiatives A.) 2016 CRWD Watershed Steward Award Program

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

September 8, 2016 Citizen Advisory Committee Jessica Bromelkamp 2016 Watershed Steward Award Program

Background In 2014, the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) adopted the CRWD Watershed Steward Award Program to recognize residents and partners of the District for exemplary stewardship activities and projects. The committee developed five award categories including the Watershed Citizen, Watershed Partner, Young Watershed Steward, Watershed Project, and Lifetime Stewardship Awards. The program was promoted by CRWD staff, Board and CAC members. Staff received 15 nominations in 2015. Awards were presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting on December 16, 2015.

Issues The CAC supported the continuation of the CRWD Watershed Steward Award Program at the August 10 meeting. The Board reviewed the following timeline and adopted the program at the August 17 meeting.

Please promote the program in your communities and submit nominations by October 17, 2016 for consideration and review by the joint-committee.

2016 CRWD Watershed Steward Award Program Timeline: Date Task September 1, 2016 Staff, CAC, and Board begin program promotion September 14, 2016 CAC identifies two representatives for Award Committee October 2016 Board identifies two representatives for Award Committee October 17, 2016 Watershed Steward Award nominations due November 2016 Send Award Ceremony invitations November 9, 2016 CAC reviews and endorses joint-committee recommendations November 16, 2016 Board approves joint-committee recommendations for winners December 12, 2016 RSVPs for the Award Ceremony due December 21, 2016 CRWD Watershed Steward Award Ceremony Request Action Promote and submit nominations for the 2016 CRWD Watershed Steward Award Program Identify CAC members to serve on the 2016 CRWD Watershed Steward Award Program Committee enc:

CRWD Watershed Steward Award Program Overview and Award Category Descriptions 2016 CRWD Watershed Steward Award Nomination Form

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Watershed Steward Awards Program\2016\2016 CRWD Watershed Steward Awards CAC Memo 9-8-16.doc

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

Capitol Region Watershed Steward Award Program Overview The Watershed Steward Award Program honors individuals and organizations that exemplify watershed stewardship through activities or projects that demonstrate a commitment to CRWD’s mission to “protect, manage and improve water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.”

The awards are given annually through an open process during the fall. Nominees may be anyone who lives or works within CRWD’s boundaries. Recipients are selected by a committee of CRWD Board Managers, Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) members, and staff. Final recommendations are endorsed by the CAC in October and sent to the Board for approval in November. Awards are presented at the CRWD Annual Meeting which is usually held in December.

Award Categories:  

  

Watershed Citizen Award: Given to an individual who has demonstrated a personal commitment to citizen engagement, project initiation or exceptional leadership that supports CRWD’s mission.

Watershed Partner Award: Given to an organization that has demonstrated through its policies, practices or projects a commitment to CRWD’s mission by exceeding the requirements of CRWD’s Rules or through the implementation of innovative watershed management solutions.

Young Watershed Steward Award: Given to a young person or group of young people who have undertaken projects that exemplify a commitment to CRWD’s mission.

Watershed Project Award: Given to an organization, group or individual for a project that demonstrates an innovative and effective solution for protecting, managing and improving water resources of CRWD. Lifetime Stewardship Award: Given to an individual who has, during his or her lifetime, played a significant leadership role in the stewardship of CRWD’s water resources.

The following guidelines apply: 1. No more than one award will be given annually in each category.

2. Awards will only be granted when eligible nominations are received.

3. Awards will not be given to nominees that are simply complying with CRWD requirements.

4. Current members of the CAC, Board or staff are not eligible to receive awards.

5. Award winners will receive a plaque or framed certificate that includes their name, CRWD’s logo and the award category.

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Watershed Steward Awards Program\2016\CAC Awards Program Guidelines.docx

Nominate a Watershed Steward Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) is now accepting nominations for its 2016 Watershed Steward Awards. These awards honor individuals and organizations that exemplify watershed stewardship through activities or projects that demonstrate a commitment to CRWD’s mission to “protect, manage and improve water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.” Nominations are due Monday, October 17, 2016.

Award Categories:  

  

Watershed Citizen Award: Given to an individual who has demonstrated a personal commitment to citizen engagement, project initiation or exceptional leadership that supports CRWD’s mission.

Watershed Partner Award: Given to an organization that has demonstrated through its policies, practices or projects a commitment to CRWD’s mission by exceeding the requirements of CRWD's Rules or through the implementation of innovative watershed management solutions.

Young Watershed Steward Award: Given to a young person or group of young people who have undertaken projects that exemplify a commitment to CRWD’s mission.

Watershed Project Award: Given to an organization, group or individual for a project that demonstrates an innovative and effective solution for protecting, managing and improving water resources of CRWD. Lifetime Stewardship Award: Given to an individual who has, during his or her lifetime, played a significant leadership role in the stewardship of CRWD’s water resources.

Submit nominations by 4:00pm, Monday, October 17, 2016 to: Jessica Bromelkamp Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108 651.644.8888 jessica@capitolregionwd.org

CRWD Watershed Steward Award Nomination Form Nominator information Name: Email: Phone: Address: Nominee information *Please provide contact information for the nominee.

Person or Organization Nominated: Email: Phone: Address: Award Watershed Watershed Category: Citizen Partner ☐

☐

Reason for nominating (250 words or less):

Submit nominations by 4:00pm, October 17, 2016 to: Jessica Bromelkamp Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108 651.644.8888 jessica@capitolregionwd.org

Young Watershed Steward

Watershed Project Award

Lifetime Stewardship

☐

☐

☐

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee 2016 Agenda Plan CAC Meeting Date January 13, 2016 February 10, 2016 March 9, 2016

April 13, 2016 May 11, 2016 June 8, 2016 July 13, 2016 August 10, 2016 September 14, 2016

October 12, 2016 November 9, 2016 December 14, 2016

District Initiatives - Trout Brook 5 Year Inspection and CIP - BMP Database Review - Education Program Review - Community Capacity Assessment -Special Report -Strategic Communications Plan -Stewardship Grants Program Update

CAC Initiatives -Stewardship Awards Recap -2016 CAC Meeting Plan Discuss 2015 “Event”

- 2015 Permit Program Review - Wetland Report -Lake Stormwater Report -In-Lake Management Studies Summer Tour

- Election of Officers - Student Worker Program -CAC Tour Planning -Student Worker

- CRWD History Study - Targeted Watershed Program – Urban Lakes Renewal -Master Water Steward Update -Review and Comment on 2017 Budget -Ford Site Stormwater Plan -Diversity Plan

-Student Worker Update

-Sediment and In-Lake Analysis -Special and Partner Grant Committees 2017 Reappointment Recommendations

Updated: September 8, 2016 Pervious Parking Lot Lafayette Park W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2016\2016 CAC Agenda Plan 1-5-16.doc

- Student Worker Program - Governor’s Water Summit - Snelling Midway Redevelopment

-2016 Awards Program Adoption - Fall Fresh Water Society Event -Awards Program -Transforming Central High School -Snelling Midway -2016-2017 Construction Projects -Awards Program - Awards Program - Moos Family Lecture Series - Awards Program - Student Worker Update